HOW TO BE A GOOD PERSON : IN A LANDLORD'S EYES

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

At some point in our lives, we all wonder whether we are "good people." We live with others. We know how "good people" act. We have an intuitive sense about what makes a person "good." We even hear things about what makes a person "good:" They are friendly, kind, forbearing, compassionate, ethical, honest, caring, loving, trustworthy, gracious, forgiving and generous. "Good people" do not hurt you. They do what they say; and they apologize if they do not. They consider you at the same time they consider themselves. Aristotle and many other philosophers have written tomes about what it takes to be "good." It is an age-old question.

Of course, not everyone can agree on what is "good." You can't know you are a good person until you know what is good in the first place. What is good in one person's eyes may be bad in another. It is easy to lay down absolute standards for goodness. Yet like all ethical dilemmas, only we can say whether we subjectively feel that we have done right. Nonetheless, we can generally all agree that being "good" involves living without intent to injure other people. In that sense, being a "good person" essentially depends on positive motivation. And that positive motivation shines through in good actions toward others. Good people think selflessly; they refuse to hurt others to advance their interests. Bad people do the opposite; they are willing to hurt others to help themselves.

Being a good person is an individual lifestyle. It does not depend on how much money you make or what you do for a living. While it is possible to identify "objective" factors that hint whether a person is "good," true goodness comes from the heart, not from action alone. Enron fraud artists probably donated some money to charity the same year they robbed millions; that donation did not make them good people. No, being good is internal; and good shines through in external action. It is hard to verify. But everyone knows it when they see it.

It is refreshing to know a truly good person because they are rare. In our world, it is hard to be selfless and honorable. There are so many impulsions to discard goodness toward others in order to advance yourself. By the same token, it is hard to be patient. No one wants to wait or understand others' problems. Nor do they want to waste their time on others without reward. After all, people need to fend for themselves. They only have a limited time to get the job done. If they waste their time being nice to others, they might injure their own fortunes. And no one likes to do that. Put simply, we expect most people not to be good; our society frustrates goodness. That is why it is a welcome relief to meet a good person.

There is no formula to being a good person. Yet people throw the term around far more than they should. In many cases, they say someone is "good" solely because they act in a way that enriches them. That misunderstands what it means to be good. A truly good person acts with malice toward no one. The fact that a person acts the way another person wants them to does not make him good. To the contrary, expecting a person to act in a way that is beneficial to you undermines their value as an individual. It "instrumentalizes" them; it makes them pawns in a game you want to win. Just because someone pays you according to a contract does not make them "good." Merely fulfilling an external legal obligation is no shortcut to goodness. A good person holds to his word because it is his word, not because the law threatens him to do so.

Yet many people think that observing external obligations makes you "good." It is easy to make this mistake. After all, complying with the law seems like a "good" thing to do. But the law is indifferent to intention. And intention is the only thing that determines whether a person is good. In that sense, it is possible to seem good by fulfilling every imaginable legal standard. Yet it is also possible to have only bad intentions while complying with the law. You can be a total scoundrel yet do nothing illegal. If a person did not know you, they might say: "Well, he is law-abiding. So he must be a good person." To that extent, fulfilling external obligations can disguise ethical flaws.

I encountered an example to illustrate this easily confused distinction in the New York Post a few days ago. I read an article about some poor web designer who got run over in a Brooklyn street. See N.Y. Post, Horror hit-run in B'klyn, April 19, 2010 at p. 9. The article quoted his landlord. She spoke about his character: "He works. He comes home. He's a very good person (emphasis added)."

What did the landlord know about this guy? How did she know he was a "very good person?" She based her assessment on the fact that he works and comes home. What does that have to do with ethical goodness or pure intention? Nothing. If anything, it reveals that the landlord thinks the web designer was a "good person" solely because he went to his job, came home every night and ostensibly paid the rent. He might have been an utter scoundrel who doublecrossed his friends and broke women's hearts. Yet as far as the landlord was concerned, he was a "good person" because he adhered to his contractual obligations to pay rent. He also was a "good person" because he quietly went to his job and caused no disturbances.

I suppose this is what it takes to be a "good person" in a landlord's eyes. Landlord apply a "formula" for goodness: Have good credit; make an income; cause no trouble; pay your rent; keep your mouth shut; pay next month's rent; pay a late fee after the first. Your intentions do not matter. And "being a good person" means acting exactly the way the landlord wants. In this case, the landlord happened to like the way her tenant behaved because he did what enriched her. She morally approved him because his behavior coincided with her interests. His own ethical qualities did not influence her appraisal. It was "all about her." And that determined whether he was "good."

This gravely misunderstands what it means to be a "good person." A person is not "good" simply because he acts in a way that enriches another. Nor is he "good" simply because he adheres to contractual obligations under law. Rather, goodness is more subtle than that. There is no checklist. Action is not enough. It takes real reflection to see whether someone is good. Getting a rent check in the mail every month does not suffice to prove goodness.

Criminals and scallywags can mail rent checks, too. That does not make them good people.

But who has time to sit down and really think about character in our society? It seems we only care about character when we want to damage a foe with some embarrassing "flaw." And once again, we do that to merely to advance ourselves at their expense. By hurting them, we help ourselves. And hurting others is rarely good.

