SURRENDERING, WASTING TIME AND FOLLOWING ORDERS : THE LANGUAGE OF EMPLOYMENT

THE MYTH OF EMPLOYMENT IN AMERICA

PART 1 - LANGUAGE

Last week, the White House announced some encouraging news about the economy. It said that the "Job Report" for March showed "significant gains." Apparently, more people found private employment during the early spring; and that meant more people were getting paychecks. Since late 2008, the "Job Report" had consistently reported losses. So last month's news was cause for celebration: When people have private sector jobs, it is a national victory.

What makes jobs cause for celebration in America? After all, what exactly is a "job," and why do Americans fetishize them so much? Is there something magical about jobs that makes people live their whole lives seeking them and toiling at them? I say no: In most cases, jobs are a poor way to spend your life; and they are sure way to obliterate your spirit as an individual.

Viewed in the abstract, jobs are nothing to glorify. In most cases, they are just a waste of time. People only work because they need to earn money to stave off material ruin at the hands of creditors, landlords, banks and other superior economic beings. They do not enrich people intellectually or spiritually. Rather, they commit people to a "service obligation," namely, unswerving dedication to the employer's economic mission. That economic mission might involve questionable ethics or outright deceit. But jobs require people to put those concerns aside and "do what the company wants." Worse, if the employee does not "do what the company wants"--or if he simply does not justify his cost in company profit--he is fired. If anything, jobs are gloomy reward. In return for a paycheck, an employee not only must sacrifice his time, dignity, ethics and individuality; he must also commit himself to another's material gain. That is a high price to pay for freedom from bankruptcy.

But still Americans thirst for jobs. Everyone wants one. Economists even measure national commercial strength by evaluating "job creation" and "job robustness." In other words, the entire economic system depends on everyone getting a job and doing what they are told so that larger commercial interests can profit and pay more employees. Jobs depend on hierarchies and disparities in power. Some live to benefit the employer; meanwhile the employer makes off with all the money. The employer expects total dedication to his economic mission; he pays just enough wages to keep the employee fed and under a roof. The employee must follow instructions and be productive.

It is not a fair system: No matter what free market apostles say to the contrary, very little labor is actually voluntary in the United States. True, no one is pointing a gun at employees to force them to work. But deluging people with ceaseless economic obligations under threat of homelessness amounts to practical coercion. If the choice is between letting one's children starve and taking an unfair job somewhere, is it really a choice?

If the field is so tilted, why does everyone want a job? If jobs are inherently unfair, coercive and wasteful, why does the White House tout them as the ultimate measure of national success? Does it not say something about our collective life expectations that we view our jobs as the highest expression of who we are? After all, most jobs are quintessentially counter-creative and anti-individualist. To understand that, consider that in American discourse it is often possible to replace the question "Who are you?" with "What do you do?"

Language relating to employment paints a bleak picture. It tells a story of banality, wasted time and exploitation. By investigating a few common words that regularly appear in the employment context, we see an oppressive, anti-individualist motif at work. And in the process, we begin to understand that the whole mythology surrounding "jobs" in America is exactly that: An elaborate hoax that sustains itself on false expectations and wretched servility.

Let us begin with the most obvious example: "Job." The word "job" is ubiquitous in modern American discourse. We cannot escape it. We even think we know what a "job" means; we visualize some guy slapping on a Starbucks apron and serving up mocchachinos for $5.50 a pop. But do we really understand the word? Where does it come from? What does it tell us? Is it really the sacred thing the propaganda tells us it is? Is it really the thing that determines our strength as a nation? Is it the be all and end all of our lives?

Let us look.

No one can agree on "job's" precise etymology. Most scholars agree, however, that "job" relates to the Middle English word "gobbe," meaning a "lump or mass of something," like clay, mud or grime. Dictionary.com says that "gobbe" did not imply "work" in 1400. But by the 17th Century, it began to assume a new meaning. Specifically, it meant a "specific, discrete piece of work done for an agreed-upon price." That distinguished it from long-term employment; jobs were "petty" and "inconstant." The handyman did "jobs," while the priest had a "profession." A person with a "job" was common trash. The fact that the word relates to "gob" tells almost the whole story. Jobs are grimy, unsavory and despicable ways to spend time. They are like lumps of filth with which people contend every day for a few lousy shillings. And they have always occupied the lowest spot on the "employment hierarchy." Only the meanest types worked "jobs." "Better people" spent their time with "professions" or "callings."

In this historical context, who would ever want a "job?" The etymology tells a nasty story. Only common rogues would deign to be "jobbers" slaving away at their daily lumps. What a horrible way to spend a life. While the word "job" may have taken a more neutral meaning over time, etymology never lies. It is indisputable that the word "job" reflects low social standing and abject surrender to a superior master. Only the most wretched people did "jobs" in the past, like cleaning privies or washing horse dung. Yet now Americans fetishize jobs. Who would have ever thought that so many Americans would have wanted to be the linguistic successors to Elizabethan shit sweepers?

Other employment-related words do not really improve the overall linguistic image. Those fortunate enough to avoid having a "job" might have a "career" instead. Like "job," "career" has become ubiquitous in American discourse. And like "job," Americans think they know what a "career" is. They also understand that "careers" are somehow "better" than jobs. They might not know why; it just seems that "career people" make more money than common slugs with "jobs."

But from an etymological perspective, "careers" are just as pernicious as jobs. While "career" has always elevated itself over "job," both concepts do the same thing: They voraciously consume time. "Career" especially implies a lifetime dedication to a chosen economic pursuit. It derives from the Latin word "carriara," meaning a "road intended for vehicular transport." See Dictionary.com, v. 1.1. "career" derivation. The dictionary's definitions stress "career's" temporal demands: "1. An occupation or profession, esp. one requiring special training, followed as one's life work; 2. A person's progress or general course of action through life or a phase of life." Id.

On its face, "career" does not necessarily imply economic service to a private master. But in American discourse, it does. People go to "Career Schools" and learn how to "prepare for their careers." They hear that it is "great to have a career" and that losing a career is worse than death. In all these usages, "career" implies dedication to a particular economic mission. It is wonderful to have a "life's work" if you believe in it, but how many "careers" really inure to individual benefit? A corporate "career," for instance, is not about the worker; it is about the corporation. A lawyer's "career" is about purposeful economic activity, not individual enrichment or creativity. In this light, "careers" in American discourse paint a disheartening image: They show people slavishly dedicated to a particular economic master for their entire lives. While "career people" may need special training to have a "career" rather than a "job," and while they may earn more money at longer engagements than "jobbers," they are no better in dignity. After all, to have an American-style "career," you have to give up your life to a "particular course of action;" you must "get on the road." In most cases, that means disciplined, directed service to a private economic master. If you do that, what time do you have left for yourself? Very little, if any. In this sense, "careers"--like jobs--generally reflect an essential hostility to individuality and creativity, as well as dedication to superior economic masters. And that is exactly how it is supposed to work, too.

American discourse about employment reveals its hierarchical function through other words, too. Beyond the basic distinction between "jobs" and "careers," there are also "professions." In modern American usage, "professions" are "special careers" that involve some unique learning or discipline. They pay more than other careers and certainly more than mere jobs. "Professions" even conjure mystical connotations because they involve special skills that average people cannot even fathom. "Professionals" use highly specialized language. They ply highly specialized procedures to obtain almost miraculous results. Generally, they go to school for a very long time before going into business. And on that basis they demand more money for their services. The word "profession" is all about "exclusivity:" Not everyone can be a "professional." We cannot all be so smart or skilled. If we were, we could pull our own teeth or conduct our own trials--that would not be good for dentists and lawyers.

"Profession's" etymology bears out these colloquial connotations. The word derives from the Latin "professio," meaning the "taking of the vows of a religious order." Dictionary.com v. 1.1 (profession etymology). In modern usage, the word means: "1. A vocation requiring knowledge of some department of learning or science." Id. Professionals, then, are modern-day mystics. Their very name invokes a "religious order." But they are not free spirits; they "took oaths" to the "religious order." This commits them to their "craft," or--in modern terms--their "knowledge of some department of learning or science." And they are essentially secretive: Not everyone can join a secret religious order, let alone master its complicated rituals or rites.

