The Best Advice The Beatles Ever Gave

Before the psychedelia shown in the later albums of The Beatles, a track on Rubber Soul gives advice that has always been timely, but never more needed than today. The following speech, given in competition, takes that idea and expands on it.

by Christopher Zimny

“Although your mind’s opaque
Try thinking more if just
For your own sake
Do what you want to do
And go where you’re going to
Think for yourself
‘Cause I won’t be there with you."

These are the lyrics to the famous Beatles song, “Think For Yourself” from their celebrated album Rubber Soul. It was written by the most talented songwriter of the group—as any true Beatles fan would know: George Harrison.

As it turns out, independent thought, or thinking for yourself, surprisingly today isn’t something that is held to a very high standard. If today, one looked at society as a whole, one will likely find that independent thought is in fact absolutely, pricelessly rare. In her 2009 article “Is Independent Thought Extinct in America?”, social commentator Leslie Weise concludes that soon, “we will live in a country where independent thought will be a thing of the past.” So let us examine three different areas to determine why independent thought is in danger, and realize how important thinking for ourselves really is. First, we’ll look at how we seem to so easily adopt the views of others; second, how individual and independent thought is so vital for our progress and third, ways to break away from society’s grip and learn to think for ourselves. In the end, we will see that “Think For Yourself” is not just another one of the Beatles’ top hits, but in fact has a message that we should all consider.

“In the moment of our creation we receive the stamp of our individuality; and much of life is spent rubbing off or defacing the impression.” said Augustus and Julius Hare in their book Guesses at Truth, by Two Brothers. But why do we continue to erode that impression? Doesn’t it seem like a good thing to keep? Authors Bill Strauss and Neil Howe, in their books Generations and Millennials Rising, explain that this generation’s team oriented activities and constant encouragement to accomplish things together, leads teens to develop a sort of sameness mentality which will be lasting throughout life. They point out many generational trends that show us that we will strive to be standardized, and for the most part we’ll do things and think the same thoughts as everyone else.

When I read those books, I thought of the short story Harrison Bergeron. In the story, everyone is the same. There is no creativity, there aren’t any new thoughts, and there is no such thing as above average. Everyone is literally equal. No, Kurt Vonnegut, was not describing Soviet Russia where car drive you, he was describing the United States in the relatively near future. And if we don’t stay on our toes, we just may arrive in our future in just that fashion.

Well-known developmental psychologist William Perry explains that as we mature to adulthood, we go through different stages in determining our own thoughts and opinions. As young people, many of us see the world as if there’s only one right answer, and it’s always the adult’s job the authority figure to give us that answer. Unfortunately though, many adults never really grow out of this stage.  Instead of first looking to their parents or teachers like they did when they were young for answers, adults immediately look up at a television or down at a newspaper, without thinking about a given situation for themselves first.

But when we rely solely on others to give us all of the information, we lose the ability to think for ourselves. And it is at this time that we can take George Harrison’s timeless advice.Thinking for ourselves is imperative for both our progress as individuals and for mankind as a whole.

Independent thought, as far as the individual is concerned, is vital for learning anything in life successfully. As you might think, it all starts with education; but Howard Gardner, developmental psychologist and professor of Cognition at Harvard University, notes that simply studying and memorizing material doesn’t quite do the trick. He describes how even when students do well at problems like those that are found in the textbook, they do not truly understand what they’ve learned. His point is this: that we have to actually engage ourselves, interact, and explore what we’re learning in order to gain a full understanding of it. Simply reading it or seeing it on television doesn’t do it. Independent thought is crucial, even in these beginning stages—just as much as it will be fifty years down the road—in the development of an individual’s mind.

And how it benefits us collectively, well that’s easy to see. The best minds mankind has ever produced are those of independent thinkers: Thomas Edison with the light bulb is a… shining example. Alexander Graham Bell might call in second with his telephone. John Lennon, at least I would imagine, would in third with his vast array of songs. These people truly did change the world, and they did it all with their own minds. Galileo Galilee was the first to prove that the Earth was not the center of the universe… and his radical claims landed him on house arrest for the rest of his life… but don’t let that deter you. If Galileo would have given in to the status quo, thought like everyone else and adopted conventional wisdom, maybe we would still be at the center of the universe and centuries of gaining knowledge of the cosmos may have never even happened.

