• Your first lovely site Placeholder — tell the editor which sites belong here and this list fills in.

Sun Tzu wrote that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. The United States has spent the last half-century testing the opposite proposition: pick an enemy that cannot surrender — a plant, a feeling, a tactic — and fight it indefinitely. Two campaigns show the cost. Neither has an exit. Both fell hardest on people who were never the stated target.

It is usually told as a public-health story. It began as a careers story. Harry J. Anslinger built his name enforcing Prohibition; when the Twenty-first Amendment ended Prohibition in 1933, the man who had staked everything on outlawing alcohol needed a new prohibition to run. He found one in cannabis — a drug he had previously treated as a low priority.

To sell it, he reached for fear. In 1933 a young man named Victor Licata killed his family in Tampa; he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and his family had a documented history of mental illness. Anslinger set all of that aside and blamed the marijuana Licata had reportedly smoked. He polled thirty doctors on whether the drug had caused the murder; one said yes. That lone dissent became the centerpiece of his 1937 article “Marijuana: Assassin of Youth” and of his testimony to Congress.

The renaming was deliberate too. Cannabis became “marijuana” to make it sound foreign — specifically Mexican — and Anslinger tied the drug, in plainly racist testimony, to Black and Hispanic Americans, immigrants, and jazz. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 followed, criminalizing the plant in all but name. None of it was driven by evidence about health. It was driven by who could be blamed.

President Richard Nixon coined the phrase “war on drugs” in 1971. Oddly, his early record leaned toward treatment: the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 funded rehabilitation and even reduced the penalty for marijuana possession, at a moment when veterans were returning from Vietnam addicted to heroin that had been everywhere in the war. Then came the 1972 re-election campaign and the pivot from treatment to enforcement — the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, which would grow into the DEA.

From there the punishments only hardened. New York’s Rockefeller Drug Laws (1973) imposed fifteen-year mandatory minimums and stripped judges of discretion, falling overwhelmingly on nonviolent, first-time offenders from communities of color. The 1980s added “Just Say No,” D.A.R.E., and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act’s notorious 100-to-1 sentencing gap between crack and powder cocaine — chemically the same drug, sorted by who used which form. And lest the ledger look like one party’s project: the 1994 Crime Bill — written by Senator Joe Biden, signed by President Bill Clinton, and passed with broad bipartisan majorities — poured billions into new prisons, 100,000 police, and “three-strikes” life terms, accelerating the very incarceration boom it claimed to fight. The Fair Sentencing Act narrowed the crack ratio to 18-to-1 only in 2010.

The through-line, from Anslinger to Nixon and after, is that marijuana was folded in with genuinely dangerous drugs not because the science demanded it, but because it was politically useful. A remark long attributed to Nixon aide John Ehrlichman — disputed by his family, but consistent with the record — cast the whole effort as a way to target the antiwar left and Black communities. Whether or not he said it, the policy behaved exactly as if he had.

The second war was declared after September 11, 2001, against a tactic. Terror, like drug use, has no capital to capture and no army to surrender, so the war simply kept going — across Afghanistan, Iraq, and a shifting list of other countries — for two decades, with no defined finish line.

The accounting, compiled by Brown University’s Costs of War project, is hard to take in — which is the danger, because the figures are not statistics but families, towns, and futures.

Iraq, the largest front, was launched in 2003 on the claim that Saddam Hussein held weapons of mass destruction. There were none. Afghanistan, the longest war in American history, ended in 2021 with the Taliban back in power — the government the war had begun by toppling. Alongside the fighting came a quieter set of costs at home: the PATRIOT Act and mass surveillance, indefinite detention without trial at Guantánamo, a drone program that routinely killed civilians, and the official use of torture.

The forever wars did not begin in 2001. They are the visible, expensive edge of a much older habit: reaching into other countries’ politics by force or stealth, usually without the declaration of war the Constitution requires, and often without Congress knowing at all.

In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence engineered a coup in Iran, toppling the elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized the country’s oil, and entrenching the autocratic rule of the Shah and his secret police. A generation of repression followed — and then, in 1979, a revolution, a hostage crisis, and a hostility that still shapes the region. The intervention “worked,” and then it detonated decades later in the hands of the people who had ordered it. Blowback is not a theory; it is a schedule.

