I wasn’t sure if I wanted to post this. I wondered just how much patience you had for a history lesson. Then I thought of Amina Seck, a Kentucky State basketball player who said she was put in isolation during ICE detention because she wouldn’t remove a brace she needed for her injured knee.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave a speech in Greece about Western civilization. In it he praised “the unapologetic pursuit of national power.” [1] I thought to myself that a Western civilization strong enough and unapologetic enough to pursue national power would help and not ignore a Black woman who needed a knee brace. Kentucky State basketball player Amina Seck was recently released after being in ICE detention for two months. She said she spent about a week of that in isolation because she wouldn’t remove her knee brace. Since her release she’s stated she wants to get her knee fixed, finish school, and get a master’s. [2]

As much as I like to ponder concepts such as the fall of Western civilization sometimes, I wonder if we pay enough attention to the actual people within the confines of that civilization.

Subscribe now

Who Gets His Sympathy

That brings me to Jane Doe, a former Cornell student and plaintiff who stated that she was gang raped in October 2024 by seven members of a fraternity. Three have come forward and stated the claims are false. [3] Cornell has also imposed disciplinary actions and hired a third party to review how the university responded. [4] New York Attorney General Letitia James has been appointed special prosecutor in the case. [3]

On October 2, Trump was asked about James’ appointment as special prosecutor. In his response the president bad-mouthed Letitia James and stated, “I feel badly for whoever she’s looking at because they won’t get a fair shake.” In that answer, he did not call for a full and thorough investigation of Jane Doe’s claims. [3] In his statement James is the villain, but Jane Doe was still denied basic human dignity.

Maybe Trump’s response should be the catalyst for a larger conversation around power and what powerful men owe the women affected by their decisions.

The Ordinary People

“We hold the most exceptional things among us hostage to the average, the ordinary, the mediocre.” I’m thinking about Rubio’s remark [1] on the importance of industry and defense and international competition, and wondering what would happen if we apply it to Amina’s situation. Most people’s lives won’t make it into any museum. We work and raise kids and get sick. Our achievements may be of a local and not national variety. And listen, that’s okay. We can hold space for exceptionalism and achievement and greatness, and also allow that much of life will consist of the ordinary.

Part of Amina’s prominence has to do with her being a college athlete. But she shouldn’t need to be athletically talented for her medical needs to matter. Somebody without an athletic bone in their body should also be entitled to medical attention in a similar situation. According to DHS, Amina missed an immigration proceeding and overstayed her visa; she had an order of removal. Her immigration case remains pending. DHS did not respond to a request for additional comment. [2] That immigration history doesn’t answer her allegation that she was put in isolation for refusing to remove the brace. When the government takes somebody into custody, it has all sorts of power to control their access to medical care. And that power represents a responsibility. Regardless of whether it comes up in a speech, people being detained is another way that our country flexes its muscles, wields its sovereign might.

The Women Living There

Rubio described the classical Greek city as “an arena for great men to test and prove themselves.” [1]

But wait, before we applaud, let’s think about who was allowed to participate in this great democracy. In classical Athens, women were excluded from the political rights afforded to male citizens. Girls commonly married at ages fourteen or fifteen. Moreover, their consent was not required, as a father could contract for his daughter’s marriage and effectively hand her off to another man’s family. [5] Thucydides writes of the horrors visited upon Melos after it surrendered to the Athenians: the adult men they captured were put to death, and the women and children were sold into slavery. [6]

Jane Doe. Now Amina. Different topics (sexual violence/consent on the one hand and medical care/custody on the other) but the same fundamental concern at their cores which is how much power should other people be permitted to exercise over my life and choices, and what happens when they abuse it? What ideals did we inherit from classical Athens, and what do we make of those ideals in the context of Jane and Amina’s stories?

What We Made Power Do

Rubio also invokes “the English genius for liberty.” There is something here worth pursuing. [1]

While Magna Carta was, in its immediate historical context, a settlement between a king and his barons with narrow protections, the centuries of struggles against arbitrary government which followed in its wake gave its clauses more expansive meanings and extended its influence to people it had originally left out. [7]

Roosevelt signing the Wagner Act to protect the right of many workers to organize and collectively bargain, Johnson signing Medicare, Medicaid, and the Voting Rights Act: these uses of government affected what it was actually possible for a worker dealing with her boss, an older person in need of medical care, a Black person trying to register to vote, to do with their freedom. The barons’ demands were about reining in a king. The American examples show the positive force federal government has sometimes been. [8, 9, 10]

However, those voting-rights protections required pressure on the White House. The persistence of Black voting-rights activists, in the face of violence, helped secure federal protections that had eluded them under previous administrations. [10]

But crediting Johnson completely for these voting-rights advancements follows a long tradition of crediting key leaders for changes achieved by the people. [10] And regardless of their impressive nature, the achievements of his administration do not cancel out his escalation of the war in Vietnam, just as Roosevelt’s achievements do not cancel out his decision to incarcerate Japanese Americans.

We can acknowledge the accomplishments of their administrations without forgetting what their actions meant for real people. [11, 12, 13]

Rubio says that “we preoccupy ourselves more with the comfort of the worst than the potential of the best.” I’d like a lot more thought put into such a statement. You should be able to expect a doctor to take care of your knee or an investigator to examine your story about sexual assault without having to convince someone in power that you have potential. [1]

What Amina Is Owed

“The story of our civilization is the greatest story ever known to man,” Rubio said. [1]

I love the Parthenon. I want our country to be able to defend itself. But I also expect a response to Amina’s story. I expect the president to take a woman’s allegations seriously.

Demanding accountability for one part of the government doesn’t mean pretending there aren’t tons of good things our country has done. But loving our country and wanting it to be strong means we have to continue to make it a good one. If Amina was indeed isolated because she wouldn’t relinquish a medically necessary item such as her knee brace, the people responsible need to be held accountable. You can’t take away a person’s ability to take care of herself without taking responsibility for the care she needs.

It seems morally depraved to demand that people admire power, while making it difficult for them to acquire the most rudimentary protections against it.

If an administration that claims to represent the guardians of civilization cannot protect a woman who is defenseless, then that administration must not resent being called to account. It can’t justify its failure to live up to its legacy.

Amina has told reporters, “I’m ready to go back to school, get my master’s, and get this surgery done.” [2] Regardless of how her immigration case turns out, she shouldn’t have to show us that she’s extraordinary in order for us to care about her suffering.

So, I need XVOA to keep doing the work that lies behind these posts: reading the speech, verifying the records, tracing back the events enough to know who gets left out. Paid subscriptions buy me time to do that. If you read for free, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Help XVOA Keep Doing This Work

Or, if that isn’t feasible, there’s always Buy Me a Coffee, which offers a one-time way to support the work.

Buy Me A Coffee

To those who have already subscribed to this publication, thank you for making this possible.

Sources

[1] Marco Rubio, remarks at the Pnyx, October 7, 2026. State Department transcript reproduced by Forth.

[2] WDRB+WAVE, Amina Seck’s account after release, October 7, 2026; republished by KFVS.

[3] ABC News, Cornell investigation and Trump’s response, October 2, 2026.

[4] Reuters, Cornell appoints Sally Yates to review its response, October 6, 2026.

[5] Colette Hemingway, Women in Classical Greece, Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[6] Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, book 5, section 116.4, Perseus Digital Library.

[7] National Archives, Magna Carta Legacy.

[8] FDR Presidential Library and Museum, FDR and the Wagner Act.

[9] U.S. Government Publishing Office, Medicare Law of 1965.

[10] National Archives, Voting Rights Act (1965).

[11] National Archives, Japanese-American Incarceration During World War II.

[12] LBJ Presidential Library, Johnson and McNamara discuss troop increases in Vietnam, July 2, 1965.

[13] LBJ Presidential Library, Lyndon B. Johnson biography.

XVOA | Developing Story
Reporting checked: October 8, 2026, 10:23 p.m. Eastern

An ICE officer shot and wounded a man in New York City’s Marble Hill neighborhood Thursday afternoon. Mayor Zohran Mamdani said early reports indicated agents surrounded the man and a 5-year-old child in his car before firing multiple rounds. The child was believed to be physically unharmed. [1]

I spent twenty years as a cop, and I’m reading this closely for what happened before the first shot. What threat did the officer believe he was facing, and did the agents know a child was in that car?

DHS has acknowledged that an officer fired during an enforcement operation. Its public account has not explained what prompted the officer to shoot. [5]

Subscribe now

TLDR

• ICE confirms an officer shot and wounded a man during an enforcement operation in Marble Hill. Police say he is conscious and receiving medical treatment. [3][10]

• Mamdani says a 5-year-old was in the car, and Rep. Adriano Espaillat says the child is now with family. The mayor said the child was believed to be physically unharmed. [1][2]

• DHS has not explained the immediate reason for the gunfire. Federal investigators are involved, and the sequence leading to the shooting remains unresolved. [5][7]

Restack this report so more people can see what’s been confirmed and what federal authorities still need to explain.

Paid subscriptions give me the time to follow developing stories and check official claims against the evidence. If you read XVOA free, help keep this reporting going by becoming a paid subscriber.

Become APaid Subscriber

To the readers already supporting this desk, thank you.

If a subscription doesn’t fit right now, a one-time contribution through Buy Me a Coffee helps pay for the time this work takes. Give what works for you.

Buy Me A Coffee

What happened in Marble Hill

The shooting happened around 4 p.m. near West 225th Street and Marble Hill Avenue. Marble Hill is legally part of Manhattan, although it sits on the Bronx mainland, which accounts for differing borough labels in early coverage. [2][4]

ABC7 reported, citing city officials, that an ICE agent fired through the front windshield of an SUV while a child was in the back seat. Witnesses described a busy street with schoolchildren and commuters nearby. [2]

The witness accounts are still being assembled. Orlando Perez told Gothamist he saw people wearing vests fire at a car as it tried to drive away, then remove a child. Another nearby resident told the outlet he heard seven shots. A restaurant employee interviewed by The Associated Press estimated three or four. Those accounts do not establish an exact shot count or a complete sequence of events. [4][5]

The NYPD said its officers were neither involved in the shooting nor present when it happened. Local officers subsequently responded. AmNewYork reported that they provided aid and transported the wounded man in a police vehicle to NewYork-Presbyterian Allen Hospital. [3][6]

DHS separately said ICE officers immediately provided medical assistance. The timing and sequence of that assistance have not been independently established by XVOA. [10]

The man’s condition and the child’s whereabouts

The NYPD said the wounded man was conscious and receiving medical attention. News 12 reported that his injuries were not considered life-threatening. His name had not been publicly identified in the reporting reviewed for this update. [3][6][7]

At an evening news conference, Rep. Adriano Espaillat said he had spoken with the family and that the child was in their custody, according to ABC7. Espaillat also said ICE agents prevented him from visiting the wounded man in the hospital. [2]

The child’s relationship to the man has not been established in the sources reviewed here. This report therefore does not identify the man as the child’s father.

What DHS is saying

DHS described the operation as an attempt to arrest a Dominican national. The agency alleged a previous grand larceny conviction, other arrests involving assault, robbery, drugs and weapons, and associations with the Trinitarios gang. DHS also said the NYPD arrested him on December 7, 2023, and released him several days later. [10]

These are the agency’s claims. XVOA has not independently examined the underlying court records or verified the alleged gang association.

DHS blamed New York’s sanctuary policies for requiring officers to make arrests in the community. Its statement did not specify what threat the officer perceived at the moment he fired. [10]

The FBI’s New York Evidence Response Team responded to support DHS, according to News 12. DHS also said Homeland Security Investigations personnel were at the scene. [7][10]

Officials demand answers as protests grow

Mamdani said he had placed a call to President Donald Trump and intended to demand an end to ICE enforcement operations in the city when they spoke. His statement did not establish that a conversation had already occurred. [1]

“I will not stand by while ICE agents terrorize our communities,” the mayor said. He ended his statement: “Abolish ICE.” [1]

Gov. Kathy Hochul called for a transparent federal accounting. Public Advocate Jumaane Williams urged the city to release footage and other information collected from the scene. [6][8]

Protesters gathered at the shooting scene and later near the hospital. The Associated Press reported that some demonstrators clashed with police as officers established barriers to keep access open for ambulances and other vehicles. Police made arrests; the report did not provide a final total. [4]

A dispute over nearby ICE activity preceded the shooting

On October 5, eight elected officials wrote to Kingsbridge Associates about reports that ICE was using the Target parking lot at 40 West 225th Street as an enforcement staging area. They asked whether that use had been authorized and urged the responsible entity to end any authorization. [9]

Target told Gothamist it had no agreement with ICE or other immigration enforcement agencies and said the shooting did not occur on or adjacent to its property. A connection between the reported parking-lot activity and Thursday’s shooting has not been established. [5]

What remains unanswered

The sources reviewed for this update do not establish whether the man was armed, whether anyone faced an immediate threat, what commands agents gave, or whether agents knew a child was inside before firing. Perez’s account of a car trying to leave does not resolve its speed, direction or proximity to officers.

The exact number of rounds, the number of officers who fired, and a complete account of the man’s injuries also remain unresolved. Footage capturing the full encounter, including the moments before the shooting, will be important evidence.

The central question remains: What happened in the seconds before an officer fired into a vehicle containing a man and a child?

This developing account draws on official statements and the reporting linked below. Details may change as additional evidence becomes public.

Paid subscriptions give me time to check what federal agencies say against local reporting and the public record, and to keep XVOA’s Black-led coverage of American power available to readers. If you read XVOA free, become a paid subscriber⁠.

Become A Paid Subscriber

To the readers already supporting this desk, thank you. If a recurring subscription doesn’t fit, Buy Me a Coffee⁠ gives you a one-time way to contribute an amount that works for you.

Buy Me A Coffee

Sources

[1] NYC Mayor’s Office: Statement on the ICE shooting, October 8⁠

[2] ABC7 New York: Man shot in vehicle; child unharmed during ICE operation⁠

[3] NY1: NYPD statement and initial medical condition⁠

[4] The Associated Press, via KPRC: Shooting, witness accounts and protests⁠

[5] Gothamist/WNYC: Witness accounts, DHS statement and Target response⁠

[6] amNewYork: Hospital transport and local response⁠

[7] News 12: Medical condition and FBI response⁠

[8] NYC Public Advocate: Statement calling for release of footage⁠

[9] October 5 letter from eight elected officials to Kingsbridge Associates⁠

[10] Fox News, via AOL: DHS’s account of the operation and investigation⁠

I am married to a woman. I have daughters. Feminism has to mean something in my home once I shut this computer. Anyone can claim they believe women. I still have to listen when one of them is telling me something I don’t want to hear.

And yes, I realize I just offered my wife and daughters as references. Plenty of men collect those credentials while making women miserable. I have to look at myself in the mirror too ya’ll. Former lawyer turned full time musician Danielle Ponder told Iman Amrani of the Guardian, “Men are a scam!” [1] There’s a rich tradition of Black women articulating that sentiment through music.

In 2021 Ponder, then thirty-nine, left the practice of law to focus full time on music. Her pastor father didn’t support any non-religious music being played in the house but singers such as Big Mama Thornton helped Ponder understand what her own voice could do. [2] Her story is emblematic of an old argument about what women are allowed to want.

Subscribe now

Who Gets to Choose

Angela Davis’s Blues Legacies and Black Feminism helps explain why so much of this music concerns somebody’s lover.

Davis connects the emergence of blues after emancipation to greater freedom of movement and choice of sexual partners. Freedom remained severely constrained, but intimate decisions acquired new possibilities slavery had denied. Choosing a lover could carry a significance that gets lost when we hear another song about somebody’s man. [3]

Picture what it would be like to choose who you loved when someone else had previously been able to sell that person away. And then picture that person getting on your last nerve. Both of those things exist in the blues. Part of freedom is being frustrated by choices that you were finally free to make.

Women had something to say about the terms of that freedom. Quite a lot, as it turned out.

The Marriage Had Fine Print

Enslaved people had formed marriages and families long before the law respected them. Legal recognition after emancipation was something Black couples sought for themselves. Tera Hunter’s Bound in Wedlock documents those relationships alongside the coercion built into the new marriage regime. Rights came with terms on how the formerly enslaved were supposed to behave. [4]

Money was part of those terms. In the evolving agricultural system, employers were allowed to strike deals with a male head of household for the labor of a whole family. The Freedmen’s Bureau encouraged these agreements. A husband’s power could be an asset for a landowner. [5]

Consider the woman at the center of this deal. She had gained freedom. Yet someone was bargaining over the terms of her liberty.

Some Black men pursued the authority attached to being a husband. Others used their position to help women challenge abuse. Historian Elizabeth Barnes documents both, along with women refusing men’s claims over them. [6] We have to leave those differences intact. Black women were arguing, choosing and resisting throughout this history.

But just because white men refused to give a Black man power didn’t mean a Black man couldn’t want to wield power over a woman. I don’t know how we get past that.

A man can recognize how it feels to be humiliated by being told to take orders from someone else, and then go home and demand the same from his wife.

The Women Were Playing, Too

Mamie Desdunes belongs in this story. Her singing and piano playing influenced Jelly Roll Morton’s approach to blues. Music historian Sherrie Tucker places her within the exchange between Caribbean and New Orleans musical traditions. [7] Desdunes is a name worth remembering the next time somebody tells this history entirely through men.

Then there’s Ma Rainey, building her own performance company after her marriage ended. Her “Prove It on Me Blues” put the desire for women in her art. [8] She offered audiences a woman whose needs couldn’t be packaged into someone else’s version of womanly respectability.

Women were contributing their own life experiences and needs to the music they were making. This is relevant to the discussion of who ‘owns’ the blues. Davis also recounts pianist Ida Goodson recalling how she played blues at home, but if her religious parents came in, the children changed to hymns. [3]

I love that detail. The music was already in the house. The children just had to keep an eye on the door.

Making a God Out of a Man

That brings me back to Ponder and the preacher’s household.

What strikes me as both interesting and scary is the idea of ceding this much power to somebody, handing them the controls on what’s okay and what your achievements are and what your value is. A completely normal guy, but his approval somehow becomes the thing that settles all of it.

That’s the danger I hear in Ponder’s “God of You.” Ponder co-wrote the song with Mike Elizondo, and the release notes identify Screamin’ Jay Hawkins’s “I Put a Spell on You” as part of its inspiration. [9]

A woman can go on for years trying to satisfy that voice. And eventually even her unhappiness is something that she thinks she should fix for his sake. I hear Ponder examining what she has sacrificed. There is some shame there, and some resentment. But what it means is that it takes a lot of courage to admit how much of yourself you organized around another person’s judgment.

We’ve spent enough time asking Black women to explain their pain. On Everything Has Changed, in a song appropriately called “Power,” Ponder salutes Black power and Black beauty. [2] I hope that Ponder has fun.

Her music moves across blues, soul and other forms. [2] I consider Ponder the embodiment of the blues because she insists on telling her story in her own terms. The desire belongs in it. So does the disappointment.

I hope that my daughters will have the autonomy she sings about: to write their own stories and decide when a man no longer gets to be the main character. I want them to recognize when being loved starts requiring them to disappear.

And if they have something to tell me about that, I need to hear it.

XVOA follows these connections because Black history changes what we can hear in the present. Reading the scholarship and checking the reporting takes time. If you read free, become a paid subscriber to help finance that work:

Help Fund More Work Like This

If another subscription isn’t workable, Buy Me a Coffee is the one-time option where you can contribute as little or as much as you’d like in just one gesture:

Buy Me A Coffee

To the readers already paying for this desk and those who have contributed before, thank you for giving me the time to keep doing it.

Sources

[1] Iman Amrani, Danielle Ponder interview, The Guardian, October 7, 2026.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2026/oct/07/danielle-ponder-lawyer-turned-singer-interview

[2] Danielle Ponder, artist biography, Dead Oceans.
https://deadoceans.com/artists/danielle-ponder/

[3] Angela Y. Davis, Blues Legacies and Black Feminism, chapter 1, “I Used to Be Your Sweet Mama: Ideology, Sexuality, and Domesticity.” Authorized ebook preview.
https://www.everand.com/book/769508291/Blues-Legacies-and-Black-Feminism-Gertrude-Ma-Rainey-Bessie-Smith-and-Billie-Holiday

[4] Tera W. Hunter, Bound in Wedlock: Slave and Free Black Marriage in the Nineteenth Century. Princeton University book overview and author interview.
https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/bound-wedlock-slave-and-free-black-marriage-nineteenth-century
https://aas.princeton.edu/news/aas21-podcast-episode-7-what-was-african-american-marriage

[5] “Tenancy, Marriage, and the Boll Weevil Infestation, 1892–1930,” Demography.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5858199/

[6] Elizabeth M. Barnes, “‘The girl did not recognise him as her husband’: freedmen, sexual violence, and gendered authority after emancipation,” American Nineteenth Century History, 2022.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14664658.2021.2022476

[7] Sherrie Tucker, A Feminist Perspective on New Orleans Jazzwomen, National Park Service research study.
https://www.nps.gov/jazz/learn/historyculture/upload/New_Orleans_Jazzwomen_RS-2.pdf

[8] “Ma Rainey,” Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture.
https://nmaahc.si.edu/ma-rainey

[9] “Danielle Ponder Debuts New Song ‘God of You,’” Dead Oceans, September 8, 2026.
https://deadoceans.com/news/danielle-ponder-debuts-new-song-god-of-you/

I am a publisher. The Washington Post is a publisher. I read the Post every morning to see what they put in the headline and what they leave for you to find near the bottom. Somebody has to keep an eye on these people.

The Post had an article that caught my eye: “Four ways the midterm elections could go, one month away.” In its last section, “A constitutional crisis,” it tells us: “This year, election administrators are especially concerned about interference from the federal government.” [1]

Before we get there, the piece walks us through the Democrats’ strong poll numbers, the Republicans’ funding edge, candidates, district maps and ads. It paints a picture of what could happen as the result of a blue wave, a blue ripple or a possible Republican upset.

Hold up. Wait a second. Your opening was about who’s ahead in the polls and who has the money. But the people managing the election are worried the federal government could interfere? Put that at the very top of the article for someone skimming the news before they get on the subway to work. Tell us what they’re ready for and why. Then you can get to talking about who spent more on ads.

I’m a retired police officer. I see it as my calling to shine a light on what gets buried. Thanks to a few generous readers, I have the time to look into these articles full time and ask more questions.

Subscribe now

What happens after we vote?

What concerns me is that Democrats might win control of Congress and then face an effort to overturn those results. That is the danger I see in what the Post is reporting. I want readers to know about this before they start popping champagne corks over these polls.

Isaac Arnsdorf reports that election officials are concerned about federal interference. He also reports that right-wing activists have called for the president to claim emergency powers over elections. Officials are preparing for possible disruptions. [1] These details leave me with questions that deserve an article of their own. Who might interfere? What could they actually do? Who has the power, and the inclination, to stop them?

This is where I start thinking about January 6. A mob attacked the Capitol while Congress was counting the presidential electoral votes. That count was interrupted. [2] This year’s congressional elections are run differently, but I fear there will be another effort to overturn an election result. This time, the fight could be over control of Congress. That’s why the Post’s four scenarios irritate the hell outta me.

A blue wave and a constitutional crisis could happen in the same election. The Democrats could win enough seats to take control, then face attempts to subvert the outcome. Winning the election and taking power could become two separate fights. Putting those possibilities in separate sections leaves their connection unexplained.

Earlier this year, I wrote “The Washington Post Predicted January 6.” I examined a Post history article published on November 24, 2020, about the disputed election of 1876. [3] Ronald G. Shafer quoted a newspaper reporting plans for “a threatening and bellicose mob” that might attack the capital building in order to pressure the electoral count. [4]

That sentence struck me because of its ominous foreshadowing and for the approach it laid out that I know we have repeated since: Put pressure on those doing the vote counting to get the result you desire. The question here is: How do we respond to election officials warning of interference, and what do we need to see coming into the election?

That January 6 comparison is my interpretation of the threat. The Post reports the officials’ fears. The Post considered those fears serious enough to have a subhead saying “A constitutional crisis.” I wonder why that possibility was not part of the headline or lead. Readers should get that heads-up.

What Trump has alreadyr said

Voting rights lawyer Marc Elias raises the question I wanted the Post to put near the top: What happens after we cast our ballots?

In his video, “Trump Just Admitted His Post-Election Plans. Believe Him,” Elias warns that the greatest danger could come during the counting of ballots and certification of results. Certification is the official confirmation of those results. That process still has to happen after we leave the voting booth. [5]

This gives us something specific to examine. In an August 18, 2025 post, Trump claimed that states were agents of the federal government when counting votes and had to follow the president’s instructions. [6]

Read that again. The president whose party could lose control of Congress claimed authority over the people counting the votes.

Under the Constitution, the state legislatures set the rules for federal congressional elections, while Congress has the authority to enact laws that may alter them. It does not put the president in charge of the count. [7]

But an unlawful order can still be attempted. Someone will need to push back. Someone may need to take him to court. This is why, after explaining what Trump can’t legally do, there should be one more question: What if he tries to do it anyway?

Elias also points to Trump’s January interview with The New York Times. Asked about his failure to use the National Guard to seize “election boxes” after the 2020 election, Trump answered, “Well, I should have.” [8]

That answer gives me a reason to worry about what comes next. I want reporting on who could be ordered to interfere, what election officials are preparing for, and how the ballots and results would be protected.

Elias says he did not foresee the violent attack on January 6. He did expect Trump to keep escalating. [5] That distinction matters. We can recognize a danger before we know every detail of how it might unfold.

Put the warning where we can see it

By the time the Post gets to federal interference, I’ve been told about the polls, the money, the maps, the candidates. That warning comes at the end, which, for me, feels like yet another wrinkle in a typical race. If officials are worried about federal interference, that changes how I read the rest.

“Our contingencies have contingencies,” Cook County clerk Monica Gordon told the Post. [1] So, talk us through one. What triggers a contingency? Who is responsible for responding? How does it help keep voters safe and their votes intact?

I want these questions to be asked when there is still time for answers to help us prepare. And I want follow-ups that include what we know, what we don’t, and what election officials will and won’t say about efforts to protect the votes.

That should be where the Post’s reporting begins. As one publisher to another: When I see a warning like this, it’s my job to tell readers what it means and what we still need to find out. I hold the Post to the same standard. Put it at the top. Then tell us who bought more damn commercials.

That’s also the work you’re paying for when you support this publication. That gives me time to read past the headline, find the old article, see the quote, make the connection. Thanks to all of you who are already making contributions through subscriptions and coffees. If you’d like to help me continue to do this, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Help Keep This Desk Keepin On

If a subscription doesn’t fit right now, a one-time contribution through Buy Me a Coffee helps too. I’ve got another newspaper to read in the morning.

Buy Me A Coffee

Sources

[1] Isaac Arnsdorf, “Four ways the midterm elections could go, one month away,” The Washington Post, October 5, 2026.

[2] U.S. House of Representatives, Joint Meetings, Joint Sessions, and Inaugurations, January 6, 2021 entry and footnote 34.

[3] Xplisset, “The Washington Post Predicted January 6,” January 7, 2026.

[4] Ronald G. Shafer, “The ugliest presidential election in history: Fraud, voter intimidation and a backroom deal,” The Washington Post, November 24, 2020.

[5] Marc Elias, “Trump Just Admitted His Post-Election Plans. Believe Him,” Democracy Docket, October 5, 2026.

[6] Donald Trump, August 18, 2025 Truth Social post, archived by Trump’s Truth.

[7] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, National Archives.

[8] Donald Trump, January 7, 2026 interview with The New York Times, transcript archived by the American Presidency Project.

The Washington Post article refers to a “mystery”: who these Flock cameras belong to. I’m a retired police officer. In twenty years on that job, I could never have referred to something as a mystery in a report and then just left it at that.

