OESTERHOUDT STRIKES
Several days ago, I saw a curious poster alongside the usual commercial garbage on 22nd Street. Next to a print ad for Lady Gaga's new album and a placard about McDonald's meal deals stood this message: "The Legal Drinking Age is 21. Do Your Part This Christmas. Don't Give Alcohol to Teens." The poster showed a wine glass with a Ghostbusters-style red circle around it; a red diagonal line crossed out the glass. On the bottom appeared the following slogan in stern capital letters: "Serving Alcohol to Teens : It's Unsafe. It's Illegal. It's Irresponsible."
What made this "ad" so curious? Several things. First, it was not a commercial message. Most "ads" are crass commercial messages that aim to excite an urge to buy in the viewer. They communicate selective information intended to entice a person to spend money and enrich the speaker. In short, advertising is about making money. It is morally indifferent. In fact, it is morally destitute. Morality and commerce have little to do with one another. A dirty dollar is still a dollar. And people with more dollars are stronger than those with fewer dollars, dirty or not.
In traditional terms, then, this message against underage drinking was not an "ad" at all. It did not aim to excite an urge to buy in the passing viewer. No, it aimed to evoke a moral impulse; it beseeched people not to buy alcohol for people under 21. It asked people to refrain from commercial activity. If an advertising firm came up with a campaign that asked people to refrain from buying the product, it would go out of business faster than you can say: "Madison Avenue." In that sense, this message to stop underage drinking was not an "ad." It was an anti-ad.
But what good is an "ad" if it does not propose a commercial transaction? Can "ads" also promote morality? This one certainly tried. As long as an organization coughs up cash to buy posters or airtime, they can say basically whatever they want. It is their choice whether to say something that will generate no profit. Advertisers generally only advertise commercial stuff because it has the potential to create profits. And no one does anything in business that does not attempt to make money. Morality does not create profits. You can't buy it and it's not very exciting. Face it: It's easier to sell Dewar's than chastity.
In this light, we can conclude that some nonprofit organization paid for this message. It did not intend to make money with its speech. Rather, it aimed to foster public morality. Of course, the poster never uses the word "morality." In fact, everyone who supports underage drinking laws rarely speaks the word. Rather, they couch the issue in legal terms. The poster, for example, references the law twice: "The legal drinking age is 21;" "It's illegal to give alcohol to teens." It is easy to make a law; you just need a majority vote at the State house. But the underlying message here is moral, not legal. And it plays upon the popular confusion between law and morality.
People always mistake the law for morality. Morality existed among human beings before law. Morality refers to the average man's sense that something is disgusting or intuitively objectionable. It has more to do with popular social values than reason or abstract truth. Men created laws to embody their moral judgments, but law never could--and never will--supplant morality. In fact, the law is supposed to be morally neutral. It is supposed to operate according to pure reason and extrinsic evidence. Morality, by contrast, appeals to deep-seated intuitive prejudice against particular conduct within the dominant value system. When enough people in a society think something is disgusting, they call it "immoral." And that judgment passes down across generations. They don't need to verify it. They just need to feel it.
Still, people have more outward respect for the law than morality. It sounds more official. After all, the law has sovereign power behind it. It can attach bank accounts, imprison bodies and garnish wages. People fear those consequences. Morality, by contrast, is more basic than that. Morality informs almost everything a society does. Law simply represents the society's effort to assure a minimum baseline of behavior consistent with the dominant moral code.
Law enforces morality. The sovereign enforces the law with penalties on the body and property. But unlike morality, there are practical problems associated with enforcing the law. The sovereign cannot punish everyone for every illegal or immoral act that occurs. And there are some immoral acts that are not even illegal. The law must verify acts before it can punish them. That is not always easy.
Why, then, did the underage drinking poster harp on "illegality" in connection with serving alcohol to teens? After all, the overall message was a moral one. On a basic level, Americans have a troubled--and borderline schizophrenic--relationship with alcohol due to their cultural and religious heritage. The same cultural forces that culminated in Prohibition remain at work today in American society. Hostility toward alcohol is a moral judgment; it has to do with social values and disgust, not reason. Americans have always embodied their moral judgments about alcohol in law. The law gives official expression to their traditional moral queasiness on the subject. But to be abundantly clear, hostility toward alcohol--especially when coupled with children--is a uniquely American moral judgment.
Consider the interplay between law and morality in the poster. Even without understanding America's long history with regard to morally-nuanced alcohol regulations, the poster's own language reveals the connection. It says: " Serving Alcohol to Teens : It's Unsafe. It's Illegal. It's Irresponsible." It draws a linguistic connection between "illegality" and "irresponsibility." Strictly speaking, it is not "illegal" to be irresponsible. In American cultural parlance, however, "responsibility" is a sweeping moral judgment. It refers to "proper living" according to dominant social morals. That means acting and thinking in a certain way, especially when it comes to recognizing obligations and power relationships.
But "legality" is a technical inquiry. Unlike morality, the law must be specific in its prohibitions. Any aggrieved mother can complain that her child is "irresponsible" because he is not "living correctly." Yet that does not mean the child is acting "illegally." Legal violations must match specific language. They must be investigated and proved according to objective procedures. Yes, it might be irresponsible to violate the law. But not all "irresponsibility" is illegal. If it were, virtually everyone would be a criminal.
It is significant that the poster equated legality with responsibility. It forges a direct thematic connection between law and morality. In most cases, the average viewer has no idea that the two concepts are distinct. He simply assumes that all laws are moral, and that moral people are responsible. That assumption is false. Yet the law benefits from the false assumption because morality acts as a sort of "self-executing enforcement mechanism." After all, people stop themselves from acting in a particular fashion when they think it is "immoral." No law constrains them. Rather, innate cultural conditioning influences their decisions. If the law can harness that innate cultural conditioning, it can successfully thwart certain behavior before it happens. And from the law's perspective, whenever someone refrains from prohibited behavior, it has done its job. If morality helps enforcement, then the law will appeal to morality. It does not matter that the law has no power to shape individual morals.
At this point, however, a substantial problem arises: What is so immoral about serving alcohol to a 20-year-old? Or even a 14-year-old? This suggestion might arouse revulsion in the typical American listener. But that shows once again that underage drinking is essentially a moral issue. After all, Americans somehow feel queasy when they think that children are drinking alcohol. That reaction is a cultural. It has survived for generations.
And it is not a universal reaction. People in European Nations, for instance, do not flinch to serve alcohol to teenagers. There is no dominant public rhetoric that equates underage drinking with illegality, irresponsibility and "evil." Quite the contrary, life goes on in Germany, France, England and Holland quite well, even when 16-year-olds sip beer--even in public. Society does not collapse. The sky does not fall. And religious leaders do not spread hellfire for it.
In my mind, this illustrates the point that American concerns over underage drinking are essentially moral concerns. No matter how much public rhetoric couches the debate in legal terms, the fact remains that Americans just don't feel culturally comfortable with the idea that teenagers are drinking. It is a question of cultural heritage, not wise policy.
Of course, those who support widespread bans on underage drinking will never say that morality motivates them. In fact, they probably do not even realize that it does. Instead, they point to safety statistics and other supposedly "neutral" indicia to show a "practical" reason why teenagers should not drink. Because fewer teens die in alcohol-related accidents, they say, underage drinking bans are good laws.
I think this is a dishonest argument. If safety were really the main objection to alcohol, Prohibition should still be in effect. Alcohol causes untold damage to countless lives every year, not just among teenagers. It causes thousands of accidents. It ruins families. It leads to violence, disruption and turmoil. Why protect only children from those hazards? If a legislator identifies negative social consequences that flow from a particular behavior, he should ban that behavior in toto. Only a fool would argue that alcohol does not cause myriad social problems. Yet for some reason Americans tolerate those consequences among adults, but refuse to tolerate them among children.
At this juncture, it is hard to escape identifying some hypocrisy in the clamor over underage drinking. After all, the essential argument against underage drinking is to ensure safety. But if safety were the ultimate goal, then all alcohol should be banned, not just some. Yet despite Americans' moral qualms about underage drinking, they sure love to drink. So all their talk about safety goes out the window because they want to keep drinking. They can be "responsible" with their drinking, even though experience shows that alcohol continues to ruin lives on a daily basis. Yet they have the gall to label underage drinking "immoral." Immoral for some, but not for them? This is deeply problematic. And it renders all opposition to underage drinking disingenuous.
Let's be honest about alcohol. Everyone likes it. But there is a cultural tradition in America that teaches against it. That tradition forms a moral baseline that enables Americans to say with a straight face that underage drinking is bad, while "legal" drinking is good. All drinking creates pernicious social consequences. Yet legislators--and popular moralists--only ban it among children. In my view, this makes little sense. If you identify a social problem, you should root it out wherever it appears, not just in a subset.
But I ask too much. American morality is a complicated thing; there's no sense applying logic to sort it out. Let's just try to separate it from law. No matter how much we hear about "legal" drinking in America, the whole debate is really just a moral battle. And moral battles are never logical.
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
WHY DO AMERICANS HATE SOCIALISM SO MUCH?
AN ESSAY
Since Barack Obama won the White House last year, Republicans have galvanized their opposition by claiming that Democrats want to introduce "socialism" into American life. They do not really understand what "socialism" means; they just use it as a catchall pejorative to label anything they don't like. They don't like anything that makes them pay more taxes or finance other people's welfare. They don't like anything that transfers money to so-called "wasteful programs," like health care, education and environmental protection. They know that the word "socialism" sends shivers up American spines, so they use the word to describe everything they're not. They even criticize other countries for embracing "socialism."
But all these critiques fundamentally miscomprehend "socialism." The United States is not a socialist country, not even close. True socialism means that the State owns all property and controls the means of economic production and distribution. It also means that every citizen is literally equal to every other citizen. It is essentially humanitarian in theory, even if historical examples show that it can tragically fail in practice. No matter the historical record, there is nothing even remotely socialist about the United States. Americans live for private property and class distinctions. If they were socialists, they would not strive for these things; in fact, they could not even own property. Democrats are little different than Republicans in this sense. Neither party wants to abandon the free market system. The only debate is how much they want government to "interfere" in the free market.
This is the point at which Republicans stray into conceptual ignorance. They think that any government interference into the free market is "socialism." Yet this overlooks a trend that has evolved in the West at least since the early 20th Century: Increased government supervision over private economic enterprise. Governments in traditionally capitalist countries understood that leaving all economic functions to the free market led to labor exploitation, dangerous goods and unfair social relationships. Democratic governments (or at least quasi-democracies like Great Britain and the United States) also found that unbridled capitalism tended to subvert constitutional principles, such as human dignity and equality.
For these reasons, governments in traditionally capitalist countries began encroaching upon private economic liberties for the public good. They instituted labor control boards, product safety boards and oversight committees. They enforced minimum wages and guaranteed workers the power to fairly bargain with management. They even began creating social security nets and health care systems for their populations, distributing tax revenues in such a manner as to realize the dream of a better society for all. These reforms were all "social" in nature, but they never completely replaced the free market. Rather, they merely tempered the free market, reconciling principle with economic reality. Yet Republicans today call such efforts "socialism." This is simply untrue. If anything, Western Nations have "modified free market" systems, not socialist systems.
European Nations have generally made many more "social modifications" to their free market systems than the United States. For many reasons, Europeans have been willing to curtail unbridled economic liberty in order to bring greater social advantages to their populations. This is the reason why many Europeans do not understand why Americans cannot resolve their "health care mess." For Europeans living in "modified free market systems," it goes without saying that every citizen has a right to medical care at State expense. Yet in America, that sentiment is not so widespread. Here, there is always a grave tension between social "guarantees" and economic freedom. When social "guarantees" mean that some people cannot amass as much money as they could without the guarantees, they staunchly oppose any effort to curtail their economic liberty. This is the reason why social modifications to the free market system in the United States are much more modest than in Europe: Too many people resist them in order to preserve their ability to make more money fast.
Both the United States and European Nations are free market societies. Both allow private property. Both have central banking systems, stock exchanges and tolerate massive class distinctions. But citizens in European Nations have allowed government to restrict their economic freedom more than their American counterparts. In exchange for those restrictions, they live in more secure circumstances: There is universal health care, ample housing and free education. European Nations understand that pure free market life is not easy. Employment depends as much on the winds of the market as it does on individual ability. In that light, they made sacrifices to provide a safety net against the market's inevitable "down periods."
By contrast, the United States does not provide such a safety net. True, the United States does provide health care to the elderly, the disabled and those who serve government. It provides modest income to retirees and injured people. It also allocates some funds to protect citizens against homelessness and ruin. But that's about it; America's commitment to "modifying the free market" essentially stopped in the 1960s. Since then, any effort to make "European style" changes has met with angry cries of "Socialism!" Both Europe and the United States made substantial changes to their free market systems in the decades after the 1929 Crash. But only Europe continued along that path after the 1960s. Once America asserted global dominance, it somehow decided that caring for its own people was no longer a top priority.
