It’s time for a new thread. So I’ll let you all know the deal on my attempts to allow HTML. I think I can probably get it allowed but I want to limit allowing it to certain groups of people. The reason I want to limit is …. ‘bots’ and potentially annoying people. It’s the issue of getting the limits in. So I am trying to allow the html but limit it to
- Long time regularly visitors. This will be defined as more than 10 approved posts. (I may later do and more than 3 in the past year. It’s limiting at all that is the issue.
- Me on the “front end”. That’s what you see here.
- Me on the “back end” where I can respond inside comments in blue. This will allow me to occassionaly make sure an answer is near a question. (Like “how do I do ‘x’?” could have the answer inserted immediately after it, and it could be clear mine was the answer.) Also, I could fix people’s incorrect html!
It will also allow me to include responses to “you know whose” comments inside his comment when I feel like releasing it which would never be immediately. That way, I don’t need to quote and respond and derail the thread.
It’s actually really easy for me to get this feature going if I only allow me to do it. But it makes all of you want me to let you add color too. So I want to do that. - Greek letters are going to be a problem. Some ways of entering them are easy at the screen– but the database won’t store them. I am not screwing with the database for maintainability reasons. (WordPress updates regularly. Sometimes that involves automatic changes to the database. I would need to detect the problem and then go in and “fix” it when this occurred at whatever random times WP updates.)
I do have a latex plugin activate– but it requires me to add latex tags to the post. When those are present, we’ll all be able to enter Greek letters in Latex. This post does not have the tags entered. If you know unicode, you might be able to succeed with that, but it’s cumbersome. Finding the letter elsewhere and cutting and pasting will probably not work.
If you try putting in right now it will probably not work for you. I’ll let you know when it might because I’ll want testing. I am watching what “hooks” get activated as people do comment, and in what order. ChatGPT is certainly confused. But I don’t need you to bother trying to put the fonts in for the time being. I’ve just got error logs that show what is “triggering”. Merely commenting normally leaves some breadcrumbs.
Hopefully, I’ll get these powers in. As usual: open thread.
FYI: FULL Charlie Kirk + Gavin Newsom VIRAL Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3A7fg23dz4
6 months ago, over an hour
Kirk wins this rhetorically for sure, Newsom looked uncomfortable and isn’t good at this format (yet, maybe never). I think Newsom was wise to do it given the no platforming silliness he faces from his side. Newsom’s son is a fan of Kirk.
Kirk sounded like Shapiro’s charismatic little brother to me, ha ha. Kirk makes a strong point about the Democrats being afraid to do long form unscripted mano-o-mano in the wilderness debates. The bit of foreshadowing where Kirk tells Newsom the Democrats are all about silencing their critics is plain sad.
Kirk is (sadly was …) definitely a culture warrior but nothing more than strongly stating his views on subjects most of the public backs.
You’re Fired! A lot of vile leftists posted celebratory messages after the death of Charlie Kirk. We pounced! A lot of them have gotten fired:
New York Times:
“Right-Wing Activists Urge Followers to Expose Those Celebrating Kirk Killing”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/12/us/politics/charlie-kirk-shooting-firings-celebration.html
“Teachers, firefighters and other workers celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Now they could be looking for new jobs”
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/employees-fired-celebrating-charlie-kirk-comments-b2825700.html
“Following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk this week, educators across the country have found themselves facing swift termination or potential discipline after allegedly sharing opinions on social media about the killing. “
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/charlie-kirk-death-teachers-professors-nationwide-fired-disciplined-s-rcna230845
The following message went viral on X:
“It’s a very busy day for HR Departments throughout the country as lunatic leftists are getting terminated in mass for celebrating the Charlie Kirk assassination.”
https://x.com/MediaRival/status/1966557812399472937
More good news, The Federal Government is going after people who celebrate the Charlie Kirk murder:
“State Department warns it will revoke visas of foreigners who ‘glorify violence’ after Kirk shooting”
“I have been disgusted to see some on social media praising, rationalizing, or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action. Please feel free to bring such comments by foreigners to my attention so that the @StateDept can protect the American people.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-department-warns-revoke-visas-foreigners-who-glorify-violence-after-kirk-shooting
Federal agencies threaten, discipline employees for criticizing or mocking Charlie Kirk
https://www.govexec.com/management/2025/09/federal-agencies-threaten-discipline-employees-criticizing-or-mocking-charlie-kirk/408091/
“Pete Hegseth tells Pentagon staff to hunt for negative Charlie Kirk posts by service members
Several people have already been relieved of their jobs because of their posts on social media, defense officials told NBC News.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/hegseth-pentagon-staff-negative-charlie-kirk-posts-service-members-rcna230915
“State Department warns immigrants not to mock Kirk’s death”
“The State Department on Thursday indicated it would review the legal status of immigrants “praising, rationalizing, or making light” of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s fatal shooting.”
https://www.axios.com/2025/09/11/charlie-kirk-shooting-immigrants-state-department
Erika Kirk, the widow, gave a very moving and inspiring speech tonight. Both new and old media are alive with comments.
Here is a quote I agree with:
“The evildoers responsible for my husband’s assassination have no idea what they have done…”
“If you thought that my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea.”
She is vowing to continue his work.
A Powerful tribute by Maori warriors as they perform a Haka to honor Charlie Kirk at a large vigil in London. It’s chilling.
https://x.com/alanvibe/status/1966569915684368872?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Russell,
To me, it seems that getting folks fired for social media posts which praise Kirk’s murder, is of the same nature as “cancelling” folks who didn’t bend the knee to certain causes promoted by so-called social justice warriors.
Did you object to those calls to fire people for their opinions? If so, how do you reconcile that with your approval of calls to fire people in this instance?
Republican kills Republican. Despair ensues when it is discovered that it really wasn’t a trans immigrant AOC clone. Thought control ensues.
I don’t believe Trump wants to be Hitler, or even Mussolini. But I live in Spain and I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump has Franco-style ambitions.
And most of y’all are just along for the ride.
Harold, I’d like to answer that, because that you even ask is indicative of the relativist rot pervasive in our culture today.
Canceling people who refuse to bend the knee to evil is not equivalent to canceling people who worship evil, is my answer. Its not that complicated. There is a right and wrong, and those rejoicing in political assassination (murder really) are wrong.
Certainly, we should not have people who celebrate the murder of their political opponents in positions of power in government.
It is nightmarish that this requires explanation and defense.
Harold,
My justification is the same as Mark‘s, but I will express it a little differently.
Conservatives we’re getting canceled for using the wrong pronouns. Liberals are getting canceled for glorifying murder.
That having been said……
I am enjoying playing offense after years of playing defense.
And I don’t care if it’s hypocritical.
from yesterday‘s New York Times:
“One of the first things I learned, being born into a Mountaineer family, was the ‘Eat Sh– PITT!’ chant. Then, when I became a parent, it was one of the first things I taught my girls. That’s the only time they’re allowed to cuss.”
He is referring to the BACKYARD BRAWL, it’s a football rivalry between the University of West Virginia and the University of Pittsburgh.
The rivalry began in 1895 and will be played again today at 3:30 PM
more from NYT:
“There’s gonna be 60,000 people in the stands, no seats open,” said West Virginia coach Rich Rodriguez, “and another 15,000 in the parking lot drinking moonshine, wishing they could get in, but not really remembering why they came.”
Full article:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6619113/2025/09/12/backyard-brawl-pitt-west-virginia-rivalry/
HAIL TO PITT!
Harold,
I feel like considerably more could be said on this subject, but I won’t write you a book on the basis of your comments so far. Suffice it to round out my remarks by saying that it can simultaneously be true that social media witch hunts are generally deplorable and at the same time that there can be cases where enforcing cultural norms is a good idea. The objections to cancel culture need not be universal absolute strictures but more like rules of thumb or guidelines.
This page has 1.3 million views in 110,000 ‘likes’:
“My team and I have now gotten at least 25 people fired from their jobs for celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk.“
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1966830461969461752?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Tolerance and intolerance are both necessary for a thriving, healthy, civilization to exist. Too much intolerance is bad. Too much tolerance is also bad. Tolerance is not a virtue. Intolerance is not evil. They are both just social tools, the sum total of which determine what kind of civilization you exist in. Like tools, it is how they are wielded that produces good and evil.
Leftists use both tolerance and intolerance to guide civilization in the direction they want it to go. They demand that you tolerate their social dictats or you are evil. They demand intolerance against existing norms or you get canceled.
Is celebrating political assassination something a civilization should tolerate if you want it to be healthy and fuctional? If those celebrating engaged their brain and considered the consequences to their own actions ie what they encourage upon others is delivered upon themselves. I think most would consider it a bad idea.
