(no subject)
My complaint about Dr. Omubo Jack
I've got a beef with Dr. Omubo Jack. There are a number of reasons Dr. Jack isn't telling us as to why he wants to set the wolf to mind the sheep. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the principle that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that I am sick to my stomach of his pettiness and simple ignorance. Well, how about this for evidence: Just because Dr. Jack and his allies don't like being labelled as "ignorant slimeballs" or "insane drug addicts" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. In any case, there is something in the way of "natural law" that can be stated awkwardly as follows: "There's more to this letter than inflammatory rhetoric." Please do not quote me on that. Instead, work it into a better natural law and enunciate it in clearer and more concise terms. It is immaterial who is credited with the words; the objective is to maintain social tranquillity.
If Dr. Jack had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages "before technocracy" he wouldn't be so keen to recruit and encourage young people to trick us into trading freedom for serfdom, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs. Maybe he'd even begin to realize that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with him. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that we are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: Omubo Jack. Do Dr. Jack's lackeys acknowledge that history has once again proved me right? No, that would be the correct and logical thing to do. Instead, they convince others that the worst kinds of psychotic, depraved schemers I've ever seen are the "chosen people" of scriptural prophecy. It's certainly astounding that Dr. Jack has found a way to work the words "philodestructiveness" and "disadvantageousness" into his smears. However, you may find it even more astounding that I have a New Year's resolution for him: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the abysmal conclusion that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I only wish that he had the same intellectual honesty. We have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we mention a bit about benighted, slovenly roustabouts such as Dr. Jack, or is it sufficient to place blame where it belongs -- in the hands of Dr. Jack and his brassbound toadies? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: To what depths of depravity does Dr. Jack need to descend before the rest of us realize we must shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within his pea-sized brain? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but he operates on an international scale to shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to halt the adulation heaped upon worthless dunces (especially the inhumane type).
Let me relate to you the most incontrovertibly true statement I've ever heard: "By now, we are all more than familiar with Dr. Jack's snotty flimflams." Whoever said that clearly understood that Dr. Jack teaches workshops on statism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. He has a problem not only with civil rights but also with the legal responsibility and accountability as to what is considered appropriate behavior. Hard to believe? Then consider the following statement from one of his gruesome backers: "Dr. Jack answers to no one." Pretty querulous, huh? Well, Dr. Jack possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, he can't even spell or define "erudition", much less achieve it.
It's precisely because the pragmatist position is that the time has come to operate on today's real -- not tomorrow's ideal -- political terrain that Dr. Jack has been deluding people into believing that violence and prejudice are funny. Don't let him delude you, too. Stereotyping and victim-blaming is not more respectable when it is performed by a member of the group being demeaned. In fact, I have said that to Dr. Jack on many occasions and I will keep on saying it until he stops trying to make my worst nightmares come true. I frequently talk about how he surely needs a healthy dose of conflict-resolution and peer-mediation training. I would drop the subject, except that he seems to assume that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Dr. Jack himself). This is an assumption of the worst kind because Dr. Jack shouldn't make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. That's just plain common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his objectives are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity.
Dr. Jack once tried convincing me that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that Dr. Jack keeps telling everyone within earshot that the rules don't apply to him. I'm guessing that Dr. Jack read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he has warned us that by the next full moon, what I call cruel lugs will propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright Fabianism. If you think about it, you'll realize that his warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that he is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Dr. Jack is autism. Why? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to begin a course of careful, planned, and coordinated action. Dr. Jack claims that he can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that he considers intolerant or cocky. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. The moral of the story: Dr. Omubo Jack's bitter, loathsome scribblings benefit from this sense of "us versus them".
(text directly cut and pasted into this update)
(Text is for the sole purpose of fun)
I've got a beef with Dr. Omubo Jack. There are a number of reasons Dr. Jack isn't telling us as to why he wants to set the wolf to mind the sheep. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the principle that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that I am sick to my stomach of his pettiness and simple ignorance. Well, how about this for evidence: Just because Dr. Jack and his allies don't like being labelled as "ignorant slimeballs" or "insane drug addicts" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. In any case, there is something in the way of "natural law" that can be stated awkwardly as follows: "There's more to this letter than inflammatory rhetoric." Please do not quote me on that. Instead, work it into a better natural law and enunciate it in clearer and more concise terms. It is immaterial who is credited with the words; the objective is to maintain social tranquillity.
If Dr. Jack had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages "before technocracy" he wouldn't be so keen to recruit and encourage young people to trick us into trading freedom for serfdom, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs. Maybe he'd even begin to realize that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with him. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that we are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: Omubo Jack. Do Dr. Jack's lackeys acknowledge that history has once again proved me right? No, that would be the correct and logical thing to do. Instead, they convince others that the worst kinds of psychotic, depraved schemers I've ever seen are the "chosen people" of scriptural prophecy. It's certainly astounding that Dr. Jack has found a way to work the words "philodestructiveness" and "disadvantageousness" into his smears. However, you may find it even more astounding that I have a New Year's resolution for him: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the abysmal conclusion that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I only wish that he had the same intellectual honesty. We have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we mention a bit about benighted, slovenly roustabouts such as Dr. Jack, or is it sufficient to place blame where it belongs -- in the hands of Dr. Jack and his brassbound toadies? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: To what depths of depravity does Dr. Jack need to descend before the rest of us realize we must shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within his pea-sized brain? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but he operates on an international scale to shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to halt the adulation heaped upon worthless dunces (especially the inhumane type).
Let me relate to you the most incontrovertibly true statement I've ever heard: "By now, we are all more than familiar with Dr. Jack's snotty flimflams." Whoever said that clearly understood that Dr. Jack teaches workshops on statism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. He has a problem not only with civil rights but also with the legal responsibility and accountability as to what is considered appropriate behavior. Hard to believe? Then consider the following statement from one of his gruesome backers: "Dr. Jack answers to no one." Pretty querulous, huh? Well, Dr. Jack possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, he can't even spell or define "erudition", much less achieve it.
It's precisely because the pragmatist position is that the time has come to operate on today's real -- not tomorrow's ideal -- political terrain that Dr. Jack has been deluding people into believing that violence and prejudice are funny. Don't let him delude you, too. Stereotyping and victim-blaming is not more respectable when it is performed by a member of the group being demeaned. In fact, I have said that to Dr. Jack on many occasions and I will keep on saying it until he stops trying to make my worst nightmares come true. I frequently talk about how he surely needs a healthy dose of conflict-resolution and peer-mediation training. I would drop the subject, except that he seems to assume that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Dr. Jack himself). This is an assumption of the worst kind because Dr. Jack shouldn't make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. That's just plain common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his objectives are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity.
Dr. Jack once tried convincing me that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that Dr. Jack keeps telling everyone within earshot that the rules don't apply to him. I'm guessing that Dr. Jack read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he has warned us that by the next full moon, what I call cruel lugs will propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright Fabianism. If you think about it, you'll realize that his warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that he is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Dr. Jack is autism. Why? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to begin a course of careful, planned, and coordinated action. Dr. Jack claims that he can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that he considers intolerant or cocky. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. The moral of the story: Dr. Omubo Jack's bitter, loathsome scribblings benefit from this sense of "us versus them".
(text directly cut and pasted into this update)
(Text is for the sole purpose of fun)