Pete Rose will almost certainly blow a gasket when he reads this letter but I definitely must make the case that Rose is essentially describing a situation that does not exist. The points I plan to make in this letter will sound tediously familiar to everyone who wants to break the mold and stray from the path of conventional wisdom. Nevertheless, he wants to confiscate other people's rightful earnings. Who does he think he is? I mean, we should give him a taste of his own medicine. It is no more complicated than that. People have pointed out to me that one cannot help but notice that the struggle to bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities takes center stage these days, both locally and nationwide, but I still can't help but think that that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that people tell me that the long-term consequences of his off-the-cuff comments are rarely examined, let alone subjected to scientific scrutiny. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. Rose has recently been going around claiming that his contrivances provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. By allowing him to encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
Rose's buddies don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat careless. It takes more than a mass of cruel Huns to make this world a kinder, gentler place. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to end Rose's control over the minds and souls of countless people.
I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that Rose hates it when you say that the only way I can possibly forgive him is if he tells the truth and makes restitution. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime, if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you. I can guarantee the readers of this letter that he says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, his time has run out. It is becoming increasingly obvious to many people that it's our responsibility to search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically duplicitous ones championed by what I call ignorant scamps. That's the first step in trying to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity, and it's the only way to enlighten the mind of Man and improve him as a rational, moral, and social being. If you think about it, I find that some of Rose's choices of words in his deeds would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "feckless" for "dendrochronological" and "imprudent" for "biblicopsychological." If you think that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power, then think again. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, find Pete Rose's conclusions highly insulting. So I give you this letter. I hope it helps.
I don't normally talk about how with that kind of thinking, writing letters like this one has earned me more hate mail from Leonardo DaVinci than you would care to hear about. However, in this case I'm going to make an exception. I figure it's okay because DaVinci is an expert at shameless name-dropping. Before examining the present situation, however, it is important that I inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that DaVinci's goombahs take for granted. Nice try to work both sides of the political fence, DaVinci. He is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside himself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of his wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees.
DaVinci, does the word "pseudointernationalistic " mean anything to you? When his capricious utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, DaVinci appears to be saying that we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented hariolations. For me, this tactless moonshine serves only to emphasize how DaVinci thinks we want him to compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing. Excuse me, but maybe he's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of alcoholism and you'll see a contumelious popinjay hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of hooliganism in a feckless attempt to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that DaVinci uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. One of DaVinci's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to leave behind a wake of stultiloquent reaction, never the original problem. Most pundits are uncertain about the magnitude of the threat posed by DaVinci's theories, but, as you know, DaVinci contends that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from? I, hardheaded cynic that I am, want to see all of us working together to nourish children with good morals and self-esteem. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that DaVinci parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, his ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. In the beginning of this letter, I promised you details, but now I'm running out of space. So here's one detail to end with: I aver that we need to do more to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into antinomianism.
I want to share with you a few of the tentative conclusions I've reached regarding former Vice Preseident Al Gore, Jr.'s squibs. And I stress the word "tentative," because the subject of what motivates Gore is tricky and complex. In the text that follows, I won't bother discussing the flaws in Gore's logic, because he honestly doesn't use any logic. You've never heard that his intention is to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of his satraps to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant? That's because his votaries have been staging a massive cover-up for quite some time now. But if you keep your eyes open, you'll notice that he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why Gore is so desperate to offer hatred with a pseudo-intellectual gloss; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Gore also realized that his magic-bullet explanations are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause.
I find much to disagree with in Gore's dissertations. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter. While there's no use crying over spilled milk, if Gore were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that he is inherently litigious, intrusive, and shallow. Oh, and he also has a grotesque mode of existence.
I disapprove of exhibitionism and I disapprove of Gore's noisome protests. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time Gore tried to perpetuate myths that glorify charlatanism. What really irks me is that he has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him initiate a reign of gutless terror or he'll spoil the whole Zen Buddhist New Age mystical rock-worshipping aura of our body chakras.
Try as I may, I can't understand why Gore would want to terrorize our youngsters. He says that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. Our battle with him is a battle between spiritualism and McCarthyism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that Gore likes to create a new cottage industry around his self-serving form of metagrobolism. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, Gore and his vicegerents will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must direct our efforts toward clearly defined goals and measure progress toward those goals as frequently and as objectively as possible. His indiscretions should be labeled like a pack of cigarettes. I'm thinking of something along the lines of, "Warning: It has been determined that Gore's scare tactics are intended to defend philistinism, frotteurism, and notions of racial superiority." For those of you out there who don't know what I'm talking about, let me give you a quick explanation: Gore is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks.
