OBAMA IS GENETICALLY RELATED TO STALIN, MAO AND CASTRO : I HAVE PROOF

PALIN ON POLICY

Families are very important in America. I, for example, come from a very strong family. Alaskans believe in good family values. That's one of the reasons I entered politics. It saddens me to see declining family values in America. Children have babies out of wedlock. Parents divorce. And relatives abandon each other when one family member suffers a health crisis. Why? Because too many people have ignored traditional family values.

I am glad that I never turned my back on family values. My family is strong. We practice traditional American family values. I come from strong roots. I can prove who my father was. I even know my mother and grandmother. We all believed in the same things: Freedom, liberty, justice, nature, stag hunting, business opportunities, low taxes, gun ownership. We all liked the same things. We even kind of all looked the same, too. Family always gives you away; if you ever doubt who you are, just look at old family pictures and you'll remember where you come from.

Barack Hussein Obama does not believe in family. That is why he is destroying this country. It is no accident that he is a socialist. People from broken families turn into socialists or worse. Sometimes they become intellectuals or terrorists, or even intellectual terrorists. Over the last year, he has made war on traditional American values, like the freedom to buy private health insurance and the freedom to work for little pay. In short, Obama has already struck a grave blow at America's golden virtue: Responsibility. And only the right kind of families can cultivate responsibility.

This is not my grandfather's America. It is not even my mother's America. It is new and shocking. Government is telling everyone what to do. It is taking away people's property. It is sentencing old people to death under Obama's new "rationed" health care system. It is freeing convicted African killers and allowing them to rape white women. It is imposing unfair burdens on credit card companies. It is even paying for people's college education and freeing them from debt.

How could this be happening in America? What happened to our "do-it-yourself-no-help-thank-you" attitude that transformed us from frontiersmen into the greatest Nation on earth? What happened to paying our own way? What happened to me first, you second? Basically, what happened to the families?

Let's look closely at Obama. It is no surprise that he is ruining the country because he does not come from the right kind of family. People did not think that Obama would become a socialist once he won the White House. But I knew better. After all, I have uncovered evidence that decisively proves Obama's socialist ancestry. I hold an Honorary Degree in Investigative Biology from the University of Alaska at Elk's Bush. Using my expertise, I discovered some truly startling facts. Americans have long been worried about Obama's citizenship. But my research shows far more than Obama's lack of citizenship. It shows that he is genetically related to the worst socialists in history. I even have photographs to prove my points.

Let's begin.

Barack Hussein Obama's father was an African. Look at him; it's obvious:

Socialism runs rampant in Africa. Should we be surprised that son followed father? But the trail does not end there. No, Obama's father had an uncle in Southern Russia who was related to notorious Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. Family does not lie. Look at the resemblance:

Should we be surprised that Obama is dismantling the free market system? He is related to Joseph Stalin, for goodness sakes!

I wish this were the only bad news I discovered during my research. Unfortunately, it is not. I also found out that Obama's great uncle lived in China. By no small chance, that great uncle was Mao Zedong's cousin. Again, look at the resemblance:
Obama's socialist roots run deep and cross continents. He is related to Mao and Stalin by blood. He is an internationalist by family bond. If ever there were a time for America to stand up against this tyrant, the time is now.

But there is even more. Thanks to help from a prominent Genetics scholar at Elk's Bush, I uncovered another disturbing link in Obama's family tree. Specifically, after proving Obama's definitive relationship to Stalin and Mao, I determined that Obama's great-great-great-grandfather was seized in Africa and sent to the West Indies as a slave. Over the generations, Obama's forefathers intermingled with the local Spanish population in Cuba. One of his descendants is Fidel Castro. Again, let's examine the resemblance:
Can anyone deny the genetic link? I have the records and the photographs to prove that Obama is communist dictator-spawn. This is America. We believe in families, not dictators. And Obama descends from the wrong kind of family, make no mistake about it.

We must take action. Our "President" is related to infamous socialists from three Continents. When he talked about diversity during the campaign last year, this is not the diversity we had in mind. We he talked about international understanding, we had no idea he was the living embodiment of worldwide socialism. If we care about American families, we must stand against Obama. He is not an American. He is a frightening communist-African-Chinese-Cuban-Russian amalgam seething with anti-capitalist venom. He represents everything America detests. We cannot allow him to take a single step further.

This is about families. I care about family because I come from a strong American family. We take our commitments seriously. I refuse to allow Obama to destroy this Nation with his poisonous ancestry. It is my duty to inform the American people about who is really leading them. This is not an American. This is a socialist with bona fide socialist roots. If you see a dog, you can pretty much bet it will act like a dog. That is why Americans need to know about Obama's ancestry. Obama's relatives murdered millions and made war on free market economics worldwide. How can we tolerate a ruler who might do the same here in America? If we lose the free market, what do we have left?

Stand with me against Obama and his socialist pedigree. Obama may have fooled America into thinking he was a pillar of hope against economic despair. But my research shows otherwise. We must band together to stop his socialist machinations before it is too late. In one year, he has already made it more difficult for health insurance companies to deny customers coverage. That is the first step to communism. And if we care about economic freedom, we must act now. Because when insurance companies are not free to act as they please, we have fallen into socialism.

Let's tell this Maoist Stalinist Castro-African bandit that we don't appreciate socialism in America. America is for American families, not your kind of families.

DOMINIC CARTER, EVIDENCE LAW, HEARSAY AND TRUTH : IT IS NEVER EASY TO SAY WHAT "ACTUALLY HAPPENED"

AN ESSAY

Earlier this week, I read about Dominic Carter, a disgraced New York TV anchorman. Last year, authorities charged Mr. Carter with domestic abuse after his wife complained that her husband tried to strangle her during a fight. She later recanted her story, claiming that a mysterious "day laborer" was the assailant, not her husband. That did not faze the prosecutor. He proceeded with the case against Mr. Carter.

Mr. Carter appeared in Queens County court to answer the charges last week. In addition to flatly denying that he "had done anything wrong," he begged the judge to dismiss the case because he was "too important" and had "many friends in New York State government." He dropped several names, including Judith Kaye, the Chief Judge of New York's highest court. The judge was flabbergasted, admonishing Mr. Carter: "Don't drop names in here! You know better than that!" She did not dismiss the case. Mr. Carter's employer publicly condemned his conduct and appeared ready to fire him.

