31 July 2007
Mr. Joel L.
c/o Candice S.
3**0 Mar***ta Dr.
Fl*****ant, MO 63**3
RE: The abhorrent state of Joel L.'s attempts at civil correspondence, and my disparaging comments thereupon.
Ms. Candice S.:
I write this to you since my mind revolts at the waste of time writing a strongly-worded letter to one Joel L. would be. In both his inadequate ability to understand the relationship between subjects and predicates, and his negligence of social sophistication, Mr. L. has proven himself on the same level as a brainless badger or unexceptional slab of tan-colored carpet. Penning a letter straight to him would be the same as asking a completely dotterel geoduck to dictate a memo or fix a crisp chicken salad sandwich. Instead, I am forced to ask you to please have the necessary consideration to read this letter to him when it comes to the attention of your person.
Mr. Joel L.: Your primitive motivations for even drawing my attention to your tedious person are so far below the capacities of my rational intellect that I absolutely refuse to consider them or you. Moreover, the unaccomplished barbs which you ceaselessly and aimlessly hurl in your attempt to goad me into a discussion with you will fall, as always, to join with the buffoonery of the other churls so easily dismissed. When, Mr. L., you blunder out of the coarse rationale you share with the other isopods into realm of passable politeness please feel free to reward yourself by finally breaching into my schedule for a worthwhile conversation. Until then, please filter all of your remarks through Ms. Candice S. so that they will have, at least, the merit of her thoughtful hand on their despicable contents.
Contemptuously Yours,
/s/
Vincent Saint-Simon
July 31, 2007
July 29, 2007
Strongly-Worded Letter to The Evergreen State College
29 July 2007
The Evergreen State College
2700 Evergreen Parkway NW
Olympia, Washington 98505
RE: A Failure on Your Part to Accommodate One Ms. L to the Best of Your Ability
Dear Unfortunate and Powerless Secretary, Intern, or Student Worker:
It has come to my attention that over the course of the past year you have committed a folly so great that your very reputation as an institution of value must at once be forsaken. Refusing, furthermore, to give satisfaction for your aggregate blindness puts you in the same class and grade as the most rude and contemptible Universities of Lower Learning. The next paragraph will be completely to my purpose of berating your name and station.
I cannot justify spending much time in stooping to communications with an academy so roundly foul, so I am compelled to keep this brief. Nothing in the world will account for Ms. L's benevolent condescension to allow your clearly debased pile of bricks and farce to house her for a term of four years in return for your comical and easily dismissed Bachelor's degree. Your abominable disinclination to fully compensate her for her altruistic interest in the hollow fraud you criminally refer to as a school is both hopelessly uncivil and the subject of this missive. Your failure to adhere to basic politeness is a telling indication of your rancorous inability to appreciate talent when it falls into your beastly lap, a revolting lunacy in your scholarship selections, and a thorough witlessness in your general personnel.
You are a chuff in sheep's clothing, Evergreen, and a mortification to your peers. I really thought you were of a higher station.
Yours in Derision,
/s/
Vincent Saint-Simon
The Evergreen State College
2700 Evergreen Parkway NW
Olympia, Washington 98505
RE: A Failure on Your Part to Accommodate One Ms. L to the Best of Your Ability
Dear Unfortunate and Powerless Secretary, Intern, or Student Worker:
It has come to my attention that over the course of the past year you have committed a folly so great that your very reputation as an institution of value must at once be forsaken. Refusing, furthermore, to give satisfaction for your aggregate blindness puts you in the same class and grade as the most rude and contemptible Universities of Lower Learning. The next paragraph will be completely to my purpose of berating your name and station.
I cannot justify spending much time in stooping to communications with an academy so roundly foul, so I am compelled to keep this brief. Nothing in the world will account for Ms. L's benevolent condescension to allow your clearly debased pile of bricks and farce to house her for a term of four years in return for your comical and easily dismissed Bachelor's degree. Your abominable disinclination to fully compensate her for her altruistic interest in the hollow fraud you criminally refer to as a school is both hopelessly uncivil and the subject of this missive. Your failure to adhere to basic politeness is a telling indication of your rancorous inability to appreciate talent when it falls into your beastly lap, a revolting lunacy in your scholarship selections, and a thorough witlessness in your general personnel.
You are a chuff in sheep's clothing, Evergreen, and a mortification to your peers. I really thought you were of a higher station.
Yours in Derision,
/s/
Vincent Saint-Simon
July 9, 2007
Strongly-Worded Letter to the Embassy of Peru, Attn: Pablo Rojas (The Prominent Peruvian Human Rights Activist)
4 July 2007,
Embassy of Peru
1700 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington D.C. 20036
USA
Attn: Pablo Rojas (the prominent Peruvian human rights activist)
What I have to say is simple and there is nothing I would like to do more than to get straight to the point but before doing so I feel it necessary to briefly touch upon the reported events in your country of June of this year.
It was reported that during a generally very well received visit to Peru, Cameron Diaz (and I’ll give it to you, here and now, that she is one of the most dismissible Hollywood actresses the United States must hesitatingly call its own) was seen and photographed wearing a green handbag with a red star and the Maoist political slogan (one of Mao’s favorite) “Serve the People” (printed in Chinese). Diaz’s worthlessness is of course not the subject of this missive. The report, put out by the AP via Yahoo(!?), went on to say:
A prominent Peruvian human rights activist said the star of There's Something About Mary should have been a little more aware of local sensitivities when picking her accessories. "It alludes to a concept that did so much damage to Peru, that brought about so many victims," said Pablo Rojas about the bag's slogan. "I don't think she should have used that bag where the followers of that ideology" did so much damage.
