NAUGHTY BAILED-OUT BANKERS ARE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE

Советские Решения Современных Экономических Проблем в Америке Обамы

(SOVIET SOLUTIONS TO CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IN OBAMA'S AMERICA)

By : Mr. Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria, Member, Communist Party of the Soviet Union; Commissioner, National Office of Internal Affairs (NKVD)(1938-1945); Senior Investigator, People's Commissariat to Eradicate Spies, Traitors and Unpatriotic Defeatists Uncommitted to the Public Good (1934-1948); Close Confidant to Joseph Stalin (1926-1953); Orchestrator of Soviet Wartime Production (1941-1945); Manager of Undesirable Population Relocation Program to Central Asia (1941-1951); People's Prosecutor against Lithuanian, Polish, Latvian, Estonian, Ukrainian, German, Hungarian, Czech, Romanian, Slovak and Yugoslavian Traitors and Capitalist Counter-Revolutionary Troublemakers (1938-1953); Pistol Enthusiast and Marksman; Executed 1953; Resurrected 2010.

I am here in America at the request of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Mr. Ben Shalom Bernanke. This Mr. Bernanke--Jewish capitalist intellectual counterrevolutionary though he may be--is a capable man. He understands that your country is in grave danger. He knows that the American economy is teetering on the brink. Most importantly, he understands that traditional "American" methods will not return your country to prosperity. That is why he called me.

Let me briefly summarize my conversation with Mr. Bernanke. He said that the United States is now suffering from a "persistent recession" that has resulted in massive unemployment. He attributed this "recession" to unregulated banking practices and large-scale greed among large financial firms. He also informed me that government has begun playing a much larger role in private financial affairs. He even said that government has paid billions to private banks in order to prevent them from failing. I believe I say this correctly: Your government "bailed out" the wealthiest capitalist pigs in order to allow them to continue loaning money to everyone else.

I applaud America's new commitment to government intervention in the economy. Although it does not come close to the Soviet example, it nonetheless represents a step in the right direction. In Stalin's Russia, we regulate everything. There is no private property. The State owns the banks. If a miserable little banker gets out of line, we shoot him and bury him in an unmarked grave. We even shoot his children and wife. That's how we regulate bankers in Russia. True, this frightens bankers. But it also prevents them from defrauding the people. Sometimes pistols are more effective than laws.

I understand that your country is not the Soviet Union. Mr. Bernanke informed me, however, that these ungrateful bankers have actually taken government money and used it to pay their own bonuses. Additionally, they have thumbed their noses at the very government that saved them from ruin. Mr. Bernanke told me that "something must be done" about these devious, greedy bankers. He asked my advice on the subject.

I am happy to lend my expertise in dealing with your banking problem. First off, let us understand the situation. Your government has taken an unprecedented step to rescue private banks from their own capitalist follies. It has actually given State money in order to prevent them from failing. In return, government can expect allegiance from the banks. In essence, "bailed-out" banks are no longer private. By taking government money, they have subjected themselves to government regulation. They have ceded their private nature. As such, they must listen to your orders. If they don't, they must suffer serious consequences.

Yet now the bankers act as if they never took your money. Worse, they have used your money to invest in the evil New York stock market, where they earned spectacular profits. Rather than return the money to you, they have insolently awarded themselves monstrous bonuses and sent their children on European vacations. They have renovated their villas and hired high-priced prostitutes for week-long champagne orgies at sultry Caribbean hideaways. They have purchased long yachts, "cigarette boats" and Bentley automobiles. They have gallivanted on million-dollar ski trips. All the while, they have refused to hire more workers or act in the public good. To the contrary, they have done little but enrich themselves. They are having the time of their lives--all thanks to government funds.

I share your disgust with these ungrateful outlaws. I am pleased to offer my assistance in "regulating" them. They are Enemies of the People.

We must increase our regulation efforts. Your country must cease relying on "laws" and "procedures" to tame wayward bankers. You will only stop naughty bankers by adopting Soviet-style banking regulations. Bankers are ruthless pirates by nature. Ruthless pirates only understand one language: Brutality. If America wishes to rein in these pirates, it must start regulating with pistols.

Let me explain what I mean by "pistol regulation." As Commissioner of the Secret State Police in the Soviet Union, I became an expert in the craft. Here’s how it works: Once I identify an enemy of the People, I quickly dispatch agents to his home at about 4:30 AM. Generally, most people are either asleep or just waking up at that time--even ambitious capitalist pigs like your wayward bankers. They are in no position to resist ten armed police agents. Most surrender without a fight. In fact, very few ever know we're coming. We investigate in secret.

