Batman and Bat Ears

For years now, I have tried to envision just how bizarre a world run entirely by liberals would be, but, with each passing day, I realize how limited I am by an imagination that can never totally encompass the extent of their lunacy.

For instance, the U.S. Navy has decided that the new class of carriers will be outfitted without urinals. This, the Navy insists, will improve “sailors’ quality of life.” I have no doubt that their next order of business will be to produce toilet seats that are impossible to raise, thus ensuring that female gobs will never again suffer the indignity of having to lower a toilet seat.

According to a friend of mine, the 164-minute The Dark Knight Rises, the latest Batman saga, attacks the rich, indulges the poor and features a vicious mercenary named Bane. The producers insist that it was not written by an Obama operative, but one has to assume that at the very least David Axelrod supplied the storyline and got to name the villains.

The Obama administration has not only paid for radio ads pushing people to apply for food stamps, but is also trying to undo Clinton’s signature legislation, welfare reform, by revising the work requirements. Towards that end, the Department of Health and Human Resources is defining personal care activities, which I take to mean hair combing, hand washing and nail cutting; massage; attendance at PTA meetings; and even bed rest, as work-related activities. The upside is that all over America, husbands are now able to defend their afternoon naps as work. Snoring adds the element of cardio-vascular exercise. Wives can open their own damn bottles and water their own damn lawns!

When the rumor was floated that Condoleezza Rice was at the top of Romney’s V.P. list, I kept hearing that conservative Republicans would be cool to the idea because she had once described her position on abortion as being moderately pro-Choice. I confess it’s a term I had never come across and I still can’t make head or tail of it, except I assume it must apply to those women who are slightly pregnant.

Something that surprises me, but probably shouldn’t, is that college towns are inevitably centers of left-wing derangement. Whether we’re discussing Berkeley (CA), Boulder (CO) or Cambridge (MA), there is more conformity of thought and opinion than you are likely to find anywhere outside a gathering of Islamic mullahs or Obama’s election headquarters. Ivory towers, whether they’re located in New York or Texas, are just another name for Towers of Babel.

I think we can all agree that both political parties could do better. The difference is that the Democrats could hardly do worse. It also occurs to me that politics is not only show business for ugly people, but when you consider such ignoramuses as Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, Andre Carson, Nancy Pelosi and Sheila Jackson Lee, you realize it also provides gainful employment for those too ignorant to pass a civil service exam.

I find it odd that Romney has been labeled a flip-flopper when it’s Obama who should go to London and compete for a gold medal. Nobody can approach him when it comes to flipping; as for flopping, he’s setting records that may never be equaled.

For instance, he said he would be a one-term president if his trillion dollar stimulus didn’t keep unemployment from exceeding eight percent. Under his stewardship, it’s never been below that figure. He also vowed to cut the deficit in half.

This is the same big-eared oaf who said his efforts would create five million energy sector jobs, and who, after two years of spouting off about how his program would create millions of shovel-ready jobs, admitted, while sharing a chuckle with his pal, jobs czar Jeffrey Immelt, that there was no such thing as a shovel-ready job.

He also said that doing things his way would put a stop to home foreclosures and that ObamaCare would lower health care costs by $2,500-a-year for the average family. If Pinocchio had uttered such enormous whoppers, a platoon of eagles could have perched on his shnoz.

Obama said a person would have to be insane to raise taxes in the middle of a recession, and then proved it by trying to raise income taxes on those making over $250,000, hiking taxes on dividends from 15% to 43%, and doubling the current 15% rate on capital gains.

As for Obama’s oft-stated desire to raise income taxes on the top 1%, in spite of the fact that it would hurt businesses looking to expand and individuals looking to invest, the increased annual revenue would cover a scant eight days at the rate Obama blows through our tax dollars.

It’s actually closer to six days if it’s a week during which his wife is taking one of her vacations at our expense.

