Double Dirty Chai

As confessed, I’m out of time to produce new content right now. But, there’s news still to be covered in song and you look to me. So, I’ve tried to be diligent to recycle blongs relevant to timely news stories, but sometimes you just don’t have a prior rap news song to reboot. I know you know exactly how that feels. Rummaging around: “Where the hades did I put that Creflo Dollar Hurts Taxpayers rap verse?!”

Well, no fear. I’ve devised a fix. Introducing:

The Flong.

Blong + Blong = Fusion Blong

or Flong

So when you don’t have time to write a song concerning the CEO of Starbucks addressing shareholder concerns on the issue of same sex v. traditional marriage, you post together a song about Starbucks, and then one about same sex marriage, respectively, and you get a Starbucks-On-Same-Sex-Marriage Flong.

Sounds sort of delicious actually. Maybe that’s a flan.

Anyway, it’s like Pictionary.

X045BR_600x500

+

images

=

images

I’ve never meant to anyway, but I certainly have lost all standing to moralize. And, there’s painful prescience in today’s songs. But, the values stay the same, even when our hands and feet fail.

One Venti Flong coming up.

Star Buck-Bucks! Written and performed by sintax.the.terrific. Music produced Fab da Eclectic. Originally posted concerning Howard Schultz open letter to gun owner patrons

A Little Less Somewhow written and performed by sintax.the.terrific. Music produced by Gudo. Originally posted concerning NY State’s legalization of same sex marriage.

Today’s flong here:

Star Buck-Bucks! A Little Less Somehow

2 thoughts on “Double Dirty Chai

  1. Joe,

    I know you haven’t posted regarding the previously proposed Indiana law and the controversy surrounding it’s substance. However, I just wanted to point back to a comment I made on one of your first posts regarding same sex marriage.

    http://www.ipoetblog.com/2011/06/friendmenship/

    While I do not think there is a legitimate secular or Constitutional reason to bar same sex marriage (and fully expect SCOTUS to find doing so a violation of the Equal Protection Clause) it is becoming increasingly and alarmingly clear that the small but vocal minority is pushing for the idea that at least with “discrimination” (some would call it or acting religious beliefs) a person’s religion is subject
    to another person’s sexual orientation.

    Please tell me I am wrong and the government is not about to take the position that businesses, churches and individuals cannot refuse to engage with persom based on sexual orientation even if that business,church or individual has a legitimate religious belief.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *