The Republicans actually HAVE a plan?

Yes... we'll let Obama, Bugosi, etc. self-destruct, and hope that they don't take the country with it before it can be rescued.

Very clever twist on things....

Always a pleasure to see another clearly -reasoned and compelling song from our friends on the Left. Please do let me know when you intend to write one.

It took me all the way past the end of the parody to the comment above mine to actually see anything that made anything even remotely resembling sense.

@Fiddlegirl - love your comment - it's the best part of this half hammered parody. You make me laugh girl.

You *do* realize that such subtleties as sarcasm, facetiousness, and irony are completely lost among those who don't even understand simple logic, don't you?

Dearest @Fiddlegirl, how honored must I be that you've deigned to sprinkle your bons and so very arch mots over my work. Truly, yours is a triumph of style over substance; a bluff supreme. And how wonderful that you have found a Guy; will your first rendezvous be for cocktails and cigarettes at the William F. Buckley Lounge, or shall the two of you proceed directly to the Ayn Rand S&M suite at the hotel? Oh to be lost in love rather than subtlety... 'tis but a dream for the most of us.

"Oh to be lost in love rather than subtlety... 'tis but a dream for the most of us."

Evidently.

How silly of FG to have forgotten that... ;)

Stormin' Norman, where exactly in my books did I advocate whips 'n chains, bondage, or anything else related to S&M? ... there was one small scene in "The Fountainhead" that was reflective of its time, the 1940s, which would not pass muster by today's standards, but how on earth did you get... you haven't even read any of my works, have you? Or clearly not understood them. Else you wouldn't put Mr. Buckley and myself in the same category; we disagree violently on a number of issues.

And I am most definitely NOT a "Republican" or "conservative", which, again, you'd know if you'd read my books.. .Why am I wasting logic on those for whom it is not a value? I think I'd rather have a tasty dish of seaweed. Please do let us know if you ever have any "facts" to present, assuming that you ever discover what "facts" are, as opposed to name-calling, derision, etc...

Dear Ayn, sorry for the slow response, I've been busy scribbling away on other topics. I checked back here just now only to find your harrumphy post of the 14th. Where did the S&M jab come from? From "Atlas Shrugged", as you well know. I remember being struck (S&M pun not intended) by Dagny's love of rough sex; tasting the blood leaking from the bitten lip; the "throw me down and take me and violently so" vibe you gave her. Fearfully (S&MPNI), I picked up the 1000+ pages of your great-yet-tiresome tome (we get it, already, woman! Get government and other parasites out of the way of the great men who make things!) and set out to search for "facts" as you call them. I took a stab and opened to roughly (again, NS&MPI) where I thought Dagny and Hank went at it after the train ride. Ayn, I must say, I'm good. Hit it (d'oh!) on the spot a good two years after I slogged through AS (couldn't you have made Francisco's Robin Hood party speech just a *few* dozen pages shorter, by the way?). I digress. See the last couple of pages of Ch. XIII...start with, "It was like an act of hatred, like the cutting blow of a lash encircling her body..." Continue through the first two-three pages of Ch. IX: "She saw a bruise above her elbow, with dark beads that had been blood.", Hank's "vile animal" speech, Dagny's "any time/anywhere/any terms" Seka-channeling,etc etc. You remember this now? You understand how you seduced all the young, impressionable, horny male neo-con not-gettin-any-nerds with the creation of Dagny Taggert,your tough, superior-minded, Rough and Randy sexual animal/heroine? Of course you do. Enjoy the seaweed. Later!

ps AR, before you get out the whip for my forty lashes...I know, I know it's spelled Tagg*a*rt. I wasn't that taken with her, after all.

You have no idea what *actual* S&M entails, do you? Assuming that you're over 18 (chronologically, at least), check out some of the web sites and see how ridiculously off the mark you were. You could probably even get a mild idea from
http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/therighteousbrothers12.shtml
although, of course, explicitness was limited by site guidelines. Then you can go to the real BDSM sites (even Wikipedia has a fairly good article on it, despite some language barriers from non-native-English-speaking contributors), learn, and apologize to Ms. Rand. (and also apologize for confounding her views with Buckley's)

And I'm sorry, though not surprised, to hear that you've never been able to bring a woman to a level of passion where she scratches,
http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/dickeylee3.shtml
bites, etc,. as I have many times, totally unrelated to kinky stuff. Also sorry to hear that no woman has ever brought you to that level -- uh, have you ever even been with a woman? Save up your allowance and try it -- it's fun!

** "Enjoy the seaweed."


Enjoy the saucer of milk.

Ayn Rand, BDSM Expert, A Rand II: I'm sorry that putting Buckley and Rand in the same sentence as possible meeting place names, and an apparently "only scratching the surface" understanding of (BD)SM, hit such tender nerves and have you all a-screech. But what about "It's the Republican Plan"? We seem to have gotten far afield (perhaps that's a plan in itself?). Feel free to take a shot at the parody. Unless you're Fiddle Girl and/or Guy under different names, in which case we already know ITRP clearly got under your skin.

@ SN: "we"? Is that the royal "we", the papal "we", or the overly-inflated-sense-of-self-importance "we"? Forgive me if I seem impertinent, but I'm relatively new here and not quite sure of the appropriate protocol. I generally like to know these things before offering a response. I'm assuming it's not a collective "we", since there don't seem to be many views or votes. It's just as well.