When you get right down to it, aside from Michelle and his Chicago cronies, there are only two people who have a good reason to be grateful that Barack Hussein Obama was elected in 2008. The first is Jimmy Carter, who is no longer the worst president in U.S. history. The other is George W. Bush, who left office under a cloud, but who now, by comparison, looks more and more like Mt. Rushmore material.

Author Bio:

Burt Prelutsky, a very nice person once you get to know him, has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine. As a freelancer, he has written for the New York Times, Washington Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Emmy, Holiday, American Film, and Sports Illustrated. For television, he has written for Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn and Diagnosis Murder. In addition, he has written a batch of terrific TV movies. View Burt’s IMDB profile. Talk about being well-rounded, he plays tennis and poker... and rarely cheats at either. He lives in the San Fernando Valley, where he takes his marching orders from a wife named Yvonne and a dog named Angel.
Author website: http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
  • Timothy Bladel

    You have the Batman movie all wrong Mr. Goldberg, the movie slams the 99% type of thinking as one that could lead to a gang of thugs threatening everyone, which includes the 99% themselves.  It shows how when Rich people stop giving money to charity, there are real consequences such as boys homes losing funding.  The movie paints that hero, a rich man who does very good things with not only his body, but his money.   It shows why our justice system is so much better than a lawless nation that the anarchist imagine that should be created. 

    I think you should watch the movie before making a comment, even if you have a friend that told you what happens, that friend may have missed the point of the movie.  I can tell you this, all true liberals hate the movie, because it paints that 99% thugs as what they are, lazy people who do not want to work for success. 

    • BurtPrelutsky

       Tim: Perhaps I was misled.  That’s odd because the friend is a conservative.  I might still avoid it because I dislike comic strip movies very much.  But in return for perhaps setting me straight, I will recommend that you catch “2016.”  I don’t generally care for documentaries, not merely because they tend to be the work of left-wingers, but I just don’t care for the form.  But this is pretty engrossing.

      Burt

  • BurtPrelutsky

    Trent: I have always believed that Carter is the worst ex-president and he still is.  But I also believed he was and would continue to be the worst president in America’s history.  But I was mistaken.  Therefore, I will have to wait and see if he also loses that title to Obama.

    Burt

    • Deny916

      Oh Burt Jimmy has lost it.  obama is the absolute worst President we have EVER had!!!!!

  • Trent

     ”The first is Jimmy Carter, who is no longer the worst president in U.S. history”
    Made me chuckle! But he is the worst former president…can’t keep his mouth shut for anything, and frequently calls himself a Christian yet bashes the Bible…what a living breathing contradiction.

  • wally

    Great read. I laughed and laughed so hard , I had to go to the toilet but the seat was still up.

    • BurtPrelutsky

      Wally: Now let me get this straight.  Every time you laugh, you feel the need to go to the bathroom?  That is really weird.

      Burt

  • http://twitter.com/Ballpeinhammer Braveheart

    The founding fathers warned us that our form of government would not survive a secular society whose morality was corruption or who’s ethics were arbitrary

    • James King

      No they didn’t! The only “moral” economic system is laissez faire capitalism. The reason this is true is because it is the only system that does not use force. That is secular.

      • BurtPrelutsky

         James: It also works because it accepts the reality of human nature and isn’t based on fantasy and theory.  People want to compete and they want to succeed; they do not want to share with the world at large.  As a rule, people don’t mind sharing, but they want to be free to decide with whom and how much, and not have those decisions resting in the hands of politicians.

        Burt

        • James King

          Burt, I agree with this post, but it does not address what I said before.

  • James King

    Burt, I really enjoy your work and frequently wish I had your ability to say what you say in the way you say things. But there is an issue that is for me the most serious in the hands of politicians, and that is their role in spending our money.

    It does not matter if you think something is worthy of taking taxpayer funds to “provide” for American or foreign people. What matters is if it is constitutional, and I contend that both political parties expropriate money to spend on projects that are unconstitutional, but that is not their concern. What they are concerned about is will it buy votes, because self-perpetuation is their sole concern.

