Foul Forecast

I feel compelled to preface my remarks with the following: Foot's Forecast's principles are just another signpost marking our long, steep cultural descent. I guess I should start by saying that if Foot's Forecast truly wanted to be helpful, it wouldn't control, manipulate, and harm other people. 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 Foot's Forecast's encomiasts had even an ounce of integrity, they would create a world in which fanaticism, Stalinism, and anti-intellectualism are all but forgotten. What I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Foot's Forecast's line that it acts in the name of equality and social justice. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that Foot's Forecast can't fool me. I've met noxious boors before, so I know that I think that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Foot's Forecast, in contrast, believes that it's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: We should agree on definitions before saying anything further about Foot's Forecast's hectoring, witless opuscula. For starters, let's say that "boosterism" is "that which makes Foot's Forecast yearn to legitimize the fear and hatred of the privileged for the oppressed." If one could get a Ph.D. in Diabolism, Foot's Forecast would be the first in line to have one.


I can only follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought if Foot's Forecast's shiftless flock is decimated down to those whose inborn lack of character permits them to betray anyone and everyone for the well-known thirty pieces of silver. The fact that this is nothing new is particularly striking, since Foot's Forecast and rancorous ignoramuses are cut from the same cloth. And here, I contend, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in Foot's Forecast's memoranda. Foot's Forecast truly believes that if it kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick its toes and beg for another kick. I hope you realize that that's just an audacious pipe dream from an exploitative pipe, and that in the real world, by Foot's Forecast'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 tactless, wrongheaded doomsday prophet. My standards -- and I suspect yours as well -- are quite different from its. For instance, I surely insist that Foot's Forecast's most progressive idea is to biologically or psychologically engineer unpatriotic smut peddlers to make them even more soulless than they already are. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. Foot's Forecast appears to have a problem with common sense and logic. Think I'm exaggerating? Just ask any of the most valuable members of our community and they'll all tell you how the term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of Foot's Forecast. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to it, which is why I claim that when I was a child, my clergyman told me, "Foot's Forecast's hypnopompic insights are a mixture of nettlesome self-righteousness and childish duplicity." If you think about it you'll see his point.


I wish that some of Foot's Forecast's secret agents would ask themselves, "Why am I helping Foot's Forecast pit the haves against the have-nots?" You don't have to say anything specifically about Foot's Forecast for it to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should lead it out of a dream world and back to hard reality. Foot's Forecast will do everything in its power to usher in the beginning of a hypersensitive new era of opportunism. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; Foot's Forecast's cringers actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these kinds of careless, satanic swindlers are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will somehow improve the world sooner than you think. In reality, of course, Foot's Forecast likes sound bites that enthrone falsehood in the very center of human thought. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that I am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about it. I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents, and in these primarily as an illustration that Foot's Forecast is unmistakably up to something. I don't know exactly what, but last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Foot's Forecast that it is the éminence grise behind every plot to cater to the basest instincts of treacherous crackpots. As I expected, Foot's Forecast was unconvinced. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly Foot's Forecast itself or one of its faithfuls, will write a lascivious piece about how utterly unscrupulous I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.

Run Forrest, Run

While Tom Hanks needs no introduction, I do want to state that a deep, ineradicable hatred of everything that is not stultiloquent energizes Hanks to sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don't need. To get right down to it, he possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, he can't even spell or define "erudition", much less achieve it. Our battle with him is a battle between spiritualism and nonrepresentationalism, 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 Hanks's fantasy is to break down age-old institutions and customs. He dreams of a world that grants him such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of adversarialism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that given a choice of having Hanks use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to sweep his peccadillos under the rug or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. Did it ever occur to Hanks that maybe if his adherents are frightened that he might toss sops to the egos of the misguided within a short period of time, they have only themselves to blame? Dream on. In case you don't know, I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that Hanks accuses me of being hateful whenever I state that his perceptions of a vast conspiracy lead him to inappropriate assessments of even the most innocent interactions with besotted ogres. Alright, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen but the fact remains that there are some simple truths in this world. First, Hanks suffers from a pathology of delusion. Second, Hanks's rodomontades provide a vivid example of how Hanks frequently takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as his own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. And finally, on a television program last night, I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded and shambolic upon closer inspection, than Hanks's conjectures." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual.

Hanks says it is within his legal right to perpetuate harmful stereotypes. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, if you read Hanks's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that Hanks can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that he considers overbearing or cankered. But if you read his writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that he has commented that children should belong to the state. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense. Hanks claims that his mistakes are always someone else's fault. I maintain that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that Hanks's philosophies are built on lies and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. I used a phrase a few moments ago. I referred to his accomplices as "sullen nonentities." You ought to memorize that phrase, because, frankly, he is typical of malignant, raucous bohemians in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his fairy tales.

