UNCOMFORTABLE SUBJECTS : PRIVATE RACISM

A REFLECTION ON RACE IN AMERICA

I want to take some time to mention what I'm planning to write over the next few days. I think it's especially important to lay out my intentions this time because I am about to venture into very difficult territory.

Whenever I set out on a new intellectual endeavor, I always think of my mentor: Friedrich Nietzsche. In this instance, I think about the title to one of his aphorism collections: Uncontemporary Observations. Nietzsche did not care whether he wrote about subjects that ruffled traditional feathers. He purposely contradicted the expectations of the "the present" and "contemporary" society. His ideas at times recapitulated themes from distant history. At other times, they foretold the future. In either case, he was not "contemporary." To the contrary, he purposely defied "contemporary."

Writers face constant pressure to be contemporary. After all, you can't be successful if you don't write to meet present expectations. Yet no one ever evolves without taking daring chances; and writers are no exception. By accident, I find myself in early 21st Century America: A strange, confusing, conflicted, changing civilization. There are certain subjects that we simply do not talk about, or at least we do not voice certain sentiments about them in public. It is irrelevant what we privately think about these "taboo" subjects. We just never voice what we really believe. Sometimes our beliefs are not even conscious.

Race is among those subjects. Personally, race is an obsession of mine. It frequently inspires my writing because it is so maddeningly relevant. Yet there are certain things we simply do not say about it, no matter how often we think them.

Race has played a pivotal role in American civilization from our earliest history. Through race, we have seen just how low American civilization can fall. Through race, we see our principles challenged. All our grand rhetoric about equality, dignity and fairness falls flat when applied to the American experience with race. It is no surprise that much of my satire involves racial realities in the United States. After all, when we honestly view race in America, we see several different Nations living in one. And they aren't all equal, no matter what the law says.

But I struggle with my own conflicts about race. In my writing and in my public expressions, I vociferously advocate equality. I believe that everyone in this country--no matter their origins--should have equal legal opportunities and a fair shot at success. I truly believe that. It is only just. We cannot claim to live in a just society if some people do not have the same chances for success simply because of their ancestry in a certain country or a certain continent.

Yet even in saying this I feel myself a hypocrite. In fact, I come close to a confession when I say that I am a racist. But we all are. Americans simply do not understand that racism comes in many shades. Some are overt, but most are extraordinarily subtle. Everyone in the United States is a racist in their own fashion; you do not have to be David Duke to be a racist. Rather, every American--including declared liberals--harbors deep-rooted cultural expectations about the "ways" of different ethnic groups. Every American believes on some level that people in other ethnic groups are "different" and "act differently" than they do "because that's the way they are." They do not necessarily mean it in a malicious way; but it is ever-present. And it is racism.

We are racists the moment we say: "Two guys and a black guy entered the room." I was raised with these distinctions. I also grew up in a distinct cultural background (southeastern Connecticut; and as the biological product of hardworking Northern European Protestant descendants). Both by nature and by operation of economic forces, that cultural background was racially exclusive. For the longest time, I never thought I was racist. How could I be? After all, I always learned that it was "bad to be a racist" and that I wasn't a racist because I did not publicly say bad things about people in other ethnic groups. But my own family--the same family that taught me these abstract lessons about race with the best possible intentions--cultivated a set of cultural values in me that made me completely dissociate myself from other races. Those values also made me intuitively judgmental toward anyone who did not share them. And on a subconscious level, I began to believe that my values were normal, while others were not. That was racist.

Racism is everywhere in the United States. It is on everyone's mind all the time. And it is intensely private. When white people eat at a restaurant and a black beggar enters the restaurant, I challenge everyone sitting there to say that they do not harbor certain negative assumptions about black people: "Why doesn't he work? Why do they beg? Why are they all so poor? They're all like that..." they think. They might be ferocious liberals and believe in equality. But in that cultural situation, I challenge them all to say that they do not make immediate judgments about black people in their own private minds. And it is not their fault: It is simply a function of their own cultural backgrounds reacting to another cultural background.

America elected Barack Obama. But that does not mean we are not beyond racism. My "uncontemporary observation" on this subject is that EVERYONE IS A RACIST. It is just a question of degree. We may bear no conscious ill-will toward other ethnic groups. Yet when we make even the most subtle assumptions about them, we are racists. Even disadvantaged ethnic groups engage in racism. I challenge any black person to say he harbors no assumptions about white people when placed in a social situation with them: "He's not going to be fair with me. He's not going to treat me right. He's going to condescend to me. He's going to exploit me. He's going to disrespect me. He's going to fire me because I'm black. That's what they all do. White people are mean and will hurt me any chance they get." Racism goes in both directions--all the time.

Overcoming racism is about more than turning to the law for superficial equalization. Overcoming racism is a mammoth cultural endeavor; and we are nowhere near achieving it. Until we truly harbor no assumptions or expectations about "how other ethnic groups act," and until we truly do not think "How typical" when someone from a particular ethnic group acts in a particular way, we are racists. Yet we do these things all the time without even knowing it. We are merely giving expression to the combined weight of our respective cultural heritages. Heritage bears down upon us in America as in no other country on earth. Nowhere on earth have so many disparate cultural traditions been thrown in with one another. And nowhere else has such burning intolerance arisen when those traditions clash.

Let me be clear for the record. I live my life to avoid racism in all things. But I am still as racist as every other American because I cannot honestly say that I do not occasionally make negative assumptions about other ethnic groups in difficult situations. In this sense, we are all racists. When a black youth wearing a doo rag, low pants, a crooked hat and gangster-style sports garb acts rowdy with his friends on a subway train, I intuitively think: "He is up to no good. He's going to cause a scene." I wish I didn't. But I do. I tell myself I shouldn't think it. I challenge any white person from my cultural background to claim the very same thoughts do not flash in his mind in the same situation.

I have no solutions to the racism problem. The best we can do is to forbear as much as we possibly can in our external behavior. We must try to understand one another as best we can for the sake of order and coexistence. It is relatively easy never to "act like a racist" or "say racist things" in public. It is easy not to be David Duke. But it is not so easy to truly drive racist thoughts from our minds in pressing circumstances.

I wish we weren't all racists. I really, really do. But we would all be dishonest if we said we weren't. And I will immediately call anyone a hypocrite who denies his own racism. Racism is not just the overt hatred we hear about in groups like the KKK. Racism is also about unconscious economic segregation. Living in a part of town that no black person can afford is racist, too. Supporting an economic system that perpetuates racial inequalities is racist, too. After all, why do most wealthy white people live in areas that black people cannot afford? Because they won't have to be around black people. When black people are around, it's a "bad neighborhood." Even using the term "bad neighborhood" is racism. It is no coincidence that "bad neighborhoods" are always the poor, black areas. And it is racist to assume the poor, bad areas are always black. Yet people who claim not to be racist use the term "bad neighborhood" all the time.

Consider a white real estate broker who thinks he is not a racist. He says to his client: "You don't want to live above 96th Street. That's a bad neighborhood." Why? Because black people mostly live there. How can that not reflect deeply entrenched, racist assumptions about black people? Think about how often we use terms like "bad neighborhood." They are racist. And most barely comprehend why.

