Commentary Culture Investigations

Fear is spreading across the globe — at least my globe.
First, now it’s incontrovertible: the hope that we were in a worldwide post-Cold War era of peace was just a hope. Not real. Just a hope.
Russia is thoroughly at war in Europe and the Middle East. The utterly illegal war against Ukraine gets worse by the day. There was never any justification for it, and now it’s just a Stalinist invasion. The European map is not going to look right to Putin until it would have been right to Stalin. Who is there to stop him? His own people don’t dare stand up to him. Killing Russians is now old hat to Russians. Estimates are that more than 325,000 Russians have died to control a perfectly de jure nation called Ukraine. That has not even slowed Putin down. How many young Russians have to die in the future? And does anyone have to show that there is any sign of Ukraine wanting to surrender?
Now, Russia is showing that it wants to get involved in the Iran-Israel-USA war.
Russian spy images show that Putin wants to help the mass murderers in Tehran against the Israelis and the USA. Russia is taking highly detailed photos of the USA military installations in the region. These photos find their blood-stained way to Iranian rocket launching sites in Iran. Next thing you know, USA soldiers in Saudi Arabia are dead.
The Russians say, “Well, boys, you did it to us in Ukraine. Tough for you now.”
And then, more Americans die.
Then Mr. Trump threatens Iran with token numbers of U.S. Marines to seize Iranian choke points. It would take hundreds of thousands of U.S. fighting men to make a difference in Iran — and then would the regime in Tehran give in? I doubt it a lot. Die-hard Nazis and Japanese showed us all we need to know about dictatorships, ready to die even when their power is broken. People will die even for evil ends. I don’t believe it’s worth trying.
The Russians and the Chinese and the North Koreans will fight us forever. And then what do we get out of it?
Please, Mr. Trump, we love you and trust you. But we see an endless highway of blood from now on. If we can make certain that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon, that’s enough for now. After that, please, please blockade Tehran. Let’s not have a ground war against madmen in high positions in Iran, armed and abetted by evil madmen in Russia, China, and North Korea. I tremble in fear about it. My grandfather and my wife’s father were all U.S. military. They suffered terribly. Please let’s use our great advantage in naval and air power to blockade the Mullahs. Let’s not put up our glorious men and women in hand-to-hand combat with people who want to die.
And in the meantime, please let’s have some sense about economic policy. We have a struggling economy in some areas — some powerful spots now, too. Let’s not push our economy into recession or, heaven forbid, depression, to keep prices fairly stable.
I beg you, economists in the White House, let’s keep far, far away from depression. We all hate inflation. Depressions are far worse.
More to come, dear friends.
READ MORE from Ben Stein:
Horatio in Our Time
My Neighbors on Harvey Road
Pretty Boy Becomes Ugly

Have you ever stared into a harshly lit bathroom, caught a glimpse of yourself at the worst possible angle, and thought, this thing must be defective? Maybe the lighting is off. No, the glass must be warped. You should sue whoever made it for emotional distress.
Absurd, right? And yet, that’s exactly how we’ve begun to treat social media.
The jury verdict against Meta and YouTube this week has been heralded as a turning point in the fight against Big Tech. A California jury awarded millions in damages to a young woman who argued that social media platforms harmed her mental health through addictive design and algorithmic amplification. The companies, unsurprisingly, have already signaled they will appeal. And they should — because while the facts of the case are tragic, the theory underpinning the verdict is dangerously flawed.
Social media algorithms show you what you want to see. Sometimes, what we want to see isn’t so pretty…
Anyone who knows how social media algorithms work will understand that the plaintiff wasn’t a victim of social media. She was a victim of herself. Social media algorithms show you what you want to see. Sometimes, what we want to see isn’t so pretty, especially when we are in a state of hurt and trauma. We search for what validates our worldview and situation. (RELATED: Suing Social Media Won’t Save the Children — But It Could Silence Everyone)
It’s not always sinister. Teen girls will interact with content about their favorite pop star, and social media will recommend similar content to what they seek out. Similarly, boys interested in sports will receive highlights from last night’s big game. But sometimes, this delivery system becomes sinister. Anorexics will look for pictures of girls starving themselves, and the algorithm will feed them. Uncomfortable teen girls going through puberty will search for reasons why they feel weird in their developing bodies, and next thing you know, they want a double mastectomy and testosterone shots before they can vote.
The uncomfortable truth at the heart of this case is that algorithms are mirrors more than they are manipulators. In fact, we are manipulating algorithms through our online activity, whether we understand this or not. The content we see reflects our desires — sometimes healthy, often not. Blaming the mirror for what it reflects is emotionally satisfying, yes, but intellectually dishonest.
