Earth & Its Contents
By Ben Franks
Who really runs modern day?
So, recently, as every good lad would, I’ve been thinking who’s actually in charge of the modern world. Now, to start, I’d just like to bring to your attention that it certainly isn’t any President/Primeminister or King/Queen, definitely not. If Barack Obama decided to ponder off down to Sicily and pop into the local Bakers, he wouldn’t be able to force the bloke there to do handstands and cycle backwards, could he? Hell no. And the last thing Gordon Brown can do is go into a shop and break wind without being repeatedly hit in the face by a crack-o-jack.
Thus, it definitely does not fall down to a leader. The next person on my list is Morgan Freeman, also known as God. Now, God/Morgan Freeman, or even any religious figure for that matter, doesn’t run modern day either. This is simply proven by the hypothetical thinking of if a bearded man who decided to call himself Jesus tried to convince some bloke called Muhammad that he was God’s son, Muhammad would at the very least not listen – and at the very most commit something unusually too strong for this column. So, it isn’t the religious leaders either.
So, Ben, who the hell is it?
Well, firstly, don’t you go asking me rhetorical questions it makes me nervous. Even though you’ve just done the above wrong doing, I’m compelled to tell you anyway. The first thing I should tell you is that it isn’t infact a “who” that we’re looking for. Oh no. What we’re looking for, ever so closely – and perhaps with a 44 million quid microscope pointing at it’s invisible existence – is Hope. You might now be sitting there thinking this is some kind of weird turn for the worst, and naturally you’ll be thinking that because my answer sounds genuinely serious. Well, don’t worry, it’s not. Hope can’t really do much unless you’re in the situation that you need hope, so that brings this argument to a close because now I truly know what runs the modern world; it isn’t any world leader… any kind of religion… not even a feeling… it all comes down to whether or not you own a gun.
If you go to that Bakers in Sicily with a gun and you ask the bloke to do handstands and cycle backwards, he’ll do it. If you met Muhammad and told him that you were the Son of God and threatened him to acknowledge such a fact at gunpoint, then he might agree. If you come to a circumstance when people are willing to die for something, then you hold the gun to someone else and then conscience replaces hope and you have the world at your fingertips.
The only problem with this, of course, is that everyone who has a gun runs the world, and because their can only really be one leader, there will always be bloodshed and there will always be guns.
If you thought that was too serious, then go on Youtube and type in something really naughty! Go on, I dare you.
Points:
Time spent:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
Thanks for the feedback
Hey Ben! I'm here to review as requested. Let's get started!

Okay, so first off, I think this article has some great potential. The idea behind it is something that any modern human being can relate to and agree with, particularly those who live in the middle-east or in those unlucky parts of Africa. And although your approach is a more humorous one, you still show a good understanding of the situation. Good job!
That being said, however, you tend to get a little fuzzy at parts. Near-ranting of the middle paragraph aside, you completely confused me with this:
Also, I'm not sure that last sentence should even be there at all. You always want your closing sentence to wrap up the entire idea you're trying to get across--it's more professional if you exclude sentences like this that tend to lean on the random side.
And obviously, I know that you don't necessarily need to be "professional" at the moment; you don't have to worry about any newspaper running your piece any time soon, unless you really want to. But, if you would consider submitting this to a company of some sort in the hopes of being published, I would definitely work on these above things. It will help you in the long run, and in a bunch of different ways.
If you have any questions or would like another review, please don't hesitate to ask!
-Knightley
P.S. I almost forgot: While in most cases you're right, guns have a lot of power and tend to instill fear and compliancy in the average Joe-shmoe, there are several cases where this power is overruled by the very thing you discounted: faith. I won't go into details because I don't want to sound preachy or anything, but if you look up Cassie Bernall online, you'll see why I would say that.
Thanks for the positive feedback
Personally? I don't. My views on religion are generally quite agnostic. However, if faced with a life or death situation, I would find myself turning to a faith; besides that, I don't generally think much of the subject. Definitely open to religion though.
I really enjoyed this one Ben. I thought that asking such a serious question, and then making the answer so humorous was good. Yes, I agree. A gun owner has a lot of power in today's society.

Just curious, do believe in and accept Jesus Christ as your savior?
-Minister