Why did a gay woman apologize to embattled Indiana pizzeria?

Good news! The country can come together on common sense principles and values. For the past couple of days, the battle in Indiana over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has seemed to tear the country apart. But there are still people who understand decency and common sense in the world. Courtney Hoffman is a gay woman from Seattle. Why did she apologize to the owners of Memories Pizza all the way in Indiana? This is one of the best “strange bedfellows” stories of all time.

10689789_10103513808965568_5008792332232004000_n-620x620

On the Memories Pizza GoFundMe page, Hoffman wrote:

“As a member of the gay community, I would like to apologize for the mean spirited attacks on you and your business. I know many gay individuals who fully support your right to stand up for your beliefs and run your business according to those beliefs. We are outraged at the level of hate and intolerance that has been directed at you and I sincerely hope that you are able to rebuild.”

She shared more of her story on radio this morning with Glenn.

"After I heard about it, it just kind of sat with me. You know, just the behaviors towards this little pizzeria seemed appalling," she said.

Courtney was critical of the voices at the forefront of the gay community. She said that for the most part, people should have a 'live and let live' attitude and approach.

"What I feel has been most amazing to me has been the level of shock that people have expressed. I guess what they've been calling my tolerance. A lot of people I know believe that the gender of your significant other does not dictate your beliefs. That's just the gender of your significant other. But I know so many gay individuals who are Republican and Democrat and capitalist and socialists and Christians and atheists, and there's this whole wide view of mind-sets within a community. It's not just this one forefront that people see that seems to be made up of this bullying tactic," she said.

"I feel like there's been this kind of dialogue for a while that if someone disagrees with you or has a different opinion than you then therefore they must be malicious or filled with hate," she said. "Just change the dialogue on that front. Just because someone disagrees with my opinion, doesn't mean they're evil or that they're malicious in their intent. It just means that we differ in opinions. But we probably have so much more in common."

"The gay community has spent decades fighting for their right to just be themselves. All we ever wanted was the right to live our lives as we see fit according to our beliefs. And to turn on someone who, yeah, has very different beliefs than we have - but it's the same fundamental right to just live your right according to those beliefs. We should be defending that. If we don't agree with that, we should open a dialogue or just letting them live. You don't have to open a dialogue with them, but I'm not quite sure when or why, you know, the people who have fought for decades to live their life according to their beliefs have all of a sudden turned on those who are just doing the same," she said.

GLENN: You know, one of the stories that broke last week during this whole nightmare in Indiana, where you have these pizza owners being, I think, targeted -- intentionally targeted by a local television station looking to pick a fight. Because there's nobody that ever caters a wedding -- how many times have you gone --

PAT: That's like, I'm looking for the local Hostess shop to cater Twinkies at my wedding.

GLENN: Nobody does that. Well, actually someone on our staff did that.

PAT: Jeffy did that.

GLENN: But that's a different story. So Dana started a GoFundMe page for this really nice family that owns this pizza shop. They don't have hatred in their heart at all. And this is -- I mean, closing for a week, I know because I was a small business owner with my dad. That could put you out of business. It's just over for you.

So -- and that's what these people are trying to do. And when I say these people, I don't mean gay people. Because I think gay people aren't like this. I think it's the organizations. We all have, you know, organizations that, you know, will -- that maybe you belong to and you're like, okay, no, I don't agree with that. For instance, Stu is a vegan. But he doesn't agree with what PETA does. PETA is speaking for vegans. No, they're not speaking for him.

PAT: I'm a member of the National Association of Realtors, for example. I don't agree with everything they do.

GLENN: Exactly right. Boy, those guys piss me off.

PAT: Oh, man.

GLENN: Anyway, it's just people with agenda and want power and money. And they're separating us. And we're not that different. So one of the donations that really stuck out was from a gay woman who donated $20 to the Memories Pizza place in Walkerton, Indiana. We have her on the phone now. Her name is Courtney Hoffman. Hello, Courtney, how are you? Courtney.

COURTNEY: Yeah, can you hear me?

