I know a publisher who has built a catalog of books using AI assistance — cover art generated by machine, text modernized and edited with AI tools, production work that would have required a small team a decade ago now handled by one person and a subscription. That catalog has generated real income over the past few years. Not quit-your-day-job money. But real money, accumulating quietly while doing something else.

Roughly fifteen percent of that income has been going to a friend who is a working digital artist. Not because a platform required it. Not because a licensing agreement mandated it. Because every AI-generated cover is a commission that didn’t go to a human artist — and this particular human artist is in exactly the cohort that absorbed that displacement most directly. The money arrives in two installments. She didn’t know the first payment was half until the second one arrived.

This is not a policy proposal. It is a thing that is already happening. And it points toward something the current AI ethics debate has almost entirely missed.

A recent essay in Minding the Campus covers the departure of James Hankins from Harvard after 40 years on the faculty. His exit essay indicts the institution for displacing academic merit with racial preference in admissions. The author treats this as the central problem in American higher education.

It isn’t. It’s a distraction from a more fundamental question that neither conservatives nor liberals particularly want to ask: why is the pool so artificially small to begin with?

Harvard’s endowment sits in the tens of billions of dollars. They admit roughly 3% of applicants. That ratio is not a law of nature. It is a resource allocation choice that keeps the brand exclusive and the endowment appreciating.

As I write this, Donald Trump is sitting inside the Supreme Court chamber — the first sitting president ever to attend oral arguments — watching Solicitor General D. John Sauer argue that children born in the United States to undocumented parents should not be citizens. Chief Justice Roberts is already pushing back hard. The ACLU is about to respond. And somewhere in the chamber, two justices — Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson — are descended from enslaved people whose very citizenship was established by the amendment now under siege.

It is not a small day.

But I want to come at this from a different angle than the legal commentators. Because in Christian nationalist circles, and in the broader religious right that has given Trump his political oxygen, there is often an appeal — sometimes explicit, sometimes just atmospheric — to biblical principles of nationhood. America was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The Bible has something to say about who belongs.

There’s a film term for an object that everyone in the story wants, that drives the entire plot, but that has no real content of its own. It’s a briefcase full of light. It’s the Holy Grail. It’s the thing that makes people do things without mattering in itself.

The term is MacGuffin.

I want to ask, gently but honestly, whether that’s what Mary has become in certain strands of Christianity — particularly those shaped by American Catholic conservatism. Not as an accusation. As a question worth sitting with. Because if the answer is yes, something important has been lost. And the loss isn’t just about Mary.

A woman named Suzanne posted on Reddit yesterday. She wrote:

“Hi, I’m Suzanne and I’m trying to stay housed right now. I need $400 to cover my next week in a hotel in Williamsburg, VA. Without it, I will be back on the street. I am partially disabled with respiratory issues and severe PTSD, and I rely on my service dog daily. I cannot be separated from him. I’ve been working online and trying to stabilize, but it hasn’t been enough yet. I’ve also tried shelters and local options but have not been able to get help in my situation. If anyone is able to help or offer advice, I would truly appreciate it. Thank you for reading.”

That’s $400 for one week. $1,600 a month — if she can string the weeks together — for a room at an extended-stay motel. No lease. No protections. No security deposit to recover. Just weekly rates and the permanent threat of being told to leave.

There’s a recurring scene in the Gospels that never stops being uncomfortable. The disciples argue. Not just once — with remarkable consistency, they argue about rank, about proximity to power, about who among them is greatest. Luke places this argument at the Last Supper itself. While Jesus is instituting the meal that commemorates his broken body, his closest followers are negotiating their seating chart in the coming kingdom.

Jesus is not attending to them.

This is what “He Stopped For Me” asks us to sit with: the structural irony that the people most desperate to be seen by Jesus — most anxious about their standing before him, most vocal about their place in his orbit — are precisely the ones he keeps decentering. He corrects them. He washes their feet. He loves them with patience that strains comprehension. But his attention, in the Gospels’ most charged moments, moves somewhere else entirely.

There’s a moment in Luke 16 where it’s already too late — and that’s when the man finally understands. He remembers Lazarus. He remembers his brothers. He has, at last, the moral clarity he lacked when it would have cost him something.

That scene haunts me — not because it’s a neat lesson about hellfire, but because of the specific agony at its center: the man can now see clearly, and seeing clearly no longer helps. The chasm is fixed. The story is done.

But what if it weren’t? What if the rich man got a second pass — not as punishment, but as grace? Not to undo anything, but simply to reckon with it? What would he say?

John 18:38 is one of the most devastating verses in the New Testament, not because of what Jesus says, but because of what Pilate does immediately after asking.

“What is truth?”

He walks out. He doesn’t wait for an answer. He already has one.

There is a kind of captivity that doesn’t look like captivity. It has stained glass. It has harmonies. It has people who love you — in their way, in their limits, in their need for you to stay exactly as you are.

This song is for the woman who has been loved badly and told it was holy.

There’s a pastoral tradition that turns every parable of the lost sheep into a lesson about the consequences of straying. The emphasis falls on the danger outside the fold — wolves, cold, thorns. The shepherd’s relief at the end reads almost like vindication: see what happens when you wander?