In the Iran-Contra affair of the mid-1980s, the executive branch secretly sold weapons to Iran — the same Iran it called a sworn enemy, under an embargo it had itself imposed — and funneled the proceeds to the Contras in Nicaragua, a war Congress had explicitly forbidden it to fund. It was not a rogue accident. It was a foreign policy run out of the basement, around the elected legislature, by officials who decided the law did not apply to them.

These are not exceptions; they are the method. Coups in Guatemala and Chile, secret bombing campaigns, drone-strike kill lists, warrantless surveillance — a long record of clandestine operations carried out with little or no constitutional oversight, by an intelligence and national-security bureaucracy that outlasts every president, answers to no voter, and rarely has to explain itself. Each administration inherits the apparatus, uses it, and hands it on — larger, better funded, and more certain that secrecy is a form of safety. The wars are loud. The machinery that produces them runs quietly, and never stops.

None of this is free, and yet the public is rarely handed the bill — which is the quiet genius of the financing. A government that had to raise taxes every time it wanted a war, a coup, or another agency would have to ask, and might be told no. There is a way around the asking, and it has a building in Washington.

The United States spent most of the nineteenth century without a central bank: the First and Second Banks of the United States were each chartered and then killed — Andrew Jackson dispatched the second in the 1830s, denouncing it as a moneyed monster. After the Panic of 1907, which was halted only when the private financier J. P. Morgan personally organized a rescue, the appetite for a permanent lender of last resort came back.

What happened next is not a conspiracy theory; it is in the Federal Reserve’s own published history. In November 1910, six men — Senator Nelson Aldrich (a Rockefeller in-law), Assistant Treasury Secretary A. Piatt Andrew, and four of the most powerful financiers in the country, among them Henry Davison of J. P. Morgan, Frank Vanderlip of National City Bank, and Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb — boarded a private rail car under assumed names, addressed one another only by first name, and slipped off to the Jekyll Island Club off the Georgia coast under cover of a duck-hunting trip. For a week they drafted the blueprint for a central bank, then kept the meeting secret for two decades; the participants did not admit it had happened until the 1930s. Warburg, who did most of the drafting, understood the politics: a frank central bank on the European model would never pass, so the plan dressed central control in the camouflage of a dozen regional banks. With minor revisions, that blueprint became the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Underneath the central bank sits an arrangement stranger still: fractional-reserve banking. When you deposit money you can withdraw “on demand,” the bank does not keep it — it lends most of it out, while still assuring you it is all there. The borrower’s spending becomes someone else’s deposit, which is lent again, and again, so the banking system as a whole conjures far more money than was ever placed in it. Two people are promised the same dollar, on demand, at the same moment. In any other business this would be called writing checks you cannot cover; in banking it is called the money multiplier. It holds up right until enough depositors ask for their money at once — a bank run — which is the whole reason a lender of last resort had to be invented: to backstop a system whose fragility is not a flaw in the design but the design. Critics from Murray Rothbard to Ron Paul have argued the arrangement is less a marvel of finance than a polite fiction, kept upright by the standing promise that the printing press will cover the gap. (You will find Paul’s End the Fed on the shelf next door.)

The noninterventionist case against all of this — argued for years at antiwar.com — is not complicated. Wars sold as quick and clean become long and ruinous; the people who pay are rarely the ones who chose; and a “war” that can never be won is one that can never be stopped funding. That is not strategy. It is the absence of one, repeated until it resembles policy.

• Anslinger and the Origins of the War on DrugsJackson Tarricone, Boston Political Review (part 1 of 2).
• Nixon and the Origins of the War on DrugsJackson Tarricone, Boston Political Review (part 2 of 2).
• Antiwar.comA standing noninterventionist case against the forever wars.
• The Costs of War ProjectBrown University’s running tally of the post-9/11 wars’ human and financial cost.
• The Meeting at Jekyll IslandThe Federal Reserve’s own account of the secret 1910 conference that drafted it.

The Constitution of the United States was signed on September 17, 1787, ratified in 1788, and took effect in 1789. It is the oldest written national constitution still in force — and, as the Reading Room footnote insists, it really isn’t very long. The brevity is the point: it sets the rules of the game and leaves the playing to everyone who comes after.

