Packages of Valomilk Candy Cups, which are made by hand by the Sifers Candy Company in Merriam, Kansas, move through the production line towards boxing on Tuesday, June 24, 2025.

I’m going to say something that will make many of you deeply uncomfortable: our culture has confused ironic detachment with intelligence. We’ve mistaken cynicism for sophistication, distance for depth, and the refusal to commit to anything for wisdom itself.

This is killing us.

Not metaphorically. Not in some abstract cultural sense. It is literally destroying our capacity to respond to the crises that define our moment. Because while we perfect our poses of detached cleverness, people with deadly serious intentions are reshaping the world according to their vision.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And ironic detachment is moral cowardice dressed up as intellectual superiority.

Let me be clear about what I mean. Ironic detachment isn’t genuine critique—it’s defensive armor. It’s the reflex that allows you to comment on everything while committing to nothing. It’s the stance that lets you mock both sides of every conflict while accepting responsibility for none of its outcomes.

You see it everywhere. The journalist who treats democratic collapse like entertainment, crafting clever observations about the “theater” of authoritarianism without ever stating plainly that democracy is worth defending. The intellectual who responds to moral clarity with knowing smirks, as if the ability to see complexity were the same as wisdom. The friend who greets every urgent concern with “well, it’s complicated” or “both sides have valid points” or “this is all just politics anyway.”

These people have convinced themselves that their detachment signals sophistication. That their refusal to take moral stands demonstrates superior understanding. That their immunity to “naive” concerns about right and wrong proves their intellectual maturity.

They’re wrong.

What it actually demonstrates is a profound failure of moral imagination. An inability to conceive of situations where clarity matters more than cleverness. A retreat from the responsibilities that come with living in a world where our choices have consequences.

Because here’s what ironic detachment really offers: the comfortable illusion that you’re above the fray while remaining safely within it. It lets you feel superior to those who “fall for” caring about things while never having to defend anything yourself. It’s the perfect stance for people who want to seem engaged without actually risking anything.

Moral seriousness is different. Moral seriousness forces you to face consequences. To choose clearly. To stake out positions that require genuine courage rather than performative intelligence. It demands that you say what you believe even when saying it costs you something.

And yes, this makes people uncomfortable. Because moral seriousness isn’t simplistic—it’s demanding. It isn’t arrogant—it’s responsible. It requires you to act as if your judgments matter, as if your choices have weight, as if the world depends on people like you making decisions about what’s worth defending and what isn’t.

The ironically detached hate this. They prefer the safety of eternal meta-commentary, the endless deferral of commitment, the pose that says “I’m too smart to be fooled by caring about anything.”

But here’s what they miss: intelligence without moral commitment is just sophisticated paralysis. Nuance without the capacity for judgment is just elaborate confusion. The ability to see complexity in everything is worthless if it never leads to clarity about anything.

So let me ask you directly: if moral seriousness bothers you—if you find yourself recoiling from people who speak with clarity about right and wrong—what does that say about you?

Does it say you’re sophisticated? Or does it say you’ve trained yourself to avoid the discomfort that comes with taking responsibility for your own moral judgments?

Does it say you understand nuance? Or does it say you’ve become so committed to seeing all sides that you’ve lost the capacity to choose any side?

Does it say you’re intellectually mature? Or does it say you’re using intelligence as a shield against the demands of living in a world where things actually matter?

I know this is uncomfortable. Good. It should be.

Because while you’ve been perfecting your ironic distance, people with no such hesitations have been busy. They don’t waste time wondering whether their convictions are sophisticated enough. They don’t apologize for moral clarity. They don’t treat their own beliefs as just another position in an endless debate.

They understand something the ironically detached have forgotten: that power goes to people who believe in something. That the world belongs to those willing to commit fully to their vision of what it should become. That democracy doesn’t survive on clever commentary but on citizens willing to say plainly what matters, what is true, and what is at stake.

The authoritarians aren’t ironic. They’re deadly serious about their goals. They don’t hedge their commitments or apologize for their clarity. They don’t treat their own power grabs as just another interesting development in the ongoing political show.

They understand that ironic detachment is the perfect ideology for people who want to feel important without actually mattering. For people who want to seem engaged without risking anything. For people who prefer the comfort of eternal spectatorship to the responsibility of actual participation.

