Those that believe in false ideology often resort to speech cancellation, ostracism, and hate when challenged with the truth. It’s true in politics, education, and medicine. We need your voice Melanie. We also need Amir Odom’s.
Patrick, your encouragement always means so much to me. You’re right — we need every voice of courage, including Amir Odom’s and yours, to keep truth and persuasion alive.
Breathtaking summation of the insane state of our world. Your articulation of the moral corruption, fueled by nurtured intolerance, needs to be heard loudly - it could and should be employed to help others see the urgency of correction. ♥️
Sarah, thank you for such a generous comment. I so appreciate your thoughtful engagement — it reminds me why these words need to be written and shared. And you’re right, the urgency of correction has rarely been greater in our country.
Loved your thoughtful essay. I was a fan of Charlie Kirk and enjoyed his podcasts. He was always courteous and respectful even in the face of those that swore at him and called him names. Some on the left including national politicians called him hateful and divisive and responsible for his own murder. They could not have watched or listened to any of his podcasts and reached that conclusion. It seems that any idea that doesn't match the leftist mind set must be labeled as hateful and scorned. While I agree with your view that the education system and the media are largely to blame for radicalizing our youth, I think you left out social media's role in this process. Many false ,misleading and radical narratives are put out in social media that are absorbed by those that are addicted to social media. No effort is made to research the truth or falsity of the posts which are instead parroted giving them some measure of credibility. I would love to believe that Kirk's murder would serve as a turning point in America, I am a bit pessimistic. I remain hopeful but pessimistic. Thanks for your essay.
Thank you for this thoughtful response — and for underscoring something I didn’t dwell on enough: the role of social media. You’re absolutely right that it supercharges bad ideas, rewarding outrage over truth and amplifying narratives that never face scrutiny.
One of my themes was how echo chambers distort reality, and social media is perhaps the largest echo chamber of all. As you note, when posts are parroted rather than tested, they gain a false credibility — and that accelerates the very dehumanization that made Charlie such a target.
I share your mix of hope and realism. Change won’t come overnight. But as Charlie showed, and as Erika modeled, grace and dialogue can cut through even the loudest noise. If more of us speak with that spirit — publicly, not just privately — we can start to bend the culture back toward truth.
I know of no one with whom I agree 100%. Heck I don’t agree with myself often times. I suspect I’m not alone. The answer to this conundrum isn’t to shoot myself or for that matter anyone else. That’s not what it means to live in Peace. If at War the rules change. Seems pretty simple to me that there are many among us that have declared War on the rest of us.
I appreciate this, and you’re right — none of us agrees 100% with anyone (sometimes not even with ourselves!). That’s exactly why the American Idea matters: disagreement should be an invitation to talk, not a declaration of war. May choosing dialogue over dehumanization keep the peace.
We live in an era where truth has become increasingly elusive. Bias and misinformation are pervasive, and the gap between differing opinions is growing wider—leading to heightened tensions between people across the globe.
We are witnessing a troubling trend: leaders who mislead their citizens. A recent example was seen at the United Nations conference.
Take, for instance, President Trump’s speech, which epitomized a broader assault on science and truth currently unfolding in the United States. He referred to climate change as “the greatest hoax in history,” dismissing what is arguably the most pressing existential crisis of our time.
This week, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) revised its recommendation for the quadrivalent vaccine for children—a move that experts warn could erode public trust in medicine and vaccines.
These developments are part of a broader political campaign that challenges the well-established scientific link between climate change and public health—a link that underpins critical policies aimed at reducing emissions.
Undermining science and distorting facts creates deliberate chaos. It threatens not only the foundations of democracy but of civilization itself: our shared ability to distinguish right from wrong and to recognize truth.
Protecting science means protecting health, security, and the common language we need to face global challenges.
Zeev, I must push back on the idea that climate change is an existential threat. After decades of failed computer models and dire predictions from people like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg that never came true, shouldn’t we be more cautious about such claims? Even Greta has now shifted her activism from climate to “Free Palestine.” Doesn’t that suggest the rhetoric is often more political than scientific?
