SOLD:

The Wingman: Mark Kelly’s résumé and the goodwill he’s accrued as Gabby Giffords’s spouse have granted him a high level of admiration. Can it translate to excitement for a presidential campaign? (Mark Leibovich, 7/20/26, The Atlantic)

“I’m Gabby.”

She says this by way of introduction, and as a wistful acknowledgment of her name’s cruel irony. Even by politician standards, Giffords was quite the chatterbox. In their joint memoir, Gabby: A Story of Courage, Love, and Resilience, Kelly estimates that before she was shot, Giffords did about 60 or 70 percent of the talking between them. Kelly was the reticent one in the couple, happy to let his wife gobble up the silences. The massacre left Giffords with a condition known as “non-fluent aphasia.” It does not affect intelligence, or ability to comprehend events or remember stories—only to relay them. After Tucson, Kelly says, he started carrying 95 percent of their conversations.

During my visit, Kelly often finished Giffords’s sentences and elaborated on what she was trying to say. She speaks in bursts of words and short fragments. It’s evident when she is trying to express something but her voice is not cooperating. She shakes her head, moves her mouth, rocks back and forth.

When we were first getting settled at the café, Kelly walked over with a blueberry muffin and a large cup of ice water.

“Drink your water!” Giffords declared. “China. Drink more water.”

What did this mean?

“You know what people say in China when you sneeze?” Kelly explained. “Drink more water.”

Giffords chuckled—which she does a lot. Kelly often joins her. They share a dry, absurdist, and understandably dark sense of humor. It’s a bit of a platitude to say this about political couples, but Kelly really does project as a different person around his spouse. His usual solo mode is quiet intensity. With Giffords present, he becomes much more engaged, as if he’s trying to draw out whatever he can of his wife’s former extroversion.

VERY SIDD FINCH:

Inside the Shaolin monastery that helped build Victor Wembanyama (Ramona Shelburne, Jun 13, 2026, ESPN)

Throughout his time at the monastery, meditation had been the most difficult aspect for Wembanyama to embrace. It’s hard for someone 7-foot-4 to sit cross-legged at all, let alone silently for up to 90 minutes, without moving.

But he kept at it. Each night he slept in three single-size beds that had been pushed together to accommodate his frame. Each morning he rose at 4:30 to train. The monks would have him run through the forests near the monastery or along an uneven 200-meter hillside track, doing frog jumps, sprints and one-legged hops uphill and downhill to build his balance and stamina.

They taught him the Shaolin 13 Fist Form — one of the two basic forms of kung fu meant to teach efficient weight shifts, stability and striking principles.

Master Yan’an said he designed Wembanyama’s customized martial arts training to emphasize controlling his center of gravity, which would generate force from different positions and resist external forces, to mimic the double-teams and physical play he’d face from NBA opponents.

Several times a day Wembanyama meditated with 100 other monks, each session’s length determined by the length of the wick of incense that burned in the center of the room. Thirty minutes was doable. But sometimes the incense burned for 90 minutes, and it was agonizing for the then-21-year-old Wembanyama to sit that long.

“I knew he could do it,” Master Yan’an said. “Because when he trains, he always tries again and again until he is the best.”

Master Yan’an recognized then what the basketball world is recognizing now: that Victor Wembanyama has perhaps the most unprecedented set of skills and untapped potential anyone has ever seen, and that he requires a similarly unprecedented training regimen to realize it.

This is the story of how 34 generations of Shaolin warrior history trained a once-in-a-generation NBA superstar, one who looks poised to dominate for the rest of his nascent career.

UTTER TRUTHS:

Do You Know What an Odyssey Is? (Eva Brann, opening lecture for the Honors Program at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington in September, 1993)

Let me tell you what I think about Odysseus’s odyssey. Ask yourself first who its author is. Who is the poet of the odyssey? Is it Homer? Well yes, in some way. But actually it is Odysseus, it is Odysseus who takes the place of the palace-poet in Phaeacia and who tells the story of his adventures there. He is the true teller and poet of his odyssey.

Now there is something we know about this hero: he is a habitual and practiced liar. Wherever he turns up, he tells lying tales. Homer calls them that—”lying tales.” He tells various people, his honest servant Eumaius, his faithful wife Penelope and others, a lot of partial stories about his travels, stories quite different from the grand odyssey he tells those artistic folk, the Phaeacians. His very own goddess Athena encourages him in this rather peculiar tale-telling. Imagine the scene. It happens right after the crew of the magically instantaneous Phaeacian ship has left Odysseus in a deep sleep on the shore of his home Ithaca, together with a heap of loot. He awakes to find that for the first time in decades his own goddess is visibly with him. Here is Athena herself, handsome and tall, the embodiment of all the true womanly virtues, for she is warlike, cunning, and wise. She all but makes love to her protegé. She strokes his cheek and says: “A man would have to be really guileful and rascally to out do you in all sorts of trickery.” She goes on like that for a while in her pleasure with him. He really is an olympic-class liar.

Now what lies has he been telling, according to Homer? He tells all and sundry that he has been here and there, to Crete, to Syria, to Egypt, as a brigand and merchant mariner. What else would an impoverished hero, having wasted ten years of his life to sack one small citadel, do on his way home from Turkey? Of course he would circulate in the Aegean sea, stealing or trading so as not to come home empty-handed. All the Greeks did it on their return trip from Troy.

So here is my interpretation of Odysseus’s odyssey. See if you believe me—it’s pure speculation. I think Odysseus’s lying tales, the supposedly made-up stories he keeps telling, are the simple fact. Of course he went to Crete and Syria and Egypt to accumulate wealth by various peaceful and violent means. What else would he have been doing in the ten years he takes to get home? He is, I say, telling simple facts.

Then what of the wonderful and fantastic adventures that form the odyssey he tells in Phaeacia, the journey that gives its name to the poem? They are not the simple fact. They are instead the utter truth.

This very thing must have happened to you: You go to a place. Certain prosaic things occur, ordinary external factual occurrences. But your trip also has an inward significance: you learn something about yourself or about others; you see the ordinary things in a larger, perhaps in a magical perspective. This view of events, this vision, is the truth of the trip. The mere facts are a kind of correct non-truth.

Here is how it happens to Odysseus. He comes to a place, probably Egypt, where the inhabitants eat the lotus flower, which apparently contains a drug. We know from their frescoes that the Egyptians sniffed lotus flowers at parties. You may have done something like that yourself. Odysseus, a man of independent vitality and imagination, does not join his crew in indulging in this mind-altering activity, and eventually he has to extricate them by force from their spaced-out stupor. This mundane, all-too-factual episode becomes the true mythic adventure of the lotus eaters in Odysseus’ odyssey.

Another time he and his crew come to an island bordello. His men are quite ready to make pigs of themselves. Not he; in fact he masters the madam of this house. The mythic truth of this episode collides out in the adventure on Circe’s Island, where a seductive sorceress turns his crew into a herd of grunting beasts, while he retains his manhood.

In mathematics books there is often an irritating but well-meaning sentence: “The rest of the proof is left to the reader.” I am leaving the rest of this proof, the other ten adventures, to you to interpret.

If there is any sense in what I am saying, Homer will introduce into your intellects and imaginations to what may be a new notion: the distinction between brute, but somehow mendacious, fact and fantastic, but significant, truth. His poem will serve for you as the first and probably the grandest example of the poet’s function, which is to turn mere life into meaningful myth.

The second answer then to the question “Do you know what an odyssey is?” will be: It is that telling of an episode in a human life that gives its incidents magic and meaning.

DISMISSING THE ANCIENT GREEKS SEEMS HOMOPHOBIC:

The interview that exposed academia’s cluelessness (Megan McArdle, July 19, 2026, Washinton Post)

Carolyn Rouse, the president of the American Anthropological Association, was not one to stay silent while outsiders claimed that her field had abandoned rigorous argument in favor of social justice orthodoxy. No, sir. Instead, she opened her mouth and proved it.

