James Talarico is a Presbyterian seminarian running for the U.S. Senate in Texas, and his comments about Christianity have ignited a fierce debate.
James Talarico is a Presbyterian seminarian running for the U.S. Senate in Texas
The controversy began after Talarico told comedian and host Stephen Colbert that Jesus never explicitly mentioned abortion or same-sex marriage in the Gospels. The reaction from some conservative commentators was immediate and intense.
Podcaster Benny Johnson accused him of distorting Christianity. A host on Newsmax questioned his interpretation of scripture. Even Riley Moore suggested on a political program that Talarico’s views were spiritually dangerous.
Yet the passages Talarico cites are among the most familiar in the Bible.
In Matthew 22, Jesus summarizes the law with two commands: love God and love your neighbor. In Matthew 25, he speaks of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, welcoming strangers, caring for the sick, and visiting prisoners.
These are not obscure verses tucked away in scripture. They are central teachings, repeated in sermons, printed on church walls, and taught to generations of Christians.
For Talarico, these passages point toward a simple but profound idea: that society is measured by how it treats those who are vulnerable—the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, and the outsider.
Others disagree with his political conclusions or argue that Christian teachings encompass a broader set of moral issues. That disagreement is not new. American politics has long wrestled with competing interpretations of faith and public life.
What makes this moment notable is how intensely the argument has become personal.
Critics accuse Talarico of misrepresenting Christianity. Supporters argue he is reminding people of teachings they believe have been overshadowed by political battles.
Whatever side one takes, the underlying questions remain:
Who gets to define the role of faith in public life?
What teachings deserve the greatest emphasis?
And can political movements built around religious identity tolerate interpretations that challenge their assumptions?
These are not questions that will be settled in a television interview, a podcast, or a campaign speech.
But they are questions Americans continue to ask.
And the verses themselves remain where they have always been—waiting in the pages of scripture, inviting each reader to decide what they mean and how they should be lived.
Meanwhile –
Ted Cruz said James Talarico isn’t “masculine,” and Talarico answered with a list of what real men never do. The smear came Monday on Fox News, where Cruz declared that if you were making a list of 1,000 adjectives to describe the Texas Democrat, “masculine” would not be one of them, then added that a stiff breeze would blow him over like a feather.
The attack was not a one-off. Since Talarico won the Democratic nomination and pulled ahead of Ken Paxton in the polls, the Republican machine has gone all in on manhood.
Paxton called him “too low-T for Texas.” White House aide Stephen Miller falsely claimed Democrats had nominated “their first transgender senate candidate,” a lie about a man who is neither transgender nor, for the record, the vegan they also keep insisting he is.
None of it touches his actual record. That is the point.
On MS NOW with Jen Psaki on Thursday, Talarico took the question head on, and he answered it with a lawn mower.
He told the story of Mark Talarico, the adoptive father who gave him his last name.
Every Saturday morning, rain or shine, whether he wanted to or not, his dad mowed the family’s lawn. Then, without anyone asking, he walked next door and mowed the lawn of their neighbor, an elderly widow.
He never talked about it. He just did it.
That, Talarico said, is what a man does.
A man takes responsibility. A man upholds his commitments to his family and his neighbors. A man does what’s right even when no one is watching.
Then came the other half. “They don’t lie and cheat their way through life. They don’t sell their soul to the highest bidder. They don’t steal from other people in order to enrich themselves.”
Real men serve others, he said. Weak men serve themselves. And he closed the door on his way out: he doesn’t think Ken Paxton or Ted Cruz are in a position to tell anybody what a real man is.
The list reads differently considering who it was aimed at.
Cruz spent 2016 watching Donald Trump publicly mock his wife’s appearance, then endorsed him and became one of his most loyal soldiers.
When a deadly winter storm froze Texas in 2021, Cruz boarded a flight to Cancun.
Paxton was impeached on bribery and corruption charges by his own Republican colleagues in the Texas House, and his wife filed for divorce last year citing adultery.
Mark Talarico never talked about the widow’s lawn. He just mowed it. Some men do what’s right when no one is watching.
What if the biggest force in American politics isn’t ideology, but exhaustion?
“Do They Expect Me To Believe This?”
Every election cycle seems to arrive with the promise that this one will finally settle things.
It never does.
The arguments continue. The accusations continue. The campaigns never seem to end.
And yet, beneath the daily headlines, another possibility may be emerging.
What if the next major political movement in America isn’t driven by the far left or the far right?
What if it is driven by people who are simply tired?
Tired of being angry.
Tired of being told to hate neighbors who vote differently.
“God, he’s doing it again!”
Tired of waking up every morning to discover another crisis demanding immediate outrage.
For nearly a decade, American politics has been fueled by conflict. Political strategists understand something that television networks and social media platforms have learned as well: outrage captures attention.
Anger keeps viewers watching.
Fear keeps voters engaged.
Conflict generates clicks.
But there is evidence that many Americans may be reaching a saturation point.
“Again, with that?”
Poll after poll has shown declining trust in institutions, political parties, media organizations, and government itself. Yet beneath that distrust may be something more important: a desire for normalcy.
History suggests that political pendulums rarely stop at the extremes.
Eventually voters begin looking for stability.
Not excitement.
“AHH! No more pop up political ads!”
Not revolution.
Not constant crisis.
Just stability.
The nation has seen similar periods before. Following years of upheaval, Americans have often sought leaders who promised calm rather than confrontation. Sometimes those leaders succeeded. Sometimes they did not. But the desire itself repeatedly emerged.
Could that happen again?
No one knows.
It just never ends…
Political forecasting has become a risky business. Recent elections have repeatedly surprised experts from every perspective.
But one possibility seems worth considering.
The next political shift may not be a movement toward one party or another.
It may be a movement away from perpetual conflict.
Americans may begin rewarding candidates who spend less time attacking opponents and more time discussing solutions.
They may become less interested in political celebrities and more interested in competent managers.
They may become less concerned with winning arguments and more concerned with lowering costs, improving schools, strengthening infrastructure, and maintaining public safety.
If that happens, the political landscape could change rapidly.
Not because voters changed their beliefs.
But because they changed their priorities.
Perhaps the most important question facing the nation is not whether America will become more conservative or more progressive.
“Please just let me drive to work in peace”
It may be whether Americans decide they are simply exhausted by the constant fight.
And if enough people reach that point, the next great political movement could be something surprisingly rare in modern politics:
A movement toward peace, practicality, and common ground.
The future remains uncertain.
But if history teaches anything, it is that voters eventually tire of turmoil.
The question is whether that moment is approaching once again.
Why the Future of Democracy Belongs to People, Not Boundaries
~~~~ ### ~~~~
Politicians have spent generations arguing over maps.
