BIAS AND PREJUDICE IN THE PRESS : NO STORY IS EVER SIMPLE

AN ESSAY

I read the New York Post for two main reasons. First and foremost, it makes me laugh. The headlines are just flat-out funny. Its staff writes in a nasty, even satirical style to mock celebrities and other visible, well-off folks (invisible tycoons are different story because they are not visible). It also covers local New York City stories quite well. In all these ways, the Post is "populist:" It provides a laugh while dispensing relatively accurate local news.

Still, I read the Post for a second reason: To understand my intellectual opponents. While the Post's generic local coverage is populist and funny, its editorial spirit is neither populist nor funny. In fact, it is terrifyingly biased. That's not to say that the Post is any more biased than another newspaper. Every newspaper has a distinct perspective. But the Post's perspective is extremely right-wing. Bill O'Reilly writes columns in the Opinion section. 'Nuff said.

I like getting my news from as many sources as possible. I understand that human sense does not permit me to directly perceive too much in the world. So I turn to second-hand reporting to fill in the gaps. And because second-hand reporting necessarily reflects the bias of those who perceive things, I expect bias when I read newspapers.

For me, reading the news is as much about learning competing arguments as it is about learning "facts." As a philosophical matter, I have difficulty even understanding what a "fact" is, especially when I have no first-hand knowledge about the matter in issue. News reporting purports to relay "just facts." But in reality, its "facts" reflect interpretation and bias as much as any objective "truth." In that light, I suspect every fact I read in a newspaper. The only things I can confidently learn are the newspaper's biases and arguments.

And what luscious biases I find in the Post. To be fair, all American newspapers espouse a particularly virulent bias against Islam. But the Post takes shortsighted prejudice to a fantastic extreme. For almost a decade now, Americans have wondered why "Muslim extremists" attacked the United States on 9/11. I have always known why: Because Western commercial values--which treasure earthly existence over all things--clash fundamentally with Muslim teachings--which eschew earthly success for spiritual success. The fact that Western powers have long encroached on Muslim territory for commercial gain brings this tension in values to confrontation. In essence, the struggle between the West and Islam is a struggle between competing views of human existence: One grossly secular; the other grossly religious. Both are anathema to one another. Misunderstanding and acrimony are inevitable.

But you won't find that analysis in any American newspaper. Rather, you'll find self-righteous odes to the American way over the Muslim way. It's a colossal exercise in "us vs. them." No newspaper makes an effort to see the debate from the Muslim perspective. Heavens no; that would be treasonous. Instead, American newspapers--especially the Post--fan resentment against the "mortal Muslim enemy" by exulting American values over Muslim ones. In the process, they cast difficult questions in a simplistic light, using prejudice and stereotypes distort reality.

Consider two recent Post articles that illustrate these tactics at work. In the first, the Post reports about a Muslim man who fled the FBI, leading agents on a 90 MPH chase through Queens that culminated in a crash and foot chase on the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge. See N.Y. Post, Bridge 'Terror' Thug's Allah Cry, Jan. 9, 2010 at 5. The article says that the man--Adis Medunjanin--was a "high school acquaintance" of Najibullah Zazi, the New York student arrested last year for hoarding drugstore hydrogen peroxide in an alleged effort to build a bomb. Id. The FBI staked out his home for months. Finally, Medunjanin just left the house and ran. According to the report, he "praised Allah" in Arabic shortly before striking a car on the bridge. The report also claims he said: "We love death more than you love life!" in Arabic. Id. Finally, it says that authorities first merely charged him with leaving the scene of an accident. Later, they added terror-related charges. Id.

It is not clear how anyone heard these statements. The article does not say how FBI agents could hear what Medunjanin was saying in the instant before he crashed his car. It is also not clear under what circumstances he said "we love death more than you love life."

What is the net effect here? In short, the report leads the uncritical reader to assume that Medunjanin is a terrorist because he "said things in Arabic" and because he praised Allah. These are gross stereotypes. After all, what does the neutral evidence show here? It shows that Medunjanin was a high school acquaintance of a terror suspect six years ago. There is no evidence that they interacted with each other since that time. The FBI surveilled Medunjanin for months. Presumably, they also wiretapped him. The article does not divulge what the FBI may have heard in those wiretaps. All we know is that Medunjanin fled and crashed his car after saying something in Arabic about Allah, life and death. Those details suffice to brand him a terrorist.

That is bias at its worst.

What about presuming people innocent in the United States? What about fairness? How can Medunjanin escape the stigma that will now follow him? I find all these things unfortunate. After all, we are talking about a criminal prosecution for terrorism. That carries severe penalties. Yet the Post here gave Medunjanin an unfair trial before he was even arraigned. In so doing, it revealed the pernicious American bias that pervades our media: It made him a terrorist because he spoke Arabic, had a Muslim name, mentioned Allah and knew a suspected terrorist six years ago.

But is this the only conclusion to draw from the evidence? Perhaps Medunjanin simply "lost it" after being surveilled without reason for so long. And how do we know what he said in the car before he crashed? What if he said something in English, rather than Arabic? Would that have made a difference? What if he had said: "Oh shit, I'm about to crash" in Arabic? Would that still make him a terrorist? Who knows. All I know is that no one ever reports on these difficult questions in the American press--and especially not the Post.

In the second article, the Post again espouses its virulent prejudice toward Muslims. See N.Y. Post, How Did 'Undy Bomber' Get a Visa? Jan. 9, 2010 at p. 19. Columnist Michelle Malkin takes the opportunity to both generalize about Muslims and castigate the Obama administration for not spotting Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab before his failed bomb attack on Christmas Day.

Malkin argues that U.S. consular officials should never issue "coveted entrance pass[es]" to "globe-trotting, Nigerian-born nomad[s]" who "buy tickets in cash" without "checking in much baggage." Id. Later, she adds that "unmarried, rootless Muslim male nomads" should never receive U.S. visas, either.

Leaving the practical problems associated with Malkin's consular formula to one side, I find it appalling that she recommends a Federal policy based on invidious religious and ethnic stereotypes. After all, Malkin says that "Muslim male nomads" should not be allowed into the United States. Neither should "Nigerian-born" nomads, or "rootless" people, or "globe-trotters," or "unmarried people" or "people who fly with little baggage." These are not workable standards. And they are certainly not standards to which the United States should subscribe, a country that has always prided itself on diversity and equality. It would be awkward at best for the U.S. State Department to advertise America's openness to the world by saying: "Come one, come all…unless you're Muslim, a nomad, unmarried or Nigerian-born."

Hell, I'm unmarried, I fly with little baggage and I sometimes globe-trot to Europe. I shouldn't get a visa, either. Imagine if I was Nigerian: I'd really be in trouble.

In short, Malkin wants prejudice on a governmental scale. Yet her anti-Muslim views find strong support in the Post. Although Malkin's position is extreme, her basic bias against Muslims finds constant expression throughout the American press. In that light, I wonder why the Arab world casts a suspicious eye on America? Could it be that its media routinely mocks them and judges them as terrorists before the fact? I wonder.

We will not solve the tensions between the Muslim world and the West until we stop viewing Muslims as one-dimensional villains. The problems between the Muslim world and the West are understandable. We must merely examine the sharp contrast between the two value systems to see why problems persist. Unfortunately, newspapers do not like talking about value systems. Newspapers do not analyze values; they simply voice them. But the confrontation between the West and the Muslim world will continue until the West tries to understand why its values contrast so strongly with Muslim values.

Sadly, I do not think that's going to happen any time soon. Stubborn self-righteousness inheres in Western thought. And I think the West would rather fight a permanent war against a religion-based civilization than deign to comprehend it.

ALTERNATIVE HEALTH REFORM PROPOSALS : LETTING EVERY VOICE BE HEARD

PERSPECTIVES ON THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE

For over a year now, our country has grappled with "the health care problem." At every level of government--and even at every level of our society--we have debated the moral, ethical, practical and financial ramifications that will flow from health reform. For the most part, we hear two sides. One side says that the United States has a "moral responsibility" to care for its citizens' health, even if it costs an astronomical amount and inhibits private commerce. The other side says that private health care more than sufficiently provides medical services to the American people. It also says that any government foray into health care will lead to crushing taxes and bureaucratic interference in private health care decisions. The other side says that the private system--despite its flaws--maintains the classic American spirit of free enterprise that yields beneficial scientific discovery. Without an economic incentive to pursue medicine, according to these voices, such discoveries would wither away.

Our Nation cares deeply about these questions. Congress has ferociously debated health care for months. Our citizens have come to blows over the issue in town hall meetings from Maine to Malibu. Many Americans see the health care debate as a symbolic battle for the country's soul. For them, health care represents sacred ground: If the government trespasses on it, every American's liberty will cease to exist. Some even think that State-run health care will result in "Death Panels" that decide whether elderly citizens live or die.

