07-08-2008, 09:20 AM
At the behest of Rummy, I'll post an intro thread. But first I'd like to say a few words directly to Rummy.
If you are stimulated by new ideas and if you can think for yourself rather than simply accept what Mr. Donald H. Rumsfald dishes out, I think you will find this letter of interest. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how Mr. Rumsfald keeps telling everyone within earshot that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of tribalism. I'm guessing that Mr. Rumsfald read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that we have a choice. Either we let ourselves be led like lambs to the slaughter by Mr. Rumsfald and his trained seals or we feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. While I don't expect you to have much trouble making up your mind you should nevertheless consider that Mr. Rumsfald has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and support hostile governments known for human rights abuses, wrongful imprisonment, and slavery -- all by trumping up a phony emergency.
Mr. Rumsfald avers that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and Donald H. Rumsfald are like oil and water. His philippics may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for "advanced" thought in the humanities already knows that we are now stuck with an untoward collectivism bearing a human face -- that of Donald H. Rumsfald. What may be news, however, is that if you think you can escape from Mr. Rumsfald's insensitive hariolations, then good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Mr. Rumsfald. What we're seeing is a domino effect of events that started with Mr. Rumsfald stating that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. That prevarication incited his brethren to pander to academicism-prone individuals. The most mealymouthed scatterbrains I've ever seen reacted, in turn, by forcing me to develop an eating disorder. The next domino to fall, not surprisingly, was a widespread increase in classism, and that's the event that galvanized me to tell everyone that all Mr. Rumsfald really wants is to hang onto the perks he's getting from the system. That's all he really cares about.
It strikes me as amusing that Mr. Rumsfald complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. I was, however, going to forget about the whole thing when it suddenly occurred to me that one of the goals of racialism is to render meaningless the words "best" and "worst". Mr. Rumsfald admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, Mr. Rumsfald's own mediocrity can flourish. With his flimflams hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles, it makes sense that he and I are as different as chalk and cheese. Mr. Rumsfald, for instance, wants to form the association in the public's mind between any witticisms he disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality. I, on the other hand, want to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. That's why I need to tell you that he claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to inspire a recrudescence of judgmental fatuity. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Mr. Rumsfald's habitués. The truth is that I defy the insipid knuckleheads who turn our country into a sexist cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent.
The bulk of splenetic, sordid duffers are at least marginally tolerable but not Mr. Rumsfald. At first blush, it appears that for him, Bonapartism is the name of the game. However, we must shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within his pea-sized brain. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to criticize his maneuvers publicly for their formalistic categories, their spurious claims of neutrality, and their blindness to the abuse of private power. His tactics are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because what I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that Mr. Rumsfald's the type of person who will trump up any lie for the occasion, and the more of a thumper it is, the better he likes it.
For one thing, crude clodpolls have traditionally tried to piggyback on substantive issues to gain legitimacy for themselves. But more importantly, those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to champion the force of goodness against the greed of infantile backbiters have no right to complain when he and his surrogates insult the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people. As someone who enjoys brandishing words like "counterrevolutionize" and "pharmacodynamic" as a smoke screen to hide his wheelings and dealings' inherent paradoxes, Mr. Rumsfald must truly be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to his dissolute arguments. One of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that his true goal is to sanctify his depravity. All the statements that his apparatchiks make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction.
In the past, it was perfectly clear to everyone with insight and without malice that we must continue to monitor Mr. Rumsfald's cult followers and expose them as the mean-spirited, contemptible hypochondriacs they are. Unfortunately, there were a number of people who seemed to lack this insight at the right time or who, contrary to their better knowledge, contested and denied this truth. What Mr. Rumsfald is incapable of seeing is that he keeps insisting that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that I have a New Year's resolution for Mr. Rumsfald: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the pernicious conclusion that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. His statements such as "The best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to delude and often rob those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to Mr. Rumsfald's snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance" 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.
Mr. Rumsfald's declamations bespeak a spiritual crassness, a materialistic and short-sighted stupidity that will prevent me from getting my work done sooner or later. That, in itself, will condemn us to live with antisocial worrywarts sometime soon. What I think -- and I'm no specialist -- is that relative even to counter-productive fussbudgets, Mr. Rumsfald is more excitable, more violent, less sexually restrained, more impulsive, more prone to crime, less altruistic, less inclined to follow rules, and less cooperative. For that reason, he refers to a variety of things using the word "disproportionableness". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, Mr. Rumsfald's saying that he is as innocent as a newborn lamb, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, it's best to ignore most of the quotes that he so frequently cites. Mr. Rumsfald takes quotes of of context; uses misleading, irrelevant, and out-of-date quotes; and, presents quotes from legitimate authorities used misleadingly to support contentions that they did not intend and that are not true. In short, now that I've been exposed to his insinuations I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps his beer-guzzling conjectures often resemble an inverted fairy tale in that the triumph of innocence comes at the start and the ugly sisters of narcissism and interventionism enter on stage in triumph for the final curtain.
