Ten years have passed since I last spoke to my grandfather as himself. Not a day goes by that I don’t miss him.

The man who forgot me isn’t the one I carry. I carry the other one. The one who took me for long walks, who collected acorns the way other men pocket loose change. He taught me never to speak ill of others, advice I have absorbed deeply and applied far less than he would have liked.

He never had a bad word to say about anyone. Not once. As an Irishman, this made him practically a medical curiosity.

We fed livestock together in the early mornings, breath visible, ground hard underfoot. He had a tenderness with cattle and sheep that I have never seen replicated . A slow hand to the forehead, a particular stillness, and the animal would simply decide to trust him. Even the wild ones. Especially the wild ones.

Unshakable faith

In the garden, he taught me to plant vegetables with something approaching ceremony. Potatoes pressed into drills with two hands, like an offering. Scallions in lines so deliberate they made the rest of existence feel approximate. Soil under the fingernail. The unshakable faith that what you plant will, in its own time, pay you back.

He taught me how to play piano and the Irish flute — hours of patient instruction that I traded, around age 13, for sports and the dubious pleasures of warm cider in a field. I stopped. He said nothing. I am still grateful and still guilty in roughly equal measure. He was the kindest man I have ever known.

He never had a bad word to say about anyone. Not once. As an Irishman, this made him practically a medical curiosity. We are, by temperament and long tradition, a people who can elevate mild inconvenience into competitive suffering. He never caught that particular bug.

A passing cloud

Then Alzheimer’s arrived. Before it takes the body, it takes the person, which makes the grief savage in its specificity. You mourn someone still breathing in front of you, still drinking tea, still occasionally smiling, while the version you knew withdraws without a forwarding address.

The first time he didn’t recognize me, I expected hesitation. What I received was blankness. Placid, absolute blankness. A face I had known my whole life, looking at me like I was a stranger who had wandered into the wrong room. For him, likely a passing cloud. For me, a clean line dividing before from after.

My grandmother outlived him by months. The official cause was a heart attack. The accurate cause was a broken heart, and I mean that with clinical precision rather than poetic license. She simply had no further use for mornings without him. Fifty years of reaching for the same hand, and when the hand was gone, she simply lost the argument for continuing. There is a particular brutality in watching love become a countdown.

RELATED: ‘Farmer’ George Clooney wouldn’t last a minute with my family’s sheep

Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/Andia/Getty Images

A complicated picture

For decades, the dominant scientific theory treated Alzheimer’s as a single-villain story: amyloid plaques accumulating in the brain. One cause; one target. It was neat and tidy.

It was also completely wrong. Researchers now describe a far more complicated picture. Tangled Tau proteins. Genetic vulnerabilities. Metabolic failures. Disruptions originating in the gut, of all places.

The brain fails as part of a longer story. The first forgotten name is never the beginning, but only the moment the beginning becomes impossible to ignore. Medicine, in other words, spent decades treating the final chapter as the only one worth reading.

Newer treatments show modest results. They slow the decline, but they don’t reverse it. They don’t put a man back at his kitchen table, telling a story his family has heard so many times they could recite it backward, about meeting his wife at a dance, and making it feel, on the 43rd telling, like something worth leaning in for.

The current scientific ambition, at least, has grown more honest: attack the disease across every front simultaneously. Target the proteins, the aging cells, the metabolic dysfunction, and the genetic predispositions. Treat the system, not the symptom.

Bone-deep

My grandfather would have grasped this without a single journal article. He understood, bone-deep, that everything connects. Soil quality shapes the crop. Weather shapes the soil. The animals depend on both. You can’t fix a failing field by fixating on one plant.

There is something resembling hope in this shift. It arrives too late for him and for her. But the possibility exists that fewer families will sit across from someone they love and watch recognition drain from a familiar face. Over 7 million Americans currently live with Alzheimer’s. The people who love them number considerably more, and their suffering doesn’t appear in the statistics.

My grandfather carried me when I was too tired to walk and when I was too sick to stand. In return, I carry him. The man who never gave anyone a reason to be forgotten. It is the least I can do and nowhere near enough. And I will do it anyway, gladly, until I no longer can.

​Alzheimer’s disease, Ireland, Lifestyle, Health, Family, First person 

Yesterday, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey debated New York Times columnist David French, who has long identified as an evangelical Christian and a conservative.

Despite their shared theological and political identities, Stuckey and French clash on a number of issues, including transgender pronouns and gender ideology, abortion, and Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico, among others.