Here at Reason, Commerce, Justice and Free Beer, we take no position on the health care debate. We merely provide a forum in which Americans--and even foreigners--can candidly offer their opinions about this very important issue. Nonetheless, we find it regrettable that the debate has broken down along traditional political lines. We believe that democracy can only work when every voice is heard. And in the health care debate, it seems we only hear two voices: One Democratic, the other Republican.

As a serious news outlet committed to robust public debate, we believe that the American public has a right to hear alternative proposals for health reform. In that light, we are proud to share our readers' suggestions about how to solve the health care mess in the United States. These suggestions do not fall into the traditional conservative/liberal dichotomy. Rather, they express the compelling variety that makes America such a great Nation. We believe it is time to let every voice be heard on the health care question. Silence benefits no one. Our democracy can only survive when we allow everyone to speak, even those with whose perspectives we may disagree.

SUGGESTION #1: THE ARCHITECTURAL SOLUTION

Dear Sirs,

I am sick and tired of the Democrat-Republican back-and-forth over health care. As a working civil contractor with mouths to feed, I would like to suggest an architectural solution to our health care problems.

Health care takes place in buildings. It costs money to maintain buildings. In fact, the more square footage you have, the more it costs to pay for a building. Now, we could save so much money in the health care system if we simply tightened our belts and knocked down one wall per room in every health care establishment. Think about it. Every room in every hospital, clinic and doctor's office has four walls. If we just sacrificed one wall in every room that provides health care in America, we would reduce health care expenses by 25%. That money could be used for research, charity and providing care for the uninsured, all without governmental interference. We just need to do without one wall per room.

We can do it. We just need to tell ourselves that four walls is too many. I'm ready to make sacrifices. Are you? As a contractor, I know that most walls are unnecessary; we can get rid of a few. And when we do, we'll be amazed how much money we'll save.

Yours truly,

Bill McCloskey, Contractor, Omaha, Neb.

SUGGESTION # 2 : THE PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTION

Liebe Mitleser (Dear Readers),

In 1934, the new government in Germany declared: "God cannot have wished that a deformed baby live." We believe that statement can help America solve its health care problem.

America spends untold amounts caring for malformed children. It spends even more keeping people alive who would not have survived in nature. These people force up costs for everyone else who needs health care. And caring for them yields no increase in production. After all, caring for a deaf-mute with deformed arms for 40 years will not transform him into a Nobel winner or a successful grain wholesaler. Rather, he remains a muted cripple--and a money pit.

We believe, as the new government in Germany believed in 1934, that it makes no sense spending national treasure preserving worthless life. America could save countless dollars if it simply euthanized crippled children and hopelessly injured adults. These vegetables represent the single-most expensive item on the health care menu. Caring for them results in massive financial wastage without any hope of return. This is simply not good financial management.

We propose a final solution to the health care problem. By neutralizing high-priced cripples, mentally-defective children and brain-dead accident victims, we will flush the system with money, as well as free hospital beds for productive citizens who actually stand a chance to recover. We must be pragamtic. We must care for those for whom care will actually make a difference, not those who will never pay tax, never serve in the army and never invent anything worthwhile for society.

If we wish to reform health care in America, let us provide care only to those who can contribute something for the investment we make in them.

Sincerely,

E. Fritz Goebbels, Insurance Broker, Lansing, Mich.

SUGGESTION # 3 : THE CULINARY SOLUTION

Americans fail to understand just how expensive hospital food is. Every year, the health care system spends over $450 billion on low-quality entrees--including pudding--to feed patients. Although this is a shocking fact, I believe we can turn it to our advantage.

I have worked in the St. Luke's Milwaukee Critical Care Unit for over twenty years as Patient Diet Supervisor. During that time, I have seen first-hand how much money we waste on bad hospital food. True, we have nourished patients under our care. But they all complain about the food and many say they would rather eat their shoes than another foil-wrapped Chicken a la King.

I think we can meaningfully reform the health care system in America if we simply stopped serving food at hospitals. Patients don't like it anyway. Plus it costs over $450 billion per year. By dispensing with daily meals, we would free up funds that could be used to perform surgery, set splints, buy medication and open new wards.

Naturally the objection follows: So what will the patients eat? Simple: Anything they want. Nothing is stopping them from ordering their own meals or--God forbid--cooking themselves. Responsible citizens manage their own diets. Just because they are in the hospital should not make them think they can't cook for themselves anymore. If they want KFC, they can order it. If they want to cook a four-course Italian banquet complete with wine and cannoli, let them. This is about personal and financial responsibility.

Some patients might be too sick or injured to order their own meals. In that case, relatives can cook or order for them. It might be difficult for a relative to insert a chicken wing into the mouth of an intubated child, but no one said health reform would be easy. If some patients die because they cannot eat outside food, that's the price we pay. On the other hand, we will happily provide feeding tubes for patients who do not feed themselves. We simply leave it to the relatives to fill those tubes with milkshakes or other liquid meals.

It is amazing how much money we'll save by closing down hospital food services. Plus we'll encourage individual responsibility and healthy eating choices among the patients.

Yours very truly,

Julie M. Wakaska, Patient Diet Coordinator, Milwaukee, Wisc.

A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE MUSICAL BRILLIANCE

A SERIOUS AND COMPLETELY UN-IRONIC MESSAGE FROM OUR CULTURAL CORRESPONDENT

I think that John Mayer is not only the greatest Blues guitarist of all time, but also that he is the most intelligent, sexiest and most eloquent man ever to have lived. I further believe that Mr. Mayer's new album--"Battle Studies"--is the greatest musical work ever committed to a tangible medium. Finally, I believe that John Mayer's genius for the Blues stems from his challenging formative years as a wage laborer in suburban Connecticut, where he faced systematic racial discrimination, violence, heartbreak and emotional turmoil due to his socio-economic status in a segregated community.

Mr. J. Burton Panner
Senior Culture Critic
Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer

SIC SEMPER VAGINAE PULCHRAE SUNT

BEATING ROBBERS : HOW TO KEEP YOURSELF AND YOUR PROPERTY SAFE FROM VIOLENT CRIME

CRIME WATCH

By : Mr. G. Chadwick Klauenberg, Esq., J.D. (University of Pennsylvania Law School 1980), Former Chief of Police, East Orange, New Jersey (1985-2005); Published Author, Can’t Thug This : Hoodlum Management in 21st Century Urban America (New York Times Bestseller List), a Best-Selling Self-Defense Handbook; Amateur Chef; Property Owner (residence and beachfront properties).

We live in a violent society. For those who inhabit cities in the United States, crime is a very real danger. Murderous gangs roam the streets. Discharged and undiagnosed psychiatric patients threaten to push innocent commuters before onrushing subway trains. Con artists defraud hard-working men and women with fanciful yarns. And thousands of petty thieves mill through the streets every day, picking pockets, stealing, looting, robbing and swindling.

It is essential to know how to deal with crime. But today I do not write to call for greater enforcement against criminals. I leave that to legislators and executive officials in State government. Rather, today I write in order to inform the public about an important skill: How to keep yourself and your property safe from violent crime. Today, we are not talking about theories and abstractions. We are talking about real-life, practical skills that will prevent you from being the next police statistic.

Let’s face it: Many criminals want your property. They want your wallet, your watch, your Gucci handbag, your billfold, your cash, your family amulet, your car and even your furniture. Criminals are not like you or me. They do not work, make money, pay taxes and buy things at Wal-Mart®. No, they have separated themselves from society. Unlike us, they acquire money and property by violence, scheme and coercion. Everybody wants property in our society. Yet there is a legal way to do it. Criminals don’t follow the legal way.

It is illegal to steal and rob. As law-abiding citizens, we find it appalling that some people commit violence in order to obtain property. But that does not alter the fact that many people do it. For that reason, we must be prepared to deal with robbers and thieves. They are out there. They see our property. They want it. And they are ready to hurt us to take it from us. Put simply, we must be on our guard.

I have written many articles about self-defense and practical crime prevention. I always take a practical approach. I do not try to explain social trends and the reasons “why” criminals become criminals. I do not rationalize criminal behavior, nor do I make excuses for criminals, like blaming bad schools, bad parenting and poverty. Rather, I try to keep law-abiding citizens—like you—safe from hooligans. It does not help a robbery victim to understand why her assailant is a hooligan; it helps to prevent the hooligan from attacking in the first place. Hooligans are hooligans. In my book, that fact doesn’t change. And it makes no sense to debate it.

Let’s talk robbery. We must always fear robbers. They lurk everywhere. At this very moment, some thug may be sitting in a car outside your townhouse, observing your daily routine. He may be looking at your clothes, your briefcase and even the grocery bags you carry on the way home from work every night at 9 PM. He may be looking at your house and guessing that you have quite a lot of property. He may be plotting the right moment to ambush you and take your wallet. Put simply, robbers are everywhere. As long as you have property, robbers will try to take it from you.

I was a police chief for 20 years. Before that, I went to law school. From both a legal and law enforcement perspective, I know a thing or two about robbers. My knowledge can help you avert robbery. Robbery has a legal definition. In the law, behavior either fits the definition or it doesn’t. You can legally avoid robbery if you know what robbery actually means. When you understand what robbery actually is, you can take steps to make it impossible for a criminal to rob you.