In practical terms, there is not much difference between a "career" and a "profession." Both refer to constant work for pay, most likely in the service of a private master. In that sense, "professions" consume time even more than simple "careers." Some "professions" genuinely do good. But in most cases, "professionals" band together to maximize their profits by exploiting public need for their "special knowledge." And in America, people do not become professionals to do good. They become professionals because they want "high-paying careers." In the process, they commit themselves to the profession's narrow "department of learning or science" for their entire lives, ruling out all else. Like jobs and careers, then, professions work strongly to suppress individuality and creativity. There is simply no time for anything but the profession--and profiting from it.

Finally, there is a general word that applies to almost all employment-related terms: Occupation. In many ways, occupation perfectly summarizes the temporal difficulties involved in employment. It is a relatively simple word; the subtlety lies in the imagery.

Occupation derives from the Latin "occupare," literally meaning to "occupy." But beyond the familiar "occupation," the word implies a "taking of possession of time or space." There is an element of both superior power and control in the word. It implies that someone or something takes possession. Obviously, anyone or anything possessing someone or something else is superior to the person or thing possessed. In this sense, "occupation" requires a subject and an object, a dominant element and a subordinate element. There is an "occupier" and an "occupied object." It is all about power.

These are revealing insights when applied in the employment context. After all, if a person has an "occupation," who is occupying and who is being occupied? Does the work "possess" the worker, or does the worker "possess" the work? I would venture that the work possesses the worker. It possesses his entire being, including his mind, his time, his creative strength and his focus. He allows someone to occupy him for pay. But he sacrifices his dignity in exchange. It is fundamentally submissive. And it confirms the essential power struggle that pervades all employment relationships: Someone occupies; another is occupied. The occupier profits by occupying the occupied object; the occupied object receives "compensation" for allowing the occupation. Yet make no mistake: It is always the occupier who holds the power, just as a carpenter holds power over his tools.

Where does all this leave us? It leaves us with an ugly picture about employment. American employment propaganda tells us that we should all want jobs or careers. Or a career of jobs. Or maybe a profession, or a professional career. Or at least an occupation. But if we understand what those words actually mean, we should hesitate before so zealously pursuing them. Jobs are just gobs of nasty filth. Careers are time thieves. Professions are hypnotizing, mind-narrowing cults. And occupations are invitations to be "possessed" or "owned." They are all about surrender. They are all about submission.

But maybe that's the point. Maybe we're supposed to surrender and just do what we are told. After all, the White House says we're a stronger nation when we all have jobs.

That is pretty scary if you ask me. Then again, not everyone reads the dictionary like I do.

REVERSE STEREOTYPING IN ADVERTISING : MORE INSULTING THAN REGULAR STEREOTYPING?

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Stereotypes fascinate me because everyone taught me to revile them. It is a dirty word. You are not supposed to stereotype anymore. But what is stereotyping, actually? It means making generalizations about particular people or things, then exaggerating those generalizations in a pejorative way.

Stereotypes are pernicious when applied to "disfavored" groups. They are even worse when a person in "superior social position" directs the stereotype against a person in an "inferior social position." In other words, it is "politically incorrect" for a wealthy white man in America (i.e., a person with a historically "superior social position") to stereotype against a poor black man (i.e, a person with a historically "inferior social position"). Yet when people in traditionally inferior social positions stereotype those in superior social positions, it is somehow more forgivable. After all, who gets up in arms when black comedians say all white people are awkward? No one: Because everyone knows that white people have historically enjoyed a "superior social position" over blacks in America. In this sense, stereotypes are objectionable only in context: They are "bad" only when directed downward from a superior social position against an inferior one.

Still, it is hard to talk about stereotypes without inviting anger. Even outside the racial context, stereotypes raise emotions because they depend on uncomfortable--and sometimes remotely true--assumptions about others. No one likes to be mocked for their intrinsic characteristics, even if their intrinsic characteristics are less than praiseworthy.

It is even difficult to analyze the stereotyper. Ten years ago, I angered the American government when I applied for a Federal scholarship to study the systematic way in which American media stereotypes Germans. I did not get the grant. Apparently, the Federal government did not want to fund a paper that would tell it how shortsighted, ignorant and simplistic most Americans are when thinking about Germany. At the time, I was disappointed I did not get my grant. But it taught me a valuable lesson: Neither the proponents nor the victims of stereotypes like talking about them.

Whether or not the Federal government chooses to recognize it, stereotypes are everywhere in this country. They surround us. We even buy into them without even knowing it. To start, it is hard to watch American movies without encountering some condescending racial, sexual or national caricature. Even in a sci-fi action movie like Transformers : Revenge of the Fallen, the "hip" robots have black voices and banter in ebonics. Most gay characters are pathetically effeminate, with the lisps, hair and flamboyance to match. And people from other countries? Forget it: Germans are merciless, icy, calculating, humorless villains (Schindler's List; Hellboy II). Italians are lusty, hairy, slicked-back tough Guidos who use big hand gestures and talk about their families all the time (Saturday Night Fever). Russians are crafty, suspicious tyrants with thick accents (Rambo III; Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). The French are perfumed, well-dressed, snotty, red-lipped, arrogantly petulant metrosexuals with perfect hair who usually wind up buying baguettes or espresso at some point in the movie (The Matrix : Reloaded, Ronin)(Jean Reno is the default American choice for a Frenchman). The British are absurdly prim, polite, insistent on protocol, silly or villainous (The Patriot). Arabs are maniacal terrorists who wear turbans, shout "Allah, Ackbar!" and blow things up (True Lies). Asians are generally kung-fu-fighting, sword-wielding comic relief with funny accents (any Jackie Chan movie).

Of course, not all American movies support racial, sexual and national stereotypes. There are exceptions in every category. But the fact that so many mainstream films thrive on stereotypes means something. It means that America has an appetite for them. They like laughing at smooth-talking black robots and silly gay men. They expect Italians to be gangsters and Germans to be killers. After all, stereotypes are easy to grasp. They distance "us" from "them." They allow "us" to feel secure in our identities by condescending toward the way "they" speak, act and move. Stereotypes unite through ignorance.

Hollywood films are not the only medium that supports rank stereotypes in the United States. Even so-called "neutral" news networks reinforce racial and national generalizations. Whenever news agencies report on street crime, they usually point out that the suspect is a "black male," or they just show his face onscreen: Just another scary-looking black guy with unkempt facial hair. Whenever news agencies report about China or Russia, they usually make ominous comments about sinister motivations and repressive governments. And when they report about destitute Third World countries, typically they focus on some ridiculous sideshow, like peasants cooking dirt shavings or worshipping a river bank.

In short, Americans get their stereotypes from multiple sources. Stereotypes help them order their world. They help them remember who "they" are. Yet no matter how much Americans love their stereotypes, and no matter how often they buy into them, they also hear a countervailing message: "Stereotyping is bad." Students learn that it is wrong to make sweeping generalizations about ethnic, national, sexual and religious groups. Even corporations instruct their employees that it is "wrong" to generalize about "others." It might not be wrong to exclude "them" from the workforce or relegate "them" to the mail room. You just can't make callous remarks about their low station.

We have lived in the era of "political correctness" for several decades now. Some people have gotten in trouble for breaking the official rules about stereotypes, like Don Imus and some other indiscreet white men. But despite the "official" stance against stereotyping, it survives. It lives on in men's hearts. People can dutifully watch what they say in public without privately abandoning stereotypical thinking. It is very easy to be "politically correct" in observance, yet politically incorrect in spirit. Even the worst bigot can navigate the sparse minefield of forbidden phrases that demarcates "politically correct speech." You just need some minimal public discretion.

But what happens when traditional stereotypers try too hard to show their political correctness? In advertising, for instance, I have noticed an increase in so-called "reverse stereotyping," namely, painfully obvious attempts to portray traditionally stereotyped roles in the opposite light.

Take these examples: A major garment company runs an ad showing a married black man in a very nice home choosing a white starched shirt from a hickory-paneled closet. In the next ad, a home security company shows an affluent black family in a very nice home being terrorized by a white burglar, then calling police. In another ad, a life insurance company hawks its wares by showing an extremely well-dressed black man behind a desk in an office building. He is an "insurance executive;" and a desperate-looking white man calls him to ask about life insurance options. In yet another ad, a trade school notes that "times are tough," then it shows an unemployed white man struggling to find a job. It suggests that he get an education in order to stop receiving public assistance.