Mr. Carter decided to fly to Kansas City after his hard week back home. While waiting to take off, he stood up and made his way toward the restroom. Although no one exactly knows what happened next, a flight attendant screamed: "I want this man off the plane. He tried to assault me." Mr. Carter vigorously denied the accusation, explaining that he "must have bumped into her" while "bending over to tie his shoes." In any event, the flight attendant won the debate and Mr. Carter was ejected from the plane.

Police arrived to investigate the complaint. They determined that the flight attendant caused the altercation. They did not file charges. Mr. Carter took the next flight without incident.

I recount this story because it made me think about proving things. Evidence law represents our legal system's attempt to inscribe past events with "truth." I have written many times that it is impossible to know "the truth" about anything without being personally present to perceive it with our own senses. Yet we must rely on reports to formulate our beliefs about almost every event in our lives. We cannot sense everything that happens on earth. So we must put our trust in stories. Evidence law tries to assign credibility to stories. It also tries to screen out information likely to confuse the truth rather than find it.

Consider Mr. Carter's relatively banal story. The question is "what happened on the plane as he walked down the aisle?" Did he "deliberately assault" the flight attendant? Or did he really bend over to tie his shoes? Was it an accident? How do we know? We certainly weren't there. I read about the conflicting stories in the newspaper. How, then, can we satisfy ourselves about "what actually happened?"

Let's suppose the authorities decided to put Mr. Carter on trial for assault. To prove assault, the State would have to show that Mr. Carter intended to touch the flight attendant in a harmful or offensive way, and that he did touch her in such a way. From a philosophical standpoint, it is extremely difficult to prove intent, because intent exists solely in another person's mind. When threatened with punishment, a person rarely confesses to what he "actually intended to do," so evidence law requires us to look to external factors to "infer" intent. In other words, we must look to observable facts (ie, behavior, words) to conclude an unobservable fact (the actor's intent).

Mr. Carter's defense would depend upon his ability to show he did not "mean" to offensively touch the flight attendant. That is an intent defense. But to prove his intent, he would have to point to external factors. The best way to do that would be to call witnesses who directly perceived the event, preferably from a close distance. They could say what they saw: Did he slap the woman? Did he raise his arms in a threatening way? Did he "look angry?" Did it "look like he meant to hit her?" These are visual perceptions, and they carry the most weight when attempting to convince a listener to adopt "the truth" about a particular event.

But what about words? We can correctly infer a person's intent based upon his verbal conduct. What people say (and how they say it) can lead us to guess what they feel, intend and think. Still, whenever words enter an evidence question, the analysis becomes much more complicated. Everyone knows the word "hearsay," but fewer know the legal definition. In popular understanding, "hearsay" simply means "reported speech from someone else." In evidence law, however, it has a much more technical meaning. It means any "out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted." See Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c). "Statements," in turn, mean "oral or written assertions or nonverbal conduct of a person, if intended by the person as an assertion." See Fed. R. Evid. 801(a). Applying these definitions, we see that even the defendant's own words can be hearsay if he repeats them in court. In short, hearsay does not have to come from "someone else," nor does it even have to be verbal.

This introduces a serious problem in criminal cases in which the defendant tries to explain what he intended to do. At the same time, the prosecution has an advantage over the defendant because another evidence rule permits a "party-opponent" to introduce an "opposing party's statement" against him. See. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A). This means that the opposing party here (namely, the prosecutor) could use Mr. Carter's statements against him, but Mr. Carter could not use his own statements to defend himself. For example, if Mr. Carter wanted to prove that he said "I was just bending over to tie my shoes" after the flight attendant accused him, he could not testify that he said it because it is "hearsay." But if the prosecutor brought in a witness who said Mr. Carter exclaimed: "Get outta my way, biatch" on his way down the aisle, it would be fully admissible against Mr. Carter as a "statement by a party-opponent."

This is a bizarre result. It almost seems unfair. After all, shouldn't people get to say what they said on earlier occasions in order to explain themselves? When the question involves individual intent, the individual is really the only one who can confirm or deny it. Yet evidence law turns away from this "best source" because it presumes that accused individuals will not tell the truth.

Thankfully, evidence law offers another way for Mr. Carter to get his statements before the jury. Although he could not testify that he said: "I was just bending over to tie my shoes" after the flight attendant accused him, a different witness could. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) provides an exception to the hearsay rule for statements relating to the "declarant's then-existing state of mind," including their "intent." In this case, if a nearby passenger heard Mr. Carter say: "I was just bending over to tie my shoes" immediately after the flight attendant screamed at him, it could be admitted to show that Mr. Carter did not intend to harmfully touch the flight attendant. It would not be hearsay because the defense does not offer it to prove the "truth" that Mr. Carter actually tied his shoes. Rather, it would offer the statement to prove the declarant's (ie, Mr. Carter's) then-existing mental state: Namely, that he did not intend to offensively touch anyone.

I mention all this to show how difficult it is to prove things. It is even more difficult to prove them according to technical evidence rules that prohibit people from explaining what they actually said, yet permit others to use their words against them.

Do all these rules bring us any closer to the "truth?" I don't think so. In the end, ascribing truth to a story depends as much on available evidence as it does to pure intuition. In my view, lawyers make a colossal philosophical blunder when they think they have a greater claim to "uncovering truth" because they apply technical evidence rules. No man-made rule can change the fact that human beings have limited senses. When it comes to believing something that allegedly happened outside those senses, one man's guess is virtually as good as the next man's.

INTENT AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT : POLICING THE IMPOSSIBLE

AN ESSAY

Over the last few weeks, I've had the chance to read some Supreme Court cases. I always keep a long list of cases I want to read. I have not had much time to write as much as I'd like lately, so I've taken the chance to read a few. That's not to say that Supreme Court cases freshen my outlook. To the contrary, they often confirm my overriding belief that the Supreme Court is full of shit. As a satirist, I need to see foolishness at work in order to properly mock it. Both sadly and thankfully, the Supreme Court keeps me well-stocked with preposterous arguments, as well as unabashed ideology masquerading as neutral legal principle.

If I had to choose an area of constitutional law that interests me the most, I would choose the First Amendment. The First Amendment is the soul and conscience of the Constitution. It is the intellectual nucleus of our liberal republic. Although the Framers may have conceived it very differently than the way we understand it today, it is a beacon of individual hope in an otherwise dully administrative document. The First Amendment protects the individual freedom to speak, write, think and express ourselves as the people we are. It forbids government from punishing us because we hold beliefs or profess religions. It also guarantees a free press, ensuring that--at least in theory--every voice has a forum to be heard. While that may not technically be true in an age when money translates into the power to circulate messages, it at least espouses a strongly positive ideal: That all voices have worth, no matter how much the majority rejects them.