    When this happens, that is, unconstitutional spending, it is institutionalizing slavery. If my country has laws and those laws are violated by people who write the laws which are unconstitutional, then my wealth has been taken by force and I have no say with my own money. Does any of this make any sense? I would be interested in knowing what others think of what I have just said if I haven’t been inarticulate and you can understand.

    • Joel Wischkaemper

       I contend that both political parties expropriate money to spend on projects that are unconstitutional, but that is not their concern. What they are concerned about is will it buy votes, because self-perpetuation is their sole concern.
      I believe that ‘concern’ use to be the case while your money analysis is correct.  I believe our representatives have lost their power to those who would finance their campaign.  Americans are moving about every sixth year, and the disconnect with the local governmental processes is high which enable the power brokers to move from the parties, to the people who contribute.

      How many people vote in our elections?  38% in 2010, 56.8% in 2008 and how many of those folks voted for their local reps /judges?  We do not vote for or against the issues at the national level and there is not a lot of difference between what the Republicans wind up doing and the Democrats wind up doing.  Include a binding referendum question: may we continue with the war in Afghanistan?  Should we have a one child plan?  Should we have zero immigration?  The stampede to the ballot box could seriously disturb the tilt of the world and the whole of the processes would change completely.

      • James King

        Have to say I agree, and it sounds like you are as down on them as I am. Also, I think it will not get better because the electorate is so ill-informed, and I’m glad I won’t live to see the death of my country since I am old. Starting in earnest with TR, I think America has just not been engaged and really don’t give a damn as the bottom line.

    • BurtPrelutsky

       James: I think you said what you had to say clearly.  The problem with a republic is that we turn the power to represent us over to a lot of people we wouldn’t trust to tell us the time of day.  I’m serious.  Is there anyone who would believe anything that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Sheila Jackson Lee or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, says about anything?

       And while it is obviously true that politicians in general attempt to use our tax dollars to buy up votes, whether it’s George Bush and his prescription drug plan or Obama with ObamaCare, even those of us who don’t game the system in order to get food stamps, apply for disability insurance when we aren’t disabled or get welfare checks, rarely complain about neither Social Security nor health insurance being mentioned in the Constitution.  But let a politician even hint at tampering with those programs and people, be they Republicans or Democrats, have a hissy fit.

      Burt

      • James King

        Burt, boy is that true about hints of tampering with programs. I, however, believe that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and should be ended. Like the establishment of collective bargaining, these programs are immoral as far as I am concerned, beginning, as far as what others think of collective bargaining, groups do not have rights. Only individuals have rights, and the vast violation of our Constitution begins with that premise, individual rights.

        Anyway, I like your sense of humor. Tho I’m not certain you would agree, I find your humor similar to that of Greg Gutfeld, who I also like very much. Wish I could scroll on your web site. If I could I would subscribe.

  • Joel Wischkaemper

    I believe Mr. Axelrod’s interview with Mr. Wallace was a reflection deep into the administration, and it did not leave you with a good feeling at all.  Those executive orders, for example, were a very bad idea and they came from such as Axelrod and ‘his’ arrogance in power.

    Very good piece, and it has been well over two hours.

    • BurtPrelutsky

       Joel: Every single thing about this administration has been arrogant, underhanded and illegal…and millions of people don’t seem to mind it at all.

      If you don’t mind, I’ll decide when Glen can come out of his room.  Okay, Glen, you can come out now.

      Burt

      • GlenFS

        I will think twice before posting another tasteless joke, but won’t say I’m sorry.

  • DOOM

    In Dark Knight Rises, the villain is an Occupy Wall Street operative.  Capitalism wins the day.

    • BurtPrelutsky

      Thanks, Doom.  Now I don’t have to watch the movie even when it comes to TV.

      Burt

  • BurtPrelutsky

    Glen: Go back to your room.  It’s only been two hours.  I’ll tell you when you can come out.