What is significant about these ads? In my view, they are even more condescending to "disfavored political groups" in America than flat-out stereotypes. After all, pernicious stereotyping generally operates in a "downward" manner, from people in a "traditionally superior social position" against people in a "traditionally inferior social position." In all the social contexts relevant to these ads, black Americans generally occupy the inferior position: They do not have nice homes; they do not wear button-down shirts; they are not even married; they are the burglars, not the ones who call police; they do not buy life insurance, let alone run the insurance company; they are unemployed and need educations to get off welfare. A flat-out stereotype would have shown white people buying button-down shirts, calling the police on black burglars and running an insurance company. But here the ads simply reverse the stereotypes, placing black people in the traditionally superior positions, while white people fancifully occupy the traditionally inferior positions. This "racial reversal" so obviously contradicts predominant social realities that it invites scorn.

It is easy to see why the corporations did this. They did not want to "appear stereotypical" by portraying blacks in "traditionally inferior social positions." They wanted to comply with "political correctness." But in attempting to avoid stereotypes, the corporations came off as even more patronizing than they would have had they simply stuck with the generalizations everyone expects to see. Americans expect to see black burglars; that's what they see on the news all the time. Americans expect to see white insurance executives; after all, insurance executives are basically all white anyway. And Americans expect to hear about unemployed black people on welfare; laziness is a classic racial stereotype that has long fueled resentment between racial groups in America.

In sum, anyone can see that these ads do not correspond to social reality in the United States. That fact confirms that Americans like their stereotypes. It makes them uneasy--and even disbelieving--to see black people portrayed outside their traditionally inferior social positions. No one will ever believe that black people will run insurance companies. Nor will anyone believe that white Americans will commit street crime in the same proportions as black Americans. Americans are too comfortable with their stereotypes. A few advertisers will not change anyone's assumptions by reversing stereotypical roles that have existed in Americans' minds for generations.

No, Americans still have a voracious appetite for stereotypes. Just go to the movies or turn on the news. And ironically, attempting to be "political correct" only worsens stereotypical thinking. That's because telling Americans that "stereotyping is bad" is like telling a star baseball player that baseball is bad: Stereotyping is what we do--and we really like it. Telling us to stop doing what we like will result in confused, disingenuous absurdity, just as we see in these ads.

CELEBRATE BLACK HISTORY MONTH : DRINK HEINEKEN

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

You might think that title is a joke. It isn't: I actually saw it printed on a New York City bus.

I thought I had seen everything in advertising. I thought I had cataloged every species of commercial dishonesty. But I should never underestimate commercial speakers: Their innovation knows no bounds. They push the limits every time. And in cases like this, they push straight into the surreal.

What the fuck does Dutch beer have to do with African-American identity and history? How does Heineken in any way relate to the black experience in the United States? How does Heineken reflect this country's poisonous racial legacy, or in any way symbolize it? I have no doubt that many African-Americans like Heineken beer. But would an average black man in America instinctively associate Heineken with black issues?

I can understand associating George Washington Carver, Crispus Attucks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Scott Joplin or even Snoop Dogg with Black History Month. All those men achieved prominence in American life through the decades. But Heineken? Where was Heineken during the Freedom Marches? Where was Heineken during the Civil War and Reconstruction? And where the hell was Heineken during the L.A. race riots?

Heineken is not African-American. It is not even a person. It is a beer. What role could it possibly have played in a Nation's development?

To suggest that blacks should celebrate their history in the United States by breaking open a Heineken is just asinine. After all, it was a Dutch merchant who brought the first African slaves to Virginia in 1619. That's not to say that Heineken reflects modern Dutch views about slavery. But the fact remains that the Dutch played a very dark role in the history of American slavery. In that light, it is especially perverse to suggest blacks should celebrate their history by drinking Dutch beer.

Heineken's ad is not just historically incongruous. It also shows just how little taste--or sense--most advertisers bring to their work. In this case, the advertisers did not ponder the embarrassingly weak connection between African-American history and Heineken beer. No, they merely identified a potential market (i.e., African-Americans), then matched their product to an important month in the "African-American calendar." Perhaps Heineken intended to forge a mental link between "African-American pride" and Heineken. Perhaps they wished to dupe African-Americans into believing that Heineken played a substantial role in their history. Maybe Dr. Dre likes Heineken. Maybe Duke Ellington drank it after his shows in the 1940s. Who knows?

Heineken simply concluded that African-Americans represent a "market:" Namely, a discrete body of potential buyers and sellers at a particular time and place. Any advertising that incites a market to spend money on the advertiser's product is worth the price. It does not matter if the message is crass, off-color, inappropriate, incorrect, counterfactual, counterintuitive, silly, ridiculous or just wrong. Those concerns pale next to the advertiser's mandate to generate profits.

In the end, advertising is not about consistency. It is not about respect, either. Rather, it is about implanting mental connections so that people spend money. In advertising, facts need not be accurate. Indeed, facts are not even necessary at all.

And taste? That's the least concern. If taste mattered, what self-respecting student of American history would dare to assert that Heineken beer has anything to do with the plight of African-Americans in this country? The thought is almost too embarrassing to entertain.

But that didn't stop Heineken from entertaining it. There is no shame--or dignity--in commerce.

That's another reason I'm not good at it. Damned ethics!

NATIONS AND STATES ARE NOT THE SAME THING : IS THERE AN AMERICAN NATION AT ALL?

AN ESSAY

What are nations? What are states? Are they the same thing? If you listen to mass media in the United States, you might think they are. Politicians talk about the "American Nation." Colloquially, we hear terms like "all over the Nation" and "nationwide." Somehow, we have equated the word "Nation" with "country" or "state." But the word "Nation" exists for a reason: It has its own meaning. And upon closer inspection, we see that the United States really may not be a "Nation" at all.

Nations are not political entities. Nations are human populations that share common ethnic, religious and linguistic traditions and values. States are political entities. It makes sense to create a State from a Nation, but it is not necessary. In that sense, States are artificial while Nations are genetic. People in a Nation intuitively understand one another because they all speak the same language, look basically the same and represent the same cultural traditions. By contrast, there is no need for people in a State to understand one another. Several Nations can agree to live under the same State. States simply administer the law and keep order. But Nations exist regardless of the State that rules them.

States are artificial because they depend on artificial members: Citizens. The word "citizen" is a technical term. It has a specific definition by law. True, the definition varies depending on the State that creates it. But it is still a legal conclusion, not a genetic fact.

Aristotle defined "citizen" in The Politics. He said that "citizens" are people who are qualified to participate in government and to hold office. The Politics, Book III ch. i § 1275a22. "Participating in government," in turn, means "deliberating or judging" on all matters relevant under the Constitution. Id. at § 1275b13. And only States create Constitutions. Aristotle continued this reasoning by concluding that "a number of [citizens] large enough to secure a self-sufficient life we may, by and large, call a state." Id. He then posited that states only exist to the extent that citizens associate with each other under a particular Constitution. The Politics, Book III ch. iii § 1276a34. By this reasoning, states are technical: They exist only to the extent that citizens continue to recognize a particular Constitution. When they no longer agree to abide by the Constitution, the state ceases to exist. Id.

What is so significant about these definitions? They are significant because they say nothing about nations. According to Aristotle, a State exists only as a matter of law; it does not require national identity. States are technical fictions created by people who want to secure a better life. To achieve that goal, they create a Constitution that delineates government power and the rights of citizens. Citizens take their identity in the State from the Constitution, not from their national origins. As a legal matter, nations are irrelevant to the State. Strictly viewed, states are not nations, and nations are not states.

But that is just the legal view. Reality exists quite apart from law, and reality shows that national identity greatly influences state power. States function more effectively when their citizens all come from the same national background. States are more cohesive when all their citizens speak the same language, represent the same cultural traditions and live by the same basic values. When States create Constitutions to reflect shared national values, they simplify the business of government. No matter what anyone says, it is much easier to govern a relatively homogeneous population in which everyone views life in a similar way.

