PROPERTY OWNERS SPEAK OUT AGAINST DISABLED AMERICANS

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Mr. Irwin D. Gallant, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Lexington Property Management Group LLC (A Delaware Limited Liability Company specializing in commercial property rentals to Fortune 500 companies in cities across the Nation); Harvard Business School (M.B.A. summa cum laude 1990); Avid Jogger; Amateur clockmaker and watch collector; Christian; aficionado of numerous activities requiring undamaged arms and legs.

Hey you. Yeah, you: The fat fuck in the wheelchair. Get a goddamn move on it. I've got a whole line of customers trying to get into the store, and there you are struggling to maneuver your fucking lard cart through that double door. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We know you're disabled. But it's about damn time for property owners like me to tell you what we really feel: We can't fucking stand your lame asses.

How many times have property owners felt this way? They all do--every day. Disabled people are simply not fast enough to keep up with the pace of business in America. They frustrate normal people with functioning legs who are just trying to go to work, buy a few groceries and get home before 10 PM. And how much money have property owners spent trying to accommodate these worthless crippled fuckers? Let me give you a ballpark: BILLIONS!@!@! And I'll tell you another thing: Building expensive ramps for drooling fucktards with canes has driven numerous enterprising Americans straight out of business.

America faces worse threats than foreign terrorism. As a property owner and businessman, I can say without hesitation that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is the greatest threat to liberty this Nation has ever encountered. Fuck the Times Square bomber; he didn't hurt anyone. But the ADA hurts honest business owners every day by requiring them to build costly additions to their properties on their own nickel. And when business owners hurt, the whole country hurts.

Think about it: The Red Lobster on West 41st Street could have hired 100 dishwashers and 50 waiters in 2009 if it hadn't had to install a freaking "supplemental dumbwaiter" to lift paralyzed midgets from the dining room to the balcony. So in the end, a few lazy fuckheads got to eat the fried shrimp special in 2009, while 150 people lost their jobs. Fair trade? I think not.

Liberty is about owning property and doing whatever you want with it. Liberty is also about making as much money as you can from your property without worrying about other people. But the ADA forces property owners to do things with their property that they'd rather not do. It forces them to accommodate people on their premises who do not help them make more money. This violates property owners' liberty. It also robs them blind by compelling them to build doorways, elevators, extra exits and conveyor belts all over the place. That shit is expensive. And when business owners spend money on useless shit like that, it prevents them from paying out dividends, hiring people or opening new locations.

Put simply, the ADA is a terrorist law because it tramples liberty. In fact, most business owners would simply prefer to die in a car bomb explosion than watch their companies go bankrupt after wasting all their money on unnecessary elevators. Castrating a business' economic potential is just as terroristic as slamming airplane into a skyscraper. The result is the same: People lose their jobs--and their lives. And both are scary.

When we reflect on just how much it costs to comply with the ADA, we must ask ourselves: For what? What do we get for destroying businesses and bankrupting property owners? What do we get for boosting unemployment and dampening our prosperity? A society in which crippled fucktards can wheel into any building they want to spend their pension money.

I know it's "American" to say that everyone deserves an "equal opportunity" to see the Yankees or eat at Red Lobster. But who really gives a flying fuck about some paraplegic kid with a tube down his throat? OK, so we build him his own goddamn elevator and his own goddamn entrance door. Once he's in, does he spend money? Maybe his mother buys him a candy bar, a hot dog or some shit… oh wait, he eats through a tube. Never mind. What I mean is that crippled fucktards don't usually have much money to spend, and there aren't that many of them anyway. So basically property owners waste all that money accommodating them; and they get zero in return. In business, that's called a loser bet. And that's exactly what the ADA forces property owners to do.

I know what you're thinking: How can I be so mean when talking about Americans with disabilities? Well, I've got a simple answer: Because I'm honest. Life isn't easy in America. It isn't easy to run a profitable business and pay your bills. Life is fast-paced; if you can't hack it, you can't hack it. It's hard enough to turn a profit even with full body function; you can just forget about it you're legless. If you had the bad luck to get crippled--or you were born with some freakish defect that condemns you to lifetime care--that's your problem. You have no business doing business. You shouldn't be in the race. Sorry about that. That's just the way the ball bounces, mon frère. Apply for charity or something. Just don't stand in line or apply for a job with everyone else. You really annoy us.

Normal Americans just plain don't like being around crippled people. It makes them uncomfortable. When a family goes to the museum, they don't like waiting for a half-dead, moaning retard on a motorized gurney to navigate a narrow passageway. When young professionals go to a discotheque on Friday night, they don't like waiting two minutes for a blind war veteran on two canes to hop his way up the steps. When hardworking American workers get home at night, the last thing they want is to wait for a paralyzed woman to fish out pocket change in line at the grocery store.

In a word, crippled people frustrate and frighten everyone around them. Nobody likes them. Nobody has patience for them. In that sense, it is perplexing that the ADA forces both business owners and customers to deal with them on even terms. If it were up to the American people, they would stay away from cripples like the black death. But the law forces Americans to treat them "equally." This is both wrong and unjust.

To summarize: Commercial life is fast-paced; and disabled Americans are not fast-paced. They simply cannot cut the mustard. From an evolutionary standpoint, crippled people don't belong in commercial life. They can't keep up. That's the truth, no matter what goody-goody rhetoric apologists on it. If it came between hiring an able-bodied man and a wheelchair-bound man for the same job, no rational employer would ever hire the cripple. Why should he? If both men had the mental ability to do the job, why hire the man who needs a special entrance door and elevator just to get into the building? Why assume the extra trouble? In business, we move fast. We avoid inconvenience when we can. And cripples are inconvenient. The bottom line is that we don't have time to be nice. Time is money. So we hire the man who takes less time to do the same job. Plus he can get up and run errands once in a while.

Commercial life is like nature: Only the strong survive. Yet the ADA compels commercial actors to accommodate cripples and hire them on equal terms, no matter how unprofitable it may be. This is not only counter-evolutionary. It is also unnatural. Would a bee colony support bees without wings? Would a cattle herd help a cow with broken legs? Certainly not: Caring for cripples threatens the well-being of the healthy community. Commerce, like nature, is a death struggle against bankruptcy. Just as a herd depends on healthy, contributing members to avoid death in nature, so too do commercial actors depend on healthy, contributing employees to avoid bankruptcy in commerce. And just as a herd abandons crippled members to avoid death in nature, so too do commercial actors jettison crippled employees to avoid bankruptcy in commerce. In this light, the ADA forces commercial actors to unnaturally hire crippled workers who do more harm than good for the enterprise.

Viewed as a whole, the ADA terrorizes liberty and makes war on nature. In the name of "decency, compassion and humanity," it forces property owners into bankruptcy just to accommodate worthless crippled Americans. It hamstrings employers by forcing them to hire employees who are physically unable to make money. And it frustrates everyday Americans by forcing them to watch pathetic cripples take entirely too long to accomplish rudimentary commercial activities, like boarding a bus.

