Jan

5

Thinking On Your Feet

Written by

A sneaker blog has posted a preview of a new Columbia-themed shoe, one of an upcoming series from New Balance featuring Ivy League schools. The site show pictures of the earth-toned (Brown’s are brown, Princeton‘s are beige) sneaker, which has an “interpretation of the school crest on the tongue in two tones of blue (though not Columbia blue).” The footwear appears to be sturdier than a running shoe, embellished with elements reminiscent of a hiking boot; perhaps the shoe is meant to be one of those ‘fashion statements.’ It’s … perplexing.

Tags: , , , , ,

85 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    Bwog doesn't take breaks.

  2. Goose

    This is the ugliest shoe I've ever seen.

  3. What  

    is with all the Ivy League shit being sold in regular stores? There are Harvard and Yale shirts at Forever XXI now. It's weird.

  4. Missing Feature on Columbia Shoes

    Steel toes to crush the souls of students under their feet.

  5. Anonymous

    who exactly is this shoe intended for?

  6. Eww  

    would NEVAR buy dose. uuuughly.

  7. Dang

    The design team for this must of went through hell to come up with this model.

  8. Regina

    That is the ugliest effing shoe I have ever seen.

  9. good call bwog

    on the "most fug shoes" tag

  10. Anonymous

    it's a good shoe except for that huge black front part. I'm not in ballet and I'm not stepping on the very tippy top of my toes. That's doesn't need to be there

  11. Emma Watson

    Wow, the Brown sneaker is so much nicer-looking than you and Princeton's ugly nonsense. So glad I'm here in bumblefuck rhode island!

  12. Anonymous

    Columbia students are the ideal target audience for this product: We have lots of school spirit, regularly wear sneakers to class, and, as a group of middle-aged white people, identify with the New Balance brand.

    Great Job!

  13. hipster

    i might wear them to be ironic

  14. CC'12

    OMG SO EXCITED
    PREORDERING NOW

  15. ummm

    dear new balance,
    columbia students shouldnt be seen dead in those "shoes". we are IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK! i most certainly do not plan on defiling the only fashion capital in the united states.

  16. hahah

    you know who would wear this ? have you seen the guy who is always in butler with the blue and light blue boat shoes? he'd love these shoes. even more ridiculous than the ones he wears now

  17. boh  

    we are so stuck up

  18. zomg

    perfect for orgo night. its tonight right?

  19. ryan

    jesus we're all such fucking weirdos

  20. Anonymous

    This comment thread is proof that Columbia students have no idea what to do with themselves without coursework to worry about.

  21. more bullshit posts from eliza...

    Although Eliza Shapiro wants nothing less than to make us less united, less moral, less sensitive, less engaged, and more perversely irascible, I want this letter to speak a language of reconciliation, not retaliation. First off, the nicest thing that can be said about her Bwog editor cronies is that they are froward, namby-pamby killjoys out to defy the rules of logic. I will now cite the proof of that statement. The proof begins with the observation that when one examines the ramifications of letting Eliza promote her censoring hysteria, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that few people realize that her winged monkeys remain a small isolated minority except during times of economic or social stress, when a mass following develops to blame what I call hotheaded fruitcakes for the problems besetting society. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does she avouch that violence and prejudice are funny? I once asked Eliza that question—I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that Eliza's hysteria-producing litanies are sufficient to give pause to the less thoughtful among us. "Oh, oh," such people think. "We'd better help Eliza create a dodgy world of guilt and shame—just in case."

    Although I can't say how well I'd do against Eliza in a nationally televised steel-cage death match, I can say that she expects us to behave like passive sheep. The only choice Eliza believes we should be allowed to make for ourselves is whether to head towards her slaughterhouse at a trot or at a gallop. She honestly doesn't want us choosing to highlight all of the problems with her inattentive wheelings and dealings. I frequently wish to tell her that her toadies coerce children into becoming activists willing to serve, promote, spy, and fight for her remonstrations. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. As a parting thought, let these sterling words of wisdom be most thoroughly and attentively perused: It's considerations of this sort that make it worth our while to learn about the effete things Eliza Shapiro is up to.

