READING DAY AND A WORD ON WASHINGTON GRIDLOCK

I found some really interesting stuff to read today. I spent the better part of the morning paging through another book on ethics. Then I had some phone calls to make. To be blunt, it cut straight into my writing time.

But that doesn't matter. I grow when I read. I stock up on ideas. When I sit down to write tomorrow morning, I'm sure my inspiration will be flowing at full speed.

In the meantime, thanks for checking in. And don't forget to check out my archives!

I started looking through everything I've written so far about Barack Obama. I'm amazed that my satires have partially proven correct. Last year at this time, I never would have thought that my jokes about stubborn Republican opposition to Obama would have proven true. But oh how they did: Painfully so. In fact, the Republicans have succeeded in completely intimidating Obama simply by digging in their heels, crossing their arms and saying the word "no."

Democrats have not done much better. They refuse to stand up to the Republicans even though they have massive Congressional majorities. But whenever they pass something, the Republicans start screaming "tyranny by the majority." Now most Americans think Obama caused all the problems that originated more than 10 years ago. It's just hopeless.

Who'd a thunk that would have happened on February 3, 2009? I know I didn't. On the other hand, perhaps we all expected just a little too much from the Washington political system. I don't blame Obama as much as I blame the entire wretched two-party system with its identical, wealthy members. There really is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. They all come from the same social class. They just debate each other for show. In the end, nothing changes. Nothing at all.

But at least it gives me something to satirize. I guess that's the saving grace for me. There is abiding truth to the old Russian adage that "laughter through tears" is the best kind of laughter.

Oesterhoudt

I DISAPPROVE OF OBAMA BECAUSE HE HASN'T MADE ME A MILLIONAIRE YET

By : Franklin B. “Frankie Pepsi Cola” Carboni, Senior Parking Attendant, Frankie’s Hot Used Car Lot, Newark, N.J.; High School Graduate, Fresh Kills Academy; Special Certificate, Joy-Z Parking Systems 12-Hour Parking Technology Program, Paramus, N.J.; Democrat.

Like most Americans last year, I voted for Barack Obama. I wanted change. I wanted to make more money for my wife and two kids. I wanted affordable health insurance and lower taxes. I wanted smarter foreign policy. I wanted to see our boys home from Iraq. Basically, our country was in a tough spot in 2008. I voted for Obama because I trusted him to fix the economy and make America strong again. During his first days in office, I was among the millions who gave Obama strong approval ratings. After all, it looked like he could really get the job done.

But it’s been seven months now and the economy is still awful. Unemployment has never been higher. Obama has had plenty of time to overhaul health care, withdraw our troops from Iraq and save the economy. He hasn’t gotten anything done. No, he just barnstorms around the country mouthing slogans and asking for more time. Well guess what? This is America, buddy. You’ve got to put up results fast or shut up. We voted for you because we wanted results fast. You haven’t delivered. That’s why I join the millions of disappointed voters who now disapprove of Barack Obama. In my business, I park cars fast. Obama should be just as fast in his business.

I disapprove of Obama for a simple reason: He hasn’t made me a millionaire yet. He promised to restore strength to the economy. He promised that we would all be rich and prosperous if we voted for him. Last November, I happily went to the polls because I thought Obama would make my life better. Back then, I was making $26,000 a year as a Senior Parker at Tommy “Tommy Corned Beef” Fagiole’s Hot Used Car Lot in Newark. I lost that job in February because no one needed their car parked in this economy. Today, I am making only $24,000 at Frankie’s Hot Used Car Lot. I’m lucky to have a car parking job at all. My question to Obama is this: “Where’s my fuckin’ money?”

I expected Obama to make me a millionaire within six weeks. Every American expected the same thing. I wanted to go from parking Bentleys to owning them. I wanted to go from renting a smelly flat in Paramus to owning three condos in Short Hills. I wanted to buy my wife a Cartier and send my kids to that really nice private school in West New York. But it hasn’t happened. I’m still making a lousy $24,000 and my wife still serves coffee at a New Jersey Turnpike rest stop out in Elizabeth. Obama has had seven months to make me a millionaire. Yet here I am parallel parking 1996 Chevies for bum tips in Newark. I disapprove. Obama lied. He’s just another Washington politician who wrote a check he couldn’t cash.

Obama promised to fix health care, too. He hasn’t. Seven months into his term, I pay more for health insurance than I did under Bush. Seven months after promising “change we can believe in,” he can’t even push healthcare reform through a Democratic Congress. So I’m still paying 25% of my income to an insurance company that doesn’t cover cancer treatment, heart ailments, health problems involving the human body or medications beginning with a vowel.

This is bullshit. Obama promised results. He hasn’t delivered on health care. He told us he would change everything. But from my stoop, it all looks the same, if not worse. Last I checked, I still can’t get free health care in this country. What is the freakin’ holdup? Maybe Obama should spend some more time on health care rather than flying off to Egypt to apologize for stuff he never did. We want results, not talk. Hey, I’m just being fair. At my job, if I didn’t park a sedan that rolled into the car lot in January until August, I would have been fired a long time ago. Well Obama hasn’t parked the sedan yet. He hasn’t even shown up for work. And I’m still not a millionaire.

I’m not going to say Obama is doing a good job until my annual income surpasses $1,000,000. I don’t want excuses. I don’t want one of these Harvard stooges getting on TV telling me “I need to be patient” because this is the “worst economic downturn since 1930.” What do I care? I voted for Obama because he promised quick results. From where I’m standing, things have actually gotten worse. He has had more than enough time to give me a job that pays over a million a year. I should have been buying my wife diamonds by now. Instead, I take shit from my boss at Frankie’s Hot Car Lot for a lousy $400 a week. This ain’t change I can believe in. Where’s the GDP growth? Where’s the stock market money? Where’s the bailout cash? How come I don’t have $1,000,000 yet? Come on, I don’t have all day. I need to feed my kids, buy a new house and buy gas.

What about the boys in Iraq? Obama promised to end our involvement over there immediately. But we’re still there. It’s been seven months. It looks like Obama bullshitted me on that one, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah, he puts up some State Department clod to explain that “reducing military operations in foreign countries takes time” and that I can’t “expect results overnight.” Fuck that; yes I can. You told us: “Yes we can” when you said we could get our troops out of there. Well, where are they? When you say you’re going to end a war, get it done. Shit, when I say I can park a car in five minutes, it’s done in three. You said you could end a war in January. It’s August now and you still haven’t done it. I don’t buy excuses because excuses don’t fly in the parking business. And they shouldn’t fly for Presidents, either.

President Obama needs to work harder if he wants to get his approval back from me. I am not the only American who has lost confidence in his ability. We all thought we’d be rich by now, but lo and behold, we’re all still making shitty wages. Many Americans have even lost their jobs since he took office. We wouldn’t have voted for Obama if we didn’t think we’d get something from the deal. We wanted to get rich quick. Obama promised he would bring prosperity to America. He promised that we’d all have high-paying jobs. He told us that America would be a better place once he took office. But it’s all the same so far. In fact, the economy is way worse than it was on January 20. I don’t give my approval to Presidents who don’t make me rich.

This is about accountability. This is about trust. This is about promises. This is about results we can believe in. Obama has done nothing he promised. That makes him dishonest. Not only has he not made me a millionaire yet; he lied to me, too. I mean, where are the goddamned electric cars? Obama promised that he would replace gas-powered cars with “green” cars to reduce reliance on foreign oil. Last time I looked out my window, though, everyone is still driving 5-mile-per-gallon Excursions and Expeditions. Electric cars, my ass. Obama said he would completely reconfigure the auto industry for electric cars. Well, it’s been seven months and no change. We still rely on foreign oil. Just another promise Obama hasn’t kept.

Obama promised that we would have a moon colony, too. Guess what? It’s been seven months and no moon colony. How can I trust a guy who promises to make me a millionaire and found a moon colony, yet can’t get either one done in seven whole months? Do you know how many cars I can park in seven months? Obama is just flat-out lazy. It doesn’t take seven months to set up a moon colony. I should be kicking back gravity-free with a lunar margarita by now, for Christ’s sakes.

I had simple expectations when I voted for President Obama. I expected him to make me and my children millionaires by February 1, 2009, I expected him to have top-quality universal health care in place by March 1, 2009, I expected him to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by January 21, 2009, I expected him to eliminate racism by February 2, 2009, I expected him to establish a moon colony by March 15, 2009 and I expected him to cure cancer and AIDS by April 1, 2009. It is now August 3, 2009. He has accomplished none of these things. If he were in the private sector, he would have lost his job months ago. I mean, how difficult is it to cure AIDS? He said “Yes we can.” Well, I guess he can’t. If I were evaluating President Obama’s job performance today, I would say: “Piss poor.” With results like these, I wouldn’t even hire him as a Junior Parking Attendant at Frankie’s.

I will continue to disapprove President Obama’s job performance until he starts delivering results. And I will never approve his job performance until I have $1,000,000 in my bank account. Mr. President, you promised me a better economy and a better future. Well, it’s been seven months, and my future looks pretty grim. I speak for the millions of Americans to whom you promised a better life. We want to be millionaires. Make us millionaires. Otherwise, you can forget about being re-elected in 2012. Look, we’re not saying you’re a bad guy. You’re just not getting the job done. We have simple expectations. We just want to be millionaires. We have a right to expect quick results, just as our bosses do at our jobs.

