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.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Friday, December 18, 2009
SOLDIERS ARE SOCIALISTS, EVEN IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT
AN ESSAY
Last summer, I wrote an essay arguing that the United States military is essentially a socialistic institution. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/06/military-is-socialistic-because-it_25.html. I made that conclusion because American military authorities "care about men under their command" both in war and peace. I pointed out that soldiers live a "rarefied" existence insulated from harsh commercial reality. That insulation allows them to focus on larger ideals, like "honor" and "political missions." Soldiers also receive free medical care, housing and living necessities from the government. As a whole, these characteristics led me to conclude that the military is "socialistic," even if its armed service protects a capitalistic society that condemns "socialism."
I continue to believe that the American military is a socialistic institution. In fact, I believe it more now than I ever did. When I wrote my previous essay, I focused primarily on larger themes to identify socialistic currents in American military life. But the military is not just abstractly socialistic; it is socialistic right down to the men themselves. It is socialistic in spirit as well as action.
To be clear, when I say "socialistic," I mean that the military provides a comprehensive security net for everyone under its control. But this means far more than merely providing tangible benefits. It also means that people in the military regard their fellow man differently than the way comparable civilians regard others. In commercial American civilian life, other human beings represent potential profits. Civilians have to think this way. Unlike soldiers, they do not get free rent, free health insurance or free child care. They have to fend for themselves. They cannot worry about their fellows too much or they will lose their own commercial struggle.
In the military, however, soldiers must care about each other. In combat, men treasure each other. They do not simply abandon their buddies when they get hurt. They are never indifferent. They put themselves in harm's way to ensure that their comrades survive. They even risk death to retrieve the bodies of friends killed in action.
I find this especially socialistic. Care for one's fellow man is a bedrock in socialist philosophy. In the military, individual soldiers practice that care every day. It is not obligatory care: Soldiers are not related by blood or even bound to each other by contract. No, they are simply comrades in arms. They refuse to allow ill to befall their fellows and they risk all to save them from it. The emphasis lies on one's fellow man, not on oneself. That marks a key distinction between both the military and civilian life, as well as between socialism and capitalism.
Karl Marx criticized capitalism because it tended to separate human beings from one another. When every man must selfishly pursue his own economic fortune in a free market system, he naturally begins to regard his fellow man as a commercial instrument, not as a human being with equal dignity. Although Marx wrote at length about economic esoterica, his main criticism was humanitarian: Capitalism distances human beings from one another and leads to human exploitation.
But in the military, soldiers learn to live with each other and depend on each other to an extent almost unrecognizable in civilian life. They do not distance themselves from each other; they come closer together. While such tight cooperation might reflect the most effective way to accomplish military missions, it also reflects a fundamentally humanitarian outlook. In the movie Black Hawk Down, for instance, one character echoes many "real" American soldiers when he explains why men serve in the military: "We're in this for the guy next to us." In other words, military life leads to a deep care for one's fellow man, no matter what the ultimate political objective may be. In fact, for individual soldiers in combat, "the guy next to us" is everything.
This is no Hollywood sentiment. This is really how soldiers think. They always have, and not just in the United States. Soldiers sign up for additional tours not because they care about the geopolitical ramifications of their deployment, but because they do not want to abandon their friends. They care that much. They care so much that they willingly face death in order to make sure their friends will not face death alone. "We're in this for the guy next to us."
That is a noble motivation. And that is why it is distinctly un-American. In American civilian life, no one really lives "for the guy next to us." No, most people live for "me." Think about catchphrases that encapsulate success in American civilian life: "It's all about me;" "I'm gonna do what I gotta do to make it;" "I need to think about Number One." These phrases might describe effective ways to achieve success in a capitalistic society. They might even yield riches and fame. But there is nothing noble about them. "The guy next to you" is irrelevant to the man who says "It's all about me." Yet that's what it takes to succeed in a society committed to individual profit. And that's the attitude people must take toward their fellows in order to survive. In the end, the motivation necessary for success in American civilian life leads precisely to the danger that concerned Marx: Human alienation and exploitation.
There is a strange irony in all this. Americans praise the military all the time. They thank soldiers for their service. They ascribe immensely positive results to their work. But military life could not be more different from the civilian society soldiers protect. It takes a fundamentally different outlook to be a soldier than it does to be an entrepreneur. What motivates a soldier does not motivate an entrepreneur. What matters to a civilian does not matter to a soldier. Strangely enough, conservatives are the first ones to talk about a "strong military," yet reject socialism across the board. If they just looked at the way military personnel think about their fellow men, they would see the foolishness in that position. The military does not just practice "economic socialism" by ensuring material welfare for its men. It also practices "individual socialism" by inculcating a spirit of concern in every man for the well-being of his fellows. Those sentiments should enrage an American conservative. Yet they keep on saying: "God bless our troops."
God bless those socialists? What a laugh.
In sum, there is more to socialism than tangible social welfare programs. Socialism means true respect for one's fellow man. A socialist does not just concern himself with spending money on people who ostensibly "don't deserve it." A socialist also thinks a certain way about other human beings. He refuses to leave anyone behind or let his neighbor suffer. He does not view him as a potential profit, but rather as a friend who needs help. There is a motivational element to socialism that is--in essence--very noble. There is nothing "evil" about it, no matter how much we learn that "socialism" is a "dirty word." After all, how could something be "un-American" if our own soldiers practice it?
Socialism is about caring for others. Capitalism is about caring for oneself. There are essential motivational differences. When a soldier says: "I'm in this for the guy next to me," his motivation is clear: It's not about him. It's about the other guy.
Why is this a bad sentiment? It might be socialistic. But it's also Christian. And noble, too.
Last summer, I wrote an essay arguing that the United States military is essentially a socialistic institution. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/06/military-is-socialistic-because-it_25.html. I made that conclusion because American military authorities "care about men under their command" both in war and peace. I pointed out that soldiers live a "rarefied" existence insulated from harsh commercial reality. That insulation allows them to focus on larger ideals, like "honor" and "political missions." Soldiers also receive free medical care, housing and living necessities from the government. As a whole, these characteristics led me to conclude that the military is "socialistic," even if its armed service protects a capitalistic society that condemns "socialism."
I continue to believe that the American military is a socialistic institution. In fact, I believe it more now than I ever did. When I wrote my previous essay, I focused primarily on larger themes to identify socialistic currents in American military life. But the military is not just abstractly socialistic; it is socialistic right down to the men themselves. It is socialistic in spirit as well as action.
To be clear, when I say "socialistic," I mean that the military provides a comprehensive security net for everyone under its control. But this means far more than merely providing tangible benefits. It also means that people in the military regard their fellow man differently than the way comparable civilians regard others. In commercial American civilian life, other human beings represent potential profits. Civilians have to think this way. Unlike soldiers, they do not get free rent, free health insurance or free child care. They have to fend for themselves. They cannot worry about their fellows too much or they will lose their own commercial struggle.
In the military, however, soldiers must care about each other. In combat, men treasure each other. They do not simply abandon their buddies when they get hurt. They are never indifferent. They put themselves in harm's way to ensure that their comrades survive. They even risk death to retrieve the bodies of friends killed in action.
I find this especially socialistic. Care for one's fellow man is a bedrock in socialist philosophy. In the military, individual soldiers practice that care every day. It is not obligatory care: Soldiers are not related by blood or even bound to each other by contract. No, they are simply comrades in arms. They refuse to allow ill to befall their fellows and they risk all to save them from it. The emphasis lies on one's fellow man, not on oneself. That marks a key distinction between both the military and civilian life, as well as between socialism and capitalism.
Karl Marx criticized capitalism because it tended to separate human beings from one another. When every man must selfishly pursue his own economic fortune in a free market system, he naturally begins to regard his fellow man as a commercial instrument, not as a human being with equal dignity. Although Marx wrote at length about economic esoterica, his main criticism was humanitarian: Capitalism distances human beings from one another and leads to human exploitation.
But in the military, soldiers learn to live with each other and depend on each other to an extent almost unrecognizable in civilian life. They do not distance themselves from each other; they come closer together. While such tight cooperation might reflect the most effective way to accomplish military missions, it also reflects a fundamentally humanitarian outlook. In the movie Black Hawk Down, for instance, one character echoes many "real" American soldiers when he explains why men serve in the military: "We're in this for the guy next to us." In other words, military life leads to a deep care for one's fellow man, no matter what the ultimate political objective may be. In fact, for individual soldiers in combat, "the guy next to us" is everything.
This is no Hollywood sentiment. This is really how soldiers think. They always have, and not just in the United States. Soldiers sign up for additional tours not because they care about the geopolitical ramifications of their deployment, but because they do not want to abandon their friends. They care that much. They care so much that they willingly face death in order to make sure their friends will not face death alone. "We're in this for the guy next to us."
