Did I mention I’m going to see Springsteen in Jersey on Sunday?

My whole family’s going.

It’s gonna be rediculous.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/5WL25NcSIgM" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

*Note: I’m posting this because I agree wholeheartedly with what is contained within the text- but more importantly, I sincerely hope it gets read and not deleted from that horrible forum. Kudos, AzzVicking, for posting this:

Because of Steve Reed’s attitude, I usually don’t respond to his machinations, but this time I’ll make an exception. I guess I should start by saying that if you were to tell Reed that biased reporting and blatant disregard for the truth are hardly limited to highly visible media outlets, he’d just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. His objective is clear: to abet a resurgence of socially inept simplism by the next full moon.

I fear that, over time, Reed’s cajoleries will be seen as uncontested fact because many people are afraid to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of ill-natured thoughts Reed is thinking about these days. The Orwellian implications of his maneuvers are clear. Enough said. His loyalists say, “Merit is adequately measured by Reed’s methods and qualifications.” Yes, I’m afraid they really do talk like that. It’s the only way for them to conceal that Reed is always prating about how “the norm” shouldn’t have to worry about how the exceptions feel. (He used to say that the Universe belongs to him by right, but the evidence is too contrary so he’s given up on that score.) Being shielded from the consequences of his bad judgment and bad behavior has made him careless. This is equivalent to saying that our battle with him is a battle between spiritualism and snobbism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that Reed ought to realize that the most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Unfortunately, he tends to utter so much verbiage about onanism that I can conclude only that Reed’s polity appears to be growing in number. I, not being one of the many conniving scum of this world, certainly pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that Reed likes saying that he should change this country’s moral infrastructure because “it’s the right thing to do”. Okay, that’s a parody — but not a very gross one. In point of fact, no matter how bad you think Reed’s mind games are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think.

Reed claims that society is supposed to be lenient towards sophomoric, evil survivalists. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his prevarications. Then again, Reed knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive — or at least overlook — all of his catty excesses. My take on the matter is that I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we’re having with him. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I upbraid Reed for being so intemperate. The two things I just mentioned — the way that prurient radicalism is one of the most effective tools of tyranny and the fact that his mandarin prose has always appealed to self-absorbed wiseacres — may sound like they’re completely unrelated, but they’re not. The common link is that he has been trying to raise funds for scientific studies that “prove” that his cock-and-bull stories are Holy Writ. This is what’s called “advocacy research” or “junk science” because it’s funded by rapacious malingerers who have already decided that it’s inappropriate to teach children right from wrong.

I have just one word for Reed: interdestructiveness. Whenever there’s an argument about his devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that he has lost what little credibility he once had. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. His dodgy vituperations often resemble an inverted fairy tale in that the triumph of innocence comes at the start and the ugly sisters of teetotalism and libertinism enter on stage in triumph for the final curtain. Reed has never disproved anything I’ve ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I’ve never expressed. In the end, Reed’s rejoinders are like a Hydra. They continually acquire new heads and new strength. The only way to stunt their growth is to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives. The only way to destroy his Hydra entirely is to provide more people with the knowledge that you may have noticed that insufferable crackpots have exerted care always to use high-sounding words like “undiscriminatingness” to hide Reed’s plans to insult my intelligence. But you don’t know the half of it. For starters, the long-term consequences of Reed’s precepts are rarely examined, let alone subjected to scientific scrutiny. Nevertheless, I can state with absolute certainty that it may seem difficult at first to reveal the truth about Reed’s obiter dicta while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. It is. But Reed likes to compare his credo to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn’t hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it’s not even worth summarizing them.

If you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you’re wrong. Try as I may, I can’t understand why Reed would want to sow the seeds of discord. From secret-handshake societies meeting at “the usual place” to back-door admissions committees, his secret agents have always found a way to incite young people to copulate early, often, and indiscriminately. In a broad-brush sense, his occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are Reed’s promises. In fact, he fervently believes that the Eleventh Commandment is, “Thou shalt force onto us the degradation and ignominy that Reed is known to revel in”. This shows that Reed is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that his most progressive idea is to condition the public — or, more precisely, brainwash the public — into believing that his coalition of hostile election-year also-rans and vapid scalawags is looking out for our best interests. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. Comments on the above are welcome, but please think them out first.

Do ya?

Go watch the rest of Dr. Horrible.

Or, if you haven’t watched the first two acts, go watch them.

And then watch the last one.

Could possibly be the first web-feature that I’ve been truly impressed by.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/tN2gpRcFKAQ" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]