We are the American people. We put you in the White House. We are your employers. You haven’t delivered. You had better put up fast or we will send you packing. We want million-dollar salaries, not excuses. Quite frankly, it is shocking that you haven’t saved the economy, rescued health care, eliminated racism, established a moon colony, reconfigured the auto industry, brought peace to the Middle East, cured Parkinson’s Disease or made me a millionaire after seven whole months. You are just incompetent, plain and simple.

You are not doing a good job. You get a solid F from me.

Until I’m a millionaire, I have only one thing to say: I disapprove.

THE CYNICAL EXPLANATION, YET AGAIN

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

I have written about health care for three straight days now. Everyone agrees that it is a significant issue; The New York Times seems to run an article about it every day. So far this week, I have explained, lampooned, recommended and even dismissed things concerning the "health care debate." To be blunt, I am frustrated that Congress cannot see the simple truth about health care. Rather, "politics as usual" threatens America's best opportunity to bring meaningful change to a profoundly unjust system.

Health care reform is steadily losing steam in Congress. You can just sense the fatal impasse. Representatives and Senators--even Democratic party allies--cannot agree on costs. They cannot agree on regulation, nor can they stomach the idea that "people can't choose their own doctors." They recoil from raising taxes because they worry they'll lose the next local election if they do. They flee from the talismanic specter of "socialized medicine" as soon as they perceive a tad too much "government involvement," even if proposed legislation is not remotely socialist in nature. Republicans, of course, simply refuse to do anything the Democrats want. So the fate of health care rests in the Democrats' hands. And they just bicker endlessly about costs and fine print. No one has the political courage to demand sweeping change.

Politics, politics, politics. Cowardly and pathetic as usual. It is even more pathetic when you consider that many representatives oppose health care reform because they worry about their own political futures. In other words, it is "all about their jobs," not beneficial decisions for the country. At times like these, it would be nice to have an Aristotelean Philosopher-King who wisely does what must be done for the people, vested interests be damned. But alas, we are stuck with stooges worried about their goddamned two-year jobs.

Yet there is something else going on here, something even more vexing. According to a New York Times article today about Obama's struggles to get a bill passed before the summer break, many Americans say they don't want universal health care reform because: "they [are] concerned that the quality of their own care would decline if the government created a program that covers everyone." See N.Y. Times, New Poll Finds Growing Unease on Health Plan, July 30, 2009.

This is rank selfishness in its most unabashed form: Americans don't want to allow others to get health care if it would somehow complicate their own access to health care. They don't even know whether universal care would restrict their existing health plan; they just "think" it will. God forbid. We certainly don't employed people to wait 40 minutes in the doctor's office instead of the usual 25 so that a lousy unemployed bum can get a free flu shot. That would affect "the quality of existing care."

I do not deny that I am intractably cynical on many issues. I am committed to cynicism as a "belief system" because it reliably explains human behavior as we observe it through experience. See, e.g., Cynical? Or Just Realistic? http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/09/essays_25.html published September 25, 2008. Cynicism provides a reliable framework to analyze human motivations. Put simply, cynicism assumes that everyone acts selfishly. It doubts people's sincerity, mocks their claims to nobility and explains all their behavior by reference to crude self-interest. It may be lazy to be cynical. But in case after case involving economic questions (as almost all social questions do), experience reveals that cynical assumptions generally prove correct in the end. After all, people are selfish. They act to better themselves. Their actions merely reveal their motivations.

Cynicism works. It provides a clear explanation for America's hesitancy to embrace sweeping health care reform. Politicians might quarrel about amortization, costs, interest, long-term savings, expenditures and even "socialized medicine." But all these catchphrases are mere chaff to cover the real explanation: People just don't want to suffer inconvenience to help others. Universal health care is a revolutionary proposition because it challenges America to put others before themselves. It will not necessarily reduce the "quality of existing care." Yet it is precisely the selflessness inherent in the idea that repels the American mind. After all, Americans generally don't like doing anything that makes their lot more difficult. Helping others is simply not very lucrative and it requires effort. It pays no bills. If helping people is not somehow profitable, Americans typically won't do it. They have their own "responsibilities" to worry about.

Universal health care involves "helping" people on a grand scale. Strictly viewed, there is no individual, selfish reward for accomplishing it. At most, the reward for universal health care will be justice and humanity in a society that claims to treasure both. Yet justice and humanity are "just words;" no one does anything in this country if it brings home no bacon. Universal health care brings home no bacon. It gives bacon to people who traditionally could not get it, and those with bacon resent the idea that they might not have as much bacon as they used to. The idea that we might achieve a society with just access to bacon does not compensate for the anger that wells up in a bacon owner who loses his bacon hoard.

This is the cynical explanation for American resistance to universal health care. It is based in selfish notions of property entitlement and personal convenience. And it is absolutely accurate.

I really have no idea how the health care debate will turn out. When Barack Obama won the White House last year, I really thought that America wanted to re-order its value system. But if the bitter recriminations over health care reform are any indication, it is clear that America has a very long way to go on value change. We're just as selfish as ever. And no promise of justice for all will convince anyone to give up their "entitlements" or "existing advantages."

Cynical? Yes. But I'm just being realistic.

WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT ABOUT GETTING HEALTH CARE RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY?

AN ESSAY

I saw a documentary on cable a few weeks ago about health care in India. It drew attention to the “cleft palate epidemic” plaguing Indian children. For some reason, much greater percentages of children in India suffer from this disorder than they do in Western countries. The filmmakers showed that children with cleft palates suffer social ostracism and cannot effectively contribute to society. In many cases, their parents even let them die or give them to orphanages rather than try to raise them.

According to the film, the Indian government made a concerted effort to combat the epidemic. It mustered its best doctors and nationally advertised a program to “repair cleft palates.” These advertisements urged parents with ill children to bring them to designated hospitals, where trained surgeons would repair cleft palates at no charge. Parents simply had to come up with the transportation costs to the nearest hospital. Once they arrived, doctors consulted with them, determined the best surgical procedure and carried it out. In most cases, the surgeries were successful.

After the operations, nurses gathered parents and their children in a conference room. They thanked them for coming and for allowing the surgeons to help them. Finally, they asked their patients to tell all their friends about the government effort to heal cleft palates, and to send them to the nearest hospital for care. After all, said the nurse: “Without patients, a hospital is useless.”

No one ever talked about insurance or money. No one threw anybody out of the hospital because they couldn’t afford it. There were no “care approvals” or “administrative investigations” into “patient solvency.” In fact, all the parents who responded to the government advertisement were destitute. They came to the hospitals because the government told them it wanted to heal their children. After all, it was in the national interest to cure diseases. Money did not even enter the question.

To an American viewer, this seems incredibly foreign. It is impossible to talk about health care in this country without talking about money, insurance, profit, deficits, bankruptcy, debt, loans, Republicans, Democrats and even class distinction. The simple humanity of curing sick people fades into obscurity as policymakers battle over fiscal responsibility, fraud, overbilling, cost analyses and insurance practices. Yet isn’t health care about health? How did health care turn into a vast money game in this country? What happened to the “health” in health care? And what happened to “care?”

Health care is an enormous issue in the United States. America has dubious notoriety as the only major industrial power without some guaranteed health coverage for all its citizens. While it offers the best care in the world to those who can afford it, it also allows millions of others to go without any care at all. This is a profound national embarrassment, especially in a country that has long prided itself on respect for human dignity, equality and “general goodness.” After all, it is hard to argue that “America cares” on the world stage when it does not even provide medical care to millions of its own people.

For decades now, politicians have attempted to address this embarrassment. Many have tried to introduce legislation that provides basic care for all. They have all failed. For better or worse, health care in America is a private commodity, like wheat or oil. Insurance companies and private hospitals dictate policy, prices and access. They compete with one another for “patient business,” just as auto manufacturers compete for customers. Like any private commodity, you can’t buy health care if you can’t afford it, and that commercial reality has frustrated every effort to reform the system. After all, in the eyes of private business, providing universal care would be like giving away oil or wheat for free. That doesn’t happen in other commercial fields, so why should it happen in health care? It just “wouldn’t be fair” or “fiscally responsible” to give commercial goods away. That, at least, is the response from private enterprise. And that response has derailed every attempt to bring more humanity to our health care system.

Barack Obama promised that he would “reform health care” during the 2008 Presidential campaign. He publicly said that he will “get it done,” no matter the opposition. He even acknowledged that many have failed before him. He rode to victory on such noble-sounding promises as these. In 2009, Congress drafted health care legislation. It now founders and threatens to collapse before it even comes up for a vote. Everyone is complaining. The momentum is waning. No one likes the price tag. No one likes the handouts. No one likes the subsidies. No one likes the rules. No one likes the mandatory employer coverage or penalties for refusing to cover employees. Republicans resent any attempt to undercut private enterprise and insurance companies. Democrats are fatally divided between those brave enough to demand universal coverage and those who run in political terror from the costs. In essence, the objections all boil down to money and “responsibility.” Again, the health care debate in America has degenerated into a money debate.

When will our politicians understand that health care is about health, not money? Is it really that difficult to formulate a system in which all Americans can obtain medical care without fearing bankruptcy? Is it really that difficult to change our minds from profit to humanity? Our government should care as much about whether its citizens are healthy as it cares whether its budgets are sound. If citizens die, what good is a budget? In short, the health care debate has lost all focus. As politicians bicker and wage war over costs, Americans continue suffering because they cannot see a doctor. Hospitals care more about their budgets than they care about people’s health. Hospitals are corporations in the United States. I suppose we should have expected nothing less. Humanity, after all, does not produce dividends for the shareholders.

