Author: Jeffrey McMahon

  • When Evil Goes Viral

    When Evil Goes Viral

    In “Andrew Tate’s Empire of Abuse,” Heidi Blake examines the disturbing world built by influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan from their base in a wealthy enclave north of Bucharest known as the American Village. What emerges is not merely a pornography business but an entire ideology. According to Blake’s reporting, the Tate brothers are accused of recruiting and exploiting women while simultaneously constructing an online empire designed to sell young men a vision of unrestrained power. Through a private network called the War Room, Tate promises liberation from what he describes as the imprisonment of conventional morality. In its place, he offers a creed of domination in which women become trophies, commodities, or servants to male desire. One woman’s experience illustrates the cruelty of this worldview. After recruiting her, Tate reportedly subjected her to humiliation, financed cosmetic procedures, and had the words “Tate Owned” tattooed on her body, branding another human being as though she were property.

    Tate’s worldview is so grotesque that it often feels less like reality than an abandoned screenplay rejected for lacking subtlety. Hollywood villains are usually granted complexity, vulnerability, or redeeming traits. Tate seems determined to eliminate all such nuances. He openly cultivates the image of a man who views empathy as weakness and domination as virtue. Yet what makes him truly alarming is not the extremity of his beliefs but the enthusiasm with which he markets them. Tate does not hide from accusations of evil. Instead, he recasts himself as a prophet. To his followers, he presents himself as a shepherd leading lost men toward a promised land of wealth, sexual conquest, and absolute freedom from moral restraint.

    The nightmare grows darker when one considers the size of his audience. Tate possesses what our culture increasingly values above wisdom, character, or integrity: clout. He commands a vast social-media following and uses it to promote a lifestyle assembled from luxury watches, cigars, supercars, conspicuous wealth, and an aggressively performative version of masculinity. His genius, if one can call it that, lies in understanding the mechanics of attention. In an age where visibility often substitutes for virtue, influence itself becomes evidence of success. The result is that millions of young men encounter Tate not as a fringe extremist but as a glamorous symbol of aspiration.

    Tate is also intensely political. He boasts of shifting the Overton window, expanding the boundaries of what can be publicly said and tolerated. In his telling, this is a triumph. In reality, it often resembles an effort to normalize ideas that were once regarded as beyond the pale. The objective is not simply to win arguments but to redefine the moral landscape itself, widening the escape hatch through which cruelty, misogyny, and contempt can pass into public life disguised as courage or authenticity.

    When Tate faced arrest on human-trafficking charges, he was defended by a collection of prominent allies and media figures who viewed him as useful to broader political and cultural battles. In a polarized age, alliances are increasingly forged not through shared principles but through shared enemies. The question ceases to be whether a person is decent and becomes whether that person can help advance a cause. Under such conditions, moral judgment is replaced by strategic calculation.

    It has often been said that shamelessness is a superpower. There is truth in that observation. Shame restrains. Conscience hesitates. Moral reflection slows us down. The shameless suffer from none of these inconveniences. They can say anything, excuse anything, and justify anything. But if shamelessness is a superpower, it is one purchased at a tremendous cost. To embrace figures like Tate is to announce that power matters more than virtue and influence more than decency. It is to make one’s bargain with the devil publicly visible.

    What Blake’s article ultimately reveals is not merely the story of Andrew Tate but the story of a culture increasingly intoxicated by clout. In a society obsessed with metrics, followers, engagement, and influence, visibility itself becomes a moral credential. The result is a world in which people who openly celebrate cruelty can become celebrities while those who practice humility and integrity are rewarded with obscurity. Tate thrives because he understands this reality better than most. He has discovered that in the attention economy, notoriety often pays better than goodness. The tragedy is not simply that men like Andrew Tate exist. The tragedy is that so many people have decided he is worth following.

  • The Astrology Queen and the Ghost Daughter

    The Astrology Queen and the Ghost Daughter

    In Rachel Syme’s “The Star-Crossed Recluse Who Brought Astrology to the Masses,” she examines the improbable rise of Linda Goodman, the woman who transformed astrology from a fringe curiosity into a cultural phenomenon. Before Goodman, astrology occupied the margins of American life, an embarrassing diversion for eccentrics and mystics. After Goodman, it became mainstream entertainment, a cosmic personality test for the masses. Her books sold tens of millions of copies by offering readers an irresistible promise: the universe had you in mind. Your zodiac sign explained your personality, your appearance, your virtues, your flaws, your romantic prospects, and perhaps even your destiny. Goodman didn’t merely sell astrology. She sold the comforting idea that the stars were paying attention.

    Syme argues that the strangeness of Goodman’s life is captured beautifully in Colurmey Ann LaFaive’s biography Follow the Signs: Searching for Linda Goodman, America’s Forgotten Astrology Queen. LaFaive first encountered Goodman as a teenager and adored her books. Yet the deeper she dug into her subject’s life, the more Goodman resisted easy admiration. She was not merely eccentric but genuinely perplexing. An oddball visionary, a successful entrepreneur, a seeker, and at times a deeply troubled woman, Goodman inhabited a reality in which ordinary boundaries between belief and fantasy seemed remarkably porous. Nowhere was this more evident than in her refusal to accept the death of her daughter Sally. Although authorities ruled the death a suicide, Goodman became convinced that her daughter remained alive somewhere in the world. Whatever fate had befallen the body found in the apartment, Goodman believed it belonged to someone else. The real Sally, she insisted, was still out there.

    Born Mary Alice Kemery in Morgantown, West Virginia, Goodman displayed an appetite for the mystical from an early age. She embraced occult ideas with enthusiasm, believing in fairies, druids, hidden wisdom, and unseen dimensions. After marrying, having two children, and divorcing, she supported herself as a single mother by hosting a radio program called Love Letters from Linda. There she read letters from soldiers separated from their loved ones and soothed listeners with a voice that projected warmth, reassurance, and hope. Long before she became an astrology celebrity, Goodman had already discovered a gift that would define her career: the ability to comfort anxious people.

