I have had enough of HeartLand! 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 we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with HeartLand. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that my message has always been that it does not require a Sherlock Holmes to prove that HeartLand is so incredibly maladroit that it really ought to change its name to "Maladroit McMaladroit, the Maladroit King of the Maladroit". But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. By writing this letter, I am honestly sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that HeartLand will retaliate against me. It'll most likely try to force me to hide in a closet, although another possibility is that it invents problems in order to provide itself with an excuse for making a fuss. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. I'm not very conversant with HeartLand's background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want HeartLand to grant a free ride to the undeserving, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while HeartLand claims that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli.
While some of HeartLand's prognoses are very attractive on the surface and are sincerely entertaining, they ultimately serve to eavesdrop on all types of private conversations. HeartLand's coterie appears to be growing in number. I truly pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that a colleague recently informed me that a bunch of insipid cutthroats and others in HeartLand's amen corner are about to concoct labels for people, objects, and behaviors in order to manipulate the public's opinion of them. I have no reason to doubt that story because my love for people necessitates that I test the assumptions that underlie HeartLand's proposed social programs. Yes, I face opposition from HeartLand. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. Although HeartLand is ever learning, it is never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. The truth, in this context, is that if I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less grungy than HeartLand.
HeartLand talks loudly about family values and personal responsibility, but when it comes to backing up those words with actions, all it does is prevent me from sleeping soundly at night. So HeartLand thinks that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them? Interesting viewpoint. Here's another: I can guarantee the readers of this letter that given the amount of misinformation that it is circulating, I must point out that most people don't realize that it has already revealed its plans to sidetrack us, so we can't offer true constructive criticism -- listening to the whole issue, recognizing the problems, recognizing what is being done right, and getting involved to help remedy the problem -- . It revealed these plans in a manifesto bearing all of the hallmarks of having been written by an audacious common blood-stained criminal. Not only is its manifesto entirely lacking in logic, relentlessly subjective, and utterly anecdotal, but I want to give people more information about HeartLand, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I certainly hope people draw: HeartLand somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (it should trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life because "it's the right thing to do"), distortions (national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever its institutional interests are at stake), and misplaced idealism (one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "predisadvantageously". Ask HeartLand about any of its rank-and-file followers who construct the spectre of a terrible armed threat, and the cuckoo simpleton will say, "I never meant they should go that far." Yeah, right. The truth is that if one could get a Ph.D. in Terrorism, HeartLand would be the first in line to have one. Finally, any one of the points I made in this letter could be turned into a complete research paper, but the conclusion of each would be the same: The only morally sound solution is to educate the public on a range of issues.
Yours bastardly,
IZ.
.
how does this generator know?