“In all affairs it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted,” said famous British philosopher and social critic, Bertrand Russell. That’s a small bit of advice for those wanting to think independently. I think we could agree, for instance, that if we usually eat at the same restaurants, always eat the same food at those same restaurants, and interact with the same people while eating the same food at those same restaurants… it’s time for a change. Instead of going through the regular routine (whatever that may be), we might read a different type of book, meet new people, take a road trip. Be a little spontaneous.  Exploring different ways of thinking and doing different things will help us to think for ourselves, because more divers experiences that we have, the better off we will be.

Tom O’Leary, in his article “5 Ways to Develop Independent Thought,” recommends that instead of immediately turning on the television or running to Google, we try thinking for ourselves first. We try to figure out a situation on our own, without the input of anyone else—at least initially. Further, if you disagree with something, go and throw yourself into the other world for a while. Putting what you hear through this kind of test is certainly the prizewinning way to think independently. Try to really understand the other point of view; whether it’s reading a controversial book or truly listening to the words of someone you may not agree with. In the end, if our views have change somewhat, good. If they haven’t, we can now say that we’ve really looked at both sides and can draw conclusions that are actually ours, based on our own knowledge and experience.

Christopher Hitchens, in his Letters to a Young Contrarian, notes that, “The essence of an independent mind is not what it thinks, but how it thinks.” Thinking for yourself is certainly important, and the results are worth it. The sad part is, although independent thought is by no means hidden, it’s also not fully realized by a vast number of people. So that’s what I ask of you: spread the word of independent thought; encourage it in your parents and classmates, or your friends and coworkers. Remember to think for yourself, “’cause I won’t be there with you.” Don’t forget to question everything. Above all, remember the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, the famous 19th-century German philosopher, who said, “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. But no price [—no price—] is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”

The article was originally published by The Libertarian Review.

A Queer Wedding

Evidenced every so often—most recently with President Obama's support of homosexual marriage—the hardly different sets of major ideologies still give each other enough rub to create an intense amount of friction. Your author offers a libertarian compromise for the popular issue of the day.

by Christopher Zimny

"There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are 'just' because the law makes them so." — Frederic Bastiat, The Law

"Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?" — Richard John Santorum

Apparently, for Rick Santorum, the various laws of the land which "preserve" traditional marriage between one man and one woman are so sacred that if they were changed, they would violate the entire "sanctity" of marriage as we know it. During the heat of the primaries before he suddenly suspended his campaign, he served as the latest flair in a long list of defenders of the "traditional values" staple of the Grand Old Party.

Whatever the phrase "traditional values" really means might be subjective (as culture has shifted significantly over the years), but maybe it is not; maybe it does have some kind of objective meaning. I don't call myself an expert in these matters.

Clear on the other side, as it were, of the political spectrum are the challengers of these values. Social liberals claim that marriage may as well be between a man and a man (or the same of two females); after all, what difference does it make? They make the argument that in respect to government recognition of marriage and the benefits that flower from this which married couples enjoy, same-sex couples who earnestly love each other should also be put under such laws. Perhaps this is a fair point, but insofar as it is up to the government to sort this out, one should not consult me.

With all the fervent attack on and defense of traditional values—and the laws which codify them—as oppose to liberal ones, one might rightly suspect that, in fact, the reverse is true: it is instead the laws that give meaning to the values, instead of the other way about.

One might picture a social conservative responding to this theory by saying it is the value of marriage itself that will be threatened with the outcome of these debates (and, they may as well add, with the debates themselves). In fact, this is what one hears time and time again from the religious right. But threatened with what, exactly? If the laws are changed, your author contends that nothing of grave importance will change with them.

Take this idea for instance, Robert Murphy uses it to show how consumer demand ultimately shapes the consumer good: If Webster defined the word ‘up’ as ‘moving toward the ground,’ people would see right through it and the dictionary company would go out of business. Similarly, in the business of marriage, if the Obama administration (or indeed all the social liberals in the world) espoused that homosexual marriage is indeed ‘marriage’, this would not redefine ‘marriage’ as such, and it should not affect, in truth, what the term or what the ceremony really means to those who hold it to a certain traditional standard. In short, even if the doctrine were to be made official law, the meaning of marriage would not change.