If I didn’t know who was responsible, I would have been expected to outline everything done to try to find out. If in trying to determine who owned those Flock cameras, all I had obtained was Flock’s non-responsive statement regarding permits, my report would have been tossed back at me with a nasty note or the case would have been assigned to someone else. In the former situation, the note might have read something like: THAT DOESN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. FOLLOW UP.

It’s hard to believe the editors at the Washington Post, the paper that helped bust Watergate, could publish that deflection without making THAT the story.

Flock Safety makes surveillance cameras that snap pics of cars as they drive by and take note of their license plates. Its accompanying software allows users to look up images of any of those captured cars by plate number, physical description, date, and/or time. Police departments, businesses, even residential associations subscribe to Flock Safety’s tech, potentially turning cars that happen to drive past one of its cameras into database entries. [2]

Subscribe now

What Happened in Florida

Commissioners in St. Lucie County, Florida, recently approved the removal of Flock Safety cameras on county roads out of privacy and police-misuse concerns. In preparing to pull the tech, workers discovered 14 extra cameras. Three were said to belong to the sheriff’s office, and no one had publicly claimed the remaining 11. It was also unclear whether those 11 cameras were operational. [1]

The county posted notices of removal and planned to cover the cameras in plastic. County officials had not yet contacted Flock to ask who owned them, intending to wait until the removal notices expired. [1]

When asked by the Post who operated the cameras, Flock’s response did not identify an operator. It included an explanation that “permitting requirements vary by jurisdiction.” [1]

Flock’s own website explains what happens when a neighborhood signs up: the company assigns an account representative who helps “set up billing, determine the placement of your cameras,” arrange installation, and make sure everything works. [2]

Start With the Customer Account

There is without a doubt ta paper trail somewhere.The article doesn’t tell readers whether Flock was asked to check for customer accounts, camera-placement records or installation orders relating to those St. Lucie County cameras. This is to me just basic follow-up information and the sort of thing that ought to be pursued by editors and journalists before printing a story that posits a mystery.

Flock told the Post, “We have reached out to St. Lucie County,” and offered to review the cameras with county officials. According to the story, the county did not answer the Post’s follow-up question about that offer. [1]

What could Flock establish about these particular cameras through its customer and installation process? If it couldn’t connect them to a customer, the company should have been asked to explain why. Readers deserve to know how far those inquiries went.

Who Gets to Remain Unidentified?

A former Fort Pierce police officer used Flock’s database 382 times to track his ex-girlfriend during times when he was off duty. [1]

The Post’s coverage made clear why we need to know who controls surveillance technology and how they use it. Ty Grant, a resident who lived near one of the cameras, had assumed it belonged to local police. When he learned that county officials had no idea who had installed it, his response seemed reasonable: “That makes me feel very unsafe.” [1]

Residents should know who has records of their vehicles, who else might be able to view those records and whether they’ve been misused in the past. The people who set up the Flock cameras should be scrutinized, as Flock’s response didn’t tell readers who’s responsible for the company’s equipment, designed specifically to make cars searchable.

The Post’s own reporting showed why identifying those people matters. Editors had all they needed to put Ty Grant’s concerns front and center, but the headline offered readers a mystery.

The Paper That Helped Bust Watergate

Imagine the Washington Post covering Watergate under this headline: Mysterious Assailants Break Into Watergate Office With No Apparent Motive. Perhaps a helpful spokesperson could have explained that building-access policies vary by jurisdiction.

The June 18, 1972, headline was “5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats’ Office Here,” and the report acknowledged unanswered questions. [3] Listen, I bring up Watergate because the newspaper’s reputation carries an expectation of persistence. An evasive response ought to attract particular attention at an institution whose name became associated with pursuing people who had reasons to avoid answering questions.

One of the most important questions posed to Flock went unanswered: who runs the cameras? The company did provide a statement about permits. It’s a reporter’s job to report that statement accurately, but the editor should ask whether it answers the question and what still needs following up.

The Post had enough information in the statement itself to print FLOCK DOESN’T SAY WHO RUNS CAMERAS WHEN ASKED. And, honestly, I would have thought that a news organization with Watergate on its résumé might have done just that.

Follow Up

Flock’s published statement doesn’t identify the operator of those cameras. [1] I want to know what information Flock has been able to gather from its records. If there is no identifiable operator, we should know that too. If Flock declines to answer, we deserve to know that, too. THAT DOESN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. FOLLOW UP. If I were editing this story, I’d send it back and tell the reporter to press for a goddamn answer. If Flock still doesn’t identify an operator, say that in the headline.

I link primary sources in my posts so you can review the evidence and reasoning for yourself. Please look at my work critically.

XVOA depends on reader support. Paid subscriptions and contributions pay for the apps, research tools and the setup I use to write, record and publish. I also depend on that money for my most basic living expenses.

A paid subscription helps me predict how much support I’ll receive each month, plan my time and pay monthly expenses. If you’ve been following XVOA and sitting on the fence, please become a paid subscriber today. Thank you to those who’ve already become paid subscribers.

Step Off The Fence Support This Voice

Contributions through Buy Me a Coffee help cover those same immediate costs. If you can’t commit to a subscription and haven’t bought me a coffee before, please make your first contribution here. Thank you to everyone who’s chipped in over the past few days. You’ve helped me keep going.

Buy Me A Coffee

Sources

[1] Alex DeLuca, “Florida county discovers mysterious Flock cameras with no obvious owner.” The Washington Post, October 1, 2026.

[2] Flock Safety, “Frequently Asked Questions.” Includes the company’s explanations of customer onboarding, camera installation, account access and vehicle searches.

[3] Alfred E. Lewis, “5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats’ Office Here.” The Washington Post, originally published June 18, 1972; archival reprint.

I had enough of it.

Playing carelessly with the darkness and it could consume you into an abyss you can’t escape from. I had enough of it. Enough of the voices. I could see them scrawled out across the walls of my inner psyche. Enough of the images. I could hear them as if a movie projector was running in the back of my head. The whole visual moving image thing would become a problem but more on that later.

Then Haley Pham appeared.

She seemed happy. Jolly, even. Here she was, talking about writing her first novel, and I was looking for some evidence of an inward struggle. Where was the introspection? Where was the mental sacrifice? Writing felt like war to me. I expected something like a writer’s thousand-yard stare. Some indication that the work had taken something out of her.

But she was smiling. C’mon, man. How are you this happy? I had turned on YouTube because I’d had enough of the people in my own head, and now somebody was making the business of creating them look like a good time. I thought about an aspiring writer watching this. What picture of the work were they getting?

Why did her happiness bother me?

And what picture was I giving myself? The serious writer, descending into the darkness of the human soul and coming back wounded by what he had witnessed. That’s a hell of a flattering description of a man sitting at a keyboard.

Maybe I was telling myself a grand noble lie. Perhaps by describing my pain I convinced myself that I had encountered something I was also complicit in which might be a patriarchal logic (the silence that sustains it included). I could write my character James. What disturbed me was the possibility that some of the thought processes behind his actions were already familiar to me.

Invitation and paywall

Below, I’m sharing an extended excerpt from War After War with paid subscribers. Become a paid subscriber to the Author Room tier in order to read on. If a subscription isn’t possible right now, you can support the writing with a one-time contribution through Buy Me a Coffee.

Read more

In the silence of darkness, you have closed your eyes and caught a fleeting echo of the voices you’ve been running away from throughout the day, and perhaps even your entire life. My duty as a writer is to seek out and decipher those voices you run from, just as it was my duty as a police officer to seek out the incidents that could potentially explode into a critical event.

I do this not for fame, glory, or some monetary windfall. I am compelled to do this to maintain my own sanity. So when I finish a piece of work, there is a temporary sense of inner completeness. The voices have been assuaged. The truth has been set free, and in doing so, I have been set free. Mission accomplished. If just one additional person reads whatever I’ve written and reverse-engineers the blueprints of their own mental reconciliation, then somebody else gets to feel a little of that freedom, too.

If I’ve painted the picture of a heroic writer searching for the truth at his or her own inner expense, akin to the familiar verse that says you must lose your life in order to save it, then let me rip that picture to shreds.

I, just like you, have been running from the voices. One voice in particular. That’s the voice telling me to address the biggest societal leap since agriculture, the printing press, and the Industrial Revolution.

Artificial Intelligence is artificial deception.

Subscribe now

The invented thing that reveals something true

From my perspective, writing and the arts in general are prime examples of deception agreed upon between the writer and reader, contingent upon some revelation of truth. Suspension of disbelief is what immediately comes to mind. A more sinister kind of agreement brings us to a Russian word: vranyo.

The word broadly means lying. What interests me is its use for a false account people knowingly maintain together. The participants recognize the lie, yet the performance continues because acknowledging the truth would cost them something.[9, 10]

A painted animal on a cave wall is evidence of our capacity to represent the world.[1] I suspect that our intelligence and capacity for deception grew together. Imagination, our greatest asset, is a tool that can be used to reveal reality, but it can also be used to obscure it-even hide it from ourselves.

Where this becomes problematic is when an edifice of vranyo purports to dictate who can do what, who you are allowed to be, who’s allowed to exist, and where you’re supposed to fit in. Then the stories we tell about what is become stories about what should be, and some people get to decide where other people should be.

Agriculture and the story of female inferiority

How did agriculture promote the idea that women were inferior? Studies of traditional plough agriculture show how division of labour can crystallise into enduring beliefs about women’s ‘proper place’.[3] How one worked the land could become how one decided who belonged in the public sphere.

That history was never uniform. At Çatalhöyük, an early farming settlement, researchers found that maternal kinship played a central role among people buried within the same houses.[4] There were other ways to organize a society.

Yet female inferiority could be presented as a fact of nature. Aristotle wrote that “the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior.”[12]

That is the leap I want to examine. The difference in labor becomes the difference in human value. The society puts women in an inferior position to men, and then points to that position as proof of their rightful place. The defenders may have come to believe their own argument. By this point, altering a social institution seems tantamount to fighting the laws of nature.

Printing and the authority of the book

The printing press greatly expanded the audience for competing claims about God. Research connects its spread with the spread of the Protestant Reformation.[5] In a Europe divided by religious conflict, printed arguments could challenge authority and provide new justifications for persecution.

If we consider the Malleus maleficarum, a handbook for hunting witches, combined information about the devil’s doings with guidance for interrogating and condemning alleged witches. Studies on towns in central Europe have found that the printing of these handbooks was associated with the dissemination of witchcraft trials.[6] A frightening account of the world could travel with a set of instructions for acting upon it.

A magistrate could approach an accused person with an explanation of guilt already in hand. The authority of the book could become the authority behind the accusation. The problem is that someone might have the belief that he was defending the truth while at the same time using his authority to compel another human being to accept a lie. At this point, the accused would have to deal with the story as well as the people with authority to make that story a reality.

Industry and the story of deserved rank

Class divisions were already old when the Industrial Revolution arrived.[8] Industrial fortunes gave the people who benefited from inequality another opportunity to explain why it was necessary.

In 1889, Andrew Carnegie defended concentrated wealth as essential to progress. He also believed the wealthy had a duty to use their fortunes for the public good. But the authority to decide how that money should serve the public rested with people he credited with “superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer.”[7]

That is the deception I’d like to explore: There is a difference between owning a factory and working in one. The jump from that difference to a difference in human value is a leap we make. Wealth becomes proof of wisdom. The man whose labor contributed to that wealth becomes a man who needs to be led.

When enough people buy into the narrative, the social hierarchy starts to validate itself. People at the top may confuse their privileged position as evidence of their exceptionalism. People at the bottom may believe their social placement is evidence of their inherent inferiority.

Artificial intelligence and the bargain we enter

Which brings me back to Artificial Intelligence. This question has long been familiar: What happens when our creations determine what is true, and how can we tell if their truths are true?

Generative AI can create compelling justifications which are false.[13] For example, in 2023 lawyers in Mata v. Avianca relied on AI to create false court decisions using ChatGPT and continued to promote them as real when their existence was questioned. As a result, they were sanctioned by the court.[14]

Invented facts were promoted with the authority of case law. This is different than a novelist creating a judge who reveals truths about real justice because readers agree to explore her fictitious world. But inventing case law requires consenting to believe that fictitious event actually occurred. Like with AI-generated case law, people whose lives depend on the result of court decisions have not agreed to be impacted by fiction.

A false response doesn’t necessarily mean the machine intended to fool someone. If we present the fabrication as truth, however, then we’re the ones fooling. We’ve arrived at the point where the truth is too costly to reveal, and the fiction is too valuable to abandon.

But a map ain’t a route. There is a temptation to use AI-generated responses as justification for ceasing to explore our own biases, which, laundered and returned in the guise of truth, could be mistaken for a revelation of sorts, especially if they are in line with the status quo. Those in power would find another reason to act. But it can be revelatory, AI, and its ability to challenge arguments and bring forth perspectives we haven’t previously considered; this, too, is invention.

Ye shall be as gods

When I return to the silence of darkness, I still want that temporary sense of inner completeness. I wish the voices would be quieted by their being listened to. Silence itself doesn’t say if I’m letting go of the truth, or have discovered how to shut it out.

People easily envision an artificially intelligent Terminator stalking them down. Would we recognize it as sinister if we were instead comforted by an artificially intelligent presence that reassures us all is well with things that need questioning? It could be the morphine that soothes the sting of injustice without addressing the injustice itself. Those who benefit from our complacency would have less need to demand our silence if we began asking for it ourselves.

In Genesis, the serpent promises opened eyes: “ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”[11] I wonder how much artificial light it would take to keep us from noticing that we had stopped looking. We could come to defend the very thing that keeps those voices beyond our hearing and call that condition enlightenment.

I still believe an invented thing can reveal something true. That is what I am asking of this piece. If a voice follows you back into the darkness, I hope you will hear it out.

There are many issues I’d like to examine where there are convenient answers that make it OK to avoid pressing questions whose answers might cost us something. I’m hoping to pursue those questions, including my role in accepting convenient answers.

To help me keep pursuing those questions, consider becoming a paid subscriber⁠.

Help Me Keep Pursuing Answers

Your support makes it possible for me to spend the (considerable) amount of time needed to follow sources when writing and chase down questions that may not have reassuring answers. If another subscription isn’t in the cards, Buy Me a Coffee⁠. A one-time donation still helps me get the next piece written.

Buy Me A Coffee

Before we declare the mission accomplished, we ought to know whether the voices have been heard or merely silenced.

Sources

[1] Smithsonian Human Origins Program. “Language & Symbols.”

[2] William von Hippel and Robert Trivers. “The Evolution and Psychology of Self-Deception” (2011). Background reading.

[3] Alberto Alesina, Paola Giuliano, and Nathan Nunn. “On the Origins of Gender Roles: Women and the Plough.”

[4] “Female Lineages and Changing Kinship Patterns in Neolithic Çatalhöyük.” Science (2025).

[5] Jared Rubin. “Printing and Protestants: An Empirical Test of the Role of Printing in the Reformation.”

[6] “Ideational Diffusion and the Great Witch Hunt in Central Europe.” Theory and Society (2024).

[7] Andrew Carnegie. “Wealth” (1889).

[8] Becker Friedman Institute. “The Breakdown of the English Society of Orders: The Role of the Industrial Revolution” (2025).

[9] Gramota Russian dictionaries. “Враньё” (vranyo).

[10] C. Kamphuis. “Vranyo.” Militaire Spectator, June 17, 2024.

[11] Genesis 3:1–7, King James Version.

[12] Aristotle. Politics, Book I, Part V. Translated by Benjamin Jowett.

[13] National Institute of Standards and Technology. Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile. NIST AI 600-1, July 2024.

[14] Mata v. Avianca, Inc., Opinion and Order on Sanctions. U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, June 22, 2023.

It was all a dream, I used to read Popular Mechanics magazines. Michael Jackson and Prince in my radio. Hangin’ pictures on my wall, NASA astronauts, cutouts of news articles.

Every Saturday tinkering with Rochester Quadrajets carburetors and knockoff reproductions of GM parts to get the hideaway headlight covers on the Camaro to close.

Aight, that was a terrible rendition of Notorious B.I.G.’s “Juicy” opening. I stand by what I said, as corny as it is. NASA could get people to the moon. I was trying to get two headlight covers to cooperate. There was plenty of room in that world for both ambitions.

It took a lot of people I would never meet to help make that world possible. People who had survived depression and world war drew up plans for economic cooperation because they understood what happened when nations stopped thinking beyond their own immediate appetites. Workers organized to claim a share of what their hands produced. The UAW’s 1950 agreement with General Motors secured wage protections, health benefits and pensions. Behind the company that made that Camaro were people fighting to make a factory job support an entire life. [1][2]

Black people were fighting to have a place in that future, too. In 1942, the Pittsburgh Courier took up the Double V campaign: victory against fascism abroad and racism at home. James G. Thompson’s letter asked whether the sacrifices of Black Americans would purchase anything better for the generation coming after them. That demand helped strengthen the struggle that would carry into the postwar civil rights movement. These people were working, serving, organizing and insisting that their children and grandchildren should inherit more freedom than they had been allowed. [3][4]

I was one of the children who came later.

That is what gets me when I look back at those pictures on the wall. Other people’s work had reached into my life before I understood how much I owed them. Their victories helped widen the possibilities available to somebody like me. Their arguments, their organizing, their refusal to accept the terms they had been handed helped shape the world in which I could have those ordinary Saturdays.

The house I grew up in and the house I now live in today was financed with a VA home loan, a benefit rooted in the 1944 GI Bill. [5]

And somebody had committed the country to ambitions big enough to put astronauts on a kid’s wall. NASA was created in 1958, in the middle of a dangerous rivalry with an already nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Even inside that danger, we could undertake something whose rewards would reach people years into the future. [6]

That world had blueprints. Plenty of people had to fight their way into them, correct them, demand another room, insist that the foundation support everybody it claimed to serve. There were smart people doing that work, including people history books would barely bother to name.

Now look at the people tearing it apart.

Some of the children of those smart people seem too stupid to read the blueprints they inherited, much less compose a workable vision of their own. They can recognize an opportunity to enrich themselves. They can find a camera. They can identify somebody weaker to blame. Understanding why a functioning society requires obligations that extend beyond their own comfort appears to be asking too much.

The people whose wages, homes and futures depend on that society are expected to absorb the damage.

I can accept that my childhood is over. What I have trouble accepting is the contempt for everybody still waiting for their chance. Somebody is growing up right now, putting pictures on a wall, becoming interested in how something works. That person deserves adults who take the future seriously. The people who fought to expand mine deserved successors who understood what they had been entrusted with.

Which brings me to the sentence somebody will probably file away for an attack ad if I ever decide to run for office. I suppose I can kiss that doorway goodbye.

Fine. Let them have the bomb.

If preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon requires a war that kills people, punishes ordinary households and further undermines the rules meant to protect countries from attack, then I want that price examined. Especially when other governments may watch the destruction and conclude that a nuclear weapon is precisely what they need to avoid the same fate.

How much of the future are we supposed to surrender to this operation? How many families have to accept less, endure more, and listen to another explanation of why their suffering is necessary?

Let them eat cake national security.

Somebody still has to explain who is being made safer.

Everybody dies. Somebody still has a job to do.

In an NPR interview released September 24, Tucker Carlson described warning Donald Trump, shortly before the Iran war, about its consequences. According to Carlson, Trump replied:

“Yes, you’re right. But in the end, we all die anyway, so it doesn’t matter.”

Carlson said he pressed him about the children, the grandchildren and the country. This is Carlson’s account of a private conversation so of course I cannot independently verify it. NPR reported that the White House did not address the specifics of his claims. [7]

Having said that, I have a problem with the last part of that sentence. Everybody dies. The timing and circumstances still matter quite a bit to the people doing the dying. So does whether somebody with authority could have prevented it.

Mortality is a peculiar defense for a man whose decisions can bring death to somebody else’s door. It would get you nowhere in a patrol briefing. It ought to get you nowhere in the Oval Office.

And listen, we have enough public evidence to examine this war without asking anybody to take Tucker Carlson on faith.

TLDR

• The Congressional Budget Office estimated $38 billion in additional Defense Department costs for the Iran operation through August 1, 2026. That estimate does not measure the full economic burden on households or the people living through the fighting. [8]

• The IAEA reported in September that it could not verify the status of Iran’s declared nuclear facilities and associated material during the reporting period. A claim of military success still needs an answer about what happened to the nuclear danger. [9]

• After China’s first nuclear test in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson publicly emphasized America’s continuing nuclear superiority. Another country’s bomb presented a danger that required judgment; its existence did not settle the case for preventive war. [10]

Restack or send this to somebody willing to examine what this war is costing and what it is accomplishing.

Subscribe now

Somebody has to call off the pursuit

After decades in patrol, this is where my mind goes. Suppose you are pursuing somebody who presents a real danger. You have a reason to start. Then the speed increases, traffic thickens and people who have nothing to do with the original offense are suddenly in the middle of your operation.

Now what?

You have to keep asking what happens if this person gets away, what other means you have to apprehend him, and what you are putting the public through by continuing. The reason you started matters. So does everything that has happened since you turned on the lights.

A supervisor who gets on the air and asks what your justification is for a pursuit has not become the suspect’s accomplice. He is still responsible for the people out there trying to just walk and drive through the streets to get to where their going.

Imagine answering that supervisor with “The suspect just drove off and is refusing to stop” Ok. That’s pretty damn obvious but what are the charges? There have been more than an handful of unscrupulous patrol officers who just made a charge up to justify a pursuit.

That is the question I want asked about this war. Are we making up charges to justify this pursuit of Iran. Do these charges justify the danger we have unleashed. Count those targets struck. Then tell me whether the danger we were sent to stop has diminished, what new dangers we have created, and what would justify continuing. A government should be able to answer all three without treating the questioner as an accomplice.

We have lived with bombs before

The Soviet Union got the bomb. Harry Truman announced evidence of its atomic explosion in September 1949. America had to live with the end of its monopoly. That history was dangerous and expensive, and it included wars elsewhere. It also left room for building things at home. [11]

China tested its first nuclear device in October 1964. Johnson’s public response included the judgment that “Its military significance should not be overestimated.” He emphasized the United States’ enormous remaining advantage. [10]

Think about that alternative history for a moment. Suppose Washington had decided that preventing a Chinese arsenal justified whatever war, expense and sacrifice the mission required. How much of the prosperity we remember would have survived that decision? How many ambitions would have been postponed indefinitely while somebody explained that there was simply no alternative?

We cannot calculate an alternate history. We can recognize that the actual history included choices.

Israel belongs in this conversation, too. A 1969 Kissinger memorandum recorded a Defense Department view that America could live with Israeli nuclear weapons provided they were not deployed. Other officials wanted stronger measures to prevent them. Even inside that administration, the discussion involved conditions, tradeoffs and competing judgments. [12]

Even apartheid South Africa built an arsenal: six completed devices, with a seventh unfinished. It later dismantled them, and the IAEA examined that dismantlement. There is a nuclear history that ended with the weapons being taken apart. [13]

So yes, I started with “we let them have it.” More precisely, we learned to live with dangers we could not wish away. These countries were different; their governments, alliances and nuclear histories were different. Those differences deserve examination. They do not relieve anybody of explaining why this particular danger requires this particular war at this particular price.

Show me what the operation accomplished

The administration has listed preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon among the objectives of Operation Epic Fury, alongside destroying missile capabilities, degrading its navy and curbing its support for armed groups. The nuclear argument is central, though it is not the only stated objective. [14]

Then we ought to be precise about nuclear results.

Uranium enrichment, the decision to build a weapon and possession of a usable bomb are different questions. On September 7, the IAEA director general reported that the agency had received neither the information nor the access needed to verify the status of Iran’s declared facilities and associated material during the reporting period. The agency had lost continuity of knowledge about previously declared uranium inventories at facilities affected by the June 2025 attacks. [9]

Iran bears responsibility for its cooperation with inspectors. A September statement from the United States, Britain, France and Germany specifically faulted Iran for withholding information and preventing access. [15]

That leaves us with a serious verification problem. It gives us no basis for pretending certainty in either direction. A destroyed building is visible. The status of nuclear material, the intentions of a government and the durability of an outcome require evidence beyond a photograph of the damage.

Back at the patrol briefing, somebody would still be asking whether we found what we went there for.

The bill finds YOUR house

On September 15, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Iran operation had generated $38 billion in additional Defense Department costs through August 1. That included replacing expended munitions and lost equipment, along with operating costs. It excluded costs to other federal agencies and routine expenses that would have occurred anyway. [8]

That is one part of the bill. CBO also identified disruptions to energy supplies and shipping as causes of higher global energy prices. Those costs travel through the economy, including through the expense of transporting goods. [8] An Iranian family trying to survive the fighting is paying a price that does not appear in our defense accounts at all.

Producing oil at home does not insulate us from a global oil market. Dallas Fed research explains why disrupted supplies abroad can still affect American prices, even as it finds the U.S. economy more resilient to oil shocks than it once was. Those findings can both be true. A relatively resilient national economy can contain a family that has run out of room in its budget. [16]

That is where my argument about economic independence begins. A household’s independence includes having some say over what happens to its paycheck. Money redirected into higher essential expenses cannot also go toward the repair, the savings or the ordinary pleasure somebody worked for.

Every price increase cannot honestly be charged to this war. Every sacrifice demanded in its name ought to be justified.

People who are always telling Americans to take responsibility for their finances should be able to explain the responsibility they are taking for these decisions. National security is a purpose. It does not pay a mortgage.

What are other governments learning?

Here is the possibility I just can’t let get obscured in this argument. A government watching this may decide that complying with international rules offers less protection than possessing a weapon powerful enough to make an attack prohibitively dangerous.

That is an argument about incentives. It does not establish that another government will start a program tomorrow. But an operation intended to discourage proliferation can strengthen the political argument for it. We ought to examine that possibility before congratulating ourselves on the lesson we have taught.

The rules meant to restrain powerful countries were already applied selectively. We should have been working to make them more credible. When a preventive war is defended by pointing to what another country might someday possess, other powerful governments can borrow that reasoning. The countries on the receiving end have to consider what will actually protect them.

And yes, an Iranian nuclear weapon would introduce serious dangers. Miscalculation, coercion and pressure for neighboring countries to acquire their own weapons belong in this argument. I am not asking anybody to treat a bomb as harmless. I am asking the people advocating war to compare those risks with the risks of the war they have chosen.

Give me the case for enforceable limits and restored inspections. Explain the possibilities and limits of diplomacy. Explain deterrence. Then explain why this operation offers a better outcome. The IAEA itself has called a return to diplomacy and negotiations imperative. [9]

A country serious about preventing catastrophe has to stay interested in how catastrophe is prevented. At some point, insisting that the pursuit continue can become a way of avoiding an honest examination of where it has taken us.

Their turn is still coming

I keep thinking about how little I understood while I was messing with that Camaro. I knew what I wanted those headlight covers to do. I did not yet understand all the decisions, struggles and public commitments that had helped make an ordinary Saturday like that possible.

The people who did that work had lives of their own to worry about. Plenty of them had every reason to be bitter about what this country had denied them. They still insisted on something better for people they would never meet.

That is a demanding inheritance. Especially for a Black man who knows that the promise was never handed over whole. Somebody had to press for it. Somebody had to make the country answer for the distance between what it said and what it allowed.

We owe the children that much effort. We owe our grandchildren adults who can look beyond their own remaining years. We owe the people living under the consequences of our decisions an answer more serious than the observation that life eventually ends.

Let them have time to grow. Let them have a home they can afford to keep. Let them have work that leaves enough life in them to enjoy the people they love. Let them get absorbed in something so small and stubborn that an entire Saturday disappears before they think to look at the clock.

I would like them to grow old enough to worry about their grandchildren.

When I ask what all this power is for, that is the future I have in mind. Somebody worked to leave me a place in it. I am still here, and there are people coming after me.

Their turn matters.

Checking the nuclear claims, tracing the history and putting the costs where readers can see them is the work of this Black-led desk. Paid subscriptions help keep that work going. If you read free and can make room for it, become a paid subscriber⁠.