I want to draw two important conclusions from this. The first is that Mr. Rumsfald has a deficiency of real goals, and the second is that I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner. Look, he is extraordinarily brazen. We've all known that for a long time. However, Mr. Rumsfald's willingness to carve out space in the mainstream for morbid politics sets a new record for brazenness. It would be charitable of me not to mention that Mr. Rumsfald accepts -- or, at least, feels obligated to pretend to accept -- the ideological premises of Dadaism. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity so I will instead maintain that his thrasonical rantings cater to the lowest common denominator. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that by promoting both neocolonialism and favoritism, Mr. Rumsfald's announcements are doubly meddlesome. An obvious parallel from a slightly different context is that by allowing him to ruin my entire day, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
Notice the beastly tendency of Mr. Rumsfald's manuscripts. I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Mr. Rumsfald's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many peremptory rabble-rousers realize that Mr. Rumsfald frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what Mr. Rumsfald is doing -- as opposed to what he is saying -- to understand his true aims. Although boosterism is a weapon of defeatism, it is also true that Mr. Rumsfald doesn't care about accountability in our public systems. This is a perverse paradox, the implications of which are too tyrannical to dwell on short of saying that if Mr. Rumsfald can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.
It's easy enough to hate Mr. Rumsfald any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Mr. Rumsfald is up to, things that ought to make a real Mr. Rumsfald-hater out of you. First off, he thinks we want him to assail all that is holy. Excuse me, but maybe this is explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material I plan to present. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: His "paradigm-shifting strategic initiatives" shred the basic compact between the people and their government. I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a "compassionate" Donald H. Rumsfald. It's hard to spot the compassion when you notice that Mr. Rumsfald had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, he gave us sectarianism, charlatanism, and Jacobinism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since the picture I am presenting need not be confined to Mr. Rumsfald's canards. It applies to everything he says and does. We must act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even simplism. We must examine the social and cultural conditions that lead Mr. Donald H. Rumsfald to create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to lift the fog from his thinking. And we must preserve the peace. Please join me in incorporating these words into our living credo.
If you are stimulated by new ideas and if you can think for yourself rather than simply accept what Mr. Donald H. Rumsfald dishes out, I think you will find this letter of interest. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how Mr. Rumsfald keeps telling everyone within earshot that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of tribalism. I'm guessing that Mr. Rumsfald read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that we have a choice. Either we let ourselves be led like lambs to the slaughter by Mr. Rumsfald and his trained seals or we feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. While I don't expect you to have much trouble making up your mind you should nevertheless consider that Mr. Rumsfald has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and support hostile governments known for human rights abuses, wrongful imprisonment, and slavery -- all by trumping up a phony emergency.
Mr. Rumsfald avers that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and Donald H. Rumsfald are like oil and water. His philippics may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for "advanced" thought in the humanities already knows that we are now stuck with an untoward collectivism bearing a human face -- that of Donald H. Rumsfald. What may be news, however, is that if you think you can escape from Mr. Rumsfald's insensitive hariolations, then good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Mr. Rumsfald. What we're seeing is a domino effect of events that started with Mr. Rumsfald stating that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. That prevarication incited his brethren to pander to academicism-prone individuals. The most mealymouthed scatterbrains I've ever seen reacted, in turn, by forcing me to develop an eating disorder. The next domino to fall, not surprisingly, was a widespread increase in classism, and that's the event that galvanized me to tell everyone that all Mr. Rumsfald really wants is to hang onto the perks he's getting from the system. That's all he really cares about.
It strikes me as amusing that Mr. Rumsfald complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. I was, however, going to forget about the whole thing when it suddenly occurred to me that one of the goals of racialism is to render meaningless the words "best" and "worst". Mr. Rumsfald admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, Mr. Rumsfald's own mediocrity can flourish. With his flimflams hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles, it makes sense that he and I are as different as chalk and cheese. Mr. Rumsfald, for instance, wants to form the association in the public's mind between any witticisms he disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality. I, on the other hand, want to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. That's why I need to tell you that he claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to inspire a recrudescence of judgmental fatuity. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Mr. Rumsfald's habitués. The truth is that I defy the insipid knuckleheads who turn our country into a sexist cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent.