This does not mean social media companies are blameless. Big Tech pushes features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and recommendation engines to garner maximum engagement. The more time you spend on Instagram or YouTube, the more ads you will see. The more ads you see, the more money digital platforms make. Engagement is not mind control. Users choose to spend more time online, no matter how intense the influence that persuades them. Will watching a video of a thin woman modeling revealing clothes make you insecure about your own body? Well, you could always click off of the video, even if it “just popped up” next. Try turning off your phone. (RELATED: How COVID Created the 15 Second Generation)
But oftentimes, we don’t want to. Strangely enough, young Americans, who increasingly struggle with an array of diagnosable mental health problems, lack the agency to click away from content that exacerbates their issues. In our country, there is a prevailing attitude that we are patients of our pain rather than participants. It is the idea that external forces are always victimizing our fragile selves, and that we have no power to resist these forces to take part in our own self-improvement.
Social media algorithms do not impose desires onto users; they refine and amplify desires that already exist. Artificial intelligence (AI), like social media algorithms, is fundamentally reactive. It learns from and responds to user input. When that input is dark, disordered, or self-destructive, the output can be as well.
Will paying a plaintiff a couple million dollars really stop the human pull of seeking out products that exacerbate psychological pain?
Social media algorithms are AI. Because they don’t discriminate, they allow us to destroy our own brains. That may sound harsh, but it captures a fundamental reality of business: these systems — these products — optimize for engagement, not truth, health, or virtue.
The legal system is now being asked to draw lines it is poorly equipped to handle. Section 230 has long shielded digital platforms from liability for user-generated content, but plaintiffs are now reframing these cases as product liability claims focused on design rather than speech.
Meta and Google will appeal this verdict, and higher courts will almost certainly take a more skeptical view of the claims than a California jury. It is not hard to imagine the issue reaching the U.S. Supreme Court within the next few years. When it does, the justices will face a defining question of the digital age: To what extent are individuals responsible for their own consumption of algorithmically curated content?
America’s ethos depends on the assumption that individuals are capable of making choices — even bad ones — and bearing the consequences. If we abandon that issue in the digital world, we will not solve the problem of technological harm.
If the supply of personalized social media algorithms wasn’t fulfilling some psychological demand, Big Tech companies would not be as rich as they are today. Why is it that so many Americans feel anxious, depressed, and out of control? That is the question we should be asking.
Will paying a plaintiff a couple million dollars really stop the human pull of seeking out products that exacerbate psychological pain? Imagine this precedent loses its appeal and opens the door to infinite lawsuits by psychologically damaged plaintiffs. When Meta and Google are bankrupt, who will stop the next company from formulating a product that tickles the same masochistic itch?
Americans must reject the belief that we are sheep to the slaughter. You are not powerless. Your feelings are not always fact. Your own habits shape your life more than any algorithm ever could. Until we are willing to say that, no verdict, no regulation, and no lawsuit will fix what is actually broken.
READ MORE from Julianna Frieman:
The Epstein Effect: Men, Women, and the Spectacle of Scandal
How COVID Created the 15 Second Generation
Suing Social Media Won’t Save the Children — But It Could Silence Everyone
Julianna Frieman is a writer who covers culture, technology, and civilization. She has an M.A. in Communications (Digital Strategy) from the University of Florida and a B.A. in Political Science from UNC Charlotte. Her work has been published by the The American Spectator and The Federalist. Follow her on X at @juliannafrieman. Find her on Substack at juliannafrieman.substack.com.

Much of the media rushed to portray Pope Leo’s Palm Sunday homily as a blanket condemnation of the Trump administration. But that is not what he said — and certainly not what his biblical reference to Isaiah meant. Pope Leo’s homily opened with the stark warning from Isaiah 1:15 that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war … your hands are full of blood.” It was a harsh statement that at first glance seemed to dismiss all war and all who wage war. But taken in biblical context, Isaiah is not rejecting every use of force; he is condemning hypocrisy — those who claim to worship God while committing injustice, shedding innocent blood, or refusing to defend the vulnerable. The United States military is not doing that.
Unfortunately, most of those in the secular media do not know the context for Isaiah’s words, and so they are reporting that Pope Leo has pronounced that “no one can use Jesus to justify war.” But unfortunately, even the Vatican News carried the headline that “Jesus does not listen to prayers of those who wage war.” If these headlines were true, Pope Leo’s words would risk erasing the very moral distinctions that defined war in the 20th century. If taken at face value, Pope Leo’s logic would seem to condemn not only the U.S.–Israeli campaign in Iran but even the Allied response to Nazi aggression in World War II.
