NationStates Jolt Archive

I am writing to express my concerns about President George W. Bush and, more specifically, his mottos regarding quixotic big-mouths. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere. He has no moral courage, nor even a desire to be honest and forthright. You might claim I'm telling you this because I like to beat up on him. Really, that isn't my principal reason. I don't especially need to beat up on President Bush, because he is already despised by decent and knowledgeable people almost everywhere.

It would be charitable of me not to mention that there are lawsuits in his future. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that he favors manipulative psychological techniques over honest discussion. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. If nothing else, President Bush insists that sadism is the key to world peace. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject.

Essentially, he 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 he need to monitor our library records? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that he and his cat's-paws take is that his propaganda machine grinds on and on. Last I checked, President Bush is stepping over the line when he attempts to reward mediocrity -- way over the line. Should you think I'm saying too much, please note that I find him the most contemptuous person in the entire world. 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 President Bush's idea of unreasonable pharisaism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of an unsympathetic blood-lust. It is, in every sense, a fork-tongued and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to an ultra-whiney frenzy and then prompts them to replace discourse and open dialogue with deluded tactics and blatant ugliness.

You see, if we don't remove the threat he poses now, it will bite us in our backside when you least expect it. As amazing as it seems, if the past is any indication of the future, he will once again attempt to fix blame for social stress, economic loss, or loss of political power on a target group whose constructed guilt provides a simplistic explanation. At the same time, President Bush has -- not once, but several times -- been able to deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens without anyone stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his ill-bred writings are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by him.

He presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, President Bush devises new schemes to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. Is it important that I hope he enjoys his new distinction as one of the most dysfunctional, gormless incubi who ever lived? Of course it's important. But what's more important is that there is something grievously wrong with those uncouth schizophrenics who saddle the economy with crippling debt. Shame on the lot of them! If it is not yet clear that President Bush is incapable of handling an adult emotion or a universal concept without first reducing it to something politically incorrect, savage, cocky, and probably laughable, then consider that the gloss that his myrmidons put on his accusations unfortunately does little to denounce his offhand remarks.

Unlike him, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if -- and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- President Bush were not actually responsible for trying to have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions, then I'd stop saying that his illogical machinations disgust me. That's self-evident, and even President Bush would probably agree with me on that. Even so, if we let him divert attention from his unprovoked aggression, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. While we do nothing, those who distract people from serious analysis of the situation are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward defeatism. Pompous hooligans 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, President Bush enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to divert us from proclaiming what in our innermost conviction is absolutely necessary.

His quips have merged with irreligionism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both funnel significant amounts of money to noxious, wayward half-wits. And both lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction. President Bush's campaigns are perpetuated by an ethos of continuous reform, the demand that one strive permanently and painfully for something which not only does not exist, but is alien to the human condition. What's interesting is that he should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants, every time he wants to.

It's possible that he doesn't realize this because he has been ingrained with so much of jingoism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence. I can assure you that if there's an untold story here, it's that there's an important difference between me and him. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. President Bush, in contrast, is willing to kill for his -- or, if not to kill, at least to contravene decency. When he hears anyone say that I don't know how he can be so dishonest, his answer is to turn election-year also-rans loose against us good citizens. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to hold him responsible for the hatred he so furtively expresses. From this perspective, President Bush's vacuous words carry multiple connotations, ranging from the chauvinistic (they organize a whispering campaign against me) to the unambitious (they humiliate, subjugate, and eventually, eliminate everyone who wants to address the continued social injustice shown by cantankerous, predaceous lummoxes). Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that his claim that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't is factually unsupported and politically motivated.

President Bush is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. He will probably never understand why he scares me so much. And he unmistakably does scare me: His tracts are scary, his rantings are scary, and most of all, there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent he has tried to create an atmosphere that may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which, at the same time, will pose the gravest of human threats. The other is whether or not no matter how bad you think his zingers are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. Although we can occasionally tie the retailers of ophidian new claims to older fabrications, there is unfortunately no shortage of new rumor.

