Do Your Research HuffPo: Washington Had Three Copies of Don Quixote

February 24, 2016

Writer

Unlike Glenn, the Huffington Post is evidently not a student of history --- nor fond of research, for that matter.

Rather than publish with journalistic integrity, HuffPo decided to throw caution to the wind and publish an unsubstantiated hit piece questioning the authenticity of a book Glenn owns and has taken along on the campaign trail. The book in question is George Washington's volume of Don Quixote. The hit piece, titled "Mount Vernon Says It Owns George Washington's Copy Of Don Quixote, Not Glenn Beck," was published yesterday.

"The Huffington Post wrote a story, and it says, you know, Glenn Beck's people didn't respond for comment. Well, we weren't given a chance to comment on a story. They put a phone call in and then pushed print. And they went to press on this story, as they called us. We had no time to respond. And it is the sloppiest journalism I have ever seen," Glenn said Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program.

So let's fill in the blanks and do HuffPo's work for them.

George Washington owned three copies of Don Quixote --- two in English, one in Spanish. The first English copy and the Spanish version are owned by Mount Vernon. The second English copy is owned by Glenn. That copy was given to Tobias Lear, George Washington's personal secretary, who was at Washington's bedside when he died. He then gave it to his son, Benjamin Lincoln Lear.

"Mount Vernon will not deny that George Washington had three copies, and he gave one to Tobias Lear," Glenn said. "How do I know they won't deny it? Because there are records at Mount Vernon that show it. He was a record keeper."

The Don Quixote copy that Glenn now owns came from the Lear family through an auction in Maine. It first went to the James D. Julia Auction House, a highly respected auction house, and was bought by Bauman Books in New York. Glenn purchased Lear's copy of Don Quixote (that was gifted to him by George Washington) from Bauman Books in New York --- and it's all documented.

"Now, I don't think you care at all about rare book dealers. ...But you know who does care? Me," Glenn said. "And here's why: Because people are now saying I'm dragging out a fake Washington book all around the country. And now they're starting to question the Washington compass, which also has documentation."

When Glenn acquired Washington's compass he was bidding against none other than Mount Vernon. Their response upon losing it to another bidder: "It doesn't matter. Some day we'll get it anyway."

Both relics of Washington's that Glenn has taken on the campaign trail --- the copy of Don Quixote and the compass --- were acquired through the highest ethical standards and from the most reputable antiquities dealers. And there's documentation to prove it.

"If it's fake, I'm going to file a gigantic lawsuit," Glenn said. "It will be a "uge" lawsuit. It will be the most magnificent lawsuit you've ever seen."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: But while we're here kind of talking about history this half-hour, I just want to address something that came out from the Huffington Post yesterday. And I think outrageous.

The Huffington Post wrote a story, and it says, you know, Glenn Beck's people didn't respond for comment. Well, we weren't given a chance to comment on a story. They put a phone call in and then pushed print. And they went to press on this story, as they called us. We had no time to respond.

And it is the sloppiest journalism I have ever seen. They ran a story. And it's all over Twitter this morning. They ran a story that I have this copy of George Washington's Don Quixote, which I've been taking around and talking about in all of my speeches. And they claim -- they called Mount Vernon to find out if that's George Washington's copy of Don Quixote. And they said -- and Mount Vernon said, "We have George Washington's copy of Don Quixote." So Glenn Beck must be a liar.

Here's the thing, George Washington owned three copies of Don Quixote. An English -- I'm sorry -- two English and one in Spanish. I have the second English version that he bought. In his library, it has his writing in it, it has his book plate in it. My copy was given to Tobias -- what was his name? Tobias Lear. Tobias Lear was the personal secretary that was at the bedside of George Washington when he died. He then gave it to his son, Benjamin Lincoln Lear. This book has -- from the personal library of George Washington book plate over it. Over that book plate is a book plate that says Benjamin Lincoln Lear. It also has George Washington's handwriting in it.

Mount Vernon will not deny that George Washington had three copies, and he gave one to Benjamin -- or, he gave one to Tobias Lear. How -- how do I know they won't deny it? Because there are records at Mount Vernon that show it. He was a record keeper.

This book came from the Lear family, through an auction in Maine. They finally let it go. It went to an auction house called the James D. Julia Auction House. Highly respected. It was bought by Bauman Books in New York. Bauman Books, the reason you would ever pay the price that Bauman pays -- because you're not getting a deal when you go to Bauman, is because you know the provenance. You know that this is -- is impeccably recorded on exactly -- when they say this is what it is, that is exactly what it is. Somebody brought it from Bauman Books, and I bought it from them.

Now, I don't think you care at all about rare book dealers, you know, previously had a book from George Washington. But you know who does care? Me. And here's why: Because people are now saying I'm dragging out a fake Washington book all around the country. And now they're starting to question the Washington compass, which also has documentation.