That is a noble motivation. And that is why it is distinctly un-American. In American civilian life, no one really lives "for the guy next to us." No, most people live for "me." Think about catchphrases that encapsulate success in American civilian life: "It's all about me;" "I'm gonna do what I gotta do to make it;" "I need to think about Number One." These phrases might describe effective ways to achieve success in a capitalistic society. They might even yield riches and fame. But there is nothing noble about them. "The guy next to you" is irrelevant to the man who says "It's all about me." Yet that's what it takes to succeed in a society committed to individual profit. And that's the attitude people must take toward their fellows in order to survive. In the end, the motivation necessary for success in American civilian life leads precisely to the danger that concerned Marx: Human alienation and exploitation.
There is a strange irony in all this. Americans praise the military all the time. They thank soldiers for their service. They ascribe immensely positive results to their work. But military life could not be more different from the civilian society soldiers protect. It takes a fundamentally different outlook to be a soldier than it does to be an entrepreneur. What motivates a soldier does not motivate an entrepreneur. What matters to a civilian does not matter to a soldier. Strangely enough, conservatives are the first ones to talk about a "strong military," yet reject socialism across the board. If they just looked at the way military personnel think about their fellow men, they would see the foolishness in that position. The military does not just practice "economic socialism" by ensuring material welfare for its men. It also practices "individual socialism" by inculcating a spirit of concern in every man for the well-being of his fellows. Those sentiments should enrage an American conservative. Yet they keep on saying: "God bless our troops."
God bless those socialists? What a laugh.
In sum, there is more to socialism than tangible social welfare programs. Socialism means true respect for one's fellow man. A socialist does not just concern himself with spending money on people who ostensibly "don't deserve it." A socialist also thinks a certain way about other human beings. He refuses to leave anyone behind or let his neighbor suffer. He does not view him as a potential profit, but rather as a friend who needs help. There is a motivational element to socialism that is--in essence--very noble. There is nothing "evil" about it, no matter how much we learn that "socialism" is a "dirty word." After all, how could something be "un-American" if our own soldiers practice it?
Socialism is about caring for others. Capitalism is about caring for oneself. There are essential motivational differences. When a soldier says: "I'm in this for the guy next to me," his motivation is clear: It's not about him. It's about the other guy.
Why is this a bad sentiment? It might be socialistic. But it's also Christian. And noble, too.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
AL QAEDA SURRENDERS
*BIG NEWS FLASH*IT'S OFFICIAL : BIN LADEN THROWS IN THE TOWEL; HANDS HIMSELF OVER TO U.S.
Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer has just learned that al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden has "given up the war" against Western imperialism. He handed himself over to U.S. forces stationed in Puerto Rico. "You idiots thought I was in Afghanistan the whole time. All the while I was sunning myself right under your noses. Well, I'm giving up because I just don't feel like fighting anymore, not because you beat me. I need a break."
Mr. bin Laden spoke for al-Qaeda when he said that there was "no point" fighting against the United States any longer. "We keep on killing you and you just keep shopping. No matter how many people we blow up, you never change. What's the point? I'm sick of banging my head against the wall trying to convince you guys that you're not living right. Oh well; I'll sign whatever you want me to sign."
Commanding American general Raymond D. Odierno accepted Mr. bin Laden's surrender. He also demanded that Mr. bin Laden sign a peace treaty with the United States. "We end wars with treaties," explained General Odierno.
Under the treaty--informally named the Chillocothe Protocol of 2009 after a town in Ohio (for no particular reason)--Mr. bin Laden admits that he started the War on Terror and that he lost. He also admits that he is responsible for property damage exceeding $5.00 worldwide. The treaty provides that Mr. bin Laden and al-Qaeda will pay compensation for starting the war, as well as apologize to the San Francisco Fire Department for forcing its members to undergo additional disaster training. Mr. bin Laden further agrees to help Larry Silverstein--owner of the World Trade Center real estate--find a suitable new property for his commercial ventures. In short, Mr. bin Laden promises that he will not be a terrorist anymore. Rather, he promises to meaningfully contribute to the American economy.
For his part, Mr. bin Laden said that it was getting "tiresome" fighting U.S. Forces abroad. "They invaded our homelands, they defiled Mecca and they killed our families with cruise missiles. We tried to hit back at them, but they just keep coming. We wanted to show that they were Western barbarians obsessed with profit and oil. But no matter how many civilians and soldiers we killed, they just kept going to Wal-Mart without fear. You have no idea how frustrating it is to dedicate yourself to terrorism, and after 10 years Americans still aren't afraid. Does Kanye West look scared? How about Tom Brady? Dick Cheney? They're more afraid of the IRS than me. True, I suppose I've made some Americans' lives difficult by forcing them to endure strip searches and long lines at airports, but that wasn't my intention. I wanted to show the Americans that they are wrong about life. I've failed: They still just want to make money, go to the movies, eat fast food, watch Sunday sports broadcasts and purchase homes. Well, I suppose if you can't beat them, might as well join them. I give up. Screw it. Most of them will die of obesity-related illnesses anyway."
American authorities are pleased that Mr. bin Laden has proven so cooperative with U.S demands. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Mr. bin Laden for his "extraordinary efforts to comply with American requirements:" "Mr. bin Laden even agreed to convert to Christianity and celebrate Christmas with the Metropolitan Baltimore Caroling Society. He has agreed to buy Wii home entertainment systems for low-income children in the Bronx. In short, Mr. bin Laden has gone from villain to Santa Claus overnight. What an astonishing turnaround."
Despite Mr. bin Laden's agreement to cooperate with the United States, American authorities worry what his al-Qaeda followers will do now that he has surrendered. Thankfully, many former al-Qaeda operatives--including previously undiscovered "sleeper" agents both in the U.S. and abroad--have voluntarily given up and agreed to convert to Christianity. Like their leader, these operatives agree that fighting the United States is a hopeless cause. Many--including suspected mass murderer Mohammad Zazabi--have even agreed to abandon terrorism and work in the private sector. Mr. Zazabi even said that he was willing to wear an elf costume this Christmas season and hand out free perfume at Macy's in New York City. "If I cannot kill them, I will provide them fragrant waters. I will now show that I, too, can be someone in America," he said.
Hollywood celebrities are overjoyed that al-Qaeda has surrendered. "The War on Terror is over," said Zac Efron. "Let's welcome our new friends into our lives." Mr. Efron said that Disney has already begun planning a musical based on Mr. bin Laden's surrender in which Mr. bin Laden will meet the cast of High School Musical and dance several numbers, including: "I Used to Terrorize, Now I Just Texticize LOLLERS," and sing the solo "Tora Bora No More-A More-A."
Mr. bin Laden is a busier man now than he ever was as al-Qaeda's shadowy leader. He now has a schedule packed with interviews, book signings, university commencement speeches and motivational talks about leadership with Fortune 500 corporate boards. He is even slated to appear on FOX News as a Middle Eastern commentator.
"He knows what he's talking about," said Bill O'Reilly of his new colleague. "I can let bygones be bygones. Osama told me he doesn't like Obama, so he's OK in my boat."
"I am a rational man," Mr. bin Laden said during treaty negotiations. "I know when a cause is hopeless. Americans do not respond to terrorism, so I will not be a terrorist anymore. I'm a result-oriented person; I'm not going to play a losing game. I abandon strategies that don't work. Instead, I will just get with the program and pursue more profitable endeavors."
Mr. bin Laden's remarks about "results," "profit" and "winning strategies" won him kudos from industry leaders nationwide. "Part of winning means giving up on losing," said J. Ferguson Bradworth, CFO of Schluck Pharmaceuticals Co., Inc.
Friday, October 16, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
GAY REPUBLICANS' MORAL ALLIANCE TO STOP SODOMY AND NON-PROCREATIVE SEXUAL CONTACT FOR ALL TIME
POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD
By : Mr. A. Long Wiener, Ph.D. (Harvard Divinity School), M.P.H., Party Spokesman and Director of Moral Arguments; Charter Member, Gay Men’s Association for the Restoration of Sodomy Laws and the Common Law Prosecution of Lewdness Offenses; Atheist.
Morality does not distinguish between Democrats and Republicans. It does not distinguish between gay and straight. Bad behavior is bad no matter whether a gay Republican or a patriotic Democrat engages in it. Stealing, rape and theft are bad whether the perpetrator is Protestant, Catholic, Mongolian or Native American. Morality does not judge the man; it judges the conduct. There is some conduct in this world that is fundamentally wrong because it is disgusting. It also violates God’s law and the natural order. I am talking about sodomy. In America today, State governments no longer prosecute sodomy as they did in the past. In our view, this is a colossal mistake. By permitting sodomy, America is descending into godless infamy. As gay Republicans, we are committed to the greater good. We are determined to restore harsh common law criminal penalties for sodomy. Although these penalties will disproportionately fall upon us, we are willing to suffer to advance America down the path to righteousness.
Sodomy is evil because it is unnatural and transgresses God’s law. The Apostle Paul said: “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” Romans 1 : 26-27. God is not the only one who condemns sodomy as an “error” deserving “due penalty.” Our wise common law ancestors in Great Britain also forbade sodomy in the harshest terms. Courts in 18th Century England sentenced “sodomites” to death by hanging. See, e.g., Rex v. Griffin (C.C.C. 1726). They also publicly castigated sodomites for engaging in “beastly” conduct “to the disgrace of Human Nature,” “to the Displeasure of Almighty God,” and “not fit to be named.” These wise English jurists labeled convicted sodomites “degenerated Miscreants from the Race of Men…moved by the instigation of the Devil” who “did not have the fear of God before their eyes.”