Once taken into custody, my agents bring the enemy to a secret building with no windows. There, a State security agent informs the enemy why he is an enemy, then tells him to explain himself. This is just a formality: Nothing he says will save him. Basically, it just gives us an opportunity to have a good laugh while the man pisses himself, falls on his knees and begs for mercy. After we've laughed enough, we bring in an officer who says he has judicial power to pronounce sentence. He gravely tells the enemy that he has been found guilty of treason, at which time several armed guards take him into another dimly-lit room. They push the enemy face first against the wall, then shoot him in the back of the head with a pistol like this one:

After that, the guards clean the blood, skull fragments and brains off the floor, remove the body and send it off for cremation. Then I release a press statement describing the enemy's crimes against the people. I close the statement by noting that the "dangerous enemy" has "faced justice for high treason."

Now, once your naughty bankers know that they may face "pistol regulation" for squandering State funds, they will think twice about buying new homes and throwing lavish dinner parties. In fact, some might even invest their money in public projects or--God forbid--hire some people. As you can see, "pistol regulation" carries two benefits. First, it eliminates bad behavior, like embezzling public money. Second, it encourages good behavior, like reducing unemployment. After all, no one wants to get that knock on the door at 4:30 AM. Bankers start behaving much better once they notice that their greedy colleagues aren't in their offices anymore.

You have made a wise decision to enlist my help in regulating your financial industry. You understand that your traditional "American" methods will not impress these rapacious profit-hounds. To the contrary, your entire constitutional system--with its burdensome right to counsel, "independent judiciary" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" procedure--favors the accused. Worse, when the accused has money--as these bankers do--it is even more difficult to convict them. Even then, it takes years for appeals to pass. Plus there's a chance that banker-friendly judges will free their pals. Under your laws, you can't even execute these piratical bankers for their offenses.

This is simply unacceptable: You need Soviet "pistol regulation" or these dogs will walk all over you with "procedures."

Still, you can do it. You have already made an unprecedented step by allowing the government to intervene in the economy. Now, you must take the next step by holding bailed-out bankers to their bargains. If a banker takes government money, he must do as the government says. No more can you tolerate their ingratitude. It is not just embarrassing. It is bad for the country.

To that end, I will do my part to hunt down these criminals. Their lawyers and cash bribes will not stop my agents from putting bullets in their brains. I have wide experience sniffing out wrongdoing; nothing escapes my notice. We will work together to send a simple message: "If you take government money, you had better not use it to pay your own bonus."

I will find every banker who scoffs at government regulation. Believe me, they won't be scoffing after my agents show up at their swanky penthouses at 4:30 in the morning. In fact, they'll be crying, begging, moaning, wailing, pissing and shitting themselves. A few will get angry and shout. But my men will pistol-whip them until they behave.

Enough talking. Let's get to work. We have an industry to regulate. And we have Enemies of the People to eliminate.

COMMUNISM : STILL UNBEATABLE IN THEORY

AN ESSAY

During the Cold War, America faced a serious intellectual challenge. It fought several wars and invested its entire economy into proving that its free market economic system was superior to communism.

Between 1945 and 1990, communism appeared a viable alternative to the free market. In both theory and practice, the Soviet Union and China loomed as proof that major world powers could function under communist governments. During this era, America did what it could to demonize communist countries: They were repressive; they did not allow free expression; they made it hard to earn a living; they were gray, forbidding places; they did not offer limitless opportunities for wealth; you couldn't own a home. Yet until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, America did not have really tangible arguments to show that communism was ineffective. After 1991, it gained a valuable new rhetorical weapon. From then on, free market defenders could say: "See? Communism doesn't work. Look what happened in Russia. Our system is better. I told you so."

Many Americans accept this argument without further thought. If educational and social indoctrination did not suffice to bias them against communism, the "Soviet example" put the nail in the coffin. "Our system is better," goes the argument, "because the Russians lost and we won."

But why exactly did the Soviet Union "fail?" And why do Americans use the Soviet failure to claim that "communism does not work?" In my view, the answers are not so simple. To the contrary, the Soviet failure does not reflect that communism is theoretically flawed. It merely reflects that communism did not work in practice in Russia. More vexingly, Americans base their conclusion that the free market is "superior" to communism only after making some embarrassing assumptions about human nature. In a word, capitalist defenders must admit that human beings are greedy, rapacious, egotistical scoundrels in order to sustain their argument that "the free market is better" than communism.