    Her conversion to astrology occurred during her second marriage after reading a book on the subject. The experience altered the trajectory of her life. Goodman immersed herself in astrology, teaching herself how to construct charts and interpret celestial patterns. She began offering consultations in Manhattan, and demand for her services steadily grew. Then, in the late 1960s, she published Linda Goodman’s Sun Signs. The book became a runaway bestseller and effectively launched mainstream astrology into American popular culture. Goodman had discovered a formula as powerful as it was profitable: tell people that the cosmos has a special explanation for who they are, and they will eagerly listen.

    Success, however, did not bring stability. After divorcing her second husband and moving to Cripple Creek, Colorado, Goodman received the devastating news of Sally’s death in Manhattan. From that moment forward, her life took on the quality of a fever dream. Faced with a suicide note and evidence that convinced everyone else, Goodman remained unmoved. The body was not Sally’s, she insisted, but a double. Dreams convinced her she alone understood the truth. She wandered Manhattan in a state of near delirium, sleeping on the steps of St. Patrick’s Cathedral and pleading with detectives to reopen the case. Eventually she hired a man claiming to be a former CIA agent and pursued leads in Maine, where Sally had once acted. The investigation grew increasingly bizarre, culminating in confrontations with Sally’s former associates and threats designed to silence anyone who questioned Goodman’s theory.

    It is here that LaFaive’s biography becomes most compelling. Rather than offering a reverential portrait of a beloved cultural icon, she confronts the contradictions that made Goodman both fascinating and troubling. Goodman was capable of extraordinary intuition and extraordinary self-deception. She brought comfort to millions while remaining unable to accept devastating truths in her own life. LaFaive ultimately concludes that her book is, in some sense, a failure because she could not construct a neat, unified theory of Linda Goodman. Yet Syme suggests that this failure is precisely what makes the biography succeed. Goodman remains elusive, contradictory, and mysterious. She emerges not as a saint, a fraud, or a visionary, but as something more interesting: a deeply human figure whose life, like the constellations she loved to interpret, resists being connected into a perfectly coherent pattern.

  • Gimpel in the Age of Clout

    Gimpel in the Age of Clout

    During the last several months, I have found myself thinking about a word that appears everywhere in the manosphere and influencer culture: clout. The word carries the scent of raw power and money. It implies that deception, manipulation, and cleverness are not merely acceptable but admirable, provided they produce influence. The idea depresses me because the merchants of clout often succeed. They accumulate followers by the millions, preaching a form of practical nihilism in which visibility becomes the highest good. Every religion has its devil, and the devil of clout has an opposite: obscurity. In the attention economy, we possess endless metrics for measuring who matters and who does not. Once we accept those metrics, we become captives of a grotesque vision of optimization. As I contemplate this folly, I find myself haunted by Isaac Bashevis Singer’s short story Gimpel the Fool.

    Gimpel is an orphan, a misfit, and a lovable man-child wandering the streets of Frampol. He possesses a sweetness so genuine that it appears almost supernatural. The townspeople, by contrast, pride themselves on their irony, cynicism, and cleverness. Because Gimpel is trusting, they become addicted to deceiving him. They lie to him, mock him, trick him, and turn him into a public spectacle whenever the opportunity presents itself. His innocence functions like catnip for the town’s cruelty.

    Gimpel’s only true ally is the rabbi, who insists that Gimpel is no fool at all. The real fools are those who delight in evil and humiliation. They mistake malice for intelligence. Gimpel, on the other hand, radiates goodness. Singer’s story repeatedly suggests that goodness and foolishness are not the same thing, even if the world often confuses them.

    When Gimpel expresses a desire to leave town, he is persuaded to marry Elka, who turns out to be the exact opposite of the pure and virtuous maiden he has been promised. Elka openly admits she is no innocent, yet demands that she be treated with dignity. Gimpel agrees, and they marry. Before long, Elka gives birth to a child that is plainly not his.

    Yet Gimpel loves the boy anyway. He devotes himself to the child and gradually comes to love Elka as well. His devotion is not rewarded. Elka treats him with contempt. While he works, she entertains other men and continually rejects his attempts at affection. The rabbi urges Gimpel to divorce her, but he cannot bring himself to do it. Instead, he continues supporting Elka and her children with money, food, and patience.

    For twenty years he remains loyal to a woman who repeatedly betrays him. Elka eventually bears six children, none of whom appear to be his. Then she falls ill and dies. Her final request is simple: that Gimpel forgive her. Reflecting on her life, he imagines her summing it up with a bleak confession: “I deceived Gimpel. That was the meaning of my brief life.”

    After her death, the Spirit of Evil visits Gimpel and offers him a tempting form of revenge. The townspeople have mocked him his entire life. Why not repay them? Why not urinate in the bakery’s bread dough and feed them corruption disguised as nourishment? When Gimpel hesitates, the spirit mocks his faith. There is no God, it says. There is no judgment. There is no meaning. The world is nothing but a swamp of lies. Seduced by resentment, Gimpel finally gives in and contaminates the dough.

    The act immediately wounds his conscience. Soon afterward, Elka appears to him in a dream. Wrapped in a burial shroud, she asks a single question: “What have you done, Gimpel?” He tries to blame her for his anger and bitterness, but she rejects the excuse. Her life may have been false, she tells him, but that does not mean all of life is false. She reveals that her deceptions have led her into profound suffering after death. When Gimpel looks at her face, he sees it consumed by darkness. The vision shocks him awake.

    Terrified by what he has done, Gimpel gathers the loaves and buries them in a chasm before anyone can eat them.

    Then he leaves Frampol.

    He gives provisions to his children and becomes a wanderer, drifting from place to place. Along the way he discovers that the world is overflowing with lies, yet no lie remains hidden forever. Every deception eventually reveals a truth. Every fraud leaves a trail. Even dreams become witnesses against those who seek to escape reality.

    As he travels, Gimpel accumulates stories. He learns that humanity is capable of every vice imaginable and that today’s absurdity often becomes tomorrow’s reality. Yet he also discovers that people hunger for meaning. They crave stories because stories impose order on a world that frequently resembles chaos. Gimpel becomes a storyteller, and audiences gather around him because his tales help them navigate a universe that often seems abandoned to cynicism and nihilism.