Her interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education has to be read to be believed. No, strike that, I’ve read it three times, and I am still struggling to convince myself that it’s real.

“They used AI,” said the Princeton anthropology professor, apparently unaware that using artificial intelligence to survey large bodies of text is an increasingly common method in many social science fields. She rambled about a couple of passing references to Socrates as if this somehow discredited the report. (Did you know the ancient Greeks had enslaved people?) She asserted that teaching there are two sexes would be “the equivalent of turning an astronomy department into an astrology department.”

When the interviewer pushes back on that last point, she tries to dodge and weave, but has no idea what an effective dodge would be. So we end up watching an unintentional comedian take repeated pratfalls, such as suggesting that people who believe sex is binary maybe “want to kill babies that aren’t just XX presenting XX or XY presenting XY,” and that teaching that sex is binary is as inappropriate in a classroom as debating the pros and cons of interning Japanese people. Perhaps this sounds more coherent if you are fluent in Anthropologese, but to those outside the tribe? Woof.

All comedy is conservative.

PEP BALL:

Geometry, football and the World Cup final (Conor Boland, July 17, 2026, The Conversation)

Put three attackers in a straight line and one defender can often block both supporting players. But move one supporting player sideways and the passing lines separate.

The defender must choose which route to close. Press the ball and a pass can go around them. Protect the inside route and the outside may open. If another defender steps across, a Spanish player can attack the space left behind.

A useful football triangle does not need equal sides or 60-degree angles. Its best shape changes with defenders’ positions, body orientation, ball speed and the space available.

A narrow triangle is easy to squeeze because one defender may block both lanes. A wide one makes the pass travel farther, giving an opponent more time to intercept it.

In their semi-final match against France, Spain found the middle ground again and again – close enough for quick combinations, but far enough apart to stretch France’s press.

WHEN FAMILIARITY BREEDS CONTEMPT:

Conservative Nativists Live Under the Cosmopolitanism They Claim To Despise: Revealed preferences help us understand the value of diversity. (Zaid Jilani, Jul 16, 2026, The American Saga)

In economics, there is a concept called revealed preferences. Consumers will tell you what they really like by their actual behavior. What they want is what they buy.

The pundits I discussed above all argue as if they feel that America will be doomed when it becomes majority minority. “Import the third world, become the third world,” has become their slogan de jure. If we have a country full of people from Mexican, Indian, or Haitian ancestral origin, we will transform into those countries and bring all their sociological and economic problems.

But through their revealed preferences, we can see that they may not be so confident in this thesis after all.

Walsh, for instance, lives in the thriving metropolis of Nashville, Tennessee. According to the local chamber of commerce, “over 35% of Nashville’s net in-migration from 2024 to 2025 was due to international migration”; around a third of downtown businesses are owned by minorities. While Walsh has been ranting about Somalis in Minneapolis, he would probably enjoy this Somali-owned tea shop in his city (I visited the last time I drove up). In a moment of clarity, Walsh admitted he loves Indian food.

Hemingway and Davis, meanwhile, are denizens of Metro Washington, D.C. A quarter of Northern Virginia’s residents are foreign-born. Kelly lives in and broadcasts from Houston, which was ranked by one measure as America’s fifth-most diverse city and second-most diverse large city (the top three most diverse cities were all in Maryland, also bordering D.C.). Webbon is in Austin, a very liberal and diverse city. Nick Fuentes, the charismatic racist streamer, lives in predominantly Hispanic suburb of Chicago. Brandon Gill, one of the most vociferous nativists in Congress who wants to stop even legal immigration, is married to an Indian American woman.

Speaking of marriage, it’s ironic that the nativists are led by President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Trump is married to an immigrant and the grandson of one himself. Vance is not only married to an Indian American woman, but he goes out of his way in his memoir to praise her family for its strong bonds.