I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that President Bush has recently been going around claiming that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. Did you know that some uneducated pettifoggers want to help him deflect attention from his unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen? Others just want to ride the escapism bandwagon. In either case, some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, if I were to compile a list of President Bush's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that as our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the classes of people President Bush preys upon. When I first heard about his bruta fulmina, I dismissed them as merely immoral. But when I later learned that he wants me to drop to my knees and beg for mercy, I realized that it is in his nature to be a deceiver and a destroyer and a bloodsucker. His loyalists probably don't realize that, because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, I want to change the minds of those who gum up what were once great ideas. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Has President Bush ever considered what would happen if a small fraction of his time spent trying to judge people based solely on hearsay was instead spent on something productive? That is, whatever happened to good sportsmanship? I can give you only my best estimate, made after long and anxious consideration, but I do not pose as an expert in these matters. I can say only that if he wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "anatomicophysiologic", for example, and expect us to be scared. Anyhow, I guess I've run out of things to say, so let me just leave you with one parting wish: Together, may we establish a supportive -- rather than an intimidating -- atmosphere for offering public comment.


Please, join me in my protests (http://www.pakin.org/complaint/) ! ;)

In all my letters, I try harder than anything else to make myself clear. I try to state things as simply and unambiguously as I can, because I find that that's the best way to convince my readers that the theoretical fallacies in Mrs. Your Mother's bromides run deep. The first thing I want to bring up is that I am annoyed by the disloyal and sometimes prodigal manifestations of rebelliousness against an inherited civilization of which Your's collaborators do not have the slightest understanding. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but even when the facts don't fit, she sometimes tries to use them anyway. She still maintains, for instance, that violence and prejudice are funny. Her deeds all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that the cure for evil is more evil. Despite Your's evident lack of grounding in what she's talking about, Your insists that she is a model citizen. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands she perpetrates. My argument gets a little complicated here. The worst classes of amateurish, crafty sots there are generally assert that she has no intention to make nearby communities victims of environmental degradation and toxic waste dumping, but Your's often-quoted fibs belie this notion.

Your's thralls would sooner ally with evil than oppose it. For proof of this fact, I must point out that chauvinism is dangerous. Your's invidious version of it is doubly so. If you're the type who dares to think for yourself, then you've probably already determined that today, we might have let Your teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence. You may have noticed that words fail me in describing my pure distaste for her exegeses and unruly theories. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, Your's emissaries have learned their scripts well, and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. To most people, the list of Your's misguided inclinations reads like a comic strip, but her canards are actually taken seriously by her dupes. Your is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens her creature comforts, Your throws principle to the wind. All I'm trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the pretentious tendencies that make her want to let sanctimonious yobbos serve as our overlords.

However randy the national picture already is, those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still suspect that her remarks have grown into a wild tapestry weaving together classical conspiracy theories of the 19th century and post-Marxian economics, have an obligation to do more than just observe what she is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to upbraid her for being so obtuse-to-the-core. We have an obligation to examine the social and cultural conditions that foster frotteurism at every opportunity. And we have an obligation to make plans and carry them out. It may sound strange to Your when I say that her rejoinders are merely childish attempts at ridicule, but Your's ignorance is matched only by her arrogance. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that we must do away with the misconception that propagandism and metagrobolism are identical concepts? I have one itsy-bitsy problem with her prophecies. Videlicet, they pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. And that's saying nothing about how her attempts to scorn and abjure reason are much worse than mere Maoism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. In these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, Your would not hesitate to impair the practice of democracy if she felt she could benefit from doing so. Anyone who takes even a cursory glance at this letter will quickly discover that someone once said to me, "The struggle to uplift individuals and communities on a global scale to encourage our spirits to soar takes center stage these days, both locally and nationwide." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. This has been a long letter, but I feel that its length is in direct proportion to its importance. Why? Because I honestly reject Mrs. Your Mother's demands.

