The Postman's Last Ring

America must rein in the runaway of federal waste if she is to survive in this austere new world. Government spending has become a fatted beast that consumes grotesque amounts of tax dollars while proving nearly useless in its limited services, Lady America can suffer such wasteful gluttony no longer.  With Congress preparing to vivisect social services and President Obama again demanding his pounds of flesh from Social Security and Medicaid in order to avoid the violent cuts of sequestration, the attitude towards government programs on Capitol Hill is, "If they move, kill 'em!"

The downside to such a scattershot approach is the indiscriminate damage on functioning and non-functioning government programs alike. Still, if a beloved service like the US Post Office has to go down unnecessarily to save us from our own voracious debt, then so be it. Better by you, than me as Old Taft would say.

Before we start to wax nostalgic about the glory days of mail delivery let me remind you that the Post Office has lost $1.3 trillion over the last three months of 2012 alone. That's a monumental amount of waste, even for our government. This failure only proves the truism that the United States Government is horribly incompetent in most all it does, and would be better served handing most services over to the efficient management of the private sector.

The factualists out there will counter with claims of a Congress-imposed full-guarantee of seventy five years worth of pensions, as if such a trivial obligation could really sink such a storied service like Post Office. Sure, it would be complete madness for a private sector company to honor such exorbitant pension programs, but government jobs always provide insanely cushy pay and benefits, so it seems only fitting they would have to pre-fund pensions for so many years out.

The advent of email was a major nail in the coffin of the US Postal Service, with pen and paper made antiquated  the only people who still sent letters were basement-dwelling curmudgeons scrawling out manifestos to be sent in with the letters to the editor. The proliferation of international overnight carriers like FedEx, UPS, DHL, and others made the post office's snail-paced deliveries redundant. Sure the price was triple with private carriers, but it got there twice as fast!

So you see, it was not this unprecedented mandate to pre-fund three quarters of a century worth of pensions that closed the post office, but instead it was an inability to evolve with the businesses the grew up to challenge its monopoly. There is no need to grow wistful over the postman's last ring, no need mourn the loss of an American institution, instead we should all trust in the infallible hand of the market to more efficiently to deliver mail, for triple the price. 

Anti-Capitalist Militants Impose Limits on Swiss Cheese

Long has Switzerland been renowned the world over for its delicious chocolate stores, its precision clocks, and its long-held neutrality, and while much international good will remains for Swiss clocks and chocolate, respect for their impartiality has been compromised. Recent radical legislation has put this Alpine nation on the path to becoming a failed state, filled with rogue factions posing threats to U.S and world interests. The resulting chaos could destabilize big Swiss banks whose failures would have a cascading effect upon the international finance markets, toppling Wall Street in a surge of uncertainty.  Such a scenario must not be allowed to come to be, lest the world follow America's Swiss demise.

Popular sentiment here in the U.S and abroad seems to say, "First they came for the billionaires, but I didn't say anything because I could only afford two seasonal European vacation homes, not four like the fat cats down the way."  It is this type of thinking fractures the bonds of society, seeking to pit us against our neighbor and using manufactured jealousy to spur support for destructive policies.

Much like the attempts to raise the minimum wage in this country, installing a wage cap seeks to impose arbitrary limits on the financial possibilities of an individual. This is tyranny plain and simple. The leftist utopian dream of imposing a higher minimum wage and a lower maximum wage inevitably leads to a narrowing the gap between the two until there exists only a single national hourly pay rate, with the workers lacking any kind of autonomy, wage slaves chained to a broken system.

Ever vigilant against oppression in all its forms, America has long been the sole protector of human freedoms around the globe. After ten plus years and some number of official and semi-official wars there exists cynics would would question the wisdom of once again playing world police. But as long as freedom is impinged --financial or otherwise-- it is our responsibility to use all our given power to defend it. We can worry about "morality" after the problem is solved

The Department of Justice's white paper on lethal drone use made clear the point that a threat to this nation's financial interests and security was tantamount to a threat to US national interests and security, and must be dealt with accordingly. We cannot allow a violent reactive mob of majority infringe the rights of a hard-working, high-paid minority. We must take action. A drone strike on Thomas Minder, the man behind the Swiss anti-free market legislation, would send a message to any future fascists that Lady Liberty has no problem cutting down those that stand in her way. After all, our freedoms won't defend themselves.

The Obama Doctrine: It's Comin' Right For Us!