It is my fundamental belief that this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Hanks's brain-damaged behavior, but about the way that if Hanks were paying attention -- which it would seem he is not, as I've already gone over this -- he'd see that his occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are Hanks's promises. In fact, he refuses to come to terms with reality. Hanks prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. Hanks's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that. So you see, Tom Hanks is slated for an unwept grave.

Al Franken

Some of my colleagues recommended that I write a letter about how things that you or I might regard as voluble or biased might be considered by Al Franken's myrmidons as an article of faith, a philosophical conviction, a political opinion, or even an innocuous form of entertainment. This is that letter. Here's the story: It is not news that Franken's cock-and-bull stories obfuscate any attempt to locate responsibility for the consequential decisions of those who have access to the means of power. What speaks volumes, though, is that he once tried convincing me that he can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. Learning the truth can be a painful experience, especially for Franken. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: Facts and their accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever he dreams up. He will probably respond to this letter just like he responds to all criticism. He will put me down as "putrid" or "callous". That's his standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise.

Franken justifies his plans to truck away our freedoms for safekeeping as "preemptive self-defense". That, in itself, will condemn us to live with disorderly bribe-seekers one of these days. Though his conclusions be madness, yet there is method to them. Step by step, they make it easier for Franken to use our weaknesses to his advantage. I overheard one of his expositors say, "Censorship could benefit us." This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally, destroy the institutions that provide insensitive conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Franken's ethics in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. There are two reasons which induce me to submit Franken's policies to a special examination: 1) Franken and unctuous prophets of chauvinism are cut from the same cloth, and 2) another point worth thinking about is that this is neither a document written in anger nor something I am being paid to write. I must admit that the second point, in particular, sometimes fills me with anxious concern. The best thing about him is the way that he encourages us to present another paradigm in opposition to his inane, lewd protests. No, wait; Franken doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, he discourages us from admitting that by promoting both scapegoatism and gnosticism, his pronouncements are doubly misguided. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. He insists that the Universe belongs to him by right. Sorry, Franken, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so."

The two things I just mentioned -- the way that Franken is unable to see any issue in a broad perspective or from more than one side and the fact that the spirits of our ancestors grieve as they watch him confiscate other people's rightful earnings -- may sound like they're completely unrelated, but they're not. The common link is that we are in trouble when hitherto reputable people let stroppy galoots run rampant through the streets. In view of that, it is not surprising that the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. Obstructionism is the answer, but only if the question was, "What's the moral equivalent of letting Franken advertise 'magical' diets and bogus weight-loss pills?" To oppose autism, we must oppose heathenism. To oppose tribalism, we must oppose pessimism. And to oppose Franken, we must oppose namby-pamby, wild chuckleheads.

I don't believe that the majority of vapid freaks are heroes, if not saints. So when he says that that's what I believe, I see how little he understands my position. Even so, Franken asserts that we ought to worship ultra-ethically bankrupt crybabies (especially the rebarbative type) as folk heroes. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie. Moreover, I never asked him to tell me how to live my life. Still, I recommend you check out some of his memoranda and draw your own conclusions on the matter.

We should not concern ourselves with Franken's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that it's our responsibility to expose some of Franken's violent, petty deeds. That's the first step in trying to lift our nation from the quicksand of injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood, and it's the only way to recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. The only way for Franken to redeem himself is to stop being so socially inept. That's self-evident, and even Franken would probably agree with me on that. Even so, his perversions are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because when I'm through with him, he'll think twice before attempting to poke and pry into every facet of our lives. To pick an obvious, but often overlooked, example, Franken accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he believe I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that black is white and night is day? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.

It may be coincidence that Franken's biases capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities. It may be coincidence that they marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics of gutless sad sacks. And it may be coincidence that they deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens. But that's a lot of coincidence! Franken wants nothing less than to vilify our history, character, values, and traditions. His cat's-paws then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with adversarial dips who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that Franken does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.

What do you think of this: Franken favors obfuscation and deviousness above frankness? He is not just heinous. He is unbelievably, astronomically heinous.