Strange. I'm English and I simultaneously hate George Bush and Tony Blair. If they don't stop running/ruining our nations, Britain will be an authoritarian oligarchy on top of a collapsed democracy (using Fixed Elections (tm)), America will be a wasteland, Russia will become the most left nation on the planet, and the rest of the Earth will be nuked.

Seriously, Bill Gates (another guy I hate) could do a better job than Bush (America would become LESS conservative-capitalist than it is!) and the Official Monster Raving Looney Party should replace the Labour Party on our next General Election. They would do a better job.

I'll quote the Man Himself on this one...

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Oh yes, and to prevent turning the FLAME up, I guess I should justify my feelings:

I hate Bush because (in my perception)


He's a conservative. Being mostly left-wing, I condemn that.
He went to war on Iraq, and his reason is no longer valid. (There were no weapons of mass destruction, damnit!)
Even after this was found out he didn't call off the offensives.
Oh, yes, and there's this nasty rumour about a sexed-up dossier...
He makes too many mistakes in his speeches.


I hate Blair (and the Labour Party) because ("" "" "")


Tuition fees!
His partnership with Bush!
The war on Iraq!
The same dossier scandal!
And stupid laws that his party have passed to make our lives a hell! (I'm 13. He must be one bad politician to upset a minor!)


I hate Bill Gates (and Microsoft) because of one thing: ANTICOMPETITIVE BEHAVIOUR.

Strange. I'm English and I simultaneously hate George Bush and Tony Blair. If they don't stop running/ruining our nations, Britain will be an authoritarian oligarchy on top of a collapsed democracy (using Fixed Elections (tm)), America will be a wasteland, Russia will become the most left nation on the planet, and the rest of the Earth will be nuked

You're about seven hundred years too late.

But seriously, I address this to the poster, Evil Arch Conservative: you're clearly very intelligent, you spell well, you write eloquently, you have an extensive vocabulary, and you're certainly entertaining. For all of the aforementioned reasons, I find it difficult to understand why I found your whole post sort of, hmm, incoherent. I grasped that you're not President Bush's biggest fan, that much is true. Your letter sounded a little paranoid. Maybe I'm just stupid--no, no, I'm definitely stupid--but I didn't get it. I suppose I found your letter confusing because you didn't cite any real examples (as you admitted you wouldn't in your first paragraph), but I guess I kept waiting for evidence, not just a series of vague rants.

Sounds like another blame President Bush for everything in the world thread.

Sounds like another blame President Bush for everything in the world thread.

To be honest...It's not that difficult.

You need to admit, Bush has fucked up alot.

Is everyone here too thick to get through the post?

http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

Click on the link!

(NOTE: My letter about "your mother")

EAC: Quite the amusing little toy you have found there :D

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

I LOVE THAT QUOTE!

i hate bush too.

Official Monster Raving Looney Party should replace the Labour Party on our next General Election.

Bring on the 99p coin!!!

ROFL, ppl don't get this is satire.

Do you ever wake up in the morning thinking, "Mr. Andaluciae's myrmidons are ineducable?" Well, so do I. Let us note first of all that Andaluciae managed to convince a bunch of wanton, insincere antagonists to help him doctor evidence and classification systems and make noisome generalizations to support soporific, preconceived views. What was the quid pro quo there? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that what I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of an uppity wacko. It's a fact. While he has a right, as do we all, to believe whatever he wants about fanaticism, he has been trying for some time to convince people that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. Don't believe his hype! Andaluciae has just been offering that line as a means to weaken family ties.

I am making an appeal to the intelligence of the reader not to be fooled by his demagoguery. But don't take my word for it; ask any soulless racketeers you happen to meet. We all need to be aware of each other's existence as intelligent, feeling, human beings, even if some of us are venal mountebanks.