Racism in the United States is exquisitely subtle. It is the inevitable byproduct of placing so many cultural backgrounds in close proximity to one another, along with the natural human propensity to resent those who are different. As such, racism is everywhere. I know it's not popular to say. But that does not mean we cannot honestly grapple with it. Is it terrible? Of course it is. But there are lots of terrible things about American life; and in my view it makes more sense to call a spade a spade than to pretend it's not.

This is my uncontemporary observation for the day.

"HONOR BOUND TO DEFEND FREEDOM" : WHAT ARE WE STILL DOING IN IRAQ?

AN ESSAY

Two weeks ago, I watched Paul Greengrass' searing Green Zone. Although the movie masquerades as a pure action thriller, it actually deeply criticizes American involvement in Iraq, especially the manufactured casus belli that led us to war. At several points during the movie,my emotions surged. I have always spoken out against the War in Iraq. I always considered it an illegitimate, illegal, unethical, imperialist venture without justification in law, justice or good policy. The movie showed raw American power at work. And that reawakened my slumbering vitriol about the war.

Green Zone opens in the din of an air raid. It is March 19, 2003, the day the U.S. air force began bombing Baghdad. Sirens wail. We hear the buildings shudder as explosions rip through the city. Iraqi men and women frantically run through hallways, shouting and screaming. We see lights flickering. Dust falls from ceilings. Windows break. Then the shot pans out to a vista over the city. Massive fireballs light up the night. Buildings burn. Anti-aircraft fire streaks into the sky. Jet engines and cruise missiles boom through the air before yet another explosion rips the skyline.

That scene choked me up. So that's American power, isn't it: The power to bomb a city into oblivion. The power to make civilians scramble in panic as the house next door explodes into a million pieces. The power to knock out electricity and destroy infrastructure. And for what? In hindsight, I knew there was no justification for the war. There were never any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not plan 9/11, nor did any Iraqis hijack the planes that attacked the United States. No, America flexed its muscles against Iraq simply because it could. It ignored the United Nations and its weapons inspectors. It acted with breathtaking defiance, even if it mumbled about "reliable independent intelligence" concerning an Iraqi nuclear arms program.

Worse, we're still there, seven years and 6000 American dead later. That's to say nothing about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and countless more lives ruined for nothing.

War apologists will inevitably label be a socialist for making these observations. They will tell me that "intelligence was uncertain" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in early 2003, so it was better to be "safe than sorry." They will also tell me that America had "good reason" to attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who tortured and murdered his own people. In fact, they will stress the fact that America "fights for freedom" around the world; even if we did not find nuclear weapons in Iraq, at least we gave Iraqis democracy.

I recoil from this facetious "freedom" explanation for the invasion. The argument is not just illogical; it also shows American involvement in Iraq for what it really is: A selective, hypocritical, arbitrary application of brute force. It is illogical because America does not really care about "worldwide freedom." In the first place, it is presumptuous to even suggest that "American-style freedom" can work in diverse cultures around the world. And even if such a thing as "freedom" were universal, why stop with Iraq? George W. Bush said that the war was necessary because "Iraqis needed freedom from a murderous tyrant who tortured and gassed his own people." Yet there are many nations across the globe that need the same treatment. The "freedom" rationale--if believed--would require U.S. military involvement in virtually every sub-Saharan African nation, as well as Saudi Arabia, several southeast Asian countries and even Russia. There are "tyrants" in all those nations who "murder their own people."

So why haven't we attacked all these other countries? If we truly care about "freedom," we should attack Rwanda, Uganda, the Congo, Pakistan and Malaysia. The fact that we haven't shows that our involvement in Iraq is purely selective. And because the freedom rationale is so weak, it begs the real question: Why Iraq? Only a naïve idiot could believe that America had a genuine interest in "Iraqis' freedom from tyranny." So what was the real reason?

For a long time, I thought that America invaded Iraq to gain access to its lucrative oil reserves. The cynic in me can never really suppress the thought. Yet after seven years of occupation, oil prices are no lower than they were in 2002. In fact, they have even spiked several times in the ensuing years. With oil men like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush in the White House, Iraq's oil must have been one reason why they decided to invade. In retrospect, it should have been an easy assignment: Knock out Saddam, capture the oil fields, set up some pipelines and start pumping.

But it did not work out that way. The war planners encountered a set of problems they did not anticipate: Sectarian strife. They must have underestimated how difficult it would be to occupy Iraq. They could not set up their pipelines or build their oil-carrying infrastructure because the Iraqis did not just roll over and allow the Americans to have their way with their country. They sabotaged roads, blew up tankers, ambushed convoys and beheaded "contractors." And because men like Donald Rumsfeld woefully miscalculated how much force would be needed to subdue Iraq, the U.S. military never had sufficient strength to pacify the countryside. Rumsfeld thought a "small, rapidly mobile force" with overwhelming air power could claim Iraq.

He was wrong. In the end, U.S. forces in Iraq wound up fighting a desperate "fire brigade" war in which they struggled to respond to local hotspots without bringing overall stability to the country. As a consequence, America could not realize its initial commercial war goal: Oil mercantilism.

Still, I am not writing today to summarize America's strategic failure in Iraq. Rather, I am writing to stress that America's failure was far larger than mere military stalemate. America sacrificed much more than young soldiers' blood to occupy Iraq. It also sacrificed its historically "moral high ground" in war by engaging in illegal, unethical behavior on an unprecedented scale. In the end, American occupiers showed themselves little better than the Baathist torturers they set out to depose in 2003.

Green Zone alludes to this. In brief, the movie follows an army officer (Matt Damon) assigned to locate nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" at various sites throughout Baghdad. After coming up empty every time, he begins to wonder whether his intelligence is sound. He decides to investigate his sources and gradually uncovers a tangled web of official deceit running all the way down from the Pentagon. When he realizes that the Pentagon has basically misled the army into supporting the war, he sets out to locate an Iraqi general who met with a senior Pentagon official (Greg Kinnear) prior to the war. The general told the Pentagon official that Iraq had no WMD program. The Pentagon official lied about what the general said and told Washington that Iraq did have such a program. To prevent the truth from emerging, the Pentagon official sends a hit squad to kill the general. Meanwhile, the army officer rushes to save him and expose the truth.

Green Zone's plotline makes for a good thriller. But it also makes a valuable point: America's case for war against Iraq was marred from the outset. It was built upon official deception. It threw ethics to the wind and committed American blood for fabricated reasons. The movie shows the American government working in a criminally underhanded manner. It shows senior American officials manipulating the truth and authorizing murder to conceal it. While Green Zone might just be a movie, it is certainly based on real events.

I thought America was supposed to be better than this. What ever happened to America as the "White Knight" of international politics? There was a time when America went to war for good things--and only as a last resort. There was a time when people around the world looked to America as a beacon of freedom and justice. During that time, no one would have dared think America could be tyrannical or evil. America did not lie, cheat, deceive, torture, murder or kill. It punished those who did while remaining true to its ethical principles. Hitler tortured, killed and invaded. America liberated the death camps and freed Europe from Nazi domination. That was noble and just. That was America's international reputation. That America could never act a villain.

