TOM THE DANCING BUG: A Totally Implausible Satire, featuring Lucky Ducky

Tom the Dancing Bug: Come on! Hollingsworth Hound giving a speech to Fat Cats, denouncing Lucky Ducky and his 47% buddies as entitled moochers? It's beyond satire!

FOLLOW @RubenBolling on Twitter. Further: JOIN Tom the Dancing Bug's Proud and Mighty INNER HIVE to receive untold HONORS, BENEFITS and PRIVILEGES! Thank you.



    1. In your rush for first post, you missed the part where the guy with the goatee and beret says “As a comics critic..” 

  1. I find it interesting that the media focused on the ‘victims’ part of the speech, but somehow didn’t mention his more bizarre belief (one shared by many on the top) that poor people believe they are “entitled” to food, education, and health.  

    I find it telling really, the state of mind some people have when they add food and other such benefits of modern civilization, and call them “entitlements”. I’ve seen this word used a lot over the past few years, always on the pro-corporate side of the debate. While they fail to use the same word do describe themselves in the process. Apparently entitlement only goes one way. 

    1.  My not-too-remote ancestors lived in a society where everyone was entitled to eat.  Of course, if they were able-bodied, they were also entitled to work.  It was a mostly primitive agricultural society and primitive agriculture is an infinite labor sink, so there was always work to do.  A few centuries later, after the industrial and cybernetic revolutions, apparently there isn’t work even for a lot of able-bodied, able-minded people, to say nothing of the halt, the lame, the blind, the mad, the too young and the too old (about half the population).  But there’s plenty of food — about half of it is thrown away, in fact.  So what do we do?  Let ’em starve?

      1. “So what do we do?  Let ’em starve?”

        Unfortunately, this is the direction they seem willing to go. Recall the screams of “let him die” from the Republican debates regarding uninsured medical patients. There seems to be a continual doubling down on this social darwinian (who would have guessed the supposedly “Christian” party would be the most darwinian?) concept of individualism that involves letting people die if they can’t make it in society without help, unless of course they’re wealthy people with voodoo job creating superpowers (that they’re apparently willfully not using while blaming Obama for killing jobs, if they actually were job creators…). Then their corporations need all the captured regulatory policies and tax subsidies their lawyers, lobbyists, and tax attorneys can finagle.

        The conservative version of “teach a man to fish…” seems to be “if you give a man a fish when he’s incapable of fishing for himself, he’ll always expect fish from you, so let him die, and that way he’ll never ask for fish from you again. You might have been on a fish-stamps program when you were needy, but it’s not like anyone ever helped you when you were pulling yourself up by your fishing bootstraps…”

          1.  Actually, though, as a rule, people do not find letting them die acceptable, at least not if they do it in public view.

    1. I want to see Ruben’s “Obama” depiction again! 

      It was over a year ago (BP incident I think?) where Big Oil (probably a dog) tells Obamutt to do as they say and he just rolls over (heh, get it?) and goes, “OK.”

Comments are closed.