I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Andaluciae's subterfuge. I'm completely stunned. Andaluciae's propositions are not witty satire, as he would have you believe. They're simply the choleric ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking. As we don our battle fatigues, let's at least be clear about what we're fighting for: Our war is not about reducing the deficit, not about ending welfare for the rich, and not about the largesse or responsibility of private philanthropy. All we want is for Andaluciae's factotums not to force me to undergo "treatment" to cure my "problem".

On the issue of credentialism, Andaluciae is wrong again. Sure, I'm not sure whether to classify his allegations under "paranoia" or "ignorance". But Andaluciae just keeps on saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to prevent the real problems from being solved." That's just one side of the coin. The other side is that my earnest denunciation of his personal attacks must have failed to register with Andaluciae as being legitimate sentiment. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. His remonstrations symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. For a variety of reasons, some strategic, some ideological, some attitudinal, and all of them wrong, pathological thugs put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor. Why is it that this is what Andaluciae's adulators try to prevent us from hearing about on radio and television or reading about in popular magazines and large-circulation papers? It's because I want to give people more information about Andaluciae, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I decidedly hope people draw: It takes more than a mass of subversive jerks to expose some of Andaluciae's chthonic deeds. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to tackle the multinational death machine that Andaluciae is currently constructing.

His henchmen have the audacity to peddle the snake oil of obstinate despotism. In that context, one could say that my general thesis is that I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with him. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I think outside the box. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: In asserting that we're supposed to shut up and smile when he says simple-minded things, he demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. It seems that no one else is telling you that Andaluciae likes to put on a honest face to dissimulate his plans to cheat on taxes. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, almost every day, Andaluciae outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's unmistakably breathtaking to watch him. If we intend to defend democracy, we had best learn to recognize its primary enemy and not be afraid to stand up and call him by name. That name is Mr. Andaluciae.

So easy.

I won't sugarcoat this letter. This is a very bitter letter. Small children and the faint of heart should stop reading and leave the room. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter, but the conclusion's general outline is that Sen. Hillary Clinton spouts the same bile in everything she writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue she's excited about this week is absenteeism, which says to me that she wants to needle and wheedle puerile ex-cons into her faction. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. We should agree on definitions before saying anything further about her prissy, pusillanimous declamations. For starters, let's say that "Pyrrhonism" is "that which makes Sen. Clinton yearn to gag the innocent accused from protesting unilateralism-motivated prosecutions."

To be blunt, statements like, "Her magic-bullet explanations are a public admission of her immaturity and insensitivity" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. Sen. Clinton is as villainous as she is gormless. This means, in particular, that griping about Sen. Clinton will not make her stop trying to blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats. But even if it did, she would just find some other way to vandalize our neighborhoods. Her co-conspirators have learned their scripts well, and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation.

Sen. Clinton believes that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself, but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Sen. Clinton and her malicious subordinates. I agree that she has neither honor nor integrity, nor even knows what those words mean. But I also think that her theories are a blatantly obvious and cleverly orchestrated script, carefully concocted to make bargains with the devil. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how diabolism is the key to world peace. That's just not true. One might conclude that given the public appetite for more accountability, Sen. Clinton should think twice before she decides to increase alienation and delinquency among our young people. Alternatively, one might conclude that she continuously seeks adulation from her spin doctors. In either case, I and Sen. Clinton part company when it comes to the issue of solipsism. She feels that she is beyond reproach, while I claim that either she has no real conception of the sweep of history, or she is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context.

While I have no proof that the self-fulfilling prophecies that her legates are so proud of are woefully lame-brained, you should still believe me, as she proclaims at every opportunity that she'd never rip off everyone and his brother. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. In the past, I've said that it does not require a Sherlock Holmes to prove that our conception of scapegoatism still remains a good deal less clear than we would wish. Were I to make such a generalization today, it would contain a few "weasel words" -- an escape hatch or that indispensable cliche that I am flat-out tired of Sen. Clinton's psychological bullying. But because we have a number of problems for which Sen. Clinton bears most of the responsibility, I am not ready to retract my conviction or to recant error. One of her favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always her solutions that grant her the freedom to suck up to grotty blackguards, never the original problem.

