It does note the breaking of one door at the ICE facility back in June, but also:
July 25: Assistant Chief Craig Dobson says that federal officers are “actually instigating and causing some of the ruckus that’s occurring down there” during testimony for a lawsuit seeking to compel officers to enforce noise rules at the ICE protests.
...and:
Sept. 4: Fox News airs a long report about the Labor Day protest at ICE. Mixed in misleadingly are clips from 2020 protests, showing chaotic scenes outside the downtown federal courthouse and near an elk statue.
Whatever the case, it doesn't look to me like there is any reason to send in the Guard when the situation is neither dangerous nor volatile. It's noisy sometimes, and people occasionally cause a bit of property damage. It seems like the people causing the damage are being stopped and arrested.
News of widespread violent unrest and lawlessness looks to me to be a right wing media PSYOP.
At times, there have been several hundred protestors at the ICE facility.
And out of those, it's probably this same group of assholes and a dozen of their friends in visiting from somewhere else that are responsible for the water bottles and milkshakes. It's not a war zone. It's not an occupying force. It's not much more of a nuisance that people face when they live next to a live music venue or a biker bar. And it would be less of a nuisance if it weren't for the illegal actions of the current administration wanting to prove they are hard men.
People have a right to protest. But they don’t have the right to make other people’s lives unlivable, assault people, or destroy property.
All reasons why cities have laws, ordinances, and police forces. None of them have asked for ICE to step in. None of them need rescuing. All of them wish ICE and the Guard would GTFO so that the assholes would go home again.
I've known assholes like these. They get bored easily. They will go away if the feds dial back the authoritarian showboating. it will make Warrior Pete sad, but he'll still have tequila to comfort himself.
CharlesWT - C.K. Bouferrache aka Honeybadgermom is very concerned with ANTIFA, Satan, Drag Queens, Christian Oppression in the US, and the poor treatment of the J6 Prisoners.
I get that you aren't endorsing her, just looking at a few of her videos as evidence for ANTIFA presence in Portland, but I have a real hard time trusting her representation of anything given her Q-Anon obsessions and raving.
And in pretty much all of those, what I see is a small group of people being disruptive and annoying. I wouldn't want them as neighbors, but it's not the sort of thing we need the military to come in and deal with. It's not a war zone. It's just assholes with a cause being provoked by assholes with unconstitutional police powers.
Reading through that transcript, I can't help but notice that Klein's fixated on determining what it is that Dems have done to lose "the center." What he thinks of as "the center" seems fairly hard to pin down. Sometimes it seem like he means "the Midwest" and "rural voters." Sometimes it's "people scared of radical change, like LGBTQ+ stuff." He never seems to linger long on any one such group, or to try to dig in and get to the deepest urges that drive each of those groups fears, and I think that's because his question is what can be done to "win them back." He reminds me a lot of the campus Christian groups I was a part of back in the day whose conversations revolved around how to "win hearts for Jesus." We were all looking for ways to appeal to the others around us, to be cool and relatable, to listen to them and find the needs and hurts that they were expressing so that we could understand how and when to convince them to join the team - being all things to all people so that by all means we could win some.
It was a transactional view of people. We cared to the degree that we thought we might be able to win them over. We were nice to everyone, but we didn't really want to spend any time in community with them unless we thought they were "on the path" to our way of things.
I see this most clearly when Klein muses over needing more Democrats in the midwest who will not alienate anti-abortion people. He's adjusting the sales pitch, trying to get a sale by avoiding conflict. It's a good way to win a sale in the short term, but it does nothing to build coalitions or to create understanding across differences. It leaves marginal communities on the margins and makes it seem tactically acceptable to abandon those communities for the sake of avoiding conflict when solidarity becomes hard.
Coates is coming from that margin and knows the peril of it. He's lived his entire life feeling like he was a target for political violence that saw him in that instrumental, transactional way, not as someone to be won, but as someone to be feared for the sake of winning that same centrist that Klein wishes to add to the D column. Coates sees that the problem for a lot of people is not political violence per se, but rather that political violence was threatening *to touch them.* "Getting out of hand," "spinning out of control" implies that what came before those dangerous moments was not a threat and was happening in a controlled and acceptable manner. Eric Brown? Not *political* violence. Not a sign of a society that had lost its way and was dangerously polarized.
I don't want to tip things over into the same conversations we have had about "white fragility" because I don't see that those conversations have been particularly productive, but I will say that I think the sort of tactical approach that Klein seems to want to take makes it nearly impossible to have a deep conversation about our shared issues that does not turn transactional.
I'd like to say more, but I can again feel this threatening to turn into something that requires examples and footnotes and explanations that I don't have the resources or the time to support on the night before I start my Fall teaching, so I'll have to be satisfied with this quick stab at what nibbles at me when I read Klein.
bc - AOC’s response starts out strong but then devolves and illustrates two things: 1) My point above, that it wasn’t really what was in the proclamation but what wasn’t; and 2) her penchant for taking things out of context. I do see her point, but similar things could have been said about Hortman’s legislative agenda.
AOC's statement (https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-statement-charlie-kirk-resolution-and-trump-administrations) deserves a bit of close reading and analysis because I don't think that she said anything out of context. Her argument is pretty straightforward and does not stray into anything that is not relevant to the resolution. AOC says:
House Republicans today brought to the floor a resolution ‘honoring the life and legacy’ of Charlie Kirk. I voted NO.
