Douglas, I think you would be wisest to interpret Charley's wonderful essay as splendidly tongue-in-cheek. I especially love two passages near the end:
(1) We should be more appreciative of active investors' services to society as leading patrons of the performing arts and as core benefactors of colleges, universities, museums, hospitals, and orchestras--and as major donors to political campaigns, which are so important to our democracy.
(2) We all know that the players at the world's famous casinos are, on average, "losers" if calibrated in purely financial terms, but since they keep coming back, nonfinancial benefits must surely enhance the players' overall experience.
Best of all is the absolute reverie of the last passage before the conclusion: "Although it may be temptingly easy for casual observers to fault active managers by focusing all too narrowly on the disappointing results and high fees experienced by naive but ever-hopeful investors, the splendid benefits rendered directly and indirectly by active managers clearly deserve much more of our collective recognition, respect, admiration, and even adulation." Hurrah for losers!
It is a shame, though, that the donations to orchestras and political campaigns are too often paid by pension beneficiaries whose "naive but ever-hopeful" pension fund managers have wasted their money on "disappointing results and high fees," as well as by the taxpayers who generally have to make up the gamblers' losses.