Haterz and you

[William33 110]

Anyone understand that article?

i think it's about obama

No, but it can be.

Most people probably think they already know all they need to know about Obama, but I have some new information to bring to light. I guess I should start by saying that even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that in order to change the minds of those who abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular we must put the fear of God into him. And that's just the first step. Remember, Obama's older subliminal psywar campaigns were choleric enough. His latest ones are indubitably beyond the pale.

I am not going to go into too great a detail about lascivious hell-raisers but be assured that one of Obama's minions keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that if we don't soon tell Obama to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his simple-minded crusades, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given Obama our permission to do so.

Obama's peons have demonstrated brutally, horribly, and with great terror how they will pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that Obama wants us to emulate the White Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who strives to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Then again, even the White Queen would have trouble believing that Obama is clean and bright and pure inside. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that Obama's forces consider his smear tactics a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of narcissism. And that's it. Obama gets so hot and bothered about every little thing someone says about him that I fully expect him to monopolize the press sooner or later.

Your writing is eloquent, but your point is ambiguous. Why not cut to the chase, direct and to the point?

[Time2gopeacefully 0]

[Your writing is eloquent, but your point is ambiguous. Why not cut to the chase, direct and to the point?

Please allow me to reply,

To all readers: This is not a tickle-your-ears, politically correct letter. If you want to read something that's filled with rhetoric, read something else. If you want the truth, then read this letter. First things first: Mr. Obama's functionaries claim to have no choice but to turn our country into a judgmental, pea-brained cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, foul-mouthed renegades. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn't make and don't understand.

Whether or not you realize this, Obama's morals are based on prejudices and preconceived notions. How much more illumination does that fact need before Obama can grasp it? Assuming the answer is "a substantial amount", let me point out that Obama does not merely cripple his enemies politically, economically, socially, morally, and psychologically. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. By comparing today to even ten years ago and projecting the course we're on, I'd say we're in for an even more rude, jaundiced, and devious society, all thanks to Obama's viewpoints.

Obama wants his cowardice and irresponsibility to be regarded as prudence. For proof of this fact I must point out that if I had to choose between chopping onions and helping Obama compromise the free and open nature of public discourse, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that if you can make any sense out Obama's socially inept crusades then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did.

Look at what's happened since Obama first ordered his encomiasts to declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps: Views once considered hideous are now considered ordinary. Views once considered juvenile are now considered perfectly normal. And the most discourteous of Obama's views are now seen as gospel by legions of malodorous astrologers. For reasons which I will adumbrate presently, he doesn't want us to know about his plans to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings. Otherwise, we might do something about that. I once told some of his provocateurs that they should address a number of important issues. Not surprisingly, their response suggested the enthusiasm of a man feeding on a diet of sand. That's why you and I need to communicate and teach. Only then will people see that he should be responsible for his own actions. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Obama in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that Obama has never disproved anything I've ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, we must lead us all toward a better, brighter future. This is a terrible and awesome responsibility—a crushing responsibility. However, if we stick together we can can show the world that Obama uses the word "phototelegraphically" to justify breaking down our communities. In doing so, he is reversing the meaning of that word as a means of disguising the fact that his shock troops actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these kinds of shameless, unpatriotic thieves are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world in a lustrum or two. In reality, of course, I've known some perjurers who were impressively smarmy. However, Obama is blasphemous and that trumps smarmy every time.

The spectrum of views between fanaticism and ageism is not a line but a circle at which squalid oligarchs and high-handed card sharks (especially the snotty type) meet. To properly place Obama somewhere in that spectrum, one needs to realize that I recently heard Obama tell a bunch of people that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all thoroughly justified. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. Relative to just a few years ago, ridiculous, odious deadbeats are nearly ten times as likely to believe that disingenuous cutthroats and voluble, closed-minded gasbags should rule this country. This is neither a coincidence nor simply a sign of the times. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated, psychological warfare program designed by Obama to form the association in the public's mind between any claims he disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality.

Is Obama a pious person? Yes, although his "piety" unerringly leads him to whichever dogma is best for business. Speaking of which, Obama just reported that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as him. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Obama's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to step on other people's toes.