GLENN: Yes, I can. How are you?

COURTNEY: Good. How are you doing?

GLENN: Very good. So, Courtney, tell me a little about yourself. Do you know who we are? Did you listen to this show, or how did you find out about this GoFundMe?

COURTNEY: I do know who you are. I don't listen to the show. I'm not overly politically active.

GLENN: Okay.

COURTNEY: But I heard about it on, I think, a local radio show here. I think. I don't honestly remember how I heard about it.

GLENN: Okay.

COURTNEY: But after I heard about it, it just kind of sat with me. You know, just the behaviors towards this little pizzeria seemed appalling.

GLENN: Where are you from?

COURTNEY: I'm from Seattle.

GLENN: Okay. Wow, you're from Seattle. That's my hometown. And that is not -- that is not the place that would embrace your point of view.

COURTNEY: You know, I -- I kind of disagree with that.

GLENN: Oh, I'm glad to hear that.

COURTNEY: Yeah. I mean, I feel like we're kind of painted as this liberal city, but the individuals I know -- you know, it doesn't really have to do with conservative or liberal. It just has to do with, like, a human element. And, you know, the people that I know, gay or straight or liberal or conservative, are very just understanding and supportive of an individual's right to live their life as they see fit.

GLENN: So you're more Libertarian than anything else?

COURTNEY: I suppose, yeah.

GLENN: Good. Because that's where we are.

PAT: It's kind of like what you said yesterday, Glenn. When you said that people aren't intense about it on the other side. It's the media making it out like they are.

GLENN: It's the media. And it's those in power. Both left and right. That need us to argue with each other. I think the average person is like, look, I don't want to be around people who are hateful. I don't want people who are bigoted and racist et cetera, et cetera. But that happens. And, you know, those aren't part of my circle. And I don't know that many. And we have to change their hearts. You're never going to legislate morality. You'll never legislate hatred out. You just have to change people's heart. And the rest of us. The vast majority of Americans are cool with each other. Let's just be cool with each other.

COURTNEY: Yeah.

STU: And, Courtney, what better way to change someone's heart than what you did. Instead of coming out here like many did and were angry about things, you came out to embrace people's right to be different. And you donated to a cause and I think you won a lot of people over to listen to you.

GLENN: You did.

COURTNEY: It's been amazing. What I feel has been most amazing to me has been the level of shock that people have expressed. You know, just I guess what they've been calling my tolerance. You know, because, you know, I believe in -- a lot of people I know believe that the gender of your significant other does not dictate your beliefs. You know, that's just the gender of your significant other. But I know so many gay individuals who are Republican and Democrat and capitalist and socialists and Christians and atheists, and there's this whole wide view of mind-sets within a community. It's not, you know, just this one forefront that people see that seems to be made up of this bullying tactic.

GLENN: So, Courtney, there's a 70-year-old woman in Washington state who runs a flower shop. And she was asked by a gay couple to -- so you know the story. Right?

COURTNEY: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: They're now suing her not only for her business, but she's about to lose her house.

COURTNEY: It's heartbreaking.

GLENN: How can we -- how can people who are, you know, on the side of the small businessperson and may be against gay marriage, may not be against gay marriage. I'm fine with gay marriage. The government shouldn't have anything to do with my marriage, you know what I mean?

COURTNEY: Yeah.

GLENN: But how do we get people to see and to change their hearts to say, this has nothing to do with hate. This has everything to do with embrace diversity and you can't force someone to violate their conscience.

COURTNEY: Yeah. Well, I feel like there's been this kind of dialogue for a while that if someone is -- disagrees with you or has a different opinion than you then therefore they must be malicious or filled with hate. And, you know, I think that would be a good place to start. Just change the dialogue on that front. Just because someone disagrees with my opinion, doesn't mean they're evil or that they're malicious in their intent. It just means that we differ in opinions. But we probably have so much more in common.

GLENN: We do.

STU: Like, for example, we shouldn't be having a conversation about a pizza place without eating pizza.

COURTNEY: Yeah.

STU: I think we can come together on that.

