Yet another way to have blog posts

My complaint about Mr. Robert Harford III

The theme of this letter is not "Like most people that have a vile agenda to advocate, Mr. Robert Harford III wants to suppress people's instinct and intellect." By now, you've already heard countless arguments running in that vein and are probably pretty sick of them. The theme of this letter is "Most of his initiatives are slanted in the same ideological fashion, with large amounts of emotional exaggeration and general ignorance." Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will decidedly find that we can divide his put-downs into three categories: uncivilized, logorrheic, and choleric.

His scare tactics are a crazy-quilt patchwork of the most perfidious sorts of exclusionism you'll ever see, but I guess nobody ever explained that to his encomiasts. Mr. Harford not only lies, but he brags about his lying to his apologists. The facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that nutty nebbishes are easily housebroken. As I remove the veil of ignorance I have lived behind, I find that Mr. Harford keeps saying that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, he wants all of us to believe that he should make us dependent on surly thought police for political representation, economic support, social position, and psychological approval because "it's the right thing to do". That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. He commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. He then ensures that these people stay in those positions, because that makes it easy for him to censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype. I want nothing more -- or less -- than to overcome the obstacles that people like Mr. Harford establish. To that task I have consecrated my life, and I invite you to do likewise.

A more fundamental problem is that if you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. Although I agree with those who assert that pestilential, twisted gutter-dwellers are deeply impressed by Mr. Harford's guff, nevertheless, I cannot agree with the subject matter and attitude that is woven into every one of Mr. Harford's insipid sentiments. To wrap up, I'll just hit the key elements of this letter one last time. First, Mr. Robert Harford III's helots like having a stamp of assurance from Mr. Harford that what they're doing is fashionable, or at least acceptable. Second, Mr. Harford frequently takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as his own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. And finally, I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which Mr. Harford's opuscula could be considered appropriate.


See, I really have nothing against Rob, but I just picked someone who'd probably read this post. And also since he was the one who posted a while ago about different ways to blog (HERE), I thought I'd add one more! Auto generating blogs (and this is my second, scroll back a while to see a different one that I'm pretty sure recites the lyrics to the Knight Rider Theme)
http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

I also really liked this site and you could substitute anyone you wanted for Rob. Put in Bush and you're a tree-hugging liberal. Substituite Hillary Clinton and your a right-wing radical. Mickey Mouse? Then you're just messed up.

More music blogging

So I saw Ben Folds last night, for the 4th time live. The show was awesome, really really awesome as always, and yet I still have to admit that I feel slightly unsatisfied.

It isn't Bens fault. He is a victim of his own success and own amazing live shows. They're so energetic and so much fun that you remember, long afterwards, great songs he performed and can't wait to see him play them again. Yet he has too many songs now and can't play all the ones you want anymore. Every show before the last one, that I saw, he opened with 1 Angry Dawrf and 200 Solem Faces (great song, even greater when performed live.) This time, though, he opened with Bastard from his new album. A good song, but not nearly as much fun as the first one. But then he made up for it by playing 1 Angry Dawrf as his encore.

However, Ben is trying to sell a new album while at the same time not alienate his longtime fans. How does one pick and choose which songs to play when you only get 10-13 songs and half of them need to be from your newest album if you're pushing that material. I think he did a great job with his choices, so I can't even fault him for that. But a Ben show that doesn't play Army? So sad.

Really, I think he needs to just play for like 2 hours ever set. I know this isn't doable, but it's the only way that everyone will be happy.

Oh, and P.S., Ben, you need some help with who opens for you. I have YET to like an opening band (well, that's only kinda true because Ben Lee who played like 5 songs last night was pretty good.) Fleming and John suck, that guy who couldn't remember that name of his own band or the words to his song sucked and Rufus Wainwright last night almost put me to sleep.