Make Room To Help SUpport This Desk

If you already support XVOA, thank you for helping finance reporting that stays available to everyone. If a subscription isn’t workable right now, you can buy me a coffee⁠ with a one-time contribution toward the research and writing.

Buy Me A Coffee

Wait. There’s a three-minute read in the XVOA app for every article published on the site. There’s also the suppressed news we expose every day. Now I need some of you to help me test it.

Read a few stories. Tell me what works, what’s confusing and what breaks. I want to know how this thing works in your hands. If you’re a paid subscriber with an iPhone or iPad, comment BETA below and I’ll send you an invitation.

Sources

1. U.S. Department of State, Bretton Woods–GATT, 1941–1947⁠.

2. Walter P. Reuther Library, Reuther timeline, including the 1950 UAW–GM agreement⁠.

3. National WWII Museum, African Americans in World War II⁠.

4. National WWII Museum, The Double V Victory⁠.

5. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Home Loans: History⁠.

6. NASA, The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 Creates NASA⁠.

7. NPR Newsmakers, September 24, 2026, Carlson interview transcript reproduced by Podscripts⁠. The account concerns an alleged private conversation. The Elliott Connie reaction video you supplied⁠ contains an excerpt.

8. Congressional Budget Office, September 15, 2026, Estimating the Cost of Combat Operations Against Iran⁠.

9. IAEA director general, September 7, 2026, Statement to the Board of Governors, reproduced by Iran Watch⁠.

10. Lyndon B. Johnson, October 16, 1964, Statement on the First Chinese Nuclear Device⁠.

11. Harry S. Truman, September 23, 1949, Statement Announcing the First Atomic Explosion in the USSR⁠.

12. Henry Kissinger to Richard Nixon, July 19, 1969, Memorandum on the Israeli nuclear program⁠.

13. IAEA Bulletin, 1995, Verification of South Africa’s initial declaration⁠.

14. White House, March 2026, Operation Epic Fury: stated objectives⁠.

15. France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, September 9, 2026, Statement to the IAEA Board of Governors⁠.

16. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, June 23, 2026, Research on U.S. resilience to oil shocks⁠.

I saw a 1972 Corvette convertible drive by. I saw me. I saw us. Sophisticated and refined on the outside. Still easy on the eyes even in its old age. On the inside, it’s a whole different story. A carburetor sitting on top of a pushrod V8. Take the small-block version and that engine family goes back to the 1955 Chevy. A ten-year-old could understand it.[1]

I’m driving the equivalent of that Corvette, and I’m chasing after the editor who greenlit this shit.

The Washington Post reports on data centers reshaping the landscape. Musk gets named. Meta gets named. Amazon gets no mention in the narrative.[2] Meanwhile, the man who owns the newspaper, Jeff Bezos, is Amazon’s founder and executive chair. Amazon has a whole data-center business.[3][4] You would think that might deserve a sentence.

Just one simple disclosure would have held off my wrath. Now I’m obliged to pull off the gloves and come at you directly, WashPost.

No video to edit. No transcript to adapt for readers who aren’t here for the flash and splash of video. No chasing this thing through a never-ending house of mirrors of timelines, pics and talking heads. We can do this right here.

Oh, you think I’m coming after you, Kevin Schaul? Relax, bruh. I’m picturing you back on Slack, still smiling at your chief editor while you restrain what you really want to say to him. Go ahead. Keep smiling. I’m gone do it for you, Kevin.

TLDR

• The Post’s written narrative names Musk and Meta without naming Amazon or disclosing Bezos’s ownership. That leaves readers to supply a rather relevant connection themselves.[2][3]

• Amazon announced another $15 billion in Indiana data centers, following an earlier $11 billion commitment. We are discussing a company with $26 billion in announced commitments in one state.[4]

• The Post has disclosed Bezos’s ownership before. The sentence is available. Apparently, somebody needs help finding it.[5]

Restack this so the disclosure gets a little more circulation than the omission.

Subscribe now

Such powerful satellite imagery

The piece opens with an appropriately enormous claim: “America’s landscape is undergoing one of the largest transformations in decades.”[2] We get satellite imagery. We get scale. We get the chance to watch the ground change beneath all that talk about the cloud.

There is useful reporting here. People deserve to see the physical footprint of infrastructure usually advertised through words like intelligence and innovation. The dirt has to go somewhere. So does the equipment.

Then comes this: “Meta is constructing a data center campus called Hyperion on a tract of land in rural Louisiana that will dwarf Colossus 2 — and Manhattan’s Central Park.” Immediately afterward: “The company did not respond to a request for comment.”[2]

Beautiful. A named company. A named project. A memorable comparison. An opportunity to answer. The machinery of journalism appears to be running.

And then we arrive at Amazon, by which I mean we don’t.

Somewhere in the editorial process, this needed the church mother pause. Glasses lowered. Silence long enough for everybody to reconsider what they just said. “Now, you know better.”

Allow me to introduce you to Amazon

C’mon man.

Amazon. The company with a cloud business called Amazon Web Services. AWS. Those three letters should not require an archaeological expedition at the newspaper owned by Amazon’s founder.[3][4]

For a little perspective, Amazon announced an additional $15 billion for data-center campuses in northern Indiana. That followed an earlier $11 billion commitment in the same state.[4] These are announced investments, so let’s keep the accounting straight. They also give us twenty-six billion reasons to consider whether Amazon belongs in this conversation.

Perhaps the editor thought Amazon was a small local operation. A fellow named Jeff selling used paperbacks out of a garage, hoping this internet thing catches on.

I’m being precise about what’s missing: Amazon isn’t named in this written piece. I’m not claiming to have identified the operator of every building in every satellite image. A building’s possible appearance somewhere in the imagery would still leave the reader without the ownership disclosure.

A story cannot name every company. Fine. But when your owner founded and chairs a major company in the industry you’re covering, you owe readers a disclosure.

This is what makes the omission feel like such a gross fucking troll. The paper is inviting us to inspect everybody else’s landscape while stepping around its own backyard.

Eight words. Was that so damn hard?

April 13, 2026. Same newspaper:

“Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.”[5]

Eight words. I went ahead and counted them because apparently we’re dealing with a production challenge that requires outside assistance.

What happened? Did the parentheses go down? Was there a ticket? Is somebody in IT explaining that the disclosure module won’t be available until Thursday?

The paper has already demonstrated the ability to tell readers this. The sentence exists. It has survived contact with a publishing system. We can retire the possibility that ownership disclosure requires a technology humanity has yet to invent.

And the standard is modest. Put the relationship where the reader can see it, at the moment the relationship matters. Let us decide what weight to give it.

Readers shouldn’t have to maintain a billionaire family tree beside the morning coffee. You know who signs the checks. We deserve the relevant information without having to crawl underneath the masthead with a flashlight.

You could have handled this in eight words. Now we’re out here counting them like somebody shorted the collection plate.

What next, an investigation into billionaire newspaper owners?

This would make a helluva follow-up.

A major American newspaper examines whether a billionaire’s ownership affects what the public gets to read. There could be charts. Perhaps an interactive graphic showing how close the publisher’s office is to the place where everyone insists editorial independence lives.

Sources should be easy to locate.

In February 2025, Bezos directed the Post’s opinion section to support “personal liberties and free markets,” saying “viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”[6]

That instruction concerned the opinion section. It doesn’t establish what happened with Schaul’s news article. It does make a reader’s question about ownership a fairly reasonable one.

The owner publicly gave an editorial direction. We are allowed to remember it when assessing the institution. Memory remains available to people without a newsroom login.

WashPost, Musk gets named. Meta gets named. Amazon gets the witness protection program. Stop the cap. Put the fucking disclosure in the story.

So yes, WashPost, commission the billionaire-owner story. Name names. Explain the arrangements. Quote the owner’s instructions. Ask who benefits when readers have to discover relevant relationships on their own.

You’ve already got a promising local source.

We can still read the machinery

The insult here is the assumption built into the finished product which is that readers can be trusted to appreciate an elaborate visual presentation while supplying the inconvenient context themselves.

We notice who gets a name. We notice who gets a request for comment. We notice when a newspaper’s own relationship to the subject somehow fails to make the trip into the copy.

C’mon. You brought satellites to a story and left us to find the man who owns the paper.

That Corvette is still in my head. Beautiful bodywork. Decades of polish. Lift the hood and the machinery remains understandable.

The public can read the machinery, too. We can recognize a relevant financial relationship. We can ask why it wasn’t disclosed. And we can expect an answer from the editor who approved the piece.

Kevin, keep smiling if you need to.

I’m already under the hood.

About that darkness

Democracy dies in darkness, WashPost? Then quit making the public hunt for the light switch.[2]

SUPPRESSED NEWS. That’s why I built the XVOA app. A dedicated feed, exclusive to the app, for stories people in power have tried to bury. You get the reporting and the sources to examine the evidence yourself.

Reader support is helping build a weapon against darkness you can carry in your pocket. The app is in beta, with three-minute reads, alerts, and another route for XVOA to reach you if Substack becomes unavailable.

Become a paid XVOA subscriber⁠ to help finance the reporting and the app.

Help Keep This Desk Keepin On

For one-time support, there’s Buy Me a Coffee⁠.

Buy Me A Coffee

P.S. Already a paid subscriber and want to help beta test? Reply in the comments with BETA, and I’ll send the invitation details.

Sources

1. Chevrolet: Small-Block Engine History⁠.

2. Kevin Schaul, The Washington Post: “See how data centers are changing the American landscape,” September 28, 2026⁠.

3. Amazon investor relations: Jeffrey P. Bezos, Executive Chair⁠.

4. Amazon: Additional $15 billion investment in Indiana data centers⁠.

5. Prior Post disclosure⁠.

6. Associated Press: Bezos’s February 26, 2025, directive for The Washington Post’s opinion section⁠.

An Email With Something to Read

This one is for the readers who helped build Substack and somehow became an afterthought. I’m talking about you, the people who open the email.

You signed up to read. Somewhere along the way following a writer started coming with homework. Catch the livestream. Watch the replay. Find the clip. Meanwhile, there you were with an open email and the perfectly reasonable expectation that it might contain something to read.

XVOA kept that pipeline open through the Reader’s Cut. But as I ease back into publishing after being away for a minute, I’m setting even that format aside for this one. I wanted to sit down and write directly to you again so bear with me.

TLDR

• My January 9 essay argued that payback politics would turn Republican advantages into self-inflicted damage, as the appetite for punishment overtook the judgment required to hold on to power. [1]

• Atlanta lost Super Bowl LI after leading New England 28–3, demonstrating how unnecessary risks can help turn an overwhelming advantage into a collapse people will remind you about forever. [2]

• Karl Rove said he would vote for Democrat Jon Rosenthal after Bo French’s racist commentary about South Asian Texas football fans, turning a winning football game into a Republican argument about abandoning their own nominee. [3]

• Republican María Elvira Salazar said Trump’s immigration policies had gone too far and Hispanic supporters felt betrayed, putting the warning inside the coalition he needs to hold together. [4]

• Trump’s ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico produced collective resistance and a temporary court order restoring access, giving competing newsrooms a reason to coordinate against the administration trying to punish them. [5][6]

Restack this and send it to somebody who remembers the victory speeches. The January warning and what happened afterward belong in this same conversation.

If you value reporting that returns to its predictions and checks them against the record, become a paid subscriber⁠. Paid support gives me time to do that work.

Buy Me Time To Do This Work

Already backing XVOA, or avoiding another recurring bill? A contribution through Buy Me a Coffee⁠ helps keep the reporting moving.

Buy Me A Coffee

I Kept the January Receipt

Back on January 9, in Payback Always Leaves a Crime Scene⁠, I argued that the appetite for revenge would lead people with enormous power into decisions that undermined that power. They would keep escalating because making somebody suffer felt better than knowing when to stop. [1]

Now I want to put that warning beside what has happened since. I also want a little credit for recognizing the pattern before its consequences became harder to ignore. There. I said it. I promised to come back stronger. I made no promises about coming back humble.

That January essay came out of Minneapolis, after Renee Good’s killing and the administration’s rush to defend it. I wrote about power that injures somebody, supplies a story to justify the injury, then demands that everyone accept the story. Each challenge becomes another enemy to punish. Eventually, leadership is spending its authority defending the consequences of its own conduct.

“Your biggest threat is your own unforced error.” That was my warning. Republicans had enormous institutional advantages. They also had an audience that expected those advantages to be used to make somebody pay. Keeping that audience satisfied could require decisions that made governing harder. Ya’ll, that was the problem I was pointing at.

Subscribe now

Atlanta Would Like a Word

In the same essay, I reached for Atlanta’s collapse in Super Bowl LI. The Falcons led 28–3 and lost 34–28. Even if your main interest in football is the halftime band at an HBCU homecoming, you understand that kind of lead. A late sack and holding penalty helped take Atlanta out of scoring position. New England took advantage. [2]

The Gatorade is what players dump over a winning coach. Any spades player knows the person talking the most s*** halfway through a hand is volunteering to have the final score read back to him very slowly. I recognize the danger to my own position here. Keep reading.

The problem with building a movement around payback is that winning never quite pays the bill. You won the election, but somebody is still protesting. You got the power, but somebody is still laughing at you. The demand is for submission, and there are millions of people who have no intention of supplying it. So every act of resistance becomes an excuse for another escalation. The people promising to restore order keep manufacturing the disorder they need to justify themselves.

Apparently, Even Football Needed a Racial Grievance

Consider Texas Republican Bo French. He posted racist commentary about South Asian students celebrating a University of Texas football victory, treating their appearance as evidence they were foreigners displacing Americans. Karl Rove subsequently said he would vote for French’s Democratic opponent, Jon Rosenthal. French doubled down and questioned his Republican critics’ conservatism. Trump attacked Rove. [3]

The students’ belonging was never Rove’s to award. His announced defection matters because it exposes a cost inside the Republican coalition. French managed to turn a photograph of people cheering for Texas into an argument among Republicans about whether their own nominee deserved their votes. C’mon. There was a perfectly serviceable football celebration available. He needed a racial grievance.

The Voters Were Supposed to Applaud

Then came Republican Representative María Elvira Salazar’s September 17 campaign message to Trump. His immigration policies had gone too far, she said. Hispanic voters who helped elect him felt betrayed. That is her assessment, delivered while seeking reelection. She was publicly warning the president about damage to support his party needed. [4]

In January, I wrote: “Every act of cruelty performed for applause becomes a clip that builds the coalition you were trying to prevent.” And then there’s the little matter of the electorate. Trump’s approval stood at 32 percent in the September 17–20 Reuters/Ipsos poll, with Democrats ahead 43–35 among registered voters on congressional preference. His war against Iran keeps sending higher fuel bills home. [11] Apparently, we’re all expected to chip in for the victory party.

By August, senior Republicans were privately anticipating losing the House, possibly the Senate. [12] A “fait accompli” mood, courtesy of their own president. Cook now has Republicans on track to lose the House and Senate control at a toss-up. [13][14] I’m trying to conduct my victory dance with the dignity this moment deserves. It’s difficult when their own side keeps requesting the music.

That’s why I read Trump’s election maneuvers as an effort to cheat his way around the verdict he fears. His administration tried to impose new mail-ballot requirements that would have allowed the Postal Service to refuse ballot delivery to states that didn’t comply. The Supreme Court kept those restrictions blocked for the midterms on September 14. [15]

C’mon. When the man at the spades table starts rewriting the rules halfway through the hand, you don’t need to see his cards. That January phrase, “panic disguised as aggression,” keeps finding work. [1]

The Last Word, Now With No Audio

And then there was the press ban. On September 18, Trump excluded CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House over coverage he disliked. The television pool suspended its shared coverage. On September 24, a judge temporarily ordered the outlets’ access restored. [5][6]

The White House promoted its own livestream as an alternative. At the helipad ceremony, the audio was inaudible. A presidency demanding the last word had arranged a broadcast where nobody could hear it. C’mon. [5]

The original essay described leaders who “stop playing to win the long game and start playing to satisfy the crowd in the stands.” Here was the performance, followed by its cost: punishment of selected newsrooms helped produce collective resistance and a court order against the administration. He wanted control over how the press covered him. He gave competing organizations a reason to coordinate against him.

Supremacy Keeps Calling the Same Play

The January essay’s Reconstruction discussion asked what happens when the struggle over power overwhelms the work required to make freedom durable. Black historical memory gives us reasons to study what powerful people do after they believe the argument has been settled. [1]

The Confederacy tried to secure slavery through secession and war. Its defeat helped destroy the institution it existed to preserve. [7][8] Jim Crow’s defenders used public violence to enforce their authority; organizers turned that violence into evidence that helped mobilize the country against them. [9] The Third Reich’s racial ambitions drove a war of conquest that ended with Allied armies destroying the regime. [10] Those victories required people to fight, at terrible cost. The systems’ own choices helped produce the conditions of their defeat.

Payback politics carries the machinery of its own collapse. White supremacy keeps providing the fuel. That is the pattern I see in MAGA’s unraveling. Supremacy makes the possibility of correction feel like an insult. When people believe domination is their due, a limit becomes something they must punish. They can possess extraordinary power and still keep reaching for the next unnecessary confrontation.

A Brief Pause for My Victory Dance

I called that “panic disguised as aggression” in January. I’m watching the examples accumulate now. Ya’ll can allow me a small “you better say that” from the back of the room before the ushers remind me other people need this microphone.

Being right about destructive people carries a lousy reward. People still have to live with the damage. Elections still have to be won, rights defended, and openings turned into lasting change. I want this return to your inbox to give us somewhere to think through that work together. For the moment, I have my January receipt and a little satisfaction. Keep the damn lid on that cooler.

Help XVOA Keep the Lights On

The January argument is still there for anyone to examine. Keeping that record, checking what follows, and writing directly to you takes time. A paid subscription helps fund it⁠.

Help Me Keep The Lights On

Thank you to the readers already backing XVOA. If you prefer a one-time contribution, or want to add to your existing support, Buy Me a Coffee⁠ keeps that option open.

Buy Me A Coffee

Sources

1. Xplisset — Payback Always Leaves a Crime Scene⁠. The January 9 argument and quotations revisited here.

2. Atlanta Falcons — Super Bowl LI recap⁠. The 28–3 lead, late errors, and overtime loss.

3. KERA / The Texas Tribune — Karl Rove’s announced vote against Bo French⁠. French’s racist post and the Republican response.

4. El País — Salazar’s September 17 immigration message⁠. Her warning about Hispanic voters feeling betrayed.

5. Reuters — News outlets challenge the White House ban⁠. The joint lawsuit, suspended pool coverage, and inaudible White House stream.

6. Knight First Amendment Institute — CNN v. Trump⁠. The September 24 temporary order restoring access.

7. National Park Service — Confronting Slavery and Revealing the Lost Cause⁠. Slavery’s central role in secession.

8. National Park Service — Emancipation and the Quest for Freedom⁠. The Civil War and slavery’s destruction.

9. U.S. House of Representatives — The Voting Rights Act of 1965⁠. Selma, public violence, and support for federal action.

10. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum — The Soviet Union and the Eastern Front⁠. Nazi racial conquest and the war that helped destroy the regime.

11. Reuters: Trump approval falls to record low of 32% as high costs bite⁠, September 21, 2026.

12. Axios: Republican outlook⁠.

13. Cook Political Report: GOP on Track to Lose House Majority as 15 Race Ratings Shift Towards Dems⁠, September 25, 2026.

14. Cook Political Report: The Fight for the Senate Is a True Toss Up; Three Races Shift Toward Democrats⁠, September 23, 2026.

15. Associated Press: Supreme Court rejects Trump mail ballot restrictions for now ahead of midterms⁠, September 14, 2026.

I held off on writing this one. Why?

As I told one of my subscribers who reached out to me as I was recovering from the most debilitating pain I ever experienced, “I do not want to freak out my readers.” This was not just a cold or flu. Colds and flus grants its victims escape in the form of sleep. This was the kind of jaw dropping pain that turns you into a prisoner physically and mentally. Oh boy here we go drifting into TMI territory here. Suffice it to say that I discovered the pain relieving properties of ice packs and that combined with a couple of back to back doctors visits have put me down the path to recovery. I feel like I owe my readers somewhat of an explanation. It’s time to start publishing again.

Subscribe now

Don’t think for one second I’ve just been sitting next to my crutches staring into space. Ok, I lied. For the most part that’s exactly what I’ve been doing because that’s just about all I could do. Yet, even as I stared into space I thought about you. Yes you reading this. All of you. From the reader who restacked my work far and wide and showed up in the comments or simply left a heart to the reader who felt compelled to support this media operation with funds even though they might’ve been stretched thin.

That was my motivation to determine to come back stronger with tools at my disposal to back it up. If I couldn’t publish in my condition I could work on systems on the backend of this publication to help organize and schedule these pieces as well as processes to surface not just breaking news but news that has either been ignored or suppressed. So at least my sick days weren’t time wasted.

Remember that chat where I floated the idea of an app that would feature suppressed content? I forged ahead with it and I’ve got a working prototype that also will feature 3 minute reads of every posted article in the publication. Maybe I’m being just a little modest by calling it a prototype. I’ve tested and revised it dozens of times to fix bugs and other imperfections. It’s in the Apple Store but I have not made it public yet.

It would be ill advised to pull that trigger until its been beta tested by someone other than myself.. That’s where you come in. If you are a paying subscriber and you want to help contribute by helping shape the design of an app that will become an essential tool in shining the light unto the darkness of the news media space, then express your interest in the comments below.

In the meantime, I’m going to keep testing my backend system by putting it through real world applications. This article is the first test case of whether this is a more efficient workflow.

Normal operations shall resume this week. Trust me I’m eager to get back into the indie media space and try to make sense of a world on edge and falling apart at the seams.

Listen, it’s paid subscriptions that gives me the time to focus my time on creating the systems and yes even apps to get to the bottom of the stories mainstream media ignores and even suppresses. Join this fight and get a paid subscription.

Help XVOA Keep The Lights On

If you cannot for whatever reason commit to a subscription then a one time contribution via Buy Me coffee is much appreciated and will be put to good use exposing deception in mainstream media and exposing the truths they wish to keep buried.

Buy Me A Coffee

The sentence that stayed with me after my conversation with was not about a chatbot, a billionaire, or some promised artificial superintelligence. It was her description of Black women as the country’s best risk managers. Black women, she argued, are often the first to recognize the harm coming through a workplace, a political movement, or a new technology because we are usually among the first people expected to absorb it.

That observation tied together a conversation that moved from Dr. Timnit Gebru’s warnings about large language models to Laura Loomer’s public attacks on Black women, from Jason Black’s contempt for Black women’s freedom to a lawsuit challenging Workday’s hiring tools. These subjects can look unrelated when the internet chops them into clips. They are connected by a question that institutions keep avoiding: What happens when the person who identifies the risk has less power than the person creating it?

Gloria Steinem’s death at 92 gave the broadcasting an unexpected historical frame. Her place in the women’s movement matters, but neither Jones nor I wanted one famous white woman to become the whole history of feminism. The more urgent issue was what solidarity requires now, especially when Black women are expected to warn everybody, protect everybody, and then accept being treated as the problem.1⁠

TLDR

• Bias does not begin inside the machine. Large language models learn from human-created data, which means the hierarchies, exclusions, and stereotypes of the source material can travel into the system at scale.2⁠

• Black women are treated as alarms that can be fired. Jones connected Gebru’s exit from Google to a familiar workplace pattern: an institution hires a Black woman to identify risk, then resents her when the warning reaches the institution’s power center.3⁠

• Misogynoir supplies cultural training data. The rhetoric aimed at Black women by Laura Loomer and Jason Black does more than insult individuals. It reduces Black women to racial and sexual types that can be dismissed before their arguments are heard.1⁠

• Automated decisions do not erase responsibility. The Workday litigation remains unresolved, but courts have allowed significant discrimination claims to proceed, and the EEOC has argued that an AI vendor may be covered by federal anti-discrimination law when its tools effectively act for employers.4⁠

• An audit trail is not the same as accountability. Flock says searches in its license-plate-reader system are logged, yet documented cases show that officers have been accused of using surveillance databases to monitor women for personal reasons.5⁠

• Governance has to arrive before deployment. Risk assessment, independent audits, narrow access, enforceable consequences, and meaningful authority for affected communities cannot be optional repairs after harm occurs.

Restack this report, share it, and send it to one person who still believes technology can somehow rise above the politics, labor, and prejudices of the people who build it. The evidence is easier to ignore when it remains trapped inside a livestream.

Ashley E. Jones on Misogynoir, AI and Power: Watch by Chapter

Tap any timestamp to jump directly to that moment in the full broadcast.

1 | THE FRAME AND THE HISTORY

• 0:00⁠ — Timnit Gebru on the limits of dominant AI research

• 0:36⁠ — XVOA opens the broadcast

• 0:46⁠ — Ashley E. Jones joins the conversation

• 2:20⁠ — Sovereign Made Co. and governance-forward technology

• 3:57⁠ — Remembering Gloria Steinem without erasing other women

• 5:39⁠ — Black women inside the history of feminism

2 | WHO BUILDS THE MACHINE

• 7:09⁠ — Timnit Gebru on hegemonic data

• 7:44⁠ — How human bias enters AI training data

• 11:44⁠ — The social cost of one corporate AI future

• 12:34⁠ — Retaliation against Black women who identify risk

• 16:20⁠ — How institutions devalue Black women’s warnings

• 19:21⁠ — Timnit Gebru: technology is political

• 19:59⁠ — Why technology cannot escape politics

• 22:23⁠ — Tech leadership without independent accountability

• 25:46⁠ — The audience enters the discussion

3 | MISOGYNOIR AS TRAINING DATA

• 26:24⁠ — Laura Loomer attacks Black women in public life

• 27:14⁠ — Misogynoir and dehumanizing racial tropes

• 30:08⁠ — Loomer’s written attack

• 30:22⁠ — Racist rhetoric becomes a political weapon

• 31:17⁠ — Jason Black attacks Black women commentators

• 33:31⁠ — Contempt presented as political analysis

• 34:45⁠ — Black women described as post-emancipation “free radicals”

• 35:09⁠ — When Black women’s freedom becomes the alleged threat

• 37:17⁠ — Womanism and the limits of mainstream feminism

• 40:08⁠ — Solidarity, discomfort and the live audience

4 | WHEN SOFTWARE MAKES DECISIONS

• 45:22⁠ — Ashley Jones’s “Two Can Play That Game”

• 47:43⁠ — The Workday lawsuit and algorithmic hiring bias

• 53:51⁠ — AI, employment data and pay discrimination

• 55:36⁠ — Flock cameras and surveillance abuse

• 1:01:15⁠ — What accountability for surveillance should require

• 1:04:36⁠ — Misusing law-enforcement databases

• 1:07:21⁠ — Facial-recognition failures and Black faces

• 1:08:10⁠ — Competing with China without abandoning Americans

• 1:10:18⁠ — Technology companies, privacy and child safety

5 | WRITING, EDUCATION AND THE LINE

• 1:12:23⁠ — AI allegations against Black authors

• 1:16:15⁠ — Should young students use generative AI?

• 1:20:08⁠ — Final questions and closing thoughts

The Warning Becomes the Offense

Ashley E Jones is a Chicago based strategist and writer who works at the intersection of artificial intelligence, human resources, and business operations. She founded Sovereign Made Co., which she describes as an intelligent-infrastructure company built around governance. That word, governance, is important because the public conversation about AI is still dominated by capability: what the model can write, imitate, classify, predict, or automate. Jones keeps returning to a different question: who authorized it to act, and who has the power to stop it?

Her answer begins with the people institutions usually place closest to harm but farthest from final authority. She called Black women “the best risk managers in the country,” not because of some mystical capacity, but because survival requires pattern recognition. The employee who notices the discriminatory shortcut, the patient who recognizes that a protocol was not built with her body in mind, or the citizen who knows a new surveillance power will not be used evenly is performing risk analysis before the institution has admitted that a risk exists.

