The Spock-Bones Window

It is like the Overton Window, just with more emotion, propaganda, agitprop and Star Trek canon.

It may be too early to say definitively, but appearances suggest the Democrats have won the Battle of Minneapolis—once again proving they are masters at creating problems of massive scale and then successfully blaming Republicans for trying to fix them. I’ve spent years trying to understand how this is even possible, and the best explanation I can offer is that there exists a continuum of reasoning stretching from extreme deliberative, analytical thought—pure Star Trek Vulcan stoic rationality—on one end, to something approaching batshit insane, impulsive, unreflective psychotic obscurantism on the other: the deliberate suppression of facts and clarity.

For lack of a better description (and since I thought it up, I get to name it), I call this the Spock–Bones Window.

Doctor “Bones” McCoy was created by Star Trek’s writers specifically as Spock’s foil. Spock embodies logic and restraint, while Bones is emotional, instinctive, driven by gut and heart. This isn’t a new idea, merely a new application. The same dichotomy appears in philosophy, most notably in Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy, where Apollo represents order and reason and Dionysus passion and chaos.

If the Overton Window describes the range of ideas considered politically acceptable at any given time; the Spock–Bones Window operates similarly, except it measures acceptable rationality itself. It defines how much emotion may be legitimized as reason in constructing reality.

Star Trek’s internal logic was built on the Hegelian dialectic: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Spock represented the thesis, Bones the antithesis, and Captain Kirk the synthesis—the integration of logic and emotion into decisive leadership. But the Spock–Bones Window is moved through escalating emotional intensity, short-circuiting that process entirely. When emotion dominates, synthesis never occurs, and solutions become structurally impossible. That, in essence, is the sad miracle of Minneapolis.

Democrats have successfully used this mechanism to implant a narrative—even in some mush-brained Republicans—that they suddenly oppose open borders after four years of supporting them and now believe in immigration enforcement despite having spent years undermining it. The “real” problem is no longer the problem itself; it is how they feel about the solution. They claim they don’t like how aggressive Trump’s ICE has been, while carefully ignoring the threats, doxxing, protests, hotel ransacking, and systematic obstruction of a constitutionally and congressionally mandated mission—including organized efforts to shelter illegal aliens and help them evade law enforcement, with direct participation from Minnesota state and Minneapolis local officials.

I do not think ICE ever planned for enforcement to unfold this way. They adjusted their tactics to match the resistance they encountered. To carry out their mission at all, they were forced to be as aggressive in countering obstruction as the obstruction was in countering them. The underlying logic is simple: a Democrat administration refused to enforce the border, then actively facilitated illegal immigration while failing to vet entrants. Blue states and cities welcomed illegal aliens as “undocumented migrants,” “Maryland dads,” and “neighbors,” in open violation of federal law. A new administration was elected, closed the border, and began lawful removals—criminal aliens first. Those same blue jurisdictions then refused to cooperate.

There is nothing difficult to understand here—unless emotion replaces reason.

Democrats have framed Minneapolis as if ICE were the sole aggressor, minimizing or erasing the actions of Renee Good, Alex Pretti, William Kelly, and others. Sustaining this denial of reality requires propaganda and agitprop, thereby manufacturing a wave of temporary insanity.

In Star Trek terms, Minnesota Democrats have created a Minnesota version of the Kobayashi Maru (Kobayashi Minnesota?) exercise: a no-win scenario designed to trap federal enforcement in an impossible public-relations dilemma.

My hope is that substituting Homan for Bovino produces enforcement that remains firm and appropriately aggressive but becomes less headline-grabbing and more heads-down work on removals. I do suspect this change, and the fact Homan reports directly to President Trump, marks the beginning of the end of Noem’s cabinet tenure.

What cannot be ignored is that Walz, Ellison, Frey and other Minnesota state and local officials did move the Spock–Bones Window, and that movement cost two lives, injured many more on both sides, and if allowed to stand threatens the stability of the Republic itself.

Maybe there is still time for Captain Trump to get between Bones and Spock and solve the Kobayashi Minnesota problem.