I Want You To Vote In This Election!
Every decade, after the national census is completed, district lines are redrawn across America. Lawsuits follow. Editorials are written. Citizens attend hearings. Political parties accuse one another of manipulating boundaries for advantage.
The debate is as old as the nation itself.
Yet amid all the arguments over lines, colors, and voting precincts, one reality is often overlooked:
Maps are temporary. People are not.
Throughout American history, those who sought to shape political power frequently focused on geography. But the forces that have transformed America have rarely originated from a mapmaker’s desk.
They came from ordinary people moving toward opportunity.
When millions of Americans headed west in the nineteenth century, the political balance of the nation changed.
When African Americans left the South during the Great Migration and settled in northern and western cities, political power shifted.
Photo by Edmond Dantu
When industries rose and fell, populations followed jobs. When housing boomed, communities expanded. When retirees sought warmer climates, entire states gained influence in Congress.
None of those transformations were directed by district boundaries. They were driven by human decisions. The lesson remains relevant today.
Political maps may influence elections for a period of time. They can affect which candidates run, how campaigns are conducted, and which communities are grouped together. Courts have recognized that district boundaries matter because representation matters.
Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that no map remains powerful forever.
A Current Example
The principle can be seen even in recent voter registration data.
According to figures released by the Maricopa County Arizona Elections Office, during the month of May, registered Democrats in Maricopa County increased by 516 voters, while registered Republicans declined by 1,772 voters.
Whether those numbers represent a temporary fluctuation or the beginning of a longer trend remains to be seen. Political fortunes often rise and fall from one election cycle to the next.
What the figures do demonstrate, however, is that political landscapes are never frozen in place.
Photo by Sora Shimazaki
Every month, people move into communities. Others move away. Some voters change their party affiliation. Young citizens register for the first time. Others choose to become independents. The electorate is constantly evolving.
That reality reinforces a lesson that history has repeatedly taught: no political map remains static because the people living within those boundaries do not remain static.
The balance of political influence can change not only because district lines are redrawn, but because citizens themselves continue to reshape the communities in which they live.
New families move in.
Young people reach voting age.
Businesses open and close.
The reality is that political change does not always come from manipulation, conspiracy, or wrongdoing. More often, it comes from the natural ebb and flow of society itself.
Neighborhoods change.
Communities grow.
And eventually, political assumptions that once seemed permanent begin to disappear.
America’s political history is filled with examples of districts, counties, and states that once voted overwhelmingly one way before shifting in entirely different directions a generation later.
The reason is simple.
Maps may define where votes are counted.
People determine how those votes are cast.
That distinction is important because it reminds us where the true power of democracy resides.
Not in the pen of a mapmaker.
Not in a legislative chamber.
Not even in a courtroom.
Ultimately, democracy survives because citizens continue to participate.
A district line may influence a contest.
A voter influences the outcome.
One line exists on paper.
The other exists in reality.
Closing Thought
Photo by Rosemary Ketchum
The history of America suggests that every political map comes with an expiration date.
Population growth, migration, economic opportunity, and generational change eventually reshape communities in ways no cartographer can fully predict.
Political boundaries may guide representation for a time.
But the future has always belonged to the people who live within them.The reality is that political change does not always come from manipulation, conspiracy, or wrongdoing. More often, it comes from the natural ebb and flow of society itself.
Political maps may define where votes are counted. But people determine how those votes are cast. And as Maricopa County’s own voter registration figures demonstrate, the makeup of the electorate is changing every day—regardless of where the lines on the map happen to fall. And that may be the most democratic truth of all.
Your Right To Vote Is An Opportunity Others Never Get!
People move. Communities grow. Generations change. New voters enter the system while others leave it behind. These tides of change have shaped American politics since the nation’s founding.
Not everyone accepts the outcome when elections produce results they did not expect. In fact, disputes over election results are nothing new. Since the closely contested 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, which ultimately required intervention by the Supreme Court, questions, challenges, and objections have become a recurring feature of national political life regardless of which party prevailed.
Yet the strength of democracy has never rested on unanimous agreement. It rests on the willingness of citizens to participate, to make their voices heard, and to continue engaging in the process even when the outcome is not the one they hoped for.
Maps can be redrawn. Political fortunes can rise and fall. But democracy endures because the people themselves continue to shape its future
According to comments posted by citizens following his passing, concerns have been raised that local Oklahoma news media largely overlooked the public service of former Oklahoma City Council member and Acting Mayor Guy Liebmann.
Groff Media reviewed coverage from Oklahoma City’s three major television news outlets—News 9, KOCO 5, and KFOR—as well as Oklahoma’s largest newspaper, The Oklahoman. Aside from a death notice appearing in paid obituary advertising space, we found little or no reporting recognizing Liebmann’s years of service to Oklahoma City and the State of Oklahoma.
Whether this reflects changing news priorities or simply an oversight, it has prompted some residents to question why a public servant who devoted decades to civic leadership received so little attention from the institutions that regularly document the history of the community he served.
Unlike that situation. Groff Media will recognize the individual.
Liebmann died on June 8, 2026, leaving behind a legacy of public service that stretched from the Oklahoma City Council to the Oklahoma House of Representatives and included a brief but significant period as Oklahoma City’s acting mayor.
Born in Shawnee on April 27, 1936, Liebmann graduated from Oklahoma City’s Classen High School before earning a degree in business management from the University of Oklahoma. He later served as an officer in the United States Marine Corps before entering a successful career in real estate and investments.
Many Oklahomans may remember Liebmann best for his service on the Oklahoma City Council representing Ward 8. In November 2003, following the resignation of Mayor Kirk Humphreys, Liebmann was appointed acting mayor and guided the city until voters elected Mick Cornett in March 2004.
Though his time as mayor lasted only a few months, it came during an important chapter in Oklahoma City’s development. The city was continuing its transformation into a nationally recognized metropolitan area, and Liebmann helped provide stability during a period of leadership transition.
During his service on the council and as acting mayor, Liebmann worked with several important city organizations, including the Oklahoma City Water Trust, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Oklahoma City Fairgrounds Trust.
After leaving City Hall, Liebmann continued his public service by representing House District 82 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives from 2005 through 2013.
His public career reflected a belief that local government matters. While many political careers are measured by headlines and controversy, Liebmann’s legacy was built largely through committee work, civic involvement, and a willingness to serve when called upon.
Today, Oklahoma City residents drive roads, utilize services, and enjoy civic improvements that were influenced by the efforts of countless local officials whose names rarely appear in history books. Guy Liebmann was one of those individuals.
As news of his passing spreads, Oklahomans have an opportunity to remember a generation of civic leaders who dedicated years of their lives to public service, often with little recognition beyond the communities they served.