At common law and in most State law, robbery is “the taking of personal property from a person by force or fear.” That means a person can rob you with a toy gun because he creates “fear” in order to take your personal property. It also means no one can rob your house, or your tree, or even apples from your tree, because those things are “real property,” not “personal property.” “Personal property” is “anything that is movable,” like a watch, a wallet, a pocket-knife, a painting or a jar. Apples are movable, too, but they are an exception to the rule because they come from trees, which are not “personal property.” There has also been some debate whether a mobile home is “personal property.” But let’s not get too philosophical; in most cases, a robber doesn’t want your trailer or your apple orchard.

No matter the circumstances, robbery cannot occur without “property.” A criminal cannot legally commit robbery without “taking property.” From a practical perspective, this means you can completely avoid robbery by refusing to carry, own or otherwise lay claim to property. Consider this: If you own nothing and go about naked on the street, you cannot be robbed. Legally, no criminal can rob you if you are naked, penniless and possess nothing. Now, if you were naked and had a rope around your neck, a criminal could rob you by threatening to kill you unless you gave him the rope. But again, you can avoid that situation by simply owning or possessing nothing at all, not even a rope. Property is the key to robbery. Without property, you cannot be robbed. Thus, refusing to own or possess anything is the best defense against robbery.

Other crime prevention advocates recommend lesser measures to prevent robbery. They offer advice such as “don’t go out by yourself;” “watch your belongings;” “stay away from bad neighborhoods;” and “don’t show off expensive goods.” Yet these are half-measures. They do not make it legally impossible to suffer robbery. Rather, they still allow robbers an opportunity to commit robbery. If you “don’t go out by yourself,” yet still own property, a criminal can rob you because there is property available to “take by force or fear.” Similarly, even if you don’t “show off expensive goods,” a criminal can still rob you because you have “expensive goods” (which are “personal property”) to take “by force or fear.” It doesn’t matter whether you conceal it; if you have it, someone can take it. In sum, then, these measures may reduce the chance that you will suffer robbery. But they do not render robbery legally impossible.

Wouldn’t you rather make it impossible for a criminal to rob you? A 0% chance of robbery is preferable to a 10% chance. The only sure way to make robbery legally impossible is to stop owning or possessing property. No matter how much you conceal or protect your property, a determined robber always has something to “take by force or fear.” But if you are naked, broke and destitute, you have nothing that can be robbed. The minute you obtain property you are subject to robbery. Why increase your risk? Just don’t own anything; it will render robbery a hollow threat.

Law teaches us many things. Many people think that the law does not provide practical solutions to real problems. But here we see that the law allows us to effectively prevent crime. By understanding what robbery actually means, we can stop robbers before they even obtain the legal opportunity to violate our property rights. Let robbers try to rob you. If you are naked and own nothing, you are completely safe.

Now, a would-be robber might get angry when he discovers you have nothing to “take by force or fear.” In that case, he might attack you with a weapon or his fists. If you are a woman, he might try to sexually assault you. In fact, these chances increase if you are naked on the street. Nonetheless, none of these criminal acts would be robbery. They might be rape, or murder, or attempted rape, or attempted murder, or assault, or sexual assault or battery. But they would not be robbery because the criminal has no “personal property to take.”

Let the law work for you. The law is not just a post hoc remedy intended to deter future criminals from violating your rights. It is a proactive tool. You must merely understand what the law requires before setting off on your daily routine. I have dedicated my life to preventing crime. We can prevent crime by understanding legal definitions. That is why I say to you: If you know what robbery actually means, you can make it impossible for anyone to rob you. Just refuse to own or possess anything.

This is not an absurd recommendation. How can we call a solution absurd if it completely prevents a potential problem? In my opinion, a solution that completely removes the possibility of a problem is a winning solution, not an absurd one. To that extent, heed my advice. If you wish to forever free yourself from robbers, simply give up all your property and live penniless—and naked—on the street. If you do that, you will literally have no “personal property” to “take by force or fear,” not even tattered old rags.

Just imagine how good you’ll feel knowing you can’t be robbed. If someone puts a gun in your face while you’re naked and broke, let him say: “This is a robbery.” You can confidently say: “No it isn’t. I cannot legally be robbed.”

PALIN ON POLICY : OBAMA-CARE WILL KILL YOUR GRANDPARENTS, CHILDREN AND PETS

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Sarah Louise Heath Palin, B.S (Journalism/Communication, University of Idaho, 1987), Former Republican Candidate for Vice President of the United States (2008); Former Governor of the Democratic Republic of the State of Alaska (resigned 2009); Foreign Policy Expert (Russian Studies); Clay Pigeon Champion, Anchorage Gals With Guns Club (2006); Champion, Alaska State Women’s Basketball Tournament (1982); Master Chef (Specializing in Patented “Big Game Burgers,” including Moose Macs® and Elk-O-Steaks®); Health Care Expert; Republican.

Before the election last year, I wrote about my foreign policy experience. See http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-on-policy.html. In that article, I warned that America had to take swift action to protect Portugal against imminent Russian aggression because Russia and Portugal share a long border. I know all about Russia. I live right next door to them. And I know you can’t trust Ivan.

Thankfully, the Soviets never attacked the defenseless Portuguese. I am confident that my strong stance on the matter dissuaded Moscow from launching an attack on its Portuguese neighbor. I received wide praise for my foreign policy work. Although I did not win the election, I gained valuable experience in foreign policy matters. The Northern Alaska State Polytechnic Institute at Dead Gull even honored me with a Professorship in Russian Studies. So when it comes to Russia, I know what I’m talking about.

In the months since the election, I have gained insights into other policy areas. Now, I am not just an expert in Alaska State highway law and local drilling ordinances. I have also learned a great deal about health care. I resigned my post as Alaska governor in order to fully focus my efforts on national matters. In short, our country faces immense dangers from within. Specifically, we face an evil man: Barack Obama. It is my duty to unite all Americans against him. If we do not, there is no telling how many children he will kill.

I am determined to oppose Barack Obama’s health care reform efforts. Last week, I informed the public that Obama’s proposed health care legislation will constitute Federal “death panels” that will decide whether certain people receive medical care. As the mother of a disabled child—and as a Republican—I know that Obama’s “death panels” will refuse care for disabled Republican children. Obama’s “death panels” will only award care to black mothers, welfare recipients, anti-gun activists, conservationists, homosexuals, Democratic firebrands and smug CNN newscasters. They will not award care to innocent Republican children or FOX news anchormen like Shepard Smith or Bill O’Reilly. If Obama succeeds in passing this bill, Shepard Smith and Bill O’Reilly could go without medical care. Obama’s ruthless “death panels” will let good-looking liberals like Anderson Cooper live, but let crooked-faced conservatives like Greta van Susteren die. This is injustice. We must stop him.

As a health care expert, it is my duty to alert the American people about Obama’s plans. I have information that is not yet publicly available. I must speak. I owe it to America. America faces grave danger. Although Americans are rising up in opposition to Obama’s plan for many reasons, they will not truly stop him unless they know all the facts. At the moment, Americans resist Obama because they fear his plan will prevent them from seeing their own doctors or reduce their benefits. They do not know whether this will happen. They just fear it. Americans are rightly afraid. But they would be terrified if they knew what I know.

Let me put all doubts to rest: Obama’s health bill creates “death panels.” This is not a rumor. No matter what the New York Times says, Federal bureaucrats will soon decide whether people receive medical care. But it gets worse. According to my sources, Obama intends to staff his “death panels” with convicted criminals, hip-hop artists, gay DJs and radical filmmakers. Only Democrats will be allowed to serve on death panels. Additionally, Obama has personally drafted a “Death Panel Protocol” governing medical care award decisions. The Protocol creates a presumption that Republicans do not deserve care. The Protocol gives death panels full discretion whether to deny care to a Republican, but limits its discretion whether to deny care to a Democrat. Worse, the Protocol creates a universal right for African-Americans, immigrants and minimum wage employees to receive top-notch medical treatment, but denies that right to everyone else. In short, if you are not black, Democratic or an immigrant, or if you make more than $5.45 an hour, an Obama death panel might just let you die a horrible death.

This is not all. According to my sources, Obama’s Death Panel Protocol also creates a Special Death Panel Executive Arm. In essence, this Executive Arm empowers death panels to “eliminate unworthy life.” Thus, if Obama-Care prevails, “death panels” will not just decide whether sick Republicans get medical treatment. They will also have the authority to seek out and kill anyone—and any animal—they consider “unworthy of life.” My sources have revealed that Death Panels will have full authority to conduct secret investigations to locate “unworthy life” without court approval. Once a person has been identified as “unworthy,” he or she may appeal to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for mercy. But President Obama has instructed Justice Sotomayor to deny all appeals unless “eliminating the targeted individual would jeopardize the overall goals of the health care reform effort.” This means that no Republican will survive.