These are metaphysically good principles in which anyone can believe. In fact, they are so good that both American patriots in the 18th Century and revolutionaries in later times died for them. Without the First Amendment or something like it, we could not truly say what we mean in life. And when we cannot say what we mean, we cannot be who we are. In that sense, the First Amendment is all about individuality. That is inspiring. That is why I like studying it. It is not just about property and penalties. It is about ideas and expression. There are not many legal areas that impact such profoundly philosophical questions. I like profundity more than banality.

But there is a sharp distinction between First Amendment theory and Supreme Court practice. For better or worse, nine men and women have the sole authority to determine whether government violates First Amendment principles in individual cases. In these clashes between the individual and government, the Court sometimes favors liberty. At other times, it permits government to stamp out individual self-expression. Supreme Court justices say they "rule according to the law." But in First Amendment cases--as in virtually all hotly-debated constitutional areas--the justices barely mask their own political and ideological leanings. They use law merely as a cloak to justify deeply biased political conclusions. Behind all the technical analysis and supposed detachment (many justices abandon detachment altogether) stands stark, flawed humanity. Despite their pedigrees, resumes and degrees, justices are human beings. And human beings are woefully imperfect.

When it comes to the First Amendment, the justices' personal values influence everything they do. If they do not like certain messages, they will find a way to voice hostility toward them. This takes some artifice, of course, because the Constitution forbids government from suppressing speech "solely because it disapproves of the content." But the Court has fashioned doctrines to outmaneuver this result. It allows government to target speech if it artificially regulates the "time, place and manner" in which the speech occurs. So if a city wants to stop communists from speaking, it can say they can only hold a parade on Tuesday at 3 AM in some uninhabited back alley. Obviously, government does not like communist messages. Although it cannot literally ban communism as "content," it can achieve the same result by targeting the "time, place and manner" of communist speech. In this way, the Supreme Court allows government to cloak its own hostility toward certain ideas by phrasing its disapproval in more "neutral ways." The result is often the same: Government does not like certain speech and successfully suppresses it.

Our Supreme Court has burrowed deeply into the First Amendment. The freedom to express individual ideas carries so many exceptions that it is now almost an illusory right. Without going into exhaustive detail, government can suppress speech not only because it occurs in "inappropriate places (ie, schools)," at "inappropriate times (ie, late at night)" or in an "inappropriate manner (ie, too loud)," but also because the speech itself is categorically "obscene," "defamatory," "inciting," or "reasonably likely to lead an average person to come to blows with another." The burden lies on the government to establish that the "dangerous speech" falls into one of these categories, but the Court has been surprisingly accommodating toward government over the years. In fact, it has been so accommodating that it has permitted government to regulate speech even beyond the "traditionally unacceptable categories."

Renton v. Playtime Theaters, 475 U.S. 41 (1986), provides a ready example. That case involved a municipal effort to crack down on porn shops. It was clear that the city simply did not like porn, even though porn is technically "speech" under the First Amendment. So the city enacted zoning laws that forced porn shops into run-down industrial neighborhoods. The law treated porn shops differently solely because they engaged in the porn business; in other words, their speech made them targets. But the Court did not call this "impermissible content regulation." Rather, it fashioned a new exception to the First Amendment: the "secondary effects doctrine." Through this sleight of constitutional hand, the Court proclaimed that government does not violate the First Amendment if it merely wishes to regulate the "effects of speech on the community," rather than the "speech itself." Under this approach, the city in Renton just had to say it enacted the law because it wanted to keep crime down and property values up. Then it said that porn "speech" caused crime to rise and property values to sink. The Court validated the restriction and the porn shops had to move.

In 2002, the Court revisited Renton in City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002). There, the city enacted an ordinance forbidding more than one "adult business" from operating in the same building. No other business was subject to the restriction. The city said it enacted the ordinance because it wanted to control the "secondary effects" of "multiple adult businesses" in the same vicinity. It invoked the earlier Renton case for support, even though it had no real evidence to show that splitting up two related porn shops in the same building would reduce crime or boost property values. The Court was satisfied with a cursory 1977 study that anecdotally linked porn shops with higher crime rates, even though that study predated the ordinance by more than a decade. In sum, the Court had no problem sustaining a clearly speech-prohibitive, discriminatory law by invoking a doctrine it invented only sixteen years earlier.

In my view, this shows the Court's great willingness to ignore the First Amendment when its members do not like the speech at issue. Obviously Chief Justice Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor did not like porn shops...just look at them:


As much as the majority in Alameda Books may have believed that "constitutional jurisprudence" dictated their conclusion in the case, I venture that it was simply a value judgment. Republicans (all five justices in the majority here were Republicans) don't like porn--well, at least publicly they say they don't. Those values influenced their decision whether to allow government to regulate it. After all, the law in Alameda Books specifically targeted only porn shops. The regulation turned upon the content of the speech. Although that seems to violate the First Amendment's ban on "content regulation," the Republicans found a way to sidestep that result. How? Simple: Values. When a justice doesn't like speech, he or she will find a "legal exception" to suppress it. That's the problem with law.

But there is more to the story. Justice Kennedy issued a bizarre concurrence in Alameda Books that brings another troublesome issue to the fore: Legislative intent. Kennedy--also a Republican, but a grandiose one with a penchant for self-righteous oratory (he's Catholic, too)--said he was "troubled" by the liberal argument that the statute in the case targeted porn shops "solely because of their speech." So he quieted himself by reasoning that a city could rely on the "secondary effects doctrine" as long as it did not "proportionally affect speech." In Kennedy's view, the law in Alameda Books was sound because it had an effect on bad "secondary effects" (good) without affecting the "quantity of speech" (bad) in equal measure. Put another way, because the legislature only specifically targeted "secondary effects" and allowed porn shops to open under separate roofs, it reasonably lowered "secondary effects" without "completely muzzling their expression."

This is a fanciful distinction. In essence, it appears that Justice Kennedy believes that a legislature's stated intent suffices to determine whether it has adopted a "content-specific" speech regulation. Here, it seems obvious that the Los Angeles city council did not like porn shops because they engage in "porn speech." It offended the councilmen's values. They simply did not like the speech. But they escaped constitutional consequence because they said they were concerned about "secondary effects," not the "speech itself." The statute visibly discriminated against porn shops based on their speech, yet Justice Kennedy said that was fine because the legislature had the right intent.

