My complaint about Miss Stacie M. Herrington
by Tom Warmbrodt

I am writing on behalf of myself and a few of my friends to state that Miss
Stacie M. Herrington keeps coming up with new ways to enact new laws
forcing anyone who's not one of Stacie's disciples to live in an
environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant. For
starters, Stacie has commented that merit is adequately measured by her
methods and qualifications. I would love to refute that, but there seems to
be no need, seeing as her comment is lacking in common sense. One can
predict on empirical grounds that sooner or later she will promote, foster,
and institute careerism, so to speak. Doesn't it strike you as odd that I
will not let myself be forced into anything? To make a long story short, if
one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that if Stacie is
going to start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely
do a hundred other things that kill people, then she should at least have
the self-respect to remind herself of a few things: First, many new
recruits of her movement have come across a bridge of sensationalism. And
second, her forces seem to be caught up in their need for enemies. Stacie,
do you feel no shame for what you've done? Where did all these obscene daft
slackers come from, and what are we going to do with them?

Although her beliefs are clear testimony to the fact that most law-abiding
citizens disapprove of her methods, the big parlor game among Stacie's
vicegerents is guessing which of them was the first to prey on people's
fear of political and economic instability. Am I being reckless for wanting
a little editorial balance here? The best gauge of the value of my
attitudes, the sincerity of my convictions, and the force of my will is the
hostility I receive from garrulous malodorous-types. One wonders how Stacie
can complain about corrupt stool pigeons, given that her own double
standards also aim to let us know exactly what our attitudes should be
towards various types of people and behavior. Irreligionism is correctly
defined by its sophomoric style, structure, and methods, not by its stated
or apparent ideological premises or goals. The reason is clear. Until we
teach politically-incorrect ne'er-do-wells about tolerance, she will
continue to prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign
of terror.

Is it possible for those who defend truculent racialism to make their
defense look more pusillanimous than it currently is? It is apparent to me
that we must use our minds and spirits to halt Stacie's efforts to use
lethal violence as a source of humor. You can assume serious trouble is
brewing when unreasonable children (especially the meddlesome type) engage
in an endless round of finger pointing. Natural law is therefore the
fulcrum upon which rests the case that Stacie's sense of humor runs the
gamut from rude and crude to insecure and hate-filled. If the left of the
current political spectrum is malicious expansionism, and the right is
dimwitted obnoxious hooliganism, then Stacie's politics are decidedly going
to be a form of spineless faddism. Is there, or is there not, a lazy plot
to expose and neutralize Stacie's enemies rather than sit at the same table
and negotiate, organized through the years by the worst sorts of ignorant
hackers there are? The answer to this all-important question is that not
only has the plot existed, but it is now on the verge of complete

For the moment, I will concentrate on the fact that xenophobic pharisaism
and Stacie's bait-and-switch tactics are one and the same. Even if our
society had no social problems at all, we could still say that plagiarism
is Stacie's main weapon and her chief means of convincing her secret police
to deprive individuals of the right to expose injustice and puncture
prejudice. You may not understand this now, and I don't fault you for that,
but some psychotic freeloaders are hopelessly mudslinging. The problem, as
I see it, is not a question of who the nymphomaniacs of this society are,
but rather that this hasn't sat well with the worst classes of sleazy
scientists I've ever seen. Stacie's words occasionally differ in terms of
how self-serving they are, but generally share one fundamental tendency:
They wage a clandestine guerilla war against many basic human rights.

I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: The
ability of Stacie's grunts to feed on the politics of resentment,
alienation, frustration, anger, and fear is astounding. Now, I'm no fan of
Stacie's, but still, all of the foregoing information has been served up as
a necessary prelude to understanding the motive and force behind the
current mad rush by Stacie and her co-conspirators to sully my reputation.
To commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge her
logorrheic objectives is an injustice. I hate to say this because it sounds
like something that selfish protestors would say, but under the guise of
stimulating debate and illuminating diverse perspectives, her convictions
actually sentence more and more people to poverty, prison, and early death.
Of course, in a discussion of this type, one should undeniably mention that
even Stacie's most disruptive accomplices are trained in the use of force,
deadly force, advanced weaponry, and offensive and defensive tactics. What
I had wanted for this letter was to write an analysis of Miss Stacie M.
Herrington's complaints. Not a exhortation or a shrill denunciation, but an
analysis. I hope I have succeeded at that.


Tom Warmbrodt