Content warning: This story addresses the killing of Alex Pretti.

“The party told you,” wrote George Orwell at the end of 1984, “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

I write this piece after federal agents executed Minnesota native Alex Jeffrey Pretti, who worked as an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA Health Care system. Pretti was shot at least ten times in the span of five seconds. This is the second killing by federal agents in three weeks, after Renée Nicole Good was killed by I.C.E. agent Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7.

Video footage taken by eyewitnesses and obtained by a variety of news organizations suggests that Pretti was not violently resisting federal agents; instead, Pretti was assisting a woman that had been pepper-sprayed by agents. He did not threaten agents with the firearm he was legally carrying. In fact, federal agents disarmed him as they were holding him. 

Yet the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immediately sought to frame Pretti as a domestic terrorist. Less than two hours after Pretti’s death, official DHS social media accounts claimed, without evidence, that “this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” 

In a press conference, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem questioned why a law-abiding citizen would be carrying a gun: “I don’t know of any peaceful protestor that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” Yet Pretti was legally armed: he had a legal conceal-and-carry permit, which satisfies Minnesota state law requiring a permit to carry. Minnesota law notwithstanding, the Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to broadly protect citizens’ rights to carry firearms.

The federal response to Pretti’s death suggests that the evidence of our eyes and ears—especially those of the eyes and ears on the ground—ought to be rejected. DHS officials understand that the Department is gaslighting the public, as one anonymous officer told CBS:

“It’s unclear who at DHS thought it would be a good idea to make such claims before any facts were established, but it was a terrible miscalculation… When we gaslight and contradict what the public can plainly see with their own eyes, we lose all credibility and it’s going to damage our reputation for generations.”

Indeed, critical analysis of this case suggests that the government’s narrative has fabricated key aspects of the story and lied about Pretti’s motivations, with no attempts made to rectify this.

How Not to Find Truth

There are two tempting yet improper approaches when following a story.

The first is to follow a narrative without considering other perspectives. If you let one source define your understanding of the scenario, you will go eighty miles towards their preferred conclusions before you even consider other facts. That applies to all sources, as one source never has sufficient evidence on its own. Finding reliable sources of information, especially on-the-ground or local sources, is crucial. Eyewitnesses,, are often more reliable than secondary reporting; video is even more reliable.

The second erroneous path is to conclude that the problem is too complex to untie, and that staying out is the best and/or safest option. This is sometimes necessary in academic or professional settings, but is unhelpful for navigating daily life. Thinking, processing and responding to tragedies is part of the logical and emotional loops that make us human. (In this particular case, not caring about the result— a man being shot by federal agents—might suggest a different, more sinister, kind of emotional response.)

The Steps of the Coverup

When critically evaluating conflicting narratives, it’s important to look for evidence of a coverup: places where the government, media outlets, or other sources of information seek to omit or misrepresent critical evidence.

The government’s official telling of events (off the record, DHS officials are confident the public-facing story is wrong) omits evidence for a key aspect of its case. It claims, without presenting evidence, that Pretti “brandish[ed]” a gun at federal agents. At the time of writing, existing video analysis suggests that Pretti did not “brandish” a firearm, at least not in the threatening sense of that term. Indeed, by the time of the shooting Pretti had already been disarmed. Moreover, Secretary Noem declined to answer direct questions about the timeline of the alleged “brandishing.” This is atypical behavior given the circumstances on the ground, and Noem’s avoidance suggests there is more to be discovered here.

In addition, the absence of body-worn or other cameras from I.C.E. agents is telling. I.C.E. agents are required by DHS policy, updated under the Trump administration, to “capture footage of Enforcement Activities… as soon as safely possible.” At time of publication, the White House confirmed the existence of body cam footage but has declined to release it. If the government wishes to substantiate its claim that Pretti is a “domestic terrorist,” it should provide evidence that the agent was indeed threatened or had a reasonable fear for his life, which would justify claims of self-defense. The release of such footage would complement rather than hinder existing video analysis, as current accounts do not show significant portions of the lead-up. 

A third item suggesting a potential coverup: federal investigators, in an uncommon move, have blocked state and local authorities from accessing the crime scene or conducting their own investigations. This occurred both in the killing of Pretti and the killing of Renée Good. In Pretti’s case, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has been denied access to the scene even though they have a signed judicial warrant granting them access. If indeed the officers in these cases acted correctly, state investigators’ access to the scene would have led them to the same conclusion. The DHS intends to investigate itself and find itself free from wrongdoing.

