H.I.R.E. : HEALTH INSURANCE RESISTANCE EDUCATION

A MESSAGE FROM THE F.B.I.

"JUST SAY NO"

By : Mr. Robert S. Mueller III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C.

Americans face threats every day. Foreign terrorists plan violence against us. Domestic thugs commit robberies and senseless killings in our midst. Organized gangs intimidate and extort honest businesses. And psychopaths brutally beat loved ones, including their own wives and children. In a word, crime is everywhere.

Here at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, we are committed to protecting you from criminals. We hunt down killers and thieves. We bring them to justice. But that is not all we do. We try our best to prevent crime, too. While we cannot stop a hardened shoplifter's decision to filch from a store, we can at least help protect potential victims from crime. To that end, the FBI believes in education.

Not all crime is obvious. Everyone knows it's wrong to put on a hoodie and pry into a nice-looking home with a crowbar. Everyone knows it's wrong to smash an elderly woman in the head with a hammer as she struggles to cross the street. These are visible crimes. But not all crime is visible. Crime happens all over the place. Well-educated executives might be committing monumental financial crime two stories above your head as you toil for minimum wage in a corporate copy center. Traders might be illegally fixing prices on a proprietary computer program somewhere down the block. Although these crimes might not be as obvious as bashing an old woman in the skull, they still pose a threat to Americans everywhere. And the FBI is determined to informing Americans about all crime, not just visible crime. We believe in a simple motto: Because information is the best protection™.

Today, the FBI wishes to inform Americans about a pervasive criminal threat: Health insurance sales. We do this because many Americans do not realize that they are being victimized by ruthless health insurance gangs masquerading as upstanding corporations. Until Americans receive the information they need to protect themselves, health insurance gangs--including the notorious "Cigna Hustlaz" and the most-wanted "Blue Crips Blue Shield Brothahood"--will continue to rain unrestricted economic terror on millions every day.

To combat health insurance gangsters, racketeering and economic intimidation, we have instituted a new program directed at Americans of all ages: HEALTH INSURANCE RESISTANCE EDUCATION, or H.I.R.E.

Let's start with some basics. Everyone likes health insurance. Health insurance gangs know that. Health insurance gives people a high; it makes them feel secure that someone else will pay their medical bills if they get sick. In recent years, private employers stopped giving employees health insurance because it made them lazy, unproductive and apathetic. Gangsters like the Cigna Hustlaz stepped in to fill the supply vacuum, selling exorbitantly-priced health insurance at street rates. Once hooked, a health insurance addict can't get enough. He wants more and more insurance. He wants more and more free medical care. And when the gangsters see this, they just keep raising the prices, knowing the addict will pay. In the end, health insurance gangs reap fantastic profits, while addicts waste all their money paying whatever price the gang demands.

Until now, health insurance gangs have tyrannized Americans with relative impunity. For one thing, they do not look like regular criminals. They are generally not African-American or Hispanic. Rather, they are not people at all: They are corporations. Their senior leaders are generally white men between 40 and 60 with suffixes like "IV," "Jr.," "Sr.," and "Esq." after their names. Some health insurance high-ups even have street nicknames, like "Chip," "Skip," "Tad," "Dodger," "Lil Princeton," and "Biggie Witherspoon AKA Tha Kash Docta." Many live in the suburbs and pay their taxes. Most Americans have no idea that these friendly-looking white men are actually vicious health insurance thugs determined to drive them into bankruptcy, addiction and early death.

But the FBI knows all about these gangsters. We have a Most Wanted List for Health Care Thugs. And today we declare that we will protect average Americans from health insurance gangs all over the country.

America's addiction to health insurance has reached epidemic proportions. It has destroyed homes and fortunes. It has ruined marriages. It has even led to imprudent surgeries and haphazard medical care. It has driven hard-working people into homelessness. Now, destitute beggars roam the streets, desperately seeking their next health insurance fix. Citing "cost concerns," health insurance gangsters have caused children to forgo needed doctor visits. And they have forced millions of Americans to deal with vicious health insurance gang "employees" ("wiseguys") who torment them every day with unfair appeals, denial letters and various other petty indignities. Many Americans fear telephone calls from these health insurance "wiseguys." In most cases, they learn that the gang has once again rejected their request for a heart transplant because it is "not covered."

Health insurance gangs have almost succeeded in reducing the American public to dependency. They have laid their hooks into American families from coast to coast, wringing them for excessive premiums every single day. When they don't pay, "wiseguys" threaten them with collection action and illness. Health insurance gangs know that Americans can't get enough health care. They know that Americans crave the health insurance high. So they just ignore the law and common decency to throttle Americans for everything they own. At the same time, they shrewdly cover their tracks by complying with corporate laws, paying taxes, making political contributions and advertising on television. No one thinks they are gangsters. And this all works to their advantage.

We refuse to tolerate health insurance gangsterism any longer. Through our new Health Insurance Resistance Education program, we are confident that we can save America from health insurance thugs. Information will always win over crime. That is why H.I.R.E. will begin teaching America's children how to spot health insurance hustlers. It will teach them to JUST SAY NO to street peddlers like "Holla Humana" and "Dem Anthem Playaz." It will teach them to talk to their parents about health insurance alternatives and fair prices. And it will teach them that strength in numbers is the best way to resist a lone health insurance dealer. When our kids take H.I.R.E., they will learn that health insurance is not cool.

But H.I.R.E. is not just about children. Adults have a lot to learn about health insurance crime, too. We plan to educate all Americans about health insurance thugs, including how to spot them. Health insurance gangs only became strong in America because they hoodwinked Americans into thinking they were "respectable businesses." But through H.I.R.E., we will teach Americans that companies hawking basic doctor visit coverage for $900 a month plus a $50,000 deductible are not "respectable businesses," but rather vicious health insurance thugs. We will inform America about our Most Wanted list and what the worst criminals look like. We will make Americans less naïve about trusting white men who work in the Cigna tower. And we will offer addiction treatment programs to help Americans cope with the fallout from health insurance abuse.

In the end, we are determined to tell America the truth. We refuse to allow health insurance gangs to ruin any more Americans lives. We refuse to see Americans driven to bankruptcy and homelessness because they could not cough up the monthly health insurance vig. We refuse to allow shameless thugs get away with extortion while pretending to be "just another corporation in a skyscraper." That is why we started H.I.R.E. And we are confident that we will put these crooks down once and for all, along with all their "wiseguy" call center enforcers.

America needs health care without health insurance gangsters. Health care by itself is not dangerous. It is only dangerous when sold on the street. We can save America from dependency on street health insurance only by bringing health insurance under government oversight. Just as food used to be dangerous before the government intervened to regulate food production, so too is street-level health insurance dangerous without government supervision. Health insurance is too important and too harmful to entrust to profit-hungry street gangs. Everyone wants health insurance. Everyone needs health insurance. That is all the more reason for the government to ensure that people receive quality-controlled care in a fair, honest manner.

But we will not achieve health insurance safety without first defeating health insurance gangs. Only education will win the war against them. H.I.R.E. is the first step to helping America understand the danger they face. Once Americans see that they are being exploited, bamboozled and extorted every day by so-called "respectable health insurance corporations," they will understand that government regulation is the only way to protect them from gangsters. While we appreciate that many Americans hesitate to support government control over health care, we are confident that H.I.R.E. will show them that the health insurance street market has victimized them, not helped them.

For decades, America has lived at the whim of health insurance thugs. That time is about to end. Here at the FBI, we are determined to protect you from exploitation and violence, even when you do not realize that you are a crime victim. Health insurance gangs have been victimizing you for years and you don't even know it. No more. That is why we promise to win the war against the health insurance gangsters who now tyrannize your life.

One day, every American will have health insurance at very low cost. Education will pave the way. The FBI will do its part. And we promise that no criminal gang will ever profit from your addiction to health care.

This is America. We do not tolerate unfairness or exploitation here.

Watch out, health insurance thugs. We know who you are. You can run but you can't hide.

PRESIDENTS ARE BORING : WHATEVER HAPPENED TO INTERESTING RULERS LIKE FREDERICK THE GREAT?

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

In centuries past, political leaders led much more interesting lives than they do today. They were not just politicians and party bosses. They were more than petty thugs and criminals. They did more with their time than merely sign legislation, negotiate treaties and give speeches. They had more freedom to be themselves, not the calculated personas we see in rulers today. In the past, rulers have not just been commercial administrators. They have been painters, singers, writers, sculptors, generals, conquerors, heroes, scientists, philosophers and theater lovers. But today, most political rulers have no outside interests: They are usually just devious lawyers and cutthroat business tycoons who crave reelection.