The first American framework, the Articles of Confederation (drafted 1777, in force 1781–1789), erred so far toward weak central government that the government barely functioned. Congress could not tax, could not regulate commerce, had no president to execute the laws and no national courts to interpret them. The states behaved like thirteen quarrelling countries. When Shays’ Rebellion (1786–87) showed the center could not keep order, delegates gathered in Philadelphia — officially to amend the Articles, in practice to replace them.

The framers were borrowers. The idea that even a ruler answers to the law traces to Magna Carta (1215); protections against abuses of royal power echo the English Bill of Rights (1689). Self-government by compact had colonial precedent in the Mayflower Compact and the colonial charters. From the Enlightenment came John Locke (natural rights; government by the consent of the governed) and Montesquieu (the separation of powers into three branches). Some historians argue the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy offered a working model of federal union — a claim that is debated, but worth knowing. And the Declaration of Independence (1776) had already stated the philosophy the Constitution would try to put into working order.

Before a single power is granted, the document states its purpose in one sentence:

Two things in it are easy to miss. The first is the opening — “We the People,” not We the States and not a king. Authority is said to flow up from the governed, a phrasing the Anti-Federalists noticed and resented; at Virginia’s ratifying convention Patrick Henry demanded to know who had authorized the framers “to speak the language of We, the People, instead of We, the States.” The second is what the sentence does not do: it names six aims — a more perfect union, justice, domestic peace, the common defense, the general welfare, and the blessings of liberty — but it grants no power and confers no right on its own. The Supreme Court said so in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905): the Preamble announces the goals, and the seven articles that follow do the actual work.

• Article I — The Legislature. Creates Congress: the House (by population) and the Senate (two per state). It holds the powers to tax, spend, borrow, regulate commerce, and declare war — plus the elastic “necessary and proper” clause. It is the longest article, which tells you where the framers expected power to sit.
• Article II — The Executive. Establishes the President and Vice President, the four-year term, the Electoral College, and the roles of commander-in-chief and chief executive.
• Article III — The Judiciary. Creates the Supreme Court and authorizes the lower federal courts. It also defines treason narrowly — the one crime the Constitution bothers to define itself.
• Article IV — The States. “Full faith and credit” between states, equal treatment of citizens across state lines, the admission of new states, and a guarantee that each state keeps a republican form of government.
• Article V — Amendment. How to change the document: proposal by two-thirds of both houses of Congress (or a convention), then ratification by three-fourths of the states. Deliberately hard; deliberately possible.
• Article VI — Supremacy. The Constitution and federal law are the supreme law of the land; the new government honored the old debts; officials swear an oath; and no religious test may ever be required for office.
• Article VII — Ratification. Nine of the thirteen states had to approve for the Constitution to take effect.

Of the fifty-five delegates who attended the Philadelphia Convention, thirty-nine signed on September 17, 1787, representing twelve states — Rhode Island, suspicious of the whole enterprise, sent no one. George Washington presided. Benjamin Franklin, at 81, was the oldest signer. James Madison kept the notes and shaped so much of the design that he is remembered as the “Father of the Constitution.” Alexander Hamilton was the lone signer from New York. And not everyone signed: George Mason, Edmund Randolph, and Elbridge Gerry were there at the end and refused — largely because the document had no bill of rights.

Ratification was not a formality; it was a fight. The Federalists — Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, writing together as “Publius” in The Federalist Papers — argued that the republic needed a real national government to survive. The Anti-Federalists — writing as Brutus, Cato, and others, with George Mason and Patrick Henry among the loudest voices — warned that a distant central power would swallow the states and the citizen, and that a constitution with no explicit list of protected rights was an invitation to tyranny. They lost the vote and won the most important concession.

That concession was the Bill of Rights — the first ten amendments, ratified in 1791 — the price of ratification and, arguably, the part most people can actually name:

• 1. Religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
• 2. The right to keep and bear arms.
• 3. No forced quartering of soldiers in private homes.
• 4. No unreasonable searches and seizures.
• 5. Due process; no double jeopardy; no compelled self-incrimination.
• 6. Speedy, public, and fair criminal trials.
• 7. Jury trials in civil cases.
• 8. No cruel and unusual punishment; no excessive bail.
• 9. Rights not listed are still retained by the people.
• 10. Powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.