Indeed, your country, at the hands of the Maoist Guerilla Sendero Luminoso, and his Shining Path insurgency, was brought to the edge of chaos in the 1980s and early 1990s with a campaign of massacres, assassinations, and bombings that took the lives of nearly 70,000 people, and you are right, as a “prominent human rights activist” to point out to the politico-historical negligence of Americans in general and Diaz specifically (she is quite the twit isn’t she?).
What I don’t understand, and perhaps, Mr. Rojas, you can help me, is how you can appear so surprised? And, if you were indeed surprised by Diaz’s actions, I find this very troubling given your country’s current politico-economic path. It is unfortunately true that half of Peru’s population lives in poverty and as a “prominent human rights activist” I’m sure you're actively pursuing all the things that will make it possible for your county’s people to live more like Americans, that is to say, with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (happiness). Indeed your country’s constitutional republic has already taken many steps in the long and hard process toward liberalization which has already put an end to price controls, discarded protectionism, eliminated restrictions on foreign direct investment and privatized most state companies. Such reforms have given your country sustained economic growth since 1993. These things I’m sure, as “prominent human rights activist,” you’re well aware of. But, what seems to have gotten past you is that in a society that's on it’s way to being governed not by Mao’s definition of the ‘people,’ nor your constitutional republic’s definition of the ‘people,’ but by the interests of the few people who turn the switches and knobs to the global free market economy, there is no meaning to the market of symbolic exchange, “why does a stupid American actress wear the new Maoist-red-star-handbag?” “Because it’s cool, that’s why.” There is no room for petty cultural/historical scars; there’s no crying in capitalism (unless of course you can find a way to fetch a price for your tears [try eBay]). Indeed those people who want to join in the fun of a, or rather, the capitalist market—fantasizing about frolicking between the rows and rows of surplus commodities that appear to speak to each man (or woman) made consumer and to each other on the shelves—must check their memory-cards at the door in exchange for their object of desire, their very own property, that is to say, happiness.
Forgetting already why I wrote to you,
/s/
Curt Bozif
Embassy of Peru
1700 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington D.C. 20036
USA
Attn: Pablo Rojas (the prominent Peruvian human rights activist)
What I have to say is simple and there is nothing I would like to do more than to get straight to the point but before doing so I feel it necessary to briefly touch upon the reported events in your country of June of this year.
It was reported that during a generally very well received visit to Peru, Cameron Diaz (and I’ll give it to you, here and now, that she is one of the most dismissible Hollywood actresses the United States must hesitatingly call its own) was seen and photographed wearing a green handbag with a red star and the Maoist political slogan (one of Mao’s favorite) “Serve the People” (printed in Chinese). Diaz’s worthlessness is of course not the subject of this missive. The report, put out by the AP via Yahoo(!?), went on to say:
A prominent Peruvian human rights activist said the star of There's Something About Mary should have been a little more aware of local sensitivities when picking her accessories. "It alludes to a concept that did so much damage to Peru, that brought about so many victims," said Pablo Rojas about the bag's slogan. "I don't think she should have used that bag where the followers of that ideology" did so much damage.
Indeed, your country, at the hands of the Maoist Guerilla Sendero Luminoso, and his Shining Path insurgency, was brought to the edge of chaos in the 1980s and early 1990s with a campaign of massacres, assassinations, and bombings that took the lives of nearly 70,000 people, and you are right, as a “prominent human rights activist” to point out to the politico-historical negligence of Americans in general and Diaz specifically (she is quite the twit isn’t she?).
What I don’t understand, and perhaps, Mr. Rojas, you can help me, is how you can appear so surprised? And, if you were indeed surprised by Diaz’s actions, I find this very troubling given your country’s current politico-economic path. It is unfortunately true that half of Peru’s population lives in poverty and as a “prominent human rights activist” I’m sure you're actively pursuing all the things that will make it possible for your county’s people to live more like Americans, that is to say, with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (happiness). Indeed your country’s constitutional republic has already taken many steps in the long and hard process toward liberalization which has already put an end to price controls, discarded protectionism, eliminated restrictions on foreign direct investment and privatized most state companies. Such reforms have given your country sustained economic growth since 1993. These things I’m sure, as “prominent human rights activist,” you’re well aware of. But, what seems to have gotten past you is that in a society that's on it’s way to being governed not by Mao’s definition of the ‘people,’ nor your constitutional republic’s definition of the ‘people,’ but by the interests of the few people who turn the switches and knobs to the global free market economy, there is no meaning to the market of symbolic exchange, “why does a stupid American actress wear the new Maoist-red-star-handbag?” “Because it’s cool, that’s why.” There is no room for petty cultural/historical scars; there’s no crying in capitalism (unless of course you can find a way to fetch a price for your tears [try eBay]). Indeed those people who want to join in the fun of a, or rather, the capitalist market—fantasizing about frolicking between the rows and rows of surplus commodities that appear to speak to each man (or woman) made consumer and to each other on the shelves—must check their memory-cards at the door in exchange for their object of desire, their very own property, that is to say, happiness.
Forgetting already why I wrote to you,
/s/
Curt Bozif
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)