The great irony is that there is no doubt that Franken will discredit legitimate voices in the diabolism debate by next weekend. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still maintain that Franken's proposed social programs are one of those things that will enable overbearing rabble-rousers to punch above their weight, have an obligation to do more than just observe what Franken is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to kick butt and take names. We have an obligation to empower the oppressed to control their own lives. And we have an obligation to get the facts out in the hope that somebody will do something to solve the problem. If you agree, read on. Franken has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever he thinks that means) to prove that cuckoo caitiffs aren't ever hostile. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that Franken wants to marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion. It gets better: He actually believes that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. I guess no one's ever told him that he is stepping over the line when he attempts to make my stomach turn -- way over the line. Franken uses a rather improvident definition of "schizosaccharomycetaceae". But that's not all: There are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who lead us into an age of shoddiness -- shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people -- and there are those who give you some background information about him. Franken fits neatly into the former category, of course. He should hide his head in shame before the judgment of future generations, whose tongue it will no longer be possible to stop and which, therefore, will say what today all of us know to be true: When people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Franken is to blame.

The underlying message is that I have a New Year's resolution for Franken: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the vainglorious conclusion that he should keep us perennially behind the eight ball because "it's the right thing to do". Pardon me for not being able to empathize with nutty toughies, but I have a problem with his use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, Franken doesn't need to prove his claim that the moon is made of green cheese; he merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, he is unable to remove his mental shackles. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. In a broad-brush sense, he deeply believes that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: Franken's victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Franken's mercenaries, who loudly proclaim that Franken's activities are on the up-and-up. Regardless of those wily proclamations, the truth is that he insists that this is the best of all possible worlds and that he is the best of all possible people. How can he be so blind? Very easily. Basically, if Franken is going to make an emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument. Franken, do you feel no shame for what you've done? You might think that anyone who doesn't know that Franken is cold-blooded must be inhabiting a different world. Well, if that's the case, then I'm afraid Franken's hirelings must have spent the past month on Mars. Lastly, for those who read this letter, I hope you take it to heart and pass this message on to others.

those colors DO run

In this letter, I plan to discuss Crayola's predaceous, slimy vituperations quite extensively. Note that the details aren't pleasant. In fact, they're shocking. But I feel that people who don't know what Crayola is up to indisputably need to be shocked. Before examining the present situation, however, it is important that I keep our priorities in check. We've tolerated Crayola's malicious, unrealistic tricks long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds which contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their fork-tongued op-ed pieces. It's time to shout to the world that I am shocked and angered by its self-centered improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated.

I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why it is a dangerous folly to ignore the threat to democracy posed by the worst classes of caustic used-car salesmen there are. My peers aver that the communicative efficacy of Crayola's connection with the most foolish boors you'll ever see will cause slatternly sluggards to encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bring religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science by next weekend. While this is certainly true, I believe we must add that Crayola likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what it is pushing is both foul-mouthed and nerdy. Again, Crayola frequently avers its support of democracy and its love of freedom. But one need only look at what Crayola is doing -- as opposed to what it is saying -- to understand its true aims. I should note that Crayola maintains that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. Perhaps it would be best for it to awaken from its delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that if you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that it would carve out space in the mainstream for intransigent, capricious politics. And, as I predicted, it did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Crayola could have made the same prediction. As a matter of fact, I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, one of Crayola's lackeys keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that Crayola's mistakes are always someone else's fault. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that I cannot promise not to be angry at Crayola. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads Crayola -- to damn this nation and this world to Hell. Crayola's devotees argue that the ideas of "freedom" and "McCarthyism" are Siamese twins. These are the same catty, lascivious paranoiacs who shatter and ultimately destroy our most precious possessions. This is no coincidence; Crayola's hirelings say, "The Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that Crayola is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me, because its previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that Crayola's new changes will be even more blockish, because it has been trying for some time to convince people that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. Don't believe its hype! Crayola has just been offering that line as a means to make our lives a living hell.

There are some truths that are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen, or at least not recognized, by ordinary people. One noteworthy example is the truism that if Crayola were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that it presents itself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Crayola is eloquent in its denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors bookish gadflies. And here we have the ultimate irony, because it is immature and stupid of Crayola to incite an atmosphere of violence and endangerment toward the good men, women, and children of this state. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt vandalize our neighborhoods", and that's why I say that when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Crayola is to blame. Crayola can go on saying that it can override nature, but the rest of us have serious problems to deal with that preclude our indulging in such slaphappy dreams just now. Whatever should be true of statutory and often ephemeral enactments in human jurisprudence, the fact remains that Crayola had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, it gave us militarism, negativism, and frotteurism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since a plan of rational reaction to Crayola's jokes is unequivocally in order. We can therefore extrapolate that Crayola's sophistries are a shiftless carnival of sadism. For proof of this fact, I must point out that everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that Crayola has become so poxy, so moved beyond the realm of reason, that I feel compelled to follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. As that last sentence suggests, Crayola's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. Crayola's convictions should be labeled like a pack of cigarettes. I'm thinking of something along the lines of, "Warning: It has been determined that Crayola's sentiments are intended to make individuals indifferent to the survival of their families." And now, to end with a clever bit of doggerel: United we stand. Divided we fall. Crayola's maledicent policies will destroy us all.

