MY TEETH ARE DOOMED

AN ESSAY

I am getting older. Every day, time leaves new marks on my body. When the light shines a certain way, I notice time's inscriptions. Lines emanate away from my eyes, especially when I smile. I have more wrinkles on my forehead. My hands are starting to look cracked, crooked and worn. Hair is sprouting up in places I'd rather not discuss. And my teeth aren't so pearly white anymore; in fact, I can feel them getting weaker by the week.

Our bodies doomed to decay. That's the problem with bodies. Beauty and youth please us. But we understand how fleeting they are. We understand that time is never on our side. When we see a beautiful person, we know they won't be so forever. It's all just a matter of time before remorseless months and years erode even the supplest beauties.

Aging is a natural process. But that doesn't make it any more appealing to us. Death is a natural process too; and very few people like death, either. Still, natural processes can be both scary and reassuring. They are scary because no one wants to get old and die. On the other hand, they are reassuring because everyone reliably knows they will happen. Just as everyone knows a flower will wilt and turn brown, so too does everyone know that we all will die one day. That is just what happens in nature. You can see it. And you can apply it to your own life. It is rhythmic. You can count on it.

But let's get back to the scary part. While nature might provide us analogies to understand what will happen to us in the end, it is no less unpleasant to consider. We are, after all, rather vain creatures. We do not like the idea that our youth and appeal may one day fade. We do not like the idea that our beauty will wilt like the flowers in the garden. We experience so many pleasures in youth. And God forbid that time will steal them from us. It is not a pleasant thought.

Still, we must confront it. I confront it a little bit every day when I notice the new little injuries time has left upon me. In a strange way, it makes me reflective. When I notice something going wrong with my body, it makes me remember how long I've been here. It makes me remember how much I've seen and experienced. I go back through the years and I remember the times when my body did not ache the way it does now. I remember when there was no hair in the places it grows now. Our bodies are like fossils; and our memory confirms to us how long we have been here. Although I do not like the idea that I am decaying, I can at least take some pride in the idea that I have made it this far.

Having said all this, my teeth are doomed. I think they are even more doomed than the rest of my body. My constant coffee abuse, advancing age, lack of insurance and insufficient funds portend a dental disaster of unspeakable magnitude. Last year, I managed to scrape up enough money to get an examination, along with a cleaning and whitening (I am still paying interest on the visits). The dentist scraped unbelievable amounts of plaque from places in my mouth I barely knew existed. Then she flossed mysterious cracks in those unknown regions. She drew blood almost every time she hit the gum.

Toward the end, she said: "It's been a while since your last visit, hasn't it?" Then she offered me some Tylenol.

My poor, doomed teeth. It does not help that I have English ancestry. Genetically, the English have bad teeth. My own circumstances make my naturally bad genetic situation even worse. Every day, I notice my gums getting whiter. There are stains between a couple teeth that were not there before. And I can feel my teeth moving in my gumline in a way I have never felt before. Plus, they tell me I have impacted molars that must be removed before they burrow into my nerves. Put simply, I am in dire dental trouble.

But this is what happens when you get older. Time brutally flogs our bodies. There is little we can do about it. It just happens. Sure, we can live as healthy as we possibly can. We can eat right, exercise and even think positively about the future. But these are mere salves: Nothing can stop time's slow, steady, corrosive assault on our flesh.

It would be nice to escape our bodies for a while. While our bodies might offer numerous ways to experience the world's pleasures, they are also enormously restrictive. They can produce as much pain as pleasure. Time's corrosion is just another terror our bodies must confront. Still, it is so easy to put trust in our bodies. It is banal in the truest sense. We know our bodies better than anything else in our lives. We are stuck with them. We see them every day. We monitor them and scrutinize them. We must endure their chemical tempests and painful discomforts. They matter to us because they place insistent demands on us: Feed me; relieve me; give me rest; make me comfortable; make me feel pleasure. If we ignore them, we suffer pain for it. And we learn from earliest memory that pain is not good. So we slavishly pander to our bodies.

It is no accident that the law targets the body. Almost everyone cares about his own body. If there is something no man wants to experience, it is bodily discomfort. So the law threatens to inflict bodily discomfort on anyone who transgresses its commands. While some exceptional people hold their bodies in contempt, they are too rare to make a difference. The law concerns itself with efficacy: It knows that almost everyone fears bodily punishment, so that is what it threatens to maintain order.

So we spend our lives worrying about our bodies until time slowly eradicates them. It is quite a pathetic lot if you think about it. Still, it is completely natural. As living organisms, we want to stay alive. To stay alive, we must preserve our bodies. We fear death largely because it means we can no longer enjoy what life has to offer our bodies. We know that we will die in time because we see what time does to others' bodies. So we fear aging, because we know what it leads to.

But what about life beyond the body? Is it possible to achieve some mental satisfaction without worrying about the body's inevitable decay? Throughout history, we find examples of men who did not put all their faith in bodily comfort. There have been men who lived for something beyond placating their bodies and avoiding death. In fact, we tend to revere men who lived beyond their bodies because they are so rare. It is no accident that Jesus Christ is the central hero in Western Civilization: He gave up his body so that others could enjoy theirs. There is a nobility in life beyond the body because so few people can effectively ignore their bodies. Most people fear aging and death. Most people simply live to experience the pleasures the body can give. Love it or hate it, that is just how we are.

I am no martyr. I am just as worried about my body as the next man. But I fear pain more than I fear death. I wish I could hold my body in contempt. Yet the body is rapaciously insistent; it is difficult to ignore its demands for long. No matter how strongly I believe in abstract principles and ideas, I cannot say whether I could maintain my commitment to them in the face of torture, hunger or agony. I am worried about my hair and my teeth, for goodness' sake; imagine how I would feel if confronted with genuine bodily scourges?

But death is different than pain. Pain is about the body and its limitations. Death is about existence and non-existence. Death rules out the body altogether. In that light, it is easier to romanticize non-existence than pain. In fact, non-existence lends itself much more to abstract principles than mere contempt for the body. Death frees us from concern about the body. Death liberates us from the body's incessant demands and penalties. True, death might cut short our ability to experience the body's joys. But it also forecloses the body's ability to torment us any longer. There is some objective, rational appeal to that possibility. If bodily life--on the whole-- appears to offer more pain than pleasure, why go on living at all? It is better to cease to exist in order to avoid pain than to exist for nothing more than pain.

Yet this broaches another conundrum: What if death does not end our pain? After all, no one has ever reported to us what death is like. No one has come back from that "undiscover'd country from whose bourn/ No traveler returns." Hamlet, Act III, sc. i, lines 80-81. We have all seen aging and pain because living people experience aging and pain. We see what happens to them. They can tell us how bad they feel.

But no one has experienced death and lived to tell about it. Who knows what awaits us there. That is what makes people fear death: Unknowability. Maybe something dreadful happens once we die. No one knows. No one can know. No one can sense anything once they die, let alone communicate what they sense. And that is why death continues to terrify us. So as bad as bodily life may be, we choose to "bear what ills we have,/ [rather] Than fly to others that we know not of." Hamlet, Act III, sc. i, lines 82-83.

I have argued before that it is unreasonable to fear death because death cuts short our bodily ability to sense anything. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-we-fear-death.html. But once again, we see that humans are not invariably reasonable. They fear death even though death eliminates their sensory capacities--including the capacity to experience pain--because they fear the unknown. That fear is not reasonable because reason is based in human sense. Death obliterates sense, so it is not reasonable to fear it.

It is actually more reasonable to fear aging than death. We can sense our bodies aging. We can feel our bodies weakening. We know that aging will bring us more pain and less bodily satisfaction. We can sense all these things. Our reason has something to grasp in that situation.

I reasonably worry about my teeth. I have every reason to believe they are doomed. And I know it's going to hurt.

But with death: Who knows what I'll feel? That is strangely reassuring.

NEIGHBORS ARE RARELY GOOD, AND EVEN MORE RARELY THERE WHEN YOU NEED THEM

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

I reserve especially harsh criticism for insurance companies. In the past, I have mocked them in satires and rebuked them in essays. I know what insurance companies are all about: Demand money from you, then stubbornly refuse to pay when disaster strikes. Neither cockney-speaking GEICO® geckos nor ditzy discount-dishing Progressive® saleswomen nor confident black men telling me "Allstate's® stand" will ever persuade me that insurance companies are anything other than what I already know: Insatiable, vicious, unsympathetic private profit machines that capitalize on human qualms about the future.

Insurance companies advertise all the time. I use insurance advertising as a thematic backdrop for my criticism. I analyze insurance advertising to show inconsistencies between messages and practices. For example, I have analyzed GEICO®'s vacuous advertising several times to show that commercial actors rarely provide the most essential information to consumers, like information about prices, risks and even services. Rather, they merely create "visual candy" that forges a mental link between the product and the company. This implants a sensory impression in the viewer, which then yields an increased likelihood that he will remember the image when it comes time to buy insurance. This has nothing to do with educating the consumer about advantages and disadvantages between competing products. It is merely a cynical ploy to trigger a mental reflex to buy something in particular circumstances.

But this is what advertising is all about. It is not about education or even information. It is about sensory perception. For commercial actors, the end is always profit. To make a profit in the free market, you need customers. To get customers, you need to convince people to part with their money. To make customers part with their money, you need to make sure they know you have something they need or want. Advertising does that: It merely advises potential customers that a company has something they need or want. It shows it to them in a memorable way. It plays to their senses. Once it makes an impression, it increases the chance that they will spend their money in the right place. And that fulfills the profit goal.

Still, my purpose today is not to analyze sensory mechanics in American advertising. Rather, I am writing today to take a hard look at a particular advertising message on its own terms. In the end, I will reveal its absurdity.

Insurance companies use slogans to reinforce their visual advertising. In addition to leaving a visual impression with consumers, they also leave an audible one. For example, GEICO® not only hammers a visual connection between geckos and car insurance. It also pairs the image with the ever-repeated phrase: "Fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance." Allstate® uses the phrase: "You're in good hands." And State Farm® matches its imagery with: "Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there." Sometimes State Farm even sings the slogan to make sure you remember it. Hey, they need to make sure you reflexively think State Farm® when you need some insurance. And people remember tunes a lot better than just spoken words.

"Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there." What a curious slogan. It reflects an incredibly naïve view of human nature. And that's ironic, because State Farm obviously does not hold that view. I know for a fact it doesn't. I have litigated cases involving State Farm, and I can tell you firsthand that they do not treat claimants--or their opponents--as "good neighbors." In fact, they treat them as mortal enemies whom they would rather see die than pay a red cent.

What is a "good neighbor," anyway? Do people really like their neighbors? Do neighbors actively help each other in this society? It sure doesn't seem so to me. In that light, I find it bizarre that State Farm adopted a slogan that equates its insurance service with the service you can expect from a "good neighbor." In my experience, I have generally found that my neighbors could not give a damn about whether I lived, died or prospered. Some have said hello. Some have not. Actually, most did not. Most just went to work, came home, locked their doors, attended to their own shit and went to bed without even looking at me in the hallway.

In fact, most of my relationships with neighbors over the years have been negative. If they knock on my door, it's usually to complain about something I'm doing. They never stop over to check on me or to ask how my life is going. They never volunteer to help me with anything. To the contrary, they just grumble about me and spread gossip if they suspect me doing something "inappropriate."

And they certainly don't make house calls if I'm suffering a crisis. If I have a problem, they'll never know about it. Even if they did, I seriously doubt they would rush in to help me.

And why should they? American law says that we are not our brothers' keepers. If you pass a person dying on the street, you have absolutely no legal obligation to render assistance, even if you're a doctor. That reflects our society's views about "neighbors" much more than any corny State Farm slogan. That is why I find it flat-out laughable for State Farm to equate its insurance service with the "help" you can expect from a "neighbor" in the United States. You might as well say that you won't provide any help at all, because that's how much help you'll receive from your neighbor. In truth, your neighbor is much more likely to complain about you or even report you to the authorities than help you in a pinch.

This is the world we inhabit.

If this is the level of support we can expect from neighbors, what can we expect from State Farm? State Farm says that it will be "there" for you "like a good neighbor." Well, no neighbor has never been "there" to help me with anything, let alone a "good" one. By that standard, I guess that means that State Farm will leave you hanging just the way your neighbors do.

But State Farm has a greater legal obligation to help than some undifferentiated neighbor. After all, if you pay money for a State Farm insurance policy, you enter into a contractual relationship. Contracts mean that two people promise to do things for each other on pain of legal penalty. Contracts create legal duties to act or refrain from acting. Neighbors have no such duties. In that sense, if you buy insurance from State Farm, you are buying something more than a neighbor's obligation. You are enlisting services for a fee. You are engaging in commerce. You are creating a legal relationship. If State Farm acts like a "neighbor" after you hire it as a "servant," it would violate its legal duties to you. Hey, you signed a contract so that State Farm would give you more than a neighbor would give. But that's still not that much, because neighbors have no obligation to give you anything at all.

Of course, State Farm does not want you to think this way. It wants you to think that neighbors help each other when they are in need. In fact, it wants you to accept the fantasy that your neighbors will actually sacrifice themselves to help you for no reward. That is an extremely Christian delusion; and State Farm fully exploits it. After all, Christian doctrine advises us to "love our neighbor as ourselves" and to help those in need without expectation of reward. State Farm taps into that notion to cast itself as a "magnanimous patron," not a profit-hungry private corporation. And State Farm knows that many consumers equate the term "neighbor" with selfless Christianity.

This is cynical exploitation at its worst. While Christ might have helped his undifferentiated neighbor without hope of reward, most neighbors are not Christ-like. In fact, experience tells us the opposite.

State Farm is no exception. During Hurricane Katrina, State Farm acted exactly like the neighbors I know: It refused to help out at all when people really needed help. State Farm wiggled out from paying "hurricane damages" because it said its policies did not cover flooding. In my own experience practicing law, I recall a case in which State Farm refused to pay its own customer's $60,000 medical bill because it disputed the doctor's belief that the injury was "permanent." So it left its "neighbor" holding the bag with a $60,000 bill and a deformed arm--even though the "neighbor" dutifully paid his premium every month. How's that for service?

But that's how neighbors treat each other. So I guess State Farm was just doing as it advertised: It was just acting like a neighbor.

I find it utterly shameless for State Farm to exploit Christian overtones in the word "neighbor" to lull customers into thinking it actually cares about their welfare. No private corporation cares about anything beyond its quarterly profits. That is the law. Corporations owe no duties to anyone except their own shareholders; and shareholders could care less about magnanimity toward non-shareholders. They want money; and they don't really care if they're "nice" about getting it.

Commerce and Christianity just don't mix. State Farm knows that. It simply proceeds on the assumption that consumers are too stupid to understand the same thing.

Then again, most advertising functions on that premise. If people were too smart, it would really hurt business.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO FOR $40,000? THE PRICE OF BELIEF

AN ESSAY

Sometimes I wish I weren't so cynical. Cynicism is my life philosophy. Although it almost invariably leads me to the truth, I don't really like it. Although it has predicted the future for me more than once, I wish it hadn't. After all, cynicism assumes that everyone has selfish motives and will ultimately take action to satisfy their own interests. That is a pretty bleak view. Yet in our obligation-filled commercial world, it is a consummately realistic one.

I wish I weren't so cynical because I want to believe that everyone does not have a price. Whenever I think about cynicism, I inevitably struggle with principles. After all, a principle stands at odds with expediency. Self-interested people are always "expedient" when it is necessary to fulfill their aims. Principles, by contrast, are inflexible; they do not bend to expediency. Yet all too often in history we hear about "principled" men who stood up for larger ideas to a point, then caved in order to enrich themselves. In other words, every man--and every principle--has a price. The question is merely how much money it takes to convince a man to abandon what he believes.

As a cynic, I find it almost axiomatic that men sell their principles for the "right price." If human beings truly have innately selfish motivations and act ultimately to satisfy their own interests, then no larger idea could ever induce them to ignore themselves. It is natural to expect men to sell out or betray their beliefs when enough gold appears on the table. Although popular mythology teaches us to revile men who do this (the Judas story is the classic Biblical example), we are never surprised when it happens. We live in a difficult world. No one wants to go hungry or die. If it came between adhering to principle and eating, how can we blame a man for simply "betraying what he believes?" It is easier to revile a man who sells out simply to profit. But sometimes men sell their beliefs just to eat or sleep--or to save their families.

Yet we admire men who refuse to compromise their principles for a price. We admire them precisely because they are so rare. Again, cynicism provides a good way to understand why we deify "martyrs" like Jesus Christ and Saint Thomas More. Both men died because they refused to abandon their principles despite pressure. Both had opportunities to take payment and shut up. Both knew they would die for refusing to renounce their beliefs. And they still refused.

From a cynical perspective, we assume that men will always sacrifice their principles for personal gain or to save themselves. Overwhelmingly in human experience, that is what happens. But when it does not happen, we immortalize the person who resisted the impulse to be selfish. Put another way, when a person defies the cynical expectation to act only for himself, he becomes a saint-like figure--or a saint outright. This is what happens when men adhere to their principles. It leads to eternal honor. And that explains why both saints and honor are rare. Everyone has a price: But those who don't become legends.

But I'm not writing about legends today. I'm writing about everyone else who does have a price. And while it might be pathetic to have a price, I argue that it is completely forgivable.