WELCOME TO THE PROBLEM SHOP

A WORD FROM OUR SPONSORS

COME ON DOWN !!!!

By : Mr. G. William Elender, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Problem Shop Cooperative Ltd. (a Delaware Corporation).

Isn't it about time that you stopped living a stress-free life? Haven't you had enough tranquility and happiness? Are you bored with contentment? Do your friends make you feel like an outcast because you don't have any problems? Do people ridicule you for having it too easy?

It's a New Year. It's your time to change. Here at the Problem Shop, you can complicate your life as much as you want for the lowest prices in town. No matter how much difficulty you want, we sell it. We offer convenient financing and easy-to-find retail locations. If you want a problem, look no further: Come to the Problem Shop TODAY!

Don't be afraid to get some problems. Many people think that it is smart to avoid problems. They are wrong. Problems make us stronger. They make us react more quickly to unfamiliar situations. And that sharpness translates into success in family, careers and money. Ask any successful man and he'll tell you the same thing: You need to face adversity before you make it to the top. Life is not a bowl of cherries. You need to have problems to really distinguish yourself.

We understand that it is difficult to know where to begin. Purchasing your first problem is a major life decision. You can't just rush into a problem, nor can you buy a problem that is too big. You need a problem to suit your needs and your personality. True, some people are born with problems. Some people have problems the moment they leave the womb, like deformed children. But not all of us can be so lucky. For those who need problems later in life, you can exercise your own judgment before deciding what problem you want. It's an individual choice. And we're here to help.

Before buying a problem, you must ask yourself what you hope to gain from it. Do you want to learn financial discipline? Do you want to make yourself into an honorable person? Do you want to understand others? Do you want to evolve as a person? Do you want to learn how to be kind or cruel? Every problem will shape you in ways you never thought possible. When choosing a problem, it's all in your hands. Our trained staff is ready to help you make the best choice for your needs--and your budget.

First-time problem buyers should start slow. Here at the Problem Shop, we want our customers to get only the problems they want--and only the problems they can handle. Although it would benefit us to sell you the biggest, most expensive problem on the shelf, we know it would not benefit you. In that light, we care about you. We do not want to sell heroin addiction, mental illness or terminal disease to a bright-faced young college student. Nor do we want to sell paraplegia to a 15-year-old. These are expensive problems. They are hard to handle. We would prefer to sell them to older folks who already have some experience dealing with problems.

So come on in for a free consultation. If you've never had a problem before, talk to us. We can offer you heartbreak following a kiddie crush for only $19.95. Or perhaps debt collection letters for a small bill, again for only $19.95. Parental abuse is a bit more expensive at $24.95, but you might learn more from a parent's fists than a debt collector's incessant phone calls. But that's why we are here: We are here to provide information to help you make the most intelligent decision you can about the problems you want in your life.

Once you've experimented with minor emotional and financial problems, you can graduate to more serious ones. Our "second-tier" problems will really build your character. Your friends will never ridicule you again if you purchase a home foreclosure for $49.95 or an eviction for $54.95. They might even have pity on you. If you are really feeling adventurous, you might even buy a moderately-severe health problem, such as Crohn's Disease, for just $59.99. Or you could try a serious emotional problem, such as divorce, starting at just $74.99. Acrimonious divorces--complete with court battles, custody fights, mutual recriminations, physical abuse and death threats--are more expensive; we recommend purchasing a simple divorce before experimenting with an acrimonious one.

We run the best problem retail outlet in town. We are so certain that our problems are better than our competitors' that we will match anyone's price. If you buy a stalker for $12.99 at any of our competitors' stores, we will match that price. PLUS we'll throw in an additional problem. With us, you will not just get a stalker for your money. You will get heartache following a child's death--a $9.99 value--ABSOLUTELY FREE. That's right, you heard it. ABSOLUTELY FREE. Here at the problem shop, we will not be undersold. We take problems seriously. To show you how much we care, we even GIVE AWAY free problems. We are committed to our customers.

At the Problem Shop, we not only offer the lowest prices. We also sell only top-quality problems. Sure, our competitors might sell bargain paternity suits for $49.99. But our paternity suits are much better. With us, you not only get the agony of court process, wage garnishment, arguments with your former lover and wrangling with police officers over money. You also get the added difficulty of having to prove that you are not the child's father--and failing in that quest. Our competitors offer simpler problems. Their paternity suit is too easy. With us, you get the basic problem PLUS emotional, financial and health complications. Who else can offer that? When you're buying a problem, you deserve all the little problems that come along with it. Don't settle for less.

So what are you waiting for? Haven't you had enough ease in your life? Step up to the plate and buy some problems. Be a man. Stop living for enjoyment and comfort. Show that you can handle adversity, too. Grow as a person, will you? Get off that couch and buy a debilitating accident for just $149.99. Show that you can get over the emotional turmoil that flows from losing a limb for just $159.99. Lose a parent for a special introductory price of only $99.99. Suffer unjust persecution and racial hatred for $199.99. Get some real problems and grow as a person.

No one will remember the guy who sits around in comfort. They will remember the guy who faced unimaginable difficulty and survived. If you act NOW we will even sell you a DOUBLE PROBLEM for one low price, such as our special Marital Betrayal/Homicide package or Sexual Dysfunction/Suicidal Depression combo.

Stop waiting. Buy some problems TODAY. Don't let our pricing scare you away. We offer competitive financing to all those who apply. There are no credit checks. There are no hidden fees. There are no contracts. There is no obligation. There is no "catch."

At the Problem Shop, we have a simple philosophy: Everyone who wants a problem should get one, regardless of their ability to pay. If you act NOW we will sweeten the deal even more. Starting TODAY, we offer zero-percent interest financing through 2014. That means you can buy sudden spousal disability with a lifetime homecare commitment TODAY for NO MONEY DOWN. No, you didn't imagine it. We meant what we said: NO MONEY DOWN. You won't owe us a dime for your problem until 2014. This is not a joke. Act TODAY and we'll even throw in a collector's edition coffee mug featuring the words "YOU THINK YOU GOT PROBLEMS?" ABSOLUTELY FREE (that's an $8.99 value).

So do yourself a favor. Start thinking about yourself for once. Don't be afraid. Come on down to the Problem Shop and pick out the problem that is right for you. Our friendly, professional sales team is ready to assist you. You can do so much with your life; we have a problem to match every lifestyle. It is never too early to complicate your existence. It is never too early to start worrying and suffering. Here at the Problem Shop, we can guide you in the right direction. We offer every imaginable life problem. If you want to be un-friended by a love interest on a dating website, we've got you covered. If you want to find out you have cancer, we've got you covered. You name the problem; we deliver.

At the Problem Shop, no problem is too little. We can sell it to you at an affordable price, every time. We even offer FREE SHIPPING!

Stop making excuses. Stop being happy. It's time for some problems. It's time for some challenges. You need adversity in your life. You want to grow as a person, don't you? And you want that free coffee mug, don't you?

APPLICATION DENIED : YOU ARE NOT APPROPRIATE

THE BUTTSON HOUSE CO-OPERATIVE, INC.

"Fine Residences in the Heart of Tribeca"

190 Franklin Street, New York, New York

January 8, 2010

Dear Mr. Farrell,

On behalf of the entire Board here at the Buttson House, I wish to thank you for your recent application to purchase a residential share with us. Despite your admirable resume, financial status and ability to pay for the share, we regret to inform you that we cannot sell the share to you because you lead an inappropriate lifestyle.

Two months ago, you expressed an interest in purchasing a two-bedroom residential share at 190 Franklin Street. Consistent with the Board's requirements, you duly submitted: (1) A resume listing past employers since 1980; (2) A certified letter from your current employer concerning your employment status, income level and bonus expectations; (3) Tax returns disclosing income since 1990; (4) Bank statements revealing savings levels since 1975; (5) A certified accountant's letter disclosing your current asset situation; (6) A marriage certificate; (7) A certified copy of your college degree, medical degree, law degree and engineering degree; and (8) A sworn affidavit declaring that all information you submitted was true, accurate and not misleading.

We salute you for complying with the Board's requirements. We are happy to report that you did not omit a single piece of information required under our procedures. You clearly have the financial and moral capacity to purchase a residential share from our cooperative.

However, despite your obvious financial ability to purchase the share from us, we refuse to sell it to you. Pursuant to cooperative By-Law Number 451.21, the Board independently investigated you after you submitted your application materials. Under the By-Laws, we are not required to alert you that that we conduct such investigations, nor do you have any right to question conclusions we make during the investigations. As a private entity duly licensed to do business in the State of New York, you have no legal recourse against us because we do not represent the State. Rather, we are a private corporation with full discretion whether to buy, sell or otherwise deal with any other private actor in the free market.

Our investigation disclosed several unfavorable facts about you. First, we learned that you do not cut your hair every week. To our minds, this reveals poor attention to personal hygiene, which in turn implies that you will not respect the property you intend to purchase from us. As a cooperative Board with an interest in maintaining a clean facility, we obviously worry about prospective shareholders who do not regularly cut their hair. We do not want unkempt ragamuffins with unfavorable hairstyles living under our roof, no matter how many stocks or bonds they own.

Second, our investigation disclosed that your middle name is Barfield. We found it anomalous that you did not list your middle name in your application materials. To our minds, your omission reveals a propensity for dishonesty that has no place at the Buttson House. Furthermore, even if you did reveal that your middle name was Barfield, we would have denied your application because we do not like that name. We believe that any name containing the word "Bar" would bring disrepute upon the Buttson House. We do not want others to think that bartenders, hobos, barmaids, wenches or drunks live in our building. Put simply, the name "Barfield" suggests all these things. As a cooperative Board with an interest in shareholder dignity--as well as public reputation--we simply cannot allow people named Barfield to live on our premises, even if they have all the money in the world.

Third, our investigators discovered that your left middle toe is 3 millimeters longer than your right middle toe. Although we sympathize with your deformity, we must advise that it makes us uncomfortable. We do not like the idea that a freak with two toe lengths might live in our building. To say the least, it is rather revolting. We understand that you keep your toes under socks during most public appearances, but that alone does not obviate the danger that you may appear in sandals, flip-flops or shower shoes in the Buttson House from time to time, particularly in the summer months. We are simply unwilling to subject our shareholders to the embarrassment of beholding your freakish toes during the summer. We cannot take the risk. Furthermore, under By-Law Number 4987.32(a), shareholders at the Buttson House have a right to refuse residence to anyone with unpleasant or inconsistent toe length, financial ability notwithstanding. Thus, we have technical grounds to deny your application for this reason alone.