Our Nation proudly follows the common law in virtually every legal field, from contract to tort to property and criminal law. Our common law ancestors knew what they were talking about. We should listen to them about sodomy, too.
But who listens? Last year, America forsook righteousness and elected a Mohammedan President to the White House: Barack Hussein Obama. This man professes love and tolerance for all Americans, whether black, white, Asian, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or Pagan. He promised to “expand liberty” for traditionally unpopular groups, such as homosexuals and paupers. He publicly praised an abhorrent Supreme Court decision that abolished sodomy laws in the United States: Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). In short, Obama has endorsed sodomy. He considers it “normal,” despite a compelling common law tradition to the contrary. He feels no moral qualms about allowing two men to commit abominable acts “not fit to be named” in the United States. He professes to follow God’s Commandments, but any ruler who permits sodomy in his realm is no true believer. He says that “liberty” guaranteed under the United States Constitution means the “freedom to make intimate life decisions and to determine one’s own bodily integrity without undue governmental restraint on moral grounds.” According to this perverse argument, Obama certifies genital sin of the worst sort.
This is a dangerous commitment. Obama says he supports liberty. Liberty to do what? To engage in conduct “instigated by the devil” and deserving “due penalty” under God’s law? No matter what Obama thinks “liberty” means in the United States Constitution, we know beyond doubt that God does not allow men to commit sodomy. Both Scripture and common law tradition forbid “unnatural intercourse” between members of the same sex. Just because the Constitution permits something does not mean it is consistent with God’s law. In a sense, Obama is encouraging Americans to violate God’s law by misleading them with false hopes about “constitutional liberty.” In so doing, Obama wages war against God and leads Americans to damnation. As gay Republicans, we are aghast. We demand that President Obama renounce his support for “the liberty to commit sodomy.” We demand common law penalties for sodomy. If the Supreme Court strikes down these penalties, we insist that Congress pass a constitutional amendment providing special protection for sodomy laws. We can no longer tolerate a Constitution that permits Americans to willfully violate God’s law. Our government is assisting the Devil. It is encouraging Americans to make choices that will send them to Hell. Government has a duty not only to protect America from Muslim terrorism and crime, but also to ensure that they find their way to salvation in Christ. Yet Obama is not doing this. His support for sodomy will condemn countless Americans to the everlasting Pit. This is not “Change We Can Believe In.” Put bluntly, Obama’s “liberty” will deliver countless Americans into Satan’s hands. As gay Republicans, we cannot allow this to happen.
“Liberty” does not mean the freedom to engage in non-procreative sexual activity. God says that human beings may only engage in sex in order to beget children. This is the healthy approach to sex. Carnal pleasure cannot provide a motivation for natural sexual intercourse between men and women. Every sexual encounter must be calculated to yield a child in Jesus’ name. God wants new followers. And he is watching you to make sure you are having sex for the right reasons. He knows why you have sex. Whenever you have sex for some reason other than producing a child, you sin. Whenever you place your genitals in a place other than a place reasonably calculated to fertilize a woman’s egg, you commit sodomy. There are two inquiries relevant to God’s law in sexual matters: (1) Why are you having sex?; and (2) Where are you putting your genitals? If you are having sex to please yourself, with no intention to fertilize an egg and expand God’s kingdom, you betray the Lord our God. If you place your genitals in your hand, in a mouth, in an ear, in an anus, on a thigh, on a windowsill, on a car seat or in a dog, you commit sodomy, be the dog male or female. God knows what you do and why you do it. No one escape’s God’s glance. No one deceives God. Americans are God’s people. They must follow God’s word. They cannot follow God’s word when their President encourages and allows them to have sex for the wrong reasons. Proper sex is about the intent to create children. Without the right intent, sex is sin. As gay Republicans, we are shocked that President Obama actually encourages Americans to engage in sin that will land them in Hell.
We refuse to fall into Obama’s trap. We refuse to allow America to slide into moral degradation and squalor. To win the war on sodomy and immorality, we must withdraw all legal protection for sodomy and unnatural sex. Although man’s law does not necessarily serve God’s law, we must provide an earthly incentive to comply with God’s law. If men and women fear to engage in sodomy because they know man’s law will punish their bodies for it, they will likely refrain from conduct that angers God. Sodomites and sinful flesh worshippers know only bodily sensation. The law can affect their bodies by torturing and killing them. These sinners will respect laws that threaten to harm their bodies. In so doing, man’s law will serve God by making it less likely that men and women will have sex for improper reasons.
Tradition supports this position. Until 2003, many American States maintained criminal penalties for sodomy. Prior to that, every Western Nation condemned sodomy in the harshest terms. Even Germany forbade it until 1994. See Criminal Code § 175. In that light, we reject the argument that “evolving standards of acceptable behavior” render sodomy an antiquated crime. States only abolished criminal penalties for sodomy because Godless lobbyists and homosexual infiltrators secretly bribed legislators to repeal the statutes. For centuries before that, sodomy was both a crime and a sin. There is no good reason not to make it a crime again. In fact, by punishing sodomy, we protect our citizens from eternal damnation and wretched carnal delights. In America, we have no time for delight. As God’s people, we must keep our minds focused upon God, not ourselves. No matter how nice it would be to have an orgasm without a resulting child, we must suppress that urge for God and country. Tradition works. America evolved from a colonial backwater into the world’s preeminent military and economic power while criminalizing sodomy. Let us return to our roots. Let us keep God before our eyes as we make our way into a new century.
As gay Republicans, we are aware that criminalizing sodomy will bar our only sexual outlet. We are also aware that the Apostle says we are: “[F]illed with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness [and] malice.” Romans 1 : 29. He also says that we: “[K]now God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die.” Id. at 1 : 32. Nonetheless, we are prepared to sacrifice our own pleasure for the common good. After all, we make up only a “relatively small fraction of the population.” See Judge Richard A. Posner, Becker-Posner Blog, Internet Matching – Posner’s Comment, March 22, 2009, at http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/03/. True, we are largely deviants with hypersexual impulses, “idiosyncratic tastes” and a penchant to rape children. But we are also principled Republican thinkers. We realize that our own forbearance will save this Nation from damnation, immorality and vice. Our own spiritual misery is insignificant compared to the benefits we will bestow upon the country by restoring traditional common law death penalties for sodomy. We have the capacity to use our reason, despite the maddening passions that draw us to commit genital abominations with other men and mammals. We will persevere because we are bold gay Republicans. We will not fall into Obama’s trap. We reject constitutional liberty because constitutional liberty gives refuge to the Devil. We prefer to placate God than to defend man’s perverted law. Although our service will transform us into bitter, sex-starved maniacs, we will show the world the measure of our resolve. We care about America. We are willing to punish ourselves for America. We are willing to make ourselves into pariahs to save souls. We are even willing to suffer the ultimate legal punishment if we transgress.
We are honorable gay Republicans. We will stop all sodomy and non-procreative sexual contact for all time. Through our sacrifice—and even through our executions—we will guarantee that every orgasm in this country results in a new citizen. And in so doing, we will restore morality to these troubled United States, no matter what damage Hussein Obama inflicts upon them.
Monday, April 20, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
CHRISTIANS' CLUB AGAINST ALL MUSLIM COMMUNIST HOMOSEXUAL IMMIGRANTS
POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD
By : Bishop Msgr. Theodore A. Gates, Spiritual Leader & Honorary Prince of Tolerance at the Church of Christ’s Hope, Newark, N.J.
Jesus told us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Matthew 22:36-40. All good Christians observe this fundamental teaching. We love our fellow man. We respect him for who he is. We do not judge, lest we be judged. Matthew 7:1-5. Yet we do not inhabit a perfect world. As American Christians, we must remember Christ. But we must also remember that we are Americans.
In times past, strong Christian Americans transformed this country from a backwater outpost into the world’s most powerful industrial power. They did this because they believed in Christ and worked hard in His holy Name. Christian Americans asked for nothing and gave everything. Today, however, America faces dangers on all sides. Racial equality, social welfare programs, Muslim terrorism, sexual abomination and now a black President threaten to destroy the very foundations upon which good Christians built this land. Every day, more and more immigrants overrun our borders, flooding our schools and institutions with millions of ill-educated, popish Hispanic criminals. Every day, fewer and fewer Americans speak English. Even in government buildings, there are more signs in Spanish than in the language in which the Constitution was written.
Paul the Apostle told us: “Vengeance is mine, and I shall repay.” Romans 12:19-21. That means there is no need for earthly justice, because the Lord will avenge all injustice in the hereafter. While we respect the Apostle’s teaching, we cannot sit idly by while Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants defile the United States of America. We must take action now—and that means standing boldly against these devilspawn.
Many infiltrators threaten our country. But no group is more devious than Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants. Muslims are evil because they renounce Christ and because they commit terrorist acts intended to disrupt the American order. Communists are evil because they renounce the Christian spirit of free enterprise and private property that provides an incentive for thrifty Christians to work and save. Homosexuals are evil because they commit horrific sodomies and blasphemies through shameful lust. Additionally, homosexuals anally rape and murder children, violating the Commandments. Finally, immigrants are evil because they were not born in the United States and they come to this country to steal jobs and to seduce young American maidens with Latin charms.