And, you know what, let me tell you something. I paid a fortune for these things. And these people who are printing these things are hurting the monetary value of those items. And they're only trying to do it because it's the same group of people that try to discredit any kind of history that is coming from a conservative. They have their own political motives for doing it.

HuffPo. When we called the HuffPo and said, "Hey, what's the deal?" Guy said everybody else was going to run with it, so I just had to run with it. You didn't even talk to us. So that excuses you for sloppy journalism? I paid a fortune for this. I have all of the documentation. It's solid documentation. And documentation that Mount Vernon will back.

And you know who was bidding against me for the compass? Mount Vernon. You know what they said when they lost, "It doesn't matter. Some day we'll get it anyway."

So if it's fake, I'm going to file a gigantic lawsuit -- it will be a uge lawsuit. It will be the most magnificent lawsuit you've ever seen.

PAT: And how long --

GLENN: The documentation is there. Hang on just a second.

And if these people are right, then I'm suing for enough money to put my name in gold on every building in New York and then maybe I'll be angry enough to run for president.

(chuckling)

PAT: And it took you a long time with that compass to scrape off the Made in China stamp on the back of it.

GLENN: Yes, it did.

JEFFY: It doesn't just come off.

GLENN: No.

PAT: So it just pisses me that they're doing this to you now. Because that wasn't easy.

GLENN: Yeah. I know it was very difficult to get the Made in China off. Just amazing.

PAT: You literally paid a fortune for that compass. And wasn't that part two of their investigative series --

GLENN: Yes. Tomorrow. Tomorrow, we question the compass.

PAT: Yeah. So, I mean --

GLENN: Jeez. If I need to drag around the documentation for everything -- so when I was on the road and said, "This is George Washington's." And we went back and checked the tape. There were times that I said, this is the one that he got on that day, and that wasn't the one he got on that day. He had three copies.

So that wasn't the one that he got on that day. But usually I said, "This was George Washington's copy of Don Quixote." And they're questioning that this was George washington's copy. And the only reason why they said that it wasn't was because they went on record because people were calling Mount Vernon saying, "Glenn Beck is lying, isn't he?"

And they said, "No, we have George Washington's copy of Don Quixote."

Yes, you have two of two them. He had three of them. I have the other one. But nobody cares to listen to that.

And so it's just sloppy journalism, at best.

STU: Obviously, no one -- they don't care --

GLENN: Nobody cares about that. Nobody cares about this.

STU: What's the reason they're doing this? The point you're making with the book, is that what they're attacking?

GLENN: No. No. The reason I brought the book out was how was it George Washington -- on the day they signed the Constitution, what he said was, in his diary, "Signed the Constitution today. I pick up my copy of Don Quixote."

So how -- that book has always bothered me. I look at it, and I'm like, "Okay. What was he trying to say? What was Don Quixote speaking to him about? Why was this book so important?"

It really isn't that. Because to me that's like somebody saying, "I save the world today, and I'm going to Barnes & Noble." What is that? And so what it was, was he finished the Constitution with purity, with exactness. He did exactly what he was supposed to do. And as he said at the end of the Constitutional Convention, the event is in the hand of God.

So he did exactly what he was supposed to do. He knew that that a future generation would see the Constitution. They would be faced with -- he didn't know what it would be, but totalitarian, socialism, you know, or the status quo. And people wouldn't know which way to run. And they -- because they did the right thing, in his words, they raised the standard to which the wise and the honest would run to. And so that allowed him to, when he finished say, "Yeah. And I get to go read a good book. I've heard these great things from this ambassador about this story. I've got that book coming in. I can sit under my tree on my farm and read."

The point I'm trying to make with the book is: When you do the right thing, you can sleep at night.

And George Washington saw this time, and he gave us the -- he gave us where we should be going. We shouldn't be going to socialism. We shouldn't be going to a strongman. We shouldn't be looking for the status quo. We should run to the Constitution. Because it was done with exactness and they could sleep at night, and we'll be able to sleep at night because our answers are all contained there. Our problems are because we didn't adhere to the Constitution. America, run to the Constitution. The event is in the hand of God.

Featured Image: American television personality and radio host Glenn Beck holds a copy of a Don Quixote book as he talks about Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz during a campaign event at the Johnson County Fairgrounds January 31, 2016 inIowa City, Iowa. Cruz is campaigning across the state on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. (Photo by Joshua Lott/Getty Images)

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

Do Your Research HuffPo: Washington Had Three Copies of Don Quixote

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Peace through strength

Names matter

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

Narrative engineering from the top

Institutional and media coordination

Surveillance and suppression

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Peace requires concessions

Peace or bloodshed?

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Outsourcing presence

Reclaiming our humanity