By American standards, Barack Obama may be "interesting." But he is still pretty staid compared to history's more well-rounded rulers. In brief, he's just another wealthy lawyer who wears a lapel pin and panders to business interests. Come to think of it, no American President has ever been very well-rounded. The office simply does not lend itself to flamboyance or rebelliousness. Perhaps that has something to do with Democracy: People in a Democracy want relatively boring "stewards" to manage their affairs. In the American Democracy, for instance, people want stability, not calamity. After all, you can't make money without stability. That explains why virtually every American President has been either a lawyer or business baron. Lawyers and business barons are "stable people." Boring as hell, generally, but stable. They don't invite calamity, at least intentionally.

By contrast, interesting people aren't usually very stable. And they court calamity. That's why American Presidents aren't very interesting. American Presidents just want to keep the economy going and get reelected. That might yield a comfortable existence, but it isn't very memorable.

But rulers like Frederick the Great of Prussia (1712-1786) are memorable. Frederick was no mere commercial orchestrator. He was a general, a conqueror and an arts patron. He invited French philosophers to stay with him in his palace and engaged in homoerotic banter with his all-male courtiers. He played the harpsichord and the flute. He carried on correspondence (in French) with Voltaire and wrote music in his spare time. He even penned marches for his army. About his wife, he said: "There can be neither love nor friendship between us." He never had children; his wife lived in her own castle and he visited her once a year for tea. And he even tried to flee his own country with his ostensibly gay lover when he was 18. His father caught them before they left. Then he forced his son to watch as he had his lover beheaded.

Now that is interesting. A man like that could never be President: Too interesting.

Yet Prussia became a major European power under Frederick's rule. Frederick might have been a composer, artist, general, philosopher and arts patron. But he also ran the country extremely well. He was interesting and well-rounded. He inspired faith in his people. His example shows that well-rounded rulers can be exceptional, despite the impulsion to be boring commercial orchestrators.

I find it significant that no one remembers Frederick for his commercial tact. In fact, no one ever thinks about commerce when they think about Frederick. They think about his military prowess, cultivation and Enlightenment. They think about the things that made him a well-rounded person, not his skill as a financier.

In a way, Frederick's example shows that great rulers transcend commerce. After all, people don't remember quiet bourgeois comfort. They remember unique personalities who vault beyond the banal concerns of prospering at business. They remember interesting people.

That is why most American Presidents are quite forgettable. They just aren't interesting. The only ones worth remembering did things beyond commercial management. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. He saved the country from dissolution, led it through war and abolished slavery. He might not have been an artist or composer, but he spent his time attending to matters larger than commercial management. In America, that is memorable. After all, almost all the other Presidents did little but manage the economy. Like Frederick the Great, Lincoln transcended commerce. That is why he is the most memorable American President.

But even Lincoln was not as interesting as Frederick. Lincoln was just another lawyer in a long line of lawyers who became Presidents. An exceptional lawyer, to be sure, but nonetheless just another bourgeois. He was a creative statesman and even an amateur inventor, but still nothing like Frederick. America simply does not tolerate such colorfulness in its political rulers. They would never get elected in the first place. Can you imagine what the media would say if a Presidential candidate admitted he tried to flee the country with his gay lover? Or that he preferred to speak French? That would not go over too well in South Carolina. America just doesn’t like flamboyant originals in high office. Especially flamboyant originals who might be gay.

Instead, America likes mediocre career politicians in high office. America likes one-dimensional Washington insiders who know how to work the system just well enough to keep unemployment down and income up. It does not want men like Frederick the Great, or even Abraham Lincoln. Put simply, American democracy does not want leaders who rock the boat too much, even if rocking the boat improves things in the end. Well-rounded men might be brilliant, but they are risky. And commerce abhors risk.

It is no accident that someone killed Lincoln. That's what happens to American rulers when they get just a little too interesting for comfort. And that's a shame, because interesting people can lead Nations to incredible new heights.

SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN THINGS THEY DROP ON THE TRACKS

A LETTER FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN TO THE COMMISSIONER OF THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (MTA)

By : Mrs. Zelda B. Wertheimer, Wife of Joseph G. Wertheimer, Founder, Wertheimer Industrial Plastics & Enamels Co., Inc. Owner, 2500 Acres assorted real estate in four countries; Resident, 237 Park Avenue, New York, NY; Member, Director's Guild, Metropolitan Museum of Art.

February 1, 2010

Dear Sir,

As a New Yorker and a humanitarian, I wish to complain about several new print advertisements you recently published around the metropolitan area. Although your safety advisements and commercial messages rarely arouse my indignation, your recent admonishment to subway riders: "Whatever falls on the tracks is not as valuable as you" is simply shocking. I speak for all New Yorkers when I say that your message is offensive.

I understand that the MTA wishes to protect its customers from train accidents. I also understand that train accidents are more likely when customers step off the platform onto the tracks. Further, I understand that some customers might disregard their own safety if they drop something onto the tracks, such as an iPod or other relatively expensive object. The MTA has a right to warn people not to risk their lives to save a piece of personal property. Additionally, the MTA has an interest in avoiding litigation arising from train/customer collisions.

I do not dispute the MTA's financial reasoning in this matter: No one likes lawsuits and no one likes paying money when they don't have to. But there are other considerations in the world. It might be prudent and even financially advisable to publish a poster warning people not to enter the subway tracks. Still, the MTA's message in this case is both philosophically unsound and in poor taste. In the name of decency and community values, I insist that the MTA remove these posters at once.

It is wrong for the MTA to suggest that "whatever falls on the tracks is not as valuable" as the person who dropped it. Although the MTA might think that its message esteems human equality and the importance of life over property, it is philosophically unsound because there are so many applications in which the message is not true. Popularly, people might believe that no object is worth more than a human life. But experience reveals that this is rubbish. Put simply, value depends on a comparison between how much the object is worth and how much the person is worth. No matter what our mothers told us when we were children, people's value can be expressed in dollar amounts. Insurance companies tell us how much we are worth all the time. Our portfolios define our monetary values. Courts tell loved ones how much their deceased family members "would have made" if they had lived. In a word, people are worth a number: And if the object they drop on the tracks is worth more than that number, then the MTA's "human value" message is totally untrue.

Consider the principle in action. Let us say that an impecunious, smelly beggar has a $40 faux diamond ring in his pocket. Let us further say that this beggar has no money, no savings, no real estate, no bonds, no stocks, no accounts, no chattel paper and no right to receive payment from any investment. He has no job; no one wants to be in a room with him, let alone hire him. In a word, this hideous, stinking beggar is literally not worth a cent. His "value" is zero. In these circumstances, if he drops the $40 ring on the tracks, he is actually less valuable than the object he dropped. If a train runs him over as he scampers to recover the ring, the MTA's "message" does not apply: The object he dropped was actually more valuable than he was: A $40 faux diamond ring is worth more than a $0 beggar. A third-grader could do the math on it.

Of course, that is a simple example. Most people are worth more than a beggar. But again, it is difficult to calculate human value. After all, a fresh-faced 30-year-old graduate with $150,000 in education debt is actually worth less than a $0 beggar even if the graduate has $4000 in the bank and a $10,000 stock fund. In that situation, appearances are misleading. Debt negatively impacts worth. Thus, the graduate is actually worth -$136,000. In this situation, if the graduate dropped even a quarter on the tracks, he would be worth $135,999.25 less than the object he dropped. Once again, the MTA's reasoning fails completely: A debt-riddled person is worth much less than even a modest object on the tracks. Any "positive" value is greater than any "negative" value: And debtors are "negative values."

I find it tasteless for the MTA to suggest that human beings are intrinsically more valuable than property. As the above examples illustrate, property is in many cases much more valuable than people. Many people will disagree with that assertion. But experience proves it true. A beggar's life is nothing compared to a $4,000,000 townhome, just as a debt-riddled graduate is nothing compared to a custom car. And what about criminals? Does the MTA suggest that a convicted rapist is somehow more valuable than an original Van Gogh? If a criminal dropped a Van Gogh on the tracks, does it honestly contend that the criminal is "more valuable" than this classic object of Western Art? I should certainly hope not. The bottom line is: Property is worth more than individual human beings.

But not always. When wealthy people hold comparatively less valuable objects, then people are more valuable than property. For example, if I were standing on a subway platform and I dropped my iPod on the tracks, I should refrain from scurrying after it because I am worth much, much more than the $250 iPod. I have extensive savings, accounts, real estate holdings and cash. My assets greatly exceed my debts. My net worth, therefore, is considerably higher than the object I dropped, so in this case the MTA's message is true: I am worth more than my iPod, so why risk myself to fetch it?

Still, these inconsistent results provide further proof that the MTA's message is incorrect. Messages must be philosophically sound. They must apply consistently no matter the subject matter. Yet even a cursory glance at the MTA's message here shows that it does not apply in many situations.