Fourth, we learned that in 1996 you briefly worked as an artist during a break between jobs at financial institutions. Although this did not affect your financial health--in fact, you are a talented painter--we cannot tolerate former artists on our premises. As a cooperative Board committed to establishing a comfortable home for our shareholders, we take pains to ensure homogeneity in employment. All our residents work in the professions or in financial institutions. We do not house artists, tramps, free spirits or freelance writers. We do not want our residents to be subjected to inappropriate lifestyles, nor do we want artists making noise after 9 PM. In a word, our residents watch artists from the comfort of various concert venues in the Metropolitan area; they do not live among them. In a word, you were once an artist. That disqualifies you from obtaining a residence share at the Buttson House.

We understand that our decision may disappoint you. After all, it may appear to you that we have denied your application for completely unjustifiable reasons. But we really could care less. Under New York law, we can deny your application for any reason we wish; we are not a government agency. We can discriminate against you for any reason. We can turn you away because you have bad breath or because you are Mets fan rather than a Yankees fan. Put simply, we have unlimited discretion. We are the shareholders; you are the applicant. It is our club. We get to decide whether to let you in. Applying these powers, we hereby conclude that you are not appropriate.

We know that you have money. We know that you can afford the residence share for which you applied. But we just don't like you; it is as simple as that. If you were more like us, we might have approved your application. But that is just conjecture. Maybe we would have been in a bad mood that day. Who knows. The bottom line is that you're not getting this apartment.

Yours very truly,

Mr. B. Rockwell Merriman, Esq.,

Attorney-at-Law and Chairman of the Board of Directors
The Buttson House Cooperative, Inc.

INVESTIGATING PEOPLE IS AN UGLY BUSINESS, EVEN IF IT IS WELL-INTENTIONED

AN ESSAY

Yesterday I saw the movie Doubt. In it, Meryl Streep plays a cantankerous Catholic schoolmaster who is determined to unseat the new parish priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) because she thinks he is abusing a troubled student. She has no direct evidence for her crusade. She has seen him hug the student in the hallway. But everyone else says there is nothing inappropriate about the relationship. The priest says that love is essential to the Christian spirit; he said he hugged the boy because he was enduring ridicule from classmates. In the end, the schoolmaster confronts the priest by claiming that she "spoke to his former parish" about his "history." This leads the priest to leave his post.

Ironically, the schoolmaster later admits to a friend that she never called the priest's former employer. The friend is horrified that her austere confidante would ever lie, even when pursuing a just end. She responds: "In the pursuit of wrongdoing, one naturally steps away from God."

What an incredible line. It made me think about proof and truth, as well as investigations into others' personal history. It also made me think about prosecutors. After all, prosecutions involve the "quest for truth" while "pursuing wrongdoing" through "investigation." Yet that quest--despite its good intentions--often leads prosecutors into serious ethical quandaries, just as it did to the schoolmaster in Doubt. And beyond ethics, investigating people for supposed "wrongs" often brings out the worst in everyone involved.

We all have histories. When someone wants to dig into them, he will always uncover something unpraiseworthy, embarrassing, scandalous or simply ugly.

Meryl Streep's character in Doubt represented a familiar "type:" The self-righteous investigator who wants to find evil in a person's past. Such types do not just appear in Catholic schools or District Attorneys' offices. Rather, they appear everywhere in our society. Whenever a person assumes a morally superior position above another and launches an "investigation" into that person for some "official" purpose, he or she effectively becomes the schoolmaster in Doubt. I have encountered them in private employment, in law practice, in academics and in State licensure boards. There is an inherent condescension in their work: They hold the power; they assemble the knowledge; and they pronounce a judgment on another person's history. All the while, they never acknowledge that they, too, may have "skeletons in the closet."

It is uncomfortable to undergo investigation. When I applied for admission to practice law in Illinois, I had to submit to a grueling "Character and Fitness" inquiry. For months, an entire committee combed through my past. They made me fill out an exhaustive "personal history" questionnaire in which I had to disclose all my addresses over the past ten years, as well as confess any disciplinary infractions, criminal convictions, criminal charges, debts and basically anything else "bad" I had done in my life up to that point. They also deeply wanted to know whether I had ever lied under oath or otherwise been "dishonest" when "investigated in an official capacity." Every question seemed to lay a trap: Should you answer fully? Should you answer everything? Should you try to get away with an omission? It was as if the committee wanted you to think they knew everything, but perhaps might overlook something. Every question radiated mistrust, as if inviting you to risk a lie. The whole process seemed designed to make you feel inferior and minuscule. It left you feeling like a specimen under a microscope. And it was your "character" on the block: You either had to confess or they would find out the "truth" by some other means.

Private employers do similar things when "vetting" potential employees. They want references. They want work history. They run credit checks and peruse public records. They compare your resume to other sources to see if you're lying. They even call former employers to get "outside impressions" about the "kind of person you are." Just as the Bar Committee ruthlessly investigates applicants, so too do private employers subject hopeful workers to a suspicion-laden process in an effort to "certify" them. They get to judge personal histories; it is a one-way street. They might be total scoundrels themselves, but they're not the ones applying.