Condemning the depravity of Kirk’s brutal murder is a straightforward matter – one that is especially important to help stabilize an increasingly unsafe and volatile political environment where everyday people feel at risk. We can disagree with Charlie and come together as a country to denounce the horror of killing. That is a bedrock American value.
These are the grounds for her argument. In divisive political moments where the civil peace is breaking down, it falls to our representatives to come together and denounce the act in a way that is not divisive.
It then only underscores the majority’s recklessness and intent to divide by choosing to introduce this resolution on a purely partisan basis, instead of uniting Congress in this tragedy with one of the many bipartisan options to condemn political violence and Kirk’s murder, as we did with the late Melissa Hortman. Instead, the majority proceeded with a resolution that brings great pain to the millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow, and the legacy of that bigotry today.
Here she is pointing out the "nettlesome" nature of the praise that the resolution authors included in the text and says that this creates division where the situation calls for some unifying theme - a reaffirmation of common cause.
“We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was: a man who believed that the Civil Rights Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a ‘mistake,’ who after the violent attack on Paul Pelosi claimed that ‘some amazing patriot out there’ should bail out his assailant, and accused Jews of controlling ‘not just the colleges – it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.’ His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans – far from ‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority in this resolution.
These examples are not a shift into an ad hominem attack on Kirk. She is providing support for her argument that the majority's statement is divisive. Her examples are chosen to support her earlier claim that "millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow, and the legacy of that bigotry" are being nettled because Kirk's statements that she highlights here do not promote unity. But it's not Kirk's statements that she is objecting to, it's the mischaracterization of him "‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority." And her use of "We" at the beginning is an important qualifier that limits her context. We means "we representatives issuing this resolution" not "we as a society."
Which is why her final paragraph is about the surrounding rhetorical context that has been created by Trump and his FCC.
I don't see anything that is out of context or lacking in relevance to the resolution.
BC - I disagree with many ideas on the left, and despise some. That doesn’t keep me from condemning, say, the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband. FULL STOP. The senate resolution honored her life and passed unanimously. The resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk, however, was opposed by 58 Democrats and 60 more either voted present or did not vote. Most said due to his ideas. Melissa Hortman had ideas too, ones that many on the right disagreed with or found repugnant, but the Republicans chose to honor her life and not temper their desire to send a unified message condemning her murder. I wish the Democrats would have done the same for Kirk.
Here is the text of the Senate resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-resolution/301/text
Here is the text of the House resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/719/text
The former is a fair sight more neutrally worded and measured in tone than the latter. The author of the House resolution had to know that their characterization was going to be more nettlesome and create partisan friction where none need exist.
But I am stuck on one bit in particular, which Klein offered during his Shapiro interview in response to an outpouring of criticism for the whitewashing portrayal of Kirk in his op-ed. He contends that living with one another on the basis of “social shame and cultural pressure” cannot work and would not be worthwhile if it did: a nation where such things flourished would not be “a free country.”
What could Klein possibly mean by this? We are indeed going to have to live with each other, barring apocalyptic violence—but we already have been for quite some time, and doing so has not required revisionist history of the sort we are now witnessing about one Charles James Kirk in particular. The political ascendancy of right-wing fractions of the U.S. adult population is new. But their existence, of course, is not: they were not born in the summer of 2020, recent efforts to blame their intransigence and bigotry on whatever missteps may or may not have occurred during the George Floyd protests notwithstanding.
As I have mentioned before, we’ve been thinking a lot about (early) retirement due to the combination of burnout, security concerns, and the right’s ongoing attempts to decimate and subjugate higher education in the US. A big chunk of that conversation has to come down to affordability and sustainability, but once that is accounted for, a lot of the rest comes down to the sense of place. As we have been discussing that, I’ve found myself building a Venn diagram of the different ways that we think of home, and trying to fit potential new homes to those overlapping categories: community, environment, history.
Community wise, I think we would most feel at home in a(nother) college town. It’s not that we think of ourselves as academics (we’re non-tenured faculty, which leaves us outside of a lot of that sense of academic community), it’s that college towns are more connected to, and invested in, a sense of a collective future that can be made better through better equipping our future generations for change. It would also be nice to not be surrounded by people dead set on seeing us as the enemy. Still, I feel like this is the level of “home” furthest from our hearts in many ways.
Environment...the better word here is probably “bioregion.” I grew up in the Great Lakes region and both of us have spent nearly 20 formative years on the Colorado Front Range. These are the bioregions we most feel in harmony with. Even after 20 years in Southern California we have never quite managed to feel at one with the coastal hills and the Mediterranean climate. We are Deep Ecologists in worldview and our hearts practice dark green religion, and the trees here don’t speak to us in the same way.
But it’s not just that we don’t feel a personal connection to the biosphere here – it’s that this bioregion does not mesh as well with the folkways that connect us with our sense of family heritage, which is more Nordic. We want a bioregion that we connect with on both an ecological and on a mythic level.
My mother’s side of the family was part of the Swedish diaspora of the mid-1800s. There’s not a lot of yearning for a homeland. That whole side left the homeland because they found their communities unlivable. Their hope lay in a new place. My father’s side were all restless religious malcontents. Neither group feels any connection to an earthly place. Their homeland was always the gated community of heaven.
But when they did land on these shores, they went in search of the lands on which they knew how to live. And those places resonated with the folkways that they brought with them, even as they rejected the communities that they came from.
All this is why I have no sense of homeland in the “god-given place” way of things. It’s more a sense of having places with which my life and spirit resonate. I hope we can find on of those places when we finally get a chance to settle in for the rest of our lives.