Finally, I find it utterly tasteless that the MTA believes in life over property. It is hypocritical for any governmental institution in this country to assert that human beings are worth more than valuable objects or land. We do not live in this country to spiritually enrich our fellow men; we live in this country to amass more property. There is simply no merit to the contention that life is about human worth. Simple commercial experience contradicts that contention at every turn. Men only have "worth" to the extent that they can expend labor and capital to amass even more property. Beyond that, there is no "intrinsic worth" in men worth protecting.

Legal doctrines and public messages that advocate life over property are indefensible. It makes no sense to sing odes to human life, as the common law does when it says that it is never permissible to kill someone to guard property. This is just ludicrous. If a person worth $0 tries to steal my art collection worth $45,000, there is no debate about which one is more valuable. What incentive would enterprising people have to amass property if they could not defend it against those without it?

Additionally, the law sends completely mixed messages in this regard. If it is so wrong to kill someone to protect property, why does the law not hesitate to heap supplementary punishments on thieves depending on the value of the objects they steal? Does that not show that our society finds it more wrong to steal something worth more than to steal something worth little?

Put simply, we put dollar amounts on both people and things in our society. Some things--and some people--are worth more than others. In that sense, the MTA grossly misunderstands what is really important in life. It is both philosophically unsound and tasteless for the MTA to suggest that all life is more valuable than all property.

Mr. Commissioner, I demand that you remove these hypocritical messages from our streets. It is time to educate our citizens about real worth, not delude them with foolishness about equality.

Yours very sincerely and truly,

Mrs. Zelda B. Wertheimer

WE CAN SOLVE AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE CRISIS WITH EDUCATION AND PRIVATE LENDING

ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS FROM GREAT MINDS

By : Dr. T. Everett Branwell, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.O.G., D.V.M., M.B.A., C.P.A., President and Charter Member, Paying Customers United for Quality Health Care; Chairman and CEO, Gastro-Tech Intestinal Scanning Instruments LLC (a Delaware Limited Liability Company); Married; Hospital Cost-Control Consultant; Amateur Dog Breeder.

America hungers for a miraculous solution to the health care mess. For more than a year now, we have watched President Obama struggle to balance the myriad forces bearing upon this issue. For more than a year now, we have seen little improvement: Millions remain uninsured; malpractice lawyers game the system with frivolous suits; surgery still costs an arm and leg (in more ways than one); and health care costs are still driving this country to financial ruin. Although Congress wisely avoided committing America to a wasteful European-style "public option" in its recent health care legislation, the bill leaves many questions unanswered. In a word, it is no solution.

We will not rescue healthcare without solutions that reinforce American virtues. Handouts and subsidies will not get the job done. Neither will government programs that interfere with private decisionmaking. Rather, we must attack the problem directly while cultivating self-reliance and respect for private enterprise. Government can do no job that a private person cannot do better. I trust the American people. And I know that an ambitious American can achieve anything he sets out to accomplish.

We must start from square one. Health care fails in America primarily because there are not enough doctors. Costs rose to astronomical levels because doctors are in limited supply, yet demand for their services is higher than ever. As any economics student can tell you, that's a recipe for runaway prices. The bottom line is this: You need doctors to provide healthcare; and there aren't enough doctors to provide it to everyone who needs it. Add the facts that Americans live longer, weigh more and exercise less and you soon discover how grave this crisis really is.

In a typical scenario, an American gets sick. He spends days waiting for the right doctor to see him. He cannot work during that time. He worries whether he will recover. In essence, he must be passive; he must wait for the doctor to help him. This is not good for the economy or the Nation. We need more doctors so that sick people can recover faster. If there were a doctor right around the corner, this poor man would receive immediate attention and get back to work sooner.

So how do we create more doctors? Simple: By education. Doctors do not grow on trees; they must be trained. But this is not a drawback; it is an opportunity. Education is good for America. Because doctors depend on education, we can address the health care problem through education. I care about America. I care about education. I care about health care. That is why I have devised a foolproof solution that will harmonize all these things.

We can rescue healthcare in America by requiring all Americans to become doctors. If everyone were a doctor, no one would have to go to the hospital or take time off work. Instead, sick people would be able to care for themselves. If a man breaks his leg, he could set the bone himself, administer anesthesia to himself, keep a detailed treatment log for himself, administer physical therapy to himself, write his own prescriptions and be back on his feet in no time. And he could do all this without depending on others: No wait times, no insurance forms, no missed work. If he encountered a problem in treatment, he could always call on his wife, children or parents, all of whom, too, would have the medical expertise needed to heal him. Put simply, mandatory medical education would render virtually every health care dilemma moot.

We understand that it takes a long time to become a doctor. Many people shy away from careers in medicine because they do not want to stay in school until they are 40 and stay awake for 24 hours several nights a week. But we have seen what happens when our society does not have enough doctors. Our health care system fails because doctors cannot handle all the sick people in an expeditious manner. If everyone becomes a doctor, however, these problems will instantly disappear. Yes, it is a significant investment. But in the end, it will solve the health care mess.

Still, we can only achieve this happy result through a complete educational overhaul. We must finance every American's medical education, and that will cost a lot of money. Yet we must never underestimate the strength of American private enterprise. As long as we provide sufficient incentives to private enterprise in America, we can expect miracles. By the same token, if we leave substantial questions in government hands, we can expect disasters. In that light, we must put our faith in the free market to deliver quality medical education to every American. Just as mandatory medical education will breed self-reliance in the population, so too will private educational financing teach fiscal responsibility to every American.

To realize the dream of universal American medical education, we must require every American to take out private educational loans. At the same time, we must abolish government-backed educational loans in order to maximize private competition in lending. We will not achieve our educational goals by stifling healthy free market activity; banks cannot do their work if they are not free to charge as much interest as they wish on student loans. In that light, we also must insist that every American pay only interest on their student loans in perpetuity. This will allow banks to constantly increase their outstanding balances, thereby increasing their income and maximizing their shareholder revenues. When banks prosper, so does America. Thus, mandatory private financing for mandatory medical education will kill two birds with one stone: It will solve the health care crisis by making everyone a doctor; and it will also reward healthy private banking.

The solution is obvious.

Critics will inevitably counter that America requires employment diversity to survive in the 21st Century. Specifically, they say that doctors are not the only profession that Americans need. According to these critics, Americans need mechanics, lawyers, steelworkers, coffee shop baristas, taxi drivers, cashiers, plumbers, nude dancers, ditch diggers, soldiers, politicians, toilet cleaners, peddlers and stockbrokers, too.

We do not disagree. Our critics do not understand what we mean when we say "universal medical education." We do not mean that everyone must stop their educational pursuits as soon as they become doctors. We simply mean that everyone must at least be a doctor before undertaking another profession. This is the only way that Americans can truly achieve medical self-sufficiency. In other words, once a man becomes a doctor, he is free to learn donutmaking or some other craft. We understand that Americans need donutmakers as much as they need doctors. But under our plan, a medically-educated donutmaker will have the knowledge to care for his own medical problems, rather than depend on someone else if his health fails. We agree that America needs other professions. We simply insist that everyone must at least be a doctor.

We actually encourage Americans to pursue educational goals beyond medicine. After all, when everyone is a doctor, salaries for doctors will inevitably decrease. That will require enterprising Americans to find novel new ways to make money. Once again, private enterprise will light the way: Banks stand ready to provide private loans to any doctor who wishes to learn another trade.

Mandatory medical education is right for America in many ways. It will not only solve the intractable financial problems associated with health care. It will also teach virtue. This country rose to preeminence because Americans are self-sufficient. The health care mess developed because too many Americans were not self-sufficient. But those days will end as soon as every American becomes a doctor. On that day, Americans will treat their own diseases; they will not need anyone else to help them. In our view, this will reinforce the gritty determination that made America great in the first place.

Sickness and injury will no longer signal desperation and worry. To the contrary, a medically-educated American will confront them with defiance. "I have HIV? Pah, I can treat myself for it," he will say. And he won't owe anyone else a dime for things he can handle himself.

We must implement mandatory medical education at once. It is the only way to extricate ourselves from the health care money pit in which we now find ourselves. It is the best possible way to overcome this crisis. It offers nothing but benefits. It fosters respect for education; that's good for America. It teaches self-reliance; that's good for America. It teaches fiscal responsibility; that's good for America. It supports private enterprise; that's good for America. And it does all these things without government interference; and that's definitely good for America.

Americans are individuals. They can do anything as long as they know what they are doing. It's time to harness that spirit to solve health care. It's time to make everyone a doctor.