Sadly, America did act a villain in Iraq. In a telling scene, Green Zone reminds us that American forces committed atrocities against Iraqi prisoners. It shows us a "detainee camp" in which U.S. forces hold allegedly "high-value" Iraqis in a stockade. It shows U.S. troops brutalizing prisoners with clubs, barking dogs and extremely loud music. It shows them forcing prisoners to sit in uncomfortable positions. We hear prisoners crying out in pain from darkened solitary cells. Some even lie bleeding on the floor without medical care.

Ironically, a sign over the stockade reads: "Camp So-and-So : Honor-Bound to Defend Freedom."

What kind of freedom is this? What kind of honor? It is as if the American army in Iraq still believed that it was the "White Knight" of 1945, even though its "intelligence division" members acted more like SS torturers than noble liberators.

There is no honor in torture or inhumane treatment. America said it waged war in Iraq to overthrow tyranny and torture. Yet within weeks, it began committing the same outrages on Iraqi prisoners that Saddam committed against his own people. Of course, war apologists will say that troops in the field must discover valuable battlefield intelligence "by any means necessary." That may be so as a practical matter. But America used to draw ethical strength from its refusal to engage in the unsavory tactics of its enemies. America acquired a sterling reputation because it refused to be Machiavellian.

We have drifted far from our ethical moorings. The war in Iraq has cost this country more than individual soldiers. It has also cost us our international reputation. We are no longer noble liberators committed to justice. Rather, we are now petulant rogues who wage war simply because we want to, without regard to ethics or international law. Our involvement in Iraq is a very dark chapter in American history. It is the chapter in which America became just another Machiavellian State determined to do its will, no matter the cost in blood or principle.

I wonder whether we will ever repair the damage we have done to ourselves.

REVERSE STEREOTYPING IN ADVERTISING : MORE INSULTING THAN REGULAR STEREOTYPING?

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Stereotypes fascinate me because everyone taught me to revile them. It is a dirty word. You are not supposed to stereotype anymore. But what is stereotyping, actually? It means making generalizations about particular people or things, then exaggerating those generalizations in a pejorative way.

Stereotypes are pernicious when applied to "disfavored" groups. They are even worse when a person in "superior social position" directs the stereotype against a person in an "inferior social position." In other words, it is "politically incorrect" for a wealthy white man in America (i.e., a person with a historically "superior social position") to stereotype against a poor black man (i.e, a person with a historically "inferior social position"). Yet when people in traditionally inferior social positions stereotype those in superior social positions, it is somehow more forgivable. After all, who gets up in arms when black comedians say all white people are awkward? No one: Because everyone knows that white people have historically enjoyed a "superior social position" over blacks in America. In this sense, stereotypes are objectionable only in context: They are "bad" only when directed downward from a superior social position against an inferior one.

Still, it is hard to talk about stereotypes without inviting anger. Even outside the racial context, stereotypes raise emotions because they depend on uncomfortable--and sometimes remotely true--assumptions about others. No one likes to be mocked for their intrinsic characteristics, even if their intrinsic characteristics are less than praiseworthy.

It is even difficult to analyze the stereotyper. Ten years ago, I angered the American government when I applied for a Federal scholarship to study the systematic way in which American media stereotypes Germans. I did not get the grant. Apparently, the Federal government did not want to fund a paper that would tell it how shortsighted, ignorant and simplistic most Americans are when thinking about Germany. At the time, I was disappointed I did not get my grant. But it taught me a valuable lesson: Neither the proponents nor the victims of stereotypes like talking about them.

Whether or not the Federal government chooses to recognize it, stereotypes are everywhere in this country. They surround us. We even buy into them without even knowing it. To start, it is hard to watch American movies without encountering some condescending racial, sexual or national caricature. Even in a sci-fi action movie like Transformers : Revenge of the Fallen, the "hip" robots have black voices and banter in ebonics. Most gay characters are pathetically effeminate, with the lisps, hair and flamboyance to match. And people from other countries? Forget it: Germans are merciless, icy, calculating, humorless villains (Schindler's List; Hellboy II). Italians are lusty, hairy, slicked-back tough Guidos who use big hand gestures and talk about their families all the time (Saturday Night Fever). Russians are crafty, suspicious tyrants with thick accents (Rambo III; Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). The French are perfumed, well-dressed, snotty, red-lipped, arrogantly petulant metrosexuals with perfect hair who usually wind up buying baguettes or espresso at some point in the movie (The Matrix : Reloaded, Ronin)(Jean Reno is the default American choice for a Frenchman). The British are absurdly prim, polite, insistent on protocol, silly or villainous (The Patriot). Arabs are maniacal terrorists who wear turbans, shout "Allah, Ackbar!" and blow things up (True Lies). Asians are generally kung-fu-fighting, sword-wielding comic relief with funny accents (any Jackie Chan movie).

Of course, not all American movies support racial, sexual and national stereotypes. There are exceptions in every category. But the fact that so many mainstream films thrive on stereotypes means something. It means that America has an appetite for them. They like laughing at smooth-talking black robots and silly gay men. They expect Italians to be gangsters and Germans to be killers. After all, stereotypes are easy to grasp. They distance "us" from "them." They allow "us" to feel secure in our identities by condescending toward the way "they" speak, act and move. Stereotypes unite through ignorance.

Hollywood films are not the only medium that supports rank stereotypes in the United States. Even so-called "neutral" news networks reinforce racial and national generalizations. Whenever news agencies report on street crime, they usually point out that the suspect is a "black male," or they just show his face onscreen: Just another scary-looking black guy with unkempt facial hair. Whenever news agencies report about China or Russia, they usually make ominous comments about sinister motivations and repressive governments. And when they report about destitute Third World countries, typically they focus on some ridiculous sideshow, like peasants cooking dirt shavings or worshipping a river bank.

In short, Americans get their stereotypes from multiple sources. Stereotypes help them order their world. They help them remember who "they" are. Yet no matter how much Americans love their stereotypes, and no matter how often they buy into them, they also hear a countervailing message: "Stereotyping is bad." Students learn that it is wrong to make sweeping generalizations about ethnic, national, sexual and religious groups. Even corporations instruct their employees that it is "wrong" to generalize about "others." It might not be wrong to exclude "them" from the workforce or relegate "them" to the mail room. You just can't make callous remarks about their low station.

We have lived in the era of "political correctness" for several decades now. Some people have gotten in trouble for breaking the official rules about stereotypes, like Don Imus and some other indiscreet white men. But despite the "official" stance against stereotyping, it survives. It lives on in men's hearts. People can dutifully watch what they say in public without privately abandoning stereotypical thinking. It is very easy to be "politically correct" in observance, yet politically incorrect in spirit. Even the worst bigot can navigate the sparse minefield of forbidden phrases that demarcates "politically correct speech." You just need some minimal public discretion.

But what happens when traditional stereotypers try too hard to show their political correctness? In advertising, for instance, I have noticed an increase in so-called "reverse stereotyping," namely, painfully obvious attempts to portray traditionally stereotyped roles in the opposite light.