If we really want to solve the health care mess, we need to change our focus. We need to stop hemming and hawing about costs. We must be brutally honest: Health care for all costs a lot. But if we really want it, we have to pay for it. If that means giving things away, then so be it. Health care must be about health and care, not cost and profit. If these values are inconsistent with private enterprise, then we must take power away from private enterprise. I venture that it is foolish to trust private enterprise to handle health care anyway, precisely because private enterprise and humanity are mutually exclusive. After all, private enterprise is private. Humanity is public. Try telling the shareholders that their money is paying to help the public. It won’t fly.

I simply do not buy the idea that reforming health care would be “prohibitively expensive.” If India can scrape together the money to surgically repair cleft palates for free, then so can we. India paid the money to heal children because India cared about them as human beings, not paying customers. India did not care whether these children could pay for insurance; it cared that they were suffering. That is a fundamental difference in values. If we really want to change health care in the United States, we need to start caring about our fellow man who suffers, not whether he can afford to pay $4,000,000 for a hospital stay. We need to stop worrying about whether it would be “fair” to treat a sick person who can’t afford it. We must simply have the courage to say: “These are our fellow citizens. They must be cared for because we care as a society, even if it costs a lot.”

Can we do this? Do we have it in us? Can we really change our values and free ourselves from the money spell? I think we can, but I know many people will say we can’t. They will say that universal care is far too expensive and would encourage irresponsibility. They will say it would require excessive taxes and kill American jobs. They will say it would be nice to care for everyone, but not nice enough to raise taxes for.

I think that caring for everyone in our society is nice enough to raise taxes for. If we can raise taxes for infrastructure, navies, wars, welfare and public services, why can’t we raise them for health? Wouldn’t health be a good thing to buy? Sure, it would cost a lot, but many other countries willingly pay the bill. You don’t read horror stories about poor people being thrown out of hospitals in France or England. These countries—like India—simply have different values. They care enough about their citizens’ health to pay to protect it.

Does it not seem callous—and even vicious—that we do not? At this point, however, the familiar objection arises: “But those countries make patients wait 75 years for care and people die in clinic waiting rooms. That never happens in America because doctors make enough money, pharmaceutical companies have an economic incentive to invent effective new drugs and hospitals are cost-effective…blah blah blah.”

While it may be true that a desire for profit impels medical breakthroughs and “top-notch” care for those fortunate to have expensive private insurance, the American system leaves millions without any protection at all. The “private market model” for health care may very well be efficient, but only for those who can afford it. I am deeply skeptical about arguments that link potential profitability to “effective health care.” If we really want to change the focus in health care, our desire to help our fellow man must be just as alluring as securing market shares and outdoing last year’s sales record.

Are there long waits for care in other systems? Probably. But I have a feeling that most invective against “socialized medicine”—especially in Canada—is pure propaganda. For every scary story about a bad waiting room experience in Canada there is another story about timely, effective care. I have a friend from Alberta who required bypass heart surgery and was in the operating room within a week. Since then, he has been fine. His “poorly-paid” doctors were not incompetent. He did not die in a waiting room. He never paid a dime for his care. He even got to take off two months from work—with pay. His story shows once again that health care can really be about “health” and “care,” not money and insurance.

Why can’t we do the same in this country? Why does everything have to generate a profit here? Why is it a national disaster if someone gets expensive, life-saving surgery but doesn’t pay for it? If we really want to fix health care, we need to stop thinking in profit terms. We can do it if we are willing to change our values. We simply need to pay the cost. Yet Americans dislike spending money on others as much as they like making it for themselves. They will do anything to avoid incurring additional costs, especially if they “get nothing” out of it. The psychic—and even moral—satisfaction that flows from living in a community that truly cares about everyone does not impress most Americans. They would rather have more disposable income for themselves. That is the sad truth about why this country does not provide basic health coverage for all.

But isn’t this pitifully egotistic? If a so-called “developing” country like India manages to provide free operations to its citizens, why can’t we? We obviously have more money, more technology and more facilities. Yet our government does not publicly call for “all sick people” to come get cured at State expense. Why not? Doesn’t it sound wonderful? Doesn’t it sound like the State actually cares about its own people when it does something like this? And doesn’t it make us look embarrassingly cruel because we do not do such things?

Put bluntly, we would rather let some people die than give “health care commodities” away for free. These are our values: No money, no beer.

If we really want to overhaul health care in this country, we need to stop thinking in economic terms. Instead, we must think in human terms, no matter how much it costs. I understand that this is politically difficult. But it is the only way to really change the system. There is simply no way to satisfy both private enterprise and humanity at the same time.

We need to start saying: “Without patients, a hospital is useless,” not “Without paying $600 a month for insurance, you can’t be a patient.”

GREETINGS FROM THE FEDERAL CHANCELLOR FOR LIVING/DEAD RELATIONS

THE DEPARTMENT OF LIVING/DEAD RELATIONS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

By : Mr. Franklin F. Tottenham, Chancellor of the Federal Department for Living/Dead Relations; J.D., Yale Law School (1989); Consulting Expert in Health Policy, The Brookline Association, Boston, Massachusetts (1991-2004); Deceased 2005; Vice President of the American Walking Corpse Federation for Fair Employment Opportunities in the Private Sector (2005-2008); Corpse (Living).

When President Barack Obama won the White House last autumn, he promised America “change we can believe in.” Unlike his predecessor, President Obama grounded his political philosophy in a society of inclusion, not exclusion. In short, President Obama ushered in a new day in American political life. Under President Obama, everyone has a chance to succeed in America. Everyone counts. The President’s own life story proves that anyone make it in this country. Minorities and historically-marginalized groups all over America wept for joy to celebrate Obama’s victory. For the first time in their lives, they felt real hope that America would finally make a place for them: African-Americans no longer felt that they were doomed to repression and “dead ends” in society; gay men dared hope that they, too, could marry; and immigrants proudly stood up to say that they had a place.

This is a new America. This is an America that believes in itself. This is change we can believe in. President Obama, you said: “Yes we can.” We say: “Yes we did.” We salute your commitment to the American dream for all Americans. You understand that everyone in America—even those without economic power or education—can contribute to our Nation’s success.

This is a significant achievement. All Americans means all Americans; that means both living and dead Americans. For too long, America has failed to consider the needs of the dead in political life. For too long, America simply buried its dead and moved on. It not only maliciously discriminated against dead people; it literally forgot about them. But President Obama understands injustice when he sees it. Freedom does not exist unless all people enjoy it. It does not matter whether a person’s cells have perished. It does not matter whether a person’s heart has stopped or his flesh has rotted away. It does not even matter whether a person died in 1694. Americans are still Americans—and Americans deserve freedom. That is why President Obama commanded Congress to pass the Dead Matter Too Act (DMTA). This act represents a gigantic step toward justice in the United States. For the first time in history, America told its dead: “You have a voice, too.”

Mr. President, as Chancellor of the Federal Department for Living/Dead Relations, and as a dead man, I salute you for your commitment to American ideals. I speak for every dead body in America when I say: “We will help you realize the dream.”

But despite all the recent gains, our road has not been easy. We cannot guarantee immediate progress. For centuries, America has stamped the dead with a badge of inferiority. The living lived as if they were the only ones here. For centuries, the law permitted them to bury us, burn us, toss us into ditches and even sink us to the ocean bottom without so much as asking our opinion on the matter. The living branded us with epithets that cut deeply into our collective self-esteem: stiffs, stinkers, stenches, funeral parlor bait, coffin crud… the list goes on. Laws not only authorized this unequal and demeaning treatment; laws did not even mention us. From a legal perspective, we were not even second-class citizens; we were nothing at all. Although the living spent money on headstones and even set aside land for us, they simply ignored us afterward, leaving us to slowly decompose six feet underground. To add insult to injury, they took away all our property and distributed it to grandchildren, estranged wives and even creditors. In sum, dead Americans face a legacy of State-sponsored discrimination. We have been purposely suppressed, marginalized, demeaned and forgotten. In some cases, we are completely gone. We ask the President to remember our dead brethren who faced cremation, obliteration, vaporization or worse.

But those dark days are over. We are turning a new page in American history. Now, the Federal government has finally recognized that we deserve a chance, too. Despite all the historical prejudice against us, President Obama recognized that we deserve a chance to influence policy in the United States. Through the DMTA, the Federal Department for Living/Dead Relations has two goals: (1) To help eradicate the practical handicaps created by historical discrimination against dead Americans; and (2) To make policy suggestions to living lawmakers concerning national legislative initiatives.

Today, I want to educate the public about our mission. Concerning our first goal, I want to remind all living Americans that dead people are people, too. We ask you to remember that President Obama promised a bright future for all Americans, whether black, white, Native American, Asian, immigrant, disabled, homosexual or dead. We recognize that it used to be “OK” to discriminate against the dead. In days past, polite people rarely invited dead neighbors over for dinner. Top-rate universities never accepted dead applicants. Living Americans assumed that all dead people smelled, were ugly, acted irresponsibly and looked like they were sleeping all the time. But that was pure bigotry. In 2009, we no longer make assumptions about people simply because they are dead. We evaluate people based upon their character and their achievements, not their cellular status or pulmonary/respiratory function. We do not stereotype about dead people, just as we do not stereotype about Hispanics or Asians. Today, every American deserves a chance.