True, every new doctor will emerge into the world saddled with debt. But that will just be an incentive to work harder and better. Debt is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a very good thing for banks. And when banks prosper, so does America.

Tell your Congressman that you can handle your own medical problems. You can be your own surgeon. You don't need Congress or President Obama to bail you out.

Mandatory medical education. It's the only way. The American way.®

DEBT, EDUCATION AND INDENTURED SERVITUDE--AMERICAN STYLE

A REFLECTION

This morning, I read an article in Above the Law, a magazine that targets issues relevant to freelance lawyers. In it, editor Elie Mystal lamented the $150,000 debt he assumed to finance his legal education. He called law school debt "The Silent Killer." His experience with debt even caused him to characterize his legal education as an "expensive vacation that debt financed."

In many ways, I am in Elie Mystal's boat. I graduated from law school in 2006 with about $95,000 in debt. Like Elie, I detested private practice and gave it up on principle. You see, I have this little problem: I insist on ethics and honor. That makes private law practice, well, a bit incongruous.

Since 2007, I have done consulting jobs that pay the crushing loan installments. Even more recently, I haven't been able to work at all due my partner's health crisis. The creditors don't care, of course. They just want their monthly checks; they don't give a damn about your problems.

I agree that debt is a "silent killer." Thanks to bank-friendly Bush-era deregulation in place at the time I signed my promissory notes, my loan principal has actually increased since I began repaying in late 2006. In essence, the banks have a permanent lien on my financial lifeblood, which is meager at best. This permanent financial burden robs voluntariness from all my employment decisions: I can't work a public interest job that won't even cover my monthly debt bill. I call this predicament "modern indentured servitude" because debt essentially compels work particular jobs in order to pay off the boulder that has been tied around their necks. Their choices are illusory; they must take a job that pays a certain amount or go bankrupt.

Elie also should have mentioned another issue that contributes to the debt crisis plaguing American graduate students: Deception. To be blunt, I entered law school under almost laughably false economic assumptions. I believed that my legal education would entitle me to an automatic $125,000-a-year job. I had worked at a law firm before law school and everyone there said that a law degree is basically a meal ticket. Law schools perpetuated that belief with "employment statistics" that corroborated my assumptions. Thus, I happily took out $100,000 in loans to finance my meal ticket. After all, I thought, what's $100,000 in debt if I'm certain to have a $125,000-a-year job waiting for me when I'm done?

"Ha! I can pay that off with a single bonus check," I declared in 2003.

What foolishness. But it is widespread foolishness. And every new law student subscribes to it. I know I did. Plus I was a wet-faced 25-year-old who knew nothing about the brutal vagaries of the private employment market. No, I learned the hard way--and only after sinking myself into an intractable debt pit.

Despite all this, I disagree with Elie's assertion that law school was a "very expensive vacation that debt financed." I do not regret my education in the least. I took it seriously; I never felt that I was on vacation while studying. True, it is unfortunate that I had to become an indentured servant in order to obtain my education. But I relish what I learned in law school. As a writer, it helps me every day. It enriched the way I think about every intellectual issue I encounter. I am thankful for my legal education. It pays psychic rewards in the classical sense, even if it does not fill my bank account.

But most people do not get educations--at least in America--to enrich their perspectives. They get educations to get jobs and make tons of money until they die or retire. In my view, this is the fundamental problem with the American system: People do not care about learning for its own sake. They use it merely to become commercial instruments for the rest of their lives. In that light, it is no surprise that debt plays a role in the system. Just as entrepreneurs take out loans in order to make more money in the future, so too do students take out loans in order to transform themselves into "profitable ventures." American students, in other words, are no different than entrepreneurs; they both gamble with debt in order to cash in later. And the goal of education in America is exactly the same as the goal of everyday business: Simple commercial success.

This leads me to my core objection: Shouldn't academic pursuits and crass commercial concerns be distinct? Sadly, the educational debt quandary in America shows that they are not.
That's a shame. And it's ruining many people's lives every day.

If only we could follow Aristotle's prescription for education: "[F]or it is more necessary to equalize appetites than possessions, and that can only be done by adequate education under the laws." The Politics, Book II, ch. vii at 1266b24.

In other words, education should not be a means to obtain "possessions," but rather to refine "appetites." It is not about "having" tangible things. It is about character; and you can't buy that.

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COMPLETE IDIOTS

POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD

By : Dr. D. Medford Kornblatt, Ph. D., Princeton University (Joint Degree in Oral Studies and Comparative Mining Technique); Founder, Brotherhood of American Nincompoops for Social Justice and Equal Intelligence (1982); Senior Technology Consultant, Cornelius J. Hyman Prophylactic Pharmaceutical Development Corporation (1978-1993); Consulting Director and Senior Test Writer, Higher Education Measurement Test Company (1990-present); Musician and Hobbyist (with an emphasis in Bagpipe Freestyle); Fitness Model, Scientific American Magazine (Cover Spot June 1988).

Idiots have always had a substantial presence in American life. We go by many names: Fools, dunderheads, imbeciles, nincompoops, morons, dolts, dimwits, asswipes…among many others unfit for print. But we all have one thing in common: We all have contributed great things to American civilization and government. We believe that idiots deserve recognition equal to their significance in American life. That is why we founded The National Association of Complete Idiots (NACI).

Idiots deserve recognition because we are everywhere. We run universities, Senate subcommittees, courts, national security institutes, police headquarters, major corporations and State houses all over the country. We administer tests, grade exams and educate children. We market wildly successful products and manage huge property portfolios. Yet for too long we have been unable to live openly. For the longest time, idiots like me have been forced to deny their identities. We have been forced to call ourselves something other than what we really are, like "Doctor," "Dean," "Chairman," "Boss," "Senator," "Representative," "Your Honor" or "General." Well, it is time to stop living in denial. From now on, we insist on living honestly. We want to be called what we really are: Morons with our heads up our asses. Even homosexuals can live openly now. Why can't idiots? This is America: It's time for equality.

Not everyone can be a total moron. Only blundering fools like us can rise through the ranks to assume the most influential positions in society. Bright young people who think independently don't succeed because they are not smart enough to be idiots. We, on the other hand, had the foresight to learn imbecility at an early age. We achieved success because we were stupid enough to follow the rules. Contrary to popular rhetoric, stupidity is a virtue. And our outstanding stupidity brought us untold rewards. After all, only complete idiots can rise to prominence in business. Anyone with a head on their shoulders would never want to be a corporate leader. That is why--in the end--only the idiots survive.

There is no reason why we should hide our colors any longer. As any psychiatrist can tell you, it is unhealthy to repress your identity. It is hard to live in the closet. For centuries, idiots, morons and total loser-putzes had to publicly deny their own stupidity. This caused unbelievable psychological damage. But those days are over. There are far more idiots in our society than most people think. There are people who belong to the National Association of Complete Idiots and do not even know it. We urge idiots all over the country to relax and be free. Do not be ashamed to live stupidly. Be who you are. And look where our stupidity got us: To the highest level in commerce, business, government, the military, academia and even the arts. It's OK to be an idiot. Don't play the smart man's game. Being smart never got anyone anywhere. Let go and be yourself. Be a total, recalcitrant, uncompromising, shockingly stupid ignoramus who doesn’t care to know a goddamn thing. You'll be amazed how far you'll travel.

Idiots drive this country forward. It's about time that people started to recognize that. Our country could not survive if everyone cared about the other guy's well-being or equal dignity. No, our country needs short-sighted, blithering imbeciles to blunder their way toward myopically selfish ends. We don't need independent thinkers or dreamers. We don't need selfless idealists or martyrs. We need idiotic drones who follow the instruction sheet, not their conscience. Only idiocy will rescue this country from feigned intelligence. Only stupidity will restore our focus. It's time to start acting like the morons we are, not the wise men we claim to be.

Mind-numbing stupidity is a virtue. We must learn to cultivate it from birth. Our children must learn to be dumb from as early an age as possible. We need to stop forcing our children to think about college when they are 5. We need to stop teaching them to read when they are 1. And we must not be afraid when our children still can't utter an intelligible sentence when they are 16. No, we must spot stupidity early and nurture it. When our children spit on their classmates or defecate on the kindergarten floor, we must praise them, not scold them. When they consistently misspell their names or incorrectly add 2 and 2 to make 5, we must single them out for special honors, not "special ed." Contrary to all the rhetoric, stupid children wind up achieving the greatest success in the United States. That is why we must vigilantly breed moronic habits in our children from the earliest age possible.

It is time to stop praising good spellers at spelling bees. Rather, we should give First Prize to the total idiot who can't even shape the letter "I" with a crayon at age 10. That's a future diplomat. It is time to stop giving gold stars to students who write thoughtful essays. Rather, we should give gold stars to the violent, ignorant fool who uses pencils to stab classmates, not write with them. That's a future commodities trader.

