Chasing the News

When you’ve completed this article, Burt hopes you’ll enjoy Obama’s Base Is Well-Named.

At the rate at which events take place, there is simply no way to cover everything, even if you wrote a column every day instead of three a week. Still, I do my level best to stay on top of things.

For instance, in spite of all the alleged gaffes the left-wing press accused Mitt Romney of having made during his time abroad, I thought he was terrific. First, he gave the Brits an honest answer when he was asked about the Olympics. Who would have ever guessed that the folks who stood up to the Nazi blitz would fall completely apart over an honest assessment of the Games?

Even better was when Romney said the reason that Israel has a flourishing society and that the Palestinians are stuck in the Dark Ages is because different cultures emphasize different values. If one group of people supports free speech, freedom of religion and the rights of women and, moreover, places a premium on education and hard work, while another fosters ignorance, intolerance and hate, stifles free enterprise and believes that all it takes to achieve Paradise is to blow up a busload of Jewish children, it’s not too difficult to guess which society will prosper.

Speaking of Romney, when NBC news anchor Brian Williams asked him if it was true, as an unnamed source had told him, that he was considering an incredibly boring white guy to be his running mate, Romney quipped, “But you told me you weren’t available.” Reagan couldn’t have said it better.

Speaking of unnamed sources, you may have noticed that Obama hasn’t called Harry Reid on the carpet for first starting the rumor that Romney didn’t pay his taxes for 10 years and then referring to himself as an unnamed source when spreading the lie on the floor of the Senate. This is the same Obama who lectured the rest of us about civil discourse not too long ago.

Now that Obama’s hair has begun turning gray, I think the folks at Grecian Formula are missing a good bet by not hiring him to do commercials for their product. It’s a natural connection. After all, when it comes to our economy, this goof has spent the past three years employing the Grecian formula as his model. As a result, we’re nearly in the same dire financial straits as Greece.

It is also worth noting that, whether it’s redistributing wealth or fomenting war between rich and poor, Obama’s first priority has been to create a classless society. In one way, he has clearly succeeded. When you consider the likes of Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Valerie Jarrett, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Jay Carney, Robert Gibbs and Kathleen Sebelius, it would be nearly impossible to even imagine an administration so totally class-less.

After he got fired from his job as CFO of Vante, a Tucson-based medical device manufacturer, Adam Smith, who not only bullied a young Chick-fil-A employee, but was so proud of it, he made a video of the event, made a second video in which he apologized. Bill O’Reilly, who sees himself as next in line to be ordained a cardinal, urged Vante to re-hire him because, according to Father O’Reilly, America believes in second chances.

While I agree that some people deserve second chances, I also believe that some people don’t. Among the dregs I would include rapists; child molesters; people such as Michael Vick, who made a practice of torturing and killing dogs; and self-righteous bullies such as Mr. Smith.

I have no doubt that Mr. Smith, now that he’s lost his good-paying job, is sorry he ever drove up to the young woman’s window and screamed at her. I’m equally certain that every criminal who has ever been arrested also regrets his transgressions.

If I were running Vante, I would not give him back his job. As I see it, the only job he truly deserves is at a drive-up window at Chick-fil-A, where he might someday suffer the same verbal abuse he handed out so freely. Let’s see how good he is at living up to the motto that the customer is always right.

With Election Day looming in the near-future, I would like to point out to some of my fellow Republicans that they would do well to remove the term “Republicans in Name Only” (RINO) from their lexicon. I understand that they wish that only hardcore, rock-ribbed, conservatives were ever ensconced in the Oval Office or Congress, but one might as well wish that unicorns were prancing in their garden. For not only is America not a conservative nation, but, overall, it is barely right of center. So while it is fortunate that some places can get away with electing true conservatives, most states won’t and never will.

