Senior Member
Posts: 8,546
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: I don't know
|

09-07-2002, 11:47 PM
I undoubtedly hope that the material I'm about to present will open some eyes and minds. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. Some people have compared testy nutters to sullen, incompetent doofuses. I would like to take the comparison one step further. In the past, people like V.P. Dick Chaney would have been tarred and feathered for trying to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about. His nit-picky equivocations perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to spread awareness of the spineless nature of his anecdotes.
And if you think that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones, then you aren't thinking very clearly. The devil not only finds too much mischief for idle hands to do, but increasingly in our contemporary world, he causes acrimonious, mean-spirited misfits to seek temporary tactical alliances with insane, sententious prophets of obstructionism in order to take us over the edge of the abyss of gangsterism. I would like to put forth the possibility that V.P. Chaney operates on an international scale to operate in the gray area between legitimate activity and incomprehensible despotism. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to provide some balance to V.P. Chaney's one-sided tricks. V.P. Chaney, get a life! I want to give people more information about V.P. Chaney, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I truly hope people draw: V.P. Chaney teaches workshops on authoritarianism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. His reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that it is rude to question his reinterpretations of historic events) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion.
We don't have to stand for this! If I am doomed to jump in the lake, then V.P. Chaney will obviously prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture sometime soon. His maneuvers are in every respect consistent with the school of tasteless thought that tends to make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. Let me quote to you from the words of my attorney: "V.P. Chaney's bromides are not only bad for the immortal soul, but for mortal men and women." Was he just trying to be cute when he said that honor counts for nothing? I sure hope so, because at no time in the past did meretricious shysters shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them.
A leopard can't change its spots, period. To state it in a more sophisticated manner, V.P. Chaney claims that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of tribalism. I think that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that "V.P. Chaney" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone paralyze any serious or firm decision and thereby become responsible for the weak and half-hearted execution of even the most necessary measures, I tell him or her to stop "V.P. Chaney-ing". He says he's going to defile the present and destroy the future one of these days. Is he out of his mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that as lawless as it might sound, he has an uncritical -- almost a worshipful -- attitude toward fatuous goof-offs. Let me rephrase that: His method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "V.P. Chaney-ism". It is a featherbrained and avowedly audacious philosophy that aims to throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future.
Again, V.P. Chaney can't fool me. I've met huffy couch potatoes before, so I know that each day, I see the world becoming more unsophisticated as a determined V.P. Chaney carries out his mindless plans. That said, let me continue. His assistants merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap. This is the flaw in his philosophies. He doesn't understand that the right thing to do in this case is determined by various vectors of forces in an endless multidimensional tug-of-war involving ropes leading out in many directions. No joke.
V.P. Chaney's publications have proven to be a complete disaster in both theory and practice. No wonder that V.P. Chaney's mentality reminds me of the stereotypical bureaucrat who cannot function unless he can "find it in the manual". Let's remember that. I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why V.P. Chaney's ideals are a perfect example of overgeneralization and blatant extremism. My peers feel that V.P. Chaney's language is turgid and incomprehensible. While this is indeed true, I insist we must add that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of nettlesome mystics, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but V.P. Chaney contends that we're supposed to shut up and smile when he says obnoxious, grungy things. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from? Even so, if V.P. Chaney can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If V.P. Chaney can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it. As we organize our campaigns against the most nonrepresentationalism-prone gits you'll ever see and formulate responses to their rhetoric, it is critical that we shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas.
He is more concerned with the social acceptability of an idea than with its truth or falsity. Surely, he is not too delirious to realize that. By the way, if V.P. Chaney is going to make an emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument.
I recently informed him that his lieutenants engender ill will. V.P. Chaney said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, I unquestionably don't believe that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. So when he says that that's what I believe, I see how little he understands my position. He is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, he throws principle to the wind. And for those garrulous bloodsuckers who want to hide behind the argument that V.P. Chaney's underlings are not incoherent suborners of perjury, but rather, scornful, odious chuckleheads, my question is simply this: What's the difference? Since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.
V.P. Chaney is intellectually dishonest in everything he says and does. That's the theory, at least. But in practice, V.P. Chaney says that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. 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!"? Before I continue, let me state that most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let V.P. Chaney redefine humanity as alienated machines/beasts and then convince everyone that they were never human to begin with. His proposed social programs are popular among the most barbaric braggadocios you'll ever see, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept them. His utterances, when taken as a whole, are mad, and deep down in our bones, we all know why.
Armed only with a white shirt, pocket protector, slide rule, thick glasses, and some other neat stuff, I have determined that V.P. Chaney does not merely poke and pry into every facet of our lives. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. You know what I mean? I think I've dished it out to V.P. Dick Chaney as best as I can in this letter. I hope you now understand why I say that it would be a crying shame to let sophomoric boors depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes.
I AM THE LORD OF THE DANCE!
|