In sum, idiots outnumber everyone else in this country. Yet we teach our children that it is bad to be stupid. This is simply unfair. As the National Association of Complete Idiots, we demand a place in society consistent with our influence and population size. We also demand that current idiots live freely and proudly as the brain-dead nitwits they are. Idiots do not deserve to feel shame for their success. After all, idiots hold on to their jobs much better than smart people. Idiots receive promotions at a much higher rate than their so-called "smart contemporaries." And idiots master asinine procedures with far greater precision than more intelligent people. Asinine procedures are the key to success in America. Idiots follow procedures without asking questions, even if the procedures make no sense whatsoever. Why should we be ashamed of that? Our slavish dedication to totally dumb rules and regulations led us to unparalleled dominance in every field.

Idiots also know how to listen to other idiots. Smart people think they are better than idiots, so they tend to disrespect idiots who give them orders. But idiots don't care who gives them an order; they just do it and shut up. Success in our society requires obedience much more than intelligence; that is why smart people do not achieve as much success as idiots. While smart people complain about the idiot who commands them, fellow idiots just do what they're told. Who do you think will advance up the ladder? Idiots look out for their own.

In this light, idiots should no longer live in shame. We have already ruled this country for generations, yet only now have we found the courage to live openly. It is time for idiots to unite and take the place they deserve in American society. It is time to stop thinking that "idiot" and "stupid" are bad words. To the contrary, "idiot" and "stupid" should be honor badges, because stupid idiots are the ones who always make it to the top in the United States. Why should we renounce our own identities? No, it is time to be proud idiots. We shouldn't change into something we're not. No, it is time to be dumb, happy and successful.

Stop the pretense. It is time to break the myth of intelligence in America. It is time to recognize once and for all that idiots matter in this country. We are the most numerous and influential demographic majority by a wide margin. It's about time we started acting like it.

Join us. Start acting like the total idiot you are. It's OK. You will make it. For generations, idiots have achieved unbelievable success in this country simply by acting like themselves. You can do it, too. Have the courage to be stupid. Join the National Association of Complete Idiots today. Together, we can stop the delusion of intelligence in America and return this country to the people who truly populate it: Irretrievable, intransigent and unforgivably patriotic morons.

Are you proud to be a complete idiot? I am. And so should you.

ADVERTISING & INFORMATION : SIMPLE WORKS

AN ESSAY

I noticed something new about advertising as I rode the New York subway this morning. I thought I had written all I could about advertising, but just when I thought I had said enough, a new idea spawned in my head. After all, advertisers stop at nothing to kindle our commercial urges. As such, they resort to any tactic to get our attention and make us want to spend money. The Supreme Court actually grants advertisers full freedom to say whatever they want, provided they are not “deceptive, false or misleading.” Yet that is a meaningless exception, because it is very easy to provide misleading information without “actually lying.” And it is easy to lie simply by keeping quiet about bad stuff.

But today I do not write to analyze advertising theory or constitutional standards. Rather, I write to make a simple point, namely, that all advertisements do the same thing: They selectively provide an “informational tidbit,” which in turn makes a suggestion to the listener. The suggestion is always the same: “Now come give me your money.” Advertisers provide information—perhaps largely true, perhaps half-true, perhaps not true at all—for a purpose: To entice you to give them money. Advertisers do not aim to educate. They do not want you to “know more” or develop into a more “enriched person” with the information they provide. No, they want to “inform you” only to the extent necessary that you feel compelled to spend your money on them. It is strictly instrumental.

Consider these examples. As I sat on the train today, I looked up and saw three distinct commercial messages. The first was an admonishment from Duane Reade, a drugstore. Its message: “There are a bazillion germs on the pole you’re holding.” Broadly speaking, this is information. Maybe some people don’t realize that contagions congregate in crowded public spaces like the subway. Yet Duane Reade doesn’t care whether they’ve just educated you. They don’t care whether you’ve just become a more well-informed person because you heard their message about germs. No, they want you to take the information and translate it into commercial activity. Namely, they want you to say: “Omigod! There are germs all over the place, so I should go to the Duane Reade and start buying things!” Duane Reade is not trying to inspire the world’s next great microbiologist with this information. It is trying to lure an average schmuck into the store to buy cough drops.

In the next message, a local college advertised: “95% of people without college degrees never obtain jobs with salaries over $40,000 a year.” This is information, too. It might be accurate; maybe it isn’t. Still, it sounds relatively accurate (it has a percentage in it…wow), and in advertising, appearances are just as important as—if not more important than— “truth.” No one on the subway is going to check facts anyway, so it really doesn’t matter. Yet the local college does not provide this information to alert its listeners to demographic trends or educational crises in the United States. It wants to spark a desire in its listeners to start spending some money on tuition. After all, according to this information, if you don’t have a college degree, you stand a 95% chance never to make over $40,000 a year. You want to make more than $40,000 a year, so you’d better get a college degree with us. Again, the advertiser here provides information for an instrumental purpose: “People without college degrees don’t make much money. We can give you a college degree. Now give us your money.” Simple.

Finally, an Upper East Side “enrichment group” called the “Center for Practical Philosophy” blared this message: “No other ad on the subway will make you as happy as this one.” The center revealed that it offered classes to teach “working students” about “reason, beauty and justice” (no commerce or free beer; note that), and that its classes would lead to “happiness” by “harnessing the power of attention.” This was not typical advertising fare (ie, it wasn’t hawking trinkets or dental services), but it followed the same formula as any other. Specifically, it provided information about “classes” and those classes can make you “happier than other ads on the subway.” People want to be happy. Again, the message provides information in order to make the ultimate suggestion: “Now give me your money.” You want to be happy, don’t you? Well, here’s some information about happiness classes. Now you know where to spend your money if you want to learn how to be happy.

“Practical philosophy.” That made me laugh. In my experience, the two concepts mutually exclude each other. You’re either philosophical or practical, but not both. If you’re practical, you don’t like “philosophical bullshit” because it “doesn’t get things done.” If you’re philosophical, you don’t like “everyday, boring, banal practical shit” because it’s not “deep” or “sophisticated.” You can’t have it both ways. Yet this advertisement dared to cross the line. It made philosophy—which is generally antithetical to commerce—a commodity to be bought. On the other hand, this is New York. Everything is for sale here, even things that traditionally can’t be bought, sold or “commercialized.” We have more banks than guys named Bob in this town. In that light, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that philosophy is for sale, too.

But enough about philosophy. The point is that advertising is insidious because it channels information for a limited purpose, namely, to enrich the speaker. Human beings cannot know everything. They have short-range senses; they can only learn so much by direct perception. Everything else requires reliance on second-hand reports and “information sources” like advertising. In many ways, we are all hopelessly dependent on external information sources. Those who possess more information hold more power. That is the nature of things. Advertisers do not want us to “learn about the world” or even expand our consciousness with the information they selectively dispense. They want us merely to learn a few suggestive “facts” then fork over some money.

Ironically, it doesn’t matter whether advertisers provide “accurate” or “true” information to their listeners. Truth is largely irrelevant in commerce; it only matters when a commercial actor must be truthful to avoid a loss. Advertisers, too, provide accurate information if the law threatens punishment or if they want to outdo a competitor. But truth is never the ultimate aim behind advertising. Rather, the only goal is to incite an urge to buy in the listener. Selectively providing “facts” can create that urge. Whether the facts are “true” does not affect whether they will spark a “commercial urge.” In many ways, then, advertising targets human emotion more than reason. Advertisers want to incite a reaction, a need, a desire, an itch to buy. These are not entirely reasonable responses to information. To the contrary, they are childish, even animal responses: Show a dog a bone and the dog will want it; show an average American an all-NFL cable package and he will want it, too. In fact, if consumers had access to all information, they probably would have reason to avoid virtually every seller in the market. In short, advertising would not work if people were too well-informed. And it certainly would not work if people used their reason all the time.

I write all this because advertising literally surrounds us. Commercial speakers speak more than any others. They buy airtime. Their billboards leer over us. Their television messages interrupt us every five minutes. Their radio broadcasts barge in on our music. In short, they own our senses, besieging our eyes and ears with generally unreliable information calculated to arouse our commercial urges. No matter the medium, they all function in the same way: They selectively provide information for an instrumental purpose, then suggest “Now come give us your money.” Some advertisers spark more commercial urges in more people than others. They are called “effective advertisers.” But whether effective or not, they are all doing the same thing. And I venture that there is nothing noble or sophisticated about it.

