AL QAEDA SURRENDERS

*BIG NEWS FLASH*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRAMPLED TO DEATH FOR A 10% DISCOUNT SALE

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

On November 28, 2008, the Wal-Mart in Valley Stream, N.Y. braced itself for "Black Friday," the notorious shopping frenzy the day after Thanksgiving. It hired temporary employees to work longer hours. It also planned to open earlier and close later. Still, that was not enough to placate a mob of predawn shoppers who assembled at the front door long before the slated 5 AM opening time. These shoppers did not want to wait until 5 AM, so they smashed down the door and stampeded through the entrance. In the process, they trampled a temporary employee to death.

I presume they went straight to the discount aisles and did not even notice what they did.

I read about this story in the New York Daily News. See N.Y. Daily News, Wal-Mart set for shopper frenzy, Nov. 12, 2009 at p. 6. The News reported that Wal-Mart faced prosecution for its "wanton and willful disregard" for its employees' safety. Rather than face crippling fines, however, Wal-Mart struck a deal with prosecutors. It promised to implement better "crowd control measures" this year than it did last year.

This story interested me for two reasons. First, it confirmed to me how truly violent people can be when engaging in commerce. Second, it reminded me that the criminal law does things beyond merely punishing human bodies and individual bank accounts.

I felt genuine horror when I reflected on these rabid shoppers. Why does commerce lead people to behave like this? I have written that commercial language is "warlike:" the words "bargain," "purchase" and "haggle" all derive from violent etymological roots. But language alone does not explain why people smash down doors and crush hapless employees underfoot on their way to bargain bins. Something else is at work here. While language may reveal commerce as a warlike enterprise, the activity itself lends itself to contentiousness, strife, cruelty, selfishness and violence.

What was so important to these shoppers? Why was it so important to buy a few Holiday trinkets before the other guy? What emotions did they feel as they battered down the door and heard the employee struggling to escape from under their feet? Put simply, what did commerce do to these people? When they woke up that morning, they were law-abiding middle class drones. But by 5 AM they had transformed into a stampeding horde indifferent to life and death.

Human beings are acquisitive creatures. They like laying their hands on as many objects as possible and calling them "mine." Capitalist apologists even say that this "impulse to own" gives us the greatest economy the world has ever seen. They say it is pointless to deny it, and that communist countries fell because they tried to meddle with humankind's natural propensity to "competitively strive for ownership."

Property law also taps into this maniacal human urge. It proceeds on the reasoning that people will only work hard in society if they know their toils will translate into more "stuff" to call "mine." John Locke called this "The Labour Theory."

Maybe human acquisitiveness does give us the greatest economy in the world. Maybe it does lead people to work harder. Maybe it leads to innovation and greater good for all. But boiled down to its core, it is pretty damn ugly. It leads to scenes like the scene at Wal-Mart last year. I am not saying that human acquisitiveness does not bring direct benefits to society. I am merely saying that there is nothing noble or even attractive about it. The idea that people are prepared to smash down doors and trample others for a few Holiday savings is proof enough that commerce brings out some pretty horrible impulses in our human fellows.

On the second question, I found it interesting that no one went to jail for this outrage. After all, who was really liable? Everyone pointed the finger at Wal-Mart. But Wal-Mart is not a living human being; it is a noncorporeal corporation, a fanciful "legal person" with intangible rights and responsibilities. In the popular understanding, criminal law inflicts pain on "bad people" as "social revenge" for some dastardly choice they made. But how do you inflict pain on a non-human--even non-biological--entity? Corporations cannot be imprisoned, or tortured, or executed. They cannot even feel scared or anxious. Only living things can feel emotions.

So why did the prosecutor pursue Wal-Mart for the stampede? What could the criminal law do to inflict pain on a corporation? Interestingly enough, the criminal law has other, more subtle powers than merely inflicting bodily pain on humans. It can also target property, and corporations really like property. Corporations are private profit-making machines; they exist solely to enrich the people who own shares in the entity. To make profits--and to fulfill their raison d'etre--corporations need to earn more income than they lose in liabilities. The criminal law can impose fines on a corporation. Fines are "liabilities." If a fine is large enough, it could gravely impact the "income/liability" ratio and lead (gasp) to a quarterly loss.

In this case, Wal-Mart's management obviously did not want to suffer a loss. After all, corporate managers lose their jobs--and fat Christmas bonuses--if they report losses. They knew that a criminal fine would lead to a loss, so they bargained with the prosecutor to avoid that fate. The prosecutor took the opportunity to wring some public good from Wal-Mart's private misdeeds, so he insisted that Wal-Mart "implement greater safety controls next time." Thus, by threatening the corporation's monetary lifeblood, the prosecutor extracted a public benefit from Wal-Mart's transgression.