When The Party Lies

Like Big Brother, Homeland Security has attempted a brazen retelling of the narrative. Orwell’s quotation about the “final, most essential command” does not end there. It goes on to say that the protagonist’s heart “sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate…” While “Party intellectual” might be a touch oxymoronic in this context, Orwell’s emphasis on trusting our eyes remains. In the face of a powerful state actively attempting to sanctify its assassins and change how its own history is understood, truth remains a powerful defense—as long as we let it. Instead of addressing the killing of Alex Pretti as a tragedy that must be investigated, the administration’s response seeks to vilify the dead without providing a shred of evidence. Americans must not fall for such an easy excuse. We must demand accountability from those in power. 
As with Ms. Good, the blood of the innocent is in the air. Last week, Americans celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr., whose famous speech claimed that “[s]omehow the preacher must be an Amos, and say, ‘Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.’” This demand for justice, and for truth, must never go unanswered. Minneapolis faith leaders are already heeding the call. So should we.

If you’ve been looking for a blog about anything, whether philosophy or Philadelphia, AI or angels, you’ve probably encountered the blogging platform Substack. Even Substack has a Substack page. The platform markets itself as a “subscription network for independent writers and creators”—a centralized platform for which writers, bloggers, and journalists can publish their ideas. Yet for many popular creators and writers, Substack is their livelihood. 

For a simple blogging platform, the company has encountered unprecedented success. It’s valued at $1.1 billion. How has the platform become so popular? This article looks at the rise of Substack, touching on the short-form sinkhole, the fall of Twitter, and the increasing necessity to monetize the Internet.

How did we get here?

The rise of Substack can be understood by a three-part shift in the way people consume, think about and share social media content.

In the last five to seven years, social media has shifted from photo-sharing and Twitter threads to an emphasis on short-form content. The rise of TikTok as a popular platform prompted rivals Instagram and Facebook (both owned by Meta) to launch their own short-form offerings with Reels. YouTube followed suit with YouTube Shorts. While short-form content made these platforms significant amounts of money, some users disliked the forcing of short-form content (several popular social media platforms limited their users to 140 280 characters).

The algorithms of social media platforms have changed the way people speak. Adam Aleksic (better known as @etymologynerd on various social media platforms) told Reuters that in efforts to avoid certain sensitive words that would get flagged by algorithms, users have used other words to convey the same meaning. If you’ve ever heard someone use the word “unalive” (a word I absolutely despise, although that’s probably an article for the Opinion section), you’ve witnessed the way algorithms affect language.

Those who disliked short-form content didn’t have many places to go; those who created long-form content had even fewer places to go. A downturn in traditional journalism meant that the standard instant-news website was Twitter (when it was still known by that moniker). Elon Musk’s takeover and rebrand to X has driven many users away from the platform, opening the doors for companies such as Mastodon and BlueSky. Furthermore, built-in X features such as xAI’s Grok began generating other problems for users and advertisers.

With short-form content on the rise and traditional platforms no longer available, long-form writers and academics jumped at the opportunity to use a long-form content platform. One scientist who made the move cited “[having] a whole lot more ownership” over the content they produce and not being tied to a schedule. 

Since moving from social media to Substack requires forgoing platform advertising revenue, authors have begun monetizing paid Substacks similar to news subscriptions. Top creators exceed $500,000 in annual revenue, with most revenue earned from subscriptions going directly to creators. (Substack takes a 10% cut of subscription revenue to cover its overhead costs; its payment provider, Square, takes an additional 3%.)

While the platform’s lax moderation policy has occasionally caused issues, Substack has risen to become a feasible alternative for long-form content creation. For those looking to create blogs, discover new voices, or consume information, Substack may be a platform worth considering.

Photo by Briana Tozour via Uplash.

If you’re looking for a good sports city and atmosphere, Kansas City is your place to be. It’s host to four major professional sports teams across three different sports: baseball, football and soccer. This article aims to be a survey of Kansas City sports, highlighting each team and providing a little history for each.

