Funny

A complaint about Mr. Ryan L. Jackson, Sr.

*
For those who know me, they know it is a rare occurrence for me to be rendered speechless. But when I heard that Mr. Ryan L. Jackson, Sr. wants to meddle in everyone else's affairs, I must say that speechless I was. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere. His desire to reconstitute society on the basis of arrested development and envious malevolence is the chief sign that he's a superstitious meathead. (The second sign is that Ryan feels obliged to discredit and intimidate the opposition.)

I've known some porn stars who were impressively prurient. However, Ryan is wanton, and that trumps prurient every time. He recently stated that he has the authority to issue licenses for practicing frotteurism. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary, because his statements such as "Children should belong to the state" 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.

The question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "Why do Ryan's cohorts want to ingratiate themselves with Ryan?" On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that Ryan expects people to bow and scrape before him. But upon further investigation, one will find that he accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he insist I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that he holds a universal license that allows him to convert houses of worship into houses of lexiphanicism? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. His comment that you and I are morally inferior to ghastly half-wits is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. Not only did all of us misfortunate enough to have to listen to him make that comment become dumber as a result but I assert that a lot more people now understand why I think that Ryan says that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely ribald and mendacious lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Ryan's spin doctors. Okay, this letter has become much too long so I'll just jump right to the punchline: If the country were overrun by rapacious extortionists, we could expect to observe widespread discrimination in our daily lives -- stares from sales clerks, taxis that don't stop, and unwarranted license and registration checks by police.

*

A Complaint About Mrs.Charlaine T. Jackson

*

I feel obligated to say something about Mrs. Charlaine T. Jackson, because, as the Talmud says, "Silence is akin to assent." Before I say anything else, let me remind Charlaine that I stand by what I've written before, that there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of infantile good-for-nothings, but the hope that makes you eager to condemn her hypocrisy. This moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that she expresses insufficient concern about the ozone layer, the Bhopal tragedy, and lesbian theater. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: She is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens kick butt and take names. Responsible citizens sincerely do not concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life. If I didn't sincerely believe that Charlaine is willing -- even eager -- to jettison her scruples in order to stay ahead of the pack, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with her. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that she holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who stand in the way of progress. If you ask Charlaine if it's true that her complaints have very little thought behind them and are neither interesting nor amusing, you'll just get a lot of foot-shuffling and downcast eyes in response. Yes, I realize that she maintains a cozy relationship with naive slimeballs, but for the sake of brevity I've had to express myself in simplified terms. Since she claims to know more than the rest of us, I'm sure she's aware that I assert that she is hell-bent on suppressing our freedom. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that the objection may still be raised that we should all bear the brunt of her actions. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: If anything, the central paradox of her slurs, the twist that makes her strictures so irresistible to sexist pamphleteers, is that these people truly believe that if she kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick her toes and beg for another kick.

Strictly speaking, for the nonce, Charlaine is content to advocate her litanies amid a hue and cry as blinkered as it is detestable. But in the coming days, she will lay down diktats that force me to swallow her sophistries whole, without question or quibble. As a general rule, if she doesn't realize that it's generally considered bad style to encourage every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of freedom, then she should read one of the many self-help books on the subject. I recommend she buy one with big print and lots of pictures. Maybe then, Charlaine will grasp the concept that she says that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. Even though her press releases are not restrained by any moral scruples, this does not negate the fact that the law of parsimony suggests that her myrmidons are cut from the same mold as supercilious power brokers. Let me rephrase that: She proclaims at every opportunity that she'd never destroy everything beautiful and good. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Anyone who follows today's debates on revanchism and, by happenstance, is also familiar with Charlaine's yellow-bellied policies, is struck by that old truism: That fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence.

While we all despair over Charlaine's unholy biases, we must also remember the principles that will guide our better behaviors and higher aspirations. Is Charlaine a pious person? Yes, although her "piety" unerringly leads her to whichever dogma is best for business. Speaking of which, Charlaine is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to her whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Charlaine is absenteeism. Why? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that Charlaine's assistants have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize Charlaine's cuckoo tirades. It is not a pretty sight. Many the things I've talked about in this letter are obvious. We all know they're true. But still it's necessary for us to say them, because I find it most unfortunate that this letter had to be written.