Take these examples: A major garment company runs an ad showing a married black man in a very nice home choosing a white starched shirt from a hickory-paneled closet. In the next ad, a home security company shows an affluent black family in a very nice home being terrorized by a white burglar, then calling police. In another ad, a life insurance company hawks its wares by showing an extremely well-dressed black man behind a desk in an office building. He is an "insurance executive;" and a desperate-looking white man calls him to ask about life insurance options. In yet another ad, a trade school notes that "times are tough," then it shows an unemployed white man struggling to find a job. It suggests that he get an education in order to stop receiving public assistance.

What is significant about these ads? In my view, they are even more condescending to "disfavored political groups" in America than flat-out stereotypes. After all, pernicious stereotyping generally operates in a "downward" manner, from people in a "traditionally superior social position" against people in a "traditionally inferior social position." In all the social contexts relevant to these ads, black Americans generally occupy the inferior position: They do not have nice homes; they do not wear button-down shirts; they are not even married; they are the burglars, not the ones who call police; they do not buy life insurance, let alone run the insurance company; they are unemployed and need educations to get off welfare. A flat-out stereotype would have shown white people buying button-down shirts, calling the police on black burglars and running an insurance company. But here the ads simply reverse the stereotypes, placing black people in the traditionally superior positions, while white people fancifully occupy the traditionally inferior positions. This "racial reversal" so obviously contradicts predominant social realities that it invites scorn.

It is easy to see why the corporations did this. They did not want to "appear stereotypical" by portraying blacks in "traditionally inferior social positions." They wanted to comply with "political correctness." But in attempting to avoid stereotypes, the corporations came off as even more patronizing than they would have had they simply stuck with the generalizations everyone expects to see. Americans expect to see black burglars; that's what they see on the news all the time. Americans expect to see white insurance executives; after all, insurance executives are basically all white anyway. And Americans expect to hear about unemployed black people on welfare; laziness is a classic racial stereotype that has long fueled resentment between racial groups in America.

In sum, anyone can see that these ads do not correspond to social reality in the United States. That fact confirms that Americans like their stereotypes. It makes them uneasy--and even disbelieving--to see black people portrayed outside their traditionally inferior social positions. No one will ever believe that black people will run insurance companies. Nor will anyone believe that white Americans will commit street crime in the same proportions as black Americans. Americans are too comfortable with their stereotypes. A few advertisers will not change anyone's assumptions by reversing stereotypical roles that have existed in Americans' minds for generations.

No, Americans still have a voracious appetite for stereotypes. Just go to the movies or turn on the news. And ironically, attempting to be "political correct" only worsens stereotypical thinking. That's because telling Americans that "stereotyping is bad" is like telling a star baseball player that baseball is bad: Stereotyping is what we do--and we really like it. Telling us to stop doing what we like will result in confused, disingenuous absurdity, just as we see in these ads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOHN MAYER IS A FUCKIN' ASSHOLE, PURE AND SIMPLE

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES - FOR THE THROAT

I've never liked John Mayer. I always branded his music vacuous, unimpressive, pretentious, lightweight, bourgeois-pleasing, chart-serving rubbish. And I knew from day one that he was no reclusive "shy boy" type. I knew that was all just a lady-luring façade. As the tabloids now routinely report, Mayer is no "in-bed-by-10" sort of dude. He's more an "in-bed-with-10-chicks-by-10-the-next-morning" sort of dude. So all that whispery, faux romantic, breathy, oh-I'm-so-sweet, honey-dipped, bedhead lyricizing all amounts to a big stinking heap of hypocritical bullshit.

Having written my opening paragraph, you can see I have a bias against him. I won't conceal that.

But I'm not writing today to player-hate John Mayer. After all, there are plenty of men out there who would want to be in John Mayer's lady-killing shoes right this minute. They sling dirt at him just because they are envious. To be clear, I'm not envious. There are other things about John Mayer beyond romantic prowess that really repel me. The kiss-and-tell womanizing and the ignorant suburban pretentiousness pale in comparison to his much more substantial misconceptions about social realities in the United States.

Many others have already written about Mayer's recent interview in Playboy magazine. I will recount it in order to show that John Mayer is just an opaque asshole, pure and simple.

During the interview, Mayer fielded this question: "If you didn't know you, would you think you're a douche bag?" In response, Mayer said: "It's like I come on very strong. I am a very…I'm just very. V-E-R-Y. And if you can't handle very, then I'm a douche bag. But I think the world needs a little very. That's why black people love me."

Wait a minute. Just wait a goddamn minute. Black people love you? What the hell is going on here? What is this white man from Fairfield County, Connecticut talking about? Does he really think that African-Americans in any way identify with him? Isn't it enough that he copied their musical forms and passed them off as his own? I suppose John Mayer thinks--as many breathtakingly naïve white hipsters do--that it is "cool to be black." And somehow his imitation of black musical forms entitles him to adoration from those "cool black people." In other words, Mayer thinks that being "loved by black people" means you're "cool."

This is beyond embarrassing. It is insulting.

John Mayer's cultural experience could not be more different from the average black American's cultural experience. John Mayer grew up in Connecticut's wealthiest county. I know what it's like there: I grew up three counties over: Most people's biggest worry is whether to buy a new Range Rover or a Volvo. And there aren't many black people around, I can tell you that.

Mayer's parents were comfortable bourgeois. He went to college. He didn't even go into debt for it. He never wanted for anything. He did not suffer discrimination or abuse. His biggest challenge was dealing with suburban angst, for which he took Xanax pills. He achieved remarkable commercial success by copying blues musicians, even though nothing in his background even remotely compares to what original bluesmen endured in the segregated South a hundred years ago. Sure, maybe John Mayer's "baby left him (ie, Jennifer Aniston, Jessica Simpson, etc.)." But that transitory woe hardly compares him to 1920s black musicians, who not only lamented losing their girlfriends, but also struggled to escape lynch mobs and scrape a living working on a railroad in Arkansas or something. Put simply, John Mayer doesn't know shit about the blues with his well-situated Connecticut ass.

Yet it doesn't end here--not even close. Mayer went on to say that black people love him so much that they gave him a "hood pass." In the Playboy interview, he clarified what he meant: "And by the way, it's sort of a contradiction in terms, because if you really had a hood pass, you could call it a nigger pass…[] I said, 'I can't really have a hood pass. I've never walked into a restaurant, asked for a table and been told, 'We're full.'"

Oh no he didn't. Oh yes he did. He said it. He not only said it. He said it publicly. This is the same guy who claims that "black people love him." Well, from John Mayer's perspective, I suppose it really doesn't matter. He gets to be cool like a black guy without the attendant complications, like being turned away from restaurants because you're black. Nope, he doesn't need to worry about that. On stage, he can be a brother. But off stage, he can just be another rich white cocksucker from Fairfield. Oh, double standards… how very convenient they can be when they work for you.

Inconsistencies bother me in any intellectual endeavor. True, it is hard to escape inconsistencies in life. We are all wracked with contradiction and conflict. I have my own contradictions. But the smugness in John Mayer's strikingly inconsistent positions about race really makes my blood boil. After all, Mayer has made his career imitating black musical forms. He owes African-American culture everything for his success. If it weren't for soul, R&B and the blues, he wouldn't have anything to play. He styles himself "just another black guy." He relishes adoration from black audiences. He touts his "hood pass." But then he turns around and remarks that he never has to suffer the same social handicaps as his black "heroes." And he likes it that way.