What is liberty if not the freedom to spend money as we please, to hire whom we please and to keep the company we please? And what is liberty if we must spend money in ways we'd rather not, hire clearly unsatisfactory people and keep uncomfortable company with paralyzed invalids who defecate on themselves in public? That is not liberty--that is terrorism.

As a property owner and an American, I say with all my heart: The Americans with Disabilities Act is terrorism. And I believe in freedom. That means the freedom to shut out cripples from movie theaters and fire people without arms. And it also means the freedom to walk into a grocery store at 6:45 PM without fear that a deaf-mute fucktard on crutches will hold up the line for seven minutes.

I speak for all Americans who believe in unrestricted commerce when I say: "Hey lady. Yeah, you, the amputee. Pick up the fucking pace, will you? I just got out of work. Friends is on soon and I'll be damned if you take two more fucking minutes to pay for that soup."

LIFE, DEATH, ABORTION, SCARFACE AND HAMLET

AN ESSAY

I grew up in a ferociously pro-choice household. From my earliest memory, my mother told me that abortion was a woman's right. It was her choice to decide what to do with her body. Those ideas filtered into my mind. I never thought much about it. I never thought abortion amounted to murder. In fact, I remember my mother used to say: "It's nothing but a clump of cells. It's not even a person. You're not hurting anyone when you pull it out of there."

I was satisfied with her explanation. It passed my empirical scrutiny. After all, I had no memory about my own life before I was three years old, let alone memory about my time in the womb. I recalled no pain from that time. In that light, I perceived no moral problem in terminating a pregnancy: It just didn't hurt anyone.

I could not identify with a fetus; I may have once been a fetus, but if someone had rooted me out before I was born, I would not have known the better. There seemed to be no suffering in abortion. I had no problem with it.

When I was a little older, my mother told me that she had had an abortion three years after I was born. That made me understand why she so fiercely advocated abortion rights: She had needed an abortion and she got one. She told me she could not have supported another child. I completely agreed with her. I did not want another sibling, either. I liked my mother's undivided attention. So we both had some self-interest in our beliefs about abortion. I never regretted the idea that I "may have lost a brother or sister." I supported my mother's decision. In fact, I fully endorsed her main argument: That no one has a right to tell a woman what she should do with her own body.

I carried these beliefs with me to law school. They informed my understanding about the Constitution. I read Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), as if I already knew what it said. In essence, Roe held that a woman has a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy at any time before "viability." It reaffirmed my own belief that the State has no right to interfere with a woman's reproductive choices because we all have a right to "privacy" in our bodies.

But there were people in my class who strongly disagreed with Roe. They thought that abortion was a crime. They thought that there was such a thing as "potential life," and that the State had a right to protect "lives that did not yet exist." My own values clashed with that argument. I had always believed--thanks to my mother's explanations and my own empirical conclusions--that fetuses were not people. They were just "clumps of cells." I did not consider them "alive." And even if they represented "potential life," that concept was far too nebulous for me to defend.

Still, many people vociferously believe the opposite. In fact, there are probably some people out there who would kill me for my belief that abortion is acceptable in virtually every circumstance.

In recent years, I have been obsessed with death. When my father died suddenly in 2006, it forced me to reevaluate every assumption I had about life. I pondered life's meaning, its "rewards" and its expectations. After all, I saw that life can end without warning. And all the things that we learn to expect from life can evaporate in an instant. We are all just going to die--in fact, we might even die tomorrow--so why stress out about little things, like careers and money? What do they gain us in the end? Why waste time on them? Why waste a single day on something unappetizing? If all we have are our bodies, why torture ourselves doing things we would rather not do?

I developed a contempt for life. I am still quite contemptuous about it. What does life really have to offer, anyway? Food? Sleep? Orgasms? Comforts? Feather beds? Money? Joys? Is this everything? Are we mere slaves to our senses until the day our senses cease functioning? What difference will food and orgasms make once we die? None, none, none. In fact, those are only the good sensory things that can happen to us in life. More often, life inflicts unbelievable sensory suffering on us. We endure physical pain and emotional turmoil. We endure heartache, delay, disappointment, rejection, boredom, stress, betrayal, mockery, abuse and frustration. The bad moments usually far outnumber the good ones. Then we die. Taken as a whole, then, life is a losing proposition.

That's not to say that I do not sometimes like living. It feels good to eat, sleep, have sex, talk with friends, love people, be loved, sit in a comfortable chair, listen to music and read books. I like being alive in those moments. But is this all there is? And do I have to endure all the bad stuff for these few good moments?

Many others have come to these same sad conclusions about human life. In Brian de Palma's Scarface (1983), drug kingpin Tony Montana achieves the height of earthly success. He has a beautiful wife. He has untold riches. He has a huge villa in Florida. He has a massive hot tub. He throws mammoth parties. He wants for nothing. Yet after an argument at an expensive restaurant one night, he turns to his best friend and despondently says: "Is this it? Is this what it's all about, Manny? Eating, drinking, fucking, sucking, snorting, then what? You're 50 with a bag for a belly."

Tony Montana developed a contempt for life. He did not care about what it had to offer, even though he had it all. And he did not mind dying after he saw how little life really matters.

Shakespeare's Hamlet thought the same thing. In several scenes, Hamlet rues the crude banality of human existence. Like Tony Montana, he says: "What is a man,/ If his chief good and market of his time/ Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more." Hamlet, Act IV, sc. iv, l. 31-33. Hamlet understands--as I do--that life's so-called "good things" add up to little more than "[b]estial oblivion." Act IV, sc. iv, l. 38. In fact, Hamlet grows so disenchanted with life's petty potential rewards that he prefers death to living: "O that this too too solid flesh would melt,/ Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew!/ Or that the Everlasting had not fixt his/ Canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God! O God!/ How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable/ Seem to me all the uses of this world!/ Fie on't! O, fie! 'tis an unweeded garden/ That grows to seed; things rank and gross in/ nature/ Possess it merely." Act I, sc. ii, l. 129-138. Later, he dismisses the world as "no/ other thing [] than a foul and pestilent/ congregation of vapors." Act II, sc. ii, l. 308-309. And he dismisses man, too: "What piece of work is/ man!...what is/ this quintessence of dust?" Act II, sc. ii, l. 309-310, 314-315.

Is this what it's all about, Manny? A "quintessence of dust?" "Bestial oblivion?" An existence "weary, stale, flat and unprofitable?" "An unweeded garden that grows to seed?" "A foul and pestilent congregation of vapors?" Taken in the abstract, Hamlet is dead on. Life pretty much sucks. And even the good stuff is a pretty poor palliative for the endless difficulties it inflicts upon us.

I am permissive toward abortion because I really could care less whether another person enters this brutal world. After all, earthly life offers little more than "bestial oblivion," anyway, so why should I care whether some new beast gets to eat, sleep or feed? It just doesn't matter to me. If a woman chooses to end her pregnancy, good for her: She's saving the little tyke a whole lot of trouble.

