"I AIN'T APOLOGIZIN' FOR SHIT" : TIGER WOODS' ALTERNATE REMARKS

A REASON, COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND FREE BEER EXCLUSIVE REPORT

Last Friday, disgraced PGA Golf Champion Tiger Woods made big news when he made his first public appearance since allegations arose last fall that he perennially cheated on his wife. In a prepared statement, he publicly acknowledged that he "cheated," "acted irresponsibly" and "was unfaithful" by engaging in serial extramarital relations with over ten women while married to his wife, Elin Nordegren. He showered apologies on everyone from his "business partners" to his wife, children, mother, friends, their friends, fellow golfers, the game of golf and even Buddhism.

Despite Mr. Woods' technical contrition, however, many viewers felt that he did not put his heart into the performance. Many commentators claimed that he was "wooden" and "robotic" while reading his statement. They claimed that he must have been coached to deliver his remarks in order to smooth over any future employment problems, as well as to maintain favorable commercial relationships with endorsers. In fact, many commentators said that they did not believe anything Mr. Woods said. Rather, they contended that he just was "saying what he had to say" in order to remain professionally viable.

Reason, Commerce, Justice and Free Beer worked all weekend to determine Mr. Woods' true sentiments. Thanks to our tireless efforts--as well as to some fortunate conversations with lawyers and publicists close to Mr. Woods--our agents discovered that Mr. Woods prepared his own statement weeks before his presentation last week. Through some luck and journalistic ingenuity, our agents actually found a copy of Mr. Woods' original remarks. Our agents learned that Mr. Woods' lawyers and publicists urged him never to deliver these remarks. According to our sources, Mr. Woods' took their advice and asked a team of trusted lawyers and publicists to draft his statement. Ultimately, Mr. Woods delivered that version last week.

But here at Reason, Commerce, Justice and Free Beer, we believe that men have a right to speak their minds. We also believe that honesty is central to American discourse, especially discourse involving public figures like Mr. Woods. No matter what our opponents say, we think that America deserves to hear what Mr. Woods actually thinks about the scandal that has transfixed the Nation for almost three months. While we sympathize with Mr. Woods' contention that his behavior is essentially "private," the news story is not. For better or worse, Mr. Woods' serial philandering has entered the lexicon of American civilization: We all know about it. And we want to know more.

For those reasons, today we are pleased to present Tiger Woods' Alternate Remarks:

February 19, 2010

Good morning, motherfuckers,

You know something? I got just about one thing to say to everybody seated here today and all a y'all sitting at home watching me on TV: "Fuck all a y'all. I ain't apologizin' for shit."

Do you motherfuckers know what you've done to my life? Look at my hair! Holy shit, man, I'm going bald over this. Do you know how much you've embarrassed me in front of my wife? Don't you have any respect for a man who's just trying to get an honest nut up in here? Shit, it's not like I'm the only player out there trying to get a little bit on the side. In fact, if a white man cheated on his wife, y'all probably wouldn't even say anything about it. But as soon as a successful black man stands up and wants to get a little extra pootie, you step up and try to lynch me.

Y'all are giving me a hard time because I'm black.

Well, fuck y'all. I'm pissed.

I didn't do anything wrong. I was just doing what any man would do in my situation. In fact, y'all wish you could be like me. Y'all wish you could have my money, cash and hoes. Yeah, I'm a smooth-talking, smooth-walking, good-looking, money-having player. I get millions for driving golf balls down the fairway. I get my picture taken with a Tag Heuer watch on. Then I go out to the VIP champagne room and sink a few mo-fuckin' putts with some smokin' hot honies. I ride around in Bentleys and I live in a palace. My wife is a Norwegian model, BI-ATCH! What the fuck you thought?

And you say you don't like me. You say: "He unfaithful." Sheee-yit, I know every last one of you men out there wants to be doing exactly what I've been doing. And don't you deny it, you hypocritical motherfuckers.

Let me just say one thing to you right here: "A player got to play. Don't hate the player; hate the game." Stop hating me because I play better than you. If you don't like the game, don't play. But don't hate me just because I'm the big bad mack daddio who gets all the hoes.

No, no, no. You got it all backwards. All a y'all jealous motherfuckers are wrong, not me. I mean, leave my wife and kids out of this. This ain't none of your business. This is between me and my family. Stick your cameras somewhere else. So what I banged some big-booty hoes in the club. So what I brought a couple freaks to the house while my wife was away. So what if we busted out the ice cubes, whips and whipped cream. What the fuck does that have to do with y'all? That's my motherfuckin' business! Stay out of it! Leave a brother alone!

And so what I if was unfaithful? You try being faithful when you're a young, good-looking black man and ten scorching hot women start wagging their titties in your face. You just try it. You sit up there talking about "responsibility," "honor" "integrity" and "decency." That shit don't matter much when fifteen or twenty hoes be circling round the long dong. Shit yeah, biatch, my shit is strong. Say whatever y'all want about it. You wouldn't be acting all high and mighty if hot-ass porn stars treated you the way they treat me. See what I'm saying? Y'all are just jealous.

And that's another thing I want to bring up: Why y'all trying to pin all the blame on me for being unfaithful? You think I was the only one doing wrong here? What about the hoes who got butt-booty nekid when I was just trying to mind my business? I didn't ask 'em to sit on my face: They just did it. Was I supposed to say: "I'm sorry, my dear, but my marriage relation compels me to ask you to remove your vagina from my lips"? What about my cold-hearted wife who treated me like shit at home? Sometimes she don't wanna fuck for months on end, then she asks me to do motherfucking chores around the house. Fuck that.

I'm just a man. You put me in some tight situations and I'm gonna do some freaky things. That's just how we roll. So basically what I'm saying is this: I'm not the only one to blame here. I'm just a man.

So back the fuck off and leave me alone. I don't need no help. I don't need no "sex addiction therapy." Player, what? Sex addiction? Sex ain't no addiction; that shit be natural. Just because I bagged some nice-looking ass don't mean I got a "problem." Shit, most brothers would say I did good. What the fuck is with all a y'all? As soon as you get good at fucking that means you gotta check into the hospital for "sex addiction? " Say what?

This is what I've been saying all along: Y'all just can't cut a successful brother a break. Y'all wish you could be doing what I've been doing, but because you can't, you say: "Tiger gotta get help."

I'm going to say this one time and one time only: "I don't need no motherfucking help." I'm fine. I'm doin' exactly what a man is supposed to do when he's rich, famous and good-looking. I'm supposed to get a reward for all my success, right? I'm supposed to enjoy my life, aren't I? Apparently not, you fuckers. Nope, y'all want me to sit at home, take Elin's shit and watch TV on Saturday night. Well let me tell you something: That's not what players do. And I'm a player. I'ma play.

Not only that, how is "therapy" supposed to stop me from fucking? What are we supposed to talk about up in there? Talk about finger-painting? Crayons? What I brought for lunch? What am I, nine fucking years old? Therapy, what? Pleeeeze. Y'all just can't stand the idea that a black man be getting everything in life you wish you had, so you say he's "sick" and throw him in the hospital.

I got something to say to my business partners. I know y'all are important, so I'm gonna say something to you right about now. Don't cut me loose. I got nothing but love for ya, baby. And people who buy shit I endorse are still gonna buy it. Hey, people love a player. People love a mack. Don't you know that? Look at P. Diddy: He sells every last thing he touches. Let's face it: Quiet guys who wear golf sweaters aren't usually very exciting. But when they see me wearing a golf sweater, they'll say: "Oh, shit, is that Tiger in that three-button cardigan? I got to get me one of them. Then I'll get me all the hoes!"

Think about it. I'm marketing gold. Most people think golf is fuckin boring as hell. But with me, I spice it up and turn it into a crunk party.

So that's about it. I ain't sorry for anything I've done. I didn't do anything wrong. I'm still the best motherfucking golfer alive; believe that. Y'all can try to lynch me all you want. Ain't gonna stop this player. I'm gonna keep sinking putts on and off the course. Watch me.

And in the meantime, stay the fuck away from me and my wife. This ain't none a y'all god damn business.

