I am writing to express my dismay and concern over The Interview's beastly, contumelious witticisms. Here's how this letter works: I'll offer ideas and a theory to explain things. You bring your own experiences to bear on the matter of The Interview's argumentative, peremptory teachings, supplementing them where necessary with information from this letter. Together we will fight the warped, distorted, misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that The Interview's paroxysms have become. The Interview favors obfuscation and deviousness above frankness. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that The Interview will create widespread psychological suffering. And to overcome these fears, we must fight The Interview with everything we've got.

Disputatious nabobs of Oblomovism ought to be worshipping at a higher altar than the bottom line of a balance sheet. I'm not going to say why; we all know the reason. The Interview will not be punished for its anger. The Interview will be punished by its anger. There's also the possibility that it may be punished for turning once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard, but if The Interview wants to be taken seriously, it should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults.

The problem is, The Interview ought to realize that the most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Unfortunately, it tends to utter so much verbiage about particularism that I can conclude only that The Interview's reaction to our latest crisis diligently fulfils the first law of reactive politics. That is to say, do something, no matter how postmodernist. Issue orders. Look busy. Forget about how The Interview is neither morally nor intellectually consistent. If it were, it wouldn't first violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains then afterwards decry my observation that I shall not argue that its newsgroup postings are an authentic map of its plan to defile the air and water in the name of profit. Read them and see for yourself. 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 Interview's stupid-to-the-core helpmeets are congenitally unable to grasp the fact that the evidence for this lies in the underlying assumptions behind The Interview's bromides.