But what about abortion opponents? They must have different expectations from life than I do. They must not really ponder human existence. They must genuinely like what life has to offer. They must really like eating, sleeping, fucking, sucking and snorting, even if they wind up with bags for bellies. After all, they are willing to kill doctors in order to defend potential life. Let me say that again: Potential life. They like life so much that they are willing to commit murder so that a clump of cells may one day eat, sleep, fuck, suck and snort. They are committed not just to an existing person's right to eat, sleep, fuck, suck and snort. They are also committed to a non-existent person's right to do so. Now that shows real dedication to earthly life. It's a dedication I certainly do not share. To each his own, I suppose.

In my experience, life is no bowl of cherries. It is hard. It is full of misery and pain. When we do enjoy good moments, they are precious. But how rare they are! And viewed in the abstract, how petty! Is this why we're alive, then? To undergo endless difficulty punctuated by a few slender moments of bestial joy? We cling to life like any other mammal. We fear death because we do not know what awaits us. So, as Hamlet says, we "bear those ills we have/ [rather] than fly to others that we know not of." Hamlet, Act III, sc. i. l. 83-84.

We are the only ones who can create meaning in our lives. Hamlet found meaning by finding a purpose: Taking revenge for his murdered father. He did not seek mere "bestial oblivion" or "worldly comfort." He impressed his soul on his existence to transcend his "mortal coil." His life took on greater significance. And fittingly, he died in the process.

I have not died yet. I know that life does not offer much. Yet I try to do what Hamlet did. I am trying to live for something greater than bestial oblivion. I like bestial oblivion as much as the next man (beast). But my real joy flows from the idea that I am doing something beyond the flesh: Writing. I had to find something to make this maddening journey bearable. It was my choice.

Even then, I do not hold my own life in high esteem. On the whole, life is more trouble than it's worth. Only instinctual self-preservation holds me in check.

So from my view, so what if a woman gets an abortion? I have no philosophical problem with any activity that saves another from this harrowing sphere of pain.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST APPLES IS STILL DISCRIMINATION : NO APPLE DESERVES TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN ANOTHER

By : George A. Gleichman, an Apple born and raised in the United States of America (2010).

I am an American apple. My seeds grew in American soil. I matured on an American tree. I live in American air. And I am proud to be an American. When you look at me, you think: "That's an American apple."

I love this country. It gave me life and freedom. But advantages are not the only thing I love about America. Rather, I love this country because it stands for equality. Abraham Lincoln put it best when he said that our country is committed to the proposition that all men are created equal. Thomas Jefferson said the same thing in the Declaration of Independence. Later, our Constitution affirmed America's proud commitment to equality: "No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. Amd XIV, § 1.

For generations, we have fought to vindicate our egalitarian ideals in America. Throughout our history, we have battled to eradicate injustice and inequality in our land. We suffered civil war in order to free black Americans from slavery. Since then, we have struggled to give black Americans an equal chance at success. We have learned to revile discrimination. We recoil from unequal treatment in all its forms. We are committed to justice.

No American--black or white--deserves to suffer discrimination. Discrimination hurts. Discrimination marks you out as "different" and "wrong." It poisons souls. Our law takes a firm position against discrimination wherever it rears its ugly head. Even white employees can claim that their supervisors discriminated against them in hiring, pay, promotion and perks. Put simply, our law embodies the uniquely American commitment to equality that has guided our Republic since Jefferson's time. That is why we detest discrimination in all its forms.

What is discrimination? It means treating similarly-situated people and things differently. It means making crude distinctions. It means picking one person or thing over another. Every time a person chooses one thing over another, he discriminates. And discrimination is bad. It is un-American. It is anti-egalitarian. We are all equal in this country. No one deserves to suffer discrimination. No one likes to be passed over or treated unfairly.

Sadly, American apples endure rampant discrimination all over the country. Every single day, bigoted orchard workers ruthlessly examine American apples, judging some "acceptable" and others "bad." Then they pick the "acceptable" ones and toss the "bad" ones in a waste bin. Sometimes they even discriminate on the basis of color, too. They praise red apples. They even guarantee them a future at fruit stands. But not so for yellowing apples. Yellowing apples get tossed away and mashed into a pulp in some horrific juice processing warehouse. And no one hears their cries.

No American--whether human or apple--deserves vicious discrimination like this. How is it just to permit white human employees to sue employers for lunch hour discrimination, yet leave yellow apples without a remedy against brutally unequal treatment? After all, apples are apples. It does not matter whether they are red, green, yellow, ripe, unripe, rotten, soft or dying. They are still apples. They still have the same cells and cell walls. They still belong to the same genus and species. In short, they are similarly-situated. As such, how can our country permit discrimination against them?

If America's commitment to equality means anything, it must end apple discrimination NOW. We are as American as apple pie. In fact, there would be no apple pie without us. And without apple pie, America would not be the same place.

I was lucky. An apple-picker in Washington State looked at me and let me survive. But many of my brethren were not so fortunate. Some were not shiny enough. Others looked sickly. Still others did not quite make the color standard. Others were not big enough. Still others were too small. No matter their so-called "flaws," they all met the same fate: Savagely ripped from their branches, mashed to a pulp and hosed down into a sewer to be digested by beetles, rats, worms and horrible crawling insects.

Consider how these poor American apples felt when this happened. Think about what must have gone through their minds when the apple-picker said: "Ah, forget this one; it's too soft." Or: "Ewww, it's rotten. Get rid of it." Yet they were apples, just like me. They deserved equal treatment under law, not ruthless discriminatory judgment. Discrimination cuts to the core. Think about how my poor brothers must have felt when unfairly punished for faults beyond their control. A rotten apple does not ask to be rotten: It simply is. An apple's nature is no reason to discriminate against him. No American should ever endure unfairness like this.

America can do better than this. America has always done the right thing. And it can do the right thing when it comes to apples. America freed the slaves. It committed itself to equality for all under law. It recoils from unfairness and unequal treatment, no matter where it occurs. In short, America knows injustice when it appears. We are confident that America will recognize our ordeal soon enough. When Americans see the gross discrimination that apples face every single day, we are confident that public outcry will give us the protection we need. After all, Americans are decent people. They do not like it when living organisms suffer discriminatory treatment. It arouses their sense of justice. And they move purposefully to end it.

Why should only "people" enjoy "equal protection" under law? Are apples really so different from humans that they deserve discrimination and death? Bigots claim that discrimination is appropriate when two things are not similarly-situated. They say that humans and apples are sufficiently different from each other that differential treatment is reasonable.

But this is pure sophistry: Apples and humans are similar, not different. We both need air to survive. We both have cells. We both live and die. We both need water. We both need nourishment. We both reproduce. True, humans have blood and we don't. But we have juice, and that is very similar to blood. And the mere fact that we can perform photosynthesis is no reason to treat us differently under law. I always believed that America took strength from its diverse population: Why should it not be proud to include citizens who can perform photosynthesis? It is proud to include Pakistanis, cripples, Muslims and Chinese. Why not photosynthesis practitioners? Are they really so different from people who wear turbans? No matter what the bigots say, apples and humans are both living organisms. And we both deserve equality in this great Republic.