Thank you. And kiss my black Thai ass, you racist player-hating bastards.

WELCOME TO THE PROBLEM SHOP

A WORD FROM OUR SPONSORS

COME ON DOWN !!!!

By : Mr. G. William Elender, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Problem Shop Cooperative Ltd. (a Delaware Corporation).

Isn't it about time that you stopped living a stress-free life? Haven't you had enough tranquility and happiness? Are you bored with contentment? Do your friends make you feel like an outcast because you don't have any problems? Do people ridicule you for having it too easy?

It's a New Year. It's your time to change. Here at the Problem Shop, you can complicate your life as much as you want for the lowest prices in town. No matter how much difficulty you want, we sell it. We offer convenient financing and easy-to-find retail locations. If you want a problem, look no further: Come to the Problem Shop TODAY!

Don't be afraid to get some problems. Many people think that it is smart to avoid problems. They are wrong. Problems make us stronger. They make us react more quickly to unfamiliar situations. And that sharpness translates into success in family, careers and money. Ask any successful man and he'll tell you the same thing: You need to face adversity before you make it to the top. Life is not a bowl of cherries. You need to have problems to really distinguish yourself.

We understand that it is difficult to know where to begin. Purchasing your first problem is a major life decision. You can't just rush into a problem, nor can you buy a problem that is too big. You need a problem to suit your needs and your personality. True, some people are born with problems. Some people have problems the moment they leave the womb, like deformed children. But not all of us can be so lucky. For those who need problems later in life, you can exercise your own judgment before deciding what problem you want. It's an individual choice. And we're here to help.

Before buying a problem, you must ask yourself what you hope to gain from it. Do you want to learn financial discipline? Do you want to make yourself into an honorable person? Do you want to understand others? Do you want to evolve as a person? Do you want to learn how to be kind or cruel? Every problem will shape you in ways you never thought possible. When choosing a problem, it's all in your hands. Our trained staff is ready to help you make the best choice for your needs--and your budget.

First-time problem buyers should start slow. Here at the Problem Shop, we want our customers to get only the problems they want--and only the problems they can handle. Although it would benefit us to sell you the biggest, most expensive problem on the shelf, we know it would not benefit you. In that light, we care about you. We do not want to sell heroin addiction, mental illness or terminal disease to a bright-faced young college student. Nor do we want to sell paraplegia to a 15-year-old. These are expensive problems. They are hard to handle. We would prefer to sell them to older folks who already have some experience dealing with problems.

So come on in for a free consultation. If you've never had a problem before, talk to us. We can offer you heartbreak following a kiddie crush for only $19.95. Or perhaps debt collection letters for a small bill, again for only $19.95. Parental abuse is a bit more expensive at $24.95, but you might learn more from a parent's fists than a debt collector's incessant phone calls. But that's why we are here: We are here to provide information to help you make the most intelligent decision you can about the problems you want in your life.

Once you've experimented with minor emotional and financial problems, you can graduate to more serious ones. Our "second-tier" problems will really build your character. Your friends will never ridicule you again if you purchase a home foreclosure for $49.95 or an eviction for $54.95. They might even have pity on you. If you are really feeling adventurous, you might even buy a moderately-severe health problem, such as Crohn's Disease, for just $59.99. Or you could try a serious emotional problem, such as divorce, starting at just $74.99. Acrimonious divorces--complete with court battles, custody fights, mutual recriminations, physical abuse and death threats--are more expensive; we recommend purchasing a simple divorce before experimenting with an acrimonious one.

We run the best problem retail outlet in town. We are so certain that our problems are better than our competitors' that we will match anyone's price. If you buy a stalker for $12.99 at any of our competitors' stores, we will match that price. PLUS we'll throw in an additional problem. With us, you will not just get a stalker for your money. You will get heartache following a child's death--a $9.99 value--ABSOLUTELY FREE. That's right, you heard it. ABSOLUTELY FREE. Here at the problem shop, we will not be undersold. We take problems seriously. To show you how much we care, we even GIVE AWAY free problems. We are committed to our customers.

At the Problem Shop, we not only offer the lowest prices. We also sell only top-quality problems. Sure, our competitors might sell bargain paternity suits for $49.99. But our paternity suits are much better. With us, you not only get the agony of court process, wage garnishment, arguments with your former lover and wrangling with police officers over money. You also get the added difficulty of having to prove that you are not the child's father--and failing in that quest. Our competitors offer simpler problems. Their paternity suit is too easy. With us, you get the basic problem PLUS emotional, financial and health complications. Who else can offer that? When you're buying a problem, you deserve all the little problems that come along with it. Don't settle for less.

So what are you waiting for? Haven't you had enough ease in your life? Step up to the plate and buy some problems. Be a man. Stop living for enjoyment and comfort. Show that you can handle adversity, too. Grow as a person, will you? Get off that couch and buy a debilitating accident for just $149.99. Show that you can get over the emotional turmoil that flows from losing a limb for just $159.99. Lose a parent for a special introductory price of only $99.99. Suffer unjust persecution and racial hatred for $199.99. Get some real problems and grow as a person.

No one will remember the guy who sits around in comfort. They will remember the guy who faced unimaginable difficulty and survived. If you act NOW we will even sell you a DOUBLE PROBLEM for one low price, such as our special Marital Betrayal/Homicide package or Sexual Dysfunction/Suicidal Depression combo.

Stop waiting. Buy some problems TODAY. Don't let our pricing scare you away. We offer competitive financing to all those who apply. There are no credit checks. There are no hidden fees. There are no contracts. There is no obligation. There is no "catch."

At the Problem Shop, we have a simple philosophy: Everyone who wants a problem should get one, regardless of their ability to pay. If you act NOW we will sweeten the deal even more. Starting TODAY, we offer zero-percent interest financing through 2014. That means you can buy sudden spousal disability with a lifetime homecare commitment TODAY for NO MONEY DOWN. No, you didn't imagine it. We meant what we said: NO MONEY DOWN. You won't owe us a dime for your problem until 2014. This is not a joke. Act TODAY and we'll even throw in a collector's edition coffee mug featuring the words "YOU THINK YOU GOT PROBLEMS?" ABSOLUTELY FREE (that's an $8.99 value).

So do yourself a favor. Start thinking about yourself for once. Don't be afraid. Come on down to the Problem Shop and pick out the problem that is right for you. Our friendly, professional sales team is ready to assist you. You can do so much with your life; we have a problem to match every lifestyle. It is never too early to complicate your existence. It is never too early to start worrying and suffering. Here at the Problem Shop, we can guide you in the right direction. We offer every imaginable life problem. If you want to be un-friended by a love interest on a dating website, we've got you covered. If you want to find out you have cancer, we've got you covered. You name the problem; we deliver.

At the Problem Shop, no problem is too little. We can sell it to you at an affordable price, every time. We even offer FREE SHIPPING!

Stop making excuses. Stop being happy. It's time for some problems. It's time for some challenges. You need adversity in your life. You want to grow as a person, don't you? And you want that free coffee mug, don't you?

DOMINIC CARTER, CRIME AND CHANGING PUNISHMENT IN AMERICA

AN ESSAY

A few months ago, I wrote a short article about Dominic Carter, the former New York 1 anchorman who allegedly beat his wife. I used Mr. Carter's story to illustrate how difficult it is to "prove" things in our empirically-based evidence system. Now, a State court in New York has sentenced Mr. Carter to an unusual punishment for attempted assault. This presents compelling new issues.

Just as Mr. Carter's case provided an excellent vehicle to discuss evidence law, his sentence now provides an excellent vehicle to discuss criminal penalties in modern America. Put simply, criminal penalties are changing in America. And they are drifting far from their traditional purposes. In my view, this is not a good thing.

