JOIN THE TEA PARTY : BE PATRIOTIC--AND IT'S MORE FUN THAN YOU THINK

LET FREEDOM RING

By : Mr. H. Henry Patrick, Esq., Former State Legislator (Virginia); Real Estate Owner (1400 Acres in several Virginia counties); Former Chair, Citizens for the Abolition of the Income Tax (1982-1997); Outdoorsman; Contributing Editor, Breathe Free Magazine (2004-present); Author, Government, Get Your Goddamn Stinking Hands off my Hard-Earned Keep, And Stop Poisoning My Children : I'll Spend my Money Any Way I Please, Thank You Very Much (a Pamphlet published by Freedom Press)(forthcoming 2010); Winner, West Virginia Sport Shooters Remington versus Doe Contest (1999); Volunteer Fireman.

In 2008, Barack Obama took the White House promising "change we can believe in." But in the months that followed, Obama did something terrifying: He expanded the government. He began policing banks, stealing private property, handing out cash to unemployed luggards and awarding free health care.

Now, government threatens everything we hold dear. It threatens to seize our property, tax our children and kill our grandparents by condemning them to wait in grimy clinics for necessary care. Government threatens to spy on our wives, monitor our whereabouts and punish us for defending liberty. Put simply, government is suppressing freedom in a way never before seen in the United States. And we're all paying for it.

Barack Obama may have thought government could solve our problems. But to quote Ronald Reagan, government is the problem. And if we don't act soon, we will live in a gulag in which our daughters will be forced to wear red bandanas and sing workers' hymns.

Smart Americans recognized Obama's shtick for what it was: Socialist snake oil. That is why they banded together to form the Tea Party. We are committed to resisting Obama at every turn. We are committed to protecting our children from government propaganda. We are committed to the ideal that every American deserves to own his own property without governmental interference. We are committed to keeping every penny in our paychecks.

Obama believes exactly the opposite. He believes that government has a right to take away property and give it to people without property. That is why we resist him. We refuse to surrender our property so that some black beggar in New York can get a free heart transplant. We refuse to give up our rifles to government agents. We refuse to pay a single nickel so that lazy unemployed people can get a free meal. After all, free meals are un-American.

In the Tea Party we believe in a simple virtue: Responsibility. Sadly, that virtue does not carry much weight in Obama's America. Yet responsibility made America great. Our forebears did not wait around for government checks. They cut down trees, built homes and warded off Indian raids. They did not whine about being poor. They started wholesale companies, sold wheat and made their own fortunes. Or they died trying. That is the American way: Make money, ask no one for help, or go down like a man. In this country, you need to fight hard to survive. We aren't softies. We're toughies. We pass by dying people in the street without a second thought.

Government used to know its place in America. Our forebears established government in this country not to feed the poor, but to protect their property. They did not establish government to handicap their economic affairs. Rather, they established government to keep order so that they could attend to business in a responsible way. Furthermore, our forebears hated taxes. They revolted from England because they did not like paying taxes on their hard-earned labor. After all, who would want to work knowing the government could just come in and take away all his profit? That is why our forebears broke from England.

And that is also why we began the Tea Party: To resist tyrannical government and to protect private property from government seizure.

We believe that every American should join the Tea Party. If you are sick and tired of paying away your honest paycheck to the government, you should join us. If you don't like the idea that you slave away at a horrible office job so a toothless homeless man can get a free hospital stay, you should join us. If you don't like the idea that your children read propaganda praising the Kennedys in public schools, you should join us. And if you can't stand the idea that government can steal your land, you should definitely join the Tea Party.

Americans are all about freedom. So are we.

In the Tea Party, freedom is not just an abstract principle. It is an impetus for action. We have work to do before we achieve freedom. We will not be truly free in this country until we cast off the terrible burden that government has thrown upon us. We will not achieve freedom until government removes its filthy tentacles from our bank accounts, mutual funds, paychecks and corporate treasuries. We will not be free until we drive government tax collectors off our property and drive our automobiles without government licenses. Nor will we achieve freedom until we remove our children from pernicious public schools. In a word, we have a battle to fight. And words alone will not win it.

To realize the dream of freedom through the Tea Party in America, we must rise up against tyranny. We must declare that We are the People. We made this government; and that means we can un-make it, too. When government disrespects our property, then turns around to give free meals and diabetes treatment to black people, it must be abolished. We have a right to overthrow tyrannical regimes. Obama is a tyrant. He disrespects private property. Unless we act against his government today, he will plunge our country into a new dark age in which every American can obtain low-cost health care and unemployment insurance. What's more, unless we act against him today, we will drown in taxes. And our children will not be safe from schools that observe Black History Month and Gay Awareness Week.

Do not hesitate to do the right thing. Do not hesitate to be a patriot. But joining the Tea Party is not as grave as you think. It is also very fun. It is fun to angrily carry torches through the streets and chant slogans like: "Down with the income tax!" It is fun to break windows and smash down doors. It is fun to participate in anti-tax riots. It is fun to tar-and-feather IRS officials. It is fun to throw half-clad judges from third-floor chambers. And it is very fun to burn down courthouses. What's more, it is simply exhilarating to exchange smalls arms fire with Federal officers. And it is even more thrilling to blow up police cars. In this light, Tea Party membership is not just about boring policy speeches. It is also about having a great time actively rebelling against the government: And that means fighting, shooting, burning, breaking, smashing and blowing things up. Everyone loves that.

There's a place for everyone in the Tea Party. You don't need to own land to join us. We need everyone. We need young people to storm State houses and string up legislators. We need sociopaths to set fire to government buildings and kill tax collectors. We need children to stop going to school. We need hardened gun owners to give us muscle to match our spirit. And we need educated people--like Sarah Palin--to direct our loyal followers. In a word, we need everyone--and we need you now.

It is time to send government a message it will never forget. It is time for freedom. It is time to stop paying taxes. It is time to own your own property again. It is time to pay your laborers whatever you want, not what the government tells you to pay them. It is time to spend your money as you please, not to pay for unfair entitlement programs and free medical care for lazy people. You want to hold on to your own money, don't you? If you make $10 an hour, you don't want $241.97 for working 40 hours, do you? Well, if you want a fair-and-square $400 for 40 hours at $10 an hour, the Tea Party is the party for you.

Americans want freedom. They want a life without government interference. They are sick and tired of tax returns, excises, duties, imposts and liens. They are sick and tired of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and affirmative action. They are sick and tired of public schools and government propaganda. They are sick and tired of jury duty and ineffective courts. They don't want their sons and daughters learning about cultural perversions. And they want the liberty to hire whomever they please. Put simply, Americans have this to say: "Government, hands off my goddamn money and kids!"