In sum, America must end discrimination against apples. For centuries, the United States has prided itself on eradicating unequal treatment and unfairness within its borders. It has expanded liberty and freedom. It has moved against discrimination in all its forms, whether racial, ancestral, gender-related or employment-related. Put simply, America does not like differential treatment. It fights to ensure that everyone receives the same treatment.

Against this background, we are confident that Americans will soon recognize apples' plight. Rectifying injustice against apples is simply the next evolutionary step on America's proud path to freedom. Blacks gained equality. Then women. Then employees. Then cripples. Then homosexuals. Now, apples demand equality. We, too, are living creatures with cells. We are the same as people, whether black, insane, handicapped, Catholic, gay or all five. People are apples. Apples are people. And similarly-situated people--and apples--deserve equal treatment. That is just the American way. Anything else is unjust.

Yet that is not how it is now. That is why every American must fight for apples just as strongly as they fought against slavery. After all, today apples face a bleak future at the mercy of bigoted apple-pickers who ignore the law. Billions of apples have already been pressed into oblivion, discarded, peeled for sport, quartered, gulped down by children, fermented into cider or imbibed simply because some apple-picker unfairly discriminated against them in some forgotten orchard.

It is time to stop this unforgivable cycle. It is time to heed our national conscience. It is time to remember that America stands for equality for all living things, even living things with shiny green skin and tasty pulp. And it is time to say what we already know: That discrimination is morally wrong. It is no excuse to say that apples are "different." You know they aren't. Apples are living things, just like you. You wouldn't grind your mother to a pulp and stick her in a gallon jug, would you? Of course not.

That is why we must all do the right thing. We must end apple discrimination TODAY. This is not about self-interested apples. This is about justice.

STOP THE EVIL CHICKEN BUTCHERS : EQUAL CHICKEN RIGHTS NOW

THE CHICKENS SPEAK

By : Mr. Woodrow D. Beakman, L.L.M., a Chicken; Escapee, Selma (Alabama) Poultry Processing Plant; Formerly Known as a "Grade D Fryer - Strong Style;" Self-taught in English and Human Communication; Avian; Honorary Master's Degree Holder in Human Rights Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. (2008); Author, "Fried Chicken Holocaust : America is a Death House for Birds Everywhere" (Forthcoming, HarperCollins™ 2010).

America is a great Nation because it respects life. It fights for dignity and freedom abroad. It believes that all living creatures have a right to exist. America trusts life because it knows that life represents potential greatness for all. Life is good. It is worth saving. In short, America stands up for life.

Yet America has failed to stand up for life when it comes to chickens. To the contrary, America has committed heinous crimes against chickens everywhere. In every State, America allows men to ruthlessly imprison, mistreat, pluck, murder, slaughter, dismember, disembowel and process helpless chickens on an industrial scale. Worse, America even encourages bloodthirsty criminals to butcher chickens in the name of "commercial advancement."

This is an outrage against life and dignity. As chickens, we demand that America cease its genocidal campaign against us at once. We may be chickens. But we are people, too. We deserve to live just as much as a brain-dead human child or an endangered humpback whale. We refuse to allow our brethren to die in poultry slaughterhouses so that greedy profiteers can sell our breasts, thighs, wings and gullets. We refuse to allow our mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers to end their existence beer-basted and fried at the bottom of some God-forsaken Styrofoam bucket. Put simply, we demand that America respect all life--including chicken life.

Why does America refuse to see us? Indeed, America seems almost willfully blind concerning our daily ordeals. Rather than express outrage over our horrific treatment, Americans actually praise the men who orchestrate our slaughter. Just last week, for example, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece analyzing the "highly successful business model" employed by two notorious chicken butchers: Harlan David "Colonel" Sanders and his protégé Dave Thomas. According to the Journal, these two "entrepreneurs" devised an "exemplary food processing and delivery system," in addition to creating "a shrewd marketing scheme designed to maximize consumer interest in chicken meals." As a result, said the Journal, "Sanders and Thomas stand as giants in the business community." In conclusion: "Every food service entrepreneur should study the Sanders/Thomas Method well."

Giants in the business community? Exemplary food processing and delivery systems? Sanders/Thomas Method? Does the Journal even understand what made these men "giants?" Does any American really understand what methods made these men "successful?"

Sanders and Thomas are not heroes. Rather, they are evil chicken butchers who scorn life. They achieved their "success" by purposely breeding, corralling, beheading, gutting and packaging millions of innocent chickens. Yet Americans celebrate these butchers every day, not just in the Wall Street Journal, but also in rundown chicken shacks from coast to coast. Every day, Americans sing praises to Sanders and Thomas as they greedily feast on the flesh of our kin.

This is not dignity. This is not respect for life. This is genocide.

According to international law, "genocide" means the intentional killing of any identifiable ethnic, national, racial or religious group because of animus against that group. Chickens are a racial group. Our genetic combinations result in a unique racial identity. Racially, we are chickens. And because villains like Sanders and Thomas hunt us down and kill us because we are racially chicken, that makes them genocidal mass murderers, not entrepreneurs.

America should think long and hard about glorifying these killers. It should think about its principles. After all, America prosecuted Nazi war criminals for genocide after World War II. It prosecuted Slobodan Milosevic for "ethnic cleansing" in Yugoslavia. It even investigated Iraqi officials who allegedly killed minorities in that country. Hollywood superstars have lobbied for aid to Darfur, where ethnic groups make war on each other.

In short, America says it cares about stopping genocide. Why, then, does it call "Colonel" Sanders an "entrepreneur" rather than a chicken-slaughtering thug? America says it recoils from systematic, racially-motivated killings worldwide. Why, then, can it not see that chickens endure racially-motivated killing every single day? Chicken genocide proceeds on an unimaginable scale. Only 400,000 Rwandans perished in that country's genocide. Yet billions of chickens have been left writhing to die in grime-covered barrels since America took a liking to "Original Recipe" hot wings. And that's just in America. Other countries like to eat us, too. China, for instance, does not just violate human rights. It massively violates chicken rights, too. Put simply, no human genocide in history can compare to the intentional butchery chickens have suffered.

Chickens deserve to live the American dream. They deserve a chance to live in peace, prosper, propagate and find some happiness before they die. America guarantees that dream to all humans who live in its borders. It also says that all life is valuable. If that is true, why does America condemn chickens to systematic exploitation, pain and death? What about a young chicken's dream? Don't chickens get a chance to go to school, find love, work at a job and go to the movies on weekends? Don’t chickens get a chance to raise children and find meaning in life? Humans do. Why not chickens? We are living, breathing creatures, too. We have cells and brains. Our brains may not be as large as men's brains. But that is no reason to pluck us alive, cut our throats, batter us, fry us and feed us to a Little League team along with Grape Soda and potato salad.