According to the New York Post, Mr. Carter was convicted of attempted assault for pervasively abusing his wife since 1997. See N.Y. Post, Crying shame of jailed NY1 journo, Jan. 15, 2010 at 5. Although his wife denied that Mr. Carter beat her, the trial judge--Arnold Etelson--referenced police reports detailing marital strife in the Carter home for over a decade. Id. He sentenced Mr. Carter to 30 days' imprisonment. Id. He also ordered Mr. Carter to "stay away" from his wife for two years unless "he is prescribed medication by a psychiatrist able to assure the judge that [he] is well enough to see her." Id. Additionally, the judge gave Mr. Carter an article from New York Magazine detailing Matt Damon's views about "honesty and humility." Id. During sentencing, he told Mr. Carter: "Try some humility and honesty--it goes a long way." Id. Finally, the judge gave Mr. Carter's wife a sticker with the words "Attitude Makes the Difference. " Id. He instructed her to affix the sticker to her bathroom mirror so that Mr. Carter can see it when he visits. Id.

This is highly irregular judicial work. As a general rule, the criminal law forbids specifically defined conduct. The criminal justice system decides whether the defendant engaged in that conduct, then neutrally decrees the legal consequences. While morality animates all criminal codes, it is not for judges in the criminal justice system to pontificate about it, let alone publicly scold criminals for sport. This New York judge transformed his courtroom into an entertainment circus. And the spotlight was not on Mr. Carter--it was on the judge.

To start, it is strange that Judge Etelson characterized these facts as "attempted" assault. At common law--and under New York State law--an assault means an intentionally harmful or offensive touching. See, e.g. NYPL § 120.00, et seq. Any intentional crime can be "attempted" if the defendant intends to achieve the bad result envisioned in the criminal code, then takes some action corroborating that intent. But it is no longer "attempt" when the defendant achieves exactly what the law forbids. Here, the judge relied on police reports that detailed Mr. Carter's abuse. They all but verified that he had routinely hit his wife since 1997. If the judge believed those reports, then he should have convicted Mr. Carter of assault, not attempted assault. If Mr. Carter succeeded in harmfully or offensively touching his wife, it was no longer attempted assault. It was just plain old assault--and it's a worse crime than attempted assault.

But Judge Etelson's legal errors pale in comparison with his bizarre approach to criminal penalties. Traditionally, criminal penalties in America--as in all Western countries--target the body and property. The law assumes that people do not want to suffer bodily pain or lose their property, so penalties targeting those things ostensibly dissuade potential criminals from making "bad choices." The death penalty, imprisonment, fines and corporal punishment encompass everything a State can realistically do to penalize crime.

In modern America, imprisonment is the preferred penalty. Fines follow in second place. Most consider corporal punishment an archaic penalty; it really never happens anymore. The death penalty is more common. Still, State-ordered death is quite a rare punishment, too.

Judge Etelson did not give Mr. Carter a traditional punishment. Rather, he theatrically used Mr. Carter as an instrument. The only traditional part about Mr. Carter's sentence was his imprisonment. To some, thirty days in prison for attempted assault might appear harsh. But no one would call it bizarre. People expect either fines or imprisonment for crimes in America. The criminal justice system works in part because the public knows what to expect for certain transgressions. They trust judges to declare penalties that everyone expects. At the same time, they understand that even a convicted criminal is entitled to some dignity before the law. He need not be publicly humiliated, ridiculed or belittled in the courtroom. His prison term and social ostracism accomplish that on their own. It is not the judge's role to morally grandstand or scold. He simply must pronounce sentence. Legislators moralize when they write the laws. Judges should not.

What does a New York Magazine article or a sticker have to do with the law? When did Matt Damon become a legal authority? True, "honesty, humility and a good attitude" are virtues. But it is not the law's role to chastise people for failing to be virtuous. The law's only role is to decree whether a person acted in a defined way. It does not matter whether he was virtuous or not when he did. A defendant suffers enough when a judge declares the penalty for violating the law; he does not need to "rub it in" by acting the moralist. In fact, I argue that judges overstep their bounds when they do.

I understand that people like to see criminals squirm. But their convictions should make them squirm, not a judge's moralizing antics. If every judge took it upon himself to act like Judge Etelson, our criminal justice system would look more like a Catholic school than a neutral forum for just laws. In a word, it is not a judge's job to castigate a convict's moral failings. Moral failings are irrelevant to the law. And the law is the only thing that judges are constitutionally empowered to decide. Anything else they say is unauthorized fluff.

Judge Etelson-style grandstanding is not the only abomination that occurs in our criminal justice system. Now, criminal penalties also increasingly intertwine with psychiatry. Mr. Carter's case is no exception. In his sentence, Judge Etelson conditioned Mr. Carter's future with his wife on his agreement to take psychiatric medications. He also retained discretion whether to permit Mr. Carter to see her, depending on whether a psychiatrist could assure him that he was "well enough."

Are these judicial inquiries? If they are, do they not negate the State's moral outrage against Mr. Carter? After all, if the court believes that Mr. Carter needs psychiatric medication, that means he is mentally ill. If he was mentally ill at the time he struck his wife, that makes him far less morally blameworthy. After all, the criminal law depends upon free, rational choice for its moral strength. It is easy to condemn someone who knowingly makes a bad choice. But it is not easy to condemn someone who lacked the mental composure to make choices, let alone recognize they were wrong.

In this case, Judge Etelson tried to wear too many hats. He wanted to punish Mr. Carter for doing something that violated the law. But then he stepped back and ordered Mr. Carter to take psychiatric medications for his "mental problems." Put simply, judges are not psychiatrists. They are not social workers. It is not their job to monitor people's behavior once they serve their sentences. Nor is it their job to declare whether people are "normal." Rather, they are mere judicial officers, and it's not a complicated job. It is not about management; it is about judgment: Did the defendant do this or not? If he did, he goes to jail. If he didn't, he goes free.

There is undoubtedly a relationship between law and psychiatry. But a judge's only concern with psychiatry is to determine whether a defendant is mentally well enough to be criminally responsible. If he is, that ends the inquiry. In fact, judges must be extremely wary when dealing with psychiatry in criminal cases. After all, the entire rationale for criminal punishment collapses as soon as psychiatry shows that the defendant cannot make rational choices. In that light, judges should tread lightly when tampering with psychiatric issues. They might just discover that the "evil defendant" is really no ogre at all. He might just be "sick." And it is not proper to morally condemn sick people, let alone jail them for choices they could not make. For better or worse, the law only works on sane people.

I doubt that Judge Etelson understood all these issues when he entertained the news media during Dominic Carter's sentencing last week. From his perspective, he was in the spotlight and he was going to relish the moment. He was not content to play the neutral magistrate who calmly decrees the legal consequences of statutory violations. No, he had to play the scolding father, too, as well as the psychiatrist and the actor.

I do not like this. While it may be impossible to separate law from popular morality, judges should consciously try to do so. True, laws enshrine popular morality. But they are not moral weapons. They are technical guidelines. It does not matter whether a law-abiding citizen is moral; he must merely not violate the technical guidelines. Morality is about character. Law is about conduct. It is much easier to control conduct than character. And a judge simply declares whether the individual in question violated the conduct guideline.

Well, at least that's what a judge is supposed to do. American criminal law is changing for the worse because the distinction between morality and law is eroding every day. Just look at the Carter case. It's all right there to see.

MORALITY FIRST : MALE HOMOSEXUALITY IS DISGUSTING AND MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS

By : Dr. G. Strong Wacker, M.D., M.P.H.; Commissioner, The National Board for Family Health (1998-present); Physician (Urological Reconstruction & Urethral Science); Member, The Morality First League for Equal Protection Under Law (1993-present); Theater-Goer; Amateur Florist & Gardener; Senior Coordinator, Zac Efron Fan Club (San Francisco Branch)(2006-present).

In 2004, President George W. Bush made a concerted effort to ban gay marriage. Although Congress did not amend the Constitution to forever prohibit men from marrying men, he made his point. In fact, Americans cared so much about the marriage issue that they reelected him President that very year. Put simply, Americans know that male homosexuality is morally wrong. Bush won reelection because he publicly declared that no male would ever make vows to another male.

But stopping gay marriage did not end the debate. George W. Bush may have saved the country from gay marriage, but he did not save the country from male homosexuality. We believe that we must prohibit all male homosexuality, not just homosexual marriage. It is not enough to stop two men from combining their finances to cheat the Internal Revenue Service. Nor is it enough to stop two men from exchanging rings and swearing fidelity to each other. No, we must go further. As a society, we must say what we all feel: “Male homosexuality is disgusting and must be stopped at all costs, no matter who dies.”