Worse, in the Playboy interview, he even said: "My dick is sort of like a white supremacist. I've got a Benetton heart and a fuckin' David Duke cock."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think many black people would "love" any white man who favorably mentions David Duke in any context. And this is the maddening thing about John Mayer's racial inconsistencies. On the one hand, he owes black Americans everything and "loves" them. On the other hand, he uses the term "white supremacist" to describe his sexual life. Now, everyone is entitled to their sexual tastes. But favorably invoking white supremacy in any context is a bit problematic for a man who claims that black people love him. And it is even more troubling for a man who has made a fantastic career commandeering black musical forms. My conclusion: Once again, John Mayer is just an asshole, plain and simple.

John Mayer swiftly apologized for his statements--in a bite-sized Twitter sentence, no less. He explained that "he should not have used the word" during the interview, remarking that it is impossible to "intellectualize it." Yet Mayer missed the point. The fact that he used the word "nigger" in the Playboy interview is only symptomatic of a much larger issue, namely, his simplistic and self-contradicting positions about race in the United States. John Mayer needs to understand this more than most white Americans, because John Mayer makes his money imitating black music. While many white Americans routinely get away with casual racism, Mayer cannot. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot both be a hood hero and a white supremacist. Despite his contention that "black people love him," he coarsely generalizes about black Americans just as much as the most ignorant white teenage rap wannabe: They're "cool." They're "hip." It's "cool to have a hood pass."

And once again, he does not end there with the generalizations. First, he said that "black people love him" because he is "very." That puzzled the interviewer. But a little interpretation makes clear that Mayer was just stereotyping. "Very" is an adverb that means "more than usual." There is "black," and there is "very black." It intensifies the adjective. John Mayer said that "black people love him" because he is "very." Very what? Simply "very," meaning "living intensely, excessively, recklessly, thoughtlessly, frolickingly." In other words, living "more than usual." Mayer's statement, then, implies that all black Americans live this way; and that's why they love him. He lives "very." He lives "black." This is gross stereotyping.

I am not going out on a limb here. John Mayer truly feels this way. Consider what he said later in the interview: "What is being black? It's making the most of your life, not taking a single moment for granted. Taking something that's seen as a struggle and making it work for you, or you'll die inside. Not to say that my struggle is like the collective struggle of black America. But maybe my struggle is similar to one black dude's."

So now John Mayer--a wealthy white Connecticut suburbanite--is an authority on the meaning of black identity in America? This is so stunningly condescending it's funny. But then you realize it's not funny at all, because this guy actually believes he understands black Americans because he can imitate their guitar-playing. It is simply ludicrous for John Mayer to even suggest he knows a thing about the "collective struggle of black America," let alone to compare his "struggle" (whatever that is… maybe bagging some dancer chick on tour) to "one black dude's."

No matter what he says, John Mayer has not faced struggle in his life. Worrying whether a song about pillows makes the Pop Top 10 does not qualify as a "struggle." By contrast, battling to overcome the pernicious historical legacy of slavery--all the while contending with rampant poverty, educational inequality, discriminatory treatment, unequal housing, violence, broken homes and crime --is a "struggle."

John Mayer is no hero. He's an arrogant, self-righteous, fake, low-frequency imitator who knows nothing about racial realities in the United States. That really bothers me. Every American must come to terms with racism. Our Nation's racial conflict will never end; it stains the land. But there is a way to address it respectfully and a way to address it irresponsibly. John Mayer not only addresses it irresponsibly; he also profits from it. Then he gloats about how wonderful it is to be white and rich in America. So he gets the best of both worlds: Cool like a black guy; privileged like a white guy. Plus he gets all the white chicks and never has to wait for a table in a trendy restaurant.

All this makes him a straight-up asshole in my book.

And this is not slander. This is just an opinion about a nauseating public figure. But it really doesn't matter, because you can't slander anyone with truth.

"I AIN'T APOLOGIZIN' FOR SHIT" : TIGER WOODS' ALTERNATE REMARKS

A REASON, COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND FREE BEER EXCLUSIVE REPORT

Last Friday, disgraced PGA Golf Champion Tiger Woods made big news when he made his first public appearance since allegations arose last fall that he perennially cheated on his wife. In a prepared statement, he publicly acknowledged that he "cheated," "acted irresponsibly" and "was unfaithful" by engaging in serial extramarital relations with over ten women while married to his wife, Elin Nordegren. He showered apologies on everyone from his "business partners" to his wife, children, mother, friends, their friends, fellow golfers, the game of golf and even Buddhism.

Despite Mr. Woods' technical contrition, however, many viewers felt that he did not put his heart into the performance. Many commentators claimed that he was "wooden" and "robotic" while reading his statement. They claimed that he must have been coached to deliver his remarks in order to smooth over any future employment problems, as well as to maintain favorable commercial relationships with endorsers. In fact, many commentators said that they did not believe anything Mr. Woods said. Rather, they contended that he just was "saying what he had to say" in order to remain professionally viable.

Reason, Commerce, Justice and Free Beer worked all weekend to determine Mr. Woods' true sentiments. Thanks to our tireless efforts--as well as to some fortunate conversations with lawyers and publicists close to Mr. Woods--our agents discovered that Mr. Woods prepared his own statement weeks before his presentation last week. Through some luck and journalistic ingenuity, our agents actually found a copy of Mr. Woods' original remarks. Our agents learned that Mr. Woods' lawyers and publicists urged him never to deliver these remarks. According to our sources, Mr. Woods' took their advice and asked a team of trusted lawyers and publicists to draft his statement. Ultimately, Mr. Woods delivered that version last week.

But here at Reason, Commerce, Justice and Free Beer, we believe that men have a right to speak their minds. We also believe that honesty is central to American discourse, especially discourse involving public figures like Mr. Woods. No matter what our opponents say, we think that America deserves to hear what Mr. Woods actually thinks about the scandal that has transfixed the Nation for almost three months. While we sympathize with Mr. Woods' contention that his behavior is essentially "private," the news story is not. For better or worse, Mr. Woods' serial philandering has entered the lexicon of American civilization: We all know about it. And we want to know more.

For those reasons, today we are pleased to present Tiger Woods' Alternate Remarks:

February 19, 2010

Good morning, motherfuckers,

You know something? I got just about one thing to say to everybody seated here today and all a y'all sitting at home watching me on TV: "Fuck all a y'all. I ain't apologizin' for shit."

Do you motherfuckers know what you've done to my life? Look at my hair! Holy shit, man, I'm going bald over this. Do you know how much you've embarrassed me in front of my wife? Don't you have any respect for a man who's just trying to get an honest nut up in here? Shit, it's not like I'm the only player out there trying to get a little bit on the side. In fact, if a white man cheated on his wife, y'all probably wouldn't even say anything about it. But as soon as a successful black man stands up and wants to get a little extra pootie, you step up and try to lynch me.

Y'all are giving me a hard time because I'm black.

Well, fuck y'all. I'm pissed.