We are more valuable than vegetables. We are living, breathing avians, not plants. We are not inanimate turnips or cabbage heads. Put simply, it is morally wrong for America to discriminate against us because we have feathers and small brains. We have webbed feet and gizzards. So what? America says it values diversity. Yet it kills us because we have gizzards and humans do not. America can benefit from all life, including creatures with gizzards. The fact that we have gizzards does not make us inferior. We are no less alive than a college professor or a superstar athlete. We all breathe the same air. We all give birth to young. True, we lay eggs and humans pop children out alive. But our distinctive reproductive methods are no reason to slaughter us and eat us; they are part of "who we are."

Federal law and the United States Constitution prohibit discrimination based upon reproductive capacity. It is no answer, then, to say that "chickens deserve differential treatment" simply because they lay eggs. In a word, America says it values equality. Like humans, we are "living things." Viewed in that light, we are equal. We demand EQUALITY NOW.

But this debate is not just about the law. This debate is about America's conscience. After all, how can America continue preaching about equality, dignity and "respect for life" when it condemns an entire segment of its living population to industrialized slaughter? How can America maintain its moral rectitude when it sets aside an entire segment of its living population to be greedily eaten along with sweet-n-sour sauce, cole slaw and biscuits? And how can it maintain its respect for individual autonomy when it refuses to allow chickens to form their own identities?

Every chicken is special. We refuse to be labeled "Grade A Fryers," "Finger-Lickin' Drumsticks," "Nuggets" or "Dark Meat Specials." We are unique individuals with thoughts, dreams and desires. America exists to allow every living individual to reach his maximal potential in all things. America exists to protect everyone's right to live. In that light, we demand that America live up to its principles. It must stop praising chicken butchers like "Colonel" Sanders and Dave Thomas. It must stop dooming our relatives to frozen death in microwave dinner boxes. In short, how is it American to allow a human to go to college and prosper, while allowing a chicken to live a wretched existence before being thrown into a steel plucking machine?

It is time to stand up for what is right. It is time to stand up for life. Chickens have so much to contribute to American life. We do not just exist to die and fill human stomachs. We do not just exist to peck around farmyards and cluck. No, we are living, breathing creatures. We can achieve great things. And if America cares about stopping genocide, it can start by bringing men like Sanders and Thomas to justice, not calling them "successful food industry entrepreneurs."

There is nothing "entrepreneurial" about mass murder. As chickens in a Republic that values diversity in all living things, we demand a voice. We refuse to be exterminated, chopped up, bagged and drowned in barbecue sauce any longer.

That is not our destiny. And that is no way to treat an entire race in America.

DO YOU LIKE REWARDS? WHAT A STUPID QUESTION

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Everyone likes rewards. Everyone likes receiving things they like. We are programmed to like rewards. It is in our nature to seek them. It is as natural as hunger or thirst. We rarely do anything unless there is some reward for our efforts. Rewards induce human behavior. As such, they drive all economic activity. After all, who would work if he knew he would receive no pay? Who would work harder if he knew he would receive no greater prize for the extra effort?

All this may seem obvious. But I mention it because Citibank® actually poses the question in its latest advertising campaign. On billboards and on computer screens, Citibank® queries: "Do you like rewards? If you do, you should open an account with us." It then lists various perks that new accountholders receive, like a $50 (taxable) bounty, a potential $100 (taxable) payment for new customer referrals and retail "points" that accumulate whenever they use Citibank® debit cards. So if you charge enough Starbucks® coffee on your card, you'll get a $10 "gift" one day.

Those are the "rewards" they are talking about. And who doesn't like rewards?

People love rewards because people are basically selfish. Rewards reflect personal gain; when a person wins a reward, he benefits. He might receive money or gratification. He might receive an emotional payout. No matter what form a reward takes, it appeals to men's base instinct to profit. For that reason, rewards induce behavior. One man offers a reward in order to persuade another man to act as he wishes. He knows that men like rewards, so he knows men will adapt their behavior to get it. This is no different from any other mammal. Dangle a leftover steak in a dog's face and you can it to do every trick in the book.

Yet this basic mammalian urge for rewards forms the basis for all purposeful economic activity in our "civilized" world. The only difference between men and dogs is that you need to dangle paychecks in their faces, not leftover steak. Then they'll do whatever tricks you want.

Put another way, rewards make us human. They might not bring out the best in us, but they are still central to human existence. People live for rewards. Why else would they do anything? Nature intended it that way. After all, why would human beings--or any animals--propagate if there were not some biological reward for propagating? People like sex because it offers an intense physical reward. Without the reward, no one would want to do it. Nature understands how animals think. And man is just another animal: He needs a selfish incentive to do anything. He needs a reward.

When it comes to rewards, man is different from other animals in a crucial respect: He can manipulate rewards to exploit his fellows. Through language and superior resources, a shrewd man can persuade a weaker man to do just about anything for the right reward. And the shrewd man can dictate the conditions under which the weak man obtains a reward. In sum, those conditions reduce the weak man to the shrewd man's control. Rewards, then, become an instrument of tyranny as well as enterprise.

In modern language, exchange influences rewards. Rewards provide a basis for bargaining. In English, for instance, the dictionary says that a "reward" is "something given in return for good, or, sometimes, evil, or for service, or for something lost." Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th Ed.). Rewards, then, are given in return for something else. They must be "earned." As such, superior men can easily manipulate the terms under which they give rewards. They know everyone wants a reward. So they exploit that natural desire to dominate anyone who seeks one.

English is not the only language that implies bargaining in "rewards." German, too, suggests that rewards must be "earned." The closest translation for "reward" is "belohnen," which means: "to compensate a person for his help or effort." Wahrig Deutsches Wörterbuch S. 249 (Ausgabe 2008) (my translation). "Belohnen," in turn, builds upon a simpler German word: "der Lohn." "Der Lohn" means "wage," or, more specifically: "payment, consideration or compensation for work performed." Id. at S. 955 (my translation).

As in English, German reveals that "rewards" don't fall from trees. They provide incentives for work and service to others. That means the person who gives rewards has the power to dictate the terms under which others will receive them. Rewards give power. After all, the master has power over the dog because he has the leftover steak; he can demand any behavior before he gives it to the dog. In the same way, the employer has power over the employee because he has the paycheck; he can demand any behavior before he gives it to employee. In both cases, men and dogs want rewards. And they do what they are told to get them.

Just like dogs, all men want rewards. They want to increase their wealth. They want to feel good about themselves. They want to experience positive emotions. They are prepared to do tricks to get them. Rewards provide a reason to live. They induce behavior. Sometimes they induce good behavior. But certainly not always. Every criminal seeks some reward. Personal gratification motivates genius as much as it motivates destructive cruelty. In that sense, rewards cut both ways. Offer a man $10,000 and he might write a beautiful essay in a writing contest. Offer another man $10,000 and he will kill anyone you choose. The principle is the same: Rewards induce behavior.