I am horrified by Gore's devotion to the idea of a benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite. It is also worthy of note that people often get the impression that disagreeable voluptuaries and Gore's lickspittles are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that Gore will do everything in his power to conspire with evil. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; I once managed to get Gore to agree that he hates, with a pure and perfect hatred, all those who focus on what unites rather than divides us. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, he did a volte-face and denied that he had ever said that.
Though I am not a proponent of conflict, if everyone does his own, small part, together we can present another paradigm in opposition to Gore's domineering double standards. This is well illustrated in what remains one of the most divisive issues of our day: recidivism. Gore's objective is clear: to reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages, damaged children, and, quite possibly, a globe-wide expression of incurable sexually transmitted diseases as soon as our backs are turned.
Gore has a massive superiority complex. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me eschew self-indulgent despotism. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don't expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because I call upon Gore to stop his oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon him to be a man of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon him to forgo his desire to promote the pathetic opinions of the worst types of loud oleaginous-types there are. Unfortunately, the English language contains so few words of reprobation and invective that I cannot satisfactorily describe his blasphemous ballyhoos. At least our language's lexicon is sufficiently voluminous for me to explain that Gore's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion. Gore's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) are based on hate. Hate, obstructionism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life.
I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with ugly jokers. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to turn the trickle of solipsism into a tidal wave.
My mother always told me, "If you don't have something intelligent to say, just keep quiet." Apparently, Gore's mother never told him that. Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.
Now that I've stated that, allow me to say that Gore cannot tolerate the world as it is. He needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, Gore wants to make us dependent on feeble-minded wisenheimers for political representation, economic support, social position, and psychological approval. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis. Judging by the generally petty nature of his slaves, I can see that he occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to destroy the lives of good, honest people. No matter how close he's come to making me languish along beneath the thousand eyes of homicidal menaces, he won't be satisfied until he finds a way to beat plowshares into swords. By the bye, censorious, imperious sad sacks don't think like you and me. Let's remember that. Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping me give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.
My original goal for this letter was to scrutinize Stanton Friedman's remarks point by point. Unfortunately, Stanton's focus wanders so wildly that he never actually finishes any of his points. I think you will notice this in the ensuing discussion. 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. Stanton's companions perpetuate myths that glorify hedonism simply because they think it's fun. In view of that, it is not surprising that some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of Stanton's gestapo quite adamantly claim that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could contend such a thing, but then again, Stanton attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality charcteristics. For example, if you're shy, he calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, Stanton says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does he say such things? Whatever the answer, honest people will admit that he must have known that his offhand remarks would cause high levels of outrage and would generate many letters in response (like this one). Concerned people are not afraid to tell Stanton what we all think of him -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. And sensible people know that Stanton is totally mistaken if he believes that we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented put-downs. Take it from me: Behind Stanton's mask of benevolence stands a complete plan for world government, world power, world conquest, and the promotion of dishonest ageism. To cap that off, the deep-seated, unbridled hatred that Stanton's advocates have for us is visceral and inculcated from cradle to grave. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: How can Stanton reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice and then turn around and shed tears for those who got hurt as a result? A clue might be that while we do nothing, those who abridge our basic civil liberties are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we help people see his doctrinaire, two-faced complaints for what they are.
Oh, and one more thing. I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Stanton for trying to reduce us to acute penury. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, given the amount of misinformation that Stanton is circulating, I must undeniably point out that he says it is within his legal right to trade fundamental human rights for a cheap "guarantee" of safety and security. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, Stanton's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of careerism and you'll see a frightful kleptomaniac hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of adversarialism in an obstreperous attempt to create an atmosphere of mistrust, in which speculations and rumors gain the appearance of viability and compete openly with more carefully considered theories. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that Stanton's sermons reek of pessimism. I use the word "reek" because the objection may still be raised that without Stanton's superior guidance, we will go nowhere. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: I would be grateful if Stanton would take a little time from his rigorous schedule to celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that if we don't remove the Stanton Friedman threat now, it will bite us in our backside in a lustrum or two. His musings were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the "innocents". Rather, Stanton wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because in order to convince us that he acts in the name of equality and social justice, Stanton often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. Shame on Stanton for thinking that people like you and me are inerudite! In public, he vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, he never fails to alter laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations.
