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.

On Sep. 23, Major League Baseball (MLB) announced that it will be bringing Automated Balls and Strikes (ABS) technology to all its ballparks and games beginning with the 2026 season. But what is this technology? Is it new? In this article, we’ll break down MLB’s new ABS system, explaining what it is, how it works and how we got here.

What is ABS?

ABS uses twelve cameras placed around the ballpark to triangulate the position of every pitch as it travels from the pitcher to the catcher. Once the human umpire calls the pitch a “Ball” or a “Strike,” the pitcher, batter or catcher can challenge the call. They must do so by tapping their helmet and must do so immediately (untimely challenges are rejected).

Once that happens, the stadium waits in anticipation as a computer graphic shows where the pitch was located in the strike zone. If the original call was correct, the challenging team loses one of the two challenges they get throughout the course of the game. If the original call was incorrect, the call is reversed and the team retains its challenge (similar to the challenge process in most other sports).

Since teams only get two unsuccessful challenges per game, players are incentivized to use them on obviously incorrect calls where there is a high chance the challenge will be returned. This introduces a new element of strategy to the game: it’s probably not worth it to challenge borderline pitches unless the game situation demands it.

To make ABS possible, MLB had to change the way the strike zone worked. Pre-ABS, the strike zone was the width of the plate and extended vertically from the batter’s knees to the midpoint between their shoulders and the top of their pants. (Umpires, especially at lower levels, commonly use the bottom of the letters on a team’s uniform as an approximation). Now, the zone is determined by a batter’s height. If any part of the ball crosses the plate between 27-53.5% of a batter’s height (before they settle into their batting stance), the pitch will be called a strike. 

How did we get here?

Originally, ABS was tested in the independent Atlantic League in 2019, where it encountered mixed success. Issues with the technology meant that pitches that bounced before crossing the plate registered as strikes, though human umpires would (and did) overrule the system. Then-Atlantic League president Rick White said that he was “relatively confident that [robot umpiring was] going to spread through organized baseball,” which it did several years later.

The challenge system we see today was first proposed in October 2019 by Lindsay Imber and Tim McCaffrey of Close Call Sports. In their article, Imber and McCaffrey proposed the system MLB would eventually adopt, advocating for a compromise between the traditionalist no-computers-allowed approach and the Atlantic League’s replace-humans approach. They note that “technology can assist in the ball/strike call mission,” while also acknowledging “that the very system baseball presently uses… is prone to error.”

Since their article, MLB’s HawkEye technology has improved from a two-inch margin of error to a half-inch margin of error.

This reduced margin of error has enabled ABS to find practical use in high-level baseball. In 2023, Minor League Baseball (MiLB) and Triple-A teams tested both the no-humans-allowed approach and the challenge system (though teams were permitted three challenges each instead of the present two). By the end of 2024, MiLB had determined that the challenge system was better and adopted it. In 2025, MLB adopted the technology for Spring Training games and the All-Star Game. In 2026, the technology will be adopted for the full MLB season. 

ABS and broader ball-tracking technology represents an exciting development for baseball. As an umpire, I’m excited for the future of ABS (even though there’s a chance it takes my job). While technology’s uncertainty means the human aspect of officiating is still necessary, technology can help us correct for human error on close calls. The ABS challenge system seems like a great way to do this for baseball.

On Sep. 10, 2025, American podcaster and right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk was killed during a question-and-answer session at Utah Valley University (UVU). Preliminary reports tell us that the individual who allegedly shot him is in custody. American politicians of all stripes have condemned the shooting as a travesty, and President Trump ordered flags to be flown at half-mast until Sep. 15 in his honor.

Mr. Kirk’s killing is certainly disastrous for the American body politic, and I do not take his death lightly. Political assassination has no place in any society that calls itself free. But I do not mourn his death and shed no tears for his loss. The response from the Trump administration—labelling Kirk as an American hero and “free speech warrior”—sanitizes Kirk’s destructive history, and lowering the flag for him is a disgrace to both the American flag and what the country claims to stand for. The precedent the government’s response sets is unjustifiable.

Political violence is clearly on the rise in America. Since Sep. 11, 2001, there have been two hundred and ninety-three lives lost to terror attacks in the United States. Terrorists come in all political stripes, from extreme left to extreme right. New America describes a modern terrorist threat—a label that includes political violence—that “crosses ideologies and is largely disconnected from traditional understandings of terrorist organizations.”

This upward trend in violence occurs among students as well; the increasing population of American students who believe the use of force can be justified against speakers exceeds three in ten. This figure has increased among both self-identified Democrats and Republicans and represents a grave danger to the American project.

Voices in the American right have called Kirk’s shooting the start of a civil war. They perceive Kirk’s killing as part of a “common threat” from leftists—that “The Left,” vaguely defined, poses an existential threat to the conservative movement and its members. Trump said the same, claiming that “[r]adical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.” He cited the assassination attempt against himself to back up his claim.

The data, where we have it, does not back Trump up. The suspect in Trump’s attempted assassination in Butler, PA, was a registered Republican. More broadly, extreme-right violence was the most common of the types New America considered, responsible for 139 of 293 (47%) recorded deaths. (For comparison, extreme-left violence was responsible for 3 [<1%]).

By any and all measures, Kirk was an extremist figure with substantial ideological biases. Here is a brief and definitely non-exhaustive list of problematic things he has called for:

• He called on Taylor Swift to “Reject feminism [and] Submit to your husband,” noting that Ms. Swift “wasn’t serious” about her engagement if she did not change her surname.
• He claimed that Black professionals should be treated with skepticism, before walking it back: “If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like ‘boy, I hope he is qualified.’”
• He labelled the Civil Rights Act “a huge mistake.”
• He believed in a Jewish conspiracy, claiming that “the philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.”
• He said of transgender individuals, “Someone should’ve just taken care [of them] the way we did in the ‘50s and ‘60s.”
• He advanced the debunked “great replacement theory,” which believes that “they [unspecified, but likely non-White immigrants from context] won’t stop until you [White rural America] and your children and your children’s children are eliminated.”

Despite these moral shortcomings, Kirk does not deserve to die. He may deserve harassment charges, but he does not deserve to die.

The government’s response to Kirk’s death is distasteful at best and a national disgrace at worst. In his address to the nation, Trump mentioned attacks against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. He mentioned the attack on his own life. He mentioned a 2017 attack on Rep. Steve Scalise. Yet he did not mention attacks on key Democrats: Trump’s list omits the arson attack against Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro (2025), shooting of Minnesota Dems Melissa Hortman and John Hoffman (2025), “the 2020 attempted kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, [and] the brutal attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband in 2022.” In the last case, Trump publicly mocked Mr. Pelosi.

In response to Mr. Kirk’s death, Trump ordered flags to be flown at half-mast for three days. At first glance this seems consistent, as it was an honor he gave to two children killed while worshipping in August. Yet this administration’s general policy on lowering the flag for political deaths is simple: if he likes you, the flag comes down. He demanded the flag be raised early after Jimmy Carter’s death and kept it raised after Hortman’s death, though she (like Kirk) was assassinated in cold blood.

American politics is not a war, not in the traditional sense. Its instruments are words, not weapons; ballots, not bullets; legislation, not legions. Kirk had First Amendment rights to speak for what he believed, just as I do and just as every person in this country does. He can reasonably be described as an activist, a conservative firebrand, or a beacon to young people who saw themselves as conservative. But he was not a national hero, nor should he be treated as one. Kirk’s policy positions and extremist rhetoric caused significant damage to the United States of America and significant distress to those I love. While others may be mourning, I shed no tears for him.