The Pathology of Liberalism

by Burt Prelutsky

If I had the authority, I would use enhanced interrogation methods on progressives. It wouldn’t be my intention to hurt them. At least that wouldn’t be my sole intention. I would simply want to compel them to face facts and to quit parroting left-wing lies.

For one thing, no matter what AARP and the New York Times would have you believe, most Americans don’t favor ObamaCare. Even a lot of Democrats don’t. That’s why it took bribery and intimidation by Obama, Pelosi and Reid, to get the damn thing enacted.

Another fact of life is that the federal government does not create jobs, except those jobs in government that those of us in the private sector are then forced to pay for through our taxes. The only way the feds can help employment is by lowering taxes and eliminating the endless regulations that, thanks to the ecological zealots, hogtie business for the sin of pursuing profits and placing the comfort and well-being of human beings over that of such lower life forms as snails, spiders and ecological zealots.

It is time that Congress and the president acted like adults and quit pandering to those who keep insisting that people control the climate. If we did have such powers, we would have done away with snowstorms, hurricanes and really rotten weather during the World Series. It is also time that we quit pretending that wind and solar power will ever replace fossil fuel. If wind power had such magical properties as the fruitcakes would have us believe, Washington, D.C., would have been a fossil fuel-free zone years ago.

Until something better comes along, we are stuck with natural gas, coal, nuclear power and oil. That being the case, it’s high time that we begin building more nuclear reactors and start drilling in the ocean, in Alaska and anywhere else in America where the geological experts tell us there is oil to be found.

At the same time, the moratorium on building oil refineries must be ended. Who the heck is in charge, anyway? The Chinese? The Saudis? Mahmud Ahmadinejad? Al Gore?

One might, if one were of a kindly nature, pay lip service to idiots and even con men, but only a person out to sabotage America would allow such folks to dictate our energy policy.

Either we want to be free of dependence on the various anti-American despots in the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela, or we don’t. And if for some reason that escapes me, we aren’t serious, it’s time we quit whining about the high cost of gasoline. The folks selling the stuff to us are not our friends. They have every reason on earth to gouge us. But that’s inevitably the fate of suckers, saps and crybabies.

Speaking of those geologists, I think that while acknowledging that experts exist in the world, we should keep in mind that their expertise is limited, as a rule, to their specific field. Unfortunately, we tend to bestow omnipotence on individuals simply because they’ve won a Nobel Prize or, worse yet, are rich.

People, after all, cop a Nobel for no better reason than that a small group of Scandinavians have somehow determined that they know a lot about, say, physics, chemistry or economics; people achieve wealth because they know how to make, sometimes inherit, occasionally steal, money. But as Tevye pointed out in Fiddler On the Roof, while fantasizing about a radical turnaround in his own financial circumstances: “When you’re rich, people think you really know.” I would add that one other advantage that the rich have over others is that people will inevitably laugh at their jokes, no matter how lame.

I heard a while back that NPR’s CEO, Vivian Schiller, was denied her 2010 bonus because of the way she handled the dismissal of Juan Williams. The question that came to mind is why the CEO of a non-profit enterprise should be in the habit of collecting a yearly bonus, especially when a great deal of the outfit’s funding comes out of our tax dollars.

In 2012, in addition to the president, 33 senators will be up for re-election. Only 10 of them will be Republicans. In other words, the GOP could be poised to take control of both houses. But in order to do so, they will have to remember how and why they gained control of the House last November. If they remind us even slightly of the clowns who pretended to be Republicans, but served as Ted Kennedy’s drooling lap dogs from 2001-2007, they will discover just how quickly they can be un-elected.

As for the 23 Democrats who will be up for re-election in 2012, I hope they will spend the next two years remembering what happened to the poor, dumb slugs who had spent the previous two years taking their marching orders from those left-wing drum majorettes, Pelosi and Reid.

It would also serve them well to keep in mind that Barack Obama’s coattails are even shorter than those of Batman’s arch nemesis, the Penguin.

©2011 Burt Prelutsky

Write to:
For more Burt, go to:

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:
  • 154214274

    Bob Leduc spent 20 years helping businesses just like yours find new customers and increase 

    sales. He just released a New Edition of his manual, How To Build Your Small Business Fast With 

    Simple Postcards and several other publications to help small businesses grow and prosper. For 

    more information: Subject: Postcards Phone: 702-658-1707 after 10 AM 

    Pacific Time/Las Vegas, LV Outlet.