Seventeen more followed over the next two centuries — the complete run, 11 through 27, grouped by what each set out to fix:

• The 11th (1795) barred federal courts from hearing suits brought against a state by citizens of another state or of a foreign nation; the 12th (1804) gave electors separate ballots for President and Vice President, after the deadlocked election of 1800 exposed the flaw in the original design.
• The 13th (1865) abolished slavery; the 14th (1868) guaranteed citizenship, due process, and equal protection; the 15th (1870) barred denying the vote on the basis of race.
• The 16th (1913) authorized the income tax; the 17th (1913) moved the election of senators to the people directly.
• The 18th (1919) imposed Prohibition; the 21st (1933) repealed it — the only amendment whose entire job was to undo another.
• The 19th (1920) secured women’s suffrage; the 23rd (1961) gave Washington, D.C. a vote in presidential elections; the 24th (1964) ended the poll tax; the 26th (1971) lowered the voting age to 18.
• The 20th (1933) moved the start of federal terms up to January, shrinking the “lame-duck” interval; the 22nd (1951) limited presidents to two terms; the 25th (1967) set out presidential succession and disability; the 27th (1992), first proposed in 1789, finally limited Congress’s power to raise its own pay mid-term.

That is the whole machine: a short rulebook, a hard-won list of protections, and a procedure for arguing about both forever. The framers did not hand down a finished country. They built a structure durable enough to survive the argument — which, more than two centuries on, is still in session.

None of the institutions below is secret in the cloak-and-dagger sense. You can find their founding dates, their addresses, and in most cases their guest lists. What they keep is the conversation — who said what to whom, and which decisions were shaped over dinner rather than in any chamber a voter can enter. The objection here isn’t that influential people meet. It is that “off the record” has quietly become a venue for governance. Tap a section to open it; each comes with a small diversion.

Founded at Yale in December 1832 by William Huntington Russell and Alphonso Taft — the latter the father of President William Howard Taft — the society began as the “Eulogian Club” and was incorporated in 1856 as the Russell Trust Association. Its emblem is a skull and crossbones above the number 322, usually read as 322 BCE: the year the orator Demosthenes died and Athens slid from democracy into plutocracy. Each spring it “taps” fifteen seniors; members are Bonesmen; the windowless brownstone clubhouse on High Street is called the Tomb. Three Bonesmen have become president — William Howard Taft and both George Bushes — and in 2004 the country managed to hold a presidential election in which both major-party nominees, George W. Bush and John Kerry, were Bonesmen: make of that what you will. Women were not admitted until 1992.

What happens inside is, by design, unknown. Initiation reportedly involves a coffin, a long oral autobiography, and a great deal of solemnity about a goddess the founders invented. Members call outsiders “Barbarians,” collect pilfered keepsakes in a practice they nickname “crooking,” and have spent the better part of two centuries insisting that the most interesting thing about them is the part they decline to describe.

The fair question isn’t whether the rituals are sinister — they sound mostly silly. It is what a lifelong, fifteen-a-year fraternity of the soon-to-be-powerful does to a system that claims to reward merit. A network that admits you at twenty-one and vouches for you at fifty is, whatever else it is, a thumb on the scale.

Since 1954, a few dozen of the Western world’s politicians, executives, and financiers have met once a year behind closed doors. The first gathering, convened by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek — which is where the name comes from. Roughly 130 people attend, about two-thirds of them European; the press is barred, no minutes are taken, and the whole thing runs under the Chatham House Rule — attendees may use what they hear but never say who said it. The current chairman is Henri de Castries; recent meetings were held in Stockholm (2025) and Washington, D.C. (2026).

The organizers say the secrecy merely lets busy people speak candidly. Perhaps. But the room holds sitting ministers and central bankers talking policy with the executives those policies affect, and it does so with no record and no journalists. A co-founder, Denis Healey, once conceded that calling the project a push for “one-world government” was “exaggerated, but not wholly unfair.” Whatever it is, it is the inverse of the thing a republic is supposed to do in public.