Each group is evil for its own reasons. In combination, however, they pose a truly dangerous threat. A communist may pose a threat alone, but a Homosexual Communist poses a worse one. Similarly, a Muslim Immigrant may seriously threaten Homeland Security, but a Muslim Communist Immigrant poses a worse threat. After all, a Muslim only threatens America with terrorism. But a Muslim Homosexual threatens America with terrorism and filthy anal sex. In a similar way, a Communist Immigrant undermines American economic values with talk about “the equality of man” while filching State benefits and speaking Spanish. Yet nothing could be worse than a Communist Muslim Immigrant, who not only undermines the economy and steals State benefits, but also practices terrorism.
We, the Christians’ Club Against All Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants, refuse to surrender to evil. It is our public mission to inform everyone that the Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant threat is real; and we all have an interest in stopping it. If you care about your job, your children, your religion and your language, you will join hands with us to stop them—no matter the cost.
Some say that we stereotype. Critics label our party’s efforts “bigoted,” “shortsighted,” “racist,” “homophobic” and “simplistic.” They say that there are homosexuals who do not anally rape 9-year-olds, and that there are immigrants who learn English. They even tell us that not all Muslims are terrorists, and that not all communists conspire to overthrow the free market order.
We beg to differ. We believe that Muslims, Communists, Homosexuals and Immigrants all threaten America. We have never met a Muslim who does not secretly admire bin Laden or does not smile when he watches 9/11 footage. Additionally, if a critic tries to convince us that every homosexual has not anally raped a 9-year-old, we will show you a liar. Nor have we ever met an English-speaking immigrant, or a communist who did not wish to redistribute wealth to beggars. Put simply, if we trusted our critics, we would allow deviants to overrun the country. This is no time for tolerance; this is a time for national defense. This is the Christian way: Tolerance is wonderful; but when it threatens the church and its values, we the faithful must rise to defend it. Our Nation has taken one too many steps backward. Our party refuses to yield even a single inch to Muslims, Communists, Homosexuals and Immigrants.
Other critics say that there is no such thing as a Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant. Although we cannot precisely verify how many such “multi-layered evildoers” currently live in the United States, we know they are out there. And because they pose such a serious threat, we believe it is our duty to inform the public how to spot them. Our party believes in information. To that extent, we advise all Christian Americans to watch for: (1) Beards: Many Muslims wear beards. Consult a picture of Osama bin Laden or Khalid Sheik Mohammed for more information; (2) Prayer Rugs: Muslims carry Oriental rugs with them so they can kneel and worship their pagan Lord. If you see a bearded man carrying a rug, maintain your vigilance and call authorities immediately; (3) The Arabic Language: Muslims speak Arabic; if you think you hear this language, investigate to determine whether the subject is a Muslim; (4) Trendy Clothing: Communists wear funky, trendy clothes. If you spot a young person with hip jeans, a cool hoodie and/or an Obama button, chances are he is a communist; (5) Banners: Communists call for revolution with banners, placards and other visible media. If you see a person carrying such media, they are likely hostile to the free market; (6) Tight-fitting T-Shirts: Homosexuals are hopelessly vain. Tight-fitting T-shirts display their muscles; if you see such T-shirts, you might be dealing with a homosexual, especially if the T-Shirt is “Abercrombie & Fitch,” “Hollister” or otherwise contains an ironic saying, such as: “Middlebury High School Tight End Party ’97;” (7) Small Dogs: Many homosexuals have pets because they have companions, not wives. If you see a man with a Chihuahua or other small, dainty dog, be advised: It might be a homosexual; (8) Impossibly well-groomed skin, nails and eyebrows: Homosexuals meticulously maintain their physical appearance in their continuous effort to sodomize other men and boys. In that light, if you encounter a very good-looking man with fastidious appearance, you could be face-to-face with a homosexual; (9) The Spanish Language: Immigrants come from third-world countries, chiefly in Central and South America or the Caribbean. People from those backward lands speak Spanish, not English. Thus, when you hear Spanish, you should immediately consider whether the person is an immigrant bent upon claiming free State benefits; and (10) Bad shoes or socks: Immigrants come from outside the United States. Different countries produce strange-looking shoes and socks. You can spot an immigrant by looking for unfamiliar shoe brands (ie, “Que Bueno Zapatas”) or spotted, speckled or striped socks.
Based upon these characteristics, it is eminently possible to uncover Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants among us. If you see a bearded, well-dressed, perfumed, trendy-looking man with unfamiliar shoes carrying a rug and a bin Laden placard while wearing a tight-fitting Abercrombie & Fitch T-Shirt and conducting a cell phone conversation in Spanish but holding an Arabic newspaper and walking a small dog, you should alert the police at once.
If you are sick and tired of Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant tyranny, join a party that promises purity, not squalor. Put an end to damaging tolerance. Do the Christian thing. Join us today—because America is for Christian Americans, not Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants.
By : Bishop Msgr. Theodore A. Gates, Spiritual Leader & Honorary Prince of Tolerance at the Church of Christ’s Hope, Newark, N.J.
Jesus told us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Matthew 22:36-40. All good Christians observe this fundamental teaching. We love our fellow man. We respect him for who he is. We do not judge, lest we be judged. Matthew 7:1-5. Yet we do not inhabit a perfect world. As American Christians, we must remember Christ. But we must also remember that we are Americans.
In times past, strong Christian Americans transformed this country from a backwater outpost into the world’s most powerful industrial power. They did this because they believed in Christ and worked hard in His holy Name. Christian Americans asked for nothing and gave everything. Today, however, America faces dangers on all sides. Racial equality, social welfare programs, Muslim terrorism, sexual abomination and now a black President threaten to destroy the very foundations upon which good Christians built this land. Every day, more and more immigrants overrun our borders, flooding our schools and institutions with millions of ill-educated, popish Hispanic criminals. Every day, fewer and fewer Americans speak English. Even in government buildings, there are more signs in Spanish than in the language in which the Constitution was written.
Paul the Apostle told us: “Vengeance is mine, and I shall repay.” Romans 12:19-21. That means there is no need for earthly justice, because the Lord will avenge all injustice in the hereafter. While we respect the Apostle’s teaching, we cannot sit idly by while Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants defile the United States of America. We must take action now—and that means standing boldly against these devilspawn.
Many infiltrators threaten our country. But no group is more devious than Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants. Muslims are evil because they renounce Christ and because they commit terrorist acts intended to disrupt the American order. Communists are evil because they renounce the Christian spirit of free enterprise and private property that provides an incentive for thrifty Christians to work and save. Homosexuals are evil because they commit horrific sodomies and blasphemies through shameful lust. Additionally, homosexuals anally rape and murder children, violating the Commandments. Finally, immigrants are evil because they were not born in the United States and they come to this country to steal jobs and to seduce young American maidens with Latin charms.
Each group is evil for its own reasons. In combination, however, they pose a truly dangerous threat. A communist may pose a threat alone, but a Homosexual Communist poses a worse one. Similarly, a Muslim Immigrant may seriously threaten Homeland Security, but a Muslim Communist Immigrant poses a worse threat. After all, a Muslim only threatens America with terrorism. But a Muslim Homosexual threatens America with terrorism and filthy anal sex. In a similar way, a Communist Immigrant undermines American economic values with talk about “the equality of man” while filching State benefits and speaking Spanish. Yet nothing could be worse than a Communist Muslim Immigrant, who not only undermines the economy and steals State benefits, but also practices terrorism.
We, the Christians’ Club Against All Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants, refuse to surrender to evil. It is our public mission to inform everyone that the Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant threat is real; and we all have an interest in stopping it. If you care about your job, your children, your religion and your language, you will join hands with us to stop them—no matter the cost.
Some say that we stereotype. Critics label our party’s efforts “bigoted,” “shortsighted,” “racist,” “homophobic” and “simplistic.” They say that there are homosexuals who do not anally rape 9-year-olds, and that there are immigrants who learn English. They even tell us that not all Muslims are terrorists, and that not all communists conspire to overthrow the free market order.
We beg to differ. We believe that Muslims, Communists, Homosexuals and Immigrants all threaten America. We have never met a Muslim who does not secretly admire bin Laden or does not smile when he watches 9/11 footage. Additionally, if a critic tries to convince us that every homosexual has not anally raped a 9-year-old, we will show you a liar. Nor have we ever met an English-speaking immigrant, or a communist who did not wish to redistribute wealth to beggars. Put simply, if we trusted our critics, we would allow deviants to overrun the country. This is no time for tolerance; this is a time for national defense. This is the Christian way: Tolerance is wonderful; but when it threatens the church and its values, we the faithful must rise to defend it. Our Nation has taken one too many steps backward. Our party refuses to yield even a single inch to Muslims, Communists, Homosexuals and Immigrants.