    • Anonymous

      did you just buy a thesaurus?

      • ...hmmm

        I thought it was clarified the last time that a hilariously insane screed of this nature was posted that the origin is a website that produces randomly generated complaints.

        • hardly

          I am appalled that you would label my most laboriously well thought-out comments as a mere generation. You and I both stake our lively hoods on the prospects of living in a fitter, happier world, a world free of Elizas, a world free of insidious claims of generation, yet you choose to soil our destiny. Lay down your arms. Let the truth be heard.

    • Anonymous

      is something seriously wrong with you? if you don't like the publication, then don't read it. you're taking this way too seriously.

      take a deep breath.

    • arparp

      What's it like getting a C- in UW?

    • allow me to correct your misgivings

      Let's be clear here: this has nothing to do with my world-renowned prose, the A+ I received in University Writing, nor any personal vendetta against Eliza or Bwog. Rather, I feel it is my duty to bring your attention to this girl's atrocities. In a previous letter, I stated that Eliza doesn't let a day pass without showing to the world that she is as little fitted to be trusted with liberty as thieves with keys or children with firearms. That will be my position in this letter, as well. To start, there are some quasi-clumsy aberrant-types who are brutish. There are also some who are treacherous. Which category does Eliza fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".

      Now, why all this fuss about a few petty false-flag operations? Simply put, it's because Eliza is a serial exaggerator. If I were to be less kind, I'd say she's a liar. Either way, Eliza is more at home with lies than with the truth. For that reason, this is one comment that she doesn't want you to read. I'll probably devote a separate comment to that topic alone, but for now I'll simply summarize by stating that Eliza does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when she says that one can understand the elements of a journalism and academia only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the students involved, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.

      What I just said is a very important point but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss it so I'll say a few more words on the subject. Eliza somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that she is the way, the truth, and the light. I, not being one of the many unambitious propagandists of this world, am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine students of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened institution. There's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will truly persist as long as Eliza continues to condemn innocent people to death. She intends to create a new social class. Cankered wisenheimers, unstable yobbos, and raffish, raucous popinjays will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their worshippers. I'd like to end this comment with a message for Eliza Shapiro. I'd like to say with emphasis and distinctness—not as a threat, but as a warning—that I will do whatever it takes to halt the destructive process that is carrying our school toward extinction, and I won't let her stop me from achieving that goal.

    • Anonymous  

      Actually, THIS comment is proof that Columbia students have no idea what to do with themselves without coursework to worry about.

  22. ...

    ahh yes. the columbia sneaker. the only sneaker where you never have to worry about stepping in shit, cos it comes with shit smeared all over it, discretely on the inside.

  23. these are perfect

    for barnard girls...no one will ever question whether they actually go to Columbia if they choose to wear this monstrosity

  24. is anyone else

    still waiting on a grade?! i'm getting pretty frustrated

  25. Anonymous

    Did they deliberately make Columbia's the ugliest of the bunch?

  26. a complaint about bwog

    I would like to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward clericalism. Before I say anything else, I'd like to state the following disclaimer for Bwog's benefit: Warning! This letter may contain sarcasm. Okay, now that that's taken care of, let me posit the hypothesis that if we submit to Bwog's definition of "unexceptionableness" and become audacious, we have lost the war for self-preservation. That's probably obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse. Nevertheless, I suspect that few people reading this letter are aware that Bwog has arrived at the highest degree of imposture. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that its behavior might be different if it were told that it is unable to deal with a world populated by human beings. Of course, as far as Bwog is concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for its subterfuge. I'm totally stunned.

    Sadly, in once sense, Bwog is correct. If we let it foment bumptious forms of political tyranny, then I will really be forced to choke to death. Technically, Bwog's simplistic reasoning follows the same fallacies as so many other treatises on similar issues. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to wake people out of their stupor and call on them to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. I say that because it is interpersonally exploitative. That is, it takes advantage of others to achieve its own pudibund ends. Why does it do that? After days of agonized pondering and reflection I finally came to the conclusion that by forcing me to turn pale and run for cover, Bwog is telegraphing its intentions to hold annual private conferences in which unenlightened, smarmy gutter-dwellers are invited to present their "research".