Why is it forgivable to be a dishonorable person who abandons principle whenever profit beckons? It is forgivable because we inhabit a world that expects us to value profit more than honor. No one pays our way in this life. We learn early that we must make our way through the commercial thicket by any means necessary. Without money, we are finished. We can't pay our rent, we can't feed our children and we can't eat. We spend our lives struggling to find ways that yield money; and we never get enough. We learn that profit is good because profit protects us from hardship. When we profit, we stave off bill collectors, bankers and landlords. We feed our children. We increase our comfort and avoid worry. We stay warm. By eliminating a key source for worry, we actually gain the capacity to enjoy ourselves--at least in theory. We are only human; we have bodies. Profit protects our bodies from ruin. If it comes between preserving our bodies from ruin and adhering to a principle that could cost us our bodily comfort, the natural human response is to preserve our bodies.

Only saints spite their bodies for their beliefs. For everyone else, a price will suffice to buy belief.

Some people require less enticement than others. Potential profits not only dissuade men from adhering to principle. They also encourage men to brutalize their fellow man. Profit underlies criminal motivations crime as well as dishonorable ones. In the movie Fargo, for example, two ex-cons agree to kidnap a man's wife for $40,000. Various difficulties intervene and they murder three people in the process. Due to these "unforeseen complications," they demand $80,000 rather than $40,000. Before the drama ends, another two people die and no one makes a dime. The detective who arrests the killer--exceptionally played by Frances McDormand--then says: "All that for a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little bit of money, you know."

That may be so. But money motivates just about everything that people do, even murder. Contract killings have price. Lives--like everything else in the free market-- have a price, too. How much does it take to encourage someone to kill another? Is $40,000 too much? Some people in American society make $40,000 a year; others make it in one day. How about $10,000? $1,000?

This might all seem macabre. Still, the fact remains that potential profits bring out the worst in people. As bad as that is, however, I still think there is a good explanation for it: People in our society learn to be desperate for profit. Without it, they think they will come to ruin. So for those closer to ruin, there is a greater motivation to do unspeakable things for relatively little money. There might be more to life than money. But try telling that to those who don't have much. They are willing to do just about anything for what seems a pittance to others.

How much potential profit would it take to convince the average person to commit murder? How about lying? How about sacrificing integrity or honor? How about acting in a way that clashes with one's conscience? What if a job requires a person to violate his conscience, but if he loses the job, he loses his livelihood? How much does a conscience cost?

Against this background, can anyone resist a sufficient price? Is anyone noble enough to ignore themselves? That's my real question. All I can say is this: Cynicism tells me, as a general matter, that people can be bought. But there are a few extremely rare cases in which they cannot. I find this sad because it really does not take much for a stronger person to cast aside a weaker person's beliefs. Beliefs and conscience are individual. They are subjective. They belong to the person who holds them and no other. If a "little bit of money" is all it takes to sweep them away, what does that say about the value of individuality in our society? Where are the courageous people? Where are the people who will not abandon their beliefs for a price?

All I know is that they are not in the United States Congress.

THE LAW HAS NO POWER OVER SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT CARE ABOUT HIS BODY

AN ESSAY

In many essays over the last year, I have paraphrased Martin Luther's argument that the law has power only over the body and property. See, e.g., On Governmental Authority (1523) at p. 23: "The temporal government has laws which extend no further than to life and property and external affairs on earth[.]" Luther draws a distinction between "worldly authority" and "divine authority." He says that the "world is God's enemy" and that a wise prince is a "mighty rare bird." Id. at pp. 60-61. Yet at the same time, he asserts that worldly authority fulfills God's will because it targets "wickedness" and protects meek Christians from violence. Thus, while worldly authority may be crass and unappetizing, it performs a "Christian" function by restraining criminals from inflicting violence.

These ideas influenced me. They further weakened my already weak respect for the law. I shared Luther's low estimation of the law precisely because of the law's base subject matter. In the final analysis, the law's power derives solely from its ability to impact men's bodies and their property. These are external things. They do not transcend time. They have nothing to do with men's beliefs, conscience or thoughts. They are ephemeral, even petty. Human beings who live only to satisfy their bodies and gain property are superficial creatures. Some might even call them hedonists, or at least fatally selfish. Ironically, however, commercial success depends solely on gaining property, which translates into bodily comfort. Commerce typifies "the world." It scarcely warrants surprise, then, that Luther said "the world is God's enemy."

Despite its superficial powers, the law relishes its authority. And for good reason: Because people value their bodies and property so much in this world, it makes sense that they respect the law. After all, the law can seize their property, injure their bodies and take away the things that give them pleasure. True, it cannot compel them to believe things or have honor. But most people could care less about those things. They just want to use their bodies as they wish and buy things that make them feel good. The law influences them because they know the law can impact their bodies and property. It holds them in check because no one wants to experience bodily pain or discomfort, nor does anyone want to lose property. The law works because people are superficial: They like their bodies and property, so they are afraid to lose them.

But what would happen if someone had utter contempt for his body or property? What possible influence could the law have on a man who did not care whether he suffered pain, or whether he owned anything? In a word, the law would wield no power over such a man. If he truly did not care whether someone imprisoned him, beat him, tortured him or executed him, nothing could possibly restrain him from acting in a way that would give rise to those penalties. In the same way, if he did not care whether he lost everything he possessed, the law would not impress him with garnishments, judgments, forced sales or seizures. Put simply, men who do not value their bodies or property can live beyond the law's influence.

That is not to say that the law would not take action against such a man. If the man committed a crime warranting imprisonment, it would imprison him. But the man would not care. In a strange way, his apathy and indifference to punishment would deny the law's effect. The law proceeds on the assumption that it inflicts suffering on an offender for acting in a way it condemns. It asserts its power by doing something to the offender that the offender does not like, just as a parent asserts its power over a wayward child by spanking him. The offender does not like bodily pain, just as the child does not like spanking. Yet if the offender really does not care whether his body experiences pain, what power does the law really have?

In short, anyone with pure contempt for his own body or property can deny the law's effect. Although the law rarely admits as much, it asserts power over its subjects by doing painful things to their bodies and property. How else would it maintain control if it did not threaten to take things away that people enjoy? How else would it force compliance if it did not threaten physical misery for failure to comply? Laws might seem "objective," but they really depend on basic human aversions to pain. By the same token, laws only function because they assume that people do not want to suffer bodily pain. Like any power institution, they enforce their will by threatening to do something the subject does not want. Legal scholars can talk all they want about "neutral laws." But in the end, laws depend on subjective reactions to threatened consequences. People don't like it when their bodies suffer or when they lose their property. So the law threatens those things in order to enforce its commands.

But what about the man who refuses to care whether he feels pain? The law cannot intimidate him. It cannot "entice" him to act as it commands. This is the purest possible rebellion against the law, for even if the law penalizes his body, he does not feel he is losing anything he wants. A penalty only asserts true power when the violator feels that he is enduring something he does not like. Most people do not like bodily pain. That is why the law generally works when it inflicts physical pain: It forces the subject to feel something he does not like. That is real power.

Not so for the man who accepts pain without caring. The law asserts no power over him. It does not force him to experience anything he does not want. By remaining indifferent to physical pain, he denies the law's power. He does not allow it to make him feel any worse than he would on his own. That is rebellion.

Still, how many people can truly ignore their bodies and their property? Nerve endings do not lie. From a theoretical standpoint, however, the best way to revolt against the law is not to care about your body or your possessions. That is a very hard thing to do in this society.

On the other hand, think about "martyrs" and "noble men." Jesus Christ endured excruciating physical agony but did not let it affect him. So did all the "Christian heroes" who willingly suffered torture and death because they had contempt for their bodies and the "things of this world."

In general, the law strikes fear because it targets the things that most people live for: Bodily comfort and property. But it loses all its power when it punishes people who do not care about those things.

GET AN EDUCATION THAT WORKS : GET A DEGREE IN WINNING

AN EDUCATIONAL MESSAGE

By : Professor Victor A. Siegreich, Ph.D. in Victory Management, Winnings University of New Jersey; Senior Lecturer in Winning; Author, “I Just Want to Win : Getting Ahead in Life Fast,” Doubleday Publishers (New York 2004); Former Managing Member, Baldwin, Gorman & Slippings, LLC a statistical consulting firm serving Federal Reserve Banks.

Isn’t it about time you ended your losing streak in life? Haven’t you had enough setbacks, letdowns and heartbreaks? Aren’t you sick of being rejected from jobs and romantic partners? Basically, aren’t you just sick of losing? You’re probably asking yourself why you can’t muster a win in life. After all, you always followed the rules and lived to be fair. You respected other people and never cut the line. You thought that being nice and studying hard would lead you to success. You thought that decency and politeness would ultimately pay off in your life.

You were wrong. Your quest for simple decency let the other guy get the job. Your commitment to kindness and intellectual enrichment confused you while the other guy got the girl and made the money. But you aren’t beaten yet. You can come from behind to win at life. Winnings University can help you do it.