Americans have a right to know about this. We cannot yield to Obama’s sweet talk any longer. If we do not take a stand against Obama-Care now, we will lose far more than the contractual right to see whatever proctologist we choose. Quite simply, if we do not fight back now, Obama will kill our grandparents, children and pets. What’s to stop Obama’s death panels from declaring that our sick grandparents are not “unworthy of life?” What’s to stop his vicious bureaucrats from investigating our housecats and targeting them for execution? And what’s to stop the death panels from slaughtering our newborn Republican young? We cannot depend on Justice Sotomayor to save our grandparents, children and pets. We must do something now. We must resist the death panels before they open for business.

Information will win the health care debate. Obama thinks he can win the battle for health care by concealing the truth from the American people. I refuse to let him deceive us. I refuse to let him channel the debate away from death panels and government-run health care. I refuse to let him fool Americans into thinking that he wants to care for them, when in fact he wants to cut my grandfather's throat. Obama is not a savior. He is the angel of death. I will not rest until every American knows the truth.

Democracy cannot survive when the public lives in ignorance. President Obama has skillfully manipulated the health care crisis in order to implement his sinister plan for social reconstruction. He knows that Americans are worried about health care. He knows that no one has a straight answer about the facts. He knows people are confused. So he employs his artful rhetoric, hoping to gloss over his secret plan to kill our grandparents, children and pets. He says he believes in Democracy and “compassionate care for all.” Well, if “compassionate care for all” means drowning Republican children, gassing Republican seniors and butchering Republican puppies, we will have none of it. We refuse to support a system that will care only for blacks but kill everyone else. Americans deserve to learn the truth. This is not about hope or compassion. This is about killing Republicans and letting innocent pets die.

Join me in bringing rationality back to the health care debate. In my view, there was nothing wrong with the American health care system in the first place. It is not difficult to get private health insurance as long as you have a job, you’re healthy and you do not fall under a contractual exclusion in the policy. It’s your responsibility and right as an American to bargain for whatever contract you want. It’s your responsibility to read the contract, and it’s your responsibility to accept the consequences if the insurance company decides against you. This is the way it’s always been. Health care is no different from any other business.

As a health care policy expert, my solution is simple: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I have health insurance. I paid for it. I am responsible. So I have no complaints about the American health care system. If others don’t get health insurance—or if their existing insurance does not cover some special eye improvement surgery—well, they bargained for it. In this country, you get what you pay for. That’s what it’s all about, whether you’re buying health care or a car. Some people buy Mercedes-type health care. Others buy Hyundai-type health care. We can’t all have a Mercedes; that’s just not the way things work around here.

Yet this is why Obama’s rhetoric appealed to so many: He promised to give everyone Mercedes-type health insurance. Of course it struck a chord. Hey, I’d like to get a free car, too. But Obama blinded America with his idealistic promises. He wants to give blacks and immigrants Mercedes-type health care, all right. But he also wants to kill Republican grandparents, children and pets. He thinks he can slip in “death panels” as long as he gives away enough free health care, just as the ancient Roman emperors thought they could commit political atrocities as long as they gave away enough free entertainment to the mob.

We refuse to be manipulated. We are not ignorant Roman plebeians. We are 21st-Century Americans. We know when we are being hoodwinked. As a health care policy expert and a patriot, I am committed to dispelling the sinister lies about Obama-care. I am committed to telling America the truth. If we allow Obama to pass health care reform, we will give government the power over life and death. If you love your grandparents, children and pets, you will stand with me against this tyranny. When you stand with me, you tell Obama: “I am a rational person. I do not believe government has a right to kill my grandma or my parakeet.” When you stand with me, you tell Obama: “I believe in information and democracy, not death panels.” Obama thinks he can beat us by concealing the truth. But the truth will always come out in the end.

Informed Americans are powerful Americans. Informed Americans drive our democracy. Get informed. Learn the truth. Stop Obama-Care before it kills your grandfather, son and dog.

This is America. We care about everyone’s life in this country, not just Democrats and blacks.

COMMUNICATE CLEARLY IN A LANGUAGE EVERYONE SPEAKS

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Mr. D. Irwin Wudditworth, M.B.A., Senior Manager, Pryor Cox Wealth Management Associates LLC (A Professional Financial Group Specializing in Estates, Trusts, Investment Instruments, Funds and Precious Metal Acquisitions for Both Banks and Individuals); Lecturer on Communication Issues in the Financial Community; Boat Enthusiast; World Traveler and Linguist.

Language is important. Without language, it would be impossible to effectively communicate with other people. Language enables us to precisely transfer information, thoughts, beliefs and emotions from our own minds to others. True, we do not always communicate with language. Sometimes, we convey our thoughts, beliefs and emotions with our bodies. But body language does not suffice for significant financial transactions. I could not, for example, use body language to say: “I offer to sell these low-bearing investment trust certificates at 5 points over prime on or before the close of business this Friday, May 24, 2010.” Only language can transfer all the information relevant to that transaction. Facial expressions, gestures, grunts, winnies, guffaws, clicks, gesticulations, guttural noises, squeaks, hand waving or even muscular spasms could never exactly inform the listener about the transaction I contemplated. Put simply, we need language to provide and receive the information necessary to do business.

But this creates new problems. Although language enables a speaker and a listener to pass information necessary to consummate mutually profitable deals with one another, the world is large. Not everyone speaks the same national tongue. For example, I cannot call a Chinese manufacturer on the telephone and say in English: “Listen up, Chu, I want 45,000 bales of unprocessed indigo sent FOB to my pier in Los Angeles by 6 PM on Monday the 14th. I’ll take care of the insurance. What’s the market price today?” If I said these words, they would sound like pure gibberish to Mr. Chu. Yet both Mr. Chu and I have the capacity to use language; we both want to profit from one another. Still, we do not speak the same language. The language barrier makes it impossible for us to consummate a financial transaction. That is a problem. Thus, it is not enough to speak just any language. To successfully engage in commerce, both the buyer and seller must speak the same language. What good is a well-written contract if no one understands what it says?

How can conscientious businessmen overcome these linguistic difficulties? True success requires clear communication and a solid financial vision. And the only way to clearly communicate is to speak in the listener’s language. Many companies try to teach people how to speak foreign languages. They say that “anyone can learn a new language” if they try hard enough. But learning foreign languages is burdensome. It takes forever to learn countless new words and idioms. Even after learning all the words, native speakers correct you and make you feel like a fool for making grammatical errors. Although it can be intellectually satisfying to learn a foreign language, it takes far too much time. It can take decades to truly learn another language. In the wealth management business, we don’t have decades to do deals; we need to do deals every month. If we wasted our time learning foreign languages, we would go out of business. Additionally, “intellectual satisfaction” is a paltry reward for the immense effort needed to learn the language. Worse, even after investing countless, unpaid hours into learning the new language, in the end you’ve only learned one language. There are hundreds of languages left on earth, each of which is a potential market. It does no good to spend a lifetime learning Italian when you need to make money in Russia. In this light, learning foreign languages—while essential to doing business abroad—is not financially practicable. Basically, it takes too long and brings in comparatively little for the effort. No matter how you slice it, language learning is a bad business proposition.

I am not ashamed to admit that I do not speak Dutch. I don’t speak Portuguese, Hindi or Chinese, either. In fact, I only speak English. This limits my linguistic ability to consummate profitable transactions with foreign speakers. But there are other ways to communicate with others beyond national language. I speak a much more universal language, a language that everyone on earth understands: Money. Everyone knows what cash is. Everyone likes bank checks and deposit certificates. Everyone likes high-yield promissory notes and bearer bonds. Money talks. And it talks very clearly. No one misunderstands money. It can negotiate better than any urbane linguist, no matter how many degrees he has on his wall. When it comes to convincing people, I don’t need to waste 20 years learning French. I don’t need to understand poetry or opera. I just need to put up some numbers.

In the Old Testament, it says that God deliberately scattered human beings by splitting them into different linguistic groups. The Bible says: “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand each other’s speech.” Genesis 11:7. I hate to disagree with God, but I do not believe that language separates us. Quite the contrary, people are more similar to each other than different. Money speaks to all people; it does not “confound” anyone. Everyone understands “wire transfer, “ “cash payment,” “draft charge” and “gold.” God may have tried to separate human beings by splitting their languages, but money has reunited us. We do not need to master grammatical subtleties to “understand” a Japanese person. We just need to know how much he wants for the goods he’s selling. I want the goods; he wants the money. He doesn’t speak English; I don’t speak Japanese. But we both understand each other. Despite God’s best efforts here, money transcends all linguistic quandaries. Put simply, money is a universal communicator. It obliterates divisions and changes minds. It convinces better than any high-flown rhetoric. It is even better than logic: People would much rather have dollars than “sense.”