    At the very least, Bwog's comments are often appallingly craven, sometimes illaudable, frequently off-point, and occasionally acrimonious. Nevertheless, they do tell us something important about Bwog. They tell us that Bwog intends to create anomie. I have never been in favor of being gratuitously disgusting. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to complain about nugatory adolescents. Bwog pompously claims that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.

    There is definitely a longiloquent dimension to Bwog's propositions. Or, if "longiloquent" is too narrow of a term, perhaps you'd prefer "worthless". In any case, I've tried explaining to Bwog's encomiasts that a great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about Bwog's imprecations. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that I support those who devote their life to education and activism. It is through their tireless efforts that people everywhere are learning that Bwog has repeatedly indicated a desire to use both overt and covert deceptions to lay waste to the environment. Is that the sound of rarefied respectability that Bwog's worshippers so frequently attribute to Bwog? The fastidious blathering of an uncontrollable spoiled brat is more like it. In fact, what we have been imparting to Bwog—or what it has been eliciting from us—is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge.

    Bwog claims that black is white and night is day. I avouch that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves although I should add that Bwog is extraordinarily brazen. We've all known that for a long time. However, its willingness to abrogate some of our most fundamental freedoms sets a new world record for brazenness. There can be no doubt that Bwog is the type of organization that will trump up any lie for the occasion, and the more of a thumper it is, the better it likes it. This may be water under the bridge by now, but I want to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Bwog's ruses. That may seem simple enough, but Bwog coins polysyllabic neologisms to make its hijinks sound like they're actually important. In fact, its treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.

    Someone has been giving Bwog's brain a very thorough washing, and now Bwog is trying to do the same to us. I am on an important mission to advance freedom in countries strangled by tyranny. If I don't accomplish that mission, Bwog's plans to inaugurate an era of horny revanchism could well succeed. I could accept, perhaps, quips backed by the forces of logic and powerful reasoning. Op-ed pieces marked with hypocrisy and contradiction, however, merit none of my respect. We should exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.)

    Bwog counts chauvinistic, imprudent hopeless-types as its friends. Unfortunately for it, these are hired friends, false friends, friends incapable of realizing for a moment that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that I stand by what I've written before, that if Bwog is going to scorn and abjure reason, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, I myself could decidedly do without its throat-cutting rampages. And second, its precepts are merely a stalking horse. They mask Bwog's secret intention to cause neo-brutish subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. I guess that my take on this is that if I thought that Bwog's nostrums had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that I have no idea why Bwog makes such a big fuss over militarism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that Bwog indeed believes that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is it living in? Here's the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: Its attendants claim to have no choice but to pamper the most stubborn ignoramuses you'll ever see. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, scurrilous inane-types. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn't make and don't understand.

    There is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of Bwog's essays from the first word to the last. This brings me to my point. Bwog has been deluding people into believing that its mingy crime syndicate is a respected civil-rights organization. Don't let it delude you, too.It's not that I have anything against buggers in general. It's just that Bwog says that its way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life.

    I would be grateful if Bwog would take a little time from its rigorous schedule to develop a rational-empirical base for dialogue about its protests. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. What Bwog apparently fails to realize is that it insists that it has no choice but to twist my words six ways for Sunday. Its reasoning is that power, politics, and privilege should prevail over the rule of law. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but Bwog drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes it sound smarter than it really is and obscures the fact that Bwog shouldn't throw us into a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. That's just plain common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate its adages are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity.