Funeral arrangements have been entrusted to Smith & Kernke Funeral Directors in Oklahoma City. At the time of publication, the funeral home reported that memorial service details were still pending and would be announced when finalized.
Pre-Trip Medical Evaluation For Politicians Over 70
Prepping Him For The Road Trip
Many physicians recommend a comprehensive health assessment before an extended speaking tour, especially if it involves frequent travel, time zone changes, or multiple appearances.
This might include:
Cardiovascular evaluation
Medication review
Blood work
Sleep assessment
Mobility and fall-risk evaluation
Vaccinations if international travel is involved
Hydration and Nutritional Support
Some physicians may recommend:
Intravenous (IV) hydration before travel if a person is prone to dehydration
Nutritional supplementation if deficiencies are present
Vitamin B12 injections for individuals who are deficient
It’s important to note that “wellness IVs” marketed for energy have limited scientific evidence unless treating a specific deficiency or dehydration.
Voice and Speaking Preparation
For public speakers, clergy, politicians, and entertainers:
Evaluation by an ear, nose, and throat specialist
Voice therapy with a speech-language pathologist
Treatment of acid reflux, which often affects vocal quality
Management of allergies or post-nasal drip
Sleep and Fatigue Management
A physician might:
Screen for sleep apnea
Adjust medications that cause fatigue
Recommend strategies for jet lag and circadian adjustment
Physical Conditioning Programs
Many older speakers benefit from:
Physical therapy
Balance training
Walking and endurance programs
Pulmonary rehabilitation if lung issues exist
Cognitive and Mental Performance
Some individuals undergo:
Cognitive screening
Memory assessments
Stress management training
Performance coaching for public speaking
What Most Public Figures Actually Do
Many older politicians, authors, ministers, professors, and entertainers who travel extensively often receive:
Regular physician monitoring
Scheduled rest days
Physical therapy or exercise coaching
Nutritional guidance
Voice coaching
Strategic scheduling to avoid exhaustion
If You’re Thinking About Someone Around 80 Like A President…And Perhaps Drugs?
If you’re thinking about a public figure in their late 70s or 80s preparing for a speaking circuit, or appearing in public at social events, the most common medical preparation would usually be a thorough physical examination and clearance from their physician, combined with careful management of sleep, hydration, medications, and travel schedules rather than a single special procedure
There are medications that can improve alertness, stamina, concentration, and wakefulness, and some public figures, executives, entertainers, and speakers have used them under medical supervision. However, they are not magic solutions, and for older adults the risks can become significant.
Some examples include:
Modafinil (Provigil) and Armodafinil (Nuvigil) — prescription “wakefulness-promoting” medications originally developed for narcolepsy and other sleep disorders. They can help reduce fatigue and improve alertness.
Traditional stimulants such as amphetamine-based medications and methylphenidate can increase energy and focus but carry greater risks involving blood pressure, heart rate, dependence, and cardiovascular events.
Some physicians may prescribe medications to address underlying causes of fatigue, such as depression, sleep disorders, anemia, hormone deficiencies, or vitamin deficiencies rather than prescribing stimulants directly.
For someone in their late 70s or 80s preparing for a national speaking tour, physicians are often more interested in:
Sleep quality
Hydration
Nutrition
Cardiac health
Medication interactions
Managing jet lag and travel fatigue
Rather than simply giving a stimulant. A healthy 80-year-old can often maintain a surprisingly active schedule with careful medical management and scheduling. That is, if they lay off the Big Macs and KFC deep fried chicken legs.
Historically, there have also been legends and reports about politicians, presidents, candidates, entertainers, and television personalities using various stimulants or wakefulness-promoting medications to keep up with demanding schedules. Unless the person or their physician discloses it, however, there is usually no reliable public evidence of what medications an individual is taking. As in the case of Michael Jackson. Occassionally someone will try to set up someone with planted illegal drugs, especially if there is a grudge of some sort involved.
If you’re wondering how an 80-year-old politician or public figure could maintain a grueling travel and speaking schedule, the answer is usually a combination of:
Medications are used,
Strategic scheduling and rest are monitored through IV applications similar to Jacksons.
Nutrition and hydration is usually abandoned and the person will fall asleep in public.
Exercise and conditioning in some cases are attempted or it has ended a long time ago.
Sometimes medications that improve wakefulness or treat underlying fatigue-causing conditions are used or has been attempted but no longer work.
A healthy 80-year-old can often perform far beyond what many people expect, particularly if they have access to excellent medical care and a carefully managed schedule. If that is not the case. Then there is little hope the individual will be successful in managing their own home little alone the affairs of others.
Presidential Visibility in the Age of Social Media
For most of American history, citizens rarely knew where their president was every hour of every day. News traveled at the speed of newspapers, radio broadcasts, and evening television reports. A president could spend days away from public view without generating much notice.
Missing – “The President of The United States”
Today, that has changed.
In the age of social media, twenty-four-hour news cycles, and instant communication, even a few days without a public appearance can spark speculation. Questions emerge. Rumors spread. Conspiracy theories flourish.
That is exactly what happened recently when President Donald Trump was absent from public view for several days.
The speculation raises a larger question that extends beyond any one president: How much visibility do Americans expect from their leaders, and has that expectation changed with technology?
The discussion becomes even more relevant as America continues electing leaders well into their seventies and eighties. President Trump is approaching 80 years of age. Former President Joe Biden served into his eighties. Other national leaders around the world have governed well beyond what was once considered traditional retirement age.
Age alone does not determine a person’s ability to lead. History is filled with examples of individuals who remained productive, sharp, and influential well into their later years. At the same time, age naturally invites questions about health, stamina, and transparency—questions that would be asked of anyone occupying one of the most demanding jobs on Earth.
Perhaps the real story is not where a president was for a week.
Perhaps the story is how quickly Americans become concerned when they cannot see their president, hear from their president, or receive reassurance that the nation’s business is continuing as usual.
In a nation connected by smartphones, social media feeds, and constant news alerts, visibility has become a form of leadership all its own.
The question for the future may not be whether presidents can work behind closed doors.
It may be whether the American public is still willing to believe they are working when the cameras are turned off.
Deputy U.S. Marshal Chester Finch had never cared for Tuesdays.
Monday at least possessed ambition.
Chester Finch “Chapter One” Riding Into Town Cocked!
Friday had hope.
Saturday had purpose.
Tuesday simply appeared each week without apology and lingered far longer than necessary.
On this particular Tuesday, Finch was seated on the front porch of the federal office in Serenity attempting to determine whether a cloud over the western horizon resembled a horse or a baked potato.
He was leaning toward potato.
That was when the telegraph operator appeared.
The man looked exhausted.