Recall that while they generally cite which party supported Israel most, much of the Neocon turn to the right was driven by urban crime and racial quotas at elite institutions.

THE MIRACLE OF COMPOUND INTEREST:

In America, Almost Anyone Can Be a Millionaire: Critics of capitalism miss how hard work and savings can make any of us rich. (Daniel Di Martino, Jul 17, 2026, City Journal)

The Wall Street Journal recently profiled a Costco worker named Tony Barzar from Arizona. Barzar never went to college, only taking some community college classes without finishing. Nonetheless, working his entire life in grocery stores and Costco, he has amassed over $1 million in his 401(k) account. He also owns a home with a pool and has traveled to Europe twice in the last decade—all while making just shy of $33 per hour.

He got there not by some great feat, but by slow and steady saving. Costco has a conservative employer retirement savings match program, matching 50 percent of contributions up to $1,000. To amass $1 million over the last four decades, Barzar would have needed to put just over 5 percent of his paycheck plus the Costco match in a standard ETF tracking the S&P500.

This kind of growth is achievable for the vast majority of young people in America today. At age 20, Barzar had a starting annual salary of $35,000 in today’s dollars. Today’s median 20- to 24-year-old full time worker earns over $42,000—nearly 20 percent more.

THE TRIUMPH OF FAITH OVER REASON:

After 1776, the founders designed a government that accounts for ‘a degree of depravity in mankind’ (Donovan Fifeld, July 16, 2026, The Conversation)


Hamilton, Madison and Jay responded to these criticisms as a group. Adopting the pen name Publius, they published 85 essays in New York newspapers supporting ratification. In defense of the Constitution’s proposal to increase the powers of the proposed national government, these authors turned to some of the most basic philosophical questions about humanity.

Each argued that the inherent flaws of human nature necessitated a strong government to check political abuse, self-interest and even violence that they saw as inherent in the fabric of human society. They rallied around the position reflected in Madison’s famous statement in the essay known as Federalist 51 that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

The Federalist Papers include proposals for institutional solutions that sought to redirect the destructive drives of individuals toward positive social ends. To the authors, a new constitutional government that controlled both the impulses of the masses and the abuses of their leaders would serve as the means through which the new United States government could accomplish this task.

Each saw human nature as susceptible to corruption by base impulses and self-interest.

In Federalist 10, Madison argued that faction is “sown in the nature of man.”

Similarly, in Federalist 6, Hamilton rejected the commonly held idea that republics were automatically peaceful. Instead, he argued, political leaders and states were driven by ambitions and jealousies, which he saw as a characteristic shortcoming of the government under the Articles of Confederation as well as a law of nature governing relations between nations.

Hamilton wrote that if the states remained disunited, then “the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other.” To argue otherwise, he wrote, would be “to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious.”

Consequently, as Hamilton asserted in Federalist 15, governments must have effective coercive authority to enforce laws because they cannot rely solely on the goodwill and civic virtue of their citizens: “If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.”

Ultimately, the defense of the Constitution provided by the Federalist Papers sought to frame the new government in terms of a skeptical view of humanity that recognized what Madison called “a degree of depravity in mankind.”

Man is Fallen.

SPURSY VERSES:

The People’s Game: The education of a soccer fan. (Salman Rushdie, May 24, 1999, The New Yorker)


I came to London in January, 1961, as a boy of thirteen and a half, on my way to boarding school, and accompanied by my father. It was a cold month, with blue skies by day and green fogs by night. We stayed at a huge barracks of a hotel, the Cumberland, at Marble Arch, and after we settled in my father asked if I would like to see a professional soccer game. (In Bombay, where I had grown up, there was no soccer to speak of; the local sports were cricket and field hockey.)

