As many of you already know, a “Dear John” letter is a kiss-off, a way to tell someone, “I don’t love you anymore. I never want to see you again. Good-bye”. Or, “Get lost”.
You may not know that the salutation, or greeting, in a letter can have many forms. We can have “Dear John”, or “Dearest John”, or “My Dearest John”. Or, if we’re not very pleased with the person, we can have, “Huntsman!”. But, we’ll try to be polite here . . .
My dear, dear Jon.
I read with interest the content of your interview with Foreign Policy magazine, where you claimed you were going to China to make a speech, and the Chinese government cancelled your visa. And you asked (rhetorically): “Why?” “Why me?”
Then you answered your own question: “Because I talk too much about human rights and American values, and they know that.”
Gee, that’s tough. All you wanted was come to China in the fullness of your innocence and spread the Mormon gospel of “American values”, and they cut you off at the knees. Those Commies really suck, don’t they?
But then, I discovered a disclaimer – of something that must have slipped your mind, given the innocence and all – to the effect that your visa wasn’t cancelled after all. It seems only your speaking invitation was cancelled, and your visa wasn’t affected.
Then, the spokesman in your office, obviously unencumbered by the same innocence that seems to pervade your conciousness, stated, “The governor misspoke in the interview, citing a cancelled visa when he meant to say cancelled invitation.”
Jon, I’m sorry to tell you this, but the word “misspoke” means, in plain English, “He lied.” So you “meant to say” ‘cancelled invitation’ but instead said ‘cancelled visa’? It was just a slip of the tongue, right?
So your visa wasn’t cancelled because you ‘talk too much about American values’. In fact, it wasn’t cancelled at all.
And of course you had no idea of the wrong impression your ‘misspeaking’ would create, nor were you aware of it until immediately after the interview was published and it was too late to retract the comment and the wrong impression.
My strength is the strength of ten, because my heart is pure
But let’s return to your Christian innocence and your good will toward men. Jon, exactly which ‘American values’ would you ‘talk too much about’, if you were in China?
Maybe you would have talked too much about the God-given human right and American value of owning black slaves. And of how unfortunate it was that your civil war was won by the wrong side and the slaves had to be freed.
Perhaps it would be the value, praised by some of your greatest Presidents, of conducting a genocide on your native population. Given your deep Mormon Christian roots, would you “talk too much” to the Chinese about their exterminating 55 of their 56 native ethnic groups?
Would it be the value of operating the largest torture regime in the world’s recorded history, with torture prisons and prison ships all over the world? For sure, this is an “American value” that’s been well-established for more than 70 years now.
Or might it be the value of incarcerating 25% of your population? This is another American value that China doesn’t have. In fact, China has fewer prisoners than does the US, even with 5 times the population.
Perhaps you might have intended to discuss the entrenched American value of overthrowing governments and installing brutal dictatorships that you could control, for the purpose of generating huge profits for your multinational corporations who would then be free to pillage and plunder those nations. This again must be a well-established “American value” since your nation has done this almost 50 times during the past decades.
Perhaps you might have waxed eloquently about the American value of waging war, often undeclared, just for the fun of it. Wasn’t it Madeleine Albright, your former Secretary of State, who said, “What’s the point of having the world’s greatest military, if you can’t use it once in a while?”
For sure, this must be one of your great “American values”, since your nation has been at war with someone for more than 200 of the 235 years since its founding.
Or, perhaps you would have “talked too much” about the American value of permitting your banks to plunder your economy and eviscerate your middle class to the extent that fully 25% of your population are now living below the poverty line, regularly go hungry, and cannot survive without food stamps.
Perhaps you might have talked too much about the American value of having millions of your people living in tent cities or in their little cardboard boxes under the overpass.
But maybe there’s something else happening
Jon, I just had an idea. You claimed your speech invitation was rescinded “for political reasons”. Maybe that’s true, but maybe those political reasons didn’t include your speaking too much about American values. Maybe it was something else.
There is another ‘American value’ that you (and most Americans) seem to hold dear to your heart, which is your pathological practice of promoting sedition, insurrection, destabilisation and revolution, in any nation that won’t recognise you as master.
I watched with interest your TV interview where you were asked what the US “should” do about its relations with China. If I recall correctly, your response was that you would “reach out” to the 500 million Chinese internet users (and the 80 million bloggers. Note: the bloggers are actually 300 million), and “lead them towards change” that would ultimately “take China down”.
I watched you so breathlessly determined to tell the American people of your value of “taking China down”, that you persistently ignored the interviewer telling you he was out of time, and continued to tell us all how, if you were elected President, you would – for no good reason – take pride in destroying a nation that wasn’t even an enemy.
Has it occurred to you, innocent Mormon that you are, that China may not appreciate being “taken down”, and that they might have a good reason for having your speech cancelled? Or refusing a visa? Would that qualify as “a political reason” in your mind?
I also recall watching you at Wangfujing in Beijing, scuttling around like a rat – or at least a weasel – in your leather jacket, hiding behind your sunglasses, looking for evidence of the effectiveness of your handiwork in trying to promote a “Jasmine Revolution” in China.
Sadly, no such evidence was to be found, but when you were recognised and confronted by citizens with evidence of your part in that stillborn adventure, I watched you put your tail between your legs and run like a dog. Even a weasel would have had more class.
We still have the video. We’ll show it to you, the next time you return.
Let’s Return to the Letter
Since this is indeed a “Dear John” letter, we should close on this topic.
We didn’t love you before, and we sure don’t love you now. We never want to see you again. Good-bye.
Actually, Jon, just get lost.