I have a burning desire to vent my spleen on The Hon. Whonose Q. Lazamataz, Esq.. Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. Lazamataz gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, he ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that until recently, Lazamataz’s inclinations have gone unnoticed and unanalyzed. Every time I strike that note, which I guess I do a lot, I hear from people calling me mudslinging or uncontrollable. Here’s my answer: I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, all of the claims I’ve read regarding the benefits of Lazamataz’s practices have been absolutely premature. That is, they always seem to be based on an inadequate exploration of these practices, their history, and their possible meanings. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, believe it is therefore high time we throw off Lazamataz’s yoke of metagrobolism. Let me start the ball rolling with the observation that Lazamataz maintains not only that his screeds are not worth getting outraged about but also that the more paperasserie and bureaucracy we have to endure, the better. He’s wrong on all counts. In reality, Lazamataz just wants to avoid detection and punishment. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical over which Lazamataz has any control. But that’s inconsequential because I, for one, was completely gobsmacked the first time I saw Lazamataz making us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. Since then, I’ve seen him do that so many times that I hardly bat an eyelid when someone tells me that Lazamataz wants us to believe that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. I’m hopeful that most people will see right through that lie like it were a gooey glob of ectoplasm. At a minimum, I hope that people realize that Lazamataz generally tries to keep his distance from the obtrusive meretricious-types who focus too much on one side of the equation and not enough on the broader perspective of things. However, he sees nothing wrong with stamping out the last vestiges of academic freedom, scholarly autonomy, and freedom of research and teaching in our nation’s universities. Ah the sweet, sweet smell of hypocrisy.
While these incidents may seem minor, back when our policemen were guardians, not enforcers, they would have protected us from Lazamataz’s phalanx of recalcitrant moochers. Today, it seems that most officers of the law are content to sit back and let Lazamataz unleash carnage and barbarity. That’s why we must straighten out his thinking. To believe that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day is to deceive ourselves.
Lazamataz likes to argue that big emotions come from big words. Admitting the apparent correctness of this sick-minded argument, we may prove the contradictory of its conclusion by an unassailable argument of our own, which is called an elenchus. My elenchus begins with the observation that I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, “Lazamataz always gives noncommittal answers to questions.” I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way but rather because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I’m not the only one who thinks that I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Lazamataz’s Ponzi schemes. Videlicet, they inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. And that’s saying nothing about how he denies ever having tried to make individuals indifferent to the survival of their families. I assume he’s merely trying to cover his posterior, as the truth is that I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Lazamataz that my position is that he serves as a conduit that carries the élan vital of larrikinism. Lazamataz, in contrast, argues that brain-damaged, grungy desperados have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Lazamataz. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for him to admit that it is the difficult decisions, the ones that have consequences, challenge orthodoxies, bear risk, and threaten status that take real courage. It takes real courage, for instance, to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. That said, it is also the case that he feels that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. How can he be so blind? Very easily. Basically, it is not difficult to see the undercurrents of exclusivism in Lazamataz’s blandishments. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that our freedoms should survive on the crumbs that fall from the banquet table of egotism, then there is doubtlessly no hope for you. Finally, it is not at all unlikely that in this letter I have said some things to which many of my readers may take exception. It has not been any part of my purpose either to please or to displease anybody but simply to tell the truth and to say, so far as I have given expression to my views, precisely what I think. And what I think is this: The Hon. Whonose Q. Lazamataz, Esq., having recently learned a smattering of scientific terminology, uses it to fund, assemble, and train insecure urban guerrillas to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of the worst types of sneaky harebrained-types there are.