I did not "follow" Charlie Kirk. I would see him occasionally on TV, where I did not agree with all his views. But--I do feel like society has been robbed of a person who was not afraid to mix it up. I was intrigued by the concept of his Prove Me Wrong sessions, and watched a few. He was quick-thinking, funny, smart, and ambitious. I love the fact that he was happily married, with 2 children--nothing says confidence in the future like being willing to have a family.
I see they have someone in custody--that didn't take long, despite the NYT heaping ridicule on Kash Patel for how he mishandled everything. Give me a break. The NYT never has anything good to say about anyone, unless it's their resident moron, Paul Friedman.
This guy, Tyler Robinson, will have adoring apologists, just as Luigi Mangione does. I think THAT is the issue here. Assassination is viewed as a legitimate solution to political discourse. Killing someone --silencing a voice--is acceptable to some. When did that become the "go to" move for people who disagree with each other? It isn't a question of us "loving one another", so much as simple tolerance for one another.
It doesn't help when anyone on the political right is labeled as "fascist", or Hitler. " Fascist" is meaningless. I watched a Charlie Kirk Prove me Wrong exchange in which a young student accused Charlie of being a "Fascist". CK asked a very simple question: "What is a fascist? How do I fit the definition?" After 20 seconds of frustrating stumbling and bumbling and running his fingers through his hair, the guy just gave up. He couldn't answer the question. What a fool. No wonder the left was afraid of Charlie.
To characterize Kirk as "not afraid to mix it up" is a kind assessment. He has blasted, among other things, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, trans people as "giving the finger to god," and any limitations on Second Amendment Rights.
He has trashed Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as an unqualified "diversity hire," even though she had been a federal judge for nine years, clerked for Supreme Court Justice Breyer, got a BA from Harvard and a JD from Harvard Law, both magna cum laude. Justice Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, had been a federal judge for all of one year before being appointed by Bush 41 to the "black seat" of the retiring Thurgood Marshall. Talk about an affirmative action hire ...
Kirk is a believer in "replacement theory," a fringe conspiracy theory postulating that Jews are trying to replace white Americans with nonwhite immigrants. This is the same theory that motivated the deadly attacks on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and on counterprotesters against the neo Nazis marching in Charlottesvile.
While professing to be a guardian of free speech, Kirk has nonetheless targeted for retribution professors on college campuses whose speech he disagrees with.
And as I pointed out, Kirk quickly turned his tail and fled from exposing the full breadth of the Epstein scandal when it became apparent that it would anger Trump and his followers.
Don't get me wrong. Kirk wasn't the only public hypocrite in the world -- and he and his family certainly didn't deserve the fate he suffered on Wednesday.
And to me, it's not a left/right issue. I have been critical of bomb throwers and public hypocrites for years. To this day I cannot understand why NBC continues to give a platform to Al Sharpton, who disgraced himself irredeemably in the Tawana Brawley affair and has never even apologized for defaming the prosecutors he falsely accused of raping Brawley. This is to say nothing of all the other incidents in which he has disgraced himself.
I'm not sure who "Paul Friedman" is but Kash Patel should not be running the FBI. He acquitted himself poorly during this tragedy, tweeting that the "subject" (whatever that is -- it's not a legal term) was in custody, only to retract it it two hours later. Even conservatives like Christopher Rufo have questioned the fitness of Patel, who had no prior law enforcement experience, for the position he holds (could that be a diversity hire, too?). And only weeks before Kirk's assassination, Patel had fired the agent in charge of the Salt Lake field office, presumably because she did not meet some sort of arbitrary "loyalty test." So the FBI local office found itself without a leader during a time of crisis.
Lastly, there is the poor leadership of the president of the United States. Republican Gov. Spencer Cox acted like a responsible leader, urging calm, not pointing fingers, decrying political violence in general and acting to deescalate the situation. The president, on the other hand, blamed "the radical left lunatics" for the murder before a suspect had even been apprehended. It made me sick to my stomach. MAGA members were saying the same thing on social media, but I expected better from the president.
It's not clear exactly what the assassin's ideology was, but it turns out that Robinson grew up in a churchgoing Republican, Mormon family.
Sorry for the long-winded response but your comment got me to thinking, which can be a dangerous thing. ;-)
I always find aspects of your responses to agree with, and parts that leave me puzzled. Since CK's assassination--no other word for it--I've been watching his exchanges with people who disagree with him. They're fascinating. He actually reminds me quite strongly of Rush Limbaugh, who was at his most entertaining when he was conversing with a listener who disagreed with him. In the exchanges I viewed, CK never lost his temper or called the person stupid--which would have been my go-to move. Kind of like Dan Ackroyd on SNL 50 years ago: "Jane, you ignorant slut."