WRT BC's linking of environmental justice to the rights of the unborn, the opposite legal flourish would be to invoke Castle Doctrine as a defense for an abortion in a state with restrictive abortion laws, but liberal firearms laws.
The think I noticed was that the rhetoric of retribution was about evenly split between End Times dogwhistles and QAnon dogwhistles. Either way, it's pretty clear that I, being an academic, am on the wrong side of the friend/enemy distinction.
I think the potential for some sort of campaign of retribution is very high, and California campuses have to be near the top of that list. I especially worry for my friends and colleagues at UCLA, but I think we all need to be wary.
More simply than that murk, though, I'd expect that The Papaya of Hate would either pardon or under-bus-chuck whoever oversaw the whole thing, and then sleep secure in the cover that the USSC has given him over presidential immunity.
I didn't read your comment about bringing in Shapiro as being about the timing, but rather the positioning. I think both reflect Klein's commitment to staying together and keeping up appearances for the sake of the kids.
That Shapiro conversation really captures the reasons why I think Klein is an unproductive voice. Shapiro claims over and over throughout the conversation that "the right" saw Obama in a particular way, and Klein spends all of his time trying to empathize with how they might have felt, rather than stating that Shapiro spent his entire career crafting the very narratives by which the right learned to see Obama in that way.
It's the asymmetry of empathy that is just allowed to sit there and not be spoken of that makes me dismiss Klein. Shapiro can just passive voice away his own role as an ideological insurrectionist and sower of division and Klein cedes that ground in order to imagine himself a good and sensitive listener and participant in dialogue.
Interesting article. The narrative of how the Supreme Court came to be so weaponized is good, and the role that Originalism played in it is plausible. I'd like a much more solid set of grounds laid out for that, but that would likely push the length of the article beyond what a popular venue like The Atlantic would support - more of an academic press book argument than a middlebrow magazine argument.
The part I found weakest, though, was the connection implied between Originalism and the abandonment of constitutional amendment as a path to change. It seems to me that the procedures for amendment codified in the Constitution themselves account for why that process has been abandoned. The threshold of support required for amending the Constitution is excessive.
The only times it has ever worked, it did so because of either war or an extension of franchise to a broader group of Americans that created the potential for new cross-cutting alliances which could overcome those difficulties. I don't see that Originalism has altered anything with regard to amendment. What it has done is given conservative legal activists a recognizable brand on which to build a legal sophistry that can provide cover for a judiciary coup.
The Constitution is deeply flawed and limiting. It probably should have failed in 1860 or in 1929, and only extraordinary extra-Constitutional means preserved the nation in both instances, but the flaws remain. We would probably be better off with a new governing document, but there is no way that the nation would ever go back together as a 50-state union if the document went away. We've lost our sense of a common good.
I have had to admit that I will be the slowest person on the trail from now on, because the people I used to pass have all got e-bikes. I’m old-fashioned, I guess — the goal is to conquer the uphill bits on your own, not to pass the job over to some batteries.
I hear you on the e-bike thing despite riding one myself most of the time. Paradoxically, I too want the uphills to be a challenge, and chose my e-bike because it promised *less* than the other e-bikes. I wanted minimal added weight and the ability to be able to set the pedal assist low enough to keep the rides challenging and natural feeling, with just enough of an electric tailwind to make the steepest parts of the trails rideable, rather than forcing me to hike-a-bike. It's not quite as challenging as riding full-acoustic, but it reduces the effort by a third, while doubling the time I spend riding, so it's a net gain for my fitness.
Alas, the rest of the e-bike knuckleheads I encounter seem to be addicted to the thrill and illusion provided by the boost, or are wanting the motor to shuttle them up the hills so that they can bypass the struggle and just get the downhill rush. And the social riders among them are hopeless on this front. The most competitive among them always rush to be first up and are in a hurry to get to the gnarly bits, and they haze everyone else into conforming and upping their boost just to keep from being dropped. Most of the group would be happier with less boost, but the biggest man-child always seems to drive the consensus.
I am in the process of turning my older, non-electric, hardtail mtb into a more gravel-and-excursion oriented bike for when weather limits me to the mixed-use bike paths. Those hills are much more manageable than the local wilderness trails.
My latest tests show my cholesterol getting out of hand despite having a healthy diet and getting the recommended exercise. Not a surprise, given the family history. Will probably end up on statins soon enough. Diet and exercise have held off genetics for a decade-and-a-half longer than most of my line, but there's only so much to be done with that.
On the Horst Wessel side of it, though, much of the religious right is referring to Kirk as "a warrior for God" and "a soldier of Christ." The Christian side of the culture wars is heavily influenced by the "spiritual warfare" types. They literally believe that they are engaged in spiritual combat against demons who have jurisdiction over geographical areas. It's very animist - I'm wondering if it isn't to Christianity what Shinto is to Buddhism. As such, I expect more hagiography, and more militant hagiography, as they seek to meld temporal military service with spiritual military service in their political theology. It's a very small narrative step from the valorization of the fallen soldier as political martyr and extending it to all of the Left Behind mythology and fantasies of one big, final End Times battle for the soul of humanity. Kirk is ideally situated for this project.
One of the things I think about a lot WRT these conversations is the difference between retributive and restorative justice approaches. For me it's not a question of whether to forgive or not to forgive, but rather a question of whether or not a path to reconciliation can still exist, and what sort of changes might be required to effect such a reconciliation.