I believe that everyone on earth can clearly communicate with one another. We all speak money. We all understand money. We all want money. If we all want the same thing, why should we squabble and misunderstand each other? In my experience as a wealth manager, money answers every question. Whether I’m dealing with a Belgian industrialist or an Indian baker, the question is always the same: “How much do I get?” And my question is always the same: “What’s the fee?” No matter how divergent our cultures or how varied our languages, money unifies us. There is no reason for us to fight. We both just want money. Culture, religion, national traditions and social customs do not really matter in the end. Without money to pay bills, buy food and maintain homes, there would be no culture or national tradition. People know that. That is why they all speak money. Everything else is secondary. I believe that our world can be a better place if we all just focus on the thing that unites us all: Money.

In this light, I am proud to work at a firm that promotes international understanding. In my business, I see people from all over the world smiling, laughing and singing. Why? Because they are making money. My firm does not speak their national language. It does not even really care about their traditions or their national folk heroes. It simply allows them to conclude profitable international business transactions at reasonable rates. We do not condescend to our clients. We merely show them numbers and profits. We do not need to master their languages or cultures. We talk money. And they understand us perfectly. Even the most recalcitrant Islamist smiles when we show him a productive portfolio, even if the money comes from Christian-owned enterprises. In this way, money does not transcend national and linguistic lines; it even crosses deeply-rooted religious hatreds. Money makes everyone smile, even Jihadists and African dictators. It defuses tensions. That is a beautiful thing.

God may have separated human beings by “confounding” their languages. He may have tried to breed discord and confusion among nations by interfering with our ability to communicate with one another. But God underestimated modern commerce. Today, people all over the world no longer need to understand every word they hear. They just need to know dollar amounts. Understanding is simple. It is all about cash, dividends, returns, puts, calls and sales. I am proud to work for a firm that promotes international understanding and clear communication. I speak money. No one misunderstands me. I do not offend anyone. I do not make linguistic faux pas or accidentally insult anyone. No, I just show my listeners how much cash they are making. That’s enough to transcend any language barrier. And best of all, I never had to waste any time mastering bewildering new vocabulary or grammar rules. Who has time for that when you can just talk money and everyone understands you every time?

We live in a hopeful time. We can make the world a better place if we all work together and speak money together. We all want the same things in life. At Pryor Cox Wealth Management Associates LLC, we understand what’s important. We make people happy because we communicate clearly. Language is an artificial barrier. We believe that everyone on earth can communicate with one another in peace, as long as they just talk about money. What else really matters, anyway?

Life is too short for confusion. Don’t be misunderstood. Get to the point. Talk money.

NUDITY IS EVERYONE'S CONCERN

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Rep. Victoria N. McCummings, Ph.D. (Child Development); Representative (New York State Legislature); Senior Chairperson, New York State Board of Decency Regulation; J.D., Yale University School of Law (1984); Art Lover.

You can scarcely turn on the news these days without hearing about some scandal involving nudity. All too often, these scandals affect the most vulnerable members of our society: Children. In our digital world, images travel fast. In centuries past, societies could better control nudity because there were not as many ways to broadcast it. Now, photography, the internet, television, DVD-video and even personal newspaper ads transmit nude images everywhere, without regard to whether an innocent child sees them. This is profoundly troubling because nudity is dangerous. That is why I have introduced legislation to curtail the expansion of nudity in 21st Century life.

I have never liked nudity. I do not like bare breasts, nipples, pubic hair, chests, genitalia or buttocks. They are—quite simply—disgusting. They revolt me. They are not pleasant to look at. When I was younger, I became physically ill when I saw a photograph depicting John Lennon and Yoko Ono standing naked next to each other. It was just revolting. Even before that, I became very uneasy when studying classical sculpture. Michelangelo’s David, for instance, often requires me to avert my eyes. I do not care whether art experts and nudity apologists say there is nothing threatening about these works. I disagree. Just think of the children who may see them. If they make me feel ill, imagine the damage they could do to children. It is heartbreaking to even think about it. If we truly care about our children, we must do something about nudity—now.

And it is getting worse. Teenagers use the internet to spread nude images all over the world in an instant. They post nudity on their Facebook pages, leading to shock, embarrassment and family strife. Clearly, we must do something about this. We must find a way to prevent children from accessing nude images, as well as from creating new nude images. Nude images are as dangerous as crack cocaine and crystal meth. Like drugs, nudity leads to immorality, licentiousness and unproductive behavior. Nudity is like a cancer. It threatens to undermine our society’s very foundations, just the way opium destroyed Chinese society in the 19th Century. Unless we act now, nudity could well destroy our Nation.

My legislative plan includes measures calculated to do two things: (1) Control existing nudity; and (2) Prevent the creation of new nudity. To control existing nudity, I propose making clothing mandatory at all times. Naked bodies cause untold damage to our society. When people see nudity, naughtiness, envy, disgust and even violence ensue. In short, nudity represents a very real social danger. To that extent, police measures are justified in reducing it. Public nudity has always been illegal. Traditionally, our society has drawn a moral line between female nipples on the street and female nipples in the home. But this is an irrational distinction; nudity is dangerous no matter whether it occurs in a full sports stadium or a private home. Nudity incites harmful behavior and leads to moral decline; it does not matter whether it occurs in public or private. In short, a female nipple is a female nipple, no matter where it is bared.

In this light, I propose legislation that will make private nudity a crime. No longer will citizens be allowed to sleep naked or even take showers without in some way “covering up.” Although group nudity poses greater dangers than individual nudity, individual nudity is dangerous to the extent that it incites bodily comfort in the perpetrator. That bodily comfort—like criminal intent—can mature into more severe offenses against the law and decency. In my view, bodily comfort is not good for society. By threatening criminal punishment for individual nudity, we can suppress bodily comfort. As long as some people are afraid to get undressed, we reduce the potential for nudity-related harm. We may not fully eradicate individual nudity, but we will at least strike fear into every man or woman who dares to remove his or her clothing at any time, for any reason. And less nudity means safer children.

We must also take steps against the creation of new nudity. Nudity is most dangerous when preserved in tangible form. Prior generations did not face this threat as much as we do. At most, statues and paintings depicted nudity, and only the rich could obtain them. Now, however, we are literally awash in nudity. Nakedness is everywhere. Photography and film largely bear responsibility for this terrible proliferation. Not coincidentally, crime and immorality have intensified in the generations since photography and film increased public access to nudity. We wonder why children talk back today? We wonder why people disrespect each other? We wonder why they hold nothing sacred? Simple: They see too much nudity and they spend too much time naked.

Under my legislative plan, we will combat this free fall by striking at the source: Devices that can create nude images. I intend to introduce legislation that will compel camera makers to develop “nudity-safe” mechanisms for their merchandise. These mechanisms will automatically detect whether the camera is recording a nude image, then disable the camera’s image-making capability. As soon as the nudity disappears, the camera will regain its image-creating capability. This represents a technological approach to stopping nudity proliferation. When my proposals become law, every camera sold in our State must meet Anti-Nudity obligations under the statute. The statute will also criminalize the possession, use and transfer of any camera or visual recording device that does not meet Anti-Nudity protocols under the law. By these measures, we will reduce the creation of nude images. In so doing, we will protect our children from a major source of potential nudity. If cameras literally cannot create nude images, we necessarily will see a drop in nudity. When there are less nude images, there will be less abuse on Facebook, less immorality on movie screens and safer children. A society with less nudity is a safer society.

I recognize that it will be difficult to eradicate all nudity-producing media. Artists will always paint or draw naked human bodies. But it takes much more skill to draw nudity than merely to record it with a camera. Additionally, direct Anti-Nudity obligations under the law will make it impossible for artists to observe nude models because models will no longer be able to lawfully pose in the nude. This will require artists to produce nude images solely from their imagination, not their direct observation. I believe that imagined nudity presents only a marginal threat to public decency. If an artist convincingly depicts fanciful nudity, the law can deal with him as necessary. Thankfully, there are not many artists with the ability or resources to produce large amounts of dangerous nudity. We can handle a few renegade painters. By eliminating nude photographs and movies, we eliminate the most widespread abuses. Everything else is just cleanup.

I am confident that I will obtain legislative support for my initiative against nudity. Like terrorism, nudity lurks among us. One can never know for sure whether the person next to us creates nude images, or whether he secretly wishes to get undressed. By taking strong action against nudity, we reduce the likelihood that nudity will affect our children. We will usher in a whole new era of safety in which our children learn that remaining fully clothed is far better than undressing. True, we will need to modify our behavior to comply with the law. We will have to learn to use the bathroom in new ways, shower in new ways and sleep in new ways. We will have to learn how to change our clothing without becoming fully naked. And we will have to learn how to reproduce with minimal nudity. Nonetheless, these are bearable burdens because they lead us to a better society—a nudity-free society. By waging war on nudity and the harmful social problems it creates, we both defend our children and edify ourselves. We are better than nudity. We can control it and defeat it. When we pass my law, the era of naked terror will see its last day.