Political assassination is not something we should tolerate. Cheerleaders of it should celebrate in silence or face social consequences because we do not want to normalize this behavior in our civilization for the good of everyone, including those who do not think.
HaroldW.
If you can’t see a difference between cancelling somebody because they say “all lives matter” and cancelling somebody because they celebrate a murder, then I have nothing to say to you.
Mark Bofill,
I do have a concern over cancelling people over what they might say about the Kirk assassination. There is a difference between on off hand remark and a considered statement. There is also a whole lot of territory between condemning an act and celebrating it. Once the digital torches and pitchforks come out, nuances get ignored.
HaroldW,
“To me, it seems that getting folks fired for social media posts which praise Kirk’s murder…”
Refusing to allow some guy wearing a dress into a women’s locker room, or refusing to call him “Ms.” (both evil “hate crimes” to the unhinged), is not the same as celebrating a murderer who shoots that guy dead for wearing a dress.
I think you could not be more mistaken in suggesting they are equivalent.
Mike,
Me too. Trying to get people fired by social media pressure and intimidation is seldom a very good idea.
I don’t really want people’s obedience. I want our people to frigging understand the difference between good and evil, and at least aspire to what’s good. Cancellation isn’t going to do that. Raising children properly would be the correct long term approach over time.
But still — some degree of pushback against people who are out to kick over cultural norms is not completely out of line either.
HaroldW
Me too. Also: if federal workers speech isn’t done on or for the job, I think that’s not going to hold up.
Geeze, I’m not used to having people agree with me.
It’s kind of pathetic that Liberals think they can glorify murder and not face any consequences for it.
Liberal leaders have dehumanized conservatives to the point that their followers think conservatives don’t deserve common human rights.
It’s exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews.
“Why Progressives Increasingly Support Violence”
https://www.city-journal.org/article/progressives-political-violence-donald-trump-assassination-attempt
Grok:
“- YouGov Poll (September 2025): In a survey of Americans’ views on political violence, younger people (under 30) were more likely than older adults to say political violence can sometimes be justified (19% vs. lower rates among older groups). Similarly, “very liberal” respondents were more supportive (25%) than conservatives (4%) or moderates (7%). However, even among very liberals, 55% said it is never justified. The poll also found that 24% of very liberals deemed it acceptable to feel “joy” about the deaths of political opponents, compared to just 4% of conservatives. This suggests a higher tolerance for extreme sentiments among liberals, but not outright endorsement by most.”
Mark,
I very much agree that some degree of pushback is appropriate. Actually, it is necessary. But the mob does not do “some degree”. I suppose the counterweight has to be fired people suing their employers.
Some are easy. A Secret Service agent celebrated the assassination. He was fired. That is as it should be since the cause of firing is pertinent to his job.
Mike,
I’m a little off the beaten path when it comes to employer’s rights to fire. As far as I am concerned, an employer ought to have the right to fire an employee for any reason whatsoever or none whatsoever.
If Steve hires me, and I give Steve the ‘heebee jebees’ for no particular legally defensible reason, that ought to be enough for Steve to say ‘nah, this isn’t working out, sorry; you make my skin crawl and I’m not having you as my employee.’
I don’t know if this is actually legal. I’d be surprised if it was. Doesn’t matter to me either way.
Mark,
I think that “at will” employees can be fired without requiring a reason. Those are usually people with at least some executive responsibilities. But I think that a reason is required if you want to fire a worker bee. And some people have contracts that restrict the employers right to fire.
I’m not a fan of firing people over social media posts. A cycle of suppressing thoughts just isn’t healthy for society. I’m pretty far to the absolutist position. Private companies should have the ability to fire people for many things but this is an opinion that they shouldn’t in most cases.
There are gray areas:
Definitely not fire: People who have private posts that are revealed by others who do not hold any public facing function in a company.
Definitely fire: The Home Depot employee who refused to print Charlie Kirk posters for a customer in Michigan.
Definitely fire: An employee who posts something on their employer’s social media site
Probably fire: An employee with a public post who has a public facing position (salesman, etc.) who have specific social media clauses in their employment agreement.
Don’t fire: Government employees who are posting on their personal sites. I’m OK with a teacher being berated at school the next day by students / other employees over their overt political stances.
Don’t fire: People who sh**post after they have been out drinking all night. If you want print out the post and put it on the company bulletin board so everyone can see what a-holes they are.
There are no standards for indecent, insensitive, etc. If we fire all people who are a**holes for ten minutes some time in their life we won’t have many workers left.
MikeM
Yes.
Plausible. We’ll see what happens if he sues. But sure, I think Secret Service members openly celebrating assissinations, murder (mass or individual) is in appropriate. Given the job, plausibly a firing office.
The same case can’t be made for say, an US post office letter carrier airing a view on their personal time. It’s an unsavory view to approve of people being assassinated for their political activities, but the boundary for free speech has to be somewhere. I prefer on the side of protecting speech. Speech about assassination is not, itself, assassination.
Government employees generally cannot be fired over political speech. This has been to the SC. If their speech rises to the level of workplace disruption then they can be fired. Screaming “F Charlie Kirk” in the lunchroom can get you fired but not posting that on your own social media site.
“The Pickering Balancing Test
The foundation for these protections comes from the 1968 Supreme Court case Pickering v. Board of Education. In this case, a teacher was fired for writing a letter to a newspaper criticizing the school board’s allocation of funds. The Court ruled in his favor, creating a two-part test to determine if a public employee’s speech is protected:
Matter of Public Concern: The speech must be on a matter of public concern. This means the employee is speaking as a citizen about a topic of general public interest, not just as an employee about a personal workplace grievance.
Balancing Interests: If the speech is on a matter of public concern, the court must then balance the employee’s First Amendment rights against the government’s interest in maintaining an efficient and effective workplace.”
Teachers that are fired will likely win in court.
“University of West Virginia”
C’mon MAN!
West, by God, Virginia University, ha ha.
Tom Scharf wrote: “If you want print out the post and put it on the company bulletin board so everyone can see what a-holes they are.”
That way some employees can verbally berate the offender while other employees can come to his defense. Something tells me that might not be good for workplace productivity.
But mostly I think Tom’s comments on this are pretty good.
Really, what are these people doing with their posts celebrating or dismissing Kirk’s death?
Performing for their peers. Looking to get a rise out of their imaginary opponents and accumulating peer cred. Saying things they would never say in a mixed group of real people. A bunch of strutting peacocks bouncing off walls.
Look at the content, people who state these things don’t even give reason for their position mostly, and when they do they fall back to generic labels of fascist, racist, etc. without even providing anything specific they object to. Basically Kirk is a cartoon villain.
I am convinced that the vast majority of them haven’t spent more than ten minutes understanding Kirk’s position on anything. These are silly unserious people.
Tom Scharf
It might depend on how they craft the policy and what the teachers do and what happens afterwards. But mostly, we know teachers are mostly not going to get fired. They aren’t federal workers, Trump can’t do anything.
Right, that would be a state court thing for teachers. They can likely be fired in some states.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2025/09/12/pinellas-investigating-teachers-over-charlie-kirk-social-media-posts/
“The district’s office of professional standards was looking into whether the posts violated any local policies or state law.
Deputy Superintendent Stephanie Woodford said Friday that the district began looking into the social media posts after Florida Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas sent out a letter Thursday warning teachers that any “despicable comments” about Kirk’s death might be “sanctionable.””
Yeah, if there is a previously existing standard about certain categories of speech that touch on teachers doing their job (which can include instilling non-reprehensible values), and it covers social media the State might be able to do something. A value like “do not encourage murder or assassination at all” maybe could fly? I don’t know though. The issue of “on their own personal X.com” vs “on the schools facebook page” could matter to the case. Potty mouth cheerleader did distinguish between speech somewhere totally away from the school vs at the school. Pottymouth cheerleader won– as I believed she should.
And other cases distinguish “speaking for the school”, or as part of your duties at school — which for a teacher would be while teaching.
We’d need to know details to figure out whether the state code is going too far in some application. The first amendment does apply to states. We’ll see what happens.
Even if a court ruled a teacher could not be fired, a lot of people aren’t going to think highly of a teacher who openly celebrates an assassination in a flagrant way. Some parents will want their kid yanked from that teachers class. Although… I don’t know if it would bother the teacher to have only 10 kids in her 1st grade class while the other teacher got 40? Dunno.
I extended to check for trusted commenter when on the wp_update_comment_data hook.
Edit on admin side. I’m trying to see what the “$context” is?