I didn't do anything wrong. I was just doing what any man would do in my situation. In fact, y'all wish you could be like me. Y'all wish you could have my money, cash and hoes. Yeah, I'm a smooth-talking, smooth-walking, good-looking, money-having player. I get millions for driving golf balls down the fairway. I get my picture taken with a Tag Heuer watch on. Then I go out to the VIP champagne room and sink a few mo-fuckin' putts with some smokin' hot honies. I ride around in Bentleys and I live in a palace. My wife is a Norwegian model, BI-ATCH! What the fuck you thought?

And you say you don't like me. You say: "He unfaithful." Sheee-yit, I know every last one of you men out there wants to be doing exactly what I've been doing. And don't you deny it, you hypocritical motherfuckers.

Let me just say one thing to you right here: "A player got to play. Don't hate the player; hate the game." Stop hating me because I play better than you. If you don't like the game, don't play. But don't hate me just because I'm the big bad mack daddio who gets all the hoes.

No, no, no. You got it all backwards. All a y'all jealous motherfuckers are wrong, not me. I mean, leave my wife and kids out of this. This ain't none of your business. This is between me and my family. Stick your cameras somewhere else. So what I banged some big-booty hoes in the club. So what I brought a couple freaks to the house while my wife was away. So what if we busted out the ice cubes, whips and whipped cream. What the fuck does that have to do with y'all? That's my motherfuckin' business! Stay out of it! Leave a brother alone!

And so what I if was unfaithful? You try being faithful when you're a young, good-looking black man and ten scorching hot women start wagging their titties in your face. You just try it. You sit up there talking about "responsibility," "honor" "integrity" and "decency." That shit don't matter much when fifteen or twenty hoes be circling round the long dong. Shit yeah, biatch, my shit is strong. Say whatever y'all want about it. You wouldn't be acting all high and mighty if hot-ass porn stars treated you the way they treat me. See what I'm saying? Y'all are just jealous.

And that's another thing I want to bring up: Why y'all trying to pin all the blame on me for being unfaithful? You think I was the only one doing wrong here? What about the hoes who got butt-booty nekid when I was just trying to mind my business? I didn't ask 'em to sit on my face: They just did it. Was I supposed to say: "I'm sorry, my dear, but my marriage relation compels me to ask you to remove your vagina from my lips"? What about my cold-hearted wife who treated me like shit at home? Sometimes she don't wanna fuck for months on end, then she asks me to do motherfucking chores around the house. Fuck that.

I'm just a man. You put me in some tight situations and I'm gonna do some freaky things. That's just how we roll. So basically what I'm saying is this: I'm not the only one to blame here. I'm just a man.

So back the fuck off and leave me alone. I don't need no help. I don't need no "sex addiction therapy." Player, what? Sex addiction? Sex ain't no addiction; that shit be natural. Just because I bagged some nice-looking ass don't mean I got a "problem." Shit, most brothers would say I did good. What the fuck is with all a y'all? As soon as you get good at fucking that means you gotta check into the hospital for "sex addiction? " Say what?

This is what I've been saying all along: Y'all just can't cut a successful brother a break. Y'all wish you could be doing what I've been doing, but because you can't, you say: "Tiger gotta get help."

I'm going to say this one time and one time only: "I don't need no motherfucking help." I'm fine. I'm doin' exactly what a man is supposed to do when he's rich, famous and good-looking. I'm supposed to get a reward for all my success, right? I'm supposed to enjoy my life, aren't I? Apparently not, you fuckers. Nope, y'all want me to sit at home, take Elin's shit and watch TV on Saturday night. Well let me tell you something: That's not what players do. And I'm a player. I'ma play.

Not only that, how is "therapy" supposed to stop me from fucking? What are we supposed to talk about up in there? Talk about finger-painting? Crayons? What I brought for lunch? What am I, nine fucking years old? Therapy, what? Pleeeeze. Y'all just can't stand the idea that a black man be getting everything in life you wish you had, so you say he's "sick" and throw him in the hospital.

I got something to say to my business partners. I know y'all are important, so I'm gonna say something to you right about now. Don't cut me loose. I got nothing but love for ya, baby. And people who buy shit I endorse are still gonna buy it. Hey, people love a player. People love a mack. Don't you know that? Look at P. Diddy: He sells every last thing he touches. Let's face it: Quiet guys who wear golf sweaters aren't usually very exciting. But when they see me wearing a golf sweater, they'll say: "Oh, shit, is that Tiger in that three-button cardigan? I got to get me one of them. Then I'll get me all the hoes!"

Think about it. I'm marketing gold. Most people think golf is fuckin boring as hell. But with me, I spice it up and turn it into a crunk party.

So that's about it. I ain't sorry for anything I've done. I didn't do anything wrong. I'm still the best motherfucking golfer alive; believe that. Y'all can try to lynch me all you want. Ain't gonna stop this player. I'm gonna keep sinking putts on and off the course. Watch me.

And in the meantime, stay the fuck away from me and my wife. This ain't none a y'all god damn business.

Thank you. And kiss my black Thai ass, you racist player-hating bastards.

STOP THE EVIL CHICKEN BUTCHERS : EQUAL CHICKEN RIGHTS NOW

THE CHICKENS SPEAK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STARE DECISIS, SHMARE DECISIS : WHY THE SUPREME COURT'S RECENT CORPORATE ELECTION SPENDING CASE IS ALL WRONG

AN ESSAY

PART 2

Yesterday I wrote to explain how the Supreme Court erred in its recent decision granting corporations unlimited freedom to make "independent expenditures" that advocate for Federal election candidates: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. __(2010)(slip op.). I confined my analysis to the assertion that Congress had good reason to restrict corporations' ability to distort public debate by buying up all the airtime around elections. See, e.g., 2 U.S.C. § 441(b). I noted that according full First Amendment protection to corporations makes it difficult for individuals to voice their First Amendment rights. I also lamented the Court's decision to overrule an earlier case that concluded the same things: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990).

Today I continue my analysis on a new point: The Court's utterly hypocritical "commitment" to the legal doctrine "stare decisis." In my view, the Court overrules prior cases when its membership changes, not because monumental social changes render prior decisions "unworkable" or "anachronistic." Citizens United affirms my cynicism on this issue: The fact that both men (Republicans) who voted against Austin in 1990 now vote to overrule it in 2010 says it clearly enough. This is not about policy. It is about politics.

Stare decisis is a judicial custom in common law countries like Great Britain and the United States. In Latin, it means "stand by the decision." Its technical legal meaning does not differ much. It admonishes judges to decide cases according to principles announced in similar past cases. When an older case provides an answer to a question, stare decisis obligates judges to provide the same answer in a case raising the same question. In practice, stare decisis reinforces respect for the judicial system because it informs citizens how judges will rule in particular circumstances. It also reinforces respect for the so-called "rule of law" in society: The idea that power flows from neutral legal principles, not men's individual caprice.

Yet everyone agrees that stare decisis is not the right policy in every circumstance. It makes no sense to follow ancient cases to resolve modern dilemmas. After all, if judges strictly observed stare decisis in every case, we would still live under cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), the infamous decision that permitted legal racial segregation in 1896. Everyone knows that Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), overruled Plessy in 1954. The Supreme Court refused to follow stare decisis in that case; and for good reason. Plessy did not make sense any more. It could not be reconciled with constitutional liberty and equality principles. And society had changed in fundamental ways between 1896 and 1954. Those considerations all warranted abandoning stare decisis to overrule the past decision: By 1954, Plessy had degenerated into a pernicious historical "anachronism."

