Complaint Letter Generator

I don't know how many of you know about this nifty little utility, but I didn't find it in an article search.

You may find it helpful for harassing random NYT editors and what not, or just having fun with your coworkers. ;)

Okay, let's do it. Let's follow through on the critical work that has already begun. One of my objectives is to make a genuine contribution to human society. Michael Moore never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, Moore's claimed magnanimousness is thoroughly chimerical and, furthermore, he has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which it is muzzy-headed to question his overgeneralizations. Then again, just because Moore is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that everyone and everything discriminates against him -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. There are three points I need to make here. First, his greed will be his undoing. Second, his lackeys have cooperated closely with reckless, capricious couch potatoes on several projects. And third, his claim that his blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.

For reasons which I will adumbrate presently, if Moore doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. His yawping vituperations are in full flower, and their poisonous petals of exhibitionism are blooming all around us. Couldn't you figure that out for yourself, Moore?

The facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that he is entitled to turn me, a typically mild-mannered person, into an invidious vat of metagrobolism. He recently stated that his pleas are Right with a capital R. 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 he argues that I am appalling for wanting to teach impolitic turncoats about tolerance. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago.

While I can't speak for anyone else, I suspect that Moore is extraordinarily brazen. We've all known that for a long time. However, his willingness to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity sets a new record for brazenness. In that respect, we can say that his antics are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us before long. It goes almost without saying that Moore's blanket statements are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". Will lewd losers ever tell Moore how wrong he is? Don't bet on it.

He claims that we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented accusations. I, however, contend that that's a load of crud. Yes, he has a problem not only with civil rights but also with the legal responsibility and accountability as to what is considered appropriate behavior, but I want to set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé, but because he is guilty of a shocking display of dishonesty and sophistry. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that almost every day, he outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's sincerely breathtaking to watch him.

Moore is an interesting character. On the one hand, he likes to let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of gloomy, oleaginous crackpots. But on the other hand, he has -- not once, but several times -- been able to reconstitute society on the basis of arrested development and envious malevolence without anyone stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his caustic excuses are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and convince vicious enemies of the people to stop supporting Moore and tolerating his musings. After watching his spin doctors draw unsuspecting spoilsports into the orbit of the worst classes of abysmal fruitcakes there are, one might conclude that Moore et al. would lay out their own ideas of philosophical pedagogy, textual interpretation, and moral philosophy. Surprisingly, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, ungrateful, anti-democratic lunatics thrive on hatred rather than love. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but it's been well documented that his projects are an integument of stoicism. And let me tell you, his op-ed pieces are built on lies and they depend on make-believe for their continuation.

Don't be fooled: The fact of the matter is that Moore commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. He then ensures that these people stay in those positions, because that makes it easy for Moore to assuage the hungers of his comrades with servings of fresh scapegoats. Because of his bons mots, our schools simply do not teach the basics anymore. Instead, they preach the theology of inane Pyrrhonism. We were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to focus on what unites rather than divides us. We were not put here to promote the sort of behavior that would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush, as Moore might believe.

He and his cronies are possession-obsessed tyrants. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis. Moore has never satisfactorily proved his assertion that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. He has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." To what consequences this leads can be seen from a few simple considerations. First of all, I am reminded of the quote, "I invite you to talk to him yourself if you feel that I'm misrepresenting his position." This comment is not as sordid as it seems, because if you've never seen Moore denigrate and discard all of Western culture, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. We'd all be in grave danger if he continued to engage in his evil behavior.

If our eventual goal is to appeal not to the contented and satisfied, but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented, then we must consider various means to that end. One of Moore's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of his understrappers to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant, never the original problem. Moore wants to commit confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility. Is this so he can emphasize the negative in our lives instead of accentuating the positive, or is it to hoodoo us? You be the judge. In either case, contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to speak up and speak out against Moore.

I won't pull any punches here: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Moore had learned anything from history, he'd know that he has always used emotionalism as his moorings. So what's the connection between that and his witticisms? The connection is that people often get the impression that effrontive, pernicious energumens and Moore's janissaries, who are legion, are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that Moore says that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. But then he turns around and says that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. You know, you can't have it both ways, Moore. My dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to name and shame Moore's cringers for their pushy acts of alarmism. If I had my druthers, Moore would never have had the opportunity to incite an atmosphere of violence and endangerment toward the good men, women, and children of this state. As it stands, I can defend each and every point I've made so far. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that if Moore continues to gag free speech, I will surely be obliged to do something about him. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations. To wrap up, I'll just hit the key elements of this letter one last time. First, this is one letter that Michael Moore doesn't want you to read. Second, the long-term consequences of his plaints are rarely examined, let alone subjected to scientific scrutiny. And finally, until we ratchet up our level of understanding, he will continue to muster enough force to seek temporary tactical alliances with hectoring heresiarchs in order to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity.

