Thursday, January 22, 2015


Dark crankers on the lathe of a barn doom in the light of a placid plant,
on the shores of the sands that score the fountain on the crest a branch of sate,
in breath to divide on shaking pea Form the fork is the knifed in bled dry spread,
in on the Up of the tons that break to the cycling to treat the bike on the fled.

As floods of storm to that torque of the goo in feather by the ran to the glide of the say,
yesterday a Hawk showed the cry of the stay in a tree for the simple spoke beacon read fit,
to blanket a warmth on the shells broken stomped in advanced on the portion to settle a bounce.

Movie to word of the umbrage of Time in caption on verbal a laugh it was needed,
the Actor repair so Mal on the fair in Serenity singing with ships that still bell!!

Independent to part in the whole of the rumble is shock so discounted that language is anguish,
in course of the sent to the dear of the fact in hurry for cover on lids of the brain,
scour the sponge to squeeze on the stone blood based the turn-up to Cucumber comb`d,
in brick of the harp the wire on list is not a walk to the Tree nor an arrow for ride,
either to Either in accent of put is the link^in purse Sent to the tintinnabular grown.

Sight on the steam vapor of smoke insignia speaking the broader of baker,
in oven on cook is the eclectic of Hoof bigger the shoe big is the lit,
turn about on the rounds in the chain of the anchor the liberty fights,
sank to the boss in the Mug of the jocks blue are the jeans from the Mail box queens.

Trait fudge to meld in the spin of a dowel as the weight is package and the sure is a vibe`d,
zipper with clip line that dawn of a ridge not the dowel of the ladder or the construct for gain,
dirt is the scrub to plotters in game as chest to Pandora hasp it a brain,
in minds that shake hands with the birds that sit sliced a Hawking for callers is that fame,
so to the flight of the oh beautiful came great introduction to this hour of flame,
a fire on the Thoughts that go with each plain,
soaring the sky like the burst of at same.

What James Blunt doesn’t understand about the politics of envy

Suzanne Moore
Wednesday 21 January 2015 
In his open letter to Chris Bryant, the posh crooner fails to realise that it is the privileged who are promoting envy of the powerless

‘This posh spat involved a posh crooner taking umbrage and lapsing into cliches about “the politics of envy”.’ Photograph: Franziska Krug/Getty Images

If I were James Blunt I would form a band named Posh Spat immediately. This waspart of a headline on the BBC website that I fell in love with on the spot. You know, just like he did in that sex-pest-on-the-subway song that made him famous. Actually, Blunt makes songs that many people like. Fine by me.
But he did a very unclassy thing with his open letter to Chris Bryant. Open letters are the drunk texts of the great, the good and, yes, the already privileged. That’s why they get read. They imply an access to attention that is taken for granted – if not huge awareness.
The great myth is that public school gives all its pupils unusual charm and confidence. Only one of these things is true. It is terribly ill-mannered, if you have been born into good fortune, surely, not to acknowledge it, be grateful for it and give other people a leg up. Really, how little effort that takes.
But this posh spat involved a posh crooner taking umbrage and lapsing into cliches about “the politics of envy”. Does being concerned about lack of opportunities and access for working-class kids equate to advocating ideas that are “envy-based”?
If you asked most people if they preferred a politics based around fairness to one of envy, what would they say? Envy, though, is used over and over again to dismiss even mild challenges to the ruling class, because it is so emotive. Irrational feelings are utilised politically but often sanctioned by a gleam of so-called logic. I would say it suits the elite to encourage a widespread culture of envy.
Envy, like outrage, is now part of our mood music. You can’t escape it. Women, especially, are often addressed as already in a constant state of envy – of the rich, of the famous, the thin, the young, the beautiful. Every day we are shown pictures – in Daily Mail speak – of some woman’s “enviable” assets. We are apparently to envy a Kardashian “derriere” as we would a yacht, although neither of these things loom large on my horizon. There are indeed so many enviable assets in the world that you could feel a failure, and end up not wanting to bother at all. Envy brings inertia, and then, when it can rouse itself, shame.
The celebrity class exists for us to act out all these ambivalent feelings. We want them, we want to be them, but we also increasingly get our kicks from gloating when it goes wrong for them. We glory in their unhappiness. We like to watch them abuse each other in boutique zoos or eating maggots. That’s entertainment.
When envy shades further into actual resentment, we can actually wish people harm because of what they have. The minute the 99% don’t accept that the 1% earned their place at the top of the hierarchy through sheer talent and ability alone, anarchy will ensue. So there are the endless justifications for inequality again, as though it were a personality trait rather than a political product.
The go-to villains here include Mitt Romney and his offensive nonsense about God being on the side of the 1%. Or Bono’s reinterpretation of De Tocqueville, who had noticed the American ability to keep envy at arm’s length. Bono said that when Americans look at a man who lives in a mansion on a hill they think: “If I work really hard I could live in that mansion. In Ireland, people look at the guy in the mansion on the hill, and go, one day, I’m going to get that bastard.” Some of us look at man and mansion and wonder about taxes, but never mind.
Obviously, it would be nicer for the megarich if we all simply worshipped them while punishing ourselves for our own inferiority. We spin round contradictory ideas: anyone can make it, any time, anywhere; the exceptions prove the rule. Yet given the slightest bit of class mobility, many seek to purchase the connections that will help their children “get on”. For a Labour MP to say that there are fewer and fewer exceptions to the rule is not exactly class war; it’s just stating what we know to be the case.
All of this is part of that other fairytale: meritocracy. If we were a meritocratic society, we would do away with private education tomorrow, because we would trust our children to be able to get on in the world. Instead, we have this very peculiar roleplay, where the rich and powerful present themselves as being victims of the class system. It’s not easy being posh.
More seriously, a culture of envy leads to entire political parties based on one emotion: resentment. Hatred travels downwards and sideways. What else is Ukip? It is not a project based on anything but envy, this nasty, depressing and insular emotion. Envy neutralises empathy, thus the cause of people’s problems is seen to be those with less, not more power and wealth than them. Envy privatises anger, so we feel individually bad. We should indeed transcend the politics of envy – but that would require a graciousness that even well-born pop stars are unable to muster.