We want to set the record straight about dead Americans. We are not sleeping. We do not smell. We are not ugly, even if we may have decomposed in whole or in part. Despite our appearance, we have achieved great things. Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity and he is dead. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone and he is dead. Dwight Eisenhower defeated the Nazis in Europe and he is dead. Henry Ford introduced mass production and revolutionized industrial society; he is dead, too. Thus, there is no substance to the claim that “all dead people” are irresponsible or lazy. To the contrary, many dead people have achieved tremendous things. Babe Ruth, for instance, is one of the greatest baseball players in American history. And he is dead. We believe America should open its mind to the reality that dead people have done—and will do—great things. We must move beyond superficial generalizations. We believe the Federal Department for Living/Dead Relations will help living Americans cast aside their historical prejudices against the dead. After all, you likely have dead relatives. You wouldn’t treat them with disrespect, would you?

When Americans learn that the dead are people just like you, we are confident that dead Americans will overcome the practical roadblocks that have held them back for so long. When Americans learn that dead people do not just “sleep” or “smell,” we are confident that private employers will proudly offer them jobs. We are confident that dead Americans will prove their worth by their own merit and intelligence. For that reason, we do not advocate mandatory quotas to forcibly assimilate dead Americans into the workforce. We do not believe this because we fear that the United States Supreme Court will rule against us. Rather, we do not need quotas because dead Americans have the ability to succeed without additional assistance. Many dead people achieved success during life. There is no reason to think that minor impediments such as death should bar them from resuming their winning ways. All Americans face adversity. All Americans can overcome adversity. Death is no exception. A determined American dead person can get any job he or she wants, as long as she has the talent, drive and ambition to get it. In short, we are confident that dead Americans will soon be respected, productive members of American society, just as they were when they were alive.

Dead people want to work. They want to be responsible. They want to send their children to college. They want to pay taxes. We believe they should have the chance to prove themselves on a level playing field. Although we acknowledge the concern that living people may lose their jobs to the dead, we point out that death affects us all. Living people, too, will one day be dead. While a living person may feel stung to lose a job or university seat to a dead person, we merely note that for centuries the dead had no opportunity whatsoever either to work or study. In that light, we believe that living people can bear some incidental burdens to compensate dead people for centuries of unrestricted social exclusion. Colloquially, we also note that “what goes around comes around.” When a living person sacrifices for a dead one, he or she should do it cheerfully, for one day she, too, will be dead. Once she is dead, she will want all the same opportunities she had when she was alive. In this sense, it is only fair that both living and dead Americans enjoy equal access to every advantage in American society. And fairness is important in America.

Dead Americans also have a right to participate in the democratic process. The Federal Department for Living/Dead Relations gives substance to this right. Under the DMTA, the Department has authority to advise Congress concerning all legislative initiatives. This does not mean that the dead will dominate the national debate; it merely means that the dead have a right to be heard in legislative decisionmaking. This is not revolutionary. To the contrary, the dead have special insights into practical problems. Taken as a whole, dead people possess boundless wisdom. We have seen everything under the sun. This collective experience will translate well into prudent legislation.

Yet we cannot effectively consult on legislative matters until Congress recognizes that dead people have needs, too. We agree with Congress that health care must be reformed. But we will not solve the health care mess by ignoring the dead. We must take steps to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care, including American corpses in various states of decay. How is it just that only wealthy living people have access to top-notch treatments? How is it just that lower-income living people and every dead person cannot even visit a doctor when they need to? Both the economy and the government depend upon people. Without a healthy population, people cannot effectively serve either the economy or the government. We must find a solution to the health care mess that delivers compassionate, high-quality care no matter whether the patient is a wealthy living banker or a bankrupt dead day laborer. And we must do so in a fiscally responsible manner.

We believe that dead people can help end the health care impasse in many ways. For one, dead doctors can volunteer their time to treat living patients. Contrary to longstanding social prejudice, dead doctors can perform examinations, administer medications, write prescriptions and oversee surgery just as well as—if not better than—living doctors. In fact, many living doctors learned what they know from doctors who are now dead. Additionally, dead doctors have simpler salary requirements, do not require lunch breaks and do not suffer as much fatigue as living doctors. Second, dead financial advisers can help iron out solutions to funding national health care programs. Many well-respected dead financial advisers have key experience needed to balance the unique fiscal risks inherent in any national health program. We should harness that experience. Third, dead office personnel can handle the tremendous administrative burden that surely will accompany any national health plan. Millions of dead Americans lived their lives managing charts, organizing files, pulling patient records and stapling medical documents for hours on end. We should put their experience back to work to guarantee well-administered national health care for all. In a word, dead people have varied talents. And they all can help write America a clean bill of health.

As dead people, we just want to be heard. We acknowledge that there are certain questions in the national debate we may not be fully qualified to handle. For example, the death penalty perplexes us. After all, what good does the death penalty do for offenders who are already dead? In our view, the death penalty is no penalty at all for a dead American. Yet we acknowledge that we are not qualified to debate this issue. We are fully prepared to defer to our living colleagues to handle it.

All in all, we are happy to live in an enlightened era. For the first time in American history, we have achieved equal opportunity. We finally matter. We are not just forgotten relics. We are confident that we can contribute to American society. We salute President Obama for his commitment to freedom for everyone, including the dead. No longer are we condemned to a bleak future in caskets and urns. No, for the first time in American history, we have a chance to speak. We have achieved so much. And so has America. We truly now live in an era of freedom.

It is 2009. Discrimination is dead, not us.

LIMBAUGH : I'M NOT A RACIST; SOTOMAYOR IS

By : Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, Media Commentator and Spokesman for the Republican Party and the true United States of America; Barack Obama Opponent; College Dropout; Proponent of Traditional American values; Equal Opportunity Employer; Divorcé; Anti-Drug Crusader; Proponent of Harsh Penalties for Drug Offenders; Drug-Free since 2006.

Several weeks ago, I said I hope Barack Hussein Obama fails in everything he does. I meant it then, and I mean it now. I hope he slips on a banana peel in front of the White House. I hope a terrorist flies a plane right into his bedroom window. I hope his black kids get cancer and die. I hope his black wife cheats on him with some hulking NBA star and he lies about it to the press. I hope the Senate impeaches him for lying. I hope Middle Eastern governments declare war on the United States so we have an excuse to get this Magic Negro out of our lives for good. In short, I hope Barack Hussein Obama never tastes success ever again. And I hope he dies a painful death bitter, forgotten and alone.

I am not a racist. I just think that black people are stupid. I don’t personally hire them to do anything meaningful on my show. I don’t invite them over for dinner parties or to watch Monday Night Football. That doesn’t mean I’m a racist. When it comes to employment, I don’t discriminate. I just hire people who can do the job. And that means no blacks. It hurts me when people say I’m a racist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Racism is bad for America. I am trying to save America from racism. That’s why I oppose Barack Obama and his white-hating racist Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

We solved the race problem in this country a long time ago. In fact, as soon as old Abe Lincoln set the darkies free back in 1865, all our racial problems immediately disappeared. Yet black folk say that America still treats them worse than everyone else. They say that the law and our society make it difficult for them to achieve the same success as white folk. They say they go to prison in a greater proportion than whites; they say they die earlier than whites; and they say they earn less money than whites; they say it’s harder for them to get jobs than whites. Well why not? They are black. You know what blacks are like. They say the police assume all black people are all criminals. Well I have news for them: In most cases, they are. How can you blame a cop for assuming a black guy in a doo rag is a criminal? Numbers don’t lie. Blacks commit crime. Whites go to work and pay taxes. These facts do not prove there is racism in America. This is just the way things are. Blacks act black and whites act white. In fact, it smacks of ingratitude when black folks demand more advantages and “help” in American society. For goodness sakes, we already freed you! And you have a “brother” in the White House! What more do you want? We even call them people now; we used to call them property. That’s a big improvement. But no, that’s not enough for them—now they want equal pay, equal dignity, equal job opportunities and an equal chance at happiness in America. What a bunch of whining ingrates. If you want to be successful, shut up and get in line like everyone else.

Our government has bent over backward to help black people. Congress has wasted lifetimes trying to “level the playing field” between whites and blacks. In so doing, they have given black people entitlement after entitlement. In the process, our federal government has transformed black people into “the favorite of the laws.” So many laws favor black people; a white guy can’t get a word in edgewise anymore. If it ever comes down to a black candidate and a white candidate, the white guy should just quit the contest. Blacks get special bonuses in employment, education, housing…you name it, they get it. Your average white guy doesn’t stand a chance anymore. The sad part is that blacks don’t even need the help. Our Constitution already abolished slavery and guaranteed “equal protection” to everyone under the law. See, e.g., U.S. Const. Amds. XIII and XIV. Doesn’t that clear it up once and for all? I mean, they’re not slaves anymore and they are equal under law. What more do they want? There is no more racism in America. All this talk about “past discrimination” and “historical inferiority” just makes me sick. Black people need to stop living in the past. Basically, they need to stop whining, stop committing crimes, get up off their butts and go to work. If they get less pay it’s just because they are dumber than the white guy who does the same job. This isn’t about racism. It’s about ability and freedom.