Edit on admin end: Test. See if trusted got set to true. ChatGPT wants things “so clean”, it didn’t set it (even after making it global so I could share it! )
Tom: “I am convinced that the vast majority of them haven’t spent more than ten minutes understanding Kirk’s position on anything. These are silly unserious people.”
I have no doubt. I also have no doubt they haven’t thought through the consequences of celebrating assassination of opponents simply because they don’t like what they have to say. Would they really still be clapping if both sides starting offing each other, or do they think this kind of action only goes one way?
They are child-like, thoughtless, fools. Too egocentric to see how they’re being manipulated by liars. Too ensconced in their echo chambers to be reached by others. I saw someone call them “near-sighted”, which is incredibly apt. Unable to see consequences any futher than the end of their nose. A few consequences could go a long way.
I would guess the teachers unions in liberal jurisdictions will be able to get these teachers reinstated. In those cases, I am hopeful that the process will be excruciatingly painful. Public hearings with angry conservative parents shouting their opinions, public shaming, ain’t it grand. I doubt that any of these teachers will consider this a positive career move.
DaveJR wrote: “do they think this kind of action only goes one way?”
Yep. That is what they think. They don’t just think that they are right and you are mistaken or misguided. They think that they have the only morally defensible position and you are evil if you disagree. Therefore violence against us evil Nazis is OK, but violence against them is unacceptable.
John Hinderaker at Power Line had an interesting piece on this the other day. He suggests that terms like Hitler, Nazi, and Fascist are intended to incite violence. The German officers who tried to kill Hitler are regarded as heroes. Nobody ever condemns the extrajudicial killing of Mussolini and his associates. So calling people Hitler, Nazi, or Fascist amounts to saying that it is OK to stop those people by any means necessary, up to and including murder.
Here is the Hinderaker piece:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/09/why-do-they-call-trump-hitler.php
Tom,
I don’t want you to read this as me looking to break your balls, because it’s not that. Rather, it’s that I’m trying to sort through this myself and I seem to agree with contradictory notions.
On the one hand you say,
And I can see that. To a large extent I think this is true. But you also talk back here about the path to violence and lay out these same silly unserious people in aggregate driving people down an eleven step program to find their inner Che.
.
Which is it? Honestly, I like the idea that these people should not be taken too seriously better. But creating an environment that encourages political violence doesn’t seem like the sort of thing to ignore.
I don’t know what I think about this. What do you think?
If people can be fired for celebrating something like “death to Blacks!” (or Latinos, or gays, ‘progressives’ or whoever), then surely people can be fired for celebrating the political assassination of Charlie Kirk.
I do not know what the SC will ultimately say, but my guess is that employment is usually conditional on not being a sociopath. Maybe I am wrong, (after all, many Dems in Congress appear to be sociopaths) but there is an associated question: should our armed forces be populated by people who think political assassination of conservatives is a good thing? I think probably not. (Nor by people who think it is a good thing to assassinate progressives.)
Mark,
I can’t speak for Tom, but I think that there are thoughtful, serious people out there who are deliberately working to create an environment that encourages violence against conservatives. And there are a lot of birdbrains who parrot what they hear without thinking about it. Unlike the former, the latter do not mean to do harm. But like the former, they are doing harm.
I don’t know what is the best way to fix that.
So much for Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
.
or John Stuart Mill: “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.”
Thanks Mike. Seems reasonable.
Probably so. It’s not clear to me that not meaning harm excuses anything anymore. I used to worry endlessly at the distinction between ‘stupid’ and ‘evil’, but eventually I decided it’s a distinction without much difference. But who knows? This might well be one of those many things I’m wrong about.
MikeM,
“…thoughtful, serious people out there who are deliberately working to create an environment that encourages violence against conservatives. ”
For lack of a better description: those ‘thoughtful’ people are usually called ‘leftists’, or more accurately ‘radical leftists’. This is so painfully obvious that it is almost maddening to have to state it.
The left is inherently (and always) violent against its political opponents. Such is what happens when non-religious ideas are adopted as religious-like convictions.
Can the left be stopped from taking control of the West (and the USA)? It isn’t clear to me. I hope (for the sake of my descendants) that they can be stopped. But I fear they may not be stopped.
Seriously, Lucia?
https://x.com/i/grok/share/ndQnw99MZcog0sFAQYgscUhG6
Arguing by posting Grok post to some tangential issue? You are as incoherent and time wasting as usual.–lucia
test I can do this from the admin side. (That doesn’t mean you can.)
Congratulations, Tom. WVU was the better team today.
I can’t wait till we will be able not only use the right pronouns, but use them in the right colors.
SteveF wrote: “This is so painfully obvious that it is almost maddening to have to state it.”
Maybe that is why it never occurred to me to state it.
Russell,
Thanks for that. It was a great game to watch although I wouldn’t say a great game between great teams.
We will meet again in 2029 and for 8 years after that.
7 of the last 9 games were decided by a touchdown or less. Great rivalry.
Kirk’s shooter was having a romantic relationship with his trans roommate. That seems relevant.
This will cause a nuclear cultural reaction I expect.
Will it work if I use the editor available to visitors.
color
I think you guys can likely enter fonts, colors, blockquotes, superscripts and subscripts.
I had wanted to add images. But if I’m going to let visitors add those, I want to be safe and not allow nasty images. So I wanted to screen for long time visitors only. I am defeated on that. I can get functions to run to count the number of posts. But I can’t figure out how to do that early enough WordPresses comment sanitation process to tell it you are a trusted commenter and allow images.
Test to see if you can do superscripts2 font colors etc. If it works, let me know what other things you want. If I can do it safely and quickly I will. But I really can’t manage to figure out how to build a screen for “trusted” visitors for some functions I wanted to let you guys have access to.
Russell for you
roygbiv.
Test of colors:
aqua
salmon
peach puff
Well done, lucia!
I’m on vacation (from retirement? is that a real thing?) overseas, so I apologize for delayed responses and out of normal hours.
Thank you, Tom Scharf, for better expressing my thoughts about Twitter mobs trying to get folks fired for social media posts with approbation (or at least excuses) for Kirk’s murder. I think the statement
is apt. I also agree with the sentiment about uninformed commenters; I’ve listened to folks who echo “well, I’ve seen some of the things he [Kirk] said” as if those (carefully selected) statements justify, or at least lessen the evil of, the murder. [As we saw with the Thompson murder (by Mangione).] The comments are indeed reprehensible — I don’t want anyone to think that I *approve* of those sort of comments — but I feel they are within the bounds of public comments which we (as a society) need to allow.
The First Amendment limits what speech government can regulate; perhaps we need an analogous principle describing the limits of what expression of opinions [from a private account; it’s not right to use a workplace account implying that the comment reflects the organization’s position on a topic] is acceptable to a civil society, in the sense that the proper response does not involve reporting to authorities or doxing with the intent of exerting social pressure on employers etc. It’s always OK to post a rebuttal comment, or just unfollow/unfriend/etc., but I’m not in favor of getting random folks (that is, those whom you don’t know but just come across on social media) fired. The comments may be ugly, but we need to allow a very wide range of diverse opinions to be expressed, otherwise we’ll soon find that only the “groupthink” view can be mentioned safely. And that is not a good place to be.
Here’s a comment from Bill Maher:
Hear, hear!
Harold,
It’s likely that you are right and I’m wrong on this. I actually do believe free speech is extremely important. I merely despair that our culture has become so corrupt that people celebrate the murder of people who disagree with them.
The Constitution is a wall against barbarism and our nation the city or garden protected by the wall. It often seems to me that we are already lousy with barbarians who want to burn the city to the ground, within the gates. When the celebration of murder is no longer beyond the pale, the situation looks pretty bleak.
Thanks for taking with me about this.
Charlie Kirk believed in free speech. His opposition shot him.
Does supersctript3 work?
Indeed.
Mark Bofill,
Barbarians already in the city, who want to burn it down, is a perfect description for the radical left in the USA. And yes, the Constitution is the wall protecting the city. Barbarians, inside and out, want to destroy the wall too.
Mark
I agree. Anytime you celebrate murder, you’re on pretty thin ethical ice.
There maybe a subset it’s ok to kill. Actual Hitler who was having lots of innocent people killed? Actual Osama bin Laden who was organizing planes flow into building? Maybe glad when they are killed. But people who just talk?
No matter how much someone might disagree with Charlie Kirk, he wasn’t killing people, molesting children yada, yada. He was merely speaking.
Seems Kirk’s killer was living with (romantically?) a trans man who calked himself “luna”, and who worried about taking hormones.
Lucia: “There maybe a subset it’s ok to kill. Actual Hitler who was having lots of innocent people killed?”