Perhaps it sounds archaic--or even racist--to suggest that States function best when they comprise a single Nation. After all, popular American rhetoric holds that America's strength flows from its diversity. According to that rhetoric, anyone can be an American "citizen" no matter what "nation" they represent. As long as they "participate in government and hold office" under the Constitution, they are "citizens," even if one comes from Iraq and the other from Holland. In other words, the United States--at least on paper--takes pride in the fact that its "State" represents every "Nation" on earth.

That may be so. But it is inaccurate to call the United States a "nation." Our Constitution certainly makes the United States a "state." Everyone within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States abides by technical laws passed in compliance with a Constitution that every citizen theoretically supports. Every "citizen" under that Constitution may "participate in government or hold office." That suffices to call the United States a "state." But it does not suffice to call it a "nation."

Our American republic is unique among world States because it has virtually no national identity. Our citizens represent every possible cultural, religious, linguistic and racial group. Culture, religion, language and race all influence the values that people hold dear in their lives. As such, the United States is at war with itself; its citizens hold every conceivable value and they frequently clash. There is no simple cultural unity. While every "nation" in the United States might contribute to the state's overall strength, they certainly do not contribute to a united American culture. American culture exists only as far as a particular "nation" within the United States observes it. As such, it is confusing discuss "American identity." To really understand "American identity," it is insufficient to examine whether a person is a citizen. Rather, one must look further into the person's national identity to figure out who he is. And in a state that comprises a thousand nations, that is a hard task.

Despite America's uncertain national character, there are other ways by which to measure cohesion between American "citizens." There are other ways to assess whether people come from the same "nation." Indeed, Americans from every cultural tradition have created "pseudo-nations" that link them in ways that language, race or ethnicity cannot. For example, millions of Americans love football. That makes them part of a "football nation" with a common culture and language. Millions more love television shows. That makes them part of a "television" nation with shared values and traditions. These might be weak replacements for true national identity. But Americans make do in whatever ways they can.

People yearn for national identity. States that encompass a single Nation generally radiate that identity without trying too hard. But the United States is a problematic case. Americans yearn to be "American" without really understanding that there is no "American nation." To fulfill that longing, they rally around things they all like, especially commerce.

Americans are notoriously commercial. They turn to commerce for meaning in life more than many other people in the world. I argue that this is due in part to the fact that they long for something to define them as a national group. If Americans can't all belong to a single value system or cultural heritage, they at least can all represent a worldview based exclusively on commercial success.

For better or worse, this "replacement identity" has stuck: Most people in the world associate Americans with business success, enterprise and "do-it-yourself" entrepreneurship. That is America's "national identity." If the United States cannot be a "nation" in traditional sense, it can simply rewrite the rules to suit its situation.

Commerce is America's national identity. We are a "money nation." We don't all speak the same language or have the same hair color. We don't all worship the same God or observe the same holidays. But money unites us: The maniacal, ruthless, insistent, all-consuming urge to amass cash. German-Americans do it. Irish-Americans do it. Chinese-Americans do it. Russian-Americans do it. Sengalese-Americans do it. Mexican-Americans do it.

That is our Nation. That is our culture. That is our language. That is our common ground.

One Nation, under cash, with liberty and justice for all.

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.

FROM SLAVERY TO THE WHITE HOUSE : ANCESTRY AND AMERICAN HISTORY

AN ESSAY

Recently, the New York Times ran an article about Michelle Obama's ancestry. See N.Y. Times, October 7, 2008, In First Lady's Roots, A Complex Path from Slavery. Thanks to a genealogist's work, we see deeply into Mrs. Obama's family history. And in that history, we see the classic identity problems that plague all Americans, not just African-Americans.

All Americans face monumental identity questions. There are few countries on earth with populations as culturally and ethincally diverse as those in the United States. Americans living today draw on millennia of formerly disparate social, religious, linguistic and racial traditions. Some Americans are less "intermingled" than others. But over time, "intermingling" is inevitable. If a group has been in this country for a long time, it has likely "intermingled" with some other group. Even English settlers in the 17th Century intermingled with Native tribes. As the article observes, these "liaisons" simply vanish as times passes and memories fade. Family history does that. Once a relative in an older generation dies, it is unlikely that many people will remember him or her. That makes the genealogist's job much more difficult.

But in fairness, African-Americans face a much more difficult identity inquiry than European descendants. After all, every African-American (except recent African immigrants) can trace some roots to slavery. It is wrong to think that African-Americans are "purely" or even "largely" African. Quite the contrary, African-Americans are generally far more "American" than Johnny-come-lately European immigrants. And hauntingly, the evil of slavery is literally inscribed in every African-American's family tree. European slave owners routinely took sexual liberties with their African "property" over the centuries. This "forced intermingling" makes African-American genealogies both extremely perplexing and interesting at the same time. Additionally, many African-Americans intermingled with Native populations during the 18th and 19th Centuries, adding another layer of ancestral traditions to an already complicated history.

Michelle Obama's story reveals all these disparate influences at work. A slave owner raped one of her maternal ancestors, who gave birth to several "mulatto" children. One of the ancestor's forebears, in turn, was named "Powhatan Morehead." That is undeniably a Native American name. Because the family lived in Georgia at the time, we can assume he was probably a Cherokee or a Seminole. No matter his true identity, it lives on in Michelle Obama. And there is no shortage of irony in the notion that oppressed slaves and persecuted Native Americans contributed DNA that ultimately found its way into the same White House that once regarded them as subhuman.

I am glad the Times drew attention to Michelle Obama's ancestry. In recent years, I have taken a very strong interest in ancestry because I think it helps me understand who I am and why I think and feel the way I do. I also think it is important because it helps us all better understand America's immensely troubled history. The Times article also wisely notes that Michelle Obama--as an African-American--has many "white strands" in her ancestry. Perhaps the Times thinks that most readers do not know that this is virtually universal among African-Americans. The chilling truth is that "African-Americans" are really not as "black" as most European descendants believe. Even "really black" people like Chris Rock and Morgan Freeman can prove something like 30% European roots. That means that the average African-American represents the generational result of centuries of both slavery and sexual exploitation. I would have been happier if the Times noted these discomforting facts in stronger terms. But I was glad they at least hinted at them.

From an ancestral perspective, African-Americans are completely unique. Their family trees reveal European, Native American and even Hispanic influences. They have generally lived in North America longer than most European immigrant groups; most large European immigrant groups only began landing here in the 1840s. When it comes to ancestry in America, time matters. The fact is that African-Americans have had more time to intermingle--both voluntarily and involuntarily--with every other racial group in North America. That makes modern-day African-Americans unique.

That is not to say that European descendants are not unique. But most "whites" in America--as intermingled as they may be with one another--draw from similar ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds. I am a "white" American. To some degree, I am "intermingled." Yet I am remarkably "homogeneous," at least when compared to Michelle Obama's ancestry. Every one of my ancestors came from Northern Europe. They have always been Protestant, fair-skinned, fair-haired and they always spoke Germanic languages (German, English and Dutch). There was no obvious sexual exploitation along the way, nor was anyone ever "owned" in my family tree. For better or worse, my family tree shows me that my ancestors "stayed with their own." And that is typical in American history: Integration generally has only occurred in scandalous circumstances. My great-grandmother burned love letters intended to reach my grandmother. Why? Because the suitor was Catholic.

Ancestry always fascinates me. It implicates both my passion for history and for self-knowledge. When we understand ancestry, we place ourselves in a historical continuum that makes sense. It helps us understand our desires, likes, dislikes, passions and aversions. On a larger scales, it helps us orient ourselves in this country, and to see whether we've remained true to what "always mattered" to our relatives. Yes, we are all "unique individuals." But we cannot escape our family roots. They will always shape us, no matter how much we fight them or reject them. And they also help us make educated guesses about people's values. If we know someone comes from an Italian-Irish Catholic background, we can be pretty sure that they will think differently than a person with Swedish Protestant ancestry. That might be prejudice, but it is entirely reasonable.

In Michelle Obama's case, ancestry does more than help us understand values. It gives an insight into America's complex identity issues. In many ways, studying African-Americans means studying American history. Virtually every key event in American history has somehow involved African-Americans. Our soul as a Nation rises and falls depending upon how we treat them. After all, we are supposedly a Nation of principles. When our principles only apply to whites, it renders our entire national experiment an embarrassment.