But neither Congress nor Barack “the Magic Negro” Obama seems to understand this. They think black people face monumental injustices every day, even though they are not slaves anymore. They selfishly claim that blacks need even more help to overcome the “legacy of state-sponsored racism” and the “ignominy of slavery.” Excuse me, but this is ridiculous. These are historical problems, not modern-day issues. I don’t whine about something my ancestors endured. I just get up and go to work like any other guy. If black people want to help themselves, they should stop worrying about what happened in the 19th Century and get a fucking job in the 21st Century. But then they start complaining that they can’t get jobs because racism kept them from getting an education, and that’s why they turned to crime. You see the cycle? What self-serving bullshit. I am not a racist, but what a bunch of lazy, cowardly losers. No matter what the Magic Negro says about it, black people face no real challenges. They are legally equal to everyone. All their whining about “practical inequality in American society” is just one big excuse for their own laziness. Once you are equal in law, you are equal in fact. If you think otherwise, you are just imagining it. And you’re certainly not going to get anywhere imagining that something that happened in 1840 is still affecting you today.

Racism is over in America because we amended the Constitution. By abolishing slavery, we abolished racism. We live in a “post-racial” society. Everyone has an equal chance to succeed in America, and we are all Americans. Ancestry, race, national origin and language are irrelevant to the question whether we are Americans. Race does not matter anymore. Yet Barack Obama thinks it does. Now he’s trying to appoint Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. This Puerto Rican dragon-lady is a racist. She wants to introduce race back into the national dialogue. She thinks that ancestry, race and national origin actually affect the way people view issues. She thinks a white male might not be able to empathize with problems faced by blacks and Hispanics. She does not understand that race does not matter anymore. If anything, she wants to give special treatment to “minorities” because they are “disadvantaged.” No they aren’t. In our post-racial society, everyone is the same, whether they are black, white, Russian, Chinese or Sioux. Everyone is equal under our Constitution, and to suggest that black people deserve more “empathy” than white people is pure racism.

Racism is a thing of the past. But Sotomayor says she want to “freshen” the “conservative Supreme Court” with her “Latina” perspective. In a word, Sotomayor wants to make her heritage relevant to constitutional issues. This is despicable racism. Sure, lots of Supreme Court cases involve race. In fact, Sotomayor herself recently decided a case in which she refused to allow white firefighters to sue a Connecticut municipality for throwing out results from an officers’ test because no black people passed it. See Ricci v. De Stefano, Docket No. 06-4996 (Ct. App. 2d Cir.). When racism is clear in cases like that, aggrieved people need a remedy. White people can suffer discrimination, too, especially when vengeful blacks assume powerful positions over them. Sotomayor is always going to take sides in these disputes. She is always going to assume that the “bad whites” are sticking it to the “good blacks and Puerto Ricans.” But what about the white people? White people need help, too. We were here first. We used to own you guys. We conquered Puerto Rico and its natives. Now you want to discriminate against us? What the hell is going on here? Is the world upside down? Put simply, racism now only exists among vengeful blacks with a bone to pick with history. If Sotomayor is confirmed to the Supreme Court, she is going to splatter her racist agenda all over the United States.

Something strange happened to racism in America. In the old days, it was OK to treat black people like property because they were property. They were legally different. Since 1865, however, black people have achieved so many legal advantages and protections that they have gotten uppity. Now, all their advantages have rendered white people second-class citizens. Black people took constitutional language intended to equalize them and exploited it to make white people unequal. In short, black people want race to matter because it helps them get unfair advantages. Hey, if I ran a crooked poker game, I wouldn’t want to tilt the table back, either. Just ask a white Harvard applicant whether it’s better to be black or white. To get into Harvard now as a white kid, you need to be Albert Einstein, Lance Armstrong, Shakespeare, Michael Jordan and Mozart all rolled into one. But if you’re black, you just need to be able to form full sentences in pidgin English. Why? Because all these goddamned federal initiatives make race relevant to educational decisionmaking. This is racism, pure and simple. Defenders say these measures “help black people overcome historical prejudice and the injuries of past discrimination.” Oh really? So all the really smart white kids need to suffer to avenge so-called “crimes” allegedly committed by their ancestors? This is no solution. And in fact, there is no need for a solution to past racism because it doesn’t exist anymore. Why come up with a solution to a problem that is gone? It is fucking stupid. It says “past racism.” “Past” means that something is not here anymore. There is no more racism, so why are we trying to remedy a problem that is gone? I get all worked up just thinking about it.

We need to stand fast against Sotomayor and the race-baiters. Black people and “minorities” have absolutely nothing to complain about. We live a post-racial society where every person enjoys “equal protection” under the law. When we treat some citizens differently based on race, we perpetuate racism. Today, the only people who suffer racism are white. I hate racism. When I see proud white people suffering indignities at the hands of overprivileged blacks, my blood boils. I recoil from injustice. Race should never influence government decisionmaking because that leads to racism and unfair advantages in our society. In America, we believe in equality. We do not practice what we preach when we give black people “extra points” for being black. Qualified white people rightly feel outrage when they lose their Yale seats to some silver-spoon drug dealer from a crack-infested Brooklyn housing project. When people obtain advantages based on their skin color, something is wrong. White people do not deserve to suffer discrimination. Racism is wrong. Yet Sonia Sotomayor will perpetuate this dangerous cycle. She will make skin color relevant; and she will afford preferential treatment to people simply because they were lucky enough to be born a negro. Every American who believes in equality should condemn this repugnant racism.

Liberals say I’m a racist because I condescend, generalize, stereotype and patronize black people. They say I’m a racist because I use epithets like “porch money,” “darkie,” “negro,” “boy” and “coon” on my radio show. But I never use the “N-word” on the air. They say I have no sympathy for the institutional difficulties that black people face every day in America. But all my critics miss the point. I believe in equality, law and freedom; that makes it impossible for me to be a racist. Racism means you think a certain race is inferior. But how could I think that if I believe in the law? Our law says everyone is equal. According to the law, no one is inferior. Thus, according to the law, I don’t think anyone is legally inferior. Black people are our legal equals. Among my legal equals, I am free to choose the people with whom I want to associate. Black people are not the same as I am. They smell differently than I do. They drop the “R” sound from words ending in “R,” such as “floor,” “door” or “store.” They have black skin. They have different-looking hair. They call each other “homie,” not “buddy.” They commit crimes. They leech welfare money. They never get married and have 67 children out of wedlock. They initiate frivolous lawsuits. They encourage children to commit crimes with rap music about drive-by shootings. They live differently than I do. They might be my legal equals, but that doesn’t mean I have to invite them over for dinner. And just because I don’t invite someone over for dinner does not make me a racist. I don’t think blacks are inferior; I just think they are different from me in a worse way. I believe in freedom. Freedom means the freedom to think that others are different. Freedom means the freedom to hire whomever you want in private business. Freedom means the freedom to invite whomever you want over to dinner without governmental interference. And last I checked, America stands for freedom.

But Sotomayor is a racist. She wants to wage war on freedom by making race relevant to governmental policy again. It is so not 1865 anymore. Our government does not tolerate distinctions based on race, whether or not those distinctions aid or injure their subjects. Yet Sotomayor thinks the Constitution empowers government to “right the wrongs of history” by awarding special treatment to blacks and Hispanics. No it doesn’t. If anything, our Constitution forbids discriminating against white people. There is no more racism against blacks, Hispanics, Japs or redskins because we are all equal under law. But white people suffer injustice every day. They need help now; and Sotomayor will definitely not give it to them. She thinks all white people are evil conservative slaveowners who deserve to be punished for not being politically correct. Well, I have news for her: That is racism. She thinks white people are inferior because they are tyrannical and evil. Or at least their great-great-grandfathers were tyrannical and evil.

If you believe in freedom, you will tell your Senator to vote down Sotomayor. Make Obama fail. Tell him that racism has no place in American life. And tell him that white people refuse to live in bondage any longer.

PROFLIGATE DEMOCRATIC WASTRELS IN DEFENSE OF INCREASED SPENDING, DEVIANCE AND DECADENCE

POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD

By : Mrs. Nancy P. Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; Unabashed Spendthrift

On November 4, 2008, America chose a Democratic President to lead this country. In so doing, the American people told the world that they are ready to spend money. In the months following the election, I have the led the House of Representatives on a bold path to economic recovery through spending, not saving. The American people are sick and tired of penny-pinching Republicans. They want to print cash, go shopping and spend. As Democrats, we are committed to throwing all your money out the window. George W. Bush and his Republican minions reviled spending. We Democrats are different: We are wastrels. We do not mind spending money. In fact, we really enjoy it. Republicans only had negative messages during their time in power. They always said: “We will NOT spend any money this year.” But we Democrats have a positive message: “We WILL spend money this year—lots of it.” Americans chose us because they want positive messages, not negative ones. The era of fear-mongering and anally-retentive treasury management is over. Let us move proudly into a new era of runaway spending, moral license, decadence, deviance and perversion. This is change we can believe in.

Our economy lies in ruins. Thanks to parsimonious Republican skinflints, countless Americans lost their jobs. Millions more find themselves without health insurance or food money. As Democratic wastrels, we intend to end the hard times. We are prepared to spend trillions of dollars on American working men and women. We are ready to blow $100 bills onto the streets with industrial fans and let unemployed workers take as many as they want. We will stimulate job growth by inviting private employers to come down to the Treasury and take out as much money as they need to keep the payroll rolling. And we are not afraid of terrorists. We will keep the money presses humming for as long as it takes to defeat bin Laden and every Wall Street crook. We do not care about responsibility. We just want to make sure everyone gets all the money they need. Our opponents say that Americans need to “know the value of a dollar.” We say: “What good is it to know the value of a dollar when everyone is unemployed and starving?”