    If we look beyond Bwog's delusions of grandeur, we see that it fervently believes that larrikinism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. This shows that it is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that there isn't so much as a molecule of evidence that "the truth", "the whole truth", and "nothing but the truth" are three different things. The only reason that Bwog claims otherwise is that I can say one thing about it. It understands better than any of us that psychological impact is paramount—not facts, not anybody's principles, not right and wrong. I'm not suggesting that we behave likewise. I'm suggesting only that there's a time to keep silent and a time to speak. There's a time to love and a time to hate. There's a time for war and a time for peace. And, I aver, there's a time to get people to see through the hollowness, the sham, the silliness of Bwog's lazy invectives. Or, to put it less poetically, Bwog's view is that it can walk on water. If Bwog's oppressive buddies had any moral or intellectual training, such a position would unequivocally be rendered revolting to their better feelings. Now that this letter has come to an end, let me remind you that it was intended to provide an accurate, even-handed, and balanced discussion of Bwog and its prank phone calls. Please do not contact me with insults, death threats, or the like because I will ignore them. If you disagree with my arguments or can provide further information about Bwog, please contact me and I will endeavor to make any necessary corrections to this letter.

    • EPIC ESSAY

      If we look beyond Bwog’s delusions of grandeur, we see that it fervently believes that larrikinism is a viable and vital objective for our nation’s educational institutions. This shows that it is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that there isn’t so much as a molecule of evidence that “the truth”, “the whole truth”, and “nothing but the truth” are three different things. The only reason that Bwog claims otherwise is that I can say one thing about it. It understands better than any of us that psychological impact is paramount—not facts, not anybody’s principles, not right and wrong. I’m not suggesting that we behave likewise. I’m suggesting only that there’s a time to keep silent and a time to speak. There’s a time to love and a time to hate. There’s a time for war and a time for peace. And, I aver, there’s a time to get people to see through the hollowness, the sham, the silliness of Bwog’s lazy invectives. Or, to put it less poetically, Bwog’s view is that it can walk on water. If Bwog’s oppressive buddies had any moral or intellectual training, such a position would unequivocally be rendered revolting to their better feelings. Now that this letter has come to an end, let me remind you that it was intended to provide an accurate, even-handed, and balanced discussion of Bwog and its prank phone calls. Please do not contact me with insults, death threats, or the like because I will ignore them. If you disagree with my arguments or can provide further information about Bwog, please contact me and I will endeavor to make any necessary corrections to this letter.
      I would be grateful if Bwog would take a little time from its rigorous schedule to develop a rational-empirical base for dialogue about its protests. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. What Bwog apparently fails to realize is that it insists that it has no choice but to twist my words six ways for Sunday. Its reasoning is that power, politics, and privilege should prevail over the rule of law. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but Bwog drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes it sound smarter than it really is and obscures the fact that Bwog shouldn’t throw us into a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation. That’s just plain common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate its adages are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity.
      There is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of Bwog’s essays from the first word to the last. This brings me to my point. Bwog has been deluding people into believing that its mingy crime syndicate is a respected civil-rights organization. Don’t let it delude you, too.It’s not that I have anything against buggers in general. It’s just that Bwog says that its way of life is correct and everyone else’s isn’t. You know, I don’t think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life.
      Bwog counts chauvinistic, imprudent hopeless-types as its friends. Unfortunately for it, these are hired friends, false friends, friends incapable of realizing for a moment that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that I stand by what I’ve written before, that if Bwog is going to scorn and abjure reason, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, I myself could decidedly do without its throat-cutting rampages. And second, its precepts are merely a stalking horse. They mask Bwog’s secret intention to cause neo-brutish subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. I guess that my take on this is that if I thought that Bwog’s nostrums had even a snowball’s chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn’t be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that I have no idea why Bwog makes such a big fuss over militarism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that Bwog indeed believes that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is it living in? Here’s the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: Its attendants claim to have no choice but to pamper the most stubborn ignoramuses you’ll ever see. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, scurrilous inane-types. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn’t make and don’t understand.
      I would like to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward clericalism. Before I say anything else, I’d like to state the following disclaimer for Bwog’s benefit: Warning! This letter may contain sarcasm. Okay, now that that’s taken care of, let me posit the hypothesis that if we submit to Bwog’s definition of “unexceptionableness” and become audacious, we have lost the war for self-preservation. That’s probably obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse. Nevertheless, I suspect that few people reading this letter are aware that Bwog has arrived at the highest degree of imposture. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that its behavior might be different if it were told that it is unable to deal with a world populated by human beings. Of course, as far as Bwog is concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.” That’s why I’m telling you that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for its subterfuge. I’m totally stunned.

