In another thread, somebody suggested using Al Gore's name in Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator. Here's what I got:
I have a few points of contention with Mr. Al Gore. To address this in a pedantic manner, in the rest of this letter, factual information will be prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as opinions. For instance, it is a fact that there is no place in this country where we are safe from Mr. Gore's loyalists, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. Today, as yesterday, when I say that he has lost sight of the lessons of history, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. This is a common fallacy held by homicidal witless cult leaders. Mr. Gore's eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity. And his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do?)
It strikes me as amusing that Mr. Gore complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. Let me go on record as saying that he wants to influence the attitudes of dominant culture towards any environment or activity that is predominantly unreasonable. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom, then you should be working with me to exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. Mr. Gore uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. I know that I'm emotional now, but his tracts manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: impugn the patriotism of his opponents. Phase two: destroy all tradition, all morality, and the entire democratic system.
Mr. Gore maintains that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that if his disciples had even an ounce of integrity, they would nourish children with good morals and self-esteem. His solutions may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that his lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of obiter dicta. Others are in the form of reinterpretations of historic events. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. All the same, you should never forget the three most important facets of Mr. Gore's fairy tales, namely their annoying origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature.
Mr. Gore speaks like a true defender of the status quo -- a status quo, we should not forget, that enables him to support international crime while purporting to oppose it. When he first announced that he wanted to condone illegal activities, I nearly choked on my own stomach bile. He maintains that either anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed or that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. Mr. Gore denies any other possibility. Mr. Gore, do you feel no shame for what you've done? Those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to illustrate the virtues that he lacks -- courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry -- have no right to complain when he and his backers progressively enlarge and increasingly centralize the means of oppression, exploitation, violence, and destruction.
He is hooked on designer victimology but fails to notice the real victims: the entire next generation. Should you think I'm saying too much, please note that Mr. Gore 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. What a cunning coup on the part of his secret police, who set out to represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world, and got as far as they did without anyone raising an eyebrow. To put this in context, on many issues, discussions with Mr. Gore quickly turn into fights, and dialogues soon degenerate into name-calling. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if Mr. Gore finds a way to make conditions far worse than could ever have been the case without his noxious efforts.
To be fair, I recently overheard a couple of obscene twisted wheeler-dealers say that he can walk on water. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Mr. Gore-induced era of slogans and propaganda. There is unmistakably no limit to his impudence. Some people might object to that claim, and if they do, my response is: His reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only mephitic answers, materialistic resolutions to conflicts.
Just to add a little more perspective, there is a problem here. A large, petty, arrogant problem. The unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, each of these issues is central to the sexism debate. Let me rephrase that: The objection may still be raised that we should all bear the brunt of Mr. Gore's actions. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: Mr. Gore is not interested in a true and honest improvement of social conditions, but rather in a way to delude and often rob those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to his snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. Mr. Gore's protests are in every respect consistent with the school of mad thought that tends to yield this country to the forces of darkness, oppression, and tyranny.
Those of you who thought that Mr. Gore was finally going to leave us alone are in for a big surprise, because Mr. Gore recently announced his plans to take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. His statements such as "Mr. Gore is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted" 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. Is there a chance that he isn't discourteous, paltry, and soulless? From what I've seen, I doubt it. His sycophants are more determined than most feeble-minded oafs. It is unclear whether this is because I should state this explicitly, because he does not hold himself answerable to any code of honor, or a combination of the two.
Now the surprising news: Mr. Gore is positing a "valid" logic devoid of empirical content (i.e., devoid of facts). But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that this should not and need not be the case? I can give you only my best estimate, made after long and anxious consideration, but I do not pose as an expert in these matters. I can say only that several things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for Mr. Gore to support those for whom hatred has become a way of life. Doesn't he ever get tired of calling everyone "obstreperous louts"? Unfortunately, his shallow supercilious principles neglect to take one important factor into consideration: human nature.
I suspect I am not alone when I say that his stooges consider his zingers a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of ruffianism. Mr. Gore's spin doctors feel that "Mr. Gore is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that it would be better for Mr. Gore to do nothing than to commit confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, if we contradict him, we are labelled judgemental whiners. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. I predict that by the end of the decade, people will generally agree that a number of serious questions need to be asked -- and answered -- before we give him carte blanche to turn back the clock and repeal all the civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation now on the books. This is a prediction that will not be true in all cases, but it is expected to become more common as time passes. The primary point of disagreement between myself and Mr. Gore is whether or not his jeremiads all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. If we intend to defend democracy, we had best learn to recognize its primary enemy and not be afraid to stand up and call him by name. That name is Mr. Al Gore.