I find Obama's revenge fantasies manipulative, termagant, psychotic, and more than a little deceitful, right? Right. No matter how much talk and analysis occurs, chauvinistic kleptomaniacs revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. That said, we mustn't lose sight of who the real enemy is: Obama and his lamebrained expositors. I must point out that we must understand that his propaganda machine grinds on and on. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. One does not have to pose a threat to the survival of democracy in order to raise several issues about Obama's ultra-demented, imperious warnings that are frequently missing from the drivel that masquerades for discourse on this topic. It is a balmy person who believes otherwise.

When I say that Obama offers nothing but cheap insults and banal rhetoric, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that he has the mandate of Heaven to reduce human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. This is a common fallacy held by cynical, testy criticasters. Some reputed—as opposed to reputable—members of his camp quite adamantly insist that Obama's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could think such a thing but then again, I, speaking as someone who is not a shambolic bureaucrat, cannot compromise with Obama; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him and with a warning he must undeniably take to heart: The most covinous vulgarians you'll ever see are born, not made. That dictum is as unimpeachable as the "poeta nascitur, non fit" that it echoes and as irreproachable as the brocard that Obama has been trying to raise funds for scientific studies that "prove" that denominationalism is the key to world peace. This is what's called "advocacy research" or "junk science" because it's funded by cocky troublemakers who have already decided that Obama can ensure that all of the news we receive is filtered through a narrow ideological prism and get away with it.

Obama would have us believe that I'm too dishonest to fight for our freedom of speech. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Obama is surrounded by confused twerps who parrot the same nonsense, which is why he maintains that offensive nutters should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and Obama knows it. Why is Obama deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? This is an important question because Obama is absolutely determined to believe that separatism forms the core of any utopian society, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. I don't care what others say about Obama. He's still ghastly, selfish, and he intends to glorify obscene sewer rats.

Obama's jeremiads are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, I have never read anything Obama has written that I would consider wise, logical, pertinent, reasonable, or scientific. His statement that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups is no exception. What's more, he claims that it is his moral imperative to slander those who are most systematically undervalued, underpaid, underemployed, underfinanced, underinsured, underrated, and otherwise underserved and undermined as undeserving and underclass. I profess that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves although I should add that the space remaining in this letter will not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which Obama has tried to publish blatantly self-pitying rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. Obama labels anyone he doesn't like as "deluded". That might well be a better description of him. And that, in my view, is our real problem.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Hey-wassapenin?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

In this letter, I'm not going to argue that I try to avoid blanket statements and broad generalizations when I propose that Sen. Barbara Boxer frequently confuses equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Nor am I going to argue that we should stop playing by her rules of engagement and instead force her to play by ours. I'm not going to argue those factors because they're irrelevant. Instead, I will say only that I invite you to talk to her yourself if you feel that I'm misrepresenting her position. So let's begin, quite properly, with a brief look at the historical development of the problem, of its attempted solutions, and of the eternal argument about it. Some people have said that her sermons are related to the elements and bases of antipluralism both organizationally and ideologically. Maybe. But I'm more inclined to believe that Sen. Boxer says that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. 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!"?

Sen. Boxer is incapable of writing a letter without using such phrases as "ignominious shirkers", "colonialism-prone invidious-types", "otiose rapscallions", or some combination thereof. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: Sen. Boxer attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're shy, she calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, Sen. Boxer says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does she say such things? Whatever the answer, she accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does she contend I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept her claim that her plaints enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.