When you hear some of the lies spoken about him, you will realize this is precisely the “loophole” being used. For example,one I’ve seen used is that he praised the person who attacked Paul Pelosi, calling him a patriot and defended his attack. Another recounted the story of how they explained what sort of person he was to their parents and how shocked they were…
There has been a new tactic that has been gaining momentum in the last few years, and that’s not just creating exaggerations, twisting words or producing hyperbole, it is just straight up telling lies and inventing completely fake narratives around contentious people and stories. These narratives will then be blasted around social media. The point is to spread FUD and gaslight so people do not know what to believe. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that bots are doing most of the heavy lifting.
Lucia,
Oh là là, a Rainbow!
Kirk
I never followed Kirk. Did praise the person who attacked Paul Pelosi? If Kirk did, that was despicable of Kirk. It doesn’t mean we should in turn praise Kirk’s murderer.
Was their explanation of the sort of man Kirk was true? If Kirk was bad, I might be shocked at him too. But I know he wasn’t tossing people in concentration camps. So as far as I can see, no one should be celebrating his assassination.
Are they lies? You need to say “and he didn’t do that” if they are lies. Because I have no idea if they are lies. I never followed Kirk. Just claiming it’s a narrative to say things isn’t enough– you have to show they are lies?
Might be. Lots of people know how to program bots.
I wrote: “The point is to spread FUD and gaslight so people do not know what to believe.”
and also to justify murdering them.
Russell
You should be able to do “sup”, “sub” and blockquote.
I wanted to add allowing images– but only to “the trusted”. I was unable to untangle things either due to the order of operations making it impossible or my being unable to devine the correct order of operations to make calls.
I can’t easily let you add greek symbols because it’s a database issue and I don’t want to f*** with that for reasons of maintainability.
lucia,
Thank you. This took a lot of effort.
HaroldW quoting Bill Maher: “The only way this starts to get better is if both sides admit, ‘OK, let’s not have this debate about who started it. Let’s not debate about who’s worse because, plainly, both sides do it now.’ ”
Rubbish. Republicans don’t call Democrats Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot. After Kirk was killed, businesses were not boarding up windows in preparation for riots and looting. There is no conservative equivalent of Antifa.
I’d be happy with: “Let’s not have this debate about who started it or who is worse. Let’s just stop doing it.” But the Dems will never do that.
The Dems are universally and vehemently denying that they have any culpability at all.
Some are even blaming Trump.
can anyone recommend a simple app that I can use on iPad to use all of the new toys that Lucia has provided?
(I don’t do code)
BTW guys, I figured out how to a list of “trusted commenters” to be able to add images. ChatGPT suggested a method I initially thought “useless”– but then I realized I can make the single trusted email a list and yada, yada. Later I can adjust the theme to let me add without touching cold. (Later can be after the base functionality works. So you guys wouldn’t notice that.)
Russel,
Sorry, but I don’t know anyway to help you add html. Also, if I did, I’d probably have to extend my list. Because for normal humans in comments, it’s easier to use “font” but apps want to use “span tags” which require much more typing and watching out for the specifically required punctuation. (I could add that. I just haven’t.)
FWIW: getting what I have now is easy. It’s trying to do all the things that ChatGPT suggested were required to limit the use to trusted users was heck. But I realized just creating a list of trusted users is easier.
Congratz on your success making the fixes Lucia! I am likewise celebrating (or would be if I wasn’t so busy) AI assisted progress on some of the tech problems I’m working on.
Shoot! Arghh!! (We’ll see.)
Test to see if I do pick up the meail when I should. (I might still have the dang order of operations problem!!)
Also blue
red
Mike M.: “Republicans don’t call Democrats Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot.” No. (Well, as far as I know.) But Trump regularly demonizes his opposition — “evil” and “stupid” come to mind, although I did not look up examples.
A better alternative is to consider the political opposition as human, but with less good ideas. We can do without personal attacks. We can do without hyperbole and exaggeration of how awful the “other side” is.
That is *not* intended to blame Trump for the polarization of the US citizenry; I would say that civility was lost before Trump appeared on the political scene. Maybe if we didn’t have political consultants to whom winning is the only thing… Or politicians who listened to them instead of thinking about the Republic.
To check out my assessment that the Democrats were denying responsibility,I asked Grok if there were examples of prominent Democrats not taking responsibility for their inflammatory rhetoric.
He produced seven examples, linked below.
Grok’s summary:
“These examples illustrate a pattern among prominent Democrats: swift condemnation of the act itself, coupled with a refusal to accept blame for the broader political climate. Reports indicate that while some isolated left-wing activists celebrated or made tasteless comments (which Democrats disavowed), official responses from party leaders focused on unity and gun control advocacy without introspection on rhetoric.“
https://x.com/i/grok/share/NBZfMkqzYwt0dkx7ucii8FrDe
College football teams yesterday taking a knee for Charlie Kirk….
https://x.com/disrespectedthe/status/1966929696542912691?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Harold: “We can do without hyperbole and exaggeration of how awful the “other side” is.”
Which starts with hyperbole, exaggeration, and misrepresenting what the “other side” says. The Russia lies. The “very fine people” lies. The “convicted felon” lies. It all starts there. Painting an artists impression, and then refusing to put a name to the painting, isn’t going to change anything. It speaks for itself.
What democrats call “promoting division” is a difference of opinion. The entire basis of politics. The whole narrative of “promoting division” is designed solely to promote division. It paints a difference of opinion as something which is not legitimate. One side is on the “right side of history”, holds all the moral cards and the only correct way forward and the other side is acting in bad faith by opposing it.
“If only the other side would agree and do what we say, there would be no division.”
Mark Bofill,
I would agree this is not a simple subject that one political position is completely defendable.
One argument for eliminating caustic content is that it “creates a permission structure” for extremists to turn to violence. The shooter may have believed he was doing his community a favor. Perhaps, but I’m not convinced eliminating one eliminates the other and the cost is too high anyway.
There are some relevant examples:
The successful elimination of racist language hasn’t eliminated racism according to the very people who champion this censorship. It has made it harder to identify and the usual suspects now ironically believe racism is everywhere and structural. The actual racists just express themselves in other clever ways and a lot of innocent people get swept up as closet racists because they don’t know academic lingo. Those with censorship power always expand their reach becoming more authoritarian. For example naming the race of a perpetrator is racist if they are black, etc. The usual well tread arguments.
A successful online campaign against the Jan 6th mob swept up thousands of people, the DOJ joined forces. Many people were fired and some jailed whose original intent was just to go to a (misguided) rally. The Trump tourists. Beyond the merits of this it ultimately resulted in a backlash of resentment against a lawfare campaign, contributed to an election loss, and the Jan 6th mob was almost entirely pardoned. The mob did suffer a lot of legal and work repercussions from another self righteous mob.
Alternately the woke apocalypse of broad and expanding censorship never actually collapsed under its own weight as I expected or desired. A counter campaign of lawfare first by DeSantis and then Trump used the heavy hand of government power to reverse and mostly eliminate the infestation. Academia just wasn’t going to self correct, it took massive funding pressure to stop the insanity.
Do you fight fire with fire if it contradicts your political ethos? My answer is a very unsatisfying “sometimes, but rarely”. Personally I’m going to almost always be against censorship and preventing people from expressing their views. I concede that sometimes these counter campaigns can be successful because giving people a taste of their own medicine is a valuable lesson. However tit for tat cycles of this is bad for society. I haven’t seen a self righteous mob with censorship power ever give up that power voluntarily.
Additionally everyone has strange views of one type or another that could potentially get them fired in a moral panic. We don’t want to have purity tests with 100 degrees of freedom just to be able to hold a job. I don’t care what my pilot thinks about Charlie Kirk or whether they wear dresses at home, I care if they can fly an airplane and that is enough. If they are wearing a “Kirk deserved it” badge and greeting passengers then that is another story.
test
Kirk’s shooter’s trans roommate is fully cooperating with the FBI.
I noted earlier that it was strange the shooter would actually have messages on Discord that implicated him in the shooting and that his roommate would instantly just show them to the FBI. The shooter planned this carefully, he then just writes down social media messages implicating him. Odd.
The theory is that the shooter also planned to not implicate his roommate and that this was the exit strategy if he got caught. I’m sure this thought has crossed the FBI’s mind.
I find it unlikely the roommate was unaware of this before the shooting happened. The roommate didn’t turn in the shooter before the game was up after the father figured it out.
I would not be surprised if the roommate gets arrested. I would also not be surprised that they will not be able to prove the conspiracy.
NYT: Kirk Shooting Suspect Held ‘Leftist Ideology,’ Utah Governor Says
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/us/kirk-shooting-suspect-ideology-partner.html
Tom,
Thanks for your considered response. I am wrestling with exactly that. I know perfectly well it’s wrong, in fact I’m pretty sure it’s a sin, but it doesn’t help. I harbor a deep seated conviction that it is better to become the thing you hate; an in kind monster so to speak, to strike back at what destroys you than to go meekly and peacefully to the end.