But it is just dumb to ask: "Do you like rewards?" That is the same as asking: "Do you like eating a meal when you're hungry?" Everyone does. It is perfectly natural. It might not be very grandiose to spend your whole life seeking rewards. But it's not very grandiose to spend your whole life eating meals, either. Yet both are quintessentially human activities.

WHOM WOULD YOU RATHER KILL? A MAN OR A DOG?

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

We learn from earliest childhood that "killing is bad." We have a natural moral sense that ending lives is generally not a good (and certainly not a nice) thing to do. Along the same lines, we learn that "life is valuable." We especially learn this when it comes to human lives. Animal lives are, well, not as valuable.

Some people genuinely take these lessons to heart. Abortion opponents, for instance, say that "all potential life is valuable." That means that not just full-grown adults do not deserve to die, but also tiny cell clusters that might one day develop into fetuses. Some even think that any potential life is valuable. But this reaches into absurdity. After all, every ejaculation and ovulation cycle represents "potential life." Surely it is neither sin nor murder to have a period or to ejaculate without an intention to procreate.

But all "life rhetoric" is vexingly biased. After all, who speaks up for non-human life? All cellular organisms are "alive." They all "die" when their necessary cellular functions cease. Is it somehow distressing, then, when a cow dies? How about a cockroach? Or a tree? These things are all "life." Yet no one marches to stop "tree murder," and no one wails when a raccoon dies in the wilderness. Put simply, when people say they "believe in life," they really mean that they believe in "human life." After all, people have an interest in staying alive. From a biological perspective, no living creature wants to die. A few people, of course, want to kill themselves. In the aggregate, however, most living humans want to stay alive.

Despite all this, even those who feverishly "defend human life" are not absolutists. Even people who fight tooth and nail to defend the unborn--or lament wasted sperm--have exceptions to their rule. After all, many people think that some human life is not worth preserving. When a man "deserves" to die, even the staunchest life defenders do not intervene to save him. I always found it amusing that most abortion defenders support capital punishment. I find it even more amusing that some particularly fiery abortion defenders murder doctors in order to prevent abortions. How's that for a problematic principle? All life is precious; but some people deserve to be killed. It's enough to boggle one's mind--or even laugh, if it weren't so serious.

Perhaps it is not so surprising after all. In fact, I venture that most people actually have little problem killing their fellow man. In fact, I think most people would have an easier time killing a man than a "lesser life form," like a dog or a deer. Despite all the things we learn about killing others, I think most people just need to be pushed far enough in order to kill another human being. And not just kill--gleefully kill.

And that's the difference: Men must be pushed to kill another person. Only human beings have the capacity to taunt, insult, degrade, abuse and denigrate their fellows. They can cause untold misery to one another, both physically and psychologically. The urge to kill builds in proportion to the misery a person endures at another's hands. Sometimes it does not even take that much to push a person over the edge. Think about road rage killings and drunken barroom squabbles. Men exchange words. Their emotions fly off the handle. Next thing you know, someone is dead. In other cases, a person suffers chronic abuse and finally snaps. Consider the beaten wife who just can't take it any more and slits her husband's throat while he sleeps.

In short, people kill each other for comparatively little. Maybe life is not that sacred after all.

But the same people who gladly kill their fellow man might have trouble killing a puppy dog. After all, people who kill over abuse or petty arguments do so because humans have a unique ability to arouse enmity in one another. In the moment before a man stabs a rival who insulted his girlfriend, he thinks: "I'm gonna kill this fucking asshole." In other words, the human capacity for intent leads men to kill each other. It even makes killing easy in the right circumstances.

Not so with a dog. Why would anyone want to kill an innocent little puppy? Everyone knows that a puppy can't cause any harm. It can't lie, deceive, insult, connive, abuse, beat, torture or tyrannize. It can do none of the things that arouse homicidal rage in human beings. If it came between an innocent puppy dog and a hated tormentor who slaps and insults you all day for weeks on end, I don't think I'm stretching to suggest that most people would much rather kill the man than the dog.

In a word, it is facetious to claim that "all human life is sacred." Our own behavior proves us wrong when we do. The truth is that human beings drive us crazy from time to time. They drive us so crazy, in fact, that we become all too willing to kill them if the circumstances impel us. Only humans have the capacity to arouse such furious, homicidal rages. Puppies have no such capacity. That is why-- if given the choice--I think most people would rather kill a detested, tyrannical person than an innocent dog.

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.

YOUR ENTIRE LIFE IS AN EXTERNALITY

AN ESSAY

When I studied property law, I learned the word "externality." Before law school, I understood the word to mean what it says: "external to something else." But I soon found out that in the law, words do not always mean what they say in plain English. No, they function as shorthand for other concepts. And sometimes those concepts bear no relationship at all to the word that signifies them.

In both legal and economic terms, an "externality" refers to the effect on others when two people conduct a lawful transaction. It also refers to the effect on others when one person lawfully uses his land. To be blunt, "externalities" mean the shit everyone else has to endure because others act within their legal rights. After all, the law empowers certain people to act in more sweeping ways than others. An oil company has much more power to act in sweeping ways than some private farmer next door. And when more powerful people act within their rights, they can produce an enormous--though not intentional--effect on others' lives.

In property law, "externalities" are both obvious and subtle. As a general rule, our society holds up land ownership as a talisman. Everyone strives to own his own patch of earth to do as he wills with it. Yet by "doing what he wills" with his own land, our archetypal landowner may unintentionally injure someone else. How can this be? Well, what if he wants to open an industrial tannery on his land? He's master of his land, right? He wants to make money on his land, right? Isn't that what we're supposed to do in America, make as much money as possible from our land?

If he opens a tannery, he exercises his rights as a property owner. Yet he makes noise, produces foul odors and makes life miserable for everyone else around him. Those are externalities that flow from his lawful land use.

He's not breaking the law; he's living the American dream. Problem is, when some people live their American dream, they give people around them nightmares. That's what externalities are all about.

But I'm not writing today to put down property owners. As a cynic, I am prepared to believe that most people will use their land only to enrich themselves. If they make everyone else's life difficult in the process, they could care less. As long as they don't face a nuisance suit for using their land as they wish (ie, that would cost more money than merely continuing the objectionable land use), they will keep on using it in a way that brings in the most cash. That's American life: Cost-benefit analysis. Effects on others rarely come into the equation unless those effects would result in greater costs than benefits. Even courts subscribe to this view. They won't let a few poor neighbors complain about pollution from a nearby auto plant because the auto plant keeps people employed. Sure, the land use might be horrible--and it might make the neighbors' existence miserable--but their suffering is a "bearable cost" given the "ultimate benefits" that flow from it. Shutting down the auto plant might solve the neighbors' ills, but it would cost hundreds more their jobs. So the law lets the more powerful landowner use his land as he pleases, externalities or not. That's just the way our society values things.