After all, what do I care whether a private company succeeds in luring more people to spend their money? Who cares? Will anyone even remember? This is the never-ending “commerce dance.” Advertising provides an endless beat for the dance. It just keeps droning on day after day, generation after generation, following the same old formula: Provide information… suggest “Come on down and spend your money…”

In sum, there is nothing to it. It is all the same.

I OPT OUT FROM EVERYTHING

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Two weeks ago, a student loan creditor (I have many) sent me a letter. It was basically a computer-generated message disclosing some vapid stuff about interest rates, new policies, a self-righteous-sounding commitment to green issues, contact information and other gibberish. But vacuous as it was, it still took up eight whole printed pages. I think it even mentioned the bank's "concern" about the "financial crisis;" yet it did not provide any debt relief. To help borrowers cope with these "difficult times," the bank suggested "paperless statements" and even went so far as to open a telephone payment center for "borrower convenience."

What generosity! Who knew the bank cared about me so much that it offered a new way for me to pay my existing debt! Wow, I feel so loved!

But this wasn't the most important thing in the bank's eight-page letter. The most important thing lay buried somewhere in the fine print on page six or seven, I can't remember which: A "Voluntary Opt-Out Provision." Essentially, it said that the bank "shares information about me" with "affiliated and non-affiliated entities" in order to provide "more effective financial services products" and to "offer better opportunities for consumers (like me) to enjoy financial services products."

In other words, the bank was telling me that it tells every other bank about me so those banks can bombard me with unfair loan offers, credit card applications and (naturally) look into my "personal credit score" to determine whether I am a "responsible commercial actor." Thanks to this "Voluntary Opt-Out Provision," however, the bank said I could FORBID them from sharing anything about me with any other bank, "affiliated" or not. I just had to check a couple boxes, sign my name, get a stamp and send in the page to some god-forsaken "processing center" in Nebraska.

I opted out, signed my name and mailed the form to Nebraska quicker than you can say: "Would you like capitalized interest with your loan, sir?"

When it comes to frustrating banks, I'm all over it. The "Voluntary Opt-Out Provision" gave me a chance to stop a bank from making even more profits from my debt. It gave me a chance to wield some power--however insignificant--to prevent the bank from exploiting my economic inferiority for even more gain. The bank already has a lien on my financial lifeblood. They get enough. It sickens me to know that they can make even more from me by selling off my name and address to other banks who just want to do the same thing to me. Generally, the bank holds all the cards over me. When I get a chance to tell the bank "No," I take it, even if it doesn't really change anything. I like knowing that I can strike back once in a while, even if only symbolically.

I know that banks are important. They lend money, which encourages private enterprise and risk-taking. That, in turn, increases the amount of goods and services in a free market economy, blah blah blah. But I don't care about all that. All I know is that I had to assume virtually unending debt to (drumroll, please) learn about contracts, torts, corporate law and civil procedure. I don't regret my legal education. I just think the bank winds up getting a lot more from the relationship than I got. After all, the bank sent a check or two to help me pay my tuition over three years. In return, the bank got a legal right to demand cash from me every month until the year 2036. By that time--if I'm still alive, which I doubt--I will have paid ten times as much as I received in 2003-2006.

Is this fair? Does it matter? The law certainly doesn't think so. The law calls such results "informed commercial bargaining in a free market system." I call it pure economic tyranny. But I'm a radical and I have no power. Plus I signed a paper and the law favors the bank. So the bank wins.

Banks get away with everything. Few things arouse my cynicism as much as banking practices. Even the concealed "Voluntary Opt-Out Provision" shows how much banks hoodwink people. After all, banks assume they can share information about you with their profit-hungry partners-in-finance. They assume you don't know you have a right to opt out. So they conceal an "opt-out" provision in some long, boring letter that most people will simply throw away without reading. That lets them just get on with "business as usual," namely, peddling off your identity to other banks for a fee. When you are in debt, banks have you by the throat. They control the information you receive and sell everything they know about you. If it weren't for Democrats in Congress, you'd never even have the illusory right to opt out from squalid "information-sharing" like this. If banks got their way, you'd never know about their "secondary market" for "borrower information." But banks get around your rights easily enough; they just bury them in fine print and claim "they sent you a letter about it." Getting around laws is easy; you just need to read them.

Debt is a pernicious relationship. Banks exploit the relationship to the fullest. I have friends who recoil in horror when they hear about all the insolent little things that banks do to "screw them," like charging "overdraft fees," "stocking fees," "late fees" and "extra interest charges." They wonder how such unfairness is possible. Without shrugging, I explain that banks get away with everything because they can. It is very simple, actually. Before a bank lends money, you must sign a contract it wrote. That contract essentially empowers the bank to do anything it wants to you after you take the money. The common law evolved to vindicate the rights of creditors--like banks--against debtors. Fairness has little to do with it. Once the bank establishes its debt relationship with you, it assumes a massively superior position. It can knock you about with legal impunity. It can charges any fees it wants. After all, you took its money. From the law's perspective, that entitles the creditor to take virtually any liberty with the debtor. Prostitutes can't complain about mistreatment after receiving a patron's money, either. Like a whore's patrons, banks pay; and they play.

I don't even know who my creditors are anymore. When I started law school, I had to borrow from several lenders. This was the only way for me to cobble together the amount I needed. I had four separate banks. Since then, a few of those banks sold off their accounts to other banks. A few others changed their names or merged with other banks. I sometimes got letters about these changes. But sometimes I didn't. I had nothing to say about it. The banks just sold off my debt like an old shoe, leaving me wondering to whom I actually now owed money. Sometimes a new bank would threaten me with collection action because I didn't send payment to the right place. I would call and stay on hold for 90 minutes in order to say I didn't know they were my creditors now. Then, a year later, that bank would sell my account to another bank and I'd have to repeat the procedure. If my credit goes to hell, it won't be because I didn't pay my monthly tribute to the bank. It will be because the bank shuffled my debt to someone else, and I didn't get the message.

Yet sometimes I face bright moments. "Voluntary Opt-Out Provisions" represent such a "bright moment" in my endless scuffles with creditors. In the usual case, I am a worthless maggot in the bank's eyes, a despicable "account." I am not "Balthazar Oesterhoudt," the man who writes a satirical blog every morning and tries to fend off bills. I am "file number 5670-AC," an "account receivable" worth $413.28 per month until 2036. In short, I am inferior. The bank can squash me if I fail to pay. It can obliterate my credit rating and garnish everything I own. It can even break out the moral invective and call me an "irresponsible delinquent," even though it has no real authority to morally judge me. In the usual case, the bank gets to toss me around, scold me, take my money and do whatever else it pleases.

Yet in "bright moments," I get to say "Fuck off" to the bank--and get away with it. When I opt out, I assert my own power against the bank, maggot that I am. I might be a mere "account receivable" to the bank, but when I opt out from its "information sharing programs," I deny the bank a profit from selling my name and address to some other bank. That is oddly satisfying. After all, the bank is already making a hefty profit on me every month. It is accustomed to taking my money and even making a few extra dollars by selling my information to credit card companies. It is accustomed to doing what it wants with me. But when I opt out, I get to say: "No. You can't do whatever you want with me. Now I get to assert my own power over you. I hereby stop you from using me for your own gain."

This probably makes no difference at all. But I do it anyway simply to show that I am Balthazar Oesterhoudt, not just an "account receivable." I like the idea that I can say I am not for sale, no matter what the bank thinks.

When it comes to unfair power relationships, I OPT OUT. Banks can devour my property, but they'll never break me.

Two years ago, I learned that there is more to life than property and bodily comfort. If you understand that, there is nothing a bank can do to hurt you.

REUNITED WITH AN OLD FRIEND : FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY

A REFLECTION

I was waiting for a friend in an office two days ago. Unlike most waiting rooms, this one actually had a bookcase with some good books, not just a table stacked with magazines about celebrity sightings. I looked over the titles. I saw familiar names: Kafka, Orwell, Dostoevsky, Bronte, Tolstoy, Woolf.

When I was younger, I loved literature. I dove into books, even did not fully understand them. I really thought literature would make me a better person; I thought it was good to read books. I even took pride in it. I went to school at Columbia in New York. They force you to read “classic literature” there. It’s called the “Core Curriculum.” Many of my classmates resented the compulsion to read so much. I actually enjoyed it; I disregarded the compulsion. I read for myself. I didn’t care what my teachers said; most of them were just graduate students anyway who had to teach the course to get their own degrees. I just conversed with the authors. I even read more over the summer because I liked the themes and ideas I encountered. I wanted to develop them in my head. I didn’t turn off my brain when the school year ended.