I'm reminded of a passage in Dave Grossman's On Killing (nota bene, Grossman is not a good person and his research is deeply flawed in my estimation, but not in a way that negates what I'm about to describe). He talks about the Japanese treatment of Chinese prisoners, and how Japanese recruits were required to bayonette helpless prisoners in front of their comrades as a way of destroying their old sense of identity and making them feel as if there was no way to redeem themselves in the eyes of their old communities. They were made monstrous in order to be wielded as monsters.
I'm always deeply concerned to try, as much as decency will allow, to leave some path back for reconciliation. It doesn't have to be (and probably shouldn't be) a free-and-easy path. They should have to do the work of restoration, of reparation, to earn that reconciliation, but unless we work to keep such a path available I don't think that we will ever be able to restore the breach.
I don't do an especially good job of handling these sorts of disputes, but it's not because of anything I have done. The people we engage with have been primed to see our rejections of their positions as a rejection of them, and our criticisms of their influencers as criticisms of them. These conversations are not meant to be exchanges, they are rituals, and when we are on the other side of them we are not people to be listened to and understood, we are opportunities for them to test their courage in service to their community. If we agree, then we can be welcomed into the community. If we disagree, then they have been courageous because they stood up for their community in the face of our scorn and hostility to them.
This is why appeals to reason fall flat. The MAGA movement is not a debate. It is a worldview. And worldviews do not yield to evidence; they yield to rupture.
If rupture is rare, then resilience must be cultivated. Not through fact-checking alone, but through narrative reformation—stories that offer coherence without conspiracy, dignity without domination, and agency without scapegoating.
We have glimpses of what this looks like. When labor movements organize around dignity on the job rather than resentment of the outsider, they create belonging through solidarity. When local communities reclaim public institutions—schools, libraries, clinics—they generate meaning that resists privatization and fear. These efforts are fragile, but they remind us that counter-narratives are possible when they are lived as well as told.
That means confronting the architecture of belief not with contempt, but with clarity. It means recognizing that for many, MAGA is not a political position—it’s a survival strategy. And if we want to dislodge it, we must offer something more resilient than resentment. We must offer belonging.
While I was looking for productive readings to help us find a way out of this I found a Carnegie Endowment policy guide for countering disinformation that I think offers some helpful findings about which sorts of interventions are most effective. I was especially pleased to find Table 1, the Overview of Case Studies because it identifies a few things that we can do which have been shown to be effective. Chief among those are supporting more local, grass-roots reporting, and educating people to give them better media literacy. The first of those points to what Greenberg was saying about offering other ways of belonging - getting outside of the big, national narratives and giving people information that they can connect with personally because they know the people who are providing the information. We have to re-localize our communities. Influencers provide the illusion of this connection through para-social relations. If we can do better with real connections, then we can reverse this.
Easier said than done. To quote one of the people interviewed in Sherry Turkles Life On Screen: "RL is not my best window."
The second - better media literacy - is basically what I teach at university, and yes, it is difficult. It takes time, and effort, and practice, and it doesn't really work unless the person doing it is willing to put their worldview and their identity in the balance as part of the effort. In my experience about one in five of my students are willing to risk this, and fewer than half of these actually carry through and start to actually break through the media narratives to find actual, actionable information that could make a difference.
And as small as that success rate might be, its existence is the reason why the present administration is working so hard to turn America agains their educators. They know that everything they are doing right now is fraying the crap out of those worldviews they have so carefully built up over 40 years, and they cannot afford to allow any communities of resistance to give people a more attractive counter-narrative and sense of identity.
Meanwhile, since the UC itself is too busy running scared as the Yam of Grievance and his cabal seek to destroy higher education, looks like all of us involved in the actual educational mandate of the schools will have to fight this bullshit ourselves.
Especially galling when so many of us have so few protections, employment or physical, in the first place. We are exposed while UCOP and the Regents dither and appease.
I'll admit, I'm a bit nervous going back to teaching in a couple weeks while the right is this riled up and screaming bloody murder against universities as if we had a god damned thing to do with the escalating political violence. Campuses are not safe. And now the Vice President of the United States is personally advocating for a doxxing campaign against us.
And my doctor wonders why my blood pressure has gone up since last exam.
What I believe the algorithm is doing - and by that, I mean what the media oligarchs are doing - is destroying real world communities (churches excepted) and then pushing hard to take over the para-social communities that exist on the Internet to replace those communities with hollowed out versions that are mostly propaganda. Kirk was very good at creating those para-social communities and attracting broken, lonely, powerless people to them, then giving them scapegoats to target with their outrage.
Approval. Sense of belonging. In-group prestige through symbolic action. Very heady brew for young minds.
Vance is aiming hard for that space at the moment. I don't think he can hold it. I hope he can't.
We're going to get violence either way, but I'd rather it no have any direction or momentum. Better static than current.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Here's some local media reporting of the situation:
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2025/09/tracking-the-rise-and-fall-of-portland-ice-protests-key-developments-as-trump-troops-arrive-soon.html
It does note the breaking of one door at the ICE facility back in June, but also:
July 25: Assistant Chief Craig Dobson says that federal officers are “actually instigating and causing some of the ruckus that’s occurring down there” during testimony for a lawsuit seeking to compel officers to enforce noise rules at the ICE protests.
...and:
Sept. 4: Fox News airs a long report about the Labor Day protest at ICE. Mixed in misleadingly are clips from 2020 protests, showing chaotic scenes outside the downtown federal courthouse and near an elk statue.
Whatever the case, it doesn't look to me like there is any reason to send in the Guard when the situation is neither dangerous nor volatile. It's noisy sometimes, and people occasionally cause a bit of property damage. It seems like the people causing the damage are being stopped and arrested.
