WTF Batman

This past Christmas, I got a nice little surprise in my stocking.

I’m Batman

I’m a big fan of ol’ Bats, so I appreciated it, but it didn’t take long for me to wonder what the hell is wrong with this toy.

First off, there’s his face:

I’m Batman. And I’m just…so….HAPPY

WHY IS BATMAN SMILING? Does he not realize that his parents are dead and that his life is spent beating up badguys to the point where he can’t even enjoy being filthy rich?

But whatever. It’s a children’s toy. Kids can’t go around thinking about life and death, regrets, and the day to day pain of a complete psychological breakdown. Besides, it could be an aftereffect of some Joker gas, or maybe he just had some intimate time with Catwoman or Talia al’Ghul or Robin or something.

Where it really gets dumb is the items.

I’m Batman. This is a batarang.

Look at the size of those batarangs. No one’s going to throw those. Those look more like they were made to club a criminal to death with. Again, though, I can kind of let it slide because it’s a children’s toy. Can’t make the batarangs proportional to Batman, or else they’d be really small and a serious choking hazard.

Because kids just can’t resist the taste of batarangs, and neither can I.

So delicious, your airways will be blocked with joy!

This one’s the best, though.

I’m Bat…what is this?

Seriously. A cane? Did he steal that from the Riddler? Is he wizard? Or is it something to throw the oversized batarangs with, like some kind of twisted lacrosse?

I’m Grim Reaper Batman.

Or is it the grappling hook?

I’m Batman. I can climb real high.

So yeah, I have no idea what the thing is. I do know one thing, though.

I’m overburdened!

None of this crap is fitting in the utility belt.

Note: Don't eat batarangs. That's just dumb.

Corrections

We would like to offer our sincere apologies and make retractions for the following mistakes readers have pointed out in previous editions of our paper:

Last Tuesday, p7, in our story on underdogs overcoming the odds, Mrs. Edna Harkinson actually described her status with her siblings as “the runt of the litter.” We apologize for the typo and profanity.

Yesterday, p1, our cover story about the fire on Watson street should have contained a picture of the event. Due to an oversight error, a picture of one of our reporters drunk and without pants was run instead.

Monday, p13, in the classifieds section we unwittingly ran an ad for “Adolph’s ovens.” We believed this was an actual kitchen appliance manufacturer, when in reality it was a horrible hoax. We will show more quality control in our future ads.

Wednesday, p4, we reported that the recent murders uptown were committed by a suspect described as “qgyrjhbahlajhr jqaryola vbayrbklliur.” This was due to an editor’s cat walking on their keyboard. We would like to offer a very sincere apology to Mr. Jqaryola for the unintended defamation.

Last Sunday, p7, in our story on Mount Rushmore, it was erroneously reported that the faces on the mountain were of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Marc Summers. Marc Summers is, of course, a TV show host, and not a former President.

Thursday, p3/p9, we accidentally described the “Over 80’s Ladies Book Club” as “a ravenous den of bloodthirsty creatures, hellbent on the destruction of our entire civilization.” This, of course, belonged to our report on the threat of a den of rabid bears outside of town, which received the description of the book club, “a group of elderly women dedicated to reading and who adore having visitors stop by unexpectedly.” We would like to apologize to the book club for the angry mob who came after them, and to the families of those murdered while bringing tea and casseroles to the rabid bear den.

Yesterday, p17, our heartfelt apologies to everyone related to those mentioned in our obituary page. All of the pictures of the deceased were instead replaced with pictures from our story on slaughterhouses.

Thursday, p12, Little Jackie Young has won the county spelling bee three times, not two.

One final correction, for the past 12 years, we’ve misprinted the price of our paper as 75 cents, when it has actually been $1. Anyone who has been purchasing our paper within that time can send the remainder of what they owe to our head offices. We apologize for the inconvenience.