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

Strongly-Worded Letter to Major Pierre Charles L'Enfant

17 June 2007


Major Pierre Charles L'Enfant
6 feet from the north line of Gen. Sheridan's lot
Arlington National Cemetery
Arlington, Virginia 22211

RE: Your Odious City Plan for Washington, DC

attn: Major L'Enfant:

The mere fact that I feel compelled to pen this missive incites me almost as much as your actual offense, and believe me, sir, when I tell you that my level of indignation is both uplifted and upraised. Your reckless and wasteful treatment of this, the capital of the United States of America, is the equivalent of treason. You were given the opportunity to create a grand symbol out of your city plan, and instead your gratuitous doodle has become a mar upon your record and the archetype for action without common sense.

In, it appears, an attempt to further my fury, you then entreated the legal system, of the government that your construction so effectively scorned mind you, to give you economic acclimation for your folly to the tune of 95,500 American dollars. Your actions show you to be the most vile of villains, and if you thought for a second that you would be able to suck off our state while secretly building a city so depraved in its planning that it could have easily been drawn up by a fourth-grader with a behavior disorder then you, sir, deserve no better than the poverty that was your succulent reward. Please do not consider your reputation secure in death; I simply will not stand for the hubris.

Condescendingly Yours,

/s/

Vincent Saint-Simon

Strongly-Worded Letter to The Library of Congress

8 June 2007


The Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20540


RE: The State of Your Library, More Specifically Your High Capacity for Foolishness

Dear Sir, Madam, or Guerilla:

I had the distinct displeasure of touring your library in the recent past, and I was abashed to find that you have reached a state of complete disaster. I didn't think that it could take longer for a tax paying American citizen to get a library card than for a witless and constipated Giant Panda to arduously force out a fecal mixture of Bamboo and Pineapple while being made a spectacle of, but after having the opportunity to witness both, you have proven me wrong and, for your part, your inane performance was far more dissatisfying.

That you continued to assault my person with your rigorous and well-executed twaddle and triviality, both in your heinous bureaucratic rules and your disengaged staff, only solidifies for me your reputation as a place passionately against the dissemination of knowledge or the use of common sense. Waiting for three hours for six books while your lunkheads desperately try to remember how to count past ten is not an acceptable way to run a library. Getting a meager one book (of eight requested) after three hours of waiting, only to discover that your employees had brought the wrong book, is gross incompetence on your part.

Your conduct is of the worst sort and variety; I advise you to repair it at your earliest convenience.

Disappointedly Yours,

/s/

Vincent Saint-Simon

Strongly-Worded Letter to the New Yorker

18 May 2007


The New Yorker
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036


RE: The general state of The New Yorker, and more specifically its rudeness

To Whom it May Concern, But Mostly to the Senior Staff:

I make the very broad assumption here that you actually possess the ability to read, and if I am mistaken (as I probably am) then you'll have to forgive the oversight as one of your volunteer readers recites this missive to you. Please be aware that when he or she is sounding out the words it is not due to my intention, but rather it is the result of their complete lack of expertise. We're changing paragraphs. Please keep up as best you can.

It is not of my concern that the waste of paper you accidentally refer to as a magazine has abandoned any form of literary ingenuity. It is not of my concern that your poems are of a lower caliber than those written by the most vacuous of middle-school students and teachers, nor is it my concern that you have no constancy toward merit and that your only qualifications for getting published are that the self-proclaimed author must make you feel pretty and compliment your sister's new haircut (though in no way have you earned a compliment on your looks and your sister's haircut looks almost as bad as your cardboard-and-stickers website). It is also not of my concern that the only talent you appear to possess is the miraculous ability to maraud your own (formerly) good name. Those are all things that your staff will have to deal with when they finally change out of their diapers into big kid undies. The horizon and scope to which I remain consistently and diligently disappointed in you is the cavalier attitude that you are now extending from your prose to your coverage of the news, and to a certain organization in particular. If you were worth the time it takes to edit this letter, I would put something really scathing right here.

When this certain organization holds an event, New Yorker, you will, henceforth, make it a point to be in attendance. It is clear by your wan news coverage and, I might add, novice-level essays and op/eds that you have lost the ability to make rational decisions for yourself. If you can't somehow muster the minimal amount of dedication that it takes to put your flat rumps into seats and listen to what those that are far smarter than you have to say (even if you won't understand it), then you will no longer have the privilege of choice. While you hold meetings to discuss how your staff is going to tank your magazine today and every other day that they come to work, please don't hesitate to be ashamed of yourselves. You deserve a personal scolding from every single person who lives in New York. I'll settle for the knowledge that in another two years you will be a joke.

With Due Scorn,

/s/

Vincent Saint-Simon