This was unusual.
Telegraph operators generally spent most of their day sitting down.
“Marshal Finch!”
the man shouted.
Finch looked up.
“The federal government again?”
“No.”
“The railroad?”
“No.”
“The widow Patterson’s missing cat?”
“We found that three months ago.”
Finch nodded.
“Good cat.”
The operator handed him a folded telegram.
“It came marked urgent.”
Finch sighed.
Nothing marked urgent had ever improved his day.
He unfolded the paper.
The message was brief.
URGENT.SITUATION OUT OF CONTROL.LOCAL AUTHORITIES OVERWHELMED.REQUEST IMMEDIATE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.DUSTBUCKET JUNCTION.
There was no signature.
No explanation.
No details whatsoever.
Finch read it twice.
Then once more.
He turned the paper upside down.
Nothing appeared.
“Helpful,”
he muttered.
The operator shifted nervously.
“What do you think it means?”
Finch folded the telegram.
“It means somebody has failed to provide important information.”
The operator nodded.
“That seems fair.”
Finch stood and stretched.
The joints in his back produced sounds generally associated with old furniture.
A small crowd had gathered nearby.
News traveled quickly in Serenity.
Especially news that wasn’t anyone’s business.
“Where you headed, Marshal?”
asked a merchant.
“Dustbucket Junction.”
The merchant’s face paled.
A woman gasped.
One man removed his hat.
Another whispered a brief prayer.
Finch frowned.
“What?”
The merchant leaned forward.
“You don’t know?”
“Know what?”
The crowd exchanged nervous looks.
Nobody answered.
Finally an old rancher spoke.
“I heard things.”
“What things?”
The rancher lowered his voice.
“Strange things.”
Finch waited.
The rancher swallowed hard.
“Bird things.”
Silence followed.
Finch blinked.
The rancher nodded solemnly.
“Bird things.”
Finch stared for several seconds.
Then he carefully placed the telegram into his pocket.
“That is the least useful information I have ever received.”
The crowd nodded.
It was still apparently enough to worry them.
An hour later Finch packed his saddlebags.
By midafternoon he was ready to leave.
He swung a leg over the cherry-red moped.
The beacon light atop the rear luggage rack spun proudly.
The siren gave a short cheerful wail.
Children immediately appeared.
This happened every time.
Finch reached into the basket mounted to the handlebars.
He withdrew several pieces of hard candy.
The children cheered.
The first peppermint struck a fence post.
The second hit a barrel.
The third narrowly missed a passing dog.
The children scattered for cover.
Finch considered the exchange a complete success.
He started the engine.
The little machine coughed.
Sputtered.
Then settled into its familiar puttering rhythm.
The crowd waved.
Finch tipped his hat.
And slowly rolled west toward Dustbucket Junction.
Toward a mystery.
Toward trouble.
Toward something no one seemed willing to explain.
As evening settled across the prairie, a warm wind carried something unusual across the road ahead.
A single feather.
White.
Small.
Harmless.
It drifted lazily through the air and landed on the front fender of the moped.
Finch glanced down at it.
Then continued riding.
Had he looked up, he might have noticed hundreds more feathers drifting on the horizon.
Instead he disappeared into the sunset.
Completely unaware that Dustbucket Junction was waiting.
And that somewhere ahead, a group of mothercluckers was preparing to make history.
To Be Continued…
Tomorrow: Chapter Two — “Dustbucket Junction”
Deputy U.S. Marshal Chester Finch arrives in town and discovers that whatever has frightened the citizens is unlike anything he has encountered before. The Mayor is missing. The sheriff is hiding. And something appears to be occupying Main Street. The Mayor appears to have been plucked right off Main Street!
What many LGBTQ+ people say about discovering who they are.
This is not the LGBTQ+ community going door to door attempting to convert people.
In some small town, somewhere in America, a young teenager is struggling to understand who they are.
They have begun to realize they don’t quite fit in with their classmates. Somewhere between elementary school and junior high, something changed—or perhaps something that had always been there finally became impossible to ignore.
No one taught them this. No one recruited them. No one sat them down and instructed them to feel differently.
“People may choose what they do. They may choose what they say. They may choose whom they tell. But many would argue they never chose whom they were attracted to. They simply discovered who they were.”
They simply do.
For as long as they can remember, they felt different from many of the people around them. They couldn’t explain it. They didn’t have the words for it. But as they grew older, they found themselves admiring classmates, friends, or even television stars of the same sex rather than the opposite sex.
They don’t understand why.
Most spend years trying to understand themselves before anyone else ever discovers their secret. Many pray. Many bargain with God. Many try to ignore their feelings. Some throw themselves into sports, church, relationships, or anything else they hope will make those feelings disappear.
Yet for countless people, the feelings remain.
That is why attempts to force someone to change through shame, punishment, or so-called “conversion therapies” have been so controversial. For many LGBTQ+ people, these approaches are not introducing a struggle they have never faced. They are intensifying a struggle they have already been fighting alone.
And when a young person receives the message that the people they love most would rather change them than understand them, the consequences can be devastating.
One of the most persistent myths is the idea that there is an organized effort to “recruit” people into being gay. The claim ignores a simple question:
When did you decide to be straight?
Most heterosexual people cannot point to a day, an hour, or a moment when they consciously chose who they were attracted to. They simply discovered it as they grew up.
Many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people describe their experiences in much the same way.
People can certainly choose how they live, how they express themselves, and what relationships they pursue. But attraction itself is often described as something discovered rather than selected.
There are, of course, individuals who describe themselves as “gay for pay”—people who engage in same-sex activity for financial reasons rather than because of their personal orientation. That is a different discussion entirely. Behavior and attraction are not always the same thing.
The larger question remains: If people are being recruited into being gay, where is the moment of recruitment?When did you choose who you were attracted to? For most people, the answer is the same.You didn't.
Can walking past a rainbow flag once a day create a legally recognized hostile work environment? That is the question central to a high-profile federal lawsuit rocking Los Angeles County.
Can a flag really cause that much stress? It’s wild to think that just looking at a symbol once a day can push someone to sue their employer.
Eric Batman, a senior civil engineer with 24 years of service at the Department of Public Works, has officially sued his employer. Represented by the Liberty Counsel—the conservative Christian legal group famous for representing Kentucky clerk Kim Davis—Batman argues that the county’s June Pride flag mandate violates his constitutional rights.
The Core of the Conflict
In 2023, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors passed a policy requiring the Progress Pride flag to fly outside many county buildings throughout the month of June.
For Batman, who works out of the department’s Alhambra headquarters, the flag is not a symbol of inclusion, but a confrontation. According to the lawsuit, Batman holds deeply rooted Christian beliefs regarding biblical marriage and human sexuality. He contends that forcing him to walk past the flag daily compels him to “celebrate, recognize, and solemnize” actions his faith deems sinful.