This is the limit of my convictions and while abstractly I know that its wrong, I’m unable to transcend this.
Oh well.
My pea brain doesn’t understand all this nuance.
“Thou shall not kill”
It’s a basic tenant dating back 2000 years. It is a law in all civilized societies.
Glorifying murder undermines this basic tenant and should be dealt with harshly.
No buts.
Obviously, I am thinking and speaking hypothetically. I hope that’s obvious. I am considering the scenario where actions like Kirk’s murder become common place.
[No, this isn’t quite true. I’m talking about a more extreme case but reasoning by analog.]
I was wrong, ‘Thou shall not kill’ dates back 6000 years
Mark Bofill wrote: “it is better to become the thing you hate; an in kind monster so to speak, to strike back at what destroys you than to go meekly and peacefully to the end.”
There is a middle ground. The soldiers who fought the Nazis in WW2 did not become the thing they fought even if it meant doing things they hated.
Russell Klier wrote: ” ‘Thou shall not kill’ dates back 6000 years”.
Interesting. Can you provide details?
I suppose that as an undocumented tenet, it goes back a LOT further. But is it documented that far back? The source we know goes back about 3000 years (plus or minus a few hundred). I’d guess there is something like it in the Code of Hammurabi from 3800 years ago. Are there older sources?
Nah. I can’t let you guys have images. Sigh….
make sure I haven’t killed anything blue
Thanks Mike. That’s worth thinking about. Of course, the allies won and one can argue that they were not pushed to the extremity of making that call, but similarly neither are the causes I believe in lost. Far from it, really.
Re: Thou shall not kill
I have heard or read Alan Dershowitz says somewhere that the correct meaning is :
You shall not commit murder.
It makes more sense.
The Israelis probably understand the dilemma better than anyone. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if they could provoke a real atrocity. Like their propaganda, only real.
Russel “ ‘Thou shall not kill’ dates back 6000 years”
Not going to actually research this, but my understanding is that the original language forbid “murder”, not “kill”.
Two entirely different meanings.
Since the Old Testament approves of capital punishment and warfare, when needed, it is obvious that the commandment refers to unlawful killing, not all killing. It might be broader than murder; likely including manslaughter and euthanasia.
Gemini tells me the wording in Exodus and Deuteronomy is the same for this commandment; ‘??? ????????’, which is ‘Lo tirtzach’ or ‘You shall not murder.’ Specifically refers to unlawful killing and not self defense, capital punishment, or warfare.
[Heh. The Hebrew pasted in and looked OK but I guess it got stomped on during processing. No biggie, I couldn’t read it anyway.]
OK, I have been enlightened.
I now support “ thou shall not murder” and I’ll date it back to the time of Exodus maybe 3000 years ago.
So I asked Grok…
why is shouting fire in a crowded theater illegal if it violates the first amendment?
Answer:
“The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” comes from the 1919 Supreme Court case *Schenck v. United States*, where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. used it to illustrate a limit on free speech. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it’s not absolute.
In *Schenck*, the Court upheld the conviction of someone distributing anti-draft leaflets during wartime, arguing that such speech posed a danger to public safety. The reasoning is that certain types of speech—those directly causing immediate harm or lawless action—lose First Amendment protection because they prioritize public safety over unrestricted expression.”
I think advocating murder would fall in the same category.
Russell,
I’m not a lawyer. But I think it depends on whether the words are truly advocating that someone be murdered and there being a likelihood the person or crowd receiving the message would go out and do it. Sort of like– you don’t get to get your band of friends together, rev them all up and say, “I want you all to go out and kill Fred! Right now!”
Some sort of philosophical treatises talking about how, hypothetically, someone somewhere killing some hypothetical anonymous individual would get 1A protection.
This is google AI on 1st amendment imminent danger
The step-father of Michael Brown, Louis Head, was filmed chanting “Burn this b**** down!” to the crowd right after a grand jury decided not to indict Officer Darren Wilson. Mostly peaceful protests ensued.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/us/michael-brown-stepfather-video
The police investigated, no charges and no explanation. The riot would likely have happened anyway.
Being happy somebody has died is also different than directly advocating for a future murder.
Mostly we allow crazy people to be crazy and depend on the public to ignore them.
Tom Scharf,
“The police investigated, no charges and no explanation. ”
Maybe they were afraid of another riot if they charged him with inciting a riot.
I have a question. After Trump got shot, were there otherwise respectable people posting things like “too bad the guy missed”? I don’t remember that happening. I think if it had happened, it would have been a big deal on sources I read. Am I mistaken?
It seem there are a lot of people saying that they are OK with Kirk getting murdered and/or that he deserved it. Is is different this time?
OK, that was three questions.
The lastest ruling on free speech and violence is Brandenburg vs Ohio, 1969. This is what Lucia’s references are pointing to.
There was definitely some Trump comments at the time. My guess is the difference here is that Trump survived so it wasn’t interpreted as dancing on the grave of the dead.
Mike,
It was different with Trump. TDS is a pandemic; I’d have been astonished if leftists weren’t upset that Trump survived. I think I approached it with filters already on.
This said, because I was filtering, I don’t really remember.
Tom Scharf wrote: “My guess is the difference here is that Trump survived so it wasn’t interpreted as dancing on the grave of the dead.”
That would have made such comments MORE likely. Probably much more likely. Yes, such comments would have generated less outrage because Trump survived. But a lot of people, me included, were blaming Democrats and the Left for creating conditions that made an assassination attempt more likely. Those people would have made hay out of “too bad he missed” stuff on the internet, if there was a lot of it.
So I am thinking this time is different.
There is an interesting piece at Volokh saying that the problem with social media is that it allows people to publish their “internal monologues”.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/12/the-danger-of-social-media-it-allows-people-to-publish-their-internal-monologues/
We all develop filters at an early age. Some things we don’t say in public. Some things we only say to certain people. And some things we keep to ourselves. So that theory amounts to a claim that people have not learned to apply filters when on social media. I am skeptical.
Maybe it was so to some degree when social media was young. But it has now been around for 20 years. Cancellation has been around for at least 8 years. By now, people have learned, unless very young, that one must approach the internet with filters on.
Sure, there are occasional filter failures, usually due to anger or inebriation. No doubt, social media makes it possible to offend a larger number of people when such failures occur. I don’t think that accounts for the hideous comments about Kirk.
And if this time is indeed different from the Trump shooting, that can not be explained by filter failures.
Mike,
Yes. I don’t buy that either. I feel like I could make up more plausible explanations off the cuff.
So why was the reaction to the Trump shooting so much more muted? I think it was because Trump’s defiant reaction gained him a great deal of sympathy and respect, at least for a while. That was so even among his critics. People who had been against Trump were suddenly saying that they would vote for him or would at least consider doing so. That public reaction was immediate and loud. Loud enough that it penetrated the bubble in which Trump’s vilest enemies exist.
As a result, people who might have expressed disappointment that the shooter missed realized that it would be a bad move to say that publicly. So they kept their mouths shut. Their filters were working just fine.
With Kirk, those same people thought it would be OK to express pleasure with the result and to denigrate the victim. Not because their filters failed, but because within their bubble, it WAS OK. It remains to be seen how badly they misjudged.
Mike,
Sounds plausible enough.
MikeM
“I have a question. After Trump got shot, were there otherwise respectable people posting things like “too bad the guy missed”? I don’t remember that happening. I think if it had happened, it would have been a big deal on sources I read. Am I mistaken?”
–
Yes.
But filters quickly kicked in and people in general stopped/closed down those comments after realising other people were not happy.
Still a subject of snide innuendo amongst people with liberal views for a week and now crickets, taboo.
CELEBRITY REACTION
Rosie O’Donnell Made a controversial post suggesting that the incident was a consequence of Trump’s rhetoric.
Michael Moore Tweeted about the need for accountability, implying that Trump’s actions led to the attack.
Bette Midler Expressed a sense of relief that Trump survived, but criticized his policies and behavior.
Seth Rogen Shared a post that seemed to mock the situation, emphasizing the absurdity of the political climate.
Jim Carrey Created a painting depicting the event, which some interpreted as a celebration of the attack.
Did anybody else see that in the Western sky this evening? Roughly 9:40 p.m. EDT. If you saw it, you know it. I am wondering if it was local (but it was not moving) or astronomical.
Was too bright to be a star or planet, with a visible disk. And it only lasted maybe 15 minutes.
Mike M,
Must have been local.