But externalities do not just exist in property law. They are all over our lives. After all, we are consuming animals. There are not enough resources to go around. By living well for ourselves--even innocently--we might deny others the chance to live well. For example, if a person gets sick, he becomes an externality on everyone who must care for him. His life drags others down with it. It imposes costs. It strains emotions. By living his life, he makes it difficult for others to live theirs.

In essence, sometimes just staying alive on this planet produces a burdensome effect on others. Every time one person enjoys a meal, he eats food that will not go to someone else who needs it. Every time one person falls in love with another, he denies that person's love to someone else who wants it. Every time one person gets a job offer, someone else had to get a rejection letter. Every time a corporate board awards bonuses to its members, it reduces the available funds for employee raises. Whenever a child is born, it imposes a staggering financial, emotional and social burden on the family.

These are all perfectly lawful things to do. Yet they produce negative effects on others' lives. People don't mean to produce these effects on others. People are simply trying to survive in a world that requires consumption. But these effects are inevitable because resources are limited. When one person succeeds, another must fail. When one person relaxes, another must toil.

Yet where would we be if we constantly worried about externalities? I think we must merely accept the fact that our continued existence will impose substantial difficulty on many people, both far and wide. To some extent, we must resort to selfishness in order to feed ourselves and to secure our bodily health. This may sound bleak. But if you think about it, human bodily existence is quite bleak. There is nothing grandiose about our biological processes: We eat, excrete, grow hair, breathe, make money, buy things, strive to experience positive emotions, have sex, groom ourselves and do our best to avoid pain. These are our "goals" as living creatures. And when we fulfill them, we necessarily impose costs on others. For every goal we reach, someone else did not make it.

True, we rarely want to make others suffer by pleasing ourselves. But that is the price of survival in a world of limited resources. We must simply accept the fact that our own quest for comfort and happiness in life impacts many other people.

OUR URGE TO BE FREE IS NOT ENTIRELY REASONABLE

AN ESSAY

We always hear about doomed criminals running away from the police. Chases always make the news. They seem to happen in California more than anywhere else. But no matter where they happen, the key element remains the same: Some desperate person tries frantically to delay the moment at which he will be physically restrained. He wants to be free. He wants control over his own body. So he thrashes with incredible energy to maintain that control. He even puts himself and others in mortal danger for a few more free moments. Even the most insignificant infractions put people to desperate flight. They even cause fatal car crashes while trying to escape from a traffic stop. In other words, men love freedom; and they cling to it no matter the cost or the danger.

Freedom has many meanings. It is a common word. George W. Bush used it ad nauseam as shorthand for a complex, biased political value system that had nothing to do with "a lack of restraint on physical movement." But today I want to examine the word's base, bodily meaning, not its metaphorical or rhetorical overlays. "Freedom" is an old English noun that stems from the adjective "free," which in turn relates to the German "frei." In essence, it implies a "lack of physical restraint on bodily movement." At base, it is corporal. It suggests an ability to move the body without being held back. It also suggests an ability to "go where one pleases" without facing opposing physical forces. In this sense, a "lack of physical restraint" intertwines with mental tranquility. People like to go where they want. No one likes to know he could be physically stopped from going somewhere. Physical "freedom," then, closely relates to mental "freedom," and even happiness: You can't be happy if someone prevents you from using your body as you please. Emotional satisfaction flows from physical freedom.

I like the words "free" and "freedom" more than "liberty." I am partial to hard-hitting, German-based words over obscure, imported Latin ones. "Liberty" is a Latin refinement on "freedom." At times, "freedom" and "liberty" mean the same thing. Yet "liberty" sounds somehow more grandiose than mere "freedom." During the Enlightenment, philosophers opted for majestic "liberty" over plebeian "freedom" when discussing man's "natural rights." In the process, they transformed "liberty" into a technical term. "Liberty" was no longer a simple synonym for "freedom." No, "liberty" carried its own theoretical weight. It became shorthand for an entire economic and social value system premised upon "individual choice, conscience and enterprise." John Stuart Mill named his famous ode to free market economic choice "On Liberty," while Adam Smith based The Wealth of Nations on the fundamental assumption that man must enjoy "economic liberty." In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson famously asserted that man's "inalienable rights" included life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." In all these examples, "liberty" took on a meaning far beyond "lack of restraint on bodily movement." It was something more than just "going where you want when you want." It was something freighted with metaphysical assumptions.

But today I am not writing about Mill's "liberty conception" or even "economic liberty." I am writing about pure, animal "freedom:" The subjective desire to be free from direct bodily restraint. Based upon my own observations, I believe that human beings have a natural desire to be free. There is both a physical and emotional dimension to this desire. Human beings--like their mammalian forebears--relish the ability to move as they please. They feel at ease when nothing constrains their bodies. By the same token, they hate the emotion that arises when some superior power prevents them from moving their bodies as they please. Dogs and monkeys scream when caged. They become agitated and violent. They obviously do not like limitations on their freedom to move. When restrained, their behavior shows they hate it.

Human beings hate being confined, too. Unlike animals, they know when others seek to confine them. That is why they struggle to avoid capture and "maintain their freedom," even if there is no prospect for success. They know how they will feel when they lose their bodily freedom, so they resort to anything to hold onto it. Human beings anticipate the emotional pain that flows from losing freedom. That explains why doomed criminals flee in desperate attempts to remain free. Even when they have no chance to succeed, people will always try to escape, if only for a few minutes.

But how is that reasonable? If there is no chance to succeed in an endeavor, why bother attempting it? In my view, the "urge to be free from bodily restraint" trumps human reason. After all, if human beings trusted their reason in all events, they would never try to avoid inevitable capture. They would not jump over electrified fences or drive 85 miles per hour the wrong way down a one-way street if reason guided their actions. No, something else guides their actions when they feel something threatens their freedom. Human beings will resort to utterly unreasonable behavior to avoid physical restraint. The "urge to be free" transcends virtually all reasonable imperatives. It overwhelms rational calculation and leads men to engage in dangerous behavior that is almost bound to fail.

In my eyes, all this proves that human beings are not purely reasonable creatures. No matter how much we applaud our ability to triumph over nature through reason, we retain extremely unsettling instincts. Our "urge to be free from bodily restraint" illustrates the lengths to which human beings will go to maintain their ability to move their bodies as they wish. Viewed rationally, who would think that mere bodily movement could trigger such intense emotional responses? But that is exactly the point: Reason cannot account for men's violent emotional responses to certain stimuli. For better or worse, men want control over their bodies, just as chimps and dogs want to roam uncaged. And just like chimps and dogs, they rage uncontrollably when anything constrains their ability to roam.

Physical confinement touches a base nerve in our minds. That explains why human beings resort to anything to avoid it, no matter how unreasonable or ineffectual. This has nothing to do with complex coinages like "liberty." It is just a fact of nature. And we will never escape nature.