I have a few points of contention with Mr. Al Gore. To address this in a pedantic manner, in the rest of this letter, factual information will be prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as opinions. For instance, it is a fact that there is no place in this country where we are safe from Mr. Gore's loyalists, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. Today, as yesterday, when I say that he has lost sight of the lessons of history, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. This is a common fallacy held by homicidal witless cult leaders. Mr. Gore's eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity. And his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do?)
It strikes me as amusing that Mr. Gore complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. Let me go on record as saying that he wants to influence the attitudes of dominant culture towards any environment or activity that is predominantly unreasonable. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom, then you should be working with me to exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. Mr. Gore uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. I know that I'm emotional now, but his tracts manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: impugn the patriotism of his opponents. Phase two: destroy all tradition, all morality, and the entire democratic system.
Mr. Gore maintains that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that if his disciples had even an ounce of integrity, they would nourish children with good morals and self-esteem. His solutions may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that his lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of obiter dicta. Others are in the form of reinterpretations of historic events. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. All the same, you should never forget the three most important facets of Mr. Gore's fairy tales, namely their annoying origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature.
Mr. Gore speaks like a true defender of the status quo -- a status quo, we should not forget, that enables him to support international crime while purporting to oppose it. When he first announced that he wanted to condone illegal activities, I nearly choked on my own stomach bile. He maintains that either anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed or that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. Mr. Gore denies any other possibility. Mr. Gore, do you feel no shame for what you've done? Those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to illustrate the virtues that he lacks -- courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry -- have no right to complain when he and his backers progressively enlarge and increasingly centralize the means of oppression, exploitation, violence, and destruction.
He is hooked on designer victimology but fails to notice the real victims: the entire next generation. Should you think I'm saying too much, please note that Mr. Gore 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. What a cunning coup on the part of his secret police, who set out to represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world, and got as far as they did without anyone raising an eyebrow. To put this in context, on many issues, discussions with Mr. Gore quickly turn into fights, and dialogues soon degenerate into name-calling. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if Mr. Gore finds a way to make conditions far worse than could ever have been the case without his noxious efforts.
To be fair, I recently overheard a couple of obscene twisted wheeler-dealers say that he can walk on water. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Mr. Gore-induced era of slogans and propaganda. There is unmistakably no limit to his impudence. Some people might object to that claim, and if they do, my response is: His reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only mephitic answers, materialistic resolutions to conflicts.
Just to add a little more perspective, there is a problem here. A large, petty, arrogant problem. The unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, each of these issues is central to the sexism debate. Let me rephrase that: The objection may still be raised that we should all bear the brunt of Mr. Gore's actions. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: Mr. Gore is not interested in a true and honest improvement of social conditions, but rather in a way to delude and often rob those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to his snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. Mr. Gore's protests are in every respect consistent with the school of mad thought that tends to yield this country to the forces of darkness, oppression, and tyranny.
Those of you who thought that Mr. Gore was finally going to leave us alone are in for a big surprise, because Mr. Gore recently announced his plans to take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. His statements such as "Mr. Gore is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted" 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. Is there a chance that he isn't discourteous, paltry, and soulless? From what I've seen, I doubt it. His sycophants are more determined than most feeble-minded oafs. It is unclear whether this is because I should state this explicitly, because he does not hold himself answerable to any code of honor, or a combination of the two.
Now the surprising news: Mr. Gore is positing a "valid" logic devoid of empirical content (i.e., devoid of facts). But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that this should not and need not be the case? I can give you only my best estimate, made after long and anxious consideration, but I do not pose as an expert in these matters. I can say only that several things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for Mr. Gore to support those for whom hatred has become a way of life. Doesn't he ever get tired of calling everyone "obstreperous louts"? Unfortunately, his shallow supercilious principles neglect to take one important factor into consideration: human nature.
I suspect I am not alone when I say that his stooges consider his zingers a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of ruffianism. Mr. Gore's spin doctors feel that "Mr. Gore is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that it would be better for Mr. Gore to do nothing than to commit confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, if we contradict him, we are labelled judgemental whiners. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. I predict that by the end of the decade, people will generally agree that a number of serious questions need to be asked -- and answered -- before we give him carte blanche to turn back the clock and repeal all the civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation now on the books. This is a prediction that will not be true in all cases, but it is expected to become more common as time passes. The primary point of disagreement between myself and Mr. Gore is whether or not his jeremiads all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. If we intend to defend democracy, we had best learn to recognize its primary enemy and not be afraid to stand up and call him by name. That name is Mr. Al Gore.
Facebook
Twitter