I think this is an unfortunate development. Americans should not shy away from "European style" improvements to our social order because they are supposedly "socialist." Europe embraces free market capitalism, just like we do. It simply imposes greater controls on unrestricted economic liberty than the United States. Those restrictions translate into tangible social benefits in the form of health care, consumer protections, access to justice, labor oversight, transportation, child care, unemployment insurance, pensions and education. People do not go bankrupt financing their education in Europe, nor do they die waiting for a private insurance company to approve surgery. They might pay more taxes to finance these social protections, but they know they will always have a place to stay or health care if they get sick. Unlike Americans, they do not need to worry about losing their precious jobs if illness strikes. Yet all the while, they can own private property and perhaps get rich. Just because they enjoy social protections at government expense does not make them "socialist."
Why does America reject these things? What makes us so different from our European counterparts? Do we treasure our rugged "do-it-yourself" spirit so much that we tolerate social injustice on a massive scale? Are we too greedy or too proud to abandon our chance to make fabulous wealth at a low tax rate? What is it, exactly? I cannot pinpoint it; I can only speculate based on my own impressions.
One thing is certain: There is a poisonous aura surrounding the word "socialism," and that aura preemptively sabotages many efforts to implement meaningful reforms to our social system. Sadly, opponents to social reform in the United States do not even understand what the word "socialism" means. And they do not even understand that they are not opposing socialism, but rather incremental modifications to the free market system they love so much.
We have known for more than a century that pure capitalism does not work. Any system premised upon human greed will inevitably become top-heavy and collapse. And purely capitalistic values clash starkly with core principles central to a democratic State in modern times, such as dignity, fairness and equality. From the 1930s until the 1960s, the United States understood that. It made meaningful modifications to the free market in order to mitigate the social shockwaves caused by its cyclical booms and busts. But then the progress stopped. Capitalism failed again last year and people have felt the pinch ever since.
America will not progress as long as it embraces false rhetoric about "socialism." It is not "socialism" simply to safeguard our citizens from economic ruin in a free market system. It is humanity.
Then again, perhaps that is what really rankles Republicans. After all, pure capitalism and humanity don't mix. Genuine humanity is bad for business. Humanity makes it harder to exploit others. Maybe that's what all the Rush Limbaugh rhetoric about "economic liberty" is all about: Liberty means the freedom to be economically inhumane to others in order to advance yourself. Or, phrased another way, liberty means freedom from government regulations that prevent you from being economically inhumane in order to advance yourself.
Against opposition like this, we have a long way to go in this country toward social reform.
Since Barack Obama won the White House last year, Republicans have galvanized their opposition by claiming that Democrats want to introduce "socialism" into American life. They do not really understand what "socialism" means; they just use it as a catchall pejorative to label anything they don't like. They don't like anything that makes them pay more taxes or finance other people's welfare. They don't like anything that transfers money to so-called "wasteful programs," like health care, education and environmental protection. They know that the word "socialism" sends shivers up American spines, so they use the word to describe everything they're not. They even criticize other countries for embracing "socialism."
But all these critiques fundamentally miscomprehend "socialism." The United States is not a socialist country, not even close. True socialism means that the State owns all property and controls the means of economic production and distribution. It also means that every citizen is literally equal to every other citizen. It is essentially humanitarian in theory, even if historical examples show that it can tragically fail in practice. No matter the historical record, there is nothing even remotely socialist about the United States. Americans live for private property and class distinctions. If they were socialists, they would not strive for these things; in fact, they could not even own property. Democrats are little different than Republicans in this sense. Neither party wants to abandon the free market system. The only debate is how much they want government to "interfere" in the free market.
This is the point at which Republicans stray into conceptual ignorance. They think that any government interference into the free market is "socialism." Yet this overlooks a trend that has evolved in the West at least since the early 20th Century: Increased government supervision over private economic enterprise. Governments in traditionally capitalist countries understood that leaving all economic functions to the free market led to labor exploitation, dangerous goods and unfair social relationships. Democratic governments (or at least quasi-democracies like Great Britain and the United States) also found that unbridled capitalism tended to subvert constitutional principles, such as human dignity and equality.
For these reasons, governments in traditionally capitalist countries began encroaching upon private economic liberties for the public good. They instituted labor control boards, product safety boards and oversight committees. They enforced minimum wages and guaranteed workers the power to fairly bargain with management. They even began creating social security nets and health care systems for their populations, distributing tax revenues in such a manner as to realize the dream of a better society for all. These reforms were all "social" in nature, but they never completely replaced the free market. Rather, they merely tempered the free market, reconciling principle with economic reality. Yet Republicans today call such efforts "socialism." This is simply untrue. If anything, Western Nations have "modified free market" systems, not socialist systems.
European Nations have generally made many more "social modifications" to their free market systems than the United States. For many reasons, Europeans have been willing to curtail unbridled economic liberty in order to bring greater social advantages to their populations. This is the reason why many Europeans do not understand why Americans cannot resolve their "health care mess." For Europeans living in "modified free market systems," it goes without saying that every citizen has a right to medical care at State expense. Yet in America, that sentiment is not so widespread. Here, there is always a grave tension between social "guarantees" and economic freedom. When social "guarantees" mean that some people cannot amass as much money as they could without the guarantees, they staunchly oppose any effort to curtail their economic liberty. This is the reason why social modifications to the free market system in the United States are much more modest than in Europe: Too many people resist them in order to preserve their ability to make more money fast.
Both the United States and European Nations are free market societies. Both allow private property. Both have central banking systems, stock exchanges and tolerate massive class distinctions. But citizens in European Nations have allowed government to restrict their economic freedom more than their American counterparts. In exchange for those restrictions, they live in more secure circumstances: There is universal health care, ample housing and free education. European Nations understand that pure free market life is not easy. Employment depends as much on the winds of the market as it does on individual ability. In that light, they made sacrifices to provide a safety net against the market's inevitable "down periods."
By contrast, the United States does not provide such a safety net. True, the United States does provide health care to the elderly, the disabled and those who serve government. It provides modest income to retirees and injured people. It also allocates some funds to protect citizens against homelessness and ruin. But that's about it; America's commitment to "modifying the free market" essentially stopped in the 1960s. Since then, any effort to make "European style" changes has met with angry cries of "Socialism!" Both Europe and the United States made substantial changes to their free market systems in the decades after the 1929 Crash. But only Europe continued along that path after the 1960s. Once America asserted global dominance, it somehow decided that caring for its own people was no longer a top priority.
I think this is an unfortunate development. Americans should not shy away from "European style" improvements to our social order because they are supposedly "socialist." Europe embraces free market capitalism, just like we do. It simply imposes greater controls on unrestricted economic liberty than the United States. Those restrictions translate into tangible social benefits in the form of health care, consumer protections, access to justice, labor oversight, transportation, child care, unemployment insurance, pensions and education. People do not go bankrupt financing their education in Europe, nor do they die waiting for a private insurance company to approve surgery. They might pay more taxes to finance these social protections, but they know they will always have a place to stay or health care if they get sick. Unlike Americans, they do not need to worry about losing their precious jobs if illness strikes. Yet all the while, they can own private property and perhaps get rich. Just because they enjoy social protections at government expense does not make them "socialist."
Why does America reject these things? What makes us so different from our European counterparts? Do we treasure our rugged "do-it-yourself" spirit so much that we tolerate social injustice on a massive scale? Are we too greedy or too proud to abandon our chance to make fabulous wealth at a low tax rate? What is it, exactly? I cannot pinpoint it; I can only speculate based on my own impressions.
One thing is certain: There is a poisonous aura surrounding the word "socialism," and that aura preemptively sabotages many efforts to implement meaningful reforms to our social system. Sadly, opponents to social reform in the United States do not even understand what the word "socialism" means. And they do not even understand that they are not opposing socialism, but rather incremental modifications to the free market system they love so much.
We have known for more than a century that pure capitalism does not work. Any system premised upon human greed will inevitably become top-heavy and collapse. And purely capitalistic values clash starkly with core principles central to a democratic State in modern times, such as dignity, fairness and equality. From the 1930s until the 1960s, the United States understood that. It made meaningful modifications to the free market in order to mitigate the social shockwaves caused by its cyclical booms and busts. But then the progress stopped. Capitalism failed again last year and people have felt the pinch ever since.
America will not progress as long as it embraces false rhetoric about "socialism." It is not "socialism" simply to safeguard our citizens from economic ruin in a free market system. It is humanity.
Then again, perhaps that is what really rankles Republicans. After all, pure capitalism and humanity don't mix. Genuine humanity is bad for business. Humanity makes it harder to exploit others. Maybe that's what all the Rush Limbaugh rhetoric about "economic liberty" is all about: Liberty means the freedom to be economically inhumane to others in order to advance yourself. Or, phrased another way, liberty means freedom from government regulations that prevent you from being economically inhumane in order to advance yourself.
Against opposition like this, we have a long way to go in this country toward social reform.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
QUICK WORD ON VACATIONS : EUROPE V. AMERICA
AN ESSAY
I have many European friends. We communicate all the time on a forum. During the summer, they always write about this and that journey they plan to take. They call them "summer holidays." They talk about traveling far and wide. They talk about taking four weeks off--with pay--to wander around Eastern Europe or France. Some even talk about going to China or India. In short, they talk about vacations with true relish. When they get home, they talk about how refreshed they are. They even say they do not mind going back to work after so much enjoyable time on vacation. They don't feel guilty about forcing their bosses to find replacements while they're gone, nor do they check email or phone messages while sprawled on Brazilian beaches. Put simply, Europeans know how to relax.
I can't resist contrasting these idyllic reports with horror stories about vacation time in the United States. This morning, for instance, I read about a friend who plans to take several weeks to travel through Germany and Bulgaria. He will receive pay during his trip; his boss actually encouraged him "because it's important for you to relax" and "see the world."
In response, I described the typical working American's vacation plans:
If only Americans understood the value of real vacation time. Over here, people hem and haw about taking 5 days off, compromise and wind up taking a "monumental excursion" to a water park in some god-forsaken suburb.
What's the difference, then? For starters, there's the obvious temporal difference. Europeans just get a lot more paid vacation time than Americans. Americans are lucky to get a week off with pay per year (including sick days), while most Europeans--even entry-level twentysomethings--get five paid weeks minimum. But the real difference is about power. Europeans get so much vacation time because they have relatively more power over their work lives than Americans. Over here, people feel obsequiously honored to have jobs. Like good fawns, they are prepared to sacrifice everything to keep them. It is a hopelessly servile approach; it puts full power in the employer's hands. Employers take full advantage; they dole out one week's vacation, no more. All the while, they cultivate a belief that "taking time off is bad," causing workers to feel guilty about leaving the office.
In Europe, by contrast, employers do not dominate workers as much as they do in the United States. Additionally, workers in Europe keep both government and private industry honest through spirited political engagement. When governments in Europe deliberate measures that award more power to employers, workers revolt. When Congress does the same thing in America, workers meekly stay at home and watch Monday Night Football. Given such political apathy, it's no wonder American workers have virtually nothing by comparison to their European counterparts.
Europeans do not seem guilty about taking time off, either. I think this reflects another important difference between Europeans and Americans: The mental relationship to work. In America, workers tend to revere their jobs. They want to impress their bosses, advance and succeed. To do so, they want to make the best showing they possibly can. That means doing work at all times, even on weekends and holidays. This is the attitude that resists vacations: After all, how can you impress your boss in Toledo, Ohio if you are tanning on a beach in Brazil? You're not making the company any money tanning. Americans debate with themselves about taking any time off at all. They worry about making the wrong impression. They feel guilty about foisting their job duties on some poor sot who's stuck in the office. To assuage their guilt, they simply decide not to enjoy themselves when they ultimately go on vacation. They bring laptops and BlackBerries with them to theme parks, casinos and spas. They stay in touch with work when they are supposed to be relaxing. They even try to show their loyalty by agreeing to take off fewer days than the number to which they are entitled. They travel locally, not over long distances, "just in case they need to come back in an emergency."
In short, Americans don't escape their mental relationship to work, even when they are supposed to be on vacation. It's about work, not life. And people wonder why they are unhappy.
But Europeans forget work when they go on vacation. They don't take guilt-ridden 4-day "long weekends;" they take month-long sojourns. If someone has to pick up the slack at the office, so what? That guy will get his time off sooner or later, too. They do not bring office email accounts with them. They do not return work phone calls while drinking or dancing with friends in a Warsaw discotheque. More importantly, they actually have time to unwind, "switch from work mode," reflect and experience the world. At the same time, they are not worried about their bills, nor do they worry about the boss' wrath. Their bosses actually encourage them. This is the European approach to vacations. It is about life, not work.
Americans criticize Europeans for precisely that reason: They don't care about working enough. But what has America's dedication to work really won? Americans are generally more unhappy than their European counterparts. They face more anxiety and stress because they do not have a safety net. They face more workplace guilt and obligation. True, Americans keep more of their income than Europeans. If they're lucky, they can even own more property than Europeans. But what Europeans pay in higher tax they receive in a more compassionate existence. Their high taxes finance their month-long vacations and free medical care. And in some sense, their high taxes provide them more happiness. An existence with less guilt and less obligation is a happier existence.