Here at Winnings, we offer education that works, not education that enriches. First and foremost, we teach that life is a game that can be won. It has rules and customs. It offers rewards. Just like any game, a person who knows the rules—and who knows how to exploit them easily—will always come out ahead. More importantly, life is a game with competitors. Everyone is racing for the same goal; and there can only be one winner at a time. At Winnings, we remind our students that life is a game that must be won. And we teach our students that results matter, because winning is the ultimate result.

Traditional education fails to appreciate results. In liberal arts colleges, for example, professors teach that knowledge is valuable in itself because it “enriches the mind” and “gives its own psychic rewards.” This is nonsense. In fact, traditional education dooms untold students to failure in life because they do not learn that life is a game. Rather, they learn that life is a “unique experience” that “everyone experiences differently.” They learn that “everyone is valuable, no matter his abilities” and actually do not feel bad when they lose at something. In short, traditional education does not teach students how to win.

This is fatally flawed thinking for many reasons. First, life is a competition. Even the animal kingdom reveals to us that organisms must compete for limited resources on this planet. We are not different from hyenas or birds. Bold birds get the catch; lazy ones do not. Second, life is about results, not process. Results mean winning. In the animal kingdom, winning means getting food and dominating other animals. So too among humans: For us, winning means getting money and employing other men to work to make us even more money. Third, life is not a “unique experience” where the “individual matters.” Quite the contrary, life is an easily understandable game with easily understandable rules. Everyone wants to win, and everyone can learn how to win. Everyone wants the same results. Process is irrelevant; results are everything. We know who wins and we know who loses. Traditional education tries to conceal these brutal truths by offering an elixir for failure in life. But at Winnings, we simply acknowledge the truth about life and teach our students accordingly.

At Winnings, we have a simple motto: “Winning matters, no matter how you play the game.” Contrary to Vince Lombardi’s apocryphal excuse for losing, winning is everything; how you play the game doesn’t really matter. After all, winners get things done. They take charge. They beat the losers and take what they win. Nobody hears from the losers. After they lose, they don’t matter. So when a winner wins, no one remembers how he did it. He gets to tell the story. In life, the winner literally takes all, including the right to tell others how he won. And once he wins, he can sit back and savor his victory. That is why it is absolutely essential to win in the first place. Without winning, you become a loser. And nobody listens to—or even remembers—a loser.

Sadly, most people are losers. But it is not their fault. Our educational system justifies and even laurelizes losing mentalities. By focusing on process rather than results, losers whine about fairness when they should be looking for creative ways to win the game. Additionally, losers become indignant when people they consider “stupid” somehow manage to outwit them at life’s game. Rather than asking themselves why they lost, they cross their arms and whine that they are entitled to success because they are smart. This is a losing mentality. And our educational system perpetuates it by fooling students into thinking that abstract knowledge is valuable.

Knowledge is not valuable unless it translates into winning. Theory is worthless unless it translates into winning practice. Thinking never won anything; doing did. At Winnings, we make our students understand this. We do not care for erudition, theory or overintellectualism. Rather, we stress that practical success and know-how are much more valuable than critical thinking. After all, thinking leads only to paralyzed rumination. Thinkers vacillate. Doers just get up and get things accomplished. In a competition between a thinker and a doer, it is obvious who will win. The doer will get up earlier, put in more hours and doggedly pursue his goal until it is done. He will not think about the purpose of the activity or his existential disgust with his lot. A thinker, by contrast, will half-heartedly attend to his work. He will spend his time moping and questioning things rather than ruthlessly suppressing the competition for the ultimate win. A doer will run circles around a thinker. Intelligence does not matter. In life, the more zealous competitor wins. At Winnings, we understand that.

We do not believe in enrichment. At Winnings, we teach our students the skills they need to defeat each other in life’s competitions. We do not delude them into thinking that merely “knowing more” and “thinking more deeply” will bring them success in life. In our educational philosophy, results are everything. If an “enriched mind” does not bring results, it is not “rich” at all. We would much rather cultivate an “unenriched mind” that gets the job done than an “enriched mind” that wastes time considering theoretical nonsense. To that extent, we do not teach art history, African-American studies, Native American Oral History, Color Use in Late Romantic Painting, literature, music studies, philosophy, Japanese Theater, American Cultural Development or Non-Profit Institutional Management courses. Instead, we teach “Shortcut Analysis,” “Believable Deception Management,” “Intimidation : Theory and Practice,” “Ethics are for Losers,” “The Loss Avoidance Practicum” and “Money as Goal : A Result-Oriented Approach.” Our courses teach valuable, practical skills that immediately translate into winning. We do not waste our time with knowledge that does not pay.

In America today, education is a serious investment. Many students assume crushing debt for the opportunity to study at college. We believe that students have a right to expect a return on their investment. That is why courses at Winnings arm students with the knowledge, skill and values they need to win at life. We teach them that morals and ethics do not apply when they must win. In fact, we teach that morals and ethics are serious handicaps in life’s competition. We teach them that it is perfectly normal to exploit others for financial gain. And we teach them that it is better to make a profit than to do the right thing.

By the same token, we also teach our students that many people do not like winners. To address this issue, we offer courses dealing with envious people. In life, losers become embittered and resentful. No one likes to lose, and losers get angry after a lifetime of losing. They channel their anger toward winners and even attempt to derail their successes in the future. To deal with these issues, we offer courses such as “Intermediate Grudge Dodging” and “Don’t Hate; Appreciate.” Our faculty knows how to foil angry losers. We are pleased to offer students a way to foresee losers’ antics. In sum, winners do not let losers divert their attention from winning.

Winnings University can give you the education you really want. No matter whether you are a struggling young professional or a youthful high school student who wants to be successful in life, Winnings offers programs tailored to meet your needs. We are here to teach you winning ways. We are here to help you stop thinking and start doing. We know that this is difficult. After all, we recognize that you have made your way through an educational system that taught you it is “OK to lose once in a while.” At Winnings, we will eradicate that mentality. We have no tolerance for losers; and you should have no tolerance for losing. At Winnings, we will teach you how to stop making excuses and how to get the most from people. We will teach you never to quit. We will teach you real determination. We will teach to be annoying and downright unbearable when you need to be. We will teach you to suspend your “friendliness,” “politeness” and “compassion” in order to ruthlessly crush and surpass your competition.

You would not be looking into Winnings if you did not like the way your life is going. We can understand that you might hesitate before deciding whether to study with us. After all, you probably think that friendliness, knowledge and fairness are good things. Perhaps you do not want to be a ruthless, result-oriented winner who only thinks about outdoing the competition in life. Well, if you want to be a loser, that’s your decision. Winners do not worry about these things. At Winnings, we teach our students to ignore their conscience and just win. Your conscience and your ethics are slowing you down. They stop you from doing what is necessary to win. Yet you wonder why you fail. Isn’t it obvious? You have a conscience, that’s why. You have ethics. You want to be fair. You want to treat others as you would have them treat you. But tell me the last time ethics helped you get a job. When did your conscience secure a merger deal? I’ll tell you when: It didn’t. When you were fair, did people treat you fairly in return? No, they didn’t. And they never will. Who do you think you are? Jesus Christ? He didn’t win at life, either. He was poor and ended up nailed to a cross. In a word, people want to win in this life. If that means treating you unfairly, well that’s what they will do. Conscience and ethics are for losers and saints. Losers and saints don’t win in this life.

At Winnings, we offer a way to end your losing streak. Stop complaining about the winners; be one. Stop tying your hands with ethics. Just shut up and start cutting corners like the winners do. Fight with both hands. Stop learning worthless facts about 17th Century Dutch painting and religion. Stop reading Shakespeare; he won’t pay your bills or make you wealthy. Learn something meaningful. Learn how to win. It’s about time you actually got something out of your education. At Winnings, you can. With us, you will learn that winning is better than knowledge. With a degree from Winnings, you are guaranteed to win in life. That’s what it’s all about. Our education will transform you. With time, study and effort, you will abandon unproductive behaviors such as ethics, conscience and fairness. With time, study and effort, you will learn to make every move count. You will learn to manipulate every rule and exploit every relationship. Your education will actually do something for you, not just make you “smart.” Again we say: What good is “smart” if you wind up a loser?

Take your life in a new direction. Get a degree in Winning, Victory, Conquest or Domination. You can do it if you try. Transform your life. Come from behind. Knock it out of the park. Dunk it. Sack it. Put it through the uprights. Sink the putt. It’s fourth and goal. It’s the bottom of the ninth and you’ve got a runner in scoring position. It’s time to step up and win. Swish, baby, swish…3-pointer.

Winning matters. It feels good. It pays. It’s valuable. Learn how to do it at Winnings University.

We offer financial aid to all those who qualify.

DEBT, LATE PAYMENTS, INTEREST AND LEGAL WEAPONRY : THERE IS NO MERCY IN COMMERCE

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Nobody likes to default. It is a dirty word. It means that you failed to uphold your promises. But few people worry about staining their honor when they default. Rather, they worry about the massively stressful legal process that will soon befall them. Soon, they will receive harassing telephone calls, summonses, judgments, late payment assessments, lien notices and garnishment orders. They will experience firsthand the whole legal arsenal with which the law arms creditors. Worse, their creditors will call them “irresponsible people who do not consider the rights of others,” adding a wholly unnecessary moral dimension to purely legal questions. All for what? Because they ran out of money. Life threw them a curve; they couldn’t afford the payments anymore.

