Saturday, January 31, 2009


For anyone out there who thinks that starting a clown or circus related blog might be fun, here is an example of one of the dozens of "comments" that must be moderated each and every day.

This is just the latest example of the ramblings of some anonymous person who for the last three weeks has attempted to post long, accusatory, venomous rants every day about my friend, Andrew Scharff...

Mr. Cashin,
Relative to my prior writings, this letter evinces an increased stridency in my commination of Mr. Andrew Scharff's ebullitions. This is because Mr. Scharff's lalochezia is downright annoying. Wait! Before you dismiss me as stubborn, hear me out. Do Mr. Scharff's grunts debunk the nonsense spouted by Mr. Scharff's secret agents? No, that would be the correct and logical thing to do. Instead, they offer stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world.

Mr. Scharff parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, his ideas will change instantly like a weathercock. One of the great mysteries of modern life is, Has he ever considered what would happen if a small fraction of his time spent trying to destroy our culture, our institutions, and our way of life was instead spent on something productive? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how there is a format Mr. Scharff should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. If one dares to criticize even a single tenet of his commentaries, one is promptly condemned as immoral, lubricious, slovenly, or whatever epithet he deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. Mr. Scharff ought to realize that the most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Unfortunately, he tends to utter so much verbiage about paternalism that I can conclude only that Mr. Scharff likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what he is pushing is both tendentious and catty.

Mr. Scharff's ideals symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion—extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. Although Mr. Scharff was likely following the dictates of his conscience when he decided to ransack people's homes, the fact remains that he sees no reason why he shouldn't combine the most sordid avarice with the most invincible hatred of the very people who tolerate and enrich him. It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating that I deeply believe that it's within our grasp to establish clear, justifiable definitions of deconstructionism and Bulverism so that you can defend a decision to take action when Mr. Scharff's cringers court a muddleheaded minority of the most appalling slobs you'll ever see. Be grateful for this first and last tidbit of comforting news. The rest of this letter will center around the way that the term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of him. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to him, which is why I profess that I welcome Mr. Scharff's comments. However, Mr. Scharff needs to realize that he plans to deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that he may be generating. He has instructed his supporters not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Mr. Scharff knows he has something to hide.

Mr. Scharff's maudlin preoccupation with narcissism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as "unexceptionableness", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to sentence more and more people to poverty, prison, and early death. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that if we address a number of important issues then the sea of animalism, on which Mr. Scharff so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. Now, I hope he was joking when he implied he was going to create a world without history, without philosophy, without science, without reason—a world without beauty of any kind, without art, without literature, without culture—but it sure didn't sound like it. There's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will unequivocally persist as long as Mr. Scharff continues to control, manipulate, and harm other people. We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Mr. Scharff's shrewish artifices and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to raise a stink about Mr. Scharff and his nasty assertions.) If you ever ask him to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed.

What so many people find difficult to grasp is that it's debatable whether what Mr. Scharff considers a fair shake, the rest of us consider a repressive, humiliating, culture-stripping experience. However, no one can disagree that if he were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that if he can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to condemn his hypocrisy. Ceteris paribus, I'd rather have Mr. Scharff brainwash the masses into submission than contaminate or cut off our cities' water supply. Why? Because life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Mr. Scharff so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? It is only when one has an answer to that question is it possible to make sense of Mr. Scharff's asseverations because I take an uncharitable attitude towards Mr. Scharff's aberrant squibs. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but much of his success is due to the rest of us bending over backwards to assist him and to overlook his failings. The logical consequences of that are clear: Mr. Scharff frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what Mr. Scharff is doing—as opposed to what he is saying—to understand his true aims. I suppose that's all I have to say in this letter. If there are any points on which you require explanation or further particulars I shall be glad to furnish such additional details as may be required.

The ever asserverative, post-Bulvarianist lycanthrope, Mr. Andrew Scharff

This letter comes to you in the hope that it will find the place in your mind where rationality resides and where decency and sanity, coupled with a healthy sense of anger, will trigger appropriate action. The following paragraphs are intended as an initial, open-ended sketch of how bad the current situation is. The purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how fork-tongued and confused Mr. Andrew Scharff has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how my position is that these issues are actually political issues. Mr. Scharff, in contrast, argues that he values our perspectives. This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Mr. Scharff. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for him to admit that on the issue of Jacobinism, he is wrong again. Sure, Mr. Scharff is the hands-down, flat-out, bar-none most conscienceless scum I have ever seen. But he recently got caught red-handed trying to sanctify his depravity. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say. It has long been my opinion—and I have never shrunk from its expression—that Mr. Andrew Scharff displays the paranoid malice that is the hallmark of true collectivism. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.

For Mr. Scharff's rebuttal to this and previous accusations, please click the title of this post.


Brian Foley said...

I am completely in accord with the originator of the diatribe.

Anonymous said...

This individual could have saved an inordinate number of keystrokes by simply saying "Andrew Scharff is full of BLEEP"

Anonymous said...

What a self-torturing soul!

It's clearly evidenced by his hemorrhaging self-important verbarrhea.
He just "hates", and it's so sad that some people can turn inward so bitterly.

Unenviably, Mr. Scharff seems to be merely a convenient character plucked by that letter's author to play a role in their tormented inner dialogue.

In short, though that writer is probably quite intelligent,
he needs a new perspective on life;
he needs to pull his head out and breath FRESH air.

(I'm 'anonymous' today because that rant's writer is a fan club NObody wants)

Anonymous said...

Followed your instructions.
The older I get the easier I get.

Anonymous said...

I... um... ah... hmmm... geee.... uh.... duh... er... what?


Anonymous said...

I let you have the comfy futon while I sleep on the air mattress in Michael Rosman's basement last night (fighting off his dog until the wee hours) and this is the thanks I get?
- Andrew

Anonymous said...

Does this person have anything else better to do than insult talented people what goes around comes around and sir you will have your day touche!!try and insult me mr know it all

Anonymous said...

You've gone mad with power!
Oh, and you're a monster!

Anonymous said...

Dang! Hook, line, and sinker, once again!
I'm afraid the next time I see you you're going to look at me with a straight face and ask me to pull your finger, and I'll probably do it!

Rik Gern

Anonymous said...

My, my, my. To paraphrase several hack commedians I've worked with, "I remember when I had MY first Thesaurus!"


Barry said...

I really have no idea what the guy is talking about since he uses too many multi-syllable words and it give me a headache. But it sounds like he's on to you. Of course, I'VE known for YEARS that you've all been moonlighting as Double Nought spies and that Steve Copeland is a ninja assassin for the CIA! Still, it sounds like someone needs to get out more often. Then again, maybe not.