I don't know enough about him to know if he endorsed Replacement Theory and the role of Jews, but that doesn't seem logical given his strongly held Christian beliefs. You mentioned the Epstein files--(yawn). Here's what I don't get--if the DOJ has had those files for years, don't you think they would have released anything salacious about DJT while they had the Presidency and Congress? There are actually quite a few Republicans who want the Epstein stuff out. We'll see. I don't care if there is or there isn't anything about Trump in it. It won't change my opinion of the President, which isn't that great to begin with.
I agree about Al Sharpton--a grifter. I remember that whole mess--we were living in Orange County at the time ( next county over from Poughkeepsie). It could be argued that Al Sharpton was the first celebrity attorney.
In my never-ending crusade against the NYT, I misspoke. In my enthusiasm I meant Paul Krugman, which I garbled up with Tom Friedman.
My cultural and societal worries continue unabated--which you did not address in your responses. What is your opinion on the interest in violence as a solution to political problems? It seems to becoming an acceptable method to silence people with an opposing point of view. And to this observer (I'm sure you'll correct me), it appears to be the political left coming after the political right. I've seen images on TV of people gleefully reacting to CK's death. My husband has a cousin who posted a sentiment along the lines of "be in prayer for Charlie Kirk and his family". That was it--nothing else, not a political statement. For reference, this is a woman who posts photos of butterflies and apple pie recipes. The vitriolic posts she received were shocking. Many who celebrated his death, and of course, all the Trump references, after all, we can't let one right-winger die without wishing ill on every other one. Some were along the lines of " Can't wait to see Trump in a Big Beautiful Casket", and "One down, many more to go", etc. Who's posting this? Who knew there were so many closeted butterfly-chasing-apple-pie-eating leftists?
Can you explain this? Has the anonymity of social media made these kinds of hateful expressions tolerable? I don't know the people who posted these statements, but in less social-sharing times, someone could have that thought, but not express it. Express it to whom? Certainly not express it to however many people follow my husband's cousin--which is well over 100. When one reads that, you think, "Maybe I'm the one who's wrong and everyone else feels this way". Of course media piles on. I have to say, Matthew Dowd being fired from CNN was surprising. And welcome. Maybe Charlie was shot by a supporter "in celebration"? Good Lord--yes Matthew--that's as stupid as it sounds.
I am increasingly despondent about the manner in which we absorb and deal with social media. I worry for my grandson, and yours. I am confident in our children's abilities to wisely parent and limit screen time, but I also fear they are a minority.
I thought I had addressed the matter of the acceptability of political violence. It is almost never acceptable to settle political differences with violence. I say almost because there really was no other way to gain our independence from the British, or to keep the nation together in the 19th century, mostly because of disagreements over slavery and other states rights.
But the idea that it comes mostly from the left probably depends on where you get your news. Here is a piece on recent political violence from the MAGA era from Sky News (which is a Murdoch property, so you don't think it's biased to the left):
In the 60s and into the 70s, it appeared most political violence was from the far left (the Weathermen and other 60s radicals). But of course we also had very active white supremacy groups such as the KKK.
Then it seemed in the 90s with Oklahoma City and militia groups such as the one at Ruby Ridge, it came more from the right.
But as the Sky News article makes clear, it now appears about evenly split:
2017: Shooting at charity baseball game injures prominent Republican politician Steve Scalise
2018: Pipe bombs mailed to Democrats
2020: The plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer
2021: Storming of the Capitol
2022: Attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh
2024: Donald Trump shot at campaign rally
2024: Healthcare executive murdered in NYC
March 2025: New Mexico Republican Party HQ fire
April 2025: Democrat governor's house set alight
June 2025: Two Minnesota politicians and their spouses shot
2025: Attacks linked to anti-Musk sentiment
May 2025: Two Israeli embassy employees killed in DC
Nor does the left have a monopoly on saying dumb things on TV. For every Matthew Dowd, there is a Brian Kilmeade, who recently said on Fox of the mentally ill homeless, they should be given an "involuntary lethal injection. Or something. Just kill them." To Kilmeade's credit, he later apologized (under pressure, I'm sure).
Totally agree about social media. The algorithms are now designed to feed our rage because it increases engagement and thereby the profits of Facebook, X (owned by Elon Musk), Reddit, TikTok et al.
I try to maintain a varied diet. I read the NY Times, WSJ, Boston Globe and The Bulwark, which is run by Bush-era neocons looking for work after the Weekly Standard folded. I always look in on RealClearPolitics to see what the right is thinking. But if you only stay in your lane, you will be half informed.