Other critics say that there is no such thing as a Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant. Although we cannot precisely verify how many such “multi-layered evildoers” currently live in the United States, we know they are out there. And because they pose such a serious threat, we believe it is our duty to inform the public how to spot them. Our party believes in information. To that extent, we advise all Christian Americans to watch for: (1) Beards: Many Muslims wear beards. Consult a picture of Osama bin Laden or Khalid Sheik Mohammed for more information; (2) Prayer Rugs: Muslims carry Oriental rugs with them so they can kneel and worship their pagan Lord. If you see a bearded man carrying a rug, maintain your vigilance and call authorities immediately; (3) The Arabic Language: Muslims speak Arabic; if you think you hear this language, investigate to determine whether the subject is a Muslim; (4) Trendy Clothing: Communists wear funky, trendy clothes. If you spot a young person with hip jeans, a cool hoodie and/or an Obama button, chances are he is a communist; (5) Banners: Communists call for revolution with banners, placards and other visible media. If you see a person carrying such media, they are likely hostile to the free market; (6) Tight-fitting T-Shirts: Homosexuals are hopelessly vain. Tight-fitting T-shirts display their muscles; if you see such T-shirts, you might be dealing with a homosexual, especially if the T-Shirt is “Abercrombie & Fitch,” “Hollister” or otherwise contains an ironic saying, such as: “Middlebury High School Tight End Party ’97;” (7) Small Dogs: Many homosexuals have pets because they have companions, not wives. If you see a man with a Chihuahua or other small, dainty dog, be advised: It might be a homosexual; (8) Impossibly well-groomed skin, nails and eyebrows: Homosexuals meticulously maintain their physical appearance in their continuous effort to sodomize other men and boys. In that light, if you encounter a very good-looking man with fastidious appearance, you could be face-to-face with a homosexual; (9) The Spanish Language: Immigrants come from third-world countries, chiefly in Central and South America or the Caribbean. People from those backward lands speak Spanish, not English. Thus, when you hear Spanish, you should immediately consider whether the person is an immigrant bent upon claiming free State benefits; and (10) Bad shoes or socks: Immigrants come from outside the United States. Different countries produce strange-looking shoes and socks. You can spot an immigrant by looking for unfamiliar shoe brands (ie, “Que Bueno Zapatas”) or spotted, speckled or striped socks.
Based upon these characteristics, it is eminently possible to uncover Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants among us. If you see a bearded, well-dressed, perfumed, trendy-looking man with unfamiliar shoes carrying a rug and a bin Laden placard while wearing a tight-fitting Abercrombie & Fitch T-Shirt and conducting a cell phone conversation in Spanish but holding an Arabic newspaper and walking a small dog, you should alert the police at once.
If you are sick and tired of Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant tyranny, join a party that promises purity, not squalor. Put an end to damaging tolerance. Do the Christian thing. Join us today—because America is for Christian Americans, not Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
WITH MONEY AND CREDIT, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE
HAPPY HABITATS REAL ESTATE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
“Renting. Buying. Selling. Living. Your Way. Every Day.®”
“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
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
ANOTHER STINKING LAWYER
For the last few weeks, I have been following the Marc Dreier story in the New York Times--and not without a gleeful Schadenfreude. Watching a wealthy lawyer suffer for "acting like a lawyer" gives me great inward satisfaction. I ruthlessly satirize lawyers and their "profession." The Marc Dreier story provides happy corroboration for me. It lends credibility to my criticism. Now, if people claim that I am "too harsh" when criticizing lawyers for greed, superficiality, disngenuousness, glibness and moral bankruptcy, I must merely refer them to Marc Dreier.
Marc Dreier is--(well, "was")--a "top-notch" commercial litigator in New York. He went to Harvard Law School and made all the right moves in life. He founded his own firm in 1996 called Dreier LLP. Dreier LLP describes itself as "a unique group of talented lawyers and remarkable people who have joined in a professional enterprise vigorously dedicated to advancing our clients' objectives." Dreier LLP also says: "We believe the results have set our firm apart." Doesn't that sound nice? "Talented lawyers" and "remarkable people" acting in a "professional enterprise" to "vigorously advance" their clients' interests. And they "get results." How selfless.
What exactly do these "talented lawyers" do? What kinds of "results" set them apart? How about this one: Marc Dreier was recently arrested in Canada for attempting to defraud a Canadian Teachers' Pension fund in connection with a financing deal. Although the details are not clear, Dreier apparently impersonated someone in order to manipulate information that would have been important to know before doing the deal. In the process, Dreier was pocketing cash for himself. What a "remarkable person." What "great results." And what a "talented lawyer," too. Well, if he were more talented, he would not have gotten caught. There's a lesson for you, Marc.
But that was not Dreier's only "great result" in recent weeks. Specifically, it has come to light that Dreier personally defrauded dozens of New York real estate owners by selling them phoney promissory notes. Taking advantage of personal relationships he formed with several major investment houses, Dreier undertook to sell some "choice investment instruments" that actually did not exist. According to the New York Times, Dreier swindled up to $380 million from these deals. Again, a "talented lawyer" at work getting "results that set him apart." Nice one, Marc.
None of these monstrous allegations surprises me because I know what lawyers do. Lawyers are businessmen. They will resort to any means necessary to make a profit, even though they claim to "fight for justice." This "justice talk" is mere rhetoric. Lawyers ply the "law trade," which has nothing to do with intuitive justice or natural notions of right and wrong. The "law trade" concerns only technical compliance with dizzying external rules, standards and protocols. At times those rules are consistent with justice. At times they are not. But as long as a lawyer gets the "result" his client wants, he has done his job--justice or no justice. The lawyer inhabits a world dominated by petty rules and profit-seeking. There is nothing spiritual or inwardly uplifting about it. It is a world of property, money and profit. These are external matters. This is the law's province. As Martin Luther said: "The temporal government has laws that extend no further than to life and property and external affairs on earth." On Governmental Authority (1523). It is a vacuous, unfulfilling, cruel and twisted world where principle means nothing unless it can win a case.
Marc Dreier was a "successful lawyer" because he shrewdly used the law to enrich himself. He selectively used the law for maximum financial gain. In the process, he obtained "results" for his clients that "set him apart" from his competitors. With those "results," obviously his clients liked the way he worked, too. By successfully manipulating legal standards, Dreier became a "top lawyer." But what does that mean? After all, to be a top lawyer is to be a master of only "life, property and external affairs on earth." To be a top lawyer does not require inner strength, conscience, spirit, conviction or belief. Lawyers believe only what they must in order to win cases; they need not have abiding personal beliefs about anything. In fact, lawyers typify everything "un-spiritual" in life. Martin Luther put it best when he sharply distinguished between "men of faith" and "lawyers, ceremonialists and legalists." Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (1535). In other words, you can either have faith, belief and conscience, or you can be a lawyer. The choice is yours.
My satires target lawyers for all these reasons. There is a great deal more to life than maniacally pursuing property and success, yet this is generally what lawyers do. Worse, lawyers thrive on disputes over property and success. They "creatively" apply rules calculated to win property or to defend it. They know that men squabble bitterly over property, and they resort to any argument needed to win their fights. In essence, lawyers are little more than one-dimensional, spiritually-vacuous brawlers, yet they set themselves on a higher plane than everyone else. They cloak their vacuousness in nice suits and fancy language. They say they have a "profession," but all they really do is play with words in order to make or save money. There is nothing grandiose or spiritually rewarding about that. In Luther's terms, lawyers are quintessentially "of the world" because they fanatically dedicate themselves to "life, property and external affairs on earth." And most significantly, "the world is God's enemy." On Governmental Authority (1523).
What does Luther mean here? Certainly he was writing at a time when most people fervently believed in God. But whether you believe in God or not, Luther's rhetoric has continued strength. Luther makes his points through dualities. He draws striking contrasts between concepts in order to illuminate basic arguments. His distinction between "the world" and "God" has particular relevance in my analysis against lawyers. If the "world" means "life, property and external human affairs," then "God" must mean all those questions beyond earthly life and its property rules. "God" means conscience, faith, internal belief, spiritual well-being and intuitive justice beyond written law. If we do not have "belief and faith," we "become lawyers." That means we descend into "the world."
Marc Dreier epitomizes the dangers lawyers face through unwavering dedication to "world." Without conscience, belief, faith and spiritual well-being, there is nothing but property, wealth and bodily satisfaction. Because the "law trade" draws only on written rules and standards governing life, property and external human affairs, lawyers need not use their conscience to answer questions. They must merely comply with written standards. It is eminently possible to effectively comply with written rules without complying with justice. This is how Marc Dreier became a "successful lawyer." He simply became reckless, so that even his compatriots in "the world" recognized his deception. But Marc Dreier is a product of a spiritless "profession." It should therefore not be surprising that he acted the way he did, because lawyers win success when they ignore conscience rather than observe it. And because lawyers manipulate rules to defend property, it is understandable that they use the same rules to enrich themselves. It is all they know. They are "respected" for their "success," and this encourages them to take more and more chances.