News of widespread violent unrest and lawlessness looks to me to be a right wing media PSYOP.
"
At times, there have been several hundred protestors at the ICE facility.
And out of those, it's probably this same group of assholes and a dozen of their friends in visiting from somewhere else that are responsible for the water bottles and milkshakes. It's not a war zone. It's not an occupying force. It's not much more of a nuisance that people face when they live next to a live music venue or a biker bar. And it would be less of a nuisance if it weren't for the illegal actions of the current administration wanting to prove they are hard men.
People have a right to protest. But they don’t have the right to make other people’s lives unlivable, assault people, or destroy property.
All reasons why cities have laws, ordinances, and police forces. None of them have asked for ICE to step in. None of them need rescuing. All of them wish ICE and the Guard would GTFO so that the assholes would go home again.
I've known assholes like these. They get bored easily. They will go away if the feds dial back the authoritarian showboating. it will make Warrior Pete sad, but he'll still have tequila to comfort himself.
"
CharlesWT - C.K. Bouferrache aka Honeybadgermom is very concerned with ANTIFA, Satan, Drag Queens, Christian Oppression in the US, and the poor treatment of the J6 Prisoners.
I get that you aren't endorsing her, just looking at a few of her videos as evidence for ANTIFA presence in Portland, but I have a real hard time trusting her representation of anything given her Q-Anon obsessions and raving.
And in pretty much all of those, what I see is a small group of people being disruptive and annoying. I wouldn't want them as neighbors, but it's not the sort of thing we need the military to come in and deal with. It's not a war zone. It's just assholes with a cause being provoked by assholes with unconstitutional police powers.
On “Ad futurum”
I'm 25+ years out-of-date and out of practice with SQL, and am more of a danger than a help at this point.
On “Ezra Coates DESTROYS Ta-Nehisi Klein!!!”
Reading through that transcript, I can't help but notice that Klein's fixated on determining what it is that Dems have done to lose "the center." What he thinks of as "the center" seems fairly hard to pin down. Sometimes it seem like he means "the Midwest" and "rural voters." Sometimes it's "people scared of radical change, like LGBTQ+ stuff." He never seems to linger long on any one such group, or to try to dig in and get to the deepest urges that drive each of those groups fears, and I think that's because his question is what can be done to "win them back." He reminds me a lot of the campus Christian groups I was a part of back in the day whose conversations revolved around how to "win hearts for Jesus." We were all looking for ways to appeal to the others around us, to be cool and relatable, to listen to them and find the needs and hurts that they were expressing so that we could understand how and when to convince them to join the team - being all things to all people so that by all means we could win some.
It was a transactional view of people. We cared to the degree that we thought we might be able to win them over. We were nice to everyone, but we didn't really want to spend any time in community with them unless we thought they were "on the path" to our way of things.
I see this most clearly when Klein muses over needing more Democrats in the midwest who will not alienate anti-abortion people. He's adjusting the sales pitch, trying to get a sale by avoiding conflict. It's a good way to win a sale in the short term, but it does nothing to build coalitions or to create understanding across differences. It leaves marginal communities on the margins and makes it seem tactically acceptable to abandon those communities for the sake of avoiding conflict when solidarity becomes hard.
Coates is coming from that margin and knows the peril of it. He's lived his entire life feeling like he was a target for political violence that saw him in that instrumental, transactional way, not as someone to be won, but as someone to be feared for the sake of winning that same centrist that Klein wishes to add to the D column. Coates sees that the problem for a lot of people is not political violence per se, but rather that political violence was threatening *to touch them.* "Getting out of hand," "spinning out of control" implies that what came before those dangerous moments was not a threat and was happening in a controlled and acceptable manner. Eric Brown? Not *political* violence. Not a sign of a society that had lost its way and was dangerously polarized.
I don't want to tip things over into the same conversations we have had about "white fragility" because I don't see that those conversations have been particularly productive, but I will say that I think the sort of tactical approach that Klein seems to want to take makes it nearly impossible to have a deep conversation about our shared issues that does not turn transactional.
I'd like to say more, but I can again feel this threatening to turn into something that requires examples and footnotes and explanations that I don't have the resources or the time to support on the night before I start my Fall teaching, so I'll have to be satisfied with this quick stab at what nibbles at me when I read Klein.
On “Un morceau de blog”
The Ur scene for "What Would Brian Boitano Do" - from South Park
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNJmfuEWR8w
On “Precursors”
bc - AOC’s response starts out strong but then devolves and illustrates two things: 1) My point above, that it wasn’t really what was in the proclamation but what wasn’t; and 2) her penchant for taking things out of context. I do see her point, but similar things could have been said about Hortman’s legislative agenda.
AOC's statement (https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-statement-charlie-kirk-resolution-and-trump-administrations) deserves a bit of close reading and analysis because I don't think that she said anything out of context. Her argument is pretty straightforward and does not stray into anything that is not relevant to the resolution. AOC says:
House Republicans today brought to the floor a resolution ‘honoring the life and legacy’ of Charlie Kirk. I voted NO.
Condemning the depravity of Kirk’s brutal murder is a straightforward matter – one that is especially important to help stabilize an increasingly unsafe and volatile political environment where everyday people feel at risk. We can disagree with Charlie and come together as a country to denounce the horror of killing. That is a bedrock American value.
These are the grounds for her argument. In divisive political moments where the civil peace is breaking down, it falls to our representatives to come together and denounce the act in a way that is not divisive.