    In old age, he still dreams of Elka. He remembers her betrayals, but he remembers her with tenderness rather than bitterness. It is as though the generosity of his own heart gradually redeems her memory. The woman who spent her life deceiving him becomes, in recollection, the woman she might have been.

    The story ends with Gimpel reflecting that the world itself may be a kind of illusion. We may be little more than shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave. Yet Singer’s point is not that truth is unattainable. It is that truth exists beyond our distortions. We are always one breath away from a more real world. The response to deception is not greater deception. The response to nihilism is not surrender. We must live with goodness, integrity, and faith. Otherwise, in our pursuit of clout, cleverness, and self-interest, we become the fools we imagined ourselves too sophisticated to be.

  • Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism in the Age of OnlyFans (college essay prompt)

    Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism in the Age of OnlyFans (college essay prompt)

    The subscription platform OnlyFans has become one of the most controversial features of the digital economy. Supporters argue that it gives creators greater control over their labor, income, and personal brand while allowing consumers to purchase content from consenting adults. Critics argue that the platform commodifies intimacy, encourages emotional manipulation, weakens traditional moral norms, and profits from loneliness and social dysfunction.

    One way to understand this debate is through the conflict between moral absolutism and moral relativism. Moral absolutists argue that some actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of circumstances, consequences, or cultural changes. From this perspective, OnlyFans is morally problematic because it encourages the commercialization of sexuality, undermines values such as fidelity and honesty, and profits from emotional and relational vulnerabilities. Moral relativists, however, argue that moral judgments must be understood within specific social, economic, and cultural contexts. From this perspective, creators and subscribers are autonomous adults making voluntary choices in response to changing economic realities, technological developments, and evolving social norms.

    In a 1,200-word argumentative essay, develop a thesis that evaluates whether the moral absolutist or moral relativist perspective provides the more convincing interpretation of OnlyFans. You may defend one position, critique one position, or argue that the reality is more complex than either framework fully captures.

    As you develop your argument, consider questions such as: Is OnlyFans primarily a form of exploitation or a form of economic empowerment? Does the platform provide meaningful opportunities for autonomy and entrepreneurship, or does it encourage the commodification of intimacy and human relationships? To what extent are creators and subscribers exercising free choice, and to what extent are their decisions shaped by loneliness, economic pressures, social isolation, or broader cultural forces? Should morality be grounded in timeless principles, or should moral judgments adapt to changing social and economic conditions?

    Your essay should present a clear thesis, analyze the assumptions behind both moral absolutism and moral relativism, address at least one counterargument, and explain why your interpretation offers the most persuasive understanding of the ethical questions raised by OnlyFans and the modern digital economy.

  • The Wellness Club

    The Wellness Club

    Lost in the rhythms of suburban hibernation and nightly true-crime binges inside my bat cave, I had gradually drifted away from my college friends. Like me, they had married, raised children, worried about healthcare costs, and stared nervously at college tuition calculators. What I didn’t know was that they had been gathering every summer for years at a luxury wellness resort on Coronado Island.

    I learned of these reunions from my daughter Maggie, who monitored my friends’ social-media activity with the diligence of an intelligence analyst tracking foreign adversaries. She discovered photographs of them lounging poolside at the Wellness Island Resort and seemed genuinely saddened that I had been excluded.

    The drive from Torrance was only a couple of hours. Somehow Maggie contacted Bart, one of my old college friends, and persuaded him to invite us. My wife Lara and Maggie’s twin sister Alison couldn’t attend because they had dance rehearsals all weekend.

    I didn’t question Maggie’s intervention. Partly because I was touched by her concern for my introverted condition, and partly because Maggie had inherited a taste for luxury that far exceeded her budgetary circumstances. She approached five-star experiences the way medieval knights approached the Holy Grail.

    When I asked about the cost of the resort, she informed me that Bart was placing our expenses on the group’s Action Account, a fund they had apparently maintained for years to finance these annual gatherings.

    This struck me as suspiciously generous.

    I couldn’t shake the feeling that my old friends were attempting to relieve themselves of decades of guilt. Perhaps they had looked at the guest list, noticed my absence, and decided that paying for Maggie and me was cheaper than confronting their consciences.

    The Wellness Island Resort was impressive in the way wellness resorts are always impressive. Everything appeared optimized. The pool gleamed with the artificial perfection of a pharmaceutical advertisement. Guests reclined beneath canopies and gazebos while drinking green smoothies whose ingredients sounded less like food than graduate-level botany. Men and women with improbably low body-fat percentages sipped cucumber water and projected the serene confidence of people who had never eaten a gas-station burrito at midnight. Servers circulated with trays of artisanal sandwich bites containing salmon, tofu, sprouts, and microgreens so delicate they looked as though they might require emotional support animals.

    The entire place smelled faintly of citrus, sunscreen, and self-improvement.

    I assumed Maggie and I would spend the afternoon lounging by the pool.

    Instead, we met Chase Rangeman.

    He materialized beside us moments after we checked in. Tall, angular, and radiating managerial hostility, he wore the expression of a man who regarded joy as a policy violation. His smile looked professionally installed.

    “You two are members of the Wellness Club,” he said.

    “We are?”

    “Of course.”

    “What does that mean?”

    “It means everyone contributes.”

    He proceeded to explain that club members rotated through various duties including mopping floors, serving coffee, preparing food, and performing other tasks one generally does not associate with a ten-thousand-dollar wellness retreat.

    “Where are my friends?” I asked.

    “Out and about,” he replied. “You’ll see them eventually. Meanwhile, you’re on sandwich duty.”

    Maggie looked at me and shrugged.

    “Do you realize how expensive your stay is?” Chase asked as he marched us toward the kitchen.

    “Actually, we’re covered by the Action Account.”

    His eyes narrowed.

    “I’m very aware of the Action Account.”

    He said the phrase the way a district attorney might refer to a criminal syndicate.

    “That doesn’t exempt you from your responsibilities.”

    The kitchen resembled a laboratory dedicated to extending human life by thirty years. Salmon rested on beds of ice like museum pieces. Whole-grain loaves cooled on wooden racks. Homemade organic mayonnaise occupied crystal bowls. Every avocado appeared individually selected by a committee of experts. Microgreens stood at attention in refrigerated displays like tiny green soldiers awaiting inspection.

    Chase surveyed the room with paternal pride.

    “You and your daughter will make sandwiches for the guests.”

    “What kind?”

    “I’ll leave that up to you.”

    Then he glanced at his phone, announced he had an urgent matter requiring his attention, and vanished.

    The responsibility seemed straightforward enough.

    I selected salmon.

    After all, what could possibly go wrong with salmon?

    I mixed it with mayonnaise, celery, onions, shallots, paprika, salt, pepper, and chopped gherkins. I spread the mixture onto tiny squares of whole-grain bread and arranged the sandwiches on polished trays.

    The servers carried them away.

    My work was done.

    Or so I thought.

    An hour later Maggie and I had finally settled into our room overlooking the pool. I had just removed my shoes when the black telephone beside the bed rang.

    It was Chase.

    “You made salmon sandwiches with mayonnaise.”

    His voice sounded as though he were reporting a homicide.

    “Yes.”

    A long silence followed.

    “That’s the one sandwich you don’t make.”

    “You never told me that.”

    “It should have been obvious.”

    “How?”

    “The mayonnaise will curdle in the sun.”

    I considered pointing out that every ingredient at this resort appeared capable of surviving atmospheric reentry, but Chase continued.

    “You’ve exposed us to liability.”

    “What liability?”

    “You’ve committed a violation.”

    He sounded pleased.

    “That violation voids your discount. You now owe the resort nine thousand dollars.”

    Nine thousand dollars.

    For salmon sandwiches.

    I informed Maggie that we were facing financial ruin.

    Moments later there was a knock at the door.

    It was Bart.

    He looked sunburned, exhausted, and mildly irritated by my existence.

    “So,” he said, “you made salmon sandwiches.”

    I explained the situation.

    Bart listened without surprise.

    “Don’t pay anything,” he said. “We’ll cover it.”

    I felt relieved.

    Then he added:

    “But you and your daughter should leave immediately.”

    “Why?”

    “Within an hour Chase will forget you were ever here.”

    He delivered this statement with the calm certainty of a man explaining local weather patterns.

    Maggie and I were packed before Bart reached the elevator.

    As I said goodbye, he regarded me with an expression that suggested twenty years of unresolved grievances.

    Then he left.

    We raced to the parking lot, threw our luggage into the car, and drove back to Torrance.

    That evening I settled into my recliner and resumed watching a true-crime documentary.

    I was back in my bat cave.

    Safe.

    Yet as I thought about my old friends, the annual vacations, the Action Account, Bart’s contempt, and Chase Rangeman’s vendetta, I felt a familiar ache of exclusion.

    Clearly they had not wanted me there.

    Clearly they had spent years gathering without me for a reason.

    Clearly I had become an interloper in my own past.

    Strangely, as these thoughts swirled through my mind, I developed an overwhelming craving for salmon.

  • P-1426

    P-1426

    There are two people inside me. I have known this since childhood while sitting in dentists’ waiting rooms, flipping through dog-eared copies of Highlights for Children and encountering the two boys who seemed to possess custody of my soul: Goofus and Gallant.

    They appeared in countless moral tableaux. The boys faced identical chores, temptations, conflicts, and dilemmas. Goofus was the patron saint of poor decisions—a sniveling malcontent drawn instinctively toward selfishness, slovenliness, dishonesty, and shortcuts. He seemed to regard the human condition as a personal insult. Gallant, by contrast, beamed with the radiant confidence of a child who had never once disappointed a guidance counselor. He was truthful, virtuous, punctual, generous, and relentlessly wholesome. If Goofus represented original sin, Gallant represented a Hallmark card come to life.

    My parents never subscribed to the magazine. I encountered it only in medical waiting rooms during the early 1970s, so for years I assumed Goofus and Gallant belonged exclusively to my own childhood fever dream. Decades later, I discovered that much had been written about them. Julie Beck, writing in The Atlantic, described the comic strip as a kind of Calvinist morality play in which “their essential nature was preordained by a higher power long ago—Goofus forever doomed to be a screwup, Gallant to be a smug little do-gooder.”

    I’m glad I read Beck’s article because it rescued Goofus and Gallant from the fog of my childhood and confirmed that they were not merely figures from some private fever dream. For years they seemed less like characters from a magazine than recurring visitors from a half-remembered mythology that had taken up residence in my imagination.

    I need that kind of verification because I am one of those unfortunate people whose dreams refuse to remain confined to sleep. They leak into waking life. I rise carrying their residue like smoke trapped in my clothes. Long after the dream has ended, I can still sense its lingering odors, feel its unpleasant film coating the day, and endure the emotional aftershocks of its dark allegories. Some dreams fade by breakfast. Mine can haunt me for days, leaving behind a vague but persistent conviction that I have witnessed something both absurd and deeply accusatory.

    In my dreams, however, I am neither Goofus nor Gallant.

    I am Condemned.

    I am not the villain. I am not the hero. I am merely the witness forced to watch his own downfall unfold. My dreams place me on trial, convict me, and then require me to sit through the sentencing.

    Of all the symbolic collapses I could describe, one stands above the others. To understand my predicament, we must travel to the 2002 Los Angeles Tofu Festival.

    There, I encountered a portable toilet.

    The remarkable thing is that I spent no more than five seconds inside it. I never actually used it. Yet those five seconds altered the trajectory of my life.

    The structure stood alone at the edge of the festival grounds like a forgotten monument to human overconfidence. Its blue plastic walls had faded beneath years of relentless California sun into the color of a bruised sky. Scratches, stains, and scars suggested it had survived several natural disasters and perhaps a minor military campaign. The door sagged slightly on its hinges as though exhausted by the burden of existence.

    Near the top was a peeling service sticker bearing its identity:

    ManCo Portable Solutions

    P-1426

    The designation carried the cold authority of a prison number or military serial code. This was not merely a portable toilet.