  • MarioP

    Mr. Burt,

    We can consider ourselves lucky that you don’t have the authority to do anything but post a blog every other day full of misinformation. Maybe we’re not so lucky, as many voters can be easily influenced by such lies.

    I’m surprised that people are still calling for more drilling as a way to lower the price of oil. I thought everyone was informed about the oil facts when Failin’ Palin did her Drill-Baby-Drill campaign two years ago. But since some were too busy chanting and couldn’t hear these facts over the mob, here they are again:

    Oil Discovery, Production, and Consumption:
    – In the late 1970’s the oil consumption rate has surpassed the rate of oil discovery, meaning our reserves have been declining ever since.
    – The U.S. consumes 7.6B barrels of oil annually.
    – The most optimistic combined estimate for all the oil reserves within and around the U.S., including Alaska and all the surrounding (Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico) continental shelves, is 140B barrels.
    – If the US will maintain the current rate of oil consumption, all the US reserves will be pumped dry within 18.5 years.
    – The entire world consumes 31B barrels of oil annually.
    – The most optimistic combined estimate for all the world’s oil reserves is 1.5T.
    – If the world will maintain the current rate of oil consumption, all the world’s reserves will be pumped dry within 48 years.
    – The largest oil reserve discovery in the last 35 years was off the coast of Brazil, and its highest estimate is 15B barrels. That amount of oil will last the U.S. for about half a year.
    – The oil companies have already tapped all the “easy” oil reserves, which are beneath dry, level, and soft ground, like the deserts. Generally when a new oil field is tapped, the cost of oil extraction increases since the more accessible oil reserves are pumped before the less accessible ones.
    – The world’s oil infrastructure is currently operating near full capacity.

    Cost of Oil and Gasoline:
    – The cost to extract oil today ranges from $5 (Saudi Arabia) to $65 (U.S. offshore) per barrel.
    – If the cost of oil was $0, the minimum price of gasoline would be about $1/gallon, due to taxes, refining costs and profits, and distribution and marketing costs. Therefore when gasoline price is $3, $2 of that price is for oil.
    – Roughly, when the price of crude oil changes by $4, the price of gasoline changes by $0.10.

    Use of Oil in the US:
    – 46% of the crude oil ends up as gasoline
    – 24% of the crude oil ends up as diesel
    – 9% of the crude oil ends up as jet fuel
    – 4% of the crude oil ends up as bunker fuel (ship fuel)
    – The remaining 17% of the crude oil ends up as asphalt, plastics, synthetic rubber, paint, fertilizer, detergent, make-up, etc.
    Hence, when we run out of oil, our problem will not only be finding an alternate form of fuel for transportation, but new ways to manufacture some consumer goods as well.

    With the facts about the oil industry being presented, I can now post my argument in the following post.

    • MarioP

      Mr. Burt, could you please explain to me why an oil company would voluntarily expand its infrastructure only to lower the price of oil? The current price of oil is around $90/barrel ($3.1/gallon of gasoline, national average for regular). Since it costs on average approximately $30 to extract and transport a barrel of oil, the oil companies’ profit is $60. Mr. Burt, if your intention by increasing oil production is to lower the price of barrel to, let’s say $60/barrel ($2.3/gallon of gasoline), the oil companies will see only a $30 profit per barrel. The companies would have to double their production and sale of oil to get the same profit as they make today. Do you think there is so much demand for additional oil that the consumption could double? I can’t see myself drive twice as many miles. But even if there was the extra demand for that doubled oil production, the oil companies would never go along with the program. Why would the world’s oil industry invest billions/trillions to double their infrastructure just to make the same profit they make today by doing absolutely nothing? Nevermind that by doubling the infrastructure the oil companies would accrue additional expenses on the maintenance and repair of that enlarged infrastructure. Oh, and don’t forget that at the increased pumping rate the oil companies will pump themselves dry that much faster since oil is a finite resource. Do you believe this is a realistic scenario? Really?