The trouble begins when the warning touches revenue, prestige, or executive control. A company may celebrate diversity while the conversation stays ceremonial. Once a Black woman says the product itself is unsafe, the data is distorted, or leadership has misunderstood the people who will bear the consequences, her expertise can be recoded as hostility. The institution hires the alarm and then punishes it for making noise.

The Internet Is Not All Human Knowledge

The broadcast opened with Gebru challenging the assumption that a massive dataset represents humanity merely because it is large. The internet is not a neutral archive of every culture, language, and experience. Access is unequal, participation is unequal, and the most visible material often reflects the priorities of people with the greatest technical and economic power. The 2021 “Stochastic Parrots” paper that Gebru coauthored warned about the environmental costs, undocumented training data, embedded bias, and false appearance of meaning produced by very large language models.2⁠

Jones translated that research into a plain institutional problem. If similar people build the systems, choose the data, define success, and judge the results, their worldview will not remain outside the model. It becomes part of the model’s operating environment. Diversity at the bottom of an organization does not solve this when dissent cannot alter the release schedule, stop a deployment, or force an audit.

Gebru’s departure from Google remains a disputed corporate episode in its particulars. Gebru said she was fired after the company demanded that a critical paper be withdrawn or stripped of the names of Google employees; Google described the separation differently. What is not disputed is that she left in 2020 after a conflict over research that challenged the direction of large-scale language technology.3⁠ That history gave Jones’s risk-manager argument its sharpest example: expertise is welcome until it threatens the institution that employs it.

Misogynoir Does Not Stay in the Comment Section

Dr. Moya Bailey coined “misogynoir” to name the specific combination of anti-Black racism and misogyny directed at Black women. The broadcast examined two different examples. One came from far-right activist Laura Loomer, who used degrading racial language to attack Black women in public life.

The other came from Jason Black, host of The Black Authority, a long-form Black political-commentary channel launched in 2009 that had approximately 181,000 subscribers at publication. He is an established voice within a segment of Black YouTube where politics, economics, Black nationalism, and male-female “dynamics” are discussed in broadcasts that can run for hours. That reach is why his rhetoric belongs in the record. He is not some anonymous account shouting into an empty comment section; he has an audience, an archive, and a media platform capable of presenting contempt for Black women as serious political instruction.

The most revealing Jason Black clip was not merely an insult. It was a historical argument in which enslaved Black women were described as property who had once been controlled and contained, while emancipation turned them into “free radicals.” That language identifies the alleged disorder as Black female freedom itself. Once that premise is accepted, a Black woman who speaks, organizes, refuses male authority, or possesses a public platform can be treated as evidence that something has gone wrong.

Jones’ response was both political and personal. Loomer’s targets, she said, were her sisters because the attack was aimed at a category larger than any one official. Her analysis also exposed why political misogynoir belongs in a discussion about AI. Systems do not need to “hate” Black women in a human sense to reproduce a culture’s hierarchy. They need only be trained, tuned, evaluated, or deployed inside institutions where the hierarchy has already been normalized.

The Workday Case and the Disappearing Decision-Maker

Jones’ essay “Two Can Play That Game” examines how applicants can use AI to analyze job descriptions, identify gaps in a résumé, and better understand the screening systems standing between them and a human reviewer. The strategy is practical, but it carries an ugly irony. People who suspect that an automated system is screening them unfairly may need another automated system simply to make themselves legible to it.

Jones brought up the Workday lawsuit because it sits at the center of what she has been writing about which is that job applicants using AI to navigate automated systems may be getting screening out. Her essay “Two Can Play That Game” describes using AI to analyze a job description against a résumé, expose gaps, and translate legitimate experience into language an applicant-tracking system is more likely to recognize. She calls the strategy “using AI to fight AI.” The immediate objective is painfully modest: survive the automated screening layer long enough for an actual person to see the application.

The lawsuit Jones referenced was filed by Derek Mobley, who alleged that Workday’s algorithmic tools discriminated against applicants based on race, age, and disability. The EEOC has not declared those allegations proven. Its amicus brief argued that a software vendor may qualify as an employment agency or an agent of employers when its tools perform consequential screening functions. Courts have allowed important portions of the case to proceed, while Workday denies that its products make discriminatory employment decisions.

Jones then pushed the problem beyond the algorithm. “Who is the human reviewing the résumé?” she asked. Getting past the software does not guarantee fair consideration if the recruiter inherits the same assumptions, trusts the machine’s ranking, or believes an automated rejection must be objective. Human review can become another layer of the same architecture rather than a safeguard against it.

Her larger point was that AI did not descend upon a clean employment system. “AI is not new,” she said. “They just put it on top of existing systems and architecture that was built by humans.” An employer selected the system, a vendor designed it, managers established the process, and recruiters acted on its results. Jones was not describing a decision with no owner. She was describing a chain of owners who can each point somewhere else when the outcome is challenged.

The Database Knows Who Asked

I raised Flock cameras with Jones because my years in law enforcement taught me what access to a criminal-justice database can make possible. Training expired, credentials could lapse, and an officer was supposed to be able to connect a search to legitimate official work. Flock’s network extends that power by allowing participating agencies to search recorded vehicle sightings. Jones immediately moved past what the technology could find and asked the question that governs every surveillance system: “Who is the one accessing that capability?”

Her concern was not abstract. She asked who built the software, what safeguards had been designed specifically for women, who could examine error rates, and whether anyone outside the deploying agency had meaningful auditing authority. “Just because you’re a police officer doesn’t mean you get to stalk your ex-wife,” she said. Flock says its searches are tied to individual users, preserved in audit logs, and available for agency review. A searchable log can preserve what happened, but accountability still depends upon somebody examining it before private curiosity becomes official surveillance.

A 2026 Washington Post analysis gave her concern a documented foundation. The newspaper found at least 50 law-enforcement officers who had been charged with or accused of misusing license-plate-reader and other databases, including to monitor women without their knowledge or consent. That number covered multiple systems and should not be misrepresented as 50 proven Flock violations. It nevertheless shows why Jones kept returning to access and enforcement. A department may possess an audit trail while leaving detection to a supervisor, a victim’s complaint, or the scandal that arrives after the surveillance has already occurred.

Jones called attention to the person with “god-level access,” the administrator or connected insider who can reach information ordinary people cannot. For her, the question is no longer simply how somebody obtained private information. It is who granted the access, what qualifications that person possessed, and what consequence followed when the privilege was abused. When public safety depends upon privately built infrastructure, government remains responsible for controlling another powerful actor.

She applied the same test to facial recognition. Who programmed the system, who decided it was ready, and who verified that it could accurately distinguish darker-skinned faces? NIST has measured demographic differences across many facial-recognition algorithms, including higher false-positive rates for African American faces in some one-to-one systems and especially serious disparities affecting African American women in many one-to-many searches. Performance varies across products, but the underlying demand Jones made remains valid: no agency should treat a vendor’s confidence score as neutral evidence when an error can become an accusation against a real person.Children Need Time to Learn the Work

Near the end of the broadcast, Jones and I turned to New York City’s new classroom policy. The precise action is a one-year moratorium during the 2026–27 school year on student-facing generative AI for children from 2-K through eighth grade. It is not a ban on every algorithm used by the school system. High schools may participate in a limited set of approved pilots while the city evaluates the technology.10⁠

Jones supported the moratorium because early education is supposed to build the ability to read, write, calculate, question, and show how an answer was reached. Her point was not that nobody should ever use AI. She uses it in her own company and described building agents, trackers, and workflows with it. The line she drew was developmental: a tool becomes dangerous when a child can obtain an answer before learning how to form the thought.

The same distinction applies to writers. During the livestream, I raised recent accusations about three Black novelists who had been accused of using AI. AI accusations can become a new way to question Black intellectual authorship, but each case must be examined on its own evidence. A punctuation mark, a detector score, or somebody’s disbelief that a Black writer produced polished work is not proof.

What Governance Would Actually Require

Jones rejects both blind optimism and helpless doom. AI can help a small business build tools, organize information, analyze patterns, and reduce work that would otherwise consume scarce time. The answer is not to pretend those benefits are imaginary. It is to stop treating benefit as a waiver of scrutiny.

Real governance would begin before public deployment. It would document the data, identify foreseeable harms, test performance across affected groups, limit collection and retention, separate development from independent review, and give auditors enough authority to delay or stop release. In employment and policing, it would also provide a meaningful path for a person to challenge a result rather than forcing her to argue with an institution that insists the machine is objective.

Most important, the people nearest the likely harm need decision-making power, not ceremonial representation. If a Black woman can describe exactly how a system will fail but cannot change its design, budget, access rules, or launch date, the institution has collected diversity without accepting governance. It wants the appearance of warning without the inconvenience of being warned.

Closing Argument

The thread running through this conversation is not that Laura Loomer, Jason Black, Workday, Google, Flock, and a school district are the same thing. The footage records Loomer’s and Black’s own words, while the Workday claims remain allegations in active litigation. Flock has audit mechanisms, even as officers’ alleged misuse demonstrates the limits of mechanisms without consistent enforcement, and New York City’s classroom moratorium remains a policy experiment whose results still have to be measured.

What connects them is the transfer of power from a stereotype, to a political weapon, to ordinary culture, and then into data, workplace judgment, product design, and enforcement practice. By the time somebody calls the outcome “technical,” the human choices that produced it have been spread across enough people and systems that everybody can claim the decision came from somewhere else.

Ashley Jones gave us a better standard. Listen to the people who find the danger early, and give them enough authority to do something about it. An institution that praises Black women’s resilience while denying Black women the power to prevent the next injury has merely learned how to budget for our pain.

Support XVOA

Paid subscriptions finance the time it takes to recover transcripts, check legal claims, distinguish allegations from findings, and turn a long livestream into reporting that remains public to everyone. Paid subscribers can also use Put XVOA On It to nominate questions and neglected stories for editorial consideration. They help aim the desk, while the reporting stays public. Become a paid XVOA subscriber⁠.

Help Keep The Lights On

Thank you to the readers already carrying this work. If another recurring subscription is not right for you, or if you are already paid and want to add direct support, Buy Me a Coffee⁠ accepts anything from a small contribution to a substantial one-time gift. Like, comment, share, and Restack this Reader’s Cut so the evidence travels farther than the original broadcast.

Sources

1. Full XVOA interview with Ashley E. Jones⁠
   The broadcast contains Jones’s statements, the brief discussion of Gloria Steinem’s death, and the Laura Loomer and Jason Black clips analyzed in this Reader’s Cut.

2. “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?”⁠
   The 2021 FAccT paper by Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell addresses training-data documentation, bias, environmental costs, and the risks of very large language models.

3. “What Really Happened When Google Ousted Timnit Gebru”⁠
   Wired documents the competing accounts of Gebru’s departure and the conflict over the “Stochastic Parrots” paper.

4. EEOC amicus brief in ⁠Mobley v. Workday, Inc.⁠
   The brief explains the agency’s position on how federal employment-discrimination law may apply to an AI screening vendor; it does not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s allegations.

5. Flock Safety License Plate Reader Policy⁠
   Flock describes its access controls, audit records, security measures, and recommended customer auditing.

6. Northwestern University on Moya Bailey and misogynoir⁠
   Northwestern explains Bailey’s coinage and definition of the term.

7. Ashley E. Jones, “Two Can Play That Game”⁠
   Jones’s essay describes using AI strategically inside an employment market shaped by automated screening.

8. “How rogue officers turned a nationwide camera network into a tool for stalking”⁠
   The Washington Post reviewed police and court records involving officers charged with or accused of misusing license-plate-reader and other databases.

9. NIST testimony on facial-recognition technology⁠
   NIST summarizes measured demographic differentials in face-recognition algorithms and the consequences of false positives.

10. New York City Public Schools guidance on AI and screen time⁠
    The policy establishes the 2026–27 student-facing generative-AI moratorium for 2-K through eighth grade and describes limited high-school pilots.

Harold had planned to be at Boy Scout camp, not watching the March on Washington. When that trip fell apart, he, his brother, his cousin and a friend pitched a tent in the friend’s backyard. A childish fight over a toy sent Harold into the house with Mrs. Lester, who sat him on her lap and tried to quiet him. King’s voice filled the room, and the crying and consoling stopped as they listened.

Sixty-three years later, Harold joined me to consider another March on Washington, this one organized under the banner Defend the Vote. Our conversation kept returning to a question larger than whether the speeches sounded good: could remembrance be converted into power?

That is a hard question because America is very comfortable with the dream once the dreamer is dead. It can quote King, photograph the Lincoln Memorial and praise the courage of people who already paid the bill. A living movement presents a different problem. A living movement needs a demand, a mechanism and somebody prepared to use leverage.

Subscribe now

TLDR

• The 1963 march was not a pageant. More than 250,000 people came to Washington for jobs, freedom and federal action, and march leaders carried specific demands into a meeting with President John F. Kennedy.[1]

• Harold’s memory begins before the monument became safe. He remembers hearing King at eleven, entering a white junior high school two years later and carrying a lifelong “yearning to be free” into journalism, law and public service.

• The 2026 crowd returned with an urgent voting-rights charge. Thousands gathered at the Lincoln Memorial amid new threats to Black political representation and federal voting protections.[2]

• Hakeem Jeffries named the right bill. He called for passage of the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, legislation designed to restore and update protections weakened by court decisions.[3]

• Naming the bill was not the same as explaining how to pass it. Neither Jeffries’s prepared remarks nor the closing electoral appeal supplied a deadline, a pressure campaign, a legislative route or a consequence for obstruction.[4]

Restack this report, share it, and send it to one person who has heard enough commemorative language and wants to examine the machinery. The value here is not another replay of a famous day. It is the standard Harold’s testimony gives us for judging what leaders do with its inheritance.

March on Washington 2026: Watch by Chapter

1 | WHEN HISTORY ENTERED THE ROOM

• 0:00 — CBS 1963: Did the March Move Congress?

• 0:36 — A Living March Arrives With Demands

• 1:45 — Harold Michael Harvey Remembers Hearing King at Eleven

• 7:17 — Integrating Lanier Junior High in 1965

• 13:00 — “I Always Had a Yearning to Be Free”

• 13:44 — The Promissory Note America Prefers to Forget

2 | THE CRAFT OF RESISTANCE

• 16:47 — Harold’s Path Through Black Journalism

• 20:25 — Freaknik Lawyer and the Craft of Resistance

3 | WHAT RETURNED TO WASHINGTON

• 24:58 — From Memory to the 2026 March on Washington

• 25:22 — WUSA9 Reports From the Lincoln Memorial

• 26:24 — Harold Reads the Crowd’s Yearning to Be Free

• 27:26 — From Public Accommodations to Voting Rights

4 | LEADERSHIP UNDER EXAMINATION

• 34:44 — Hakeem Jeffries Names the National Emergency

• 35:53 — Diagnosis Is Not a Leadership Plan

• 39:24 — Jeffries Invokes a Moral Army

• 41:09 — The Bill Is Named. Where Is the Leverage?

5 | THE CLOSING TEST

• 43:16 — “Win Back the House” as the Plan

• 43:41 — Is Jeffries Cosplaying Leadership?

• 44:24 — Remembrance and Response Are Not the Same

The Boy Who Stopped Crying

Harold’s recollection of August 28, 1963, does not begin with a marble monument or a textbook quotation. It begins with waffles, eggs, milk, a backyard tent and a scuffle over a toy. That ordinary setting gives the memory its force because history reached him before it had been polished into history.

When King finished speaking, Harold remembered looking up at Mrs. Lester and feeling that “something had shifted.” For eleven years, he said, the facts around him had taught him that Black people might never be treated as first-class citizens. The speech altered what the child thought was possible, even as the segregated world outside the room remained intact.

Then came another lesson. On September 15, 1963, the Ku Klux Klan bombing of Birmingham’s Sixteenth Street Baptist Church killed four Black girls and injured others. Harold heard the news while preparing for Sunday school. The sequence stayed with him: a national promise at the Lincoln Memorial, then racial terror directed at children in a church.

That sequence matters because it keeps nostalgia from lying. The movement did not travel from King’s speech to legislative victory on applause alone. The Civil Rights Act became law in 1964. In 1965, peaceful voting-rights marchers were beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, and the Voting Rights Act was signed five months later.[5] Moral clarity mattered. So did organization, confrontation, sacrifice and the creation of a political cost that Washington could no longer evade.

Harold entered that history personally. In 1965, he was among the Black students who integrated the public schools of Bibb County, Georgia. Asked whether King’s speech caused him to walk into Lanier Junior High School for Boys, he resisted the clean version of the story.

“I always had a yearning to be free,” he told me. “I always had a yearning to do what white folks told me I could never do.”

That correction is important. King did not manufacture Black people’s desire for freedom. Harold said King articulated a yearning already alive in the community and gave it national force. A leader’s work is not to invent the people’s need, then pose as its owner. The work is to name it, organize it and help turn it into action.

The Part of the Dream America Misplaces

Harold also returned us to the opening movement of King’s address, the part that public memory often leaves behind when it races toward the children holding hands. King stood before the Lincoln Memorial and described the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as a promissory note. America had defaulted on that note for its Black citizens, he said, and the marchers had come to cash the check.[6]

King’s metaphor transformed patriotism into an account payable. The country had written down the obligation in its founding documents, withheld the proceeds and then acted surprised when Black citizens arrived to collect. Harold hears in those lines a material claim about repair, restitution and the conditions required for actual freedom.

Mahalia Jackson’s famous call, “Tell them about the dream, Martin,” helped push King into the improvised passage the nation remembers best. The dream was not false, and Harold was not dismissing it. He was warning that America prefers the portion that asks it to imagine racial harmony over the portion that presents the unpaid bill. The dream can be commemorated without surrendering power, while the promissory note requires an accounting.

That tension followed us into the 2026 march. The official event brought the National Action Network, the Drum Major Institute and a coalition of more than ninety organizations back to the Lincoln Memorial on the sixty-third anniversary of the original gathering.[2] A local WUSA9 report showed thousands assembled near the memorial and interviewed participants who described gerrymandering, the erosion of political power and the obligations they carried from earlier generations.[7]

One Washington resident, Ralph Tobin, had attended the 1963 march as a two-year-old with his father. He returned carrying that family legacy and wept as he spoke. Harold said the report captured the crowd’s “yearning to be free.” What had changed was the immediate battleground. Public accommodations and jobs were central demands in 1963. In 2026, the march placed voting rights and Black political representation at the center.

A Bill Was Named. The Leverage Was Not.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries gave the day one of its clearest inventories of the emergency. He cited a reckless war, an out-of-control Supreme Court, rising Black unemployment, falling Black homeownership and an assault on Black political representation. Those were substantive charges, not empty scene-setting.

Jeffries then invoked a long moral army: Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Jackie Robinson, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Muhammad Ali, Fannie Lou Hamer, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Shirley Chisholm and John Lewis. He said it was time to get into “good trouble,” and he eventually attached that tradition to a specific legislative objective: passage of the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.[4]

The bill matters. House Democrats introduced H.R. 14 in 2025, and Senate Democrats reintroduced companion legislation later that year. Its core provisions would restore a form of federal preclearance for jurisdictions with records of voting-rights violations, create review rules for certain election changes and strengthen protections against discriminatory practices.[3] After the Supreme Court’s April 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais further narrowed the use of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in redistricting, restoring federal protection is not a ceremonial concern.[8]

I did not dismiss Jeffries for naming the bill. The harder inquiry was operational: how did Democratic leaders intend to move it, what leverage would they use, what deadline applied and what were they prepared to risk if Republicans blocked it? The audience also deserved to know what citizens were being asked to do besides show up, stand up and vote Democratic in November.

Those questions were not answered in the speech. Jeffries closed by urging the crowd to keep speaking up and help Democrats win control of the House on November 3. That is an electoral objective, but it is not a complete legislative strategy. Winning the House would not by itself produce a Senate majority willing to move the bill, a presidential signature, a preclearance formula that survives judicial review or a plan for countering state action before the next Congress convenes.

Harold heard the same absence. King, in his telling, began with America’s debt and then joined moral vision to a movement capable of creating consequences. Jeffries correctly described the crisis and named a remedy. What the audience did not receive was the machinery connecting one to the other.

This is where commemoration can become camouflage even when every speaker is sincere. The names of dead freedom fighters confer moral authority on a stage. They do not automatically confer strategic authority on the people using them. If a leader summons Douglass, Hamer, Chisholm and Lewis, the fair question is what that leader is pledging that is commensurate with the inheritance.

Harold’s Standard

Harold’s life supplies a demanding answer. The child who heard King went on to help integrate a white school. The college columnist became a managing editor at a Black newspaper and won recognition for documenting the burning of a school that had educated generations of Black residents. He later practiced law and represented young people arrested during Freaknik, work he describes in his memoir Freaknik Lawyer: A Memoir on the Craft of Resistance.[9]

None of those episodes is reducible to inspiration. They required a person to enter an institution, identify who was being failed and accept the cost of acting. That is the craft Harold keeps returning to. Freedom is a yearning, but resistance is work.

The 2026 march should be judged by that standard, not by whether it reproduced the emotional atmosphere of 1963. Thousands of people showed up, civil-rights organizations assembled a national coalition, participants named a real danger and Jeffries put a real bill into the public record. Those are not trivial accomplishments.

But the missing questions remain. Which districts and communities face the most immediate harm after Callais? What federal, state and local litigation is already underway? What is the whip count for H.R. 14 and its Senate companion? What must happen before November, and what changes if Democrats win only one chamber? Which organizations are coordinating voter protection, registration, legal defense and direct pressure? A march becomes political force when people leave knowing where to apply themselves next.

In Conclusion

What is proven is that the March on Washington of 2026 placed voting rights before the country, drew thousands to the Lincoln Memorial and gave the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act a prominent national platform. What is also proven is that Jeffries’s published remarks did not provide a detailed route for moving that legislation or an immediate action plan beyond public engagement and winning the House.

What Harold’s testimony strongly suggests is that the distance between memory and power has always been filled by organized pressure. The 1963 march helped move the country because it belonged to a larger campaign with demands, institutions, local organizers and consequences. The speech became immortal, but the movement did the work.

That is the standard to carry forward. Do not ask only whether a leader can name the crisis, quote the ancestors or identify a bill. Ask who has the votes, who holds the lever, what the deadline is, what obstruction will cost and what the people are being organized to do tomorrow morning.

A dream can orient a movement. It cannot substitute for a plan.

Support XVOA

XVOA does this work in public because the evidence should not disappear behind a payment screen. If you want a capable Black-led intelligence desk to keep examining the space between political language and political machinery, become a paid subscriber⁠.

Help Keep The Lights On

Paid subscribers can also use Put XVOA On It to nominate a story or institution for editorial consideration. The reporting stays public and the conclusions remain independent.

Current paid supporters, thank you for financing the desk. Readers who do not want another recurring commitment, or paid members who want to add direct support, can use Buy Me a Coffee⁠.

Like, comment, share and Restack this report so the questions travel farther than the ceremony.

Sources

1. National Archives: Official Program for the March on Washington⁠. Documents the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, its scale, program and political demands.

2. Reuters: Thousands march in Washington as leaders warn of voting and civil-rights rollbacks⁠. Reports the scale, organizers, speakers and voting-rights purpose of the 2026 march.

3. Senator Dick Durbin: John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act reintroduced⁠. Describes the legislation’s reintroduction and principal protections.

4. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries: Remarks at the 2026 March on Washington⁠. Provides the official text and video of Jeffries’s speech.

5. U.S. Department of Justice: History of Federal Voting Rights Laws⁠. Establishes the Voting Rights Act’s passage, enforcement structure and historical context.

6. Martin Luther King Jr. Research and Education Institute: “I Have a Dream”⁠. Supplies the speech history and King’s promissory-note argument.

7. WUSA9: Sixty-three years after the 1963 March, thousands gather to defend the vote⁠. Reports from the Lincoln Memorial and records participants’ accounts, including Ralph Tobin’s.

8. U.S. Supreme Court: ⁠Louisiana v. Callais⁠. Provides the Court’s April 29, 2026 ruling on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and race-conscious redistricting.

9. Harold Michael Harvey: About⁠. Provides background on Harvey’s journalism, legal work, writing and civil-rights history.

Gary, Indiana, would not let the story end that neatly, and that is why this Reader’s Cut exists. It is not a transcript or a quick recap. It is the expanded, sourced written edition of the video, rebuilt for readers who want the complete argument, the context and the receipts in one place. You can skip the video and lose nothing essential; if you watched it, this is where the reporting slows down enough to show what the footage exposed.

Gary, Indiana, would not let the story end that neatly.

The August 11 derecho produced widespread winds of 70 to more than 100 miles per hour across northeastern Illinois and northwestern Indiana. The National Weather Service recorded a 99-mile-per-hour gust at Gary/Chicago International Airport and confirmed eight tornadoes within its Chicago forecast area. [1]⁠ That was catastrophic physical damage, plain enough not to need exaggeration.

But the same storm does not create the same emergency in every household. A generator, a reliable car, hotel money, nearby family and an employer who can tolerate an absence all purchase distance from a disaster. Without those things, you remain inside it. That is where this story stops being only about wind and wires and starts revealing something about race, poverty, public trust and who can afford to leave.

TLDR

• The derecho caused extraordinary physical damage, including a 99-mile-per-hour gust in Gary. The severity of that damage is not in dispute.

• Gary is 76.2 percent Black, and 33.1 percent of its residents live in poverty. [2]⁠ Those facts do not prove discriminatory restoration decisions, but they help explain why a prolonged outage imposed an unequal burden.

• NIPSCO says restoration was driven by the location and complexity of the damage, not race or income. Some residents say the sequence they saw told a different story. The honest next step is not dueling public relations. It is releasing the restoration data.

• A proposed class action alleges that inadequate vegetation management and infrastructure inspection contributed to the outages. NIPSCO disputes those allegations and says its vegetation-management spending has more than doubled since 2016.

• This is a climate-justice story even without claiming that climate change caused this particular derecho. Severe weather meets old infrastructure; then money decides who can protect the food, medicine, children, sleep and income.

If this helps you see the machinery more clearly, Restack it, share it and send it to one person who still thinks a long blackout can only happen somewhere else.

Subscribe now

Watch by Chapter

• 0:00 · Why Gary’s blackout matters

• 1:44 · “Straight-up apocalyptic” scenes from Indiana

• 3:16 · NIPSCO denies racial or economic bias in restoration

• 4:45 · A resident challenges the early restoration list

• 6:19 · Gary residents describe “survival mode”

• 6:38 · Climate exposure, threat-scanning and the Katrina memory

• 8:39 · The proposed NIPSCO lawsuit and the utility’s response

• 10:12 · Covered nationally, but still not centered

• 11:43 · “Nowhere to go”: the blackout’s class divide

• 12:09 · Resources, not toughness, decide who can escape

• 13:31 · How many days could your household last?

The Damage Was Real

One of the clips that set this discussion in motion opens with the line, “Straight-up apocalyptic scenes are coming out of Indiana right now.” Apocalyptic sounds dramatic, but the older meaning of apocalypse is an uncovering. Something hidden gets exposed.

The storm ripped that cover away. NiSource executive Melody Birmingham told the Associated Press that roughly 300 utility poles and 44 transmission poles in Gary needed repair or replacement. She described work that ordinarily takes weeks or months being compressed into days and weeks. [3]⁠

That matters because skepticism about equity should not become denial about engineering. Whole systems had to be rebuilt. The storm intensified as it moved into northwest Indiana, and Illinois-to-Indiana comparisons are not perfectly symmetrical. Any fair account has to begin there.

It cannot end there.

By NIPSCO’s 9 p.m. Central update on August 25, the company said it had restored 374,400 of 374,500 event outages. It listed 834 customers without power overall, approximately 100 of them connected to the August 11 storm and subsequent storms, while warning that “substantially complete” restoration in Gary, Portage and Lake Station did not mean every individual property was back online. [4]⁠

The numbers show enormous work accomplished. They also show how long the last people waited.

