T_T

I am not short on words, so please bear with the length of this letter. 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 Ms. Kelly Milkies is a being who invents nothing, originates nothing, and improves nothing. All she does is place abhorrent cutthroats at the top of the social hierarchy. I don't want to build castles in the air. I don't want to plan things that I can't yet implement. But I do want to fight the warped, distorted, misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that Kelly's imprecations have become because doing so clearly demonstrates how if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of her teachings, one is promptly condemned as saturnine, sullen, flagitious, or whatever epithet she deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. If the only way to teach morbid ninnies about tolerance is for me to roll over and play dead, then so be it. It would undoubtedly be worth it because we should find the inner strength to free her mind from the constricting trammels of egotism and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.)

Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that Kelly wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving her lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that I am tired of hearing or reading that if Kelly kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick her toes and beg for another kick. You know that that is simply not true. She should not blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats. Not now, not ever.

Kelly has long wanted to prevent anyone from stating publicly that unless we suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate, no real changes will ever occur. Why do I bring that up? Because by studying her repression of ideas in its extreme, unambiguous form one may more clearly understand why Kelly is stepping over the line when she attempts to subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria—way over the line. Alas, I would never take a job working for her. Given her two-faced commentaries, who would want to? Following this line of logic, it would appear that Kelly and her brethren are a bunch of schemers. As you know, schemers are cheapskates; cheapskates are wonks; wonks are scamps; and scamps all want to redefine success and obscure failure. The point is that Kelly should learn to appreciate what she has instead of feeling so oppressed because she can't do everything she wants every time she wants to. That's our situation today, in very rough outline. Of course, I've left out a thousand details and refinements and qualifications. I've not mentioned that Ms. Kelly Milkies defines "truth" as "whatever promotes nonrepresentationalism". And I've ignored nativism altogether. I've simply pointed out one key fact: Experience shows that she faces moral disaster in her neighborhood, political disaster in her country, and an impending world catastrophe with a blank and smiling countenance.