Think about how Americans craft their traditional responses to the Soviet failure. They say: "Well, communism might be great in theory, but it doesn't work because of human nature." What exactly does that mean? After all, in theory, Marxism posits that every human being is equal and that every human being deserves dignity and respect. It warns against the divisive influence of private property on human relationships. It also posits that labor is free and that no man should exploit another for profit. Further, Marxism posits that government has a responsibility to care for people because government is essentially humanitarian. From a Marxist perspective, the people deserve care, not merely the freedom to exploit one another for money. Moreover, Marxism supports these principles by assuming that human beings are naturally good. It also places great emphasis on individual worth as opposed to economic "instrumentalization" that sacrifices individual identity for "usefulness."

Are these bad principles? Do they reflect a vicious attitude toward our fellow man? Certainly not. If anything, Marxism espouses an extremely positive--even brotherly--approach to human nature. Yet according to the capitalist defenders, this approach fails because it misapprehends what humans are "actually like." To defeat the Marxist vision, the capitalist defender must say: "No, this system does not work because humans are not brotherly. Rather, they are conniving rascals who seek at all times to enrich themselves, even if that means backstabbing and betraying their brothers. Individuality is only useful to the extent that some individuals can reduce other individuals to economic servitude. Additionally, this system does not work because humans do not live for equality and dignity, but rather for crass personal gain, even if that means oppressing and exploiting their fellow man. Finally, government does not exist to care for these rascals, but rather to allow them to engage freely in rascalry, because self-interested rascalry leads to economic prosperity."

In a word, the American response to communism confesses that human beings are ruthless, savage, insensate exploiters who have no duty to their fellow man. In a sense, it admits that the communist vision is admirable. But it discounts that vision by sighing: "We are not so noble." In a strangely depressing way, capitalist defenders take solace in the recognition that human beings are brutal competitors without decency or compassion. After all, that brutality and competitive spirit keep the shelves stocked and the children fed. Who cares about theoretical appeal when merciless self-interest gives you all the shaving creams, sneakers, steak varieties and breakfast cereals you could possibly desire?

In this light, I do not believe that the Soviet failure theoretically debunks communism. No historical event will ever discount Marx's hopeful vision of human society, nor will any one State's experience tarnish the communist ideal in theory. Perhaps communism will never escape its theoretical constraints. Perhaps no State will ever live up to its high theoretical ideals. Perhaps we are just not good enough.

But sometimes ideas are beautiful, even if they are not realizable in present circumstances. I think communism fits in that category. We can all dream about utopia, even if utopia is not attainable given our limitations. Still, that does not detract from the dream. If anything, it merely shows that we are not capable of living the dream. And that is not something to be proud of. It is just an embarrassing confession that highlights our weaknesses.

Maybe human beings will never successfully practice communism. But that does not prove that communism is "bad in theory." It merely proves that we are weak, selfish, fungible, vicious creatures. Non-communist governments accommodate that weakness and harness it to good effect. Yet I would argue that there is nothing laudable about our natural weakness. The sad truth is that free market prosperity depends on inequality, exploitation and savagery. Although the benefits might outweigh the burdens, it does not change the fact that it is an ugly business. And the individual only matters to the extent that he can use other individuals to enrich himself. That is pretty bleak.

But this is what makes America strong. What a strange business. In the end, the question is: "Who am I? What am I worth? Does anyone care about me?" The communist says: "You are a valuable individual. Everyone cares about you. If you are in need, you will receive help." The capitalist says: "You are nothing unless you make something of yourself. And if you don't, that's your fucking problem, because no one is going to help you, pal. So get out there and start earning."

Guess which perspective won? So much for humanity.

VLADIMIR PUTIN ON TIGER WOODS

СЕГОДНЯ ИЗ МОСКВЫ

By : Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, Prime Minister of the Russian Federation; Former President of the Russian Federation (2000-2008); Former Chairman of KGB State Police, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Outdoorsman; Certified Judo Expert.