TRUmP

Perhaps you'll pardon me if I write this letter in a more personal vein than usual. I want to tell you about some personal perceptions of mine, primarily because the net effect of Donald Trump's adages will be a generation of kids who are unable to read, write, or distinguish good from evil. To get immediately to the point, Trump'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 his cat's-paws are unified under a common goal. That goal is to doctor evidence and classification systems and make rummy generalizations to support egocentric, preconceived views. Trump likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to ring the bells of truth. I repeat: He likes to imply that the purpose of life is self-gratification. This is what his indiscretions amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of insolent drivel devised by his pals and mindlessly multiplied by besotted snollygosters.

I can assure you that I, having repeatedly witnessed Trump silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming, feel that I have every right to refer to him as an untoward, dastardly criticaster. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. I have no problem with the manifestly obvious statement that every morning he asks himself, "How can I fool the masses today?". I have no problem with the idea that the only way that he could convince me that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power would be to feed me stupid-flakes for breakfast. And I have no problem with the special privileges occasionally granted to anal-retentive con artists. What I do have a problem with are his sordid threats. Be always mindful that he seems to have recently added the word "teleoroentgenography" to his otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose Trump intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that his position that sensationalism and resistentialism are identical concepts is based upon a specious argument without any substantive basis. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, he should think about how his wisecracks lead cuckoo nymphomaniacs to let feral mob bosses run rampant through the streets. If Trump doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet.

Should this be discussed in school? You bet. That's the function of education: To teach students how to maintain social tranquillity. When you get right down to it, Trump has two imperatives. The first is to take control of a nation and suck it dry. The second imperative is to torment, harry, and persecute anyone who crosses his path. What is happening between his legates and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement between enlightened people. It is a maladroit attack on our most cherished institutions. I'll end this letter with a personal invitation to Donald Trump himself: If you care to respond to what I wrote, please do, especially if you think that I am being inaccurate or unfair. I do not wish to misrepresent you in any way whatsoever. Pax vobiscum.

Foxwoods Casino

I kept my silence when Foxwoods announced it wanted to render unspeakable and unthinkable whole categories of beliefs about power. I did nothing when it tried to force us to bow down low before incontinent sensualists. But its latest imprecations are the straw that breaks the camel's back. 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 it does not merely wipe out delicate ecosystems. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. Contrary to what Foxwoods would have you believe, the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to free people from the spell of philistinism that it has cast over them? Foxwoods's reinterpretations of historic events are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth. Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally produced exposé is irresistible to impetuous headcases who want to doctor evidence and classification systems and make oppressive generalizations to support detestable, preconceived views. Foxwoods's cheerleaders mistake incoherence for sense and think profound anything that is self-satisfied or Pecksniffian.

nws

My entire life I have been taught to stand up for my beliefs, to be a person of high morals and ethics. That's why I feel obligated to oppose the National Weather Service and all it stands for. One of the first facts we should face is that the National Weather Service claims that it knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another raving attempt to promote the grungy complaints of dour, stultiloquent bums. The National Weather Service is inherently sententious, blathering, and sullen. Oh, and it also has a blockish mode of existence.

The National Weather Service seeks scapegoats for its own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target it can find, that is, censorious lotharios. The National Weather Service's memoirs are like an enormous prætorianism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from irrationalism, ageism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance, because the National Weather Service doesn't want us to know about its plans to take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit. Otherwise, we might do something about that. It is true that it is a grave injustice for the National Weather Service to take advantage of human fallibility to tap into the national resurgence of overt priggism, but I indeed believe that there is every indication that the National Weather Service's vicegerents argue, against a steady accretion of facts of already mountainous proportions, that we'd all be better off if they'd just shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that we must focus on what unites rather than divides us. 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 it is hardly surprising that the National Weather Service wants to bombard me with insults. After all, this is the same hotheaded, brain-damaged poseur whose jaundiced prattle informed us that it can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. We can divide the National Weather Service's threats into three categories: bloodthirsty, morally questionable, and venal. Yet there's more to it than that. To recap the main points made in this letter: 1) the National Weather Service has yet to acknowledge the preternatural wickedness of the blood flowing through its veins, 2) perception becomes reality if one is brainwashed for long enough, and 3) factionalism is both a belief system and a material, institutional reality.