Denied Remote Work and the “Back Door” Suggestion
Hoping to avoid the display entirely, Batman requested to work from home for the month of June in both 2024 and 2025. He already splits his time as a partial remote worker, meaning the logistics for a temporary work-from-home stint were already established.
However, the county flatly denied his accommodation requests. According to the lawsuit, county supervisors stated that remote work conflicted with their commitment to a “welcoming environment for all”. Instead, management offered two alternatives:
Use the rear entrance: Enter and exit the Alhambra building through the back door to avoid looking at the front flagpole.
Seek mental health counseling: Utilize county-provided counseling if the flag caused him emotional or spiritual distress.
Batman rejected both offers, viewingly the suggestion of “counseling” for his religious convictions as an overtly hostile act by management.
The Legal Argument: A Clash of Rights
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eric Batman v. Los Angeles County et al.), the suit claims violations under:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Religious Discrimination)
The First Amendment (Free Exercise of Religion and Freedom from Compelled Speech)
The Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection)
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
Batman’s lawyers highlight a crucial point of comparison: the county has previously allowed Muslim employees temporary remote work flexibility during Ramadan. By denying Batman a similar one-month accommodation, his attorneys argue the county is engaging in selective, unconstitutional bias.
Furthermore, the legal team points to the 2023 Supreme Court precedent Groff v. DeJoy, which dictates that employers must grant religious accommodations unless doing so causes “substantial increased costs” to business operations. Batman’s lawyers argue that since his work record is exemplary and he already works remotely part-time, a one-month extension carries zero burden for the county.
The Public Backlash: Where is the Line?
The lawsuit has split public opinion, triggering intense online debate:
Critics of the lawsuit point out that the flag is government speech on a public flagpole, not a personal mandate. They argue that simply seeing a flag on a walk into an office does not restrict an individual’s personal faith or constitute a hostile work environment.
Supporters of the engineer argue that true inclusivity must include people of faith. They argue that forcing an employee to sneak through a back door or suggest they need therapy for their religious beliefs crosses a clear line into institutional bullying.
This is notably the second lawsuit L.A. County faces regarding this specific flag policy, following a 2024 suit by an evangelical county lifeguard who objected to being forced to open or manage facilities flying the banner.
As the case makes its way through federal court, it serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing culture wars shifting from the political stage directly into corporate and government office spaces.
Progress Flag Flying High Above In Opposition Of Confederate Flag At Capitol Building
BUT WHY DO PEOPLE LOOK AT A PIECE OF MATERIAL IN SUCH A WAY
Some conservative and religious critics draw this comparison to explain the depth of their objection.
From their perspective, the comparison is about how a symbol can represent a hostile ideology rather than a message of inclusion. However, historians, legal scholars, and social analysts point out that the two flags represent fundamentally different historical and structural concepts.
The comparison can be broken down into two distinct viewpoints:
1. The Perspective of Religious and Conservative Critics
For individuals who share the engineer’s viewpoint, the comparison is based on the emotional and cultural impact of the symbol:
Symbol of Exclusion: Critics argue that the Progress Pride flag has moved beyond a symbol of civil rights and now represents a specific political ideology that excludes traditional religious beliefs.
Perceived Hostility: From this viewpoint, seeing the flag flying on government property feels like an official endorsement of values that contradict their faith, creating a sense of being unwelcome or marginalized in their own workplace.
Compelled Culture: They view the widespread adoption of the flag by corporations and government agencies as a form of cultural dominance, similar to how marginalized groups view the dominant display of controversial historical symbols.
2. The Historical and Sociological Context
Scholars, civil rights advocates, and supporters of the Pride flag argue that comparing the two symbols is a false equivalence due to their origins and purposes:
Feature
The Progress Pride Flag
The Confederate Flag
Core Purpose
Symbolizes inclusion, equal rights, and protection for a historically marginalized minority group.
Symbolizes the Confederacy, a historical rebellion fought to maintain the institution of chattel slavery.
Historical Context
Emerged from grassroots civil rights movements (beginning with the 1978 Gilbert Baker flag) to advocate against discrimination and violence.
Used by a wartime government explicitly dedicated to white supremacy and the subjugation of Black Americans.
Modern Usage
Flown by institutions to signal a welcoming, diverse environment and compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
Frequently used by hate groups, white supremacists, and anti-government movements as a symbol of intimidation.
Summary
While a conservative employee may experience a genuine sense of personal or religious discomfort seeing the Pride flag—viewing it as a symbol of an ideology hostile to their faith—the comparison to the Confederate flag breaks down under historical and legal analysis. One symbol was created to advocate for the inclusion of a minority group, while the other was created to defend the systemic oppression of one.
When it comes down to it, the people against the “Progressive Flag” or “Gay Flag” say they suffer the same emotional suffering as those who suffer from emotional scars from the “Confederate Flag.”
The bottom line? At the heart of the debate is a simple question: Can a symbol cause emotional harm? Those who oppose the Progress Pride flag argue that it does. Those who oppose the Confederate flag have made a similar claim for years. The disagreement is not over whether symbols carry meaning, but over which meanings society chooses to embrace and which it chooses to reject.
Harley Davidson has been targeted for no apparent reason! A company that has been in good standing for over 120 years!
There was a time when if someone wanted to damage a business, they had to stand on a street corner and tell people not to shop there.
Today, all it takes is a social media account.
A single post can reach hundreds of thousands of people. A video can be shared across the country in hours. An accusation can become accepted as fact before anyone pauses to ask whether it is true.
That raises an important question:
When does criticism become defamation?
The question came to mind after reading reports about a recent social media campaign targeting Harley-Davidson.
For decades, Harley-Davidson has represented something uniquely American. Its motorcycles have become symbols of freedom, independence, veterans, road trips, and a culture that has existed for generations.
Yet over the past several weeks, social media influencers and political personalities began attacking the company, describing it as “woke,” “anti-American,” and even “gay.” At the same time, many of the same accounts were encouraging consumers to purchase motorcycles from a competing manufacturer, Indian Motorcycle. According to reporting by The Bulwark, numerous influencers appeared to be using remarkably similar talking points while simultaneously promoting Harley’s competitor. The article raised questions about whether the campaign was organic or coordinated. No evidence has publicly emerged proving who, if anyone, organized the effort.
What makes the situation unusual is that Harley-Davidson had already announced in 2024 that it had ended its DEI department and scaled back several diversity-related initiatives after previous criticism from activists. The company stated it no longer maintained a DEI function and would focus on growing motorcycling and serving its riding community.
Yet the attacks continued.