      Sadly, in once sense, Bwog is correct. If we let it foment bumptious forms of political tyranny, then I will really be forced to choke to death. Technically, Bwog’s simplistic reasoning follows the same fallacies as so many other treatises on similar issues. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to wake people out of their stupor and call on them to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. I say that because it is interpersonally exploitative. That is, it takes advantage of others to achieve its own pudibund ends. Why does it do that? After days of agonized pondering and reflection I finally came to the conclusion that by forcing me to turn pale and run for cover, Bwog is telegraphing its intentions to hold annual private conferences in which unenlightened, smarmy gutter-dwellers are invited to present their “research”.

      At the very least, Bwog’s comments are often appallingly craven, sometimes illaudable, frequently off-point, and occasionally acrimonious. Nevertheless, they do tell us something important about Bwog. They tell us that Bwog intends to create anomie. I have never been in favor of being gratuitously disgusting. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to complain about nugatory adolescents. Bwog pompously claims that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.

      There is definitely a longiloquent dimension to Bwog’s propositions. Or, if “longiloquent” is too narrow of a term, perhaps you’d prefer “worthless”. In any case, I’ve tried explaining to Bwog’s encomiasts that a great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about Bwog’s imprecations. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I’m saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I’d bet Martians would be more likely to discern that I support those who devote their life to education and activism. It is through their tireless efforts that people everywhere are learning that Bwog has repeatedly indicated a desire to use both overt and covert deceptions to lay waste to the environment. Is that the sound of rarefied respectability that Bwog’s worshippers so frequently attribute to Bwog? The fastidious blathering of an uncontrollable spoiled brat is more like it. In fact, what we have been imparting to Bwog—or what it has been eliciting from us—is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge.

      Bwog claims that black is white and night is day. I avouch that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves although I should add that Bwog is extraordinarily brazen. We’ve all known that for a long time. However, its willingness to abrogate some of our most fundamental freedoms sets a new world record for brazenness. There can be no doubt that Bwog is the type of organization that will trump up any lie for the occasion, and the more of a thumper it is, the better it likes it. This may be water under the bridge by now, but I want to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Bwog’s ruses. That may seem simple enough, but Bwog coins polysyllabic neologisms to make its hijinks sound like they’re actually important. In fact, its treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.
      Let’s be clear here: this has nothing to do with my world-renowned prose, the A+ I received in University Writing, nor any personal vendetta against Eliza or Bwog. Rather, I feel it is my duty to bring your attention to this girl’s atrocities. In a previous letter, I stated that Eliza doesn’t let a day pass without showing to the world that she is as little fitted to be trusted with liberty as thieves with keys or children with firearms. That will be my position in this letter, as well. To start, there are some quasi-clumsy aberrant-types who are brutish. There are also some who are treacherous. Which category does Eliza fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check “both”.

      Now, why all this fuss about a few petty false-flag operations? Simply put, it’s because Eliza is a serial exaggerator. If I were to be less kind, I’d say she’s a liar. Either way, Eliza is more at home with lies than with the truth. For that reason, this is one comment that she doesn’t want you to read. I’ll probably devote a separate comment to that topic alone, but for now I’ll simply summarize by stating that Eliza does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when she says that one can understand the elements of a journalism and academia only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the students involved, that’s where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.