Nudity is everyone’s concern. It is dangerous. We must band together and address it as a society. Today, we can take a step toward a better life—a fully clothed life. Once we overcome human nudity, we can conquer animal nudity, too. We have a duty to our children. Until every mammal learns that nudity is wrong, our children will not be completely safe. Until every dog, cat, hog, bird, horse, rabbit and cow learns to wear a coat and stockings, there will be danger in our society. But we will move incrementally. We will take one step at a time. Today, we move against nudity in humans. Tomorrow, we move against nudity everywhere—and when there is no more nudity, there is peace for all.

GET A HANDLE ON YOUR EMPLOYEES

EMPLOYERS' WORLD WEEKLY - VOL. 59, No. 3
(SUMMER 2009)

SUMMER IS HERE : DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR EMPLOYEES ARE?

By : Mr. G. Stanley Putts, M.B.A., Ph.D., Chairman and Chief Managing Officer, SpeedSave Credit Reporting Associates, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation); Professor, Employee Management Strategy Development, State University of Southern New Jersey School of Business (1988-present); Licensed Psychiatrist in the State of New Jersey.

It's that time of year again. As managers move into the hot months, they face new threats to productivity. Summertime means that more consumers are in the market for business. During the summer, managers face fresh opportunities for growth and profit. But summer also means that employees have other things on their minds. According to Department of Labor Statistics, productivity levels fall at least 43% between June and September, even when payrolls increase. What does this mean? Simple: It means that employees don't do their jobs as well in the summer. Managers need to reverse this alarming trend. To do so, they must do two things: (1) Understand the employee's mind; and (2) Adopt result-oriented measures calculated to increase productivity.

Good managers understand that employees make or break a company. Without motivated employees, companies could not keep their businesses afloat. Without diligent workers to handle the myriad mundane tasks necessary to sustain a profitable outfit--from opening mail to answering phones to proofreading letters to driving trucks--businesses could not grow. Without good employees, businesses would never produce returns for shareholders. And let's not forget who's important. Shareholders put up the capital needed to open businesses; and they want to be rewarded. It's up to us--the managers--to make sure their investments pay off. Employees have no stake in companies. They merely work to ensure that shareholders receive their rewards. In return, the company pays them an amount that allows them to fulfill their own financial obligations without impairing healthy profit levels for the shareholders. In sum, paying employees is a necessary investment. It would be nice if we did not have to pay them anything. But we do not live in a perfect world.

Good managers pay employees just enough to make them feel that they are not being exploited. This is essential; managing pay is a crucial management skill. In fact, good managers know how to set pay precisely to maximize two effects: (1) Shareholder profit; and (2) Employee morale. Shareholder profit is easy; one must merely crunch some numbers and show a higher total this year than last year. But employee morale is much trickier to achieve. After all, there is no quarterly balance sheet column to account for employees' feelings. Yet good managers must master employees' feelings just as efficiently as they must master profit levels. To accomplish that goal, good managers must understand the employee's mind.

As a trained business psychiatrist, I am pleased to offer managers an insight into the employee's mind. Many managers view their employees with barely-veiled contempt. They see them as a nuisance rather than a resource. They see them as ornery children who must be violently restrained in order to maintain favorable productivity levels. Although violence, repression and contempt are appropriate tools in the battle to secure employee morale, one must think more profoundly. Conceptually speaking, employees serve the company. A good servant does not just perform the tasks appointed to him; he also has the proper mental outlook. Servants, in other words, have two duties: (1) They diligently perform required tasks; and (2) They take their motivation from their masters. Thus, there is a physical and mental element to service. In my experience, I have found that the best employees have the best mental outlook. They look to their masters for both direction and meaning. They truly believe in the employer's mission, and their activity derives from their mental dedication to that mission. A truly motivated employee is a loyal servant. His will focuses not on himself, but on his employer's needs. He experiences emotional satisfaction when the employer achieves success. His own desires fade into obscurity. In essence, then, good employees have the proper will. They are not distracted. Their minds merge with the employer's will. They sacrifice their own well-being to please their masters. When a manager succeeds in transforming mere employees into true servants, there is no end to a company's potential success.

But that is Utopian thinking. As managers, we strive to make true servants out of our employees. Yet all too often we must settle for less. All too often, we cannot fully replace every employee's will with the employer's mission. There are always a troublesome residues in the employee's mind: Individual desires, personal wants, dreams, resentments, family tribulations, financial worry. We cannot always fully win over an employee's mind. No matter how much we try, employees always hold a little bit back for themselves. That damages productivity. Productivity demands maximum concentration and dedication to the employer's mission. When an employee is thinking about something other than the employer's success, his work will not be as zealous as it would be if his mind were clear. To that extent, dreams, desires, wishes, fascinations and individual characteristics harm productivity. Employers cannot tolerate this. When employees start thinking about themselves, productivity suffers. And when that happens, profit margins dwindle, injuring the shareholders.

Managers have a duty to please the shareholders. They can do this by getting a handle on their employees. As mentioned, the key to productivity is employee will. The battle for employee will begins with employee morale. To channel employees' will toward the employer, managers must be prepared to adopt result-oriented measures calculated to increase employee morale. Spirited employees with high morale have the proper will. When it comes to employee management, then, good mangers must consider how employees think. As mentioned, employees have a dangerous tendency to think for themselves while on the job. Good managers find ways to eradicate individual thinking among employees and to replace it with high morale. Still, this is no easy task. Individual employees may be thinking about coming weekends, girlfriends, sick parents, outstanding loans, car payments, poor health, their children, sex, last weekend, parties, the beach, vacations, Friday night movies, their homes or even the mere fact that they are hungry. When employees think about these things, they necessarily are not thinking about the employer's mission. This is dangerous.

Worse, employees minds drift even more during hot summer months. They dream about family barbecue get-togethers, beach parties, bikinis, sunbathing, poolside excursions, boat rides, amusement trips and drunken forays in the dunes. More to the point, these thoughts only intensify when employees look outside the window and see how sunny it is, then reflect that they are stuck in an office tower for the next 15 hours. It is no wonder that productivity falls 43% between June and September. Good managers must stop these thoughts before they start. In a word, individual employee thinking is dangerous to employee morale, productivity and shareholder satisfaction. As managers, we have a duty to guard against it at all times. We do not pay employees to be individuals. We pay employees to serve us.

Good managers get a handle on their employees. To eliminate dangerous individual thinking, good managers are not afraid to take bold steps. A good manager does not increase morale by "being nice;" a good manager yells, threatens and creates intense workplace rivalries. "Nice managers" encourage employees to think for themselves. "Nice managers" try to be "friends" with employees. They even give employees "privacy" and "respect" while on the job. Yet this leads only to wasted time and wasted money. Unsupervised employees exploit the business for money while giving nothing back to the shareholders. Good managers, by contrast, scrupulously oversee their employees to ensure proper morale. They segregate employees to minimize small talk, gossip, chatter, joking and laughter. They install surveillance cameras to ensure that only company work motivates employee behavior. They publicly discipline employees who surf the internet for personal reasons while on the job. When necessary, they call lazy workers into their offices for full-scale tongue lashings. In short, good managers create a positive atmosphere in which employees are happy to carry out employer business. In such an atmosphere morale increases and servants serve well. Good managers are like good fathers: They assert their authority strongly and often.

Good managers must not be afraid to scream, yell, insult, degrade, humiliate and belittle their employees. When it appears that an employee represents a danger to employee morale through individual thinking, humor, good temperament or popularity, a good manager must not hesitate to tell him to "Get a grip or get fired." When an employee exhibits a propensity to do things in a manner different from prescribed protocols, a good manager must not hesitate to personally discipline the employee. Willful employees represent a danger to all. If employees do not respect protocols intended to ensure maximum productivity, shareholder satisfaction will suffer. In that light, any attempt to do things differently must be vigorously suppressed. Managers must show that they know best. And they must not be afraid to crush any dissent before it threatens employee morale.

We do not want willful employees. Good employees are good servants, and servants are not willful. In fact, a servant's will is always subservient to his master's will. In that sense, willfulness and service are mutually exclusive. When a manager detects willfulness in an employee, he must act quickly and decisively. Personal insult, threat, reduced pay and isolation represent ample means to eradicate willfulness. Extreme cases may necessitate physical restraint, company re-education or hanging the employee upside down and forcing him to recite the company motto until he exhibits proper respect for the employer's mission. Willfulness cannot exist in the workplace. Good managers tolerate only one will: The will to serve the employer.

Managers must not have moral qualms about the methods they choose to increase morale. True, some methods may alienate employees more than others. But as long as the end result generates more productivity, any method is justified. To that extent, managers cannot sympathize or empathize with employees. Employees are not the same as shareholders. Employees exist to enrich the shareholders, not to enjoy their lives as unique individuals. And managers do not exist to secure comfort and peace for employees. To the contrary, managers exist to please the shareholders, and shareholders will not be pleased with low productivity. In this light, good managers have a clear purpose: To increase employee productivity at all costs. As we have seen, high productivity and high employee morale go hand in hand. In the same vein, high employee morale results when a good manager eradicates dangerous individual thinking among employees and readjusts their will. Thus, good managers have a well-defined task: To vigorously increase productivity by increasing employee morale through the suppression of individual thought.

