RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2025/07/13/no-list-no-revelations-no-plot-just-epstein/

In the moderately large compendium of things I do not care about, details of the depravity of the late Jeffrey Epstein occupy a random page or two.

I had never heard of the “financier” and sex-trafficking impresario until shortly before his final encounters with the law in 2019. Like many, I received the news that he committed suicide in a New York jail in August of that year with a dollop of incredulity. Where were the jailers? Why was there a missing spot on the videotape just when the deed was done? Had Epstein threatened Hillary Clinton? What about that picture of Bill Clinton in a blue dress that was found in Epstein’s New York home?

There was plenty of food for doubt.

Unlike many, however, my incredulity was seasoned with indifference.

Okay, Epstein was a creep of the first order. He had attracted a bunch of famous men to his Caribbean island for sex romps with (mostly) underage girls. He apparently liked to videotape the proceedings. Why? In order to blackmail those stars of stage and screen was the consensus, natch. But did he?

I was glad that Epstein was nabbed by the law. I hoped his victims found recompense. But in the scheme of things, The Saga of Jeffrey Epstein was a narrative I was pleased to absorb in a highly distilled, cheat-sheet version. I’d lived through such entertainments as the anatomies of Bill Clinton’s odd taste in cigars. Epstein was worse, but from the point of view of the spectator’s interest, it seemed cut from the same bolt of cloth.

I understand that the public’s appetite for scandal is a hardy perennial. The story of who is doing what to whom—especially if the “who”s are celebrities—is calculated to give prurient interest the gratifying cover of “the public’s right to know,” not to mention an opportunity to indulge in a little tongue-clucking moral outrage.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/zohran-mamdani-artificial-intelligence-jobs

Does Zohran Mamdani, an unapologetic socialist, owe his political rise as New York City’s leading mayoral candidate to artificial intelligence?

We’re not referring to whether Mamdani, a TikTok and Instagram virtuoso, used AI to help propel himself to victory in the primaries (he may have). Instead, consider the anxieties that AI is fueling in the demographic that voted for him. Ever since ChatGPT ignited the modern AI era, we’ve seen a stream of headlines and studies predicting that AI will soon perform virtually all knowledge work. Mamdani captured his big majorities among the laptop class of middle- and upper-middle income citizens, not in working-class neighborhoods. Socialism’s central nostrum—that well-intentioned experts and ruling elites should tame the predations of market and technology disruptions—becomes more appealing during periods of social and economic upheaval.

There is no shortage of reasons for anxiety and unhappiness today, not least the intensity of political and cultural debates over “woke” ideas, “social justice,” the impact of social media, natural disasters blamed on human behavior (the climate-disaster thesis), and ongoing wars. Now, added to this already turbulent backdrop, comes the fear of an AI-driven jobs apocalypse. Few concerns, aside from health issues, cause more stress than the threat or fact of job loss. A May 2025 survey by the American Psychological Association found that three-fourths of employees feel stressed over job insecurity.

These worries are not unfounded. Recently, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff said that the company would hire 30 percent to 50 percent fewer people because of AI, while Amazon CEO Andy Jassy aroused employee ire for observing that, with AI, “we expect the total number of employees to decrease over the coming years.” Ford CEO Jim Farley asserted that AI “is going to replace literally half of all white-collar workers in the U.S.” A Wall Street Journal headline echoed the point: “CEOs Start Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud: AI Will Wipe Out Jobs.”

https://amgreatness.com/2025/07/11/the-culture-war-goes-to-court/

June 1 marked the 100th anniversary of Pierce v. Society of Sisters. This landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision struck down an Oregon law that prohibited parents from educating their children in private and religious schools and required public school attendance.

Justice James McReynolds wrote, “The child is not the mere creature of the state,” which summed up the majority opinion in the decision.

A century later, however, the battle continues. On June 27, SCOTUS ruled 6–3 that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using “LGBTQ+ inclusive” storybooks. The Mahmoud v. Taylor decision maintains that parents have a fundamental right to direct their children’s moral and religious upbringing and that parental rights don’t end at the classroom door.

Children aged 5-11 were required to read or listen to stories such as Prince & Knight, about two male knights who marry each other; Love Violet, about two young girls falling in love; and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, about a biological girl transitioning to a boy.

It’s important to note that the dissenting parents didn’t challenge the curriculum or demand that the district banish the controversial books. They simply wanted to be notified and have the opportunity to opt their children out of inappropriate and objectionable indoctrination provided at government-run schools. They did not advocate for schools to teach a specific religion or beliefs, but rather, they only asked that schools respect parents’ constitutional right to guide their children’s moral development.

Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented. In her opinion, Sotomayor incoherently argued that the majority was trying to allow parents to separate their children from experiences that are “critical to our nation’s civic vitality” and would sow “chaos” in public schools across the United States.