Иногда я совсем не понимаю этих американцев. Sometimes I completely do not understand these Americans. Earlier this year I wrote how silly it was that they wasted valuable State news service time covering--I believe I say this correctly--"R/B Star" Chris Brown. This Chris Brown supposedly beat self-proclaimed American Cultural Ambassador to Barbados named Rikhanna. For a brief moment, I thought my comments would lead the Americans to believe that they should attend to more pressing matters. I, for example, took the opportunity to move Russian troops closer to our border with Lithuania and Latvia. After all, at that moment, the Americans were distracted wondering whether this criminal boy who wears "bling" ("блинг") and sings soul rendition called "This Christmas" actually struck Cultural Ambassador of Barbados. Ну же, у меня права не был. Oh well, I was wrong. No, these Americans again waste all energy talking about--do I say this correctly?--black star of golf (чёрное звёздо голфа), Tiger Woods, who cheats on wife, the Swedish woman named Nordegren.

Here was my reaction when I heard about this latest American "scandal:"

Americans now hear that the Tiger Woods is untrue to this blue-eyed, ice-cold Swedish wife. They even hear that the Tiger Woods has several mistresses, including good-looking models and temptresses. The newspapers spend great amount of time discussing phone calls between the Tiger Woods and other women. They say that the Tiger Woods is womanizer. They say he drinks alcohol and takes medication pills when he is not sick. Newspapers in America say that the Swedish woman named Nordegren knew about affairs of the Tiger Woods and hit him with a golf club because she was angry about it. She now has returned to Sweden.

Мы Русские тоже знают o шведском предательстве. We Russians, too, know about Swedish treachery. Those dirty blond-headed barbarians from the North twice invaded our motherland and destroyed many Russian villages. Swedes are icy, aggressive, tall and violent. We Russians do not trust them. The Tiger Woods should have expected that this Nordegren would attack him sooner or later. That is a very Swedish thing to do. Because of Russian history with Sweden, I am not surprised that this Nordegren smashed the Tiger Woods with golf club.

Но и что? But so what? What's the big deal with this Tiger Woods and beautiful women? So what if he slept with brutal Swedish temptress and assorted ladies of Las Vegas? So what if black star of golf drank too much liquor and crashed car? In Russia, men sleep all the time with women, drink and crash cars--or at least fall off horse-drawn carts. No one thinks anything of it--or any less of the man. Жизнь, женщины, алкогол. Life, women, alcohol. This is a man's existence in Russia. So he gets drunk and sleeps with women. His wife beats him because he is a drunken idiot. Is this a world-changing event? Конечно нет. Of course not; it happens every day over here and we just keep living until alcoholism kills us. And we certainly do not waste valuable State news service time condemning black stars of golf for something most men do in Russia: Drink and carouse.

But all this works to my advantage. While Americans look at half-naked pictures of Swedish woman named Nordegren, I will have time to negotiate secret military pact with Germany. Even new President Obama is too worried about the Tiger Woods to notice what I am doing in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Let the Americans talk about Las Vegas ladies who travel festively in the Tiger Woods' automobile. As they wonder about the Tiger Woods' golfing future and endorsement opportunities with capitalist sports apparel manufacturers, I will continue massing tanks near Mongolia and Uzbekistan. Who will notice? The Americans are reading about the Tiger Woods and treacherous Swedish women named Nordegren. Россия им равна. They don't care about Russia. No, they don't care about anything except spring training baseball, new Kanye West music video, Hollywood blockbuster and next paycheck. Это удобно. Fine with me. Soon the Russian Empire will again reign over central Asia.

Американцы очень интересные люди. Americans are very interesting people. Many here in Russia simply say that they are stupid belligerent capitalist dogs. But I know that the question is more complicated than that. Yes, many Americans are stupid belligerent capitalist dogs--and fat, too. Yet that does not answer the ultimate question about Americans. Кто эти люди такие? Who are these people? Это ностоящий вопрос. That is the real question. They hold public figures to high moral standards, even when they do not observe those standards themselves. They live for riches, then criticize those with riches. They preach equality for all, yet they are content to see many of their citizens in terrible economic despair. They think about sex all the time, but they ridicule those who get caught having affairs. They say it is immoral to drink too much alcohol, yet everyone goes out and gets drunk on weekends. They promise freedom and justice to the world, yet fail to provide basic necessities to their own people.

Ух, у меня сейчас болит голова; я слишком долго думал о Америке. Ouch, now I have a headache; I've been thinking about America for too long.

Perhaps this Tiger Woods serves a function for us here in Russia. If we can understand why Americans spend so much time thinking about this black star of golf and his "problems," perhaps we can understand Americans. To us, the whole situation is silly, illogical, petty, superficial and insignificant. Yet it fascinates Americans. Perhaps that means that Americans, too, are silly, illogical, petty, superficial and insignificant because they care about it so much. You see, as Prime Minister of all the Russias, I must find reason in every situation, even situations that make no sense to a Russian.

