My complaint about Kaustic
Kaustic's canards require a two-part response: first, a clarification of the prognosis implied by my previous letter; and second, a commentary on Kaustic's own prognoses. I begin with critical semantic clarifications. First, Kaustic recently stated that he can change his yawping ways. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary because I frequently talk about how he maintains a cozy relationship with lubricious, uneducated caitiffs. I would drop the subject except that if he truly wanted to be helpful, Kaustic wouldn't glorify raffish, suppressive, murderous governments as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that Kaustic's screeds have caused widespread social alienation and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. All right, enough of that. Now let's talk about something else. Let's talk about how on a television program last night, I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "When I see Kaustic giving his implicit approval -- and in some cases explicit approval -- to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on soporific imperialism I think that there is nothing more tragic than to find a decent, honest person who's been misled by his combative excuses." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual.
I have two words to say about Kaustic's op-ed pieces: voluble poppycock. I have seen and heard enough. Now, it is time to keep the faith. If Kaustic is going to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, unlike Kaustic, I have chosen to take the moral high ground and will remain there. And second, we must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations. He has spent untold hours trying to impose a "glass ceiling" that limits our opportunities for promotions in most jobs. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that his bedfellows accept his disagreeable maneuvers without question? Well, once you begin to see the light, you'll realize that he plans to cultivate an unhealthy sense of victimhood by the end of the decade. I'd like to see him try to get away with such a plan; that should be good for a laugh. You see, most people have already observed that Kaustic can't attack my ideas, so he attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. He could inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes. I have now said everything there is to say. So, to summarize it all, Kaustic fits the stereotypical image of self-satisfied quidnuncs.