Whether readers agree or disagree with Harley-Davidson’s past decisions is not really the point.
The larger issue is what happens when public opinion is manufactured.
If a business actually engages in conduct that customers dislike, criticism is fair. Consumers have every right to spend their money where they choose.
But what if the accusations are exaggerated?
What if they are misleading?
What if they are completely false?
And what if someone is profiting from spreading those claims?
Those questions move beyond politics and into the realm of ethics.
Most Americans would likely agree that consumers deserve truthful information before making purchasing decisions. We expect truth in advertising. We expect products to perform as advertised. We expect companies not to deceive customers.
Should the same standard apply to people attempting to damage a company’s reputation?
American law has long protected free speech. It should.
But free speech and knowingly false statements have never been exactly the same thing. Businesses, like individuals, can suffer tremendous financial harm when false information spreads unchecked.
Imagine spending a lifetime building a company, employing thousands of workers, paying suppliers, supporting local communities, and creating a respected brand. Then one morning you discover strangers on the internet have decided to label your business with accusations that may bear little resemblance to reality.
The damage can be immediate.
Customers leave.
Sales decline.
Employees worry.
Investors react.
All because of something that may never have been true in the first place.
Social media has given every citizen a voice. That is one of the great achievements of the digital age.
But it has also created a world where rumors can travel farther than facts.
Perhaps the question facing America is not whether people should be allowed to criticize businesses.
Of course they should.
The real question is whether people who knowingly spread false information intended to harm a company should bear responsibility when real damage results.
That debate is likely to grow louder in the years ahead.
Because in today’s world, a rumor is no longer just a rumor.
It can become a weapon.
Closing Question
If someone intentionally spreads false information about a business for political, personal, or financial gain, should they be held responsible for the economic damage they cause?
THE BOTTOM LINE
If you hear information coming from someone. Especially a politician. Stop. Take it with a grain of salt. And then go do your own research. See if it is true. Don’t believe them when they tell you that everything you learn through research is false.
Thank you for visiting benandsteve.com TruthEndures
Regardless of political party, every voter should be able to answer one simple question: What has gotten better?
The War Dept. is the only one getting increased funding it seems…
Political debates often generate more heat than light. The participants trade statistics, accusations, and talking points while supporters on each side declare victory before the discussion has even ended. Most of the time, the debate itself is quickly forgotten.
But every once in a while, a simple question emerges that cuts through all the noise.
Recently, during a political exchange, one participant was asked a question that should have been easy to answer:
“What has gotten better?”
Not what might get better.
Not what the other side did wrong.
Not what could happen in the future.
What has actually improved?
The question seemed simple enough. Yet, like many simple questions, it carried unexpected weight.
As I watched the discussion unfold, I found myself less interested in the person being questioned and more interested in the question itself. In fact, I began wondering how many Americans—Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, or those who avoid political labels altogether—could clearly answer it.
If you support a politician, what has improved because of that support?
If you oppose a politician, what has become worse?
Could you explain it without repeating a slogan?
Could you explain it without quoting social media?
Could you explain it using your own experiences and observations?
Those are harder questions than many of us would like to admit.
For generations, Americans have debated politics around dinner tables, barber shops, church gatherings, union halls, coffee shops, and family reunions. People disagreed then just as they do now. The difference was that many people could explain why they believed what they believed.
Today, we live in a world flooded with information. We have more access to news, opinions, podcasts, videos, and commentary than any generation in history. Yet, despite this abundance of information, meaningful conversations often seem more difficult than ever.
Too often, political discussions become competitions rather than conversations.
Instead of asking questions, we choose sides.
Instead of seeking understanding, we seek confirmation.
Instead of listening, we wait for our turn to speak.
The result is a nation where many people can repeat what they have heard but struggle to explain why they believe it.
That is not a criticism aimed at one party or one ideology. It is a challenge for all of us.
A healthy democracy depends upon informed citizens. It requires people who can think independently, evaluate evidence, question assumptions, and explain their reasoning. It requires citizens who are willing to admit when they do not know something and willing to reconsider their views when new information emerges.
Most importantly, it requires people who can answer simple questions honestly.
What has improved?
What has declined?
What evidence supports your conclusion?
Whether your answers point toward progress or concern is less important than your ability to explain them thoughtfully.
The future of our republic may depend less on who wins the next election and more on whether citizens can still engage in meaningful discussion about the issues that affect their lives.
The next time politics enters the conversation, perhaps we should pause before reciting a talking point and ask ourselves a simple question:
What has gotten better?
And perhaps an even more important one:
Can Americans Still Explain Why They Support Their Political Beliefs?
The FBI defended the event, describing it as a historical and educational visit connected to official government travel rather than a recreational outing.
The waters above the USS Arizona have long been regarded as sacred.
Pearl Harbor. Aerial view. Scene of Japanese attack.
Beneath those calm blue waves rests a battleship torn apart during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. More than 900 sailors and Marines remain entombed within the vessel, making it not only a historic landmark but also a military cemetery.
For generations, Americans have visited the USS Arizona Memorial in silence. Visitors arrive by boat, stand above the wreckage, and pay their respects. Snorkeling and diving around the site are generally prohibited to the public.
That is why reports that FBI Director Kash Patel participated in a military-coordinated “VIP snorkel” near the memorial last summer ignited controversy across the nation.
According to government emails obtained by The Associated Press, Patel joined an exclusive snorkeling excursion during an official visit to Hawaii. The Navy later confirmed the event took place, emphasizing that participants were instructed not to touch the ship and were briefed on the memorial’s significance as the final resting place of hundreds of service members.
“Taking The Hit The USS Arizona”
The question is not whether the trip occurred. It did.
The question is whether it should have.
For some veterans, the answer is a firm no.
Marine veteran Hack Albertson, who has participated in authorized dives to inspect the wreck, described the site as hallowed ground and said it deserves the utmost solemnity. Navy veteran and Naval Academy historian William McBride was even more direct, comparing recreational access to the memorial to playing games at Arlington National Cemetery.
Others view the matter differently.
Some family members of Pearl Harbor survivors have expressed little concern, noting that such visits have occasionally been granted to government and military officials for decades. The Navy has stated that the excursion was not unique and that similar access has been provided to distinguished visitors in previous administrations.
Military cemeteries are different from other historic sites.
Perhaps what this controversy reveals is not simply a disagreement over one man’s actions, but a larger debate about how America honors its fallen.
Military cemeteries are different from other historic sites. They are places where history and sacrifice meet. Whether one believes the snorkeling trip was respectful or inappropriate, the reaction from many veterans demonstrates how deeply Americans continue to value those who never came home.