THE FACE OF AMERICA

A REFLECTION

Today I tuned in to watch the Red Sox-Yankees game. I don't really follow sports; if you read this blog with any regularity, you know the reasons why. But if I had to choose a sport to "follow," it would be baseball. I like the fact that it goes back so far in American history. It is uniquely American. And I like anything with a long, well-documented history because it lets you see developments over time. Baseball certainly has that; Americans have obsessed over it since at least 1880.

During the broadcast, there was an interesting moment. It had nothing to do with the game; I really could care less who wins and who loses. The camera fixed on two Yankees sitting in the dugout watching the game. I have no idea who they were. One was black, with a round face, a goatee, moustache and big, brown eyes. The other was white, blondish, shaven, with an angular, Nordic-looking face, piercing iron-colored eyes and high cheekbones. These two men wore the same uniform. They wore the same hats with the same insignia. They leaned over the dugout railing. Their jackets even touched. They appeared to mutter a word or two to each other in between blowing sunflower seeds onto the field. Each man looked around; their eyes briefly met a few times. Then the camera moved back to the game.

Here were two Americans, united to play the "all-American game." A hundred years ago, every player in baseball was a European descendant. Well, at least all the players in the "American and National Leagues." Back in those days it was OK to segregate the races: the "negroes" had their own league. Players' names bespoke Europe: Honus Wagner; George Sisler; Walter Johnson; Rogers Hornsby.

Now, barely half the players are European descendants. Baseball officially desegregated in 1947. Since then, new ethnicities and races have completely altered baseball's face. Players' names, too, tell us that "times have changed" in America. Yes, there are still Buchholzes, Smoltzes, Cobbs, Saberhagens and Bretts. But much more often there are Gonzalezes, Rodriguezes, Ramirezes and Martinezes. And most of the players with names like Johnson, Brown, Williams and Jackson are black. The American population--just like baseball--is fundamentally different than what it was a hundred years ago.

This one moment reminded me how perplexing it is to be "an American." Who are we? What are we? With every passing generation, our identity as a Nation changes, just as our population changes. The original residents are extinct (our ancestors eliminated them a long time ago). We are now a bewildering mishmash of fresh immigrants and the descendants of people who "used to live somewhere else, far far away." And not all came voluntarily.

Who is an American? Those two Yankees on the TV screen were both Americans. Yet they looked nothing like one another. In fact, they came from radically divergent cultural heritages. They both played America's "truly American sport." But what else united them but the game? In this sense, the image on TV told a misleading story: Although it seemed that black and white happily coexist--and even "wear the same hat" while struggling as peers to win a mutual contest--a brief look at social realities tells us that the opposite is usually true.

American life is a strange thing. We pull in so many different directions because we all hail from disparate cultural traditions. No matter how much government or private institutions attempt to inculcate "traditionally American values," it is really impossible to impose uniformity over a population as heterogeneous as ours. In the past, of course, that heterogeneity has proven a blessing.

But who knows what the future holds. The United States ventures now into an unprecedented era. For the first time, European descendants will fade into minority status. Once again, America will struggle to answer the question: "Who is an American?" What is an "all-American look?" With a population as far-flung as ours, who can even presume to answer these questions?

LIFE, DEATH, HAPPINESS, SENSE, MONEY & OTHER UNCOMFORTABLE WORDS

AN ESSAY

Several weeks ago, I wrote about why human beings fear death. All living organisms cling doggedly to life. But only humans can articulate the reasons why they want to live. I concluded that people fear death because they are “sensory creatures” who derive enjoyment and meaning from their senses. Their senses allow them to stimulate their bodies, affording opportunities for pleasure and satisfaction. Death, however, causes “irreversible sensory shutdown,” precluding any further sensory input. Death cuts short our ability to experience the world with our senses. It eliminates our potential pleasures at the same time it spares us potential agonies. No matter the result, we fear it because we cannot imagine an existence without sense; we simply don’t know “what it’s like.”

Sense is everything. Generally speaking, human beings live for their senses. They want to see, hear, feel, taste and smell things that make them feel inwardly happy. Although some people profess to find happiness through the spirit or by some other intangible route, these are exceptions. For the most part, human beings work, struggle, contend, compete, strive and wrangle in order to bring joy to their senses. They engage in commerce to earn sufficient money to spend their time in a manner that allows them to positively stimulate their senses. Success in commerce allows “sensory success.” Of course, achieving success in commerce takes a very long time. Ironically, those who ultimately succeed in commerce usually do not have much time left to placate their senses. Life for most people follows a predictable pattern: Strive at all times to win in commerce, because success in commerce will provide a reliable means to positively stimulate the senses, thereby minimizing negative emotions and maximizing positive ones. Put simply, it is a race against time. People know that they only have so many days to find happiness. With every passing day, their potential for positive sensory stimulation dwindles. Life is a closing door.

This is why people fear death. Death cancels their ever-dwindling opportunity to achieve positive sensory stimulation and happiness. Death shuts down the senses: Obviously people will fear something that threatens the very capacity that makes it enjoyable to live. In modern American life, people do not just fear death; they try their best not to even think about it. They push it away with all their might. After all, American life follows a program, and death is not on the agenda. The program teaches worldly success, sensory satisfaction and happiness through material acquisition. Sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell are essential to find happiness along this path. American success means success in life and through sense. The tangible world before us is not opaque. In American life, the best things in life are right in front of our eyes: Houses, electronics, cars, bulging bank accounts, boats, overseas vacations. We can possess these things. We can see them; and so can others. Americans tailor every day in their lives to ultimately acquire these things. They work their whole lives without them for a chance to live with them. Sadly, most people do not get all the tangible items they want. But they don’t want to die because that would preclude their opportunity to get them. Still, even if they live, they probably won’t get them, either. But they can’t know that. So they prefer life to death. They want the chance to stimulate their senses in the way they always wanted—which almost never happens.

Death just does not fit in the American life program. Americans have too many other things to do. They have to get jobs, go to school, purchase land, impress their friends, make enough money to retire, go on the right vacations, find health insurance, buy the right stereo equipment, go to dance clubs, watch movies, save money on phone plans, buy a second home and send their children to college. Their goals lie in this world; they are right there for the taking. All these goals involve the senses. There is no time to think about death. It is incomprehensible. No one sees what happens after death, nor can anyone receive a report about it. Put simply, death cannot be achieved, won, savored, acquired or known. That is why it does not fit in the American life program. In a world stuffed with perceptible, achievable, tangible goals, death is the great unknown. It takes people out of the race for good. And when winning the “sensory race” is all that matters, is it surprising that death strikes terror into the competitors? People fear death because it forces them to come face to face with a startling new reality after living their lives believing that sense was the only reality.

Americans manifest their death fears in many ways, both overt and subtle. Overtly, they emotionally react when threatened with death. The law threatens death to the “worst criminals” on the assumption that death is the “worst thing” that could happen to anyone. Because no one wants to die, the law assumes that no one will engage in behavior that could lead to the death penalty. When Americans see violent events in which others die, they feel traumatized. It reminds them they don’t want to die, either. They recoil from the thought that they will not have a chance to stimulate their senses anymore or to follow their life program to potential happiness. Pain plays a role in this fear. But pain is not the main reason why people fear death. People fear death because death cuts short their anticipated life program and its opportunities for sensory stimulation. Americans overtly manifest their fear in this regard when they see others die.

Yet subtle death fears are much more interesting than overt death fears. To some extent, we can explain overt death fears on a crude biological level. Even dogs become terrified when some overpowering force threatens them with death. Self-preservation is not unique to lower mammals; human beings are no exception. Living organisms want desperately to live, and when they perceive that something might end their life, they manifest emotions consistent with a desire to live, including overt death fears. But human beings express their death fears in more subtle ways. We are the only species that uses the mouth, palate and tongue to create intelligible speech. We tend to presume ourselves “superior” to all other creatures because we can do this. We use our speech to do great things as well as treacherous things. We use our speech as much to inform as to confound. We use our speech as much to unite as divide. Although speech may set us apart from other life forms, we certainly do not always use it for abstractly beneficial purposes.