But America won't change its mind about vacations any time soon. Employers hold far too much power here. It is not just economic power; it is psychological power. It is deeply entrenched, too. Until Americans stop feeling guilty about abandoning their poor-paying posts for more than two days at a time, employers will continue to hold their psychological edge. That pyschological edge maintains political apathy; and political apathy keeps employers strong.
In an abstract sense, vacation time is just a proxy for the much more significant difference between Europe and America: Who really holds the power? If you feel guilty about failing to serve your economic master even though you are entitled to take time off, are you really in control of your life?
Employers in America do not just control time. They control emotions, too. That is power.
I have many European friends. We communicate all the time on a forum. During the summer, they always write about this and that journey they plan to take. They call them "summer holidays." They talk about traveling far and wide. They talk about taking four weeks off--with pay--to wander around Eastern Europe or France. Some even talk about going to China or India. In short, they talk about vacations with true relish. When they get home, they talk about how refreshed they are. They even say they do not mind going back to work after so much enjoyable time on vacation. They don't feel guilty about forcing their bosses to find replacements while they're gone, nor do they check email or phone messages while sprawled on Brazilian beaches. Put simply, Europeans know how to relax.
I can't resist contrasting these idyllic reports with horror stories about vacation time in the United States. This morning, for instance, I read about a friend who plans to take several weeks to travel through Germany and Bulgaria. He will receive pay during his trip; his boss actually encouraged him "because it's important for you to relax" and "see the world."
In response, I described the typical working American's vacation plans:
If only Americans understood the value of real vacation time. Over here, people hem and haw about taking 5 days off, compromise and wind up taking a "monumental excursion" to a water park in some god-forsaken suburb.
What's the difference, then? For starters, there's the obvious temporal difference. Europeans just get a lot more paid vacation time than Americans. Americans are lucky to get a week off with pay per year (including sick days), while most Europeans--even entry-level twentysomethings--get five paid weeks minimum. But the real difference is about power. Europeans get so much vacation time because they have relatively more power over their work lives than Americans. Over here, people feel obsequiously honored to have jobs. Like good fawns, they are prepared to sacrifice everything to keep them. It is a hopelessly servile approach; it puts full power in the employer's hands. Employers take full advantage; they dole out one week's vacation, no more. All the while, they cultivate a belief that "taking time off is bad," causing workers to feel guilty about leaving the office.
In Europe, by contrast, employers do not dominate workers as much as they do in the United States. Additionally, workers in Europe keep both government and private industry honest through spirited political engagement. When governments in Europe deliberate measures that award more power to employers, workers revolt. When Congress does the same thing in America, workers meekly stay at home and watch Monday Night Football. Given such political apathy, it's no wonder American workers have virtually nothing by comparison to their European counterparts.
Europeans do not seem guilty about taking time off, either. I think this reflects another important difference between Europeans and Americans: The mental relationship to work. In America, workers tend to revere their jobs. They want to impress their bosses, advance and succeed. To do so, they want to make the best showing they possibly can. That means doing work at all times, even on weekends and holidays. This is the attitude that resists vacations: After all, how can you impress your boss in Toledo, Ohio if you are tanning on a beach in Brazil? You're not making the company any money tanning. Americans debate with themselves about taking any time off at all. They worry about making the wrong impression. They feel guilty about foisting their job duties on some poor sot who's stuck in the office. To assuage their guilt, they simply decide not to enjoy themselves when they ultimately go on vacation. They bring laptops and BlackBerries with them to theme parks, casinos and spas. They stay in touch with work when they are supposed to be relaxing. They even try to show their loyalty by agreeing to take off fewer days than the number to which they are entitled. They travel locally, not over long distances, "just in case they need to come back in an emergency."
In short, Americans don't escape their mental relationship to work, even when they are supposed to be on vacation. It's about work, not life. And people wonder why they are unhappy.
But Europeans forget work when they go on vacation. They don't take guilt-ridden 4-day "long weekends;" they take month-long sojourns. If someone has to pick up the slack at the office, so what? That guy will get his time off sooner or later, too. They do not bring office email accounts with them. They do not return work phone calls while drinking or dancing with friends in a Warsaw discotheque. More importantly, they actually have time to unwind, "switch from work mode," reflect and experience the world. At the same time, they are not worried about their bills, nor do they worry about the boss' wrath. Their bosses actually encourage them. This is the European approach to vacations. It is about life, not work.
Americans criticize Europeans for precisely that reason: They don't care about working enough. But what has America's dedication to work really won? Americans are generally more unhappy than their European counterparts. They face more anxiety and stress because they do not have a safety net. They face more workplace guilt and obligation. True, Americans keep more of their income than Europeans. If they're lucky, they can even own more property than Europeans. But what Europeans pay in higher tax they receive in a more compassionate existence. Their high taxes finance their month-long vacations and free medical care. And in some sense, their high taxes provide them more happiness. An existence with less guilt and less obligation is a happier existence.
But America won't change its mind about vacations any time soon. Employers hold far too much power here. It is not just economic power; it is psychological power. It is deeply entrenched, too. Until Americans stop feeling guilty about abandoning their poor-paying posts for more than two days at a time, employers will continue to hold their psychological edge. That pyschological edge maintains political apathy; and political apathy keeps employers strong.
In an abstract sense, vacation time is just a proxy for the much more significant difference between Europe and America: Who really holds the power? If you feel guilty about failing to serve your economic master even though you are entitled to take time off, are you really in control of your life?
Employers in America do not just control time. They control emotions, too. That is power.
Friday, May 8, 2009
JUSTICE SCALIA TO PRESIDENT OBAMA : KISS MY WHITE ASS
By : Mr. Antonin G. Scalia, Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court, Seat 10 (1986-present)(Appointed by President Ronald Reagan); Law Professor, University of Chicago School of Law (1977-1982); Constitutional Originalist; Republican.
In the usual case, Supreme Court justices do not volunteer their opinions on political matters. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979). We are, after all, detached and independent legal scholars under our constitutional system. See, e.g., U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1; Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton). We could not perform our neutral interpretive role in if we constantly embroiled ourselves in Washington politics. Our allegiance lies with constitutional principle, not petty political loyalties. We do not squabble for votes or ridicule our political opponents. We render reasonable opinions consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. Personally, I do my utmost to remain faithful to the Constitution as our Framers understood it. If the People want to change the Constitution, they are welcome to do so. See, e.g, U.S. Const. Art. V. It is not my role to “invent rights,” “expand liberty” or “make things up” from the text. I just read and recite. I do not create. In virtually every case, I exercise judicial restraint; provided I agree with the law at issue.
But we live in extraordinary times. Never in my life have I witnessed such a stupid President. Contrary to my usual practice, I must speak out about President Obama. This man is going to run America into the ground unless someone stops him. Yes, I know the American People voted to elect him in large numbers. They are entitled to do so under Article II, § 1 and the Twelfth Amendment. Still, when the American People act in an irrational manner by electing a buffoon, I must assert my constitutional authority to protect them from themselves. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (Cranch) (1803).
I join my learned colleague John G. Roberts in denouncing President Obama as an idiot. Chief Justice Roberts wrote several months ago that he was “determined to make life difficult” for President Obama by issuing “occasional, irrational conservative judicial opinions” during his Presidency. See text at: http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/12/word-from-chief-justice-john-g-roberts.html. Chief Justice Roberts referenced our institutional power as Supreme Court justices to resist inane Executive and Legislative measures by striking down laws inconsistent with our views. In a later article, Chief Justice Roberts soundly castigated Obama and the cult that reveres him. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/01/message-from-chief-justice.html. In that article, the Chief Justice rightly took offense over the liberal news media’s attempt to paint him a fool for misstating the President’s oath of office during the Inauguration Ceremony on January 20. Chief Justice Roberts spoke well when he said: “Screw you liberal assholes. I’m Chief Justice. You’re just a bunch of European-loving reds.” Id. True to his leadership role, Chief Justice Roberts swore that he would make “constitutional law personal” by opposing any law bearing Obama’s name. He also promised to abandon customarily polite Supreme Court rhetoric when writing opinions by including sentences such as: “Obama has his head up his ass if he thinks he can pass this bill, so help him God.” Id.
I fully agree with the Chief Justice’s sentiments. I fully support both his efforts to issue occasional, irrational conservative judicial opinions during Obama’s tenure, as well as his desire to “make constitutional law” personal by scrapping our usual reserve when writing opinions. Nonetheless, I believe that we must go further as an institution because our country has never elected such a dangerous man. I will not just occasionally issue irrational, conservative judicial opinions; I will always issue irrational, conservative judicial opinions. And unlike Chief Justice Roberts, I have no qualms about making constitutional law personal. I have been tongue-lashing my colleagues since I came on the bench in 1986. I never had a problem calling Justice O’Connor a country gal dingbat with fake hair, nor did I hesitate calling Justice Marshall a wheezy African Che Guevara. Believe me, I know how to call my current colleagues idiots, nincompoops, blundering old sots (Justice Stevens), screechy feminist hags (Justice Ginsburg) and anally overperfumed putzes (Justice Breyer). In fact, last year I opened an Institute celebrating my approach to collegiality: The Justice Antonin Scalia Society for Insulting, Degrading, Denigrating and Humiliating Your Professional Colleagues. See original opening remarks at: http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/09/supreme-court-minute.html. Basically, when it comes to constitutional law, there is no room to be nice. It’s a war in here. You’re either right or you’re wrong, and I’ll tell you straight out when you’re wrong. I don’t waste my time with this “politeness” bullshit. If you get an argument wrong, I’ll at least publicly call you a butthead—and probably more. I might even call your ancestors stupid, since dumb usually gives birth to dumb. The press loves me. If it weren’t for me, they would only hear gibberish in the Supreme Court building like “estoppel,” “collateral bargaining agreement,” “justiciability,” “prudential grounds” and “oyez.” But when I’m on the bench, they get some entertainment with phrases like: “Moron, please be quiet; you’re giving me a headache;” “You whiny ACLU hell-bitch, would you please shut up?” “Wait a second, so you’re saying there’s a constitutionally-protected liberty to perform semi-public cunnilingus?!?” “I should hold you in contempt for just being an imbecile;” “What part of ‘Stop talking’ did you not understand?” and “My God, are you really that stupid?”
But this is not about entertainment. This is war. President Obama threatens to destroy the constitutional system as we know it. He undermines our free market system by providing government funds to private banks. He brutalizes private contract rights by rescuing homeowners from default and bankruptcy. He promises “change we can believe in” by freeing terrorists and allowing “second chances” to drug dealers, child molesters, rapists, gang thugs and hired killers. He tarnishes America’s influence on the world stage by groveling in Europe and withdrawing our troops from Iraq. He even has appointed left-wing ideologues to run the Justice Department, guaranteeing bothersome, costly investigations into important private business dealings. He even said he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), compelling States to recognize same-sex marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. See U.S. Const. Art. IV § 1.
This is not progress. This is tyranny. And I have only one thing to say to the “President:” Kiss my white ass.
Did you notice that the President is black? What the hell were the American people thinking? We jail and execute black people; we do not elect them President. Believe me, I know we jail and execute them. I handle the appeals. They are almost all black. Our Framers wrote the Constitution to make sure that black people stayed where they were. Yes, yes, I know we have an “Equal Protection Clause” and a whole bevy of communist laws from the 1960s that try to assure “equal rights” to blacks (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, blah, blah, blah). But come on, that’s all just guilty rhetoric. We never meant to allow a black man to become President. And I can assure you that neither Madison, nor Hamilton, nor Washington, nor Adams, nor even Lincoln ever dreamed that a black man would occupy the Oval Office. For the record, I am not a racist; I am just telling you about our traditions and original intent.
On the other hand, I can understand electing a black Vice President or appointing a black Supreme Court justice. After all, Justice Thomas poses no threat whatsoever to the American people. He just does what I tell him. But my God, the President controls the military. Would you trust Justice Thomas to control our nuclear arsenal? I know I wouldn’t (no offense to Justice Thomas; you’re a great guy and you play ball, but you’re not ready to wage war). And let me tell you, President Obama is not an easy-going black man who keeps his mouth shut like Justice Thomas. He is a firebrand radical who goes to Baptist churches that perform frightening quasi-voodoo rituals. And unlike Justice Thomas, he actually claims to understand constitutional law. Obama is not a pushover; he is a black liberal Muslim revolutionary. But I’m not going to let him destroy our country. He can kiss my white ass.
In times like these, even Supreme Court justices must take sides. In calmer days, it was easier for me to simply apply constitutional principles without political overtones. But today, I have a duty to protect America from Obama. I believe I am uniquely situated to repel Obama’s attacks on American life. Along with Chief Justice Roberts—who shares my commitment to resisting Obama—Justices Thomas, Alito and Kennedy have already expressed a desire to block Democratic initiatives. We no longer have the luxury to abstain from political disputes in Washington. We are the Third Branch. Obama controls the other two. That makes us America’s final defense against socialism and equality. Thankfully, our Framers foresaw times like these. They knew that radicals may one day control both the White House and Congress. And they knew that, in such times, only the Supreme Court could protect lasting principle against frenzied partisan radicalism. We are the antidote against revolutionaries like Obama and Nancy Pelosi. We refuse to allow Obama to reinvent American society. We refuse to allow universal health care, government bailouts, mandatory disability insurance or “free rides” for terrorists, illegal immigrants and killers. We are the last bulwark against humanity and progress. Without us, America will transform into Europe. If we do not fight back now, America will commit itself to decency, compassion and mercy.