But sometimes we need investigations, don't we? After all, we want to find out bad things about people so we can punish them, or at least prevent them from working, right? Of course we do. Still, that does not mean that investigations are noble. In fact, as the schoolmaster said in Doubt, the "pursuit of wrongdoing" moves us "away from God." In other words, it is somehow undignified to grub in the ground for bad facts about people. It leads to uncomfortable inconsistencies, awkward explanations and outright embarrassment. And taken to the extreme, it leads the investigator to employ dishonest means to accomplish his "honest" ends. Put simply, the quest to affix "truth" to an individual can quickly degenerate into an obsessive witch hunt. When that happens, we should wonder whether the value of "truth" about people is worth the ethical leaps we perpetrate to find it.

I mention all this because truth interests me. We cannot talk about investigation without talking about truth, because investigation aims to produce "truth." Yet it makes no sense to talk about truth without analyzing the concept. After all, truth is about human knowledge. Human knowledge, in turn, stems from human sense. There are comparatively few things in this world that an individual can sense, and those are the only things that he can really "know as true." We know the sky is blue because we see it; we know we are angry because we feel anger in our stomachs. But how do we know about others' pasts? We are limited to our own senses for knowledge and truth. If we do not see a person act "badly," what proves to us that they are truly "bad?"

Investigators set about assembling all the circumstantial facts that produce the impression that a person is "bad" or has "done wrong," even if we personally know nothing about it. That takes real effort--and it takes a lot of scavenging. That "scavenging" takes us "away from God." Scavenging is dirty; that's what pigs and vultures do. Yet this is also what investigators do, even when they have the best intentions.

Theologians say that only God knows the "truth" about other people. In that light, any human attempt to find it seems a hopelessly imperfect enterprise.

Leaving God to one side, modern-day investigations merely reflect power. The investigator sits back, asks questions, assembles facts and makes a judgment about a person based on his "past." The investigator has a past, too. But he need not answer for it. He's the one doing the investigating. He has his own truth; he keeps it comfortably concealed in his memory. But he gets to affix truth to someone else.

It is, after all, an immense power to declare the truth about others.

STOP SOTOMAYOR : SHE DOES THINGS THAT YOU CAN SCARCELY IMAGINE

A MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

By : Mr. John Cornyn III (R-TX), United States Senator; Member, Judiciary Committee; Former Chief Justice, Texas Supreme Court; Member, Texans’ Alliance for Strong Borders and Marksmanship; Chairman, Lone Star Lethal Injection Fan Club, Dallas-Fort Worth Chapter; 1998 Champion Rifleman, “El Adios” Wetback Target Practice Gun Club; Believer in Christian Forgiveness (with qualifications).

Under our Constitution, the United States Senate has the power to confirm “Judges of the supreme court” following our “advice and consent.” See. U.S. Const. Art II, § 2, cl. 2. That means we have the power to interview the President’s nominees to the Supreme Court in order to determine whether they will protect our Constitution and the American people. Today, the United States Senate must decide whether Sonia Sotomayor has the requisite character and intellect to serve on the world’s most influential court. We must provide “advice and consent.” We face a serious task.

For two days now, Judge Sotomayor has given testimony concerning her abilities as a jurist. So far, she has entertained friendly questions from Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee. She has carefully refused to answer questions concerning her personal views about the Constitution, liberty, freedom and justice in America. She says she “respects the rule of law” and does not allow her “personal feelings” to interfere with her “legal judgment.” On the record, she puts on a good show. From her public testimony, it appears that she is thoughtful, circumspect, judicious and calm. If we had only her public testimony to evaluate, there would be no reason to say that she is not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

But this “performance” is sheer theater. Judge Sotomayor is no detached legal technician like Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Thomas. She is a maniacal lesbian Puerto Rican communist determined to sabotage the United States with Latin perversion. Although several of my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have reminded the world that Judge Sotomayor belonged to the “Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund,” no one really seems to notice how dangerous this is. The “Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund” does not just pay lawyers to argue cases involving Puerto Ricans. It practiced—and continues to practice—voodoo. Its members, including Judge Sotomayor, take part in pagan Caribbean rituals to the grass goddess La Mama del Verde Eternal, during which they burn pungent incense, curse “gringos” and chant prayers to make “Boricuan” the official language of the United States. In short, Judge Sotomayor is deceiving the American people. She is no judge; she is a Puerto Rican radical communist witch doctor with plans to wage war on every white English speaker in America.

I am determined to set the record straight on Judge Sotomayor. I refuse to listen to her song and dance any longer. I know a Puerto Rican woman when I see one, and there is a Puerto Rican woman sitting before me in the halls of the United States Senate, not a federal judge. I am duty-bound to tell the American people that there is much more to Judge Sotomayor than meets the eye. Put simply, she does things that you can scarcely imagine. If I do not tell the world about this Latina viper, she will slither into the Supreme Court to permanently taint our constitutional order. Unless I speak, every American will soon be forced to sing salsa songs and drink mango juice every morning. As an American and a Texan, I refuse to condemn this country to lesbian Puerto Rican terror.

