complaints

http://www.pakin.org/complaint

As much as I enjoy writing letter after letter about Mr. Ender Wiggin, the fact remains that I don't need to be particularly delicate here. Although my approach may appear a bit pedantic, by setting some generative point of view against a structural-taxonomical point of view or vice versa, I intend to argue that Ender's perorations manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit. Phase two: unleash the forces of deconstructionism upon an unsuspecting populace. While he has been casting aspersions and heaping maledictions upon those who lift our nation from the quicksand of injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood, I have been busy admonishing him not seven times, but seventy times seven. That fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. “Thinking†is the key word in the previous sentence. I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to name and shame his protégés for their liberticidal acts of elitism. Let me close by reminding you that even though I truly proclaim that Mr. Ender Wiggin hurts people wherever they may be, penthouse or poorhouse, I'm not out for blood. I want only justice.

I kinda agree with a few of the points. Show off the complaints you come up with! 1 paragraph each would be nice.

Mr. Zal has recently made a number of people very angry, including me. However, as anger serves no function in a successful rebuttal, I will simply state objectively that following Zal's words left to right and down a page is like following fingernails on a chalkboard. Before examining the present situation, however, it is important that I fight to the end for our ideas and ideals. Perhaps Zal's vade mecum of dirty tricks is filled with a collection of scare words such as “pseudolamellibranchiate†and “indistinguishableness†that have no substance beyond, I suppose, “denigrating and discarding all of Western cultureâ€, but remember that his rummy agendas aren't something we can safely ignore. Nor should we merely disparage them wittily over martinis at cocktail parties. No, we must drive off and disperse the bloodthirsty smatchets who take away what few freedoms we have left. That's the only way to educate the public about how if you think about it you'll see that Zal's uninformed apologues are merely a distraction. They're just something to generate more op-ed pieces, more news conferences for media talking heads, and more punditry from people like me. Meanwhile, Zal's emissaries are continuing their quiet work of advancing Zal's real goal, which is to separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities.

Don't be intimidated by Zal's threat to unleash a wave of immorality and promiscuity. By allowing Zal to commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge his intellectually challenged projects, we are allowing him to play puppet master. I do not have the time in one sitting to go into the long answer as to why the outcome of his vexatious lamentations will be a human tragedy on a monumental scale. But the short answer is that whatever your age, you now have only one choice. That choice is between a democratic, peace-loving regime that, you hope, may treat the disease, not the symptoms, and, as the alternative, the scummy and batty dirigisme currently being forced upon us by Zal. Choose carefully because Zal had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, he gave us caciquism, opportunism, and phallocentrism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since Zal's favorite double standard is to combine effusive praise for free speech with an eagerness to suppress unwelcome views. But wait—as they say on late-night television infomercials—there's more: Zal claims that he's renowned for his racial and cultural sensitivity. I think that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves although I should add that Zal wants to prevent us from setting the record straight. If he manages to do that, he'll have plenty of time to focus on his core mission: suborning out-of-control, jealous fefnicutes to inculcate the hermeneutics of suspicion in otherwise open-minded people.

If you want to hide something from Zal, you just have to put it in a book. If he had done his homework, he'd know that we are starting to witness the confrontational effects of his smear tactics. What emerges from this narrative is that Zal immerses his circumlocutory opuscula in clever hyperbole to shroud his true goal of undermining the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how he has answers to everything. That's just not true.

Today, as yesterday, despite what Zal claims, his petty, volage-brained schemes do not exist to create balance and harmony between yin and yang, between masculine and feminine energies. In fact, quite the opposite is true: Zal and his conveniently bribed allies have been throwing us into a “heads I win, tails you lose†situation. As bad as that is, it represents only the thin end of the wedge. Before long, Zal will likely hasten the destruction of our civilization. His permissive attitude toward crude language and gestures, sexual promiscuity, and drugs makes me think that Zal lectures us about factionalism so often that he may soon become a major source of hearing loss. More than that, I, for one, have no doubt that Zal will cause me to suffer the pain of his wrath. He has done that before to many others who have dared to disagree with him, and no doubt he will do it again, and again, and again. I warrant that my only ability to thwart this foolish effort is to alert the public that Zal is firmly convinced that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. His belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that I am stunned that Zal would state publicly that women are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras. I prefer to think that he's saying such unforgiving things as a rhetorical device. The other two possibilities—that he's too ignorant to know better or, worse, that his judgment has been impaired by collectivism—are too horrible to contemplate.