One should never ignore how painful such words can be for the countless service members who have never sought war, never shed innocent blood, and have served with courage, restraint, and moral seriousness.  The thought that God rejects the prayers of soldiers — as reported by even the Vatican News — is heartbreaking to those of us who know the character of those whose service is marked not by bloodshed but by duty, honor, country, and a desire to protect the innocent.
But, unlike the media, which has labeled Pope Leo’s rhetoric as a strong rebuke of President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, faithful Christians need to try to find the most charitable reading of Pope Leo’s words.
It is quite likely that the pope was not attempting to articulate a full moral theory of war at all, but simply offering a pastoral plea for peace in a moment of acute human suffering in the War in Iran. Pope Leo must know — as all faithful Christians know — that force can be morally necessary to stop a tyrant, defend the innocent, and prevent far greater evils. But by refusing to acknowledge that some wars are fought to halt atrocities rather than commit them, he leaves the unsettling — and most likely false — impression that he might not have supported even the most morally justified conflict in modern history: the Allied effort to crush Nazi aggression.
There is a similar Allied effort today to stop Iran from acquiring or deploying nuclear capabilities that could unleash devastation on a scale the world has not seen since 1945. The Catholic Church and many Christian denominations have opposed nuclear weapons, not because they deny the legitimacy of defense, but because they recognize the unparalleled horror these weapons inflict on the innocent. Yet that very teaching underscores why the country’s newest allies in this fight — including Sunni‑majority Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar — are sharing intelligence with the United States, strengthening missile defenses, and supporting U.S. diplomatic and security efforts. All have joined forces to help prevent Iran from gaining the power to annihilate entire populations. Their aim — like ours — is not conquest, but to avert a catastrophe whose moral cost would eclipse even the grave burdens of the current conflict.
It is also worth remembering that the men and women Pope Leo’s words inadvertently wounded are not some marginal subset of American life. Archbishop Timothy Broglio and other leaders of the Archdiocese for the Military Services have long noted that Catholics serve in the armed forces at rates higher than their share of the general population, a reality reflected in Department of War data showing that Catholics consistently make up a substantial portion of active‑duty personnel.
According to a 2023 Department of War study, roughly 70 percent of active‑duty service members identify as Christian. They serve at every level of the armed forces, from enlisted ranks to the academies, and they do so not in defiance of their faith but because of it — because they believe that the defense of the innocent and the pursuit of justice can be acts of charity. Many of these young Christians embrace military service as a vocation of disciplined selflessness, a way of offering their talents, courage, and even their lives for the protection of others.
To imply that their prayers are rejected by God risks alienating precisely those who have taken most seriously the biblical injunction to protect and serve. For that reason, Pope Leo’s rhetoric — however well‑intentioned — must be met with a robust articulation of Catholic teaching on war, peace, and moral responsibility. While the  Catholic Church would never promote violence or unnecessary wars, it does not demand passivity in the face of grave evil. The Catholic Church honors those who serve honorably, who refuse to shed innocent blood, and who carry out their duties with moral seriousness and restraint. When soldiers and their families bear heavy burdens, it would be most helpful for Church leaders to speak with clarity, compassion, and fidelity to the tradition that has long recognized both the tragedy of war and the nobility of just defense.
In the end, what is needed is not a retreat from the moral tradition, but a renewed commitment to it. At a moment when the world is again confronted by regimes willing to threaten the lives of entire populations, the Christian message matters. Pope Leo’s appeal for peace is noble, but in expressing it, he may have inadvertently cast doubt on the long‑held teaching that a robust defense can be an act of love. Our sons and daughters who serve in the defense of the nation deserve to have their sacrifices honored, not folded into a rhetoric that confuses their protection of the innocent with the violence of tyrants. Those who carry the weight of military service deserve leaders who speak to them with clarity and compassion, not with words that the media can spin to cloud the dignity of their calling.
READ MORE from Anne Hendershott:
The Collapse of Courtship for Gen Z
The Manufactured Crisis Over Housing Pregnant Migrant Minors in Texas
The Doomsday Clock Is Running on Politics, Not Science
Image licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

The prospect of congressional Republicans re-elected to the majority after the midterm election is beginning to look grim. According to the latest betting odds, the Democrats have an 85 percent chance of retaking the House, and RealClearPolling has the congressional vote for Democrats at +4.7. Control of the U.S. Senate is less clear. At first glance, it looks like Republicans will hold the majority, but if the past is prologue, you can’t count out a Democratic Senate flip.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is optimistic about Democrats winning the U.S. Senate and his chance to be majority leader again. In a recent interview, Schumer boasted that, “We have a clear and strong path to winning back the Senate.” The reality, however, is anything but clear and strong. The current makeup of the U.S. Senate is 53 Republicans, 47 Democrats, and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats.