As good managers, let us strive to reverse the trend this summer. If we understand what it takes to generate high morale, we can get a handle on our employees. The time for understanding and tolerance is over. Good management demands the courage to disparage, suppress, overpower, intimidate, cajole, deceive and badger our employees into productivity and service. After all, we are not doing this for our health. Employees are not individuals. They are the means by which shareholders secure suitable profits. They need to get their heads in the game, and this is a game we need to win. We serve the shareholders. To perform our task, we, too, must view employees for what they are: A means to an end.

We wish you a prosperous and productive summer!

SUCCESSFUL PEOPLES' PRACTICAL ALLIANCE FOR THE REDUCTION OF ALL LIFE QUESTIONS TO A MULTIPLE CHOICE TEST

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Dr. Chuang Ho Fung, Esq. (bar licensed in all 50 States, plus the District of Columbia), M.D., D.D.S., C.P.A., D.V.M., P.E., D.P.M., Certified Race Horse Rider & Jockey, Certified 500-Meter Springboard Diver, N.A.P.T.-Certified Personal Trainer, State-Authorized Dietary Technician (New Jersey); Chairperson, The American Board of Standardized Test Takers (Multiple Choice Division); CEO and Founder, Ho Fung’s Test Wizzes, Inc., a Delaware Corporation with subsidiaries.

In America, success depends on taking tests. From school to work and professional life, Americans must repeatedly prove their merit by answering substantive questions under supervised time pressure. Third-graders must take tests to prove they can spell. Eleventh-graders must take tests to prove they can handle college work. Doctors must take tests to prove they know the aorta is not the colon. And lawyers must take the Bar Exam to prove that they know what contracts are. Tests define and mark our lives. If we do not do well on the test, we fail. If we do well on the test, we succeed. Our tests determine whether we go to college, get a job or make money in life. In short, tests are everything. Without solid test-taking skills, success is impossible.

We are successful because know how to take standardized tests. Test-taking is an art and a science. It involves iron nerves, time management, cunning, skill and aggressiveness. In that sense, taking tests mirrors American life. Just as a successful person must have iron nerves, solid time management skills, cunning and aggressiveness, so too must a master test-taker. Great test-takers manage their time to the minute. They do not spend 61 seconds on a question that only deserves 45. They know how to answer questions. And they are cunning; they can ignore distractions and focus solely on the important information in a problem.

We did not become master test-takers overnight. We spent our entire lives learning how to take tests. We endured failures before learning how to decipher standardized questions. We did not always know how to answer questions such as: “It is raining on Sunday, but not Thursday; Jones goes to the park on Wednesdays, unless it is Friday; Marge cooks in the parlor every day but Sunday, unless Jones goes to the park; When does Jones not go to the park? (A) On Tuesday if it is raining; (B) On Fridays, except Good Friday; (C) Unless Marge cooks in the parlor, on Saturday night; (D) (A) and (C), but not (B); (E) None of the above; but all of the above if Marge cooks a steak.” But now we can fish out the correct answer simply by looking at the sentence structure. We know how testers think. We can read their minds and give them the answer they want. We know how to use the words “but,” “unless,” “except,” “not,” “all,” “if” and “none.” Armed with those skills, we passed tests that made us doctors, lawyers, accountants, professors and veterinarians. All Americans can learn test-taking. They need not actually know the material; they just have to know how to take tests. In America, results matter. Tests measure results. In that light, testing is everything. Knowledge is unnecessary. Even the most knowledgeable man will fail a test if he does not know how to take it. And if he cannot subconsciously interpret the word “unless,” he will stand no chance at all.

Our test-taking abilities brought us untold riches. By learning how to take tests, we got into the best schools, passed all the professional license exams and landed extremely high-paying jobs. We learned how to take each test, aced them and started collecting our money. True, we often forgot everything about the test after we passed it. But that did not matter. We achieved our goals. We got our degrees. We landed our jobs. We did all this because we knew how to take each test along the way. Who can argue with success? Too many Americans complain that they just “cannot get over the hump.” We disagree. As the Successful Peoples’ Practical Alliance for the Reduction of all Life Questions to a Multiple Choice Test, we believe that all Americans can achieve success. They must simply know how to answer questions in a standardized test format. Once they learn this art, no door will close to them. Rather, even Harvard and Yale will bombard them with scholarship offers. After all, it is all about the score in America, in both life and sports. If you get the high score, you get the result you want. Test-taking skill will get you the high score. And that will get you all the love America can give.

Educators in the United States do not understand this. They believe that students should learn for learning’s sake, not merely to pass tests. They think that knowledge is a permanent asset, not merely an expedient instrument necessary to overcome a looming exam. These are fundamentally flawed assumptions. If it came between a well-rounded person who “learns for learning’s sake” with no special test-taking skill and a narrow-minded person who “learns what is necessary for the test” with special test-taking techniques, the trained test-taker will always get the higher score. And in America, high scores trump low scores. It does not matter that the well-rounded person retains his knowledge and thinks profoundly. Nor does it matter that the test-taker immediately forgets everything he learns before moving on to the next exam. Scores are more valuable than knowledge. Harvard does not take “smart people;” Harvard takes people who get the high scores on standardized tests. High scorers do not need to be smart. They simply need to know what’s on the test and how to correctly—and quickly—answer the questions. Intelligence actually hampers test-taking ability, since “intelligent people” see ambiguities in unambiguous test questions. Rather than instinctively answering, they hem and haw, pondering grammatical issues in the text. What good is intelligence when it costs them test success? Nothing. Thus, educators have it all wrong. Intelligence and knowledge are not the goal. Rather, students simply need to pass tests. They do not have to be “smart,” “curious,” “profound” or even “remotely bright.” They just need to know whether (A), (B) or (C) answers the question—within time limits.

Tests gave us all we could ever want in the world. We achieved our status because we learned how to take the tests and aced them. Nonetheless, even master test-takers face quandaries. Despite our superior test-taking abilities, there are some questions in life that we cannot answer. This frustrates us greatly. We feel cheated. We worked long and hard to learn how to take tests, only to discover that there are some questions that do not appear in a standardized format. Worse, no one grades or corrects responses to these questions, making it impossible to achieve a high score for answering them. Put simply, this is unacceptable. Test-takers deserve better. We believe that all questions in life must appear in a standardized, multiple-choice format subject to grading and scoring. We can answer any question by ruling out (A), (C) and (D). Why can’t we apply our skills to answer “unanswerable” questions? What message would it send to hopeful test-takers if they knew that all their hard work will never answer certain questions? As master test-takers, we are accustomed to success. We refuse to allow life to ask any question that we cannot answer in a graded, standardized format.

To reinforce respect for test-taking in America, we must draft a standardized test for “difficult life questions.” It is not enough to test future lawyers by asking them about evidence, contracts and property division rules. It is not enough to test future engineers by asking them about load walls and stresses. Rather, we must test and grade responses to all questions, not just questions necessary to get into universities and obtain professional licenses. To do this we must introduce a Universal Life Standardized Test (ULST). We must appoint a professional board to grade it. This is the only way to bring all life questions under standardized control. We are not accustomed to questions without answers. That is why we resolve ourselves to answering them all now—once and for all. No longer will people say: “There is no answer to this question.” Soon, there will be. And you will fail if you do not answer it correctly.

We believe that we can answer any question as long as we know the test. The ULST will provide definitive, objective answers to all life questions, even questions that have eluded explanation since time began. For example, the ULST will pose questions such as: “The purpose of life is which of the following, assuming Herbert is present in the room on Friday: (A) To live well according to James Wilson, except if his wife objects; (B) To obtain $5,000,000 before age 50, but not if it snows in London this March; (C) Meeting James Wilson; (D) Not meeting James Wilson; (E) All of the above except (D).” It will also resolve intractable philosophical issues with questions such as this: “Happiness can best be described as: (A) Joy, but not pain, provided the supervisor consents; (B) Pain without joy, unless the supervisor does not consent; (C) A warm house owned in fee simple absolute and not subject to adverse possession claims; (D) Mental retardation and lifelong dependency in the State of Ohio, but not mental retardation or lifelong dependency in the State of Hawaii, unless it is a leap year; (E) Death, unless it is not quick.” Additionally, the ULST will test an applicant’s ability to ascertain previously-unknown—and apparently insignificant—facts: “Bill Ruggles went for a walk in June 1987 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. During that walk, Bill DID NOT think which of the following thoughts: (A) I need to get home in order to urinate, but not feed the cows; (B) My wife is a mean and awful woman; (C) I do not need to feed the cows, but I need to get home to urinate; (D) My left middle finger has a cut on it; (E) None of the above except (A).” Lastly, the ULST will test matters of taste and morality: “Good people: (I) Read good books; (II) Eat good food, but not eel grass; (III) Exercise regularly without ingesting more than 500 calories per day; (IV) Tell the truth, unless working; (V) Do not tell the truth, except when not working; and (VI) Visit their parents in Duluth during bad weather, but never in summer, unless the parents are named Carlsbad. Applying these facts, bad people do which of the following: (A) (I) and (V), if they are not named Carlsbad; (B) Tell the truth, (II) and (III), unless they are working; (C) (I), (II) and (III), but not (VI); (D) (V) if not telling the truth at work in Duluth; (E) All of the above, except (III), other than eel grass.”