What exactly is a wazzock? A guide to the James Blunt 'controversy' for non-Brits

The singer-songerwriter is in dispute with a Labour MP about something or other. What’s going on? Allow Esther Addley to explain

 James Blunt: rocking out. Photograph: ChinaFotoPress/Getty Images
Monday 19 January 2015 
A British politician suggested the success of actor Eddie Redmayne and singer James Blunt raised questions about the diversity of the arts in the UK. Blunt hit back with an open letter calling the MP a “classist gimp” and a “wazzock”. The politician responded calling the singer “blooming precious”. Erm, sorry. What?
Allow us to explain. And like many things in ultra-modern, 21st-century Britain, it helps to have a sense of the British class system, and where the characters involved fit into it. 

The players

Chris Bryant MP, the politician in question, has just been appointed the arts spokesman for the Labour party, the leftwing opposition party. He represents a poor constituency in rural Wales, where not many people go to private schools.
Bryant, by the way, was also a leading critic of the Murdoch press during the phone hacking scandal and once had photographs of himself posing in underpants, taken from his Gaydar gay dating site, published in a national newspaper, but those facts are less relevant to the story in hand.
James Blunt is a multimillion-selling crooner whose love-to-hate-it earworm You’re Beautiful was voted the seventh most annoying song of all time by readersof Rolling Stone. He is also, in the classic British sense, posh (to be clear: Posh Spice even in her current fashion incarnation, is very much not-posh).
Evidence for the singer’s poshness may include the facts that Blunt is a former officer in the British army, and his real name is spelled “Blount” (he dropped the “o” to make it easier to pronounce – it’s a posh British thing). But it certainly turns on the fact that he attended Harrow school, the second poshest and most exclusive of England’s public schools (which are, it is important to say, not “public schools” in the sense that a normal person would understand it, but very decidedly private). Not entirely irrelevantly, so did Benedict Cumberbatch.
As for Eddie Redmayne: also posh. He went to Eton, the poshest public school of the posh, posher even than posh Harrow. As did Dominic West, Damian Lewis and Hugh Laurie. And Princes William and Harry. (If you’re now wondering if every British actor on US TV went to Eton, best not to start on the British government.)

Ok, so …?