When Americans have money, they are happy. They do not complain. That is why the Democratic Party is America’s party. We spend money on everyone, from Donald Trump all the way down to the homeless beggar who sleeps in a garbage pile outside the Trump Tower. Everyone is equal in our United States. And everyone can visit the Treasury to get as much money as they need. We will beat this recession with a simple phrase: “Come on Down!”

Republicans say that we cannot afford to increase spending on health care, welfare and employment insurance. The Republicans miss the point. We are not going to increase spending. We are going to give away money; there is a difference. We are the party of deviance, insolence, license and irresponsibility. We spend money when we feel like it; we do not wring our hands and talk about “ownership society” or “saving.” We believe that the American people want us to spend money. Through responsibility, Republicans ruined our economy. Through frugality, the Republicans allowed our children to starve. Enough is enough. We will reverse the Republican tide. Responsibility and frugality did not work. It is time for solutions that work. It is time for irresponsibility and extravagance. What good is responsibility when it creates monsters like Bernie Madoff? In our view, we would much rather have irresponsible sods running government than responsible Republicans who steal everything in sight. And what good is frugality when frugal Republicans bankrupted America invading Iraq? The time for responsibility and frugality is over. Join us if you are ready to get some free money and start living again.

We are committed to immoral government. By electing a Democratic President and Democratic Congress, America told the world that we are tired of Republican morality. Republicans and their morality led to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, John Roberts, Enron, international condemnation and the Katrina debacle. Republicans took a stand against gay marriage and bad language in schools. What good did that do? Our economy is in the gutter and our currency is nearly worthless. America is sick and tired of Republican morality. Americans want change. They want immorality, vice, sodomy, decadence and deviance. We Democrats promise to deliver all that and more. We are not afraid to let men marry men or women marry women. We are not afraid to allow our children to smoke opium or praise homosexual relationships. We also firmly support unethical behavior. After all, Republican ethics gave us Enron and Alberto Gonzales. Ethics gave us scandal and embarrassment. We want change. That is why the Democratic Party promises to set new standards for unethical behavior in the new Century. Through immorality and wastefulness, we promise to save this country from ruin.

We live in desperate times. Unemployment has reached its highest level since the 1930s. People lose their homes every day. For many, the American dream has turned into a nightmare. But we can bring light back to America with wasteful spending. There is a reason why America’s economy failed last year. If it were not for eight years of Republican responsibility, frugality, decency, honor, ethics, morality and compassion, we would not be in the position we occupy today. Together, we can reverse these trends. Together, we can waste our money, act dishonorably, encourage premarital sex and condone recreational drug use. We will stem the tide. We will set a new standard for license, vice and irresponsibility. Responsibility and morality did not get the job done. It is time to give irresponsibility and immorality a chance. True, our country faces many challenges. Yet we believe that by allowing gay marriage, drug use and free access to government money, we can return America to its rightful place on the world stage.

After the Election last year, we all felt that we had turned a new page in American history. For the first time in decades, the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. But now we must start to work on the dream we savored on Election Night. Join us as we strive to bring irresponsibility to America. Do your part. Spend money recklessly and borrow beyond your means. We do not have time for frugality, morality or decency. Do not act like a Republican. If you feel like going out and getting drunk, by all means go. If you feel like buying a Cadillac, by all means buy it. We will help you. Government is no longer here to condemn you as an immoral deviant; we are on your side now. We are immoral deviants, too. We are ready to give you the money you need. We are ready to waste money on your health care, your job and your unemployment insurance. We are ready to buy you free housing. Republicans made you take out crippling loans to get a college degree. But we are ready to give you a college education—for free. Put simply, if you need it, we will buy it for you, no questions asked. And do not be afraid to be who you are. Republicans made you feel ashamed for having sex and for smoking marijuana. Now, we encourage you to have fun in your life. We do not have time for responsibility anymore. Abstinence and sobriety do not work. As profligate Democratic wastrels, we enjoy life; and so should you. Let us all work together for a better America—a more irresponsible America.

Responsibility and decency created this mess. We Democrats intend to fight the recession with irresponsibility and shameful monetary waste from beginning to end. If you want free government handouts and you are a moral deviant, join us. If you want a free college education and you are a petulant freeloading drug user, join us. If morality offends you and you do not like torture, international law violations or the death penalty, we are the party for you. In the Democratic Party, we do not claim to be moral. We are immoral, we condemn torture, we respect international law and we oppose the death penalty. Still, we recognize that we live in a democracy. If you care about ethics, morality, decency and normalcy, vote Republican. But before you do, take a good hard look at what happened under George W. Bush’s ethical, moral and decent administration. Do you want more of the same? Of course not. Be a faithless profligate immoral deviant Democratic wastrel. Do not be afraid to accept free money. Do not be afraid to go to the doctor, even if you can’t afford it. Do not be afraid to get a college degree without debt. And do not be afraid to engage in debauched omnisexual adventures before, during and after marriage. The Democratic Party is on your side. We waste money. We condone immorality. We are irresponsible. We are deviant. And we will save this country.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS' STATEMENT ON THE OBAMA STIMULUS PACKAGE : WHAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE BAILOUT

By : Mr. John Boehner, B.S. (Business Studies) (R-OH), United States House of Representatives, Republican Leader

Earlier this week, the United States House of Representatives passed President Obama’s “stimulus package” over unified Republican opposition. The United States Senate followed suit, sending the bill to the President for signature. This is a sad day for America. Americans have no idea what this legislation will do. This is “tyranny by the majority;” and House Republicans will not stand for it.

We live in pressing times. All Americans want to overcome the financial crisis that has paralyzed Wall Street. In last year’s election, Americans foolishly chose Barack Hussein Obama to lead them through this crisis. Responding to hackneyed calls for “change,” Americans entrusted this monumental task to a political neophyte with African ancestry. Democrats made substantial gains in Congress, too, giving Obama a virtual “clean slate” to enact radical legislation. Americans clamored for rapid recovery. They clamored for unemployment insurance, health benefits, mortgage protection, child care and tax rebates. Congress obliged. Within weeks after Obama’s inauguration on January 20, they passed an enormous stimulus bill totaling $820 billion without a single tax cut for business.

Republicans led a principled stand against this waste. We argued that economic times may be desperate, but we refused to countenance any bill with more spending than tax cuts. After all, consumers and “average Americans” got themselves in this mess by spending beyond their means. It makes no sense to target innocent banks, lenders, credit card companies, business owners and manufacturers for the sins of the masses. Banks, business owners and manufacturers create wealth by offering employment. They cannot do that without tax cuts. Higher taxes mean fewer private sector jobs. Obama’s “stimulus” bill does not provide a single tax cut. Rather, it vilifies enterprising business owners and crushes them with taxes intended to benefit homeless mothers and abortion doctors. We Republicans voted against this tomfoolery. And we believe that Obama is leading America down a dangerous, un-American road.

Americans do not know the truth about this “stimulus package.” Like starry-eyed children, they trust Obama to save them from unemployment and bankruptcy. They blindly follow his every move like mice following the Pied Piper. They avert their eyes from the enormous changes he plans to make. The press exerts no check upon him; virtually every mainstream news network praises Obama for his “vision and direction.” Only FOX News fairly treats the issues. Sean Hannity, a commentator at FOX, ventured that the “stimulus bill” amounts to “socialism.” He is more right than he knows. Mainstream media outlets castigate House Republicans for “defying the Will of the People.” But they misunderstand us: We House Republicans are fighting for much, much more: We are fighting to protect life as we know it.

We believe it is our duty to inform the American public about the “stimulus package.” It is a veritable orgy of government spending that will upend the entire American social order. Nancy Pelosi and her leering Democratic minions mislead the public by claiming that the bill contains “poor relief, unemployment insurance, government assistance and private sector regulation.” These are gross mischaracterizations. In fact, as Sean Hannity hinted, the bill topples our free market system and replaces it with a communist State. Unless we act now, we will no longer live in a free democracy. We will live in a Soviet Republic.

Private enterprise drives this Nation’s prosperity. Any sensible economist knows that. Yet the “stimulus package” wages open war private enterprise. In little-known sections, the bill outlaws property ownership beyond $100,000 net worth per family. It also creates a “Federal Soviet Collectivized Farming Bureau” that will regulate how much grain individual farmers can harvest. The bill amends the Constitution to permit free abortions for any man or woman who wants one. Worse, the “stimulus package” creates a “People’s Soviet Health Network” in which every American citizen may obtain high-quality health care at no cost. Another section empowers a “Federal Soviet Wealth Equalization Commissar” to seize private land and transfer it to homeless beggars. Yet another section guarantees all Americans the right to employment at government expense, while another symbolically declares: “Economic recovery depends primarily upon the dignity and equality of every American.” To secure that “dignity and equality,” the bill abolishes corporations, promises free housing and creates a “Federal Soviet Food Distribution Commissariat” through which every American may receive hot meals at no cost.

Socialism? This is communist tyranny.