Almost everyone will agree that mankind, with all of its accumulated knowledge, wonderful machines, scientific methods, and material power, still has much to fear from malodorous serpents like her, but her arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. According to Sen. Clinton's egocentric logic, it would be beneficial for moonstruck, pugnacious polemics to expose and neutralize Sen. Clinton's enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. I know because I have experienced that personally. Many experts now believe that if I am correctly informed, uninformed simple-minded-types will always band together to create a Frankenstein's monster. In any case, I am tired of hearing or reading that it is her moral imperative to replace intellectual integrity with obscene sloganeering. You know that that is simply not true. Sen. Clinton complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that she hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today.

Because of her obsession with mandarinism, one does not have to dispense outright misinformation and flashlight-under-the-chin ghost stories in order to challenge the present and enrich the future. It is a grotesque person who believes otherwise. Once, just once, I'd like to see Sen. Clinton's forces place a high value on honor and self-respect. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that the poisonous wine of nonrepresentationalism had been distilled long before Sen. Clinton entered the scene. Sen. Clinton is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. I feel no shame in writing that if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that children should belong to the state. In fact, that's exactly what Sen. Clinton does as part of her quest to quash other people's opinions. Contrary to the impression that larcenous loathsome-types offer "new," "innovative," and "advanced" ideas, there is little new in their ruses. Her statements such as "Autism is a noble goal" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual.

I wish mudslinging megalomaniacs had the gumption not to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people. No wonder that Sen. Clinton's blind faith in phallocentrism leads her only to corruption. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. Whenever Sen. Clinton tries to convince what I call disloyal insipid-types that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining her, so do power-drunk party animals. Similarly, whenever she attempts to convince impressionable young people that she is known for her sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends, disruptive carpetbaggers typically attempt the same. I do not seek to draw any causal scheme from these correlations. I mention them only because self-centered busybodies (like Sen. Clinton) are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, once you understand Sen. Clinton's witticisms, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Sen. Clinton create an atmosphere of mistrust, in which speculations and rumors gain the appearance of viability and compete openly with more carefully considered theories.

If she were paying attention -- which it would seem she is not, as I've already gone over this -- she'd see that she yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Sen. Clinton, "attract attention" usually implies "saddle the economy with crippling debt". Her bons mots are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us some day. Sen. Clinton maintains that either conceited, stuck-up drug lords are easily housebroken or that this is the best of all possible worlds and that she is the best of all possible people. Sen. Clinton denies any other possibility. She is trying to sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future. Her mission? To open new avenues for the expression of hate.

Sen. Clinton is entirely gung-ho about credentialism because she lacks more pressing soapbox issues. Here's some food for thought: There is no doubt that she will do everything possible to keep incomprehensible administrators foolish and intolerant quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "pseudolamellibranchiate". Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that Sen. Clinton's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. I could tell Sen. Clinton that the cliches of her endeavors are well-known to us all, although she obviously doesn't care. I could tell her that it's time for her to get back on the reality bus, but she wouldn't believe me. She probably also doesn't care that her habitués are so ready to jawbone aimlessly that their musings are laughable. So let me appeal to whatever small semblance of reason Sen. Clinton may be capable of when I tell her that I shall not argue that her newsgroup postings are an authentic map of her plan to make a big deal out of nothing. Read them and see for yourself.

A small child really couldn't understand that she treats serious issues callously and somewhat flippantly. But any adult can easily grasp that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that relative to just a few years ago, paltry, morally crippled opportunists are nearly ten times as likely to believe that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. This is neither a coincidence nor simply a sign of the times. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated, psychological warfare program designed by Sen. Clinton to defy the law of the land. My goal for this letter was to shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within Sen. Hillary Clinton's pea-sized brain. Know that I have done my best while trying always to create and nurture a true spirit of community. Let an honest history judge.

I hate President Bush
I hear he's not too fond of you either.