But that’s not the texture of the gospels. The shepherd runs. The father sees the son while he is still a great way off. The woman lights the lamp and sweeps the whole house. The grief isn’t punitive. It’s personal. It moves.

This song lives in that movement.

Franklin Graham recently sent Donald Trump a letter assuring him he could get into Heaven. Trump posted it on Truth Social. An atheist blogger read it and wrote a sharp piece about the moral bankruptcy of evangelical Christianity.

And everyone walked away feeling righteous.

That’s the problem.

Most Christians could pass a quiz on the Ten Commandments. Some could even get them in order.

What most Christians could not do is explain what the law actually requires — the full shape of the life God demands from people who claim his name. Because we stopped at ten. We memorized the bullet points, skipped the commentary, and concluded that obedience was basically a matter of not murdering anyone and showing up to church.

That’s not what the law says.

There’s a particular kind of religious confidence that sounds like righteousness but functions like a wall.

You know the voice. It’s the voice that has an answer before the question is finished. The voice that frames every challenge as an attack on God rather than a challenge to the self. The voice that has logged enough piety — enough tithes, enough fasts, enough conspicuous prayers — to feel entitled to a defense when called out.

It’s the voice of the Pharisees in Matthew 23. And if we’re honest, it’s a voice most of us have heard coming from our own mouths.

There’s a specific kind of church that takes tremendous pride in its hospitality.

The greeters are warm. The bulletin is sharp. The coffee is good. The pastor shakes hands like he means it. And somewhere in the language of the service — in the mission statement, in the welcome slide — there is almost certainly a line about being a “welcoming community” or “a place for everyone.”

And then Sunday happens. And the everyone turns out to be a pretty narrow demographic.

The only place Gentiles could pray had been turned into a marketplace.

That’s what Jesus was overturning.

Not just the corruption of the money-changers — the location of it. The Court of the Gentiles was the outermost ring of the temple complex, the one designated space where non-Jews were permitted to worship. And it had been colonized by commerce. The people with the least access had their space taken first. They always do.

Palm Sunday begins with a misunderstanding.

There’s a moment in the song embedded above that captures it perfectly. The crowd has done everything right — laid down their cloaks, cut palm branches, screamed Hosanna until their throats gave out. Jesus has passed through the gate. And then nothing happens the way anyone expected.

He’s heading to the temple, not the palace, not the garrison...

There is a story told about economic recessions: that they are accidents, the unfortunate byproduct of complex systems nobody fully controls. But over seventy years of Federal Reserve policy, the outcomes follow a remarkably consistent pattern. Boom-bust cycles, whatever their origin, function with remarkable consistency as a mechanism for transferring wealth upward. Whether by design or by structural inevitability, the outcome is the same.

Wealthy individuals and institutions hold their wealth primarily in assets — real estate, equities, businesses, and capital reserves. Ordinary people hold their wealth primarily in their home and their job. This distinction matters enormously when interest rates move.

When the Federal Reserve cuts rates and expands liquidity, asset prices inflate. Stockholders and property owners get richer without doing anything. When the inevitable contraction comes, those same asset-holders have cash reserves and credit access that ordinary people don’t. They can buy at the bottom. Foreclosed homes, distressed businesses, and undervalued equities move from those who needed liquidity to those who had it. The cycle then repeats.

Two young women. Same age. Same city. One got a job within days of looking — not because she was more qualified, but because someone who knew the employer also knew her family and made a call. The other has sent out application after application for months. She’s qualified. She’s motivated. No one is calling her back.

That’s not a story about merit. That’s a story about infrastructure.

A meme made the rounds recently quoting someone’s job advice: “The best way to find a job is to walk in the front door with a copy of your resume.” Posted under the headline: “The Dumbest Statements People Have Ever Heard Anyone Say.”

A paper published in March 2026 by Jade Wilson at the Synoptic Group CIC in Hull, England — “The Geometry of Trust: Verifiable Value Alignment via Causal Manifold Structure” — is dense enough to lose most readers in the first paragraph. Gram matrices. Riemannian geometry. Causal inner products. But buried inside the mathematics is a finding worth pulling out into plain English.

Wilson’s paper argues that large language models absorb value structure during training, and that this structure is largely immune to after-the-fact correction. The geometry — the actual shape of how concepts like “honesty,” “cruelty,” “fairness,” and “compassion” relate to each other inside the model — is baked in during pretraining. Behavioral fine-tuning sits on top of it like a coat of paint over rotten wood. You can change what the model says. You cannot easily change what it has learned to treat as related, opposed, or neutral.

This matters because of what it implies about persuasion. The paper cites other researchers on exactly this concern — that current AI safety frameworks focus on the outcomes of persuasion rather than the mechanisms, and miss the fact that the internal structure of these models already encodes influence pathways. In plain English: the model has already learned which emotional and moral levers are connected to which responses in human beings. It learned this from us — from billions of words we wrote, shared, argued over, and clicked on.

A few days ago, Sharon Says So posted about receiving an AI “fact check” loaded with emojis. Colorful. Confident. Shareable. And almost certainly more about performance than truth.

I’ve been using AI extensively as a writing and research partner for over a year. Emoji-laden fact checks have never been my experience. That gap is worth explaining, because it tells you something important about how AI actually works — and how most people are using it wrong.

The Machine Gives You What You’re Really Asking For