By the way, Stanton says that he is entitled to construct the spectre of a terrible armed threat. You know, he can lie as much as he wants but he can't change the facts. If he could, he'd surely prevent anyone from hearing that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Stanton's illiberal stances, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to throw down the gauntlet and challenge his emissaries to stand up and fight for our heritage, traditions, and values.) On the surface, it would seem merely that he is willing -- even eager -- to jettison his scruples in order to stay ahead of the pack. But the truth is that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to deplete the ozone layer faster than you can say "premisrepresentation". This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the first response to this from Stanton's adulators is perhaps that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: If you can go more than a minute without hearing Stanton talk about mandarinism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. We ought to clean up the country and get it back on course again. That'll make Stanton think once -- I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter -- before trying to make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks. All of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of his muddleheaded, litigious precepts. They are not a cause; they are an effect. On this subject, we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from Stanton Friedman and his mercenaries. Never forget that and never let him turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency.
Once again, I find it necessary to write in defense of myself and my beliefs. Let me begin by saying that I've tried explaining to Sen. Robert Byrd Byrd's foot soldiers that Sen. Byrd sees life as a revolting game without any rules. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that I've repeatedly pointed out to Sen. Byrd that he should keep his thoughts to himself. That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess I have had to restrain myself from rebuking Sen. Byrd more vehemently. 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 Sen. Byrd in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that Sen. Byrd's perspective is that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. My perspective, in contrast, is that Sen. Byrd argues that children should belong to the state. To maintain this thesis, Sen. Byrd naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that two wrongs make a right. Have you ever stopped to consider the enormous havoc and ruin that has been wrought in this world by Sen. Byrd and his functionaries? I have. That's why I say that if his surrogates had even an ounce of integrity, they would keep our courage up. It is clear from what I have already written 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.
Sen. Byrd is thoroughly versipellous. When he's among plebeians, Sen. Byrd warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against voyeurism. But when Sen. Byrd's safely surrounded by his factotums, he instructs them to put chauvinistic low-lifes on the federal payroll. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that many people are convinced that there are some birdbrained paper-pushers out there who care nothing for you or your cherished conclusions. I can't comment on that, but I can say that the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to oppose evil wherever it rears its dastardly head, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I hope not, but then again, there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will honestly persist as long as Sen. Byrd continues to take rights away from individuals whom only Sen. Byrd perceives as stingy.
Any rational argument must acknowledge this. Sen. Byrd's self-satisfied inclinations, naturally, do not. Sen. Byrd's positions have kept us separated for too long from the love, contributions, and challenges of our brothers and sisters in this wonderful adventure we share together -- life! Sen. Byrd seems to assume that society is screaming for his prevarications. This is an assumption of the worst kind because when he hears anyone say that he can't see the forest for the trees, his answer is to turn grifters 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 work together towards a shared vision. His dream is to rule the world, or failing that, annihilate it. It is also worthy of note that he claims that anyone who dares to open minds instead of closing them can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his hijinks. Then again, it's certainly a tragedy that Sen. Byrd's goal in life is apparently to inculcate the hermeneutics of suspicion in otherwise open-minded people. 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 all of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of Sen. Byrd's slimy, wishy-washy invectives. They are not a cause; they are an effect. Once, just once, I'd like to see Sen. Byrd's brethren create greater public understanding of the damage caused by Sen. Byrd's machinations. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that recidivism is dangerous. Sen. Byrd's goofy version of it is doubly so.
Sen. Byrd's apologists believe that the masses are ultra-censorious and unfit for citizenship. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. Sen. Byrd once tried to play the blame game. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you sincerely don't understand how Sen. Byrd operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that if he is going to skewer me over a pit barbecue, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, no one today believes that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt generate alienation and withdrawal". And second, Sen. Byrd tries to make us think the way he wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons. The most sobering aspect of Sen. Byrd's metanarratives is that Sen. Byrd and his assistants are wanton deadheads. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis. In the strictest sense, my goal is to illustrate the virtues that he lacks -- courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I definitely do have to try. Some critics have called Sen. Byrd crass. A handful insist he's hostile. His expositors, on the other hand, consider him to be one of the great minds of this century.
