There’s a story circulating right now about Graham Platner, a Maine Democratic Senate candidate and Marine combat veteran, who wrote on Reddit in 2019 that a wounded soldier “didn’t deserve to live.” The condemnations came fast. Robert O’Neill — the Navy SEAL credited with killing Osama bin Laden — called it “barbaric.” Susan Collins blasted it. Veterans lined up to say Platner is unfit for office.

They might be right. But the way the argument is being made carries its own risks — and tracing those risks is worth the effort.

In 2012, Pfc. Ted Daniels was caught on his own helmet cam being shot four times by Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. The footage went viral years later, garnering tens of millions of views. What the video looks like is a soldier making every tactical mistake in the book — running into the open, getting lit up, barely surviving.

There is a line in the Bible so frequently quoted in the aftermath of scandal, abuse, and institutional failure that it has almost become a kind of liturgical shield. It comes from Psalm 51, verse 4, traditionally attributed to King David after the prophet Nathan confronted him over his actions with Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite:

“Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight.”

On its surface, this is one of the most beautiful lines in the Psalter — raw, undefended, spiritually honest. And it is. But over the last several decades, particularly in certain corners of American evangelical culture, this verse has been quietly repurposed. It has become a way to talk about sin that leaves human victims out of the room entirely.

There’s a Substack article making the rounds in Christian publishing circles. An acquisitions editor describes receiving a book proposal she suspects was written by AI. She runs it through detectors. She feels disappointed, then suspicious, then angry. She compares the deceptive author to a fake chef serving microwave dinners.

It’s a well-written piece. The anger is real. The chef metaphor lands.

But it misses the most important thing happening right now. And what it misses reveals more about the publishing industry’s anxieties than it does about AI.

In 1990, a team of Harvard researchers and a small biotech startup had human data proving that a molecule called GLP-1 could lower blood sugar in diabetics, suppress hunger, and slow digestion. It worked. The science was solid. The patent was held.

Their partner, Pfizer — one of the largest pharmaceutical companies on earth — reviewed the data and walked away. Not because the drug failed. Because, as Jeffrey Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School and one of the researchers in the room, later wrote, Pfizer concluded that “nobody would ever want an injectable diabetes drug.” The market didn’t see the profit. So the program died.

The patents sat dormant. Novo Nordisk eventually picked them up in 1992, spent the next two decades engineering a stable, once-weekly injectable form of the molecule, and in 2017 released it as Ozempic. It is now one of the best-selling drugs in human history, generating tens of billions of dollars annually. Flier, now in his late 70s, finally wrote the whole story down because — as he put it — he didn’t want the history to die with him.

It is younger than the Moral Majority. More online than the Tea Party. More intellectually ambitious than MAGA populism alone. And unlike the old evangelical establishment, it is increasingly comfortable speaking in the language of power, hierarchy, nationalism, and civilizational struggle.

One of the clearest recent examples appeared in a conference branded:

“Christ Is King — America After Trump”

On Monday, MSNBC’s Katy Tur asked one of the more historically confused questions in recent cable news memory. Responding to a clip of House Speaker Mike Johnson at a Christian prayer rally on the National Mall, she turned to her panel and asked: “Is this him putting God over the Declaration of Independence?”

The backlash was swift and deserved. Johnson had not departed from the Declaration — he had paraphrased it. The second paragraph of the document that birthed this nation states plainly: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Tur, who holds a philosophy degree from UCSB, managed to mistake a quotation from the founding document for an attack on it.

But in the right’s gleeful dunking on Tur’s gaffe, conservatives sidestepped a question the Rededicate 250 rally itself raises — one that goes back to the founding, and one the founders themselves never cleanly resolved.

There is a particular kind of disappointment reserved for things you once loved.

For millions of Christians — and many non-Christians drawn in by its humanity — The Chosen represented something genuinely rare: a portrayal of Jesus that felt earned. Not the waxy, stained-glass Christ of religious obligation. Not the culture-war mascot of American evangelical politics. A Jesus who wept. Who laughed at dinner. Who sat with the broken and the excluded and treated them like they mattered.

Then came Rededicate 250.

There’s a question that never quite goes away in Christian life, and it usually surfaces around 2 a.m. when everything has gone sideways:

If God already knows what I need — if He’s known since before the foundation of the world — then why am I telling Him?

It’s a fair question. And the answer, buried in the breadth of Scripture’s prayer tradition, is both humbling and galvanizing. Prayer is not a mechanism for informing God. It is the process by which God forms us — and formation, it turns out, has a direction. The entire Law hangs on two commands: love God, love your neighbor (Matthew 22:37–40). Everything in Scripture consistently pushes people outward — past self-concern, toward God and toward the person standing in front of them. Prayer is where that push begins.

There’s a ritual at American sporting events that has become so familiar it barely registers anymore. Before the first pitch or kickoff, a soldier in dress uniform appears on the Jumbotron. The crowd rises. Hands cover hearts. Country music swells. For thirty seconds, America loves its military unconditionally.

Then the game starts. And when the veteran comes home — really comes home, carrying PTSD, a disability rating, or just the ordinary economic difficulty of having spent their twenties in a war zone instead of building a career — a very different America greets them.

This one has market concerns.