The Bohemian Club of San Francisco, founded in 1872, holds a two-week July encampment at the Grove: 2,700 acres of redwoods near Monte Rio, California. It opens with a piece of theater called the Cremation of Care, in which robed members carry an effigy named Dull Care to the foot of a forty-foot stone Owl — the club’s totem — and burn it on a pyre, to torchlight and a barcarole and the cry, “Begone, Dull Care! Midsummer sets us free!” The club’s motto, lifted from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, is “Weaving Spiders Come Not Here” — meaning, officially, that no business shall be done.

The ritual is mock-druidic pageantry, deliberately silly, and not the lurid thing the internet insists upon. The genuinely notable detail is duller and more telling: the guest list reads like a standing establishment that outlasts whichever party holds office — presidents and cabinet officers, central bankers, and the chiefs of oil, finance, and defense — and the planning of the Manhattan Project was set in motion at a Grove meeting in September 1942. The rule against “weaving spiders” — against doing business — is the part everyone politely ignores.

Founded in 1971 by Klaus Schwab (as the European Management Forum; renamed in 1987), the Geneva-based Forum gathers some three thousand heads of state, chief executives, and billionaires each January in Davos. Its house philosophy is “stakeholder capitalism” and “public-private partnership,” packaged in branded futures: the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” the “Great Reset,” and a much-quoted 2016 forecast that by 2030 “you’ll own nothing and be happy.” Schwab stepped down in April 2025; Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, a former Nestlé chief, became interim chairman, with Børge Brende as president and a search for a permanent chair running into 2027. Its trustees have included the heads of BlackRock and the IMF.

Davos is not a government and holds no office, which is precisely the point of the criticism: an unelected body that openly proposes to fuse corporate and state power is, by design, a way to steer policy without ever standing for election. One may admire the agenda or loathe it — either way, “stakeholder” is not a synonym for “voter,” and the private jets arriving to discuss the climate are not, whatever else they are, subtle.

An NGO is, by its own name, non-governmental. Many are not, in the way that matters most — their money. A great deal of “civil society” runs not on voluntary donations but on government grants, and the term of art for the extreme case is the GONGO: a government-organized non-governmental organization, an outfit a state stands up so that its own preferences can wear the costume of independent advocacy. When U.S. foreign-aid funding was abruptly frozen in 2025, the number of “independent” organizations that turned out to depend on it became, briefly, very visible. And this is nobody’s partisan monopoly: administrations of both parties have been glad to underwrite the “independent” voices that happen to echo their own line — the freeze merely made one set of dependents suddenly countable.

This is the plainest item on the list. A charity that lives on donations must persuade the public, again and again, that its work is worth paying for — that discipline is the whole point of fundraising. A charity that lives on grants must persuade exactly one funder, frequently the same government it claims to hold to account. “Independent advocacy” underwritten by the state is just outsourced government with a warmer logo, and the harder, humbler work of asking actual people for actual money quietly disappears.

• Britannica & Wikipedia — “Skull and Bones”Founding, the Tomb, the membership rolls, and the 322 question.
• Bilderberg Meetings (official site)Annual participant lists, agenda topics, and the Chatham House Rule, in the group’s own words.
• The Bohemian GroveThe encampment, the Cremation of Care, and G. William Domhoff’s sociological study of the guest list.
• World Economic Forum — governance transition (2025)The Forum’s own announcement of Schwab’s departure and the interim chair.
• “GONGO” — government-organized NGOsThe term, its history, and the question of who an NGO is actually accountable to.

At Lempert's Lampoon, we respect your privacy.

We will never sell your personal information to advertisers, marketers, data brokers, pharmaceutical companies (or that drug rep fascinated by H₂O), private equity firms, double-secret private equity firms, hedge funds, hostile foreign governments, extraterrestrial civilizations, or anyone else willing to pay for it.

Your information is used solely for responding to correspondence, operating the website, improving our publication, and maintaining the Permanent Registry of Questionable Judgment.

While we employ industry-standard security measures, readers should be aware that our technological infrastructure includes:

• One Hotmail account
• Several passwords that "made sense at the time"
• An editorial board member who occasionally clicks things he should not

Accordingly, while we pledge never to intentionally sell your data, we cannot guarantee that our Hotmail account will not be compromised again at some point in the future.

