Ep. 6— Pastimes: Moving Forward, Looking Back
EPISODE DESCRIPTION
This week, we start with a follow-up on ICE activity inairports—and the unexpected origins behind a major policy idea. What happens when attention, media, and decision-making collide?
Then, we shift to baseball and the introduction of “robo umps.” Is technology taking away from the game—or adding a new layer of strategy and excitement?
And finally, we zoom out. With the finale of Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette sparking a wave of 90s nostalgia, we explore why people are longing for the past—and what that says about how quickly things are changing today.
TRANSCRIPT
This week on It’s Gonna Be Fine, we’re revisiting a surprising update to the ICE-at-airports story, taking a closer look at Major League Baseball’s new robo-umpire system, and exploring why so many people seem nostalgic for the 1990s. At first glance, these topics have very little in common. But underneath them all is a shared theme: how we react to change, uncertainty, and the tension between preserving what we love and adapting to what’s next.
ICE at Airports: A Policy Idea from Talk Radio?
Last episode, we talked about ICE agents being deployed to help at airports during TSA staffing shortages and long security lines. This week, a new wrinkle emerged: reports suggested that the idea may have originated with a caller on a talk radio show. According to those reports, a listener suggested using ICE agents to assist at airports, the host liked the idea, discussed it publicly, and before long it had become part of the national conversation.
Whether or not that’s exactly how events unfolded, it’s still a fascinating story because it raises questions about how policy gets made. President Trump has always been closely tuned into television, radio, and media coverage. That’s nothing new. But the possibility that an idea from a call-in show could move so quickly into real-world action makes you wonder how much deliberation happens behind the scenes before decisions are made.
To be fair, there was a genuine problem that needed attention. TSA staffing shortages were creating long delays, frustrated travelers, and operational challenges at airports around the country. Something needed to happen. The question is whether bringing in ICE agents addressed the root problem or simply provided a temporary response to a much larger issue.
What struck me most is how differently people view situations like this. Some see rapid action as decisive leadership. Others see it as impulsive policymaking. One side values speed; the other values process. As with so many things these days, the disagreement isn’t always about the problem itself—it’s about how solutions should be developed and implemented.
Thankfully, there now appears to be progress on the TSA funding situation. If those issues continue to improve, hopefully travelers will start seeing shorter lines and a more stable airport experience. Still, the story leaves behind some interesting questions about how ideas move from media conversations into government action.
Baseball’s Robo-Umpires Might Actually Be Good
The 2026 Major League Baseball season has arrived, and one of the biggest stories isn’t about a team or a player—it’s about technology.
When I first heard people talking about “robo-umpires,” I immediately hated the idea. Baseball is one of those sports where the human element feels essential. Bad calls, arguments, passionate reactions from players and fans—those moments are part of what makes the game feel alive. The thought of replacing that with automation sounded like stripping away some of the sport’s personality.
But after looking into how the system actually works, I changed my mind.
The good news is that umpires aren’t being replaced. Instead, MLB is introducing a challenge system that allows certain ball-and-strike calls to be reviewed using technology that tracks the strike zone. Teams receive a limited number of challenges, and players must decide in real time whether a call is worth questioning.
What’s interesting is that this doesn’t remove strategy from the game—it adds more of it. Players now have to think carefully about when to challenge, when to trust the umpire, and when a particular moment is important enough to risk using one of their limited opportunities. Fans also get to watch the challenge unfold on the stadium screens, creating another layer of anticipation and engagement.
The whole thing made me realize how quickly many of us react negatively to change. When something has been part of our lives for decades, our instinct is often to protect it. We assume new means worse. But sometimes innovation isn’t about replacing tradition. Sometimes it’s about refining it.
At least on paper, this feels like one of those situations. Baseball remains baseball. The human element remains intact. The technology simply provides a tool that can help correct major mistakes while introducing a new strategic dimension to the game. That’s a lot different from the dystopian robot takeover I imagined when I first heard the phrase “robo-umpires.”
Why Everyone Suddenly Wants to Live in the 1990s
The final thing I’ve been thinking about lately is nostalgia.
If you’ve spent any time online recently, you’ve probably noticed a growing obsession with the 1990s. Much of that attention has been fueled by the success of Love Story, the series about John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette. The show has generated enormous interest, but what fascinates me is that people aren’t just talking about the characters. They’re talking about the decade itself.
Everywhere you look, people are posting old photographs, sharing music from the era, and imagining what it must have been like to live as an adult before smartphones, social media, and constant connectivity. What’s especially interesting is that many of the people romanticizing the 1990s didn’t actually experience them that way. They’re responding to an idea of the decade as much as the reality.
And honestly, I understand the appeal.
Life in the 1990s operated differently. If you wanted to spend time with someone, you had to physically go somewhere. Plans weren’t managed through group texts and apps. Information wasn’t available instantly. There was a different rhythm to everyday life, and many people associate that slower pace with a stronger sense of community and connection.
At the same time, nostalgia can be tricky. We tend to remember the highlights and forget the frustrations. Every generation does this. People living in the 1990s probably looked back fondly on earlier decades too. It’s part of being human. We often associate the past with simplicity because we’ve already survived it. We know how the story ended.
What feels different today is the speed of change. Technology evolves so quickly that it can feel impossible to keep up. New platforms appear, new trends emerge, and new AI tools launch almost every week. There’s very little time to settle into one era before the next one arrives. In that environment, it’s easy to understand why people feel drawn toward a version of the past that seems slower, steadier, and more predictable.
I don’t think the answer is living in the past. But I do think nostalgia serves a purpose. It reminds us what we value. It helps us identify the things we want to preserve even as the world changes around us. The goal isn’t to go backward. It’s to carry the best parts forward.
Final Thoughts
Whether we’re talking about airport security, baseball, or the 1990s, the underlying theme is surprisingly similar. Change tends to make us uncomfortable. We worry about losing what we know, and we often assume the next version will be worse than the current one.
But that’s not always true. Sometimes new ideas create new problems. Sometimes they solve old ones. And sometimes they simply force us to think differently about the things we care about most.
The challenge isn’t resisting change altogether. It’s figuring out what deserves to be preserved, what deserves to evolve, and how to move forward without losing sight of what mattered in the first place. If we can do that, there’s a pretty good chance it’s gonna be fine.
This transcript has been lightly edited for readability.