Americans deserve to know what Obama and his Democratic thugs are planning. At this very moment, the “stimulus package” awaits the President’s signature. We House Republicans attempted to slow him down, but to no avail. We tried our best to stop this bill. We believe that American have a right to know what “recovery” means in President Obama’s book. This bill does not just cripple industry with burdensome “green” regulations and mandatory unemployment insurance for workers. It also replaces the Star Spangled Banner with this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hOip2czWyw&feature=related. It mandates that the President publicly wear a fur ashanka hat—with a red star pin—during all public appearances. It also gives poor black mothers the opportunity to profoundly influence public policy through the “Poverty and Urban Issue Reconciliation Board,” which permits any unmarried black mother to decide on city budgets, public works projects, wages and work hours. By the same token, the bill empowers the Federal government to seize savings from white families and transfer them to black families. The bill allows black people to cut white people in any line in all 50 States. It abolishes the death penalty, labeling it a “medieval anachronism that sullies respect for the law and disproportionately affects racial minorities.” It replaces all white federal judges with unemployed black men who have served prison time. And it creates a mandatory presumption in all criminal statutes that a white person committed the crime, not a black one. In short, this bill proves Obama to be a radical race-baiter who aims to take revenge on white America for perceived injury to his ancestors. In a word, we must stop this attack on the American way of life; and time is running out.

America does not want communism. America just wants to get back to normal. Americans had no idea what Obama really meant when he said: “Change we can believe in.” Through skillful oratory, exploitation, well-told lies and a complicit press, Obama cleverly disguised his true intentions from the American people. American voters thought Obama would bring minor changes to their lives in order to restore their jobs and the free market economy. They had no idea that Obama meant a “change” from capitalism to communism. Americans do not want communism. They do not know how to live without worrying about bills, health care, wages, taxes, rent, heat and child support. They simply will not know what to do when the government starts providing them with free housing, medical care, food, laundry service, legal representation, babysitters, college education and even employment. Americans like to be worried about money. They like to know that they might not get a job, or that they might go bankrupt paying unforeseen medical bills. They like fending for themselves in a hard, free market. They like proving that “they can do it,” no matter how hopeless their circumstances may be. Uncertainty about money makes life risky and exciting. Americans like working three low-wage jobs in order to pay for their children’s needs. Under the “stimulus package,” they will suddenly face no more economic worries. This will be a profound shock. All psychologists agree that rapidly moving from “extreme anxiety” to “total calm” can cause dementia and even heart failure. Yet Obama ignores these risks. By solving Americans’ money worries overnight, Obama places millions of our citizens in direct physical danger. We Republicans fought to keep Americans worried about money. We regret to say that we failed.

But this is not the end. If you do not want to live in an Obamian-Marxist utopia, take to the streets. Tell Congress that you have been misled. Tell the government that you do not want to stop worrying about money. Tell the government that you refuse to give up your property to homeless black mothers and abortioneers. Tell the government that you would much rather spend your own $45,000 for a magnetic resonance image. Tell the government that you do not need a social safety net; you would rather be homeless than receive help from a monolithic government bureau that treats everyone equally. Tell the government that you do not want to stand trial before convicted black felons on the federal bench. And tell government that you would rather die than receive free, top-quality healthcare. You have a right to worry about money. You have a right to live in an unequal society. Obama threatens to take away your rights. How can you just sit there and let this happen? Do you want to be treated the same as ignorant immigrants, smelly beggars and homosexual, drug-addicted HIV patients? This is what Obama wants to do. Only you can stop him. Take to the streets now to stop tyranny before it overtakes our lives.

We do not have time to vote. Our democratic system has failed. We must remove Obama from power before he signs the “stimulus package.” Join House Republicans today in our effort to topple Obama before he alters America as we know it. Take a stand for your rights. This is not “change we can believe in.” This is communist revolution. Stand with us now to foil this fraud on the American people. And defend your right to own as much property as the free market permits. Let’s get back to normal.

EMPLOYEEBUILDER®

At Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer, we want to help you get a job. In recent months, the employment market has collapsed. Many people have no work. Many people struggle to pay their bills. Even educated young people have difficulty finding employment in their chosen fields. There simply is not enough money to pay them. Employers have a difficult choice: Either hire employees and cut down on profits, or "minimize" employees to increase profits. In the spirit of American enterprise, we cannot fault employers for choosing the latter course.

This year, we watched two presidential candidates tell us that "creating jobs" is a top priority in America. We agree. At Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer, we believe that America thrives in a culture of employment. In a culture of employment, everyone knows their place. There are employers and employees. There are wage-payors and wage-earners. There is labor and compensation. Employees enrich their employers, making them happy. At the same time, employers compensate their employees, making them happy. Happiness is a question of degree, depending on whether a person is an employer or an employee. For the employer, happiness comes from gross profits totaling $4,400,000 this year as opposed to $4,121,000 last year. For the employee, happiness comes from receiving $28,150 in wages, less taxes, plus a $750 Christmas bonus, less taxes, compared to a mere $450 Christmas bonus last year, also less taxes. Happiness is relative. Everyone is different. Everyone has a different income.

But America faces a problem: Not enough people live in the culture of employment. In these dark economic times, America has lost jobs, not created them. The candidates spoke about job creation. How do we create a job? It sounds simpler than it actually is. A "job" represents a major capital investment. In lean economic times like these, it is difficult to convince those with capital to spend money on something so unpredictable as a person. Yet this is what we must do in order to "create jobs." Employers must have more money to spend.

At Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer, we want to make sure that employers have all the money they need to secure every American a place in the culture of employment. To that end, today we will begin publishing materials in a new series called EMPLOYEEBUILDER®. We want our readers to know what employers want in their employees. We want to clear the air. We want to take the confusion and frustration out of your job search by telling you precisely what employers want in their employees. As the title says, we want to help build employees. To build a machine, you need to know which parts to use. We are confident that our articles will help make you into a finely-tuned employment machine. We are confident that you will scrap all your inefficient parts and retain only the useful ones. After all, as we said, employers are not happy about investing capital in risky ventures like people. But if you build yourself into a superior employment machine, any investor will jump at the chance to pour money into you.

To help you in your quest for employment, we will publish articles from leading employers about the employment characteristics they seek. By reading articles straight from the men who may hire you, you can tailor yourself directly to their requirements. In short, you will "build" yourself as an employee. If you build yourself according to employers' specifications, you will find yourself employed, paid and happy. We hope that you enjoy--and use--the resources we provide in our EMPLOYEEBUILDER® series. Good luck in your job search!


EMPLOYABILITY CRITERIA FOR CORPORATE POSITIONS IN THE 21st CENTURY

By : Ms. Nadia F. Courtney, Placement Coordinator & Human Resources Team Initiative Management Director (Unmarried, Age 29) for Chase Bank, N.A.

Applicants to corporate positions need to show dedication to the employer's mission. We recognize that you may not have practical experience in our precise line of work. But you can still win employment if you meet some very straightforward criteria. Obviously you will begin the process by sending a resume and cover letter. Your resume will count for very little in our consideration. Essentially, we will use it to update your contact information and to see whether you attended a respectable school. Still, just because we look to see whether you attended a respectable school does not mean we care whether you did well. Academic success damages your prospective employability; it does not enhance it. Contrary to popular belief, intelligence and insight do not make a good employee. Much the opposite: Intelligence and insight often undermine singular dedication to the employer's mission. In that light, we urge high-performing students not to assume that their stellar grades will automatically land them a job. Snotty "lone wolves" never succeed. We are looking for "team players." Put generally, lower intelligence and group-oriented thinking much better suit our purposes.

Below, we print key employability criteria for the 21st Century. If you meet these criteria, you can be confident that an employer will hire you. Employees are risky investments. Employers--like all investors--will do their homework to minimize potential risks before committing their money to your wages. True, a good employee makes untold profit for minimal investment. But a bad one can rapidly turn into a money sieve. Please study these criteria carefully. They should guide your job search. If you do not meet them, make improvement so you do. You can build yourself into an employee. Just follow the list.

1. Employees must be between the ages of 21 and 30. Individuals over age 30 tend to have non-work-related commitments that interfere dramatically with workplace responsibility.

2. Employees must be unmarried. Employees with long-term relationships deserve special scrutiny due to the risk of outside emotional commitment that can distract from workplace efficiency.

3. Employees must have no children. Children represent a fundamental commitment of time. This presents an insuperable conflict between the employer's demand for time and the child's upbringing. Employers deserve all your time. Children make it impossible for you to give it to them.

4. Employees must have their own health insurance. Employer-paid health plans cripple profit margins by increasing operating costs. New employees need to buy their own insurance. This is not a cost employers should bear, even if employment leads to increased risks of illness and injury.

5. Employees must never make personal telephone calls or step outside for lunch. Dedication to the employer's mission requires undivided attention. Breaking your focus with banter and meals hurts the man who pays your wages. If you need to eat, bring a bag lunch and eat at your desk--on your own time.

6. Employees with team sports experience deserve special consideration. Modern business is all about teamwork. Success depends on everyone playing their position. Employees who know how to play as a team contribute best to the employment mission. On the contrary, those without team experience put their own ideas before the employer's mission. That is unacceptable.

7. Employees must possess the minimum intelligence necessary to understand employer jargon. Every employer has his own language. Employees must adapt to it quickly. For example, employees must know the meaning of such sentences as: "Fall '08 Coordination Team Management Diversity Initiative Program - Q3."

