Some time last year my first issue of The Nation came in the mail. To tell you the truth, I don’t remember subscribing to the magazine. I may not have been paying attention when looking over some kind of trial offer; I may have been overly impressed by The Nation’s stated belief in intellectual freedom (more later), or maybe a friend ordered the magazine for me, suspecting that I would benefit from it. Who knows?

In any case, the magazines started to arrive in the mail, and I would dutifully page through them. I was attracted to the book reviews in the magazine. Political magazines tend to publish reviews of books that complement their outlook on life – or sometimes to ridicule those that don’t. As an author, I would be happy if anybody reviewed any of my books – favorably or unfavorably.

The Nation has a rich history, having been founded by abolitionists in 1885. Their stated beliefs, per their website: “We believe in intellectual freedom. We value facts and transparency. We argue that dissent is patriotic and we hold the powerful to account, no matter their political persuasion. We raise up the promise of a radical tomorrow while we agitate for meaningful change today. Above all, we aspire to galvanize a more informed public—one equipped with a more profound understanding of events, ideas, and history.”

Maybe that is why I inadvertently subscribed to The Nation; except for the radical tomorrow and agitation, I shared their stated beliefs. To be honest, some of the columns and articles in The Nation seemed to be balanced and reasonable. I am not used to reading liberal/progressive thoughts. I am used to hearing them shrieked out in fanatical soundbites on television. I find that thoughts, when they are written out, tend to be more coherent and persuasive. 

But there was still that liberal slant, spin, or whatever you wanted to term it. I didn’t sense that The Nation was trying very hard to hold the Biden administration accountable. I didn’t sense that they were promoting intellectual freedom. I didn't think that I was equipped with a more profound understanding. My subscription ran out and it was not renewed. It was, however, an interesting experience.

The American Civil Liberties Union 

Shortly after my subscription to The Nation began, I started to receive solicitations from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I suspect that the ACLU bought The Nation’s mailing list. The ACLU was looking for financial support and they occasionally surveyed me on where they should concentrate their efforts. I would respond to the survey, with suggestions that they should get back to doing what they were once known for – protecting the freedoms that our constitution provides us, specifically the freedom of speech.

It is my opinion that, somewhere along the way, the ACLU got lost. I believe it, as an organization, got caught up in the DEI mentality that criminalized “hate speech.” That may have been initially commendable, but it became objectionable when the definition of “hate speech” was expanded to include almost any form of conservative dissent. The ACLU at one time would defend all free speech; now it tends to pick and choose what it, as an organization, wants to defend.  

As I was writing my book Families 1450, 4506 and 4711: before, during, and after Manzanar, I was thinking about the ACLU. Chapter 15 in that book discusses how my aunt-in-law Marie challenged the U.S. government to retry and/or release her husband from the U.S. Army camps in Lordsburg and Sante Fe, New Mexico. In a series of letters (from October 1942 to November 1943) she wrote to the Honorable Edward J. Ennis, Director, Alien Enemy Control Unit, U.S. Department of Justice, pleading her husband’s case. The letters (both ways) were respectful and business-like. The bureaucracy took its time and Marie’s husband was eventually transferred to Manzanar, to join the rest of his family, on January 3, 1944. I found it interesting that Edward J. Ennis, who was never a fan of the internment process, went on to become the president of the ACLU from 1969 to 1976.

As I write this article today, I note on the aclu.org website an article entitled “During Japanese American Incarceration, the ACLU Lost – and Then Found – Its Way.” I believe that the ACLU is again lost, and I pray that it again finds its way.

Charlie Kirk

A week ago today, Charlie Kirk was assassinated. I was something of a Charlie Kirk fan. I must admit, however, that I am not very good with names and I often confused him with another Charlie – Charlie Hurt. They were both conservative commentators. I enjoy listening to them both. 

For whatever reason, the TikTok algorithm would send a lot of Kirk’s videos to my account – usually Charlie interacting with college students in venues like the one he was speaking at when he was shot. I admired the way he tried to reach and help the youth of this country – the college aged – via his organization Turning Point USA. 

If the AARP was the American Association of Retired Persons, then Charlie’s organization might have been termed the AAYP, the American Association of Young People. In some ways, Charlie was trying to “turn” the unorganized youth of this country into something with the political clout of the AARP. It was especially saddening that Kirk was killed by a member of the generation that he loved so much.

Back to The Nation

When I accessed The Nation’s website, on September 11, 2025, (to find their aforementioned beliefs), I came upon an article by Joan Walsh, entitled “Let’s Not Forget Who Charlie Kirk Really Was,” with the caveat/subtitle “The right-wing influencer did not deserve to die, and we shouldn’t forget the many despicable things he said and did.” The tone and substance of the article reminded me of why I let my subscription to The Nation expire.

Early in the article, Walsh listed five specific “despicable” things that Kirk did, the first being: “He founded the Professor Watchlist, committed to singling out academics he believed discriminated against conservative views, scholarship, and students, leading to threats against some of the instructors named.”

Dah! That’s the first despicable thing worth mentioning?

·         that Kirk created a watchlist of the professors who penalized students for expressing conservative thoughts; 

·         that Kirk created a list of professors that conservative students might want to avoid, if they wanted a passing grade; 

·         that Kirk created a list of professors that might want to reexamine their teaching techniques, as they relate to freedom of expression in a “university” environment;

·         that Kirk created a list of professors that most likely had already been complained about – to school administrators, who chose to ignore the complaints, because they were either sympathetic to the beliefs of the professors listed or intimidated by the faculty in general. 

That is it – the most (#1) “despicable” thing?

As to the second part of the despicable Professor Watchlist thing, you can replace “leading to threats against some of the instructors named” by “probably leading to Kirk being shot and killed.” The latter is a truly despicable act.

I didn’t take the time to analyze despicable things 2, 3, 4 and 5, except to note that all seemed to involve the freedom of speech: “attacked ... [by] saying,” “claimed ... and called,” “mocked ... and even suggested,” and “attempted to link.” None of Kirk’s despicable acts seemed to involve any physical violence. 

Another of Walsh’s statements that irked me was: “In fact, Kirk mostly debated people he set up and who knew less than he did, and he often played their views for laughs.” I never sensed that Kirk set up anybody. He made himself available for comments and questions, seemingly favoring those who disagreed with him. I would suggest, from my TikTok sample, that if any laughs occurred it was because the questioners were ill-prepared or held laughable viewpoints; but that was their problem, not Charlie’s problem.

I am reminded of Speaker’s Corner in London’s Hyde Park. Hyde Park was once a popular place to duel – to settle an argument with a sword or a pistol. As civilization became more civil, one could instead stand on a soap box at Speaker’s Corner and make his or her argument on whatever. The better-prepared speakers who were coherent drew audiences. The speakers that were less so drew hecklers and eventually went home. The rise of the internet and social media seem to have diminished such forms of public debate (Charlie being an exception), and society seems to be regressing to swords and pistols (now rifles with scopes).

Conclusion – So where are we?

My subscription to The Nation has expired and has not been renewed. The ACLU seems to have stopped sending me surveys; they apparently no longer want my opinion. Charlie Kirk is dead. Time will tell what his legacy is. RIP Charlie Kirk!