Proponents of same-sex marriage usually have arguments along these lines. (For example, "If gay people get married how does that affect your marriage?") The conservative response goes something along the lines of the "degeneration of society" (as if a change in the law itself is the only thing stopping society from changing). It is maintained that letting homosexuals in on the marriage scene (i.e. government benefits, tax breaks, the works) would muddle up the heterosexual monopoly on the practice.

But the law itself is our concern. Instead of this sophomoric bickering between the parties, the libertarian proposal gives a way out for both sides: removal of government from the practice of marriage. Do away with the official benefits and all of that nonsense and let the institution marriage be taken over by the Churches or whatever other place of meaning; get it out of City Hall. The fact that the state has its hands in the business has led to the erroneous debate that was mentioned above. Our compromise is to privatize the institution of marriage. This would be the only idea in practice in which homosexuals would be on equal footing with their neighbors. As we have seen, it should not affect the God-fearing conservative’s idea of marriage (if it does, there might some unseen problem in their own lives).

It might remain a mystery on how to get the two sides to actually agree to such a proposal without some kind of strong emotional resistance, but if these fiercely fighting foes could come together on this long-standing issue, it might ironically be the queerest wedding in our society to date.

This article was originally published by The Libertarian Review.

A Deplorable Compromise: The Price of Obama's Reforms

When many on the left voted in 2008, they did so under the auspice of decreased warfare in the Middle East. The Democratic nominee offered to meet these demands with an Iraq drawdown, which he (eventually) did. But since becoming President, he has increased other parts of the “War on Terror” and his supporters pledge their allegiance anyway.

by Christopher Zimny

"Tell me straight out, I call on you—answer me: imagine that you yourself are building the edifice of human destiny with the object of making people happy in the finale, of giving them peace and rest at last, but for that you must inevitably and unavoidably torture just one tiny creature, that same child who was beating her chest with her little fist, and raise your edifice on the foundation of her unrequited tears—would you agree to be the architect on such conditions? Tell me the truth."

— Fyodor Dostoevsky, in The Brothers Karamazov

One might be tempted to take one facet of the general "progressive" ideology at face value: their generally antiwar sentiment. A lack of a warfare state means a more prosperous economy and significantly less blowback than that state might otherwise see. In some cases, wars may be justified; when they are not, the ugly deaths or injuries suffered should be seen as having been needless, and immediately followed by an examination of the leaders, policies, and morality that went into making such a decision. The corollary to this, of course, is that the leader of the aggressing state ought to be held accountable for his actions. Why, then, after continuing and stepping up activity resulting from the Bush era conflicts, does the left venerate President Obama on the one hand, and with the other wave off his deadly deeds as if they were irrelevant?

Progressives are no doubt to some degree proud of the President's fiscal agenda; some wish he would do more. Some deplore, too, his military activity in the Middle East and elsewhere, rightly admonishing him for resources unduly spent, money unwisely spent, and the tragic consequences of it all. But for whatever reason one might give, they nevertheless hold true to him. Though his fiscal (and monetary) policies are unsound to a terrible degree, my contention here is with the left’s tacit support of Mr. Obama's war doctrine.

Transforming President Bush's "War on Terror" into perhaps a slightly more precision-oriented one, the military activities of the U.S. under Mr. Obama include placement of troops in Uganda, large drone campaigns in Yemen and Somalia, "leading from behind" in Libya, troop increases in Afghanistan and Iraq (and a later "shifting of resources" from the latter to the former), troop operation and drone strikes in Pakistan, and more, including foreign aid given to, but not limited to, any of these countries for purposes of military conflict.

There are consequences to these conflicts, of which those that have followed them are undoubtedly aware. These include an untold number of people who have had their life's work of making a better life for themselves or for their family obliterated. For whatever reason—their homes destroyed, their place of living having been engulfed by violence, etc.—many casualties of war are refugees who find themselves torn away from regular life, and are then subject to destitution. Deaths from violence number in the hundreds of thousands, civilian and combatant casualties included, which is not to mention the many more that have been injured that would have otherwise been in healthy shape had the wars not taken place. These are the natural results of war. The point to impress upon the reader is that these casualties of war are real. They may be thousands of miles from your front yard, but these people really are dead or injured or thrown into destitution, and despite one's best efforts to put these people out of sight and out of mind, they are still casualties resulting from U.S. actions, whether one chooses to acknowledge them or not.