      Over the last few years the oil companies made record profits. Why would they voluntarily risk going back to the years where their infrastructure wasn’t operating at full capacity and a significant part was sitting idle? The only way we will see any significant expansion in the world’s oil infrastructure is when the price if oil will at least remain at current levels, if not increased, which means the expansion will not be faster than the grown of oil demand. If you would like to see the price of oil come down, there will need to be a reduction in the world’s oil consumption and a competitive energy infrastructure at a significant scale will need to be created. Once the oil companies will feel threatened, they’ll try harder to lower the price of their product.

      And you with your ilk thought the problem were the environmentalists. I would love to see the look on your face when all the restricted areas were to be opened up for drilling. There would only be a slight oil production expansion to keep up with the demand increase. Isn’t it surprising that Palin has stopped her Drill-Baby-Drill campaign? I guess she finally became educated about this issue; I hope the rest of you would become as well.

      • MarioP

        Hmmmm…. no comment from the opposition about the real world of oil. I guess the message came across as intended to the uninformed. Hopefully now they can do good in the voting booth and not fill their lives with false and unrealistic hopes and solutions.

        Maybe Mr. Burt can do his part in public service and report the truth via his blog about the oil industry so we, and the entire world, can make progress in this energy dependence issue and not be held back by the uninformed voter making poor decisions.

  • bignick

    Burt, here’s a question. If, while in the pursuit of profits in an unregulated market, corporations’ actions create a planet that cannot sustain our species or any other species, is that a positive outcome? And what regulations would you advocate to have removed? The minimum wage? The forty-hour work week? Would you return us to the halcyon days of the late 18th/early 19th century when the businesses run by men like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan employed child labor and 7 day work weeks, all in the name of maximizing profits? Or would you like to remove the regulations that limit monopolies in business? Where do you want to stop removing regulations before you realize that a corporate entity will make profits at any cost?

    • MarioP


      You can’t discuss these topics with people like Burt. They are unable to see what’s right for our nation or the world. Burt believes the oil companies will willingly increase oil production to lower the cost of oil. It’s just silly.






  • Bruce A.

    Another fine job Burt. Speaking of the weather, for those of us who have been suffering through the numerous storms & the cold weather on the east coast I heard an explanation on a nationally known weather station. They claimed the harsh winter was due to a weather pattern & persistent high over Greenland. I did not hear global warming.

  • Dave

    “Left-wing lies”? Have you ever watched fox news, the institutionalised republican-sponsered, around the clock slander and smearing of liberal politics, without any regard for content? You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting psycopathic biggots like Glenn Beck and Bill O´Reilly who ´s job it is to spew venom and lies into the public debate.

    • Paul Borden

      You seem to be a bit short of examples, Dave, for your claim. Please give is three. No, two. No, just one.

  • Bill C.

    Right on, Burt! Yet another funny yet factual column.

  • Ron Conte

    I can see why you write with Mr. Bernie G., I never miss a chance
    to read and enjoy you both. I just wish your thoughts could be
    transmitted into the minds and hearts of the loons that run this
    Wonderful Country of Ours……….

  • stmichrick

    But Burt; geologists are our (us AGW Deniers’) friends.

    They, unlike many climate ‘scientists,’ have a perspective that goes beyond the Industrial Revolution to say nothing of Al Gore and Carol Browner. Geology teaches (and has evidence) that the Earff has gone through many cllimate changes over millions of years. They can legitimately ask the question, ‘how do we separate the effects of human activity from that of sunspots, water vapor and other cosmic phenomena in determining the temperature of the Earff?’

    For some reason, the only gummint’ scientists that are heard are those who work for James Hansen at NASA. They after all, factor in climate ‘justice’ to the equation.

  • begbie

    You should dedicate an entire column on the Nobel Peace Prize, if you haven’t already. It has become a the best way for the liberal elites to bestow legitimacy and recognition on otherwise extremely unpopular people and policies. Afterall, what the hell did Obama ACTUALLY DO to deserve the prize? And what about Al Gore and global warming?

    It’s like the Nobel committee takes on the role of pep-rally organizers once a year for their grand global view. “Hooray for us! Hooray for progress!” This of course threatens to strip genuine, deserving recipients their own legitimacy in receiving the prize, such as Martin Luther King Jr in 1964.

    • Juliet V.

      Obama lied and fooled a whole lot of people into believing he cared about America; Al Gore lied and fooled a whole lot of people into believing he cared about planet Earth… that’s my guess.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Pathology of Liberalism | --