Contract law fascinates me because it allows private parties to create private law. Contrary to popular belief, private contracts do not directly implicate the State; the State only steps in to enforce them when deals go awry. In large part, however, contracts represent quintessentially private ordering. They allow private individuals to make their own, compulsory rules in order to obtain some material benefit from others. In theory, parties to a contract are equal. One party possesses something the other wants; each side gains exactly as much as the other loses, and vice versa. Yet this “equality” in bargaining power only exists in law textbooks. In modern commerce, most transactions involve gross disparities in power. One party (usually a corporation) has something others desperately need, leaving them to accept difficult terms in order to get it. Often, these difficult terms include high prices and an agreement to waive a jury trial if something goes wrong. More often, these difficult terms impose crushing penalties, fees and other procedural handicaps that make it hard—if not impossible—for the party to prevail if there is a dispute. In practice, contract law allows powerful parties to impose their will on those who wish to acquire things they possess—and it is all legal.

There is nothing surprising about this. When human beings deal privately with one another, they always attempt to secure maximum advantages for themselves while assuming minimum risk. If one party has something the other needs, he can leverage that need to his advantage by negotiating extremely favorable terms. Of course, the same party could not secure extremely favorable terms if the buyer could go to a different seller. But in many commercial settings, individual buyers must obtain their goods through much more powerful sellers. When they do not have enough money to buy things outright, they must seek financing; and debt places them at a consummate disadvantage. In our society, very few people have enough money to buy all the things they need. They are stretched to the limit. In many cases, even “honest, hard-working people” have no choice but to take out loans for necessary items. In so doing, they expose themselves to creditors’ virtually unbridled legal power. Debtors are glorified beggars; and creditors have immense power over them. In debt relationships, contract law gets even uglier than usual. Yet debt is unavoidable for most people. In that sense, most people find themselves in an extremely unfavorable legal position. They sign contracts that subject them to brutal sanctions if they miss payments. They need the money. They take their chances that their income stream will remain intact to make their payments.

Many debtors make their payments. But life is not so kind to others. Perhaps a breadwinner dies or suffers an injury that forecloses him from work. Perhaps a debtor loses his job. Perhaps a debtor moves and bills get lost in the mail. Perhaps intervening expenses arise that wipe out a debtor’s savings, making it impossible to repay existing obligations. Perhaps a debtor has children who drain his income more than he could have imagined when he took out the loan. In America, most people cling desperately to financial stability. Their money is generally spoken for the moment they make it: rent; mortgage; taxes; clothing; food; car note; gas; tuition; student loan; credit card bill; utilities; medical expenses; dental expenses; the list goes on until the last penny is gone. They calculate their expenses to match their income stream. If there is an interruption, the entire financial structure unravels. And when a creditor does not receive a bargained-for, contractually-mandated payment from the unfortunate debtor, the creditor’s legal arsenal grinds into action. At these moments, contract law shows its true, pitiless colors. When creditors assert rights, somebody starts suffering.

I always found it perversely entertaining when creditors informed me that I owed “late fees” and “interest payments” if I failed to make a scheduled payment. This is standard contractual stuff. Loan contracts say that you must pay so-and-so amount on so-and-so date every month, plus interest (which may be raised at will and added to the principal). Then they say you must pay a special “extra fee” if you miss a payment. Why do creditors do this? If a person fails to make a payment, doesn’t that lead a reasonable person to conclude that he did not have the money to pay it? If that is true, how can a creditor expect a person to pay the payment he could not afford and extra fees? If a person does not have $400, he cannot pay $400 plus $250 in fees. In my view, this is sadism. It is like kicking people when they are down. Still, the law squarely favors the creditor in this situation. In the law’s view, you bargained for all the terms in the contract, no matter how counterintuitive or cruel. When you default, you entitle the creditor to apply all those terms against you, no matter how apparently unfair or oppressive. If the contract says the creditor can charge late fees and interest on your late payment, he can. It does not matter that you are broke. It does matter that you have children to feed. It is the creditor’s right. And the law enforces private contractual rights. It does not query whether they are oppressive or even ludicrous in practical effect. In short, contract law allows superior parties to exercise their rights over those who default, no matter how shameless it may be to do so. Those rights include the right to charge all the fees they defined in the contract, as well as obtaining a judgment for the full loan amount now. Once they obtain the judgment, they can legally seize all your cash and property to “satisfy” it, the same way a zookeeper “satisfies” a hungry lion with raw meat.

From a legal perspective, this all makes perfect sense: The debtor defaulted; he owes the amount; the debtor must pay. Yet from a practical and humanitarian perspective, this result is perverse. If a debtor cannot pay a monthly payment, how can a creditor reasonably believe that he can pay the entire loan amount now? If a person does not have money to pay $400, he obviously does not have money to pay $125,000, plus interest, fees and attorney’s costs. It defies imagination to think that the creditor could reasonably make these demands. But they do—all the time. Why? In my view, it is because the law gives creditors a smug feeling of total entitlement. Creditors believe that, because the law supports their position, they can do whatever the contract says they can. No matter how absurd the demand, the law permits it; thus the creditor feels he can make the demand in good conscience. It may be utterly impossible to wring $125,000 from a penniless debtor, but it makes the creditor feel good to crush him with legal process simply because he has the right to crush him. When people have commercial rights, they exercise them to the fullest. After all, rights are about power; when a person has power, he will exercise it. There is something distinctly human about rights. When people feel entitled to do something, they feel much better about doing it than they would if there were no such official imprimatur. The law gives exactly such an official imprimatur to the exercise of private commercial power. To answer the question “why” a creditor charges late fees on a debtor who obviously has no money to pay them, we must simply cite the smugness that flows from legal rights: “They do it because they can.”

Some may call this cynical nonsense. But I challenge anyone to provide me an example of a creditor who chooses not to exercise power over a debtor when the law permits. Do banks show mercy? Do commercial actors forgive? Here, we see that forgiveness and mercy necessarily involve rights. Specifically, to forgive someone, you must first have the right to punish him. Those who forgive have the right to visit hardship and pain on those who aggrieve them. Yet they forgo exercising their right because they pity their debtors, or at least understand that it would serve no purpose to punish them. Such values are entirely inconsistent both with the values of modern commerce and human nature. In commerce, people want to win profits. If exercising commercial rights allows them to win profits, they will not “forgive” those from whom they could rightfully obtain money or property. And human beings like to exercise power over their fellow men. It is in their nature to dominate others. If rights make it easier to tyrannize and dominate others, human beings will not forgo the great satisfaction they experience when they exercise their rights. That is just the way we are.

Christ may have admonished us to “forgive our trespassers.” But Christ never lent money. Nor did he write finance contracts with capitalized interest clauses. In fact, we can reasonably posit that Christ hated debt relationships and commerce in general because he overturned the moneylenders’ tables and "cast them out." Matthew 21:12-14.

In sum, debt relationships bring out the worst in both people and the law. Although legal theorists praise contract law because it allows “responsible people” to “prudently allocate risk and make sensible rules for themselves,” modern commerce belies the contention that there is equality between buyers and sellers. Modern commerce provides plentiful opportunities for strong parties to brutalize weaker ones because the law permits it. This is the dark side of legal rights. When human beings feel entitled to visit misery on others, they rarely forgo the chance. When the natural human impulse to dominate combines with the commercial impulse to win profits, the result is grim. Put simply, debtors do not stand a chance. In America, at least, they find themselves between a rock and a hard place: They must borrow money to buy necessities, to care for their health and to educate themselves. In so doing, they subject themselves to creditors’ “legal rights.” Those “rights” enable creditors to ruin debtors’ financial lives if there is any interruption at all in their tenuous income stream. It is not a pleasant way to live. And it never feels good to know that your entire life hangs on your ability to make regular payments, especially when experience confirms that life circumstances can change overnight. Today, you may be healthy and employed. Tomorrow, you may be paralyzed or laid off. But that means nothing to a creditor; he has his rights and you have your obligations. Unforeseen tragedy or disruption has no effect on his right to sink you. And he will exercise that right if he can.

True, our economy would not work if creditors forgave their debtors all the time. A “merciful economy” is a contradiction in terms. Commerce is warlike; warriors do not spare their foes or let their enemies escape. But that does not make our economy thematically appealing. In my view, forgiveness and mercy are positive qualities. Does it not say something about our society that such positive qualities simply do not belong in commercial life? To be blunt, we are engaged in a death struggle to fulfill obligations. When the law allows, we like to dominate our neighbors. We die if we fail to make payments. The law allows us our creditors to brutalize us, and it allows us to die. Guilt has nothing to do with it. No, contract law knows only power and survival, not conscience.