My complaint about Mme John Kerry
Seldom does an event take place which is such an outrage that the silent majority stands up and demands action. But the silent majority is currently demanding that something be done about Mme John Kerry. As a preliminary, I want to improve the lot of humankind. He accepts -- or, at least, feels obligated to pretend to accept -- the ideological premises of voyeurism. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. He is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens beat John at his own game. Responsible citizens doubtlessly do not subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria.

He likes to imply that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. This is what his half-measures amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of semi-intelligible drivel devised by his emissaries and mindlessly multiplied by hypocritical, uncompromising hoodlums. On a completely different tack, John is out to poke someone's eyes out. And when we play his game, we become accomplices. My purpose here is not to advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most socially inept manifestations. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, his faithfuls have always found a way to convince others that sex-crazed, supercilious crooks are the "chosen people" of scriptural prophecy.

John 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. You may find it amusing or even titillating to read about his agendas, but they're not amusing to me. They're deeply troubling. He is bad enough when he's alone, but John is even worse when he's joined by prissy windbags. In a similar vein, he is too self-absorbed to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that if I am correctly informed, evidence exists to suggest that the thought that someone, somewhere, might perform noble deeds is anathema to John. In any case, he should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. To sum it all up, the older Mme John Kerry gets, the more prodigal he becomes.

I have something important I need to tell you. I anticipate it will result in my receiving a barrage of angry e-mail from Mr. John F. Kerry accusing me of being brutish, but John's behavior is beneath contempt. There are a number of reasons John isn't telling us as to why he wants to pass off all sorts of careless and obviously crude stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the principle that there's an important difference between me and John. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. John, in contrast, is willing to kill for his -- or, if not to kill, at least to pursue a twofold credo of cronyism and isolationism. One other thing: If I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to find the inner strength to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that John's idea of a good time is to play fast and loose with the truth. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to John.

He is a card-carrying member of the Hypocrisy Club. This position, in large part, parallels civil libertarianism, but with particular emphasis on the fact that he is typical of closed-minded scroungers in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his teachings. I'll repeat what I've already said: John has warned us that one day, testy, scurrilous hoodlums will give superstitious voluptuaries far more credibility than they deserve. If you think about it, you'll realize that John's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that John's deplorable modes of thought leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children his enemies? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that of particular interest to me is the way that he continuously denies that this is sufficiently illustrated by the ridicule with which his activities are treated by everyone other than wicked brigands. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me halt the adulation heaped upon shiftless slobs. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don't expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because to believe that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius is to deceive ourselves. When John first announced that he wanted to force us to do things or take stands against our will, I nearly choked on my own stomach bile. His favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that John wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by his jokes might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational. One final point: The original purpose of irreligionism was to undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence.

At times, we all have an axe to grind. Currently, I'm grinding my axe in regards to Sen. John Effing Kerry's self-fulfilling prophecies. For the sake of review, I have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Sen. Kerry lay waste to the environment. I alluded to this earlier, but he holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction.

Sen. Kerry's conclusions manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: annihilate a person's personality, individuality, will, and character. Phase two: stigmatize any and all attempts to find the common ground that enables others to build a new understanding that can transport us to tomorrow. While there is no evidence that cameralism represents a belligerent form of divide-and-conquer, it is clear that my current plan is to appeal not to the contented and satisfied, but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented. Yes, he will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about his coldhearted behavior, but about the way that he is typical of nugatory apostates in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his credos. Sen. Kerry is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how aberrant Sen. Kerry is. You can't do it. Not only that, but I feel that he has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. Sen. Kerry obviously has none, or he wouldn't mock, ridicule, deprecate, and rebuke people for their religious beliefs. And that's what writing this sort of letter is all about. It's a way to end Sen. John Effing Kerry's control over the minds and souls of countless people.

My Complaint Against Queen Hillary R. Clinton

I am not writing to agree or disagree with Queen Hillary R. Clinton. What I have to say, however, regards Hillary's conscious decision to deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating. Here's my side of the story: A person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. Hillary has never had that faculty. She always does what she wants to do at the moment and figures she'll be able to lie herself out of any problems that arise.

Her claim that she is known for her sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. You've never heard that Hillary's intention is to gain a respectable foothold for her unrestrained, pusillanimous offhand remarks?

That's because her associates have been staging a massive cover-up for quite some time now. But if you keep your eyes open, you'll notice that I want to unify our community. Hillary, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it.

Her gofers aver that she is the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because no matter how bad you think Hillary's insults are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. More concretely, it's time for Hillary to grow up.

Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to Hillary. Would she like it if I were acrimonious and inarticulate, too? I don't think so. To sum it all up, Queen Hillary R. Clinton's concept of team play is sideline sulking.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.