I like America the way it is, Mr. Obama. You can kiss my white ass before you transform our country into France, Belgium or Holland. We do not want utopia. We want protected contract rights.
America needs leadership, not reckless reform. Neither the President nor Congress can effectively lead this country. For that reason, the Supreme Court must step in to correct the imbalance. Although I traditionally refrain from political disputes, desperate times demand desperate measures. Unless the Court acts now, there is no telling what damage Obama, Pelosi and deranged Democratic agency heads will do to this country. For that reason, the Court must use every constitutional weapon at its disposal to stop this madness. We must first abolish the Case and Controversy Requirement. See U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. We do not have time to wait for an actual “ripe controversy” to develop in the lower courts. We must issue theoretical opinions today, not overly pragmatic, technical opinions ten years from now. Contrary to accepted rhetoric, we do have the power to decide political disputes. We have invalidated elections before. See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). To stop Obama, we should follow that precedent. We must declare the election results from 2008 invalid, then name a new President. To support our decision, we must merely note the colossal threat Obama poses to the American order. President Obama has already breached his oath to support the Constitution (see Art. II, § 1, cl. 8) by violating the Contracts Clause (Art. I, §10, cl. 1) and the Due Process Clause (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments). His bailout plans unfairly distinguish between citizens without justification. We can only expect that President Obama’s plans will continue to ignore the Constitution. We will not tolerate them. He can kiss all of our white asses (including Justice Thomas’, whose ass is—for all concerns and purposes—white).
Time will justify our outrage against President Obama. He has no respect for the Constitution because he is committed to liberty, equality, justice, compassion, mercy, humanity and honor. Our Constitution does guarantee such things; it guarantees only orderly government and healthy interstate commerce. We are Supreme Court justices. We know what the Constitution means. President Obama may have been an uppity Ivy League law professor with “opinions” about the Constitution. Opinions about the Constitution are like assholes; everybody has one. But only we know what the Constitution really means. It means what we say it means, because we know what the Framers meant. And I know for a fact that the Framers did not want a black man in the White House, nor did they want a government that saves people from their own bad decisions. Put simply, President Obama is a traitor to our traditions. He has not supported the Constitution, nor has he defended the values for which it stands. In our system, we imprison terrorists; we do not free them because Europe scolds us. President Obama may think he is “fighting for equality and justice” in America. But we say he is acting illegally.
I cannot sit by in good conscience while President Obama destroys our constitutional order. As a Supreme Court justice, I intend to use every means available to oppose him. He might control Congress and the White House. But he does not yet control this Court. I will lampoon, criticize, castigate, denigrate, insult, demean and denounce him until my dying breath. And I will invalidate any law he signs. I will revile any document bearing his signature. I owe him nothing. I have my job for life, and there is nothing he can do about it. See U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1. Chief Justice Roberts rightly declared that he will boldly oppose Obama at every available opportunity. I will go a step further. No longer will I refrain from political entanglements. It is time to get personal because Obama got personal with America. I hope President Obama is ready to rumble, because if he isn’t, he can kiss my white ass. He can expect no quarter from me—or Justice Thomas.
The era of judicial restraint is over.
In the usual case, Supreme Court justices do not volunteer their opinions on political matters. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979). We are, after all, detached and independent legal scholars under our constitutional system. See, e.g., U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1; Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton). We could not perform our neutral interpretive role in if we constantly embroiled ourselves in Washington politics. Our allegiance lies with constitutional principle, not petty political loyalties. We do not squabble for votes or ridicule our political opponents. We render reasonable opinions consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. Personally, I do my utmost to remain faithful to the Constitution as our Framers understood it. If the People want to change the Constitution, they are welcome to do so. See, e.g, U.S. Const. Art. V. It is not my role to “invent rights,” “expand liberty” or “make things up” from the text. I just read and recite. I do not create. In virtually every case, I exercise judicial restraint; provided I agree with the law at issue.
But we live in extraordinary times. Never in my life have I witnessed such a stupid President. Contrary to my usual practice, I must speak out about President Obama. This man is going to run America into the ground unless someone stops him. Yes, I know the American People voted to elect him in large numbers. They are entitled to do so under Article II, § 1 and the Twelfth Amendment. Still, when the American People act in an irrational manner by electing a buffoon, I must assert my constitutional authority to protect them from themselves. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (Cranch) (1803).
I join my learned colleague John G. Roberts in denouncing President Obama as an idiot. Chief Justice Roberts wrote several months ago that he was “determined to make life difficult” for President Obama by issuing “occasional, irrational conservative judicial opinions” during his Presidency. See text at: http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/12/word-from-chief-justice-john-g-roberts.html. Chief Justice Roberts referenced our institutional power as Supreme Court justices to resist inane Executive and Legislative measures by striking down laws inconsistent with our views. In a later article, Chief Justice Roberts soundly castigated Obama and the cult that reveres him. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/01/message-from-chief-justice.html. In that article, the Chief Justice rightly took offense over the liberal news media’s attempt to paint him a fool for misstating the President’s oath of office during the Inauguration Ceremony on January 20. Chief Justice Roberts spoke well when he said: “Screw you liberal assholes. I’m Chief Justice. You’re just a bunch of European-loving reds.” Id. True to his leadership role, Chief Justice Roberts swore that he would make “constitutional law personal” by opposing any law bearing Obama’s name. He also promised to abandon customarily polite Supreme Court rhetoric when writing opinions by including sentences such as: “Obama has his head up his ass if he thinks he can pass this bill, so help him God.” Id.
I fully agree with the Chief Justice’s sentiments. I fully support both his efforts to issue occasional, irrational conservative judicial opinions during Obama’s tenure, as well as his desire to “make constitutional law” personal by scrapping our usual reserve when writing opinions. Nonetheless, I believe that we must go further as an institution because our country has never elected such a dangerous man. I will not just occasionally issue irrational, conservative judicial opinions; I will always issue irrational, conservative judicial opinions. And unlike Chief Justice Roberts, I have no qualms about making constitutional law personal. I have been tongue-lashing my colleagues since I came on the bench in 1986. I never had a problem calling Justice O’Connor a country gal dingbat with fake hair, nor did I hesitate calling Justice Marshall a wheezy African Che Guevara. Believe me, I know how to call my current colleagues idiots, nincompoops, blundering old sots (Justice Stevens), screechy feminist hags (Justice Ginsburg) and anally overperfumed putzes (Justice Breyer). In fact, last year I opened an Institute celebrating my approach to collegiality: The Justice Antonin Scalia Society for Insulting, Degrading, Denigrating and Humiliating Your Professional Colleagues. See original opening remarks at: http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/09/supreme-court-minute.html. Basically, when it comes to constitutional law, there is no room to be nice. It’s a war in here. You’re either right or you’re wrong, and I’ll tell you straight out when you’re wrong. I don’t waste my time with this “politeness” bullshit. If you get an argument wrong, I’ll at least publicly call you a butthead—and probably more. I might even call your ancestors stupid, since dumb usually gives birth to dumb. The press loves me. If it weren’t for me, they would only hear gibberish in the Supreme Court building like “estoppel,” “collateral bargaining agreement,” “justiciability,” “prudential grounds” and “oyez.” But when I’m on the bench, they get some entertainment with phrases like: “Moron, please be quiet; you’re giving me a headache;” “You whiny ACLU hell-bitch, would you please shut up?” “Wait a second, so you’re saying there’s a constitutionally-protected liberty to perform semi-public cunnilingus?!?” “I should hold you in contempt for just being an imbecile;” “What part of ‘Stop talking’ did you not understand?” and “My God, are you really that stupid?”
But this is not about entertainment. This is war. President Obama threatens to destroy the constitutional system as we know it. He undermines our free market system by providing government funds to private banks. He brutalizes private contract rights by rescuing homeowners from default and bankruptcy. He promises “change we can believe in” by freeing terrorists and allowing “second chances” to drug dealers, child molesters, rapists, gang thugs and hired killers. He tarnishes America’s influence on the world stage by groveling in Europe and withdrawing our troops from Iraq. He even has appointed left-wing ideologues to run the Justice Department, guaranteeing bothersome, costly investigations into important private business dealings. He even said he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), compelling States to recognize same-sex marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. See U.S. Const. Art. IV § 1.
This is not progress. This is tyranny. And I have only one thing to say to the “President:” Kiss my white ass.
Did you notice that the President is black? What the hell were the American people thinking? We jail and execute black people; we do not elect them President. Believe me, I know we jail and execute them. I handle the appeals. They are almost all black. Our Framers wrote the Constitution to make sure that black people stayed where they were. Yes, yes, I know we have an “Equal Protection Clause” and a whole bevy of communist laws from the 1960s that try to assure “equal rights” to blacks (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, blah, blah, blah). But come on, that’s all just guilty rhetoric. We never meant to allow a black man to become President. And I can assure you that neither Madison, nor Hamilton, nor Washington, nor Adams, nor even Lincoln ever dreamed that a black man would occupy the Oval Office. For the record, I am not a racist; I am just telling you about our traditions and original intent.
On the other hand, I can understand electing a black Vice President or appointing a black Supreme Court justice. After all, Justice Thomas poses no threat whatsoever to the American people. He just does what I tell him. But my God, the President controls the military. Would you trust Justice Thomas to control our nuclear arsenal? I know I wouldn’t (no offense to Justice Thomas; you’re a great guy and you play ball, but you’re not ready to wage war). And let me tell you, President Obama is not an easy-going black man who keeps his mouth shut like Justice Thomas. He is a firebrand radical who goes to Baptist churches that perform frightening quasi-voodoo rituals. And unlike Justice Thomas, he actually claims to understand constitutional law. Obama is not a pushover; he is a black liberal Muslim revolutionary. But I’m not going to let him destroy our country. He can kiss my white ass.
In times like these, even Supreme Court justices must take sides. In calmer days, it was easier for me to simply apply constitutional principles without political overtones. But today, I have a duty to protect America from Obama. I believe I am uniquely situated to repel Obama’s attacks on American life. Along with Chief Justice Roberts—who shares my commitment to resisting Obama—Justices Thomas, Alito and Kennedy have already expressed a desire to block Democratic initiatives. We no longer have the luxury to abstain from political disputes in Washington. We are the Third Branch. Obama controls the other two. That makes us America’s final defense against socialism and equality. Thankfully, our Framers foresaw times like these. They knew that radicals may one day control both the White House and Congress. And they knew that, in such times, only the Supreme Court could protect lasting principle against frenzied partisan radicalism. We are the antidote against revolutionaries like Obama and Nancy Pelosi. We refuse to allow Obama to reinvent American society. We refuse to allow universal health care, government bailouts, mandatory disability insurance or “free rides” for terrorists, illegal immigrants and killers. We are the last bulwark against humanity and progress. Without us, America will transform into Europe. If we do not fight back now, America will commit itself to decency, compassion and mercy.
I like America the way it is, Mr. Obama. You can kiss my white ass before you transform our country into France, Belgium or Holland. We do not want utopia. We want protected contract rights.
America needs leadership, not reckless reform. Neither the President nor Congress can effectively lead this country. For that reason, the Supreme Court must step in to correct the imbalance. Although I traditionally refrain from political disputes, desperate times demand desperate measures. Unless the Court acts now, there is no telling what damage Obama, Pelosi and deranged Democratic agency heads will do to this country. For that reason, the Court must use every constitutional weapon at its disposal to stop this madness. We must first abolish the Case and Controversy Requirement. See U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. We do not have time to wait for an actual “ripe controversy” to develop in the lower courts. We must issue theoretical opinions today, not overly pragmatic, technical opinions ten years from now. Contrary to accepted rhetoric, we do have the power to decide political disputes. We have invalidated elections before. See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). To stop Obama, we should follow that precedent. We must declare the election results from 2008 invalid, then name a new President. To support our decision, we must merely note the colossal threat Obama poses to the American order. President Obama has already breached his oath to support the Constitution (see Art. II, § 1, cl. 8) by violating the Contracts Clause (Art. I, §10, cl. 1) and the Due Process Clause (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments). His bailout plans unfairly distinguish between citizens without justification. We can only expect that President Obama’s plans will continue to ignore the Constitution. We will not tolerate them. He can kiss all of our white asses (including Justice Thomas’, whose ass is—for all concerns and purposes—white).
Time will justify our outrage against President Obama. He has no respect for the Constitution because he is committed to liberty, equality, justice, compassion, mercy, humanity and honor. Our Constitution does guarantee such things; it guarantees only orderly government and healthy interstate commerce. We are Supreme Court justices. We know what the Constitution means. President Obama may have been an uppity Ivy League law professor with “opinions” about the Constitution. Opinions about the Constitution are like assholes; everybody has one. But only we know what the Constitution really means. It means what we say it means, because we know what the Framers meant. And I know for a fact that the Framers did not want a black man in the White House, nor did they want a government that saves people from their own bad decisions. Put simply, President Obama is a traitor to our traditions. He has not supported the Constitution, nor has he defended the values for which it stands. In our system, we imprison terrorists; we do not free them because Europe scolds us. President Obama may think he is “fighting for equality and justice” in America. But we say he is acting illegally.