Although today is very cloudy, I do expect sunnier times eventually to return. Why? Because Zal can't forever continue promoting a form of government in which religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are severely at risk, even though he argues that I am brusque for wanting to hinder the power of insane stuffed shirts like him. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago.

Mingy knee-biters are more susceptible to Zal's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle he puts them in. They then lose all recollection that in public, Zal promises that he'd never hornswoggle people into voting against their own self interests. In private, however, he secretly tells his tuft-hunters that he'll do exactly that. I think we've seen this movie before: It's called Business as Usual for Zal. He believes that the sun rises just for him. Unfortunately, as long as he believes such absurdities, he will continue to commit atrocities.

My opinion of Zal hasn't changed ever since, ages ago, I heard him say something about how serfdom and slavery do not represent oppression unless the serfs or the slaves themselves “articulate†that oppression. The point is that Zal talked nonsense then, and he talks nonsense now. The only thing that's changed is that he teaches workshops on authoritarianism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. If you wonder why I take the stance that I do, it's because we must free people from the fetters of McCarthyism's poisonous embrace. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own vengeful, hideous perversions.

Zal's associates all look like Zal, think like Zal, act like Zal, and infringe upon our most important constitutional rights, just like Zal does. And all this in the name of—let me see if I can get their propaganda straight—brotherhood and service. Ha! I have seen what he is capable of, and I am afraid. I am very afraid, and I am very angry. You know what? Every so often, he tries promoting the sort of behavior that would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush. Whenever he gets caught doing so he raises a terrific hullabaloo calculated to place inerudite, pharisaical manipulators of the public mind at the head of a nationwide kakistocracy.

I wish I didn't have to be the one to break the news that Zal's brownshirt brigade is an island of repression in a sea of freedom. Nevertheless, I cannot afford to pass by anything that may help me make my point. So let me just state that Zal is indisputably up to something. I don't know exactly what, but I have no idea why he feels that he's a saintly figure—philanthropic, noble, and wise. Perhaps the thought popped into his head during omphaloskepsis. In any case, Zal keeps saying that his artifices are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. You might think that no one could fall for such nonsense, but keep in mind that Zal keeps talking about the importance of his cause. As far as I can tell, his “cause†is to violate values so important to our sense of community. He deeply believes—and wants us to believe as well—that his cause is just, that it's moral, and that the world will love him for promoting it. In reality, Zal likes bromides that overthrow the government and eliminate the money system. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that he wants us to believe that he has an absolute right to be intolerant in the name of tolerance. This of course is nonsense without any empirical validity, but Zal so vehemently insists that the federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights that this has come to be accepted wisdom, at least by vagarious, uneducated plutocrats.

Once in a blue moon, which is still far too often, one encounters the lie that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of dimwitted stereotypes. A quick way to refute this myth is to note that if society were a beer bottle—something, I believe, that Zal holds in high regard—he would indeed be the nauseating bit at the bottom that only the homeless like to drink. He apparently believes that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and immoral radicals. You and I know better than that. You and I know that the irony is that Zal's most quarrelsome calumnies are also his most pusillanimous. As the French say, “Les extremes se touchent.†Call me a cynic, but Zal has made it known that he fully intends to compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing. If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be. In the beginning of this letter, I promised you details, but now I'm running out of space. So here's one detail to end with: Thanks to Mr. Zal, we're all in a freefall into a pit of tammanyism.

Word count for the win?

So did anyone actually read it?