It defies belief to say that a city would not "reduce the quantity of certain speech" if its regulations drive its speakers from the marketplace. Why else would the city want to close down porn shops if it did not like what they were saying? It is too easy to mouth the words "secondary effects" when in fact the legislature flat-out doesn't like porn.

These are important questions because speech regulations are dangerous. When government succeeds in suppressing speech, it gains precedential authority to suppress even more. When the Supreme Court simply goes along with the program, our rights as individuals steadily decline. True, no one wants to crusade for a porn shop's right to sell smut. But the First Amendment does not distinguish between right and wrong speech. If it is speech, we presumptively protect it. Individual freedom depends upon the freedom to express ourselves. And when the Supreme Court slowly allows government to bar us from speaking in certain ways, our liberty slowly suffocates, too.

In short, Supreme Court justices should defer to the individual interest in self-expression in doubtful cases, not the value-laden judgments of local governments. If it allows government to regulate speech content merely by proffering a flimsy "secondary effects" justification, it will not take long to dismantle the First Amendment. If there is one constitutional guarantee that we must defend, it is the guarantee that government will presumptively not regulate the substance of our thoughts and expressions, no matter how unpopular they may be.

BLOOMBERG V. THOMPSON

"Let's Get Back to Business As Usual!"

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

I like New York City politics because they have a direct bearing on my life. To some extent, people are apathetic about political races because they know the outcome will not impact their lives. This is true even on the presidential level.

But local elections can have serious effects on people's everyday lives. In big cities like New York, local government is not some marginal authority that meets in a middle school auditorium once a month. Rather, "local government" in New York City is bigger than many American States. New York is home to over 8 million people. "Local government"--namely, the city council and the Mayor's Office--hold power over them. That government's policies impact everyday life in a tangible way, from property taxes to parking fines to police protection to water services to zoning to libraries to schools and the fire department. When a new Mayor takes power, it signals a real shift--and people feel the difference.

This year, New Yorkers must choose between Republican incumbent Michael Bloomberg and Democratic city comptroller William Thompson. Bloomberg is a well-known billionaire from Massachusetts who runs a blue chip stock reporting index. During his time in office, Bloomberg's personal net worth increased threefold, from $5 billion in 2002 to $15 billion in 2009. Thompson is a lifelong New Yorker with humble roots in the city service and a comparatively minuscule income. He is also black.

Most newspapers have merely dismissed Thompson. Polls show him trailing Bloomberg by 18 points or more. Most people simply assume Bloomberg will steamroll anyone who stands in his way. After all, he can afford to deluge the airwaves 24-7 with campaign ads and dominate the public debate. Life in the city has been relatively comfortable under Bloomberg's rule. Crime remained stagnant, business opportunities flourished and there have been no major social disturbances. As was true under Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, the cost of living in New York has ballooned even more. Sky-high rents have made housing in Manhattan virtually inaccessible for anyone who makes less than $200,000 per year.

Yet no one really understands Bloomberg. He is neither inspiring nor divisive. He manages the city as he would a bank. He is a bloodless technocrat. He does not alienate people with controversial speeches; he merely goes about his business. He attracts businesses to New York, though this does not necessarily translate into jobs. He is indifferent to the public schools, but he approved multimillion dollar subsidies for the new Yankee Stadium. In short, Bloomberg serves a certain "type" of New Yorker. And in many cases these "New Yorkers" do not even live in the city--they just visit and spend money here. You know, on Broadway shows, tour buses and the like.

Bloomberg has been great for business. But what about everyone else? In last night's mayoral debate, Thompson drew attention to New York's widening social inequality. He asked how the mayor could continue to ignore the struggling middle and lower classes that cannot cope with both a shrinking economy and astronomical rents. The mayor has no real answer. After all, the middle and lower classes are not his priority. He has more important people to worry about, like out-of-town investors, tourists and franchise businesses.

How can the press and the people ignore Thompson's concerns? There is a palpable tension between the "prosperous" New York and the "struggling" New York. You can see it on the street. People know they have no chance to live in Manhattan anymore. So they flee to the outer boroughs in an effort to stave off relentless expenses. They can't find decent jobs. School achievement levels are flat; Bloomberg spent city money elsewhere.

In essence, Bloomberg has split New York in two. One New York is wealthy and carefree. The other is desperate and invisible. The wealthy New York holds all the power; it can project a confident image. Yet the desperate New York has no voice. Thompson wants to address this disparity.

But apparently no one cares about these serious social divisions. Bloomberg stands ready to pulverize his populist opponent. In my view, this is a sad result. After all, why does government exist if not to serve everyone in society, not just those with overwhelming economic strength? There are so many powerless constituencies in New York City. They number in the millions, but they can do nothing to challenge the status quo. Sadly, Bloomberg has achieved virtually unassailable dominance because he has pleased the "right people." They hold all the economic power; and they are very happy with the way things are now.

I think this is an unfortunate--and ultimately, unsustainable--situation. It will continue until enough people both feel and see how bad it really is. That moment, however, is not today.

Barring some unforeseen electoral catastrophe, Bloomberg will crush his socially-conscious adversary. With unlimited funds, powerful friends and general apathy on his side, how can he lose?

At least Bloomberg is not a mean-spirited asshole like Rudy Giuliani. I suppose that's the one saving grace in this whole mess. Although power will always prevail, it's at least some relief when the King is not a vindictive, venomous tyrant. Bloomberg is not a tyrant. He is just an aloof corporate manager.

I just wonder how long his winning streak can go on now that the country's economy has collapsed.

ANOTHER BREAK

My partner is coming home today after 23 days in the hospital. For the next few weeks, I will have plenty to do as he acclimates back to life; helping him make that adjustment will undoubtedly affect my ability to write posts every day. My schedule is already filling up with appointments and errands. Nonetheless, I will try my best to find the time and energy to write. I am not going anywhere. Hopefully, I will get a chance to reflect and assemble some new ideas in the meantime.

Thanks again to all my readers. I wish I could be more productive these days. But you know the reasons why I can't be. Still, I have amassed over 1000 pages now. If you ever thirst for an essay or satire, just scroll down the archive list and enjoy. I promise I will write when I can. And when the most serious stresses have past, I can assure you that I will post every day again.