Meanwhile, here in Germany, the costs of alarmist policy are real. We shut down the world’s safest nuclear plants, spent billions subsidizing renewables, and yet fossil fuel use increased. Wind and solar provide only about 10% of our energy and need 100% backup from coal and gas, especially in winter. Families face soaring energy bills, new heating mandates, and a declining standard of living. That’s why the term “energy poverty” was coined here.
If these policies don’t solve the supposed problem, but they do weaken our economy, impoverish people, and imperil our security while China builds coal plants, is this really compassion — or self-destruction? I’m glad a world leader is finally calling out the people who’ve propagated these devastating policies.
Hi Paula. Thank you for your interesting commentד. I am not a scientist, so I cannot determine where the truth lies, and I raised the arguments only as a question to prove that we have no certainty of knowing what the truth is. I certainly agree that we should be cautious about these claims, but at the same time, when I personally observe (again, without any scientific proof!), the retreat of glaciers/the extinction of rainforests, the increase in climate change (where I live, it is getting significantly warmer year by year)/the reduction of food crops and their quality/a significant decline in the quality of the water we drink and the quality of the air we breathe around the world, and more, I do believe that the trend will constitute an existential threat at some point. This is based on many studies and it is desirable to prevent this threat. I cannot determine what the policy is regarding the issue, and there is no doubt that there are prices for this in economics. I was not familiar with the term "energy poverty" before. Perhaps the current policy is not entirely appropriate and an alternative policy needs to be outlined, but it definitely needs to be considered. Apologies, but Al Gore and Greta don't really interest me. We'll see where this whole situation leads us.
Paula raises an essential point about the costs of alarmist policy, and Zeev, I respect your honesty in noting you’re not a scientist. That’s exactly why trustworthy institutions matter. Yet when leading scientists themselves admit uncertainty, shouldn’t we be cautious about policies that impose massive costs on those who can least afford them — without delivering meaningful results on the very problems they claim to solve?
Yes, the climate has always changed. Where I live, fossils of woolly mammoths — extinct animals that roamed tens of thousands of years ago — were preserved by one shift to a colder climate and revealed by another, when glaciers melted to expose the Rocky Mountains. Since no one has proven that today’s changes are primarily man-made or catastrophic, shouldn’t we be careful not to impose policies that damage human well-being in the way Paula described — higher costs, lower living standards, weakened security — all without solving the supposed problem?
Your personal observations are real, but do they justify treating climate as an existential threat when so many model-based predictions — from ice-free poles to reef collapse — have failed to materialize? Bjorn Lomborg notes the Great Barrier Reef is now in its best shape since measurements began in 1986, despite decades of dire warnings.
Meanwhile, trust in institutions has collapsed from 73% in 1958 to only 22% today, according to the National Election Study. Can you imagine how much trust was lost when COVID policies allowed protests but forbade funerals and worship, when officials promised vaccines would “stop transmission” only to backtrack, or when climate advocates made repeated catastrophe claims that never came true?
As I argued in my essay, what we see in our echo chambers isn’t necessarily truth. It takes the respectful clash of ideas — not the silencing of them — to test claims, expose errors, and rebuild trust. I hope we can all stay open to that.
Hi Melanie. I am aware of the processes taking place in our world in which people often choose certain narratives that they believe are true for them without having the practical ability to test them for validity. We are exposed to vast amounts of information, much of which is biased: Take for example the enormous influence of cigarette companies that introduced cigarette smoking into hospitals (!) and advertised them as a health product... Regarding climate change by humans, I can present an interesting film related to the issue of global warming: The Man Who Accidentally Killed The Most People In History (https://youtu.be/IV3dnLzthDA?si=vfSRTJMfUi1odS7M)
This is how the hole in the ozone layer was created and it certainly affects climate change and, in my opinion, also the accumulation of gas emissions that are a by-product of burning coal, petroleum products and other pollutants. The question that arises is one that we find difficult to answer in absolute terms: What is the impact of these pollutants? / How do we reduce their impact? / Cost and benefit of these actions.
Those that believe in false ideology often resort to speech cancellation, ostracism, and hate when challenged with the truth. It’s true in politics, education, and medicine. We need your voice Melanie. We also need Amir Odom’s.
