Comedians Nail the Problem With the PC Culture

April 18, 2017

WRITER

Comedians have historically crossed the lines drawn by the rest of society. They did it in the 70s and 80s with religion, racism and a host of other issues. Today, as the PC culture tries to normalize itself, comedians are the ones pushing back.

"They weren't ever making these kinds of points in the last 20 years. They were not making the, Hey, get control points," Glenn said Tuesday on radio. "They were making the point of, We've got to move forward. We've got to progress."

To illustrate the change, Glenn played several excerpts from contemporary comedians like Dave Chappelle, Jim Norton and Patton Oswalt.

Has the PC pendulum swung back enough so we can have a little common sense and laugh at ourselves again?

Listen to this segment beginning at mark 9:56 from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Who was it -- was it Dave Chappelle? Do you have that Dave Chappelle cut? There's that Dave Chappelle where he talks about -- how is the African-American losing here?

JEFFY: They are.

GLENN: Yeah. He's like, we're -- we've lost our place. I mean, we've struggled forever and ever and ever. And now, where are we? And he's not the only comedian. Who is the other comedian?

STU: Yeah. Patton Oswalt Did something kind of on this where, you know -- again, these are not conservatives.

GLENN: No.

STU: These are liberals who are like, wait a minute, guys.

GLENN: And so was -- what's his name? Louis C.K.

PAT: Here's Dave Chappelle on the gay movement. Oh.

STU: Right now, I don't think it's sounding that loud. I think louder would be better.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Well, he's got a very quiet voice. I don't know if you've ever seen him live, but he's very, very, very quiet.

CHAPPELLE: I get it though. I understand why gay people are mad, and I empathize. You know what, I'm just telling you as a black dude, I support your movement. But if you want to take some advice from a Negro, pace yourself. These things take a while. Just because they passed the law doesn't mean they're going to like you. Brown vs. Board of Education was in 1955. Somebody called me a (bleep) in traffic last Wednesday. That's how long it takes. It takes a minute.

(laughter)

PAT: He's really funny.

GLENN: He is. He's really genius. He's really genius.

PAT: Really funny.

STU: So we have a bunch of clips here of comedians. I'm going to take just a quick break here with Mr. Pat Gray to make sure he has the most updated emails.

GLENN: You're saying that maybe there's an F-word or two?

STU: I'm saying we need to be careful to make sure you're playing the most updated.

GLENN: All right. We'll take a quick break here and then we'll make sure that we -- we've rinsed out their mouths.

[break]

GLENN: Welcome to the program.

So, you know, we were talking about political correctness and -- and who is -- who is at the top of the food chain? It used to be white males. That's long gone. You're at the bottom --

PAT: We're at the very bottom.

JEFFY: Long, long ago.

GLENN: Very bottom. Then it was females. But females are no longer at the top. Then it was homosexuals. Homosexuals are not at the top. It might be transgender. But I don't think so.

Who is at the top of the female -- it's not the African-American anymore. As you just heard from Dave Chappelle.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Now, listen, we've got about four comedians that are right now out, who are not conservative --

STU: At all. Exact opposite.

GLENN: Play this. Play this cut.

STU: It's Patton Oswalt.

GLENN: Listen to this.

OSWALT: I could not be a more committed, progressive, feminist, pro-gay, pro-transgender person, but I cannot keep up with the (bleep) glossary of correct terms. I'm trying! I want to help, but, holy (bleep), it's like the secret club password. They change it every week. And then you're in trouble. That's not the word we use. (bleep). It was just last week. I have hemorrhoids. My (bleep) is falling out. I want to help. I know I'm an old this (bleep) white (bleep), but don't give me (bleep) because I didn't know the right term. (bleep) RuPaul. RuPaul got into shit for saying "tranny." Ru (bleep) Paul. RuPaul, who she laid down on the barbed wire of discrimination throughout the '70s and '80s so this new generation could run across her back and yell at her for saying "tranny."

(laughter)

PAT: So good.

JEFFY: That is a fact.

PAT: Oh, that's --

STU: I mean, that's amazing that a progressive -- comedians are even noticing how far this has come. And they're not going to agree with the conservative audience on the points behind it. But that's kind of the issue here. You're even taking your own allies. And people who are rooting for you and want you to get everything that you want. And you're still torturing them over these things.

PAT: The same comedian, Patton Oswalt. Was it his nephew that's gay that came to him and was talking about how bad things were.

STU: I think it was his nephew, or maybe a friend's nephew.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Yeah.

OSWALT: Moved to LA. Came out of the closet. Told his parents. His parents went, duh. Now he's happy. He's married. Happy. He's running a business.