But the Court wanders into extremely dangerous territory when it overrules cases on less compelling grounds. Stare decisis is the rule, not the exception. And when the Supreme Court overrules cases every few years simply because its membership changes, it inflicts the damage that stare decisis is intended to avoid: The cynical public perception that the Court is not committed to law and constitutional principle, but rather to politics and raw power.

Politics and raw power certainly won the day in Citizens United. I have long been cynical about the Supreme Court and its increasingly mordant, political tone. I have long known that its current conservative majority will not "stand by decisions" it does not like. Yet it will certainly "stand by decisions" that match its political colors. That is why it does not surprise me that it lightly overruled Austin on the corporate election funding question, even though people do not view that question much differently today than they did in 1990. If anything, the reasons that justified Austin's hostility toward corporate political power are more compelling today than they were then.

Justice Kennedy knows this all too well. After all, none other than Justice Kennedy sang a sweeping ode to stare decisis just eighteen years ago in the case that saved abortion rights: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). It was Justice Kennedy who signed on to this formula for stare decisis: "[W]hen this Court reexamines a prior holding, its judgment is customarily informed by a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations designed to test the consistency of overruling a prior decision with the ideal of the rule of law, and to gauge the respective costs of reaffirming and overruling a prior case." Id. at 854-855. Sounds like he takes stare decisis pretty seriously, doesn't it?

You have no idea how seriously. Justice Kennedy even approved four detailed factors to determine whether it would "undermine the rule of law" to overrule a prior constitutional case: "[W]e may ask whether (1) the rule has proved intolerable simply in defying practical workability, whether (2) the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequences of overruling and add inequity to the cost of repudiation, whether (3) related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine, or whether (4) facts have so changed or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification." Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 855 (enumeration and emphasis added).

In Casey, the Court spent many painstaking pages applying the four stare decisis factors. Justice Kennedy joined the analysis in full. He thought it would "undermine the rule of law" to overrule Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 110 (1973), just nineteen years after the Court decided it. In sum, Justice Kennedy doggedly defended stare decisis in Casey. He voted to "stand by" the decision.

But where was that doggedness in Citizens United? And what happened to the delicate, detailed stare decisis factors that guided Justice Kennedy's analysis in Casey? They are nowhere to be found. Rather, Justice Kennedy employs a much more nebulous stare decisis test in Citizens United: "Beyond workability, the relevant factors in deciding whether to adhere to the principle of stare decisis include the antiquity of the precedent, the reliance interests at stake, and of course whether the decision was well reasoned." Citizens United, 558 U.S. __ (slip op. at 47)(emphasis added).

What the hell does "well reasoned" mean? What possible objective guidance does that factor provide? It is no surprise that the Court in Casey did not employ a "well reasoned" test in deciding whether to overrule Roe v. Wade. If it had, it would have merely invited the Justices to import their own political sensibilities to determine whether to overrule it. Yet that is Justice Kennedy's test in deciding whether to overrule a 20-year-old precedent about the integrity of American democracy. And with a standard like "well reasoned," you know how it came out.

I find it significant that Justice Kennedy changed his own standards to overrule Austin. After all, if he had applied the painstaking stare decisis factors he endorsed in Casey, he would not have reached the same conclusion. In Austin, the Court held that restrictions on corporate "independent expenditures" advocating Federal candidates were justified in order to curb "corruption and the appearance of corruption," as well as to curtail the disproportionate influence that "immense aggregations of wealth" wield upon the American political process. Austin, 494 U.S. 659-660.

Under the Casey standard for stare decisis, I do not see how this rule has become "unworkable." For generations now, corporations have learned to cope with campaign financing restrictions. They know they have to create "political action committees" in order to advertise for candidates they like. This satisfies Casey's "practical workability" factor.

Second, the American public has placed reliance on Austin's rule. Americans understand that corporations project enormous power in government; and most Americans rightly worry that corporations' financial advantages grant them unfair political leverage. Congress' corporate campaign funding restrictions assured the American people that the law acts to "prevent corruption" in the political process and to curtail the "corrosive" effects of "immense aggregations of wealth" on elections. In this sense, Austin's rule satisfies Casey's "reliance" factor.

Third, the law has not substantially changed on the corporate political speech question since 1990. Not much can happen in constitutional law over such a short period. Constitutional developments take decades. Historically, they coincide with social upheaval. Social changes in American society rewrote the law when the Court overruled Plessy v. Ferguson in 1954. Sixty years, two world wars, a Depression and an atomic bomb had intervened to completely change the way Americans viewed the world. Against that backdrop, it is not surprising that the Court changed the law to keep up.

It is facetious to argue that such monumental social and legal changes have occurred in American society since 1990. In fact, Americans expect government to act against corporate overreaching. By overruling Austin's rule on this point, the Court completely ignores Casey's third factor concerning "fundamental legal change." That is why Justice Kennedy did not even mention this factor in his opinion. See Citizens United, 558 U.S. __(2010)(slip op. at 47).

Fourth, all the facts that supported Austin remain as true today as they did in 1990. Austin posited that restrictions on corporate speech were necessary to prevent corruption and unfairness in the American political process engendered by "massive aggregations of corporate wealth." Those facts formed the basis for the decision. Congress proceeded on those facts when it enacted the corporate campaign finance law.

If anything, those facts are even more true today. There is a rampant public perception that corporate wealth skews political transparency. Cynicism dominates rhetoric about corporate interference in politics. Austin fulfilled Casey's fourth factor on this point: Facts about corporate political spending have not "so changed or become so different as to have robbed [Austin's] rule of significant application or justification." Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 855. Put succinctly, those facts have not changed at all.

Again, it is hardly surprising that Justice Kennedy did not list the "factual change" factor in his Citizens United analysis. Instead, he merely invents a new standard: Whether the prior case was "well reasoned." See Citizens United, 558 U.S. __(2010)(slip op. 47). After all, if he had applied his own test from 1992, he could not in good faith have argued that "facts about corporate influence on politics" have significantly changed in twenty years. So he just ignored what he said in 1992 and made up something else.

See how easy it is to be a Supreme Court justice? You don't even have to stick to what you said before. You can just make things up as you go--as long as you get five votes on it.

But this is all very sad. After all, stare decisis exists to preserve public faith in our Judiciary. If the public sees--as it must now--that the Court willingly discards recent precedent simply because Republicans have more seats than Democrats, it will conclude that the Court is no better than Congress. Yet the Court is supposed to be our "independent branch," an erudite institution that rules on lasting constitutional principle, not casual politics. When the Court coarsely disregards recent precedent--especially on explosive political issues like election control--it sullies itself in ways that are difficult to repair. When the Court acts like this, it invites the same dismissive cynicism that the public usually reserves for elected officials. Principle means nothing. The Court just devolves into another political battleground.