So that’s the background to Bryant’s comments, in an interview with the Guardian, in which he said that while he can celebrate the success of Britain’s more privileged stars, he will also seek to address a “cultural drought” in areas outside comfortable south-east England.
“I am delighted that Eddie Redmayne won [a Golden Globe for best actor], but we can’t just have a culture dominated by Eddie Redmayne and James Blunt and their ilk,” he said.
Bryant wondered if today’s cultural conditions would produce another Albert Finney or Glenda Jackson, both of whom came from humble backgrounds. British broadcasters also had a responsibility to produce “that kind of gritty drama, which reflects [the country] more. We can’t just have Downton programming ad infinitum and think that just because we’ve got some people in the servants’ hall, somehow or other we’ve done our duty by gritty drama.”
(Important explanatory note for non-Brits: a majority of us do not live or even work in stately homes).
Blunt’s reply was indignant. He “happened” to go to a boarding school but had bought his first guitar with money saved up through his holiday jobs packing sandwiches. No one at his school could help him with his musical dreams because “I was expected to become a soldier or a lawyer or perhaps a stockbroker”.
“Every step of the way, my background has been AGAINST me succeeding in the music business. And when I have managed to break through, I was STILL scoffed at for being too posh for the industry,” he said, proving that an expensive education does not teach you to avoid capitalising words in the middle of sentences. Bryant was teaching “the politics of jealousy” and was a “prejudiced wazzock”.

A what?

So what – and at last we get to the nub – is a wazzock? Glad you asked. Urban Dictionary defines the term as a mild insult directed at “one who is foolish, one who has made an arse of themselves, one who is rather daft”. (The rest of those Britishisms we hope you can work out for yourselves.) It is one of a number of faintly limp insults that are more often used ironically than in seriousness. See also: twit, pillock, wally, plonker. Basically, they can all be used on telly without frightening your gran. (This list, by the way, does not include wanker, which is much ruder than many Americans seem to realise. and normally asterisked in British publications other than the Guardian.)
“Blooming”, meanwhile, is the polite form of “bloody”. Which is the very much less polite form of “very”.
One further note: Blunt signed his note “James Cucking Funt”, a neatly self-deprecating nod to the rhyming-slang nature of his second name. It’s not the first sign of his own sense of humour – after being a figure of open scorn for some years, the singer has recently gone through a dramatic reputational rehabilitationthanks to his witty ripostes to Twitter critics.
While there was plenty of praise for the singer on the social network on Monday, including from Gary Lineker, the TV presenter and former English footballer, others were less clear where they stood.
Hope that helps.

James Blunt has misunderstood the relationship between privilege and success

Sarah Perry

January 20,2015

James Blunt has misunderstood the relationship between privilege and success

The burden of making ends meet is often death to creativity

The exchange between Chris Bryant and James Blunt raises a question deserving more considered attention, which is this: does wealth and privilege helps you to artistic success? The answer’s so starkly obvious it hardly seems worth saying, but say it I must: yes. Yes, of course it does.

The operation of privilege in the arts is subtle and misunderstood. For example, the notion that connections secure publishing deals is absurd: no editor risks a hard-won reputation by publishing a book because it was written by an Oxford chum. The slush pile is an equal opportunities employer, and it’s worth noting that Jessie Burton’s The Miniaturist – one of the most acclaimed and successful debuts of this or any year – was discovered there.
Yet lack of privilege remains too high a barrier for too many, and too many voices go unheard (as an aside, Bryant’s having implied that we need working-class voices for ‘grittier’ subject matter is unspeakably condescending).
Creating a career in the arts when you have no money and no connections is difficult and wearisome. This is not because the door’s locked and the key issued to a select few, but because the ordinary life as lived by most - beginning work at 18 or younger because you must pay rent, or working through college to pay your own tuition and emerging crippled with debt and needing work - leaves little room for art.
We must recognise privilege when we see it, and understand we’re not talking about seven figures in a Coutt’s account. I’ve met those who think six months as a chalet girl before an internship at the BBC constitutes the daily grind; those who protest “I only went to Edinburgh!” as evidence of being on the back foot, socially speaking.
Here’s the thing: if your cousin knows someone who needs an unpaid intern, but that’s OK because you’ve got a room in your Mum’s friend’s house in Shoreditch for peppercorn rent, you’re greatly privileged. If you can manage on a little photography work (using the digital SLR you got for your 21st) because you’re house-sitting for an aunt who’s gone travelling, you may not feel wealthy, but you’re rich in time, the great currency of privilege: time to sing, to write; time to find out if you have what it takes. What’s more, the burden of making ends meet is often death to creativity: never have I felt less like writing than when plunging through every coat pocket in the house in the hope of finding the bus fare to work.
Subtler still, the confidence of privilege enables an easeful move through the social aspect of life in the arts. I’m largely accent-less, and possess a PhD and a piano (the latter brought in evidence against me whenever I plead ‘not guilty’ to being middle class), but find publishing events so alarming I frequently hide in the toilets. And the chance of my spotting across the room a friend of my mother’s or an old college pal, and beckoning them over for a chat, is vanishingly small: arts events are not overly supplied with small town ex-Biblical fundamentalists educated at a polytechnic.
Envy achieves nothing: it leads to a mistrust of those both privileged and gifted, suggesting they cannot possibly have been the latter without the former, which is as unjust as it is illogical (Mitford! Woolf!). The only solution, of course, is the creation of open-access privilege in the form of more and better arts funding. The government’s recent evisceration of the arts risks creating a kind of class-based arts culture that will impoverish us all.
As for me? Well: certainly I’d have finished my first novel years earlier if I’d not been diligently avoiding a repeat of what I call The Bailiff Incident, but I’ve had privileges of my own, and in the publishing world have encountered nothing but welcome. That strange childhood that gave me this strange imagination, the ability to walk miles along the banks of the Cam though I’ll never know one end of a punt from another, great strokes of blinding luck: these are riches too, and I’d not swap them for anyone’s.
Sarah Perry is a writer and novelist. Her first novel, After Me Comes the Flood, is out now from Serpent's