This is why a culture built on irony will crumble in crisis. Because when everything is equally interesting, nothing is truly important. When all positions are equally valid subjects for commentary, no position becomes worth defending. When commitment itself becomes naive, only the uncommitted remain to watch the committed reshape the world.

We don’t need more cleverness. We need more clarity. We don’t need more sophisticated commentary on the complexity of our challenges. We need more people willing to name what threatens us and act accordingly.

We need citizens who understand that moral seriousness isn’t just stylistic—it’s existential. That democracy survives not on ironic detachment but on people willing to say what they believe and defend what they value.

The center cannot be held by people who refuse to acknowledge there’s a center worth holding. The flood cannot be pushed back by people who treat every rising tide as just another fascinating phenomenon. The wire cannot be walked by people who prefer watching others fall to taking the risk themselves.

Ironic detachment promises you safety through distance. But there is no safe distance from the collapse of the systems that make your detachment possible in the first place. There is no commentary booth elevated enough to escape the consequences of living in a world where serious people with serious intentions are making serious choices about the future.

The pose of sophisticated neutrality is itself a choice. The stance of ironic distance is itself a commitment. The refusal to take sides is itself taking a side—the side that benefits from your passivity, from your paralysis, from your conversion of moral clarity into epistemological complexity.

So choose. Not between simple answers to complex questions, but between engagement and evasion. Between responsibility and performance. Between the hard work of moral judgment and the easy comfort of ironic observation.

Choose to speak plainly about what matters. Choose to commit to what you believe. Choose to risk the discomfort of being wrong rather than the cowardice of never being anything.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And the world belongs to people who take these simple truths seriously enough to build something real upon them.

The revolution is moral seriousness. The rebellion is choosing clarity over cleverness. The resistance is saying what you mean and meaning what you say.

Every minute of every day.

Remember what’s real.

Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.

A B-2 Stealth Bomber performs a fly over before the NFL game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Baltimore Ravens at GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium on Sept. 5, 2024 in Kansas City, Missouri. (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Saturday night that the United States has attacked three nuclear sites in Iran, and all U.S. planes were outside Iran and on their way back to the United States.

“We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,” Trump said on social media.

“All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!Thank you for your attention to this matter,” he wrote.

The president is expected to speak to the nation at 10 p.m. Eastern.

At least one U.S. House Democrat, Virginia’s Don Beyer, questioned the legality of the bombing.

“President Trump has no constitutional authority to take us to war with Iran without authorization from Congress, and Congress has not authorized it,” Beyer wrote on X. 

Earlier Saturday, there had been numerous reports that B-2 bombers had been sent from Whiteman Air Force Base in Johnson County, Missouri, and were flying across the Pacific Ocean.

Trump returned to the White House at about 6 p.m. Eastern on Saturday from his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., to attend a national security meeting at the White House.

The attack on the Iran sites supports a key U.S. ally, Israel, while distancing another foreign policy priority for the Trump administration, a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear development.

Trump has repeatedly said Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

GOP backs Trump

Republican lawmakers in national security roles quickly weighed in on social media and in statements Saturday to support Trump’s decision.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a statement: “The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing ‘death to America’ and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace. The mullahs’ misguided pursuit of nuclear weapons must be stopped. As we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm’s way.”

“Our commander-in-chief has made a deliberate—and correct—decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime,” U.S. Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss.,  wrote on X. “We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the middle-east. Well-done to our military personnel. You’re the best!”

House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford, an Arkansas Republican, blamed Iran for the conflict.

“As I have said multiple times recently, I regret that Iran has brought the world to this point,” he wrote on X. “That said, I am thankful President Trump understood that the red line—articulated by Presidents of both parties for decades—was real. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are making it clear that the world would never accept Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon.”

Sen. Todd Young, an Indiana Republican and member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who is not always aligned with Trump, also praised the move.

“Thank you to our brave service members who executed this mission,” he said. “The world will be safer if Iran’s nuclear capability is destroyed. I look forward to briefings in the coming days.”

Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, a libertarian who is often at odds with his party leadership, expressed his opposition in a Saturday night social media post.