In this example, we see how the criminal law does more than merely punish individual bodies to vent social revenge. Rather, it can threaten corporations, too. In so doing, it can force corporations to take action that leads to greater safety and accountability. That is a public benefit. And because the criminal law is a public function, we should be glad that it has the power to achieve goals like this.

If we can't hang corporations or throw them in prison, we can at least force them to "do better" by threatening their precious "income/liability" ratios. Such public actions may not be as emotionally satisfying as electrocuting a half-insane child killer or lethally injecting a dubious home invader who had a court-appointed lawyer, but at least it's something.

Human beings respond to threats. So do "noncorporeal" entities like corporations. Humans adjust their behavior if they believe the criminal law will hurt their bodies or take away their money. Corporations will adjust their behavior if they believe the criminal law will impact their bottom lines and cause quarterly losses.

Everyone fears pain. Corporations fear fiscal pain. So that's the pain the criminal law threatens to inflict on them.

I say: "Whatever works."

PEOPLE WHO LOVE TO GO SHOPPING PARTY

POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD

By : Mr. H. Langdell Kauffing, Party Vice President and Former Chairman, American Retailers for Maximum Credit Renewal Notwithstanding Minimal Income, Inc., a For-Profit Lobbying Group, Washington, D.C.

America knows how to bounce back. When tough economic times knock us down, we get back up like a scrappy underdog. The Depression knocked us down in the 1930s. We got up with a vengeance in the 1940s. Since then, Americans have navigated several major recessions. Through them all, they stayed strong. Even when life looks hopeless, Americans stay on top.

Today, we face yet another financial crisis. This time, they say it’s for real. The talking heads all squawk about “imminent collapse,” “unemployment,” “bread lines,” “bankruptcy” and “looming economic disaster.” They say Americans are paying the price for free money and bad decisions. They say Americans can’t even buy homes or get loans anymore. They say that unless the government steps in to rescue American businesses and insurance companies, the whole country will descend into anarchy.

Why did this happen? The talking heads say that Americans “spent irresponsibly,” “borrowed irresponsibly” and “lived irresponsibly.” In a word, they blame credit cards, banks and undisciplined consumers for casting the economy into peril. America, they say, brought this misery upon itself. They say Americans should have saved instead of shopped. They call on government to help save America from spendthrifts. Now, they say Americans must hoard their cash and stay away from shopping centers.

We cannot do this. Americans love to shop, and we stand for them. We are the People Who Love to Go Shopping Party. We speak for millions of Americans from coast to coast. We believe that we can beat the financial crisis in the same way Americans have beaten every recession that has come down the pike since 1932: By shopping, spending and consuming. Our economy gets nowhere when people bury their cash and hide jewels under the mattress. Rather, our economy will only recover when people dare again to spend. Spending is patriotic, not saving. We have a short answer to the talking heads: Sure, we’ll stop shopping—in hell.

We agree that our economy needs a boost. The housing collapse should not have happened. Shoppers need homes. Shoppers could not shop if they did not first have comfortable homes in which to place all the merchandise they buy. Shoppers also need a place to sleep in between shopping sessions. To that end, we agree that the government must bail out shoppers so they can pay their mortgages. After all, a homeless shopper is no shopper at all. We also promise to lobby for additional bailout money for more shopping. What good is bailout money if shoppers are afraid to spend it? We need to send a clear message to Americans in these dark times: “Life is back to normal. Start spending like it.” We want people to go out and buy new cars, tires, stereo systems and power lawnmowers. We want them to buy gifts for Mom and new furniture for sonny before he goes off to college. In short, we believe the naysayers border on treason when they suggest that Americans should sit on their money. No. Patriots spend. Traitors save.

There is only one way out of this hole. We need to spend our way out. And the clock is ticking.

Spending is not easy when you have no money. It is impossible to purchase a $7,500 kiddy Go-Kart® when you only have $1,323 in your bank account. Yet without immediate consumer spending, our country will slide further into the financial abyss. To that extent, we promise to reinvigorate consumer credit opportunities. For the last few years, evil legislators have launched a concerted propaganda campaign “warning Americans” about “credit dangers.” They say that credit companies prey on weak consumers and tyrannize hard-working Americans with interest charges. They say that runaway credit leads to poverty, homelessness and bankruptcy.

We must stop these lies. Consumer credit is the only way most Americans can buy things they can’t afford. When Americans buy things they can’t afford, the economy improves. Bearing that in mind, we must encourage Americans to spend money they don’t have. To do that, credit must be available to all, not just those with jobs, income and real estate. In America, all men are created equal. We believe it is only patriotic to demand that all Americans have equal opportunities to obtain credit. We see no reason why a rich man should be able to buy a power scooter on credit, but a welder cannot. Our economy suffers when only rich men buy power scooters. If we want to escape recession, both welders and doctors must buy power scooters—no matter how much each man has in the bank.