But he has a nephew who goes to his old high school. And so he's really protective of this kid because his nephew is openly, proudly, defiantly gay. Going to high school. And my friend is like, if anyone gives him (bleep), I will burn that (bleep) to the -- he's so protective. And I get it.

So he went back for Thanksgiving, and he's talking to his nephew. And he goes, is everything okay at that school? You know, I went there. I didn't have the best time. If you ever, like, want to like talk to me about it. How are things? Are they -- are they oppressive? Are they mean?

And his nephew started choking up and said, "Yeah. You know, it's -- it's pretty rough there. You know, they're still really oppressive. And it's pretty harsh." And my friend, the way he put it to me was my -- my inner Liam Neeson woke up, right? He was -- like he was thinking, "Give me a name." Like he just wanted a --

(laughter)

But he kept his cool, and he was like, "Well, just. Let's talk about it. What's going on? What are they doing to you?" And his nephew said, "Well, you know, for instance, my gay lesbian transgender club at school, we wanted to have our prom the same night as the straight kids' prom, and they're going to make us wait two weeks to have it. So it's just really oppressive, you know."

(laughter)

And my friend had to stop himself from saying, "You need to shut the (bleep) up because I don't think you know what oppressive means."

(laughter)

GLENN: How true is that?

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Oh, man.

STU: Because, you know --

PAT: Very.

STU: There was no gay or lesbian club when the uncle went there. There was no gay or lesbian prom. And the fact that you had to hold it on a different day, that actually seems more special. You get your own day. It's amazing that -- to see that happening in -- you know, in the world of pop culture. I mean, comedians who are, you know --

GLENN: And comedians lead the way.

STU: And they're the ones that will constantly walk over lines that the rest of society has drawn. You know, they -- and they've dawn this forever. They did it with religion back in the day.

GLENN: And they didn't do this before. They didn't -- they weren't ever making these kinds of points in the last 20 years. They were not making the, hey -- hey, get control.

They were not making those points. They were making the point of, we've got to move forward. We've got to progress.

STU: Look at these hicks that are stopping -- and they still make those points. There's no doubt.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

STU: But you're right. It's the opposite. It's like, wait a minute. We're trying to help you. And, still, you're torturing us over these things. I mean, that RuPaul point is amazing. I mean, I don't remember that story.

JEFFY: That sure is.

STU: But, I mean, if RuPaul is getting heat for not being transgender friendly enough, you might be going too far here.

GLENN: You might?

STU: You might be over the line.

GLENN: You think?

Well, if you want to be a hatemonger like that, Stu.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Then you can hate all you want. The rest of us know.

STU: The rest of us? The rest of us know?

GLENN: Yeah, the rest of us know.

PAT: The enlightened ones.

GLENN: The enlightened ones.

STU: But the Chappelle thing is new. Patton Oswalt.

GLENN: I know there's a Louis C.K. thing too.

STU: There's also a Jim Norton. Do we have a Jim Norton clip as well? His latest Netflix special has -- I hope they edited this one.

(chuckling)

Jim Norton can --

PAT: Yeah, he can get dirty.

GLENN: If they didn't edit this, I just want to say goodbye now. Thank you -- thank you for the time spent listening to us and all of your support over the years.

STU: We do have a delay built in, so if anything happens, you'll be fine.

GLENN: Here we go.

NORTON: But it's funny. The whole country is trans crazy. And we're really obsessed with it. And it's so funny how when the new thing happens or becomes in the lexicon, you can't joke about it on TV. Like, I tried to do a Caitlin Jenner joke. The networks were like, no transitioning jokes. And I'm like, well, it's not even a mean joke. And they were like, yeah, but we just don't like it. They've been marginalized.

I'm like, look, just because you've been marginalized doesn't mean you're removed from the humor spectrum like everybody -- like it wasn't even a mean -- first of all, the network canceled her reality show. How (bleep) is your reality show when you are on a Wheaties box. You're now a woman. You were a Kardashian. You killed somebody driving. And then, just boring. There's nothing happening.

(laughter)

And I think Hollywood means well. I think their hearts are in the right place. But it's a little bit phony. Some of it is just a little bit fake. Because you know how they can't talk about Caitlyn without saying how beautiful Caitlyn she is. Have you seen how beautiful Caitlyn is? No. She looks like the gypsy from Thinner.

(laughter)

PAT: Oh, my.

STU: He's awesome. But, I mean, that -- look, I mean, that's, what? Three big comedians. You also mentioned Louis C.K. Maybe we can run that clip for tomorrow or something. But like, it's a bizarre trend. It's strange to hear from these people.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: It shows that perhaps the PC pendulum is swinging back closer to the, you know, let's have common sense and being able to laugh at ourselves and each other just a little bit here. No execution for words. Safe zones are ridiculous.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

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.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

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

Comedians Nail the Problem With the PC Culture

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

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

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

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