I cannot sit by in good conscience while President Obama destroys our constitutional order. As a Supreme Court justice, I intend to use every means available to oppose him. He might control Congress and the White House. But he does not yet control this Court. I will lampoon, criticize, castigate, denigrate, insult, demean and denounce him until my dying breath. And I will invalidate any law he signs. I will revile any document bearing his signature. I owe him nothing. I have my job for life, and there is nothing he can do about it. See U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1. Chief Justice Roberts rightly declared that he will boldly oppose Obama at every available opportunity. I will go a step further. No longer will I refrain from political entanglements. It is time to get personal because Obama got personal with America. I hope President Obama is ready to rumble, because if he isn’t, he can kiss my white ass. He can expect no quarter from me—or Justice Thomas.
The era of judicial restraint is over.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE GET HEALTH INSURANCE ; IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE GET SICK, DIE AND DESERVE IT
CONSIDERED OPINION
By : Ms. Deborah G. Cunningham, M.S. (Bakery Management), B.S (Health Care Billing Systems) (Technical College of Southwest Texas at Pedejo Gulch); Senior Policy Advisor, The Institute for Increased Family Responsibility, Dallas, Texas; Mother of Four; President & Rally Coordinator, Southwest Texans United for More Bush (2008 Campaign).
Europeans commonly criticize our country because we do not provide basic health coverage to our citizens. Rather, they say, we leave our citizens dangerously underprotected because we require them to make their own choices concerning health coverage. According to these critics, many well-meaning people cannot compete in the private insurance market, leaving them open to preventable illness and death. They also say that it is unfair to peg health coverage on employment, since very many people have difficulty finding jobs, and even if they do, many employers do not even provide health coverage. In sum, these Europeans call us “inhumane free marketeers” who commit moral transgressions against our own people. They say we have no qualms about allowing our most vulnerable citizens to go without health coverage simply because they are not “responsible” enough to get insurance.
We have a simple response to these criticisms: We believe in responsibility. In America, we do not look to the government to tie our shoes or pay for diapers. Rather, we are rugged individuals. We take life by the horns and get things done with our own two hands. Responsibility is a lifestyle. It means knowing who you are and what you are supposed to do in life. It means you understand who employs you and what they expect. It means you understand that you’re running the show, not your mommy, daddy or the government. Responsible people buy health insurance; that is what they are supposed to do. Responsible people are also supposed to find a job, show up at work and shut up. They do not sit around and whine about life or health insurance. They go out, look for competitive prices, compare options and make informed, reasonable purchases. Health insurance is like any other commodity. And in America, responsible people do not need the government to tell them what to buy. We do not live in a central African thuggocracy; no one tells us what to do.
We have no moral obligation to people who are too irresponsible to buy their own health insurance. Contrary to the European view, we do not feel collective shame that some people have access to top-notch medical care in our society, while others have none. Uninsured people cause their own predicament. We cannot feel shame or compassion for people who could have gotten a job, saved money and purchased an affordable health insurance policy. Nobody stopped them from buying coverage; they chose not to buy it and now they must live with the consequences. Responsible people look to their own needs and make purchases to suit those needs. Irresponsible people try to slide by and let others pick up the tab. In our view, we cannot feel compassion for people who try to foist the bill on hard-working, responsible Americans. What message would that send? What incentive would it provide for responsible people to work hard, get a job, be responsible and make informed economic decisions if they had to indemnify irresponsible people? In that situation, irresponsibility would triumph over responsibility. As a Nation, that would set a horrific precedent. That is why we feel no remorse for allowing uninsured people to go without care. Responsibility should bring rewards, not liabilities. By contrast, irresponsibility should bring suffering.
Uninsured people love to complain. They say they want to be responsible, but there is just no way for them to pay for health insurance. They say it is too expensive. They say that insurance companies refuse to cover them. They say they have untreatable conditions. They say they work at jobs that do not provide health coverage. They say they have too many other expenses to afford another major monthly bill. They say they are in debt. They say they do have insurance, but a loophole prevents them from being reimbursed for some arcane treatment. In essence, this is irresponsibility. Responsible people do not make excuses; they stoically accept the consequences of their own bad decisions and carry on. If these whiners really wanted to get health insurance, they could have bought it. They could have asked their parents for some help. They could have gotten loans from financial institutions. They could have sold their car. They could have mortgaged their room. Their own laziness prevented them from getting insurance, not “impossible circumstances.” Health insurance is not expensive. Healthy, working Americans can get excellent coverage for less than $1,000 per month. That is not a significant expense for a responsible, working person. And we have a simple lesson for the uninsured: If you feel you can’t afford health coverage, try trimming some luxuries. Don’t live beyond your means. First things first. Get insurance. Don’t buy televisions, video game consoles and cars. When you say that you can’t afford insurance, you just don’t want to give up your television, Friday night beer binges and movie nights, do you? If you were responsible, you would never have landed in this spot in the first place.
We believe that uninsured people are irresponsible. Irresponsible people provide minimal value to our society. To that extent, we believe that it is good to allow them to get sick without treatment. If irresponsible people die, what difference does it make? What do we lose? Nothing. On the other hand, responsible people obtain health insurance. They are worth protecting. When a responsible person gets sick, he goes to the doctor and receives care. It would harm our society if responsible people go without care or die. To that extent, health insurance protects responsibility and preserves responsible people. At the same time, it punishes irresponsibility. Irresponsible people do not obtain insurance. If they get sick and die, we lose nothing as a society. What do we lose when an unemployed, libertine, selfish money leech gets cancer and can’t receive care at a good hospital? Responsible people earn what belongs to them. We have no problem allowing an irresponsible person to suffer for his own bad choices. We do not give benefits to people who do not earn them. Irresponsibility is bad for society. Our private health insurance system provides an admirable way to punish it. In short, we believe that responsible people are worth saving. Irresponsible people are not. Although idlers and beggars may escape God’s justice on earth, our private health insurance system provides a fitting, secular replacement.
Europeans, especially the Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians and English, find these sentiments revolting. They think it is an international disgrace that we allow so many people to live their lives without health coverage. They say everyone should be entitled to some basic medical care at State expense. On this point, we interpose a fundamental objection: We do not believe in government entitlements. We believe in minimal government. Entitlements expand government. In America, citizens are entitled to two government functions: (1) Paying taxes; and (2) Imprisonment or death at a State institution for committing crimes. Those are the only things Americans may rightly expect from government. For everything else, they have their own responsibilities. Government does not tie our shoes in this country. Rather, it provides a free framework in which private individuals may establish their own rules according to contract law. Private enterprise made this country, and it will sustain this country. Private health insurance is just another example of robust private enterprise. Responsibility makes our system work. Entitlements weaken responsibility. That is why we do not entitle our citizens to anything except taxes, imprisonment and death. They must be responsible or suffer the consequences.
Private enterprise and responsibility bring many rewards. They make our medical community stronger than any other on earth. American doctors and pharmaceutical chemists offer the most effective treatments for every possible disease, precisely because they know the government will not plunder their earnings. American medical science performs miracles every day because we pay our doctors what they deserve. But we would not encourage future miracles if doctors performed miracles for irresponsible people. Only those with qualified, paid-up health insurance may receive revolutionary medical treatment in this country. If an irresponsible person has a rare kidney disease and no insurance, he will not receive life-saving treatment. In this way, our society rewards responsibility and punishes irresponsibility. So far, it has worked extremely well. After all, who really remembers irresponsible people who die? No one. Yet we remember the medical miracles performed upon responsible people, because responsible people are worth saving. Thankfully, medical science receives just pay when it saves responsible people. If medical science cared for everyone equally, it would receive no pay. And who would want to be a doctor or pharmaceutical chemist without pay? If we allow government to pay pennies for medical science, we will drive away our greatest medical talents. Doctors are private commercial actors in a free market system, not saints or shamans. They expect high pay, and only our private enterprise system can provide them the pay they deserve. Put simply, irresponsible people do not pay their doctors. They do not deserve medical miracles. In America, only paying customers have a right to demand services. Medicine is no exception.
In sum, we do not feel the least bit bad about health insurance in America. Health insurance companies help our country. They advance medical science and make medical miracles possible. They allow Americans to receive swift, effective medical care. By contrast, Europeans and Canadians—who do not pay for private health insurance—die like flies in hospital waiting rooms because it takes 17-24 weeks to receive emergency treatment. For discretionary procedures, it takes even longer to receive necessary care. Additionally, socialized medical systems do not use anesthesia or sterile operating tools. Rather, they use stone bludgeons and garden clippers. Worse, doctors in these systems earn less than nightclub bartenders. This is the price of irresponsibility. Yet in America, responsible patients face no such dangers. Our private health system provides compassionate, timely and technologically advanced care for responsible customers. It is not difficult to obtain access to these wonders. One must merely pay a monthly health insurance premium and meet the insurer’s insurability qualifications, subject to all relevant contractual exclusions.
Responsibility is the best policy. We applaud our health system because it reinforces responsibility in America. We squarely reject all European reasoning about morality, ethics, compassion, entitlement and “State obligation” in health care questions. When it comes to responsibility, we trust the American people. They know what they owe. They know what they are supposed to do. They know their bosses. They do not wait for handouts, nor do they complain about their self-inflicted misfortunes. They grit their teeth, work through adversity and somehow carry on. In a word, it is not impossible to get health insurance in America. Anyone can buy it as long as they have the money. And anyone can get it through an employer if they have the strength, dedication and zeal to get a job. Even in tough times like these, Americans always find a way—a responsible way.
That is what makes us different than Europeans. We live responsibly. We look to ourselves and we look the other way when irresponsible people suffer. We do not feel shameful; we just get back up, go to work and pay our health premiums. Irresponsibility is not our problem. We are not here to help others. We are here to be responsible. You can be responsible, too. Don’t complain. Just get up, get out there and do it.
By : Ms. Deborah G. Cunningham, M.S. (Bakery Management), B.S (Health Care Billing Systems) (Technical College of Southwest Texas at Pedejo Gulch); Senior Policy Advisor, The Institute for Increased Family Responsibility, Dallas, Texas; Mother of Four; President & Rally Coordinator, Southwest Texans United for More Bush (2008 Campaign).
Europeans commonly criticize our country because we do not provide basic health coverage to our citizens. Rather, they say, we leave our citizens dangerously underprotected because we require them to make their own choices concerning health coverage. According to these critics, many well-meaning people cannot compete in the private insurance market, leaving them open to preventable illness and death. They also say that it is unfair to peg health coverage on employment, since very many people have difficulty finding jobs, and even if they do, many employers do not even provide health coverage. In sum, these Europeans call us “inhumane free marketeers” who commit moral transgressions against our own people. They say we have no qualms about allowing our most vulnerable citizens to go without health coverage simply because they are not “responsible” enough to get insurance.
We have a simple response to these criticisms: We believe in responsibility. In America, we do not look to the government to tie our shoes or pay for diapers. Rather, we are rugged individuals. We take life by the horns and get things done with our own two hands. Responsibility is a lifestyle. It means knowing who you are and what you are supposed to do in life. It means you understand who employs you and what they expect. It means you understand that you’re running the show, not your mommy, daddy or the government. Responsible people buy health insurance; that is what they are supposed to do. Responsible people are also supposed to find a job, show up at work and shut up. They do not sit around and whine about life or health insurance. They go out, look for competitive prices, compare options and make informed, reasonable purchases. Health insurance is like any other commodity. And in America, responsible people do not need the government to tell them what to buy. We do not live in a central African thuggocracy; no one tells us what to do.
We have no moral obligation to people who are too irresponsible to buy their own health insurance. Contrary to the European view, we do not feel collective shame that some people have access to top-notch medical care in our society, while others have none. Uninsured people cause their own predicament. We cannot feel shame or compassion for people who could have gotten a job, saved money and purchased an affordable health insurance policy. Nobody stopped them from buying coverage; they chose not to buy it and now they must live with the consequences. Responsible people look to their own needs and make purchases to suit those needs. Irresponsible people try to slide by and let others pick up the tab. In our view, we cannot feel compassion for people who try to foist the bill on hard-working, responsible Americans. What message would that send? What incentive would it provide for responsible people to work hard, get a job, be responsible and make informed economic decisions if they had to indemnify irresponsible people? In that situation, irresponsibility would triumph over responsibility. As a Nation, that would set a horrific precedent. That is why we feel no remorse for allowing uninsured people to go without care. Responsibility should bring rewards, not liabilities. By contrast, irresponsibility should bring suffering.
