Open Letter to Bill Toland

Dear Mr. Toland,

Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the unsolicited attention given to this little corner of the "Blurghosphere" through your column/journal.  Indeed, this little creative endeavor of mine would likely never see any attention from the popular press, if not for your intervention, that is, outside the random searches for words like "nipples" and "gussets," which seem to be bringing a larger than anticipated contingency of my loyal readership, small though it is.  By my reckoning, there are roughly 12 people that read this thing; I know half of them are me, checking for comments, one is obviously you, three are me searching for pages that contain the words "nipples" and "gussets," and three are anonymous readers who only identify themselves through cryptic handles such as "Throdgar the Unmerciful," "Mr. Philo T. Bigglesworth," "Heywood Jablome", and "Tom Murphy."  If not for your efforts, my work here would consist largely of wiping the smutty virtual graffiti off of my virtual message board and learning that 6 + 1 + 3 + 3 = 13.  So, for this I am truly appreciative. 

There are however, two points of contention that I wish to discuss.  It seems that you fellows at the P-G are still adamant about bandying about the word "Drunken" when referring to the title of my little opus here, despite my prior protest.   I did notice that you attempted to include the correct appellation in your recent column, although your efforts did fall short.  Now, while I do no profess to be proficient in English, French, Mandarin, or any other civilized language, or even Welsh, I do profess to be an expert on this blog and I do know for a fact that the title of this monstrosity is The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat. While "Drunken" was previously considered, it was ultimately rejected in favor of "Candy-Assed", which was later changed to "Pansy-Assed", which was later changed to "Doug", which finally became "Drunk."  So, despite you insistence to the contrary, the title is The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat, and will stay that way forever, or at least until I get bored.

Second, I did notice that in you recent Casino Journal, you quoted my thoughts on the recent City Council proceedings in part, as follows:

"Don't you hate it when your bosses have set their opinion based on some non-data driven 'gut feeling,' rather than thorough analysis? Everyone loves the Isle of Capri plan. Loves it in a way that Roger Ebert doesn't love 'North.' And why not? It promises everything: hotels, supermarkets, an arena, a chicken in every pot..."

Those ellipses (ellipii?) are indication of an important omission, one that provided a punchline to an increasingly escalating series of absurdities which culminated in both a reference to a failed (or reneged) Reconstruction Era promise and a pornographic act. 

I assure you, the phrase "mule that gives hummers" was not a light or transient literary construction. 

Now, I recognize that this phrase may be one that offends the good sensibilities of your regular readership, despite the quiet slouching of American society towards Gomorrah, as evidenced by the renewal of The O.C. for another season and the abrupt cancellation of Arrested Development.  Still, the phrase, I believe, was apt in the context, and should have been included. 

Fortunately for both of us, I did not go with my initial inclination which included a phrase that is (1) anatomically impossible, (2) biologically hazardous, and (3) involves Bea Arthur.  Let us both consider ourselves lucky that you didn't have to censor that bit of smut. 

I will, however, choose to ignore these two transgressions if you use the word "omphaloskepsis" in an upcoming print article for, if nothing else, it would prove definitively to me that you believe it is the utmost duty and responsibility of a free press to report the Truth, fairly and accurately, and that you really do think these kinds of jokes are funny. 

I await your omphaloskepsis.

Sincerely,

"O"
The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat