HOUSING SPECIALS FOR TOUGH TIMES

REAL ESTATE MINUTE

At Reason, Commerce, Justice and Free Beer, we care about your well being. We understand that in tough economic times like these, even hard-working citizens find it difficult to secure basic necessities. Housing is a particularly difficult issue for many Americans. As employment shrinks, so too does the opportunity to locate affordable housing. For centuries, buying a home was the American dream. And now it is getting more and more difficult to realize that dream.

We understand that it is simply not possible to buy a home anymore. You need a lot of ready money to buy a home. And when you do not have a job, you don't have ready money. With unemployment now hovering around 20% nationwide, new homebuyers are virtually non-existent these days. Renting is the only way to go. In that light, we are pleased to offer our readers special information about rental properties.

We are committed to helping you survive this crisis. We encourage you to keep looking for work even if you've submitted 750 resumes since last fall and no one interviews you. We all need to dig deeper. We all need to cut expenses and save. We need to start hoarding coupons and looking for deals. When money is scarce, we need to adapt. That is why we are happy to provide some inside information about affordable housing deals. After all, you can't look for a job if you're homeless. You can't revise your resume if you live in a garbage can and spend all your time scrounging for discarded restaurant food.

Today, we are proud to associate with brokers from New York City's Manhattan Happy Homes Co., Inc. Like us, Happy Homes is committed to helping you find the home of your dreams--on a budget. Below, Happy Homes lists five excellent deals on New York rental properties. This is an exclusive offer. You--our readers--are getting a special first look at them before Happy Homes opens them to the public.

We are honored that Happy Homes cares about our readers. We sincerely hope that you will find a home today. And good luck on your job search! Keep your chin up. If you are determined, you will get a job, even on the 1000th try. Winners don't give up. From all of us here at Reason, Commerce, Justice and Free Beer, we salute our readers for their determination and resolve as they make their way through the storm.

Best wishes--and happy home hunting.

LISTING #1 - SPACIOUS LOFT!!! UNBELIEVABLE RENT!!! WON'T LAST!!!

You won't get space like this very often in New York! This is a must-see converted loft space for the adventurous tenant. It's a charming prewar building with reliable running water and optional heat. You will LOVE the period windows and high ceilings. Great ventilation and lighting from all sides, including skylights. Space is available for dishwasher, washing machine and dryer. Your friends will love the old-fashioned wall fixtures. Original flooring will blow you away. A little work will help. Wiring and plumbing negotiable. You even get FREE WATER! This is real, gritty New York living at its best. Pet-friendly building! And for $17,500 a month, it's a steal. Call today--it will be gone soon! (Two months' security, plus credit check, bank verification and board approval required for lease signing).

LISTING # 2 - CHARMING STUDIO IN CHELSEA - A BARGAIN HUNTER'S DREAM

Now THIS is a deal! Cozy Chelsea studio in a beautiful modern building complete with functioning elevator and lighting. Great neighborhood near nightlife, schools, transit, bars, buses and grocery stores. AMAZING SQUARE FOOTAGE : Plenty of room for furniture and appliances, too. Simple design with great potential for decoration and entertainment. Electricity included in rent! Pets allowed! A perfect bachelor pad or first apartment for new college grads. Best of all, it's a budget apartment: Only $8600 a month!!! That's right, only $8600 a month!!! You won't get a great price like this ever again to live in such a hot neighborhood. Isn't it time to treat yourself? Come on down and live in one of New York's HOTTEST areas in a HOT apartment--all for a bargain price (Full employment history must be submitted along with application, plus four months' rent and a blood sample. Landlord reserves right to reject African tenants, financial ability notwithstanding).

LISTING # 3 - OH YES - ORGANIC LIVING RIGHT IN CENTRAL PARK

Isn't it about time you went green? Well now you can with this UNBELIEVABLE rental smack dab in Central Park. Great views and lighting at all times. Heating optional (wood is available nearby for fires). Homemade plumbing system and spacious rooms make this apartment a MUST-SEE. Windows are original and charming. Pet friendly! Your dog will LOVE IT HERE! No worries about walk-ups here; it's all on the ground floor. This home is a MUST for culture and nature lovers. Plus you're just a stone's throw from the Guggenheim, 5th Avenue and all the bus lines. If you are committed to the environment AND you're chic, this is the apartment for you. Central Park address... does it get any better than that? And what a deal: It's yours for just $24,940 a month!!! Rent-stabilized!!! Call today. Don't let this one get away. (Tenant must replace all thatch, mud and dirt. Tenant is responsible for digging own privy. No exceptions. Only tenants with verifiable income over $450,000 per year (net) need apply).

LISTING # 4 - EAST VILLAGE - JUST WOW !

Incredible East Village one-bedroom in TOTALLY HAPPENING tenement building near Tompkins Square park. If you want cool, you've come to the right place. All original staircases, windows, fixtures and plumbing. FREE walls and FREE doors. We're talking EAST VILLAGE HIP here, baby. Steps from AWESOME coffee shops, thrift stores and wine bars. Not far from train lines, grocery store and pharmacy. A little work would make this classic New York apartment EVEN BETTER. Perfect for the working professional with demanding standards. Perfect for dinner parties, guests and business meetings. If you're ready to GET ON THE VILLAGE SCENE, look no further. It gets no better than this. And all for a measly $11,500 per month!!! Believe me, you WILL NOT find a rent this low ANYWHERE else in the village. Do it now. Don't lose out. (Subject to board approval. Only applicants with credit scores over 900 will be considered. No unemployed people. No homosexuals unless they agree to pay two years' rent upfront and indemnify landlord against property damage arising from homosexual activity (including unauthorized decorating)).

LISTING # 5 - MIDTOWN STUNNER - AMAZING VIEWS - GRANITE COUNTERTOPS

You will LOVE this cute and CAVERNOUS two-bedroom right off Bryant Park. Steps from 6th Avenue and Times Square. STUNNING all-granite countertops, modern kitchen and bath make this beauty a STEAL. Amazing West views provide great sunlight. Some electrical work needed, but not much. Original, modern flooring with a twist of natural charm. Your friends will LOVE the quaint lighting and brand new appliances. FREE running groundwater. Pets ALLOWED! Stalactites offer INCREDIBLE and UNIQUE decorating opportunities. Take it from us--when it comes to midtown, you will NOT find value like this for the money. When you're ready to dig your own hole in Manhattan, THIS IS IT. It's yours for just $37,000 a month. Don't wait! Call today! (Bathrooms and doors not included. Underground lake provides free plumbing. Tenant agrees to generate own electricity. Tenant agrees to hold landlord harmless for injuries resulting from cave collapse, falling rocks or subterranean animal attacks--no exceptions. Six months' security plus criminal background check required. Signed lease grants landlord right to sleep with anyone in tenant's household subject to notice. Failure to honor such right will result in material breach of lease and render tenant liable for full outstanding lease amount, plus treble damages. Tenant agrees never to bring any legal action against Landlord for any dispute arising out of this Lease for any reason whatsoever, including death).

ANIMALS CANNOT BE CRIMINALS

AN ESSAY

Several months ago, I wrote an essay outlining the relationship between moral choice and the criminal law. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/03/good-bad-or-just-sick-why-we-punish.html. I concluded that the criminal law implicates public morality in a way that other legal doctrines do not. Specifically, I pointed out that our society relishes the opportunity to pronounce both legal and moral judgment on "deviants" who make "bad choices." Finally, I noted that in some cases, it is impossible to channel moral outrage against certain trespassers--particularly the mentally ill--because they do not possess the capacity to rationally make "good" or "bad" choices.

Yet our society enjoys criminalizing things. It is an easy way to express condemnation for shocking outrages, even if it is not the most effective response. When we pursue someone as a "criminal," we collectively say that the he "broke from the moral norm." We justify his punishment by referencing his bad moral choice. Then we feel good about ourselves when he suffers for daring to violate the moral standard. Choice is the touchstone: Criminals know the behavior that society expects, yet they knowingly choose to violate it. In this sense, the criminal law acutely relates to popular morality.

Criminal sanctions make rational sense in two cases. First, there is the moral function. Under the "morality" theory for punishment (originally championed by Immanuel Kant), the criminal law prescribes exactly enough punishment to match the moral guilt in the actor's choice. The more shocking the choice, the worse the punishment. The morality theory focuses on individual choices; it envisions a direct confrontation between the law and the criminal. Punishment in this case does not aim to intimidate others; it is a discreet affair between the sovereign and the trespasser. True, society looks on and judges the moral deviant. But it serves no utilitarian purpose beyond venting moral outrage against the individual criminal. The "morality theory" has a significant role in the American justice system, but it is even more prevalent in civil law countries like Germany and France.

In the second case, the criminal law performs a strictly utilitarian function. Under the utilitarian theory, criminal law uses punishment against one man in order to frighten others from committing the same infraction. This is called "deterrence." Its focus is not moral; it is practical. Society does not like criminal choices because they disrupt the social order and cause damage to others. Society would simply like to see fewer criminal choices, regardless of whether the criminal acknowledges his moral failing. Deterrence is all about numbers: The criminal law performs a "practical" function if it reduces the number of robberies each year. Morality is not the issue; the criminal law just wants people to refrain from making choices that hurt others. In this sense, it is "useful" for everyone in society.

So how does the criminal law induce autonomous individuals to refrain from making certain choices? Simple: It threatens punishment to anyone who dares to make the choice. It assumes that people are rational actors. It assumes that they will engage in a cost-benefit analysis before making any choice. It also assumes that they do not like punishment, so they will not make choices they know will lead to it. When the criminal law aims to fulfill a deterrence function, it is not so much concerned with the individual criminal who suffers. Rather, it is much more concerned with all the potential criminals who watch the condemned man suffer, then say to themselves: "I do not want to meet the same fate." If the punishment inspires fear in those who otherwise might have committed the same crime, it serves its purpose.

Deterrence has always been an overt goal in the Anglo-American criminal law tradition. But it has fallen into disfavor in civil law systems. The German system specifically disavows any intention to deter future criminals by punishing present ones. Kant said that using one man as an instrument to frighten others demeaned human dignity and autonomy. That sentiment has found traction in Western Europe.

But no matter what punishment system a country adopts, the criminal law still assumes that people will act rationally. If a person cannot make rational choices, he cannot know whether his choice will violate an "intuitive moral standard." He also cannot make a cost-benefit analysis before deciding whether to commit an act that will injure another. And most of all, the criminal law only works on human beings.

This is not a facetious observation. Just this week, prosecutors in Connecticut actually deliberated whether they should bring charges against a chimpanzee that brutally mauled a woman last year. They also deliberated whether they should charge the chimp's owner.

What foolishness. The fact that prosecutors even entertained the proposition to charge an animal with a crime reveals a gross misunderstanding of the criminal law's basic functions. It would serve neither a moral nor a utilitarian purpose to punish an animal. After all, animals do not make rational choices; they know only instinct. They cannot grasp intuitive human moral teachings, nor can they feel fear when they see a fellow animal punished for making a "choice." Indeed, we might even wonder whether animals make "choices" at all in the way humans understand the word. Animals do not assimilate information as humans do. Nor can they learn to adapt their behavior to meet accepted "social norms." How can the law serve a purpose when the subject cannot even use language? Law must communicate before it can have any beneficial effect on society. Animals do not communicate with language. Thus, it is absurd to even consider using criminal penalties against them when they do something outrageous.

Still, Connecticut's debate about prosecuting a chimpanzee reveals a bothersome issue. Specifically, it reveals our society's reflexive--and ridiculous--propensity to use the criminal law to address any conduct we find abhorrent. In recent decades, States have greatly expanded their criminal codes. When there is a new social issue that arouses people's anger or disgust, there is an immediate push to criminalize it. Someone doesn't wear a seatbelt? Make it a crime. Someone texts while driving? Make it a crime. Someone doesn't inspect a restaurant every two weeks? Make it a crime. Someone forgets to feed their child lunch? Make it a crime. Someone did not clean their apartment? Make it a crime. Someone puts recyclables in the trash? Make it a crime.

In short, by making all objectionable conduct potentially criminal, States have diluted what it means to make "criminal choices." They have also shown that people just like taking revenge on things, even if it does not seem reasonable.

This explains why Connecticut prosecutors thought about prosecuting the chimpanzee. When something outrageous happens--like a chimpanzee chewing off a woman's face--people in our society rush to assign blame and take revenge on the culprit. This makes sense from a human perspective; human beings naturally thirst for revenge when injured. Oliver Wendell Holmes noted in The Common Law (1881) that both criminal law and compensation law flow from the natural human anger that arises when people get hurt: When a person accidentally slams his hand in a door, he kicks the door. Or when a branch falls on a man, he burns the tree. People want to take revenge against things that hurt them, even if they are inanimate, and even if it would serve no useful or moral purpose.

Criminal law is not the same thing as natural human revenge. It is a human invention with a human focus. It enforces human norms and aims to influence rational human choices. It makes no sense to apply it to anyone--or anything--that cannot make rational choices. If the criminal law cannot either: (1) Express moral outrage against a person who knew or should have known he made an intuitively "bad choice;" or (2) Realistically frighten potential criminals by punishing a convicted criminal, then it makes no sense to apply it. Animals cannot know they make "bad choices." They do not have the capacity to grasp complex verbal communication, let alone subtle moral principles. They also cannot be frightened from acting in ways that injure humans. This is why it is utterly pointless to prosecute an animal.

Now, that does not mean humans do not feel a natural desire to take revenge against an animal that hurts them. Just as people burn trees that fall on them, they can kill animals that pose a danger. But taking bald revenge on an animal is very different from prosecuting it, then punishing it consistent with law.

For better or worse, the criminal law has come to signify "revenge" in our society. True, the criminal law undoubtedly sates the natural human craving for revenge in many situations. But it would behoove us to remember that the two concepts are not entirely coextensive. Understanding the difference saves us from embarrassing spectacles, like seriously debating whether to hale a chimp into court to stand trial.

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!

BE BACK TOMORROW

Today I had to attend to some pressing administrative nonsense. It wasn't that important; it just took a lot of time and it cost me my writing time. Oh well; these things happen once in a while. If I don't square them away, I usually get angry letters from property owners who threaten me with various civil remedies because they didn't get their $34.20 on time. Hey, I don't want to deny a creditor the time-value of his loaned money, now do I? That wouldn't be very nice.

I will be back tomorrow to write the satire I wanted to write today. Not to give too much away, but it will involve Tiger Woods and everyone's favorite Russian Prime Minister.

See you tomorrow!

Oesterhoudt

CAR INSURANCE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN LIFE

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

No, I'm not kidding. This is no satire. If there is any correlation between broadcast airtime and importance in life, then car insurance must be the most important thing in life.

Watch network television for an hour. I guarantee that you will see at least four commercials for car insurance. During the same hour, you might only see one or two advertisements for erectile dysfunction or prostate pills. There might be an appeal to send money to children in Africa, or the odd statement from a tax accountant or a lawyer--who usually wants you to join a class-action lawsuit involving prescription medication or car insurance fraud. Mixed messages?

But I digress. Let's get back to the real question: What's so important about car insurance? Why are companies spending so much money--and wasting so much of my time--simply to say that they are selling indemnity contracts for my car? I don't even have a car; why the hell would I want car insurance? They talk about low prices (Allstate), discounts (Progressive) and savings (GEICO). Some take a "trust me" approach (Allstate); others try to throw in humor (GEICO and Progressive). Some provide more specific information, like the fact that they also sell boating insurance, garage insurance, homeowner's insurance, life insurance, renter's insurance and lawn insurance. Other provide no information at all, just a slogan and a phone number.

Animated geckos with cockney accents do not provide commercially relevant information necessary to make a reasonable free market decision, no matter what GEICO's Board says. On the other hand, advertisers don't care about providing information relevant to a reasonable free market decision. They just want you to remember them and buy. It doesn't matter if it's the "most reasonable choice" you've ever made. Advertisers target the visual sense: "See this? Now buy this." That's how it works.

This simple strategy explains why car insurance commercials dominate the airwaves. If a company has enough money to advertise, it will advertise as much as it can. After all, an idiot is more likely to remember something he sees ten times in two hours than something he saw only once during the same two hours. Advertisers like GEICO, Allstate and Progressive know that, so they deluge viewers' senses over and over again. Even if people don't think about car insurance every single day in their lives, advertisers make sure that when they finally do think about car insurance, they also think of their company. By bombarding the senses, advertisers create a mental connection. When the mind strays onto the topic "car insurance," it triggers the connection: "Must buy GEICO." When that happens, advertising has done its work. Advertisers don't want reflection. They want reflex.

Broadcast airtime is a precious commodity. It is very expensive. It can reach millions of people in an instant. It has the potential to spread knowledge, understanding and enrichment. If something appears in a broadcast medium, it carries weight: Someone had to pay a huge sum to air it. To convey a message in such a costly medium, the message must be "important." In that light, does it not reveal something about our society that commercials are the only messages that regularly appear in this medium? The broadcast medium could be used to enrich the population with meaningful messages. But in the end, it merely barrages them with animated geckos, cavemen, obnoxious women chirping about discounts and various entreaties to buy boating insurance. After all, car insurance is important: It's on TV all the time.

Some will inevitably say that commercial messages are the only way that networks can finance their non-commercial messages. But most non-commercial material on most television channels is utterly unenlightening. In many cases, it even bows to commercial pressures. Networks will not broadcast material that alienates their commercial sponsors. In a strange way, then, commercial messages dictate which non-commercial messages ultimately appear on television. Advertisers will not advertise on programs that do not draw people likely to buy their products. This limits the kinds of messages that people hear on television because everything comes back to commerce: The programmer must placate the advertiser first. Only then can he exercise some expressive freedom. Without the advertiser, he can broadcast nothing. Who's more important then: The car insurance company or the viewer who wants to see a show about medieval England?

In my view, this is all very pathetic. In the end, car insurance gets more play than momentous world issues in the United States. It may seem absurd to suggest that car insurance is the most important thing in life. Yet I promise you that you will see more GEICO commercials on television than programs about Darfur, the health care bill or the War in Iraq. Those things may be more "objectively" important, but they do not pay the network's expenses. Insurance companies do. So we hear their messages more than any other messages.

That's why it's perhaps not so absurd to say that car insurance is the most important thing in life. Our country dedicates more airtime to it than virtually any other single subject. If airtime is as precious as we hear, doesn't that mean that car insurance is important? It's getting all the airtime, so it must be important. Very important, even.

YOU TUBE SOLD OUT

A REFLECTION

I am a You Tube addict. I started using it way back in 2005. In those days, I felt special because I knew about this really cool secret site that let you watch videos that you hadn't seen in years FOR FREE. Not many people knew about it back then. It was like the early internet and Napster: It was uncensored, uncut, highly individualistic and--best of all--free. You could watch whatever you wanted when you wanted. It was simple and fun.

But you know how this story ends. Now everyone knows about You Tube. People even launch careers posting on it. And once big corporations realized how many people they could reach by tapping into You Tube, the Wild West atmosphere quickly eroded. Although I can't say exactly when it happened, big media companies bought up You Tube. They started tattooing advertising filth all over the screen, along with copyright notices and other hogwash. They even started sucking the fun out of You Tube by disabling audio tracks on videos that "did not obtain permission" from certain license holders. Finally--and most vexingly--they identified "popular" videos and forced viewers to sit through a full-blown ad (maybe for cologne, erectile dysfunction pills or a car or something) for 40 seconds before loading the video.

Now I can't just sit and browse videos at will. Now I have to sit through another fucking GEICO commercial before seeing James Brown perform.

All this regulation pissed me off. I like unbridled expressive forums. I don't like it when they devolve into just another cash-and-carry venture for greedy corporations. Yet that's generally what happens in America. I actually invented a rule to describe this process: "When a dollar can be made, it will be made, all other considerations be damned." Thus, when a medium appears to grab everyone's attention for a sufficiently long time, you know some corporate asshole will want to cash in on it. What starts as a fun phenomenon degenerates into just another profit opportunity. And when money's at stake, no one has fun anymore, let alone free rein to say what they want.

In a word, You Tube sold out. I suppose I can't blame the guys who originated the medium for handing everything over to the media giants. Hey, I'd like to be set for life, too. It's just sad to lose expressive free-for-alls like the old You Tube. Free-for-alls in any human endeavor are becoming increasingly rare these days. You always wind up contending with some stodgy corporate rulemaker who drains fun in order to guarantee a profit for the company. And as much as I care about artists who want to protect their works, I just don't see how it damages an artist's fortunes when some teenager posts a video on You Tube just for fun. In other words, P. Diddy won't go broke if someone replays an "All About the Benjamins" video from 1997.

Despite all the drawbacks, You Tube still serves an extremely valuable function. There are more videos on it now than ever before. You can still peruse as many videos as you want for free. You just need the patience to endure compulsory commercial excrement for several minutes per session. And sometimes you might discover that one of your favorite videos has been "removed for copyright issues."

I suppose there is one saving grace in this commercial sewer: Sometimes daring individuals rename videos that have been removed and post them again. This defies the regulators.

I like that. It shows that you can't completely suppress expression, no matter who holds what property rights. That's the internet spirit, too: There's still some Wild left in the West. You just need to look a little harder to find it.

AL QAEDA SURRENDERS

*BIG NEWS FLASH*

IT'S OFFICIAL : BIN LADEN THROWS IN THE TOWEL; HANDS HIMSELF OVER TO U.S.

Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer has just learned that al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden has "given up the war" against Western imperialism. He handed himself over to U.S. forces stationed in Puerto Rico. "You idiots thought I was in Afghanistan the whole time. All the while I was sunning myself right under your noses. Well, I'm giving up because I just don't feel like fighting anymore, not because you beat me. I need a break."

Mr. bin Laden spoke for al-Qaeda when he said that there was "no point" fighting against the United States any longer. "We keep on killing you and you just keep shopping. No matter how many people we blow up, you never change. What's the point? I'm sick of banging my head against the wall trying to convince you guys that you're not living right. Oh well; I'll sign whatever you want me to sign."

Commanding American general Raymond D. Odierno accepted Mr. bin Laden's surrender. He also demanded that Mr. bin Laden sign a peace treaty with the United States. "We end wars with treaties," explained General Odierno.

Under the treaty--informally named the Chillocothe Protocol of 2009 after a town in Ohio (for no particular reason)--Mr. bin Laden admits that he started the War on Terror and that he lost. He also admits that he is responsible for property damage exceeding $5.00 worldwide. The treaty provides that Mr. bin Laden and al-Qaeda will pay compensation for starting the war, as well as apologize to the San Francisco Fire Department for forcing its members to undergo additional disaster training. Mr. bin Laden further agrees to help Larry Silverstein--owner of the World Trade Center real estate--find a suitable new property for his commercial ventures. In short, Mr. bin Laden promises that he will not be a terrorist anymore. Rather, he promises to meaningfully contribute to the American economy.

For his part, Mr. bin Laden said that it was getting "tiresome" fighting U.S. Forces abroad. "They invaded our homelands, they defiled Mecca and they killed our families with cruise missiles. We tried to hit back at them, but they just keep coming. We wanted to show that they were Western barbarians obsessed with profit and oil. But no matter how many civilians and soldiers we killed, they just kept going to Wal-Mart without fear. You have no idea how frustrating it is to dedicate yourself to terrorism, and after 10 years Americans still aren't afraid. Does Kanye West look scared? How about Tom Brady? Dick Cheney? They're more afraid of the IRS than me. True, I suppose I've made some Americans' lives difficult by forcing them to endure strip searches and long lines at airports, but that wasn't my intention. I wanted to show the Americans that they are wrong about life. I've failed: They still just want to make money, go to the movies, eat fast food, watch Sunday sports broadcasts and purchase homes. Well, I suppose if you can't beat them, might as well join them. I give up. Screw it. Most of them will die of obesity-related illnesses anyway."

American authorities are pleased that Mr. bin Laden has proven so cooperative with U.S demands. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Mr. bin Laden for his "extraordinary efforts to comply with American requirements:" "Mr. bin Laden even agreed to convert to Christianity and celebrate Christmas with the Metropolitan Baltimore Caroling Society. He has agreed to buy Wii home entertainment systems for low-income children in the Bronx. In short, Mr. bin Laden has gone from villain to Santa Claus overnight. What an astonishing turnaround."

Despite Mr. bin Laden's agreement to cooperate with the United States, American authorities worry what his al-Qaeda followers will do now that he has surrendered. Thankfully, many former al-Qaeda operatives--including previously undiscovered "sleeper" agents both in the U.S. and abroad--have voluntarily given up and agreed to convert to Christianity. Like their leader, these operatives agree that fighting the United States is a hopeless cause. Many--including suspected mass murderer Mohammad Zazabi--have even agreed to abandon terrorism and work in the private sector. Mr. Zazabi even said that he was willing to wear an elf costume this Christmas season and hand out free perfume at Macy's in New York City. "If I cannot kill them, I will provide them fragrant waters. I will now show that I, too, can be someone in America," he said.

Hollywood celebrities are overjoyed that al-Qaeda has surrendered. "The War on Terror is over," said Zac Efron. "Let's welcome our new friends into our lives." Mr. Efron said that Disney has already begun planning a musical based on Mr. bin Laden's surrender in which Mr. bin Laden will meet the cast of High School Musical and dance several numbers, including: "I Used to Terrorize, Now I Just Texticize LOLLERS," and sing the solo "Tora Bora No More-A More-A."

Mr. bin Laden is a busier man now than he ever was as al-Qaeda's shadowy leader. He now has a schedule packed with interviews, book signings, university commencement speeches and motivational talks about leadership with Fortune 500 corporate boards. He is even slated to appear on FOX News as a Middle Eastern commentator.

"He knows what he's talking about," said Bill O'Reilly of his new colleague. "I can let bygones be bygones. Osama told me he doesn't like Obama, so he's OK in my boat."

"I am a rational man," Mr. bin Laden said during treaty negotiations. "I know when a cause is hopeless. Americans do not respond to terrorism, so I will not be a terrorist anymore. I'm a result-oriented person; I'm not going to play a losing game. I abandon strategies that don't work. Instead, I will just get with the program and pursue more profitable endeavors."

Mr. bin Laden's remarks about "results," "profit" and "winning strategies" won him kudos from industry leaders nationwide. "Part of winning means giving up on losing," said J. Ferguson Bradworth, CFO of Schluck Pharmaceuticals Co., Inc.

ALTERNATIVE HEALTH REFORM PROPOSALS : LETTING EVERY VOICE BE HEARD

PERSPECTIVES ON THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE

For over a year now, our country has grappled with "the health care problem." At every level of government--and even at every level of our society--we have debated the moral, ethical, practical and financial ramifications that will flow from health reform. For the most part, we hear two sides. One side says that the United States has a "moral responsibility" to care for its citizens' health, even if it costs an astronomical amount and inhibits private commerce. The other side says that private health care more than sufficiently provides medical services to the American people. It also says that any government foray into health care will lead to crushing taxes and bureaucratic interference in private health care decisions. The other side says that the private system--despite its flaws--maintains the classic American spirit of free enterprise that yields beneficial scientific discovery. Without an economic incentive to pursue medicine, according to these voices, such discoveries would wither away.

Our Nation cares deeply about these questions. Congress has ferociously debated health care for months. Our citizens have come to blows over the issue in town hall meetings from Maine to Malibu. Many Americans see the health care debate as a symbolic battle for the country's soul. For them, health care represents sacred ground: If the government trespasses on it, every American's liberty will cease to exist. Some even think that State-run health care will result in "Death Panels" that decide whether elderly citizens live or die.

Here at Reason, Commerce, Justice and Free Beer, we take no position on the health care debate. We merely provide a forum in which Americans--and even foreigners--can candidly offer their opinions about this very important issue. Nonetheless, we find it regrettable that the debate has broken down along traditional political lines. We believe that democracy can only work when every voice is heard. And in the health care debate, it seems we only hear two voices: One Democratic, the other Republican.

As a serious news outlet committed to robust public debate, we believe that the American public has a right to hear alternative proposals for health reform. In that light, we are proud to share our readers' suggestions about how to solve the health care mess in the United States. These suggestions do not fall into the traditional conservative/liberal dichotomy. Rather, they express the compelling variety that makes America such a great Nation. We believe it is time to let every voice be heard on the health care question. Silence benefits no one. Our democracy can only survive when we allow everyone to speak, even those with whose perspectives we may disagree.

SUGGESTION #1: THE ARCHITECTURAL SOLUTION

Dear Sirs,

I am sick and tired of the Democrat-Republican back-and-forth over health care. As a working civil contractor with mouths to feed, I would like to suggest an architectural solution to our health care problems.

Health care takes place in buildings. It costs money to maintain buildings. In fact, the more square footage you have, the more it costs to pay for a building. Now, we could save so much money in the health care system if we simply tightened our belts and knocked down one wall per room in every health care establishment. Think about it. Every room in every hospital, clinic and doctor's office has four walls. If we just sacrificed one wall in every room that provides health care in America, we would reduce health care expenses by 25%. That money could be used for research, charity and providing care for the uninsured, all without governmental interference. We just need to do without one wall per room.

We can do it. We just need to tell ourselves that four walls is too many. I'm ready to make sacrifices. Are you? As a contractor, I know that most walls are unnecessary; we can get rid of a few. And when we do, we'll be amazed how much money we'll save.

Yours truly,

Bill McCloskey, Contractor, Omaha, Neb.

SUGGESTION # 2 : THE PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTION

Liebe Mitleser (Dear Readers),

In 1934, the new government in Germany declared: "God cannot have wished that a deformed baby live." We believe that statement can help America solve its health care problem.

America spends untold amounts caring for malformed children. It spends even more keeping people alive who would not have survived in nature. These people force up costs for everyone else who needs health care. And caring for them yields no increase in production. After all, caring for a deaf-mute with deformed arms for 40 years will not transform him into a Nobel winner or a successful grain wholesaler. Rather, he remains a muted cripple--and a money pit.

We believe, as the new government in Germany believed in 1934, that it makes no sense spending national treasure preserving worthless life. America could save countless dollars if it simply euthanized crippled children and hopelessly injured adults. These vegetables represent the single-most expensive item on the health care menu. Caring for them results in massive financial wastage without any hope of return. This is simply not good financial management.

We propose a final solution to the health care problem. By neutralizing high-priced cripples, mentally-defective children and brain-dead accident victims, we will flush the system with money, as well as free hospital beds for productive citizens who actually stand a chance to recover. We must be pragamtic. We must care for those for whom care will actually make a difference, not those who will never pay tax, never serve in the army and never invent anything worthwhile for society.

If we wish to reform health care in America, let us provide care only to those who can contribute something for the investment we make in them.

Sincerely,

E. Fritz Goebbels, Insurance Broker, Lansing, Mich.

SUGGESTION # 3 : THE CULINARY SOLUTION

Americans fail to understand just how expensive hospital food is. Every year, the health care system spends over $450 billion on low-quality entrees--including pudding--to feed patients. Although this is a shocking fact, I believe we can turn it to our advantage.

I have worked in the St. Luke's Milwaukee Critical Care Unit for over twenty years as Patient Diet Supervisor. During that time, I have seen first-hand how much money we waste on bad hospital food. True, we have nourished patients under our care. But they all complain about the food and many say they would rather eat their shoes than another foil-wrapped Chicken a la King.

I think we can meaningfully reform the health care system in America if we simply stopped serving food at hospitals. Patients don't like it anyway. Plus it costs over $450 billion per year. By dispensing with daily meals, we would free up funds that could be used to perform surgery, set splints, buy medication and open new wards.

Naturally the objection follows: So what will the patients eat? Simple: Anything they want. Nothing is stopping them from ordering their own meals or--God forbid--cooking themselves. Responsible citizens manage their own diets. Just because they are in the hospital should not make them think they can't cook for themselves anymore. If they want KFC, they can order it. If they want to cook a four-course Italian banquet complete with wine and cannoli, let them. This is about personal and financial responsibility.

Some patients might be too sick or injured to order their own meals. In that case, relatives can cook or order for them. It might be difficult for a relative to insert a chicken wing into the mouth of an intubated child, but no one said health reform would be easy. If some patients die because they cannot eat outside food, that's the price we pay. On the other hand, we will happily provide feeding tubes for patients who do not feed themselves. We simply leave it to the relatives to fill those tubes with milkshakes or other liquid meals.

It is amazing how much money we'll save by closing down hospital food services. Plus we'll encourage individual responsibility and healthy eating choices among the patients.