Uninsured people love to complain. They say they want to be responsible, but there is just no way for them to pay for health insurance. They say it is too expensive. They say that insurance companies refuse to cover them. They say they have untreatable conditions. They say they work at jobs that do not provide health coverage. They say they have too many other expenses to afford another major monthly bill. They say they are in debt. They say they do have insurance, but a loophole prevents them from being reimbursed for some arcane treatment. In essence, this is irresponsibility. Responsible people do not make excuses; they stoically accept the consequences of their own bad decisions and carry on. If these whiners really wanted to get health insurance, they could have bought it. They could have asked their parents for some help. They could have gotten loans from financial institutions. They could have sold their car. They could have mortgaged their room. Their own laziness prevented them from getting insurance, not “impossible circumstances.” Health insurance is not expensive. Healthy, working Americans can get excellent coverage for less than $1,000 per month. That is not a significant expense for a responsible, working person. And we have a simple lesson for the uninsured: If you feel you can’t afford health coverage, try trimming some luxuries. Don’t live beyond your means. First things first. Get insurance. Don’t buy televisions, video game consoles and cars. When you say that you can’t afford insurance, you just don’t want to give up your television, Friday night beer binges and movie nights, do you? If you were responsible, you would never have landed in this spot in the first place.
We believe that uninsured people are irresponsible. Irresponsible people provide minimal value to our society. To that extent, we believe that it is good to allow them to get sick without treatment. If irresponsible people die, what difference does it make? What do we lose? Nothing. On the other hand, responsible people obtain health insurance. They are worth protecting. When a responsible person gets sick, he goes to the doctor and receives care. It would harm our society if responsible people go without care or die. To that extent, health insurance protects responsibility and preserves responsible people. At the same time, it punishes irresponsibility. Irresponsible people do not obtain insurance. If they get sick and die, we lose nothing as a society. What do we lose when an unemployed, libertine, selfish money leech gets cancer and can’t receive care at a good hospital? Responsible people earn what belongs to them. We have no problem allowing an irresponsible person to suffer for his own bad choices. We do not give benefits to people who do not earn them. Irresponsibility is bad for society. Our private health insurance system provides an admirable way to punish it. In short, we believe that responsible people are worth saving. Irresponsible people are not. Although idlers and beggars may escape God’s justice on earth, our private health insurance system provides a fitting, secular replacement.
Europeans, especially the Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians and English, find these sentiments revolting. They think it is an international disgrace that we allow so many people to live their lives without health coverage. They say everyone should be entitled to some basic medical care at State expense. On this point, we interpose a fundamental objection: We do not believe in government entitlements. We believe in minimal government. Entitlements expand government. In America, citizens are entitled to two government functions: (1) Paying taxes; and (2) Imprisonment or death at a State institution for committing crimes. Those are the only things Americans may rightly expect from government. For everything else, they have their own responsibilities. Government does not tie our shoes in this country. Rather, it provides a free framework in which private individuals may establish their own rules according to contract law. Private enterprise made this country, and it will sustain this country. Private health insurance is just another example of robust private enterprise. Responsibility makes our system work. Entitlements weaken responsibility. That is why we do not entitle our citizens to anything except taxes, imprisonment and death. They must be responsible or suffer the consequences.
Private enterprise and responsibility bring many rewards. They make our medical community stronger than any other on earth. American doctors and pharmaceutical chemists offer the most effective treatments for every possible disease, precisely because they know the government will not plunder their earnings. American medical science performs miracles every day because we pay our doctors what they deserve. But we would not encourage future miracles if doctors performed miracles for irresponsible people. Only those with qualified, paid-up health insurance may receive revolutionary medical treatment in this country. If an irresponsible person has a rare kidney disease and no insurance, he will not receive life-saving treatment. In this way, our society rewards responsibility and punishes irresponsibility. So far, it has worked extremely well. After all, who really remembers irresponsible people who die? No one. Yet we remember the medical miracles performed upon responsible people, because responsible people are worth saving. Thankfully, medical science receives just pay when it saves responsible people. If medical science cared for everyone equally, it would receive no pay. And who would want to be a doctor or pharmaceutical chemist without pay? If we allow government to pay pennies for medical science, we will drive away our greatest medical talents. Doctors are private commercial actors in a free market system, not saints or shamans. They expect high pay, and only our private enterprise system can provide them the pay they deserve. Put simply, irresponsible people do not pay their doctors. They do not deserve medical miracles. In America, only paying customers have a right to demand services. Medicine is no exception.
In sum, we do not feel the least bit bad about health insurance in America. Health insurance companies help our country. They advance medical science and make medical miracles possible. They allow Americans to receive swift, effective medical care. By contrast, Europeans and Canadians—who do not pay for private health insurance—die like flies in hospital waiting rooms because it takes 17-24 weeks to receive emergency treatment. For discretionary procedures, it takes even longer to receive necessary care. Additionally, socialized medical systems do not use anesthesia or sterile operating tools. Rather, they use stone bludgeons and garden clippers. Worse, doctors in these systems earn less than nightclub bartenders. This is the price of irresponsibility. Yet in America, responsible patients face no such dangers. Our private health system provides compassionate, timely and technologically advanced care for responsible customers. It is not difficult to obtain access to these wonders. One must merely pay a monthly health insurance premium and meet the insurer’s insurability qualifications, subject to all relevant contractual exclusions.
Responsibility is the best policy. We applaud our health system because it reinforces responsibility in America. We squarely reject all European reasoning about morality, ethics, compassion, entitlement and “State obligation” in health care questions. When it comes to responsibility, we trust the American people. They know what they owe. They know what they are supposed to do. They know their bosses. They do not wait for handouts, nor do they complain about their self-inflicted misfortunes. They grit their teeth, work through adversity and somehow carry on. In a word, it is not impossible to get health insurance in America. Anyone can buy it as long as they have the money. And anyone can get it through an employer if they have the strength, dedication and zeal to get a job. Even in tough times like these, Americans always find a way—a responsible way.
That is what makes us different than Europeans. We live responsibly. We look to ourselves and we look the other way when irresponsible people suffer. We do not feel shameful; we just get back up, go to work and pay our health premiums. Irresponsibility is not our problem. We are not here to help others. We are here to be responsible. You can be responsible, too. Don’t complain. Just get up, get out there and do it.
Friday, May 1, 2009
PROTECTING AMERICA : ONE TOOTH AT A TIME
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS DIVISION
DENTISTRY DEPARTMENT
May 1, 2009
May 1, 2009
RE: Dr. Agostinho Calabras (Portugal), File No. 08-09126G; Applicant for Clearance to Practice Dentistry in the United States.
Dear Dr. Calabras,
You recently petitioned this Department for clearance to practice dentistry in the United States. To support your petition, you enclosed your university performance records, your Portuguese professional licensure documents and several articles you published in Portugal’s leading dentistry journal (Jornal nacional da odontologia em Lisboa). You further certified that the Portuguese government named you as one of the ten best dental scientists in the country. According to the records you provided, you have practiced dentistry for over 20 years with a special focus in pain management, beautification and general oral health. You also noted that you established a charity clinic in Russia to assist low-income children address their dental needs.
Although we applaud your accomplishments, we must refer you to Homeland Security Code § 245(b), specifically: “[A]ll ‘foreign dentists’ must register for and complete at least three (3) years of qualified dental instruction at a certified American institute for dental science (West 2002).” Foreign dentists must receive American dental education in order to obtain professional licensure in the United States. Your materials disclose that you were aware of this rule. Yet you ask this Department to grant an exception in light of your “distinguished record of flawless dental service in Portugal.” You also submitted an essay in which you attempt to justify your qualifications to provide dental care in the United States. We hereby deny your request for an exception.
By law, this Department has no authority to grant exceptions to Homeland Security Code § 245(b). Even if we did have such authority, we are not inclined to craft exceptions to this rule because Congress explicitly intended to protect Americans by enacting this statute. Specifically, Congress noted that: “Foreign dentists pose a realistic danger to all Americans. Dental terror is a genuine threat; only American-born and American-trained dentists can fully be trusted to care for American teeth. Al-Qaeda operatives may disguise themselves as foreign dentists and cause untold damage to American dental enamel and tooth roots. Terrorists may use laughing gas, Novocain, bleaching agents, x-ray machines and dental instruments to disrupt American business enterprise and frighten children. Only strong oversight and strict professional regulations can protect American mouths against invasion by belligerent foreign dental operatives.” Preamble to Homeland Security Act §§ 201-250; Subchapter H : Anti-Dental Terror Act (ADTA). Given Congress’ extremely clear mandate on this subject, we refuse to make any exceptions for foreign dentists. All foreign dentists—whether they hail from Canada or Burkina-Faso—must obtain a full American dental education prior to treating American teeth. This is the only way to ensure that a foreign dentist will not maliciously or negligently destroy the means by which Americans eat, chew, smile and bite. Congress understood that Americans’ teeth are vital. Congress also understood that Al-Qaeda knows that, too. For that reason, they enacted these regulations without provision for exceptions. If Al-Qaeda waged a calculated campaign of dental terror against the United States, the result could be devastating. For that reason, all foreign dentists must first learn how to treat American teeth according to American standards prior to plying their trade on our soil.
You write that there is no functional difference between American teeth and Portuguese teeth. Specifically, you point out that all human teeth share identical biological characteristics. You argue that because all human beings have biologically identical teeth, dental science may adequately treat anyone, no matter their ethnicity, nationality, race or religion. You say that our regulations draw an irrational distinction between American teeth and all other teeth. In conclusion, you argue that we should make an exception to the Homeland Security Act in your case because you already possess the education, training, skill and experience necessary to effectively treat “human teeth,” whether American or Portuguese.
We profoundly disagree with your position. There is a fundamental difference between American teeth and all other teeth. Congress has a right to draw a distinction in this regard. Specifically, American teeth face unique dietary dangers. Unlike the Portuguese, who eat hayseed, mulch and strange fish, Americans eat processed cheeseburgers, curly fries, cotton candy, microwave insta-Lasagna, canned meatball soup, Wonder® bread and liverwurst-flavored muffins on a regular basis. These foods present unique dental hazards that do not exist in Portugal. Americans do not pick through scant meals like mice. They engulf large amounts of food and drink, including chili dogs, hush puppies, double Big Mac® burgers, fried mayonnaise cookies, Filet-O-Fish® sandwiches with extra tartar sauce, whole Dominos® pizza pies, sugar-coated corn puffs, grape soda, super-sweetened iced tea, Royal Crown Cola®, Lucky Charms® marshmallow breakfast cereal, and pork sausage melts. At times, they consume these foods and drinks without chewing or breathing. In a word, Americans consume foods in different quantities and qualities than the Portuguese. They eat and drink in a different manner than the Portuguese. These differences necessitate education in American dental health prior to practicing dentistry in the United States.
American breath smells considerably different than Portuguese breath. Your training in Portugal will not prepare you for the smells you will encounter in American mouths. For instance, in order to repel terrorists, Congress recently authorized Americans to eat both onions and tuna salad during the same meal. Before 9/11, it was forbidden to simultaneously eat tuna and onions because these two foods lead to noxious odors when combined in an American mouth. But Congress rightly believed that a terrorist would retreat if faced by several Americans breathing rancid tuna and onion vapors toward him. Bad breath can be a potent deterrent. In Portugal, however, you do not face the same issues. Your citizens do not constantly worry about terrorism, nor do they deliberately poison their breath with tuna, raw eggs and onions in order to ward off would-be assassins. In that light, you are incorrect to conclude that your dental experience in Portugal will easily translate into dental expertise in the United States. Here, you will encounter completely different teeth because Americans eat completely different foods—in much larger amounts than the Portuguese. We face unique dental threats. Our breath is substantially different. With all respect, your Portuguese dental education has not prepared you for the tremendous challenges American teeth face every day at every meal. We must reject your essay’s reasoning on these points.
American teeth are different than foreign teeth for several other reasons. Unlike European and African teeth, American teeth are enterprising and ambitious. They make their own way in the world; they do not receive free government insurance. American teeth bite, chew, tear, rip and grind on their own; they do not need anyone else’s help. In the centuries since our country was born, American teeth have helped great Americans consume food, propelling them to success. American teeth have helped great Americans speak and communicate, since the English language requires a special interplay between throat, lips, palate and teeth. Without teeth, Americans would not be able to properly enunciate English words; and without proper enunciation, Americans would not communicate effectively. Americans pride themselves on excellent communicative skills. Business and commerce depend on communication. American teeth help make that communication possible. Only dentists who understand America know how to properly treat these American dental issues. If you wish to practice dentistry in our country, you must learn the values that keep American teeth strong and healthy. We are proud of our teeth because they are the best. You must learn why before you treat them.