    This was P-1426.

    The moment I opened the door and felt the blast of hot air strike my face like the breath of an infernal beast, it became clear that certain human experiences were never meant to be endured.

    I will not describe what I saw. I have no wish to relive the trauma.

    Let us simply say that I appeared to witness a squadron of bat-demons conducting an emergency evacuation from the lower circles of hell. The atmosphere possessed the density of a hostile planet. Heat, stench, and oxygen deprivation united into a perfect storm of biological aggression.

    Then I heard it.

    A voice.

    A cry rising from somewhere deep within the abyss.

    “Help me.”

    The words were unmistakable.

    I staggered backward. I uttered a curse in a voice that did not sound like my own. Then I fled before my body could be officially declared a casualty.

    The experience injured me.

    I required convalescence.

    For nearly a year I lived like a Victorian invalid. I drank herbal tea with ceremonial solemnity. I listened to motivational speakers while lying motionless with my eyes closed and my lower lip trembling. Most of all, I read the Book of Psalms in search of reassurance that humanity had survived comparable ordeals.

    King David had his enemies.

    Job had his boils.

    Ahab had his white whale.

    I had P-1426.

    And the plea for help.

    That plea tormented me because Gallant would have answered it.

    Gallant would have descended into the darkness and rescued the lost soul.

    I did what Goofus would do.

    I fled.

    I abandoned the suffering stranger to whatever horrors lurked within the suffocating blue chamber. I crossed the Valley of the Shadow of Death and returned carrying not triumph but shame.

    I was forty years old at the time. I had endured heartbreak, financial anxiety, family crises, and professional disappointments. Yet standing now in my mid-sixties, I can say with complete confidence that the most transformative event of my life occurred inside a portable toilet during a five-second encounter at a tofu festival.

    I have given this trauma a name:

    The Latrine of No Return.

    A Latrine of No Return is a formative experience so grotesque and spiritually destabilizing that it divides existence into two eras: Before the Incident and After the Incident.

    Before the Incident, I possessed innocence. I trusted civilization. I believed progress was real. I assumed humanity had solved certain fundamental problems.

    After the Incident, those illusions were gone.

    The man who approached P-1426 still believed he might someday become Gallant.

    The man who emerged knew better.

    Being a college writing professor, I naturally attempted to intellectualize the matter. Goofus and Gallant sounded far too juvenile for a man of my sophistication. I therefore rebranded the struggle.

    Goofus became Egregious.

    Gallant became Unctuous.

    I hoped a little linguistic flourish might elevate me above my malaise.

    It did not.

    For twenty years I remained haunted by the cry for help.

    Far from fading, it grew louder.

    Year after year, dream after dream, the voice returned.

    Until one night I awoke with a horrifying realization.

    The soul was still there.

    And if redemption was possible, there was only one course of action left.

    I would have to return.

    I would have to locate P-1426, descend into whatever infernal dimension existed within its blue plastic walls, rescue the forgotten prisoner, and emerge from the depths not merely as a survivor, but as a redeemed man.

    At long last, I would have to become Gallant.

    Hidden in my bedroom one evening with a true crime show on in the background, I called the number for ManCo Portable Solutions while my family was watching TV in the living room. I talked to a man by the name of Manny about my desire to examine the inside of P-1426, but omitted the part where I’m trying to rescue a hostage or a survivor or something like that. Manny repeated P-1426 like it was a familiar utterance, a long-standing part of his world. He said I could come visit P-1426 the next morning, but I’d have to be there at seven. He had to go for a medical appointment at nine regarding kidney stones. 

    The next morning, I drove to an industrial district in Los Angeles. The warehouse stretched across the industrial lot like an aircraft hangar devoted to an unusually specific religion. Row after row of portable toilets stood at attention beneath fluorescent lights, their blue plastic walls reflecting a cold industrial glow. Hundreds of them filled the cavernous space in military formation, creating long corridors that disappeared into the distance. The faint scent of disinfectant hung in the air.  Forklifts sat idle in corners like mechanical beasts resting between campaigns.

    At the center of the warehouse, as if occupying the command post of a strange sanitation empire, sat Manny behind a battered metal desk. The desk looked absurdly small amid the vast kingdom of portable toilets surrounding him. On either side stood two of his newest models, gleaming under the overhead lights. Their plastic surfaces were immaculate, their doors perfectly aligned, their ventilation systems polished and modern. They looked less like portable toilets than luxury automobiles unveiled at a trade show. One could easily imagine Manny regarding them with paternal pride.

    Manny himself appeared less pristine than his products. He wore a blue jumpsuit with the company logo embroidered above the breast pocket. The fabric was clean but permanently wrinkled, as if no amount of laundering could erase decades spent in the sanitation business. His dark hair was combed straight back, and a thick, bushy mustache dominated the lower half of his face. Yet it was his eyes that commanded attention. They were sad eyes, ringed with dark bags and carrying the exhausted expression of a man who had spent a lifetime confronting aspects of human existence most people preferred not to acknowledge. Those eyes suggested that Manny knew things. He had witnessed things. Entire chapters of human history.

    He sat quietly behind his desk, surrounded by his gleaming fleet of state-of-the-art portable toilets, looking less like a businessman than the weary curator of one of civilization’s least celebrated institutions. The new models stood around him like luxury sedans at an auto show, their polished plastic surfaces glowing beneath the fluorescent lights. Manny studied me with a look that combined skepticism, friendliness, and the exhaustion of a man who had spent decades confronting aspects of humanity most people preferred not to think about.

    “What brings you to P-one-four-two-six?” he asked. “That’s an old model. I’ve got newer, much better ones.”

    “I had an encounter with P-one-four-two-six,” I said.

    Manny nodded with surprising seriousness.

    “That happens,” he said. “Some people go to Disneyland. Some people go inside a portable toilet and come out with a story they tell for the rest of their lives.”

    He squinted at me for a moment.

    “You have claustrophobia, don’t you?”

    I nodded.