The first game my father took me to see was what I would later learn is called a “friendly” (because the result doesn’t count toward anything) between a North London team called the Arsenal and the champions of Spain, Real Madrid. I did not know that the visitors were rated as perhaps the greatest team ever. Or that they had just won the European Cup five years running. (The European Cup is an annual tournament held to determine the champion of all Europe’s national champions.) Or that among their players were two of the game’s all-time immortals, both foreigners: a Hungarian named Ferenc Puskas, “the little general,” and an Argentine, Alfredo di Stefano.

This is the way I remember the game: in the first half, Real Madrid tore the Arsenal apart. The London team was renowned for its tough defensive style of play—“Boring Arsenal” is a label it was stuck with for years—but Real Madrid went through the Arsenal’s defense almost at will, and at halftime led 3–0. Then, because this was, after all, just a friendly game, Real took off its star players and replaced them with a bunch of kids. Arsenal stubbornly kept all its first-team players on the field, and the game ended up tied, 3–3; but not even the most diehard Arsenal fans could pretend that the result accurately reflected the quality of the two teams.

On the way back to the hotel, my father asked me for my views. “Well, I didn’t think much of that English team,” I told him. “But I liked that Spanish side. Can you find out if there’s an English team that plays like Real Madrid?” Unknown to me, I had asked for the near impossible; as if, in Michael Jordan’s airborne heyday, I had asked, “Can you find out if there’s a team that plays like the Chicago Bulls?” My father, almost as much an innocent in these matters as myself, said, “I’ll ask at the front desk.” What he learned from that long-forgotten hotel clerk changed my life, because a few days later we went to watch the other famous team of North London, Tottenham Hotspur, and I lost my heart.

THE NEXT PRESIDENT HAS AN EASY JOB:

How the World Cup Helped America See Itself Afresh: Visiting foreign soccer fans have fallen in love with the US, showing its residents a different version of themselves and their country (Surbhi Gupta & Danny Postel, July 16, 2026, New Lines)

In the last few weeks, as fans from across Europe and other parts of the world traveled through the United States for the World Cup, following their teams from city to city, they discovered an America that tends not to make it into global news headlines, at least not in recent years. They met friendly strangers who offered rides to and from stadiums, discovered big portion sizes and free refills in American restaurants, and developed an unexpected fondness for ranch dressing, wanting to take it back home as a souvenir. (Sensing an opportunity, the food company Kraft Heinz, in true American fashion, released a “TSA-Compliant Ranch” kit after the Transportation Security Administration repeatedly reminded visitors that full-size bottles could not be carried through airport security.) They felt relief at the near ubiquity of air conditioning in the summer and came face to face with the largesse and abundance of suburban America as they ventured outside the tourist hotspots of New York City, Washington and Los Angeles.

As visitors marveled at America and their reactions went viral, Americans watched them marvel and, in turn, found themselves looking at their country differently, through that foreign prism — recognizing, even celebrating, everyday aspects of life here as uniquely American. This outsider’s gaze offered a version of America that stood in sharp contrast with the one both Americans and people around the world tend to encounter through doomscrolling and the relentless churn of the news cycle.

“This World Cup is significant in terms of how we view America. Not because it changes America but because it illuminates America,” the journalist and author Simon Kuper told our colleague Faisal Al Yafai in a recent episode of the New Lines podcast, The Lede. The World Cup “tells you that America is not just Trump,” Kuper said, noting that from Europe it’s easy to conclude that since Trump was elected twice on a xenophobic platform, it defines all of the United States. But traveling through the country and meeting people, one realizes that even Trump voters “really like the world, they really like having foreigners there,” Kuper said.

This gap between the reel and the real was perhaps best captured in an interview with Sebastian Kraus, a German soccer fan who became teary-eyed while speaking to NBC10 Boston. “I fall in love with this country and this was so emotional, I even cried in the stadium,” he said. Before making the trip, Kraus admitted he had been apprehensive, his perception shaped by news reports about mass shootings and concerns over public safety. But buoyed by the generosity of local Americans, he was bidding goodbye to the country with a heavy heart.

Just do what Joe failed to do: undo all of Trumpism.