In closing, we note that you strike a particularly defiant tone. You seem to think that your intelligence, training, education and dental skill entitle you to practice dentistry in the United States. You voice contempt for our regulations as “superfluous,” “unnecessary,” “irrational,” “bigoted” and “nationalistic.” Although we praise you for learning English, we do not approve your tone. In our country, professionals are not critical. They merely provide client service, bill their time and go home at night. They do not voice unwarranted opinions, nor do they criticize popular Congressional legislation. You may think that our regulations are “irrational,” but we have reasons for our laws. We do not trust defiant foreigners like you to care for our teeth. For all we know, you could be Osama bin Laden’s dentist. You might be coming to America incognito to train an elite cadre of terrorist dentists to sow dental panic amid the population. Do we not have a right to protect our borders from such attacks? Put simply, we believe our regulations are fair. They do not bar all foreigners from practicing dentistry in America; they merely require foreigners to receive American education prior to thrusting sharp instruments into American mouths. We will not make an exception for you, no matter how qualified you may be to treat Portuguese teeth. We invite you to receive instruction concerning acute Kool-Aid® stains, corndog molar spurs and Whopper®-related extractions at an American Dental Academy. We also welcome you to receive instruction concerning Dental Practice Billing Management and profit fund distribution plans. But until you receive the required instruction, we cannot grant you professional licensure to practice dentistry in the United States of America.
Very sincerely yours,
Mr. Bartholomew D. Kaye
Associate Licensure Executive
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
CLOSING THE EDUCATION GAP : WE NEED TO MAKE AMERICA SMART--FAST
CONSIDERED OPINION
By : Dr. T. Vernon Letterman, Professor of Market Solutions, Wharton School of Business, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Chairman, American Credit Professionals United For Growth Through Debt.
America faces economic crisis because we do not properly educate our children. Recent studies revealed that American children rank behind Albanians and Somalis in basic math and science skills. They also rank behind Togo and Trinidad in English reading ability. This represents a grave danger for the American economy. Without math, reading and science skills, American bankers cannot effectively use calculators, loan officers cannot tabulate interest rates and chemists cannot invent profitable new medications for erectile dysfunction. Our economy needs bankers, loan officers and chemists. We need loans and drugs to function as a modern society. Without such contributions to society, we can expect a bleak future. If our economy faces difficulty now, imagine how bad things will be once these poorly-educated children join the workforce. Given this alarming trend, we must take swift action. There is only one way to prevent imminent economic ruin: We must make our children smart—fast.
For decades, American children have wallowed in an overly permissive culture. They no longer want to achieve great things; they simply want to drink Kool-Aid®, eat cookies, play Super Smash Bros.® video games and go nighty-night. In decades past, American children learned the skills they needed in school and went on to successful careers. In 1960, schoolchildren wanted to be astronauts, bridge builders and pediatricians. Today, they just want to hang around and talk about High School Musical® or imitate no-good rappers. We need to bring the spirit of achievement back to America’s youth. We need to make American children want to learn, not play video games and or wander around malls with their friends. We need to tell our children that they are Americans, not Albanians or Slovaks. They are better than that. Yet the scores say that Americans can’t solve word problems as well as an ignorant Portuguese peasant. This must change.
As a Professor of Market Solutions at Wharton Business School, I believe in American enterprise. I know that private enterprise can provide a solution to the education gap. We simply must find the right teachers to help our kids. The time for soft-hearted permissiveness is over. Kids need to take school seriously and get ready for tests. Private enterprise can equip them with the tools they need to learn everything. We must no longer settle for Albanian math achievement levels; we must strive to be the world’s best. To that end, schoolchildren must start algebra in first grade and calculus in second grade. This is the only way to get our children excited and motivated about math. If our second-graders can’t compare the cosine differentials in inconsistent parabolas, we are failing as a country. Private businesses can make it fun to learn calculus. By working with companies such as Disney® and Fisher-Price®, I am confident that even the stupidest kid can work out a differential equation under time pressure by the time he reaches third grade. In America, we can achieve anything for our kids.
We want results for our children. For too long, Congress has obsessed about protecting children from internet pornography, child molesters and playground killers. Instead, Congress should have been worried about children’s deteriorating academic skills. While Congress fretted about immoral Hollywood movies, our children stopped learning how to read. While Congress enacted laws protecting children from al-Qaeda, our kids became stupider than the Sudanese. We need to prioritize. What good are safe children if they are stupid? Without proper education, we sabotage America’s chances to succeed in the 21st Century. The smart people are all dying. Now, the idiots who can barely read or balance their checkbooks are succeeding to powerful positions in government, finance and science. We face national embarrassment, bankruptcy and international ridicule. All over the world, other countries call our kids fat, lazy, Twizzler®-eating do-nothings who can’t distinguish circles from squares. They point to the geometry test scores. They note that American kids think triangles have six sides and that isosceles means “ice cream.” Is it any wonder that our economy fails? Look at our children—they are horrendously stupid.
We must get tough on our children. It is in our interest to make our kids smart again, because smart kids make money later. And when people make money, it makes everyone else happy. Additionally, smart kids might even turn out to be inventors or patentholders; and inventors give us all useful things like hand vacuum cleaners, improved anxiety pills and disposable pets. Parents may want to “go easy” on their children so they don’t “hurt their feelings.” But the time for mercy is over. We need to get strict with our kids so they don’t turn into mush-brained couch potatoes. We can no longer afford to call failed kids “individuals with delayed achievement issues.” No, we must return honesty to education. When a kid can’t add or subtract on a math quiz, we cannot write “Nice try! You will get it next time: B+.” We must write: “You dumb fuck. Get it right or ship out: F.” In American business, we do not tolerate failure. We should not encourage failure among our children, either. Our economy depends on their success. We must foster it. And we must harshly punish failure, just as private enterprise does.
We must close the achievement gap. Private enterprise can do this by setting firm goals for students all over the country. The time for “curricula” and “lesson plans” is over. We must treat schools like corporations with deadlines, achievement patterns and incentives. We must foster a new culture that demands success. To that end, we propose demanding that all first-graders read Milton and Shakespeare. We cannot wait to move into challenging texts; we must challenge our students from day one. How will our students outdo the Germans and the French if they are still reading Elmo books when they are 18? Our students must achieve everywhere, all the time. They must achieve in math, reading, science, astronomy, literature, art, physics, chemistry, history, philosophy, Spanish and writing. We will not achieve without bold, corporate-style goals. It is not enough to read large-print books with simple sentences. Our second-grade students must read Descartes, Homer, Dante and Aristotle in the original. We refuse to be a Nation of junk-food eating losers any longer. We are determined to outdo the Japanese. And that means our kids will solve calculus problems at age 7.
Detractors say that we should go easy on our kids. They say that children face developmental problems at early ages, and that academic success must take a back seat to emotional stability and “socialization.” This is precisely the attitude that landed us behind Albania on the international intelligence list. While our kids should have been reading Paradise Lost and solving calculus word problems, they were playing with building blocks and drinking apple juice with their 4-year-old classmates. Their teachers wanted them to “acclimate to life with other people” rather than study for achievement tests. What a bunch of losers! These teachers bred our children for failure and condemned our country to international embarrassment. In life, “getting along with other people” is not as important as scoring highly on tests and getting a good job. American educators failed to see this for decades. They failed to prepare our kids for everyday challenges; rather, they made our kids into lazy, ungrateful, petulant whiners who prefer to chat about Britney Spears than write geometry proofs. Now our economy is in shambles.
We face difficult years. It will not be easy to reverse the damage caused by years of wrongheaded educational theory. Nonetheless, I am confident that private enterprise will find a way to make our kids smart—fast. Private enterprise feeds our troops, builds airplanes, finances construction projects and provides entertainment to millions. It breeds a culture of success because only the strong survive. Private enterprise always finds the best way to get things done, and I know it will find the best way for our kids. Of course, it will be no cakewalk. Our kids need to adjust the way they think. They need to think about scoring highly, achieving, winning and doing their best. They need to think about physics, chemistry, calculus and Shakespeare, not about Guitar Hero® or the new Zac Efron album. In short, American kids need to start thinking like employees: They must want to win. They must have the zeal to outdo their neighbors and friends. They must constantly thirst for victory. We need ambitious kids who want to ace tests, go to great schools and land super-paying jobs. To do that, we must hit them early. We get nowhere as a Nation when our eighth-graders are still playing Tiddlywinks® in math class. When private enterprise brings achievement back to American education, eighth graders will be building rockets and refining jet fuel, not answering “true” to the question: True or false? 6 X 7 = 44. Our eighth graders will be writing sonnets and grammatically perfect essays, not plodding through Sesame Street® primers and struggling to write their names in crayon. We demand success from our kids. And they will give it to us—fast. In private enterprise, we get results. If a kid does not deliver, he’s out. There will be no more comfort in failure.
America can beat Albania in math ability. When private enterprise provides the solution, American kids will outdo everyone on earth. Soon, America will be #1 in math, science, economics and literature. Our kids will be smarter than any Norwegian. And when we have smart kids, we guarantee a bright economic future, complete with bankers who can add, subtract, multiply and divide interest rates, as well as chemists who can formulate profitable new erectile dysfunction medications. By closing the education gap, we will triumph over the financial crisis. And we will make America the smartest—and richest—country in the world. We will no longer share company with contemptible Albanians, Slovaks and Yugoslavians. Soon, our 10-year-olds will be smarter than even the most brilliant Oxford scholar. Put simply, once private enterprise provides sensible, market-driven guidance to education, we cannot fail.
Let’s start winning. Let’s get smart. Let’s close the education gap. And let’s make sure that our bankers and chemists do their jobs, so that all of us have a better life.
By : Dr. T. Vernon Letterman, Professor of Market Solutions, Wharton School of Business, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Chairman, American Credit Professionals United For Growth Through Debt.
America faces economic crisis because we do not properly educate our children. Recent studies revealed that American children rank behind Albanians and Somalis in basic math and science skills. They also rank behind Togo and Trinidad in English reading ability. This represents a grave danger for the American economy. Without math, reading and science skills, American bankers cannot effectively use calculators, loan officers cannot tabulate interest rates and chemists cannot invent profitable new medications for erectile dysfunction. Our economy needs bankers, loan officers and chemists. We need loans and drugs to function as a modern society. Without such contributions to society, we can expect a bleak future. If our economy faces difficulty now, imagine how bad things will be once these poorly-educated children join the workforce. Given this alarming trend, we must take swift action. There is only one way to prevent imminent economic ruin: We must make our children smart—fast.
For decades, American children have wallowed in an overly permissive culture. They no longer want to achieve great things; they simply want to drink Kool-Aid®, eat cookies, play Super Smash Bros.® video games and go nighty-night. In decades past, American children learned the skills they needed in school and went on to successful careers. In 1960, schoolchildren wanted to be astronauts, bridge builders and pediatricians. Today, they just want to hang around and talk about High School Musical® or imitate no-good rappers. We need to bring the spirit of achievement back to America’s youth. We need to make American children want to learn, not play video games and or wander around malls with their friends. We need to tell our children that they are Americans, not Albanians or Slovaks. They are better than that. Yet the scores say that Americans can’t solve word problems as well as an ignorant Portuguese peasant. This must change.
As a Professor of Market Solutions at Wharton Business School, I believe in American enterprise. I know that private enterprise can provide a solution to the education gap. We simply must find the right teachers to help our kids. The time for soft-hearted permissiveness is over. Kids need to take school seriously and get ready for tests. Private enterprise can equip them with the tools they need to learn everything. We must no longer settle for Albanian math achievement levels; we must strive to be the world’s best. To that end, schoolchildren must start algebra in first grade and calculus in second grade. This is the only way to get our children excited and motivated about math. If our second-graders can’t compare the cosine differentials in inconsistent parabolas, we are failing as a country. Private businesses can make it fun to learn calculus. By working with companies such as Disney® and Fisher-Price®, I am confident that even the stupidest kid can work out a differential equation under time pressure by the time he reaches third grade. In America, we can achieve anything for our kids.
We want results for our children. For too long, Congress has obsessed about protecting children from internet pornography, child molesters and playground killers. Instead, Congress should have been worried about children’s deteriorating academic skills. While Congress fretted about immoral Hollywood movies, our children stopped learning how to read. While Congress enacted laws protecting children from al-Qaeda, our kids became stupider than the Sudanese. We need to prioritize. What good are safe children if they are stupid? Without proper education, we sabotage America’s chances to succeed in the 21st Century. The smart people are all dying. Now, the idiots who can barely read or balance their checkbooks are succeeding to powerful positions in government, finance and science. We face national embarrassment, bankruptcy and international ridicule. All over the world, other countries call our kids fat, lazy, Twizzler®-eating do-nothings who can’t distinguish circles from squares. They point to the geometry test scores. They note that American kids think triangles have six sides and that isosceles means “ice cream.” Is it any wonder that our economy fails? Look at our children—they are horrendously stupid.
We must get tough on our children. It is in our interest to make our kids smart again, because smart kids make money later. And when people make money, it makes everyone else happy. Additionally, smart kids might even turn out to be inventors or patentholders; and inventors give us all useful things like hand vacuum cleaners, improved anxiety pills and disposable pets. Parents may want to “go easy” on their children so they don’t “hurt their feelings.” But the time for mercy is over. We need to get strict with our kids so they don’t turn into mush-brained couch potatoes. We can no longer afford to call failed kids “individuals with delayed achievement issues.” No, we must return honesty to education. When a kid can’t add or subtract on a math quiz, we cannot write “Nice try! You will get it next time: B+.” We must write: “You dumb fuck. Get it right or ship out: F.” In American business, we do not tolerate failure. We should not encourage failure among our children, either. Our economy depends on their success. We must foster it. And we must harshly punish failure, just as private enterprise does.