Perhaps the lesson is this: When possible, be a creditor. It is always better to be on top; and it is always easier to have the law on your side.

JUSTICE ALITO REAFFIRMS HIS COMMITMENT TO SENSIBLE AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW

WISDOM FROM OUR LEARNED SUPREME COURT JURISTS

By : Mr. Samuel A. Alito, Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court (2006-present) ; Former Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1990-2006); United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (1987-1990); United States Department of Justice (1981-1987); Federal Prosecutor (1977-1981); Graduate, Yale Law School; Clear Moral Visionary; Charter Member, The Federalist Society; Founding Member, The Anti-Drug-Offender Institute of New Jersey; Board President, The Association of Justinian Lawyers for the Immediate Execution of Child Molesters Upon Suspicion Alone, Constitutional Qualms Notwithstanding, et alias honores.

Every day, I learn to love our American Republic more because Americans understand how to treat criminals. I have dedicated myself to public service since early adulthood, and the longer I live, the more I learn to respect our justice system. Put simply, American criminal law is great because it disrespects criminals—and criminals deserve no respect because they have banished themselves from society.

Criminals have no place in American society. We have an obligation to punish criminals severely. If individuals violate the ground rules that hold our society together, they deserve no grace from our State. In fact, our State has a duty to harshly punish criminals for several reasons. First, we want an orderly society. When the law harshly punishes criminals, we not only remove dangerous threats from our midst; we also send a clear message to other would-be lawbreakers that we will hunt them down and make them suffer. Second, we want a moral society. As an avowed Federalist, I believe the People have the right to enshrine their moral ideals in law. They have a right to criminally punish immoral vagabonds, ruffians and people who do not fit in. As a Federal judge, I respect the States. I refuse to interfere with States’ efforts to punish vicious thugs, porn peddlers, crack pushers and public urinators, except in cases in which the States do not punish conduct I find morally disgusting. In such cases, I do not support the States; rather, I punish criminals consistent with my own values as a Catholic, Republican, Yale-educated jurist in public service. In brief, American criminal law targets recalcitrant rebels who lost the right to live among us. We view criminals as dangers to be expunged. We have a great system. I am proud to serve it.

Yet there are Nations on earth that do not see the light. As a scholar, it is my duty to learn different perspectives about the law. Although America is the greatest country in the world because we believe in "freedom and the dignity of every life" (see State of the Union Speech of President George W. Bush, January 29, 2002), we can learn various new approaches to issues by studying other countries. Occasionally, Europe will devise a good idea about electronics or internet commerce. But in most cases, I have found that European ideas are dangerous, especially in legal and social fields. I read legal texts from many legal traditions. Thanks to my study, I have learned that American criminal law is definitely the best. European approaches to criminal law shocked me. And they should shock every American. Nonetheless, I am glad that I studied European law. In the end, I learned that there is no place like home—especially when it comes to dealing with criminals. Europeans forgive and forget. In America, we crucify and bury our scum. That’s the difference.

To illustrate, consider Germany’s Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch). In recent decades, Germany transformed from a National Socialist dictatorship into a liberal, federal republic that prizes self-determination, human dignity, social welfare and progressive thought. In so doing, it repealed harsh criminal laws and replaced them with mild, weak social “controls.” Through my extensive study, I learned that Germany prefers to tap criminals on the wrist rather than make them suffer. In so doing, the State disrespects morality, insults crime victims and lets wretched hooligans escape justice. In my view, this is a national disgrace. And the Germans should be ashamed of themselves, especially given their proud tradition of strict, effective penalties for even minor crimes (i.e., guillotine for distributing critical political leaflets; shooting in the back of the head for communist leanings, etc.).

To understand why German criminal law is so bad, we must uncover its stated principles. In his Introduction to the German Criminal Code, Dr. Thomas Weigend, a law professor at the University of Cologne, provides a good beginning: “When the law provides for the deprivation of liberty or property if certain rules are violated, it shows that society considers it absolutely necessary to adhere to these rules.” Einführung, Strafgesetzbuch, 45. Auflage (München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag 2008)(hereinafter “Introduction to the Criminal Code”) p. 9. I cannot argue with this assertion. In America, too, we believe that every society has a right to imprison or fine people who transgress against “extremely important” social rules. Dr. Weigend correctly points out that: “Every society needs an opportunity to express its moral disapproval for severe violations against the protected interests of others or the interests of the community.” Id. I could not agree more. Every society has both a right and a duty to condemn those who deviate from acceptable community standards. American communities must punish lawbreakers to remind everyone what is right and wrong.

Yet after a promising beginning, Dr. Weigend veers into dangerous territory. Concerning punishment objectives in the German system, he writes: “Criminal convictions…do not devalue the perpetrator's person,” and that criminal penalties serve the “notion that a convict should not be permanently excluded from society; rather, the State should make it easier for him to make his way back to a responsible life. In this sense, modern-day criminal law in the Social State of the German Constitution is unconditionally obligated to the principle of humanity.” Id.

This is utter nonsense. In America, we do not look with munificence on convicted criminals, nor do we accord them “humanity.” By deviating from fundamental social rules, criminals lose their right to be treated as citizens, let alone with humanity. They are no longer humans; they are criminals. Unlike the Germans, we believe that social miscreants should be permanently excluded from society; we reject wholeheartedly the idea that the State owes criminals the duty to “make it easier for them to make their way back to a responsible life.” In America, the State does not give anything to anyone, even to law-abiding citizens. If anything, the State takes away. It defies imagination to suggest that the State has an obligation to provide criminals a way “back to a responsible life.” The State does not even have an obligation to provide education or health care, let alone the “social means to get your life together.” In short, you only get one shot at life in America. If you mess it up, that’s your problem, even if you are not a criminal. The State does not help anyone find their way in life, let alone lawbreakers who trample on society. The State does not exist to help its citizens; it exists merely to provide a stable environment in which to do business. In short, I find it beyond absurd that Germany “obligates” itself to “humanity.” Criminals do not deserve such indulgences. They are the worst of the worst. If anything, they should be treated inhumanely, not humanely.

I hate criminals. It gets me really angry when I learn that foreign law treats them with respect. We have a duty as a civilized people to make criminals suffer for visiting harm upon our society. They do not belong among decent people. Criminals violate everything sacred about American life: Decency, hard work, thrift, sexual propriety, moral living, financial responsibility, honesty, goodness, compassion, generosity, forgiveness, mercy and Christian caring. When criminals rape, kill, steal, defraud and defile, they do not care about the pain they inflict on their victims. Yet the Germans overlook that pain and slap these barbarians on the wrist like naughty Kindergarteners. In my view, this denigrates both crime victims and American values. But according to Dr. Weigend: “[T]he prosecution of criminal law in Germany is understood to be the task of the governmental community; its purpose is not to provide satisfaction to crime victims.” Introduction to the Criminal Code, p. 11. So the victim is voiceless? What about terrified baby girls who have been burned, raped, tortured, sodomized and traumatized? What about the mother of a 17-year-boy killed by brutal gang thugs? What about a man paralyzed by a drunk driver? Are you telling me that the law should overlook these people’s profound outrage against the criminals who destroyed their lives?

In my view, the law has a duty to listen to victims—and their loved ones—in order to assess the true impact of criminal conduct. Unlike the Germans, we care about people in America. The criminal law is not an abstract encounter between a perpetrator and cold, neutral laws; it is a superheated emotional crucible in which the community expresses its outrage, sorrow and desperation against antisocial monsters. In our law, we care about a mother’s anguish when she loses a daughter to a savage rapist-murderer. We care about a brother’s sadness and loss when a vicious thug kills his sibling in a fight. It is not enough to merely show that a killer intended to kill a victim. We want to hear about the misery, terror, pain, loss and anger in the victim’s family. We want to express our outrage against those who author tragedy in society, even if that outrage has nothing to do with the narrow circumstances surrounding the criminal act. Crime affects the entire community; in America, we are determined to make criminals suffer for the horrific results they inflict on everyone, not just the immediate victim. We revisit the full quantum of pain, horror and misery on criminals that they visit upon their victims. This is true justice, not weak German “resocialization.” In a word, we do not want criminals back in our society. We want them to rot and die in rancid cells after writhing in pain on cold, hard floors for several decades.