Patrick, your encouragement always means so much to me. You’re right — we need every voice of courage, including Amir Odom’s and yours, to keep truth and persuasion alive.
Breathtaking summation of the insane state of our world. Your articulation of the moral corruption, fueled by nurtured intolerance, needs to be heard loudly - it could and should be employed to help others see the urgency of correction. ♥️
Sarah, thank you for such a generous comment. I so appreciate your thoughtful engagement — it reminds me why these words need to be written and shared. And you’re right, the urgency of correction has rarely been greater in our country.
Beautiful, Melanie! Well researched, well written, and inspiring.
Neil, thank you! Your steady encouragement keeps me inspired to keep writing and sharing.
Loved your thoughtful essay. I was a fan of Charlie Kirk and enjoyed his podcasts. He was always courteous and respectful even in the face of those that swore at him and called him names. Some on the left including national politicians called him hateful and divisive and responsible for his own murder. They could not have watched or listened to any of his podcasts and reached that conclusion. It seems that any idea that doesn't match the leftist mind set must be labeled as hateful and scorned. While I agree with your view that the education system and the media are largely to blame for radicalizing our youth, I think you left out social media's role in this process. Many false ,misleading and radical narratives are put out in social media that are absorbed by those that are addicted to social media. No effort is made to research the truth or falsity of the posts which are instead parroted giving them some measure of credibility. I would love to believe that Kirk's murder would serve as a turning point in America, I am a bit pessimistic. I remain hopeful but pessimistic. Thanks for your essay.
Thank you for this thoughtful response — and for underscoring something I didn’t dwell on enough: the role of social media. You’re absolutely right that it supercharges bad ideas, rewarding outrage over truth and amplifying narratives that never face scrutiny.
One of my themes was how echo chambers distort reality, and social media is perhaps the largest echo chamber of all. As you note, when posts are parroted rather than tested, they gain a false credibility — and that accelerates the very dehumanization that made Charlie such a target.
I share your mix of hope and realism. Change won’t come overnight. But as Charlie showed, and as Erika modeled, grace and dialogue can cut through even the loudest noise. If more of us speak with that spirit — publicly, not just privately — we can start to bend the culture back toward truth.
As always,Melanie…..a beautiful, thoughtful, well articulated argument made with heart and grace. Thank you.
Marla, thank you. You know my heart — and I know yours! 🙏
I know of no one with whom I agree 100%. Heck I don’t agree with myself often times. I suspect I’m not alone. The answer to this conundrum isn’t to shoot myself or for that matter anyone else. That’s not what it means to live in Peace. If at War the rules change. Seems pretty simple to me that there are many among us that have declared War on the rest of us.
I appreciate this, and you’re right — none of us agrees 100% with anyone (sometimes not even with ourselves!). That’s exactly why the American Idea matters: disagreement should be an invitation to talk, not a declaration of war. May choosing dialogue over dehumanization keep the peace.
Once again you’re spot on! Terrific Read Melanie thank you.
Thank you, John — your faithful reading and encouragement mean so much. You’re a model of the civil dialogue we need more of! 🙏
Thanks for a thoughtful article.
We live in an era where truth has become increasingly elusive. Bias and misinformation are pervasive, and the gap between differing opinions is growing wider—leading to heightened tensions between people across the globe.
We are witnessing a troubling trend: leaders who mislead their citizens. A recent example was seen at the United Nations conference.
Take, for instance, President Trump’s speech, which epitomized a broader assault on science and truth currently unfolding in the United States. He referred to climate change as “the greatest hoax in history,” dismissing what is arguably the most pressing existential crisis of our time.
This week, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) revised its recommendation for the quadrivalent vaccine for children—a move that experts warn could erode public trust in medicine and vaccines.
These developments are part of a broader political campaign that challenges the well-established scientific link between climate change and public health—a link that underpins critical policies aimed at reducing emissions.
Undermining science and distorting facts creates deliberate chaos. It threatens not only the foundations of democracy but of civilization itself: our shared ability to distinguish right from wrong and to recognize truth.
Protecting science means protecting health, security, and the common language we need to face global challenges.