I did not "follow" Charlie Kirk. I would see him occasionally on TV, where I did not agree with all his views. But--I do feel like society has been robbed of a person who was not afraid to mix it up. I was intrigued by the concept of his Prove Me Wrong sessions, and watched a few. He was quick-thinking, funny, smart, and ambitious. I love the fact that he was happily married, with 2 children--nothing says confidence in the future like being willing to have a family.
I see they have someone in custody--that didn't take long, despite the NYT heaping ridicule on Kash Patel for how he mishandled everything. Give me a break. The NYT never has anything good to say about anyone, unless it's their resident moron, Paul Friedman.
This guy, Tyler Robinson, will have adoring apologists, just as Luigi Mangione does. I think THAT is the issue here. Assassination is viewed as a legitimate solution to political discourse. Killing someone --silencing a voice--is acceptable to some. When did that become the "go to" move for people who disagree with each other? It isn't a question of us "loving one another", so much as simple tolerance for one another.
It doesn't help when anyone on the political right is labeled as "fascist", or Hitler. " Fascist" is meaningless. I watched a Charlie Kirk Prove me Wrong exchange in which a young student accused Charlie of being a "Fascist". CK asked a very simple question: "What is a fascist? How do I fit the definition?" After 20 seconds of frustrating stumbling and bumbling and running his fingers through his hair, the guy just gave up. He couldn't answer the question. What a fool. No wonder the left was afraid of Charlie.
Hi Sharon. Thanks for the comment.
To characterize Kirk as "not afraid to mix it up" is a kind assessment. He has blasted, among other things, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, trans people as "giving the finger to god," and any limitations on Second Amendment Rights.
He has trashed Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as an unqualified "diversity hire," even though she had been a federal judge for nine years, clerked for Supreme Court Justice Breyer, got a BA from Harvard and a JD from Harvard Law, both magna cum laude. Justice Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, had been a federal judge for all of one year before being appointed by Bush 41 to the "black seat" of the retiring Thurgood Marshall. Talk about an affirmative action hire ...
Kirk is a believer in "replacement theory," a fringe conspiracy theory postulating that Jews are trying to replace white Americans with nonwhite immigrants. This is the same theory that motivated the deadly attacks on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and on counterprotesters against the neo Nazis marching in Charlottesvile.
While professing to be a guardian of free speech, Kirk has nonetheless targeted for retribution professors on college campuses whose speech he disagrees with.
And as I pointed out, Kirk quickly turned his tail and fled from exposing the full breadth of the Epstein scandal when it became apparent that it would anger Trump and his followers.
Don't get me wrong. Kirk wasn't the only public hypocrite in the world -- and he and his family certainly didn't deserve the fate he suffered on Wednesday.
And to me, it's not a left/right issue. I have been critical of bomb throwers and public hypocrites for years. To this day I cannot understand why NBC continues to give a platform to Al Sharpton, who disgraced himself irredeemably in the Tawana Brawley affair and has never even apologized for defaming the prosecutors he falsely accused of raping Brawley. This is to say nothing of all the other incidents in which he has disgraced himself.
I'm not sure who "Paul Friedman" is but Kash Patel should not be running the FBI. He acquitted himself poorly during this tragedy, tweeting that the "subject" (whatever that is -- it's not a legal term) was in custody, only to retract it it two hours later. Even conservatives like Christopher Rufo have questioned the fitness of Patel, who had no prior law enforcement experience, for the position he holds (could that be a diversity hire, too?). And only weeks before Kirk's assassination, Patel had fired the agent in charge of the Salt Lake field office, presumably because she did not meet some sort of arbitrary "loyalty test." So the FBI local office found itself without a leader during a time of crisis.
Lastly, there is the poor leadership of the president of the United States. Republican Gov. Spencer Cox acted like a responsible leader, urging calm, not pointing fingers, decrying political violence in general and acting to deescalate the situation. The president, on the other hand, blamed "the radical left lunatics" for the murder before a suspect had even been apprehended. It made me sick to my stomach. MAGA members were saying the same thing on social media, but I expected better from the president.
It's not clear exactly what the assassin's ideology was, but it turns out that Robinson grew up in a churchgoing Republican, Mormon family.
Sorry for the long-winded response but your comment got me to thinking, which can be a dangerous thing. ;-)
I always find aspects of your responses to agree with, and parts that leave me puzzled. Since CK's assassination--no other word for it--I've been watching his exchanges with people who disagree with him. They're fascinating. He actually reminds me quite strongly of Rush Limbaugh, who was at his most entertaining when he was conversing with a listener who disagreed with him. In the exchanges I viewed, CK never lost his temper or called the person stupid--which would have been my go-to move. Kind of like Dan Ackroyd on SNL 50 years ago: "Jane, you ignorant slut."