With the Department of Justice's release of a "White Paper", the parameters for drones on the use of lethal force against American citizens are becoming a bit more clear, despite the drone program remaining in a state of quantum uncertainty that prevents either confirmation or denial of its existence. Despite much hand wringing by liberals who have gone a little soft and are defending the civil liberties of al Qaeda, the program is not an excuse for wanton death and destruction of anybody anywhere. Quite the opposite, in fact. Lethal force is only ever authorized when a person poses an "imminent threat", a description that places severe, and quite wise, restrictions on whom our Government is targeting for disposal.

You see, the President is hardly simple-minded good ol' boy driven by Ahab-ian levels of obsession and revenge. Already this puts his tactics ahead of Bush's reckless actions, for sure. He's not ordering strikes hopped up on bloodlust and hate. Instead, he is calmly and rationally constructing a legal framework that allows an unprecedented accumulation of executive power so that he can better defend this country. He was president of the Harvard Law Review, as well as a constitutional professor at Chicago Law School, after all, so you know we can trust him.

By limiting the course of lethal action to a person who represents an imminent threat to US security, the American public can rest assured that the use of drone strikes is not an arbitrary act of aggression, but instead a meticulously planned event only ever used in matters of national defense.

Because groups like al Qaeda have such a deep unyielding hatred for American freedoms, they are constantly planning attacks against our great country. The events of 9/11 proved that even with the utmost vigilance tragedy can strike. We cannot stand idly by as evil marshals forces against us. Much like the various "Stand Your Ground" laws on the books around the country, the "white paper" provides legal exemption for preemptive self-defense, proving that the best defense is a good offense. 

Despite its best efforts, the defense apparatus of the United States is not omniscient, and therefore can never be 100% sure that some al Qaeda leader isn't holed up in a cave somewhere with a cadre of fanatics, plotting the demise of this beautiful nation. As such, any threat to America must be treated as imminent, and dealt with accordingly. Much like how George Zimmerman dealt with the imminent threat of Trayvon Martin.

Because the DOJ "white paper" makes clear that we now live in a constant state of imminence, the removal of foreign threats is no longer slowed by the tiresome and inefficient slog of due process. There is no wait for a warrant. No dog and pony show of presenting evidence for trial. No opinion of a judge can stay the hand of justice from meting out lethal punishment upon an evildoer. For this we should be very glad.

Americans should be thrilled that quaint twentieth century notions like international law and the Geneva conventions can no longer stall protective action and leave us vulnerable to those who would see us destroyed. We have ceded power to our unitary executive, leaving him to make the determination if a threat is, in fact, imminent. If it is, we can trust our Nobel Peace Prize winning president to protect this country, with lethal force. After all, it was coming right for us!

It's All Fun and Games Until Someone Loses A Life

It all started with "Duck Hunt". Before the release of the classic NES shooter the most popular video games revolved around non-violent activities like Pac-Man eating blue ghosts and Pong tournaments. Then Nintendo released the still reigning king of first person shooters (FPS) and the world of video gaming was permanently changed. Millions of innocent American children spent hours in front of their televisions assuming roles as dealers of pixellated death, their minds warped from the cheap thrill of massacring countless ducks. And we wonder how things got so bad.

Of course the  success of Nintendo's avian death simulator brought about many imitators, each hoping to outdo the other until at last they devolved into grotesques that rewarded players with bonuses for shooting opponents in the genitals.  Ever since "Duck Hunt" generations of this nation's youth have been only able grasp the concept of death as an expression of 1's and 0's, not as the physical act of life leaving a body. It is this disconnect between the virtual and the physical worlds that drives a bunch of mentally deficient, emotionally unstable, mommy-coddled man-children to view society as an outlet for their vengeance for being socially awkward creeps, shooting movie theaters and schoolhouses with impunity.

Backed by unfalsifiable and inarguable anecdotal evidence,  everyone from President Obama and Vice President Biden, to Wayne LaPierre and the NRA acknowledge what the Army has known for years; if you want to turn someone into a conscience-less killing machine, there is no better tool than video games.

These political paragons assuage fears that the root of this societal violence stems from a massive systemic inequality pervaded by a violence obsessed culture whose myopic goal of making money renders the concept of respect a quaint notion. Good thing too, I won't have anybody bad-mouth the dual pillars of this nation. Greed and violence have led us this far, and I'll be damned if some squishy liberal ideal like income equality causes us to abandon them now.