The Official Answer and the Missing Data

PBS reported the company’s position clearly: race and socioeconomic status were not affecting the pace of restoration, and affluent communities had also lost power. [5]⁠ That is NIPSCO’s explanation, and it should be represented accurately. The company says geography and system damage, not the demographics of the people in the dark, determined the schedule.

A woman from the region described an early restoration list that, in her account, included predominantly white communities while omitting Gary, Hammond and East Chicago. Her observation does not prove motive. A screenshot cannot show the complete operational picture, and Gary’s severe physical damage is independently documented.

The company’s denial does not erase what residents saw, either. “Affluent people lost power too” establishes that the storm was broad. It does not answer whether the burden was equal, whether estimates were revised at the same speed, or whether every community received the same quality of information.

This is where the argument should move from public relations to evidence. Release the damage assessments by area. Release crew assignments, original restoration estimates, every revision and actual restoration times by municipality and neighborhood. Explain the priority rules in language ordinary customers can test against the record.

If the explanation is sound, the data should be able to carry it.

“Survival Mode” Is Not an Inconvenience

In the resident footage, one woman said communities of color feel left behind and are tired of living in “survival mode.” Another Gary resident described an elderly neighbor who had nowhere to go, while he could at least leave for his mother’s home in Illinois. [6]⁠

There is the class divide in one block. Both people lose power. One has an exit.

Twenty years working as a patrol officer has taught me that the same emergency can be survivable for one family and catastrophic for the family next door. The difference is often resources, not toughness: whether you can replace a refrigerator full of food, miss a shift without losing the job, put gas in the car, protect refrigerated medicine and keep the oldest person in your family safe inside a house without power.

Those are class questions, and in America class has color. Gary’s racial and poverty statistics do not automatically prove that somebody in a control room discriminated against the city. They do prove that a long outage lands on a population with less room to absorb it. Equal wind does not create equal exposure, equal choices or equal recovery.

Once normal life collapses into finding the next charge, meal, cool room or safe place to sleep, the nervous system changes its job and starts scanning for the next failure. The questions crowd in: how long the food will last, where the phone can be charged, whether the house is safe tonight and what happens if nobody comes tomorrow. As predictability disappears, control and then trust begin to go with it. That is what residents mean by survival mode, and it is far beyond a temporary inconvenience.

Why the Footage Carries a Katrina Feeling

Gary is not Hurricane Katrina. The scale of death and destruction is not comparable, and pretending otherwise would weaken the point.

The comparison is psychological. Katrina left many Black Americans with a public memory of disaster colliding with institutional abandonment while the country watched people wait and quietly decided how much waiting was acceptable. That memory does not require two events to be identical. It activates when Black residents describe being trapped, unheard and last in line while officials insist the process is neutral.

This is also why I call Gary a climate-justice warning without claiming an attribution study has proved that climate change caused this specific derecho. The justice problem is visible without overstating the science: severe weather strikes old and exposed infrastructure, and income then determines who can cool the house, preserve medicine, replace groceries, move children, miss work and buy a room somewhere else.

Climate crisis is not only a graph about future temperature. For poor communities, it arrives through the electric bill, the spoiled insulin, the landlord who will not repair the wiring, the employer who still expects you at work and the emergency plan that assumes everybody owns a car.

The Lawsuit Changes the Question

A lawsuit seeking class certification now alleges that NIPSCO failed to manage hazardous vegetation and adequately inspect poles and lines before the storm. The complaint argues that downed trees and vegetation were central causes of the prolonged outages. [7]⁠ NIPSCO strongly disputes that characterization and says its vegetation-management spending has more than doubled since 2016. [8]⁠

That lawsuit is an allegation, not a verdict. Increased spending is also not, by itself, proof that the work was adequate. Both claims have to be tested against maintenance records, inspection schedules, known hazard reports, contractor performance and the actual condition of the system before August 11.

The legal fight changes the public question. It is no longer only, “Why did restoration take so long?” It is also, “How much of the damage was preventable before the storm arrived?”

The statewide stakes are still being counted. Early estimates placed residential property damage from the storms and flooding between roughly $550 million and more than $5 billion across at least 22,164 parcels, with some counties still missing from the estimate. [9]⁠ That is a preliminary statewide range, not a settled Gary loss figure. It is still enough to bury the idea that this was a small local inconvenience.

Covered, but Not Centered

Gary was not literally invisible. PBS, CBS, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, NewsNation and other outlets covered the outage. The sharper charge is that coverage is not the same as sustained attention. A story can make national news and still remain at the edge of the national imagination.

One independent 22-minute video about Gary drew roughly 17,000 views when many other uploads on that channel were sitting in the hundreds or low thousands. We cannot know why every person clicked. But the jump suggests an appetite for a story the regular news cycle was not staying with long enough.

People recognize the fear underneath it: the basic systems around them may be less permanent than they look. America protects itself from that fear by turning Gary into an exception. Their infrastructure. Their poverty. Their city government. Their problem. Put the weakness over there, attach it to people the country already neglects, and your own street can keep feeling safe.

That is projection. It is also a dangerous lie.

The machinery is portable. Aging infrastructure, extreme weather, fragile supply chains, underinsured households, inflexible jobs and expensive escape routes exist far beyond Gary. The next city may have a larger media market and more affluent suburbs. The underlying filter will be the same: who has the money to create distance from failure, and who has nowhere to go?

Look Around Your Neighborhood

Most of us do not think about electricity until it disappears. We touch a switch and expect the room to answer. We charge the phone, protect the food, cool the house and keep medicine at the proper temperature without thinking of any of it as privilege.

Gary’s lights returning does not rewind spoiled groceries, missed wages, damaged homes, fear or broken trust. Restoration ends one phase of the emergency. Recovery begins under the light it brings back.

So look around your own neighborhood and answer one question honestly: How many days could your household function without electricity before inconvenience became an emergency?

Gary, Indiana, went dark, and the warning is not that the city is uniquely broken. The warning is how recognizable its vulnerabilities are: this is you sooner than you think.

Support XVOA

Let me be blunt. XVOA is a one-man operation. This is not a side hobby I squeeze in after the real work. This is the work, and I have dedicated my life to building a Black-led intelligence desk that stays after the national cameras leave.

Across the field is a right-wing media machine backed by wealthy donors, corporate money, paid staff and massive distribution. XVOA has independence, experience and readers who refuse to let that machinery own the field. If you read XVOA free, become a paid subscriber.

Become A Paid Subcriber

Your subscription buys the hours required to read filings, test official claims and keep reporting after everybody else moves on.

Already paid? You are holding this line. If a subscription is not the right fit, use Buy Me a Coffee.

Sources

1. National Weather Service Chicago: August 11, 2026 derecho⁠ — Official event summary documenting the 99-mile-per-hour Gary gust, widespread destructive winds and confirmed tornadoes in the Chicago forecast area.

2. U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Gary, Indiana⁠ — Current population, race, poverty and household-income estimates for the city.

3. Associated Press: Indiana power outages after the storm⁠ — Reporting on the system damage, pole replacements, restoration work and NIPSCO’s explanation of its priorities.

4. NIPSCO: Storm restoration update⁠ — The utility’s latest outage totals, restoration estimates, emergency status and cautions about individual properties.

5. PBS NewsHour: Indiana residents frustrated amid 10-day power outage⁠ — Video report and transcript containing the company’s no-bias position and residents’ accounts of the extended outage.

6. NewsNation: Gary residents prepare NIPSCO lawsuit⁠ — Resident testimony about unequal burden, the inability to leave and the push for legal accountability.

7. First amended complaint in the NIPSCO proposed class action⁠ — The plaintiffs’ allegations concerning vegetation management, equipment inspection, prolonged outages and requested class certification.

8. CBS News: Frustration mounts after deadly Indiana storms⁠ — Reporting on the proposed class action, its vegetation-management allegations and NIPSCO’s response.

9. Indiana Public Media/Indiana Capital Chronicle: Preliminary damage estimate⁠ — Reporting on the preliminary statewide residential-property damage range and its incomplete scope.

This is commentary and education, not investment advice, and XPLisset is not an investment adviser, broker, or financial planner. Nothing here recommends buying, selling, or holding any security, bond, commodity, currency, or other asset. Consult a qualified professional who knows your circumstances.

Before we get into it, this is the Reader’s Cut of this week’s Blackout eCon. It is the standalone written edition of the reaction video, not a transcript and not a teaser for the “real” story somewhere else. The video lets you hear the tone shift inside this Fox Business segment. The Reader’s Cut slows that moment down, explains the bond machinery in plain language, checks the history against the record, and links the receipts so you lose nothing if you never press play.

The pitch comes back to me before the graph does. Around 2006 and 2007, I heard YouTubers hawking gold as if doomsday came with a coupon code. Later, I remember Glenn Beck working full-blown dollar-collapse scenarios across a Fox whiteboard. The emotional proposition was always the same: the system was about to break, everybody else was asleep, and you had to buy protection before it was too late.

Some of that fear attached itself to real fractures. The recession began in December 2007. Lehman Brothers failed in September 2008. America elected Barack Obama that November, and he entered the White House in January 2009. Beck’s Fox News program debuted one day before Obama’s inauguration.[1]⁠[2]⁠[3]⁠[4]⁠

The chronology is not trivia. It is how a society assigns guilt, and the crisis came first. A Black president inherited the wreckage and the doomsday programming that followed. That is why I refuse to use the 2007 echo as a prophecy now. Memory should make us more exact, not more marketable.

That is the memory I brought to Donald Trump’s answer this week. Asked whether Americans should be concerned about the bond market, Trump said no. He called interest rates artificially high and ridiculous, then said the country was powering through them. Lydia Hu followed with the part the reassurance did not settle: yields had climbed back after the prior day’s relief, gross federal debt had crossed $40 trillion, and she asked whether Washington could keep borrowing at that pace without bond-market pushback. Dagen McDowell said Treasury’s move looked desperate and asked why a supposedly strong economy was running a huge deficit, paying a climbing interest bill, and intervening at the long end at all.[5]⁠

The panel did not become unanimous, and Fox did not become a resistance network. That is not my claim. The signal is narrower and more useful: Trump’s reassurance did not carry the room. When a friendly network starts asking ordinary financial questions instead of treating the political answer as the financial answer, the normal tone becomes information.

The Aug. 20 New York Times report by Alan Rappeport and Colby Smith supplied the factual frame. It described Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expanding the government’s role in the long-term bond market while arguing that investors were misreading the fundamentals. It also described a larger buyback plan, an initial dip in yields, and renewed upward pressure the next day.[6]⁠

The official announcement is more precise than the shorthand. Treasury did not double every buyback. It said it would at least double the maximum size of liquidity-support buyback operations in two long-end sectors, from $2 billion to at least $4 billion per operation, for the 10-to-20-year and 20-to-30-year sectors from Sept. 9 through Nov. 4.[7]⁠

The blood in the headline is not a crash prediction. It is the higher return the market demands to hold long-term Treasury debt and the budget pressure that accumulates as Washington refinances maturing obligations at newer rates. That process is slower than a doomsday whiteboard, but it is where market pressure can become public cost.[8]⁠[14]⁠

TLDR

• This Fox Business segment did not predict a crash. Its desk stopped treating reassurance as a complete answer. Trump said there was no reason to worry, but the discussion kept returning to the deficit, the interest bill, and Treasury’s intervention. The panel disagreed over the remedy, so the signal is the survival of the questions, not Fox suddenly “turning” on Trump.[5]⁠

• Treasury did not double the entire buyback program. It said the maximum operation size in two long-end liquidity-support sectors would rise from $2 billion to at least $4 billion for a defined period beginning Sept. 9. Treasury has not yet specified the final maximum beyond that floor. The program may improve market plumbing, but it is not the same thing as paying down the national debt.[7]⁠[10]⁠

• The old yield returned on top of a much larger debt load. The 30-year Treasury yield averaged 5.20 percent in June 2007. XVOA’s arithmetic average of the 13 available trading-day observations from Aug. 3 through Aug. 19, 2026 was a provisional 5.23 percent. XVOA’s calculation from Treasury’s two dated snapshots puts nominal debt held by the public at 6.62 times its August 2006 level. A separate XVOA calculation from CBO’s 35.4 percent historical share and 100.6 percent fiscal 2026 projection puts debt held by the public as a share of GDP at 2.84 times the fiscal 2006 share.[11]⁠[12]⁠[13]⁠[16]⁠

• Regular people feel this through borrowing costs and public budgets, not through a magic panic button. The 30-year mortgage usually tracks the 10-year Treasury rather than the 30-year bond, but long rates still shape the wider cost of credit. Federal interest pressure arrives gradually as cheap debt matures and deficits are financed at newer rates.[9]⁠[14]⁠

• This is a warning signal, not a crash clock or an investment call. The buybacks may improve liquidity. They cannot settle inflation, fiscal policy, Federal Reserve decisions, or the return long-term investors demand. The evidence supports watching the contradiction between reassurance and action. It does not support dating a collapse.[6]⁠[7]⁠

If a politician’s reassurance and Treasury’s action are telling two different stories, this is exactly why the paid Reader’s Cut exists. Restack or send this preview so people can see the contradiction without needing a Bloomberg terminal. Then join the paid room at xplisset.com/subscribe⁠ for the full wiring: what a bond is, what the buyback changes, what the 2007 comparison proves, and who gets protected when high rates become budget pressure.

Become A Paid Subscriber

Paid subscriptions are the dependable base. If recurring support is not possible, Buy Me a Coffee⁠ is the flexible backstop. Thank you to everyone already inside.

What a Treasury bond has to do with your mortgage

A Treasury security is an IOU from the federal government: investors lend Washington money, and Washington promises interest plus repayment. Treasury bills are short term, notes run from two to ten years, and bonds mature in 20 or 30 years. Notes and bonds pay interest every six months.[8]⁠

The coupon is the fixed interest payment attached to a particular security. The market yield is the annualized return implied by the security’s price and promised cash flows, assuming it is held under the stated terms. When buyers demand a higher yield, the price of an existing fixed-rate bond falls. When the demanded yield falls, its price rises. That inverse relationship is why a Treasury buyback can support market functioning and move yields without changing the coupon already printed on an old bond.[8]⁠

This matters outside Wall Street because Treasury rates become reference points for borrowing across the economy. A 30-year mortgage is not pegged to the 30-year Treasury bond. It typically tracks the 10-year Treasury yield, plus a spread for mortgage-specific risk and costs. I am using the 30-year Treasury here as a long-duration stress gauge, not pretending it is your household mortgage rate.[9]⁠

Long rates help shape the environment in which households seek mortgages, businesses refinance debt, pension funds value assets, and the federal government rolls over maturing obligations. This is not just Wall Street weather. A change in what investors demand from Washington eventually reaches public budgets and private borrowing, even though it does not reprice every loan on the same day.[9]⁠[14]⁠

What Treasury actually changed

Treasury’s Aug. 19 release concerned liquidity-support buybacks. In plain English, Treasury can repurchase older outstanding securities that may be harder to trade. Primary dealers and other approved market participants submit offers, including offers for their customers, and accepted purchases can improve cash liquidity in specific parts of the market. Treasury has not yet specified the final maximum beyond saying it will be at least $4 billion per operation. Whatever maximum it sets will be a ceiling, not a promise that Treasury will accept that amount each time.[7]⁠[10]⁠

A buyback is also not the government paying off the national debt in the household sense. Treasury can issue new securities while repurchasing old ones. Its own program materials describe buybacks as tools for liquidity support and cash management, and actual purchases depend on the offers Treasury receives.[10]⁠

The word buyback can sound like Washington found spare cash under the couch. It did not. Treasury is changing the composition and tradability of debt while continuing to finance deficits. The policy may improve plumbing without repairing the fiscal structure that fills the pipes.

The Times called Bessent’s move surprising and interventionist. It reported that yields dipped after the announcement, then began rising again by Thursday. That price action does not prove the operation failed. It tells us the announcement did not erase the larger argument over inflation, debt supply, Federal Reserve policy, and the returns long-term buyers require.[6]⁠

The Fox Business tell

Fox Business supplied the political test. Trump offered confidence, while McDowell answered with arithmetic by citing roughly a $2 trillion deficit and about $1.4 trillion in fiscal-year interest costs. She then asked why rising yields should be treated as evidence of strength if Treasury was simultaneously trying to restrain them. Those figures are McDowell’s on-air framing, not the current CBO baseline.[5]⁠

The longer panel argued over supply, growth, inflation, spending, Federal Reserve policy, and new corporate borrowing without reaching a common verdict. Lou Basenese objected to the intervention and said spending had to change. An unidentified male panelist defended Bessent and argued that lower rates would ease the government’s interest burden. The reaction video uses five clearly labeled excerpts from that longer discussion, not the full uncut segment, and several begin or end mid-argument. The disagreement strengthens the point: the signal is the range of questions that remained alive after the president said there was nothing to fear, not ideological conversion or panel unanimity.[5]⁠

Ordinary financial questioning on a friendly network is not proof of a crash. It does show that the reassurance lost some power to close this conversation. The panel did not have to declare Bessent wrong for the tone to matter. It only had to let the contradiction stay visible.

The rate came back. The balance sheet underneath it exploded.

The Federal Reserve’s 30-year constant-maturity series averaged 5.20 percent in June 2007. It fell to a monthly average of 1.27 percent in April 2020.[11]⁠ XVOA’s arithmetic average of the 13 available trading-day observations from Aug. 3 through Aug. 19, 2026 was a provisional 5.23 percent.[12]⁠

That is essentially the same yield territory as June 2007, but it is not the same economy or the same balance sheet. Treasury’s Debt to the Penny records show $4.874 trillion in debt held by the public on Aug. 21, 2006 and $32.264 trillion on Aug. 19, 2026. XVOA’s calculation from those two nominal snapshots is 6.62 times as much publicly held debt. The same calculation puts total public debt outstanding at 4.71 times its old level, from $8.503 trillion to $40.013 trillion.[13]⁠

The old yield and old debt observations are not from the same date, so this is an era comparison, not a matched daily experiment. The dollar totals are nominal, not inflation-adjusted. A second measure controls better for the changing size of the economy: CBO’s February 2026 data put debt held by the public at 35.4 percent of GDP in fiscal 2006 and projected 100.6 percent for fiscal 2026. XVOA’s calculation makes that projected share 2.84 times the 2006 share.[16]⁠

Do not multiply a 5.23 percent market yield by the full debt stock and call that the government’s interest bill. Federal interest expense depends on the maturity mix, the coupons attached to existing debt, new issuance, and the schedule on which old securities are refinanced. Existing fixed-rate debt does not reprice instantly. The pressure arrives over time as maturing cheap debt is replaced and new deficits are financed at prevailing rates.

That lag is one reason political reassurance can survive longer than the arithmetic. The cost does not appear as one cinematic invoice. It accumulates through auctions, refinancing, and annual budgets until interest consumes room that could have gone somewhere else.

Who gets paid, who pays, and who can wait

Higher yields are not universally bad. A new buyer of Treasury securities can receive a better return. A saver or pension fund seeking safe income may welcome that. A holder of an older low-coupon bond may see its market price fall, but someone able to hold the security to maturity still receives the promised coupon and principal, assuming the government pays as agreed.[8]⁠

The burden falls differently on people who need credit now. A household trying to buy a home cannot live inside the mortgage rate a wealthier household locked years ago. A small business that must refinance cannot simply wait forever. The federal government has the greatest ability to keep borrowing, but its interest bill enters the budget and competes with every other public claim.[14]⁠

CBO’s February baseline projects a fiscal 2026 deficit of about $1.9 trillion, debt held by the public near 101 percent of GDP, and net interest above $1 trillion. CBO also projects net interest reaching roughly $2.1 trillion in 2036 under current law.[14]⁠ That is not a mechanical forecast of cuts to one named program. It is a widening field for political choice: raise revenue, reduce other spending, accept more borrowing, or combine those options.

The ability to benefit from higher asset income is not evenly distributed. In the Federal Reserve’s 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances, the typical White family held about $285,000 in wealth while the typical Black family held about $44,900. The Fed also found that investment income contributed far more to recent income growth for White families than for non-White families, who held fewer of those assets.[15]⁠

That survey does not tell us the race of every Treasury holder, and it should not be used that way. It tells us something more basic: the capacity to earn from high yields, absorb a bond-price loss, wait out a refinancing cycle, or buy a home with cash is unequal before the policy response begins. The same interest-rate environment can be income for one household, a locked door for another, and a future budget fight for everybody.

2007 is memory, not prophecy

The 5.20 percent line from June 2007 is an anchor, not an oracle. Equal-looking yields across two moments do not create equal causes or equal outcomes. The banking system, inflation backdrop, regulation, household leverage, global capital flows, and Federal Reserve balance sheet are not frozen in time.

What the comparison does is strip away a comforting illusion. A long rate near the old level can now operate against a much larger nominal debt stock and a far higher debt-to-GDP ratio. On this measure, the burden underneath the rate is worse. That is a specific claim about federal debt, not a declaration that every part of the economy is worse than 2007.

The older doom sellers taught the wrong lesson because certainty was the product. Yes, the economy fell into recession. Yes, the financial system cracked open in 2008. But the crisis was underway before Obama entered the White House, and Beck’s Fox program began the day before the inauguration.[1]⁠[2]⁠[3]⁠[4]⁠

That sequence matters because economic pain is often produced under one set of choices, delayed by market machinery, and assigned politically to the person standing nearest the wreckage. Black historical memory requires us to watch the lag. It also requires us not to manufacture a new certainty just because the old fear rhymes.

What Treasury cannot control

Treasury can alter issuance and buyback operations in ways that affect the timing, composition, and liquidity of federal debt.[7]⁠[10]⁠ The Federal Open Market Committee sets a target range for the federal funds rate, and the Fed uses policy tools to keep overnight rates in that range.[17]⁠ Neither institution can command long-term investors to accept a return that does not compensate them for expected inflation, fiscal risk, duration, and competing places to put money.

The Times identified several pressures beyond Treasury’s direct control, including the fiscal outlook, inflation, uncertainty about Federal Reserve policy, and a wave of corporate debt issuance tied to the artificial-intelligence build-out. It also reported that Bessent had leaned more heavily on short-term bills, a strategy similar to one he criticized when Janet Yellen led Treasury, and that officials had intervened in the yen market to reduce the danger of Japanese Treasury sales.[6]⁠

Those moves can change timing, liquidity, and the location of pressure. They cannot make the structural conflict disappear. The government is financing persistent deficits in a market that wants compensation for carrying long-term risk. Moving more borrowing to the short end can reduce today’s long-term supply, but it also exposes more debt to near-term refinancing.

When the larger operations begin Sept. 9, the next evidence will be measurable. The accepted amount will matter more than the announced ceiling. So will the long rate after each operation, the Nov. 4 Quarterly Refunding, and any extension or expansion Treasury announces. Inflation and Federal Reserve policy remain outside the program’s reach. A buyback cannot settle a fight over the future price level.[7]⁠

What the evidence can carry

The evidence proves that Treasury announced it would raise the maximum size of buyback operations in two long-end sectors beginning Sept. 9. XVOA’s month-to-date calculation put the 30-year measure at 5.23 percent through Aug. 19, near its June 2007 average. XVOA’s calculations put nominal debt held by the public at 6.62 times its August 2006 level and CBO’s projected fiscal 2026 debt-held-by-the-public share of GDP at 2.84 times its fiscal 2006 level.[7]⁠[11]⁠[12]⁠[13]⁠[16]⁠

The record strongly suggests that Trump’s reassurance was not sufficient to close this Fox Business discussion. Treasury says the action is intended to support long-end liquidity. The Times report and Fox discussion treat the move as evidence of concern about broader borrowing conditions, whether or not one accepts McDowell’s description that it looked desperate. The ordinary questions in this segment are a signal that the contradiction had become too visible to cheerlead away.[5]⁠[6]⁠[7]⁠

We still do not know whether the larger buybacks will produce durable liquidity gains, where the yield goes next, what the Federal Reserve will do, or whether any of this becomes a crisis. A chart cannot date a crash, and a television panel cannot price a bond.

The standard to carry forward is simpler. When an official says not to worry, look for the action taken behind the reassurance. Then ask who receives the interest, who needs to refinance, who can wait, and which public obligation will be told there is no money left.

Support XVOA

Paid members made this Reader’s Cut possible. Thank you for funding the time it took to inspect the footage, rebuild the chronology, check the market data, and separate a warning signal from a sales pitch. The next Blackout eCon will keep following the long-end operations when they begin in September.

If you are already supporting the paid room and want to add something extra, Buy Me a Coffee⁠ is the optional flexible lane. Share or Restack the report if it gave you a clearer instrument, but your paid membership has already done the job it was built to do.

Sources

1. NBER, Business Cycle Dating Committee Announcement⁠. Establishes December 2007 as the start of the recession.

2. Federal Reserve History, Support for Specific Institutions⁠. Establishes Lehman Brothers’ Sept. 15, 2008 bankruptcy in the financial-crisis chronology.

3. Obama Presidential Library, President Barack Obama⁠. Establishes Obama’s Nov. 4, 2008 election and Jan. 20, 2009 inauguration.

4. Fox News archive, Glenn Beck program debut announcement⁠. Establishes the Jan. 19, 2009 debut date of Beck’s Fox News program.

5. Fox Business, ⁠The Big Money Show⁠, Aug. 20, 2026⁠. Provides Trump’s reassurance and the panel’s debate over deficits, interest costs, Treasury intervention, inflation, and bond supply.

6. The New York Times, “Treasury Turns to Interventionist Tactics to Lower Interest Rates”⁠. Supplies the Rappeport and Smith reporting on Bessent’s strategy, market reaction, process, and pressures outside Treasury’s control.

7. U.S. Treasury, “Treasury Announces Increased Sizes of Nominal Long-End Liquidity Support Buybacks Beginning September 9”⁠. Defines the affected sectors, maximum operation sizes, dates, and stated liquidity-support purpose.

8. TreasuryDirect, Understanding Pricing and Interest Rates⁠. Explains Treasury maturities, coupons, yields, and the inverse relationship between bond prices and yields.

9. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, “Mortgage Rates Not Matching Declines in Treasury Yields”⁠. Explains the usual relationship between 30-year mortgage rates and the 10-year Treasury yield, including the variable spread.

10. TreasuryDirect, Treasury Buybacks FAQs⁠. Explains liquidity-support and cash-management buybacks and why announced maximums need not equal accepted purchases.

11. Federal Reserve H.15 via FRED, 30-Year Treasury Constant Maturity monthly series⁠. Supplies the June 2007 and April 2020 monthly averages.

12. Federal Reserve H.15 via FRED, August 2026 daily observations⁠. Supplies the observations used for XVOA’s 5.23 percent month-to-date calculation through Aug. 19.

13. U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data, exact Debt to the Penny records⁠. Supplies the Aug. 21, 2006 and Aug. 19, 2026 debt-held-by-the-public and total-debt records used in XVOA’s calculations.

14. Congressional Budget Office, ⁠The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036⁠. Supplies the fiscal 2026 deficit and debt baseline, the projected net-interest path, and the report’s current-law assumptions.

15. Federal Reserve Board, “Greater Wealth, Greater Uncertainty”⁠. Supplies 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances evidence on racial wealth levels and the distribution of investment income.

16. Congressional Budget Office, Key Budget and Economic Data⁠. Provides the February 2026 10-year projection workbook⁠ and historical budget workbook⁠ used for XVOA’s 35.4 percent, 100.6 percent, and 2.84-times comparison.

17. Federal Reserve Board, Open Market Operations⁠. Explains the FOMC’s federal-funds target and the Fed’s use of policy tools to implement that target in overnight markets.

The reporting below preserves that argument, translates the two audio inserts into prose, and restores the complete daily scan. Readers who skip playback lose nothing essential.

Today’s Charge

Washington’s favorite Senate candidate did not merely lose in Florida. He lost by twelve points after raising more than fifteen million dollars beyond what Angie Nixon raised, which made the result too large to dismiss as a fluke.