James Blunt's comebacks - would they work for your career?

James Blunt has mastered the art of the comeback. Why don’t more of us take this approach to our critics?

James Blunt concert in Ischgl

James Blunt's Twitter comebacks are the stuff of legend; and now that legend has a new chapter, with his brilliant reply to MP Chris Bryant on the subject of privilege in the arts. Most people would never dream of trying this approach with the critics and bullies they encounter in the course of their career. They're far more comfortable staying quiet, letting colleagues get the upper hand, seething for days, and then holding a grudge for the rest of their life.

In their mind the comeback is for the playground, where 'Yeah? So's your face' passes for the height of sophisticated wit. This image isn't helped by the likes of Lord Sugar. Even when he's in the boardroom with his so-called Apprentices, saying the things we've been shouting at the screen for the best part of an hour, listening to his comebacks is still a toe-curling experience. Nobody wants to hear a grown man whine "Don't tell me you're just like me. You're not like me. I'm unique."

Blunt, however, has mastered the three step process of replying to his critics in a way that wins the support of everyone around him - something we could all benefit from at work.

1. He chooses his targets carefully

Nobody is going to appreciate you using a masterful comeback against a senior manager or a vulnerable intern. However, if like Blunt you use it to give as good as you get to the bullies, you'll win the support of all those around you.

Great responses to his bullies recently have included one to a tweet that said "James Blunt is one ugly m*th*er f*cker." He replied with "And how's your modelling career going". And when another wrote: "James Blunt just has an annoying face and a highly irritating voice", he replied, "And no mortgage."

2. He knows his audience

The best put downs start with an understanding of the person who has insulted you or attacked your position. You can then respond in a way that will demonstrate both your understanding of their point of view - and your own.

In James Blunt's case, he's mostly dealing with people who hate him and his music, and he has a couple of approaches. One is by joking that he hates himself more, such as his response to the tweet: "I must be 1 of only 2 who genuinely likes every James Blunt song. The other person being him." To which he replied "Nope, you're on your own." And another is by pretending to humour them, such as replying to "I cannot put into words how much I hate James Blunt" with "Try singing it."

3. He's funny

Humour will help you get away with a great deal, and Blunt is funny. To one Tweet claiming "That James Blunt song is utterly horrific, horrific", he replied. "Yet so many people bought it, bought it." While to one who said "James Blunt is a major B*ll end", he replied "That's Captain B*ll end to you."

Nobody is pretending that a witty comeback will silence critics and bullies for good. However, if you can respond to a bully in a way that leaves everyone laughing, and thinking more highly of you, then they'll think twice about attacking again.

So what do you think? Will this approach work for you? Or will you stick with the stiff upper lip and an hour or so of complaining to your other half when you get home?

James Blunt in 'posh spat' with Labour MP

The singer said he had to overcome lots of prejudice to make it in the music industry 