It then only underscores the majority’s recklessness and intent to divide by choosing to introduce this resolution on a purely partisan basis, instead of uniting Congress in this tragedy with one of the many bipartisan options to condemn political violence and Kirk’s murder, as we did with the late Melissa Hortman. Instead, the majority proceeded with a resolution that brings great pain to the millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow, and the legacy of that bigotry today.
Here she is pointing out the "nettlesome" nature of the praise that the resolution authors included in the text and says that this creates division where the situation calls for some unifying theme - a reaffirmation of common cause.
“We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was: a man who believed that the Civil Rights Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a ‘mistake,’ who after the violent attack on Paul Pelosi claimed that ‘some amazing patriot out there’ should bail out his assailant, and accused Jews of controlling ‘not just the colleges – it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.’ His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans – far from ‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority in this resolution.
These examples are not a shift into an ad hominem attack on Kirk. She is providing support for her argument that the majority's statement is divisive. Her examples are chosen to support her earlier claim that "millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow, and the legacy of that bigotry" are being nettled because Kirk's statements that she highlights here do not promote unity. But it's not Kirk's statements that she is objecting to, it's the mischaracterization of him "‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority." And her use of "We" at the beginning is an important qualifier that limits her context. We means "we representatives issuing this resolution" not "we as a society."
Which is why her final paragraph is about the surrounding rhetorical context that has been created by Trump and his FCC.
I don't see anything that is out of context or lacking in relevance to the resolution.
"
Imagine if Klobuchar, in her resolution, had said that Hortman was a devoted protector of women's reproductive freedom...
"
BC - I disagree with many ideas on the left, and despise some. That doesn’t keep me from condemning, say, the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband. FULL STOP. The senate resolution honored her life and passed unanimously. The resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk, however, was opposed by 58 Democrats and 60 more either voted present or did not vote. Most said due to his ideas. Melissa Hortman had ideas too, ones that many on the right disagreed with or found repugnant, but the Republicans chose to honor her life and not temper their desire to send a unified message condemning her murder. I wish the Democrats would have done the same for Kirk.
Here is the text of the Senate resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-resolution/301/text
Here is the text of the House resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/719/text
The former is a fair sight more neutrally worded and measured in tone than the latter. The author of the House resolution had to know that their characterization was going to be more nettlesome and create partisan friction where none need exist.
"
One more response to Ezra Klein's response to the response that was given to his Charlie Kirk eulogy.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/how-can-we-live-together/
But I am stuck on one bit in particular, which Klein offered during his Shapiro interview in response to an outpouring of criticism for the whitewashing portrayal of Kirk in his op-ed. He contends that living with one another on the basis of “social shame and cultural pressure” cannot work and would not be worthwhile if it did: a nation where such things flourished would not be “a free country.”
What could Klein possibly mean by this? We are indeed going to have to live with each other, barring apocalyptic violence—but we already have been for quite some time, and doing so has not required revisionist history of the sort we are now witnessing about one Charles James Kirk in particular. The political ascendancy of right-wing fractions of the U.S. adult population is new. But their existence, of course, is not: they were not born in the summer of 2020, recent efforts to blame their intransigence and bigotry on whatever missteps may or may not have occurred during the George Floyd protests notwithstanding.
Worth a read and a bit of rumination.
On “Rule Six, there is NO … Rule Six!…”
As I have mentioned before, we’ve been thinking a lot about (early) retirement due to the combination of burnout, security concerns, and the right’s ongoing attempts to decimate and subjugate higher education in the US. A big chunk of that conversation has to come down to affordability and sustainability, but once that is accounted for, a lot of the rest comes down to the sense of place. As we have been discussing that, I’ve found myself building a Venn diagram of the different ways that we think of home, and trying to fit potential new homes to those overlapping categories: community, environment, history.
Community wise, I think we would most feel at home in a(nother) college town. It’s not that we think of ourselves as academics (we’re non-tenured faculty, which leaves us outside of a lot of that sense of academic community), it’s that college towns are more connected to, and invested in, a sense of a collective future that can be made better through better equipping our future generations for change. It would also be nice to not be surrounded by people dead set on seeing us as the enemy. Still, I feel like this is the level of “home” furthest from our hearts in many ways.
Environment...the better word here is probably “bioregion.” I grew up in the Great Lakes region and both of us have spent nearly 20 formative years on the Colorado Front Range. These are the bioregions we most feel in harmony with. Even after 20 years in Southern California we have never quite managed to feel at one with the coastal hills and the Mediterranean climate. We are Deep Ecologists in worldview and our hearts practice dark green religion, and the trees here don’t speak to us in the same way.
But it’s not just that we don’t feel a personal connection to the biosphere here – it’s that this bioregion does not mesh as well with the folkways that connect us with our sense of family heritage, which is more Nordic. We want a bioregion that we connect with on both an ecological and on a mythic level.
My mother’s side of the family was part of the Swedish diaspora of the mid-1800s. There’s not a lot of yearning for a homeland. That whole side left the homeland because they found their communities unlivable. Their hope lay in a new place. My father’s side were all restless religious malcontents. Neither group feels any connection to an earthly place. Their homeland was always the gated community of heaven.
But when they did land on these shores, they went in search of the lands on which they knew how to live. And those places resonated with the folkways that they brought with them, even as they rejected the communities that they came from.
All this is why I have no sense of homeland in the “god-given place” way of things. It’s more a sense of having places with which my life and spirit resonate. I hope we can find on of those places when we finally get a chance to settle in for the rest of our lives.