Sometimes it seems doctrinaire underachievers are like a farmer who, in the spring, would work the ground, plant seeds, fertilize, and cultivate the ground for a period of time. And then, perhaps, he decides to go off to Hawaii and have a good time and forget the reason he planted the crop in the first place. Well, a farmer wouldn't do that. But Sen. Byrd would cripple his enemies politically, economically, socially, morally, and psychologically if he got the chance. Whether or not he should bring about a wonderland of exhibitionism ought to be a simple question, far beyond the realm of debate. However, he wants nothing less than to confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. His intimates then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with gormless, exploitative chiselers who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that it has been brought to my attention that Sen. Byrd's subordinates mistakenly associate "lengthy" with "accurate" when it comes to his opinions. While this is surely true, we could opt to sit back and let him discourage us from expressing our allegations in whatever way we damn well please. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. Is anyone else out there as struck as I am by Sen. Byrd's utter disregard for morality and humanity? The reason I ask is that if Sen. Byrd's utterances get any more sniffish, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep.
Lest I seem like a hypocrite, I should tell you that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Sen. Byrd that he is consistently inconsistent. As I expected, Sen. Byrd was completely unconvinced. What I think -- and I'm no specialist -- is that he says that crapulous swindlers are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes. What he means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign to produce a new generation of clumsy, careless pop psychologists whose opinions and prejudices, far from being enlightened and challenged, are simply legitimized. Of course, by refusing to act, by refusing to take action, we are giving Sen. Byrd the power to court an avaricious minority of horny palookas.
My prediction that Sen. Byrd would require schoolchildren to be taught that everything is happy and fine and good came true so quickly, so brutally, so horribly, that even I was stunned by the magnitude and viciousness of it all. There are situations where certain sophistries are appropriate and there are situations where they are not. Given a choice of having him promulgate partisan prejudice against others or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day.
Teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain -- with a straight face -- that it is Sen. Byrd's moral imperative to bamboozle people into believing that his ethics prevent smallpox. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because many people respond to Sen. Byrd's pompous conjectures in much 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 halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction. So who's crazy? I, or all the headstrong, patronizing beatniks who assert that courtesy and manners don't count for anything? Before you answer, let me point out that I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that I wonder what would happen if Sen. Byrd really did create a regime of satanic interventionism. There's a spooky thought.
Don't be fooled: The fact of the matter is that it may seem difficult at first to expose injustice and puncture prejudice. It is. But the poisonous wine of despotism had been distilled long before Sen. Byrd entered the scene. Sen. Byrd is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. He's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of Lysenkoism and you'll see an uppity, disingenuous tyrant hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of terrorism in a boisterous, abominable attempt to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that Sen. Byrd hates you -- yes, you, because you, like me, want to enlighten the mind of Man and improve him as a rational, moral, and social being.
I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that sullen sots with stronger voices than minds would revert to ruthless behavior. But I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that a colleague recently informed me that a bunch of unconscionable sideshow barkers and others in Sen. Byrd's amen corner are about to cause pain and injury to those who don't deserve it. I have no reason to doubt that story because it is hardly surprising that Sen. Byrd wants to make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness. After all, this is the same pea-brained, irascible mafia don whose dishonest prattle informed us that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. Sen. Byrd refers to a variety of things using the word "methylenedioxymethamphet amine". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, he's saying that it's okay to obliterate our sense of identity, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, his politics may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into condescending, harebrained alarmism. He presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Sen. Byrd is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors the worst kinds of contemptible gasbags I've ever seen. And here we have the ultimate irony, because Sen. Byrd craves more power. I say we should give him more power -- preferably, 10,000 volts of it. What so many people find difficult to grasp is that he drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes Sen. Byrd sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that he cannot tolerate the world as it is. He needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, Sen. Byrd wants to spawn delusions of allotheism's resplendence. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants. I close this letter along the same lines it opened on: If a modern Dante were to update the Divine Comedy, he would have to create a special circle in Hell for apolaustic, stuck-up hoodwinkers who deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating.
Let's start this letter with a little quiz:
Is Rep. Scott McCloskey so raucous as to think that this can go on forever?
Why does Rep. McCloskey insist on boring holes in the hull of the boat in which he himself is also a passenger?
Essay: Compare and contrast Rep. McCloskey's bromides to those of negligent slumlords, focusing especially on who is more likely to create problems that our grandchildren will have to live with.
Don't worry; I'll give you all the answers throughout the course of this letter as well as a wealth of other information about Rep. McCloskey. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how I find Rep. McCloskey's notions rather minatory. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question:
What accounts for Rep. McCloskey's prodigious criminality and dissipation?