There’s a LinkedIn post making the rounds from a financial advisor named Omkar Shinde. It’s compelling, shareable, and taps into every parent’s desire to give their children a head start. The core promise: put your kids on your business payroll, funnel the money into a Roth IRA and a permanent life insurance policy, and watch them wake up at 35 with $1.3 million — “tax-free, accessible, and fully theirs.”

It’s a great story. But how much of it actually holds up?

I spent time with each claim. Here’s what I found.

On the occasion of America’s 250th birthday, a preacher took the stage and called the nation to repentance. He wasn’t wrong that repentance is needed. He was wrong about what we need to repent of.

At a recent public address marking America’s 250th anniversary, Franklin Graham delivered a sermon drawing on 2 Timothy, the Hebrew prophets, and his father Billy Graham’s 1969 inaugural prayer. He called the nation to recognize its moral decline — transgenderism, same-sex marriage, violence, godlessness — and return to the faith of the founders.

It is worth taking this seriously. Not because every claim holds up to scrutiny — many don’t — but because the framework Graham invokes, biblical accountability for nations, is a serious theological tradition with deep roots. The problem is that when you actually follow that tradition to its source, it points somewhere he didn’t go.

There’s a print on my wall by John Coulter. If you know his work, you know exactly why. His style is unmistakable — the way he handles color, the particular warmth in his Disney illustrations, the feeling that a human hand made every deliberate, imperfect mark. I didn’t buy it because I needed a picture on my wall. I bought it because I wanted his vision of that subject. His eye. His hand. His years of accumulated craft showing up in every line.

That’s why people buy art.

Not because they need a decorative object. Because they want a piece of someone’s way of seeing the world.

By now you’ve heard the news. The Chicago Bears — one of the oldest franchises in the NFL, a team that has called Chicago home since 1920 — are openly negotiating to move to Hammond, Indiana. Not because they have to. Not because Chicago abandoned them. But because Indiana offered them a better deal.

And what does “a better deal” mean, exactly? It means more of your money, extracted more efficiently, with less political friction.

Welcome to the economics of being a Chicago Bears fan in 2026. Pull up a chair. The hot dog is $7.50.

There is a strange ritual in American politics.

Every election cycle, the Democratic Party rediscovers Democratic Party Black women.

After the votes are counted, articles appear praising them as:

Let’s start with the question nobody wants to sit with:

When your husband is wrong — not just mistaken, but dug in, dismissive, and using his role in the marriage to shut the conversation down — who holds him to account?

Take a moment. Think about the actual answer. Not the theological answer, not the theoretical answer. The real, practical, Tuesday-afternoon answer.

There’s a distinction worth making that most people never think to make: the difference between a discussion and an argument.

We use the words interchangeably, but they describe fundamentally different activities — and confusing them is one of the reasons political conversations have become so exhausting, so circular, and so pointless.

A discussion is only possible when two people agree, at least implicitly, on how we know things. What counts as evidence. What sources are credible. What logical moves are valid. This shared framework — philosophers call it an epistemic commons — is the precondition for any productive exchange of views.

This is the second in a series exploring the Supply Chain Livability Standard — a proposed framework for measuring and closing the wage gap embedded in every product you buy. The first article, “How Many Homes Owned on the Supply Chain Road to Billions,” introduces the framework. This one gets out a calculator.

Numbers have a way of doing what arguments can’t. You can debate ideology indefinitely. You can’t really argue with arithmetic.

So let’s do some arithmetic.

AOC made headlines this week with a simple claim on a podcast: “You can’t earn a billion dollars.” The conservative media apparatus dunked on her immediately, and honestly, some of the dunks landed. Her numbers were wrong. Her framing was sloppy. But in the rush to score points, everyone missed the more interesting question hiding inside her argument — the one that doesn’t have an easy answer.

So let’s ask it properly.

When AOC said Walmart workers are making seven dollars an hour, she was flatly incorrect. Walmart’s company minimum is $14 per hour. The average U.S. hourly associate makes $18.25. That’s higher than the minimum wage in New York, where AOC lives. Entry-level jobs in Washington, D.C., where she works, start between $18 and $21.

There’s a viral post making the rounds right now. Kate Lucky writes about how motherhood was supposed to be a slog, and she found joy instead. It’s beautiful. It’s true. And tucked in the comments is the part nobody wants to say out loud:

Misery happens when the father is a worthless potato.

Let me expand on that — because it goes deeper than who does the dishes.

Last week, an Illinois Administrative Law Judge ruled that Naperville Presbyterian Church — led by Dane Ortlund, author of the beloved Gentle and Lowly — unlawfully retaliated against Emily Hyland, its former director of operations. Hyland had worked at the church for eight years. She was fired nine days after privately raising concerns to two elders that she was being treated differently because she was a woman.

The judge awarded her roughly $93,000 in back wages, emotional distress damages, and medical expenses.

The ruling was careful. Judge Azeema Akram did not find that Ortlund or the church discriminated against Hyland on the basis of sex in the technical legal sense. Ortlund never made overtly sexist remarks. There was no smoking gun. What the judge did find — and what the evidence overwhelmingly supported — was that the moment Hyland named what was happening to her, she was swiftly and haphazardly fired for it. The church’s witnesses, the judge wrote, “seemed to discount even the possibility that gender discrimination could exist at the Church.”