Вот так! Сейчас это ясно. Look there! Now it's clear. Tiger Woods helped me understand the American spirit. For the longest time I simply could not figure out why Americans wasted all their time writing and reading about black star of golf. But now I've got it. I am always happy when I learn something about my adversaries. And this time I have made a great discovery: Because Americans spend valuable time on superficial, petty and insignificant matters, it means that they will never seriously attend to anything meaningful. That means I can continue absorbing former Soviet satellite Republics and no one will notice.

Even the President Obama will not notice me: He will instead decorate White House Christmas tree, pardon 44-kilogram turkey and participate in children's Easter egg roll on national lawn. Then he will read latest news story about hip-hop artist in trouble or Hollywood movie star in rehab clinic. Пусть он! Let him!

Earlier this year, I was not sure if Americans would change with this Obama as their President. I thought perhaps they would take an increased interest in my activities in Eastern Europe and Asia. After all, this Obama is significantly smarter than the Bush who preceded him. But thankfully I was wrong. They continue to fixate on silly stories about black stars of golf and--I believe I say this correctly--Little Jon (Маленький Джон) crunk (кронк) ringtones for overpriced mobile devices.

When the most powerful country on earth spends all its time worrying about such things, how can I go wrong? Спасибо, Тайгер Вудс! Thank you, Tiger Woods! You have indirectly influenced new Russian power in Europe and Asia.

Извините, но сейчас мне надо летать в Берлин. Excuse me, but now I must fly to Berlin. I am discussing secret arms cooperation treaty with the Germans. Once I complete alliance between Germany and Russia, no Nation in Europe will stand in my way. Спасибо, Тайгер Вудс! Thank you, Tiger Woods!

SALAZAR TO OBAMA : TANKS AND RHETORIC CAN STAMP OUT RIGHT-WING REVOLTS

MEMORANDUM

TO : President Barack H. Obama

FROM : Kenneth Salazar (D-CO), Secretary of the Interior

RE : “Big Government Protests” in Washington, D.C. and Proposed Response

As you no doubt saw, throngs of angry people marched through Washington last week. They came from all over the country to denounce the Administration for “expanding government,” “raising taxes,” “dishonoring the military,” “destroying marriage,” “chastising banks,” “championing fairness” and “providing health care to all Americans.” Thankfully, our allies in the Press downplayed these disturbances. When they did cover the marches, they called them “insignificant,” “misguided” and pointed out various grammatical and syntactical errors on the protesters’ placards.

Yet our control over the media cannot conceal the fact that many Americans do not want our reforms. Our approval ratings are in decline. Protests such as this will continue to erupt out as we push health care reform and mortgage relief through Congress. The more help we give the American people, the more we can count on Republican protesters to march against socialism. And in the future, these revolts will not be so peaceful. After all, these are not environmentalists or gay rights advocates. These are guys from Nebraska who have known how to assemble a rifle blindfolded since before Kindergarten. Put simply, we must draft contingency plans for containing dissent against economic relief efforts. Whenever we try to help Americans get through the depression, we outrage millions.

This memo is intended to outline a plan for dealing with right-wing revolts. I understand that you always adopt a conciliatory—even cerebral—approach to dealing with dissent. I applaud your trust in reason and rational debate. But I must point out that there is no point reasoning with those who think that any action undertaken by a Democratic Congress amounts to “communism.” There is no point reasoning with people who are prepared to shoot you for daring to “expand government.” You may think this is mere error, and that your law school-style rhetoric will correct it with deft logic. You may think it is dignified to simply ignore this foolishness. Yet rhetoric is insufficient to neutralize the danger. And it is even more dangerous to sit idly by, dignified or not.

When dealing with right-wing protesters, we must speak to irrationality in a language it respects: Force. As Secretary of the Interior, it is my duty to ensure domestic tranquility and to preserve this Administration’s commitment to reform. We are not Sarah Palin; we do not think in absolutes. Nonetheless, our opposition does think in absolutes. Unless we fight fire with fire, they will infect the whole country with irrationality, rendering reform impossible.

To stop irrational disturbances, we must be prepared to show our strength. I advise against appealing to “unity” and “the national good” in order to defuse Republican outcry against reform. Rather, I advise a more aggressive approach. If the protesters think we’re advancing socialism, let us deal with them socialist-style. History provides several examples. When protesters rose up against the Chinese government in 1989, China did not grovel. It did not try to explain itself to the protesters. It did not address their concerns with respect, understanding or dignity. No, it sent in tanks and drove over anyone who still held a placard. Similarly, when the Czechs rose up against the Soviet Union in 1968, the Russians did not condescend to “explaining” why the protesters were wrong. They merely sent in tanks and arrested anyone who complained.