I am staying positive! I really know that things will turn out for the best. There is little evidence to support me in that belief, but that doesn't matter to me. Sometimes you just know things.

I will write as soon as I can.

Oesterhoudt

USING RACIAL BIAS FOR PROFIT

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

I saw a report yesterday on a local New York City newscast about a private nightclub that allegedly turned away several patrons "because they were black." Apparently, these patrons were all friends with a noted local author who is black, too. She was throwing a party and wanted all her friends to be there. According to the report, the doormen refused her friends entry at about 2 AM last Sunday. The report also mentioned that the club is a popular nightspot. Many people can't get in, even celebrities.

You know what's coming. Now the local author has hired a lawyer and she has filed a $1 billion class action racial discrimination lawsuit against the club. She says that the club's management engaged in racial bias against her and now she has a right to collect money damages. The report did not say which law she invoked in her complaint.

Racial discrimination is alive and well in all multicultural societies. It is not a uniquely American problem. Still, the United States is famous for its racism. Yes, we have a black President now. But this is no "post-racial society." Blacks die at a younger age than any other ethnic group in this country. They make significantly less money. They go to prison in far greater proportions. They consistently score lower on educational achievement tests. And this is no accident: There is a legacy of State-sponsored discrimination at work in America that continues to negatively impact blacks in all life pursuits.

In short, racism exists in America. It always has and it probably always will. It is a constant problem. It deserves condemnation when it appears.

But racism does not explain everything. In many cases, racism does not account for unjust results in social interactions between the races; not every white man is a bigot. I think the New York author's case represents a false racial cry. It is one thing to claim that racism exists in private businesses in the United States. It is one thing to take a principled stand against it. But it is quite another to use purported racial bias as an excuse to sue a business for $1 billion.

In short, financial motives obscure principled ones. Here, the author undoubtedly has a financial motive. If she truly cared about dignity and equality, why would she demand $1 billion to crusade for them? To an objective observer, this looks like a stab at personal paydirt, not a principled call for justice. After all, a crusader for justice wants justice, not a billion dollars.

In theory, awarding money damages for racial discrimination vindicates the Nation's interest in rooting out racism. It works by penalizing businesses for proven racial bias. If racism is unprofitable, so the theory goes, then businesses will not engage in it. But asking for $1 billion from a single nightclub is beyond the pale. It could never possibly pay that amount. If the Plaintiff got what she wanted in this case, the club would cease to exist several times over. And who would benefit from this? A few aggrieved clubgoers who could not drink and dance where they wanted one night? By demanding so much, this Plaintiff loses her moral authority and comes across as a common profiteer.

I venture that it is utterly shameless to use racial discrimination as a pretext for immense personal profit. I find it disgusting when people use this country's bad racial history to extort astronomical sums for personal gain. This author should be ashamed of herself. Even if the club discriminated against her and her friends, she would have done better to ask for a much more modest sum than $1 billion. She could have asked that any damages be paid to an educational fund or something, not her own bank account. If she really cared about racial bias, she would have used the case not so much to enrich herself than to publicly investigate the club's practices. Perhaps that is what she wanted to do along. Yet asking for $1 billion just makes her look like a cheap hustler out for cash, not a principled warrior out for justice.

I am not surprised that the author's lawyer so willingly went along with this circus act. After all, he stands to gain publicity and a hefty fee for his toils. It does not matter whether this is all just a crude attempt to shake a club down by conjuring the ghosts of America's racist past. It does not even matter whether the law supports his position. He has personal motives, just like the Plaintiff. This has nothing to do with remedying continuing racial ills in America. This is about money and fame, pure and simple.

He would be wise to mind the law in this case, too. After all, the Constitution forbids racial discrimination only when the State engages in it. See U.S. Const. Amd. XIV sec. 1 When private businesses discriminate, it is much more difficult to prevail. Federal and State laws prohibit racial discrimination in "places of public accommodation." But those laws require the Plaintiff to prove "discriminatory intent" against the private actor. That is no easy task. It is one thing for a person to think that a private club racially discriminated against him or her. It is quite another to show that a private club had an intentional policy disfavoring blacks. After all, this was a popular club. It turned many people away, including celebrities. It could conjure up virtually any explanation for its decisions. It will never admit "actual racial animus" against blacks.

From a legal standpoint, this is what it takes to win cases like this. It won't happen.

Instead, the author will scream and whine and talk to tabloid newspapers. She will attract attention to herself and boost her book sales. Some will say she suffered racism. Others will say she is exaggerating. Still others will simply ignore her.

No matter the reaction, one thing remains: She is trying to exploit America's sad racial history for crass personal profit. That is downright contemptible.

IF YOU ARE "RESULT-ORIENTED" AND "CLIENT-FOCUSED," YOU MUST BE DISHONORABLE WHEN NECESSARY

AN ESSAY

Law firm websites amuse me because they all use similar words. Generally, they like to advertise their ability to "win" so that new clients will hire them. After all, potential litigants want to win their lawsuit; there's a lot of money at stake. And no one likes losing money. In essence, law firms strut their prowess in obtaining "favorable outcomes." You constantly run across muddy phrases like: "result-oriented," "client-focused," "winning team," "success-centered" and "dedicated to your cause."

You could be forgiven if you thought law firms were sports teams. After all, they talk about winning all the time. Does that mean legal disputes are simply games? If you read civil procedure rules, you might think they are.

But I am not writing today to draw parallels between gaming and the law. Instead, I am writing to argue that the legal profession's relentless fixation on "results" requires lawyers to adopt a "result-determinative" approach to problems. That approach, in turn, makes it impossible for lawyers to adhere to larger principles without sinking into a conflict of interest.

American lawyers occupy an awkward philosophical position. On the one hand, they swear to advance principles such as "justice," "right" and "honesty" as "officers of the court" in a democratic system. Put briefly, lawyers swear to adhere to an "honor code." Put broadly, "honor" means that a person adheres to certain metaphysical ideals no matter the circumstances, even if it is unprofitable. Honor imposes restrictions on the means calculated to obtain certain results. Yet lawyers constantly use words like "results," "outcome," "winning," "goal" and "dedication to client interest." These concepts involve the ends of particular conduct, not means. An honorable man refuses to adopt certain tactics to obtain ends, even if the ends are favorable. But that puts lawyers in an uncomfortable position, because they also swear to "zealously advocate their clients' interests." In short, how can a lawyer both remain true to his honor code while retaining every trick in the book to win for his client?