Mike,
this is a longshot, but you may want to see where the space station was at that time:
https://www.astroviewer.net/iss/en/observation.php
Mike,
this is a better link for finding the space station and other orbiting objects. It’s better than the one above..
https://www.heavens-above.com/
There was a SpaceX launch yesterday around 6 pm for the Space Station. The timing isn’t exactly right.
https://www.spacex.com/launches/ng23
Mike M.
Aurora borealis
I was the department head at Sarasota County for 13 years. At the time when I left the county my department had 110 employees. Over the years I fired a number of employees. While that was before the time of social media, I believe I could have fired someone posting celebrations of murder.
The County Attorney was a practical minded good old boy and I think you would have backed me. HR Might have opposed but I believe I would have prevailed at the county manager level. The appeals process is a public hearing before the County Commission. During my tenure only one employee took it to the county Commission for review. He was devastated at the end of it.
Eventually, I may have lost it in the courts, but Who cares!
It looks to me like JD Vance is gaining quite a bit of political capital with young people because of the death of Charlie Kirk.
He’s been ubiquitous this last week including escorting the casket on its trip home on Air Force Two. His wife accompanied Mrs Kirk on the trip.
Vance will host tonight’s episode of “The Charlie Kirk Show”.
I may be being too callous.
I’d never seen this before. I got a link to it from Sasha Stone’s site. Mildly interesting.
There needs to be viewpoint neutral standards of employment for the government. I don’t think these should include social media but if they do then there needs to be clear standards that can be applied regardless of ideology.
Celebrating murder could be applied to Osama Bin Laden or the leader of Hamas. If you can’t write and fairly enforce a standard then the best option may be to not have the rule.
An example here is the preferred enforcement of a hate speech standard by the left. In their view exhibiting group prejudice against white people does not break hate speech standards but simply changing the word from white to black is a hate crime. This will not work.
I’m not arguing. I was mistaken earlier, I’ve admitted that. It’s symptomatic of an illness our culture is suffering from, but suppressing the symptoms isn’t a cure for the underlying problem anyway. We need to start paying more attention to the raising of our children, that’s my verdict. There’s no quick fix, and sadly we don’t have much remedy for people already out in the world who weren’t raised right. It might be a rough 60 years or so coming up.
Maybe Mike has been kidnapped by aliens
I’ve been busy tracking down what the “UFO” was. Definitely not the space station; the UFO was not moving. For sure not the aurora. Most likely local. One source says a weather balloon, but that does not fit (wrong time, too small). It might have been a scientific balloon; one was launched from eastern NM yesterday. I am trying to find details on its flight path.
Flighradar24 tracks ballons. You might need to be a paying member to backdate the search.
https://www.flightradar24.com/
I only pay like $1.50 a month
Tom Scharf
Precisely. You have to have a standard. You have to communicate it and enforce it even handedly.
Now, I think, at least if we are discussing Secret Service agents whose job is to protect people from assassination, one could write the standard for not celebrating the assassination of a political speaker (Kirk) or US politician or garden variety citizen while also allowing celebration for killing of someone who was recognized as an enemy of the state. The reason is that it is their job to protect the former category of people against assassination by anyone– with a particular eye to worrying about the latter category attempting to do so.
Cheering those who succeed in assassinating the sort of people it is your job to protect suggests you might be less than devoted to your actual mission. But this might not apply as much to, oh, an IRS agent.
Meanwhile, we members of the public can decide who we consider despicable.
The Kirk murder is turning out to be politically motivated.
NBC:
This senseless militant behavior is a political gift for the right, as Jan 6th was a gift for the left. They should use it wiser than the left did. The actions speak for themselves and there is no need for Congressional Show Trials run by Hollywood and so forth.
The real loser here will be the transgender community. Combined with the recent shooting(s) they and their defenders will be branded as militant extremists. The anarchists are already branded this way. Partnering with Antifa is not a path to improving outcomes. This is not going to wash off and I think the mainstream left will now need to keep them at shoulder’s length.
Washington Post columnist fired
https://karenattiah.substack.com/p/the-washington-post-fired-me-but
I had read a few of her columns and she was a predictable SJW without much interesting to say so I stopped reading them. What she said here was about what I would have expected, a one trick pony. Inflammatory, but boring.
A lot of the pushback is from people who object to the effusive eulogizing of Kirk who they consider (fill in ‘isms an ‘ics). The pushback is definitely inappropriate attention seeking behavior IMO. Not termination worthy in my view but I’m not typical.
Tom Scharf,
She appears to be exactly the kind of person who should be fired, for many reasons, the most important of which is she seems pretty dumb.
Tom, your post.
“ This senseless militant behavior is a political gift for the right, as Jan 6th was a gift for the left. They should use it wiser than the left did.”
I sure intend to try. I have been putting a lot of effort into taking advantage of the situation.
Tom Scharf,
“This is not going to wash off and I think the mainstream left will now need to keep them at shoulder’s length.”
I doubt that will happen. Solidarity, on every insanity, is a big thing on the left; if you dissent in the smallest way, the Jacobins will turn on you.
Speaking of insane solidarity: NY Governor Hochel has endorsed Mamdani and all his socialist ravings. Time for all wealthy New York City residents to move to Florida.
An article in the Free Press: Stop Blaming ‘Them’. ‘The left’ has said and done many objectionable things, but it did not pull the trigger.
Harold,
Probably just me being dense again. But I seem to be reading:
1) Let’s not judge leftists as a group, let’s judge people as individuals.
2) As a group, righties are more responsible for political murders than lefties.
It undermines the argument IMO a little to effectively say ‘lets not judge people as groups, and also: your group sucks.’ The irony gets in the way of taking this very seriously for me.
HaroldW,
“The left” in this case seems to me much like King Henry II. He didn’t kill Thomas Becket, of course, and so was obviously blameless. He just innocently said “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
Of course for “the left” today it’s more like “How can we get rid of these Nazis and fascists?” As blameless as King Henry. And just like Henry, they distance themselves from the crime and claim “violence has no place in the USA”. Please. They are purely dishonest.
But yes. In this case there might have been a cell of conspirators. FBI investigating.
If the screenshots are real, some of those people are either conspirators or the unluckiest unwise people on Earth.
The main observation is neither side is consistent. Knock me over with a feather.
It’s the standard playbook by both sides. One side says it is the individual’s fault who is pulling the trigger and the other version is guilt by association for the policy / rhetoric, “they basically pulled that trigger”.
The same playbook will have the legacy media memory hole this as soon as possible and stop talking about motive, or alternately have endless coverage with experts opining on societal ills sourced by their political opponents. They are worrying about general political violence today but will worry about violence only from the right when they can.
2X Trump attempts and now Kirk. The best option for the left is to stop talking, say the minimum words. Let the right (sometimes performatively) mourn. Most mainstream leftists are doing just that.
One thing we can count on is eventually the roles will be reversed but the playbook will be the same.
I am now satisfied that my “UFO” was JPL Remote Flight 754N, launched from Fort Sumner NM. It would have been about 70 miles away and at an altitude of 120-130 thousand feet when I saw it. The biggest such balloons are about 500 feet across when fully expanded, so it would have had an angular diameter of about 0.08 degrees at 70 miles. That would make the disk easily visible since naked eye resolution in about 0.02 degrees.
I think I killed Grok….
Mark Bofill,
Yes, based on all that, it would not be surprising if other people were aware of the shooter’s plans well ahead of time. It wouldn’t even be surprising if they encouraged him to shoot Kirk. But legal proof may be hard to come by.
One thing nobody has talked about: where did the 30-06 with a scope come from? Was it his? Was it his father’s? From someone else?
Lucia,
“I think I killed Grok….”
I don’t think it was ever alive. 😉
As long as you didn’t kill Grok because you hate Elon Musk then I forgive you.
Mike M,
“..so it would have had an angular diameter of about 0.08 degrees at 70 miles. ”
So four times bigger than the apparent diameter of stars. Yes, a disc, not a point source.
Interestingly, Venus at its closest approach is just barely larger than the human eye’s resolution…. so a little bigger looking than a star.
Lucia,
It started going down at 3:07 AM Eastern time…. so probably not you unless you were up very late.
Tom,
It choked. I reloaded and it said it had been unable to answer. It let me retry, this time it got the answer.
The question was
(I’m trying to get a handle on “the numbers” and their uncertainty.)
Now all the Liberals will make posts celebrating the murder of Musk’s child Grok.
Steve,
The shooter was old enough for the rifle to be his. I didn’t know all that much about the Mauser 98 so I read up. Turns out this rifle has been in production, one way or another, since WW I, and is still in production today. Fine German engineering, apparently; it’s a good rifle. They can be had for a reasonable price, here is an example.
