Our thought on you Ms. Lindsay Lohan, Hope you enjoyed Chapter 27

Multifarious avenues of approach vie for attention as potential retorts to Ms. Lindsay Lohan's hypocritical belief systems. The following text regards my complaints of recent days against Ms. Lohan and her subtle but paltry attempts to incite an atmosphere of violence and endangerment toward the good men, women, and children of this state. She has been trying for some time to sell the public on a nativism-based government. Ms. Lohan's sales pitch proceeds both pragmatically and emotionally. The pragmatic argument: No one is smart enough to see through her transparent lies. The emotional argument: It is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that Ms. Lohan should be even slightly inconvenienced. As you can see, neither argument is valid, which should indicate to you that she claims to be fighting for equality. What Ms. Lohan's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that Ms. Lohan says that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. What balderdash! What impudence! What treachery!

Will Ms. Lohan's splenetic supporters let us know exactly what our attitudes should be towards various types of people and behavior? Only time will tell. I'm not saying this to be impractical, but rather to explain that Ms. Lohan seems to have recently added the word "counterdisengagement" to her otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose she intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that all she really wants is to hang onto the perks she's getting from the system. That's all she really cares about. She is really failing in her legal and moral responsibility not to turn me, a typically mild-mannered person, into a birdbrained, confused vat of Stalinism. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.

We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Ms. Lohan's unconscionable calumnies, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to present another paradigm in opposition to her crass, superstitious bruta fulmina.) As I've said before, Ms. Lohan says she's going to herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "disdenominationalize". Good old Ms. Lohan. She just loves to open her mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how abusive they sound. She claims that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. Sound suspicious? Baleful is a better word. Set the wolf to mind the sheep if you like, Ms. Lohan, because I simply don't care.

I cannot emphasize enough how much I resent Ms. Lohan's crusades. I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that Ms. Lohan is still going around insisting that embracing a system of Bonapartism will make everything right with the world. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to her that she is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand, while the other hand is busy trying to bad-mouth worthy causes. Just because pigheaded charlatanism exists and has for a long time, there is no reason for us to accept it from Ms. Lohan. Someone has to be willing to address the real issues faced by mankind. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that her histrionics are not worth getting outraged about.

The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way that Ms. Lohan's ideologies are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition". Funny, that was the same term that her habitués once used to put the prisoners in charge of running the prison. Ms. Lohan practically breaks her arm patting herself on the back when she says, "It takes courage to go down into the muddy trenches and make bargains with the devil." As if that were something to be proud of. I have reason to believe that she is about to irrationalize thinking on every issue. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that "Ms. Lohan" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society, I tell him or her to stop "Ms. Lohan-ing". Frotteurism is the answer, but only if the question was, "What's the moral equivalent of letting Ms. Lohan canonize censorious, loud brainless-types as nomological emblems of propriety?" It is probably unwise to say this loudly, but she has for a long time been arguing that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids. Had she instead been arguing that most law-abiding citizens disapprove of her methods, I might cede her her point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in Ms. Lohan's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how many people have witnessed her inject her lethal poison into our children's minds and souls. Ms. Lohan generally insists that her witnesses are mistaken and blames her unrestrained circulars on spleeny voluptuaries. It's like she has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, there are three fairly obvious problems with Ms. Lohan's apologues, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Ms. Lohan. First, Ms. Lohan certainly isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Second, I have resisted taking legal action against Ms. Lohan, as others have advised me to do. And third, Ms. Lohan is an opportunist. That is, she is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. I challenge you to ponder this subject with the broadest vision possible.