So be patriotic. Stand up for freedom. Tell Obama that he'll get your money and kids--in hell. And have fun doing it. Open your drawer and take out that pistol. Take the shotgun off the mantle. Grab a rock. Light up a torch. Then take to the streets. Start shouting about liberty. Prowl for fire stations and police outposts. Hunt down crossing guards and public school teachers. Get together with your friends, fill up a few Molotov cocktails and toss them into your nearest courthouse. Vandalize police vans. Tear things down. Spit on a town councilman. If the police try to arrest you, fight back against government tyranny until your last breath. Yell out to them: "You may take my life. But you'll never take my freedom!"

Join the fun. Join the Tea Party. Stand up for a full paycheck. And tell Obama that you refuse to allow America to sink into the new dark age of free health care and financial industry regulation.

Over our dead bodies. And Mr. Taxman, you'd better run, because the Tea Party is about to begin.

So to all you aggrieved Americans out there, we have just one thing to say: Lock and load. We're taking this mother down.

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.

OBAMA RESIGNS; TURNS POWER OVER TO MCCAIN

OBAMA OUT ; REPUBLICANS IN

NEWS FLASH

WASHINGTON, D.C.--In a mildly surprising development, President Barack Hussein Obama resigned the Presidency at 8:03 AM today, shortly after learning that the United States Senate passed health care reform.

"This Christmas, I have decided to put America first," Mr. Obama explained. "The fact of the matter is that the Republicans don't like me. They say they have better ideas for the country. They even show up to my Presidential appearances with guns. I get the message. I'm listening. You guys have better ideas than I do. Rush Limbaugh even says I have no idea what I'm doing. He knows what he's talking about. For those reasons, I hereby cede the Presidency to Senator John McCain of Arizona."

Democrats protested President Obama's decision. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton begged the Chief Executive to stay the course. She pointed out that President Obama commanded substantial majorities in the House and Senate. She also said that the country overwhelmingly voted for his message of hope in 2008. She pointed out that Hollywood celebrities and even Oprah Winfrey adored him. "People love you," she said.

President Obama disagreed. He cited several FOX News channel polls showing that most Americans did not approve of the way he was leading the country. He also referenced a Mission Statement from the Tea Party Association of America claiming that he was "worse than Hitler" because he supported health care reform, executive compensation caps and postal service wage increases. "It is apparent to me that most people do not like the way I am doing the job. If I'm worse than Hitler, it would be best for the country if I simply step down and let bygones be bygones."

Concerning Oprah Winfrey, President Obama said: "I am grateful for Ms. Winfrey's steadfast support. But the Republicans have Rush Limbaugh. More people listen to Rush than Oprah, and more Rush listeners have rifles than Oprah listeners. I am prudent enough to know who's more important."

Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told the President: "We outnumber the Republicans 60 to 39. We outnumber them in the House. We have an opportunity to bring real change to America. We just passed health care reform. We can do anything we want in Congress."

President Obama thanked Mr. Reid for his efforts in the Senate. "It's great that you passed health care reform," he said. "But Orrin Hatch said the bill was 'mortally flawed.' All 39 Republicans voted against it. I have to listen to them. They say I am destroying the country and that I am turning the United States into a Soviet Republic. Sarah Palin even said that I am going to kill her grandparents and pets. Given these cogent criticisms, I have no choice but to resign and allow the Republicans to lead America. They obviously have a much better vision--and a stronger grasp on reality--than I do."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner called the President's decision "premature." In a phone call, Mr. Geithner asked the President to reconsider. "You must give financial reform more time. We have only begun implementing regulations on Wall Street that will make the financial industry more accountable. As you recall, unregulated securities and lending markets created the financial crisis. If we let the Republicans back into power, we could see the whole process repeat itself."

"Tim, I appreciate your concern," Mr. Obama responded. "But Bill O'Reilly called my attempts to reform the financial industry 'ludicrous.' Shepard Smith called me a 'bloodthirsty communist determined to abolish private property.' And Rush Limbaugh said I deserved to be lynched for redistributing hard-earned Wall Street money to Hurricane Katrina victims. How can I ignore these complaints? They are too intelligent for me to ignore. I obviously made the wrong decision to target runaway banks and predatory lending houses. After all, they have a right to the American dream, too. I am man enough to admit I was wrong to pursue justice."

President Obama also explained that there was no practical point in resisting the Republicans. "The bottom line is that you can't disagree with Rush, Bill O'Reilly or Greta van Susteren. And you certainly can't disagree with Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn or Kay Bailey Hutchinson. When Republicans make up their minds, there's nothing you can say to convince them otherwise. It doesn't matter that they only hold a minority in Congress; they know what they are talking about--and they have lots of guns. I have tried to introduce collegiality and bipartisanship into American government. But it is a hopeless crusade. Every time I try to extend my hand, they label me a rabble-rousing negro socialist magician. Religious leaders even call me a godless tyrant. I'm a lawyer by trade. How can I hold a reasoned dialogue with these voices? It's just no use. It is easier just to give up and let John McCain handle our problems."

"I am not afraid to listen to Republicans," President Obama said. "I have listened carefully to them. They said that my Middle East tour was 'useless play-acting.' They called my commitment to troop reductions in Iraq 'Muslim treason.' They said it was 'hypocritical' for me to increase our military presence in Afghanistan. And they called my attendance at the Copenhagen Climate Conference an 'active stance against private property in the United States.' They repeatedly point out that I live in a fantasy land, that I misunderstand the facts and that I am not really an American citizen. They claim I am all talk and no substance, and that all I can really do is give a speech and pardon turkeys."

"Put simply, I must listen to these compelling complaints. Neither the country nor I get anywhere when we ignore the Republicans. Like it or not, the Republicans speak reason and sense. True, America voted against the Republicans in 2006 and 2008. But listen to them now. They say everything that is wrong with America is my fault. People believe them. Now the American people blame me for the financial crisis and the War in Iraq. They are angry that they still can't find a job. The Republicans understand that anger; and they channel it right at me. Well, it worked. I'm done."

President Obama expressed confidence that his successors would solve all the problems he could not. "I have little doubt that John McCain will easily overcome the financial crisis and create jobs for America. As long as John listens closely to Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, there is no way he can do wrong. Sure, he might draw criticism from Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper…but a lot of good their praise did me. People like Rush and Bill because they are men's men. Wolf and Anderson are, well, a little too froofy for the average American."

"America, we tried," Mr. Obama said. "Last year, I said 'Yes We Can.' But it turns out that the Republicans can, not us. It’s time to let them put their successful ideas into practice. It is the right thing to do for America."

President Obama continued: "I have always believed in democracy. When the people want unregulated markets, inaccessible health care, torture, foreign wars, reduced civil liberty, gross class disparities, merciless credit exploitation, cultural intolerance and irresponsible corporate government, I say let them have it."

Reacting to President Obama's announcement, Sarah Palin was overjoyed: "Is this the best Christmas present a mom from Alaska could wish for? Oh, you betcha! It's a great day in America when a person like Hitler gives up. Now we can get to work and get this tea party on the road."

SOLDIERS ARE SOCIALISTS, EVEN IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT

AN ESSAY

Last summer, I wrote an essay arguing that the United States military is essentially a socialistic institution. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/06/military-is-socialistic-because-it_25.html. I made that conclusion because American military authorities "care about men under their command" both in war and peace. I pointed out that soldiers live a "rarefied" existence insulated from harsh commercial reality. That insulation allows them to focus on larger ideals, like "honor" and "political missions." Soldiers also receive free medical care, housing and living necessities from the government. As a whole, these characteristics led me to conclude that the military is "socialistic," even if its armed service protects a capitalistic society that condemns "socialism."

I continue to believe that the American military is a socialistic institution. In fact, I believe it more now than I ever did. When I wrote my previous essay, I focused primarily on larger themes to identify socialistic currents in American military life. But the military is not just abstractly socialistic; it is socialistic right down to the men themselves. It is socialistic in spirit as well as action.

To be clear, when I say "socialistic," I mean that the military provides a comprehensive security net for everyone under its control. But this means far more than merely providing tangible benefits. It also means that people in the military regard their fellow man differently than the way comparable civilians regard others. In commercial American civilian life, other human beings represent potential profits. Civilians have to think this way. Unlike soldiers, they do not get free rent, free health insurance or free child care. They have to fend for themselves. They cannot worry about their fellows too much or they will lose their own commercial struggle.

In the military, however, soldiers must care about each other. In combat, men treasure each other. They do not simply abandon their buddies when they get hurt. They are never indifferent. They put themselves in harm's way to ensure that their comrades survive. They even risk death to retrieve the bodies of friends killed in action.

I find this especially socialistic. Care for one's fellow man is a bedrock in socialist philosophy. In the military, individual soldiers practice that care every day. It is not obligatory care: Soldiers are not related by blood or even bound to each other by contract. No, they are simply comrades in arms. They refuse to allow ill to befall their fellows and they risk all to save them from it. The emphasis lies on one's fellow man, not on oneself. That marks a key distinction between both the military and civilian life, as well as between socialism and capitalism.

Karl Marx criticized capitalism because it tended to separate human beings from one another. When every man must selfishly pursue his own economic fortune in a free market system, he naturally begins to regard his fellow man as a commercial instrument, not as a human being with equal dignity. Although Marx wrote at length about economic esoterica, his main criticism was humanitarian: Capitalism distances human beings from one another and leads to human exploitation.

But in the military, soldiers learn to live with each other and depend on each other to an extent almost unrecognizable in civilian life. They do not distance themselves from each other; they come closer together. While such tight cooperation might reflect the most effective way to accomplish military missions, it also reflects a fundamentally humanitarian outlook. In the movie Black Hawk Down, for instance, one character echoes many "real" American soldiers when he explains why men serve in the military: "We're in this for the guy next to us." In other words, military life leads to a deep care for one's fellow man, no matter what the ultimate political objective may be. In fact, for individual soldiers in combat, "the guy next to us" is everything.

This is no Hollywood sentiment. This is really how soldiers think. They always have, and not just in the United States. Soldiers sign up for additional tours not because they care about the geopolitical ramifications of their deployment, but because they do not want to abandon their friends. They care that much. They care so much that they willingly face death in order to make sure their friends will not face death alone. "We're in this for the guy next to us."

That is a noble motivation. And that is why it is distinctly un-American. In American civilian life, no one really lives "for the guy next to us." No, most people live for "me." Think about catchphrases that encapsulate success in American civilian life: "It's all about me;" "I'm gonna do what I gotta do to make it;" "I need to think about Number One." These phrases might describe effective ways to achieve success in a capitalistic society. They might even yield riches and fame. But there is nothing noble about them. "The guy next to you" is irrelevant to the man who says "It's all about me." Yet that's what it takes to succeed in a society committed to individual profit. And that's the attitude people must take toward their fellows in order to survive. In the end, the motivation necessary for success in American civilian life leads precisely to the danger that concerned Marx: Human alienation and exploitation.

There is a strange irony in all this. Americans praise the military all the time. They thank soldiers for their service. They ascribe immensely positive results to their work. But military life could not be more different from the civilian society soldiers protect. It takes a fundamentally different outlook to be a soldier than it does to be an entrepreneur. What motivates a soldier does not motivate an entrepreneur. What matters to a civilian does not matter to a soldier. Strangely enough, conservatives are the first ones to talk about a "strong military," yet reject socialism across the board. If they just looked at the way military personnel think about their fellow men, they would see the foolishness in that position. The military does not just practice "economic socialism" by ensuring material welfare for its men. It also practices "individual socialism" by inculcating a spirit of concern in every man for the well-being of his fellows. Those sentiments should enrage an American conservative. Yet they keep on saying: "God bless our troops."

God bless those socialists? What a laugh.

In sum, there is more to socialism than tangible social welfare programs. Socialism means true respect for one's fellow man. A socialist does not just concern himself with spending money on people who ostensibly "don't deserve it." A socialist also thinks a certain way about other human beings. He refuses to leave anyone behind or let his neighbor suffer. He does not view him as a potential profit, but rather as a friend who needs help. There is a motivational element to socialism that is--in essence--very noble. There is nothing "evil" about it, no matter how much we learn that "socialism" is a "dirty word." After all, how could something be "un-American" if our own soldiers practice it?

Socialism is about caring for others. Capitalism is about caring for oneself. There are essential motivational differences. When a soldier says: "I'm in this for the guy next to me," his motivation is clear: It's not about him. It's about the other guy.

Why is this a bad sentiment? It might be socialistic. But it's also Christian. And noble, too.

WHY DO AMERICANS HATE SOCIALISM SO MUCH?

AN ESSAY

Since Barack Obama won the White House last year, Republicans have galvanized their opposition by claiming that Democrats want to introduce "socialism" into American life. They do not really understand what "socialism" means; they just use it as a catchall pejorative to label anything they don't like. They don't like anything that makes them pay more taxes or finance other people's welfare. They don't like anything that transfers money to so-called "wasteful programs," like health care, education and environmental protection. They know that the word "socialism" sends shivers up American spines, so they use the word to describe everything they're not. They even criticize other countries for embracing "socialism."

But all these critiques fundamentally miscomprehend "socialism." The United States is not a socialist country, not even close. True socialism means that the State owns all property and controls the means of economic production and distribution. It also means that every citizen is literally equal to every other citizen. It is essentially humanitarian in theory, even if historical examples show that it can tragically fail in practice. No matter the historical record, there is nothing even remotely socialist about the United States. Americans live for private property and class distinctions. If they were socialists, they would not strive for these things; in fact, they could not even own property. Democrats are little different than Republicans in this sense. Neither party wants to abandon the free market system. The only debate is how much they want government to "interfere" in the free market.

This is the point at which Republicans stray into conceptual ignorance. They think that any government interference into the free market is "socialism." Yet this overlooks a trend that has evolved in the West at least since the early 20th Century: Increased government supervision over private economic enterprise. Governments in traditionally capitalist countries understood that leaving all economic functions to the free market led to labor exploitation, dangerous goods and unfair social relationships. Democratic governments (or at least quasi-democracies like Great Britain and the United States) also found that unbridled capitalism tended to subvert constitutional principles, such as human dignity and equality.

For these reasons, governments in traditionally capitalist countries began encroaching upon private economic liberties for the public good. They instituted labor control boards, product safety boards and oversight committees. They enforced minimum wages and guaranteed workers the power to fairly bargain with management. They even began creating social security nets and health care systems for their populations, distributing tax revenues in such a manner as to realize the dream of a better society for all. These reforms were all "social" in nature, but they never completely replaced the free market. Rather, they merely tempered the free market, reconciling principle with economic reality. Yet Republicans today call such efforts "socialism." This is simply untrue. If anything, Western Nations have "modified free market" systems, not socialist systems.

European Nations have generally made many more "social modifications" to their free market systems than the United States. For many reasons, Europeans have been willing to curtail unbridled economic liberty in order to bring greater social advantages to their populations. This is the reason why many Europeans do not understand why Americans cannot resolve their "health care mess." For Europeans living in "modified free market systems," it goes without saying that every citizen has a right to medical care at State expense. Yet in America, that sentiment is not so widespread. Here, there is always a grave tension between social "guarantees" and economic freedom. When social "guarantees" mean that some people cannot amass as much money as they could without the guarantees, they staunchly oppose any effort to curtail their economic liberty. This is the reason why social modifications to the free market system in the United States are much more modest than in Europe: Too many people resist them in order to preserve their ability to make more money fast.

Both the United States and European Nations are free market societies. Both allow private property. Both have central banking systems, stock exchanges and tolerate massive class distinctions. But citizens in European Nations have allowed government to restrict their economic freedom more than their American counterparts. In exchange for those restrictions, they live in more secure circumstances: There is universal health care, ample housing and free education. European Nations understand that pure free market life is not easy. Employment depends as much on the winds of the market as it does on individual ability. In that light, they made sacrifices to provide a safety net against the market's inevitable "down periods."

By contrast, the United States does not provide such a safety net. True, the United States does provide health care to the elderly, the disabled and those who serve government. It provides modest income to retirees and injured people. It also allocates some funds to protect citizens against homelessness and ruin. But that's about it; America's commitment to "modifying the free market" essentially stopped in the 1960s. Since then, any effort to make "European style" changes has met with angry cries of "Socialism!" Both Europe and the United States made substantial changes to their free market systems in the decades after the 1929 Crash. But only Europe continued along that path after the 1960s. Once America asserted global dominance, it somehow decided that caring for its own people was no longer a top priority.

I think this is an unfortunate development. Americans should not shy away from "European style" improvements to our social order because they are supposedly "socialist." Europe embraces free market capitalism, just like we do. It simply imposes greater controls on unrestricted economic liberty than the United States. Those restrictions translate into tangible social benefits in the form of health care, consumer protections, access to justice, labor oversight, transportation, child care, unemployment insurance, pensions and education. People do not go bankrupt financing their education in Europe, nor do they die waiting for a private insurance company to approve surgery. They might pay more taxes to finance these social protections, but they know they will always have a place to stay or health care if they get sick. Unlike Americans, they do not need to worry about losing their precious jobs if illness strikes. Yet all the while, they can own private property and perhaps get rich. Just because they enjoy social protections at government expense does not make them "socialist."

Why does America reject these things? What makes us so different from our European counterparts? Do we treasure our rugged "do-it-yourself" spirit so much that we tolerate social injustice on a massive scale? Are we too greedy or too proud to abandon our chance to make fabulous wealth at a low tax rate? What is it, exactly? I cannot pinpoint it; I can only speculate based on my own impressions.

One thing is certain: There is a poisonous aura surrounding the word "socialism," and that aura preemptively sabotages many efforts to implement meaningful reforms to our social system. Sadly, opponents to social reform in the United States do not even understand what the word "socialism" means. And they do not even understand that they are not opposing socialism, but rather incremental modifications to the free market system they love so much.

We have known for more than a century that pure capitalism does not work. Any system premised upon human greed will inevitably become top-heavy and collapse. And purely capitalistic values clash starkly with core principles central to a democratic State in modern times, such as dignity, fairness and equality. From the 1930s until the 1960s, the United States understood that. It made meaningful modifications to the free market in order to mitigate the social shockwaves caused by its cyclical booms and busts. But then the progress stopped. Capitalism failed again last year and people have felt the pinch ever since.

America will not progress as long as it embraces false rhetoric about "socialism." It is not "socialism" simply to safeguard our citizens from economic ruin in a free market system. It is humanity.

Then again, perhaps that is what really rankles Republicans. After all, pure capitalism and humanity don't mix. Genuine humanity is bad for business. Humanity makes it harder to exploit others. Maybe that's what all the Rush Limbaugh rhetoric about "economic liberty" is all about: Liberty means the freedom to be economically inhumane to others in order to advance yourself. Or, phrased another way, liberty means freedom from government regulations that prevent you from being economically inhumane in order to advance yourself.

Against opposition like this, we have a long way to go in this country toward social reform.

OBAMA IS GENETICALLY RELATED TO STALIN, MAO AND CASTRO : I HAVE PROOF

PALIN ON POLICY

Families are very important in America. I, for example, come from a very strong family. Alaskans believe in good family values. That's one of the reasons I entered politics. It saddens me to see declining family values in America. Children have babies out of wedlock. Parents divorce. And relatives abandon each other when one family member suffers a health crisis. Why? Because too many people have ignored traditional family values.

I am glad that I never turned my back on family values. My family is strong. We practice traditional American family values. I come from strong roots. I can prove who my father was. I even know my mother and grandmother. We all believed in the same things: Freedom, liberty, justice, nature, stag hunting, business opportunities, low taxes, gun ownership. We all liked the same things. We even kind of all looked the same, too. Family always gives you away; if you ever doubt who you are, just look at old family pictures and you'll remember where you come from.

Barack Hussein Obama does not believe in family. That is why he is destroying this country. It is no accident that he is a socialist. People from broken families turn into socialists or worse. Sometimes they become intellectuals or terrorists, or even intellectual terrorists. Over the last year, he has made war on traditional American values, like the freedom to buy private health insurance and the freedom to work for little pay. In short, Obama has already struck a grave blow at America's golden virtue: Responsibility. And only the right kind of families can cultivate responsibility.

This is not my grandfather's America. It is not even my mother's America. It is new and shocking. Government is telling everyone what to do. It is taking away people's property. It is sentencing old people to death under Obama's new "rationed" health care system. It is freeing convicted African killers and allowing them to rape white women. It is imposing unfair burdens on credit card companies. It is even paying for people's college education and freeing them from debt.

How could this be happening in America? What happened to our "do-it-yourself-no-help-thank-you" attitude that transformed us from frontiersmen into the greatest Nation on earth? What happened to paying our own way? What happened to me first, you second? Basically, what happened to the families?

Let's look closely at Obama. It is no surprise that he is ruining the country because he does not come from the right kind of family. People did not think that Obama would become a socialist once he won the White House. But I knew better. After all, I have uncovered evidence that decisively proves Obama's socialist ancestry. I hold an Honorary Degree in Investigative Biology from the University of Alaska at Elk's Bush. Using my expertise, I discovered some truly startling facts. Americans have long been worried about Obama's citizenship. But my research shows far more than Obama's lack of citizenship. It shows that he is genetically related to the worst socialists in history. I even have photographs to prove my points.

Let's begin.

Barack Hussein Obama's father was an African. Look at him; it's obvious:

Socialism runs rampant in Africa. Should we be surprised that son followed father? But the trail does not end there. No, Obama's father had an uncle in Southern Russia who was related to notorious Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. Family does not lie. Look at the resemblance:

Should we be surprised that Obama is dismantling the free market system? He is related to Joseph Stalin, for goodness sakes!

I wish this were the only bad news I discovered during my research. Unfortunately, it is not. I also found out that Obama's great uncle lived in China. By no small chance, that great uncle was Mao Zedong's cousin. Again, look at the resemblance:
Obama's socialist roots run deep and cross continents. He is related to Mao and Stalin by blood. He is an internationalist by family bond. If ever there were a time for America to stand up against this tyrant, the time is now.

But there is even more. Thanks to help from a prominent Genetics scholar at Elk's Bush, I uncovered another disturbing link in Obama's family tree. Specifically, after proving Obama's definitive relationship to Stalin and Mao, I determined that Obama's great-great-great-grandfather was seized in Africa and sent to the West Indies as a slave. Over the generations, Obama's forefathers intermingled with the local Spanish population in Cuba. One of his descendants is Fidel Castro. Again, let's examine the resemblance:
Can anyone deny the genetic link? I have the records and the photographs to prove that Obama is communist dictator-spawn. This is America. We believe in families, not dictators. And Obama descends from the wrong kind of family, make no mistake about it.

We must take action. Our "President" is related to infamous socialists from three Continents. When he talked about diversity during the campaign last year, this is not the diversity we had in mind. We he talked about international understanding, we had no idea he was the living embodiment of worldwide socialism. If we care about American families, we must stand against Obama. He is not an American. He is a frightening communist-African-Chinese-Cuban-Russian amalgam seething with anti-capitalist venom. He represents everything America detests. We cannot allow him to take a single step further.

This is about families. I care about family because I come from a strong American family. We take our commitments seriously. I refuse to allow Obama to destroy this Nation with his poisonous ancestry. It is my duty to inform the American people about who is really leading them. This is not an American. This is a socialist with bona fide socialist roots. If you see a dog, you can pretty much bet it will act like a dog. That is why Americans need to know about Obama's ancestry. Obama's relatives murdered millions and made war on free market economics worldwide. How can we tolerate a ruler who might do the same here in America? If we lose the free market, what do we have left?

Stand with me against Obama and his socialist pedigree. Obama may have fooled America into thinking he was a pillar of hope against economic despair. But my research shows otherwise. We must band together to stop his socialist machinations before it is too late. In one year, he has already made it more difficult for health insurance companies to deny customers coverage. That is the first step to communism. And if we care about economic freedom, we must act now. Because when insurance companies are not free to act as they please, we have fallen into socialism.

Let's tell this Maoist Stalinist Castro-African bandit that we don't appreciate socialism in America. America is for American families, not your kind of families.

TAKING ON AYN RAND AND A WORD ON MY FOCUS THESE DAYS

A REFLECTION

Yesterday I bought Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. For years, I've debated whether to read Rand's books. I always decided against it because I yielded to the general left-wing prejudice that Rand is a "capitalist muse" and "free market apologist." In submitting to that prejudice, I thought that because I lean toward socialism, I would inevitably feel revulsion if I read her works.

But I do not want to be intellectually prejudiced. I have always enjoyed reading authors whose ideas I detest, notably Adam Smith and St. Peter. I also really enjoy reading judicial opinions by arch-conservatives whose utter lack of sympathy provides me with prime material for satire. In short, I like understanding how my ideological opponents think. I disserve myself when I simply avoid their works. It is much better when I take the time to read them, and then ruthlessly criticize them. In most cases, my criticism takes satirical form. In some cases, however, I respond with text-based essays. In the process, I see my own values more clearly. To quote an old Chinese general (probably apocryphal): "If you know your enemy and you know yourself, you cannot lose." That explains my attitude toward reading everything, even the stuff university liberals urge me to avoid.

Ayn Rand has obviously had immense philosophical influence in America. I see people reading her books all over the place, even in the New York subway. Generally, they are well-groomed looking people (always white; usually women) with small bags who look like they are going to work or coming from work. I want to understand why her ideas have won so much traction over the years. I hear that she sings odes to the individual. In that sense, I share her views. But I also hear that she sings her odes in the key of "self-interest" and "free market economics." Here I part company with Ms. Rand. Still, I will withhold calling her books "scandalous drivel," "the most abysmal trash ever printed," "repugnant, odorous nonsense," or "sheer right-wing balderdash" until I have taken the time to read them and grasp their arguments. Contrary to most American judges' approach to judicial work, I will actually give Ms. Rand her day in Court before hanging her.

So far I have read the first two pages. I am not impressed with the style. "Wet with sunrays?" "Granite explosion?" "A body of long straight lines and angles, each curve broken into planes?" This sounds like bad high school poetry, not cogent economic analysis. But I am too hasty... perhaps in the next 600 pages I will uncover some comprehensible passages.

I also noticed that Ms. Rand published The Fountainhead in 1943. This was the height of FDR's New Deal. Was she angry about governmental intrusions into "private economic autonomy?" If she was, then her position mirrors modern-day conservative objections to increased governmental encroachments into private enterprise. Just as FDR revolutionized government's role in everyday American life during the 1930s and 1940, so too is Obama "threatening" increased government involvement in American life. I think this makes reading Rand a worthwhile enterprise; there is a historical parallel at work.

Having said all this, I am sure you have noticed that I have not written a satire in a while. In less fractious times, I generally alternate between essays and satires each day. But in recent weeks, my life has been fractious at best. I am happy to have mustered the strength and mental intensity to write anything at all. My satirical ideas arise when I feel relatively carefree and confident about the future. I have not been feeling that way lately. To the contrary, I feel as if my mind is in a vice grip. I cannot really see past tomorrow or the next day. I live from hour to hour. Things have improved since last week, but I am not healed yet. Still, I am glad that I have the mental clarity to write a few essays, even if they are not as nuanced or expansive as usual.

I can assure you that more satire will land on these pages. It's just going to take a while until I can really laugh hard again. In the meantime, thanks for reading what I manage to throw down.

MAKING STIMULUS WORK : AMERICANS WOULD RATHER HAVE JOBS THAN ART

ECONOMIC POLICY CONTRIBUTION

By : Mr. Cornelius D. Zimmerman, Ph. D., Senior Fellow, The Employers' Coalition for Effective Stimulus Through Greater Executive Compensation; Former Director, Gerstein Industrial Paint Co., Inc.; Author, "Money Talks : Paying for Loyalty is OK" (Bantam Business Publications 1997); University of Pennsylvania Business School (M.B.A. 1969).

For over a year now, our government has assumed an unprecedented role in our economy. Following the disaster that befell Wall Street last autumn, Washington has literally foot the bill for private investment losses. If employers need extra cash for operations, they just need to ask the government for it. If a corporation is running low on money for executive bonuses, it just needs to fill out some forms claiming "economic difficulty" and it gets a fat federal check. Washington calls these measures "economic stimulus." Still, many companies feel embarrassed about taking government handouts. But as business owners and employers, we say this: Do not be ashamed to take free money.

As a general rule, we believe in hard work and earning your keep. When we raise our children, for instance, we teach them that nothing is free. We teach them that traditional, daily employment is the only way to respectably earn money. We even teach them to feel ashamed for accepting too much help from other people. After all, a good, zealous worker needs no extra help. If he does, that means he has failed somewhere. Put simply, we do not appreciate government efforts to help people who are too lazy to work, or people who fail. When you fail, that's your problem.

Still, we relax our stance when we benefit from government spending. Workers should feel ashamed to receive government help, but we do not feel ashamed when the government bails out our companies. After all, our companies are necessary to the economy. Employees are less necessary. Anyone can type data into a spreadsheet. But not everyone can sit at a Directors' meeting and ask blustering questions about finance. We are different. Without us, employees would not have a place to work and earn. In that sense, it is perfectly acceptable for major companies to receive government aid without any shame at all. In fact, we deserve it. When government gives major corporations money, it acknowledges our vital role in the national economy. We salute the Federal government for its recognition that private corporations must remain profitably funded in order to maintain our free market system.

Yet government's willingness to spend money to support private employers introduces new issues. How can businesses benefit most from government's new largesse? We founded The Employers' Coalition for Effective Stimulus to answer exactly that question. If government wants to spend money to help pay our bills and our executive salaries, we think it is important that government spend effectively. Effective spending means cutting away needless expenses and putting money in the right places. That means guaranteeing two basic things: (1) That executives continue to receive their pre-2008 salary levels; and (2) That companies can employ more people at livable wages. Executives must receive their old pay because no business professional will take risks without it, and companies must hire more people because more employees mean more profits for executives, particularly when government pays for them. Without profits for executives, the whole system collapses. Who would want to run a business without profit? Thus, when government spends money on private companies, it must bear these two goals in mind.

Stimulus is still a relatively new concept in Washington. We believe that Washington can benefit from executive consultation on stimulus programs. First, we insist that Washington increase stimulus for our companies. Americans want jobs. We can give them jobs if Washington gives us money to pay them (less a service fee payable as executive compensation). Washington knows that Americans want jobs. Yet it sabotages its own stimulus efforts by wasting money on things Americans don't want, like art. At present, Washington spends billions on extraneous initiatives like the "Federal Writers' Program," the "National Endowment for the Humanities," the "Federal Performing Arts Fund" and many other "artistic" endeavors. This is pure waste. Americans could care less about art. However much they cared about art in rosier times, they don't want it now. No one wants to look at paintings when they are unemployed; they want a job. In a word, jobs are more important than art.

By targeting useless spending such as the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Federal Sculpture Society, we free up cash for job creation. By streamlining Federal aid, we ensure that money goes where it is needed most: To private employers. When more government aid fills corporate accounts, that means more jobs. Yet when government wastes money on photography, essays and art history lectures, that means less money for private employers. And when that happens, Americans lose jobs. It is no answer to say that private employers can pay their own employees. That is not the point: The point is that more money for companies means even more jobs for Americans. Neither we nor the American people will further tolerate government spending that prevents Americans from getting jobs. Put simply, every time the government spends money on art, it costs thousands of American jobs. This must stop.

Art does not pay medical bills. It does not send children to private colleges, nor does it pay mortgages. Art does not buy furniture, groceries or electronics. In a word, it is useless. In difficult economic times like this, Americans do not need useless things. They need jobs. They need things that will save them from bankruptcy and ruin, not pornographic sculptures and left-wing theater pieces. The Coalition understands the American people: The American people want jobs, not art. We know that Americans would much rather have a job at the local insurance company than free admission to an exhibit on splatter painting. Stimulus will not reach its full potential until government halts competing support for art.

America does not need art. America needs stimulus that works, not decadent luxuries like painting and novel-writing. Cutting arts funding will help us on the path to universal private employment. But there are other ways to create jobs beyond effective stimulus for private employers. For example, the Federal government can provide funding to private entrepreneurs to round up and burn existing art. Just as government created ready jobs for unemployed workers in the 1930s, so too can it create ready work for the unemployed in 2009. There are millions of artworks in the United States. Unemployed people can immediately get back to work looking for them, seizing them and destroying them. Even more Americans can stack up paintings, while still others can feed them into fires--all for decent pay. Skilled contractors can build furnaces for artworks, keep them fueled, clean them and maintain them. Thousands more can drive trucks transporting artworks between furnaces. Unemployed accountants can count how many artworks are burned each day at each furnace, then draw up ledgers detailing trends and productivity. These measures will provide immediate relief to millions and pay them a dignified wage. Furthermore, they will give unemployed people hope and a new sense of national pride.

We can do this. We must simply start rounding up and burning art. This is stimulus that works.

Americans can do anything they put their minds to. When Americans have a purpose, they are stronger than anyone else on earth. We can survive this recession by reevaluating what it means to live in America. There is nothing wrong with accepting government assistance. When stimulus stimulates private spending on employment and executive compensation, everyone wins. Additionally, when government shows the people that it cares about their jobs and even creates work for them, they feel proud to live in a country that cares for them. We can accomplish all these goals by cutting arts funding and destroying existing art. Thousands of Americans need work. Millions more need hope. Effective government spending will ensure that they all get well-paying, private sector jobs within the next twelve months. Anyone who wants a job will have one. After all, anyone can burn art. Even disabled people can play a part by telling able-bodied workers where to find hidden art.