As a society, we have a right to stop disgusting behavior. Our deepest moral impulses empower us to outlaw disgusting things, including public defecation, slovenliness and grime. When behavior arouses our disgust, we have a right to suppress it. When behavior smells bad, we must punish it. After all, it is disgusting. It makes us pinch our noses, recoil and cry out: “Yuck!” No one deserves to live around foul odors and disgusting behaviors. Indeed, bad smells and immorality form the basis for all our criminal law. Male homosexuality, like public defecation, slovenliness, fraud and theft, is both disgusting and immoral. We just don’t like it. We must remove its stink from our midst, just as our earliest ancestors removed decaying carcasses from their settlements.

We don’t like male homosexuality for many reasons. First, the idea of two men groping and fondling each other makes us uncomfortable. It is just not right. It looks disgusting, too. If it appeals to you, there is something very, very badly wrong with you. Second, male homosexuality presents a public health hazard. Homosexuals are disease-ridden, promiscuous, dissolute, lustful infiltrators who spread pestilence and death through our communities. Third, male homosexuals defraud our society by wasting their reproductive capacity on furtive pleasures. Rather than commit themselves to fatherhood and childrearing, they abandon themselves to aesthetic preening, perverted flirtation and “fun.” This costs our community live births and future citizens. Fourth, male homosexuality harms children. Homosexuals ritually rape children every day; if we care about our children, we must act to stop the homosexual menace. Fifth, homosexuals have untold political influence. According to United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: “[Those] who engage in homosexual conduct tend to…have high disposable income [and] they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 645-646 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Put simply, homosexuals are devious, dangerous, disgusting, harmful to children, insolent, irresponsible, wasteful and seditious. We must act now, before it is too late. Our children and our sensibilities demand swift action.

Tradition justifies our effort to stamp out homosexuality. Justice Scalia is a brilliant jurist. We take heart in his legal pronouncements concerning the homosexual menace. He has written at length about government’s traditional right not only to criminalize homosexuality, but also about society’s basic right to hate homosexuals as part of our “moral heritage:” “[] I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible—murder for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals—and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 644 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Justice Scalia correctly equates homosexuality with murder, polygamy and cruelty. He knows what he is talking about; he went to Harvard Law School and he has served on the United States Supreme Court since 1986. According to Justice Scalia, homosexuality is just as morally wrong as killing your neighbor or torturing a dog. As a society, we have a right to condemn such abominable outrages. We have always had a right to condemn murder, just as we have always had a right to condemn male homosexuality.

In many ways, male homosexuality is more despicable than murder. After all, some murders offend us less than others. For example, we do not condemn a man who kills his wife’s lover in a jealous rage as much as we condemn a man who carefully plots his wife’s death with equanimous efficiency. Murder does not always arouse our deepest disgust; sometimes we even look with sympathy on the killer. Male homosexuality, on the other hand, is irretrievably disgusting. Nothing mitigates anal sex between two men; it is categorically disgusting. It is so revolting that no reasonable person could ever forgive it or look upon it with sympathy. The mere idea of two naked men kissing is simply nauseating. Murder does not always arouse such deep, rancid disgust. In that light, male homosexuality deserves our strongest condemnation.

Female homosexuality, on the other hand, presents a different question. Lesbians are beautiful to behold. I feel no disgust whatsoever when I think about two naked women caressing one another. In fact, I would very much like to join in any amorous adventures between two beautiful women. Unlike male homosexuals, lesbians pose no public health hazard. They do not spread pestilence and death. They do not rape children, nor do they have unlimited resources with which to overthrow the government. They do not waste their reproductive potential; lesbians can always get pregnant at some later date.

Put simply, lesbians are neither immoral nor disgusting. On the contrary, they are beautiful, especially when they allow men like me to join them in erotic contact. I speak for every American when I say that lesbian sex is neither dangerous nor unhealthy, provided that the lesbians in question are good-looking and would allow me to join in. I would not mind looking at two hot lesbians having sex; indeed, thinking about it arouses me to some extent. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not immoral.

I am certain that Justice Scalia would agree with me about lesbians. There is nothing in our moral tradition that recoils from lesbian sex. Our moral tradition recoils from ugly penises and anuses, not appealing breasts and vaginas. Males smell. Females do not. I would not mind looking at lesbian sex. For that reason, lesbianism presents no danger to society or our children. Lesbianism is not immoral.

Only male homosexuality is immoral. It is both dangerous and unhealthy. I would not want to look at it. We have a traditional right to hate it. For these reasons, we must stand fast against male homosexuals. We must heed Justice Scalia’s advice. We must defend against their disproportionate political influence. If we relax our stance toward male homosexuals for even a moment, they will take over Congress and legalize child rape. If we relax our stance toward male homosexuals for just one moment, they could infect our entire society with venereal diseases, canker sores, rickets, scabies, herpes, cooties and parasites. If we care about morality, health and reproduction, we must sound the alarm on male homosexuality. Stopping gay marriage is not enough. That is why we, the Morality First League for Equal Protection Under Law, are committed to stopping all homosexual immorality, no matter who dies. Tradition supports us. Justice Scalia supports us. Male homosexuals are no better than murderers, polygamists and animal torturers. Plus they smell and I would not want to watch them have sex.

We cannot be tolerant when so much is at stake. It may be 2009, but male homosexuals are just as immoral and dangerous today as they were in 1500. In 1500, governments burned male homosexuals because they honestly recognized how dangerous they were. We must not allow “progressivism” to blind us to those dangers. We must merely remember that male homosexuality is disgusting. No matter how fashionable it may be to “understand” male homosexuals, we cannot forget that they engage in smelly, abominable conduct that we have a right to hate. And by “understanding” male homosexuals we play directly into their hands. As Justice Scalia pointed out, they are politically powerful. As soon as we ease the pressure on them, they will overthrow the government and institute Federal policies subsidizing child rape and debauched all-male nude beach parties. Put simply, we must stand firm against this menace. We cannot afford to be tolerant with immoral deviants, especially when—as Justice Scalia told us—they have high disposable income and disproportionate political influence.

In sum, we have a political, moral and medical duty to stamp out male homosexuality because it is disgusting. Thinking about it makes me uncomfortable and nauseous. I would probably vomit if I stumbled across two men having sex. We must implement laws that correspond to our basic moral feelings. We must outlaw male homosexuality because it arouses my disgust, just as public defecation does. Like public defecation, male homosexuality smells and presents noxious public health hazards. If we care about health, morality and our children, we must take every measure necessary to suppress male homosexuality. Tradition demands no less. Our children expect no less. We must act now before homosexual conspirators topple the government and transform the United States into a vast disco Empire led by shirtless go-go dancers.

Yet we must spare lesbians. There is nothing immoral about them. I really like to look at them. I even think about them quite a lot in my spare time.

TRAGIC NEWS FROM IRAQ

NEWS FLASH

BAGHDAD--Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer regrets to report that an American soldier has died in Iraq. At 5:30 AM EST, the Pentagon confirmed that Private First Class John C. Earl of the Army’s First Division (The Big Red One) succumbed in a hospital after suffering injuries in a vicious firefight with Sunni insurgents near Baghdad. Pfc. Earl was 23 years old. We express our deepest sympathies to Pfc. Earl’s family and loved ones. When American heroes fall, we all feel pain.

Pfc. Earl was a model soldier and citizen. He hailed from Mansfield, Ohio, where he worked at a local car insurance company as an assistant claims representative prior to joining the Army in February 2008. Earl explained to his parents that he joined the army “because al-Qaeda [was] a real threat to all Ohioans.” According to friends, Earl also said that “Osama bin Laden knew Saddam Hussein” and that “Saddam [had] to be stopped,” even though Saddam had been hanged in January 2007. Risking all for his beliefs and his country, Earl left behind a promising insurance career and young wife to protect Ohio from international terror in Iraq.