Point of clarification-- I never said the parody got under my skin. I'm confident that those of us who hold opposing views will continue to survive quite well, with or without your blessings. All I said was that your thesis was not supported with any sort of fact, reason or logic whatsoever. Nor did I find the slightest sliver of wit or humor in it, as I often do with the parodies of others on the Left.

In short, this is not so much a parody as merely an extended rant set in rhyme, utilizing the very same tactics of name-calling and explosive language that it purports to deride, but, unfortunately, not much else. Merely a paper tiger.

The only things that I could add to what FG said so excellently, is that

1) FG and Guy are two different people, actually of two different genders, believe it or not. I know this, because I know them both.

2) I speed-read enough of your blog to see that you're from Harvard -- glad to know that their affirmative-action program is in full swing, by matriculating the rationally-handicapped -- and to see you whine about people not commenting on your posts, even after you begged them to do so (no dignity at all?). It seems not to have occurred to you that perhaps the posts weren't worthy of comment -- much like this song, for the reasons FG enumerated in her conclusion.

One wonders why you don't take the opposite tack, and go after parodies opposing your POV -- or do you not read that which does not coincide with your world view? E. g.,
http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/andykim1.shtml
, which supports its claims with what rational persons call "facts", and which they use for rational debate, and of which the above is devoid. If you can refute any of them, Madam, I shall hear it gladly. (that's a quote/paraphrase, from memory, from "Atlas Shrugged")

I would also suggest that you study military strategy: Always scout the terrain thoroughly before engaging, and never underestimate the opposition. I believe you failed on both counts, especially the second. I won't bore you with my resume (or FG's); my words and facts speak for themselves.

Looking forward to your rational, factual dissection and debate of the aforementioned, but not really expecting to see it. Probably better to stay in your own league and comfort zone. Thanks for visiting.

@TT, the only thing that comes close to your breathtakingly high level of posted obnoxiousness is your evident arrogance. Although judging from your Andy Kim (!) parody, paranoia is gaining fast and may yet carry the day. re: your post-Kim parody notes: 1) do you understand that any current government involvement/takeover of say, the financial/banking sector and the auto industry, comes as a result of those institutions running amok on their own -- and not as an effort to re-create the USSR, but for the goal of saving them and/or not letting their demise destroy all of us? 2) Can you see that your USPS-FedEx-UPS reference is a good argument for the viability of gov't-private enterprise co-existence in the health care arena -- the USPS is the public, universal option (no letter left behind) while FedEx and UPS are the private options, free to cherry pick in their pursuit of profits? 3) see my parody above -- fear-mongering works, doesn't it? 4) Everyone's worried about the long-term debt obligations -- but the house is on fire RIGHT NOW. We need to get as much water as we can on it as quickly as we can, and we'll have to deal with our long-term water supply issues LATER. It's not ideal, but what else would you have us do? Let the house burn down and leave the charred shell to posterity? Nowhere to live, dear new-borns, but not carrying so much debt! 5) and 5a) notes within notes? Oy.... Be that as it may, for 5), see 3); for 5a), guess what? No one wants to say it, but let's be grown-ups about it: taxes will have to be raised in the future. Maybe the top rate needs to jump to 50% -- still 20 points lower than the old pre-Reagan rate. Maybe we'll realize there's no rational reason that Social Security and Medicare taxes, unlike income and sales levies, cease to be imposed above a certain level. I know the anti-tax crowd is fond of screaming, "It's your money!" to the voter; I would add, "It's your country!", and it's got to be paid for. @Fg, TT, etal: As for "facts" to back up the assertion of "It's The Republican Plan" -- just follow the news. Sarah Palin and her "death panel" canard. House Republican Leader John Boehner's parade of inflammatory remarks (scroll down a few articles from the top in http://the-nag.livejournal.com/ to see some links). SC Sen. DeMint's "Obama's Waterloo/break him" remarks. The effort to de-legitimize Obama's Presidency with the birther nonesense; the gun industry/lobby's shrieking that Obama's going to take your guns; the secession talk from Texas Gov. Perry etal; the appeal to revolution (!) with the teabag thing; the sky-is-falling-or-will-fall-because-of-Obama talk from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the racial fear-stoking comments of Glen Beck, etc etc. The Republicans and others on the Right are long on fear, paranoia, and hysteria these days...and short on constructive solutions to the problems to which they so greatly contributed. With a big assist from compliant Democrats over the past eight years, to be sure. Take a step back, and take a deep breath, TT. And consider taking your apparent love of military strategy and fighting to one of the branches of the Armed Forces. We have a war or two that could use the help; you could try terrorizing terrorists rather than song parody websites.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I don't write political parodies anymore. Although...

::ERNT ERNT ERNT:: Shameless Plug Alert!
This one was a favorite of mine http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/rush8.shtml

BTW, Norman, I recommend line breaks in a response of that size. A less than sign, followed by BR, followed by a greater than sign (all four characters in a row) will effect a line break. Two line breaks will give you the space between lines like FG's and TT's responses. Without line breaks, it can read like a breathless rant.

@McKludge, thanks for the line break tip, and touche on the breathless rant look. My carriage returns were as ineffective as the Senate Dems were back in 2002 when it came to stopping the disaster that birthed your very impressive 5/5/5 2112 parody. Which birthed the inevitable flame-a-thon.
I'll do better next time in the formatting department. Can't vouch for the Senate Dems...or the flamers.

This is the next time.

There! Got it.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

I believe the persons above have wasted enough of their time, and probably won't waste any more.

Well, at least we know we got under your skin! ;D