By Burt Prelutsky · January 21, 2013
The other day, my wife and I were in the car listening to a radio talk show. The host, while referring to Barack Obama, insisted that in spite of his many faults and deficiencies as a president and commander in chief, one had to acknowledge that he was a very good father. To which Yvonne said, “How does he know what sort of father he is?”
It struck me as an excellent question. I think there is a widespread belief that Obama is a good family man, but we have no grounds for coming to that conclusion. The only time we see the family together is when they’re taking off for a taxpayer-funded vacation or posing for campaign photos. Other than that, we never see Obama with his daughters. Surely Malia, who’s 14, is certainly old enough to play golf with her father, but I never see her out on the course with him. Instead, it’s those same three guys whose full time job seems to be to make up a foursome for the president, whether it’s Eisenhower, Ford, Clinton or Obama.
I’m not suggesting that Obama is as bad a father as he is a president, but it does seem to me that if he took the role as seriously as he should, he’d use his bully pulpit to admonish black men to start shouldering their responsibilities and to be ashamed of their part in dooming the 71% of black babies being born to unwed mothers to a life of ignorance, poverty and crime. You would think that in four years, he could have taken a few minutes off from deriding Republicans and Tea Party members to deliver a few well-chosen words to those sperm donors who have turned every inner city in America into an urban cesspool.
It also wouldn’t be out of line for Mrs. Obama to quit yakking about cookies and calories long enough to expend some of her political capital on young black women who don’t seem to think twice about condemning themselves, their offspring and future generations, to lives of quiet degradation.
Recently, I heard from a woman in Florida who referred to the man she lives with, a man named Charley, as her partner. In replying to a question I posed in my response, she explained that there were a great many older people in Florida who are divorced or widowed, but refrain from getting married again because one of them would have to surrender his or her Social Security checks.
I was shocked. I always thought that the federal government did everything in its power to encourage marriage. When Congress finally stops wasting its time trying to outlaw guns, they should get around to changing the law so that these old folks can afford to stop living in sin.
The more I thought about it, the sillier it seemed to me that people of any age who are cohabiting or canoodling have decided to refer to the other party as a partner. I couldn’t help picturing a guy named Hank at a social gathering making introductions: “This is my partner, Susan, and this is my other partner, Charley,” while people gasped, and whispers of “ménage a trois” swept through the lodge hall, unaware of the fact that Charley is the other half of Hank & Charley’s Plumbing Supplies.
Later that same day, a different radio host was devoting an hour to the topic of divorce. He insisted that it was essential that for the good of the child, no divorced parent should ever speak ill of his or her ex.
It is something we have all heard so often that we generally accept it as folk wisdom, along the lines of never running in a house while holding scissors or regularly consuming large amounts of fruits and vegetables. But this time it triggered something in me, and I found myself thinking, “Why not? What’s to be gained by lying?”
When I got home, I sent the following email to the fellow on the radio: “I found today’s discussion about divorce fascinating, but I must take exception to your rule about not speaking ill of one’s ex-mate to the children.
“As you know, many, if not most, kids assume they have played a major role in causing the divorce. So on top of the unavoidable trauma, if people took your advice, it would force the children to deal with unnecessary guilt.
“It seems to me that when parents split, you would like them to say insipid things such as, “Mommy and Daddy still care for each other and we both love you very much, but we no longer love each other” or “Your Mommy (or Daddy) is a wonderful person, but we both just feel it was better if we lived apart.” I can’t imagine any child whose response to the first bit of malarkey wouldn’t be ‘So what?’ or to the second, ‘Better for who?’ Or ‘Better for whom,’ if one of the parents happened to be an English teacher.
“Even to my 73-year-old ears, those are going to sound like very shallow, selfish reasons for breaking up the family unit and leaving the child, in most cases, fatherless.
“I’m not suggesting that anyone should wash the other parent’s dirty laundry in front of the kid, but I think that trying to whitewash the other party is going to leave the child with a great deal more anger and confusion than if you at least indicate the truth of the matter.
“Some parents, after all, are simply wicked and evil, and there’s no compelling reason to add hypocrisy to the mix, thus making a bad situation even worse.
“It goes without saying that the explanation for the split be age-appropriate. But in most cases, between the raised voices, the sulks, the sighs, the occasional slaps and the slammed doors, kids of any age are going to be aware of friction in the home, even if the deluded parents are convinced they possess the acting chops of Meryl Streep and Michael Caine. Regards, Burt Prelutsky”
Orf in Pittsburgh
Monday, January 21, 2013
Why would Obutthead want to improve the status of his loyal dark following? He will never talk to them about improving their parenthood or anything else. Keeping them all on the plantation is working just fine for Obozo.
I’m just waiting for Odumbo to change the loyalty oath like Hitler did, so that instead of swearing to uphold the Constitution, federal officials and military men swear allegiance to His Majesty Obozo. I suppose this will come after he confiscates as many guns as possible and his SS troops are well trained in suppressing rebellious crowds.
Orf in Pittsburgh
They would be jailed in the special camps that I read they are now creating. I think it was the work of Homeland Insecurity that was setting up special camps in case of “civil unrest”? Maybe concentration camps? Think it can’t happen? Who would have thought that homosexual marriage would be condoned by the majority just 10 years ago? Who would have thought that the worst US president in history would be reelected? Who would have thought that a concerted effort to eliminate every vestige of Christianity from public places would really happen?
So what would be so unbelievable for concentration camps to house “criminals” who illegally retained their guns? All the libtards and the mainslime media would think that is perfectly sensible and necessary in order to feel secure. I would hope enough freedom-loving Americans are still left to prevent this scenario, but I wonder.
Howard Last in Wyoming
Burt, the main reason Barry won is we have turned into a democracy as Ben Franklin feared. The second reason he won is that the Republican Big Shots (you can’t call them leaders) did not question his communist background, not a natural born citizen, phony birth certificate, hiding college transcripts, SS in CT, etc. Don’t say if they did bring these up they would have lost, they lost anyway. The God Owful Party is going the way of the Whigs.
Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA
Mac: One can only hope that more and more liberals grow up to be lesbians. Anything to cut down on their birthrate.
Adrien Nash in Crescent City, CA
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 3:18 AM
That reminds me of a thought I had today. Which is that if it is just and fair that homosexuals be allowed to be partnered in what deranged minds would describe using the word “marriage”, then by what justification could the same society criminalize or refuse to recognize marriage between two women who just happen to also be twin sisters? Such a scenario reveals the total absence of any standard or principle of natural or religious law limiting what people can and can’t do. That calls for pointing everyone in the direction of Article 5 of the Constitution which requires the amendment process be used in order for a major societal and legal change to be effected, especially against the will of the vast majority of the population of any given state or the nation in instances of federal changes. Without the amendment process, the People, in whom all legitimate power is vested, are not even consulted. But that process is now in total abandonment, and a simple one-vote majority is allowed to impose the will and radical policy of one party on the entire nation, as was the case with Obamacare when passed by the House, unread.