As a profession, lawyers almost invariably sink into ethical conflict. Law schools attempt to remedy this problem by forcing lawyers to take an "ethics course," while States force them to take an "official ethics exam" before admission to the Bar. But ethics is not about external compliance and multiple-choice answers. No, ethics is about spirit and character. It is internal, not external. It is hard to police and even harder to teach. There is an immense difference between "the rules for being an honorable person" and "being an honorable person." Lawyers learn the rules; that is all they need to do. It does not matter whether they actually are honorable. In fact, the substance of their work makes honor almost an impossible path.

People throw around the term "conflict of interest" all the time. For the longest time, it made no sense to me. I knew it was bad; I just did not understand it. I did not grasp what it meant until I went to law school and saw what lawyers do. A conflict of interest simply means that a person attempts to serve two masters. It is about loyalty and integrity. If a person gives his full loyalty to one "master," there is no way he can be fully loyal to the other. Thus, a conflict of interest cripples a person's ability to be faithful to another. And it is not just about money. Conflicts of interest can arise between principles, too. Put another way, a person cannot remain faithful to a set of principles while contradicting those principles in the service of someone else.

This is what happens with lawyers. When the State administers the attorney's oath to newly-admitted lawyers every year, it obligates them to advance core principles, like justice, fairness, honor, integrity and collegiality . But at the same time, lawyers take an oath to "fully and zealously represent clients." From the very first moment, then, lawyers swear to serve two masters. They promise to vindicate larger principles at the same time they promise to obtain "favorable results" for their private clients. Private clients do not care how lawyers get the results they want; they just want the results. In this climate, how can a lawyer maintain his honor?

Are there any honorable lawyers in the world? Probably. I did not encounter many when I practiced. In truth, that is not surprising given the impossible ethical position lawyers must occupy. Consider this: Honor imposes restrictions on the means and methods calculated to reach a certain goal, while clients demand a certain goal. If a dishonorable method is the only way to achieve that goal, how can the lawyer remain true to both his honor code and his client?

In my view, lawyers' obsession with "client focus" and "results" reveals their predisposition to abandon honor when necessary. When a person deeply wants to achieve a goal, he adopts the means most likely to achieve it. Honor, however, might bar a person from resorting to the most effective means. Do lawyers have the courage to abstain from certain victory merely to appease their ethical sensibilities? If a lawyer could win a multimillion dollar case through some trick--and he knew no one would ever discover it--would he resort to it? If he were loyal to his honor code, then he would not. But he would if he were loyal to his client. His client wants to win. The client does not care about honor. He just wants victory at the lowest cost and lowest risk. If a dishonorable means leads to victory at low cost and low risk, so be it.

Lawyers contend with these philosophical tensions every day. They face inevitable conflict between their clients' wishes and the principles they swore to uphold. Most troublingly, this conflict has a decidedly commercial dimension. After all, lawyers need money to stay in business. Only money pays rent and keeps offices running. Only money buys cars and sends kids to college. It takes money to pay the heat bill and buy presents for your wife at Christmas. Between principles and clients, who pays money? Only clients. In that light, to whom do you think a lawyer will give his maximum effort? Honor doesn't stand a chance in these circumstances. Debt collectors do not take "honor" or "principle" as payment; they take cash, checks, money orders, bank transfers or MasterCard®.

Lawyers might say they support justice, fairness and right. They might insist that they have integrity. They might even think they have honor. They might point to the wall and show you their Bar Association plaques. Still, did justice or integrity pay for their offices? No, winning cases for their clients did. That does not necessarily mean that winning is always dishonorable. But adopting a "flexible" approach to honor greatly increases a lawyer's chances to win a case. At day's end, winning matters. Law firms say it themselves. Why should a lawyer hamstring himself with honor? Great players don't win by tearing plays from the playbook; they keep every option open.

Adopting a "result-oriented" approach to any human enterprise inevitably leads to a debate about probability. If a person wants results, he adopts means that will "most probably" lead to those results. Yet honor excludes certain means. In that sense, honor represents a barrier to sought-after results. Honor reduces the probability of obtaining results. For the result-oriented person, that is an unbearable idea. When winning matters, it is frustrating to know that effective tactics are off the table.

Honor takes many tactics off the table. For a lawyer who swears to obtain results for a private client, that is not good. Pleasing the client leads to monetary success. Fulfilling honor, by contrast, gains nothing except intellectual satisfaction. As commercial actors who need money to stay afloat, lawyers cannot survive on intellectual satisfaction. Rather, they must please their clients. In so doing, they reveal their classic conflict of interest: Client wins; principles lose (if necessary).

Their own rhetoric shows which master matters more. You don't see law firm websites advertising "polite lawyers who try their best to win consistent with overreaching ethical imperatives, but who refuse to adopt certain dishonorable methods to win you money." Nor do you see websites proudly describing their lawyers' refusal to countenance client fraud to win a case. No, ethical victories don't make good advertising material. Money victories do. Results sell, not principles.

I would like to see an honest law firm slogan: "We're all about results : You don't care how you get 'em… and neither do we."

In this environment, how can honor survive? When results are all that matter, how can a lawyer insist on principles that might threaten those results?

THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR STIRRING YET EMPTY RHETORIC : AN APPEAL FOR ACTION AND UNITY

By : Mr. Burgess E. Gottlieb, Jr., Ph.D., Chief Logician and Chairman of the Board of Trustees (1995-present); Simon F. Bamberg IV Emeritus (Deceased 1890) Professor of Logic, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut (1960-present); The National Review, Theater Critic (1967-present); Senior Fellow, New York Illusionists' League (emphasis on disappearing acts) (1981-1990).

We can solve any problem. A Nation of laws trusts its principles. And trust in principles solves problems. Thus, when we trust in our principles, we can solve anything. Logic favors our cause. Logic, too, can solve any problem. We believe in logic. That is why we are on the road to success.

There are those who say that our Nation will never recover from economic turmoil. We disagree. A well-argued speech can put all doubts to rest, no matter how severe. As Horace said many centuries ago: "Despite the darkening sky, our resolution shall brighten the horizon." With strong language and compelling logical transitions between paragraphs, we are not just confident of victory. We are certain of it.