    “I knew it.” He pointed toward one of the newer units. “Forget P-one-four-two-six. Go with the new Q Series. Far more spacious. Better ventilation. Interior comfort package. Practically a studio apartment compared to those old units. The luxury, my friend. Oh boy.”

    His enthusiasm failed to reassure me.

    “Is everything okay with P-one-four-two-six?” I asked. “Have you inspected it?”

    “Of course.” He nodded. “Clean as a whistle. As good as the day it rolled out of the factory.”

    Then, without warning, his face tightened. He grabbed his side and bent forward.

    “Kidney stones,” he muttered.

    The words came out like a confession.

    I asked him how he got them.

    Manny leaned back in his chair and stared toward the warehouse ceiling.

    “Spinach,” he said bitterly.

    “Spinach?”

    “Spinach. Kale. Spirulina. Green smoothies. The whole wellness cult.”

    He shook his head.

    “My wife got cancer. No insurance. One of the doctors who treated her wouldn’t accept payment plans. Sixty thousand dollars. Maybe more. I paid it. Every penny. I emptied accounts. Took loans. Did whatever I had to do.”

    His voice softened.

    “She got better.”

    He paused.

    “Then she left.”

    The fluorescent lights hummed above us.

    “After that, I figured maybe I should improve myself. Lose weight. Become one of those optimized people you read about. Every morning I drank a blender full of spinach, kale, and enough oxalates to pave a highway.”

    He laughed darkly.

    “Turns out I didn’t become healthy. I became geological.”

    At that moment another wave of pain hit him.

    He clutched his side and let out a cry.

    The sound froze my blood.

    I had heard that cry before.

    Not in this warehouse.

    Not in this city.

    Not even in this decade.

    I had heard it twenty years earlier.

    Inside P-one-four-two-six.

    The same desperate pitch. The same wounded note. The same plea rising from some place of suffering and abandonment.

    My pulse quickened.

    The years collapsed.

    The dream.

    The guilt.

    The voice begging for help.

    It had never come from the portable toilet.

    It had come from Manny.

    Manny was the lost soul.

    The realization struck with the force of divine revelation. For twenty years I had imagined descending into an infernal portable toilet to rescue a stranger trapped in darkness. The entire quest had been wrong. The soul I was searching for had been sitting in front of me all along, wearing a blue jumpsuit and suffering from kidney stones, heartbreak, and the accumulated disappointments of a hard life.

    At that moment I understood my purpose.

    I had not returned to find P-one-four-two-six.

    I had returned to find Manny.

    Manny and I became friends after that.

    At first we met for coffee. Then we played racquetball. Soon we were taking kettlebell classes and struggling through power yoga sessions together, two middle-aged men attempting to negotiate peace treaties with joints that had long ago declared independence. We launched a YouTube channel devoted to men over fifty dealing with loneliness, depression, regret, and the peculiar sensation of realizing that life had quietly become shorter than the road already traveled. We hosted livestreams for men who felt discarded by modern life. We exchanged our recurring nightmares like war veterans comparing old battle scars.

    Most of all, I listened.

    Manny possessed a gift.

    For thirty years he had delivered portable toilets to concerts, festivals, political rallies, county fairs, marathons, and public gatherings of every conceivable variety. In doing so, he had become an accidental anthropologist of human desperation. He had witnessed people lose their minds while waiting in restroom lines. He had watched drunken concertgoers engage in territorial disputes over portable toilets with the strategic intensity of military commanders defending a contested border. He had seen people vandalize his property, attempt athletic feats that defied both physics and common sense, and occasionally injure themselves in ways that seemed to require active imagination.

    Each story was more absurd than the last.

    A man who tried to crowd-surf into a portable toilet.

    A wedding guest who locked himself inside one to avoid dancing.

    A festival attendee who attempted to tip a unit over and succeeded only in tipping himself into a cactus.

    Manny told these stories with the solemn authority of a man delivering ancient wisdom.

    Before long, people couldn’t get enough of him.

    The channel grew.

    The livestream audience expanded.

    Viewers tuned in from around the country to hear Manny explain how portable toilets occupied a strange intersection between civilization and chaos. He could discuss sanitation logistics with the seriousness of a philosopher while describing a music festival toilet emergency with the pacing of a Hollywood action film. He somehow made human waste, loneliness, redemption, and rock concerts feel like chapters from the same grand narrative.

    People adored him.

    I watched as Manny became a minor celebrity.

    His stories were clipped and shared online. Viewers quoted him. Fans approached him after events. Some even asked for selfies with the man who had transformed portable sanitation into a lens for understanding the human condition.

    And I found that I didn’t mind.

    In fact, I was proud.

    For once, I did not feel the need to compete for attention, to claim authorship, or to stand at center stage. I stepped aside and watched Manny flourish. The spotlight suited him. The lonely man who had once sat in a warehouse surrounded by portable toilets now had an audience hanging on every word.

    My wife noticed the change.

    One evening she looked at me and smiled.

    “You know,” she said, “this might be the nicest thing you’ve ever done.”

    I knew what she meant.

    For decades I had worried about obscurity. I had measured myself against impossible standards and imagined success as some distant mountain peak crowned with applause, recognition, and glory. Yet here I was, helping another person find his voice and discovering that the experience brought a deeper satisfaction than any personal acclaim I had ever chased.

    Only then did I understand what had happened.

    I had spent twenty years searching for the lost soul trapped inside P-1426.

    I thought I was rescuing Manny.

    The truth was that Manny had rescued me.

    And in surrendering the spotlight, in helping another person become fully himself without demanding credit or recognition, I had finally achieved the impossible.

    After all these years, I had become Gallant.

  • The Death of the Sacred Bond Between Writer and Reader

    The Death of the Sacred Bond Between Writer and Reader

    Fiction instructor Walt Hunt’s essay “The Death of the Reader” begins with a development that would have sounded absurd only a few years ago: an AI-assisted short story winning a major literary prize. The winning story, Jamir Nazir’s “The Serpent in the Grove,” took home the Granta Commonwealth Short Story Prize, prompting the now-familiar debate about authenticity. Was the story really written by a human? How much AI was involved? Can anyone tell the difference anymore? Hunt acknowledges that AI-generated prose often leaves fingerprints—certain stylistic tics, tonal smoothness, and suspiciously frictionless sentences that alert attentive readers. But he argues that critics are fixated on the wrong problem. The true casualty of AI fiction is not the writer. It is the reader.