Basically the shooter would have had to have filled out a form 4473 and passed a NIC check. It probably wasn’t a problem, assuming he’d kept his nose clean up to that point.
mark bofill,
It’s looking a bit like:
Lucia,
Could be. It’s a good hunting rifle, his upbringing could have helped with that. One shot, although that’s not long range with a scope. Easy shot actually but not for a first timer maybe. I’d guess he was aiming for the center of Kirk’s face.
His upbringing didn’t help with the rifle. His upbringing could have exposed him to hunting. I misspoke, sorry.
Don’t you guys know that the word “rifle” must always be preceded by the words “high powered”? At least that seems to be the rule judging by the mass media.
Mike,
But it wasn’t an assault rifle. It wasn’t black or scary looking, which seems to be the operative definition.
30-06 is a powerful round though. That’s a lot heavier than the most dreaded AR-15’s 5.56 NATO (or .223 Remington). Definitely a ‘high powered’ rifle in that regard.
But only 4 rounds. The leftists would be pleased by that.
Shrug.
I’d say he was going for the headshot there. He almost missed.
Last month, the Russians were touting a significant breakout into Ukrainian territory near Pokrovka. I posted a few days ago that the Ukrainian forces were encircling the Russian salient and were cutting them off with a pincer movement. Ukrainian enforces successfully executed that cut off.
From NOELreports:
“Confirmation from the 1st Azov Corps: Ukrainian forces have cleared Pankivka and surrounding areas on the Dobropillia axis. Russia has responded by deploying four infantry brigades and a marine regiment. The area in yellow is likely under AFU (fire) control. Russian units may risk another encirclement.”
Ukrainians are now mounting another encircling action near the original maneuver. How this one will turn out is less certain in my mind, although Ukrainians are claiming some success.
https://x.com/noelreports/status/1967684270912311386?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Interesting that investigators found a screwdriver where the assassin shot from, with his DNA on it. Assembling a partially disassembled rifle? Adjusting the scope for bullet drop? (it is only ~3.5″ drop at 200 yards) Who knows.
AFAICT he carried the disassembled rifle mostly in his backpack so he probably had to put it together.
Leaving the screwdriver (actually an Allen wrench?) was obviously a blunder. It wasn’t on the rooftop in the picture(?). Perhaps it was already taken or it is covered by that paper marker.
https://www.mossyoak.com/our-obsession/blogs/gear-spotlight/mossberg-patriot-rifle-disassembly
https://i.abcnewsfe.com/a/8b6b0890-2139-4946-80a4-a300d93caf27/charlie-kirk-7-rt-gmh-250911_1757610970064_hpMain_4x3.jpg
MikeM,
Well, I would imagine it has more power than a small hand gun. I mean… more powder, right?
That rifle is a “high powered” rifle intended for hunting deer and bigger game. Whether the media can tell the difference is debatable.
Here is the difference between a .22 “low powered” rifle round and 30-06 round.
https://live.staticflickr.com/3099/2336993032_94abf7e304_b.jpg
The bullet weights a lot more and also travels a lot faster. IIRC correctly the main advantage of the rifle is the long barrel increases accuracy. You can also have high powered handguns but it is the ammo doing the work.
2900 feet per second +/- a bit for a 30-06. The shooter was ~500 ft away; so maybe 0.2 second, and about 16 inches of drop. But most scopes are sighted a little high to compensate.
Tom Scharf,
Yes powerful; that specific rifle was used as a sniper rifle up to WWII. My big-time hunter cousin uses a 30-06 for deer and bear.
Tom Scharf,
Yes better accuracy with a longer barrel, but also greater muzzle velocity, all else equal…… more time to accelerate before the gas escapes at the muzzle.
I miscalculated above; at 500 ft it is more like 8″ of drop for a 30-06.
Hi from the UK – sad times with the Kirk killing, my heart goes out to the family.
Reading Saul David “Devil Dogs: A New History of the Second World War” – Makes me wonder what young American’s nowadays would risk there life for?
ps – the Pacific war is mostly overlooked in UK/Europe, but not by me – “go marines”
Tom,
My understanding (which admittedly could be mistaken) is that as the barrel length increases the interval over which the projectile is accelerating due to the expanding gas also increases, which results in a net increase in force applied to the projectile.
The long barrel does also increase accuracy for obvious reasons.
Mark Bofill
Integral of force(x)* dx = work. So it increases energy transmitted to the projectile.
What increases force? Well.. (pressure*area) = force. Not sure what else– but energy released when the powder burns will matter.
this post was the best of the day on my newsfeed:
“ For those who lost their jobs because of your hate for Charlie Kirk. They are hiring boat drivers in Venezuela.”
this should be a fun fight to watch:
“ BREAKING: Over 100 TEACHERS in Texas will now have their teacher certification suspended and become ineligible to teach in Texas public schools after they endorsed Charlie Kirk’s assassination or incited more violence, Governor Greg Abbott announces. They’re all FINDING OUT.”
The teachers union versus the state of Texas.
Well, I was surprised at that number:
“Charlie Kirk went from college dropout to CEO of a $92 million-a-year political movement with a direct line to President Trump by 31”
https://fortune.com/2025/09/11/charlie-kirk-college-dropout-to-building-turning-point-usa-trump/
I bet it grows by leaps and bounds over the next few months.
Thanks Lucia. I thought there was something wrong with what I was saying but I couldn’t put my finger on it.
Typical maximum pressure inside a 30-06 barrel is about 65,000 PSI, which on the area of the back of the slug generates about 4,500 pounds of force. The bullet weighs about 0.022 pound, so the initial acceleration approaches 200,000 times Earths gravity. The pressure drops from the peak due to expansion along the barrel, but is still thousands of PSI as the slug leaves, generating the ear-splitting muzzle report.
I had a business partner who owned a gun-smith business. He talked a lot about rifles. 😉
Barrel length and cartridge size work together.
For maximum effect of the round, the barrel needs to be long enough to allow the gunpowder to complete burning prior to the round exiting the barrel.
Slower burning gunpowder requires a longer barrel firearm than faster burning gunpowder
For example, a stub nose pistol ( 2 inch barrel ) firing a 357mag round will produced much less power than a full frame pistol, using the same round, but with an 8 inch barrel.
Just adding more powder to a short barrel firearm will only marginally increase performance as the gunpowder has not completed burning prior to the round exiting the barrel.
Guy Benson made a couple of good points in Townhall about the high concentration of people celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk being in education. These people should be held to a higher standard and there should be no problem with firing them for their positions on murder.
“At least anecdotally, it very much seems like the political murder enthusiasts reside disproportionately in the education space. Those who are keeping track of the violent death cheerleaders online have highlighted a seemingly endless parade of teachers, professors and school administrators who have exposed themselves with this shameful and execrable behavior. I would argue that people tasked with caring for and educating children are especially unfit for purpose if they demonstrate that political beliefs and speech with which they disagree could legitimately amount to a death warrant. This is a neon sign for disqualifyingly depraved morals and horrific judgment. It rises to the level of intolerable. This is also relevant to others in positions of public trust, including those in public service and the medical profession. I’m not convinced that every single schlub and cretin who espouses pro-murder sentiments should lose their jobs (though I’m not closed to that proposition either). But it is appropriate for people who hold sensitive positions that rely on community trust, particularly involving children, to be held to a higher standard. But again, the standard is not terribly high at all. It’s simply, do not justify and celebrate the murder of people with whom you disagree.”
There was some speculation that the bullet struck his right chest plate and bounced up and left to his neck. There was some video support of that, but I would have thought there would have been more damage to his shirt. FWIW the scope being zero’d out 100 yards short should cause a bullet drop of 3-4 inches over the extra distance. Not exact but that would be enough to change a head shot to the neck.
Yes, correct. Barrel length vs velocity:
https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2015/06/308-win-barrel-cut-down-test-velocity-vs-barrel-length/
“The average velocity loss per inch, for all four ammo types combined, was 22.7 FPS. By ammo type, the average loss per inch was: 24.6 (Win 147 FMJ), 22.8 (IMI 150 FMJ), 20.9 (Fed GMM 168gr), and 22.5 (Win 180PP).”
So about 10% increase in velocity from 16 inches to 28 inches for this caliber. It’s probably a dramatic difference for very short barrels due to what Ed noted.
Russell,
I think Guy Benson is making his “should” statement. That doesn’t mean that “should” is the law. There are also other “shouds”.
While I agree all teachers — especially in k-12- should believe in the inherent dignity of people, and that would mean they ought to be disinclined to celebrate their murder– I’m not sure the law permits public employees to be fired for not believing in the inherent dignity of people. School teachers are public employees.
