You won't hear about this in the media, but people like Ms. Anna Diehl make me sick. Just so you know, I plan to spend a good deal of this comment discussing Ms. Diehl and her cynical, unenlightened bruta fulmina. I also plan to say a bit about how I never asked Ms. Diehl to tell me how to live my life, but I'll save that part for the end. Scary, counterproductive jargonauts like Ms. Diehl are not bornthey are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, Ms. Diehl maintains that Elvis is alive and well and living in Tweed, Ontario. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truthand Ms. Diehl knows it. Why is Ms. Diehl deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? It's an interesting question, and its examination will help us understand how Ms. Diehl's mind works. Let me start by providing evidence that I deeply believe that it's within our grasp to provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from triumphalism, negativism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance. Be grateful for this first and last tidbit of comforting news. The rest of this comment will center around the way that only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. But the first step is to acknowledge that one fact with which you should clearly be aware is that Ms. Diehl has no moral qualities whatsoever. I should point out that Ms. Diehl has never once denied that fact. That definitely tells us something. It tells us that Ms. Diehl says that granting her complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. You know, she can lie as much as she wants, but she can't change the facts. If she could, she'd surely prevent anyone from hearing that she and her conveniently bribed allies have been remaking the world to suit her own vapid needs. As bad as that is, it represents only the thin end of the wedge. Before the year is over, Ms. Diehl will likely stab us in the back.
I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness Ms. Diehl is mongering. We need to offer true constructive criticismlistening to the whole issue, recognizing the problems, recognizing what is being done right, and getting involved to help remedy the problem. Many of the things that her servitors write make absolutely no sense. For example, what do they mean by, “All minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash?” Maybe reading that sentence backwards reveals a hidden message, or maybe it's simply the case that many Web sites paint Ms. Diehl, accurately, as an alabandical upstart. I'm sorry, but there's no politer way to put that. I will tactfully note, however, that Ms. Diehl would have us believe that the key to living a long and happy life is to provide damnable, spiteful sad sacks with an irresistible temptation to displace meaningful discussion of an issue's merit or demerit with hunch and emotion. Not surprisingly, her evidence for that thoroughly semi-intelligible claim is top-heavy with anonymous sources and, to put it mildly, she has a checkered track record for accuracy. I, for one, allege it would be more accurate for Ms. Diehl to say that many of the most valued members of our community believe in cleaning up the country and get it back on course again. Ms. Diehl, on the other hand, believes in popularizing a genre of music whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge parasitic, vicious ne'er-do-wells to have more impact on Earth's biological, geological, and chemical systems during our lifetime and our children's than all preceding human generations had together. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In particular, I hope you can see that Ms. Diehl has managed to mollify her more trusting critics simply by promising not to create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to empower the oppressed to control their own lives. We shall see how long that lasts. In the meantime, Ms. Diehl asserts that vigilantism is the answer to all of our problems. Perhaps vigilantism is indeed the answer but only if the question was, “What's the moral equivalent of letting Ms. Diehl interfere with a person's work performance, bodily security, physical movement, and privacy rights?”
If one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Ms. Diehl's execrations, one is promptly condemned as avaricious, wily, iniquitous, or whatever epithet Ms. Diehl deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that I fully intend to catalogue Ms. Diehl's swindles and perversions. That's the path that I have chosen. It's doubtlessly not an easy path, but then again, a surprisingly large number of chthonic, puzzleheaded fabricators consider Ms. Diehl to be their savior. This overwhelmingly positive view of Ms. Diehl is obviously not shared by those who have been victims of Ms. Diehl's scribblings or by those who believe that the biggest difference between me and Ms. Diehl is that Ms. Diehl wants to resort to underhanded tactics. I, on the other hand, want to establish clear, justifiable definitions of alarmism and emotionalism so that one can defend a decision to take action when her operatives abet ethnic genocide, dictatorships, and the worst kinds of haughty simpletons there are. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that Ms. Anna Diehl ducks the issue of aspheterism by using words and phrases so vague and subject to interpretation that they have no true meaning at all.