But does that mean that we should dismiss and demean the likes of Scott Brown, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe? After all, they didn’t defeat people like Jon Kyl, Saxby Chambliss and John Cornyn. They defeated a bunch of nutty left-wingers, such as Martha Coakley, Joe Brennan, Tom Andrews and Jean Bright. And what’s more, if they hadn’t won those elections in Massachusetts and Maine, the Democrats would have three additional seats in the Senate, and it is highly unlikely that we’d have any chance of unseating Harry Reid as majority leader in November. So the next time you feel like calling someone a RINO, ask yourself who you’d really prefer to see in the U.S. Senate, Scott Brown or Elizabeth Warren.

In conclusion, Kim Jung-un recently reminded people, via North Korea’s state-run media, that his father, Kim Jung-il had 11 holes-in-one the first time he played golf.

In related news, the NY Times reported that Barack Obama recently sank 947 consecutive free throws.

Now that you’ve completed this article, Burt hopes you’ll enjoy Obama’s Base Is Well-Named.

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/
  • sjangers

    Thanks for your thoughtful words on behalf of us RINOs, Burt.  As I’ve pointed out once or twice in cyberplaces like this, the pejorative doesn’t really make a lot of sense anyway.  I’ve already contributed more of my time, money and reputation to the Republican Party and Republican causes than most “true believers” will in their lifetime. 
     
    I’m a Republican in much more than “name only”.  And while I may have a few philosophical differences with the far right, I’ll always support a nutbag conservative over a dimebag liberal, if those are the choices available.  That’s because our core philosophies and general world views come from pretty similar places. 
     
    My politics may be more pragmatic than manichaean, but conceptually I do view the world and human nature from much the same perspective as most conservatives.  We just have some practical differences of opinion regarding the best way to deal with the world as we find it.  But, differences aside, it makes much more sense for us to spend most of our time working together, rather than engaging in intramural scrimmages that distract us from achieving more important objectives.
     
     

    • Jbubs

      I have never met a conservative that was a “nutbag” simply by being conservative. Conservatives believe in a core philosophy, ”core” meaning faith in values that are held to be absolute, firm, and true. Conservatives believe that core values are core because they were not invented by men but created by the ”God of nature” as revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is what the founders believed and what conservatives are trying to conserve. Thus disagreements among conservatives are not about essential truths, but about the application of essential truths, which we know as civil law. However I have never met a liberal who was not a nutbag. I can find no core, no absolutes, and no essential truth in any of their spewed philosophies. To a liberal truth is relative, flexible, so there is no ’true truth”. When there is no true truth it follows that there are no true lies, hence the defining characteristic of liberal politics.) Liberal truth was invented by men by ignoring the absolutes of the “God of nature.”And while I am aware that there are conservatives who claim to be atheists, even they must revert implicitly to the truth of the “God of nature” the moment they hold that values are ”core”. James Madison words are worth repeating: “We are a nation of laws, not of men.” 

      • sjangers

        I hope I didn’t
        offend, Jbubs. That wasn’t my intent. The nutbag/dimebag thing was hyperbole in
        service of calling attention to, and then making, a point.

        I don’t
        consider all hardcore conservatives nutbags, nor would I think the same of all
        liberals. Because, to be completely fair about it, there are some very decent
        people out there, trying to understand the world and live in it by a set of
        consistent values, who are philosophically liberal.

        For whatever their
        personal reasons, many liberal thinkers are repulsed by some of the historical
        excesses in application of traditional Western values and believe the flaw lies
        in the values and not in the people who failed (or perhaps never even tried) to
        understand and implement those values faithfully. But that doesn’t mean that
        they aren’t making an honest effort to live in a way that is respectful of
        their humanity, our mutual history, and of the world in which we all live.

        Unfortunately,
        liberals are also represented by a fair number of people- as are conservatives,
        if we were to be truly honest about it- whose world view is colored more by
        ignorance, expedience, or selfishness than by a serious attempt to understand
        and apply a comprehensive philosophy or set of personal values.  And those are the people that give both
        liberals and conservatives a bad name, at least in the eyes of each other.  Those are the people we identify as, among
        other pejoratives, nutbags.  Those are
        also the people who make it easy for us, with intellectual slothfulness, to identify
        all people who don’t share our point of view as nutbags, dirtbags, scumbags- or
        whatever other type of bag seems appropriate- and dismiss them; which in turn
        makes it easier for those who don’t share our views to dismiss us.  (Because, they rationalize, if we can’t at
        least give them credit for their sincerity than we can’t be making much effort
        to be fair and honest; which means they certainly don’t have to make much
        effort to understand people like us who aren’t even fair or honest; and doesn’t
        that turn into a nasty, communication-inhibiting cycle?)