Zeev, I must push back on the idea that climate change is an existential threat. After decades of failed computer models and dire predictions from people like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg that never came true, shouldn’t we be more cautious about such claims? Even Greta has now shifted her activism from climate to “Free Palestine.” Doesn’t that suggest the rhetoric is often more political than scientific?
Meanwhile, here in Germany, the costs of alarmist policy are real. We shut down the world’s safest nuclear plants, spent billions subsidizing renewables, and yet fossil fuel use increased. Wind and solar provide only about 10% of our energy and need 100% backup from coal and gas, especially in winter. Families face soaring energy bills, new heating mandates, and a declining standard of living. That’s why the term “energy poverty” was coined here.
If these policies don’t solve the supposed problem, but they do weaken our economy, impoverish people, and imperil our security while China builds coal plants, is this really compassion — or self-destruction? I’m glad a world leader is finally calling out the people who’ve propagated these devastating policies.
Hi Paula. Thank you for your interesting commentד. I am not a scientist, so I cannot determine where the truth lies, and I raised the arguments only as a question to prove that we have no certainty of knowing what the truth is. I certainly agree that we should be cautious about these claims, but at the same time, when I personally observe (again, without any scientific proof!), the retreat of glaciers/the extinction of rainforests, the increase in climate change (where I live, it is getting significantly warmer year by year)/the reduction of food crops and their quality/a significant decline in the quality of the water we drink and the quality of the air we breathe around the world, and more, I do believe that the trend will constitute an existential threat at some point. This is based on many studies and it is desirable to prevent this threat. I cannot determine what the policy is regarding the issue, and there is no doubt that there are prices for this in economics. I was not familiar with the term "energy poverty" before. Perhaps the current policy is not entirely appropriate and an alternative policy needs to be outlined, but it definitely needs to be considered. Apologies, but Al Gore and Greta don't really interest me. We'll see where this whole situation leads us.
Paula raises an essential point about the costs of alarmist policy, and Zeev, I respect your honesty in noting you’re not a scientist. That’s exactly why trustworthy institutions matter. Yet when leading scientists themselves admit uncertainty, shouldn’t we be cautious about policies that impose massive costs on those who can least afford them — without delivering meaningful results on the very problems they claim to solve?
Yes, the climate has always changed. Where I live, fossils of woolly mammoths — extinct animals that roamed tens of thousands of years ago — were preserved by one shift to a colder climate and revealed by another, when glaciers melted to expose the Rocky Mountains. Since no one has proven that today’s changes are primarily man-made or catastrophic, shouldn’t we be careful not to impose policies that damage human well-being in the way Paula described — higher costs, lower living standards, weakened security — all without solving the supposed problem?
Your personal observations are real, but do they justify treating climate as an existential threat when so many model-based predictions — from ice-free poles to reef collapse — have failed to materialize? Bjorn Lomborg notes the Great Barrier Reef is now in its best shape since measurements began in 1986, despite decades of dire warnings.
Meanwhile, trust in institutions has collapsed from 73% in 1958 to only 22% today, according to the National Election Study. Can you imagine how much trust was lost when COVID policies allowed protests but forbade funerals and worship, when officials promised vaccines would “stop transmission” only to backtrack, or when climate advocates made repeated catastrophe claims that never came true?
As I argued in my essay, what we see in our echo chambers isn’t necessarily truth. It takes the respectful clash of ideas — not the silencing of them — to test claims, expose errors, and rebuild trust. I hope we can all stay open to that.
Hi Melanie. I am aware of the processes taking place in our world in which people often choose certain narratives that they believe are true for them without having the practical ability to test them for validity. We are exposed to vast amounts of information, much of which is biased: Take for example the enormous influence of cigarette companies that introduced cigarette smoking into hospitals (!) and advertised them as a health product... Regarding climate change by humans, I can present an interesting film related to the issue of global warming: The Man Who Accidentally Killed The Most People In History (https://youtu.be/IV3dnLzthDA?si=vfSRTJMfUi1odS7M)
This is how the hole in the ozone layer was created and it certainly affects climate change and, in my opinion, also the accumulation of gas emissions that are a by-product of burning coal, petroleum products and other pollutants. The question that arises is one that we find difficult to answer in absolute terms: What is the impact of these pollutants? / How do we reduce their impact? / Cost and benefit of these actions.