Related Stories

Singer James Blunt has clashed with Labour politician Chris Bryant about diversity in the arts after the MP said the singer was part of a public school educated elite "dominating" culture.
The singer, who was educated at Harrow, said the politician was a narrow-minded "classist gimp" who was motivated by the "politics of jealousy".
Politicians, he said, should celebrate success wherever it came from.
Mr Bryant responded by urging Mr Blunt not to be "so blooming precious".
The spat started after Mr Bryant, who was recently appointed Labour's shadow arts minister, told the Guardian that there needed to be more working class actors and "gritty" subject matter in drama output to properly reflect contemporary Britain.
'Looking for votes'
While he was "delighted" that Eton-educated Eddie Redmayne had won a Golden Globe for his portrayal of Stephen Hawking in a new film, Mr Bryant - who himself was privately educated at Cheltenham College - suggested that "we can't just have a culture dominated by Eddie Redmayne and James Blunt and their ilk".
Mr Blunt, a former soldier who sprang to fame when his song You're Beautiful went to number one in 2005, took Mr Bryant to task in a letter to the newspaper.
Labour MP Chris BryantMr Bryant suggested there needed to be more of a "level-playing field" in the arts
He said his background - both in terms of his schooling and his time in the army - counted against him when he was trying to break into the music industry and despite his success was still regarded as being "too posh".
"And then you come along, looking for votes, telling working class people that posh people like me don't deserve it and that we must redress the balance," he wrote.
He suggested that Mr Bryant's "populist, envy-based, vote-hunting ideas" were more likely to hold the country back than "my shit songs and my plummy accent".
'Aim high'
Mr Blunt, who has a million followers on Twitter, contrasted carping attitudes to people's success and background in the UK with the US, where he said people "don't give a stuff" about that kind of thing.
Albert Finney in the 2005 drama KaraokeMr Bryant asked where the next Albert Finney would come from
"What you teach is the politics of jealousy," he added.
"Perhaps what you have failed to realise is that the only head start my school gave me in the music business, where the vast majority of people are not from boarding school, is to tell me that I should aim high.
"Perhaps it protected me from your kind of narrow-minded, self-defeating, lead-us-to-a-dead-end, 'remove the G from GB thinking' which is to look at others' success and say 'it's not fair'."
'Wasting talent'
In his original interview, Mr Bryant said the system that had produced British talent such as Albert Finney and Glenda Jackson in the 1950s and 1960s had been "more meritocratic".
He questioned whether the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 were committed to funding the kind of drama which looked at Britain as it was now rather than "Downton (Abbey) programming ad infinitum".
Responding to Mr Blunt, the Labour MP insisted he was not singling out the performer and he was "delighted" at his success.
"Stop being so blooming precious," he wrote. "I'm not knocking your success. I even contributed to it by buying one of your albums.
"But it is a statement of the blindingly obvious that that is far tougher if you come from a poor family where you have to hand over your holiday earnings to help pay the family bills."
He added: "You see the thing is I want everyone to take part in the arts. I don't want any no-go areas for young people from less privileged backgrounds. And I'm convinced that we won't be Great Britain if we waste great British talent in the arts."

James Blunt’s letter to Chris Bryant - in full

James Blunt said people laughed at the idea of him going into the music business
James Blunt said people laughed at the idea of him going into the music business. Photograph: Ken McKay/REX  

Dear Chris Bryant MP,
You classist gimp. I happened to go to a boarding school. No one helped me at boarding school to get into the music business. I bought my first guitar with money I saved from holiday jobs (sandwich packing!). I was taught the only four chords I know by a friend. No one at school had ANY knowledge or contacts in the music business, and I was expected to become a soldier or a lawyer or perhaps a stockbroker. So alien was it, that people laughed at the idea of me going into the music business, and certainly no one was of any use.
In the army, again, people thought it was a mad idea. None of them knew anyone in the business either.
And when I left the army, going against everyone’s advice, EVERYONE I met in the British music industry told me there was no way it would work for me because I was too posh. One record company even asked if I could speak in a different accent. (I told them I could try Russian).
Every step of the way, my background has been AGAINST me succeeding in the music business. And when I have managed to break through, I was STILL scoffed at for being too posh for the industry.
And then you come along, looking for votes, telling working class people that posh people like me don’t deserve it, and that we must redress the balance. But it is your populist, envy-based, vote-hunting ideas which make our country crap, far more than me and my shit songs, and my plummy accent.
I got signed in America, where they don’t give a stuff about, or even understand what you mean by me and “my ilk”, you prejudiced wazzock, and I worked my arse off. What you teach is the politics of jealousy. Rather than celebrating success and figuring out how we can all exploit it further as the Americans do, you instead talk about how we can hobble that success and “level the playing field”. Perhaps what you’ve failed to realise is that the only head-start my school gave me in the music business, where the VAST majority of people are NOT from boarding school, is to tell me that I should aim high. Perhaps it protected me from your kind of narrow-minded, self-defeating, lead-us-to-a-dead-end, remove-the-‘G’-from-‘GB’ thinking, which is to look at others’ success and say, “it’s not fair.”
Up yours,
James Cucking Funt
Chris Bryant’s reply to James Blunt – in full
Chris Bryant, Labour MP
Chris Bryant, Labour MP, writes: ‘I don’t want any no-go areas for young people from less privileged backgrounds.’ Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian
Dear James
Stop being so blooming precious. I’m not knocking your success. I even contributed to it by buying one of your albums. I’m not knocking Eddie Redmayne, either. He was the best Richard II I have ever seen.
If you’d read the whole of my interview, you’d have seen that I make the point that the people who subsidise the arts the most are artists themselves. Of course that includes you. But it is a statement of the blindingly obvious that that is far tougher if you come from a poor family where you have to hand over your holiday earnings to help pay the family bills.
I’m delighted you’ve done well for yourself. But it is really tough forging a career in the arts if you can’t afford the enormous fees for drama school, if you don’t know anybody who can give you a leg up, if your parents can’t subsidise you for a few years whilst you make your name and if you can’t afford to take on an unpaid internship.
You see the thing is I want everyone to take part in the arts. I don’t want any no-go areas for young people from less privileged backgrounds. And I’m convinced that we won’t be Great Britain if we waste great British talent in the arts. You seem to think talent will always out. My fear is that someone like Stanley Baker, the son of a disabled miner in the Rhondda, who rose to be one of Britain’s greatest film actors (Zulu), would have found it even harder to make it today.
That’s why we need more diversity at every level in the arts – in education, in training, on-screen, on stage and backstage – and we need to break down all the barriers to taking part so that every talent gets a chance.
Yours bluntly