GLENN: Let's eat pizza. What is your business, Courtney?

COURTNEY: My girlfriend and I own a small kettle corn stand.

GLENN: A small kettle corn stand?

COURTNEY: Yeah.

STU: Where is the kettle corn? How do we not have your kettle corn here?

COURTNEY: I can definitely get some to you.

GLENN: Oh, that's a definite must. We'll pay for it. Do you sell it online?

COURTNEY: No, we don't. We sell it at, like, fairs and festivals.

GLENN: That's too bad because you would have sold a ton today. Well, that's great.

COURTNEY: Yeah, so we're pretty small.

GLENN: Courtney, we just wanted to thank you and just try to get your voice to be heard as a reasonable individual, that we are all different, but it's cool to be different.

COURTNEY: Yeah. It's okay that we're different. It doesn't mean that we're malicious or hate-filled.

GLENN: Can I ask you one more question?

COURTNEY: Sure.

GLENN: Pat is just --

STU: Needling you today. It's fun.

GLENN: When I was down at the Friends of Abe. Do you know what the Friends of Abe is? The people in Hollywood that happen to be conservative.

COURTNEY: No, I don't.

GLENN: Okay. They're Hollywood people that happen to be conservative, and they're in the closet. They're actually in the closet. And they're terrified of anybody finding out.

COURTNEY: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: And I was speaking to them one time and I said, you know, I don't understand because, you know, Hollywood has a lot of -- a lot of people in the gay community here in Hollywood. And Jews also, a lot of Jews in Hollywood. And you would think that those two groups, out of everybody, would know what it feels like to be afraid to say who you are.

COURTNEY: Right.

GLENN: Why is this happening? What is happening to where they don't empathize with those who are now afraid to say who they are?

COURTNEY: You know, I -- I don't know. I feel like a similar movement has happened in the gay community. You know, the gay community has spent decades fighting for their right to just be themselves. You know, all we ever wanted was the right to live our lives as we see fit according to our beliefs and to turn on someone who, yeah, has very different beliefs than we have. But it's the same fundamental right to just live your right according to those beliefs. We should be defending that. If we don't agree with that, we should open a dialogue or just letting them live. You don't have to open a dialogue with them, but I'm not quite sure when or why, you know, the people who have fought for decades to live their life according to their beliefs have all of a sudden turned on those who are just doing the same. But it's --

STU: That's a great point though. You know, sometimes I'm tired of having dialogues. I just want to do my thing and go to sleep and eat some kettle corn.

GLENN: We don't have to go to Starbucks and have them write stuff on our coffee cup. Just please. Can't we just stand in line together and talk about nothing or not talk about nothing.

STU: That's why guys gravitate to sports because it's anything other than --

GLENN: Thinking.

STU: -- the real world. You just want something to distract yourself. And that's okay too. Where is the kettle corn? Is it here yet?

COURTNEY: I'm working on it.

GLENN: Courtney, thank you so much. God bless you.

COURTNEY: Thank you so much. Have a good day.

PAT: She was great.

GLENN: I love her. I love her.

JEFFY: Fantastic.

GLENN: She's -- and, you know what, that kind of person as a spokesperson for any community, oh, would win.

STU: Wins you over in a second.

GLENN: How will you argue with Courtney?

PAT: I'm personally not going to.

STU: We saw the same thing with different approaches from Ellen.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Remember the preachy Ellen.

STU: She's funny and likable. You just want to be around her.

PAT: Ellen would just completely reject --

GLENN: Preachy Ellen where she was, this is who I am. Blah, blah. Everybody knows who she is. And it's totally cool. Let's just laugh together. It's fine. It's fine. You don't to have jam it down our throats. Rub our nose in it.

PAT: That was the big announcement to announce that I'm running for president. The big announcement to announce that I'm gay. Everyone already knows.

STU: We're like so. Don't make your whole show about that.

GLENN: Because that says that's all you are. And that's not all she is.

STU: Right. You're more than that. And she's proven that 1,000 times over.

GLENN: Yep.

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.