Pfc. Earl conducted himself with great dignity and responsibility during civilian life. As a teenager, he financed his own high school education by taking out private loans (at 9% APR) from a local Ohio bank. He took out loans from another bank (at 7.6% APR) in order to purchase a 2005 Chevrolet automobile. Despite his early age, Earl worked hard to fulfill his financial obligations to his creditors. He studied full-time and held down three jobs at the same time, including a job at the local ice cream parlor. He never failed to make timely payments on his loans. Upon graduation from high school in 2004, Earl married his sweetheart, Joanna C. Edwards. Earl took out another loan (at 6.9% APR) to purchase a home for his new family. He never missed a mortgage payment, even when he needed to work seven days a week to satisfy his debt responsibilities.

Earl was just as responsible a husband as he was a debtor. He never cheated on his wife. In fact, he accompanied her to the Third Mansfield Methodist Church every Sunday at 10 AM. For Earl, fidelity was a virtue. He honored both the wife to whom he owed faithfulness and the banks to whom he owed money. Most importantly, Earl never even entertained bad thoughts. He took the Bible’s teachings to heart. According to acquaintances, Earl always said: “A sin in the mind is just as bad as a sin in deed.” Despite pressures, temptations and difficulties, Earl never shirked his responsibilities. He understood his place in society. And he worked hard to fulfill his obligations every single day.

Earl believed that military service was the best way to give back for his rewarding life in America. Earl was proud of his job at the Mansfield Property & Casualty Insurance Company, where he earned $23,300 per year with limited co-pay medical insurance (with in-network providers and subject to the company’s right of refusal). He was proud of his wife, mortgage, car and church. Earl was happy in his civilian life. But he understood that al-Qaeda could take it all away unless he stood up to protect it. He volunteered for active duty in Iraq, determined to stop the terrorists bent on taking away his job, church, wife and obligations. Over his wife’s desperate pleas to stay home to raise their child, Earl went off to war.

Not surprisingly, Earl lived military life with the same spirit of duty and responsibility that blessed him in civilian life. He manned a 50-caliber machine gun atop an armored vehicle assigned to protect a fortified compound in Iraq that housed important American energy industry contractors. Within weeks, Earl had his first taste of battle. In a violent engagement known as Operation Purple Anaconda, Earl’s unit preemptively attacked an insurgent base in Baghdad, inflicting 5,612 enemy casualties without losing a single American soldier. Earl personally killed 672 insurgents, none of whom went to church, paid rent, filed income tax returns, owned automobiles, owed interest on back loans or held down responsible jobs. In fact, each insurgent Earl killed had sworn a vow to murder American children, disrupt American commerce, refuse to pay bills and kill American pets. Worse, every insurgent Earl killed had cheated on his wife, inhabited several addresses over the past six years and failed to return phone calls from prospective employers. In Earl’s words: “They weren’t just terrorists. They were irresponsible, too.” In that first battle, Earl served his country well.

Following his baptism by fire, Earl quickly became a veteran. In battle after battle, he showed outstanding valor by gunning down both actual and suspected terrorists, including veiled men masquerading as women. In each case, he showed great responsibility. Although he grieved when comrades died, he took solace in the knowledge that roughly 4,012 Iraqis died for every American who fell. And he took added consolation in the fact that every single Iraqi he killed was an irresponsible terrorist who threatened American jobs and investment ventures. If he could not save his buddies, at least he could kill thousands more insurgents to protect America.

Earl saw his final battle on July 10. While protecting a convoy of American natural gas excavators on a foray to locate fossil fuel deposits south of Baghdad, an enormous insurgent force—including terrorist raiders on camelback—swooped in from the desert hills. Earl laid down a curtain of fire with his 50-caliber machine gun, mowing down 982 insurgents and camels. His comrades called for air support. A-10 ground attack planes raked the terrorists with 30-millimeter cannon fire and deluged them with napalm. A-64 Apache attack helicopters hammered them with missiles. Over ten thousand extremists perished under the withering American fire, but they just kept coming. Like obsessed banshees from Muslim Hell, they charged Earl’s brave defenders, shouting: “Allah, ackbar!”

At some point, Earl ran out of ammunition. According to eyewitnesses, a cowardly insurgent fired a rocket-propelled grenade into the side of Earl’s armored vehicle, catapulting him from his position. He suffered injuries in the fall but kept fighting. He drew his sidearm and shot four camels, then killed their riders with his standard-issue knife. But there were too many insurgents. Taking meticulous aim, Earl fired his last shot into an insurgent’s head. Like all the others, Earl’s final victim—an Iraqi terrorist insurgent bomber named Ibrahim al-Khalifi, age 19—was a perennial marital cheater, credit dodger and deadbeat tenant who never paid rent or went to church. With his last bullet gone, Earl valiantly tried to fight his oppressors with his bare hands. Although he strangled six irresponsible terrorists, a cowardly insurgent blew himself up with a grenade less than 5 feet from Earl, sending lethal shrapnel into his chest. He collapsed to the ground. Minutes later, M1A1 tanks from the 1st Armored Division arrived, killed the remaining 75,000 insurgents and saved the natural gas excavators from certain death. Medics carried Earl from the field and transported him to a military hospital in Baghdad.

Earl put up a brave fight for survival. He endured for ten days before finally slipping into a coma. Immediately before his death, Earl told his commanding officer: “At least I took a few thousand of those deadbeat terrorist bastards with me. They might have taken my life, but they’ll never lay a hand on my wife or steal my job. And I made all my payments, too. I never missed one. I don’t regret anything. I made all the right decisions. I never cheated. I never asked anyone for help. Please make sure someone sends in the checks for July to GMAC and the bank. They’re in my knapsack. I even put stamps on the envelopes. I am proud to have given my life for a country where I could take out loans for my necessities.” In short, in his last moments on earth, Earl was thinking responsibly.

Back in Mansfield, George G. Custice, Earl’s former employer, reacted to news of his employee’s death with great emotion. Starting next week, however, he plans to honor Earl as an American hero by offering special “Hero’s Insurance Rates” for Mansfield residents. Those rates offer a 15% discount on collision policies purchased before August 31, 2009 (subject to special limitations; see store for details). “It’s the least we can do to salute a great American,” Custice said.

Earl’s wife said: “I’m sad. But I’m glad my husband protected Ohio against Saddam Hussein.”

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.

LOVE, HAPPINESS AND MARRIAGE--BY CONTRACT

MARRIAGE CONTRACT

PREAMBLE

This Marriage Contract represents a Binding Agreement, Meeting of the Minds and Mutual Promise by and between Mr. Kyle G. Hurt (“Groom”) and Ms. Annabella H. Keefe (“Bride”). Hereinafter, Groom and Bride shall be known as the “Parties” for purposes of this Marriage Contract. Following execution of this Marriage Contract, Parties shall respectively be known as “The Husband” and “The Wife” unless and until this Marriage Contract be rescinded, annulled, cancelled or otherwise terminated by applicable Divorce Proceedings and Property Division Procedures pursuant to the law of the State wherein The Husband and The Wife reside at the time such proceedings are initiated. By this solemn Marriage Contract, Parties intend to be bound by the terms, provisions, obligations and promises contained herein, it being the Wish and Desire of the Parties to establish herethrough a legally-cognizable, enforceable economic relationship for the purposes of: (1) mutual enrichment; (2) tax advantage; and (3) child production and rearing (subject to exceptions, qualifications and limitations as provided herein). Although Parties profess love and understanding for one another as of the date of this Marriage Contract, Parties expressly disavow any intent to make love or understanding the basis—either in law or fact—for this Marriage Contract.

SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

1. Mr. Kyle G. Hurt (“Groom”) is an unmarried male, aged 34, resident in and for the State of New York, County of New York, City of New York, Country of the United States of America, established 1776.

2. Ms. Annabella H. Keefe (“Bride”) is an unmarried female, aged 24, resident in and for the State of New York, County of New York, City of New York, Country of the United States, established 1776.

3. Groom certifies under oath and penalty of perjury that he suffers neither from debilitating mental illness, erectile dysfunction, sexually-transmitted disease, low sperm count, schizophrenia, mania, nor any other physical or mental ailment relevant to the performance of the marital promises made herein, including homosexuality or a tendency—whether real or imagined—to find males attractive. Groom further certifies that he is competent under law to make the promises set forth in this Marriage Contract.

