"Smart drugs" usually referrs to amphetamines or related stimulants like Provigil. Those are the medications that help people concentrate better especially when fatigued.

::Sigh:: ok, ok, I concede the point.

I'll just stop worrying already and learn to love the bombs.

I didn't say that. The major issue that's been raised with "go pills" is that they, much like methamphetamines, can contribute to fits of uncontrolled anger. That's a pretty concerning concept in someone who is controlling one of the most dangerous machines in human history.

they'll be skinny enough by the time they sign up/get drafted...

Decline of food production and green revolution failure should take care of the fat problem.

Nothing for the "too stupid" problem... we are evolving into an Idiocracy (like the movie)

hey just losing the ability to drive everywhere would start to solve the obesity problem, as to the stupidity.... well survival of the fittest.

The 25% or so deemed as 'fit to serve' are just smart enough to understand the orders they receive and plenty dumb enough to kill on demand for their master's profits. Good voluntary slaves have always been hard to find. Hence, television and video games were invented to preprogram the children of servile morons.

You obviously have no idea of what your talking about. You probably have never served either. I suggest you bother to do a modicum of research before you make stupid, flawed, and ignorant, assumptions. No matter what you think about them at least give those who guarantee your right to free speech and freedom the respect and honor they deserve.

If I were president...

Tackling obesity: A tax on sugar and high fructose corn syrup would be in order. A tax on large size beverages and super-sized restaurant entrees would be good too. Maybe some of the money could be kicked into subsidies on foods like carrots (of course, nobody is avoiding buying carrots because of their prices...)

Tackling the dumb problem: The article doesn't really go into this, but there is a major crisis with boys in particular not being able to keep up in high school and not going to college or flunking out of college.

I strongly suspect this is due to mercury damage from vaccines and other environmental causes. This will be tough to fix because big pharma is just as corrupt as wall street and almost as powerful. But a growing realization that a population where more than 50% of our boys have lowered IQ and/or subclinical ADHD or worse is not compatible with a first world nation would be a start.

But of course the president we have is a puppet of big everything, so the only way anything will change even a little is if the pentagon starts pushing HARD to fix these problems. I am not a fan of the pentagon, but if they can help slow the poisoning of our kids I will cheer that effort.

I can't understand how a military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq serves to guarantee American's freedom of speech. I can't understand how pouring military might into Columbia, bombing Pakistan, encircling Russia with unfriendly forces, and threatening Iran guarantees the First Amendment. There must be some strong connection because really many smart people repeat this constantly. But I just don't get it.

I can clearly understand how a military used in national defense is a defense of the constitution and a common cultural heritage. But the USA hasn't used its military in a war of national defense since 1812. All the others have been about imperialism. All of them. Except the Alamo.

And if the military was needed again by some very remote chance some serious book learning and weight loss among those called upon to do the dying would be in order. Because right now most men of military age are too fat, dumb, or criminal to be of much use.

Ah, the biggest white elephant of them all, "public schools" will keep the dumb annually getting dumber. They're got a superb track record for decades now!

Two points:

First, I don't think the Alamo technically counts, as it did not involve US forces directly, and was not part of the US at the time.

Second, you need to clarify your classification of our participation in WW2 as being about imperialism. Considering that the overwhelming sentiment of both the people and the government was to stay out of it, and that it was only the need to defend ourselves after the attack on Pearl Harbor that forced us to get involved, I think you may have made an oversight.

And the US instigated the war of 1812. We invaded Canada first. Then they counterattacked and burned DC.

I'm not sure the US has actually ever used its military for national defense. WWII might be debatable.

I still don't see it. Another hostile nation, at the time a powerful and significant threat us (we weren't anywhere close to a super-power yet), literally started attacking and invading US territories and killing tons of people. I don't mean to sound rude, but to call that "debatable" is practically revisionist!