Chiefs Kingdom: Kansas City Chiefs

The Chiefs are the oldest professional sports team in Kansas City, although they weren’t established in Kansas City. Our beloved Chiefs were established in 1960 as the Dallas Texans by then-American Football League (AFL) founder Lamar Hunt.

A minor tangent about the AFL: The AFL was created as an alternative to the NFL by Lamar Hunt. To avoid a talent war, the AFL merged with the NFL to create one league in June 1966. The AFL became the American Football Conference (AFC), whose title still bears Mr. Hunt’s name. The first AFL-NFL championship in 1967, amusingly called the World Championship, kicked off what would become the Super Bowl era.

In 1963, the Dallas Texans moved to Kansas City and rebranded as the Kansas City Chiefs. Since then, they’ve won six league titles (four Super Bowls and two AFL championships, before the AFL and the NFL merged) and are currently one of the best teams in the league. Under the leadership of star quarterback Patrick Mahomes II and head coach Andy Reid, the Chiefs have won their division for nine straight years, the AFC championship game for five of the last six years, and three Super Bowls.

On first arrival in Kansas City, they played at the Municipal Stadium on E. 22nd Street and Brooklyn Avenue. In 1972, the team moved to Arrowhead Stadium in Jackson County, where they have played for the last fifty years.

Across from Arrowhead is the second team we’ll encounter on this tour of KC sports: Major League Baseball’s Kansas City Royals.

The Boys Are Playing Some Ball: Kansas City Royals

The Kansas City Royals inhabit Kauffman Stadium (in the same sports complex as Arrowhead), named after entrepreneur and philanthropist Ewing M. Kauffman. (His family foundation also contributed significantly to Kauffman Gardens and the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts, both located in downtown KC.) Like the Chiefs, the Royals also played in Municipal Stadium until 1972.

The Kansas City Royals are currently in-season. As of the time of writing, they place third in the American League Central, trailing the Cleveland Guardians and the Detroit Tigers. The Royals haven’t seen as much success as the Chiefs. They’ve only won the World Series twice, in 1985 and 2015. Since that win in 2015, the Royals have only made the playoffs once.

That said, the Royals are looking to turn things around this year and build on their AL playoff appearance last season. Stars like Bobby Witt Jr. (#7) have garnered significant attention; Witt Jr. was selected as a starting shortstop on the US national baseball team. Last year, KC Royals ace Cole Ragans (#55) was named to an All-Star team, and the Royals hope he can continue to deliver.

The Other Midwestern Football: Sporting KC

Sporting KC came to Kansas City in 1996 as the Kansas City Wiz, creating electric football from the second they landed in Kansas City. A decade and a half of KC Wiz brought an MLS Cup (2000), a US Open Cup (2004), and a dramatic victory against Manchester United in 2010 at Arrowhead Stadium; Man Utd. would go on to win the English Premier League that year.

In late 2010, the Wizards rebranded as Sporting KC and opened their own stadium, Children’s Mercy Park in Kansas City, Kansas, although they’ve kept elements of the Wiz heritage ever since. Six years of MLS playoff appearances through 2017 have been followed by what the Sporting website politely calls a “dip in form.” Although the team is third last in Major League Soccer, they’ve won two of their last three matches against St. Louis and San José.

Making a Splash: KC Current

The Kansas City Current are KC’s newest addition to professional sports, playing in the NWSL – the National Women’s Soccer League. In Dec. 2020, the NWSL awarded an expansion franchise to Kansas City, and the city was up for the challenge. KC Current owners constructed CPKC Stadium for the club, the first stadium in the world specifically created for a women’s professional sports team.

While some may be tempted to write off the Current due to a rocky start in 2021-23 (where they had two seasons placing in the bottom three), the Current have made waves in the league ever since. They qualified for the 2024 playoffs as the #4 seed and made it to the semifinals, losing to top-seed and eventual NWSL champions Orlando Pride.

The Current have substantial talent on their side, including 2024 Golden Boot winner Temwa Chawinga (#6), whose 20 goals last year set an all-time NWSL record. This year, the Current have only allowed one goal this season and won their first five regular season matches, the only team in the league to do so. Their only loss came to the North Carolina Courage on Apr. 26, 3-2.

—

Whether you prefer watching boys in blue or exploring #TealTown, Kansas City knows how to bring the energy to its local sports teams. At home, away, and at the stadium, there is always a KC sports team for you to discover.