Still, I'm not sure if these proposals penetrate deep enough into the world of gaming, a dark and insidious culture to be sure. Think of the delusion-sharing adventures of Dungeons and Dragons, how long til they deem us all orcs and unleash their nerd-rage on society? And what kind of violent, militaristic messages are being sold to our children in games of Battleship and Stratego? Which is to say nothing of Risk, and it's teachings of strategic conquest, which could lead to whole city clocks being unceremoniously annexed into Kamchatka.

No, dear reader, banning video games does not go near far enough to keep us safe. We must ban all violent or objectionable distractions whether they be board, war, or head games. America's streets will be filled with the nation's youth once again, as children play with their official government sanctioned cup-and-ball toys in front of their houses, tossing and catching in beautiful synchronicity.

We must work towards a society where we so severely limited out children's minds they can scarcely imagination an alternative to their highly-structured grey-scale lives, let alone performing such a transgressive act like blowing away their friends with a semi-automatic second-amendment protector. It is only then that we will be safe from the scourge of mass shootings that plague the soul of this nation, and people will be truly free.

Children Are Our Future: Lock 'Em Up Edition

Loyal readers of the blog know quite well that Willie Mays Haze,much like ODB before him, loves the children, but definitely not in that creepy R. Kelly kind of way. Some of my finest work has been on the subject of how to properly protect our children in the shooting galleries we in America call schools. By cop or by chimp, we must find a way to defend children's right to an education.

But what happens when it is our children themselves that become an obstacle to their learning? Even if we secure them from external threats in my proposed prison-schools, how do we protect them from the most dangerous threat of all, themselves?  Simple, we arrest the little buggers.

For too long schools have been havens for druggies, bullies and thieves. The liberalization of the school system has effectively castrated whatever terror-bred authority teachers once had. Today they are no longer able to mete out physical and emotional abuse just to teach a lesson. There no longer exists a rampant fear of embarrassing and possibly debilitating corporal punishment to keep them in line and without a rigid punishment system directing their behavior, children have become unruly and feral.

With no threat of recourse or punishment schools have become hives of scum and villainy. Theft has become common in classrooms. Bullying goes unchecked in the hallways. Opium dens take root in school kitchens long closed due to poor test scores.

As always, the NYPD is willing to venture into uncharted waters and be proactive about cleaning up our schools, weeding out of future criminals.

Instead of leaving the matter to the incompetent school administrators, the NYPD recently spent ten hours questioning a third grader who was accused of stealing $5 from a fellow student, going so far as threatening to put him in "with the big boys" in hopes of producing a confession.

Of course the bleeding hearts have come out and decried this incident as yet another example of blatant abuse from one of the more infamous police forces in the country. They maintain that the hours the young lad spent hand-cuffed to a chair only taught him to fear the police, nothing more. But if lasting psychological scarring and a healthy fear for authority figures aren't the building blocks to a model citizen, then I surely don't know what are.

I think we should be praising the NYPD, not calling for their heads. Afterall, if they had not taken such measured steps, they boy would think there is no consequence for being accused of stealing $5. But after this show of force, and use of threats, I do believe the boy has a healthy fear, if not respect, for the criminal justice system.

 Plus he now knows he's in the system, and if he slips up in the least at any point in the future he knows it won't just be threats to send him in with the "big boys", they'll actually do it. That knowledge alone should keep him out of trouble, drive him to succeed. And if that is the case, then the lesson's learned. Mission accomplished.

And even it isn't, at least he'll know what to expect.

Rush 'N' Wisdom

Rush Limbaugh is a troll. Correction: Rush Limbaugh is King Troll. His whole persona is built on spewing out absurd viewpoints specifically designed to provoke violent, irrational responses from his listeners. His nonsense is an infection traveling across radio waves, which if untreated causes the listener to mindlessly repeat half-baked theories, defending them as immutable truths; sacred and profane. Nothing about the jowly Goblin King of political personalities should ever be taken on face value and, as a safe measure, anything associated with him should be avoided at all costs, lest one end up as a "ditto-head".

Still, there are times in his mad ramblings that Rush manages to verbalize some of the essential truths of the American experience. And when he does so, he does it with a blinding clarity . It would be a disservice to not just my readers, but to Rush himself, if I let these moments pass without mention.