        I guess I
        should leave the discussion at this point. 
        If not, it may turn into a pretty lengthy essay, and I don’t think any
        of us would appreciate that.  But I do
        apologize if you were at all offended by my use of the word nutbag.  It wasn’t intended to insult.  It was intended to illustrate one of the
        difficulties that we have in trying to communicate with each other, which is
        the ease with which we often marginalize those with whom we don’t agree in
        order to economize on the effort required to truly understand someone who doesn’t
        look at the world in the same way that we do.

         
         
         
         
         
         

        • Jbubs

          No offense was taken, sjangers and my attention was succesfully gained! Your third paragraph is very well stated. But I think that you actually answered your question in the first 5 words.  For if it is for their “personal” reasons, then the truth of all those reasons must be limited to the person. This ”reasoning” blanks out the source of the higher law that the Declaration speaks of as self evident truths. Without this higher law, which I believe is outside of  man and beyond man and therefore eternal and unchanging, there is no “personal reason” to believe in the validity of any of our civil laws. I think that most conservatives hold the view of higher, unchanging  law while today’s liberals (which is not liberalism in the original classic sense, but is now a bastardization) believe that law that is relative and changeable according to what man deems to be socially expedient.       

          • sjangers

            Thanks for your response and for the reassurance, Jbubs.  In trying to communicate effectively, sometimes it can be a challenge to find the line between engaging a reader’s interest and enraging the reader’s interest.  I do my best but can never be sure I haven’t gone too far for some people.

            I also appreciate your insights.  It’s always interesting to find out how intelligent people look at issues that interest me.

            I probably spend too much time trying to figure out why otherwise decent people can have such different world views and, consequently, so little respect and tolerance for each other.  Sometimes it’s the little pieces of the picture that can be most engaging. 

            I’m often fascinated by apparent internal inconsistencies; like how conservative thinkers, who are generally self-reliant by nature, tend to accept a traditional world view and value system that has been handed down to them while liberals, who are far more likely to be collectivist in their behavior, tend to reject traditional values and seek to discover their own.  Of course, in true collectivist fashion, our liberal friends do seem to require consensus among their fellow travelers, and compliance among the rest of us, once they discover what those values are. 

            Anyway, that’s just my thought for the day.  Please feel free to share your thoughts if you’re interested.

  • Michael

    When the Left attacks Romney for his comments about Palestinians, I wish the Romney campaign or a supportive PAC would distribute videos like this one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etDb5tXPawc&feature=related

    While Israeli kids are learning skills that will enable them to function in a democratic society and compete in a global, high-tech marketplace, Palestinian kids are being brainwashed into living lives of perpetual losers.  It’s shameful what Palestinians do to their own kids.  

    • BurtPrelutsky

      Michael:  Agreed.  I would only add that it is also shameful that urban blacks tend to brainwash their kids in similar fashion.

      Burt

  • BurtPrelutsky

    John: A captured felon may not say he regrets his transgressions, but he obviously regrets the one that led to his arrest.

    Burt

  • http://www.facebook.com/orejon1954 John Young

     ”I’m equally certain that every criminal who has ever been arrested also regrets his transgressions.”

    Burt – If you talk to convicts, you’ll find that they generally fall into two categories;  those who regret having been caught, and those who continue to profess innocence.   They rarely express regret over having done anything wrong.

    Despite his apology, I think Mr. Smith falls into the first category

  • GlenFS

    Burt,  

    Grecian Formula is so catchy as a tag for Obama’s economic vision!   Money is no obstacle to whatever we want to have.  Forward.