Justice rarely appears in life, let alone the law. But happily, sometimes it does. Marc Dreier is reaping the consequences of his myopic dedication to "the world." Despite all his "success" and "talent" in the law, his failure to incorporate conscience into his existence has landed him in hot water. Still, I do not think that many "successful lawyers" will learn from Dreier's ordeal. They will merely adjust their practices to avoid detection. After all, lawyers inhabit a world where written rules solve every problem. They will simply keep their behavior within the rules, even if they completely trample the spirit behind those rules.
Marc Dreier is--(well, "was")--a "top-notch" commercial litigator in New York. He went to Harvard Law School and made all the right moves in life. He founded his own firm in 1996 called Dreier LLP. Dreier LLP describes itself as "a unique group of talented lawyers and remarkable people who have joined in a professional enterprise vigorously dedicated to advancing our clients' objectives." Dreier LLP also says: "We believe the results have set our firm apart." Doesn't that sound nice? "Talented lawyers" and "remarkable people" acting in a "professional enterprise" to "vigorously advance" their clients' interests. And they "get results." How selfless.
What exactly do these "talented lawyers" do? What kinds of "results" set them apart? How about this one: Marc Dreier was recently arrested in Canada for attempting to defraud a Canadian Teachers' Pension fund in connection with a financing deal. Although the details are not clear, Dreier apparently impersonated someone in order to manipulate information that would have been important to know before doing the deal. In the process, Dreier was pocketing cash for himself. What a "remarkable person." What "great results." And what a "talented lawyer," too. Well, if he were more talented, he would not have gotten caught. There's a lesson for you, Marc.
But that was not Dreier's only "great result" in recent weeks. Specifically, it has come to light that Dreier personally defrauded dozens of New York real estate owners by selling them phoney promissory notes. Taking advantage of personal relationships he formed with several major investment houses, Dreier undertook to sell some "choice investment instruments" that actually did not exist. According to the New York Times, Dreier swindled up to $380 million from these deals. Again, a "talented lawyer" at work getting "results that set him apart." Nice one, Marc.
None of these monstrous allegations surprises me because I know what lawyers do. Lawyers are businessmen. They will resort to any means necessary to make a profit, even though they claim to "fight for justice." This "justice talk" is mere rhetoric. Lawyers ply the "law trade," which has nothing to do with intuitive justice or natural notions of right and wrong. The "law trade" concerns only technical compliance with dizzying external rules, standards and protocols. At times those rules are consistent with justice. At times they are not. But as long as a lawyer gets the "result" his client wants, he has done his job--justice or no justice. The lawyer inhabits a world dominated by petty rules and profit-seeking. There is nothing spiritual or inwardly uplifting about it. It is a world of property, money and profit. These are external matters. This is the law's province. As Martin Luther said: "The temporal government has laws that extend no further than to life and property and external affairs on earth." On Governmental Authority (1523). It is a vacuous, unfulfilling, cruel and twisted world where principle means nothing unless it can win a case.
Marc Dreier was a "successful lawyer" because he shrewdly used the law to enrich himself. He selectively used the law for maximum financial gain. In the process, he obtained "results" for his clients that "set him apart" from his competitors. With those "results," obviously his clients liked the way he worked, too. By successfully manipulating legal standards, Dreier became a "top lawyer." But what does that mean? After all, to be a top lawyer is to be a master of only "life, property and external affairs on earth." To be a top lawyer does not require inner strength, conscience, spirit, conviction or belief. Lawyers believe only what they must in order to win cases; they need not have abiding personal beliefs about anything. In fact, lawyers typify everything "un-spiritual" in life. Martin Luther put it best when he sharply distinguished between "men of faith" and "lawyers, ceremonialists and legalists." Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (1535). In other words, you can either have faith, belief and conscience, or you can be a lawyer. The choice is yours.
My satires target lawyers for all these reasons. There is a great deal more to life than maniacally pursuing property and success, yet this is generally what lawyers do. Worse, lawyers thrive on disputes over property and success. They "creatively" apply rules calculated to win property or to defend it. They know that men squabble bitterly over property, and they resort to any argument needed to win their fights. In essence, lawyers are little more than one-dimensional, spiritually-vacuous brawlers, yet they set themselves on a higher plane than everyone else. They cloak their vacuousness in nice suits and fancy language. They say they have a "profession," but all they really do is play with words in order to make or save money. There is nothing grandiose or spiritually rewarding about that. In Luther's terms, lawyers are quintessentially "of the world" because they fanatically dedicate themselves to "life, property and external affairs on earth." And most significantly, "the world is God's enemy." On Governmental Authority (1523).
What does Luther mean here? Certainly he was writing at a time when most people fervently believed in God. But whether you believe in God or not, Luther's rhetoric has continued strength. Luther makes his points through dualities. He draws striking contrasts between concepts in order to illuminate basic arguments. His distinction between "the world" and "God" has particular relevance in my analysis against lawyers. If the "world" means "life, property and external human affairs," then "God" must mean all those questions beyond earthly life and its property rules. "God" means conscience, faith, internal belief, spiritual well-being and intuitive justice beyond written law. If we do not have "belief and faith," we "become lawyers." That means we descend into "the world."
Marc Dreier epitomizes the dangers lawyers face through unwavering dedication to "world." Without conscience, belief, faith and spiritual well-being, there is nothing but property, wealth and bodily satisfaction. Because the "law trade" draws only on written rules and standards governing life, property and external human affairs, lawyers need not use their conscience to answer questions. They must merely comply with written standards. It is eminently possible to effectively comply with written rules without complying with justice. This is how Marc Dreier became a "successful lawyer." He simply became reckless, so that even his compatriots in "the world" recognized his deception. But Marc Dreier is a product of a spiritless "profession." It should therefore not be surprising that he acted the way he did, because lawyers win success when they ignore conscience rather than observe it. And because lawyers manipulate rules to defend property, it is understandable that they use the same rules to enrich themselves. It is all they know. They are "respected" for their "success," and this encourages them to take more and more chances.
Justice rarely appears in life, let alone the law. But happily, sometimes it does. Marc Dreier is reaping the consequences of his myopic dedication to "the world." Despite all his "success" and "talent" in the law, his failure to incorporate conscience into his existence has landed him in hot water. Still, I do not think that many "successful lawyers" will learn from Dreier's ordeal. They will merely adjust their practices to avoid detection. After all, lawyers inhabit a world where written rules solve every problem. They will simply keep their behavior within the rules, even if they completely trample the spirit behind those rules.
Monday, December 8, 2008
SEX IS STUPID
AN ESSAY
Have you ever thought about how ridiculous sexual contact is? Do not mistake me for a moralist; I am anything but a moralist. I am not advocating celibacy, abstinence or any other tisk-tisk doctrine that assumes “sex is bad.” I do not think sex is “bad;” I just think it is stupid. I use the word “stupid” here to abstractly refer to the whole physical and mental enterprise surrounding sex. And I do not limit my comments to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals or asexuals. All sex is stupid, no matter how you slice it.
Why do I say this? Just look at the act itself. When you are in a calm, rational mental state, the idea of two naked people locked in a steamy embrace stimulating one another’s bodies seems patently absurd. Millennia of ingrained societal shame will likely even make the thought uncomfortable to you, but today I do not discuss the crushing moral weight associated with human sexual behavior. Today I merely venture that—viewed in the abstract—sexual contact is utterly stupid. I say this because sexual contact stands in fundamental opposition to humankind’s rational propensities.
For better or worse, human beings are generally rational. Throughout our lives, we learn to be polite, to interact cordially with other people and to calmly reflect on issues with cool reason. Education reinforces reason. We learn to discipline our minds to complete discrete intellectual tasks in a relatively dispassionate manner. We learn that successfully applying our reason will lead to success in life. “Great men,” we learned, accomplished their feats because they had unique ideas and applied them wisely. Their minds and their reason made them great, not their crude instincts.
Yet this whole culture of reason conveniently ignores humanity’s less ornate qualities. No matter how much we may learn that dispassionate mental effort may solve any practical problem, human beings are not ethereal creatures. They are mammals. They are in the same biological category as bulls, sheep, baboons and horses. They have warm blood, body hair and—most significantly here—reproduce sexually. Human beings do not propagate themselves by erudition and logic. They propagate themselves by sex. Metaphysical speculations aside, this is “just the way it is.” Sex is necessary for human existence. Without it, the species would vanish.
Sex is undoubtedly important. But that does not save it from being stupid. Many stupid things are important. Sex grips us as strongly as hunger; we cannot completely ignore it. Sex is insistent, despite what any social convention or stern moral teaching says about it. It conflicts violently with our cool reason, upending the stately rationality we were taught to treasure. In a sense, sex reminds us that we are not as splendid as we like to think. We may have developed calculus, traveled to the moon and created the internet, but we have never escaped our itching desire to get naked with people we find attractive. This may sound crass, but it accurately illustrates the endless conflict between reason and sex. In the Nineteenth Century, modest English writers called the sex drive “the passions.” I aim to be slightly more direct.