In their 95-minute debate, the duo respectfully went head-to-head on topics that have drawn strong criticism of French from many on the conservative right.

Here are three highlights from the debate:

Talarico dispute

Allie brought up French’s recent article in which he praised Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico as a Christian who sets a positive example of the faith in politics compared to “MAGA Christianity.”

In contrast, Allie has sharply criticized Talarico’s progressive theological views, accusing him of twisting Scripture to support abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, and left-wing policies

But French doubled down: “I’m just really not willing to say James Talarico is not a Christian.”

He continued, “When I look at our political discourse around Christianity in this country and political Christianity, it’s so broken. … We’re writing people out of Christianity based on policy positions.”

Allie pushed back, arguing that Talarico is pushing far more than policy positions.

“They’re not policy positions to say God is non-binary … or to say our trans neighbors need abortion care too, or to say that, ‘I think all religions share the same central truth,’” she countered, insisting that these are primarily “theological” issues.

Given that Talarico refuses to “affirm Genesis 1,” Allie made it clear that it’s “going to be tough” to agree that he’s the Christian he identifies as.

The Harris vote

In another part of the debate, Allie brought up French’s 2024 endorsement of Kamala Harris.

“I don’t understand voting for someone like Kamala Harris,” she said, referencing the Biden DOJ’s removal of SNAP benefits for public schools that refused to allow biological males to use girls’ facilities or compete on girls’ teams.

She also pointed to Harris’ pledge to restore the Roe v. Wade framework and her opposition to bills banning late-term abortions.

“I agree with you on so many of these issues. … I just don’t think I could ever vote for Kamala Harris,” she reiterated.

French countered by arguing that for him, the Russia-Ukraine War took precedence over gender and abortion issues.

“I would place a war in which a million people are being killed and injured, which could potentially lead to a World War III that we may not survive as a species … way above things like pronouns,” he said.

But Allie pushed back on what she saw as “diminishment” of her original argument.

“You know I’m not just talking about pronouns,” she resisted.

“I’m talking about medical guidance for hospitals to chemically castrate kids. I’m talking about in Democrat states … taking kids out of the custody of their parents because the parents won’t affirm this newfound gender of the child,” she continued.

Pronoun clash

Allie also called out what she perceived to be conflicting statements regarding French’s position on “pronoun politeness.”

Last year during a podcast, French referred to his male colleague (Brian Riedl) who identifies as a woman using female pronouns — an act many, including Allie, perceived as a contradiction to his 2018 article, in which he wrote, “The use of a pronoun isn’t a matter of mere manners. It’s a declaration of a fact. I won’t call Chelsea Manning ‘she’ for a very simple reason. He’s a man.”

“Is your stance one of pronoun politeness that you believe that a man who identifies as a woman should be referred to as ‘she/her’?” Allie inquired.

French claimed he “didn’t remember” using female pronouns to refer to Riedl and partially reaffirmed his 2018 statement.

After praising Riedl as a “brilliant analyst,” French stated, “I’m going to be kind to [trans people], but I also don’t want to say things that I don’t believe are true, and so the way I deal with that is, I use people’s names.”

He caveated, however, by declaring that he’s “definitely not going to go out of [his] way” to call trans-identifying people by the pronouns matching their biological sex.

Allie replied, “I don’t see it as unkind calling someone, whether it’s to their face or not to their face, the gender that God made them.”

But French dissented. “Oh, I think if somebody is dealing with gender dysphoria, … I don’t see the value in me saying something to them that I know and they know is going to be hurtful to them.”

“It’s just normal, complete politeness and manners,” he continued.

“I’m just not going to go out of my way to say something that I know is going to be hurtful just because I can justify it as being true. All true words are not kind by virtue of just simply being true.”

Allie conceded, “I agree that you don’t have to be rude to someone and say, ‘That shirt looks bad on you.’”

“But when it comes to [gender], when we know it’s a lie that damages someone, that hurts them spiritually and physically and emotionally, hurts their family, I just can’t get on board with assenting to the idea that 2+2=5.”

Overall, the debate offered a revealing look at the growing divide within evangelical Christianity over truth, compassion, and cultural engagement. Watch the full hour-and-a-half exchange below.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Abortion, Allie beth stuckey, Allie beth stuckey david french debate, Blaze media, Blazetv, David french, Debate, Evangelical christian, Gender dysphoria, Gender ideology, James talarico, Kamala harris, Maga christianity, New york times, Relatable, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Transgender pronouns