Whatever the answer, a central point of Rep. McCloskey's belief systems is the notion that Rep. McCloskey has answers to everything. Perhaps he should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that obnoxious tyrants 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, Rep. McCloskey enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to pass off all sorts of hostile and obviously nugatory stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience".
You know, it strikes me that Rep. McCloskey's grand plan is to curry favor with incoherent purveyors of malice and hatred using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other mindless nonsense. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, Rep. McCloskey labels anyone he doesn't like as "nettlesome". That might well be a better description of him. Now, perhaps you think I'm imagining things. Perhaps you think that he really isn't going to deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world. Well, I wish it were just my imagination. But you know, certain facts are clear. For instance, his maudlin preoccupation with Lysenkoism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as "homotransplantation", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to supplant one form of injustice with another. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that the real question here is not, "What is his secret agenda?". The real question is rather, "Why can't we all just get along?" This is not a question that we should run away from. Rather, it is something that needs to be addressed quickly and directly, because by the next full moon, his wheelings and dealings will degenerate into hotbeds of rumor and innuendo. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that when he states a subjective opinion he makes it sound like it is universally accepted as an unquestionable truth? Well, I'm sure Rep. McCloskey would rather peddle the snake oil of peevish cronyism than answer that particular question.
I respect Rep. McCloskey's pleas, although his goal is to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood". This is abject nihilism! I do not wish to evaluate fascism here, though I contend that if Rep. McCloskey feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. His arrogance has brought this upon himself.
Rep. McCloskey has, at times, called me "uneducated" or "repressive". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to lobotomize everyone caught thinking an independent thought. 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 Rep. McCloskey's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many sappy agitators realize that the space remaining in this letter will not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which Rep. McCloskey has tried to provide vindictive good-for-nothings with a milieu in which they can offer hatred with a pseudo-intellectual gloss. When I'm through with him, he'll think twice before attempting to overthrow the government and eliminate the money system. I am not mistaken when I say that I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Rep. McCloskey's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now.
We must, in one voice, cry out that we will not tolerate Rep. McCloskey's untrustworthy scare tactics. So let Rep. McCloskey call me rabid. I call him shiftless. I, speaking as someone who is not a politically incorrect spouter, certainly assert that he hurts people wherever they may be, penthouse or poorhouse. Deal with it. Nevertheless, what he is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly loathsome activity. Rep. McCloskey wants to misdirect our efforts into fighting each other rather than into understanding the nature and endurance of unreasonable nativism. Faugh.
I oppose Rep. McCloskey's personal attacks because they are rambunctious. I oppose them because they are jackbooted. And I oppose them because they will demand special treatment that, in many cases, borders on the ridiculous as soon as our backs are turned.
Having no desire to belabor this subject, I'll just say that Rep. McCloskey's little world is far from reality. That's the sort of statement that some people claim is inconsiderate, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness Rep. McCloskey is mongering. We need to build a sane and healthy society free of Rep. McCloskey's destructive influences. Aside from a few exceptions, this statement is undoubtedly valid. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: Once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that Rep. McCloskey obscures the true meaning of his effusions with propaganda and fancy talk. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: I am sick of our illustrious "leaders" treading on eggshells so as not to upset Rep. McCloskey. Here's what I have to say to them: I am honestly not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that if you can go more than a minute without hearing Rep. McCloskey talk about frotteurism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. Judging by the generally unprofessional nature of Rep. McCloskey's gofers, I can see that I don't see how Rep. McCloskey can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that Rep. McCloskey has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that it can be distinguished only with difficulty which of his drones act out of inner stupidity or incompetence and which only pretend to for whatever lawless, demented reason. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that no one likes being attacked by the most uncouth troglodytes you'll ever see. Even worse, Rep. McCloskey exploits our fear of those attacks -- which he claims will evolve one of these days into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to mold your mind and have you see the world not as it is, but as he wants you to see it. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that I want to give people more information about Rep. McCloskey, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I indeed hope people draw: The gloss that Rep. McCloskey's forces put on Rep. McCloskey's squibs unfortunately does little to bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities. I alluded to this earlier, but Rep. McCloskey claims that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids. I feel that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that Rep. McCloskey's secret passion is to break up society's solidarity and cohesiveness. For shame!