We should have known from the outset that Judge Sotomayor was not what she said she was. Although we could not locate many public statements revealing just how dangerous she could be, we did find a speech in which she called herself a “wise Latina” who could answer some questions better than a comparable “white male.” That should have immediately raised red flags. If George W. Bush were still leading this failing Republic, Judge Sotomayor would have faced impeachment, not elevation to the Supreme Court. But we live in perplexing times. How can we possibly revere a judge who claims that Hispanic women are “wiser” than white men? This is a proposition too outrageous to entertain. To be fair, perhaps Judge Sotomayor meant that “wise Latinas” could be wiser only on certain matters, such as the best place to watch the Puerto Rican Day Parade or how best to translate Spanish phrases, such as: “Ay papi!” After all, there is no way Latinas can be wise when it comes to deciding a securities fraud suit. They don’t even know what a security is. And how can I elevate someone to the Supreme Court if they don’t know that?

But this is not just about legal knowledge. This is about character. I am informed that Judge Sotomayor does unimaginable things. She is not the hard-working, careful jurist she leads us to believe. No, she is a monstrous racist devil-worshipper who dresses as a banana in her private chambers. She castigates white men in Spanish, calling them “pedejos,” “maricons,” “cabezas de vaca,” “coños” or worse. She carries on lesbian affairs with married women in nursing homes. She eats mice, broils frogs and casts Puerto Rican voodoo spells on white litigants before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. She has lived at over 56 addresses throughout New York City since 2001. She has robbed banks while dressed in a Puerto Rican flag shawl. She drives a small Toyota automobile and blasts obnoxious Caribbean music through an expensive, bass-heavy stereo purchased with money filched from the Federal Judicial Fund. This is not the conduct of a prudent jurist. This is not even the conduct of a “wise Latina.” To the contrary, this is the conduct of a hateful racist criminal communist lesbian gypsy vagabond who is determined to undermine American society as we know it. We must stop her from wiping her culo with the Constitution before it is too late.

Judge Sotomayor’s jurisprudence is just as radical as her lifestyle. Although she would have us believe that she takes an “incremental” approach to deciding cases, I know better. So far in her confirmation hearings, she has refused to disclose her beliefs on abortion, choosing instead to say that Roe v. Wade is “settled law” before praising the importance of stare decisis to “careful judging.” But I know the truth. I know that Sotomayor hates children and belongs to the International Latin Fetal Roasting Society (ILFRS). That organization promotes the public disembowelment of pregnant white women, then the ritual boiling of unborn children in a skull-shaped cauldron—all conducted in the Spanish language. She not only supports abortion, but she verifiably boils children—then eats them. How can we defend children in America with an avowed child-eater on the Supreme Court? If we confirm Sonia Sotomayor, we risk enshrining child-eating as a constitutionally-protected right. Put simply, Judge Sotomayor doesn’t fool me when she says she will “carefully consider” abortion regulations. I know she secretly yearns to throw screaming white children into a boiling cauldron, then greedily devour them like scalloped potatoes. This should give us all pause before confirming her as our next Supreme Court justice. Liberal constitutional interpretation is one thing. Eating children is quite another.

But all these personal and intellectual flaws pale in comparison to Judge Sotomayor’s intention to interpret the Constitution in a “ compassionate, humanitarian manner.” In speech after speech and opinion after opinion, she has said that the Constitution should protect the weak and powerless. She has issued opinions granting asylum to Africans and faulting city governments for “not hiring more minorities.” She has freed criminals because the police searched them without warrants and she has said that public school students have a “free speech right” to mock their principals. She is prepared to open our borders to every foreign ruffian who shows up for welfare benefits, and she believes that major corporations should be subject to strict governmental review. In a word, these are dangerous sentiments. If we confirm Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, she will rule for freedom, not precedent. She will rule for justice, not procedure. She will rule for the individual, not the bank. And she will rule for compassion, not commerce.

This is simply unacceptable. Our Constitution does not stand for justice, compassion, freedom or sympathy. Rather, it stands for commerce, procedure, private property and banks. There are ways to interpret the Bill of Rights to protect commerce and banks; Chief Justice Roberts has already shown a marvelous ability to reconcile individual rights with the rights of banks and police investigators. In fact, in my view, a Supreme Court justice proves his worth by skillfully deconstructing dangerous individual rights in order to protect banks and police forces in America. If we protected individual rights too zealously, both government and industry would grind to a halt; every black fellow on the street could bring the police force to its knees simply by saying: “That cop beat me.”

This will not do. Our Constitution is not about sympathy, compassion, humanitarianism or justice. Rather, it is about order, procedure and commerce. Yet Judge Sotomayor threatens to bring sympathy, compassion and justice to the Supreme Court. That would betray the very ideals for which America stands. We must stop this revolutionary lesbian from destroying our country.

We still have time to stop this madness. If America knows the truth about Sonia Sotomayor, they will urge their Senators to vote “no” on her confirmation. At the moment, she is dangerously close to success. Unless we act now, we will promote an inveterate Puerto Rican child-eating communist to our high court. Unless we act now, the police will no longer be able to search people without warrants. Unless we act now, we will be forced to hold dinner parties at state expense for convicted Muslim terrorists. These are Sotomayor’s plans. We cannot allow her to bring her witchcraft to the heart of American government. We cannot allow her to hoodwink us with her calm, collected public demeanor. This is no detached jurist. This is an activist Puerto Rican voodoo dyke from hell who would rather castrate a white male this afternoon than have lunch with her immigrant mother.

