Warning - you do not want to read this. You have probably either already read it (in which case, I'm sorry) or don't want to read it (makes sense). Long time ago, I figured out how to save the world. Then I redid it. And I redid it again. Here it is, in veritable speech form. It's long. It's cumbersome. It's... silly. But oh well. Such is life.

I am only one man. One boy. And, frankly, what can one boy do? How can one boy solve the world's problems? Well, I'll be honest. He can't. I can't. But I can do my best to solve the problems of our fine country, America.
What follows is a short list of the problems America faces:
Americans need gas.
Americans are overweight.
Americans are homeless.
The American government is deep in debt.
America is having a difficult time developing and flourishing in the pollution-ridden and overpopulated world.

But my proposal addresses and solves every single one of these issues.

The initial step that the government must take is to outlaw automobiles, motorcycles, and any other self-powered vehicles. For those who demand to maintain a level of dignity, Sultan- esque platforms with handles and thrones on top will be available. However, these platforms may not have any form of protective canopy, and the use of sunscreen while riding shall be explicitly prohibited. This will ensure that all those who initially wished to ride atop said platforms will either die of sunstroke or give up and resort to walking.

At this point, everyone will be walking, jogging, running, or - at the very least - riding bicycles everywhere they go. This will make parking lots and garages obsolete, and it will also eliminate the need for roughly 60 to 40 percent of most roads. It is difficult to put into words the amount of land this would provide for housing developments for the financially disadvantaged, thus substantially lowering homelessness among Americans.

Then, we will have many more satisfied, home-owning people, and they'll all be walking everywhere. That means they'll be getting healthier (perhaps you now ask yourself, ‘What if Americans aren't walking anywhere, so not getting any healthier?' If this is the case, all non- participants will be moved to the nation of Argentina - which will no doubt welcome them with open arms, seeing as its prominent beef industry would profit greatly from those persons not interested in physical exercise. This will reduce overpopulation in America, particularly of those poorly-motivated and weak-bodied individuals).

So America will take its stronger, healthier citizens and enter them in the Olympics. Then it can place discreet, high-stakes bets on the outcome with Saudi Arabia. We'll say, "We'll give you such and such if you give us a whole bunch of oil." And now, since the Americans are healthier, the Saudi Arabians will be defeated. This will only work for one or two of the Olympics, three tops. After that, they'll probably start getting suspicious.

So then, we cut out the middle man. We go directly to trading healthy people for oil. As for what Saudi Arabia will do with these new healthy people, it's difficult to say, precisely. One possibility is that they will perform the same procedure on the Hungarians, instead gaining famed Hungarian pianist Andras Schiff.

At this point, our oil supplies will be more than sufficient, but we'll still have a healthy population. The next step is to train people in riding the wild caribou that inhabit the much- desired tract of land containing even more oil. To avoid straining the caribou's backs, permission to ride them will be granted only to paraplegics, quadriplegics, or other handicapped persons. This will also provide more land for commercial areas, since they will no longer need to take up space with handicapped ramps.

Now America is free to drill for oil in Alaska, because the caribou won't be on that migration route anymore. Then, America will have even more gas. So we trade that back to the Saudi Arabians (or the highest bidder [or Hungary]) for more money. If we need even more money, we can move the Americans out of Alaska and sell it to Canada. Or we could stake claim on Antarctica, chop it up into as many small ice chunks as we can, and then monopolize the ice cube market. With the money from selling oil and healthy people, we can fund an operation to move all Saudi Arabians out of Saudi Arabia, and keep them out.

With the Saudi Arabians out, America can simply drill for oil to its heart's content. The oil can be stored in Death Valley. Now we give all our people access to it and let them use cars again, for a reasonable fee. Then we can let the Saudi Arabians back into Saudi Arabia.

While our oil reserves deplete, we can sell some of our oil to other people for supplies, and build a second level to America. It doesn't have to be that big, the size of North Carolina would be fine. This will provide even more space for housing. All the money we have left over, will go towards the construction of a spaceship made of all the guns and scrapped cars at the bottom of the East River.

When we finally contact alien life (it's only a matter of time), we'll say: "We'll give you this shiny oil if you let us have your spaceship." Then we use their spaceship, go back to their home planet, and move as many evil people there as possible. After just a couple of minutes, they'll suffocate. Then we move nice people there, and give them spacesuits.

Assuming these are kind aliens, they'll be hospitable enough to take care of us until we start using their carcasses for food, and their beautiful space gardens as landfills. Then we'll deplete their supplies. We can also sell people parts of the alien planet, making an even larger profit.

And by then, I'll be dead, so I won't have to worry about it.

I'm just wondering if we really need our names at the end of each post.

Is there that much confusion...?

The Volokh Conspiracy has caught wind of an editorial written by professor Bob Heidt in the Indianapolis Star. The article puts in a nutshell the state of affirmative action at the IU Law School, and suggests that it must be stopped. Now, issues of confidence and discretion force me not to say too much, considering my parents both teach at the law school, but here is a thought.

Heidt is working under the assumption (which might well be right) that Michigan's policy is wrong and the Supremes will agree. Even if this is true, it would be much more intellectually honest to say so upfront. Indeed, remember that what IU Law is doing is complying with the previous law on the subject. Heidt is asking IU to comply with a decision, contrary to precedent, that hasn't been written yet.

Now, responses from most of Heidt's opponents (which I have mostly heard only second and third-hand) have not sounded a whole lot better, and granted I'm sure he is right that IU's affirmative action policies are particularly severe (which is to say, particularly effective), but that's no excuse for acting as if the affirmative action debate has been won-- as a matter of policy or as a matter of law.