    Before the arrival of AI-generated literature, reading rested on a fragile but meaningful act of trust. A reader entered a private room where another consciousness was waiting. Across centuries, continents, and cultures, readers formed intimate relationships with authors they would never meet. The writer offered a distinctive voice, a recognizable sensibility, a particular way of seeing the world. Sometimes the writer was a provocateur. Sometimes a companion. Sometimes a guide carrying a lantern through the darker corridors of human experience. Whatever form the relationship took, readers believed there was another person on the other side of the page.

    Now there is Claude.

    Claude is not a novelist struggling with heartbreak, obsession, grief, jealousy, or longing. Claude has never stared at a hospital ceiling at three in the morning. Claude has never fallen in love, buried a parent, betrayed a friend, or sat alone with regret. Claude is not a presence. It is a process. And because readers know this, a corrosive uncertainty enters the reading experience.

    What am I reading?

    Who wrote this?

    Did anyone write this?

    Does it matter?

    The machine turns every page into a cross-examination.

    Hunt argues that this uncertainty damages the reader more profoundly than it damages the author. The old covenant between writer and reader begins to dissolve. In its place emerges suspicion. Instead of surrendering to a voice, readers interrogate it. Instead of entering solitude, they become detectives hunting for evidence of fraud. Every elegant sentence becomes a potential counterfeit. Every emotional insight becomes grounds for skepticism.

    As Hunt observes, readers increasingly adopt a style of reading that is “self-conscious, hyperaware, restless, and anxiety-driven.” The reading experience becomes less like entering a cathedral and more like passing through airport security. We no longer relax into the rhythm of a trusted voice. We remain on guard, scanning for contraband signs of machine authorship.

    This defensive posture may prove fatal to the deepest pleasures of literature. Great reading requires vulnerability. It requires a willingness to let another mind rearrange your own. It requires trust. If every text becomes a potential deception, then reading loses its sense of encounter and becomes an exercise in verification. The reader ceases to ask, “What is this work trying to tell me?” and begins asking, “Who—or what—wrote this?”

    That shift may be the most consequential literary event of the AI age. The danger is not merely that machines will write books. The danger is that they will transform readers into skeptics incapable of the very surrender that literature requires. Long after the arguments about authorship fade, the deeper loss may remain: the disappearance of the sacred bond between a solitary reader and a solitary voice.

  • Who Controls the Story Controls the People (college essay prompt)

    Who Controls the Story Controls the People (college essay prompt)

    The documentary We Beat the Dream Team suggests that history is not merely a collection of facts but a contest over narrative power. The film explores how individuals and groups compete to shape public memory, define legitimacy, claim symbolic victory, and control the stories that future generations will remember. Although the documentary focuses on sports, it demonstrates that struggles over narrative ownership extend far beyond athletics into race, education, art, film, and cultural identity.

    Using this idea as your conceptual framework, write a 1,200-word argumentative essay comparing two of the following works:

    • Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass
    • “Learning in the Shadow of Race and Class” by bell hooks
    • Summer of Soul directed by Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson
    • Is That Black Enough for You?!? directed by Elvis Mitchell

    In your essay, analyze the claim that controlling narrative, memory, and representation is one of the most powerful ways dominant groups maintain authority and one of the most important ways marginalized groups resist erasure.

    As you develop your argument, examine how the works portray struggles over literacy, education, historical memory, cultural visibility, artistic representation, and identity. How do powerful institutions shape public understanding of reality? How do marginalized individuals and communities reclaim the right to tell their own stories? To what extent do autobiography, education, music, film, and art function as tools of resistance against cultural invisibility?

    You should also analyze the rhetorical and artistic methods used by the creators. Consider how autobiography, storytelling, archival footage, music, imagery, editing, voice, and narrative structure influence audience perception and challenge dominant narratives.

    As part of your essay, address at least one counterargument. For example, some critics may argue that representation and cultural visibility are insufficient forms of resistance because they do not necessarily produce economic equality, political power, or institutional change. Others may argue that dominant cultures eventually absorb and commodify resistance movements, transforming them into marketable products. Evaluate these criticisms and explain the strengths and limitations of cultural expression as a form of resistance.

    As you conclude, consider the broader implications of narrative control. Why do individuals, institutions, and societies fight so fiercely over memory, legitimacy, and representation? What happens when people lose the ability to preserve and narrate their own histories? Finally, consider how social media, AI, and algorithm-driven platforms continue to shape who gets to tell the story and whose stories are forgotten.

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • Compare two of the four works
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific scenes, passages, or examples rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about narrative ownership, cultural memory, identity, and power
  • Can Philosophers Keep Their Souls in Silicon Valley?

    Can Philosophers Keep Their Souls in Silicon Valley?

    In “Someone Finally Wants to Hire Philosophers,” Lila Shroff reports what would have sounded like a punchline only a decade ago: philosophy majors may finally be getting the last laugh. For years, philosophy occupied an awkward place in the public imagination—a discipline associated with coffee-shop debates, existential handwringing, and the noble art of explaining to relatives why you were unemployed. At best, the philosopher was a thoughtful gadfly. At worst, a professional overthinker. But the rise of artificial intelligence has suddenly transformed philosophy from an intellectual curiosity into a marketable skill. Major technology companies are hiring philosophers. Universities are recruiting scholars who specialize in both AI and philosophy. The old joke about philosophy leading nowhere is beginning to age badly.

    As Shroff notes, this development should not surprise us. Philosophers have been wrestling with questions about intelligence, consciousness, morality, and the possibility of artificial minds for centuries. Long before Silicon Valley executives promised to change the world, philosophers were already asking whether a machine could think, reason, or possess something resembling a mind. Today, thinkers such as Nick Bostrom have become influential voices in the AI conversation. His book Superintelligence warned more than a decade ago that humanity might create machines whose capabilities outstrip our ability to control them. What once sounded like speculative science fiction now reads more like a boardroom agenda.