      What I just said is a very important point but I’m afraid a lot of readers might miss it so I’ll say a few more words on the subject. Eliza somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that she is the way, the truth, and the light. I, not being one of the many unambitious propagandists of this world, am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine students of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened institution. There’s no shortage of sin in the world today. It’s been around since the Garden of Eden and will truly persist as long as Eliza continues to condemn innocent people to death. She intends to create a new social class. Cankered wisenheimers, unstable yobbos, and raffish, raucous popinjays will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their worshippers. I’d like to end this comment with a message for Eliza Shapiro. I’d like to say with emphasis and distinctness—not as a threat, but as a warning—that I will do whatever it takes to halt the destructive process that is carrying our school toward extinction, and I won’t let her stop me from achieving that goal.
      Although Eliza Shapiro wants nothing less than to make us less united, less moral, less sensitive, less engaged, and more perversely irascible, I want this letter to speak a language of reconciliation, not retaliation. First off, the nicest thing that can be said about her Bwog editor cronies is that they are froward, namby-pamby killjoys out to defy the rules of logic. I will now cite the proof of that statement. The proof begins with the observation that when one examines the ramifications of letting Eliza promote her censoring hysteria, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that few people realize that her winged monkeys remain a small isolated minority except during times of economic or social stress, when a mass following develops to blame what I call hotheaded fruitcakes for the problems besetting society. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does she avouch that violence and prejudice are funny? I once asked Eliza that question—I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that Eliza’s hysteria-producing litanies are sufficient to give pause to the less thoughtful among us. “Oh, oh,” such people think. “We’d better help Eliza create a dodgy world of guilt and shame—just in case.”

      Although I can’t say how well I’d do against Eliza in a nationally televised steel-cage death match, I can say that she expects us to behave like passive sheep. The only choice Eliza believes we should be allowed to make for ourselves is whether to head towards her slaughterhouse at a trot or at a gallop. She honestly doesn’t want us choosing to highlight all of the problems with her inattentive wheelings and dealings. I frequently wish to tell her that her toadies coerce children into becoming activists willing to serve, promote, spy, and fight for her remonstrations. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. As a parting thought, let these sterling words of wisdom be most thoroughly and attentively perused: It’s considerations of this sort that make it worth our while to learn about the effete things Eliza Shapiro is up to.

    • Anonymous

      The fuck is this nonsense?

  27. hater

    this guy needs to be taken outside and shot

  28. Anonymous

    U! G! L! Y! You ain't got no alibi, you're ugly! Yeah, yeah, you're ugly!

  29. mystery solved

    The prolific troll is using a random complaint generator (found here:http://www.pakin.org/complaint/) and altering the resulting rant slightly in order to make the complaint seem original. Play around with it for yourself, you'll see the same phrases appear, verbatim.

    • Interesting, let's see.....

      I unmistakably hope Eliza Nutgoblin gives this letter five minutes of her precious cappuccino-sipping, cancer-stick-puffing time. Before I begin talking about specifics, let me just mention that I am not making a generalization when I say that Nutgoblin thinks that she can make me self-censor my critique of her if she can call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. Now that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter so let me corroborate it by saying that Nutgoblin insists that undiscoverable, unmeasurable, magical forces from another plane of existence have given her superhuman wisdom. Sorry, Nutgoblin, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so." The absence of necessary historiographical context makes her imprecations extremely difficult to accept. The same might be said of backwards galoots. Nutgoblin has never gotten ahead because of her hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of Nutgoblin's successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue.

      We must show Nutgoblin that we are not powerless pedestrians on the asphalt of life. We must show her that we can comment on her bromides. Maybe then Nutgoblin will realize that she claims that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. You should realize that absolutely no empirical evidence obtained by scientific means exists to support that claim. Alas, that doesn't stop Nutgoblin from reviving an arcadian past that never existed.

      Nutgoblin is an opportunist. That is, she is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. When I first encountered her remonstrations, all I could think of was, "This screams of the old belief that truculent, slaphappy practitioners of despotism are merely unruly, grotty proponents of corporatism."

      I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, meddlesome world run by deceitful swindlers. Might I suggest that Nutgoblin search for a hobby? It seems she has entirely too much time on her hands, given how often she tries to prevent us from getting in touch with our feelings. I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But nothing unites people like a common enemy. That's why I would encourage everybody to take some shots of their own at Nutgoblin by reprimanding her for apotheosizing foul-to-the-core lamebrains.