Our opponents claim that this is no time for college essays. They even say that papers that might have earned an "A" from the most vindictive, anally-retentive graduate student can do nothing to solve intractable problems that now plague our society. In sum, our opponents claim that rhetoric merely distracts attention from hard reality.

We have a simple response for these naysayers: "Not on our watch." As a National Alliance committed to Empty Yet Stirring Rhetoric, we trust in the power of pleasant, conventional language. We believe that properly moving from verbal premise to conclusion--all the while employing traditional devices such as allusion, metaphor and contrast--can overcome any practical difficulty on earth. No tax quandary, budget deficit or even health crisis can resist a moving speech that draws parallels to sunrises, sunsets, tides or other natural phenomena.

True, practical problems demand practical solutions. But rhetoric is an exception to that rule. Just as every doctrine must yield to a caveat, so too must every practical problem yield to rhetoric. We believe in language, not complexity. We believe that people respond better to conventional linguistic displays than gloomy hopelessness. We believe that people feel better when they hear traditional speech techniques, even if the speech signifies nothing at all. Assurance goes a long way. As rhetorical masters, we understand that.

Solutions are irrelevant compared to comfort. No matter how fiercely the storm may rage outside, a great speech will always give hope. A great speech can lift even the most broken heart. Let the defeatists talk about bankruptcy and disorder. As believers in rhetoric, we speak a different language. We speak the language of hope, inspiration and grandeur. Even if our words have no basis at all in reality, they can still move hearts. And that's all that really matters. Who needs reality when you have great rhetoric?

We stand on a precipice. We stand against the wind. Today we stand. Tomorrow we rise. On the third day, we shall prevail. There is no day but what we make. These are our days. We are what we say. We are the People because we are free. Let freedom ring. We refuse to go quietly. We shall never surrender.

No issue can withstand a well-placed cliché. No problem can frustrate an inspiring, empty phrase. We are the People. We are unafraid. We are not afraid to believe in empty words. They make us feel good. We expect to hear them. We like to hear what we expect.

We believe in logic, too. Like rhetoric, logic assures us. Men named George all live to be older than 50. If a man is named George, he will not die at 36. This man is named not named George. Therefore, he might die at 36. Who can resist logic?

What difference does it make in the end whether we actually solve problems? As long as we speak fluently and make logical sense, we have succeeded. We understand that people do not really want solutions; they just want to hear what they expect. Logic and rhetoric sound nice. One idea flows from the next. People deserve to hear what they expect. That is why we believe in logic and rhetoric. Convention is more important than reality.

What is reality but what we believe? Rhetoric makes us believe. Thus, rhetoric can shape reality. Our opponents say that we do nothing but talk. But talking creates reality as much as action does. And when enough people listen to us, we truly change the world. That is why our rhetoric is not as empty as our critics think. We even use similes to help our listeners grasp our points: "Like a sturdy oak, our roots run deep."

We do not need to explain. It just sounds good. And people believe in things that sound good.

Now is now. Right now means right now, not yesterday. Yesterday means yesterday, not last Friday. It is time to seize the moment. Put your faith in appealing language. What do you care about reality? Let language become your reality. Isn't it about time that you believed in something? Do not put your faith in fickle facts and figures. Put your faith in inspiring phrases, hackneyed slogans and memorable one-line syllogisms. Life is complicated enough as it is. Give your mind a break. You must simply decide to believe. You must simply accept the rhetoric. Then you will be free.

You know you want to. You want to suspend your disbelief. You want to say: "I am the People" without guilt or embarrassment. You can do it. Answer the call. Be part of the solution, not the problem. All you need to do is listen. All you need to do is be free.

Let us all unite for a simpler world. Let us all unite for language we can all anticipate and admire. This is not a time for division. This is a time for healing and love. Healing and love are better than discord and strife. Belief in rhetoric leads to healing and love. Healing and love lead to unity, not division. Therefore, you must believe in rhetoric if you wish to unite. It is not just the most comforting choice; it is also the logical one.

You see? Rhetoric does not exclude logic. In fact, good rhetoric makes logical sense. In that way, it marries emotion with reason. It offers the best of both worlds. Great rhetoric lets us feel at the same time it prompts us to think. Just as the blacksmith smelts ore and charcoal to make steel, so too does the great speaker marry reason and emotion to create rhetoric.

But enough of that. It is time to believe. It is time to trust. Give in to rhetoric; you can do it. Haven't you endured enough uncertainty in your life? Well, it's time to move on. It's time to let yourself be swept away in grand rhetorical fantasies. There is no reality but what we make. Today is yours. You can believe.

Today is a moment in time. Grasp your moment. Time is yours. There is no time but today. And it is time. Together is better than apart. Together, we can do anything. Let's get together. Because together is better. It is time to get together.

TAKING ON AYN RAND AND A WORD ON MY FOCUS THESE DAYS

A REFLECTION

Yesterday I bought Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. For years, I've debated whether to read Rand's books. I always decided against it because I yielded to the general left-wing prejudice that Rand is a "capitalist muse" and "free market apologist." In submitting to that prejudice, I thought that because I lean toward socialism, I would inevitably feel revulsion if I read her works.

But I do not want to be intellectually prejudiced. I have always enjoyed reading authors whose ideas I detest, notably Adam Smith and St. Peter. I also really enjoy reading judicial opinions by arch-conservatives whose utter lack of sympathy provides me with prime material for satire. In short, I like understanding how my ideological opponents think. I disserve myself when I simply avoid their works. It is much better when I take the time to read them, and then ruthlessly criticize them. In most cases, my criticism takes satirical form. In some cases, however, I respond with text-based essays. In the process, I see my own values more clearly. To quote an old Chinese general (probably apocryphal): "If you know your enemy and you know yourself, you cannot lose." That explains my attitude toward reading everything, even the stuff university liberals urge me to avoid.

Ayn Rand has obviously had immense philosophical influence in America. I see people reading her books all over the place, even in the New York subway. Generally, they are well-groomed looking people (always white; usually women) with small bags who look like they are going to work or coming from work. I want to understand why her ideas have won so much traction over the years. I hear that she sings odes to the individual. In that sense, I share her views. But I also hear that she sings her odes in the key of "self-interest" and "free market economics." Here I part company with Ms. Rand. Still, I will withhold calling her books "scandalous drivel," "the most abysmal trash ever printed," "repugnant, odorous nonsense," or "sheer right-wing balderdash" until I have taken the time to read them and grasp their arguments. Contrary to most American judges' approach to judicial work, I will actually give Ms. Rand her day in Court before hanging her.