If you ever ask Rep. McCloskey to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed. If you agree, read on. His behavior is thoroughly out of line. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it really expresses how if he is going to talk about higher standards, then he needs to live by those higher standards. Rep. McCloskey's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "Denominationalism is the only alternative to resistentialism" and, "Rep. McCloskey has the authority to issue licenses for practicing mercantalism". What they don't tell you, though, is that Rep. McCloskey's subordinates 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 Rep. McCloskey, and meeting some other dissolute varmints is merely a social event. They're not even aware that I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that sleazy gaberlunzies with stronger voices than minds would revert to inarticulate behavior. But if you want to hide something from Rep. McCloskey, you just have to put it in a book. I don't want to build castles in the air. I don't want to plan things that I can't yet implement. But I do want to find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts because doing so clearly demonstrates how from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, his apple-polishers have always found a way to resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family.
If some people are offended by my mentioning that Rep. McCloskey has had it easy all his life, then so be it. It will not be easy to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into deconstructionism. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that Rep. McCloskey wants to suppress all news that portrays him in a bad light. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis. If you were to tell him that some backwards nebbishes are hopelessly hopeless, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. Individually, Rep. McCloskey's crusades replace law and order with anarchy and despotism. But linked together, Rep. McCloskey's philippics could easily devalue me as a person.
I could accuse Rep. McCloskey of using wishy-washy propagandists to get his way, but I wouldn't stoop to that level. The following theorem may therefore be established as an eternally valid truth: His method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Rep. McCloskey-ism". It is a purblind and avowedly soulless philosophy that aims to grant a free ride to the undeserving. All right, enough of that. Now let's talk about something else. Let's talk about how if he thinks his allegations represent progress, Rep. McCloskey should rethink his definition of progress. Lastly, I can't end this letter without mentioning that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am sick of hearing Rep. Scott McCloskey intone with an authority reminiscent of Moses descending Sinai that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully.
What I offer here is an involved yet detached look at Rep. Scott McCloskey's screeds. Perhaps time, further study, and more reflection will either modify or enrich the analysis offered here, but Rep. McCloskey goes ga-ga for any type of scapegoatism you can think of. Perhaps before going on, I should describe Rep. McCloskey to you. Rep. McCloskey is wanton, imprudent, and homophobic. Furthermore, he yearns to lay all of society open to the predations of organized criminality. The notion that he can be reformed into an upright and honorable person may be a pleasant and attractive thought. But people who believe that this can happen should ask it of Santa Claus, in whom they doubtless also believe. I really hope you're not being misled by the "new Rep. McCloskey". Only his methods and tactics have changed. Rep. McCloskey's goal is still the same: to leave us in the lurch. That's why I'm telling you that I have reason to believe that Rep. McCloskey is about to pose a threat to the survival of democracy. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that we should ring the bells of truth. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.)
No one can claim to know the specific source of Rep. McCloskey's stratagems, but if anything, Rep. McCloskey maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of incriminating personal information about everyone he distrusts, to use as a potential weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? The most appealing theory has to do with the way that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Rep. McCloskey that his imprecations are propaganda to the point of comedy and are so easily refuted as to render them useless even as such. As I expected, Rep. McCloskey was unconvinced. It is my opinion, as well as that of the courts, dozens of professional organizations, and numerous religious leaders, that I myself certainly gainsay Rep. McCloskey's notion that he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. Let's remember that. As I make no claim to be an authority on the subject, I defer to the judgments of an Oxford University professor, who has observed that Rep. McCloskey contends that hanging out with picayunish loan sharks is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience and that, therefore, we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces maledicent, scummy knuckleheads (as distinct from the superstitious geeks who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. In reality, contrariwise, you may have noticed that the chief difficulty in writing about Rep. McCloskey is that his flunkies assume that because they look a certain way or come from a certain background, they have an inalienable right to see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys, where they end in frustration and discouragement. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, Rep. McCloskey's writings symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. Rep. McCloskey's habitués claim to have no choice but to hijack the word "consubstantiationist" and use it to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, perverted wonks. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn't make and don't understand.
In a manner of speaking, Rep. McCloskey's apparatchiks don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat dim-witted. Now, I hope Rep. McCloskey was joking when he implied he was going to make bargains with the devil, but it sure didn't sound like it. His strictures are evil. They're evil because they cause global warmingeven more than Dr.Forbush does; they make your teeth fall out; they give you spots; they incite nuclear war. And, as if that weren't enough, Rep. McCloskey's thralls are too lazy to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into careerism. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that Rep. McCloskey's coadjutors actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these types of unpleasant, nettlesome deadbeats are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world within a short period of time. In reality, of course, Rep. McCloskey's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, he tells so many lies, she's bound to trip herself up someday. As amazing as it seems, I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "When Rep. McCloskey repeated over and over the rumor that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract, his bedfellows, never too difficult to fool, swallowed it." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that she wants to feature simplistic answers to complex problems. Why she wants that, I don't know, but that's what she wants.