Yours very truly,

Julie M. Wakaska, Patient Diet Coordinator, Milwaukee, Wisc.

DO WE SPEAK TO UNITE OR TO DECEIVE?

AN ESSAY

As I mentioned last week, I'm re-reading Aristotle's Politics. Surprisingly, I found myself agreeing with many of his points about human beings and their motivations. That surprised me because I always took a prejudiced view against Aristotle. In college, I dismissed him because he was an "absolutist" about truth. But now that many years have passed--and now that I have read so much more--I approach Aristotle with more forgiveness. I do not read him with a smirk anymore. Rather, I read him for what he is: A classical metaphysician. I like some points; I don't like others. It's like reading anyone else.

Yet Aristotle is no average writer. He is a giant among Western philosophers. His views on virtually every subject became dogma for centuries. Men died challenging Aristotlean doctrines in the Catholic church during the Middle Ages. Others risked everything to dispute Aristotle's teachings about ethics and astronomy. As time went on, scientific advances dethroned Aristotle's pre-eminence in some areas. But in others, his influence remains strong--and still relevant. After all, Aristotle wrote about politics, ethics, human beings and beauty. These things cannot be reduced to mathematical fact. Rather, they constantly invite debate, interpretation and reassessment.

Aristotle's political work certainly has continued relevance. Like all the political philosophers who followed him, Aristotle begins by discussing human nature. Aristotle approaches the question with his usual confidence: He makes conclusions as if they were obvious, even if they are just assumptions. He also plays the biologist, constantly comparing humans to their analogues in nature.

I love any discussion about human nature. And I have always disagreed with Aristotle's view here.

Aristotle claims that men are "political animals...by nature." The Politics, Book I, ch. ii, para. 1253a1. He makes this conclusion by examining the key difference between men and beasts: Men have speech. He acknowledges that both animals and men have voice--cows can moo and dogs can bark to voice their feelings--but speech is unique to man.

This might not seem like a profound observation, but Aristotle's understanding of speech is remarkable. The consummate metaphysician, he argues that "speech has a single purpose" and no other. Namely, it enables men to "indicate what is useful and what is harmful," and "what is just or unjust." Id. at para. 1253a7. Finally, he draws the ultimate distinction between men and animals: "[H]umans alone have perception of good and evil, just and unjust." Id.

For Aristotle, then, speech has a justice function. It not only allows men to communicate their feelings, but it exists to help them find what is useful and just for all. This is the natural purpose of speech. It is imbued with a sensitivity for morality (good and evil), practicality (useful and not useful) as well as justice. These are profound concepts. And Aristotle speaks in absolute terms. There is one "good," one "evil," one "justice" and one "useful." In his view, speech enables man to find them all--and to organize States on that basis. Man is not only a speaking animal; his speech allows him to unite with other men to find universal justice in a useful society. What a remarkable assertion.

It is a remarkable assertion because it invites so much scorn. I naturally shy away from absolutes. Aristotle always offered me a tempting target because he reduces complex issues into absolute "sayings." His argument about speech--and human nature--strikes me as impossibly naive. Aristotle's philosophy of "specific purposes" (teleology) always leads to moments like this. After all, how can we say "speech is for justice and unity" when even brief life experience reveals that men often do not use speech for those purposes? Aristotle assumes that speech leads to cooperation and good. But life experience refutes this: Men lie. They don't cooperate. They don't tell the truth. They divide from one another and twist language to advance their narrow interests. And they certainly do not always use language to find justice. In most cases, language leads to injustice.

For his part, Aristotle would say that deceivers do "not use speech according to its purpose." This is a laughable objection, unfortunately: If language's "natural purpose" is to "find justice," then I would argue that people rarely use it "naturally."

Broadly speaking, Aristotle's theory of language reflects a good view of human nature. Aristotle believed that men naturally worked with one another to achieve a "good life." See Politics, Book I, ch. ii at para. 1252b27. He thought that speech gave them a natural tool to discover useful methods for securing a "good life," as well as to distinguish "good from evil," "right from wrong" and "just from unjust." Finally, he thought that men naturally cooperated with each other to achieve a "good life" filled with justice.

These are admirable sentiments. The problem is that Aristotle assumed everything he concluded. Every philosopher must assume certain basic principles in order to develop his theories about life. Aristotle's assumptions sound appealing, but they remain assumptions. For my part, I cannot assume that men are good by nature. And because of that, I cannot assume that men generally use speech for good purposes. Men unite with speech, but they also deceive with it. Men do good with speech; they also do bad. It is no answer to say--as Aristotle does--that they are merely "ignoring speech's natural purpose." There are no overreaching purposes. We simply attach them according to our individual sensitivities.

Aristotle thought that he could find truth by assigning specific purposes to everything open to human experience or imagination. And he assumed that one "truth" exists to be found: That was his worst assumption of all.