When we genuinely engage our reason, sex is the last thing on our minds. Reason wants to understand truths and realities in the world, and we cannot understand subtle truths when base mammalian impulses cloud our minds. In this sense, I think sex is stupid because it makes us drop worthier goals in order to frivolously lock bodies with other people. When the sex drive activates, all worthier goals fade into obscurity. When sex insists, it does not tolerate second billing. It must be placated before it allows a person to resume a more creative enterprise. Thus, while reason may have given humanity its greatest achievements, sex overcomes reason every day. A rational mind moves deliberately from one thought to the next, using sense and memory to formulate reasonable conclusions. But sex can derail that deliberate movement. It bludgeons the mind with forceful physical demands. It triggers emotional engagement, making clear thought impossible. Unlike reason, sexual instinct can trigger genuine physiological reactions in the human body, from higher blood pressure to a faster heartbeat to flushing and perspiration. Reason draws its strength from bodily detachment. Sex, by contrast, draws its strength from bodily engagement. Bodily engagement is coarse and unspectacular. There is nothing novel or memorable about it. That is just another reason why sex is stupid.
In many ways, human beings are slaves to their own bodies. Bodily demands trigger physical pain and pleasure; that is why everyone must attend to them. No one wants to feel pain and everyone wants to experience pleasure. By contrast, reason implicates no real bodily demands. It does not “hurt” when we use reason to answer an intellectual problem, nor do we experience genuine “pleasure” when our reason gives us insight. Pure reason may make us feel mildly “pleased,” but that is not the same as activating the bodily machinery that literally creates pleasurable sensations in the brain. Sex directly engages the bodily machinery that releases the most pleasurable sensations available to human beings without external chemical interference. From a biological perspective, this is only natural, because it behooves the species to link reproduction with the most pleasurable activity available. In that light, sex provides a direct biological incentive to reproduce.
But this brings us to a dangerous intersection between sex and reason, namely: Human beings are the only creatures on earth that can combine their reason with the pursuit of pleasure. Because humans have more detailed memories than any other organism, they remember how good sex feels. Using their reason upon their memories, they transform sex into something much more than a mere reproductive reflex; they pursue it as a freestanding activity. They fantasize about it and long for it. They want to isolate the pleasurable sensations it brings. This is a dangerous combination, because once the sex drive activates, it triggers a whole range of irrational fantasies, memories and hopes, which in turn can lead a person into a frenzy. This not only overcomes reason; it leads to purely irrational behavior that wastes time. Humans, therefore, have a uniquely problematic relationship to sex because they do not view sex as a purely reproductive reflex. Rather, sex is a “pleasure talisman” that offers escape from a pleasureless world. In that sense, sex is stupid because it costs human beings countless unrequited hours seeking an ideal that they will never find.
Humans doubtlessly mix reason with sex. Through fantasy, they inadvertently make their sex drive stronger and more overwhelming. Animals in the field apparently do not fantasize. They come into sexual contact, get it over with and go back to grazing. Not so with humans. Humans attempt to tailor their sexual behavior to suit the fantasies they have created in their own minds. In so doing, they transform a simple biological activity into a nightmarish lifelong affliction. They almost never truly satisfy it. Additionally, humans combine their reason with sex in even more pernicious ways, including the desire to prove power through sexual encounters. For one reason or another, human beings view sex as an opportunity to assert dominance over other individuals. They feel good about themselves when they manage to have sex with a person because they have “conquered” the person. That has nothing to do with reproduction or reflex; rather, it implicates much more profound psychological issues. In its worst form, this “power principle” in human sexuality leads to outright violence: Rape. In my estimation, this is just another reason why sex is stupid.
Rape is an extreme example of the mental tortures spawned by human sexuality. But there are other, more subtle tortures that accompany sex. Human reason thrives on notions of ownership. Reason struggles to devise logical systems that delineate individual dominion over things. This human preoccupation with ownership influences sexual thought. After all, reason links sex with ownership. That is why there is so much jealously associated with human sexual relationships: If one person has sex with another, he has “claimed” his partner; and he will not tolerate “encroachments” on his “property.” This jealousy, in turn, can lead to violence. Until recent decades, the law even condoned violence in these circumstances. In England, courts actually permitted aggrieved husbands to kill their wives if they found their wives in bed with another man. This deplorable “legalized murder” reflects the basic psychological premise that sex creates an extremely sensitive “property interest” that can lead to brutal violence whenever an intruder trespasses upon it. This is exceedingly stupid.
Sex also leads to extremely negative emotions. Because so few people ever reach their sexual ideals, they become embittered and frustrated. Many people measure their self-esteem according to their ability to have sex with partners they find desirable. If they do not reach their goals, they experience disappointment. Repeated disappointment leads to disillusion and despair, as well as a feeling of worthlessness.
In short, human beings put themselves through countless emotional difficulties for something as stupid as sex. Why endure jealously, bitterness, violence, unrequited craving, despair and frenzy for something as silly as a naked embrace? Are these base biological impulses that overwhelming? Unfortunately, I believe they are. I have no real answers here. I can only say that human beings are cursed with strong irrational impulses and the capacity to reason. Although reason and sex normally exclude one another, in many instances reason heightens sexual desire. And when sexual desire seizes the mind, it can lead to absurd decisions, jealousy, wasted time and even violence. Human beings may perform their best while applying reason, but reason loses to sex almost every day.
Many people understand that sex can wield a damaging influence on human behavior. Over the centuries, religious thinkers attempted to use reason and faith to overcome the sex drive. In extreme cases, ascetics physically punished themselves for their own bodily desires. They attempted to master their own bodies by sheer will power. They refused to allow their bodies to make their decisions for them. They wanted to show that their faith and their minds could overcome any bodily impulse. Ascetics wanted to maintain their focus on more refined human capacities, not the base ones. That may have been a noble goal, but in the end they spent most of their time punishing themselves rather than using reason to create great works. No ascetic ever defeats desire with reason or discipline; desire will always assert itself.
For my part, I would be happy if reason were all I needed to survive in life. But I do not punish myself simply because my body makes demands on me. I think sex is stupid because it takes me away from much more meaningful pursuits. Nonetheless, I do not turn away from it. I do not try to put it down or ignore it. That only worsens the insistence. Instead, I simply recognize that sex is stupid but important. I attend to it when I must, just as I eat a meal when I must. I do not allow it to make my decisions for me, but at the same time I do not deny its influence. Christian theologians called this influence “sin.” Yet the same theologians taught that Jesus Christ will absorb all your inherent “sinfulness” as long as you believe that he died for that purpose. In that sense, they understood that sex will inevitably influence people.
Sin or no sin, sex is unavoidable because it is the means by which our species reproduces. It is central to human existence. Yet it has assumed a bizarre influence in our lives beyond reproduction because—unlike other mammals—we have the unique power to reason. Reason leads to a parallel mental world filled with fantasy and expectation. In short, I find it amazing that such pervasive psychological structures have evolved around an activity as ridiculous as two naked people caressing each other. Ridiculous or not, we must contend with it in life. By understanding sex in those terms, it is possible to maintain our reason without descending into mental chaos.
There are many stupid and banal things in life. But we have to deal with them nonetheless. I find it most effective to calmly analyze problems and apply my analysis to them as faithfully as possible. On the sex question, I find it sufficient to honestly examine my own thoughts without external moral baggage. After all, sex is pedestrian. It is not difficult to decipher what goes on when the sex drive activates, just as it is not difficult to decipher what goes on when your stomach growls. For many, the task would be easier if deeply-ingrained moral teachings had not corrupted all honest inquiries into sexual questions. Without addressing those teachings in detail, suffice it to say that “morality” prohibits many people from honestly discussing sex. I am not among them. Perhaps in a later essay I will take up those moral inhibitors. But for today it is enough to say that, in the abstract, sex is stupid. And we can easily understand it as long as we are honest with our own emotions and thoughts.
This leads to another difficulty, however: Very few people are honest with their own emotions and thoughts. This is just another reason why sex is stupid: It obscures itself by preventing people from frankly discussing it.
Have you ever thought about how ridiculous sexual contact is? Do not mistake me for a moralist; I am anything but a moralist. I am not advocating celibacy, abstinence or any other tisk-tisk doctrine that assumes “sex is bad.” I do not think sex is “bad;” I just think it is stupid. I use the word “stupid” here to abstractly refer to the whole physical and mental enterprise surrounding sex. And I do not limit my comments to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals or asexuals. All sex is stupid, no matter how you slice it.
Why do I say this? Just look at the act itself. When you are in a calm, rational mental state, the idea of two naked people locked in a steamy embrace stimulating one another’s bodies seems patently absurd. Millennia of ingrained societal shame will likely even make the thought uncomfortable to you, but today I do not discuss the crushing moral weight associated with human sexual behavior. Today I merely venture that—viewed in the abstract—sexual contact is utterly stupid. I say this because sexual contact stands in fundamental opposition to humankind’s rational propensities.
For better or worse, human beings are generally rational. Throughout our lives, we learn to be polite, to interact cordially with other people and to calmly reflect on issues with cool reason. Education reinforces reason. We learn to discipline our minds to complete discrete intellectual tasks in a relatively dispassionate manner. We learn that successfully applying our reason will lead to success in life. “Great men,” we learned, accomplished their feats because they had unique ideas and applied them wisely. Their minds and their reason made them great, not their crude instincts.
