Bush is seriously starting to piss me off...

I've seen a number of improvident and uppity things over the years, but Pres. George Bush's memoirs really take the cake. Although my approach may appear a bit pedantic, by setting some generative point of view against a structural-taxonomical point of view or vice versa, I intend to argue that I stand by what I've written before, that Bush seems to assume that his vices are the only true virtues. This is an assumption of the worst kind because as that last sentence suggests, I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why it is the height of arrogance and untruthfulness for him to imply that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. But the short answer is that it is not uncommon for him to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole abominable affair as some great benefit to humanity. Bush's deplorable ramblings are in full flower, and their poisonous petals of sexism are blooming all around us. No matter how close he's come to making me fall into the traps set for me by his henchmen, he won't be satisfied until he finds a way to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. It is hard to ignore the impact of Bush's misconduct on our children, our culture, and our national character. We can therefore extrapolate that there are many roads leading to the defeat of Bush's plans to create widespread psychological suffering. I indisputably maintain that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to shed the light of truth on the evil that is Bush.

Bush occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being addlepated autocrats. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Bush habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that his philippics are a parody of original thought. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. How can we expect to shoo him away like the annoying bug that he is if we walk right into his trap? We can't, and that's why the human community has had the same basic problem with larrikinism all along, ever since the second human being walked erect. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that our pain is his ecstasy. There's nothing controversial about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that I cannot compromise with Bush; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him, and with a warning he must honestly take to heart: There are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Bush finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that Bush's snow jobs are like a Hydra. They continually acquire new heads and new strength. The only way to stunt their growth is to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society. The only way to destroy his Hydra entirely is to provide more people with the knowledge that there is a problem here. A large, abusive, incoherent problem. Unfortunately, hostile nobodies who bombard us with an endless array of hate literature make no effort to contend with the inevitable consequences of that action.

The main dissensus between me and Bush is that I think that I recommend that we name and shame Bush's proxies for their flagitious acts of charlatanism. He, on the other hand, contends that this is the best of all possible worlds and that he is the best of all possible people. He is thoroughly tyrannical. We all are, to some extent, but Bush sets the curve.

Bush's communications represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. So far, this letter has merely identified the ways in which failure to define our terms more clearly will lead to a deluge of complaints by Bush's lickspittles. Now, let me shift gears and start telling you about how I don't have a high opinion of mischievous goofballs. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that by Bush's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children -- let alone teach them to be morally fit -- you're definitely a vicious, untrustworthy demoniac. My standards -- and I suspect yours as well -- are quite different from his. For instance, I insist that Bush has stated that his wisecracks are our final line of defense against tyrrany. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that classism is the key to world peace. Now that's just nerdy.

It's not that I have anything against ruffians in general. It's just that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Bush ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold. He has a staggering number of frowzy bootlickers. One way to lower their numbers, if not eradicate them entirely, is simple. We just inform them that he never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. Bush presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, he seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that I'm sure he wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his conversations. So why does Bush want to promote lewd ideologies such as escapism? He doesn't want you to know the answer to that question; he wants to ensure you don't condemn his criminal ineptitude.

Is Bush a pious person? Yes, although his "piety" unerringly leads him to whichever dogma is best for business. Speaking of which, it strikes me as amusing that Bush complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. He is not just rambunctious; he's insensitive, too. Even when the facts don't fit, he sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that we ought to worship the most misguided apostates I've ever seen as folk heroes. Bush has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter.

Bush once said that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. Oh, please. I'm just glad I hadn't eaten dinner right before I heard him say that. Otherwise, I'd probably still be vomiting too hard to tell you that if Bush can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If Bush can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it. Let us not sink to his level. Let us combat heathenism by exercising our right to speak out, to denounce his insults as totally unrepresentative of the values of this society. It requires surprisingly little imagination to envision a future in which Bush is free to flout all of society's rules. By the way, saying that last sentence out loud is a nice way to get to the point quickly at a cocktail party. The longer he wears the mask of fanaticism, the harder it is to remove, and if you don't believe me, then you should criticize his complicity in the widespread establishment of prætorianism.

http://www.pakin.org/complaint

Before Bush initiated an antidisestablishmentarianism flap to help promote his unsophisticated, incorrigible drug-induced ravings, people everywhere were expected to suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes 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. We all need to be aware of each other's existence as intelligent, feeling, human beings, even if some of us are slimy, tendentious quacks. Bush's methods are much subtler now than ever before. Bush is more adept at hidden mind control and his techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized. I can reword my point as follows. Bush should think for himself.

Bush is apt to respond to this letter in the same emotional way that a devout Christian in the 15th century might have responded to someone who announced publicly that he didn't believe in the virgin birth. With enough time and room, it would be easy to show why this must be true, but the clinching argument is simply that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But Bush must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why he is so desperate to extinguish the voices of opposition; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Bush also realized that he somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. Bush insists that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates.

It makes perfect sense that Bush doesn't want me to take a strong position on his bruta fulmina, which, after all, concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life, but I guess nobody ever explained that to his rank-and-file followers. So, do testy hatemongers like his foot soldiers actually have lives, or do they exist solely to put feckless rakes on the federal payroll? I guess it just boils down to the question: When he looks in the mirror in the morning, does Bush see more than the same, wild face that all exploitative perverts share? To answer that question, we need first to consider Bush's thought process, which generally takes the following form: (1) Mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues, so (2) he has been robbed of all he does not possess. Therefore, (3) he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature and thus, (4) our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. As you can see, Bush's reasoning makes no sense, which leads me to believe that the problem with him is not that he's pouty. It's that he wants to grant uneducated, incontinent junkies the keys to the kingdom. Never mind that I am annoyed by the vindictive and sometimes ridiculous manifestations of rebelliousness against an inherited civilization of which his apologists do not have the slightest understanding. What's really important is that while he insists that he's merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live, reality dictates otherwise. Actually, if you want a real dose of reality, look at how Bush claims that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a saturnine drug lord deserving of death and damnation. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. The only way out of Pres. George Bush's rat maze is to punish him for his stultiloquent effusions. It's that simple.