That was the loud story.

Beneath it, courts and agencies were deciding whether Black immigrants could keep working, whether families could reach the evidence surrounding a young man’s death, whether a convicted defendant would face a judge whose public comments created an appearance problem, and whether international prosecutors could use the financial system without American punishment.

Today’s machinery is control over the conditions under which refusal remains possible.

Subscribe now

Five Things That Matter Today

• Yesterday: Angie Nixon won Florida’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary 56.1 to 43.9 percent, defeating Washington favorite Alex Vindman by 12.2 points despite a fundraising gap exceeding $15 million.[1][2]

• Yesterday: A federal judge lifted the last judicial block protecting Temporary Protected Status and linked work authorization for more than 5,000 Ethiopians, even as a constitutional discrimination claim continues.[4]

• Today: Nolan Xavier Wells would have turned nineteen as his family gathers for a Biloxi prayer rally, works with the NAACP, presses for evidence to be examined, and waits for an official account of how he died.[5][6]

• Today: A visiting Texas judge removed District Judge John Roach from Karmelo Anthony’s remaining post-trial proceedings after Roach publicly said the jury reached the right verdict.[7][8]

• Yesterday: The United States sanctioned International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye, extending American financial pressure into a dispute over war-crimes jurisdiction.[9][10]

Restack This Brief

Restack this Brief, forward it, or send it to one person who needs the machinery named.

Nixon’s victory will travel easily as an upset headline. The harder work is carrying the rest with it: the immigrants who can lose permission to work before their discrimination claim is decided, the family still waiting on evidence, and the communities building care and shelter where public systems leave holes.

Circulation keeps those stories from being separated and buried. Paid subscriptions⁠ are the dependable base beneath this desk,

Become A Paid Subscriber

while Buy Me a Coffee⁠ remains the flexible direct-support lane.

Buy Me A Coffee

The full operating note is at the bottom.

The Hierarchy Audit

The cleanest national story came with a scoreboard. Nixon won, Vindman lost, and a $15 million fundraising gap gave television and political media a number large enough to repeat.

That attention is deserved, but it can also flatten the lesson into campaign spectacle. The deeper question is why institutions keep treating money, résumé, and access as substitutes for consent.

The quieter stories show what happens when the instrument works. More than 5,000 Ethiopians can lose status and linked work authorization while their constitutional challenge continues.[4] Haitian caregivers can disappear from disability services because immigration policy counts terminated status more carefully than the patients who depended on those workers.[15] Nolan Wells’s family can receive another round of institutional attention without receiving the public answers it has sought for more than six weeks.[5][6]

Local reporting carried much of what the hierarchy was prepared to miss: Black voters warning Mississippi lawmakers about possible map changes, a majority-Black city still living through a prolonged power failure, Houston organizers building an affirming shelter for LGBTQ youth, and Ojibwe treaty communities watching a temporary mining protection.[18][22][23][25]

The loud story showed power failing. The buried stories showed the daily cost when it does not.

Top Breaking National Stories

1. Angie Nixon Defeats Washington Favorite Alex Vindman by 12 Points Despite a $15 Million Fundraising Gap

Yesterday: Florida Democrats gave state Rep. Angie Nixon a victory that almost every institutional signal predicted against her. Updated returns show Nixon winning 56.1 to 43.9 percent, a 12.2-point margin.

This was a statewide rebuke, not a hometown squeaker.[1][2]

Vindman raised roughly $16.3 million while Nixon raised just under $1 million. By the end of July he had already spent more than $9 million, while Nixon avoided broadcast television and concentrated on social media and organizing.[1][2]

A late poll put Vindman ten points ahead with 41 percent of voters undecided.[3] Speaking with Don Lemon after the vote, Nixon credited grassroots organizing and noted that she had unseated an incumbent before.[11]

A July University of North Florida poll put appointed Republican Sen. Ashley Moody eight points ahead of Nixon and ten ahead of Vindman.[12]

helped this desk by forwarding and flagging the fundraising text Nixon’s campaign circulated today.

Thank you, Diane.

The text says Nixon will stand trial in one month and warns that Republicans may try to imprison her to stop the campaign.

That is the campaign’s framing, while the public court posture is narrower.

Nixon faces pending misdemeanor counts of trespass and resisting an officer without violence after a May 15 sit-in at Gov. Ron DeSantis’s office. A Leon County judge scheduled docket sounding and a possible trial for the week beginning September 21.

The case could still be dismissed, delayed, settled, or resolved by plea. The text presents two years as the maximum exposure; that is a campaign warning, not a sentence forecast, and the message does not identify evidence that Republican officials directed the prosecution.[13]

Why it matters: The party’s Washington class treated donor access and national biography as evidence of voter demand. Florida voters separated those signals from political capacity.

Nixon still needs money and statewide infrastructure, but nearly seventeen times the fundraising could not replace an organization rooted in people’s lives.

If she defeats Moody in November, she would become Florida’s first Black U.S. senator.[1][2][12]

2. Court Clears End of Ethiopian TPS as Haitian Caregiver Losses Show What Status Cuts Break

Yesterday: U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy lifted the last judicial block protecting more than 5,000 Ethiopians under Temporary Protected Status.[4]

TPS had allowed them to live and work legally because return to Ethiopia was considered unsafe. Murphy allowed a constitutional claim alleging racial or national-origin hostility to continue, but the ruling cleared the way for the status and linked work authorization to end while that claim proceeds.

The challengers can now lose jobs and become vulnerable to removal before a court decides whether discrimination shaped the policy.

Covered TPS-linked work permits had been extended through August 19, and some people may hold separate authorization; the ruling did not make every work permit vanish at the same instant.[4]

A separate appeals ruling protected eight Quaker, Sikh, and Baptist worship sites after finding that the new enforcement policy likely burdened religious exercise.[14] One congregation reported a 66 percent fall in English-language class attendance, but the injunction reaches only the eight plaintiffs.[14]

The labor consequences are visible through Haitian TPS.

New reporting counted about 21,000 Haitian TPS holders working as caregivers and nursing assistants who served an estimated 77,000 patients.[15]

After Haitian TPS ended July 27, Jawonio, a New York nonprofit serving disabled people, lost nearly two dozen Haitian workers, about 7 percent of its staff. Those direct-care workers helped people eat, bathe, travel, and live with dignity.[15]

The fear reaches beyond the workplace. In fresh affected-community testimony, people described being afraid to go outside even while needing to work, buy food, and support their families.

That is what an enforcement climate does before an arrest ever appears in a statistic.[35]

Why it matters: The government counts the immigration status it terminates but rarely counts the hands that status allowed to work.

The damage reaches Black immigrant workers, disabled adults, older patients, relatives, and care providers already struggling to fill demanding jobs.

The United States built essential care on workers it treats as temporary: permanent enough for the night shift, insecure enough to erase with a notice.

A right that expires before its challenge is decided is permission on a timer.

3. Nolan Wells’s 19th Birthday Arrives With a Prayer Rally and No Public Cause of Death

Today: Nolan Xavier Wells would have turned nineteen.

Wells was eighteen when he traveled to Horn Island during an Independence Day trip and did not return with his group; his body was recovered two days later.[5]

His family and supporters are gathering Wednesday evening at Greater St. John AME Church in Biloxi for a national prayer rally, marking a birthday with prayer, legal pressure, and no public explanation of how he died.[5]

On Monday, the NAACP Office of General Counsel joined the family’s legal team.[6]

As of last week, the phone still had not been analyzed, and the legal teams were working through how to conduct a joint examination.[5][6]

The Congressional Black Caucus has asked for an independent federal review. The Justice Department is reviewing that request, and the FBI is already assisting local investigators, but no separate federal review has been publicly announced.[5]

Mississippi’s official autopsy is complete but remains unreleased pending grand-jury review.[5] The family’s independent autopsy determined neither cause nor manner of death.

No one has been charged, and no suspect has been publicly identified.[5][6]

Why it matters: More than six weeks after Nolan died, the family’s central question remains unanswered in public:

What happened to Nolan Wells?

A completed autopsy, an unexamined phone, an expanded legal team, and a federal-review request are all forms of movement. None is yet an account of his death.

The birthday turns delay into something brutally measurable because his family is marking the life he should still be living while institutions continue controlling the evidence and the timetable.

4. Visiting Judge Recuses John Roach From Karmelo Anthony’s Post-Trial Case

Today: Visiting Senior Judge Sid Harle recused District Judge John Roach from Karmelo Anthony’s remaining post-trial proceedings.[7]

Roach presided over the murder trial in which jurors rejected Anthony’s self-defense argument and convicted him of killing seventeen-year-old Austin Metcalf.[7][8]

Anthony is serving a thirty-five-year sentence, and his conviction remains in place.[7]

The recusal question arose after Roach said on television that the jury got the verdict right.[7]

Harle said he believed Roach could be fair, but he also ruled that an outside observer could reasonably question Roach’s impartiality. Judge Michael Chitty will hear Anthony’s request for a new trial tomorrow.[7][8]

Why it matters: Judicial fairness includes the appearance of impartiality, especially after a judge moves from the courtroom to television and endorses the jury’s result.

Harle’s ruling does not erase the conviction, validate Anthony’s self-defense claim, or guarantee a new trial. It separates the pending request from a judge whose public comments created an avoidable credibility problem.

The next judge will inherit the same record without Roach’s television remarks hanging over the proceeding.

5. United States Sanctions ICC President and Senior Trial Lawyer Through the Dollar System

Yesterday: The United States sanctioned International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane, a Japanese judge, and Abdoulaye Seye, a senior Senegalese trial lawyer.[9]

The measures freeze property within American jurisdiction and generally prohibit U.S. persons from transacting with them.[9]

Secretary of State Marco Rubio argues that the ICC has no legitimate authority over Americans or Israelis because neither country belongs to the court.[9]

The ICC says it has territorial jurisdiction because Palestine joined the treaty.[10] Seye worked on the case connected to the arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while the court’s Afghanistan work has also angered Washington.[9][10]

Why it matters: The sanctions cannot resolve the legal dispute over jurisdiction. They make participation in the court more expensive by using American control over banking access, contracts, insurance, technology services, and ordinary payments.

The deterrent can reach beyond the two named officials because investigators, witnesses, and service providers will notice where Washington placed the tripwire.

A superpower that cannot fire the court’s judges can still make the financial world around them harder to use, which is pressure through infrastructure rather than persuasion.

Stories Buried Beneath the National Headlines

6. Appeals Court Upholds Superfund Designation for PFOA and PFOS Polluters

Yesterday: A federal appeals court upheld the Superfund designation for PFOA and PFOS, two toxic chemicals commonly called forever chemicals.[16]

Seven business groups challenged the rule, which allows the federal government to seek cleanup costs from parties responsible for contamination. The court rejected that challenge, although the Environmental Protection Agency retains discretion over whom it pursues.[16][17]

Why it matters: The ruling preserves a simple principle with enormous financial stakes: taxpayers do not have to inherit every corporate cleanup bill.

Communities living with contaminated water still need enforcement, testing, and remediation, so a legal designation alone does not remove the chemicals. It does keep the cost question pointed toward polluters rather than automatically pushing it onto the public.

7. Mississippi Opens Post-Callais Redistricting Hearings With Black Voting Power at Risk

Yesterday: Mississippi’s Joint Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee held the first of eight scheduled public hearings in Tupelo after the Supreme Court’s Callais ruling weakened federal protections against racial vote dilution.[18][19]

No new map has been proposed. Lawmakers have said the process could reach congressional, legislative, and state Supreme Court lines, while voting-rights advocates warn that majority-Black districts could be dismantled.[18]

Why it matters: A hearing creates a public record, but it does not guarantee that lawmakers will honor the communities most exposed to a new map.

Redistricting converts neighborhood boundaries into political power, and splitting Black voters can make their numbers look present while reducing their ability to elect candidates.

The machinery has started before the public has seen a single line.

8. Wasserman Schultz Wins Democratic Nomination After Four Black Rivals Split the Vote

Yesterday: Debbie Wasserman Schultz won the Democratic nomination in a redrawn South Florida seat held by Black Democrats since 1992.[20]

Four Black candidates together won a majority of the vote but divided it among themselves, allowing the white former Democratic Party chair to finish first with about 45 percent.

Republican mapmaking had pushed Wasserman Schultz out of her previous district, and establishment strength helped her cross the line in the new one. She still faces Republican Brent Andersen in November.[20]

Why it matters: Nixon’s victory wounded one part of the party machine, but the South Florida result shows that the machine still worked elsewhere.

Mapmaking and vote splitting can produce a winner who does not reflect the preference of most primary voters.

The contrast prevents one remarkable upset from becoming a comforting story about a system that suddenly corrected itself.

9. Majority-Black Gary Endures Prolonged Outage as Residents Supply Emergency Care

As of today: More than 20,000 customers in Gary, Indiana, remained without electricity more than a week after a deadly storm.[22]

Residents lined up at community centers for hot meals and places to charge phones. The mayor declared a local emergency, and NIPSCO said full restoration in Gary was not expected until August 25.[21][22]

Why it matters: An extended outage becomes a health emergency long before it becomes a national headline.

Electricity keeps refrigerated medicine, phones, cooling systems, and medical devices working. In a majority-Black city, the delay pushed survival work onto local institutions and families already carrying the consequences of weak public infrastructure.

10. Houston Organizers Open City’s First LGBTQ-Affirming Emergency Youth Shelter

Earlier this week: Houston organizers unveiled Asia’s House, the city’s first LGBTQ-affirming emergency shelter for young people ages fifteen through seventeen, with an opening scheduled for September 1.[23][24]

Its six private bedrooms will be open to young people of all sexual orientations and gender identities. The shelter is named for Asia Jynaé Foster, a Black transgender Houstonian killed in 2020.[23][24]

Why it matters: LGBTQ youth do not become safer because a city possesses a general shelter system.

An affirming emergency space can determine whether a young person seeks help or avoids a service built without them in mind.

Asia’s House is a Black queer community building missing public infrastructure with its own hands and naming the person whose memory the city must carry.

11. Minnesota Freezes Nonferrous Mining Reviews Near Boundary Waters and Ojibwe Lands

Yesterday: Gov. Tim Walz froze new state environmental reviews, permits, and mineral leases for nonferrous mining, including copper and nickel, in the Rainy River Headwaters near the Boundary Waters.[25][26]

The order also ends state cooperation with the federal review and directs officials to draft permanent-ban legislation for 2027. The watershed lies within the 1854 Ojibwe ceded territory, where mining proposals have raised treaty-rights concerns.[25][26]

Why it matters: The protection is real but temporary.

The order ends ninety days after Walz leaves office unless legislation replaces it, and a successor can undo or renew it.[25][26] There is no shovel-ready mine today.

A pause can block a permitting path, but only durable law can keep the next administration from reopening the same door.

12. Education Department Tells Schools Not to Change Discipline Rules to Reduce Racial Gaps

Today: The U.S. Education Department told schools they should not alter discipline policies solely to reduce racial disparities, characterizing that response as unlawful racial balancing.

The guidance arrives after the department removed disparate-impact provisions from its Title VI rules. Federal education data still show that Black students and students with disabilities are disciplined disproportionately, beginning as early as preschool.[27][28]

Why it matters: The government is narrowing civil-rights enforcement from measurable effects toward proof of discriminatory intent.

A school can point to a formally race-neutral rule even when Black children are removed from classrooms at persistently unequal rates. The disparity remains visible, but a federal tool for asking what produced it has been weakened.

13. American Samoan Groups Sue to Stop a 33-Million-Acre Deep-Sea Mining Lease Process

Yesterday: Earthjustice sued the federal government for Fa’asao Amerika Samoa and the Conservation Council for Hawai’i, seeking to halt a deep-sea-mining lease process around American Samoa until agencies comply with environmental law.

The plan covers roughly 33 million acres of seabed and would begin with exploration rather than immediate commercial extraction. The plaintiffs say endangered turtles, whales, and corals sit inside an ocean ecosystem central to Samoan food, culture, and daily life.[29][30]

Why it matters: Washington is treating a Pacific territory’s living ocean as a mineral inventory.

The lawsuit forces a sovereignty question before experimental extraction becomes momentum: whether the federal government can fast-track leases while the people closest to the risk are demanding restraint.

14. Liberia Agrees to Receive Up to 1,200 U.S. Third-Country Deportees

Yesterday: Liberia’s government announced that it would accept as many as 1,200 people deported from the United States to a country that is not their own.

Officials said transfers would occur over one year, with the first group expected Thursday, and could include people from Africa, the Americas, and the Caribbean.

Liberia says arrivals may seek asylum there or leave, while Washington will provide support. Officials did not disclose whether anyone listed has a U.S. immigration judge’s protection order against return to a dangerous home country.[31][32]

Why it matters: Third-country deportation turns a person into cargo between governments.

It also recruits a Black nation into an American removal system whose legal and human consequences remain largely hidden from the people being transferred.

15. Sullivan County Will Close Its Only Public Nursing Home and Move 93 Residents

Today: Sullivan County, New York, and the state Health Department announced that the county-owned Care Center at Sunset Lake will close by year’s end.

The Medicaid-certified nursing home in Liberty has 93 long-term residents and 86 employees. Officials cited years of losses, inconsistent federal payments, low reimbursement rates, and roughly $10 million in repairs after a handoff to a private operator failed.

Residents will be moved, potentially outside the county or New York, while employees will be offered other county work where available.[33][34]

Why it matters: A budget decision is about to uproot 93 medically vulnerable people and dissolve public care infrastructure that took decades to build.

Once a county nursing-home bed disappears, a funding promise cannot tuck someone in at night.

Closing Note on Coverage Gaps

The coverage hierarchy loves a clean political upset because it arrives with a winner, a loser, and a number.

The other stories resist that simplicity.

A family can gain lawyers and still lack an answer. A discrimination claim can survive while the legal protection at its center disappears. A care facility can lose workers because an immigration decision never counted the patients attached to their labor.

That is why today’s stories belong together.

Money, status, evidence, judicial credibility, and banking access are different instruments, but each controls how much room people and institutions have to refuse.

Florida became the lead because voters made one of those instruments fail in public. The buried stories show how rarely power announces itself so clearly when the instrument succeeds.

Nixon now has to prove that a grassroots primary campaign can become statewide general-election infrastructure. Washington has to decide whether support means listening or merely writing a check.

The rest of us should watch which lesson the party chooses while keeping our eyes on the households, patients, voters, young people, and families who never receive an election-night chyron.

The establishment can call Florida an upset; the vote already counted it as a warning.

Support XVOA

Today’s Brief required checking election returns and campaign filings, reading the limits of court orders, separating a possible trial from a guaranteed one, and following policy from an immigration docket into a disability-care facility.

Paid subscriptions⁠ are the dependable base that lets this Black-led desk keep doing that work across stories national coverage separates or ignores.

Eli Keep This Desk Keepin On

Thank you to every current paid subscriber already carrying it.

For readers who do not want another recurring subscription, current paid readers who want to add direct support, or anyone choosing anything from a small contribution to a substantial one-time gift, Buy Me a Coffee⁠ is the flexible backstop.

Buy Me A Coffee

The primary ask remains simple which is become a paid subscriber and help keep the full daily intelligence scan intact.

Sources

[1] The Guardian, “Democratic socialist Angie Nixon scores surprise win in Florida US Senate primary”⁠.

[2] Associated Press, “Democratic socialist Angie Nixon won Tuesday’s primary in Florida. Can she win in November?”⁠.

[3] Florida Politics, “Alex Vindman, Angie Nixon make their closing arguments in Democratic U.S. Senate Primary”⁠.

[4] Reuters, “US judge allows Trump to end thousands of Ethiopians’ deportation protections”⁠.

[5] People, “More Than 40 Days After Nolan Wells’ Death, Little Is Publicly Known About What Happened”⁠.

[6] Reuters, “US civil rights group joins team seeking answers in death of Black teen Nolan Wells”⁠.

[7] Associated Press, “Judge removed from Texas track meet killing case as Karmelo Anthony seeks new trial”⁠.

[8] Collin County, “Information for the trial State of Texas v. Karmelo Sincere Anthony”⁠.

[9] Associated Press, “US hits ICC president and senior prosecutor with sanctions in another move against the court”⁠.

[10] Associated Press, “ICC slams US decision to sanction the court’s president and a senior prosecution lawyer”⁠.

[11] Don Lemon, “Angie Nixon interview”⁠.

[12] WUSF, “Moody leads Nixon by 8 points, Vindman by 10 in new poll of Florida Senate race”⁠.

[13] Florida Voice, “Jacksonville Rep. Angie Nixon returns to court after arrest during DeSantis office sit-in”⁠.

[14] Reuters, “US appeals court blocks immigration enforcement actions under Trump near some houses of worship”⁠.

[15] Reuters, “US families, healthcare providers under strain after Trump crackdown on Haitian immigrants”⁠.

[16] Reuters, “Court upholds US rule designating PFAS chemicals hazardous”⁠.

[17] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances”⁠.

[18] Mississippi Today, “Mississippi lawmakers launch redistricting process after Supreme Court ruling”⁠.

[19] Mississippi Legislature, “2026 redistricting hearing schedule”⁠.

[20] WLRN, “Wasserman Schultz wins Fla.’s 20th District Democratic nomination amid outcry over Black representation”⁠.

[21] Capital B Gary, “Gary residents fill recovery gaps after storm and power outages”⁠.

[22] Associated Press, “Tens of thousands in Indiana are still without power a week after deadly storms”⁠.

[23] Grace Place and the Montrose Center, “Asia’s House, Houston’s first LGBTQ-affirming emergency shelter for youth ages 15-17”⁠.

[24] Houston Chronicle, “Houston unveils LGBTQ-affirming emergency youth shelter”⁠.

[25] Associated Press, “Walz moves to block mining near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters”⁠.

[26] State of Minnesota, “Executive Order 26-10”⁠.

[27] Reuters, “US tells schools not to alter discipline policies to reduce racial disparities”⁠.

[28] U.S. Department of Education, “School climate and student discipline resources: Know the data”⁠.

[29] Associated Press, “American Samoa groups sue over deep-sea mining lease process”⁠.

[30] Earthjustice, “Lawsuit challenges American Samoa deep-sea mining lease sale”⁠.

[31] Reuters, “Liberia agrees to accept up to 1,200 third-country deportees from US”⁠.

[32] Associated Press, “Liberia agrees to receive US third-country deportees”⁠.

[33] Times Union, “Sullivan County’s Care Center at Sunset Lake will close”⁠.

[34] Sullivan County, “Adult Care Center at Sunset Lake”⁠.

[35] New York Immigration Coalition, “Haitian TPS community testimony”⁠.

Sonya Wimberly Hawkins told me she almost died giving birth. That is where this story should begin, because Black maternal health is no campaign abstraction for the woman challenging Marty Harbin in Georgia Senate District 16. She lived the danger she is now asking Georgia’s government to confront.

Listen, I had my doubts about turning this interview into a Reader’s Cut feature. Most of you live on the West Coast, and a race for one state Senate seat in Georgia can look like somebody else’s map. I could introduce an interesting candidate, wish her well and move on.

That would miss what the interview revealed. Her story opened the door, but we moved from maternal health into electricity bills, data centers, water and what politicians mean when they turn religious freedom into a governing program. By the end of our conversation, District 16 had stopped looking local.

The Georgia Race That Stopped Looking Local

Georgia Senate District 16 is heavily Republican, not a swing-state fantasy waiting for the right viral clip. Incumbent Marty Harbin won it by more than 31 points in 2024. Hawkins must prove that a statewide revolt over utility costs and one-party rule can enter a district where voting Republican has become habit and infrastructure.

That makes this race useful well beyond Georgia. It is a stress test for how much electoral punishment the right can absorb while still holding power where it counts: not only in Washington, but in the statehouses, commissions and committee rooms that turn ideology into the monthly bill.

TLDR

• Hawkins won the 2026 Democratic primary with 72.6 percent of the vote. Harbin, however, carried the district 65.77 to 34.23 percent in the 2024 general election. The structural challenge is enormous. [1][2]

• Georgia voters already demonstrated real anger over electricity costs. In 2025, Democrats decisively defeated two Republican Public Service Commission incumbents, but Republicans still hold a 3–2 majority on the commission. [3]

• The data-center boom has made utility planning, water use and financial risk into kitchen-table issues. Regulators and Georgia Power say large customers will cover their costs; critics warn that ordinary customers could still inherit stranded assets if projected demand fails to materialize. [5][6]

• Harbin openly places faith at the center of his political identity and helped sponsor Georgia’s 2025 religious-freedom law. Supporters call it a shield against government intrusion; opponents note that Georgia has no comprehensive statewide civil-rights law protecting LGBTQ people. [8][9]

• Georgia’s maternal-health emergency makes the stakes physical. State reviewers found that 87 percent of pregnancy-related deaths from 2020 through 2022 had at least some chance of prevention. [10]

If this analysis makes a Georgia district feel less distant, restack this and send it to one person who thinks utility regulation or religious-liberty law is somebody else’s local story. That distance is one of power’s best defenses.

Subscribe now

Sonya Wimberly Hawkins Interview: Watch by Chapter

1 | THE RACE AND THE WOMAN RUNNING IT

• 0:00 — Harbin’s faith-and-freedom worldview

• 0:24 — Meet Sonya Wimberly Hawkins

• 2:33 — Why she could no longer remain a private citizen

• 5:11 — The medical trauma she still carries

• 8:41 — When public policy became personal

2 | WHAT POWER COSTS

• 17:00 — Can a Democrat break through in Georgia Senate District 16?

• 18:08 — Data centers, water and special treatment

• 20:55 — The Public Service Commission and utility accountability

• 25:01 — Restoring Georgia’s utility consumer watchdog

3 | FAITH, CULTURE AND THE BALLOT

• 27:45 — Harbin’s religious rhetoric and freedom of worship

• 31:00 — What voters need beyond culture-war politics

• 33:40 — Books, voting access and the machinery of power

• 38:02 — How Sonya plans to defeat Marty Harbin

4 | WHEN POLICY ENTERS THE BODY

• 40:10 — Georgia’s Black maternal-health crisis

• 42:06 — What Sonya would change in maternal healthcare

• 45:00 — Why this seat matters beyond District 16

• 47:15 — Registered nonvoters and the path to victory

5 | THE CLOSE

• 49:45 — How to support the campaign

• 51:20 — Closing: Relief here, not only heaven later

  ---

Why Policy Became Personal

Hawkins’s political formation begins inside her own body. In the interview, she described an emergency C-section in which the epidural wore off, her pleas for pain relief were met with suspicion, and staff required a drug test before giving her additional medication. Her blood pressure rose to a dangerous level. The memory still carried force: she knew something was wrong and discovered that being articulate did not guarantee being believed.

She later worked in Pennsylvania with a rehabilitation program serving children as young as twelve. It included a school and treatment that could offer an alternative to incarceration. Hawkins said the work taught her that policy can redirect a life, and unlikely allies become possible when the argument returns to healthy families, healthy children and work that pays enough to live.

Those experiences explain the through line of her campaign. A system is not abstract to the person trapped inside it. The point of politics is not to perfect the argument while leaving that machinery untouched.

The Wall Is Real

Hawkins enters the November 3 general election with a genuine primary mandate. She won 72.6 percent against Pauline Henley on May 19. That is decisive inside the Democratic electorate, but not evidence by itself that the district is ready to change parties. [1]

The harder number is Harbin’s. In 2024 he received 71,842 votes to Democrat Amili Blake’s 37,388, a margin of 31.54 points. You do not close that gap with better branding or a few additional lawn signs. Hawkins needs higher Democratic participation, some Republican persuasion and enough money to show voters who may never attend a Democratic event that their private frustrations have public authors. [2]

The Headwind Republicans Have Already Felt

There is evidence for Hawkins’s theory, although not yet proof of her path.

