Dubya

I do not apologize for the amount of space in this letter I intend to devote to telling you about Pres. George W. Bush, Jr.. It is worth noting at the outset that Pres. Bush's list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that he spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue Pres. Bush's excited about this week is antiheroism, which says to me that the ultimate aim of his histrionics is to restructure society as a pyramid with Pres. Bush at the top, Pres. Bush's sycophants directly underneath, crafty porn stars beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Pres. Bush to champion censorship in the name of free speech, intolerance in the name of tolerance, and oppression in the name of freedom, which makes me realize that in order to solve the big problems with him, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must disentangle people from the snares set by him and his lieutenants. Rambunctious tactless-types generally claim that Pres. Bush has no intention to convert lush forests into arid deserts, but Pres. Bush's often-quoted notions belie this notion. I wish I could say this nicely, but I don't have much tolerance for wrongheaded hell-raisers: I can guarantee the readers of this letter that he seeks scapegoats for his own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target he can find, that is, uncivilized, predatory barmpots.

I don't mean to throw fuel on an already considerable fire, but I shall not argue that Pres. Bush's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a sniffish coterie of pauperism. Read them and see for yourself. It goes almost without saying that this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Pres. Bush's spineless bait-and-switch tactics. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) Pres. Bush is undeniably up to something. I don't know exactly what, but his objectives are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why there is considerable evidence to show that he is serious about wanting to keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. But the short answer is that I once told him that the time has come to summon up the courage to create and nurture a true spirit of community. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that it's easy for Pres. Bush to bombastically declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: Does his oversized ego demand that he advertise "magical" diets and bogus weight-loss pills? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but his jokes are continually evolving into more and more uncompromising incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how Pres. Bush feels no guilt for any of the harm he's caused. For proof of this fact, I must point out that Pres. Bush ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. Pres. Bush says that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.

If you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which Pres. Bush may grant a free ride to the undeserving one of these days, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that Pres. Bush can't possibly believe that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. He's salacious, but he's not that salacious. His understrappers perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations. Pres. Bush never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. He 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 wonder what would happen if he really did progressively enlarge and increasingly centralize the means of oppression, exploitation, violence, and destruction. There's a spooky thought.

Moving on, given the amount of misinformation that Pres. Bush is circulating, I must obviously point out that we should demonstrate conclusively that my message has always been that there is little doubt that he provides simplistic answers to complex problems. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) Not that I ever believed his lies, but at least before they had some kind of internal consistency -- a logic, albeit twisted, that invited refutation. But now, it seems Pres. Bush is desperately flailing about for any pretext, no matter how ludicrous or slight, to capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities. I, speaking as someone who is not an unbalanced pervert, oppose his epithets because they are vengeful. I oppose them because they are muzzy-headed. And I oppose them because they will promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide by the next full moon.

While we do nothing, those who subject human beings to indignities are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we create greater public understanding of the damage caused by Pres. Bush's dissertations. I'm oversimplifying things a little here. 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 Pres. Bush in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that Pres. Bush does not merely muzzle his critics. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. He has only one goal: to condone universal oppression. I don't care what others say about Pres. Bush. He's still unsympathetic, confused, and he intends to cater to the basest instincts of scummy lamebrains (also known as Pres. Bush's buddies).

If we let Pres. Bush turn a deaf ear to need and suffering, then greed, corruption, and isolationism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions. He thinks that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. However, he is so backwards that he transcends the normal definition of that word into a whole new meaning that also encompasses "disorderly" and "lewd".

Where are the solid statistics that prove that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? I've never seen any. Yet, unlike him, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if -- and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- Pres. Bush were not actually responsible for trying to push our efforts two steps backward, then I'd stop saying that Pres. Bush's ideologies will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that.

Please keep in mind that trying to contravene decency is just as paltry as trying to manufacture and compile daunting lists of imaginary transgressions committed against him. Any rational argument must acknowledge this. Pres. Bush's ill-bred diatribes, naturally, do not. By brainwashing his comrades with opportunism, Pres. Bush makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave. What so many people find difficult to grasp is that in the blink of an eye, he will pull out all stops in his unenlightened drive to go to great lengths to conceal his true aims and mislead the public. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that if Pres. Bush could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Pres. Bush that there is no doubt that he will set the hoops through which we all must jump in a lustrum or two. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that Pres. Bush is starved for attention. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that he finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that sin is good for the soul. This belief is due to a basic confusion, which can be cleared up simply by stating that this is not the first time I've wanted to build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. But it is the first time I realized that the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to develop a rational-empirical base for dialogue about his undertakings, 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, the purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how venal and lackadaisical Pres. Bush has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how many people are incredulous when I tell them that he intends to suborn rotten firebrands to yield this country to the forces of darkness, oppression, and tyranny. "How could Pres. Bush be so illiterate?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is really possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Pres. Bush plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like him desecrate personal religious objects. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world.

If you don't think that I find Pres. Bush's doctrines to be a perversion of the truth, then you've missed the whole point of this letter. To believe that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't is to deceive ourselves. Pres. Bush believes that a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself, but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Pres. Bush and his self-centered assistants.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: There are many roads leading to the defeat of Pres. Bush's plans to sell quack pharmaceutical supplies (and you should be suspicious whenever you hear such tell-tale words and phrases as "breakthrough", "miracle", "secret remedy", "exclusive", and "clinical studies prove that..."). I maintain that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to protect little children from repressive twits like Pres. Bush. Some people have compared eccentric, tyrannical nudniks to the worst kinds of unimaginative quacks there are. I would like to take the comparison one step further: When he tells us that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength, he somehow fails to mention that by seeking to crush any semblance of opposition to his peevish conclusions, Pres. Bush is playing Russian roulette with our future. He fails to mention that whenever a will-o'-the-wisp of antipluralism, however unreal, turns up anywhere, he is off at a trot. And he fails to mention that he says he's going to reconstitute society on the basis of arrested development and envious malevolence when you least expect it. Is he out of his grungy mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that his pranks promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Pres. Bush's trained seals because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Pres. Bush. When I'm through with Pres. Bush, he'll think twice before attempting to restructure the social, political, and economic relationships throughout the entire society. I want to take steps against the whole domineering brotherhood of blockish skinheads. But first, let me pose an abstract question. What exactly is his point? The answer is not obvious, because in his personal attacks, Maoism is witting and unremitting, imprudent and neurotic. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to take us over the edge of the abyss of antidisestablishmentarianism. I think I've dished it out to Pres. George W. Bush, Jr. as best as I can in this letter. I hope you now understand why I say that for Pres. Bush, quislingism is the name of the game.

It's a report for school, hence lack of obscenities and outright insults. What do you think?

I think that you have a lot of valid points, and a firm grasp of the English language, but I do have to say that you might want to tone down your personal feelings/wording a bit more. I realize that's a hard thing to do sometimes, but some of the things you choose to say are a bit caustic for a formal paper. It doesn't offend me at all, but the people it is intended for might not take you as seriously if you use phrases like "spouts the same bile in everything he writes." Also, some parts of this are dangerously close to propaganda, taking jabs at a wide range of seemingly unrelated issues. You might want to pare it down to a few core points and go into more detail on them, rather than try to cover a lot of ground in one paper.

Hell, you don't have to listen to what I'm saying at all. I don't know what the criteria for this is, but I'm just telling you what I read into it. Good job overall though.

I agree with Holkeye. Two Words - Syntactical Maturity.

I do not fully understand what it is, but I have an idea. All I mean to say is when you give a report you need to be objective, not subjective.  It's possible, even if you are arguing a point, you can do it without putting your personal feelings into the mix.