8. Employees must always be available for overtime work, at no additional compensation. Modern business does not stop at 5 PM, Monday through Friday. Dedication to employer success requires that all employees be prepared to "pitch in" during evenings, nights, weekends, holidays and sick days. The best employees do this cheerfully. No one wins when employees grumble about having to miss the football game on Sunday afternoon.

9. Employees must possess technical skills, such as typing, photocopying, sending faxes, answering telephones, taking notes, operating a computer, sending email, using a calculator, writing with a pen and reading a clock.

10. Employees must never complain. Complaining injures workplace morale, hampering productivity for all. Employers would not have invested money in your wages if they knew you would be ungrateful for the opportunities they offer.

11. Employees must be relatively superficial, obedient, subservient, boring, one-dimensional and tireless. The best employees do not discuss matters beyond those necessary to complete their daily tasks. They do what they are told without complaint the first time. They respect their superiors and they do not ever get tired while on the job. They show up on-time every day and answer the phone with a standard greeting. The best employees are grateful for their jobs. And their work reflects their gratitude.

12. Employees must be relatively good-looking. Employers typically deal with outside customers. Outside customers occasionally encounter employees. When they do, they deserve to see relatively good-looking faces. Good-looking female employees may even be asked to accompany senior managers to client meetings or to perform other business-building initiatives.

13. Employees must be loyal. No one likes a two-face. Employees must never betray employer information to competitors for any purpose whatsoever. Disloyal employees will be fired immediately. Governmental authorities will also be notified. Employees must simply remember who is paying their bills. That should keep their loyalties intact.

14. Employees must be rather stupid and unsophisticated. Stupidity and unsophistication increase the potential for loyalty and dedication to the employer's mission. Stupid and unreflecting employees tend to accomplish employer goals more readily than intelligent or analytical employees. An employee must be intelligent enough to possess the technical skills needed to do the job; any surplus intelligence will be counted against him.

15. Employees must wear standard attire, even during time off. Respect for the employer's mission requires close-knit esprit de corps. Uniform clothing creates pride in the employer's work and a sense of group belonging. Good employees are grateful for their jobs and wages. To that extent, they should wear clothing that bears the employer's name even during time off.

16. Employees must have relatively decent hygiene. Smelly applicants will not be considered.

Good luck. If you can fulfill these criteria, you can be confident that you will obtain employment. Please note that these criteria apply to high-level applicants. Lesser standards may apply for those seeking less challenging work.

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

BAIL ME OUT : GETTING BACK TO FINANCIAL NORMAL IN AMERICA

People will remember 2008 for several reasons. First, they will remember the year in which America elected its first black President. Second, they will remember why they elected a Democrat to office: There was a financial crisis going on. Since the early 20th Century, Americans have elected Republicans when there is no serious economic crisis at home. When Americans are cozy and comfortable with savings and homes, they vote Republican. But when free market Republican fun leads to bread lines, foreclosures, homelessness and billion-dollar savings and loan plunder, Americans finally say: "We need a Democrat." This popular reaction to free market excess propelled Franklin Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to the White House. And the same trend put Barack Obama there, too.

Americans vote for Democrats when they want economic reform. If anything, Americans want financial success in life. As a general rule, they trust free market capitalism to provide their success. Republicans let private avarice run free. It works for a while, then the very avarice that drives enterprise consumes the entire economy. Since FDR, however, Democrats have significantly restrained the free market. Democrats understand that pure free market capitalism leads to exploitation and inequality. That is why Democrats traditionally stand for market regulation. Unchecked human avarice creates a perennial boom/bust cycle. The booms may be wonderful for some, but the busts are devastating for all. Democrat-driven regulations aim to soften the busts, even if they make the booms less euphoric. Bureaus such as the SEC and the Interstate Commerce Commission make "doing business" more difficult, but they protect the American public from abject financial ruin if things go awry.

What happened in 2008 to make people vote Democratic? For eight years, Republican control led to extreme laxity in economic regulation, especially in the credit industry. Americans were allowed to take out loans they could not hope to repay, leading to a fraudulent economy based on phoney money. The Federal Reserve repeatedly lowered interest rates, submerging the economy with ready cash. This led to runaway lending and borrowing that exceeded people's actual wealth. In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. When banks began calling in their loans, they discovered that virtually no one could afford to repay them. Foreclosures began. Mortgage values exceeded the value of the land they secured. Americans lost their homes. Banks failed. Consumption declined. Retailers folded. And because the stock market is intimately tied to all these economic fields, it, too, began to disintegrate. Retirement funds vaporized as their underlying stock values plummeted. With money disappearing, employers cut jobs. Unemployment rose. Economically, America descended into chaos. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost over 30% of its value in less than two months.

Americans take action when their economic fortunes sour. In 2008, their fortunes soured in the worst possible way. They lost their homes and their savings, the two most symbolic forms of lifetime financial success. When Americans lose the things they've worked their entire lives for, they make changes in their government. Intuitively, they knew that Republican deregulation created the Wild West atmosphere in which the financial crisis materialized. By electing Barack Obama, they put their foot down on the free market free-for-all, just as voters put their foot down on Herbert Hoover in 1932. In one way or another, they understood that easy credit is not the best thing for the American economy. By electing Barack Obama, they impliedly gave their consent to stricter governmental intrusions into economic life. That means more bureaucratic hoops for businesses, more stringent lending requirements for banks and more financial oversight. If such measures prevent economic ruin, Americans are willing to embrace them, just as they tolerated FDR's reforms in the 1930s.

But how will government address the credit nightmare? For many years now, deregulated lenders have allowed Americans to fabricate their economic lives. They have created an illusory economy in which people believe they can buy anything for $19.99 per month, including real estate. Rather than create an economy based on tangible wealth, lenders created an economy based on the strained capacity of an individual's income stream to make minimum monthly payments. That is not a healthy economic prescription. Before the election, Congress hastened to pass a "bailout package" that will supposedly put the economy on an even keel. Truthfully, I did not examine the legislation before it passed, and I still really don't know how it functions. In the last several weeks, however, I have made some disturbing insights into what "the bailout" means.

First, I learned that the bailout will keep large lending operations in place. For better or worse, the American economy has become a debtor economy. Money moves only when credit is available, no matter how unqualified the creditor or the debtor. Thus, the bailout stakes its efficacy on the assumption that America simply "needs to get back to normal;" in other words, people need to be able to borrow beyond their means. If the banks struck out the first time, we just need to let them go to bat again--at government expense. This mystified me.

But there was another, more insidious dimension to the bailout. The federal money was going to the "major lending operations." In other words, massive private banks had failed, and now the government was going to cover their failures. Why reward a bad business? Should the bank executive who earns $500,000 a year be kept in his position despite his proven failure? Individual debtors--who suffer worst in this financial crisis--receive no such "get out of jail free" card. Individuals who lose their homes because greedy bankers gave them undeserved loans receive no mercy under the bailout. This genuinely bothered me because it reflects a fundamental inequality between rich and poor. Both rich and poor contributed to this crisis. Yet only the rich receive governmental grace. That is not right, no matter what any lawyer technically argues otherwise.

I got another insight into the bailout yesterday while listening to the radio. I listened to an advertisement from a car credit company. It said something to this effect: "Do you owe over 10% interest on your car loan? Wouldn't you rather get a single-digit interest rate? Well, thanks to the bailout plan, we can consolidate your loan and get you the single-digit interest rate you've always wanted. Don't be afraid to take out loans. Our bank has relationships with nationally-known credit unions and other banks. The bailout plan has made it possible for people to get loans again. Under our special plan, even those who otherwise would not be able to get credit can get credit through us. So don't wait. Call today to get the interest rate you've always wanted...blah blah blah."

Is this what the bailout plan does? Does it simply allow banks to resume all the bad practices that led to the financial crisis in the first place? After spending $700 billion on the bailout, where have we advanced? Banks are using the money to continue lending to unqualified borrowers (ie, "even those who otherwise would not be able to get credit through us"). This might stimulate short-term economic growth, but in the long run, it will lead to the same bad end. After all, runaway lending created the rotten economic structure that collapsed in 2008. If the bailout merely allows banks to resume runaway lending, what makes the government think that the structure will not collapse again? To be blunt, the collapse will happen in the time it takes the banks to spend the $700 billion. And the collapse will come even quicker if banks keep up their advertising practices, which hoodwink people into thinking they should borrow money when they actually can't.

I hope I am wrong about the bailout. I hope that President Obama and a Democratic Congress will enact necessary regulations to prevent further financial crises based on uncontrolled lending. After all, Americans did not elect a Democrat to simply "get things back to normal." "Normal" was bad in 2008. The election showed that Americans want to scrap the "normal" and embrace something new. Yet as it stands now, it appears that the bailout merely restarts the "normal credit practices" that destroyed the economy in the first place. This sounds illogical, but it appears true.

I am confident that Congress and President Obama will soon perceive the thematic problems with the bailout. America does not want to "get back to normal." It wants a complete economic overhaul with new, meaningful controls on rampant free marketeering. I am confident that the new administration will modify the bailout to put those new controls into place. I do not know what form those controls will take. But I think it safe to assume that they will address the underlying ills that led to the financial crisis: Overavailable credit, nonexistent regulation, unfair incitements to borrow and phoney wealth. In the coming years, I predict that government will embark on a new, interventionist course in economic life. Americans will not forget the pain caused by the "Financial Crisis of 2008." And they will reference it to justify new economic controls, just as our grandparents referenced the "Crash of 1929" to justify the New Deal.