The latest example of Rush's political sagacity occurred last Monday, on MLK Day, a day when we as a nation honor and remember Dr. King's legacy of non-violence. It was on this day Rush suggested that if John Lewis and the other participants of the march from Selma to Montgomery  had been armed they would not have "been beat upside the head" by the state and local police. Rush, with his superior logic, has discovered the singular fault of the Civil Rights Movement: a lack of firepower.

If only the Little Rock Nine  had been packing heat, there would have been no need to call in the National Guard to keep order. They could have integrated themselves, and if parents or students had an issue with it, they could catch a face full of hot lead.

Imagine the look on the bus driver's face if he asked Rosa Parks to move to the back of the bus, and instead of staying seated in silent protest, she pulled out her snub nose .38 and told the good man where he could shove it.

Think of the turgid fear that would grip the soul of the white man if he saw 250,000 heavily armed protesters storming Washington,  flooding the national mall, led by Dr.King in a non-violent march for equality. By any means necessary.

The cruel truth that Rush has uncovered is our rights are only secure as long as We the People are willing to defend them, and it is only the existence of the Second Amendment that allows us the means to defend those rights.

Any time social conflicts are solved by any means other than from the barrel of a gun, it is an affront on the Founder's vision for this great nation. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA understands this fact all too well.

Think of all the people that could defend their freedoms, if they
just armed themselves. In states where gay marriage remains illegal, a same-sex couple that wanted to be wed could simply show up at the courthouse, flash the steely glint of a Desert Eagle and demand to be married. There would be a vast empowerment of women everywhere as they shattered oppressive glass ceilings with gunfire. The INS would be hard-pressed to carry out the anti-capitalistic practice of deportation when faced with an armed and angry immigrant population. Equality is every person armed to the teeth.

So while I normally think of Rush Limbaugh as a bloviating windbag whose words are more odious than fresh-cut offal, I've got to give the old boy credit on this one. He's figured out how to give power to the politically dispossessed in this country and his plan is brilliant in its simplicity, let them use guns.

Meanwhile, North of the Border

When country reaches the size and stature of America, immigration becomes an issue that cannot be fully explored in one simple 7000 word post. So I will continue today with some more thoughts on immigration, but even then it still might not be enough, we'll see. I have no internal editor.

As I said in my last post, trying to stop immigration is so un-American Joe McCarthy's ghost has put together a ghoulish committee to bring the whole notion in for trial.

This country was built on immigration, most of it "illegal". The Pilgrims sure never took naturalization classes from the Wampanoag upon their arrival at Plymouth Rock. I doubt the first European trappers had to display their work visas to officials in the Iroquois nation when bringing in their haul for trade. And how about we ask the now extinct American Megafuana how they felt about the homo-sapiens immigrants crossing the border of the land bridge? I can bet they'd have a thing or two to say about immigrants making America a more dangerous place to raise a family.

One of the most time-honored traditions in America is when the previous class of immigrants settles in, gets a little money, and then starts complaining about the newest wave of immigrants sullying America's pristine shores. It is one of the finest American values to be accepting of new people from far away places, if only so we can come together and mock them behind their backs. Let us not deprive this joy to the generations of immigrants who have worked hard, paid their dues, and suffered their persecutions.

Yesterday I put forward a suggestion that America ought to import immigrants to keep labor markets competitive, and as solid of an idea as this is, I believe it can be improved upon.

One of the unfortunate effects today's environment of out-sourcing and downsizing is that there is too often redundancy victim left jobless, angry, probably behind on the mortgage payments. Such a disillusioned soul, left with little to call a life, is often left with nothing to lose and is unafraid to take out their misplaced anger on the employer, who was only thinking of the bottom line. Such free radicals threaten the integrity of the system with their hate and war, and cannot go unchecked.

The solution to the above-mentioned problem is where importation has leg up on outsourcing. By bringing the immigrant to the job, and not the other way around, the company can have two or more employees literally fighting for a stay from redundancy. The last one alive gets hired for the opening, citizenship included, simple as that.

With a little ingenuity these on-the-job struggles could even be turned into a form of for profit entertainment for companies, boosting profits while reducing workplace frictions and drags on productivity.  The Networks could broadcast the whole event, even give it a clever name like, "The Hiring Process" and get their highlights on ESPN. Eventually, fans of the show might even develop favorite competitors. Talk about a working class hero.