Yet the Germans do not understand this. Dr. Weigend writes more about “humanity:” “The principle of humanity…obligates the State to treat even those who have grossly violated the rules of peaceful human coexistence as citizens and brethren, as well as to make every effort to win them back into the community.” Introduction to the Criminal Code, p. 10. If “humanity” means treating criminals like “people” and “winning them back” into our midst, we do not want “humanity” here. Quite the contrary, we would rather be “inhumane” than offer “humanity” to criminals. In America, we believe in fair deals. In our “social contract,” you promise to behave. If you break your promise, you pay the price. You do not get a second chance. Forevermore, you are a “criminal,” not a “person.” The Germans call this “inhumane.” We call it “responsibility.” We do not believe it is difficult to live a normal, law-abiding life. All you need to do is refrain from raping, killing, stealing, lying, defrauding and acting badly. It is not difficult. Just be quiet, live normally and do not make mistakes. It is not brain surgery. The State does not owe an “obligation” to be “humane” to anyone. Nothing in the United States Constitution or any State Constitution requires an American State to be humane. States maintain roads and collect taxes. They imprison criminals and assess parking fines. They operate schools and mental clinics. They have no further obligation; and they certainly have no obligation to act “lovey-dovey” with convicted mass murderers, child rapists, thieves, scoundrels and Bernie Madoff-style fraud artists. In response to any German invitation to introduce “humanity” into American criminal law, I say: “Hell no, we won’t go.”

There is nothing wrong with American criminal law. After studying German criminal law, I am reassured in my belief that we have the best system on earth. We are getting along just fine, thank you very much. In fact, I believe that America is the greatest Nation on earth because we understand that criminals are garbage to be discarded, not “recyclables” to be “re-used.” We understand that criminals are not “regular people.” These are people who have broken the social contract and thus deserve worse treatment than others. Criminals hold nothing sacred; they do not want to reintegrate into our society. We have no desire to “win them back” or “resocialize” them. If anything, we want to eliminate them. And we want them to suffer the same pain they inflicted on their victims. As a Federalist, I am not opposed to State efforts to execute criminals who do not cause death. See Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. __ (2008)(Alito, J., dissenting, slip opinion at pp. 43-66). States have a right to decide whether conduct represents such a deviation from acceptable community standards that perpetrators deserve to die for it. Whether States decide to kill to jail criminals, the result is the same: We believe that criminals are worthless pieces of unwanted garbage. We do not try to “resocialize” garbage; we want to throw it away—permanently. This is how we view criminals in America. They are nothing but disgusting, worthless, nauseating trash; and States have a right to dispose of it as they see fit.

Of course, the Germans do not execute criminals because they want to “win them back” into society. They think they have “intrinsic worth” as human beings. See, e.g., Basic Law (Grundgesetz) Art. 1 ("The worth (or "dignity") of every human being is inviolable. It is the obligation of all governmental authority to respect and protect it."). That is their prerogative. All I can say is that Americans are smarter than Germans because we know where our garbage belongs. We do not bring garbage back into our living rooms. We toss it onto the trash heap or burn it. If something is worthless, you get rid of it. You do not keep it hanging around your house.

Americans will always face criticism. Europeans will always contend that forgiveness and “humanity” are better policies than draconian criminal penalties. They will even invoke Christianity to support their theories, including Jesus’ dictum: “How you treat the least of my brothers is how you treat me.” Matthew 25:40. I am a devout Christian and I fervently believe in Christ. Yet Christ’s words do not apply to criminals, because criminals are not “my brothers.” Moreover, criminals are not even people. They are lawbreakers. As such, different rules apply to them. In this sense, America faces no religious quandary when it mercilessly hunts down and punishes criminals. We can treat them as poorly as we wish without violating Christ’s word, because criminals are not “Christ’s brothers.”

I am reassured in my commitment to American criminal law. We view criminals as we should view them: As garbage to be discarded. Although we will always face criticism for what some perceive as repressiveness against criminals, we take refuge in the knowledge that we are right. America is dedicated to liberty, equality and justice for all. But as soon as you break the law, you have no right to anything but suffering and pain. You lose your worth and your status as a person. This is justice. We owe it to the victims. As a Supreme Court Justice, I will never deviate from these principles, no matter what the Constitution says. There are citizens and there are criminals. They are not the same. I will never treat them the same, either. In a word, I know what to do with my trash: I throw it away.

WITH MONEY AND CREDIT, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE

HAPPY HABITATS REAL ESTATE COMPANY OF NEW YORK

“Renting. Buying. Selling. Living. Your Way. Every Day.®”

Dear Mr. Christ,

You recently inquired about relocating to New York City from a Middle Eastern home. True to your word, you sent me all the application materials I requested, including your most recent tax returns, a letter verifying current income, a credit report and bank statements dating back two years. Having considered your application materials, I regret to advise that you will not be able to rent the properties in which you expressed interest.

Manhattan rents begin around $2,500 for a studio apartment. Landlords will not rent to you without a verifiable annual income forty times the monthly rent. Put another way, in order to rent an apartment at $2,500 per month, you must verify an annual gross income of $100,000. In Manhattan, this represents the low end. Your application materials disclose that you once worked as a carpenter, but now you are an unemployed hermit. Your tax returns show that you earned only 12 shekels last year, which you immediately gave to the poor, leaving you with no money at all to your name. Your bank statement said you have never maintained any savings or checking accounts. You do not even know what a portfolio is. You are worth nothing. Unfortunately, this excludes you from renting any apartment currently listed with us.

You advised me that you know you are poor. But you wrote that you were confident you could rent an apartment because: “With men this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26. At that time, I advised you that you were setting yourself up for disappointment because Manhattan landlords will not rent to you without proof that you make at least $100,000 per year. You responded that you look down upon wealthy people because: “It will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven,” and “it is easier for a camel go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24. I told you that your attitude would not help you win approval for a Manhattan apartment. I also told you that no person without verifiable income—or at least a guarantor with money, such as a wealthy father—had ever rented an apartment before. You responded with a story about Sarah, who gave birth to a child when she was more than 100 years old. You wrote: “Why did Sarah laugh, saying ‘Can I really have a child when I’m old?’ Is anything impossible for the Lord?” Genesis 18:13-14. You said that you could rent an apartment in Manhattan without money, just as Sarah gave birth long past childbearing age, because “with God, all things are possible.”

I am sorry to tell you that without money and credit, nothing is possible in the New York real estate market. You may say that all things are possible as long as you believe in God, but I can certifiably tell you that you will never rent an apartment here without money or credit. Your credit score is extremely poor. You told me you even insulted moneylenders and have no respect for money (“He also found money changers sitting there…[and] poured out the money changers’ coins and overturned their tables.” John 2:14-15). Landlords do not look keenly upon tenants who have no respect for their creditors. Why should they risk renting to you when they know you do not have the money to pay? That is foolish. You cannot possibly expect a reasonable landlord to rent to you, when dozens of other applicants show suitable income, savings and credit. On paper, you have no job. You have no savings. You have no credit. Your net worth is zero. As a financial matter, you are utterly impotent. You have no right at all to expect that a landlord will rent an apartment to you. Not here, they won’t. To use an urban colloquialism: No money, no honey.

I have little doubt that you are a good man. But being a good man does not pay the rent. Money pays the rent. If you wish to rent an apartment in New York City, I suggest that you adapt to your circumstances. Rather than saying: “With God, all things are possible,” be more realistic and say: “With money and credit, all things are possible.” If you had a good income, savings and a credit score over 700, you could rent any apartment you wanted; provided, of course, that the co-op board approves your character. Your attitude against rich people will not help your cause. Unless you start respecting money—and the people who have it—you will not achieve your goal. You say you want to relocate to New York. Well, start playing like it. Where you live, it is about God. Here, it is about money and credit. When in Rome, you need to do as the Romans do. You will get nowhere if you continue criticizing wealth and money. So what if rich people will not enter the kingdom of heaven? While they are here, they are the landlords. You need to start playing by the rules if you want what they control.

Money and credit are wonderful things. If you simply changed your thinking, you could rent the apartment you want, buy nice furniture, go out to eat every night and possibly attract a pretty wife. With good credit, you could buy beautiful entertainment systems and cars without putting down the full amounts, allowing you to enjoy your life without spending all your cash. Can’t you see this? Why do you persist in living like a hermit? Why can you only show an income of 12 shekels per year? Why are you unemployed? And why do you delude yourself with the thought that with God, all things are possible? You must see that you are wrong. Without money and credit, you can accomplish nothing. Belief does not matter. Please try to understand that.

I am sorry to be so frank with you, Mr. Christ. At present, it is simply impossible for you to rent or purchase property in New York City. You have no income, no credit and no savings. You do not even have potential income because you are an unemployed wanderer. You told me that your father is the “Lord of men,” but you could not provide his name, social security number, income, employer, home address or credit score. Your father may be a wonderful man, but he cannot be a guarantor without verifying his income and credit. Based upon your writings to me, I must tell you that you will never succeed in your goals. You think that your belief in God alone will land you in a New York apartment. You are sadly mistaken. Unless you can verify an annual income of at least $100,000 per year with a healthy credit score and bank statements, you will not be approved. I hope you can understand this. If this is disappointing to you, I suggest that you adopt our credo, namely: With money and credit, all things are possible.

We wish you all the best in your future endeavors. Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you attain suitable income and credit levels in the future. We are always willing to work with people with enough money and credit to actually do business. At present, you are not such a person. Thank you for your interest in Happy Habitats.