“This is not Constitutional,” he wrote.

Democrats react

Immediate reaction from Democrats was more mixed.

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman called the move “the correct decision,” adding that “Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.”

But members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus raised the issue of congressional authorization and called for a vote on a privileged resolution sponsored by California Democrat Ro Khanna and Massie that would block military force against Iran.

“Donald Trump illegally took military action against Iran—without congressional authorization—risking dragging us into another endless war,” Arizona Democrat Yassamin Ansari wrote. “I am calling for an immediate emergency session of Congress to vote on the War Powers Resolution.”

“Instead of listening to the American people, Trump is listening to War Criminal Netanyahu, who lied about Iraq and is lying once again about Iran,” Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib wrote. “Congress must act immediately to exert its war powers and stop this unconstitutional act of war.”

Warning from Iran

Israel began bombing what it said were Iranian nuclear facilities last week, scuttling U.S. negotiations with Iran, which Trump repeated again Wednesday had been close.

In a statement issued through a spokesman on state-run TV Wednesday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the U.S. not to get involved.

“Any form of U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be met with irreparable harm,” the statement said, according to a BBC translation.

Prior to the announcement, congressional Republicans were generally supportive of an aggressive posture toward Iran.

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, told reporters at the Capitol that Iran’s nuclear program was meant to threaten the United States.

“When the Ayatollah chants ‘Death to America,’ I believe him,” Cruz said, referring to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “So does President Trump, and that’s why, as commander-in chief, he is acting decisively to keep America safe.”

The potential of a nuclear Iran has animated U.S. policy debates about the region for more than a decade.

In his first term, Trump withdrew from a deal negotiated by former President Barack Obama’s administration that lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for limiting its nuclear development.

Iran and Israel have not had diplomatic relations since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and each has been a primary antagonist in the other’s foreign policy.

Iran and Hamas

Israel has long prioritized denying Iran a nuclear weapon. Iran has funded Hamas, the militant group that launched the October 2023 attack on Israel that sparked the ongoing war in Gaza, and Hezbollah, a militant group in Lebanon.

U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst raised Iran’s support for Hamas at a Wednesday hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee as a rationale for U.S. involvement in the region.

“Who is the primary funder of Hamas?” the Iowa Republican asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth answered Iran.

“Forty-three Americans lost their lives on Oct. 7 at the hands of Hamas,” Ernst continued. “So when there is a question about whether it’s appropriate for America to be engaged in the Middle East, in defending Americans that live and work abroad, I think there’s our answer.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

This is a developing story that will be updated.

At some point, there’s supposed to 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines added to a volatile mix that already includes peaceful protesters, some not-so-peaceful protesters, definitely-not-peaceful peace officers, and a large migrant community already on edge.

Piled on top of this is mindless, harmful rhetoric steadily flowing from the mouths of Donald Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, DHS head Kristi Noem, and pretty much every elected Republican in DC.

None of this mixes well. The GOP seems to desire martial law. Los Angeles residents just want ICE to leave. The LAPD and LASD seemed to have a handle on this before the interlopers arrived, even if they — like seemingly every police force in the nation — are better at picking fights than de-escalating conflict.

The current LAPD chief has already issued a statement that said the deployment of military units was unnecessary at best, and possibly dangerous at worst, given the lack of communication from the federal government. Meanwhile, the Guardsmen who have already been sent to LA are sleeping on floors and going without pay because, with this administration, it’s action first and logistics last.

A former LAPD chief, Michael Moore, says the current situation is a powder keg in search of a lit fuse. Moore would know. He was an officer during the riots that followed the Rodney King beating verdict. What he saw then doesn’t exactly paint a promising picture of the near future:

I was an officer during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when federal troops were last deployed to our streets. I witnessed the confusion and the risks created by sending soldiers trained for combat into a civilian environment. Even basic commands like “cover me” were misunderstood — interpreted by troops as calls for gunfire rather than tactical positioning. Whereas police officers are taught to use time, distance and de-escalation, soldiers are trained to apply overwhelming force.

We can argue about what officers are actually being taught, as well as what teachings they choose to deploy, but we can’t argue the fact that military mindsets are different than law enforcement mindsets, even though those lines have become increasingly blurred over the past couple of decades.