The actual amount spent by Mr. Obama's administration on his military ventures is immaterial, at least for our purpose here, because we are looking at a matter of principle. So let us assume a conservative arbitrary estimate for the total amount of the President's spending on conflicts overseas: $1 million. (We might assume that the war contractors, weapons manufacturers, plus all the rest were feeling generous since 2008.) This wealth, rather than being used for purposes of war, might have been funding put into Medicare or Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, subsidies for green energy that provide or will provide employment, bailouts for companies going under that would preserve employment, and much more.

To make a clearer example of this principle, let us reduce the figure of refugees from war to a mere 100 people. Say this figure is an aggregate of all the countries the long arm of the U.S. has touched, which undesirably produced this result. What can be made of it? To begin with, the money used to make the location of these peoples' homes so hazardous might have been used to put 100 U.S. citizens in homes, and both the people affected by U.S. foreign policy and citizens of the U.S. would have had a better life. At the cost of displacing civilians elsewhere, we put up with continued homelessness here.

There exists a laundry list of government responsibilities that progressives have drawn up, and spending on any one of those items would be money better spent than on destruction in war. It might even be excusable if this sort of spending wasn’t expressly commissioned repeatedly by Democrats in the Congress or the White House—alas it has been. The declaration of a wish for war expenditures means precisely that the elected leaders of the United States prefer to use our $1 million figure on death and destruction than on the domestic needs of the poor or restructuring our economy for the better.

But setting the consequences of war spending aside, let's even grant that it is indeed possible to continue with war expenditures and simultaneously make in the United States a better economy through rightly placed spending or inflation. Say our leader can do both, as he is presently purporting to do. Your author's point is that even if one could have both, many, in practice, prefer to have a leader that does both—for whatever reason—because it means having domestic social or economic “reforms” resulting in Americans leading better lives. Said in more direct words, supporters of Mr. Obama will have thousands put into poverty, thousands needlessly killed, and billions spent on these operations, in order that they might have this same administration institute progressive restructuration for a better society in the United States.

How grotesque could any voter be? Perhaps it is not truly purposeful behavior, but ignorance or apathy, or a light-minded pragmatic decision that results in a vote of this kind. In any case, any person on the left that espouses antiwar ideology and continues to support Mr. Obama must thoroughly examine their own principles if he or she is to vote with a clear conscience come November.

This article was originally published by The Libertarian Review.

Who Is Ayn Rand?

“I am. I think. I will.”
— Equality 7-2521, in Anthem

Ayn Rand was—and is—an intellectual revolutionary. Throughout a lifetime of observing the minds of men, she steadily formulated and added to her philosophy of rational being—which was, in short, that in order to truly affirm life, one must live proudly and unwaveringly for oneself. Rand was the author of an immense amount of literature, both fiction and nonfiction, that advanced her philosophy of Objectivism and unquestionably changed the face of modern political thought.

Best known as a compelling, lucid, and intelligent novelist, as well as a screenwriter and editor The Objectivist magazine, Rand boldly declared, in the midst of the worldwide conflict between individualist and collectivist thought, that man’s first and only duty is to himself. From We the Living—her first and semi-autobiographical novel against Communism—to Atlas Shrugged—her timeless classic espousing her refined worldview—Rand turned the tables on collectivist philosophies of all stripes. Through these works, she was, and continues to be, a stout contrarian in the face of those who wish to claim control over the individual.

Born in 1905, Rand was raised and educated in Russia where she felt the reaching effects of the Russian Revolution of 1917. She left for America in 1925, where she was intent on writing freely and became a moderately successful screenwriter. The Fountainhead marked her first true success as a novelist, and her political activism brought her into friendship with several well-known libertarian thinkers—such as Ludwig von Mises and Henry Hazlitt—who, like her, continue to be regarded as great. Throughout her later life she focused on many nonfiction publications, lectured, and actively spread her philosophy until her death in 1982. Her legacy remains prominent today.

This article was also published by The Libertarian Review.

A State of Plunder

Obama’s newest Executive Order—“National Defense Resources Preparedness”—is the most blatant tax to ever be decreed in American history.

