Thursday, August 13, 2009


Recently, posters started showing up in the L.A. area. These posters depict President Obama as the Joker. You can find a picture of it HERE. Not too long in recent past, Vanity Fair did the same thing to President Bush and you can find that picture HERE.

Having set the stage, let's address the reactions to each. In a Washington Post article, found HERE, the Bush picture was praised while the Obama picture was disdained. In fact, the artist of the Obama pic is even called a racist. Pardon me while I turn my head and cough...(hypocrites).

Have you ever noticed that if you are the one making fun of someone, that it is legitimate. But if someone is making fun of you, it is wrong. Peter Lumpkins has been addressing this very issue of caricatures on his blog concerning Calvinists and Non-Calvinists. He arrives at the same conclusion about Calvinists that I arrive at about the current generation of Democrats. They are both guilty of hypocrisy. A quick disclaimer. If you are a Calvinist and oppose caricatures of Non-Calvinists, then I do not include you. If you are a Democrat and oppose caricatures of Non-Democrats, then I do not include you. I am of course speaking in broad generalization. For while some may say, well look, Republicans think the Obama pic is funny. Luke is a Republican. Luke thinks the poster is funny...well...I did find it humorous but not a humor I would participate in or condemn. Hey, it's politics. Take the heat or get out of the kitchen. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

My problem, of course, is NOT with those who caricature the other. My problem is that when they who caricature become the object of caricature, they then gripe about it not being fair. The Left loved the demonization of Bush but they decry the demonization of Obama as being racist among other things. I even read one comment where a person stated that it was true of Bush because he had been in office for 8 years but Obama has not even been in office for 8 months. What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?! Hypocrites are what these people are. Those who will do the very thing they condemn others for doing. They are hypocrites who delight in the caricaturing of others but moan, whine and complain when it is done of them.

From where I sit, caricatures can be pretty funny. Caricatures can be very truthful. Caricatures can be very painful. But pain is not necessarily a bad thing. It can actually keep you from being critically hurt. So if you caricature others, take your baby faced whining somewhere else when it is done of you. Otherwise, chuckle a little, take the picture for what it is worth and move on.


Byroniac said...


You made reference to one comment whose author stated something about the caricature being true of Bush and not Obama because of the length of the terms served at the point the "art" was made. I can kind of see the comment's point: the picture of Bush came only after eight years of observance of his policies and disposition, whereas the picture of Obama represents something about him which has not been proved (or disproved) by the passage of time. We simply don't know enough about Obama yet (though I'm not holding my breath on the picture proving inaccurate). Basically, I agree with your position (hypocrisy) but also acknowledge the commentator's point that at the very least, one has not been judged as quickly as the other. Having said that, hey, who cares if accuracy comes almost eight years early? lol.

selahV said...

Luke, in this illustration's case I suppose my stepmother's addage appropriate: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

As Christians we should dig a bit deeper into the heart of whose we are and try our best to be ambassadors for Him. So, I didn't think either picture was particularly funny. I think that is because I don't like The Joker. As well, I didn't like the things said about Bush and don't much like any of the same stuff said about Obama. I do choke at many compliments he is given, though.

My ire is directed at what is being done. And I don't like much of what Obama is doing other than continuing what Bush did with Iraq and Aghanistan. (Even as my heart breaks for our military over there and their families left here).

The policies the new administration is trying to ram down our throats is mindboggling. I don't like the preservation of minnows in California destroying the lands so farmers can't supply me with fresh fruit and veggies. I don't like the stimulus paying for preservation of field mice. Trap those suckers and send them to Malawi where they are considered a delicacy.

I don't want the government intervention at all in health care. none. nada. zip. If this bill gets passed in ANY form, then ammendments can be added for years to come that take away the good and add the bad. I don't want it. AT ALL.

Luke said...


In response to the time issue, let's look at it this way. It took eight years for Bush to be able to draw the ire of the artist. It ONLY took eight months for Obama to draw the ire of the artist. In other words, Bush was much better than given credit for and Obama is given to much credit for nothing. A quick reminder from the Scripture. "Even a child is known by his actions."

As you state though, time will tell.

Luke said...

Minnows and get more jail time for killing them than you do a baby. SICK sick society.

Like you, I do not want any part of this government health care. They cannot run a post office...what makes them think they can facilitate the care of a nations health.

More liberty, less government, lower taxes. Encourage the right and discourage the wrong. Just make sure we do not try to redefine right and wrong so that they are flip-flopped.

selahV said...

Well, my congressman said a bill will probably go through in some form but not in the form it's in right now. He asked Raum Emanuel what he'd consider a victory and Emanuel answered, "anything we can sign in the Rose Garden".

So that's what you have. A president who gives no bill of his own but leaves it to the community of minds to decide and present a bill. He hands them a set of principles he'd like to see incorporated in the bill. Then whatever they can get passed so he can sign it in the Rose Garden is fine with him. Isn't that nice?

Luke said...

Mrs. V,
I can guarantee you this, with the exception of Mary Landrieu here in SW Louisian, the others are against the health bill. We even have a state man who is now ready to introduce a bill to exempt Louisiana from this national health care debacle. I'm still hoping that common sense prevails. But considering all of those that voted for Obama just because he said he was for change, I'm not sure if common sense would rule the day.

In fact, I'm now sure that his "change" mantra was actually in reference to what anyone of us would actually have in the form of money after he finished with us. Change. That's about it. Change.

selahV said...

Luke, Oh I differ. I don't think he plans on us having any money. he's going to eventually have everyone using cards so he can keep track of what they eat, how many twinkies they buy and if they buy nail polish when they are saying they can't pay for health insurance. I think this is only the beginning. One lady at the meeting stated that once ANY bill gets passed, then it will be amended and things taken away and things added on that no one wants and it will be done in the wee hours of the morning and no one will know about it till it's a done deal.

Did you hear about the Communications Czar Obama has appointed? He's out to get rid of talk radio. Glenn Beck talked about it a little today on his show. They plan to charge the stations the same amount of all their operations costs for a licensing fee. And if it's not paid, then the shows are off the air and given to others as public air waves, opening up the waves for guess what? nothing anyone would listen to. selahV

Byroniac said...

Luke, though I agree that one part of your scenario, drawing ire faster than the other, is possible and perhaps even probable, I do not necessarily think that the conclusion (Bush did a better job and Obama is already revealing his true colors) necessarily follows.

The first piece of art was done by a talented and apparently well-known artist, who claims his own work, probably intended for satirical purposes. The second was done by an unknown artist apparently for propaganda purposes and mass marketing (at least at a local level). I would say you would have to include all of those factors in discerning how much emphasis should be placed on the time difference and where, especially on the second piece. I don't think you can say you are comparing two equal works of art by two comparable artists, and I don't think you can use the time difference alone to help determine underlying motives. If anything, if I was entirely neutral (I'm not), I would say Bush received scorn as the object of belated satire and Obama suffered from a political opportunist's third-rate hatchet job masquerading as art. However, since I'm NOT neutral, I bet you can guess which artwork I actually agree with and which one I don't.

Byroniac said...

Lest I leave anything up to the imagination, I will spell it out plainly: Bush, for all his faults, does not deserve being caricatured as the Joker who was amoral at best and often immoral, and Obama's answer is bigger government and the motto "Just trust us."