True, we are not a totalitarian government. But the lesson remains: When dealing with protesters, the best way to solve the problem is with tanks. If protesters think that every government initiative is “socialism” or “big government,” let us show them how big our government really is. Tanks are big, too. They can squash people too ignorant to see that we are not advocating socialism. If these protesters are unwilling to listen to our explanations about health care reform and mortgage relief, then let us reason with them with tanks.

I sincerely hope that we do not have to resort to these measures. I am confident that Americans will see that our reforms will not outlaw private employment, nor will they make it impossible for people with private health insurance to see doctors. I trust the American people. But recent disturbances do not bode well. From town hall meetings to the march in Washington last week, dissent is becoming ever more strident. Protesters say that we plan to outlaw money and create a Federal Wealth Redistribution Board that gives white taxpayers’ money to black mothers with at least seven children and two felony convictions. They say that we plan to commute all black criminals’ sentences and appoint them to high positions in the Federal government. They say we plan to force Burger King to give any American a free Whopper® if he asks for one. They even say that we plan to close down all retail stores and replace them with “government handout shops,” in which every American must wait in line for every single consumer commodity.

How can rhetoric correct these misconceptions? How can we possibly set the record straight with people who believe these things? You can orate until you are blue in the face with disgruntled Republicans. But if they believe that you plan to abolish the Supreme Court and create a new Court composed solely of illegal aliens, what can you say to change their minds? They will call you a liar or worse. Then they will say that you plan to make every Friday “National People’s Worker Day” and force all white children to sing “The Internationale” before saluting the flag in the morning. You might think these are imaginary fears. As Secretary of the Interior, however, I have information proving that protesters believe all these things. They even think you plan to create an African Assistance Fund that will transfer all the profits of the Fortune 500 to the Zambian National Treasury. To top it off, there is a substantial number who believe that you are neither an American citizen nor even an earthling; rather, they think you were born on the dark side of the moon. Put simply, you cannot trust your oratory or your knowledge as a constitutional scholar to prevail over people who believe these things.

Mr. President, you must trust tanks. If you wish to contain ever-growing Republican dissent against your vision for a more just America, you cannot depend on principle alone. You cannot depend upon reason or compassion. You cannot depend on goodwill or brotherly love. Republican protesters will label any effort to help the poor “socialism,” and they will call you a “moon-born, un-American communist dictator who wants to steal service sector jobs and give them to illiterate Mexican peasants.” You must be prepared to force these dissenters into line. If they think you want to “take away their freedom to contract,” tell them: “No I don’t,” but back it up with tanks. There’s nothing quite like tanks to reinforce your arguments. In a word, you’re not in Harvard Law School moot court anymore. You’re dealing with Republicans who bear arms. Logical arguments are all well and good. But logical arguments supported by tanks and artillery are even better.

Please consult with me as you plan your response to ever-growing Republican dissent. Discord is rising quickly. The more you talk about compassion, care and equality, the more resistance you will face. The more you talk about fairness, justice and peace, the more violence you will provoke. The more help you offer those crushed by economic disparity, the more unrest you will engender. There are strong forces arrayed against you, Mr. President. They are boiling over. They fight you now with words and recriminations. They are prepared to say anything about you, even that you were born on the moon. It is just a matter of time before their words transform into action. Today they march and call you Stalin. Tomorrow they will not be so civil. Only tanks will save you.

I am a practical man. Successful Presidents combine vision and theory with practical knowledge. Let me help you. As Secretary of the Interior, I know how to make crops grow and how to save pine trees. These are practical skills. I know nature. And I know how to deal with dangerous animals in the wild. Just as you must show force against a rabid grizzly bear, so too must you show force against rabid Republican protesters who call mortgage relief “communist big government tyranny.” When faced with a raging bull, you do not give a power point lecture about social justice or wealth inequality. Rather, you get a gun and shoot it before it kills you. These are practical skills. This is survival.