We must close the achievement gap. Private enterprise can do this by setting firm goals for students all over the country. The time for “curricula” and “lesson plans” is over. We must treat schools like corporations with deadlines, achievement patterns and incentives. We must foster a new culture that demands success. To that end, we propose demanding that all first-graders read Milton and Shakespeare. We cannot wait to move into challenging texts; we must challenge our students from day one. How will our students outdo the Germans and the French if they are still reading Elmo books when they are 18? Our students must achieve everywhere, all the time. They must achieve in math, reading, science, astronomy, literature, art, physics, chemistry, history, philosophy, Spanish and writing. We will not achieve without bold, corporate-style goals. It is not enough to read large-print books with simple sentences. Our second-grade students must read Descartes, Homer, Dante and Aristotle in the original. We refuse to be a Nation of junk-food eating losers any longer. We are determined to outdo the Japanese. And that means our kids will solve calculus problems at age 7.
Detractors say that we should go easy on our kids. They say that children face developmental problems at early ages, and that academic success must take a back seat to emotional stability and “socialization.” This is precisely the attitude that landed us behind Albania on the international intelligence list. While our kids should have been reading Paradise Lost and solving calculus word problems, they were playing with building blocks and drinking apple juice with their 4-year-old classmates. Their teachers wanted them to “acclimate to life with other people” rather than study for achievement tests. What a bunch of losers! These teachers bred our children for failure and condemned our country to international embarrassment. In life, “getting along with other people” is not as important as scoring highly on tests and getting a good job. American educators failed to see this for decades. They failed to prepare our kids for everyday challenges; rather, they made our kids into lazy, ungrateful, petulant whiners who prefer to chat about Britney Spears than write geometry proofs. Now our economy is in shambles.
We face difficult years. It will not be easy to reverse the damage caused by years of wrongheaded educational theory. Nonetheless, I am confident that private enterprise will find a way to make our kids smart—fast. Private enterprise feeds our troops, builds airplanes, finances construction projects and provides entertainment to millions. It breeds a culture of success because only the strong survive. Private enterprise always finds the best way to get things done, and I know it will find the best way for our kids. Of course, it will be no cakewalk. Our kids need to adjust the way they think. They need to think about scoring highly, achieving, winning and doing their best. They need to think about physics, chemistry, calculus and Shakespeare, not about Guitar Hero® or the new Zac Efron album. In short, American kids need to start thinking like employees: They must want to win. They must have the zeal to outdo their neighbors and friends. They must constantly thirst for victory. We need ambitious kids who want to ace tests, go to great schools and land super-paying jobs. To do that, we must hit them early. We get nowhere as a Nation when our eighth-graders are still playing Tiddlywinks® in math class. When private enterprise brings achievement back to American education, eighth graders will be building rockets and refining jet fuel, not answering “true” to the question: True or false? 6 X 7 = 44. Our eighth graders will be writing sonnets and grammatically perfect essays, not plodding through Sesame Street® primers and struggling to write their names in crayon. We demand success from our kids. And they will give it to us—fast. In private enterprise, we get results. If a kid does not deliver, he’s out. There will be no more comfort in failure.
America can beat Albania in math ability. When private enterprise provides the solution, American kids will outdo everyone on earth. Soon, America will be #1 in math, science, economics and literature. Our kids will be smarter than any Norwegian. And when we have smart kids, we guarantee a bright economic future, complete with bankers who can add, subtract, multiply and divide interest rates, as well as chemists who can formulate profitable new erectile dysfunction medications. By closing the education gap, we will triumph over the financial crisis. And we will make America the smartest—and richest—country in the world. We will no longer share company with contemptible Albanians, Slovaks and Yugoslavians. Soon, our 10-year-olds will be smarter than even the most brilliant Oxford scholar. Put simply, once private enterprise provides sensible, market-driven guidance to education, we cannot fail.
Let’s start winning. Let’s get smart. Let’s close the education gap. And let’s make sure that our bankers and chemists do their jobs, so that all of us have a better life.
Friday, October 3, 2008
POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD
Petulant White Bourgeois Brats United for Even More Advantages Than They Have Now
By : Tucker F. Michaels, High School Valedictorian, Pleasant Meadows Preparatory Academy and Son of Influential Business Leader (with higher net worth than your father)
Let’s face it: Not everyone has the same advantages in this country. Wealth passes from father to son, and if your father wasn’t wealthy, well, sorry. We can’t all be born lucky. And here’s another fact: We call the shots and we aim to keep it that way. We don’t listen because we don’t have to. All we need to do is call Dad and everything is A-OK. Nonetheless, school administrators, college admissions officials and law enforcement officers dare to spurn us. They have the audacity to give us low grades, deny us admission to Ivy League schools and even impose fines on us for recreational drug use. Such conduct upsets the social order in this country. We, the Petulant White Bourgeois Brats United for Even More Advantages Than They Have Now, demand the respect we deserve. No longer will we tolerate C and D grades. Teachers must give us no grade lower than a B+, even if we never show up for class. Admissions officers at Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Columbia, William & Mary, Princeton, University of Chicago and Georgetown must never deny us—or themselves—the honor of our attendance. Education at these institutions is our hereditary right. To deny our right to Ivy League education is to undercut the class system so vital to the strength of our Republic. Finally, law enforcement officials must never penalize us for any criminal infraction whatsoever, including drug use or sale, traffic violation, perjury, assault, shoplifting, disturbing the peace, sexual abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor or underage drinking. We have a right to act as we please. The law exists to sustain us, not to punish us. After all, our fathers made the law. If it weren’t for our fathers, the police and judges would not have their jobs. If it weren’t for our fathers, Harvard would not have its endowment. And if it weren’t for our fathers, our secondary schools would not have enough money to keep the doors open. Formal equality is an important virtue in this country. But a quixotic quest for actual equality must never jeopardize our right to preferential treatment in school, business and in criminal justice. This year, vote to give Petulant White Bourgeois Brats even more advantages they have now. Vote for the status quo. Vote to help the most important people in our society. Do not spurn the rich. Respect them, because they obviously lived the American dream better than you did. Be obedient to our society. Vote Brats in 2008.
Thrifty Americans Who Work for a Living United Against Lazy European Vacationeers
By : Bert Wank, Senior Policy Analyst and Employed Person for Over 23 Years
America works. Our strength as a Nation comes from our passion for work. Americans treasure their jobs and produce more than any other country on earth. We love to work. True, we look forward to our weekends as a time to relax with family and watch sporting events, but we do not relish idleness. Rather, we recognize that weekends give us a meaningful opportunity to rest our bodies so we can do our jobs better on Monday. We understand that work gives us strength. Despite this, trouble is brewing beyond our borders. Although many Americans would simply like to work, live and attend weekend events in peace, world developments at times force us to address larger matters. In Europe, entire populations are taking three-week vacations every year, with pay. Entire European populations spend up to twenty-one paid days away from their jobs per year sitting on beaches, spending money on souvenirs, touring exotic locations and “having fun.” Additionally, governments in these foreign lands provide health care to all workers at no charge, even though they spend at least three weeks per year away from their jobs. This is an international outrage. Here in America, we work for a living. We save our money. We do not lounge on beaches for three weeks per year. If we do, we go broke; we do not expect our employers to pay for it. We take no more than one week per year away from our jobs, including sick leave. That is more than enough for our purposes. Idleness does nothing for the economy, and a week spent working is always better than a week spent idling. We are thankful for the opportunity to work; we do not look forward to avoiding it. We do not want money if we do not work for it. Yet these lazy European do-nothings expect to be paid for time off. This sends a dangerous message to workers all over the world. Excessive relaxation breeds decadence and weakness. By allowing three-week paid vacations, European governments are fatally undermining the spirit of thrifty work that drives America. This year, put a party in power that understands the value of work. Tell the world that you do not need a vacation to do the best job you possibly can for your employer. Tell the world that you are responsible, not lazy. Tell the world that you expect no advantage that you did not earn by the sweat of your brow. And tell the world that you do not want time off to be with your newborn child. We, Thrifty Americans United Against Lazy European Vacationeers, are determined to live our lives in protest to decadent vacation-seekers. We would rather fill out third-party insurance papers than sip pina coladas in Maui. We would rather stay in the archives department until 10 PM on Saturday than spend 2 weeks partying in Sao Paulo. Work is its own reward, and we are thankful for it. No longer will we allow European taildraggers to poison the value of our work. In 2008, vote for honest American labor, not effete European hedonism. Refuse to take a vacation this year. Save your money. Vote for Thrifty Americans Who Work for a Living. In 2008, show why we are the greatest Nation in the world: Because we love to work.
By : Tucker F. Michaels, High School Valedictorian, Pleasant Meadows Preparatory Academy and Son of Influential Business Leader (with higher net worth than your father)
Let’s face it: Not everyone has the same advantages in this country. Wealth passes from father to son, and if your father wasn’t wealthy, well, sorry. We can’t all be born lucky. And here’s another fact: We call the shots and we aim to keep it that way. We don’t listen because we don’t have to. All we need to do is call Dad and everything is A-OK. Nonetheless, school administrators, college admissions officials and law enforcement officers dare to spurn us. They have the audacity to give us low grades, deny us admission to Ivy League schools and even impose fines on us for recreational drug use. Such conduct upsets the social order in this country. We, the Petulant White Bourgeois Brats United for Even More Advantages Than They Have Now, demand the respect we deserve. No longer will we tolerate C and D grades. Teachers must give us no grade lower than a B+, even if we never show up for class. Admissions officers at Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Columbia, William & Mary, Princeton, University of Chicago and Georgetown must never deny us—or themselves—the honor of our attendance. Education at these institutions is our hereditary right. To deny our right to Ivy League education is to undercut the class system so vital to the strength of our Republic. Finally, law enforcement officials must never penalize us for any criminal infraction whatsoever, including drug use or sale, traffic violation, perjury, assault, shoplifting, disturbing the peace, sexual abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor or underage drinking. We have a right to act as we please. The law exists to sustain us, not to punish us. After all, our fathers made the law. If it weren’t for our fathers, the police and judges would not have their jobs. If it weren’t for our fathers, Harvard would not have its endowment. And if it weren’t for our fathers, our secondary schools would not have enough money to keep the doors open. Formal equality is an important virtue in this country. But a quixotic quest for actual equality must never jeopardize our right to preferential treatment in school, business and in criminal justice. This year, vote to give Petulant White Bourgeois Brats even more advantages they have now. Vote for the status quo. Vote to help the most important people in our society. Do not spurn the rich. Respect them, because they obviously lived the American dream better than you did. Be obedient to our society. Vote Brats in 2008.
Thrifty Americans Who Work for a Living United Against Lazy European Vacationeers
By : Bert Wank, Senior Policy Analyst and Employed Person for Over 23 Years
America works. Our strength as a Nation comes from our passion for work. Americans treasure their jobs and produce more than any other country on earth. We love to work. True, we look forward to our weekends as a time to relax with family and watch sporting events, but we do not relish idleness. Rather, we recognize that weekends give us a meaningful opportunity to rest our bodies so we can do our jobs better on Monday. We understand that work gives us strength. Despite this, trouble is brewing beyond our borders. Although many Americans would simply like to work, live and attend weekend events in peace, world developments at times force us to address larger matters. In Europe, entire populations are taking three-week vacations every year, with pay. Entire European populations spend up to twenty-one paid days away from their jobs per year sitting on beaches, spending money on souvenirs, touring exotic locations and “having fun.” Additionally, governments in these foreign lands provide health care to all workers at no charge, even though they spend at least three weeks per year away from their jobs. This is an international outrage. Here in America, we work for a living. We save our money. We do not lounge on beaches for three weeks per year. If we do, we go broke; we do not expect our employers to pay for it. We take no more than one week per year away from our jobs, including sick leave. That is more than enough for our purposes. Idleness does nothing for the economy, and a week spent working is always better than a week spent idling. We are thankful for the opportunity to work; we do not look forward to avoiding it. We do not want money if we do not work for it. Yet these lazy European do-nothings expect to be paid for time off. This sends a dangerous message to workers all over the world. Excessive relaxation breeds decadence and weakness. By allowing three-week paid vacations, European governments are fatally undermining the spirit of thrifty work that drives America. This year, put a party in power that understands the value of work. Tell the world that you do not need a vacation to do the best job you possibly can for your employer. Tell the world that you are responsible, not lazy. Tell the world that you expect no advantage that you did not earn by the sweat of your brow. And tell the world that you do not want time off to be with your newborn child. We, Thrifty Americans United Against Lazy European Vacationeers, are determined to live our lives in protest to decadent vacation-seekers. We would rather fill out third-party insurance papers than sip pina coladas in Maui. We would rather stay in the archives department until 10 PM on Saturday than spend 2 weeks partying in Sao Paulo. Work is its own reward, and we are thankful for it. No longer will we allow European taildraggers to poison the value of our work. In 2008, vote for honest American labor, not effete European hedonism. Refuse to take a vacation this year. Save your money. Vote for Thrifty Americans Who Work for a Living. In 2008, show why we are the greatest Nation in the world: Because we love to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)