After watching the struggles just to attain a job, there might be a little more respect for the hard work of the American labor force. Maybe then there would be reason to fear and respect those poor Dodge Stratus-driving souls stuck in middle management. After all, they were forced to kill an imported worker in order to keep their job after a less-than-stellar performance review.

Plans for Immigration Reform Serve No Juan

When it comes to immigration policy in this country there seem to be only two points of view that produce any resonance. The first point of view holds that given the strength of the American economy, illegal immigration is inevitable and that we should somehow work towards a program to allow most current  and future immigrants a path to citizenship, or to at least establish residency. The other point of view says we should deport them all, or at the very least make conditions here so unbearable for them that they are forced to self-deport.

During his first four years in office President Obama has chosen the latter strategy, deporting 1.4 million immigrants, good for a 32, 886 a month average. For reference G.W. Bush averaged a meager 20, 964 deportations a month.  That's quite an increase, especially for a "Kenyan Muslim Socialist" who supposedly coddles terrorists and immigrants alike.

With an unprecedented crackdown on whistle-blowers, vast expansion in the use of drone warfare, and a revolving door between the chief of staff and the financial sector, immigration joins the list of Bush-era policies the President has put on steroids. And yet "progressives" and Democrats hardly bat an eye, demonstrating why Glen Ford referred to Obama as "the more effective evil" By painting himself as trans-partisan and above the party politics, the president can frame his policy choices as products of compromise and effectively escape criticism. But that strategy won't earn him much space in Taft's Old Bed, no sir.

We here at the blog (read: just me) feel neither of these policies effectively address the full extent of these issues. Not only that, but we feel that the whole notion of deportation is anti-American (read: anti-capitalist). We have a simple solution that would not only solve this country's immigration problems, but also spur us pampered Americans to work even harder. We reject the deportation of immigrants, and in its stead we recommend their importation.

The American economy is built on the idea of free markets, and unfettered growth. We are told that the only responsibility of a publicly held company is to maximize a return on its investments for its stockholders, to ensure maximum profits. But how can a company effectively maximize profits, if the American government enforces the monopoly that Americans have on jobs located on American soil? Simply put, they cannot.

Competition is as American as apple pie, or fabricating reasons for war, and has always been vital to a strong economy. So why should the jobs market be immune to the competitive churn that exists in every other market in this country? This only serves to make them fat and lazy.

The importation of immigrants for all types of jobs, not just for menial labor, would strip the American worker of their entitled mindset and force them to prove the validity of American exceptionalism. And in doing so would not only strengthen American resolve by making them truly earn their paycheck, but it would also lead to increased corporate profits, and in doing so, lift the flagging economy.

If America is to continue its role as a world leader into the 21st century, it must make a serious commitment to undertaking tasks that might reduce any and all economic and political drag. Anything less is to waver on the razor's edge, which would mean certain doom for this proud nation.

So please, contact your local representative and tell them that you will back them loyally and vociferously in their attempts to bring about a true and meaningful reform to the current immigration policies. We cannot succumb to the entropy of comfort. Instead we must suffer through crucible of change if we wish to forge the country the founders envisioned.

Cry Havoc and Let Slip the Chimps of War

Yesterday I wrote a post full of suggestions on how to improve school safety in which I suggested veterans take the place of teachers in the classroom, armed and ready for action should someone try to shoot up the place. But perhaps my suggestions were a bit over-ambitious. America might not yet be ready to embrace the idea that their schools be turned into jails essentially, regardless of the fact that this transformation is well under way. So, today I offer a simple solution to the issue of school safety. One word: chimps.

Animal cruelty issues aside, supplying every school with a pack of protection chimps would be a cost effective way of providing school security, while at the same time it provide children with first hand insight into the lives of our primate brethren. While it lacks the dystopian panache of my prior suggestion, the efficacy of angry chimps as a security measure makes for an interesting proposition.

First let us work the logistics of housing apes on school grounds, and discuss how exactly a couple chimps could ever possibly keep a school shooter from rampaging his way through campus, killing at will.

During school hours the chimps could roam a series of tubes, an interconnected web that would allow them to traverse school grounds with ease. This would help keep them active and fit as well as keep them secured, and separated from the children. Safety glass windows throughout the class rooms would allow the students to observe and study the actions of the chimp. All would be well.

This idyllic scene would change drastically once an intruder had entered the building. Alerted by the alarm, the chimps could be dumped into the hallway ready for action. An in-building tracking system could lead the pack towards the assailant, ensuring a prompt response.