An Avenue on thigh board is of Wall Type.

The bangle of a Toggle not to switch but rather know angular barter,
thus creating object subject of designed,
engineered to count numerical tear,
swept hour timely scry to Mass treat,
be lane`d by tread.

River bends on swirl the Waterfall shed of Washing brains on the hot lash,
a blinking parade of bar the on a camel tongue of sand,
the production banks no mountain from edge to clip Nostrils in chilled swollen,
muscle language developed to vernacular slants provides neither sharpening nor dallop a spoon.

The worm of shim in a house of sling hangs a loan of missing tile,
morsel bytes that thread no singular needle are boxes with fabric,
no closet of shown mirror face to show gun at empty holster`d,
the fire triggers a bullet^ten to swing the dagger as munched mail,
to equip a 'At Pall' or the blank rube is to set mess with tricked traders!!

Tablet applicated to topical grounded,
the letter of listed Harbor of potable cleat,
in the distant march of bounce the salt,
to a shoulder of the ticket plumb.

In the spout on the marble of the grout to the mouth a pre-shaped the bisque,
take the sugar of the cane apple or the caramel of the Treacle than bake it strudel,
as the wrapper is of the stint talking flavor over the branch a Dam to the read source,
in deed of the curtain to the consonant sleep waking a foot to the peat.

Grass on the mow of the wild in the breeze is saddled by station to the ride,
in the bridle of the born to the bareback of the grown it is really a best of fold,
iron on the starch shall that be of Tart to echo of the business as stretch to the care.

Breaking on the bunch with construction of the ball is the hexagon asking the triangle of square,
in the oblong on the reach to the Hemp of the scoot is the reality brought by fence,
in lather on the stool in a porch of a Coot penguin with the Tuxedo and kiss the shadow glint,
to throat of the strangles on the Horse of the food alfalfa is the bale to the Oats of the wheel.

Circle on the wire in the bunt cake that is served to questioning the permission of blankets on the nerve,
as it spelling back Up towards down a feather inked,
paragraph with improvements to exclamation on the Verbs,
dash a bit to snaffle laugh as each to favorite crew,
in the fill of the band is it the Pearls that clamp the marsh of based or hand.

Regard the expense of the experience as the chalk on the read lined,
in masque of the Opus an operator stall is barn fee,
in tack of the leather touch of the cow is milk the sour or the cream Tau.

In finer of the appealing at the farm of the driven to barrel is to jump cross-poles,
to the beat of the rhythm on the back of a berg ankles hobbled cannot come go chair,
in product evolution the mind court per pound,
anxious are the Barren that duke the bank be Vade,
darkened by the path to the side of The Fates,
any siren rounding will bell the big ore placed.

Earth on the dignity of sphere by girth to state,
in station on the peak of the Clyde up tons spaced,
in divide to the pest a cockroach on the fry,
is chicken for the stander and steering on the bird.