On “An experimental first post”
WRT BC's linking of environmental justice to the rights of the unborn, the opposite legal flourish would be to invoke Castle Doctrine as a defense for an abortion in a state with restrictive abortion laws, but liberal firearms laws.
On “I just can’t…”
The think I noticed was that the rhetoric of retribution was about evenly split between End Times dogwhistles and QAnon dogwhistles. Either way, it's pretty clear that I, being an academic, am on the wrong side of the friend/enemy distinction.
I think the potential for some sort of campaign of retribution is very high, and California campuses have to be near the top of that list. I especially worry for my friends and colleagues at UCLA, but I think we all need to be wary.
On “IANAL, but…”
More simply than that murk, though, I'd expect that The Papaya of Hate would either pardon or under-bus-chuck whoever oversaw the whole thing, and then sleep secure in the cover that the USSC has given him over presidential immunity.
On “Precursors”
I didn't read your comment about bringing in Shapiro as being about the timing, but rather the positioning. I think both reflect Klein's commitment to staying together and keeping up appearances for the sake of the kids.
"
That Shapiro conversation really captures the reasons why I think Klein is an unproductive voice. Shapiro claims over and over throughout the conversation that "the right" saw Obama in a particular way, and Klein spends all of his time trying to empathize with how they might have felt, rather than stating that Shapiro spent his entire career crafting the very narratives by which the right learned to see Obama in that way.
It's the asymmetry of empathy that is just allowed to sit there and not be spoken of that makes me dismiss Klein. Shapiro can just passive voice away his own role as an ideological insurrectionist and sower of division and Klein cedes that ground in order to imagine himself a good and sensitive listener and participant in dialogue.
On “An experimental first post”
Interesting article. The narrative of how the Supreme Court came to be so weaponized is good, and the role that Originalism played in it is plausible. I'd like a much more solid set of grounds laid out for that, but that would likely push the length of the article beyond what a popular venue like The Atlantic would support - more of an academic press book argument than a middlebrow magazine argument.
The part I found weakest, though, was the connection implied between Originalism and the abandonment of constitutional amendment as a path to change. It seems to me that the procedures for amendment codified in the Constitution themselves account for why that process has been abandoned. The threshold of support required for amending the Constitution is excessive.
https://www.californialawreview.org/print/the-worlds-most-difficult-constitution-to-amend
The only times it has ever worked, it did so because of either war or an extension of franchise to a broader group of Americans that created the potential for new cross-cutting alliances which could overcome those difficulties. I don't see that Originalism has altered anything with regard to amendment. What it has done is given conservative legal activists a recognizable brand on which to build a legal sophistry that can provide cover for a judiciary coup.
The Constitution is deeply flawed and limiting. It probably should have failed in 1860 or in 1929, and only extraordinary extra-Constitutional means preserved the nation in both instances, but the flaws remain. We would probably be better off with a new governing document, but there is no way that the nation would ever go back together as a 50-state union if the document went away. We've lost our sense of a common good.
On “We are all Usain Bolt now”
I have had to admit that I will be the slowest person on the trail from now on, because the people I used to pass have all got e-bikes. I’m old-fashioned, I guess — the goal is to conquer the uphill bits on your own, not to pass the job over to some batteries.
I hear you on the e-bike thing despite riding one myself most of the time. Paradoxically, I too want the uphills to be a challenge, and chose my e-bike because it promised *less* than the other e-bikes. I wanted minimal added weight and the ability to be able to set the pedal assist low enough to keep the rides challenging and natural feeling, with just enough of an electric tailwind to make the steepest parts of the trails rideable, rather than forcing me to hike-a-bike. It's not quite as challenging as riding full-acoustic, but it reduces the effort by a third, while doubling the time I spend riding, so it's a net gain for my fitness.
Alas, the rest of the e-bike knuckleheads I encounter seem to be addicted to the thrill and illusion provided by the boost, or are wanting the motor to shuttle them up the hills so that they can bypass the struggle and just get the downhill rush. And the social riders among them are hopeless on this front. The most competitive among them always rush to be first up and are in a hurry to get to the gnarly bits, and they haze everyone else into conforming and upping their boost just to keep from being dropped. Most of the group would be happier with less boost, but the biggest man-child always seems to drive the consensus.
I am in the process of turning my older, non-electric, hardtail mtb into a more gravel-and-excursion oriented bike for when weather limits me to the mixed-use bike paths. Those hills are much more manageable than the local wilderness trails.
My latest tests show my cholesterol getting out of hand despite having a healthy diet and getting the recommended exercise. Not a surprise, given the family history. Will probably end up on statins soon enough. Diet and exercise have held off genetics for a decade-and-a-half longer than most of my line, but there's only so much to be done with that.
On “Precursors”
On the Horst Wessel side of it, though, much of the religious right is referring to Kirk as "a warrior for God" and "a soldier of Christ." The Christian side of the culture wars is heavily influenced by the "spiritual warfare" types. They literally believe that they are engaged in spiritual combat against demons who have jurisdiction over geographical areas. It's very animist - I'm wondering if it isn't to Christianity what Shinto is to Buddhism. As such, I expect more hagiography, and more militant hagiography, as they seek to meld temporal military service with spiritual military service in their political theology. It's a very small narrative step from the valorization of the fallen soldier as political martyr and extending it to all of the Left Behind mythology and fantasies of one big, final End Times battle for the soul of humanity. Kirk is ideally situated for this project.