Outfitted with bulletproof helmets, vests, and pants --all specially tailored for the primates unique dimensions-- these security simians would be invulnerable to all standard rounds of ammunition. These armored apes would then have little trouble dispatching any interloper foolish-brave enough to enter the building.

 Even supposing the attacker had armor piercing bullets and/or any other non-standard munitions, he would face an intimidating obstacle to his plans for murder. Fast, agile, and thirsting for man-flesh, even the most experienced marksman would have trouble defending himself from the onslaught of four or five armored apes . Few sights on this planet are as terrifying as having enraged apes charging towards their target with intentions of gnawing face, coupled with proper training and body armor and not even Gen. Shwarzkopf would have the courage to stand and fight.

So please, let us divest from this foolish notion of arming our school teachers. Let us instead harness nature's wrath as our protector.

If the Goverment had been thinking ahead they could have purchased these little guys for pennies on the dollar, with the added bonus that any psychic scarring coming as a result from years of testing would only make for a more fearsome beast. And that is how you protect your kids.

This could be the fate of the next attempted school shooting

Protection of the Innocent

Due to a continuing series of shocking mass-shootings, 2012 may very well go down as the year of the lone-nut-gunman-mowing-down-innocents. The most shocking of these incidents occurred in Newton, Connecticut two short weeks before Christmas, when a shooter entered Sandy Hook Elementary before gunning down 20 children and 6 adults. It is not surprising that this incident sparked much debate not only on the place of assault rifles and extended clips in civil society, but more importantly there was much needed discussion on how best to keep this nation's children safe.

Head of the NRA and maligned wingnut, Wayne LaPierre, posited the classic truism of "the best defense is a good offense" as the key to securing schools. Following his speech, some suggested teachers be allowed to carry a loaded firearm with them throughout the school day. These armed stewards of knowledge would then be the first line of defense between any deranged gunman and the targeted youth.

Roundly mocked for his counter-intuitive solution of solving gun violence with more guns, LaPierre was depicted as a man out of touch with the realities of society, concerned only with protecting the gun lobbies that pay his salary. However, it was not his suggestion of more guns as a cure-all that troubled me, but his reliance on public school teachers being mentally and physically fit enough to conduct a gun battle in close quarters.

Based on my own experiences, I can't say I had a single teacher throughout my years in public education that I would feel comfortable defending my life if a marauder came to school with lethal intentions. I recall teachers who were unable to manage a class of seventh graders without a nervous breakdown, and these are the public servants in whom I am to entrust with child safety? I think not.

Teachers can't even manage to prepare their students for standardized tests, let alone prepare them for an armed assailant. That is why we need to continue the demolition of the teachers' unions, remove them from the educational apparatus and insert people who know a thing or two about keeping our citizens safe.

In this struggling economy, too often soldiers come home to few job prospects, and even fewer relevant to the training they received in the armed services. In an example of American ingenuity, the government can kill two birds with one stone by replacing our outdated educators with the protectors of knowledge from our armed forces. Jobs will be created and the children will be protected.

Now there may exist some trepidation about the ability of trained killers to properly educate our children with the knowledge requisite to survive in 21st century America, and those worries are not without merit. The current academic system reduces the value of real-world knowledge, exemplified by returning veterans, in favor of vague terms like "problem solving" and "lateral thinking", but it does not have to be so if we just revise the system.

With the decline of quality careers in this country, combined with the burgeoning school to prison pipeline, point to the need to seriously revamp our school systems. Education in abstract areas like the arts provide nothing to the factory worker of tomorrow, and as IKEA showed in Danville, VA, manufacturing jobs can be the backbone of this economy once again. If we make our schools as secure as our prisons, there could be a stronger focus on preparing our students for the real world and far less on safety. Let those with experience in defense be the ones to guard our most precious natural resource, cheap manual labor.

With a little innovation we could structure our schools to have our children more corporate ready. Shop class could be sponsored by Nike, and students could get used to the pleasures from a day of good manual labor. Social studies could be farmed out to companies as market research programs, breeding a familiarity between the students and the products they will produce. In my mind, such an idea is win-win. And behind the bars and armed guards of their local public school, students would be guarded from the harsh realities of the outside world.

This is the future of our country, the ugly necessity of our times. Let us not turn away in revulsion from the task ahead of us, but instead accept the fate of this proud country, and work to get her back to where she needs to be.