By Christopher Zimny


“The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.”
— Mark Twain

“‘Cause I’m the taxman,
And you’re working for no one… but me.”
— The Beatles, “Taxman”


With a stroke of the pen, March 16, 2012 became a day that historians will regard as a major strike to the foundation of the Republic. Words of this sort have been spoken throughout American history upon occasion, but in no sense on as large a scale or with as much meaning as in the past four years. To give a short sketch of the recent thefts of individual liberty all the direct subjects of the United States have been made to endure: the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the murder of American citizens and the administration’s assertion that it is lawful, and the week-old Executive Order claiming the President’s authority to take any and all resources he sees fit “for purposes of national security.”

It will do the reader well to remember that all government revenue is, by definition, compulsory payment. Government functions on resources that are not its own, thus they must be taken, ultimately, from the people.

Obama’s newest Executive Order—so-called “National Defense Resources Preparedness”—is the most blatant tax to ever be placed on the American people. This point should be made abundantly clear, because it is something that has not—to this writer’s knowledge—been acknowledged as a new tax law.

It reads thus:

[The President has the authority] to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.

The Executive Branch may do this “under both emergency and non-emergency conditions,” and in times of peace or war. This Order largely submits to no smoke or mirrors in order to seize the reader’s property and use it. It eliminates all governmental checks, declaring freely that it may tax its subjects quite seriously as it sees fit. Instead of only taking a fifth of Average Person’s income, say, it takes his income, and his house, and business facilities. It even qualifies Average Person himself to be the government’s own property, usable for its own purposes. This is the most grotesque tax one might ever see in America, but this writer fears that in time it will not be the worst.

When a person (or in this case an entity of persons) removes someone’s private property from them against their will, it is clear that this affront to freedom needs to be dealt with. Of course it is the case that taxation is theft. The seeming inevitability of this theft is the source of all the sardonic humor, the violence, unhappiness, anger or what have you that is felt when a tax is levied upon a person. But taxes are not inevitable. When the President of the United States—himself the supposed “Leader of the Free World”—declares that he himself may take anything from anyone at any time, something must be done.

This article was also published in The Libertarian Review.

North Korea: Pain on a Train

With the demise of Kim Jong-il, the author wonders about the future of the people in North Korea. Will the Dear Leader’s death be a fatal blow to the iron-fisted regime, or will the authorities continue in their way? The author expresses hope for the people confined inside the country’s walls.

By Christopher Zimny

When  one reads the brutal story of the justly paranoid Winston Smith, one is confronted soon enough with a telescreen filled with the face of the Stalin-like image of Big Brother. Never ceasing its indelibility, the image fades to the background where it looms, while three phrases instead take its place—the three slogans of the Party:

    WAR IS PEACE

    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

These absurd statements, penned in the 20th century, and the totalitarian idea that led to Orwell to pen them, actively survive in only one place on earth today— North Korea. In her 2009 book, Nothing to Envy, Barbara Demick makes note of a few propaganda signs that line the unused roads and are plastered ostentatiously on North Korean buildings:

    WE WILL DO WHAT THE PARTY TELLS US.

    WE HAVE NOTHING TO ENVY IN THE WORLD.

    KIM JONG-IL, SUN OF THE 21ST CENTURY.

Overt propaganda in North Korea is not taken as such by the people there; instead, statements like these are not only purported to be, but believed to be, self-evident. Kim Jong-il received ultimate control after the death of his father (who is still, technically, the president of the state) in 1994, and for nearly 20 years this said sun hath shown its awful light. On December 18th, however, it went out; it apparently was not impervious to train rides.

Kim Jong-il, the aberrant, ludic, sadistic creature-despot claiming ownership of every living being between the 38th Parallel and the Chinese border, suffered a heart attack from exhaustion on his way to an area outside the country’s capital, ending his life. Rid of their principle dwarf, North Koreans have the faintest—yet simultaneously the strongest—glimpse of freedom they've had in over 60 years. The state-run media reports that Kim Jong-un—the “Great Successor”—is to step up to the only successful Communist dynastic throne in history; the second handing of the baton, as it were; but perhaps those few secretly apostate souls of the country, who willingly commit thoughtcrime and illegal acts of freedom (such as speaking ill of either the Dear Leader or Great Leader (as Kim Il-sung is there known), or are in possession of unapproved books), will have a chance to see the wretched state disintegrate in their own lifetime. If this doesn’t seem the case on the outset, a somewhat closer look reveals a more positive picture.

The Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea (as it calls itself), through various measures, has coup-proofed itself by selecting the most loyal supporters to occupy its inner circle. However, now that the Dear Leader—as the middle Kim is called—is dead, struggles over who may fill the power vacuum may indeed be the straw to break this sickly camel’s back. Some say that Kim Jong-un is far too inexperienced and still rather obscure in the eyes of the North Korean people, having only been assigned to be Kim Jong-il’s successor about one year ago—contrasted with the 20 years spent by the eldest Kim preparing his son for the role. If this is indeed the case, Daniel Byman and Jennifer Lind of Harvard Kennedy School point out that a succession may be the only plausible event that could make the regime fall to pieces.

There is, of course, an alternate timeline North Koreans may face—the same road on which Oceania was driven: the inner party effortlessly moving past any troubles and continuing boldly in its drive for power over the individual (for its own sake). It is possible that this handover from capricious father to untried son may succeed in one way or another; if this happens, unless something markedly different changes in our policy toward the government of that country, we may be condemned to watch North Korea for a long time thereafter, while thousands of North Korean defectors and secret dissenters still inside its borders hope, then wait, for something to be done.

These escaped dissenters and quiet renegades have lived or continue to live the life of an average North Korean—a bleak, dreary one, always with an undertone of real perpetual fear. Speaking with citizens of another country on a cell phone (or until recently, even owning a cell phone), for instance, may earn a person a place in front of a firing squad, as will selling DVDs or being repatriated from China, or defacing currency if either Kim Il-sung or Kim Jong-il’s porcine faces are displayed on the note; these “criminals” also face another fate: being dragged to the country’s notorious prison camps. Some 200,000 human beings are interned and confined in North Korea’s gulags—modern day concentration camps. For a crime one commits, one’s entire family is punished—three generations over, an appealing (and appalling) terror tactic begun by Kim Il-sung.

This says nothing of their abject poverty: The purposeful and ludic currency wrenching done in late 2009 decimated what semblance of a middle-class the people could muster through a somewhat bustling, if still severely stifled, illegal market, and plunged everyone who wasn’t in the capital into acute destitution. Two nuclear tests and the sinking of a South Korean naval ship (leading to a short-lived recantation of the Sunshine Policy by South Korea) have not stopped foreign aid to North Korea. The massive amounts of foreign aid and billions of dollars in imported wealth are used on three things only: the political class, the military, and propaganda—which the regime feeds its starving people in place of food. Indoctrinated children sing praises of their deified leaders, learn “official” history, and are subtly inculcated in every aspect of their schooling—nay their life—to say nothing of their widespread malnourishment, their diseases, or their being stunted both in mind and body (eight-year-old children appear to be three or four, for instance). The average North Korean is six inches shorter than his South Korean neighbor due to lifelong food deprivation.

Such is life in North Korea.

The most deranged aspect of this abhorrent, grotesque picture is that these conditions are preventable. When one sees satellite imagery of the Korean peninsula, the southern half is positively gleaming and China produces its fair share of light—but between the two: nothing. Darkness covers every meter with the exception of the capital city that houses the government and politically loyal: the prop showcase city for foreigners. Once the brutal authoritarian dynasty of dwarfish martinets is brought to an end, as may happen in the near future with Kim Jong-il’s demise, North Koreans will be rid of their chains—and be free at long last. May they finally be free to do as they please and their free market shine in the night like their South Korean brothers and sisters.

We should hope that the death of North Korea’s infallible Dear Leader, fatally exhausted from a train ride, is the beginning of the end for this repugnant regime.

This article was also published in The American Reporter.

Of His Experiment

I've made this poem to be precisely phrased (I had Ben Jonson in mind) and borrowed Sir Walter Scott's famous lines from Marmion for the first two lines. The purpose is to satirize an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God. My poem discusses the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran, human knowledge and struggle, the exploration of the universe as well as philosophy, and facing the fact that we may never gain a full and true answer, all from the point of view of an objective observer seeing the human race as if it were in the midst of a sadistic and ludic experiment.

"Of His Experiment"

Oh, What a tangled web we weave!
When first we practice to deceive.
Plant the seed of evil early on
So they know not as time goes on
Deus ex machina makes no remark,
But give an inkling, a hope, a spark.

Then steal the knowledge from their minds!
To watch them squabble and war and find
That from their nascence they did not know
And never will, too strong the row:
The inquisition which they explore,
Is but a contraption, and nothing more.

This poem was also published in The Libertarian Review.