4. Bride certifies under oath and penalty of perjury that she suffers neither from debilitating mental illness, sexually-transmitted disease, schizophrenia, Tourette’s Syndrome, mania nor any other physical or mental ailment relevant to the performance of the marital promises made herein, including lesbianism or a tendency—whether real or imagined—to find females attractive. Bride further certifies that she is competent under law to make the promises set forth in this Marriage Contract.

5. Bride certifies further that she does not watch, and has never watched, the Sex in the City television show, nor does she hold any secret aspiration to lead a life similar in substantial part to any female character in aforenamed Sex in the City television show, it being mutually understood that the values expressed in aforenamed Sex in the City television show be hostile to and inconsistent with the mutual promises made in this Marriage Contract.

6. Pursuant to full and fair bargain, Groom promises to take, have, hold and keep as his lawfully-wedded wife aforementioned Bride (see supra at ¶2).

7. In exchange for and consideration of Groom’s promise contained supra at ¶6, Bride promises to take, have, hold and keep as her lawfully-wedded husband aforementioned Groom (see supra at ¶1).

8. Parties certify under oath and penalty of perjury that the promises contained in ¶¶6-7 supra resulted from a full and fair bargaining process following full disclosure and independent legal and financial counsel, any profession of love, tenderness, understanding, joy, forgiveness or hope notwithstanding.

9. Parties mutually agree and consent that all property respectively owned by each shall remain the property of each while this Marriage Contract is valid. Parties mutually agree and consent that all property obtained while this Marriage Contract is valid shall be considered “Martial Property” owned in ½ shares by the Parties, and subject to the Marital Property Division laws in the State wherein Parties reside.

10. Parties mutually agree and consent that the Property Covenants made supra at ¶9 may be altered at any time following negotiation. In such negotiation, both Groom and Bride shall vote “Yea” or “Nay.” Groom shall have a 65% vote. Bride shall have a 35% vote. Votes are final. A simple majority shall prevail. Vote results shall not be reviewable in any court, any law, constitutional provision or principle of natural justice notwithstanding, it being understood that this paragraph is the product of full and fair bargaining between the Parties.

11. Groom promises and covenants to maintain income and employment at all times while this Marriage Contract is valid.

12. Bride promises and covenants to carry out all household duties while Groom pursues income, including, but in no wise limited to: washing floors, doing dishes, cleaning bedrooms, washing laundry, ironing shirts, obtaining groceries, cooking meals, cleaning toilets, scrubbing tiles, gardening, sending mail, receiving mail, coordinating mealtime arrangements, planning weekend activities, maintaining good physical appearance, adhering to a reasonable fitness regimen, maintaining suitable breast size, maintaining a suitable body mass (no more than 110 pounds) and any other activity deemed reasonable and advisable by Groom.

13. Bride promises to provide conjugal services on demand, pursuant to notice and opportunity to be heard; but in no event shall wife be granted an opportunity to be heard if Groom, in his sole discretion and without possibility of appeal, finds that Bride has defaulted in her obligations under ¶12, supra. Bride further promises to perform conjugal services without notice at least four (4) times per month, at times directed and approved by Groom in his sole and unreviewable discretion. Groom shall have the right to define the parameters and circumstances under which such conjugal services shall take place, including the language in which such services shall be conducted, and any other individuals who shall participate in such activities, be they male or female.

14. Groom promises to provide ample conjugal services to Wife, it being understood that the term “ample conjugal services” does not include the provision of female orgasms to Bride, such “ample conjugal services” being strictly limited to coitus no longer than 60 seconds per scheduled session, pursuant to law and notice. The Parties expressly consent and agree that Bride shall in no wise be entitled to female orgasms under this Marriage Contract. The Parties further expressly consent and agree that Bride’s failure to obtain sexual satisfaction from Groom shall not constitute grounds to rescind, modify, cancel or annul this Marriage Contract.

15. Bride promises to remain faithful to Groom, it being understood that Groom possesses a common law tenancy-by-the-entirety interest in Bride’s body, the claims of others notwithstanding. In exchange therefor, Groom promises to make best efforts to remain faithful to Bride, provided in all events that Groom shall not be obligated to maintain faithfulness to Bride following arguments, disagreements and domestic strife, as those terms may be defined in applicable State law or at Groom’s sole discretion.

16. Parties mutually agree and understand that this Marriage Contract establishes a property relationship intended to secure tax advantages and the appearance of a stable, decent lifestyle. As such, this Marriage Contract makes no provision for—and is not intended to result in— emotional satisfaction, happiness, bliss or even mild contentment. Neither unhappiness, frigidity, hatred, bitterness, frustration, dissatisfaction, gloom, depression, ennui, desperation nor any other common marital emotion shall constitute grounds to rescind, modify, cancel or annul this Marriage Contract, unless Groom deems it advisable.

17. Bride promises to conceive and bear Groom’s children pursuant to notice and regularly-scheduled marital conjugal services (see ¶13, supra). Groom shall have the sole and unimpeachable right to name any children resulting therefrom; provided in all events that Groom gives due consideration to any name suggestion made by Bride, it being understood and agreed that Bride’s suggestions carry no authority whatsoever.

18. Groom promises and covenants to treat Bride fairly subject to all reasonable rules, regulations, customs and usages as may be appropriate in the circumstances. In the event that Groom subjects Bride to physical discipline pursuant to such reasonable rules, regulations, customs and usages, Bride promises and covenants never to contact police authorities in reference thereto. Parties mutually agree and understand that Groom has the sole right to mete out family discipline, except in those cases in which Groom requests discipline incident to regularly-scheduled conjugal services (see ¶13, supra).

19. In the case of domestic disagreement between the Parties, the Parties agree that Groom shall convene a Domestic Resolution Court (DRC). Such Court shall consist of Groom presiding as Chief Justice. Such Court shall decide all cases and controversies pursuant to law without right to appeal or argument, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution notwithstanding. Bride shall not have the right to seek counsel in cases before the Domestic Resolution Court, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution notwithstanding. Bride further must bear all attorneys’ fees and costs associated with any case or controversy pending before the Domestic Resolution Court. Groom promises to publish all decisions made by the Domestic Resolution Court, except those passages that may reasonably impinge upon national security. See, e.g., Cheney v. United States, 198 D.R.C. 139, 157 (2007).

20. Parties mutually declare that they love and respect one another. But Parties further mutually declare that this Marriage Contract establishes a legal relationship governing property and allocating rights and obligations. Parties hereby mutually declare that they intend to adhere to their obligations in good faith, pursuant to law, and without waiving any right contractually guaranteed hereunder. Parties mutually declare that neither love nor respect shall influence the interpretation of any substantive or procedural provision enumerated in this Marriage Contract. Rather, Parties mutually agree that only the common law shall provide a basis to construe any ambiguities contained herein, with a presumption that all provisions contained in this Marriage Contract be reasonable and fair, unless such provisions favor Bride.

21. This Marriage Contract represents a full and final integration between the Parties. Neither prior nor contemporaneous oral statements, nor prior written statements, shall be admitted to modify, vary or negate any provision enumerated herein. But Groom may vary any provision—either orally or in writing—as he deems necessary and proper.

22. The Law of the State of Nebraska shall govern this Marriage Contract. In case of dispute involving this Marriage Contract, Bride hereby waives her right to a jury trial thereon, the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution or any comparable State constitutional guarantee notwithstanding. In all such disputes, Groom shall convene a Mandatory Arbitration Panel (MAP) consisting of himself and his mother to fully and fairly adjudicate any grievances pursuant to law and notice. But in no event shall Bride be entitled to any evidentiary presumption or procedural advantage granted by any State evidence code, the Federal Rules of Evidence or the United States Constitution. All decisions of aforesaid Mandatory Arbitration Panel (MAP) shall be final, with all costs to be borne unconditionally, and without discount, by Bride.

