Just fill in the blanks and complain.
Hey, eunoia, click.
Pretty amazing site. I fed in Georege W Bush and got:
George W Bush’s doctrines have been getting a lot of undeserved attention recently. Before I begin, let me point out that if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of George’s principles, one is promptly condemned as unconscionable, boisterous, pouty, or whatever epithet George deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. He has never tried to stop dangerous drunks who exploit the feelings of charity and guilt that many people have over the plight of the homeless. In fact, quite the opposite is true: George encourages that sort of behavior. Two quick comments: 1) His op-ed pieces remain opaque to many observers who dismiss him on the basis of his patronizing grievances and general lunacy, and 2) I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness – not in a dark, incompetent world run by birdbrained polemics. While I myself contend that he has every right to his amateurish, peevish opinions, he wants to pooh-pooh the concerns of others. It gets better: He believes that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. I guess no one’s ever told him that it’s easy enough to hate him any day of the week on general principles. But now I’ll tell you about some very specific things that he is up to, things that ought to make a real George-hater out of you. First off, if he can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else, I will personally deliver his Nobel Prize for Hectoring Rhetoric. In the meantime, some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with appalling, obtrusive bureaucrats on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to do the devil’s work. George can write anything he wants about how things would be different were we to give into his demands and let him sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don’t need, but there is no reason to borrow money and spend it on programs that use scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets and there is every reason not to. If you doubt this, just ask around.
Many people respond to his fastidious, deranged conjectures in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That’s why I insist we develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to renew those institutions of civil society – like families, schools, churches, and civic groups – that rub his nose in his own hypocrisy.
Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this letter: George wants to violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. Why he wants that, I don’t know, but that’s what he wants. What he is incapable of seeing is that only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to stop the Huns at the gate. But the first step is to acknowledge that not only does George hijack the word “establishmentarianism” and use it to spoon-feed us his pabulum, but he then commands his emissaries, “Go, and do thou likewise.” But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like George.
I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that George’s whinges represent the most brutish form of moral turpitude conceivable. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. Never have I seen such a gross error in judgment as George’s decision to resort to underhanded tactics. Furthermore, George ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you’re not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. Others have stated it much more eloquently than I, but I correctly predicted that he would parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire. Alas, I didn’t think he’d do that so effectively – or so soon.
George claims that he never engages in mindless, subversive, or insensitive politics. That claim is preposterous and, to use George’s own language, overtly disreputable. No history can justify it. I claim that it is singularly apt that this is nothing new. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that he truly believes that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to gum up what were once great ideas. I hope you realize that that’s just a pigheaded pipe dream from a disingenuous, bad-tempered pipe, and that in the real world, this makes George’s litanies seem goofy and even a bit judgemental. 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 if I withheld my feelings on this matter, I’d be no less brown-nosing than George. I close this letter along the same lines it opened on: As a dynamic historical current, fogyism has taken many different forms and has evolved dramatically in some ways.
Truer words were never said.
All credit to friedo. In my defense, a search of “Scott Pakin” gave no results. Who do I complain to? heh heh…