On “Guestpost from Wonkie”
Name and email saved. Website left blank. Mostly posting from Chrome.
"
One of the things I think about a lot WRT these conversations is the difference between retributive and restorative justice approaches. For me it's not a question of whether to forgive or not to forgive, but rather a question of whether or not a path to reconciliation can still exist, and what sort of changes might be required to effect such a reconciliation.
I'm reminded of a passage in Dave Grossman's On Killing (nota bene, Grossman is not a good person and his research is deeply flawed in my estimation, but not in a way that negates what I'm about to describe). He talks about the Japanese treatment of Chinese prisoners, and how Japanese recruits were required to bayonette helpless prisoners in front of their comrades as a way of destroying their old sense of identity and making them feel as if there was no way to redeem themselves in the eyes of their old communities. They were made monstrous in order to be wielded as monsters.
I'm always deeply concerned to try, as much as decency will allow, to leave some path back for reconciliation. It doesn't have to be (and probably shouldn't be) a free-and-easy path. They should have to do the work of restoration, of reparation, to earn that reconciliation, but unless we work to keep such a path available I don't think that we will ever be able to restore the breach.
"
I don't do an especially good job of handling these sorts of disputes, but it's not because of anything I have done. The people we engage with have been primed to see our rejections of their positions as a rejection of them, and our criticisms of their influencers as criticisms of them. These conversations are not meant to be exchanges, they are rituals, and when we are on the other side of them we are not people to be listened to and understood, we are opportunities for them to test their courage in service to their community. If we agree, then we can be welcomed into the community. If we disagree, then they have been courageous because they stood up for their community in the face of our scorn and hostility to them.
https://jamesbgreenberg.substack.com/p/beyond-facts-the-identity-politics
This is why appeals to reason fall flat. The MAGA movement is not a debate. It is a worldview. And worldviews do not yield to evidence; they yield to rupture.
If rupture is rare, then resilience must be cultivated. Not through fact-checking alone, but through narrative reformation—stories that offer coherence without conspiracy, dignity without domination, and agency without scapegoating.
We have glimpses of what this looks like. When labor movements organize around dignity on the job rather than resentment of the outsider, they create belonging through solidarity. When local communities reclaim public institutions—schools, libraries, clinics—they generate meaning that resists privatization and fear. These efforts are fragile, but they remind us that counter-narratives are possible when they are lived as well as told.
That means confronting the architecture of belief not with contempt, but with clarity. It means recognizing that for many, MAGA is not a political position—it’s a survival strategy. And if we want to dislodge it, we must offer something more resilient than resentment. We must offer belonging.
While I was looking for productive readings to help us find a way out of this I found a Carnegie Endowment policy guide for countering disinformation that I think offers some helpful findings about which sorts of interventions are most effective. I was especially pleased to find Table 1, the Overview of Case Studies because it identifies a few things that we can do which have been shown to be effective. Chief among those are supporting more local, grass-roots reporting, and educating people to give them better media literacy. The first of those points to what Greenberg was saying about offering other ways of belonging - getting outside of the big, national narratives and giving people information that they can connect with personally because they know the people who are providing the information. We have to re-localize our communities. Influencers provide the illusion of this connection through para-social relations. If we can do better with real connections, then we can reverse this.
Easier said than done. To quote one of the people interviewed in Sherry Turkles Life On Screen: "RL is not my best window."
The second - better media literacy - is basically what I teach at university, and yes, it is difficult. It takes time, and effort, and practice, and it doesn't really work unless the person doing it is willing to put their worldview and their identity in the balance as part of the effort. In my experience about one in five of my students are willing to risk this, and fewer than half of these actually carry through and start to actually break through the media narratives to find actual, actionable information that could make a difference.
And as small as that success rate might be, its existence is the reason why the present administration is working so hard to turn America agains their educators. They know that everything they are doing right now is fraying the crap out of those worldviews they have so carefully built up over 40 years, and they cannot afford to allow any communities of resistance to give people a more attractive counter-narrative and sense of identity.
On “Kuzushi and Charlie Kirk”
Meanwhile, since the UC itself is too busy running scared as the Yam of Grievance and his cabal seek to destroy higher education, looks like all of us involved in the actual educational mandate of the schools will have to fight this bullshit ourselves.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-09-16/university-of-california-faculty-sue-trump-over-ucla-fine-research-cuts
Especially galling when so many of us have so few protections, employment or physical, in the first place. We are exposed while UCOP and the Regents dither and appease.
I'll admit, I'm a bit nervous going back to teaching in a couple weeks while the right is this riled up and screaming bloody murder against universities as if we had a god damned thing to do with the escalating political violence. Campuses are not safe. And now the Vice President of the United States is personally advocating for a doxxing campaign against us.
And my doctor wonders why my blood pressure has gone up since last exam.
Look.
The fuck.
Around.
"
What I believe the algorithm is doing - and by that, I mean what the media oligarchs are doing - is destroying real world communities (churches excepted) and then pushing hard to take over the para-social communities that exist on the Internet to replace those communities with hollowed out versions that are mostly propaganda. Kirk was very good at creating those para-social communities and attracting broken, lonely, powerless people to them, then giving them scapegoats to target with their outrage.
Approval. Sense of belonging. In-group prestige through symbolic action. Very heady brew for young minds.
Vance is aiming hard for that space at the moment. I don't think he can hold it. I hope he can't.
We're going to get violence either way, but I'd rather it no have any direction or momentum. Better static than current.
On “Excelsior!”
Finally found the email in my spam folder. It has your number, lj.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.