By Locksmith D. Brüchs (80324)

In this week’s installment of The Locksmith Newsletter we offer the opinion of a member of our editorial board. Their views do not necessarily reflect those of the newsletter as a whole, especially when the Reactive Consequence Committee demands retribution.

As long as there has been an Order of the Grand Lock, there has been a Leadership. But following the most recent dispatch from the sequestered and delirious source of authority, we are forced to wonder: do we need Leadership? We offer seven reasons why not.

1. Incongruity
If you would like to read a missive from Leadership that actually reads as coherent and not like a post-head-trauma-Larry-King-column one must venture back into the pre-digital, microfiche newsletter archives within your local Grand Lock Lodge’s library. In the early 90s we received statements that belied power and strength. “The incursions of the Guardians of the Orb will not stand, and there will be retribution, (v851.12)” Leadership writes a 1996 edition of the Newsletter. Jump ahead two years, and this cogency begins to waver. “Play the new Five for Fighting album frontwards and you’ll hear nine toe-tapping hits. Play it backwards and you’ll hear a call for tranquility that’ll still make you tap those toes. (v853.33)” By the end of 1999, the messages from Leadership were nothing but nonsense that even our most aged scholars found impossible to decode.

2. Lethargy
The Order of the Grand Lock is a massive organization that maintains entire governments, economies, media entities, state fairs, food trucks and most importantly, it’s own secrecy. There are indeed rival organizations, curious civilians, and pesky animals that routinely attempt to reveal The Order, either by accident or by intention, every single day. When is the last time Leadership has addressed such an attack? When our Oscar pick this year had to be forcibly administered, did Leadership speak up? (Not directly, no.) When it was learned that a Guardian of the Orb had risen to the position of Tumbler in Lodge 338, gaining access to a new level of our secrets for all his ilk, how did Leadership calm our ranks? (By writing a sonnet about yellow mustard.) When our money-making Fresca was nearly banned in Sweden, did Leadership write a rousing speech to rally our subjegated Swedes? (No. They wrote another mustard sonnet, bringing the total to 19.)

What is the sense in a Leadership that can not lead us at the peak of crisis? Why are yours and my dues going to fund a secret, gold-leaf embossed pleasure-bunker, if the only thing that comes out if it are scraps of parchment covered in nonsense?

3. The Obvious Product Placement
For my money, the most insulting element to be found in Leadership’s dispatches is what I believe to be product placement. For obvious reasons, this is unconfirmed, and I don’t expect to be given a look into Leadership’s finances any time soon, but a quick perusal of the website “The Unofficial Leadership Analysis Database” implies a different story. Since 1933 we’ve seen 93 mentions of Jell-O products, 104 mentions of Colgate, 439 mentions of Brawny and since 1985 alone we’ve seen 1,273 mentions of the TBS network.

Is the Turner Organization funneling money to the Leadership in an effort to persuade our legion to watch their programming? What started with a simple obsession with TBS’s choice to begin their programs five minutes later than all others, (i.e. Saved by the Bell reruns started at 5:05pm Eastern.) blossomed into near-constant reporting on every move of the Superstation.

Either our Leadership is in Ted’s pocket, or Leadership just loves to talk about one specific channel. Either way, I’m not on board.

I am hereby calling for a swift crowbar of justice to pry open Leadership’s golden door. Whether it is one individual or a team within the bunker, they all deserve to be kicked to the curb. I may be the only one brave enough to speak out, but I can’t be the only one that believes that it is only with the removal of Leadership that the Order can obtain true leadership.