    The marriage between AI and philosophy arises from a practical concern. Technology companies want their products to appear ethical, trustworthy, and safe. A machine that accidentally promotes fraud, discrimination, or social chaos is difficult to market. Consumers are more likely to embrace AI systems that project wisdom, fairness, and restraint. In the increasingly crowded AI marketplace, virtue has become a product feature. Safety, ethics, and responsibility are not merely moral concerns; they are branding opportunities.

    Yet Shroff’s essay leaves several uncomfortable questions lingering in the air.

    First, philosophers disagree about nearly everything. That is practically the job description. If ethical questions routinely produce competing schools of thought, which philosophers do AI companies choose to hire? A utilitarian, a virtue ethicist, a libertarian, and a nihilist might evaluate the same problem and arrive at wildly different conclusions. When an AI company claims to be guided by philosophy, whose philosophy is it talking about?

    Second, corporations do not operate in a vacuum. They pursue growth, market share, influence, and profit. Given those incentives, it seems unlikely that technology companies will eagerly recruit philosophers whose views fundamentally conflict with corporate objectives. The philosopher who questions the legitimacy of the enterprise may not receive the same warm welcome as the philosopher who helps polish its public image.

    Third, what happens to philosophy itself when it becomes a lucrative career path? If technology firms reward certain ethical frameworks and ignore others, philosophers may gradually adapt their views to become more employable. Intellectual independence has always been easier to defend when no one is writing the check. Once prestige, influence, and six-figure salaries enter the picture, even the most principled thinkers may find themselves sanding off inconvenient beliefs.

    This is why I remain skeptical of any celebration of philosophy’s new status in the AI economy. There is no such thing as pure philosophy floating above human ambition. There are only human beings, complete with incentives, blind spots, loyalties, and self-interest. The partnership between AI and philosophy may produce genuinely useful ethical guidance. Or it may become an elaborate exercise in corporate virtue theater—a dazzling display of moral concern performed beneath bright lights while the machinery of profit hums steadily backstage. Whether philosophers become the conscience of artificial intelligence or merely its public relations department remains an open question.

  • The Savior Complex: Visionaries, Frauds, and the Danger of Absolute Certainty (college essay prompt)

    The Savior Complex: Visionaries, Frauds, and the Danger of Absolute Certainty (college essay prompt)

    Read critic Shirley Li’s “An Intimate Portrait of Humanity at Its Worst” and watch both Bugonia and the HBO documentary The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley.

    In her discussion of Bugonia, Shirley Li describes the film as “an intimate portrait of humanity at its worst.” She argues that the film’s two central characters, Teddy and Michelle, each view themselves as heroic figures attempting to save the world. Yet their heroism exists largely inside self-constructed narratives that distort reality and justify cruelty. Li observes that both characters are “so self-important and solipsistic that they’re oblivious to how heartless they’ve become.” Their conversations rarely resemble genuine dialogue because neither person truly listens, compromises, or questions their own certainty. Instead, they become trapped inside competing realities fueled by obsession, fear, and self-righteousness.

    This idea of the self-appointed savior connects powerfully to Elizabeth Holmes in The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley. Holmes presented herself as a visionary entrepreneur determined to revolutionize medicine and help humanity through technology. Yet her company, Theranos, eventually collapsed amid accusations of deception, manipulation, and fraud. Like the characters in Bugonia, Holmes constructed a heroic self-image so powerful that it appeared to override ethical limits, objective reality, and the perspectives of others.

    Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay analyzing the theme of the “delusional hero” as it appears in Bugonia and The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley. In your essay, develop an argument about why modern individuals become so attracted to seeing themselves as heroes, visionaries, victims, saviors, or misunderstood geniuses even when their behavior becomes destructive, manipulative, or detached from reality.

    As you develop your argument, consider questions such as:

    • What motivates these figures to see themselves as heroic?
    • Are they driven by sincere belief, calculated manipulation, narcissism, status anxiety, or some unstable mixture of all four?
    • Do they possess fragments of truth that they mistakenly elevate into absolute truth?
    • At what point does confidence transform into delusion?
    • How does moral certainty affect the way these figures treat other people?
    • Why do self-appointed heroes often become incapable of genuine dialogue, self-criticism, or empathy?

    You should also consider the larger cultural forces shaping these characters. To what extent does modern society reward self-mythologizing, personal branding, performative authenticity, and grand narratives of individual greatness? Does contemporary culture pressure people to transform themselves into heroic protagonists at all costs? How do social media, startup culture, influencer culture, therapeutic language, and status competition encourage people to construct idealized narratives about themselves?

    At the same time, you should complicate the idea of the “delusional hero.” You may consider whether unconventional, obsessive, or visionary individuals are sometimes unfairly dismissed as irrational simply because they challenge consensus thinking. Is society too quick to label difficult or eccentric people as delusional? How can we distinguish between genuine visionaries and narcissistic fantasists?

    In addition to analyzing the ideas presented in both works, examine the rhetorical and cinematic methods used to shape audience perception. Consider how tone, editing, characterization, interviews, symbolism, irony, suspense, and narrative structure influence our understanding of Teddy, Michelle, and Elizabeth Holmes. How do these works encourage viewers to both criticize and partially empathize with their subjects?

    You must include at least one counterargument and rebuttal. For example, some critics may argue that all ambitious leaders require a degree of self-delusion in order to challenge existing systems, inspire others, and pursue innovation. Others may argue that modern society punishes confidence and ambition whenever they appear outside socially approved norms. Respond to these objections by evaluating the difference between conviction and destructive self-mythology.

    As you conclude your essay, consider the broader implications of the “delusional hero” in modern society. What do these works reveal about narcissism, loneliness, status anxiety, ideological certainty, and the modern pressure to transform oneself into the hero, victim, visionary, or savior of one’s personal narrative? Why are audiences simultaneously fascinated and repelled by people who become trapped inside their own heroic self-image?

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • Use evidence from both works
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific scenes, quotations, and examples rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about self-mythology, narcissism, certainty, and modern identity