I don't know enough about him to know if he endorsed Replacement Theory and the role of Jews, but that doesn't seem logical given his strongly held Christian beliefs. You mentioned the Epstein files--(yawn). Here's what I don't get--if the DOJ has had those files for years, don't you think they would have released anything salacious about DJT while they had the Presidency and Congress? There are actually quite a few Republicans who want the Epstein stuff out. We'll see. I don't care if there is or there isn't anything about Trump in it. It won't change my opinion of the President, which isn't that great to begin with.
I agree about Al Sharpton--a grifter. I remember that whole mess--we were living in Orange County at the time ( next county over from Poughkeepsie). It could be argued that Al Sharpton was the first celebrity attorney.
In my never-ending crusade against the NYT, I misspoke. In my enthusiasm I meant Paul Krugman, which I garbled up with Tom Friedman.
My cultural and societal worries continue unabated--which you did not address in your responses. What is your opinion on the interest in violence as a solution to political problems? It seems to becoming an acceptable method to silence people with an opposing point of view. And to this observer (I'm sure you'll correct me), it appears to be the political left coming after the political right. I've seen images on TV of people gleefully reacting to CK's death. My husband has a cousin who posted a sentiment along the lines of "be in prayer for Charlie Kirk and his family". That was it--nothing else, not a political statement. For reference, this is a woman who posts photos of butterflies and apple pie recipes. The vitriolic posts she received were shocking. Many who celebrated his death, and of course, all the Trump references, after all, we can't let one right-winger die without wishing ill on every other one. Some were along the lines of " Can't wait to see Trump in a Big Beautiful Casket", and "One down, many more to go", etc. Who's posting this? Who knew there were so many closeted butterfly-chasing-apple-pie-eating leftists?
Can you explain this? Has the anonymity of social media made these kinds of hateful expressions tolerable? I don't know the people who posted these statements, but in less social-sharing times, someone could have that thought, but not express it. Express it to whom? Certainly not express it to however many people follow my husband's cousin--which is well over 100. When one reads that, you think, "Maybe I'm the one who's wrong and everyone else feels this way". Of course media piles on. I have to say, Matthew Dowd being fired from CNN was surprising. And welcome. Maybe Charlie was shot by a supporter "in celebration"? Good Lord--yes Matthew--that's as stupid as it sounds.
I am increasingly despondent about the manner in which we absorb and deal with social media. I worry for my grandson, and yours. I am confident in our children's abilities to wisely parent and limit screen time, but I also fear they are a minority.
Hi Sharon.
I thought I had addressed the matter of the acceptability of political violence. It is almost never acceptable to settle political differences with violence. I say almost because there really was no other way to gain our independence from the British, or to keep the nation together in the 19th century, mostly because of disagreements over slavery and other states rights.
But the idea that it comes mostly from the left probably depends on where you get your news. Here is a piece on recent political violence from the MAGA era from Sky News (which is a Murdoch property, so you don't think it's biased to the left):
https://news.sky.com/story/unique-american-phenomena-the-string-of-bloody-political-violence-in-the-maga-era-13428620
In the 60s and into the 70s, it appeared most political violence was from the far left (the Weathermen and other 60s radicals). But of course we also had very active white supremacy groups such as the KKK.
Then it seemed in the 90s with Oklahoma City and militia groups such as the one at Ruby Ridge, it came more from the right.
But as the Sky News article makes clear, it now appears about evenly split:
2017: Shooting at charity baseball game injures prominent Republican politician Steve Scalise
2018: Pipe bombs mailed to Democrats
2020: The plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer
2021: Storming of the Capitol
2022: Attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh
2024: Donald Trump shot at campaign rally
2024: Healthcare executive murdered in NYC
March 2025: New Mexico Republican Party HQ fire
April 2025: Democrat governor's house set alight
June 2025: Two Minnesota politicians and their spouses shot
2025: Attacks linked to anti-Musk sentiment
May 2025: Two Israeli embassy employees killed in DC
August 2025: Attack on CDC by vaccine skeptic
Nor does the left have a monopoly on saying dumb things on TV. For every Matthew Dowd, there is a Brian Kilmeade, who recently said on Fox of the mentally ill homeless, they should be given an "involuntary lethal injection. Or something. Just kill them." To Kilmeade's credit, he later apologized (under pressure, I'm sure).
Totally agree about social media. The algorithms are now designed to feed our rage because it increases engagement and thereby the profits of Facebook, X (owned by Elon Musk), Reddit, TikTok et al.
I try to maintain a varied diet. I read the NY Times, WSJ, Boston Globe and The Bulwark, which is run by Bush-era neocons looking for work after the Weekly Standard folded. I always look in on RealClearPolitics to see what the right is thinking. But if you only stay in your lane, you will be half informed.