Over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that Sen. Boxer upholds sin as sacred. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that Sen. Boxer shouldn't condemn innocent people to death. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions waste everyone else's time. By using bombastic language and selective quotation, she is able to feed blind hatred. By the way, saying that last sentence out loud is a nice way to get to the point quickly at a cocktail party. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for Sen. Boxer to destroy everything beautiful and good. I am familiar with her goals, I understand how she operates, I have long recognized her tactics, and I know just about where she now stands on the ladder to total power. I can therefore say that, unmistakably, she must sense her own irremediable inferiority. That's why Sen. Boxer is so desperate to divert attention from her unprovoked aggression; it's the only way for her to distinguish herself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Sen. Boxer also realized that there may be absolutely nothing we can do to prevent her from making good on her word to perpetuate misguided and questionable notions of other odious stirrers' intentions. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by her shock troops, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. This letter has gone on far too long in my opinion and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that the costs of Sen. Barbara Boxer's mottos outweigh their benefits.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Some of my colleagues recommended that I write a letter about how it is not too farfetched to claim that I am shocked and appalled that Federal Reserve Board could voice the kinds of gross lies and historical misrepresentations that it so often does. This is that letter. For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical. While there is inevitable overlap at the edges of political movements, I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of Federal Reserve Board's writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I've read enough of Federal Reserve Board's writings to know that people used to think I was exaggerating whenever I said that the mess that Federal Reserve Board has left behind is sometimes hard to see but eventually will be impossible to ignore. After seeing Federal Reserve Board make it impossible to disturb its disaffected, ungrateful gravy train these same people now realize that I wasn't exaggerating at all. In fact, they even realize that Federal Reserve Board likes to imply that everyone with a different set of beliefs from its is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. This is what its ploys amount to although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of sniffish drivel devised by its pals and mindlessly multiplied by disgusting, worthless maggots.

Federal Reserve Board wants to get me thrown in jail. It can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but it does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that Federal Reserve Board's activities are on the up-and-up. This belief is due to a basic confusion that can be cleared up simply by stating that a central fault line runs through each of Federal Reserve Board's utterances. Specifically, if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species then Federal Reserve Board is clearly going to be the first to go.

Federal Reserve Board's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, it tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. As a practical matter, Federal Reserve Board is planning to seek temporary tactical alliances with the most nettlesome ne'er-do-wells you'll ever see in order to corrupt our youth. This does not bode well for the future because far too many people tolerate its press releases as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that we must understand that the comparison between Federal Reserve Board and confused renegades is remarkable. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this letter, but Federal Reserve Board offers its flunkies a vehicle of sorts for their revenge fantasies.

[Time2gopeacefully 0]

In this letter, I'm not going to argue that I try to avoid blanket statements and broad generalizations when I propose that Sen. Barbara Boxer frequently confuses equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Nor am I going to argue that we should stop playing by her rules of engagement and instead force her to play by ours. I'm not going to argue those factors because they're irrelevant. Instead, I will say only that I invite you to talk to her yourself if you feel that I'm misrepresenting her position. So let's begin, quite properly, with a brief look at the historical development of the problem, of its attempted solutions, and of the eternal argument about it. Some people have said that her sermons are related to the elements and bases of antipluralism both organizationally and ideologically. Maybe. But I'm more inclined to believe that Sen. Boxer says that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. 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!"?

Sen. Boxer is incapable of writing a letter without using such phrases as "ignominious shirkers", "colonialism-prone invidious-types", "otiose rapscallions", or some combination thereof. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: Sen. Boxer attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're shy, she calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, Sen. Boxer says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does she say such things? Whatever the answer, she accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does she contend I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept her claim that her plaints enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.

Over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that Sen. Boxer upholds sin as sacred. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that Sen. Boxer shouldn't condemn innocent people to death. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions waste everyone else's time. By using bombastic language and selective quotation, she is able to feed blind hatred. By the way, saying that last sentence out loud is a nice way to get to the point quickly at a cocktail party. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for Sen. Boxer to destroy everything beautiful and good. I am familiar with her goals, I understand how she operates, I have long recognized her tactics, and I know just about where she now stands on the ladder to total power. I can therefore say that, unmistakably, she must sense her own irremediable inferiority. That's why Sen. Boxer is so desperate to divert attention from her unprovoked aggression; it's the only way for her to distinguish herself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Sen. Boxer also realized that there may be absolutely nothing we can do to prevent her from making good on her word to perpetuate misguided and questionable notions of other odious stirrers' intentions. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by her shock troops, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. This letter has gone on far too long in my opinion and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that the costs of Sen. Barbara Boxer's mottos outweigh their benefits.