We voice our emotions through speech. Through the words we choose, we indicate how we subjectively feel about certain phenomena. We can use direct words, such as: “I am afraid.” Or we can “circumlocute” our true feelings because the truth makes us uncomfortable. We might say: “I am concerned” when we really are terrified. This is a conscious obfuscation, a self-delusion. But there are other ways in which language itself changes to reflect a pervasive, universal fear, even if the individual speaker does not experience it at the moment he says the words.

Death is a prime example. In recent decades, Americans have almost universally replaced the verb “to die” with “to pass.” George Carlin placed this “word shift” into the growing catalogue of issues about which Americans simply can no longer speak honestly. See Parental Advisory : Explicit Lyrics (1990). He was absolutely right, and for a significant reason: Because death is anathema to the American life program. American language has changed in order to express a prevailing social discomfort with—and even disapproval of—death. Because death stands in such stark philosophical opposition to the entire sense-oriented program under which most Americans live, Americans deliberately refuse to confront the uncomfortable implications. “To die” means to “cease to be.” It refers literally to the moment in which a living person—with senses, ambitions, dreams and a “life plan”—becomes a dead person—with no sensory capacity or potential for sensory stimulation at all. But “to pass” does not literally refer to that biological event. No, “to pass” implies “physical movement through, around, toward or beyond something.” It derives from the Latin word “passus,” meaning “step.” It refers to movement involving tangible objects, places or obstacles, as in: “I passed by the store this morning on the way to my mother’s house,” or “I passed through the door on my way into the office,” or “We passed each other in the hallway.” There is nothing biological or existential about it. It is about banal movement.

Metaphorically, “to pass” can also mean “to end.” But this meaning traditionally refers to events and circumstances, not to death. A wise uncle might say to his nephew: “Dear boy, fear not. For this, too, shall pass.” This did not mean someone died. It meant that some adversity would soon “go away.” And this metaphorical meaning derives from the “physical movement concept” implicit in the word “to pass.” Circumstances—like living beings—can “move through or beyond” fixed points or obstacles. In this sense “pass” does not have an existential meaning.

So Americans now say they “pass” to mean they “die.” Why? To avoid using the scary word “die.” “Die” is a simple word. But it is disconcertingly honest. It goes to the heart of existence and non-existence. It is too honest for American discourse, in which everything depends on life. Only the living can achieve success, acquire property, make lots of money, enjoy sensuous pool parties and go on vacation without financial worry. Only the living can reap commercial rewards because they have senses that those rewards can stimulate. Everything in America depends on life, because everything revolves around sensory stimulation. Death permanently removes a living being’s capacity to experience the world though the senses. Death ends any hope to achieve “success” as conceived under the “American life program.” Americans strive their whole lives to achieve that success; death undermines the entire enterprise. It even renders the enterprise absurd. It is thus little wonder that Americans refuse to even countenance the word when talking about the event to which it refers. So they choose a meaningless, harmless substitute: “To pass.”

I hate to break it to these folks. But when we die, we do not “pass” or “go” anywhere. When we’re dead, our passing days are over. Our bodies are done. They ain’t going noplace, at least under their own power.

Yet some Americans truly believe that “we never stop thinking about money or success.” Last week, I read a few pages from a book written by a “professional money coach” who counsels “executives” struggling to balance their obsession with money with “normal lives.” She wrote about some company Vice President who had to take a day off from work in order to visit his dying mother in the hospital. He felt guilty because he didn’t want to leave work or make a bad impression on the company President. The “money coach,” however, told him that his guilt was natural—and his mother would understand that he couldn’t stay long—because his mother hadn’t stopped thinking about money, either. “We never really stop thinking about money, no matter what our circumstances may be,” she wrote, referring to a dying woman she never met.

I found this shockingly asinine. As much as the “American life program” demands that we fixate our attention on “this world” and the “success” it can bring to our senses, death renders everything moot. I found it preposterous for this “money coach” to presume that a woman facing death had not stopped thinking about money when she was about to die. I can say that I do not always think about money or success, and I am not dying. And I was with my father when he was dying three years ago; I know for a fact he was not thinking about money, success or his job when confronted with non-existence. In fact, he entered an extremely reflective state in which he deeply questioned everything he had done in his life. He wondered why he spent so much energy chasing things that did not really matter. Money and success are among those things that “don’t really matter” when death looms. Yet they are the cornerstones of the “American life program;” and they entrench themselves so deeply in us that many people cannot fathom an event that makes them irrelevant.

But there are ways to accommodate both this world’s fixation on success and the existential fears that spring from contemplating death. Commerce and gain are not the only ways to stimulate our senses. We can achieve sensory happiness without material acquisition or winning a competition for limited resources. After all, these are merely external stimuli. If we can find strength within ourselves, if we can cultivate our own personalities and thoughts, then we might find value beyond commerce. To be sure, this is not a popular path to happiness. Like death, it does not rest easy with the “American life program” because it focuses on subjective meaning rather than objective material acquisition. But by looking within ourselves, we determine who we are, not what we have. And when we stop worrying about what we have, the thought of dying no longer seems so daunting. After all, if “having things” is not so important to us, what does it matter whether we leave “the world of having things?”

If we make that discovery, we are unafraid to say “die.” We do not need to delude ourselves by saying we “pass.” We “pass” the McDonald’s on the way home from work. We “die” when we stop breathing.

LEGAL LANGUAGE IS BETTER THAN ENGLISH, PURSUANT TO LAW AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY THEREOF

By : Mr. Cornelius J. Stumme, Esq., Attorney-at-Law; Senior Partner, Stumme, Barking, Speaker & Husstel, a Law Firm Specializing in Appellate Advocacy & Trial Practice on behalf of the Energy Industry; Winner, American Bar Association’s 2001 Linguistic Precision Award (LPA); Published Speechwriter; Author, Write Thee Not for Understanding (Doubleday Publishers : New York 2005); Charter Member, American Lawyers for Professionalism Through Inaccessibility and Confounding Language.

Too many lawyers today disparage legalese. In law school, young attorneys learn to avoid “old-sounding” legal language because it sounds “confusing” and it is “hard to read.” Instead, their writing teachers instruct them to write staccato, informative sentences that read like newspaper headlines. Put briefly, lawyers today learn to write clearly. They want their readers to understand what they say the first time they read it.

This is disgraceful. Clarity in writing and speech contravenes the traditions of our profession. For centuries, lawyers gained a reputation for bewildering language that no one could truly understand except other lawyers and judges. And that was precisely the point: By learning legal language, lawyers separated themselves from the masses. Lawyers held an exalted station in society because they knew something no one else could learn without specialized training. Because only lawyers knew the language, they could rightfully advertise a “special skill” that others needed. But now, lawyers learn to speak the same way everyone else does. They learn to write for understanding, not obfuscation. This besmirches lawyers’ status. We should be different from laymen because we are smarter. And our language defines us. An attack on our language represents an attack on our very spirit.

Despite the trend favoring “clear language” in law practice, I continue to speak legalese. Moreover, I encourage all my colleagues to revitalize their respect for our linguistic traditions. I teach courses reminding lawyers that legalese makes us special. I encourage them to take pride in legalese. In short, legalese may be a dying art, but I am doing all I can to revive it every day. If I have anything to say about it, every lawyer will soon gladly use these words: “It being mutually agreed herewith, pursuant to notice and subject to all applicable legal limitations, qualifications, definitions and distinctions appurtenant thereon, that this certain Tract, located in and for the County of New York, by, through, by the grace of and under the legal auspices of the State of New York (an independent sovereignty constituted on the Continent of North America, having lawfully descended from the Crown of England, by the Grace of Majesty) commonly and colloquially known as 43 Bleecker Street, notwithstanding any vulgarities varying the same (hereinafter known as “The Plot”), shall henceforth, forever and always be subject to the Management, Control, Maintenance and skillful care of those Artisans, resident in and for aforesaid County and State of New York, known by Virtue of, and pursuant to the New York General Corporations Law, as Rosenberg Realty, Inc., except to such extent as the same would violate any Law, Ordinance, Judicial Decree, common law holding, cease and desist order, injunction—whether equitable or constructive, the constitutionality whereof notwithstanding, reliance whereon is hereby disclaimed for all time, indemnity wherefor is hereby demanded, including costs—or police quarantine, unless the Chief Operating Officer of aforesaid Rosenberg Realty, Inc. be not named Richard Rosenberg, in which case Plot shall never be subject the Management, Control, Maintenance and skillful care of such Artisans as mentioned herein; provided in all events it is not Good Friday.”