For over two hundred years, artwork has accumulated in the United States. Destroying it will take years. During that time, millions of Americans will receive excellent wages. They will be able to afford their own health insurance, feed their children and even buy homes. Destroying art will provide all these benefits. And what will we really lose? Americans would rather work than look at sculptures or drawings. Employers would rather make suitable profits than cut jobs. Yet this is precisely what they will have to do if government does not streamline its stimulus efforts. In today's economy, government cannot afford to waste money. It must ensure that every dollar results in job creation.

Let us move forward. We can overcome this depression without socialism. We must merely spend money where it counts: On private employers, not art. Spending money on art led this country into despair and depression. Let us take our prosperity back. It is time to spend money on things that Americans want: Jobs. By paying executive compensation and destroying art, Americans will get all the jobs they want.

Let us get back to work. If you are out of work, tell your Congressman to abolish arts funding. And mention that you are ready to help look for paintings, sculptures, sketches and picture books. We have a new mission as a people: To work, not to hoard wasteful art. Burning art will unite us all.

Better days are coming. That means more jobs and less art.

VALUES IN THE LAW : WHY YOU CAN'T BE A LAWYER AND A COMMUNIST IN AMERICA

AN ESSAY

Values play a huge role in the law. They infuse American legal doctrine just as they infuse all other associational activities in the United States. Still, values do not blare as loudly through the law as they blare through in more visible discourses, such as popular politics. In fact, values dominate the law in a much more subtle way. After all, according to popular understanding, the law "is blind." In other words, it is somehow detached, fair, unbiased, neutral, cerebral, rational and just, even though it governs biased parties and hotly contentious subject matter.

But it is a mistake to think that values do not infuse the law just as deeply as they infuse popular politics. Through ostensibly "fair" and "neutral" rules, our common law actually reinforces a dominant value system, namely: A complex, bewilderingly unbalanced system prizing industry, commerce, individual responsibility and vested property rights. Broadly speaking, legal rules favor those who own property. They provide predictable guidance in disputes over property, land, liability and money. They encourage unbridled property exchange. They arm property owners with numerous advantages to stop claims that their property or business injured someone. Superficially, the rules appeal to justice. Yet when push comes to shove, the common law's commitment to "vigorous, predictable commerce" and "personal responsibility" (a value judgment in itself) takes precedence over "abstractions." Lawyers who dedicate themselves to justice in practice all too often find themselves submerged in a world of unforgiving procedure and dizzying, often counterintuitive "everyday customs." When they insist on justice before grumbling judges with full dockets, they often invite ridicule rather than respect.

In the end, the common law is not about justice at all. Sometimes justice happens to flow from the rules. But it's not required.

To be a really effective lawyer in the United States, you have to possess certain values. Specifically, you need to have a basic respect for property rights, social distinctions, governmental institutions, order, "appropriateness," commercial activity and the notion that people exist in the world to profit from one another. These values all find expression in American legal rules. They are not necessarily "correct" or "just" values in themselves; they simply reflect dominant values. After all, law has always reflected dominant social values. Those with power dominate others. They obviously will want to brand their views about the world as somehow "official," "correct" and "sacred." In the West, commercial power generates practical power. That is why the common law so rigorously incorporates commercial values.

You cannot be a really effective lawyer if you do not wholeheartedly accept these values. If you have qualms about the notion that profit is the reason why human beings interact with each other, you will have difficulty advocating for a business client who claims he lost money in a deal. If you cannot understand why a person should lose a lawsuit because he filed something a day late due to unavoidable circumstances, you do not possess the "order values" (ie, "deadlines are deadlines") so necessary to bring reliability and predictability to commerce. If you find it repugnant that a client can get away with fraud by inserting the word "or" instead of "and," you are too morally sensitive to be a lawyer. Lawyers comply with rules and zealously manipulate them in order to win money for their clients. Those are the values necessary to be an "effective advocate" in our system. In the law, a conscience is not an asset. It is an impediment.

On some level, all lawyers know this. Until the late 1960s, Bar Associations in virtually every State refused to admit prospective attorneys who conceded membership in the communist party. Some Bar Associations even asked applicants whether they agreed with communist philosophy or Marxism. Even sympathizing with socialistic ideals was sufficient to deny admission to a hopeful lawyer. This may sound appalling to anyone who believes in the First Amendment. But for anyone who understands the values inherent in the common law, this hostility toward communism is hardly surprising. In fact, it is perfectly warranted.

Why is communism relevant to law practice in the United States? Simple: Because socialistic values clash fundamentally with the values enshrined in most common law doctrine. State Bar Associations correctly presumed that anyone who truly believed in Marxism would not be able to "effectively" or "zealously" represent clients in a capitalist system. After all, communism teaches hostility to free market enterprise, economic exploitation, private property ownership and power relationships built upon commercial inequality. It also teaches respect for the dignity and equality of man as an individual, not as a commercial "instrument." Given these values, no one who truly believes in communism could serve a client committed to owning more property, dominating more employees, making more profits, seizing more land and basically becoming richer than his neighbor.

For better or worse, lawyers in the common law system are essentially accessories to capitalistic enterprise. Their very craft defends these values. A communist lawyer, then, would be a walking contradiction.

Our Supreme Court ultimately concluded that States could not condition Bar admission upon matters of conscience or belief, including belief in communist principles. But this does not mean that communists make good lawyers. In fact, I think that States' former restrictions on communist sympathies among lawyers made abundant sense. In our system, after all, lawyers owe a duty to "zealously" represent clients. It is an "adversary system." One side fights to the figurative death for his client's interests, while the other does the same for his client's interests. In most cases, a client's "interests" mean "property interests:" Will the client make money or lose it? To be "zealous," the lawyer must do everything under the sun to vindicate those interests. How could he do that in good conscience if he believes in communism? How could he pull out all the rhetorical stops to either enrich one person or drive another into poverty? Quite simply, he could not. In fact, his communist principles would disable him from putting up a fight at all on behalf of someone who just wants to make more money. Lawyers are ineffective when something blocks their ability to fight tooth and nail for their clients. If a lawyer truly believes in communism, his beliefs will surely block him from advancing legal rules that result in unfairness, economic inequality, class distinction, exploitation and crass private profit. In this light, determining whether a future lawyer believes in communism has prime relevance on the question whether he can "effectively" represent a client.