I absolutely agree

[Dr. Obvious 49]

Anyone understand that article?

The prerequisite to understanding this letter is to have encountered some of Dr. Alienlovechild's maneuvers and to have realized how immature they are. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how Alienlovechild is utterly rapacious, as he has proved to my complete satisfaction. He keeps trying to "solve" all our problems by talking them to death. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, he will honestly succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with feebleminded know-nothings, Alienlovechild's hangers-on, or anyone else who fails to realize that self-indulgent, effete clunks often take earthworms or similar small animals and impale them on a pin to enjoy watching them twist and writhe as they slowly die. Similarly, Alienlovechild enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to peddle the snake oil of counter-productive, scummy authoritarianism.

My position is that Alienlovechild's promise of equality is a false one. He, in contrast, argues that he has achieved sainthood. This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Alienlovechild. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for him to admit that he deeply believes that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: I respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Narrow-minded pedants like Alienlovechild, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in dotty, ruthless New Age sods in order to convince them to stretch credulity beyond the breaking point. I want you to know that perusing the membership of Alienlovechild's Praetorian Guard is like taking a tour of ####### Tracy's Rogue's Gallery. Knowing, as they say, is half the battle. What remains is to shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity. Let me close by reminding you that the statements I made about Dr. Alienlovechild in this letter are in earnest. I will not equivocate. I will not excuse. I will not retreat a single inch. And I will be heard.

[*Robert* 2]

OMG!!!

I think I'll wait for the movie... too many words!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is with extreme disgust that I write this letter and say what will undeniably be considered rabid by some of my peers. Nonetheless, it must be stated that I must blow my whistle on Mr. Justashooter's tactics of deception and distortion. Please note that many of the conclusions I'm about to draw are based on cogent and virtually incontrovertible evidence provided by a set of people who have suffered immensely on account of Justashooter. His patter is smooth and quite practiced. He can fast-talk you into believing you'd be better off if you participated in his effort to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. However, Justashooter's intimations fall apart upon reflection. I feel no more personal hatred for him than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them.

Nonetheless, Justashooter says that everyone would be a lot safer if he were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions—even our library records. Why on Earth does Justashooter need to monitor our library records? Whatever the answer, Justashooter's method (or school, or ideology—it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Justashooter-ism". It is an insidious and avowedly snooty philosophy that aims to reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with Justashooter's memoirs while punishing those who oppose them. He thrives on the victimization of others. But there is a further-reaching implication: Justashooter's vassals get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Justashooter, and meeting some other randy, jealous individuals is merely a social event. They're not even aware that not only does Justashooter suppress all news that portrays him in a bad light, but he then commands his drones, "Go, and do thou likewise."

Am I being too idealistic—a Pollyanna—when I suggest that all we need to do is do what comes naturally? I don't think so. Admittedly, he is guided by the ignis fatuus of Lysenkoism, but this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Justashooter's pesky recommendations. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) There's more to this letter than inflammatory rhetoric, to put it mildly. While Justashooter has a right to his opinion, if a cogent, logical argument entered his brain, no doubt a concussion would result. To recapitulate, it must be stated quite categorically that one of the intemperate remarks we often hear from Mr. Justashooter is that the world is crying out to labor beneath his firm but benevolent heel.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And another thing!

Mr. Jesus H Christ, Esq. thinks that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to overthrow western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars—family, nation, religion, and democracy. Unfortunately for him, he's wrong. I would like to start by discussing his undertakings, mainly because they scare me. The thing I'm the most frightened about is that he periodically puts up a facade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual.

We must pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. If we fail then all of our sacrifices and all of the dreams and sacrifices of our ancestors will have been in vain. The key is to realize that I plan to lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me remind you that Mr. Christ demands absolute and blind obedience from his habitués. If he didn't, they might question his orders to waste natural resources. This unrelenting demand of obedience also implies that whenever anyone states the obvious—that Mr. Christ's concept of team play is sideline sulking—discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "In view of Mr. Christ's filthy actions, what does it make sense for us to do now?" I've never gotten a clear and honest answer to that question from Mr. Christ. But what is clear is that he seems to have recently added the word "anthropomorphization" to his otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose Mr. Christ intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that he says that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. 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!"?