These words define us as lawyers. People pay us to write these words because they cannot. Anyone can say: “Rosenberg Realty will now manage 43 Bleecker Street.” But who can write it legally? Only we can. Did we go to law school to write and speak like everyone else? Certainly not. We went to law school—and we charge $575 an hour for it—because we know special words that other people do not know. And they need us to read, write and speak those special words in order to save their property.

We should be proud of our language. We should not be ashamed. Who cares what some intellectual thinks about “clarity in writing?” The law is not about clarity; the law is about special words. The law is not about equal access; the law is a brotherhood. We refuse to surrender our language to some left-wing crusade for accessibility and comprehensibility. After all, who would need a lawyer if they did not need to know what “notwithstanding aforesaid” means? Who would need a lawyer if they did not receive a letter threatening “equitable, as opposed to constructive, condemnation pursuant to General Statute § 346-1(a)(4) (West 2009)?” We have families to feed. And we can only feed them when legal language remains inaccessible.

Legalese not only provides us the means to support ourselves. It is also our lineage. In centuries past, lawyers enjoyed a high social reputation. Laymen respected lawyers because they spoke a mystical language they could scarcely understand. They identified lawyers’ language with learning, study and education. In the layman’s mind, legalese represented an academic achievement that demanded respect. Laymen might have ridiculed us for our language, but they never said we were not smart because we spoke it. In centuries past, we were not afraid to say “pursuant,” “notwithstanding,” “beyond cavil,” “thereunto,” “ultra vires non potest,” “waiver whereof” or “instant disclaimer excepted.” Our words dazzled laymen, leaving them both strangely impressed and utterly confused. They paid us well to dazzle others with our language. They did not expect us to speak clearly. No, they expected magic spells, not common words. Historically speaking, our profession gained prestige from its inaccessible language. When we sacrifice it, we sacrifice the very thing that makes us better than everybody else.

I refuse to give up legalese because it is better than English. I believe in legalese. I do not need to be clear because I do not need to be. In fact, I would be unprofessional if a layman could understand everything I say. When I appear in court, my clients expect me to say things that they cannot say. I do not say: “Your Honor, this is a Motion to Dismiss the other side’s lawsuit.” Anyone could say that. So I say: “Gracious and humble arbiter, appointed to this tribunal by those certain Executive authorities constituted rightfully under those founding documents central to our government, I appear herein to present my client’s contention that all pleadings in this matter made against his interest, even if believed true, exception whereto is hereby vigorously made, state no cause, either in law or fact, in ethics or law, or in common decency or decorum. This being so, I humbly move this Honorable Court, pursuant to law, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of the Supreme Court, any book, paper or pamphlet, and any or all authorities relevant to the disposition hereof, to fully and forevermore dismiss all claim against this, my client in interest.” My client expects nothing less. Why would he pay me $575 per hour to say something that is self-evident? No, he wants language that sounds perplexing. He wants language that only a professional can understand. That is what I deliver. I do not communicate. I obfuscate and bewilder. And I win with my language.

I believe in legalese so much that I use it in everyday life. I am a first and foremost a lawyer. I am a human being second. To that extent, I am proud to use a lawyer’s language to express even the most rudimentary information and to ask the most basic questions. If I did not, I would lose my identity as a lawyer. I worked too hard for that to happen. In that light, I do not use banal English; I use legalese. When ordering a sandwich at a fast food restaurant, I do not say: “Gimme a Big Mac® with cheese and onions, plus fries and a small drink.” Rather, I say: “I, Mr. Cornelius J. Stumme, Esq. (hereinafter known as “Buyer”), doth hereby present, tender and extend this Offer to Purchase (the “Offer”) to McDonald’s Restaurants, Inc. (an Illinois Corporation)(hereinafter known as “Seller”), acting by and through its duly-authorized agents, assigns, employees, attorneys and contractors, be they authorized by law or custom, or clothed therewith by fact: (1) One (1) Big Mac® sandwich, bearing therewith all Warranties of Fitness for a Particular Purpose, Merchantability and Title, permission to disclaim wherefrom is hereby expressly refused, applicability whereof is expressly made conditional for Acceptance; (2) One (1) twelve (12) ounce package of ‘French Fried’ curly potatoes, bearing therewith all Warranties of Fitness for a Particular Purpose, Merchantability and Title, permission to disclaim wherefrom is hereby expressly refused, applicability whereof is expressly made conditional for Acceptance; and (3) One (1) sixteen (16) ounce cup wherein may be poured, at Buyer’s sole and unreviewable discretion, any “Soft Drink” as may be offered by Seller upon the Premises whereupon this certain Sale Contract be concluded, pursuant to law and notwithstanding any contrary considerations, including any judicial determination in Seller’s favor. Acceptance of aforesaid Offer be made expressly conditional on full and final acquiescence to Buyer’s precise terms. Inclusion of varied, different or additional terms by Seller—for any reason and under any circumstances, whether innocent, negligent, intentional, reckless or simply stupid—shall immediately revoke Offer in toto, without recourse to legal remedy whatsoever. But Seller’s error, negligence or breach shall in no wise revoke Buyer’s right to pursue all legal remedies against Seller, whether in tort or contract, or under any applicable statute, State or Federal, including, but not limited to: compensatory damages; exemplary damages; loss of profits damages; pain and suffering damages; treble damages; or punitive damages without limitation whatsoever, the United States Constitution and common decency, humanity, good faith, dignity or shame notwithstanding.”

I like the way I speak. It makes me different. I do not speak like a commoner. I speak in the language of my legal ancestors. I owe it to myself and to my clients. For me, law is a way of life. It is not just a job. It provides an alternate way to express thoughts and to control reality. I resist all efforts to make me speak like my clients. If lawyers start speaking like everyone else, they cease to be lawyers. As lawyers, we must defend our heritage. That means defending—and proudly using—our language. No more will we say: “Honey, please pass me the salt.” From now on, we will only say: “I, Cornelis J. Stumme, Esq. (hereinafter known in this context as “Martial Promisor,” or “Husband”), being fully and validly licensed as a practicing Member of the Bar of the State of New York, and having laid forth legally-sufficient evidence of that certain good Character & Fitness necessary to practice law before the Courts of said State, the truth of the matter notwithstanding, doth hereby present this Request to Marital Promisee (also known as “Wife”), who, having assumed contractual obligations to render domestic, conjugal and household services to Marital Promisor for good consideration, including the provision of certain tableside services (see Stumme v. Stumme, 546 D.S.C. 421, 431 (2008)(“tableside services” include the passing of salt from Marital Promisee to Marital Promisor under any circumstances, on demand or at a definite time) to pass one (1) six (6) ounce salt shaker to Marital Promisor immediately, and without delay, subject to all sanctions for lateness, disobedience or nonperformance as provided in the Master Marital Contract (MMC), Section 56 (see, e.g., Flogging), appeal wherefrom is hereby disallowed.”

If people do not like our language, to hell with them. Our language pays our bills and makes us different. No matter what the public or the law professors say, we will not abandon legalese. We do not want to communicate clearly. We want to keep our traditions alive. If people want to understand us, they can learn our language. We refuse to speak English any longer. From now on, we will speak only legalese. And we will speak it proudly—pursuant to notice, subject to law and notwithstanding any contention, request or demand to the contrary, exception to which is hereby taken, all rights having been reserved; but under no circumstances shall such statement be construed as a waiver.

WE OWN OUR TASTES; WE ARE WHAT WE WANT

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Earlier this week, I wrote that art appeals to subjective taste. It is impossible to measure “good art” because no objective standards apply to it. A person either likes a painting or he does not. There is no magical checklist that automatically transforms a scribbling into a masterpiece. Greatness depends on publicity—and enough people who like you.

