My complaint about Baylor
I don't know how to tell you this, but the quest to make mountains out of molehills is the true inner kernel of Baylor's philosophy, insofar as this figment of an intransigent brain can be designated a "philosophy". Wait! Before you dismiss me as vengeful, hear me out. I have no interest in getting tangled in the rhetoric or dogma that Baylor frequently pushes. Then again, that notion has been popular for as long as factionalism has existed. Baylor consumes, infests, and destroys. It lives off the death and destruction of others. For that reason alone we need to get us out of the hammerlock in which Baylor is holding us.
I plan to help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by Baylor and its cringers. Are you with me—or against me? Whatever you decide, Baylor has announced its intentions to deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating. While doing so may earn Baylor a gold star from the mush-for-brains Stalinism crowd, it keeps stating over and over again that lying is morally justifiable as long as it's referred to as "strategic deception". This drumbeat refrain is clearly not consistent with the facts on the ground—facts such as that Baylor is positing a "valid" logic devoid of empirical content (i.e., devoid of facts). If you don't believe me, see for yourself. Baylor spouts the same bile in everything it writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue it's excited about this week is demagogism, which says to me that one of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that Baylor's attitude is, "I know I'm right, and therefore all evidence to the contrary must be wrong". What I mean is that it likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that on several occasions I have heard Baylor state that you and I are morally inferior to arrogant crackpots. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important though is that when I was younger I wanted to get people to see through the hollowness, the sham, the silliness of Baylor's ethically bankrupt blandishments. I still want to do that, but now I realize that I want nothing more—or less—than to break the spell of great expectations that now binds hateful palookas to Baylor. To that task I have consecrated my life and I invite you to do likewise.
The irony is that Baylor's most infernal declamations are also its most brain-damaged. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent." I don't need to tell you that a person with a functioning brain does not get people to vote against their own self-interests. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that Baylor's legatees amount to nothing more than odious scapegraces riding on the back of a social fungus attacking the body politic. I explained the reason for that just a moment ago. If you don't mind, though, I'll go ahead and explain it again. To begin with, some hopeless devil-worshippers actually avouch that newspapers should report only on items it agrees with. This is the kind of muddled thinking that it is encouraging with its conjectures. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as dotty scalawags. I'd like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: "I don't expect everyone to agree with me".