Dear IOZ,
Though sometimes fun, your writing shows
a penchant for the grandiose:
syllabically it's varicose,
grammatically it's too verbose,
politically it never goes
beyond an unconvincing pose.
Empirically your writing blows.
Your standard tone is bellicose.
You want a crop but will not hoe.
You say you'll leave but never go.
You only care for stylish prose:
how haughtily you hold your nose
and scoff at we who smartly chose
to rise from our recumbant pose
and gather online with our woes
wherefrom and henceforth we propose
investments in politicos
who'll bask in the cathodic glow
of the diarists of DailyKos
from whom such information flows
as why no person may oppose
a Democrat while in the throes
of this election, which you know
is more important than all those
which this quadrennial did appose
and from whose seeds will shortly grow
a salutary ratio
of rich to poor and high to low
and good to bad and yes to no
and war to peace and sun to snow
and up to down and melt to froze--
from hearts to minds and head to toes
upon this world we shall impose
some Democrat who doesn't blow
quite so much as dubya blows
and then at last we'll find repose
until the next cycle comes and goes,
and comes and goes
and comes and goes
and comes and goes.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
From the Comments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Humm. Not a keeper.
I'm interested by the dichotomy of party politics or armed revolution however.
Really? I'm not.
Isn't everyone who owns a blog, as well as everyone who comments on said blogs, by definition a "whiny ass bitch most of the time"?
Depends on where you put the hyphen.
Heh. Indeed.
Well I'm interested in the verification of lettuce and the works of Karl Malden's nose, however. Tra-la!
Ioz! Get with the program. In the time it took you to compose this doggerel verse, you could have composed at least three odes to the glories of HILLARY! HILLARY! HILLARY! and how she stays TRUE!
Hilarious. I love it.
Dude. I (almost) never comment anywhere. But that was brilliant. Props.
Maybe our brands of effete snobbery and grandiose vocabulary are all we really have in this world.
Sarcasm, ladies.
If at first you don't succeed
Then IOZ is who you need
to tell you why
you shouldn't try
but only fair and noble deeds
from times gone by
or giants freed
from mortal lives
and only fools do otherwise
Look!
Over there
'tis the sacred Donkle!
come to save us all!
Please ignore
the stench of blood and
the entrails a-stream from his snout
At least we are doing something!
govt skeptic sez the choice is between 'from the inside' and 'gun'. That's a false dichotomy. That's how Repubs think.
To get all Taoist, culture can be more like water than metal. Orange revolutions and all that.
poo-tee-weet
substantially entertaining dude.
What's wrong with being a whiny ass bitch?
Wait a minute. "Scoff at we"?
Are you sure the "who" after that trumps the "at"?
I'll defer to grandiose, erudite snobs, but that sounds kinda funny.
And how about this quote:
“Beware of him who hates the laugh of a child.”
Johann Kaspar Lavater quotes (Swiss Theologian, 1741-1801)
Would a quote have survived from 1801 (I'll assume those were his deathbed words) if it were ungrammatical?
I'd go queer to marry you in MA, IOZ.
isys - yes. The demands of subject-verb agreement in the verbal phrase supercede the usual inflection of the pronoun for the direct object. In this case, the object isn't "us," but rather "we who smartly chose." The phrase is a single grammatical unit.
But let's debate!
Ultima - I've always wanted a fall wedding.
[sigh] Would that I were a gorgeous hunk of a man ~ ~ ~
Thanks, Ioz.
But was Lavater incorrect in his usage or does that sentence fall into a different category?
Would Lavater have been beware of W.C. Fields?
"Children should neither be seen or heard from - ever again."
Would a quote have survived from 1801 (I'll assume those were his deathbed words) if it were ungrammatical?
Lavater would most likely have said that in Deutschschweiz not English (particularly on his deathbed)
ain't it phoquin' eerie how authoritarian those "progressive democrats" are?
barking commands, needing to tell the rest of America how to live, fearing the freedom to be one's own person.
They ain't fit to feed worms, that crowd.
Post a Comment