Mike, this is one of the clearest, most necessary pieces I’ve read in months. Your framing—that the “balls and strikes” model is not just insufficient but complicit—is exactly right.
From the perspective of Nonviolent Communication, what you’re calling out is the violence of disconnection. The chronic refusal to acknowledge patterns of harm isn’t neutrality—it’s emotional anesthesia. It numbs the public and deflects responsibility.
As a nurse, I know what happens when a patient’s symptoms are charted individually without context: you miss the diagnosis. And too often, the result is death.
We are not here to umpire the slow-motion collapse of democracy. We are here to feel, to name, and to respond. Not with vengeance—but with clarity, memory, and moral courage. These are not partisan values. They are human needs: for safety, truth, and trust.
To every so-called neutral observer still pretending the game is fair: I hear your fear of being labeled biased. But silence in the face of systemic abuse is not objectivity—it’s abandonment. And we, the people, are left bleeding on the field.
Thank you for reminding us that remembering is an act of resistance.
💯 Mike. With apologies to Upton Sinclair, it’s difficult to convince a business leader of the threat of a growing oligarchy when that leader hopes to join it. Out of our Fortune 500 CEOs, has a single one criticized or condemned this threat?
Great piece. I've long been frustrated by the tendency to use sports metaphors and analogies in politics and beyond. They are misleading and disingenuous at best, never acknowledging the fundamental differences between a game and real life, including that the stakes are in no way comparable.
“This false neutrality is particularly dangerous because it presents itself as objective analysis while actually performing a subtle form of historical erasure.”
And that is the point, which means it’s not about not taking sides, but clearly about deceptively taking a side that protects them from the consequences of taking that side.
Joe Rogan is doing it now by claiming to be outraged on the illegal immigration tactics of this administration, when we all know full well that he threw his support behind Trump in the last election.
Mike, this is one of the clearest, most necessary pieces I’ve read in months. Your framing—that the “balls and strikes” model is not just insufficient but complicit—is exactly right.
From the perspective of Nonviolent Communication, what you’re calling out is the violence of disconnection. The chronic refusal to acknowledge patterns of harm isn’t neutrality—it’s emotional anesthesia. It numbs the public and deflects responsibility.
As a nurse, I know what happens when a patient’s symptoms are charted individually without context: you miss the diagnosis. And too often, the result is death.
We are not here to umpire the slow-motion collapse of democracy. We are here to feel, to name, and to respond. Not with vengeance—but with clarity, memory, and moral courage. These are not partisan values. They are human needs: for safety, truth, and trust.
To every so-called neutral observer still pretending the game is fair: I hear your fear of being labeled biased. But silence in the face of systemic abuse is not objectivity—it’s abandonment. And we, the people, are left bleeding on the field.
Thank you for reminding us that remembering is an act of resistance.
Wonderful analysis, and much needed, thank you.
💯 Mike. With apologies to Upton Sinclair, it’s difficult to convince a business leader of the threat of a growing oligarchy when that leader hopes to join it. Out of our Fortune 500 CEOs, has a single one criticized or condemned this threat?
Great piece. I've long been frustrated by the tendency to use sports metaphors and analogies in politics and beyond. They are misleading and disingenuous at best, never acknowledging the fundamental differences between a game and real life, including that the stakes are in no way comparable.
Namely because this crossroads we find ourselves at isn’t a game.
“This false neutrality is particularly dangerous because it presents itself as objective analysis while actually performing a subtle form of historical erasure.”
And that is the point, which means it’s not about not taking sides, but clearly about deceptively taking a side that protects them from the consequences of taking that side.
Joe Rogan is doing it now by claiming to be outraged on the illegal immigration tactics of this administration, when we all know full well that he threw his support behind Trump in the last election.
Same, I've definitely taken our system for granted. I've gotten more patriotic over time, due to this, even as I've moved further left politically.