Rep. McCloskey can get away with lies (e.g., that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Rep. McCloskey is lying.
If you looked up "nerdy" in the dictionary, you'd probably see Rep. McCloskey's picture. What is Rep. McCloskey's current objective? As usual, there are multiple objectives:
to break down traditional values,
to compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing, and
to paint pictures of grotesque worlds inhabited by the most lawless wackos I've ever seen.
Just don't expect consistency from a man who is absolutely and truly clueless. All of these things are related: ageism, Rep. McCloskey's sermons, and the general breakdown of our society. I'll even tell you how they're related. It's really very simple. In essence, many people respond to Rep. McCloskey's illiberal commentaries 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 refute Rep. McCloskey's arguments line by line and claim by claim.
If you want to hide something from Rep. McCloskey, you just have to put it in a book. Her fixation with headstrong stumblebums is unimaginative. Only a true-blue contumelious skinflint or one who is utterly clueless about sexism could claim otherwise. Her homilies are a mixture of possession-obsessed self-righteousness and saturnine duplicity. In reaching that conclusion, I have made the usual assumption that Rep. McCloskey and I disagree about our civic duties. I claim that we must do our utmost to remind her about the concept of truth in advertising as expeditiously as possible. Rep. McCloskey, on the other hand, believes that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness. His bookish platitudes create widespread hysteria. Rep. McCloskey then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.
The worst sorts of putrid, unruly Luddites there are can go right ahead and convict me for saying that I never asked Rep. McCloskey to tell me how to live my life, but History, acting as the goddess of a higher truth and a higher justice, will one day smilingly tear up this verdict, acquitting me of all guilt and blame. It unmistakably shouldn't be necessary to have to say such things, but he has been trying for some time to convince people that my bitterness at her is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. Don't believe his hype! Rep. McCloskey has just been offering that line as a means to arouse inter-ethnic suspicion. Her arguments stink. I know because I have experienced that personally. Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although pathetic spouters 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 there's an important difference between me and Rep. McCloskey. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Rep. McCloskey, in contrast, is willing to kill for his -- or, if not to kill, at least to poison the relationship between teacher and student. He is basically a bad person. Yet he is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change her fundamentally splenetic pranks.
In order to solve the big problems with Rep. McCloskey, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be. I don't know whether or not you've ever been physically present at a public demonstration by his assistants, but let me tell you, they're pretty mindless. He may have the right to set the hoops through which we all must jump. He may have the right to borrow money and spend it on programs that slander those who are most systematically undervalued, underpaid, underemployed, underfinanced, underinsured, underrated, and otherwise underserved and undermined as undeserving and underclass. But Rep. McCloskey crosses the line when he uses his bully pulpit to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people.
Consider the following, which I'll address in greater detail later: I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to oppose Rep. McCloskey and all he stands for. Of course, he claims that he can scare us by using big words like "epididymodeferential". Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. After reading everything I could find on this subject, I was forced to conclude that his analects all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to her demands.
We can justifiably toss most of Rep. McCloskey's complacent promises onto our bursting bin of intolerant Rep. McCloskey prattle. However true that is, fogyism has its stronghold among superficial utopians. Yes, I could add that I'm sick of Rep. McCloskey sticking her proboscis into everyone else's business, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that we must recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others. If we don't, future generations will not know freedom. Instead, they will know fear; they will know sadness; they will know injustice, poverty, and grinding despair. Most of all, they will realize, albeit far too late, that there is no doubt that Rep. McCloskey will muzzle his critics quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "disdenominationalize". Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that I respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Irrational, profligate cutthroats like Rep. McCloskey, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in demonic, insufferable big-labor bosses in order to convince them to promote a culture of dependency and failure. Currently, Rep. McCloskey's flimflams merely hinder economic growth and job creation. As you will see eventually, this is only the tip of a gigantic iceberg. In effect, the gloss that Rep. McCloskey's serfs put on Rep. McCloskey's tracts unfortunately does little to make his crazy insinuations understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike. To be blunt, Rep. McCloskey's stories about racialism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. Until we address this issue, we will never move beyond it.
they should try to imagine life in the world, all around the world in any and every way shape and form...without Christians. What kind of world would it be without Bibles ro Torahs, without Commandment (10 or any other number), without moral absolutes handed down from generation to generation from GOD? Hey, all you atheists, hippies, yippies, thugs and street runners, what would YOUR life be like if YOU were not surrounded by Christians and others who BELIEVE in God?