Do not give another inch, Mr. President. Enforce your vision with arguments and tanks, not just arguments. I know you do not wish to condescend to this, but this is the only practical way to avert disaster. You must defend yourself. If you continue to simply ignore those who label everything you do “socialism” and “big government,” you risk open revolt. To prevent this, simply use tanks when you must. I am certain that you will change at least a few peoples’ minds with tanks. In short, you have an opportunity to turn dissent into support. Tell the protesters: “No I am NOT obliterating the free market…and if you don’t believe me, here’s a tank in your face to prove it.” Or: “No I am NOT going to take away your private doctor…and if you don’t believe me, here’s another tank in your face.” This is not repression. This is merely “tank-assisted reasoning.” If protesters will not listen to reason alone, throw in some tanks to make your point.

There is no time to delay. You must no longer sit by while protesters make outlandish claims about your plans for America. I know you think it is dignified not to respond to these arguments. But you must start fighting back. As soon as the Republicans assemble to protest again, send in the tanks first, then make a speech about fairness and equality.

Do what is necessary. Reason with tanks. In short, Mr. President, sometimes you need to be a little irrational yourself if you want to triumph over irrationality.

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

CONSIDERED OPINION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"GOT FIVE FRIENDS? THERE COULD BE $500 IN IT FOR YOU" : YOU'RE NOT A PERSON; YOU'RE AN AMOUNT

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Several banks currently offer “bounties” for referrals. Citibank, for instance, offers $100 to any accountholder who tells a “friend” about the bank and the “friend” opens an account. Its advertising pitch entices with the words: “Got five friends? There could be $500 in it for you.” But Citibank likely feared that “really popular people” with “lots of friends” would “cost too much,” so they limited the bounty to five friends. Wachovia offers $75 for referrals; I’m not sure whether there’s a “friend limit” on their offer. So I guess people are worth more at Citibank than Wachovia. One hundred dollars can buy more than seventy-five.

This whole “cash for referral” business disturbs me. Yet it is capitalism at its purest; it assumes that people cultivate friendships in order to exploit them for personal financial reward. That is the reason it bothers me so much. I do not have friends because I secretly wish to make money from them. I have friends because I respect them as individual human beings. In short, I resent the banks’ insinuation that people maintain friendships solely for their economic potential.

Among many other things, Karl Marx criticized free market enterprise for its tendency to reduce human beings to “exploitable labor power” or “amounts” useful to some economically superior master. In the eye of private enterprise, for instance, an employee is no longer “Fred Johnson,” the nice man from down the street with the model airplane collection who dreams to be a violinist. No, he is a “Junior Claims Clerk (Position Code 45A)” who represents 8 man-hours per working day, which in turn translates (after taxes, wages and costs) to $2,000 profit per week. He might be “Fred” to his co-workers. But in the economic hierarchy, he is an instrument. His labor does not even belong to him. It inures completely to his master’s benefit. In short, Marx argued that capitalism depends upon dehumanization and exploitation.

In essence, Marx made a humanitarian objection. Marx posited that human beings are unique individuals with hopes, dreams, ambitions and emotions. They are not mere commercial objects to be exploited for others’ gain; they have non-economic value, too. I certainly agree with Marx on these points. But it is impossible to talk about Marxism without considering the inevitable objection: “Well, it doesn’t work. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. People want to exploit each other and make money. They don’t want to be equal. It’s against human nature.”

This is the familiar “human nature” response to Marxism. According to this argument, socialism does not work because human beings are inherently selfish and only want to enrich themselves, even if that means trampling on others. To a large extent, experience bears this argument out. In our society, commercial hungers induce people to ruthlessly exploit one another. Everyone works for personal reward, and those with greater power take full advantage over those with less.

Still, is this not a pathetic admission? Put simply, the “human nature” objection to socialism assumes that it is “in our nature to exploit one another.” It assumes that human beings enjoy exploiting each other and—to some extent—being exploited. It assumes that human beings don’t really mind being reduced to instruments and amounts, as long as they get what they want from the exchange. In this sense, the real objection to socialism reads as follows: “We can’t be socialist because we are only human. We like exploiting and being exploited. Exploitation gives us lots of neat things and we like having more neat things than our neighbor. It would be really nice if we all were equal and everyone owned the same things. But that makes us feel angry because we want the full rewards from our work.”

In short, socialism “fails” because human beings lose emotional control when they think that others benefit from their work. It is too much for the human mind to accept. To avoid that emotional response, people prefer the old exploitation system. It might be unfair. It might be difficult. But at least it feels “natural.” It accords with people’s emotions. Hey, people in a free market system might face exploitation. But one day they might get to exploit others. And at day’s end they get to own as many cars as they want and take home their own pay. Who doesn’t want that?