Eighty-four years after Pearl Harbor, the USS Arizona still evokes powerful emotions. The men who died there are not statistics in a history book. They are sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers whose final resting place remains beneath those waters.
At Rest. The USS Arizona Memorial – Pearl Harbor.
That is why the debate matters.
Not because of politics.
But because Americans continue to ask how sacred ground should be treated, and who, if anyone, should receive privileges that ordinary citizens do not.
I wanted to present this piece in my own voice. It is my effort to enter the conversation with greater emphasis and a more personal connection to the subject, hoping to give added meaning to the events we are facing today. The full written text of my remarks is included as well.
If I were a tyrant determined to weaken the Republic of the United States, I would not begin with tanks in the streets or soldiers at the door. No… history shows that nations are rarely surrendered all at once. They are usually persuaded to surrender themselves a little at a time.
First, I would attack confidence. Not confidence in me — confidence in one another.
I would begin by tearing away at the nation’s heroes. I would revisit every flaw, every mistake, every rumor from the past, and present them not as human failings, but as proof that nothing honorable had ever existed at all. Sheriffs, presidents, governors, military leaders, teachers, even ministers — I would insist they were never worthy of admiration in the first place.
I would convince people that patriotism was foolishness, that pride in country was embarrassment, and that respect for institutions was a sign of weakness.
Then I would flood the public square with noise.
Not one story — thousands of them.
Some true. Some half true. Some entirely manufactured. I would spread them across television, social media, podcasts, websites, and endless comment sections until the average citizen no longer knew what was real and what was fiction. Repetition would do the heavy lifting. After hearing something enough times, people begin mistaking familiarity for truth.
And once confusion took hold, I would encourage Americans to distrust every source of information except the ones loyal to my cause.
I would tell them the newspapers were lying.
The courts were corrupt.
The elections were rigged.
The scientists were compromised.
The teachers were indoctrinating.
The police were enemies.
The judges were bought.
And eventually, even neighbors would begin suspecting neighbors.
Division would become the national pastime.
I would not need brilliant leaders to carry out my plan. In fact, charisma without discipline would serve me better. I would elevate loud voices over wise ones. I would reward outrage instead of integrity. I would discover ambitious people lacking moral restraint — people willing to say anything, accuse anyone, or inflame any fear if it kept them powerful and profitable.
Money and attention can persuade some people to abandon principles they never truly possessed.
Then I would encourage the population to separate itself into tribes. Not Americans first — but factions first. Race against race. Rural against urban. Conservative against liberal. Young against old. Citizen against immigrant. I would make every disagreement feel permanent and unforgivable.
Because a divided people are easier to control than a united one.
And finally — perhaps most importantly — I would convince ordinary citizens that freedom itself was the problem. That liberty was dangerous. That dissent was threatening. That opposing voices should be silenced instead of debated.
At that point, I would hardly need to overthrow the Republic.
The people, exhausted, angry, suspicious, and fearful, would begin surrendering it willingly — believing all the while they were saving it.
History has shown that democracies rarely disappear with the sound of drums and marching boots. More often, they fade beneath the applause of crowds convinced they are doing what is necessary.
And the most dangerous tyrant of all?
The one who convinces people they are still free while teaching them to hate one another.
A fading photograph of young World War II servicemen reminds us of a generation that believed sacrifice, truth, and unity could build a better America.
There is something haunting about old World War II photographs. Not because of the uniforms. Not because of the war itself.
But because of the faces.
These were not old men yet. They were boys. Farm boys. Small-town boys. Sons of mechanics, barbers, school teachers, ranchers, and church-going mothers who watched them board trains with tears hidden behind forced smiles. They left behind dirt roads, harvest fields, Saturday night dances, and families who prayed every evening they might return home alive.
The young men in this photograph likely believed what millions of others believed at the time — that their sacrifices would permanently change the world for the better.
And for a long while, it seemed they had.
After the war came neighborhoods. Factories. Opportunity. Families. A belief in country. A belief in community. A belief that democracy and decency had survived one of mankind’s darkest moments.
UNITY!
Their generation became known as The Greatest Generation not because they claimed the title for themselves, but because those who followed saw what they endured and understood the price they paid.
They fought in freezing forests and burning deserts. They crossed oceans knowing many beside them would never return. Some came home carrying medals. Others came home carrying nightmares they never spoke about.
Yet they built lives anyway.
They raised children to believe sacrifice mattered. That honor mattered. That truth mattered. That America, despite its flaws, was worth protecting.
And now many of the things they stood for seem to be fading under the weight of division, political hatred, greed, and a society that often forgets what previous generations endured to preserve freedom in the first place.
The painful irony is this:
Many veterans spent the rest of their lives believing the nation had moved forward because of what they had done. Their families believed it too. Schools taught it. Communities honored it. Flags waved proudly for them every Memorial Day and Veterans Day.
But somewhere along the way, respect began giving way to mockery. Service became politicized. History became disposable. Truth became negotiable.
The men in photographs like this never imagined a time when Americans would fight each other more fiercely than they once fought enemies overseas.
And yet here we are.
Never Compromise! The New American Way…
Still, perhaps their greatest lesson was never perfection. Perhaps it was endurance.
Because those young men were not flawless heroes from a Hollywood script. They were ordinary people who answered extraordinary times with courage. They showed future generations that democracy survives only when people are willing to sacrifice something for others besides themselves.
Maybe that is the part we are in danger of losing.
Not the uniforms.
Not the medals. But the willingness to place country, truth, and community ahead of ego.
These young faces remind us that history was once carried on the shoulders of boys who became men far too quickly. And whether we realize it or not, the world we inherited was purchased partly through their fear, their courage, and in many cases, their blood.
The question now is whether future generations will preserve what they believed they saved.
Look at today’s world and the flood of voices insisting that fairness is weakness. That the ideals generations of Americans once believed in were somehow a lie. We are told freedom was never real, truth no longer matters, institutions cannot be trusted, and even the information we rely upon each day is designed to deceive us. Fear, division, and suspicion are being sold as wisdom. History has shown us before where that road can lead. It is the kind of confusion and distrust that tyrants have always depended upon to weaken societies from within. And perhaps the greatest danger of all is that those carrying such messages rarely arrive wearing uniforms or waving flags of conquest. More often, they arrive disguised as certainty, outrage, and easy answers for the angry, the fearful, and the uninformed
From Arizona campaigns to national politics, voters are increasingly left trying to separate performance, outrage, and party loyalty from simple honesty.
I am having a difficult time deciding what to write about today, which honestly should not be the case. The political world alone provides enough material every hour to fill a newspaper from front page to back.
Truth Vs. Deception Spin opposed to Facts!