23. This Marriage Contract shall be read aloud in full prior to the exchange of marriage vows and rings, publicly, on June 14, 2009, in the presence of a notary public and a judge of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.

24. The Parties may kiss only after execution of this Marriage Contract pursuant to all formalities and evidentiary procedures under State law.


DONE and EXECUTED this ____ day of ____, 2009


Witness our hands in Holy Matrimony set unto,




________________________
KYLE G. HURT
Hereafter, “MR. HURT”
Groom-Husband-Party

________________________
ANNABELLA H. KEEFE
Hereafter, “MRS. HURT”
Bride-Wife-Party

________________________
BERNABE H. RODRIGUEZ
Notary Public
Nuestro Cambio en la Grand Concourse
Bronx, NY
License No. : NY-1097F-G

At New York, New York.

HONEY, YOUR MONEY IS BEAUTIFUL

Dear Lawrence,

I received your letter dated December 29, 2008. I am sorry to hear that you miss me. I know you have been feeling down lately, my darling. You have been in London now for over three months. Keep your head high! You know that you will secure the merger. After all, it’s you! You know how to do financial deals better than anyone. You would not be my husband if you didn’t.

There are times in marriage when a wife must reassure her husband that he is a worthy person living a good life. You wrote that you feel “like you are not living anymore,” and that “all you do is work.” You said also that you feel that “no one cares about me for who I am.” As your spouse, let me tell you truly—and with endless love—that: “Your money is beautiful.”

No one has accounts as beautiful as you, Lawrence. I have never met anyone in my entire life with such attractive high-yield money market funds or diversified securities. Your foreign cash investments make my heart twitter. Since the day we met, I have loved your portfolio. I mean it! You may say that no one cares about you, but I care about your money very much. If it were not for your beautiful money, I would not be sitting in our beautiful home right now. You are worth something in life, my darling. In fact, you are worth almost $34 million. That is a lot more than “something;” that is a lot. And I love you for it.

It is normal for you to have doubts about life. You are 55 years old. At this stage in your life, you look back and wonder how things might have been different if you made different choices. But I say: “No regrets.” You made wonderful choices in life. You became a banker. You worked. You got promoted. You made money. Now you own the bank and you are securing a merger deal with an English partner. What else is there in life? Do not despair, Lawrence. Your tax deferred government debentures bring a smile to my face, no matter how long you stay away from home. When I look at your bank statements, I feel warm inside, even if you are not here. You made a difference in life, Lawrence. You really did. And do not forget how beautiful it is that you own a summer home.

Think about how happy I’ll be once you come home. After signing the merger contracts, you will receive an immediate wire transfer for £5,000,000 sterling. That is over $10,000,000. How could I not love you for that? How can you say that your life has no meaning when you have so much beautiful money? I understand that you are lonely, but take strength in this: Your subordinated income-bearing trust makes me feel like a real woman. That is passion. I hope this makes you smile, because my monthly trust income payments make me smile. Your trust inspires my trust—and my love.

I will say it again because I think you need to hear it: “Your money is beautiful.” No matter what anyone says, you are worth $34 million. It does not matter whether you feel emotionally empty, sad, downcast or adrift. You are not adrift. You are full of financial love. When you die, there will be people who remember your annuity accounts, managed funds and mutual investment trusts. In fact, they will remember you by trying to take a little piece of you for themselves. Does that not show that people love you? They will say: “Lawrence Guttmann was a great man. I got $43,221.27 in silver futures from him when he died.” Isn’t that flattering? When you die, you will not be forgotten. In fact, people will scurry over your body for financial mementos. That shows that you were loved. Does it really matter if they remember you “for who you were?” Your eulogy will be simple: “Lawrence Guttmann was worth $34,522,876.98 at the time of his death, less estate taxes, costs and attorney’s fees. Thank you for coming.”

Stay the course, Lawrence. You are the most successful man I have ever known, and I love you down to the last penny in your pocket. I am proud to be married to a man with such loving money. Think of me tonight, my darling. Think how happy you make me. You may feel regrets about your life, but you should not. After all, everyone loves your money. Even people who hate your personality love to receive certified checks from you. Everyone loves money, and because you have money, everyone loves you. So do not feel worthless. You have led a worthy life. You can draft bigger bank notes than almost anyone else in the country, and people love you for that. You are a popular man; everyone wants your beautiful money.

You are Lawrence Guttmann. You are the man whose money I love. I hope you feel better soon, my darling. And most importantly, I hope you conclude that merger deal quickly, so you get that wire transfer. It sure will feel good to have even more money in our accounts.

Sleep well, my love,


Your devoted wife and sole heir-beneficiary at law, to the exclusion of all other heirs at law,


Mrs. Cynthia F. Guttmann-Greifwohl,
Senior Nuptial Accountholder, All Rights Reserved

LET'S GET MARRIED : APPLY WITHIN

WANTED

Suitable Female Candidate for Marriage Contract : Please Apply Within

About Me : I am a 47-year-old insurance professional employed by a Fortune 100 Company. I have worked hard my entire career and have amassed a sizable fortune. I own a 3500-square-foot home in Illinois and a beach house in Florida. During my youth, I avoided romantic contact in order to maximize my work commitments and to advance swiftly up the corporate ladder. From time to time, I patronized escort services on weekends or Holidays. In recent years, I have been feeling increasingly lonely. Despite my financial success, I feel an increasing desire to share my life with another person. I want to know that I am not alone in the house at night. I want to be able to talk to someone when I have time off. I want home-cooked meals when I get home from work at a respectable hour. And I would like to have a regular sexual outlet. I am in pretty good shape and I am very stable. I have some idiosyncrasies related to my rigorous work schedule, but I am certain a suitable candidate will be able to accommodate them. Basically, I am a very good guy who just needs someone to be with now that I’m getting older. Money alone just doesn’t cut it for me anymore, so I’m looking for a mate.

What I Can Offer : I can offer a ½ property interest in my complete financial portfolio, consistent with local contract law, and subject to all relevant limitations governing separate property as defined in applicable statutes. While the marriage contract is in place, you will not have to work. I will provide for your housing, food, transportation, medical care, life insurance, health insurance and entertainment. You will have full access to a joint bank account from which you are free to draw funds for daily expenses, shopping, luxuries and professional appointments. You will be free to shop, socialize and entertain yourself as you see fit while the marriage contract is in effect. Barring irreconcilable difficulties or gross contract breach, upon my death you will inherit my entire estate. At present, my estate totals $11,500,000.54. My current annual income is $453,106.21. Judging from current income levels, I anticipate that, by age 65, my estate will total in excess of $25,000,000.00. In essence, I can offer you lifetime financial security. Finally, I promise unconditionally to pay for the Marriage Contract Conclusion Ceremony (MCCC), also known as the “Wedding.”

What I Would Like to See in You : I would like you to be a relatively young, pert and mildly intelligent woman with a mediocre educational background. I will expect you to remain in good physical condition (I retain sole discretion to determine whether your physical condition is sufficient) while the marriage contract is in place. I will expect you to have decent-sized breasts, subject to my approval. I will expect you to be cheerful when I am in the house. I will expect you to handle domestic duties while I am at work between Monday and Saturday, generally from 6 AM to 8 PM. Such domestic duties will vary according to the agreement of the parties (us), but generally such duties will include—but will in no wise be limited to: washing laundry, cleaning the kitchen, emptying the garbage can, walking any household pets (the acquisition whereof is negotiable consistent with my approval), scheduling appointments and engaging household assistance services, such as carpet cleaners, landscapers and cleaning women. I will further expect you to render cheerful sexual services on demand. Although I have not yet decided how many times per week I would like such services from you, I can promise that my busy work schedule, erectile difficulties and stress levels will not permit more than five (5) completed sexual encounters per calendar week. I expect you to be generally loyal to me, although an occasional extramarital affair may be tolerated given my work situation. I know that I work a lot. I will not be around very often, and if you feel the need to pleasure yourself with another man, I can indulge you if the situation warrants it. I do not want to be alone. I know I am not the best-looking guy and I will not be in the house too much. I am realistic; and you are only human. Additionally, I would like you to be at least partially honest with me. Tell me that you love me once in a while, even if you need to lie. Finally, I would like you to be either white or Asian. I will reserve greater consideration for Asians.