In this light, is it not sad that the “human nature objection” to socialism reveals itself to be based entirely in emotion? There is nothing intellectually better about capitalism. It just panders more effectively to the innate emotional satisfaction that flows from exploiting others and being exploited. After all, it feels good to exploit. So everyone strives for it. Plus they get to own stuff in the process.

This explains why people willingly see themselves as amounts. In our society, people simply do not mind thinking in instrumental terms. They do not mind thinking of themselves—and others—as economic units. True, they also regard themselves as unique individuals with talents, desires, dreams and ambitions. But those “non-economic” characteristics take a back seat to economic viability. If becoming an instrument pays the bills or helps amass a fortune, that is exactly what most people will do. Judged against these objectives, individual “talents, desires, dreams and ambitions” mean little. After all, this is the mental outlook necessary to win in the great competition for the right to exploit others and get rich.

This is not just cynical resignation, either. This is merely the logical consequence of the bleak “human nature” that galvanizes capitalism defenders. The same “human nature” that rendered socialism an impossibility also transforms every person into a drab economic entity that alternately exploits and endures exploitation. This “human nature” reveals an inherent willingness in people to both debase themselves and to act with ruthless self-interest. Humanitarianism goes out the window in this analysis. If this is our “nature,” then it is hardly surprising that banks assume we view our “friends” as potential $100 “cash bounties.”

I suppose I should have expected these sentiments from a private bank. After all, banks are quintessentially capitalistic institutions. They provide capital to individuals, who in turn start enterprises. These enterprises instrumentalize employees, bringing the “investors” capital as a “reward.” In short, banks provide the grease that keeps the exploitation gears turning. They provide the means by which human beings sate their “nature” as commercial creatures. They indulge the “natural” human desire to both exploit and be exploited. It is thus no surprise that banks expect people to regard their friends as potential profit opportunities. Even more insidiously, there are two layers of exploitation at work here. Through their “referral rewards” programs,” banks exploit people’s natural desire to exploit others. In the end, two exploitations result: The man who refers a friend gets $100. At the same time, the bank makes untold interest on the new accountholder. “Everybody wins.” And everybody “feels good about it.” Personality had nothing to do with it. This is instrumentalism at its finest.

People are perfectly willing to engage in this sort of common exploitation. Banks know it. They would not offer rewards for referrals unless they knew people would respond to their entreaties. Economically, it makes perfect sense. But I still don’t like it. I like to think that people regard themselves as more than mere amounts. I like to think that people have other motivations for friendship than transforming the relationship into a check. I try my best not to exploit others, even when it may be economically prudent to do so. Still, it is difficult to escape the “exploitation cycle,” precisely because it is allegedly “part of our nature.” Because exploitation and its rewards provide such emotional satisfaction, it is difficult to fully ignore them. Human beings do not like abandoning things that make them feel good.

Marx was right that there is more to human beings than purely commercial motivation. But he failed to understand the deep psychological desire in most humans to exploit one another. That is why socialism did not work, at least in the 20th Century. It angered too many people because they did not get to exploit others as freely as they would have in a capitalist system. Worse, they did not get to own as much; they felt resentful that their work went to help others, rather than themselves. This failure was not about theory. It was about emotion: Namely, anger and resentment. People wanted to be selfish and the government did not let them. That was a recipe for failure in the 20th Century.

But what about the future? Will we ever escape the seductive emotional intoxication that flows from thinking in exploitive economic terms? Socialism failed in several countries because it required too much hyper-intellectual commitment. It required that people adhere to abstract principles, such as practical equality, common property ownership and humanitarian commitment to one’s fellow man. Those principles offered no outlet for the human emotional need to exploit and gain. As appealing as the principles were in theory, they could not subdue the burning emotional desire in most people to exploit one another, compete with one another and win personal rewards. People were not intellectually ready to surrender their own comforts for the common good. After all, there is no personal emotional reward in knowing that a poor person can get health care. Yet there is an immense personal emotional reward in knowing you just earned $500,000 that belongs solely to you.

Until human beings change the way they feel about personal gain, they will continue to regard one another as “instruments” and “amounts.” The strong will dominate the weak. Meanwhile, the young, enterprising weak will work to dominate those who come after them. Emotion drives this cycle onward. Perhaps emotion will play a lesser role as our species evolves. But for now, people are quite happy with the way things are.

Humanity will have to wait. For now, you are not my friend. You are $100 in my pocket. I think you’re great and everything, but $100 is $100.