What appeals to one man will not appeal to another. For a lawyer, these are difficult concepts to grasp. After all, in law school, students learn that there are objective standards to measure everything. This is complete bullshit, of course, but the law adopts “objective standards” for administrative convenience. For example, the law judges “reasonable conduct,” “reasonable belief” and “reasonable reliance.” It does not look to the individual actor to determine what is “reasonable.” It looks to a fanciful “average, prudent person” to determine what is reasonable, then compares this nonexistent person’s assumed behavior to the poor sap under review. This is a totally unrealistic intellectual enterprise. But without it, there would be no standards at all for human behavior in society. People could get hurt and defrauded. Thus, while objective standards for human behavior may be unrealistic and philosophically untenable, they are vaguely necessary in order to maintain relative decorum in society.

Yet lawyers tend to forget that objective standards for human behavior are unrealistic and philosophically untenable. Instead, they start believing that objective standards actually exist. Legal education and legal practice have a perplexing, smugness-inducing effect. After all, lawyers wield very tangible power in our commercial world. Their words and writings have the power to impact property and even bodily security. By applying unrealistic and philosophically untenable legal formulae in particular cases, they can send people to prison or take away their homes. This naturally will make a lawyer feel quite powerful in his craft. But smugness in an unrealistic and philosophically flawed analytical methodology does not change the fact that it is unrealistic and philosophically flawed. Lawyers actually believe that there are objective standards in every life pursuit. This is just wrong. As Nietzsche said, there are no absolute “facts, only interpretations.” Friedrich Nietzsche, Unpublished Fragments 7(60) (Summer 1887)(my translation). Lawyers cannot fathom this. If they did, the pillars supporting their fanciful castle would collapse.

Yet how can we really debate the fact that objective standards and “truths” depend on interpretation? They do; moreover, they reflect the perspective of those with sufficient power to press home their interpretations. Still, everyone has a unique perspective. Everyone interprets differently. No matter what the law says or attributes to a person, that person still sees things and feels things in his own way. According to the law, he may “deviate from the reasonable standard,” but that is not because the person is intrinsically flawed. It is because the law—by sheer power—judges the person according to a standard that derives from its own perspective.

In this way, the law—and juridical thinking in the abstract—wields considerable influence in our lives. It does not just constrain our behavior by threatening punishment for certain “negative acts.” It also convinces us to think that objective standards exist in life as “absolute facts.” It convinces us that there is such a thing as “reasonable behavior,” even though that is merely a figment of some jurist’s imagination. They forget that everyone has a valid perspective and actually believe that there are universal standards governing everyone. This is unfortunate. On the other hand, it is administratively convenient. What kind of society would we have if every socially unpalatable person simply claimed he “did what he thought was correct” in particular circumstances? It would be a terrible mess. Nonetheless, every individual—in a strict, philosophical sense—is entitled to his own truth, perspective and interpretation. The law is not more right because it has the power to condemn men’s bodies or property. In this sense, the law sacrifices philosophical cohesion for administrative convenience. Legal thinking does not really care whether it represents “true truth.” It is content to merely keep things working without turmoil. Practicality wins over theory.

But there are realms in which subjective taste reigns and the law has no influence at all. Even people who believe strongly in the law nonetheless relish their own, personal tastes. Taste reflects individuality, not obedience to an artificial standard. When we say what we like and what we want, we express our own desires and thoughts. No objective standard applies to these things. They come from within, not from without. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche wrote: “Wanting liberates: that is the true lesson of will and freedom.” Also Sprach Zarathustra, Teil II (Auf den Glückseligen Inseln)(my translation). In other words, expressing our own wants and desires from within frees us from the objective standards imposed upon us from without. Wanting feels good because it originates in us, not outside us. Nothing controls our wants; they bespeak us. They define us. The law might say we have “unreasonable desires,” but they remain ours. And nothing in the law makes its judgments intrinsically “right.” It is “right” only to the extent that power supports it.

Taste is crucially important in our lives even though the law has no authority to influence it. What do we consider “beautiful?” Do we refer to a statute book listing the objective factors that constitute “what is beautiful?” Certainly not. We consider things “beautiful” that move us and appeal to our intuition. We define ourselves by judging people or things “beautiful.” After all, certain people find certain things beautiful, while others do not. It has nothing to do with law or objectivity. Rather, it has only to do with individual desire and taste. From an individual perspective, we think about these things all the time because our tastes reflect our deepest core. We pursue things that we like in life. We want to appease our tastes. We want beauty. Why do we want things that appeal to us? Because only we have control over them. We decide what we like, not an external standard. Psychologically, we live for our wants. We make ourselves happy when we satisfy them. We descend into unhappiness when life’s circumstances prevent us from doing so. Wanting is everything because we are our wants.

Recently, I thought about all these questions when reflecting on my own tastes. I thought about people I find beautiful. What turns me on? What makes me say: “That is a beautiful man” or “That is a beautiful woman”? For the longest time, I thought that everyone could agree that certain people are beautiful, at least from a sexual or aesthetic perspective. But then I realized that I was imposing my own tastes on everyone else. This revealed to me just how pernicious objective thinking can be; it leads us to substitute our judgment for others in areas in which we have no authority. After all, we live in a society in which we learn that we can objectify things and rate them according to “reasonable criteria.” This modality works in some areas, but it definitely does not work in others. When it comes to beauty, everyone has a different view. And we have absolutely no right to judge another person’s view about “what is beautiful.” Some people find Tiger Woods beautiful. I don’t. By contrast, I think that Fernando Torres (the Spanish soccer star) is extremely good looking. Yet I’m certain that many people find Tiger Woods more beautiful than Fernando Torres.

Objective standards play no role at all here. Taste is subjective and individual. No one can take it from us. Only we know whether something appeals to us, no matter what anyone says in a book or manual. There are no “universal principles of taste or beauty.” If anyone dares to lay down such principles, he does nothing but memorialize his own subjective desires. True, many people have similar tastes. But tastes remain subjective. We cannot control the myriad details in life that excite our interests or lusts. At the same time, the same details that excite me may not excite my neighbor.

We should never be ashamed of our desires and tastes. In fact, they define us as much—if not more—than our DNA. Nothing truly expresses our individual uniqueness more than the judgments we make about beauty. Taste and desire live within us, beyond all juridical control. We need not conform our tastes and desires to some external standard; we are always free to like and desire whatever appeals to us. We may never get a chance to enjoy or relish the things we want and desire, but that does not deprive our power to want. That power always remains in us.

“Wanting liberates.” It liberates us from external strictures and gives us free rein in a uniquely individual realm beyond all external controls. I think it is important to remember this in a world that mercilessly seeks to hold us to objective standards. Worse, our world even attempts to change our wants. Why do advertisers try to foist a certain image of beauty upon us? Are we not free to make our own judgments based on our own tastes? Skinny, tan white chicks may appeal to many, but not all. Abercrombie boys may appeal to many, but not all. I find it presumptuous when mass media attempts to displace our own desires with “better ones.” When mass media does this, it encroaches on sacred ground—our ground. Wants and desires belong to us and no others. There is nothing “better” about one person’s ideal of beauty as against another’s. All are valid. Powerful people may ridicule less powerful people for having “strange wants and desires.” But those judgments carry no real force. We should be most vigilant when defending ourselves against attempts to “change our wants.” Our wants are us. If we allow others to displace our wants—or even to doubt or regret our wants—they displace us completely. When we no longer want, we no longer are.

For better or worse, our tastes reflect our individual humanity. They might be “weird,” “off-color,” “unconventional” or even “deviant” in some eyes, but they remain uniquely ours. No matter what the law says, objectivity is a fantasy, and subjectivity really does matter. It matters because our whole existence is subjective. No one will ever experience life the way we do. No one will ever see, feel, hear, touch, taste and smell the world in precisely the same way we do at this very moment in time. Our unique experiences and senses lead to unique emotions that no one can duplicate or even really understand. Our existence is subjective. We can only look through our own eyes; we have only our feelings. We have only one consciousness—our own. Within that consciousness, we want, we desire, we think; we even dream and fantasize. No one else does it the same way we do. And that is a wonderful thing if you stop to think about it. That is why our tastes, desires and wants really do matter, even if they mean nothing to the law.