For the sake of our Republic and our Constitution, we cannot allow Sonia Sotomayor to bring justice, fairness or “humanity” to the Supreme Court.

STATEMENT ON CHARACTER & FITNESS FROM THE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS

By : E. Pearson Firmingham, Esq., Chairman, Committee on Character & Fitness, New York State Board of Bar Examiners

Practicing law requires impeccable moral fitness. Although legal doctrine may require intellectual exertion and reasoning skill, legal practice requires an even temperament, good character, decency, propriety and appropriate living. Many applicants to the Bar believe that their academic achievements in law school demonstrate their fitness to practice law in our State. They are wrong. Our State does not condition law practice on intelligence alone; rather, it also conditions law practice on being a respectable person. This requirement perplexes many young applicants. For that reason, today we present a primer to guide hopeful applicants as they navigate their way through the bar application requirements.

In New York, lawyers must be both smart and decent. Anyone can pass law school tests and write essays. Being smart is the easy part. But not everyone can be decent. As Bar Examiners, we have a duty to the People of the State of New York to ensure that only the brightest and most moral men and women represent them in legal matters. We do not want our citizens to fall victim to intelligent—but morally bankrupt—attorneys. If we had to choose between a smart lawyer and a decent lawyer, we would choose the decent one every time.

Still, we recognize that New York lawyers must possess some basic intellectual skill. To that end, our Bar Examination tests an applicant’s rudimentary legal knowledge. Our examinations determine whether an applicant knows the elements of a contract, whether res judicata applies to a subsequently-filed lawsuit and whether the parol evidence rule bars contemporaneous oral statements during a contract dispute. Additionally, our examinations test an applicant’s ability to spot key words in page-long multiple-choice questions that enable him or her to correctly—and instinctively—mark the answer in 1.8 minutes or less. Our examinations demonstrate an applicant’s legal intelligence. Applicants should study hard to show their intelligence. We are confident that successful applicants possess the intelligence to skillfully represent their clients in any legal matter.

But intelligence and legal knowledge mean nothing without good character. An applicant may answer every question correctly on the Bar Examination, but if he is a bad person, he will not receive admission to the Bar. To avoid unnecessary exertion, we do not allow applicants to demonstrate their intelligence to us until they have demonstrated their character. Because character is more important than intelligence, we must certify an applicant’s character before allowing him or her to sit for the Bar Examination.

One cannot study how to be a good person. One either lives correctly or one does not. Our Bar Examiners determine whether an applicant has decent character. They know whether an applicant is fit to practice law in our State. Yet many applicants do not know how to demonstrate their good character. They know how to study evidence exceptions and civil procedure rules, but they do not know how to prove that they are decent people. In New York, we want our lawyers to be moral, decent, upstanding, forthright, honest and loyal. We believe our young applicants should know how to demonstrate these qualities to us. Below, we enumerate qualities that demonstrate the “character and fitness” necessary to practice law. We also discuss why these qualities matter in legal practice.

Good lawyers are honest. Our Bar Examiners will look to see that an applicant has lived his or her life with proper regard for truth in his written and oral representations. To that extent, we want to see lawyers who have lied on their resumes, lied to their employers and deceived their creditors. We want to see lawyers who have committed criminal fraud and stolen from their friends. In short, we want to see applicants who know how to bend the truth in every situation. A good lawyer respects the truth. That means the ability to convincingly lie, misrepresent, mislead, distort and deceive.

On the other hand, we do not look with favor upon applicants who “never tell lies” or who maintain a principled devotion to the truth in every situation. In our State, lawyers must be flexible in client service. No one wins when everyone tells the truth. In fact, people do not expect lawyers to tell the truth. Employers, too, do not want the truth every time. They want to hear about successes, and great success is rarely possible through truth alone. Additionally, no one even makes it into law school without having lied a few times along life’s way. To that extent, our Examiners carefully screen out applicants who demonstrate an unhealthy devotion to absolute honesty.

Good lawyers are responsible. Our Bar Examiners scrutinize an applicant’s personal and financial history to determine whether the applicant respects his or her obligations. We also look to see whether the applicant lives a decent, conventional lifestyle that inspires trust. Good applicants respect those to whom they owe obligations. We especially prize applicants who have lived at more than 35 addresses over the past 10 years. We also prize applicants with poor credit scores and numerous outstanding debts. Reproductive activity also indicates responsibility. We positively regard Applicants who do not practice birth control. We especially prize unwed fathers who neglect their child support obligations. We favorably review applicants who quit jobs without notice, leaving their employers to scramble for replacements. We also appreciate individuals who rack up substantial credit card debt with several accounts in collection houses. We accord respect to applicants who receive invoices and never pay them. These applicants demonstrate proper regard for responsible living. By accumulating obligations and skillfully living their lives to avoid them, they show their dedication to responsibility as a lifestyle. By certifying our applicants as “responsible people,” we ensure that our future lawyers will do the right thing when representing clients.