I write all this to demonstrate that the law is neither neutral nor detached. Contrary to popular belief, it is not "blind," nor does it always fall fairly. Put simply, it is a human institution that voices the values of the society that creates it. In the United States, power created law to suit its purposes. For the most part, those purposes are commercial. Commercial values dominate the law just as much as they dominate the minds of those who practice them. Why do criminal penalties for theft increase according to the value of the goods stolen? Why is stealing a car worse than stealing an old shoe? Isn't the act the same? Why does the law disfavor restrictions on the ability to sell land? And why does the law equip landowners with defenses that make it easy for them to defeat the claims of people who suffer harm on their land?

In all these cases, the answer is the same: Because the law enforces the values of those who own property and seek to gain more. Common law rules make it easy for them to make profits, sell goods, sell land, develop land profitably and defeat lawsuits brought by those who suffer injury due to these activities. They all reflect a dominant value judgment. Those who write rules will naturally tilt the field in their own favor. This is precisely what property owners have done with the common law: They have inscribed their self-serving commercial values into the rules that govern our society. If you own, you're in luck. If you don't, you're not.

Those who own lots of property certainly want fairness and justice for themselves. They commit themselves to it on paper. But when fairness and justice interfere with vigorous commercial activity, "exceptions can be made" and "procedures must be followed." And they expect their lawyers to defend their values and their interests, not start mouthing about "justice." A client in our system does not want abstract justice; he wants "justice for me." Generally, that means making a profit or saving a potential loss.

Against this background, it is no surprise that State Bar Associations ostracized communists. Communists just do not fit in a club dedicated to greasing commercial wheels and furthering profit ambitions. In fact, they probably would gum up the works by talking about "extraneous issues," like avarice in society, inequality and sympathy for disadvantaged people.

Common law judges don't care about all that. They want to know whether the testator used the words "within twenty-one years of the death of a life in being at the time aforesaid," or whether a paper was stamped on the 14th rather than the 15th.

Justice? That doesn't help resolve a case. Rules do.

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.

QUICK WORD ON VACATIONS : EUROPE V. AMERICA

AN ESSAY

I have many European friends. We communicate all the time on a forum. During the summer, they always write about this and that journey they plan to take. They call them "summer holidays." They talk about traveling far and wide. They talk about taking four weeks off--with pay--to wander around Eastern Europe or France. Some even talk about going to China or India. In short, they talk about vacations with true relish. When they get home, they talk about how refreshed they are. They even say they do not mind going back to work after so much enjoyable time on vacation. They don't feel guilty about forcing their bosses to find replacements while they're gone, nor do they check email or phone messages while sprawled on Brazilian beaches. Put simply, Europeans know how to relax.

I can't resist contrasting these idyllic reports with horror stories about vacation time in the United States. This morning, for instance, I read about a friend who plans to take several weeks to travel through Germany and Bulgaria. He will receive pay during his trip; his boss actually encouraged him "because it's important for you to relax" and "see the world."

In response, I described the typical working American's vacation plans:

If only Americans understood the value of real vacation time. Over here, people hem and haw about taking 5 days off, compromise and wind up taking a "monumental excursion" to a water park in some god-forsaken suburb.

What's the difference, then? For starters, there's the obvious temporal difference. Europeans just get a lot more paid vacation time than Americans. Americans are lucky to get a week off with pay per year (including sick days), while most Europeans--even entry-level twentysomethings--get five paid weeks minimum. But the real difference is about power. Europeans get so much vacation time because they have relatively more power over their work lives than Americans. Over here, people feel obsequiously honored to have jobs. Like good fawns, they are prepared to sacrifice everything to keep them. It is a hopelessly servile approach; it puts full power in the employer's hands. Employers take full advantage; they dole out one week's vacation, no more. All the while, they cultivate a belief that "taking time off is bad," causing workers to feel guilty about leaving the office.

In Europe, by contrast, employers do not dominate workers as much as they do in the United States. Additionally, workers in Europe keep both government and private industry honest through spirited political engagement. When governments in Europe deliberate measures that award more power to employers, workers revolt. When Congress does the same thing in America, workers meekly stay at home and watch Monday Night Football. Given such political apathy, it's no wonder American workers have virtually nothing by comparison to their European counterparts.

Europeans do not seem guilty about taking time off, either. I think this reflects another important difference between Europeans and Americans: The mental relationship to work. In America, workers tend to revere their jobs. They want to impress their bosses, advance and succeed. To do so, they want to make the best showing they possibly can. That means doing work at all times, even on weekends and holidays. This is the attitude that resists vacations: After all, how can you impress your boss in Toledo, Ohio if you are tanning on a beach in Brazil? You're not making the company any money tanning. Americans debate with themselves about taking any time off at all. They worry about making the wrong impression. They feel guilty about foisting their job duties on some poor sot who's stuck in the office. To assuage their guilt, they simply decide not to enjoy themselves when they ultimately go on vacation. They bring laptops and BlackBerries with them to theme parks, casinos and spas. They stay in touch with work when they are supposed to be relaxing. They even try to show their loyalty by agreeing to take off fewer days than the number to which they are entitled. They travel locally, not over long distances, "just in case they need to come back in an emergency."

In short, Americans don't escape their mental relationship to work, even when they are supposed to be on vacation. It's about work, not life. And people wonder why they are unhappy.

But Europeans forget work when they go on vacation. They don't take guilt-ridden 4-day "long weekends;" they take month-long sojourns. If someone has to pick up the slack at the office, so what? That guy will get his time off sooner or later, too. They do not bring office email accounts with them. They do not return work phone calls while drinking or dancing with friends in a Warsaw discotheque. More importantly, they actually have time to unwind, "switch from work mode," reflect and experience the world. At the same time, they are not worried about their bills, nor do they worry about the boss' wrath. Their bosses actually encourage them. This is the European approach to vacations. It is about life, not work.

Americans criticize Europeans for precisely that reason: They don't care about working enough. But what has America's dedication to work really won? Americans are generally more unhappy than their European counterparts. They face more anxiety and stress because they do not have a safety net. They face more workplace guilt and obligation. True, Americans keep more of their income than Europeans. If they're lucky, they can even own more property than Europeans. But what Europeans pay in higher tax they receive in a more compassionate existence. Their high taxes finance their month-long vacations and free medical care. And in some sense, their high taxes provide them more happiness. An existence with less guilt and less obligation is a happier existence.

But America won't change its mind about vacations any time soon. Employers hold far too much power here. It is not just economic power; it is psychological power. It is deeply entrenched, too. Until Americans stop feeling guilty about abandoning their poor-paying posts for more than two days at a time, employers will continue to hold their psychological edge. That pyschological edge maintains political apathy; and political apathy keeps employers strong.

In an abstract sense, vacation time is just a proxy for the much more significant difference between Europe and America: Who really holds the power? If you feel guilty about failing to serve your economic master even though you are entitled to take time off, are you really in control of your life?

Employers in America do not just control time. They control emotions, too. That is power.