Should such an event occur, affected users will be notified through our established incident-response protocol, which consists primarily of:

1. Panic
2. Denial
3. Changing the password
4. Sending an apologetic email beginning with the phrase, "You are not going to believe this…"

By using this website, you acknowledge that perfect cybersecurity is a myth, passwords should not contain the word "password," and that trusting a satirical newspaper with sensitive information reflects a level of optimism we genuinely admire.

Julius Lempert was born in Lublin, Poland, in 1891 and arrived on New York's Lower East Side as a boy of thirteen. He was small, scrappy, and — by every conventional measure — precisely the sort of person the medical establishment was built to keep out.

He went straight from high school into a medical school then rated bottom-tier, which barred him from the internships and residencies that minted "real" specialists. Determined to become an ear, nose, and throat surgeon anyway, he simply showed up: observing operations over the shoulders of the city's doctors until, one clinic at a time, they asked him to stop coming.

Shut out, he opened his own office and built the busiest ENT practice in New York through methods the profession found scandalous — including splitting his fees with the doctors who referred patients. He operated at a furious pace and poured the proceeds into oil paintings, Broadway productions, and a chauffeured Cadillac.

His real revolution was technical. Where surgeons still cracked open the mastoid bone with a mallet and gouge — routinely destroying nerves and hearing — Lempert reached for a dental drill, and was thrown out of the operating room for it. Today every such operation uses a descendant of that drill. He worked under a bright headlamp and magnifying loupes that anticipated the surgical microscope, and filmed his procedures when almost no one else did.

Then came the work that made him world-famous: a one-stage fenestration operation that restored hearing to people with otosclerosis, proving it was safe to operate on the inner ear. Surgeons crossed oceans to watch. He founded his own institute, taught temporal-bone courses that still echo in the curriculum, and trained a generation of otologists who trained the next.

He did all of this as a poor, Jewish, "third-rate"-trained general practitioner in an era of open antisemitism — and ended, by any measure, the father of modern otology. The honors arrived eventually: gold medals, a foreign knighthood, an honorary degree from the Karolinska Institute.

We named a satirical newspaper after him because his life is the joke we keep telling: that credentials and merit are not the same thing, that gatekeepers are reliably wrong about outsiders, and that being underestimated is a renewable resource.

• DuckDuckDuckGo* Search without being searched. Recursively, if necessary.
• PubMed Thirty-five million citations, for when a vibe is not enough.
• The Hub An encyclopedia entry about a certain library. We're not saying a word.
• The Unredacted Primary documents the authors never meant to footnote. Cite at your own clearance level.
• YouTube† Where knowledge hides between two unskippable advertisements.
• 🍎 Music 🍎 Podcasts 🍎 Books Apples. A basket of three, each keeping entirely different company. None of them the forbidden kind.
• Wolf Packs A computational wilderness where the rams do the arithmetic so you don't have to.
• Archaeological Sites Vast, hushed, and full of buried knowledge, catalogued by the dig team. What to do while there.
• Word(le)s‡ Definitions in any order you like. Six guesses not required.
• Precursors to the PDF Foundational documents, pre-flattening. Best viewed at 100%, under glass.
• A Reasonable Use of Tax Dollars Occasional, audited proof that a line item was worth it.
• Perspectives You May Not Know Exist Economic viewpoints rarely assigned as homework.
• Revealing Photos Photographs that leave nothing to the imagination — a cross-sectional tour of the head and neck, with a second opinion on every other region.
• Your Fellow Man§ Generally well-meaning. Results may vary.
• Starving Artists‖ Underfed, overqualified, and everywhere once you start looking.
• The Internet as a Whole All of it, at once. A snorkel is recommended.
• A Doctor¶ Preferably one you have met, in a building, in person.
• Snot Rags The day's reporting, with the toll booth quietly removed.

* Can be used to search for more search engines, ad infinitum.

‡ Physical copies remain at significantly lower risk of future data corruption.

§ Nuance sometimes required.

‖ Or, better still, buy them lunch.

¶ On the importance of not taking everything quite so literally.

† Ads optional for those willing to never give up seeking knowledge.