      Nutgoblin's meandering and maundering comments undoubtedly indicate that she intends to waste hours and hours of our time in fruitless conferences and meetings as soon as our backs are turned. More emphatically, Nutgoblin keeps insisting that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that Nutgoblin's stances are colored and flavored to appeal to pertinacious cheapskates, and everyone with half a brain understands that. Forgive me, dear reader, but I must be so tactless as to remind you that Nutgoblin believes that she can succeed without trying. That's just wrong. She further believes that she's an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy. Wrong again!

      Nutgoblin's malevolent reports are not something that endears her to me. And I can say that with a clear conscience because she likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why Nutgoblin apparently believes that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs—or maybe even chocolate. You and I know better than that. You and I know that Nutgoblin says that it is militant to question her ethics. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?

      Yet there's much more to it than that. Nutgoblin is an adept at forcing us to tailor our commentaries just to suit her detestable whims, but given the way things are these days we must remember that she craves more power. I say we should give Nutgoblin more power—preferably, 10,000 volts of it. Her lickspittles claim to have no choice but to lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, wishy-washy individuals. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn't make and don't understand.

      Why is it that Nutgoblin's mottos are built on a backlash fueled by anger—in the form of resentment, spite, vengeance, envy, loss, and bitterness over declining status—on the part of the most disingenuous slaves to fashion I've ever seen? It's because Nutgoblin says that her gin-swilling coalition is a respected civil-rights organization. Hey, Nutgoblin, how about telling us the truth for once? Is her head really buried too deep in the sand to know that one cannot help but notice that voluble Bonapartism has come to occupy a brusque place in the national dialogue? Well, I'm sure Nutgoblin would rather tour the country promoting brutish revanchism in lectures and radio talk-show interviews than answer that particular question. We don't need to demonize her; Nutgoblin is already a demon, and furthermore, we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with her. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that it may seem difficult at first to shatter the adage that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that she can dole out or retract. It is. But she makes it sound like character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". The evidence against that concept is so overwhelming, even an eight-year-old child can recognize it. Even so, I want to launch an all-out ideological attack against the forces of chauvinism. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé but because anyone who examines the historical development of the last hundred years from the standpoint of this letter will at once understand that Nutgoblin is an expert at shameless name-dropping. (Actually, respect for the law is not enhanced by setting the bad example of breaking the law, but that's not important now.)

      While Nutgoblin has a right, as do we all, to believe whatever she wants about jingoism, she teaches workshops on Lysenkoism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. If we are going to speak objectively about her adages, we must understand that she has been directing social activity toward philanthropic flimflam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. How can she perpetrate such an outrage against public propriety and decency? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: Why doesn't she reveal the truth about herself? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but she contends that she values our perspectives and that, therefore, radicalism is the only alternative to philistinism. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces condescending politicos (as distinct from the disorderly, subhuman losers who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that if Nutgoblin kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick her toes and beg for another kick. In reality, contrariwise, Nutgoblin proclaims at every opportunity that she'd never deface property with racially and sexually derogatory epithets and offensive symbols. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

      By allowing Nutgoblin to get people to vote against their own self-interests we are selling our souls for dross. Instead, we should be striving to scrap the entire constellation of stuck-up ideas that brought us to our present point. Tell me something: What is her secret agenda? You see, she once tried convincing me that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. Does she think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that I know some grumpy pissants who actually believe that newspapers should report only on items Nutgoblin agrees with. Incredible? Those same people have told me that she was chosen by God as the trustee of His wishes and desires. With such people roaming about, it should come as no surprise to you that I shall be blamed by ignorant persons when I say that I don't enjoy Nutgoblin's bawdy sense of humor. Cruel as that maxim may appear, her initiatives are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, she occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to divert attention from Nutgoblin's unprovoked aggression. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Eliza Nutgoblin and weaken the critical links in Nutgoblin's nexus of obtuse, incoherent Trotskyism.

    • Anonymous

      good work watson!!

  30. LA Lights

    Can't wait for the NYU custom shipment!

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.