In November 2025, Georgia voters removed two Republican incumbents from the Public Service Commission. Democrats Alicia Johnson and Peter Hubbard each won roughly 63 percent statewide. The victories were widely read as a backlash to years of Georgia Power increases and growing anxiety about the energy demands of data centers. They were also the first statewide, state-level Democratic victories in Georgia since 2006. Republicans nevertheless retained a 3–2 commission majority. [3]

That result is the strongest headwind behind Hawkins, with an important warning. A statewide protest vote for utility regulators does not transfer automatically to a legislative contest, where incumbency, partisan identity and culture-war signals can return a wavering voter to familiar ground.

District 16 therefore becomes a sharper test than the statewide result. Can material anger travel down the ballot, survive the culture-war sorting machine and attach itself to a Democratic challenger? Or can the Republican coalition absorb the anger, concede that the bills hurt and still keep the seat?

The Public Service Commission Is Not Background Scenery

The Georgia Public Service Commission has exclusive rate-setting authority over investor-owned utilities. In electricity, that means Georgia Power. It does not set rates for municipal utilities or electric membership cooperatives, a distinction that matters in a state with several kinds of power provider. The commission also reviews Georgia Power’s long-range plans and determines whether new generation should be certified. [4]

For customers in Georgia Power territory, those proceedings have been expensive. A three-year plan raised base rates in 2023, 2024 and 2025; fuel and Plant Vogtle added more. By January 2025, the Georgia Recorder calculated that the typical household bill was about $43 a month higher than at the beginning of 2023. A June 2026 fuel-and-storm settlement then reduced the typical bill by $4.04 a month, according to Georgia Power. [5]

The commission later approved a freeze on base rates through the end of 2028. That phrase requires all three words. It is a base-rate freeze, not a promise that the total bill cannot change. Fuel and storm-recovery charges live outside that guarantee. [5]

Hawkins offered one concrete response: restore an independent Consumers’ Utility Counsel to represent residential and small-business customers in rate cases. Georgia had such an office from the 1970s until recession-era cuts eliminated it in 2008. The PSC says its existing public-interest staff already performs that work; supporters argue that customers need an advocate separate from the regulator. A 2024 restoration bill passed the Senate without opposition but died in a House committee. [12]

This is why the PSC changed the scale of the interview. West Coast readers know that an obscure regulatory proceeding can reorganize a household budget. The acronyms change; the machinery does not. A public body approves private investment, the company earns a return, and customers are told that today’s pain purchases tomorrow’s reliability.

The Data-Center Bargain

Georgia’s electricity forecast changed at astonishing speed. According to the PSC’s own fact sheet, Georgia Power’s seven-year projection for new demand rose from about 400 megawatts in 2022 to 6,600 megawatts in 2023 and 8,500 megawatts in 2025. In December 2025, regulators approved nearly 10 gigawatts of additional capacity, most of it associated with data-center growth. [6]

The Associated Press estimated roughly $16.3 billion in construction costs and $50 billion to $60 billion over time once financing and utility returns are included. Georgia Power and the PSC say new contract rules will make large users pay the costs they create. Critics argue that the safeguards cannot eliminate stranded-asset risk if forecasts fail or a large customer leaves. The new rules do not establish that families are already paying data-center costs, but they do not make stranded risk imaginary. [6]

In Fayette County, the argument also became a water story. A massive QTS project drew attention after records showed tens of millions of gallons used during construction before all use had been properly metered and billed. The company later paid a retroactive bill. Residents connected the project to weak water pressure, while county officials said the site accounted for less than 1 percent of production and did not affect residential pressure. [7]

Both facts belong in the account, along with the larger question Hawkins raised: Who approves a project, who measures its use, who receives the promised benefit and who can demand an accounting before the concrete is dry?

That question reverberates nationally because data centers are not weightless clouds. They arrive as substations, transmission lines, backup generation, water demand, tax abatements and land-use fights. The artificial-intelligence economy may be global. Its invoices are intensely local.

When Faith Becomes a Governing Program

Harbin does not hide the role of religion in his politics. His public biography says he is guided by “faith, family, and freedom” and calls the freedom to believe and worship the most important freedom. He has represented District 16 since 2015 and repeatedly sponsored religious-liberty legislation. [8]

Georgia enacted one of those measures in 2025. Senate Bill 36 requires the state to meet a demanding legal test when government action substantially burdens religious exercise. Supporters describe the law as protection against government overreach. Opponents point out that Georgia has no comprehensive statewide civil-rights law protecting LGBTQ people and warn that the measure could become a defense for discrimination. An amendment meant to add anti-discrimination language failed. [9]

That record also reached libraries. In 2024, Harbin co-sponsored Senate Bill 390, which would have barred covered institutions from spending public or private funds on American Library Association materials or services. It passed the Senate 33–20 but died in a House committee. [14]

The useful contrast with Hawkins is not believer against nonbeliever. That would be cheap, inaccurate and politically stupid. The question is what happens after religious conviction enters the statute book.

Whose exercise is being protected? Who can be denied a service? Which child can find a book? What remedy exists when one person’s freedom collides with a more powerful person’s faith?

Hawkins’s challenge is to make that distinction without insulting the deeply religious voters she needs to reach. Harbin’s challenge is to show that a language of moral authority produces measurable public good beyond the coalition already fluent in it. A decade in office deserves an audit, not a halo.

Hawkins also connected that moral language to the machinery of remaining in power. Georgia’s 2021 election law restricted third parties from giving food or water to voters within 150 feet of a polling place, limited absentee drop boxes and tightened other voting procedures. State officials defend the law as an election-security measure. The Biden Justice Department challenged several provisions as racially discriminatory in 2021; the Trump Justice Department dismissed the federal government’s claims in March 2025. [13] Her underlying point was broader than one statute: the people who win elections also write the rules for the next one.

The Body Keeps the Record

Maternal health is where abstractions lose their cover.

Georgia’s Department of Public Health reviewed 141 pregnancy-related deaths from 2020 through 2022. Eighty-seven percent had at least some chance of prevention, and 30 percent occurred from 43 days to one year after pregnancy. In a separate review of 2021, the pregnancy-related mortality ratio for Black women was 81.4 per 100,000 live births, compared with 27.9 for white women. [10]

Those numbers describe failures in recognition, treatment, insurance, transportation, staffing and the willingness to believe Black women when they report that something is wrong.

Hawkins answered with a policy bundle which is to recruit more physicians from underrepresented communities, require cultural-competency training, cover doula care through Medicaid and expand Medicaid. Her own birth story explains why training belongs beside coverage. Insurance cannot protect a patient whose pain is discounted after she reaches the hospital.

They also force precision. Medicare is principally a federal program for older people and certain people with disabilities. The state-level coverage fight for low-income, nonelderly adults is Medicaid. Georgia has extended Medicaid through twelve months postpartum. Its broader Pathways program covers some adults up to 100 percent of the poverty level if they document qualifying activities. [11]

A candidate promising action should still be judged by implementation as in which funding line moves first, what changes for rural hospitals, which agency owns the deadline and what result voters should inspect a year later. Empathy tells us which suffering matters. Governing determines whether the system behaves differently after the speech.

What Winning Would Actually Mean

Hawkins cannot win by proving that Harbin is conservative. Many of his voters consider that the point. Her first pool, she said, is registered voters who habitually sit elections out. She believes layoffs, rising costs and the question of who profits from public policy can give those voters a reason to participate.

That is a turnout theory, not a complete coalition. She still needs some disaffected Republicans and independents, repeated voter contact and an alternative that feels competent rather than symbolic.

The 2025 PSC results give her an opening, not a forecast. If she wins, the lesson will be that economic pressure and resistance to one-party rule can crack even a district Republicans carried by more than 30 points. If she loses narrowly, the margin and county movement will still tell us whether the wall is weakening. If Harbin reproduces something close to his 2024 result, that will demonstrate just how resilient right-wing legislative power remains even when voters punish Republicans elsewhere on the same underlying issues.

Every outcome contains information. Only one gives Hawkins a Senate seat.

The Final Verdict

I began this project wondering whether I could make a Georgia state Senate race matter to readers three time zones away. That was the wrong burden of proof.

The power grid does not care where you subscribe from. Neither do the recurring fights over when faith becomes law, who bears infrastructure risk and why preventable maternal deaths remain so common. The names of the commissions change. The distribution of power is painfully familiar.

District 16 will show whether voters who feel the cost of Republican governance are willing to change the party that has governed the state, or whether partisan identity can hold the line after the material bargain starts to fail.

A canary does not tell you exactly when the mine will collapse. It tells you what kind of air everybody is breathing.

Politics cannot manufacture heaven on earth. It can decide whether mothers survive, whether families can afford the lights, whether public money builds public value and whether freedom belongs to everybody in the room. That is not fanciful. It is the minimum standard for power that asks to be renewed.

Support XVOA

This Reader’s Cut is completely public because the stakes should not disappear behind a paywall. If you want XVOA to keep doing the slow work of turning local contests into national accountability, become a paid subscriber⁠.

Help Keep This Reporting Keepin On

Current paid supporters, thank you. You make the reporting possible. That support matters. If a subscription is not your move, Buy Me a Coffee⁠ is the flexible backstop. As little as 5 dollars is a tremendous help and helps XVOA keeps the lights on.

Buy Me A Coffee

Sources

[1] Georgia Secretary of State: Official May 19, 2026 primary results⁠ and November 3, 2026 general-election calendar⁠.

[2] Georgia Secretary of State: Official November 2024 general-election results⁠.

[3] Georgia Secretary of State and GPB/AP: Official 2025 Public Service Commission election results⁠ and reporting on the winners, rate backlash and commission balance⁠.

[4] Georgia Public Service Commission: The commission’s authority and the utilities it regulates⁠.

[5] Georgia Recorder, Associated Press and Georgia Power: The cumulative effect of Georgia Power increases through January 2025⁠, the Plant Vogtle increase⁠, the base-rate freeze through 2028⁠ and the June 2026 bill reduction⁠.

[6] Georgia Public Service Commission and Associated Press: PSC data-center and load-growth fact sheet⁠ and reporting on the nearly 10-gigawatt expansion, projected costs and dispute over risk⁠.

[7] Fayette County and Atlanta News First: The county’s QTS water-use fact sheet⁠ and reporting on meters, billing, usage and the county’s response⁠.

[8] Marty Harbin campaign biography: Harbin’s account of his tenure, faith and governing principles⁠.

[9] Georgia General Assembly and Associated Press: Senate Bill 36 legislative record⁠ and reporting on the arguments for and against Georgia’s 2025 religious-freedom law⁠.

[10] Georgia Department of Public Health: 2020–2022 maternal-mortality fact sheet⁠ and 2019–2021 case review with racial disparities and preventability findings⁠.

[11] Georgia Medicaid: Family Medicaid and twelve-month postpartum coverage⁠ and current eligibility rules for Georgia Pathways⁠.

[12] Georgia Public Broadcasting and Georgia Recorder: History of the Consumers’ Utility Counsel and the 2024 bill to restore it⁠ and the later effort to revive the office⁠.

[13] Georgia Secretary of State and U.S. Department of Justice: The state’s account of SB 202’s line-relief and drop-box provisions⁠, the federal government’s 2021 challenge⁠ and the Justice Department’s March 2025 dismissal of its claims⁠.

[14] Georgia General Assembly and Associated Press: Senate Bill 390 legislative record⁠ and reporting on the proposal to end state library ties to the American Library Association⁠.

Get more from Xplisset in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

A Sunday-night autopsy of the week Alisa Hackett’s question became an offense, disputed allegations became entertainment, and powerful institutions treated restraint as optional.

Note to Readers

I hate the news because every story arrives pretending it lives alone. An Arkansas traffic stop is placed in one box, federal surveillance in another, Jason Arday’s death somewhere between academia and media, and sports in its own little corner. That filing system is useful to institutions doing the same thing in different rooms.

This week, Trooper Moisses Arellano gave us the connective tissue. Eighteen-year-old Alisa N. Hackett told him, “You cannot punch me in my face.” He answered, “Who said I can’t?”

That answer is larger than one traffic stop without making every story equivalent to a police punch. It is the sound power makes when it no longer expects a meaningful no.

This is the Reader’s Cut of the weekly XVOA cultural autopsy. The broadcast is the pressure valve. This page is the evidence room, with the court records, qualifications, source links and Sunday-night updates restored. You should be able to read this without pressing play and lose nothing essential.

Subscribe now

TLDR

• The question became the offense. An Arkansas trooper admits striking Hackett in the face during an arrest, and the dashcam records him challenging her to identify who said he could not do it.[1][2][3]

• Dissent became an intelligence target. A Minnesota defense filing describes undercover federal agents entering anti-ICE meetings and chats, while the White House tried another route around birthright citizenship.[4][5][6][7]

• Pain and policy received softer names. ICE forecast a multimillion-dollar acquisition of electric shock gloves, while CMS made low-income families carry the administration’s anti-trans financing policy.[8][9]

• Unfinished allegations became entertainment. Coyote vs. Acme escaped its corporate grave, Tupac Shakur’s murder case seated a jury, and Jason Arday died after disputed allegations became a racialized public spectacle involving legacy media and Black creators.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

• Proof of life remained visible. Black arts institutions built their own doors, athlete labor remained unsettled, and the supposedly missing audience for women’s sports became measurable.[19][20][23][24][25][26]

Restack It and Share This Pleeeeze

Alisa Hackett’s words should travel farther than the machinery that tried to reduce them to attitude. Restack this Reader’s Cut, share it and send it to one person who needs the evidence.

This reporting remains public because the record needs witnesses.⁠

Paid SUbscriptions

Paid subscriptions finance the source checks and reporting time required to build it. If another subscription is not in the cards, Buy Me a Coffee⁠ is the backup lane.

The Five Ways They Tried to Fu** Us Over

WAY ONE: ALISA HACKETT’S QUESTION BECAME THE OFFENSE

On August 1, at about 10:45 p.m., Arellano stopped Hackett on Arkansas Highway 18 near Manila in Mississippi County. Police records cite alleged speeding and several additional traffic violations. Arellano’s report says he initially intended to issue citations, then decided to make an arrest after an exchange in which Hackett’s supposed attitude became part of the justification. During a recorded call, another trooper encouraged the arrest and referred to Hackett by race. The publicly available record does not identify that trooper securely enough for me to name him.[1][2][3]

When Arellano moved to handcuff her, Hackett repeatedly asked what she had done. The recording shows her turning and pulling one arm away as he tried to secure her hands. He took her to the pavement, and his report says he struck the left side of her face once with a closed fist while trying to gain compliance. The dashcam loses sight of their bodies during that portion of the struggle, so the video does not visibly show the fist landing. The admission comes from Arellano’s own report and his later recorded statements.[1][2]

The defining evidence arrives after the strike. Hackett says, “You cannot punch me in my face.” Arellano replies, “Who said? Who says?” After she calls for her mother, he asks, “Who said I can’t punch you in your face?” He later describes having “tuned her up” and tells someone by phone that he struck her once in the jaw.[2]

Hackett filed a federal lawsuit on August 10 alleging excessive force and retaliation for protected speech. Those civil claims have not been adjudicated. Her traffic and criminal charges are separate matters, and neither set of allegations should be converted into a verdict about the other. As of Sunday night, Arkansas State Police had not publicly announced discipline, a completed use-of-force review or the outcome of any internal investigation.[1][3]

Listen, this is coming from someone who spent 20 years working as a patrol officer. Pulling an arm away can justify some degree of control, but it does not erase the underlying offense, her ability to flee, the threat she presented, the control already achieved or the alternatives available. A closed fist to the face requires its own justification because the sentence “she resisted” cannot function as a blank check.

Why this matters. Traffic stops do not escalate by magic because people make the decisions that change their course. Hackett’s demand for an explanation was recoded as attitude, attitude helped become arrest, and physical resistance became the stated reason for striking her. The legal system will decide the claims before it. Arkansas still has to answer the institutional question: was this necessary control, or did state power punish a Black teenager for refusing emotional obedience?

WAY TWO: OPERATION PUPPET MASTER PUT DISSENT INSIDE THE FILE

Yes, that is the government’s name for it. An August 13 defense motion in a Minnesota protest prosecution quotes Homeland Security reports describing undercover personnel entering anti-ICE meetings and Signal chats, recording license plates, compiling personal dossiers and obtaining financial records connected to unions and nonprofit organizations. The filing’s description comes from defense lawyers reviewing discovery. It is not a judicial finding that every allegation in the motion is true.[4][5]

Fifteen people were charged in June and remain presumed innocent. None of the organizations named in the filing was charged. That distinction matters because the government’s collection appears to have spread beyond the defendants and alleged conduct into the social body around dissent, including meetings, relatives, vehicles, communications and financial relationships.[4][5]

Why this matters. The state does not have to arrest every organizer to chill organizing. It only has to make enough people wonder whether attending a meeting, appearing in a group chat or parking outside a protest has placed them inside a future intelligence file.

WAY THREE: BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP GETS ANOTHER ELIGIBILITY SCREEN

After the administration lost its earlier attempt to narrow the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship guarantee, the White House issued two narrower orders on August 6 directing agencies to withhold recognition of citizenship in newly asserted categories. Civil-rights groups returned to federal court on August 11 in the existing Barbara class action, asking the judge to confirm that babies covered by the nationwide protection already obtained remain protected from the new orders.[6][7]

As of Sunday night, that motion remained pending. The administration says its new categories comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling. The challengers describe them as another unconstitutional end run. Lose on the guarantee, create new classifications, then make families fight over whether the old protection reaches the new language.

Why this matters. A constitutional right is being administered like an eligibility screen, and the uncertainty is part of the pressure rather than an incidental byproduct. It makes parents, hospitals and agencies hesitate while executive power tests how much of the guarantee can be withheld through procedure.

WAY FOUR: THE ELECTRIC GLOVE IS CALLED DE-ESCALATION

On August 10, Homeland Security published an acquisition forecast seeking between $10 million and $20 million in CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E. devices for Homeland Security Investigations and Enforcement and Removal Operations. The devices deliver an electrical shock through direct contact with bare skin. At the week’s deadline, the public record described an anticipated acquisition. It did not establish an awarded contract, a completed purchase or field deployment.[8]

The manufacturer presents the glove as a compliance and de-escalation tool. Critics argue that a contact device may be harder to document than a conventional stun gun. My concern as a former patrol officer is visibility. A tool that delivers pain through touch makes policy, activation records, medical screening, supervisory review and after-action documentation more important, not less.

Why this matters. “De-escalation” has become the euphemism doing the work here. A government agency is considering a less visually obvious way to deliver electrical pain, and the marketing language invites the public to treat coercion as restraint before the oversight structure is even visible.

WAY FIVE: MEDICAID AND CHIP CARRY THE CULTURE WAR

CMS finalized a rule on August 11 and published it in the Federal Register on August 13, with an October 13 effective date. It blocks federal matching funds for specified gender-affirming interventions for people younger than 18 in Medicaid and younger than 19 in CHIP.

This is a federal financing restriction, not a total nationwide prohibition on all gender-affirming care. States can use state-only money, private insurance falls outside this rule, mental-health treatment remains covered and existing hormone prescriptions receive a limited transition period.[9]

CMS says the evidence does not justify federal funding, a conclusion disputed by medical organizations and LGBTQ advocates. Whatever position someone holds in the larger policy argument, the first practical fact is that the rule applies its pressure through programs serving families with the fewest financial exits.

Why this matters. Scarcity is the enforcement mechanism. The federal government has turned an ideological position into a funding penalty, then placed the earliest burden on young people and low-income families least able to purchase a different policy with their own money.

That concludes the Five Ways They Tried to Fuck Us Over.

Now I want to place the week’s central question before you: where have you watched an institution confuse having power with having permission? Tell me what it claimed, how that claim became normal and what forcing it to explain itself would require. Go beyond “this is terrible.” Show me the machinery in the comments.

Entertainment

COYOTE ESCAPES THE CORPORATE GRAVE

Warner Bros. Discovery shelved the completed Coyote vs. Acme while considering a tax write-off, even though the cast and crew had finished the work. Ketchup Entertainment later acquired the film, and its theatrical release remains scheduled for Friday, August 28. The sale did not happen this week. The current story is that a movie once marked for disappearance is now less than two weeks from reaching theaters.[10][11]

Why this matters. Completed creative labor was treated as an accounting object that could become more valuable by vanishing. Public pressure did not repair the corporate system that made the decision possible, but it kept the vault door from closing quietly and preserved a finished artifact for an audience.

A JURY FOR TUPAC

On August 13, a Las Vegas court seated 12 jurors and four alternates for the murder trial of Duane “Keffe D” Davis. Opening statements are scheduled for Monday, August 17. Davis has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors allege that he orchestrated the 1996 drive-by killing of Tupac Shakur and supplied the weapon. They do not allege that Davis fired the fatal shots.[12]

For nearly 30 years, this killing has lived inside memoir, documentary, street history, accusation and mythology. A courtroom has different obligations. The government carries the burden of proof, Davis gets a defense, and cultural certainty does not substitute for admissible evidence.

Why this matters. A verdict cannot restore Tupac, and a trial should not become another true-crime carnival built on a Black artist’s death. Its value is narrower and more serious: the only prosecution ever brought in the case will finally be tested through evidence rather than rumor.

JASON ARDAY: WHEN INVESTIGATION BECAME AN IDENTITY VERDICT

Jason Arday, 41, was found unresponsive at his home in south London on Friday, August 14, and pronounced dead at the scene. Metropolitan Police describe the death as unexpected but not believed suspicious. A file is being prepared for the coroner, and no public cause of death has been announced.

That means this article will not claim suicide, imply foul play or assign responsibility for his death to the press, Nathan Cofnas, Aba N Preach, TKM or anyone else.[13]

Arday’s family says he endured sustained abuse and a campaign of misinformation that became too much for him. That is the family’s assessment, not a coroner’s finding. London Mayor Sadiq Khan called what happened a pernicious public shaming. Cambridge and other institutions where Arday worked issued statements of grief.[13]

The academic record cannot be reduced to either “proven fraud” or “completely exonerated.” Scholars raised integrity concerns before the public explosion, several papers received corrections, and media analyses identified substantial similarities in his 2015 doctoral thesis. Liverpool John Moores University reviewed the thesis and upheld the doctorate.

Cambridge initially said prior complaints had produced no finding of wrongdoing, then announced a fresh inquiry after receiving new information about qualifications, honorary appointments and continuing misconduct complaints. Arday denied deliberate plagiarism while acknowledging mistakes and errors.[14]

The Sunday-night update is that Cambridge has paused its inquiry while Arday’s family grieves and may decide later whether to reopen it. No Cambridge investigation had reached a final conclusion before his death.[15]

The public takedown became racialized even though the underlying concerns did not originate entirely on the far right. Nathan Cofnas, who describes himself as a race realist and is known for claims connecting race and academic ability, ignited the public campaign with a post titled “DEI Fraud and Cover-Up at Cambridge.”

Conservative and anti-DEI outlets then treated Arday’s case as a referendum on Black advancement and institutional standards. Political provenance cannot disprove a document, but it tells us why one disputed academic record became a symbolic hunt.[14]

Black creators entered that machinery too. On August 12, before Arday’s death was reported, Aba N Preach released a 26-minute video titled “Total Fraud.” They called Arday a liar, plagiarist and fraud, mocked and questioned his account of his disability and developmental history, and treated unfinished allegations as settled.

The most revealing moment comes when Aba acknowledges that some accusers had questionable research or “political axes to grind,” then says Arday “definitely did these things” anyway.[16]

After Arday’s death, TKM challenged Aba N Preach and the British media. He said they had thrown Arday under the bus, failed to perform due diligence and had a duty to “make sure you get it right.”

That rebuke captures the responsibility attached to a large platform. It does not establish that every allegation against Arday was false, that Aba N Preach failed due diligence as a proven fact or that any coverage caused his death.[17]

We do not have to choose between those forms of certainty. Black solidarity does not require suppressing evidence. Black commentary still owes its audience a visible line between verified fact, disputed allegation, inference, performance and joke. Arday’s death does not acquit him of every allegation, and alleged errors do not erase his humanity.

Why this matters. An allegation can deserve investigation without a human being deserving annihilation. When a creator prints the verdict in the title before the institutions finish their work, criticism becomes identity judgment and the audience is trained to experience humiliation as proof.

Arts

THE KENNEDY CENTER BECOMES A SELF-MONUMENT

On August 13, the Trump-aligned Kennedy Center board voted to add language to the building crediting President Donald Trump with its restoration and renovation, designate the grounds as “President Donald J. Trump Plaza” and close most of the center for two years. The Reach could retain some programming. The vote followed a federal judge’s order removing Trump’s name and blocking an earlier closure plan.[18]

The board has approved a plan. The new inscription has not yet become an accomplished fact, the building has not already begun this newly approved closure, and the legal conflict remains unresolved. Those distinctions matter because institutional capture often arrives through repeated administrative acts that dare the courts to keep saying no.[18]

Why this matters. Control the board, control the building, control access to the stage, then control the sentence future visitors are expected to remember. A national arts institution is being used to personalize state power and place one living politician inside the architecture of public memory.

ZEITZ MOCAA CHOOSES ITS NEXT ARTISTIC DIRECTOR

On August 12, Cape Town’s Zeitz Museum of Contemporary Art Africa announced Elvira Dyangani Ose as its next artistic director, effective October 1. She brings leadership and curatorial experience from MACBA, The Showroom, Tate and work involving artists from Africa and its diaspora. She is not yet serving in the position, and her title will be artistic director.[19]

Why this matters. Museum leadership is infrastructure. It shapes which artists are collected, preserved, financed, studied and made legible across borders. A major African institution selecting its next steward is a story about continuity and gatekeeping power, not merely a prestigious appointment.

BLACK ART IN AMERICA BUILDS A DOOR OF ITS OWN

Black Art In America’s Fine Art Print Fair and Works on Paper Show ran August 14 through August 16 at its Gallery & Gardens in East Point, Georgia. The event centered limited-edition prints, original works on paper, multiple price points, artist engagement and practical collecting education. The physical fair concluded Sunday, while its online collection remains accessible.[20]

Why this matters. This is access with ownership attached. While one national institution turns toward personal branding, Black artists and collectors are building circulation and cultural memory through independent infrastructure without waiting for an elite gatekeeper to declare the work valuable.

Sports

THE WNBA DECLINES TO MANUFACTURE AN EMERGENCY

The WNBA’s anti-hate task force met on August 12 after former NBA players Enes Kanter Freedom and Royce White announced that they identified as women and intended to enter the 2027 WNBA draft.

No transgender woman has appeared on a WNBA roster, and the league said no immediate eligibility matter affected it. The WNBA condemned bad-faith efforts to marginalize people and announced no new rule, while saying discussion would continue.[21]

The contrast inside the Reader’s Cut is the WTA. Genetic eligibility screening for WTA players began this month at the Cincinnati Open, according to Jessica Pegula. The one-time test looks for the SRY gene. Supporters describe it as a fairness measure, while human-rights advocates argue that it subjects every player to screening in response to a category of controversy rather than a known current transgender competitor.[22]

Why this matters. These are two different institutional responses to the same political pressure. The WNBA declined to treat two men’s stunt as an immediate eligibility emergency. The WTA converted the debate into a medical-governance system affecting every player. The real story is who acquires power over women’s bodies when a hypothetical threat becomes policy.

COLLEGE SPORTS AND THE WORD “PROTECTION”

The Senate left for recess on August 8 without voting on the Protect College Sports Act, though the bill was placed on the September calendar. Supporters say it would create national name, image and likeness and revenue-sharing rules, preserve scholarships and medical protections, and protect women’s and Olympic sports.

The AFL-CIO Sports Council argues that it would limit collective bargaining, athlete compensation and states’ ability to expand athlete rights.[23][24][25]

The delay did not settle the dispute. Labor opposition was one force among several, including concerns from senators in Southeastern Conference states, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, amendment fights and the legislative calendar. Calling the bill “protection” does not resolve whom the protection is designed to secure.