Yours truly,

A. George Gelders, Senior Consultant

A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

CHANGING OUR FOCUS IN IRAQ

By : President George Walker Bush, Jr., 43rd President of the United States of America

My fellow Americans. It has been an interesting eight years. Together, we have combated terrorists and evildoers, both at home and abroad. We have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan. And we almost caught Osama bin Laden. As we say in Texas: “Just give ‘er time.” We’ll catch that muskrat soon enough, even after I turn in my badge. Today, I stand before you with only twelve days left in my administration. During those twelve days, I intend to conduct myself with the same intelligence and vigor for America that you came to expect during my Presidency. It might be the end of the line, but your Captain won’t fall asleep at the helm, believe you me.

I respect the Constitution with all my heart. During my time in office, I think my actions showed how much I fought to defend the Constitution. Liberals said the Patriot Act and the wiretaps violated the Constitution. But they weren’t reading from the same Constitution as I was. My Constitution says the President needs to defend the Nation, and that’s what I did. Anything else is for the lawyers to discuss. My Constitution says I am the Commander in Chief. You bet your life I am. And I will stay Commander in Chief until 12:01 PM on January 20.

I command the United States armed forces. I leave behind a legacy of success in Iraq. Thanks to the brave men and women under my control, Iraqis no longer live in fear. We have given them freedom. We have given them hope. We kicked out Saddam and gave them a stable government. But where does that leave us? Our fighting men and women still battle militias in Baghdad. American boys and girls are still dying because some Iraqis still hate freedom. I love freedom. And if an Iraqi doesn’t love freedom, we need to force him to love freedom. Our mission in Iraq is about freedom.

We have further to go in Iraq. During my final days in office, I intend to go the last mile to ultimate victory. As Commander in Chief, I call upon all Americans, whether or not you are in the military, to join me in a new effort in Iraq. Let us drop all the cynical talk about oil, natural resources and politics. Let us join together as a Christian Nation and deliver Iraq from the infidels. Ladies and Gentlemen of America, we are a Christian people. Let us join together in the Tenth Crusade to liberate the Muslims from Allah. Henceforth, I will be your Crusader in Chief.

I have always said that we are fighting for freedom. But political freedom is not enough. There is no freedom without Christ, and we must give Iraqis Christian freedom. Come together, you Christian Americans. Put the spirit of Jesus in your hearts and follow me to Baghdad. I will lead you against those who hate Christ and freedom. I will carry the banner both of Christ our Lord and the Stars and Stripes. We have no more time for half-measures. While I am still Commander in Chief, we still have time to win.

We have not yet won in Iraq because we were not honest about our goals. We tried to fight without faith; but without faith, nothing is possible. A worldly war cannot succeed. Only through the spirit of Jesus can we win righteous victory. American soldiers, paint crosses on your helmets. Become soldiers of Christ, as well as soldiers of your Nation. Praise His name as you hunt down the Unbelievers. Preach His holy Word to all those who will listen. And kill all those who refuse to accept it.

We may rightfully expect a miracle before my time in office comes to an end. With Christ, all things are possible. Let us bring light to the Middle East, not just arms. Let us show the Muslims not only our advanced weaponry, but also the force of our beliefs. Since the War on Terror began, the Muslims have scorned us for our “secular godlessness.” Let us show them that we are godlier than they ever were. Let us show them that our God beats Allah any damn day of the week, including Sundays. We live in a Christian Nation. America began as a plantation of God. How arrogant that the Muslims now call us godless! Good Christian Americans, come with me to Baghdad, that we might show these infidels the true power of Christian faith.

To arms, O Christian warriors! This is no longer a dispute over borders, governments and oil. This is a test of faith. When God anoints a cause, let no one question it. Cast doubt from your minds. Take up the banner now, and follow me. I challenge Osama bin Laden to fight me in single combat before the walls of Baghdad. Let Allah bless him as Christ blesses me. Then we will see on whose side God falls. I challenge the insurgents to wear their beliefs boldly. Come from behind those ramparts, you heathen! Take off those masks and show your faces before God. I can assure you, when the American Christian Nation is aroused, no Muslim will ever stand in our way.

Come now, Crusaders! Forget about phased troop withdrawals. Forget about “quagmires” and “unwinnable wars.” No Christian war is unwinnable, for God will bless our cause. Have no fear. God stands with us. We are not fighting for oil. We are fighting for Jesus. Let the Muslims mock us. Let them call us imperialists. We will show them the power of our faith; and we will show them that it is stronger than theirs. They can kneel on prayer rugs all they want. But when push comes to shove, nothing can beat a modest wooden cross around the neck of a well-armored American Christian knight.

In short, I was wrong for allowing the War in Iraq to develop along political lines. I should have declared the Crusade years ago. Now, at the end of my term, I am determined to correct my error. Rally round the cross, good Christian fighters! Now is the time to destroy the infidels once and for all. Now is the time to bring light and peace to the darkness of the Middle East. Strike up the hymn; take up your M16. March with me to Baghdad. And let us win this war here and now. For America. For Christ. Deus le veult!

One final word: Mr. Obama, you won’t need to worry about a pullout. I will have the War won for you by noon on the 20th.

A TRAITOR'S DEATH

Several weeks ago, I wrote about the distinction in English law between murder and treason. Murderers and traitors both forfeited their lives under law, but for different reasons. Traitors received the ultimate penalty--to be hanged, drawn and quartered--while mere murderers simply hanged. Murderers were violent toward their fellow man; but traitors did something far worse: They betrayed loyalties. In the law's view, disloyalty was worse than violence, even if disloyalty did not lead to anyone's death. That explained the differential treatment for murderers and traitors. And it revealed the common law's nod to dominant social values. Put another way, the law was as much concerned with maintaining established systems of dominance and subservience as it was with deterring behavior that physically harmed other people.

Interestingly, Shakespeare thought that murder and treason occupied the same ground. "Treason and murder ever kept together,/ As two yoke-devils sworn to either's purpose, / Working so grossly in a natural cause, / That admiration did not whoop at them." King Henry V, Act II sc. ii. Although traitors typically murder--or attempt to murder--their sovereign, the historical record reveals that conviction for treason required far less than trying to kill the King. I noted in my previous essay that English statutes constantly expanded the reach of "high treason," so that even mere coin-counterfeiters could be condemned as traitors "for offenses against the King's currency." The same horrible penalty applied whether the traitor smelted a coin or stabbed the King.

And what gruesome penalties! Today I read about an English nobleman named "George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence" (1449-1478) who was "condemned to the Tower of London for compassing the death of the King by necromancy." He was slated for beheading, but before the sentence could be carried out, the King's henchmen "murdered him by drowning him in a butt of Malmsey wine." See Article at http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/clarence.htm.

I have read about many executions. But I had never heard about forced drowning in wine.

I often criticize the death penalty because I think it reveals the antiquated moral state of our civilization. We show our colors as a civilization when we stoop to physical barbarism toward our fellow men, no matter how contemptible they are. Although men will always be beasts to one another, governments aspire to something higher. Governments profess to maintain dignity, reason, justice and constitutional ideals. Thus, when government kills, it shows its own evolutionary handicaps. Worse, it descends into outright hypocrisy. It is no excuse to say: "Well, these are the worst people in our society. They broke the law and we should treat them the same way they treated their victims." But government has an obligation to rise above brute revenge. In fact, when government stoops to physical barbarism, it violates us all. Jesus' words come to mind: "Whatver you do for the least of these my brothers, you do it to me." Matthew 25:40. In other words, the mere fact that a criminal is "contemptible" does not entitle us as a society to brutalize him in a manner that we would condemn in other circumstances.

Capital punishment presents extremely difficult social and philosophical questions. Without going into great detail today, I believe that--in America, at least--the death penalty is heir to a barbaric past. I do not believe that government has an obligation to use brutal violence against criminals. Government has an obligation to obey rational principles, not to yield to bloodthirsty urges for revenge. Nor do I think that government should so sanguinely invoke "tradition" to justify the death penalty. After all, that "tradition" once drowned people in wine, tore their intestines from their bellies while they were still alive and publicly displayed their mutilated corpses until the vultures picked them clean. That is not a tradition of which 21st Century governments should be proud. If anything, a government dedicated to advancing ideals and dignity should try its best to disavow such a sordid legacy.

Death penalty defenders say that contemporary execution methods "are nothing like" the barbaric practices of old. But that argument misses the mark. The question is more abstract. It does not matter how government kills; it matters that government kills. And it matters that government-sponsored killing is heir to a gruesome tradition. If principle carries any weight with governments, it should command them to abandon captial punishment on "evolutionary" grounds. In short, we should be ashamed to continue a tradition that once empowered State officials to lash living people to wheels and smash their joints with mallets. No matter how much the methods have changed over the centuries, one fact remains: Government kills. Individual citizens may want bloody revenge, but government has an obligation to rise above individual outrage. Government must follow reason, not passion.