    Burt

  • GlenFS

    If a woman is slightly pregnant, it may be that she will only want a partial birth abortion.. perhaps this is what Condi favors?  ..Glen makes bad joke… impulse control..  Ok, I’m better now.

  • JohnInMA

    Although the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ have been made synonymous in the past generations, what it most repellent to me is the progressive ideology that essentially sets all social targets centrally (the wise, educated social scientists supporting the elected class in DC), and uses law to force the desired outcome.  Why else resolve all domestic human life to categories of gender, color, origin/ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.?  Why else pander to those groups overtly?   Perhaps it was supercharged by FDR or perhaps by LBJ (Great Society), but modern progressives have moved as far away from liberty and freedom as you can go.  It goes way beyond redistribution of wealth, as that is just a means to the end.  Most I know who are committed progressives have two common goals (in my words not theirs) – segment and isolate society and use law to equalize everything, and rewriting the Constitution in the long run to correct it’s archaic imperfections (in their minds).

    If you listen to much of the progressive talk you will hear this repeatedly in bits and parcels.  To call the Constitution a “living document” is to tip your hat to the fact that it must be revamped or preferable rewritten, while in sotto-voce acknowledging it cannot be done all at once.  And in nearly every conversation that is political or social in nature, progressives will almost ALWAYS mention their social definitions – race, gender, orientation, etc.

    Liberals at one time were classically tilted towards free people being free to do their bidding as they pleased.  Now I think classical liberals are interspersed with Libertarians and Republicans as fewer and fewer can stay on the progressive bandwagon.  Maybe the truth is that most classical liberals have no choice but to be libertarian in thought now (me??)  That may be good news in the long run.  After all, the progressive ideology requires either the existence or fabrication of lower classes and in sufficient numbers for it to survive.  If you aren’t in one of those assigned lower classes, you probably will tend to dislike how progressivism affects you.  I’ve more than once had a progressive tell me that, in essence, a part of being in society is the mandatory sacrifice anyone with “privilege’  must make for the ‘underclass”.   And a tilt, no matter how excessive, towards the ‘underclass’ is a sacrifice well worth making.  We hear those “dog whistles”, as the left likes to say, every day.  ’Fair share’, ‘social justice’, etc.

    My gut tells me that classical liberals and conservatives alike are silently joined to fight against the encroaching progressive culture.  Sure, academia and most of the media have become full partners, but I wonder if the majority of the people are finally tiring of it.  Maybe I just hope that is the case……

    • BurtPrelutsky

       John–Your hope is my prayer.  Perhaps the silliest segment of the Obama-loving progressive movement are those wealthy folks who flock to his $35,000-a-plate re-election dinners.  I realize that if you are a multimillionaire, it is easy to imagine
      that no economic calamity can possibly harm you.  That only proves that you don’t really have to be smart to be rich.

      Burt

      • JohnInMA

        No doubt some of the motivation for the wealthy to flock to the campaign dinners is social – to see and be seen in the correct circles.  But I suspect – without a lot of serious research, just with simple observations – there is also a business aspect to their eager participation.  You likely know better, but Hollywood is pretty well rewarded by DC for their participation.  And in current events, we only need look at the total exoneration of Goldman Sachs to see what I think is the most outrageous and glaring example.

        Surely there are some idealistic people in their ranks who want a “better society” in so many words.  But I suspect (again) that many if not most are just putting their money to work for their own benefit and rubbing elbows at the same time.  After all, the “you didn’t build that” gaffe whether intended to suggest only bridges and roads, or not, was very telling.  To me it means that YOUR success DEPENDS on the elected class.  In my state, Elizabeth Warren even describes it in a way that can only be synonymous with a vigorish in my view.  In my mind she is saying, “Even though you have paid me today for my services/product, I may one day ask you for a favor of more and I expect your willing compliance.”  In my mind I also am hearing Don Corleone’s voice uttering that statement…..