Why this matters. Institutions want national stability around a profitable system. Athlete workers and unions want power over compensation and working conditions. The stalled bill showed that athlete labor is not a settled question Congress can package beneath a reassuring title.

THE AUDIENCE WAS THERE

Nielsen reported 28.6 billion U.S. viewing minutes for women’s sports during the first half of 2026, an 18 percent increase over the same period in 2025.

It also reported advertising spending up 120 percent since 2022 and 3.8 billion WNBA viewing minutes before the All-Star break. Those figures measure aggregate viewing minutes and advertising estimates, not unique viewers or league revenue.[26]

Why this matters. For years, the industry described women’s sports as an audience problem when the deeper problems were access, investment and promotion. Put games where people can find them, cover athletes like their work matters, and the supposedly missing audience becomes measurable.

Closing Argument

THE SUNDAY AUTOPSY

“Who said I can’t?” begins with one Arkansas trooper answering one Black teenager. It does not make a police punch, a funding rule, a procurement forecast and a creator commentary video interchangeable. The harms differ. The recurring psychology is the collapse of restraint.

Power acts first, supplies the euphemism or verdict afterward, then asks who has the standing to object.

At the roadside, that collapse became literal state violence. In federal policy, it became surveillance, citizenship categories, low-visibility pain technology and a medical-funding penalty. In culture, completed labor became a potential accounting loss, a public arts institution became a president’s monument, and an unresolved academic case became an entertainment product with the verdict already printed on the package.

There is projection underneath much of this. Power relocates its own aggression into the person it wants to control, turning Hackett’s questions into attitude, organizing into a security threat, poor families into the policy problem and a Black professor’s disputed record into evidence against an entire project of Black advancement.

Once that projection is accepted, the institution can describe punishment as protection.

Jason Arday’s death does not resolve the allegations, and the allegations did not cancel his personhood. Neither TKM’s anger nor Aba N Preach’s confidence can substitute for findings from a coroner or an academic institution.

Black creators do not owe every Black public figure automatic defense, but large platforms do owe their audiences enough respect to keep evidence, uncertainty, judgment and ridicule from collapsing into one loud performance.

Who was supposed to tell power no this week? The law, courts, oversight, professional standards, unions, journalists, artists, audiences and the public all carry pieces of that responsibility.

Some still tried. Hackett filed suit, civil-rights groups returned to court, and a buried film made it to the road toward theaters. Zeitz MOCAA chose stewardship, Black Art In America built access, the WNBA recognized a bad-faith stunt, the college-sports bill revealed unresolved athlete labor power, and women’s-sports audiences kept showing up.

I do not have a clean “hope wins” ending for Sunday night. Refusal has to become durable power before the machinery learns that it can ignore the word no.

The standard worth carrying into Monday is simple even when enforcing it is not: authority must explain itself, evidence must remain separate from spectacle, and nobody’s humanity becomes collateral because accountability is inconvenient.

Support XVOA

KEEP THIS THING ALIVE

This Reader’s Cut required the traffic-stop recording, federal complaint, court filings, executive order, procurement record, health-policy documents, academic chronology and a source-level audit of two creator videos.

Free readers who want this Black-led intelligence desk to keep doing that work can join the paid XVOA community⁠. Current paid members, thank you.

Help Keep The Lights On Go Paid

Readers who do not want another recurring subscription can use Buy Me a Coffee⁠ as the one-time support lane.

Sources

1. Hackett v. Arellano, federal complaint⁠. The August 10 complaint supplies Hackett’s civil allegations, the stop chronology and the pleaded legal claims.

2. KATV, continuous dashcam upload⁠. The recording documents the stop, the post-strike exchange and Arellano’s later statements while leaving the actual punch below the camera frame.

3. CBS News, Arkansas trooper traffic-stop investigation⁠. The report supplies additional case status, police-record context and responses to the incident.

4. Defense discovery motion describing Operation Puppet Master⁠. The filing quotes and characterizes government discovery concerning undercover activity and information collection.

5. The Guardian, document-based report on anti-ICE surveillance⁠. The report places the defense filing, charged defendants and named organizations in context.

6. Reuters, Trump signs two narrower birthright-citizenship orders⁠. The report describes the August 6 orders and the categories asserted by the administration.

7. ACLU, August 11 motion announcement⁠. The civil-rights coalition explains the requested clarification in the Barbara class action.

8. DHS Acquisition Planning Forecast System, CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E. record⁠. The procurement record establishes the estimated value, agencies and forecast stage.

9. Federal Register, final Medicaid and CHIP funding rule⁠. The primary rule supplies the covered programs, age distinctions, transition terms and October 13 effective date.

10. Ketchup Entertainment, official Coyote vs. Acme page⁠. The distributor lists the August 28 theatrical release.

11. Associated Press, Coyote vs. Acme approaches theaters⁠. The report covers the film’s shelving, sale and return from a proposed tax-write-off burial.

12. Associated Press, jury seated in the Tupac Shakur murder trial⁠. The report supplies jury composition, charge posture and the scheduled August 17 opening.

13. The Guardian, Jason Arday found dead at 41⁠. The report supplies the police posture, family statement, institutional responses and absence of a public cause of death.

14. The Guardian, documented chronology of the Jason Arday allegations⁠. The investigation reviews the thesis allegations, corrections, earlier complaints and institutional responses.

15. The Guardian, Cambridge pauses its Arday inquiry⁠. The Sunday report supplies the university’s latest inquiry status and response after Arday’s death.

16. Aba N Preach, “Total Fraud.”⁠. The August 12 video is the primary source for the creators’ framing, categorical claims and acknowledgment of the campaign’s political baggage.

17. The King Mono Show, Jason Arday response⁠. The post-death episode is the primary source for TKM’s criticism of British media and Aba N Preach.

18. Associated Press, Kennedy Center board vote⁠. The report covers the inscription proposal, plaza designation, closure vote and prior court order.

19. Zeitz MOCAA, Elvira Dyangani Ose appointment⁠. The museum’s announcement confirms her title, October 1 start and professional background.

20. Black Art In America, Fine Art Print Fair and Works on Paper Show⁠. The official page supplies the August 14 through 16 schedule, location, artists and access model.

21. The Guardian, WNBA rejects bad-faith transgender debate⁠. The report covers the task-force meeting, absence of an immediate eligibility issue and the provocation by former NBA players.

22. Reuters, WTA genetic testing begins⁠. The report supplies the Cincinnati rollout, SRY screening method and competing responses to the policy.

23. Associated Press, Protect College Sports Act stalls before recess⁠. The report covers the missed vote, opposition and September calendar.

24. Senate Commerce Committee, Protect College Sports Act description⁠. The committee release presents the bill supporters’ case and proposed protections.

25. AFL-CIO Sports Council, opposition to the Protect College Sports Act⁠. The labor statement explains concerns about bargaining, compensation and state athlete-rights laws.

26. Reuters, Nielsen reports growth in women’s-sports viewing⁠. The report supplies the viewing-minute and advertising estimates with the relevant measurement limits.

A Black face in authority can change the temperature of an encounter. I know that from twenty years in county patrol and from being a Black Army veteran who learned what a uniform communicates before the person inside it speaks. Shared identity can interrupt suspicion and create trust. It can also lower people’s guard before the policy, budget, chain of command, or institution’s appetite for punishment has changed.

That is the trap inside the easy celebration of representation. We see a person who looks like us cross a threshold, then we treat access as if it were proof of transformation. The institution receives the moral credit of inclusion while the people subject to it are asked to stop examining what it does. A familiar face can become a bridge to power, but it can also become power’s shield.

I invited aka Angelica Garcia, LCSW, MBA, onto XVOA because her book, Constitutional Psychology: The Emotional Architecture of Democratic Life, offers language for that contradiction. Her framework connects democratic structures to people’s sense of safety, attachment, belonging, instability, and public trust.[1] It is not a license to diagnose politicians, police officers, media figures, or voters from a clip. It examines the emotional environment created by institutions, rhetoric, and observable patterns of power.

The conversation moved through Dr. Steven W. Thrasher’s “overseer class,” Black policing, the individualism advanced by Brandon Tatum, known professionally as Officer Tatum, Dr. Jason Johnson’s analysis of Black women’s reported motivation ahead of the midterms, and Disney’s reversal on Wonder Man. Each example presented a different version of the same question. When representation opens the door, does the function of power change, or does the new occupant become evidence that no further change is required?

TLDR

• Representation is not transformation. Identity can open access and alter an encounter, but institutional change must be measured by who gains protection, who carries risk, who can make decisions, and who faces consequences.

• Public psychology is not private diagnosis. The framework examines how institutions organize safety, belonging, fear, and attachment without inferring a person’s clinical condition from a clip.

• The “overseer class” is an institutional argument. Dr. Thrasher uses the category to describe marginalized people elevated into visible authority while the institution’s underlying disciplinary function remains intact.[2]

• A personal success story cannot acquit a system. Officer Tatum centers individual agency.[3] My test begins with repeatable institutional outcomes, then asks what an individual can resist or reproduce inside them.

• Material threat is more intimate than symbolic identification. Among the registered Black women surveyed, self-reported intention and motivation rose sharply from the poll’s 2024 comparison.[4][5] That does not turn polling motivation into turnout or a forecast, but it helps explain why danger can mobilize where representation alone does not.

• Institutions can comply before they are ordered to. Disney’s announced renewal and later cancellation of Wonder Man are documented.[6][7] The claim that anti-DEI pressure caused the reversal is not. That evidentiary gap is exactly where anticipatory compliance must be investigated rather than presumed.

The central test here is functional, so help put it before readers taught to confuse a first with a finish. Restack this Reader’s Cut, share it, and send it to one person who needs the evidence. If you value an XVOA investigation that checks the record, corrects its source on air, and separates documented reversal from unproven cause,

Become A Paid Subscriber

Paid membership finances this research and production. The desk’s daily operating floor is $50. Readers who cannot or do not want another subscription, and paid readers who want to give again, can use Buy Me a Coffee⁠ for anything from a small contribution to a substantial one-time gift.

Buy Me Coffee

Constitutional Psychology and the Function of Power: Watch by Chapter

1 | THE FRAMEWORK AND ITS LIMITS

• 0:00 — When representation changes the face of power

• 0:46 — Meet Angelica Garcia, LCSW, MBA

• 1:46 — A working definition of Constitutional Psychology

• 4:04 — The ethical boundary: a framework, not a diagnosis

2 | REPRESENTATION, BELONGING, AND THE BADGE

• 9:04 — Dr. Steven W. Thrasher on representation as institutional camouflage

• 12:56 — Does the Constitution protect property more than people?

• 16:50 — What a constitutional breach feels like

• 17:25 — The overseer class and Black policing

• 21:18 — Why representation alone does not change an institution

3 | THE HISTORY INSIDE THE INSTITUTION

• 26:48 — From slave patrols to modern policing

• 33:14 — Demilitarization and reinvestment in communities

• 35:40 — The Second Amendment, slavery, and constitutional enforcement

• 44:27 — Dr. Thrasher on diversified discipline on college campuses

4 | INDIVIDUALISM, MATERIAL PRESSURE, AND CULTURE

• 47:34 — Officer Tatum: individual success versus systemic racism

• 54:46 — Dr. Jason Johnson: Black women, the midterms, and material pressure

• 59:50 — Wonder Man and institutional retreat

5 | FEAR, BELONGING, AND DEMOCRATIC REPAIR

• 1:06:37 — Audience questions and Angelica Garcia’s work

• 1:12:12 — Dr. Johnson, the FCC, anti-DEI pressure, and Disney

• 1:14:48 — Projection, displacement, and scapegoating

• 1:18:18 — Did Angelica Garcia coin “Constitutional Psychology”?

• 1:20:01 — Representation opens the door. Does power change?

The Constitution Is Also a Lived Environment

Most political argument treats the Constitution as text, doctrine, and institutional design. Garcia asks what happens when those structures are lived long enough to become expectation. A promise of equal protection that repeatedly arrives as unequal exposure does more than produce a legal dispute. It teaches people what kind of safety they can expect, whether authority can be trusted, and whether belonging is conditional.

That distinction matters because public legitimacy is partly emotional memory. People do not meet a police officer, court, school, or election as blank slates. They arrive carrying what happened to them, what happened to their families, and what their communities learned about the distance between the official promise and the practiced rule. A constitutional breach therefore has a public afterlife even when no clinician is in the room and no individual diagnosis is being made.

This is where Constitutional Psychology earns its usefulness. It allows us to ask how a public institution organizes fear and attachment without pretending that a political disagreement is a mental disorder. Projection, displacement, and scapegoating can describe observable public mechanisms. They should never become remote diagnoses applied to people we have not examined and do not know.

Representation Can Become Camouflage

Dr. Steven W. Thrasher is a journalist, interdisciplinary scholar, and author whose work connects racism, policing, incarceration, public health, HIV/AIDS, and LGBTQ life. At broadcast time, Northwestern University listed Dr. Thrasher as an assistant professor of journalism and the inaugural Daniel H. Renberg Chair of Social Justice in Reporting at its Medill School. He holds a PhD in American Studies from New York University. His first book, The Viral Underclass, examined how inequality shapes exposure to disease and survival. His 2026 follow-up, The Overseer Class: A Manifesto, turns that lens toward marginalized people elevated into authority while the machinery beneath them preserves its disciplinary function.[2]

Dr. Thrasher’s category of the “overseer class” gave the conversation its sharpest institutional challenge. He applies the argument to Black police leadership and to universities that diversified the people administering discipline without redistributing meaningful power. The point is not that every Black official, police officer, dean, or executive is a traitor, but that institutions can turn identity into evidence on their own behalf. They invite the public to identify upward with the breakthrough figure rather than laterally with people still receiving punishment. When Dr. Thrasher says, “We diversified the disciplinary apparatus and nothing else,” he names the possibility that inclusion can modernize power’s appearance without changing its work.

That possibility gives representation a burden of proof. A historic appointment may matter, especially to people once excluded from the room, but the celebration cannot be the audit. We still have to ask who controls the budget, who writes the policy, who can challenge a decision, who receives the benefit of doubt, and who pays when the institution is wrong. The face of authority proves access, but it does not prove that authority has been repaired.

The Badge Does Not Erase the Institution

Policing makes this distinction personal for me. A Black officer may lower the temperature of an encounter, recognize a cultural cue, or use discretion differently. Those choices matter to the person standing on the shoulder of the road. They still do not, by themselves, rewrite deployment patterns, use-of-force rules, union power, disciplinary systems, budget priorities, or the political demands placed on the department.

American policing also carries more than one historical lineage. English-derived sheriffs, constables, and night watches shaped municipal law enforcement, while legally organized slave patrols became a significant early form of policing in the South, controlling movement, suppressing resistance, and enforcing slave law.[8] That history does not prove that every present department is a slave patrol in modern clothing. It does require us to examine which functions of racial and labor control survived changes in uniform, jurisdiction, and personnel.

The same care is required with prison labor. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude while preserving an exception for punishment after criminal conviction.[9] After emancipation, Black Codes and racially selective enforcement fed convict-leasing systems supplying incarcerated labor to private employers.[10] The amendment did not create convict leasing by itself, but its exception and the policies built around it belong in the same record.

Demilitarization offers a present-day test of function. The federal 1033 program transfers excess military property to participating law-enforcement agencies, one documented channel through which military equipment has entered civilian policing.[11] Changing the officer’s race while preserving the equipment, incentives, and mission is not institutional transformation. Reinvestment becomes meaningful when it changes where public money goes, what conduct is rewarded, and whether communities receive safety before they receive force.

The broadcast also examined slavery, militias, and the Second Amendment. Southern militias performed slave-control functions, and legal scholar Carl Bogus argues that fear of federal interference helped shape the amendment.[12] That is an influential interpretation, not the only account. Congress’s constitutional history also locates the amendment within English rights, fear of standing armies, and broader militia traditions.[13] Evidence does not grow stronger when a contested history becomes a slogan.

The Individual Exception Is Not an Audit

Brandon Tatum, known professionally as Officer Tatum, is a former Tucson Police Department officer who later built a conservative media career around his experience in uniform. Salem Media says he served on the department’s SWAT team and as a public information officer. After a video about a 2016 Donald Trump rally went viral, Officer Tatum co-founded BLEXIT, worked in outreach for Turning Point USA, published Beaten Black and Blue, and developed his media platform.[3] The clip is therefore not a neutral departmental assessment. It is a political argument from a former officer whose public project emphasizes personal responsibility and skepticism toward structural explanations for racial inequality.

Officer Tatum’s public statement supplied a clean contrast. “Systemic racism, does it affect you today and does it affect your life moving forward? I do not believe so,” he said.[3] His argument begins with individual capacity and gives culture and individual agency more explanatory weight than present-day systemic constraint. Mine begins with repeatable institutional outcomes and then asks what an individual can do inside them.

That is where he and yours truly, Xplisset, part company. I do not deny agency, achievement, resilience, or the dignity of refusing to be defined by injury. I deny that one person’s survival, promotion, or success can function as an institutional acquittal. A Black officer’s career can be real testimony about opportunity while remaining insufficient evidence about the distribution of stops, force, punishment, wealth, safety, and credibility.

This is not a clinical diagnosis of Officer Tatum, and it is not a shortcut to calling him an overseer. It is an analysis of what his rhetoric does for power. When an institution points to its successful exceptions, it can make the burden of proof disappear: the person who did not advance is blamed for lacking discipline, while the structure is relieved of answering for its pattern. Identity and professional experience become a permission slip for the institution to escape scrutiny.

When Threat Collapses Politics Into the Body

is a political scientist, professor of politics and journalism at Morgan State University, and political analyst whose work spans campaigns, political communication, and popular culture. He earned his PhD in political science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and wrote Political Consultants and Campaigns: One Day to Sell.[5] That expertise grounds his segment’s shift from policing into electoral behavior while leaving his interpretation distinct from the poll’s findings.

Dr. Johnson reported greater self-described motivation among surveyed registered Black women and interpreted that motivation through the economic pressures bearing down on their households.[4][5] The responsible limit is important: a comparison between poll waves is not a panel following the same people, and reported intention does not establish why motivation changed, what turnout will be, or who will win an election.

Garcia’s contribution was not a forecast. It was an explanation of why material pressure can feel different from symbolic identification. Representation may inspire, reassure, or create attachment, but rent, groceries, gas, health care, and a child’s future shorten the distance between policy and the body. When stability feels endangered, politics stops being a distant contest of personalities and becomes a demand for self-protection.

That distinction keeps us from dismissing voters as irrational when their behavior changes under pressure. It also keeps us from converting fear into automatic partisan loyalty. Material threat can mobilize, but it can also be redirected. The democratic question is whether people are given an accurate account of who created the danger, who profits from it, and which remedy would materially change their lives.

Anticipatory Compliance Is Still Compliance

The Wonder Man discussion supplied a cultural example of that redirection. Marvel announced in March that the series would return for a second season, then Disney canceled it in late July.[6][7] Those events establish a reversal, but they do not establish Dr. Johnson’s argument that anti-DEI political pressure and anti-Haitian hostility caused it.

There is, however, a documented political environment around Disney. In 2025, Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr asked the agency’s Enforcement Bureau to investigate whether Disney and ABC’s diversity practices complied with federal communications rules.[14] Dr. Johnson identified the Justice Department on air, and I corrected the record: it was the FCC. That correction was not housekeeping. If we are accusing institutions of laundering fear into policy, our own evidence must be more disciplined than the machinery we are criticizing.

Garcia’s framework helps identify the question that remains after the correction. Did Disney receive a direct order to cancel this particular show? The public record cited here does not establish one. Could executives facing political scrutiny, culture-war pressure, and commercial risk narrow their choices before anyone issued such an order? Yes, and that is what anticipatory compliance looks like as an institutional hypothesis.

Institutions do not always wait to be commanded. They read the emotional weather around power, estimate which stories will attract punishment, and make preventive decisions later explained as ordinary business judgment. The canceled show then becomes less important than its decision-making environment. The deepest form of obedience may be the one power no longer has to request.

Fear Needs a Target

The final movement of the conversation applied projection, displacement, and scapegoating to public life. Projection attaches fear to an external figure, while displacement moves anxiety away from its real source. Scapegoating concentrates diffuse pain in a person or group that can be named, punished, or expelled while the institution producing the pain remains intact.

That sequence helps explain why a debate can feel ferocious while leaving its material cause untouched. Economic insecurity becomes a fight over a Haitian hero, DEI, a media personality, or some other culturally legible target. The public receives an object for its anger, politicians receive a theater for mobilization, and the institution receives cover. The emotional mechanism masquerades as policy debate even when it is rerouting attention away from power.

This language still requires restraint. Not every cancellation is censorship, every corporate retreat is ideological obedience, or every political opponent is projecting. The framework becomes credible only when we distinguish documented chronology from inferred motive and an institutional pattern from a diagnosis of an individual. Otherwise, Constitutional Psychology would become the same kind of unfalsifiable permission structure it is supposed to expose.

The Verdict

The evidence supports a narrow conclusion with broad consequences. Representation can alter access, recognition, and the human quality of an encounter. It can open a door that should never have been closed. What it cannot do on its own is prove that the institution behind the door has changed its function.

Dr. Thrasher warns that diversity can be recruited into discipline. Officer Tatum shows how personal achievement can stand in for a structural audit. Dr. Johnson’s polling argument shows how material insecurity can outrun symbolic identification, while the Wonder Man reversal raises an unresolved question about institutions learning to obey political pressure in advance.

The democratic standard must therefore remain functional. After the breakthrough appointment, the election, the promotion, or the celebrated first, who possesses more power, who receives more safety, whose testimony carries more weight, and who continues to absorb the cost? Representation becomes repair only when the institution changes what it protects, what it punishes, and whom it is willing to sacrifice.

The question I left with the audience is the one I want readers to carry into every institution that advertises its diversity as proof of virtue: Where have you seen representation transform power, and where have you seen it merely shield power?

Support XVOA

An institution should be judged by what it does after the door opens. XVOA applies that standard to its own work by checking the public record, preserving uncertainty, and correcting factual mistakes before they can harden into the argument. To keep this Black-led intelligence desk working at its $50 daily operating floor,

Join XVOA As A Paid Subcriber

Current paid supporters make this level of reporting possible, and I thank you. If a recurring commitment is not your lane, or you are already paid and want to give again, Buy Me a Coffee⁠ is the flexible one-time route. Like, comment, share, and Restack this Reader’s Cut so the institutional test travels farther than the slogans it is built to challenge.

Sources

1. Constitutional Psychology: The Emotional Architecture of Democratic Life⁠ by Angelica Garcia⁠. Google Books provides the book’s bibliographic record and publisher description of Garcia’s framework.

2. Dr. Steven W. Thrasher’s Northwestern Medill profile⁠, Macmillan’s page for ⁠The Viral Underclass⁠, and Dr. Thrasher’s Democracy Now! interview about ⁠The Overseer Class⁠. These sources establish Dr. Thrasher’s professional background, research fields, earlier book, and account of Black policing, diversified disciplinary systems, and the “overseer class.”

3. Officer Tatum’s professional biography⁠, Salem Media’s account of his policing and media career⁠, and his statement on systemic racism and individual agency⁠. These sources establish the former officer’s professional and political-media background and provide the statement examined in the broadcast.

4. Black Women’s Roundtable 2026 survey results⁠. The primary report documents the survey’s national sample and its 2024-to-2026 comparison of intention, motivation, efficacy, hope, economic concern, and dissatisfaction.

5. Dr. Jason Johnson’s Morgan State University profile⁠ and his segment on Black women and the 2026 midterms⁠. These sources establish Dr. Johnson’s academic and media background and provide the economic interpretation discussed on air.

6. Marvel announces ⁠Wonder Man⁠ Season 2⁠. Marvel’s March 2026 announcement documents the renewal.

7. Wonder Man⁠ canceled after its Season 2 renewal⁠. Variety reports Disney’s July 2026 reversal and the absence of a publicly stated cancellation reason.

8. Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing⁠. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund outlines both English-derived policing traditions and the role of slave patrols in the American South.

9. Thirteenth Amendment⁠. Congress’s Constitution Annotated provides the official text, including the punishment exception.

10. Convict Leasing System⁠. The Library of Congress traces the post-emancipation development of convict leasing and its reliance on Black Codes and incarcerated labor.

11. Law Enforcement Support Office public information⁠. The Defense Logistics Agency describes the 1033 program and its transfer of excess military property to participating law-enforcement agencies.

12. “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment”⁠. Carl T. Bogus presents the argument that Southern concern over slave-control militias helped shape the amendment.

13. Historical Background on the Second Amendment⁠. Congress’s Constitution Annotated surveys the broader English, standing-army, and militia history of the right to bear arms.

14. FCC chair’s letter to Disney⁠. Brendan Carr’s March 2025 letter documents his request for an FCC Enforcement Bureau investigation into Disney and ABC’s diversity practices.

Get more from Xplisset in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The terms were simple enough. He would give me the story and all I had to do was write it.

Of course, that is exactly how the devil would describe the contract. Apparently, writing an entire novel was all there was to it. That’s it. That’s all. Done.

Subscribe now

But there was a ritual before I could enter the space where the story was waiting.

Refusing to sleep in a bed, keeping an irregular sleep schedule. Nighttime excursions walking around the house talking to myself. Sometimes those excursions become nighttime caffeine runs where I contemplate light and shadows and ruminate on the shadows within my own mind. If I remain there long enough, I hear the faint pleas of my characters.

Characters. These people I concocted. Or at least I thought I concocted them.

In order to enter that space, one must pass through the darkness of separation from this world. It can be symbolic in the form of some physical ritual, or it can be a literal passage into darkness and the underworld of the caves as our ancestors did. I imagine them down there grappling with their growing sense of self. Awareness. I cannot know exactly what they thought. I just keep thinking about what it means to leave daylight behind and enter a place where you can only see the little bit of light you carried with you.

That is what the house becomes for me.

Loneliness, darkness and confrontation with our own shadows are part of that process. I’m in that place right now. It’s part of the deal.

And somewhere in all of this I realized I was not merely walking around inside a dark house. I was walking around inside the mind who concocted this whole scheme, these characters, this story.

My mind.

That was where I sat with the devil.

I looked him squarely in the face and he said he would give me the story and all I had to do was write it.

Don’t think. Write.

Don’t come up with fancy phrases to impress. Write.

Shoutout to my man, the legendary blues singer, Robert Johnson.

It was as if he reached out his hand, touched my soul, and spoke to me from the darkness…

In order to share it with those who inhabit the light.

The strange part is that I thought the devil was supposed to tempt me with vanity.

The devil in us is us.

I keep returning to this thought that one must pass through hell and consort with the devil in order to truly make it into heaven. Men and women of great… depth? Spiritual courage? I still cannot quite find the word. They accomplish this before they die. Suffering by itself is not the art; people suffer every day. The art is entering that place and returning with something.

Then I started thinking about the characters.

The first way I said it was that the characters are merely different manifestations of this devil inside of us.

James is easy. He owns people. I can point at him and say there is the devil and leave it there. Then I get to Logan with his father’s voice already inside his head. Alexander has rage and payback in him. Then Auntie Mary and Venus and it gets more complicated because I don’t know yet. I haven’t written enough of them. That’s the God honest truth.

Then I started thinking how we would have loved to see George Lucas do this while he was writing Star Wars.

The process I’m working on is simply this…writers hide behind the characters in their story. I’m turning the tables on this by selectively, and I want to emphasize selectively, revealing my deepest repressed thoughts to include my fears and hopes while weaving the narrative and do it in such a dramatic fashion as to create a behind the scenes mythology surrounding the work.

As soon as your eyes see the title you misunderstand it. You think I’m referring to some type of witchcraft where I literally sit down and make a deal with a devil. The same thing with certain things in a book.

Listen, I’ve got to have the restraint to just let the story reveal itself without sitting down and explaining everything.

Let the reader figure it out. Let the reader draw their own conclusions.