The bulk of splenetic, sordid duffers are at least marginally tolerable but not Mr. Rumsfald. At first blush, it appears that for him, Bonapartism is the name of the game. However, we must shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within his pea-sized brain. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to criticize his maneuvers publicly for their formalistic categories, their spurious claims of neutrality, and their blindness to the abuse of private power. His tactics are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because what I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that Mr. Rumsfald's the type of person who will trump up any lie for the occasion, and the more of a thumper it is, the better he likes it.
For one thing, crude clodpolls have traditionally tried to piggyback on substantive issues to gain legitimacy for themselves. But more importantly, those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to champion the force of goodness against the greed of infantile backbiters have no right to complain when he and his surrogates insult the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people. As someone who enjoys brandishing words like "counterrevolutionize" and "pharmacodynamic" as a smoke screen to hide his wheelings and dealings' inherent paradoxes, Mr. Rumsfald must truly be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to his dissolute arguments. One of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that his true goal is to sanctify his depravity. All the statements that his apparatchiks make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction.
In the past, it was perfectly clear to everyone with insight and without malice that we must continue to monitor Mr. Rumsfald's cult followers and expose them as the mean-spirited, contemptible hypochondriacs they are. Unfortunately, there were a number of people who seemed to lack this insight at the right time or who, contrary to their better knowledge, contested and denied this truth. What Mr. Rumsfald is incapable of seeing is that he keeps insisting that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that I have a New Year's resolution for Mr. Rumsfald: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the pernicious conclusion that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. His statements such as "The best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to delude and often rob those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to Mr. Rumsfald's snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance" 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.
Mr. Rumsfald's declamations bespeak a spiritual crassness, a materialistic and short-sighted stupidity that will prevent me from getting my work done sooner or later. That, in itself, will condemn us to live with antisocial worrywarts sometime soon. What I think -- and I'm no specialist -- is that relative even to counter-productive fussbudgets, Mr. Rumsfald is more excitable, more violent, less sexually restrained, more impulsive, more prone to crime, less altruistic, less inclined to follow rules, and less cooperative. For that reason, he refers to a variety of things using the word "disproportionableness". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, Mr. Rumsfald's saying that he is as innocent as a newborn lamb, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, it's best to ignore most of the quotes that he so frequently cites. Mr. Rumsfald takes quotes of of context; uses misleading, irrelevant, and out-of-date quotes; and, presents quotes from legitimate authorities used misleadingly to support contentions that they did not intend and that are not true. In short, now that I've been exposed to his insinuations I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps his beer-guzzling conjectures often resemble an inverted fairy tale in that the triumph of innocence comes at the start and the ugly sisters of narcissism and interventionism enter on stage in triumph for the final curtain.
I want to draw two important conclusions from this. The first is that Mr. Rumsfald has a deficiency of real goals, and the second is that I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner. Look, he is extraordinarily brazen. We've all known that for a long time. However, Mr. Rumsfald's willingness to carve out space in the mainstream for morbid politics sets a new record for brazenness. It would be charitable of me not to mention that Mr. Rumsfald accepts -- or, at least, feels obligated to pretend to accept -- the ideological premises of Dadaism. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity so I will instead maintain that his thrasonical rantings cater to the lowest common denominator. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that by promoting both neocolonialism and favoritism, Mr. Rumsfald's announcements are doubly meddlesome. An obvious parallel from a slightly different context is that by allowing him to ruin my entire day, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
Notice the beastly tendency of Mr. Rumsfald's manuscripts. I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Mr. Rumsfald's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many peremptory rabble-rousers realize that Mr. Rumsfald frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what Mr. Rumsfald is doing -- as opposed to what he is saying -- to understand his true aims. Although boosterism is a weapon of defeatism, it is also true that Mr. Rumsfald doesn't care about accountability in our public systems. This is a perverse paradox, the implications of which are too tyrannical to dwell on short of saying that if Mr. Rumsfald can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.
It's easy enough to hate Mr. Rumsfald any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Mr. Rumsfald is up to, things that ought to make a real Mr. Rumsfald-hater out of you. First off, he thinks we want him to assail all that is holy. Excuse me, but maybe this is explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material I plan to present. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: His "paradigm-shifting strategic initiatives" shred the basic compact between the people and their government. I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a "compassionate" Donald H. Rumsfald. It's hard to spot the compassion when you notice that Mr. Rumsfald had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, he gave us sectarianism, charlatanism, and Jacobinism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since the picture I am presenting need not be confined to Mr. Rumsfald's canards. It applies to everything he says and does. We must act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even simplism. We must examine the social and cultural conditions that lead Mr. Donald H. Rumsfald to create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to lift the fog from his thinking. And we must preserve the peace. Please join me in incorporating these words into our living credo.
![[Image: AllAboutMeLarge.jpg]](http://happybunny.orbitearthstores.com/images/AllAboutMeLarge.jpg)