And shame on Justice Kennedy. His hypocrisy has reached epic levels. He does not even apply his own lofty rhetoric about stare decisis. Rather, he abandons it the moment he encounters a case with which he "disagrees." He dissented in Austin twenty years ago. Then he joined an opinion that passionately defended stare decisis two years later. On that basis, one might think he would think twice about lightly overruling recent cases. But instead he overruled Austin without even using the grandiose stare decisis test he so forcefully advocated in Casey. This time, he did not even spend three pages dismissing stare decisis.

He really must not have liked Austin.

Apparently, our Constitution now functions according to a new test: Whether Justice Kennedy likes a case. Thankfully for him, he has four guys who will stand with him in most situations. And all you need is five.

SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN THINGS THEY DROP ON THE TRACKS

A LETTER FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN TO THE COMMISSIONER OF THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (MTA)

By : Mrs. Zelda B. Wertheimer, Wife of Joseph G. Wertheimer, Founder, Wertheimer Industrial Plastics & Enamels Co., Inc. Owner, 2500 Acres assorted real estate in four countries; Resident, 237 Park Avenue, New York, NY; Member, Director's Guild, Metropolitan Museum of Art.

February 1, 2010

Dear Sir,

As a New Yorker and a humanitarian, I wish to complain about several new print advertisements you recently published around the metropolitan area. Although your safety advisements and commercial messages rarely arouse my indignation, your recent admonishment to subway riders: "Whatever falls on the tracks is not as valuable as you" is simply shocking. I speak for all New Yorkers when I say that your message is offensive.

I understand that the MTA wishes to protect its customers from train accidents. I also understand that train accidents are more likely when customers step off the platform onto the tracks. Further, I understand that some customers might disregard their own safety if they drop something onto the tracks, such as an iPod or other relatively expensive object. The MTA has a right to warn people not to risk their lives to save a piece of personal property. Additionally, the MTA has an interest in avoiding litigation arising from train/customer collisions.

I do not dispute the MTA's financial reasoning in this matter: No one likes lawsuits and no one likes paying money when they don't have to. But there are other considerations in the world. It might be prudent and even financially advisable to publish a poster warning people not to enter the subway tracks. Still, the MTA's message in this case is both philosophically unsound and in poor taste. In the name of decency and community values, I insist that the MTA remove these posters at once.

It is wrong for the MTA to suggest that "whatever falls on the tracks is not as valuable" as the person who dropped it. Although the MTA might think that its message esteems human equality and the importance of life over property, it is philosophically unsound because there are so many applications in which the message is not true. Popularly, people might believe that no object is worth more than a human life. But experience reveals that this is rubbish. Put simply, value depends on a comparison between how much the object is worth and how much the person is worth. No matter what our mothers told us when we were children, people's value can be expressed in dollar amounts. Insurance companies tell us how much we are worth all the time. Our portfolios define our monetary values. Courts tell loved ones how much their deceased family members "would have made" if they had lived. In a word, people are worth a number: And if the object they drop on the tracks is worth more than that number, then the MTA's "human value" message is totally untrue.

Consider the principle in action. Let us say that an impecunious, smelly beggar has a $40 faux diamond ring in his pocket. Let us further say that this beggar has no money, no savings, no real estate, no bonds, no stocks, no accounts, no chattel paper and no right to receive payment from any investment. He has no job; no one wants to be in a room with him, let alone hire him. In a word, this hideous, stinking beggar is literally not worth a cent. His "value" is zero. In these circumstances, if he drops the $40 ring on the tracks, he is actually less valuable than the object he dropped. If a train runs him over as he scampers to recover the ring, the MTA's "message" does not apply: The object he dropped was actually more valuable than he was: A $40 faux diamond ring is worth more than a $0 beggar. A third-grader could do the math on it.

Of course, that is a simple example. Most people are worth more than a beggar. But again, it is difficult to calculate human value. After all, a fresh-faced 30-year-old graduate with $150,000 in education debt is actually worth less than a $0 beggar even if the graduate has $4000 in the bank and a $10,000 stock fund. In that situation, appearances are misleading. Debt negatively impacts worth. Thus, the graduate is actually worth -$136,000. In this situation, if the graduate dropped even a quarter on the tracks, he would be worth $135,999.25 less than the object he dropped. Once again, the MTA's reasoning fails completely: A debt-riddled person is worth much less than even a modest object on the tracks. Any "positive" value is greater than any "negative" value: And debtors are "negative values."

I find it tasteless for the MTA to suggest that human beings are intrinsically more valuable than property. As the above examples illustrate, property is in many cases much more valuable than people. Many people will disagree with that assertion. But experience proves it true. A beggar's life is nothing compared to a $4,000,000 townhome, just as a debt-riddled graduate is nothing compared to a custom car. And what about criminals? Does the MTA suggest that a convicted rapist is somehow more valuable than an original Van Gogh? If a criminal dropped a Van Gogh on the tracks, does it honestly contend that the criminal is "more valuable" than this classic object of Western Art? I should certainly hope not. The bottom line is: Property is worth more than individual human beings.

But not always. When wealthy people hold comparatively less valuable objects, then people are more valuable than property. For example, if I were standing on a subway platform and I dropped my iPod on the tracks, I should refrain from scurrying after it because I am worth much, much more than the $250 iPod. I have extensive savings, accounts, real estate holdings and cash. My assets greatly exceed my debts. My net worth, therefore, is considerably higher than the object I dropped, so in this case the MTA's message is true: I am worth more than my iPod, so why risk myself to fetch it?

Still, these inconsistent results provide further proof that the MTA's message is incorrect. Messages must be philosophically sound. They must apply consistently no matter the subject matter. Yet even a cursory glance at the MTA's message here shows that it does not apply in many situations.

Finally, I find it utterly tasteless that the MTA believes in life over property. It is hypocritical for any governmental institution in this country to assert that human beings are worth more than valuable objects or land. We do not live in this country to spiritually enrich our fellow men; we live in this country to amass more property. There is simply no merit to the contention that life is about human worth. Simple commercial experience contradicts that contention at every turn. Men only have "worth" to the extent that they can expend labor and capital to amass even more property. Beyond that, there is no "intrinsic worth" in men worth protecting.

Legal doctrines and public messages that advocate life over property are indefensible. It makes no sense to sing odes to human life, as the common law does when it says that it is never permissible to kill someone to guard property. This is just ludicrous. If a person worth $0 tries to steal my art collection worth $45,000, there is no debate about which one is more valuable. What incentive would enterprising people have to amass property if they could not defend it against those without it?

Additionally, the law sends completely mixed messages in this regard. If it is so wrong to kill someone to protect property, why does the law not hesitate to heap supplementary punishments on thieves depending on the value of the objects they steal? Does that not show that our society finds it more wrong to steal something worth more than to steal something worth little?

Put simply, we put dollar amounts on both people and things in our society. Some things--and some people--are worth more than others. In that sense, the MTA grossly misunderstands what is really important in life. It is both philosophically unsound and tasteless for the MTA to suggest that all life is more valuable than all property.

Mr. Commissioner, I demand that you remove these hypocritical messages from our streets. It is time to educate our citizens about real worth, not delude them with foolishness about equality.

Yours very sincerely and truly,

Mrs. Zelda B. Wertheimer