So far I have read the first two pages. I am not impressed with the style. "Wet with sunrays?" "Granite explosion?" "A body of long straight lines and angles, each curve broken into planes?" This sounds like bad high school poetry, not cogent economic analysis. But I am too hasty... perhaps in the next 600 pages I will uncover some comprehensible passages.

I also noticed that Ms. Rand published The Fountainhead in 1943. This was the height of FDR's New Deal. Was she angry about governmental intrusions into "private economic autonomy?" If she was, then her position mirrors modern-day conservative objections to increased governmental encroachments into private enterprise. Just as FDR revolutionized government's role in everyday American life during the 1930s and 1940, so too is Obama "threatening" increased government involvement in American life. I think this makes reading Rand a worthwhile enterprise; there is a historical parallel at work.

Having said all this, I am sure you have noticed that I have not written a satire in a while. In less fractious times, I generally alternate between essays and satires each day. But in recent weeks, my life has been fractious at best. I am happy to have mustered the strength and mental intensity to write anything at all. My satirical ideas arise when I feel relatively carefree and confident about the future. I have not been feeling that way lately. To the contrary, I feel as if my mind is in a vice grip. I cannot really see past tomorrow or the next day. I live from hour to hour. Things have improved since last week, but I am not healed yet. Still, I am glad that I have the mental clarity to write a few essays, even if they are not as nuanced or expansive as usual.

I can assure you that more satire will land on these pages. It's just going to take a while until I can really laugh hard again. In the meantime, thanks for reading what I manage to throw down.

THE LAW HAS NO POWER OVER SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT CARE ABOUT HIS BODY

AN ESSAY

In many essays over the last year, I have paraphrased Martin Luther's argument that the law has power only over the body and property. See, e.g., On Governmental Authority (1523) at p. 23: "The temporal government has laws which extend no further than to life and property and external affairs on earth[.]" Luther draws a distinction between "worldly authority" and "divine authority." He says that the "world is God's enemy" and that a wise prince is a "mighty rare bird." Id. at pp. 60-61. Yet at the same time, he asserts that worldly authority fulfills God's will because it targets "wickedness" and protects meek Christians from violence. Thus, while worldly authority may be crass and unappetizing, it performs a "Christian" function by restraining criminals from inflicting violence.

These ideas influenced me. They further weakened my already weak respect for the law. I shared Luther's low estimation of the law precisely because of the law's base subject matter. In the final analysis, the law's power derives solely from its ability to impact men's bodies and their property. These are external things. They do not transcend time. They have nothing to do with men's beliefs, conscience or thoughts. They are ephemeral, even petty. Human beings who live only to satisfy their bodies and gain property are superficial creatures. Some might even call them hedonists, or at least fatally selfish. Ironically, however, commercial success depends solely on gaining property, which translates into bodily comfort. Commerce typifies "the world." It scarcely warrants surprise, then, that Luther said "the world is God's enemy."

Despite its superficial powers, the law relishes its authority. And for good reason: Because people value their bodies and property so much in this world, it makes sense that they respect the law. After all, the law can seize their property, injure their bodies and take away the things that give them pleasure. True, it cannot compel them to believe things or have honor. But most people could care less about those things. They just want to use their bodies as they wish and buy things that make them feel good. The law influences them because they know the law can impact their bodies and property. It holds them in check because no one wants to experience bodily pain or discomfort, nor does anyone want to lose property. The law works because people are superficial: They like their bodies and property, so they are afraid to lose them.

But what would happen if someone had utter contempt for his body or property? What possible influence could the law have on a man who did not care whether he suffered pain, or whether he owned anything? In a word, the law would wield no power over such a man. If he truly did not care whether someone imprisoned him, beat him, tortured him or executed him, nothing could possibly restrain him from acting in a way that would give rise to those penalties. In the same way, if he did not care whether he lost everything he possessed, the law would not impress him with garnishments, judgments, forced sales or seizures. Put simply, men who do not value their bodies or property can live beyond the law's influence.

That is not to say that the law would not take action against such a man. If the man committed a crime warranting imprisonment, it would imprison him. But the man would not care. In a strange way, his apathy and indifference to punishment would deny the law's effect. The law proceeds on the assumption that it inflicts suffering on an offender for acting in a way it condemns. It asserts its power by doing something to the offender that the offender does not like, just as a parent asserts its power over a wayward child by spanking him. The offender does not like bodily pain, just as the child does not like spanking. Yet if the offender really does not care whether his body experiences pain, what power does the law really have?

In short, anyone with pure contempt for his own body or property can deny the law's effect. Although the law rarely admits as much, it asserts power over its subjects by doing painful things to their bodies and property. How else would it maintain control if it did not threaten to take things away that people enjoy? How else would it force compliance if it did not threaten physical misery for failure to comply? Laws might seem "objective," but they really depend on basic human aversions to pain. By the same token, laws only function because they assume that people do not want to suffer bodily pain. Like any power institution, they enforce their will by threatening to do something the subject does not want. Legal scholars can talk all they want about "neutral laws." But in the end, laws depend on subjective reactions to threatened consequences. People don't like it when their bodies suffer or when they lose their property. So the law threatens those things in order to enforce its commands.

But what about the man who refuses to care whether he feels pain? The law cannot intimidate him. It cannot "entice" him to act as it commands. This is the purest possible rebellion against the law, for even if the law penalizes his body, he does not feel he is losing anything he wants. A penalty only asserts true power when the violator feels that he is enduring something he does not like. Most people do not like bodily pain. That is why the law generally works when it inflicts physical pain: It forces the subject to feel something he does not like. That is real power.

Not so for the man who accepts pain without caring. The law asserts no power over him. It does not force him to experience anything he does not want. By remaining indifferent to physical pain, he denies the law's power. He does not allow it to make him feel any worse than he would on his own. That is rebellion.

Still, how many people can truly ignore their bodies and their property? Nerve endings do not lie. From a theoretical standpoint, however, the best way to revolt against the law is not to care about your body or your possessions. That is a very hard thing to do in this society.

On the other hand, think about "martyrs" and "noble men." Jesus Christ endured excruciating physical agony but did not let it affect him. So did all the "Christian heroes" who willingly suffered torture and death because they had contempt for their bodies and the "things of this world."

In general, the law strikes fear because it targets the things that most people live for: Bodily comfort and property. But it loses all its power when it punishes people who do not care about those things.