All these old impressions came back to me as I looked at that bookcase. A comforting feeling came over me, especially when I saw the name Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky was my favorite author from my first year at Columbia. I dedicated the rest of my college days to reading just about everything he wrote. I read all his classic novels: Crime & Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, The Demons, The Idiot. I also read most of his short stories, like Notes from Underground, The Double and The Gambler. Taken together, these books profoundly influenced me. I even used Dostoevsky’s ideas to measure every other philosopher and writer I encountered. Not surprisingly, I liked philosophers and writers who echoed Dostoevsky, like Nietzsche, Kafka and Foucault. By contrast, I reviled philosophers and writers whose ideas stood in contrast to Dostoevsky, like Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Dante and St. Augustine.

Dostoevsky was my heroic standard. But then I graduated from college and he faded from my mind. Forced to contend with commerce, I had no time to read Dostoevsky, or anyone else for that matter. My concerns simplified: Work, make money, go home, try to make more money next year. There was no need to think or to be creative. You just needed to put in time. I went to law school in an effort to boost my earning potential and finally get over the commercial hump. Of course, that didn’t happen; twentysomethings dream big but do not have life experience to know that nothing ever pans out as anticipated. True, I might know more now than I did when I was 22. I’m just knee-deep in debt for it.

During law school, I read more than I have ever read in my life. But I did not read any Dostoevsky. In fact, I read books that Dostoevsky would have detested. I read books and judicial opinions that posited “truth” and “objective standards,” two things Dostoevsky routinely criticized in his works. At the time, I did not reflect on the dissonance between the doctrines I was learning and the ideas I absorbed earlier in my life. Not until recently did I uncover that dissonance. It took heartbreak, suffering, reversal, humiliation, rediscovery and self-evaluation to recognize the foolishness in seeking “truth,” “objective standards” and “commercial success.” In short, it took life experience to bring my intellectual focus full circle. Law school doesn’t teach that. And in college, you are too young to amass it. Yet after law school, I contended with personal trauma after personal trauma. The ideas I absorbed in college started to make a lot more sense than they did before I had experience. By the same token, life experience made me deeply question the law and its orderly, well-polished claims to truth. Contrary to every statute, case and order, there really were no objective standards in life. Life was mysterious and unpredictable, not codified and discernable. No legal test could measure it or even judge it. Right and wrong were not juridical concepts; they were nebulous power judgments.

I slowly recognized that my “radical” college ideas were not so far-fetched. Satire became my stock in trade. Satire helped me reconcile my old learning with the absurdity I saw all around me. Satire helped me dethrone the law simply by referring to life. In short, satire helped me “get back to Dostoevsky.”

All these things swarmed my mind as I looked at that bookcase. I picked up a book: “Dostoevsky’s Short Works.” For the first time in almost ten years, I was opening a Dostoevsky book. I perused the contents: Notes from Underground and The Dream of a Ridiculous Man. I had always wanted to read The Dream of a Ridiculous Man when I was in college. I never got around to it. I was 21 then. Now, at 31, here was my chance. I began reading. Within seconds, I was transported to another world, a familiar one.

I was ready to read Dostoevsky again. At first, I was somewhat embarrassed when I noticed how much he had influenced my own writing over the years. I recognized at once that I had unwittingly become a Dostoevsky imitator. His sentence structures and ruthlessly satirical attacks on “powerful people” obviously made a deep impression on me. His style won me over when I was young and I internalized it over many years. It has become so engrained that I can’t avoid sounding like Dostoevsky, at least in some ways. I can think of many things I have written in this blog that directly appropriate Dostoevsky’s style. For that reason, as I read The Dream of a Ridiculous Man, I eerily felt as if I was reading something I had written. After that passed, I simply felt content. I was just reading my mentor’s words. I felt as if I had been reunited with a dear friend. It was a wonderful feeling after such a long absence. On the other hand, it made me feel good to know that I had been carrying Dostoevsky’s banner on my blog all along, even if I hadn’t known it.

What is it exactly about Dostoevsky that influenced me so much? There are several key ways. For one, he is darkly satirical. He exaggerates details to mock “powerful people”—especially those with ranks and “high standing” in society. At the same time, he calls his heroes “ridiculous” when in fact they are quite noble. In The Dream of a Ridiculous Man, for instance, Dostoevsky calls the protagonist “ridiculous,” “absurd,” “a madman,” "laughable" and “reclusive.” He is poor, lives in a one-room, partitioned apartment and has hundred-year-old furniture. Everyone laughs at him. But later on, we learn that this “ridiculous man” simply wants to treat others as he would like to be treated. For that, society calls him a blathering fool. That is dark satire—this is a man who has noble sentiments. He is not really ridiculous at all; he is only “ridiculous” in the judgment of a broken society. Society is ridiculous, not the good man it calls ridiculous. Dostoevsky knows irony. His sarcastic misanthropy definitely left a solid mark on me.

Second, Dostoevsky deeply understood that “truth” is an elusive—and judgmental—concept. He was one of the first authors to dig deeply into his characters’ conscious thought patterns. His narration, too, recurrently suggests that “things are not what they seem.” He stresses subjective impression and individual reaction to sense, not objective truth. He uses phrases such as “as if,” “even,” “somehow,” “in a way” and “some kind of” when describing people, events, feelings and recollections. This creates an overall impression that there is no “truth,” but rather only fleeting impressions in the minds of those who “were there” to sense something. The Dream of a Ridiculous Man abounds with these “uncertain recollections.” In fact, the reader consciously feels that everything is dark, muddled and indeterminate. When the protagonist recounts his dream, for instance, we have no idea what “actually happened.” In short, Dostoevsky understood that “truth” is in “the eye of the beholder.” Nietzsche picked up on this, too, when he argued that “there are no facts or truths, only interpretations.” In Dostoevsky’s works, every detail is an interpretation. Dostoevsky leaves it to the reader to put the pieces together—and that, too, is an “interpretation.”

Finally, Dostoevsky always tempered his sarcasm and satire with hope. This, too, influenced my writing. In The Dream of a Ridiculous Man, for example, the protagonist—who once gave up on life because “nothing mattered to him anymore”—ultimately declares: “I will not and cannot believe that evil is the natural condition of people.” He goes on to say: “’Knowledge is higher than feelings…[t]he consciousness of life is higher than life, the knowledge of the laws of happiness is higher than happiness’—that is what must be fought!” The Dream of a Ridiculous Man (Pevear/Volokhonsky trans., Bantam 2008) at pp. 338, 342. In short, Dostoevsky takes a stand against “juridical, rule-based” approaches to existence. “Feelings” are better than “knowledge,” and “happiness” is better than “the rules of happiness” because “feelings” and “happiness” intuitively flow from within the individual. By contrast, “knowledge” and “rules” must be “learned according to an extrinsic system.” They are “objective standards.” Yet the protagonist is “ridiculous” for making these discoveries. He is “ridiculous” for daring to oppose “the rules of happiness” and deciding simply to be happy. This is the ultimate satire: It is “ridiculous” to be happy and to savor individual intuitions.

These last ideas struck a familiar chord with me. They seem to mirror my entire opposition to juridical thinking and the objective standards that the law attempts to foist on human beings. How true that we live our lives attempting to mold our behavior to “the rules of happiness” rather than allowing ourselves to simply feel happiness in our own way. Rather than “feeling,” we seek always to “know” some extrinsic rule. In so doing, we forget our own emotions and subject ourselves to an “objective standard.” Someone else laid down the “rules of happiness;” we struggle to learn them. When we fail to reach them, we feel bad. In conforming to those rules, we steadily lose our capacity to form our own impressions about happiness. That is tragic.

Yet Dostoevsky’s message is not entirely pessimistic. After all, the “ridiculous man” does not mind being called “ridiculous.” He resolves to fight the “rules of happiness.” In essence, Dostoevsky holds out hope for those strong enough to fight against objective thinking. He offers support to all the “ridiculous people” who think and feel for themselves in a world that discourages individual approaches to happiness and meaning.

That is a beautiful message. After all, I am a “ridiculous man,” too. I actually consider it a compliment, not an insult. Ridiculous people survive though the ages, not those who merely follow the “rules of happiness.” In fact, ridiculous people might even find their own happiness somewhere along life’s way. The important thing is not to mind being labeled ridiculous. Ridiculous people are special, even if they are not “successful.” Dostoevsky knew that, and that’s one big reason he influenced me so much.

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.

THE TRAGEDY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION : PAYING FOR A LONG SHOT

AN ESSAY

We learn that education is a good thing. When we are young, we learn that the good students get into good schools, and that students at good schools get into good graduate schools. Then the good students at the good graduate schools get really good jobs, and they make lots of money. In sum, we absorb a distinctive mythology about education; education tantalizes us into believing that diligent study, good grades and academic achievement translate immediately into “worldly success.”