What continues to stand out to me is not simply disagreement between political parties, but the growing difficulty many candidates seem to have with remaining grounded in facts. In Arizona alone, voters have watched candidates within the same party question each other’s qualifications, attack one another’s credibility, and debate who is less suited for the office they seek.
At times it feels less like public service and more like political performance.
The larger problem may not even belong to one individual candidate. Modern campaigning has slowly evolved into a contest of slogans, outrage, and carefully packaged talking points designed more to energize loyal supporters than to inform undecided voters. Over time, repetition becomes accepted as truth simply because people hear it often enough.
That is not unique to Arizona. It has become part of the national political culture.
Years ago, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo delivered a speech to the Democratic National Convention emphasizing compassion, inclusion, and honesty in government. Whether people agreed with his politics or not, the message was centered around the belief that government should speak truthfully to the public and acknowledge the realities everyday Americans face.
Today, many voters from all sides often find themselves exhausted trying to separate fact from performance. Campaigns increasingly rely on emotional reaction, social media sound bites, and outrage-driven messaging because those methods attract attention faster than thoughtful discussion ever will.
When You Knew The Truth And It Was Obvious
The real danger in all of this is not simply that politicians stretch the truth. Politics has always involved persuasion. The danger comes when voters begin expecting exaggeration and no longer believe honesty is even possible from public officials. Once that happens, trust in the entire system begins to erode.
And perhaps that is the real story worth writing about today.
They said it and it meant it. That is why it mattered!
Words matter.
Sometimes they outlive armies.
Sometimes they survive empires.
Sometimes a single sentence can echo across centuries long after the person who spoke it has turned to dust.
I got to thinking recently about what may be the coolest line ever spoken in history.
Not necessarily the smartest.
Not the most educated.
Not even the most important.
Just the line that hits you square in the chest when you hear it.
History is full of them.
“I have a dream.”
“Give me liberty, or give me death.”
“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
Each sentence tied forever to a moment that changed the world.
But if there is one line that may define raw confidence itself, it may belong to Julius Caesar:
“I came, I saw, I conquered.”
Think about that for a minute.
No long explanation.
No press conference.
No carefully prepared speech from a teleprompter.
Just three short statements delivered by a man who understood the power of simplicity.
And here we are more than 2,000 years later still repeating it.
That is power.
Of course, history also gave us lines born from courage and desperation.
Patrick Henry declaring:
“Give me liberty, or give me death!”
Imagine hearing that in person during the uncertainty of revolution.
Or Nathan Hale, standing before execution, saying:
“I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”
Those weren’t movie scripts.
Those were human beings staring directly into fear.
Then there are lines born from pure grit.
General George Patton once said:
“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
Now whether you agree with the language or not, that line carried the hard truth and brutality of war in a way no polished statement ever could.
And perhaps that is why some lines survive history.
They sound real.
FDR Address To The Nation Following Pearl Harbor leading to WWII
Not manufactured.
Not tested by focus groups.
Not rewritten by committees.
Real words from real people living real moments.
I suppose every generation has its own unforgettable lines.
Some come from presidents.
Some from soldiers.
Some from activists.
Some from old actors, comedians, athletes, or ordinary people who happened to say something extraordinary at exactly the right moment.
Sometimes the greatest line in history isn’t famous at all.
Sometimes it is something your grandfather said sitting on a porch.
Something your mother whispered when life was difficult.
Something a police officer muttered over cold coffee at three in the morning.
Something a tired parent told their child before bedtime.
Those are the lines that stay with us too.
Words become memories.
Memories become history.
And history, in many ways, is simply the collection of sentences mankind refused to forget.
You may have a line considered quiet popular you wish to share. Please do!
“We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give”
The final line often attributed to Winston Churchill.
A kitchen memory becomes a reflection on morality, public outrage, and the slow numbing of America’s conscience.
While standing in the kitchen on Wednesday, May 27, making a cherry cobbler the way my grandmother “Mom” used to make it, my mind drifted backward. Funny how certain smells do that. Warm cherries, sugar, butter, and crust baking in an oven can carry a person across decades faster than any airplane ever could.
Stirring cherries in a pan, my thoughts wandered into modern America.
I thought about my grandparents. Their values. Their generation. My dad and what he stood for. A World War II veteran, he belonged to what many call America’s “Greatest Generation,” but to me he was simply my father — a man who believed there were lines decent people did not cross. Some things were right. Some things were wrong. There was no committee meeting needed to figure it out.
And while stirring cherries in a pan, my thoughts wandered into modern America.
That is a dangerous road sometimes.
I began thinking about the Me Too movement, about Gloria Allred, about Bill Cosby, and about the avalanche of accusations and scandals that dominated television screens and headlines for years. Before anyone misunderstands where I am going, let me make something clear: I supported holding predators accountable. I still do. Anyone who assaults another human being at their most vulnerable moment deserves exposure, punishment, and justice.
But somewhere along the way, another effect quietly settled over the country — one I do not think we fully considered.
The behavior became so common in the headlines that the public slowly became numb to it.
Day after day, week after week, another press conference. Another attorney standing before microphones. Another accusation. Another celebrity. Another politician. Another athlete. Another scandal. Eventually it no longer shocked people the way it once would have. It became background noise in the American living room.
That is not because the acts were less serious.
It was because the public mind can only absorb outrage for so long before exhaustion sets in.
The result, in my opinion, was a strange cultural desensitization. Americans became so overwhelmed by constant scandal that the emotional impact weakened. Something that once would have frozen the nation in disbelief instead became another headline to scroll past while eating dinner.
Then came the now-infamous recording of Donald Trump speaking crudely about women on a tour bus. Years earlier, comments like that might have politically buried a public figure overnight. But by then, America had been swimming in scandal for so long that many people seemed emotionally exhausted by outrage itself. The national sense of shock had dulled.
People heard it, argued over it, and then many simply moved on.
That realization bothered me standing there in the kitchen more than the politics ever did.
Because this is not really about one movement, one lawyer, or one politician. It is about what happens to a society when it is exposed to so much controversy, anger, and moral collapse that it stops reacting altogether. The constant flood does not always sharpen public awareness. Sometimes it numbs it.
My father’s generation feared becoming morally careless. They worried about standards slipping quietly away one compromise at a time. They understood something we often forget today: when everything becomes shocking, eventually nothing is shocking.
And maybe that is the danger we should be talking about.
Not whether wrongdoing should be exposed — it absolutely should.
But whether a culture flooded endlessly with outrage eventually loses its ability to recognize the seriousness of what it is seeing.
Standing there with cherry cobbler baking in the oven, I wondered what my grandparents would think about modern America. I suspect they would be less concerned with politics than with something deeper.
They would ask whether we are still capable of being genuinely disturbed by bad behavior anymore — or whether we have simply become accustomed to it.