Furthermore, the electoral Senate map gives Republicans a structural advantage over the Democrats, making the path to victory more challenging for Democrats in November.
Historically, the party in power loses the midterm election because it ties itself to the president’s agenda, and the “honeymoon stage” tends to wear off in the new term. The hope for Democrats is that President Trump’s low poll numbers, combined with middling job growth, high living costs, and what Democrats see as an unpopular war with Iran, will propel them to control the upper chamber, as they did in 2006.
Republicans are counting on a strengthening economy, victory over Iran, and President Trump campaigning for Senate candidates nationwide.
If you recall, the 2006 midterm election was a wave election. Democrats had a healthy lead in the congressional ballot races, but it wasn’t until late in the fall that Democrats’ hopes of recapturing the Senate were real.
At that time, President Bush was facing a low approval rating due to the Iraq War, high gas prices, and a poorly perceived response to Hurricane Katrina. Likewise, Republicans were dealing with corruption in Congress from the Jack Abramoff and Mark Foley scandals, which was a decisive issue for voters on exit polls.
Then, Senator Chuck Schumer oversaw the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and recruited the best candidates the Democrats have had in recent memory. Ranging from Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, and Jim Webb in Ohio, Montana, and Virginia to Bob Casey and Claire McCaskill in the corresponding states of Pennsylvania and Missouri.
Everything that could’ve gone right for the Democrats did. With victories all over the map, like Bob Casey beating Sen. Rick Santorum, the third-highest-ranking Republican Senator, in a landslide by nearly twenty points in the Keystone State.
Then you had Jim Webb defeat Sen. George Allen by a fraction of a percentage point (9,000 votes), knocking Allen out of any presidential endeavors. And Jon Tester squeaked out a 3,500-vote victory over Sen. Conrad Burns in Montana, where President Bush won handily in 2004.
The Democrats, thanks to Chuck Schumer, struck gold in 2006 by winning five Senate seats to reclaim the U.S. Senate and stall President Bush’s legislative agenda for his final two years. In the president’s own words, Republicans took a “thumping.” Can Democrats’ fortunes strike again in 2026?
As it stands, President Trump has a lower approval rating than President Bush did at this time and faces the same foreign and domestic issues, with a majority stating the country is on the wrong track.
However, the country is different from what it was 20 years ago, and so are the political parties. Republicans under Trump are more populist, while Democrats are further to the center-left and progressive. That matters.
For example, Democratic primary voters in Michigan will vote in August from a field of candidates that includes Abdul El-Sayed, a doctor and progressive whose views align with Senator Bernie Sanders. His anti-Trump resistance politics may align with Democratic voters, but give him no allure in the general election against a more moderate Republican like former Rep. Mike Rogers.
Conversely, Senator Schumer has his preferred Senate candidate, former Rep. Mary Peltola, facing incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska. Despite Ms. Peltola losing a close re-election in 2024, the Senate race is competitive due to Alaska’s idiosyncratic politics and Senator Sullivan’s declining popularity. The problem, still, is a partisan one, as President Trump won Alaska in 2024 by double digits and has won the state 3 times.
Consider what the election data has proven: 91 percent of Senate elections since 2012 have been won by the party that carried that state in the most recent presidential election, highlighting the shift in voter alignment. In 2018, Democrats retook the House but lost two Senate seats to Republicans. Then in 2022, Republicans gained nine House seats but lost one Senate seat to the Democrats.
The Ohio Senate election presents a unique challenge for Democrats. Former Senator Sherrod Brown will challenge Senator Jon Husted, the former Lt. Governor, who replaced JD Vance when he was elected vice president. Brown is a household name, and he’s been in Ohio politics since the 70s. He’s the last Democrat to be elected statewide since 2018. He lost a close race in 2024 to political newcomer Bernie Moreno by only 3 points. It was only a few election cycles ago that the Buckeye State was a toss-up state. Now it’s a bright red state with a strong tie to MAGA working-class voters, represented by a conventional, center-right Senator, Jon Husted. Sherrod Brown has his work cut out for him.
Republicans are counting on a strengthening economy, victory over Iran, and President Trump campaigning for Senate candidates nationwide. If conditions fail to improve, Democrats could break with historical precedent, with Chuck Schumer reclaiming control of the Senate. Meanwhile, a second Trump term risks being a lame duck presidency, leaving his MAGA legacy in a fragile position.
READ MORE from Alex Adkins:
Pluribus, Another Vince Gilligan Masterpiece
Mamdani Won, But Socialism Still Lost
The Elusive ‘Conservative Consensus’
Image licensed under Attribution 2.0 Generic.