“Real life” teaches a very different lesson. I always put the phrase “Real Life” in quotation marks because so many people do not understand that it does not reflect an “absolute” or a “norm.” Rather, the words merely describe cruel commerce and all the ruthless human behavior that accompanies it. Still, people who use the term “real life” generally do so in order to scare some dreamer away from “unimportant” pursuits and to focus on what will “make money.” If he doesn’t, after all, he will “not succeed” and go homeless. In commerce, results matter. It doesn’t matter how you get results; you just need to get them without getting caught breaking the law. A guy with $4,000,000 in the bank got results, ethics or no ethics. But an ethical guy with $600 did not get results. What good did ethics do him in “real life?”

But dreamers aren’t the only ones who can’t cope with “real life.” Intelligence and academic success don’t matter, either. In some sense, dreamers court disaster because they should know that commerce doesn’t care about individual expression unless it makes money. But what about everyone who studies hard in school, tries to get good grades and values knowledge? They face the same risks as the dreamer. This is the tragedy of education: It does not prepare students for commerce. In fact, if people prize educational values too much, they will probably fail in commerce.

Still, education is a step along the “traditional life path” leading to “success.” Every “successful” person spent some time in school, somewhere. Some were good students. Others weren’t. No matter a student’s ability, every student hears rhetoric about academic success. They compete with one another to get better grades than their friends. They struggle to outdo one another for accolades and recognition. They proudly advertise their grade point averages next to their names in the belief that a higher number indicates greater intelligence and a better chance at employment. Education, then, becomes an instrument to win employment. While some students truly relish the opportunity to learn, most are satisfied simply to get degrees that enable them to compete for jobs. In other words, wide-ranging knowledge is simply a forgettable means to win some boring, compensated post at a private firm.

In this sense, a mythology develops around education. Students think that smart people get good grades, and good grades grant instant access to the “best jobs.” “Best jobs” mean jobs that pay the most, not the jobs that are most intellectually rewarding or noble. But this is all a myth. Jobs do not depend on intelligence. True, students with good grades have something to flaunt at interviews. Yet no one gets a “job” simply because they are smart. Rather, jobs are private contractual relationships between “employers” and “employees.” Unlike education, employment cares not for enrichment, intellectual broadening or self-expression. Instead, it is concerned with the small-minded advancement of the employer’s financial mission. Students learn to address many issues from many perspectives. By contrast, employees are expected to address one issue from one perspective—all the time. In this light, it is easy to see why truly passionate students could have a hard time coping with “a job.” Jobs, as commercial relationships, are narrowing. Employees are instruments to the employer’s gain. The employer gains nothing from rumination. He gains only from purposeful, targeted activity. Thus, “educational values” differ profoundly from “commercial values.” For years, students learn that their individual ideas and impressions matter. Employees quickly learn that they do not. In fact, they may even be censured for exploring their own ideas. In short, the sole question in employment is: “How does this activity economically benefit the employer?” This unabashed instrumentalism is hard for intelligent people to swallow.

But there are other, less abstract barriers to success in employment. Employment represents a private, contractual relationship. As such, market rules dictate whether there are enough employers to offer work to hopeful employees. After all, employees are a substantial expense. Employers must set aside money for wages, offices, health insurance, payroll taxes, food, and myriad other incidentals associated with keeping a human being working on their land. During profitable times, employers have extra money to hire more people to do their bidding. During leaner times, employers do not have enough money to hire. During losing times, employers must cut existing employees in order to maintain any profit at all. These natural “boom and bust” periods in commerce play a large role in whether employees find jobs. It does not matter how smart, zealous or motivated a student may be. If times are tough, no one gets a job. In fact, people are just happy not to lose their jobs. For those who don’t have a job yet, it’s tough luck time, valedictorians included.

Employment, then, is a matter of both grace and luck. Grace plays a role to the extent that the employer—as the economically dominant party—agrees to allow an employee to serve him for “compensation.” Grace is not objective; employers hire people they like. There is no magical checklist that automatically entitles a hopeful applicant to a job. Luck plays a role to the extent that economic times must be sufficiently robust to allow the employer to spend money on new servants. Contrary to university rhetoric, no academic wizardry can influence these factors. In commerce, bottom lines dictate who gets hired. If there is not enough money to hire, no one gets hired. It’s that simple. It doesn’t matter if Leonardo da Vinci applies; if the company can’t afford to hire anyone, it won’t. Intelligence and merit have nothing to do with it.

This is a jarring truth for students who spend their whole lives studying in the expectation that their academic toils will yield a reward some day. It is even more jarring for students who take their education further than others. Professional schools, for example, advertise their “graduate employment rates” all the time. In recent years, college degrees have increasingly proven insufficient for “really good jobs.” Recent graduates experience this trend when they try unsuccessfully to land even entry-level positions after college. In order to increase their chances to obtain “high-paying jobs” after college, they decide to go to school again, this time to be doctors, lawyers, accountants or even social workers. In so doing, they immerse themselves in an education more rigorous than anything they have ever encountered. They mercilessly compete with one another for grades, knowing that employers do not even interview candidates who fall below a certain threshold. They put themselves through anxiety, stress and personal turmoil to get the degree. After so much work, they expect some results. At this stage, they really could care less about what they study; they simply want a comfortable job after enduring so much academic hazing.

But a professional degree is no automatic ticket to employment, either. Just because a student gets a law degree does not change the commercial dynamic that drives employment markets. Private firms either have extra money to hire or they don’t. A student’s miraculous academic success at law school will not guarantee him a job at a super firm if the firm does not have a healthy profit margin. In this sense, a professional education is no entitlement. It may be grueling and unforgiving, but a student’s academic tribulations do not magically open employment doors. Only grace and luck can do that.

This is tragic. I know from experience that professional school is not pleasant. In fact, it is anxiety-ridden, exhausting and mentally debilitating. School demands so much energy that students must forgo virtually everything else in their lives to keep up. It can ruin relationships, destroy finances and impact health. It seems to go on forever and impose a new reality on students. They must either give themselves fully to the discipline or risk failure. It teaches exacting attention to subtle details and self-excoriation for failing to notice them. Finally—and ironically—many students go into unsalvageable debt to finance this harrowing “learning experience.”

After all this trauma and sacrifice, it is no wonder that professional school students expect a reward at the end. But they don’t get it. Rather, they get a chance to win a reward. Moreover, because employment moves in cycles, it is really a long shot. There are so many things that can prevent a professional student from getting a job. There are no guarantees. In fact, there are a million uncontrollable contingencies that can derail a student’s hopes. A student may get fantastic grades, but lose out on a job because he wore a bad belt to the interview, and the interviewer put special (and unexplainable) emphasis on belt choice. A male student may be a close runner-up for a job, but lose out because the firm wants to hire a woman, not a man. Another student may have conveyed a nervous impression or have been sick on interview day, dashing his chances. Still another may be number one in his class, but really anger the interviewer because the interviewer has a deep-seated resentment toward overachievers. And some other student may send out hundreds of resumes and receive no response from anyone, ever. Worse, there are pernicious, unfair factors at work, too. Some employers may only want to hire students from certain “prestigious” schools. Others may ignore everyone in order to make room for a friend or relative. Still others may only want to hire women they find sexually attractive. Lastly, there is always the “boom and bust” cycle in commerce. When times are tight, no one gets a job, no matter how brilliant they are. In short, only grace and luck lead to employment. Intelligence and sacrifice entitle students to nothing.

Getting a “good job” is a long shot. Despite popular academic rhetoric, diligent study, intellectual curiosity and school success do not magically lead to employment. In fact, educational values have little to do with employment. It is tragic when superb students with real academic promise cannot find suitable jobs.

But there is a way to escape this tragedy. I, for one, do not regret that I obtained a professional education. I saw that employment had little to do with the educational values I cultivated as a student. I did not sacrifice my passion for learning by playing the employment game. Rather, I went to work for myself. By refusing to participate in the “employment game,” I preserved myself from the psychic agony and perpetual disappointment that stem from the employment relationship. It is a more difficult road in the sense that I must find other ways to make money. But what I lose in stability I make up for in happiness. I know that winning employment is arbitrary, and that employers are capricious. Furthermore, I know that getting a job is hardly a “reward;” rather, I view it as a form of surrender. I do not like servility. No matter how “good” the job, employment is a species of servility. Employees are servants. They are conceptually weak and fawning. I do not like being a weak concept. If employers have the power to extend grace, I escape potential disappointment by refusing to even petition them.

Yet I pity all the hopeful students who think their academic effort will lead them to success in private employment. They will soon see that commerce plays by different rules; no one is entitled to anything, unless, of course, they are related to someone in power. Relationships and connections are always better than merit and intelligence. That’s “real life” for you.