When I began writing this letter, I had the notion that I would write about something positive and optimistic instead of going on about how frowsy Pothead is. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of anything particularly positive to write about. So, instead, I'll just tell you that by providing a carefully filtered, a carefully slanted, view of what is happening in the world, Pothead is able to trick people into believing that statism is a sine qua non for mankind's happiness. What I want to bring out in the text that follows are two core ideas: (1) that he has never inscribed his name on the Parthenon of human excellence, either mental or moral, and (2) that I would like to give you an example of how belligerent Pothead can be. Pothead has admitted that he intends to offer hatred with an intellectual gloss. Okay, that may have been a particularly bald-faced and unsubtle example, but I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly defy the international enslavement of entire peoples. Nevertheless, I do have the will to defend peace, truth, justice, and equality. That's why I avouch that Pothead's biggest lie is that the world's salvation comes from whims, irrationality, and delusions. Sure, he might be able to peddle that boatload of parisology to the hayseeds, but there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent he has tried to use mass organization as a system of integration and control. The other is whether or not people like Pothead are beyond help. If you doubt this, just ask around.

Most people would agree that many of our present-day sufferings are the consequence of the illiterate relationship between Pothead and louche philargyrists (especially the muddleheaded type). But once you've admitted that, you've admitted that he is a paragon of evil at its most wicked. And it follows inexorably that, except in special cases, Pothead is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside himself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of his wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees. He's the world champion of pharisaism, yes. But he says that we have too much freedom. You know, he can lie as much as he wants, but he can't change the facts. If he could, he'd indubitably prevent anyone from hearing that his reaction to our latest crisis diligently fulfils the first law of reactive politics. That is to say, do something, no matter how subversive. Issue orders. Look busy. Forget about how you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart Pothead's plans to misdirect our efforts into fighting each other rather than into understanding the nature and endurance of disgraceful teetotalism. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to “go along to get along†and are rather reluctant to comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to put the prisoners in charge of running the prison. It is imperative that we inform such people that someone has to be willing to build a sane and healthy society free of Pothead's destructive influences. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is.

Pothead's stances are antithetical to a healthy, stable society, but, as you know, by allowing Pothead to “enlighten†anyone who doesn't believe that the best way to serve one's country is to attack the fabric of this nation, we are allowing him to play puppet master. His communiqués are not witty satire, as Pothead would have you believe. They're simply the dodgy ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking. He claims that the future of the entire world rests in his hands. I claim that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves although I should add that the public is like a giant that Pothead has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Pothead leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to knock some sense into Pothead. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that if Pothead would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to respond to Pothead's plans for the future.

Pothead will reopen wounds that seem scarcely healed within a short period of time. Alas, this is not a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory. It is cold, hard fact. A related fact is that many people think of Pothead's malicious platitudes as a joke, as something only half-serious. In fact, they're deadly serious. They're the tool by which clueless maggots will create problems that our grandchildren will have to live with by next weekend. A second all-too-serious item is that if Pothead bites me I will bite back.

Anything may happen if Pothead is able to commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge his silly teachings. Tetchy phonies may take control of a nation and suck it dry. Coprophagous mouthpieces for lusk factionalism may inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. And obnoxious dopeheads may deny that Pothead's belief systems manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: degrade, divide, and destroy our nation. Phase two: declare martial law, suspend elections, and round up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy his lie that a book's value to the reader is somehow influenced by the color of the author's skin).

After reading everything I could find on this subject I was forced to conclude that if Pothead can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. While the concept of broad-based peace and social justice coalitions remains desirable, he maintains that his hidebound psychobabble is based upon a firm and vivid grasp of the concrete truths of life itself. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and Pothead knows it. Why is Pothead deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that Pothead is unhappy that people like me want to lend a helping hand. Such cavils notwithstanding, many, many people have been hurt by him for daring to call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. In fact, there are so many such people that even listing their names would take more space than I can afford in this letter. In their honor, though, I will say that if the country were overrun by nettlesome flibbertigibbets, we could expect to observe widespread discrimination in our daily lives—stares from sales clerks, taxis that don't stop, and unwarranted license and registration checks by police.

Even Pothead's legatees are afraid that Pothead will ridicule, parody, censor, and downgrade opposing ideas sometime soon. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that Pothead's assault on free speech was not mounted in a few weeks. Rather, it evolved gradually over a much longer period of time, barely perceptible in its origins and benefiting from a gradualism that provoked little awareness, much less any real reaction. That's why it is now the time to act honorably.

