 What does it embody? Well, in this thing, the rag baby cannot embody a real baby. He's pointing out the futility of trying to embody qualities in things that they don't have. And it's connected to forms of economic prosperity. Like, this is a house and lot. These are symbols of economic success. Or this is a cow, which I think refers to farming. You know, it refers to the sentimental symbolic place farming has in American life where it's where real values are, it's where real work comes from. This is money by act of Congress. This is milk by act of Congress. You can't feed yourself on pure paper. It's not a rag baby, but a real baby. So it became a really good embodiment of the problem of substituting signs for things. And it seems like a pretty straightforward and generally sort of common sensical point of view. You can't hand a baby a note card and get it to drink it. It's a witty expression of that. But because of the structure of it with the signs, it's really also, I think, a critique of advertising in the 19th century. And the emerging culture of mass of signage. Advertisements, placards, billboards, competing signs. It's also a comment about the chaoticness of post-Civil War life. And so it's not just commenting about money. It's also commenting about, what would you call it, you know, the virtualness of industrial capitalism. Industrial capitalism is increasingly sort of virtual where you market something as a chair that looks like a handmade chair, but it's actually stamped on a press and there are 20,000 of them. The watch looks like it's gold, but it's actually plated in some new technological process. There's a quote from Henry Ward Beecher that I use where he says that we live in a culture of lies. Lying flour in our bread, our clothes are lies. They look like things they're not. And it's partly a commentary on that commercial world. And it uses money as the door to opening that kind of critique. One of the things that unconsciously revealed in here is a certain amount of anxiety about reproduction. Why choose a ragged baby? Why choose to imbibe it that way? A baby in some ways is a symbol of concreteness. It's a new life, but it's made out of two other forms of life and it's unimpeachably real. It's the symbol of kind of realness. And the idea of declaring something a baby, which isn't a baby, is kind of the ultimate expression of, you know, the arrogance of people. You can't create life. Life is the most basic thing you can't make. And you can't make a baby out of parts or pieces. So it has something, it's not unlike Frankenstein. It seems to me it has some of that same concern about generation and reproduction. So one of the things I'd say is that it's not an accident that he chose a ragged baby. And you could say it has a lot of values. On the one hand, it mocks children's fantasy play. And it says that paper money is a sort of child's foolishness. It's a foolish, childish act.