Although this letter provides irrefutable proof that there is considerable evidence to show that Mr. Christ is serious about wanting to descend to character assassination and name calling, I know that Mr. Christ will still accuse me of lying. I suppose that's okay as long as I can convince you, the reader, that if Mr. Christ can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If Mr. Christ can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it. That's all I'm going to say in this letter because if I were to write everything I want to write, I'd be here all night.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[Peikko 1,575]

When I read these haterz, I am curiously reminded of Mein Kampf.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

I don't know what to make of Dr. Madame Cleo's philosophies. On the one hand, Madame Cleo sees only one side of the issue. But on the other hand, behind the amazing degeneracy of the modern stage and motion picture is a solid wall of boosterism with Madame Cleo's name written all over it. For openers, Madame Cleo's manifestos are colored and flavored to appeal to backwards maniacs. This is equivalent to saying that Madame Cleo says that embracing a system of Bonapartism will make everything right with the world. That's her unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely disorderly and snooty lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Madame Cleo's secret police.

I don't mean to scare you, but Madame Cleo maintains that recidivism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. Perhaps it would be best for her to awaken from her delusional, narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that her most steadfast claim is that the majority of sophomoric gutter-dwellers are heroes, if not saints. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, I wonder what would happen if Madame Cleo really did waffle on all the issues. There's a spooky thought. I refuse to believe solely on Madame Cleo's say-so that Madame Cleo has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. Her disciples probably don't realize that because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, it's clearly a tragedy that Madame Cleo's goal in life is apparently to extirpate the things that I cherish. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that Madame Cleo should think about how her orations lead condescending storytellers to bombard me with insults. If Madame Cleo doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps she should just keep quiet. That's all I'm going to say in this letter because if I were to write everything I want to write, I'd be here all night.

[Peikko 1,575]

Exactly so, you made my point eloquently

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder if someone could create one of those generators in the style of Sarah Palin.

[Peikko 1,575]

Fairly easily I would think

[missmissy 38]

THIS IS FUN!!

have never aspired to become a speechwriter, politician, or mainstream political columnist. Nevertheless, if you can look beyond my pitiable writing style you'll really see that I have something important to tell you about Paul Daniels. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Paul's particularly petulant form of ageism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of meddlesome politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution.

There are no two ways about it; Paul is completely inconsiderate, as he has proved to my complete satisfaction. Thanks to him, we're up a creek without a paddle. And that's where we are right now. He sees the world as somewhat anarchic, a game of catch-as-catch-can in which the sneakiest nymphomaniacs nab the biggest prizes. I once had a nightmare in which Paul was free to engage in an endless round of finger pointing. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that I challenge Paul to point out any text in this letter that proposes that he has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring himself to help disseminate the True Faith of solipsism. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing.

Those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still believe that I still believe in duty, honor, and country, have an obligation to do more than just observe what Paul is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations. We have an obligation to rally good-hearted people to the side of our cause. And we have an obligation to protect innocent, little children from humorless misfits like him.

Although I respect Paul's right to free speech just as I respect it for unsavory rakes, power-drunk, mendacious energumens, and savage stool pigeons, according to him, all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". He might as well be reading tea leaves or tossing chicken bones on the floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Maybe then Paul would realize that whenever he attempts to remake the world to suit his own merciless needs, he looks around waiting for applause as if he's done something decent and moral rather than pudibund and licentious. Although brevity is the soul of wit I do need to say quite a bit more about how if you can make any sense out his pertinacious histrionics then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did.

I repeat: There is something grievously wrong with those impulsive geeks who shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size. Shame on the lot of them! For one thing, this view dangerously underestimates the nit-picky quality of diabolism. But more importantly, Paul keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs. The purpose of this deception may be to create a factitious demand for his censorious asseverations. Or maybe the purpose is to reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. Oh what a tangled web Paul weaves when first he practices to deceive. Let me conclude by saying that we who want to free people from the fetters of ruffianism's poisonous embrace will not rest until we do.