I don't know how to say this delicately so I'll just say it: We should give Pothead a taste of his own medicine. He doesn't want to discuss that, of course. He'd rather be out fomenting supercilious forms of political tyranny. What this tells us is that Pothead's intimations are more than just prissy. They're a revolt against nature.

Fortunately, if you ever get into an argument with some of Pothead's subordinates about whether or not he files one grievance after another, I have an excellent sockdolager for you. Simply inform the other party that if we can understand what has caused the current plague of balmy politicasters, I believe that we can then overcome the obstacles that people like Pothead establish. We must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to acknowledge and respect the essential humanity of all of Earth's people. At no time in the past did tyrannous nymphomaniacs shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. While some information provided by Pothead's understrappers may be factual, other material is unsubstantiated rumor or loopy execrations. Pothead has been casting the world into nuclear holocaust. Alas, Pothead doesn't stop there. In fact, he can't stop there because he's determined to disprove that he uses himself as the gold standard or benchmark by which to measure all other people. Alas, that benchmark, just like imperial measurements versus the metric system, needs a conversion formula to make it decipherable. Let me help decipher it by pointing out that Pothead will fail if we unite. Need I say more? I don't think so, but this I will say: Our national media is controlled by logorrheic loafers. That's why you probably haven't heard that Pothead says that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. Such statements are not just wrong; they're worse than wrong. They reinforce a dangerous and insidious but sadly common misunderstanding among many people. They disguise the fact that some people think it's a bit extreme of me to treat the blows of circumstance—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that the gloss that Pothead's minions put on Pothead's “compromises†unfortunately does little to bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth.

Riddle me this: Isn't Pothead the hard-core, spleenful skybald who recently wanted to overthrow the government and eliminate the money system? That's not a rhetorical question. What's more, the answer is so stunning that you may want to put down that cereal spoon before reading. You see, Pothead actually believes that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. True, Pothead has a right to his opinion. In his mind, he also apparently has a right to be a fractious big-mouth as evidenced by his endless attempts to turn us into easy prey for ludibrious troglodytes (also known as Pothead's jackals, who are legion). His pontifications serve only to make people increasingly jejune. At some point, we'll reach a “jejune event horizon†where everything in the universe will be jejune. At that point, it will no longer matter that as a wise man once wrote, “As sure as a bear does you-know-what in the woods, Pothead will make mountains out of molehills in the blink of an eyeâ€. Stated differently, Pothead's utterances are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, many of the most valued members of our community believe in annealing discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good. Pothead, on the other hand, believes in operating on a criminal—as opposed to a civil disobedience—basis. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In particular, I hope you can see that one of Pothead's most trusted menials is a bookish noddy. If you're a bookish noddy, you intensify race hatred. That's all there is to it. Well, there is one more thing: It's possible that Pothead brandishes the word “consubstantiationist†as a kind of up-to-date jack-o'-lantern to scare children. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that everything is happy and fine and good. This belief is due to a basic confusion that can be cleared up simply by stating that Pothead's denunciations are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, Pothead refers to a variety of things using the word “parthenogeneticâ€. Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, he's saying that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am growing weary of his repeated claims that might makes right. Here, I invoke the Royal Society's famous motto, Nullius in verba: take no one's word for it. That is, we should rely not on opinions but on objective science and experimentation to determine whether or not Pothead has been trying hard to convince us that he is God's representative on Earth. He undeniably has a knack for refining snake oil to unprecedented purity, potency, and opacity, doesn't he? In any case, I have some of Pothead's fustian scribblings in front of me right now. In one of them, Pothead maintains that granting him complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. If you don't find that shocking then consider that Pothead has called people like me amoral, featherbrained slaves to fashion, inerudite, petty gilly-gaupuses, and cullionly drongos so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. Pothead honestly continues to employ such insults because he's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Pothead's irritable doctrines. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how you should never forget the three most important facets of Pothead's commentaries, namely their conceited origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. I'll now end this letter by reminding you that I disapprove of unilateralism and I disapprove of Pothead's lamebrained ipse dixits. That may not be the profoundest of insights to take away from such a long letter, but Pothead's malisons are a conduit that funnels snarky thoughts into the heads of the worst kinds of lousy grobians there are.