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

AN ESSAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUDITY IS EVERYONE'S CONCERN

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Rep. Victoria N. McCummings, Ph.D. (Child Development); Representative (New York State Legislature); Senior Chairperson, New York State Board of Decency Regulation; J.D., Yale University School of Law (1984); Art Lover.

You can scarcely turn on the news these days without hearing about some scandal involving nudity. All too often, these scandals affect the most vulnerable members of our society: Children. In our digital world, images travel fast. In centuries past, societies could better control nudity because there were not as many ways to broadcast it. Now, photography, the internet, television, DVD-video and even personal newspaper ads transmit nude images everywhere, without regard to whether an innocent child sees them. This is profoundly troubling because nudity is dangerous. That is why I have introduced legislation to curtail the expansion of nudity in 21st Century life.

I have never liked nudity. I do not like bare breasts, nipples, pubic hair, chests, genitalia or buttocks. They are—quite simply—disgusting. They revolt me. They are not pleasant to look at. When I was younger, I became physically ill when I saw a photograph depicting John Lennon and Yoko Ono standing naked next to each other. It was just revolting. Even before that, I became very uneasy when studying classical sculpture. Michelangelo’s David, for instance, often requires me to avert my eyes. I do not care whether art experts and nudity apologists say there is nothing threatening about these works. I disagree. Just think of the children who may see them. If they make me feel ill, imagine the damage they could do to children. It is heartbreaking to even think about it. If we truly care about our children, we must do something about nudity—now.

And it is getting worse. Teenagers use the internet to spread nude images all over the world in an instant. They post nudity on their Facebook pages, leading to shock, embarrassment and family strife. Clearly, we must do something about this. We must find a way to prevent children from accessing nude images, as well as from creating new nude images. Nude images are as dangerous as crack cocaine and crystal meth. Like drugs, nudity leads to immorality, licentiousness and unproductive behavior. Nudity is like a cancer. It threatens to undermine our society’s very foundations, just the way opium destroyed Chinese society in the 19th Century. Unless we act now, nudity could well destroy our Nation.

My legislative plan includes measures calculated to do two things: (1) Control existing nudity; and (2) Prevent the creation of new nudity. To control existing nudity, I propose making clothing mandatory at all times. Naked bodies cause untold damage to our society. When people see nudity, naughtiness, envy, disgust and even violence ensue. In short, nudity represents a very real social danger. To that extent, police measures are justified in reducing it. Public nudity has always been illegal. Traditionally, our society has drawn a moral line between female nipples on the street and female nipples in the home. But this is an irrational distinction; nudity is dangerous no matter whether it occurs in a full sports stadium or a private home. Nudity incites harmful behavior and leads to moral decline; it does not matter whether it occurs in public or private. In short, a female nipple is a female nipple, no matter where it is bared.

In this light, I propose legislation that will make private nudity a crime. No longer will citizens be allowed to sleep naked or even take showers without in some way “covering up.” Although group nudity poses greater dangers than individual nudity, individual nudity is dangerous to the extent that it incites bodily comfort in the perpetrator. That bodily comfort—like criminal intent—can mature into more severe offenses against the law and decency. In my view, bodily comfort is not good for society. By threatening criminal punishment for individual nudity, we can suppress bodily comfort. As long as some people are afraid to get undressed, we reduce the potential for nudity-related harm. We may not fully eradicate individual nudity, but we will at least strike fear into every man or woman who dares to remove his or her clothing at any time, for any reason. And less nudity means safer children.

We must also take steps against the creation of new nudity. Nudity is most dangerous when preserved in tangible form. Prior generations did not face this threat as much as we do. At most, statues and paintings depicted nudity, and only the rich could obtain them. Now, however, we are literally awash in nudity. Nakedness is everywhere. Photography and film largely bear responsibility for this terrible proliferation. Not coincidentally, crime and immorality have intensified in the generations since photography and film increased public access to nudity. We wonder why children talk back today? We wonder why people disrespect each other? We wonder why they hold nothing sacred? Simple: They see too much nudity and they spend too much time naked.

Under my legislative plan, we will combat this free fall by striking at the source: Devices that can create nude images. I intend to introduce legislation that will compel camera makers to develop “nudity-safe” mechanisms for their merchandise. These mechanisms will automatically detect whether the camera is recording a nude image, then disable the camera’s image-making capability. As soon as the nudity disappears, the camera will regain its image-creating capability. This represents a technological approach to stopping nudity proliferation. When my proposals become law, every camera sold in our State must meet Anti-Nudity obligations under the statute. The statute will also criminalize the possession, use and transfer of any camera or visual recording device that does not meet Anti-Nudity protocols under the law. By these measures, we will reduce the creation of nude images. In so doing, we will protect our children from a major source of potential nudity. If cameras literally cannot create nude images, we necessarily will see a drop in nudity. When there are less nude images, there will be less abuse on Facebook, less immorality on movie screens and safer children. A society with less nudity is a safer society.

I recognize that it will be difficult to eradicate all nudity-producing media. Artists will always paint or draw naked human bodies. But it takes much more skill to draw nudity than merely to record it with a camera. Additionally, direct Anti-Nudity obligations under the law will make it impossible for artists to observe nude models because models will no longer be able to lawfully pose in the nude. This will require artists to produce nude images solely from their imagination, not their direct observation. I believe that imagined nudity presents only a marginal threat to public decency. If an artist convincingly depicts fanciful nudity, the law can deal with him as necessary. Thankfully, there are not many artists with the ability or resources to produce large amounts of dangerous nudity. We can handle a few renegade painters. By eliminating nude photographs and movies, we eliminate the most widespread abuses. Everything else is just cleanup.

I am confident that I will obtain legislative support for my initiative against nudity. Like terrorism, nudity lurks among us. One can never know for sure whether the person next to us creates nude images, or whether he secretly wishes to get undressed. By taking strong action against nudity, we reduce the likelihood that nudity will affect our children. We will usher in a whole new era of safety in which our children learn that remaining fully clothed is far better than undressing. True, we will need to modify our behavior to comply with the law. We will have to learn to use the bathroom in new ways, shower in new ways and sleep in new ways. We will have to learn how to change our clothing without becoming fully naked. And we will have to learn how to reproduce with minimal nudity. Nonetheless, these are bearable burdens because they lead us to a better society—a nudity-free society. By waging war on nudity and the harmful social problems it creates, we both defend our children and edify ourselves. We are better than nudity. We can control it and defeat it. When we pass my law, the era of naked terror will see its last day.

Nudity is everyone’s concern. It is dangerous. We must band together and address it as a society. Today, we can take a step toward a better life—a fully clothed life. Once we overcome human nudity, we can conquer animal nudity, too. We have a duty to our children. Until every mammal learns that nudity is wrong, our children will not be completely safe. Until every dog, cat, hog, bird, horse, rabbit and cow learns to wear a coat and stockings, there will be danger in our society. But we will move incrementally. We will take one step at a time. Today, we move against nudity in humans. Tomorrow, we move against nudity everywhere—and when there is no more nudity, there is peace for all.