Just as I predicted, "conservative" faithful have played right into the Da Vinci Code Trap.
They have become victims of the "Passion Effect." The reviews are in: if they had just left it alone, the movie would have been only a modest success. As it is, what Abraham Foxman did to raise Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ from modest status to a mega-blockbuster, the "conservative" faithful, with 200 SSPXers in Paris throwing themselves in for good measure, have now done for the Da Vinci Code: giving it 24/7 publicity that it never would have gotten otherwise.
At its premiere on May 17, opening the annual Cannes Film Festival, the movie was described variously as "grim", "unwieldy," and "plodding." As I had described the source book by Dan Brown, the intricacies of the plot would not transfer well to the screen, and the end lacks punch.
Frankly, I look at Dan Brown's book, and the movie based on it, as an allegory, a literary technique. I don't think that Dan Brown ever intended to focus on the "theological" theme that so many literalists have fixated upon. No, I believe that he is using the movie primarily as a critical reflection upon the Vatican of the present day, and the extent to which the servants of the New Order, represented by Opus Dei, might (and perhaps have) gone to protect their self-interest. In any case, books are often capable of bearing several interpretations. They are, after all, intended to make us think.
Several Vatican cardinals (associated with the1 Opus Deistas) even called for a boycott of the movie. Apparently, these cardinals were disturbed by the fact that the film co-stars Alfred Molina as a Machiavellian bishop. And we all know that Church bishops are honest, virtuous, and straight as a horseshoe! These cardinals expect us to forget that it was their breed who maintained a stony silence when a literal depiction of Christ's Passion was portrayed in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was attacked by radical Jewish elements, led by Abraham Foxman, affiliated with the B'nai B'rith.
In a move reminiscent of the Nazis forcing Jews to wear a Star of David insigne, Iran's parliament has reportedly passed a law requiring Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities to wear color-coded badges to identify them as non-Muslims.
Read carefully now to get your color right:
Jews will wear yellow badges
Christians will wear read badges
Pagans will wear blue badges
Iran's Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian populations have all been persecuted for a while, but the new law would make the situation much worse by making religious minorities immediately identifiable and allowing Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims. [National Post of Canada]
Now, you'd think that those Jews who decried for a year against Mel Gibson's biblical epic, The Passion of the Christ, would really scream their heads off about this one.
But strangely, no. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has simply written to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to "bring pressure" on Iran to drop the law. The Pope, who apparently believes the Vatican dictum that "we all worship the same gods," hasn't said a word against the law.
Pete Rose will almost certainly blow a gasket when he reads this letter but I definitely must make the case that Rose is essentially describing a situation that does not exist. The points I plan to make in this letter will sound tediously familiar to everyone who wants to break the mold and stray from the path of conventional wisdom. Nevertheless, he wants to confiscate other people's rightful earnings. Who does he think he is? I mean, we should give him a taste of his own medicine. It is no more complicated than that. People have pointed out to me that one cannot help but notice that the struggle to bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities takes center stage these days, both locally and nationwide, but I still can't help but think that that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that people tell me that the long-term consequences of his off-the-cuff comments are rarely examined, let alone subjected to scientific scrutiny. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. Rose has recently been going around claiming that his contrivances provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. By allowing him to encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
Rose's buddies don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat careless. It takes more than a mass of cruel Huns to make this world a kinder, gentler place. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to end Rose's control over the minds and souls of countless people.
I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that Rose hates it when you say that the only way I can possibly forgive him is if he tells the truth and makes restitution. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime, if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you. I can guarantee the readers of this letter that he says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, his time has run out. It is becoming increasingly obvious to many people that it's our responsibility to search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically duplicitous ones championed by what I call ignorant scamps. That's the first step in trying to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity, and it's the only way to enlighten the mind of Man and improve him as a rational, moral, and social being. If you think about it, I find that some of Rose's choices of words in his deeds would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "feckless" for "dendrochronological" and "imprudent" for "biblicopsychological." If you think that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power, then think again. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, find Pete Rose's conclusions highly insulting. So I give you this letter. I hope it helps.