Good lawyers do not break the law. Lawyers have a public duty to enforce the law by example. They also must recognize that the law holds them to a higher standard than laymen. To whom much is given, much is expected. In order to support these ideals, applicants to the Bar in this State must demonstrate proper regard for legal authority and the moral rules that sustain our society. In that light, we favorably regard applicants with substantial prison history for violent crimes and sexual predation. Lawyers with firsthand experience in the criminal justice system will better represent clients in similar positions. Additionally, we look to see whether applicants get into brawls, fights or beat their spouses. Violent, abrasive, contentious and strident personalities befit the legal profession. In the law, clients seek favorable results through adversary justice. Applicants with a history of violence, discord and pugnacity will best serve clients. Our committee accords great respect to applicants with lengthy criminal records. Although applicants with convictions for violent crime tend to be more successful than applicants convicted for nonviolent crime, any crime is better than none. Additionally, conviction for nonviolent crimes such as fraud, theft, burglary, money laundering or fortune telling serve as probative evidence that the applicant is fit in other character areas, such as honesty and responsibility. A convicted securities fraudster, for instance, shows that he is both honest and responsible.

On the other hand, applicants without criminal records face a difficult road. Our committee seeks applicants who respect the law. If an applicant does not break the law, he tells us that he fears the law rather than respects it. Lawyers in our State must be willing to take chances in life. Those who do not break the law mark themselves as cowards who do not live properly. Our reviewers do not look favorably upon individuals who have not served time in prison. Without a felony criminal record, applicants must show their good character in other ways, such as substantial outstanding debt, crude disrespect for parents or teachers, gross irresponsibility, failure to pay child support, residence at over 50 addresses in 5 years, brazen contempt for the police or numerous misdemeanor violations, such as public urination, drunk driving, indecent exposure, disturbing the peace or lewdness. In short, applicants must show their respect for the law by demonstrating that they know how to break it.

Good lawyers must be sober, thoughtful and temperate. To ensure that our State admits only good people to the Bar, our committee carefully examines every possible source to determine that applicants regularly drink alcohol and use prohibited drugs. Citations for underage drinking are especially helpful in this regard, since they indicate that the applicant has imbibed regularly since before age 21. Evidence tending to show that applicants shoot heroin, smoke crack or marijuana, snort cocaine, pop prescription painkillers or ingest mind-altering chemicals strongly weighs in an applicant’s favor. Applicants can provide this evidence by securing sworn affidavits from acquaintances testifying that they saw the applicant using drugs at a particular time and place. Hearsay statements or rumors will not suffice to prove that the applicant properly abuses drugs or alcohol, although an applicant’s own sworn statement that he drinks at least two (2) six-packs of beer (not light beer) per weeknight will satisfy our examiners. In short, good attorneys maintain their composure with drugs and alcohol. Our citizens deserve legal representation through attorneys who know how to drink. Our committee ensures that only the drunkest advocates represent their legal interests before the courts of the State of New York.

Tea-totaling applicants face a difficult application challenge. Our committee does not look favorably upon attorneys who do not drink or use drugs. Practicing law is stressful. Drugs and alcohol ease stress, allowing attorneys to better serve their clients. Additionally, drugs and alcohol ease social inhibitions. Our committee certifies that future attorneys are jovial, outgoing, gregarious and charming. Alcohol enables lawyers to project the proper energy on their clients’ behalf. On the other hand, nondrinkers are generally stodgy, ill-humored, cold, distant, tongue-tied and uninteresting. Good lawyers must retain the ability to speak fluently and charmingly. Alcohol and drugs ensure their fluency and charm. When we say “character and fitness,” we mean that our applicants must be “fun, entertaining, fast-talking” characters. In our State, we do not want “Stick-in-the-Mud” characters; we want dynamic, outgoing and rambunctious characters.

Good lawyers must be respectful, polite and courteous. Our committee examines evidence tending to show that our applicants curse, scream, jump up and down, whine, bicker, spit, backbite, slander, gossip and raise their voices unnecessarily. Good lawyers must possess the character necessary to browbeat and verbally intimidate their opponents to win their cases. Evidence tending to show an applicant to be an ornery, irascible, argumentative, discordant and unpleasant person carries special weight in our application process. Our citizens want determined legal representation. We certify that lawyers in our State will be angry, combative people likely to kick and scream, as well as to present cogent points based in logic and law.

By contrast, we look with disfavor upon tranquil applicants who politely treat others with unequivocal respect. In this profession, winning matters. In our adversary system, there is no room for quiet respect. To that extent, we frown upon applicants with a proven record of collegiality, warmth, compassion and grace. These qualities reflect a character unfit to practice law.

We hope that these explanations provide suitable guidance for prospective applicants to our Bar. We recognize that the Character & Fitness portion of the New York State Bar Examination may seem daunting. But we encourage you to stay the course. Please ensure that you carefully assemble all the tangible evidence necessary to show your honesty, integrity, loyalty, decency, normalcy, sobriety and good morals. An organized applicant will always receive certification more readily than applicant who cuts corners when submitting necessary evidence. In that light, we encourage you to secure your relevant criminal records, leases from past addresses, employer complaints, negative credit reports, subzero bank statements, forged checks, affidavits disclosing drug use, Personal Statement of Sufficient Alcohol Consumption (PSAC), domestic disturbance citations, child support default judgments and other written materials substantiating your good character.

We wish you luck as you make your way through the application process.