Yet this whole culture of reason conveniently ignores humanity’s less ornate qualities. No matter how much we may learn that dispassionate mental effort may solve any practical problem, human beings are not ethereal creatures. They are mammals. They are in the same biological category as bulls, sheep, baboons and horses. They have warm blood, body hair and—most significantly here—reproduce sexually. Human beings do not propagate themselves by erudition and logic. They propagate themselves by sex. Metaphysical speculations aside, this is “just the way it is.” Sex is necessary for human existence. Without it, the species would vanish.
Sex is undoubtedly important. But that does not save it from being stupid. Many stupid things are important. Sex grips us as strongly as hunger; we cannot completely ignore it. Sex is insistent, despite what any social convention or stern moral teaching says about it. It conflicts violently with our cool reason, upending the stately rationality we were taught to treasure. In a sense, sex reminds us that we are not as splendid as we like to think. We may have developed calculus, traveled to the moon and created the internet, but we have never escaped our itching desire to get naked with people we find attractive. This may sound crass, but it accurately illustrates the endless conflict between reason and sex. In the Nineteenth Century, modest English writers called the sex drive “the passions.” I aim to be slightly more direct.
When we genuinely engage our reason, sex is the last thing on our minds. Reason wants to understand truths and realities in the world, and we cannot understand subtle truths when base mammalian impulses cloud our minds. In this sense, I think sex is stupid because it makes us drop worthier goals in order to frivolously lock bodies with other people. When the sex drive activates, all worthier goals fade into obscurity. When sex insists, it does not tolerate second billing. It must be placated before it allows a person to resume a more creative enterprise. Thus, while reason may have given humanity its greatest achievements, sex overcomes reason every day. A rational mind moves deliberately from one thought to the next, using sense and memory to formulate reasonable conclusions. But sex can derail that deliberate movement. It bludgeons the mind with forceful physical demands. It triggers emotional engagement, making clear thought impossible. Unlike reason, sexual instinct can trigger genuine physiological reactions in the human body, from higher blood pressure to a faster heartbeat to flushing and perspiration. Reason draws its strength from bodily detachment. Sex, by contrast, draws its strength from bodily engagement. Bodily engagement is coarse and unspectacular. There is nothing novel or memorable about it. That is just another reason why sex is stupid.
In many ways, human beings are slaves to their own bodies. Bodily demands trigger physical pain and pleasure; that is why everyone must attend to them. No one wants to feel pain and everyone wants to experience pleasure. By contrast, reason implicates no real bodily demands. It does not “hurt” when we use reason to answer an intellectual problem, nor do we experience genuine “pleasure” when our reason gives us insight. Pure reason may make us feel mildly “pleased,” but that is not the same as activating the bodily machinery that literally creates pleasurable sensations in the brain. Sex directly engages the bodily machinery that releases the most pleasurable sensations available to human beings without external chemical interference. From a biological perspective, this is only natural, because it behooves the species to link reproduction with the most pleasurable activity available. In that light, sex provides a direct biological incentive to reproduce.
But this brings us to a dangerous intersection between sex and reason, namely: Human beings are the only creatures on earth that can combine their reason with the pursuit of pleasure. Because humans have more detailed memories than any other organism, they remember how good sex feels. Using their reason upon their memories, they transform sex into something much more than a mere reproductive reflex; they pursue it as a freestanding activity. They fantasize about it and long for it. They want to isolate the pleasurable sensations it brings. This is a dangerous combination, because once the sex drive activates, it triggers a whole range of irrational fantasies, memories and hopes, which in turn can lead a person into a frenzy. This not only overcomes reason; it leads to purely irrational behavior that wastes time. Humans, therefore, have a uniquely problematic relationship to sex because they do not view sex as a purely reproductive reflex. Rather, sex is a “pleasure talisman” that offers escape from a pleasureless world. In that sense, sex is stupid because it costs human beings countless unrequited hours seeking an ideal that they will never find.
Humans doubtlessly mix reason with sex. Through fantasy, they inadvertently make their sex drive stronger and more overwhelming. Animals in the field apparently do not fantasize. They come into sexual contact, get it over with and go back to grazing. Not so with humans. Humans attempt to tailor their sexual behavior to suit the fantasies they have created in their own minds. In so doing, they transform a simple biological activity into a nightmarish lifelong affliction. They almost never truly satisfy it. Additionally, humans combine their reason with sex in even more pernicious ways, including the desire to prove power through sexual encounters. For one reason or another, human beings view sex as an opportunity to assert dominance over other individuals. They feel good about themselves when they manage to have sex with a person because they have “conquered” the person. That has nothing to do with reproduction or reflex; rather, it implicates much more profound psychological issues. In its worst form, this “power principle” in human sexuality leads to outright violence: Rape. In my estimation, this is just another reason why sex is stupid.
Rape is an extreme example of the mental tortures spawned by human sexuality. But there are other, more subtle tortures that accompany sex. Human reason thrives on notions of ownership. Reason struggles to devise logical systems that delineate individual dominion over things. This human preoccupation with ownership influences sexual thought. After all, reason links sex with ownership. That is why there is so much jealously associated with human sexual relationships: If one person has sex with another, he has “claimed” his partner; and he will not tolerate “encroachments” on his “property.” This jealousy, in turn, can lead to violence. Until recent decades, the law even condoned violence in these circumstances. In England, courts actually permitted aggrieved husbands to kill their wives if they found their wives in bed with another man. This deplorable “legalized murder” reflects the basic psychological premise that sex creates an extremely sensitive “property interest” that can lead to brutal violence whenever an intruder trespasses upon it. This is exceedingly stupid.
Sex also leads to extremely negative emotions. Because so few people ever reach their sexual ideals, they become embittered and frustrated. Many people measure their self-esteem according to their ability to have sex with partners they find desirable. If they do not reach their goals, they experience disappointment. Repeated disappointment leads to disillusion and despair, as well as a feeling of worthlessness.
In short, human beings put themselves through countless emotional difficulties for something as stupid as sex. Why endure jealously, bitterness, violence, unrequited craving, despair and frenzy for something as silly as a naked embrace? Are these base biological impulses that overwhelming? Unfortunately, I believe they are. I have no real answers here. I can only say that human beings are cursed with strong irrational impulses and the capacity to reason. Although reason and sex normally exclude one another, in many instances reason heightens sexual desire. And when sexual desire seizes the mind, it can lead to absurd decisions, jealousy, wasted time and even violence. Human beings may perform their best while applying reason, but reason loses to sex almost every day.
Many people understand that sex can wield a damaging influence on human behavior. Over the centuries, religious thinkers attempted to use reason and faith to overcome the sex drive. In extreme cases, ascetics physically punished themselves for their own bodily desires. They attempted to master their own bodies by sheer will power. They refused to allow their bodies to make their decisions for them. They wanted to show that their faith and their minds could overcome any bodily impulse. Ascetics wanted to maintain their focus on more refined human capacities, not the base ones. That may have been a noble goal, but in the end they spent most of their time punishing themselves rather than using reason to create great works. No ascetic ever defeats desire with reason or discipline; desire will always assert itself.
For my part, I would be happy if reason were all I needed to survive in life. But I do not punish myself simply because my body makes demands on me. I think sex is stupid because it takes me away from much more meaningful pursuits. Nonetheless, I do not turn away from it. I do not try to put it down or ignore it. That only worsens the insistence. Instead, I simply recognize that sex is stupid but important. I attend to it when I must, just as I eat a meal when I must. I do not allow it to make my decisions for me, but at the same time I do not deny its influence. Christian theologians called this influence “sin.” Yet the same theologians taught that Jesus Christ will absorb all your inherent “sinfulness” as long as you believe that he died for that purpose. In that sense, they understood that sex will inevitably influence people.
Sin or no sin, sex is unavoidable because it is the means by which our species reproduces. It is central to human existence. Yet it has assumed a bizarre influence in our lives beyond reproduction because—unlike other mammals—we have the unique power to reason. Reason leads to a parallel mental world filled with fantasy and expectation. In short, I find it amazing that such pervasive psychological structures have evolved around an activity as ridiculous as two naked people caressing each other. Ridiculous or not, we must contend with it in life. By understanding sex in those terms, it is possible to maintain our reason without descending into mental chaos.
There are many stupid and banal things in life. But we have to deal with them nonetheless. I find it most effective to calmly analyze problems and apply my analysis to them as faithfully as possible. On the sex question, I find it sufficient to honestly examine my own thoughts without external moral baggage. After all, sex is pedestrian. It is not difficult to decipher what goes on when the sex drive activates, just as it is not difficult to decipher what goes on when your stomach growls. For many, the task would be easier if deeply-ingrained moral teachings had not corrupted all honest inquiries into sexual questions. Without addressing those teachings in detail, suffice it to say that “morality” prohibits many people from honestly discussing sex. I am not among them. Perhaps in a later essay I will take up those moral inhibitors. But for today it is enough to say that, in the abstract, sex is stupid. And we can easily understand it as long as we are honest with our own emotions and thoughts.
This leads to another difficulty, however: Very few people are honest with their own emotions and thoughts. This is just another reason why sex is stupid: It obscures itself by preventing people from frankly discussing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)