Test-takers will learn how to answer ULST questions in less than 60 seconds. Good test-taking requires disciplined time management. Applicants will have 180 minutes to answer 180 multiple-choice questions on the ULST. Applicants will have one 15-minute break in between the first and second halves. Applicants will not have access to any outside information during the testing session. They must know how to answer the questions without recourse to data. That is the only way to determine whether an applicant truly understands universal life questions. Proctors will circle the room to ensure fairness. The test will be administered quarterly. Registration will cost $575 per applicant, plus applicable taxes and fees.

We suggest that the National Board begin work on the ULST immediately. If we do not reduce all life questions to a multiple-choice test, we insult all the hard-working test takers who gave their lives to learn how to take exams. As it stands now, even the best test-takers cannot truly answer “what is the purpose of life” or “what makes you happy” because there is no standardized test to ask those questions.

No more. Through the ULST, test-takers will remove all uncertainty from their lives. They will take comfort in the fact that even tough questions can be answered—and graded accordingly. Finally, successful ULST takers will receive “Universal Life Certification,” meaning they have correctly answered every question in life. That, in turn, will allow them to update their resumes and legitimately claim that they “know what they are talking about” on any life issue. Of course, success on the ULST will not replace success on specific subject matter tests. Lawyers must still take the Bar Exam even if they have passed the ULST. Doctors must still take their Boards even if they have Universal Life Certification. Although successful ULST takers should not have a problem with specific subject matter tests, we believe that Americans can never take enough tests. After all, the more high scores one achieves in life, the better.

Life is understandable. Everything can be boiled down and graded under an objective standard. There is no uncertainty in life; rather, we can know everything. As long as we phrase our questions in a standardized format, we can answer them correctly. Tests are the gateways to truth and success. We control our own destinies. We simply must write the test, enroll in a course, learn how to take it—then pass it.

Enroll in a special ULST practice course today. Testing day is coming up. You want to pass, don’t you? You don’t want to fail, do you? You want to be successful in life, don’t you? If so, you had better start studying for the test. You can do it. You just need to know how to answer the questions. After all, life has an answer key, just like the ULST. Just learn it once and you’re on your way. Once you pass, you can tear up your study materials and go to work for the rest of your days, confident in the knowledge that you have “Universal Life Certification.”

WHY IT IS GOOD TO HAVE MONEY

AN EDITORIAL

By : Mr. Arnold F. Silver, Esq., Partner, Gold, Diamond, Silver & Greener, P.C., Attorneys Specializing in Commercial Paper, Finance, Banking & International Currency Transactions.

I was asked to write an essay about our law practice. I decided, however, that it would be much more appropriate merely to explain why it is good to have money. Legal questions and money questions generally go hand in hand. For that reason, writing about money is the same as writing about legal practice. Suffice it to say, when we practice law at our firm, we talk about money—whether directly, indirectly, figuratively, literally, symbolically, by implication or by insinuation—all the time. And it is certainly our goal. Put simply, we do not get up in the morning thinking about helping clients with our unique legal knowledge. We get up in the morning thinking about how much money the firm will make each day. Having clarified why I am writing, I will now discuss why it is good to have money.

I have money. You don’t. I like the way I feel. You don’t. I can buy a car and a house without anxiety. I can make all my payments every month, plus have money left over in all my accounts. I can drive to work and drive home, then comfortably watch television before going to bed on a very soft mattress. You worry all the time whether you will have enough cash at month’s end to stay in your apartment. I send my laundry to be cleaned and pressed every week. I can afford it. You can’t. You live in rumpled clothes because you don’t have the money or time to wash them regularly. I can go on long vacations with my wife because I have a lot of extra money. I can sit on the beach for several weeks knowing that my house and car will be there when I get home. You can’t go on vacation. You can barely buy groceries. You can’t go anywhere. You have to think about getting money to eat. In essence, it is better to be me than you. It is good to have money.

I run a business and I get all the proceeds. You work for someone and get a few dollars in return. I feel perfectly normal each day giving instructions to my employees. You feel awful each day taking peremptory commands from your bosses. At the end of each quarter, my partners and I divide up the surplus revenue, giving me a large cash bonus. You get an insulting paycheck. I make a lot more money than you because I own more than you do. You make a lot less money than I do because you own nothing. You don’t have the money to own anything, either. I will keep my money and stay the way I am. You will keep making a few dollars and stay the way you are. I am doing better than you because I have money. You are doing worse than I am because you don’t have money. This again proves that it is good to have money.

I have investments because I have extra money to spend on them. You can’t make investments because you have no extra money. I make a lot of extra money from my real estate investments, money markets and stocks. You do not have any real estate investments, money markets or stocks because you can’t afford them. I feel good knowing that I have profitable investments. You feel panicked and terrified that you have almost nothing in the bank. I have a portfolio that generates income each month without any effort on my part. You do not have a portfolio and you generate no income if you don’t work. I own property and I can do what I want with it when I want to. You own no property and you have to listen to your landlord. You wish you had what I have. But you don’t. Money gave me what I have, so it is good to have money.

I can help people like you because I have money. You want to change your life. You want to make money. But before you can, you need a loan. I can give you a loan because I have money. You need money to pay for your necessities and go to school. You need me so you can finally make more money. I don’t need the money; you do. I am doing fine. You aren’t; that’s why you need a loan. If I give you a loan, you will have my money. But I want my money back—plus more. You might have my money for a while, but in the end, I will have my money back, plus a lot of yours. You need my money. But in the end I will have yours. I don’t really need your money. Yet no one gets my money without giving me theirs. That wouldn’t be fair. No one gives away money for free. And you need a loan, don’t you? I don’t have to worry. You do. I have money. You don’t. You wouldn’t be asking for a loan if you did. In a word, it is good to have money. You don’t have to ask for loans when you already have money.

I do not have many problems because I have money. You have a lot more problems than I do because you have no money. Life is better when there are fewer problems. Life is worse when there are more problems. Money eliminates many problems. That is why I have fewer problems than you. It is better to have only a few problems than many problems. We both might have problems with relationships. But I do not worry about rent, food, gas bills, air conditioning costs, loan debt, my job, medical care, my credit score or my bank balance. You worry about all these things and relationships. I only worry about relationships. So you have lot more problems than I do. That means I have a better life because I have money. You have a worse life because you don’t.

I can make my money work for me. I can charge interest. I can open trust accounts. I can diversify my funds. You don’t even have funds, so you can’t diversify them. You can’t open trust accounts or charge interest, either, because you don’t have any money. Money can’t work for you if you don’t have any. It feels good to know that your money is working for you, because then you don’t have to work as hard. But you feel terrible now because you have to do all the work. After all, your money isn’t working for you because you do not have any money. You wish you were me because I have money. You can’t be me until you have money. And you don’t. My money works for me and I feel good about it. You have no money at all and you feel bad about it. For that reason, it is good to have money. In any event, it is better to have money than not to have money.

In my opinion, my life is better than yours. Typically, I do not make moral judgments. Rather, I make financial judgments based solely on figures and potential profitability. In some cases, however, I can make moral judgments based upon financial considerations. In this case, I can say that I am happier than you. I am happier because I am less anxious, nervous, angry, scared, upset, stressed, depressed, resentful and desperate than you. Furthermore, I experience more bodily comfort, pleasure, delight and enjoyment than you because I do not worry as much about money matters. You occasionally experience bodily comfort, pleasure, delight and enjoyment. But more often you are nervous, angry, scared, upset, stressed, depressed, resentful and desperate because you do not have enough money to pay your bills. You live in uncertainty. Uncertainty makes it impossible to relax and feel good. By contrast, I feel certain every day that I have more than enough money to pay any bill that comes my way, even a bill for unexpected dental work. That certainty eliminates any negative emotions I might feel. I do not feel resentful; why should I? I do not take instructions; I give them. I do not have to be somewhere everyday at 7 AM; my employees do. I do not wait until someone tells me I can leave my desk; I tell my employees when they can leave. I make my own hours, I go where I wish and I don’t suffer for it. Why? Because I have money. Money makes me free and happy. You don’t have money. You are not free and you are unhappy. You would rather be free and happy. But you can’t be either free or happy until you have money. I have money. As a financial and moral matter, that gives me a better life than you.

In conclusion, it is good to have money because it brings freedom, happiness, certainty, power and self-determination. By contrast, it is bad not to have money because it leads to bondage, powerlessness, debt, unhappiness, uncertainty, indignity, shame, contempt, resentment and anxiety. I have money. You don’t. I am happy and free. You aren’t.

I am glad I live in a country that lets me have money. You live in the same country, so what are you whining about? Stop sulking. Go make some money. Make yourself happy and free.

Remember: You can always get a loan from me.