What’s impossible to ignore are the facts on the ground: Los Angeles is not overwhelmed by violent protests. What there is of that is relegated to an extremely small subsection of the city. Given that fact, it’s completely possible for local law enforcement to manage protests on their own.

There is no question that serious unrest and violence have occurred in parts of downtown Los Angeles. Attacks on buildings and threats to public safety must be taken seriously. But this is not an insurrection. These incidents are localized, and local law enforcement agencies are fully capable of addressing them.

The optics of sending in troops is already bad enough. And the Trump Administration has already had its commandeering of local National Guard troops blocked by a federal court. What’s happening here appears to be illegal, and the Trump Administration is openly daring courts to stop its steady march towards a fascism and martial law.

The outcome of this envelope-pushing will have a very human cost. The administration is playing with people’s lives literally as it tests the boundaries of its power. What happened years ago should be a cautionary tale, but it seems like Trump and his GOP enablers would be more than thrilled with this sort of death toll:

History reminds us of the dangers of blurring these lines. The tragedy at Kent State, where unarmed student protesters were gunned down by National Guard troops, offers a stark warning. The federal government’s deployment of military personnel now risks causing the same escalation, tragic error and lasting damage to public confidence.

Kent State appears to be the blueprint, rather than the barricade. If Californians need to be killed by members of the military so ICE can pack another bus with meaningfully employed migrants, so be it. You’d hope that someone in the administration with the power to push it back from this precipice would speak up. But it’s been five months and it appears every single batshit urge of Trump’s has been waved through like a cargo van full of Afrikaners at the Mexican border.

And despite protests to the contrary by California lawmakers and actual law enforcement officials in the state, this is what we’re seeing happen now: a scene that looks like it’s taking place in a foreign country but is actually nothing more than an untargeted ICE raid of a Los Angeles swap meet:

When I tell you Los Angeles is an occupied city/county, this is what I mean…Yesterday, ICE agents showed up to a regular Saturday swap meet with armed Marines and a military helicopter overhead, like it’s a fucking war zone.

— Christopher Webb (@cwebbonline.com) 2025-06-15T16:49:50.028Z

Absolutely chilling. People selling stuff to other people, rudely interrupted by ICE agents and US military members, performing stall-to-stall searches like they’re strolling through an open-air market in Iraq. This is fucked up. And it’s only just beginning.

After more than a decade of fighting for higher pay, the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders have scored a major win. 

Season two of Netflix’s blockbuster series “America’s Sweethearts,” which premiered Wednesday, culminates in the announcement that the cheerleaders will be getting a massive 400 percent pay raise. 

Cheerleader Jade McLean told the New York Times that veterans will be making more than $75 an hour, up from about $15 an hour in the 2024 NFL season. Pay structures for event appearance fees are also changing. The specifics of the new contracts were not revealed.

In season two, the cheerleaders talk openly of fighting for better pay and even consider staging a walkout to put pressure on team management. 

“Our efforts were heard,” said cheerleader Megan McElaney, one of a handful that lead the charge for higher pay, in the show’s final episode. “I get emotional knowing that I was a part of that. Dancers are athletes. They have so much value.”

Last summer, pay was a footnote on the show. Dallas Cowboys Executive Vice President Charlotte Jones waved off the issue: “There’s a lot of cynicism around pay for NFL cheerleaders, and as it should be — they’re not paid a lot. But the facts are they actually don’t come here for the money. They come here for something that’s actually bigger than that to them.”

A pay raise for the Dallas cheerleaders could signal a sea change in one of America’s most gendered professions.

Cheerleaders have been suing their teams for higher pay since 2014, when Oakland Raiderette Lacy Thibodeaux Fields sued her team alleging a violation of state minimum wage and labor laws. 

For the 2014 season she said she earned barely $1,000. Her lawsuit was followed by more than a half dozen others and a congressional inquiry, but ultimately little changed. Then came “America’s Sweethearts.”

“I’m thrilled to hear this news,” Thibodeaux Fields told The 19th. “Artistic talents and hard work should always be well paid. This is a well deserved raise!”

The post The Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders score a 400 percent pay raise appeared first on The 19th.

Eggs Benedict