We have faith in American consumers. We do not treat them like children. We do not scold them for shopping. We trust them to do what’s best. Put simply, we believe that American consumers like to shop. History shows that when Americans shop, the country prospers. Additionally, Americans are happy when they shop. We do not believe the fearmongers who claim that runaway shopping caused the financial crisis. We refuse to allow the fearmongers to stop Americans from doing what they love. We refuse to allow them to blockade our shopping strips, malls and boutiques. We demand access to shopping centers. We want to shop. We can take care of ourselves. As the People Who Love to Go Shopping Party, we are united in our belief that shopping is a right. And it is a good, public right, because when we shop, the economy improves.

Can anyone really claim that saving money will rescue our economy? What good will saving do for Motel 6®? What good will saving do for Toys-R-Us®? What good will saving do for General Motors? Our economy will continue to wither if important companies sell nothing. They will not sell anything if officious government policies frighten people from spending money. Saving keeps money out of the economy; spending pours it in. A river cannot run without water. Spending provides healthy flow to the economic river. By contrast, saving causes economic drought. Without new money flow, the river dries up and parches. Is this what the government suggests? Saving and so-called “responsibility” will lead to further drought. And when the economic river dries up, everybody loses. We all drink from the river. If it runs dry, we will all die on the dusty riverbank.

We must pour our money into the river, not hoard money away from it. When we shop, we pour money into the companies that make the river flow. When the river flows, the company passes money along to employees. When the river flows, Americans get jobs. When Americans have jobs, they have more money to add to the river. And when the river flows, the company can pay taxes and make charitable donations. But none of these things will happen if Americans do not shop. Shopping is like the spring rain that cleanses the earth and strengthens the stream. Shopping is the lifeblood in economic life, just as the river provides lifeblood to all the plants and animals around it. In America, our economy is our habitat. We can only maintain our habitat if we give it water. Thus, it is only natural to spend. We must protect our economic river. We can only do that by shopping.

We promise to defend American shoppers against all encroachments. Put a party in power that will protect your right to go shopping. Do not let naysayers stamp out your rights with admonitions to “save your pennies.” We did not overcome the Depression by scrimping and hoarding. We overcame the Depression by pouring our money back into the economic river, even if we had to take out loans to do it. We can defeat this crisis by shopping, just as our great-grandparents did. Unlike the fearmongers, we have faith in our shoppers. We believe that government should encourage shopping, not frustrate it. To that end, we promise to make both money and credit available to all Americans.

Shopping is not a crime. In fact, it is the best thing an American can do to save the country from economic disaster. At the same time, shopping makes the individual consumer feel good. It is not a one-way street. The retailer gets the consumer’s money, but the consumer gets a video game cartridge, a refrigerator or a desk. These things make consumers happy. In this sense, shopping is both an individually joyful and patriotic activity. Shoppers sacrifice their money. But they get a welcome reward for it. Most patriotic sacrifices are not so pleasant. Shopping is unique in the sense that it saves the country at the same time it pleases the consumer. In that regard, it is hard to understand how anyone could think that shopping is bad, let alone irresponsible.

We believe that it is more responsible to be patriotic than parsimonious. Only shopping will save this country. Saving the country is patriotic, not saving money. Saving money will not save the country. It will cause the money river to run dry. If that happens, the United States will fall further into economic turmoil. How is that patriotic or responsible? The fearmongers say that “saving money” is “responsible.” Yet saving money will lead to national collapse. Again, we ask: How is it “responsible” to drive America to destruction? Put bluntly, the fearmongers are wrong. Saving money is not responsible because it is not patriotic. Patriotism means protecting and rescuing the United States from economic disaster. Only shopping can do that. In that sense, shopping is patriotic—and patriotism is responsible. We therefore assure all Americans: It is not “irresponsible” to shop, nor should you castigate yourselves for spending your savings at a car dealership. When you spend money, you are protecting this country. You are not betraying it.

We are confident that Americans will see that saving is not the answer to the financial crisis. Rather, we are confident that Americans will come to their senses and start shopping again. We, the People Who Love to Go Shopping Party, are dedicated to ending the lies about spending money. We promise to doggedly protect Americans’ right to shop, and that means confronting all the gloomy rhetoric about “saving,” “responsibility” and “ prudence.” In our view, Americans have a responsibility to be patriotic. To be patriotic, Americans must fight to rescue the United States from economic turmoil. That is true responsibility. And that means spending money—today.

Americans will overcome this menace by buying expensive merchandise every day without fear. Saving money got us into this predicament in the first place. It is time to fight back and buy what we want. It is time to end the fear. Let us join hands and tell the world: “We are not afraid to go shopping, even if we have no money in the bank, no job and no income.” We are the People Who Love to Go Shopping Party. We will fight for your right to shop--always and every day.

Be patriotic. Get out there and buy something.