Disclosures : There are things you should know about me before deciding whether you wish to conclude a marriage contract with me. First, I occasionally lose my temper when things go poorly at work. I shout and yell from time to time. I have thrown household items into walls when stock prices slump. Second, I pick my nose. This is a nasty habit, and I think it is only fair that you know about it in advance. Third, I have a bad breath problem. I would appreciate if you kiss me for who I am, but I will understand if you do not want to kiss me because my breath smells like death. Fourth, I like drinking. I say patently absurd things when I am drunk, and I cannot promise that I will not insult, patronize, verbally abuse or physically molest you during intoxicated periods. Fifth, I am quite unexciting, boring and dorky. No one achieves financial success in this country without to some extent being an unexciting, boring, slavish dork, and you can expect such behavior from me. I do not really take chances, I like really bad popular music, I do not really have any interests outside work and I talk about my job all the time. Sixth, I am not very intimate. My job is astoundingly mundane and I rarely have energy to do anything but make phone calls, assemble data sheets and give pie graph presentations. I cannot promise rip-roaring, sweat-dripping sex or even truly caring hugs. I simply do not have the emotional capacity to be truly intimate. I have other, more minor flaws that do not warrant disclosure here. Nonetheless, it is my professional opinion that my drawbacks are a small price to pay for an immediate ½ property interest in my entire estate, and an expectancy to inherit up to $25,000,000.00.

Next Steps : I welcome applications from all interested candidates. If you are looking for a comfortable life with minimal responsibilities, I welcome your inquiries. I am looking to conclude a marriage contract as soon as is practicable. To that end, I encourage all interested candidates to submit application materials to me without delay. Please include facial photographs, semi-nude photographs and nude photographs. Please also include an essay discussing why you think you would be a good match for me. Next, please submit a full, verified educational history including official transcripts. Lastly, please include your income tax returns for the last seven (7) years. This will provide me an insight into whether you truly have the capacity to care about me, or whether your main motivation is simply to bear with me until I die and you get the money. Although I know that my money is a motivating factor for many candidates, I would like at least to delude myself into thinking that I mean something more as a human being.

Thank you for reading. I look forward to a well bargained-for and mutually beneficial contractual relationship with the best candidate!

(Applicants bear all postage costs associated with application materials. No exceptions.)

A WARNING

Issued By :

THE DEPARTMENT FOR CORRECT LIVING & CONVENTIONAL CHOICES

Have you dedicated your life to making the right decisions? From day one, have you believed that the pathway to success is to study hard, work hard, get married, have children, go on vacation, eat meals, retire and die? If you have, we salute you. You have honored the conventions that make this Nation great. Conventional living brings stability. Stability brings prosperity. Prosperity brings jobs. Jobs bring money. And everyone likes money.

Do you excel at conventional living? Are you a manager at your job? Do you lead at work rather than follow? If you do, chances are you are a successful person. Successful people excel at conventional living because they follow all the rules every time. They do what they are told, make their way up the ladder and take home big paychecks. If you excel, chances are you walked a hard road to get where you are. There are many rivals on the road to conventional success, and winning is everything. There is no second place or runner-up prize for a close loss. It matters how you play the game, but winning is far more important than how you win.

To win at life, you need to work, work and work some more. Yet there are other elements in a conventional life that compete with work; and it is a challenge to balance them. To truly win at life, you not only must work more than your rivals, but you must also find the time to find an attractive wife, beget children, raise your children, go on family vacations and buy Christmas gifts each year. You must take time off work, which jeopardizes your success in the career race. But without attending to these other matters, you will not master conventional living. The truly successful man finds time to eat a balanced breakfast, work 15 hours a day, go to the gym, keep off the love handles, say good night to his children, pick up his dry cleaning and convincingly have intercourse with his wife on a semi-monthly basis. If you fail to accomplish any of these tasks, you risk your success.

Sadly, there are many "near-successful men." Most near-successful men focus exclusively on work; and for good reason. After all, work is the key to all other conventional living goals. Conventional living depends on careful planning, and careful planning depends on a reliable money source. Reliable money sources can only come from reliable, lucrative employment. Part-time jobs and contracts will not suffice. Only full-time, regular employment in a respectable field will supply the money necessary to fuel a conventional life. Near-successful men understand this. That is why they dedicate all their energy to their work. They stay hour after hour in the office, zealously advancing their employer's cause. They rightly think that enough dedicated work will eventually propel them to higher positions and a larger income. This may be true, but a man can never go beyond "near-successful" if he does not attend to conventional matters other than work.

Society mistakes near-successful men for truly successful men. Near-successful men project a confident, get-it-done attitude at work. They win their superiors' admiration with fanatical devotion to business. They stay late every night. They sacrifice their weekends to get projects done. They go on company outings and trips. They regularly travel, even to foreign countries. They do this for years on end, and their superiors reward them well. They bring home ever larger salaries and bonuses, delighting their wives. But during these "successful" years, they neglect the other key elements of successful conventional living. They get home late at night, long after their wives and children have gone to bed. They drop exhausted into their own beds, knowing that in a few hours they again will have to get up and head back to the office. They rarely see their wives and children awake. Even on weekends, they see them only for brief intervals before "putting in a Saturday afternoon at the office for client development."

This is the life of the near-successful man. Society may think that he is a great achiever. But in fact he is in great danger. Today, we present A WARNING to near-successful men: Your wife is cheating on you, you idiot. What did you expect her to do: You're never there! Did you truly put your trust in the wedding vow she gave you six years ago? Did you think she was going to let her erotic life go while you fanatically pursued an increased salary? All you do in bed is sleep. She is sick and tired of being unfulfilled. You don't even give her the emotional support she needs. When you do show up, all you do is talk about office intrigue, bosses, quarterly revenues and possible Christmas bonus amounts. True, she genuinely appreciates the life you give her, but she understands that there is more to life than sitting in a nice home and eating meals. You have not met the other requirements for a successful conventional life. And what about your children? They do not even know you because you are never there. It's always: "Daddy needs to go back to the office now," or "Maybe next time, kids." Pretty soon they will be adults and you will have spent 1 day out of every 30 with them for their whole lives.

Here at the Department, we recognize that we framed our advice in male terms. But we recognize that it is 2008. Women, too, pursue vigorous and challenging careers. We applaud them for their commitment to conventional living. Nonetheless, we present the same warning to near-successful women that we presented to near-successful men. In fact, we make an even more acute warning to working women, because women must work twice as hard to achieve the same success as a comparable male in the same industry. Your success will depend on your dogged dedication to company interests. That will leave you precious little time to be with your husband and children, assuming you elect to have children. Like the near-successful man, you too will be utterly exhausted when you return from work each night at 12 midnight. Neither you nor your husband will have the appetite or capacity to satisfy your erotic desires. Yet those desires will burn in both of you despite your efforts to suppress them. He will cheat on you, and you will cheat on him. It is merely a matter of time before it happens.

We present these warnings in order to spot trouble in your spouse before it develops. We do not advocate negative measures intended to root out cheating. That would betray the spirit of true success. After all, a truly successful man pleases both his wife and his employer. He is "near-successful" because he only satisfies his employer. Spying, suspicion and other devices intended to "catch" an unfaithful mate merely perpetuate near-success; they do not solve the underlying problem. If the man were truly successful, the wife would not even think of cheating. Thus, when a man adopts nefarious machinations to catch a desperate wife, he has admitted his own failure to please her. And when he admits that, he confesses that he is not truly successful in conventional living.

In that light, redouble your efforts. We understand how easy it is to devote all your energy to your employer. But there are other parties to please. Do not surrender. Fight harder. Tell yourself that you can work 16 hours a day, get a promotion, say good night to your children AND THEN make your wife feel like she did the first time when you were both 18. You can do it. You are almost there. You work harder than almost anyone else. You support our economy and set a wonderful example for every lazy sluggard in the world. But there is more to be done. Conquer your fatigue. Go the extra mile. Dig deeper. Remember: Life is a race. You don't want to lose, do you?