It’s quite possible teachers can only be fired for things that go on in the classroom or for things they do or say on behalf of their employer (the school) or as part of their job.
While being despicable is despicable, it doesn’t always make it legal to fire someone especially not for behavior or speech that takes place wholely separate from their job. That holds particularly true if the educator is the government. In many states, a private school could probably fire a teacher for stuff outside their job because they are an at will employee. The government? Maybe not. We’ll see.
Andrew,
I thought that, but not being a hunter or having much experience with scopes I wasn’t sure. But that was my impression as well.
Some body armor can apparently protect against a 30-06 round but maybe it has to be a 5 lb ceramic or 10 lb steel plate. From what I saw of the video before the event he didn’t appear to be wearing body armor.
Tom,
It looks like it hit his bare neck, right? He clearly didn’t have armor there. There is a practical limit to how much a public speaker can protect themselves and still “be seen”.
Scott Adams makes some very good observations about the people getting cancelled:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/09/14/scott_adams_why_did_people_think_they_could_cheer_charlie_kirk_murder_without_consequences.html
He goes on to say that although he thinks they should be cancelled:
So what is that alternate reality?
I think Adams is right. And the alternate reality that produces celebrations of Kirk’s murder also enabled his murderer and the two would be murderers of Trump. And will continue to enable such murderers.
There might be people on the Right living in some corresponding alternate reality, but it is limited enough that such people are surely aware of the reality outside their bubble. The bubble on the Left is large enough and pervasive enough that people are unaware of the surrounding reality. That makes it far more dangerous.
You shouldn’t make up employment rules as you go along.
While some things can’t be anticipated it is unfair to employees that social media policy isn’t discoverable and easy to understand before they post and that policy is arbitrarily made up later.
The world is a better place when people don’t celebrate the murder of political opponents but I don’t want to give anyone, especially government, the power to control that speech.
X is a different scenario. I’d prefer an option to “turn on and off the sewer”.
I had a little chat with ChatGPT. (It’s a bit like talking to yourself… but getting access to info you didn’t know. Heh!) I’ll post later.
Gotta visit Mom.
lucia,
“In most circumstances, military and law enforcement snipers are trained to aim for center mass, specifically the upper chest, rather than the head. A headshot is only attempted when the situation demands a higher-risk, precision shot, such as in a hostage scenario. ”
However if you get hit with 30-06 hunting round anywhere in center mass you are likely to die. Why Kirk shooter’s didn’t do this is a mystery. Perhaps it’s the gamer experience where head shots are the only way to kill some foes or perhaps he was going for the dramatic effect.
I’m guessing Kirk was bit unlucky that the round hit the arteries in the neck. A couple inches to the right and he would have survived.
I’m probably being tagged by the FBI for the search terms I am entering today!
We don’t know where the shooter was aiming. We don’t know how skilled he was. It is my understanding that it is harder to shoot at something alive than at a target and harder yet to shoot at a person.
Speculating about where the shooter was aiming is not only pointless, it is macabre.
I think it is fine for “Don’t encourage or celebrate murder” to be an unwritten employment rule.
In fact, I think there is something wrong with a society that requires such a rule to be written down.
I don’t publicly comment or publicly celebrate the death of Hamas militants. But I’ll admit here that I think Hamas needs to be killed, and… Celebrate is still a little ghoulish; I don’t celebrate their deaths. But is it really any better? I think dedicated Hamas terrorists need to die.
My job might be in jeopardy if HR finds out, I understand HR recruits heavily from grievance study majors graduates.
It is somewhat slippery when push comes to shove.
Mike: “Speculating about where the shooter was aiming is not only pointless, it is macabre.”
It is, yes, but it is necessary when people are insisting it was a “professional job” and nothing a “kid” could have pulled off. The dumbest take I’ve seen so far was that the shooter must have been really good to hit such a small target :rolleyes:.
Oh. I missed that.
I don’t know. Probably. Maybe not? You don’t know what you can make of what you know until you articulate it and think it through.
Does it turn out to matter how expert or inexpert the shooter was? I suppose not. But where he was aiming and whether or not the bullet struck where he was aiming might speak to that.
I’m seeing news articles and postings quoting polls that say Liberals are more OK with political violence than Conservatives or Independents……. Well, DUH!
The violent rhetoric, as well as the bullets are all flying in the same direction.
“Liberals more likely to say political violence sometimes justified: Poll”
https://thehill.com/national-security/5504569-americans-political-violence-poll/
Some people are getting flagged for not being sufficiently sad or for pointing out Kirk’s flaws which is then interpreted as celebrating it. A few are outright celebration.
https://x.com/bifuriousum/status/1966337179241886120
The gray area is “Kirk was a terrible person” or “I don’t care because (Gaza, immigration, another shooting, both sides do it, democracy, double standards, my pet cause, etc.)”.
Do people have to care or like Kirk to keep their job?
The age of “bring your whole self to work” is quickly ending. Corporations allowing internal political discussion boards was crazy. Being outspoken on corporate discussion boards for a job you like is unwise.
The smartest thing I saw was one Blizzard employee stating “Don’t say anything here you don’t want plastered all over right wing media”.
mark bofill wrote: “I don’t publicly comment or publicly celebrate the death of Hamas militants.”
That is why I said “murder” not “violence”. Only one of those applies to taking out Hamas or blowing up a boat of narcotics traffickers. It is also why I think it is good for such rules to be unwritten; that allows for making allowances.
I think some workplaces have rules prohibiting posts encouraging or celebrating violence. Such rules would require firing anybody who expresses approval of the war against Hamas or taking out the Iranian nuclear sites.
Mike,
Fair enough I suppose.
I’ll bet liberals are liking free speech protections more this week than last week.
“I think it is good for such rules to be unwritten; that allows for making allowances.”
No.
Allowances are just a euphemism for bias, specifically political but can come in many flavors. You can lose you job for speech outside of work but we won’t give you any guidelines of when the line is crossed because we can’t figure out how to write the rule. The allowance will inevitably be political violence for my side is justified or worthy of open debate.
There are plenty of companies run by people with Palestinian sympathies. I suppose you are OK with them firing anyone who takes the wrong side of that argument publicly even if it has nothing to do with work?
This type of undefined speech limit outside of work is very Orwellian. It drives expression underground or makes everyone post anonymously.
An “at will” employee can be fired for any reason. Written conduct rules provide a reason to fire employees for cause. There is nothing to ensure that such rules are applied evenhandedly, so if the rules are extensive enough they can provide “cause” for firing anyone the boss does not like.
If you want to fire someone for cause on the basis of an unwritten rule, the violation will have to be egregious enough to stand up in court. It probably won’t stand up without repeated violations and warnings unless it is something obviously wrong to just about everybody.
In general, unwritten rules are enforced by social pressure. That is a good way to regulate behavior; it is usually a better than formal rules with draconian punishments.
Senator Eric Schmitt during the hearing with FBI Director Patel today on the “both sides bullshit” coming from the left
• Congressional baseball practice shooting? Left wing
• Burned down cities (Summer of Love)? Left wing
• Waukesha Christmas parade massacre? Left wing
• Lee Zeldin stabbing attempt? Left wing
•Covenant School shooting (Nashville)? Left wing
• Butler, Pennsylvania assassination attempt on Trump? Left wing
• Trump International West Palm Beach assassination attempt? Left wing
• Abundant Life Christian school shooting? Left wing
• United Care CEO’s murder? Left wing
• Tesla attacks (burned, keyed, firebombed)? Left wing
• Murders at the Israeli embassy? Left wing
• ICE facilities firebombed? Left wing
• Minnesota Catholic school shooting? Left wing
• Anti-white stabbing in Charlotte, NC? Left wing
• Utah News State firebombing attempt? Left wing
Charlie Kirk assassination? Left wing
https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/1967983048479400253?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
I think a big issue is when speech outside work is private speech or public speech. That is a lot less obvious with the internet. Maybe what is needed is a clear definition of where the boundary is. It should not be possible to fire people for private speech outside work.
Ezra Klein brings Ben Shapiro on today:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ben-shapiro.html
Two hours long.
Oops, the Ben Shapiro interview was done shortly before the shooting but posted today.
As a practical matter, you cannot have a hard set of rules that cover everything a public employee can be fired for and still have a efficient, functional organization,. You can have a few basic fireable offenses listed like job abandonment, violence in the workplace, and such. The only way a large organization can function is with accomplished management and defined procedures for dismissal.
If you want public employees to perform their tasks that levels comparable to private employees, management needs to be able to take swift, meaningful disciplinary action, including dismissal. No one has a constitutional right to a public job. Properly functioning society is dependent on properly functioning local government. If someone isn’t taking out the trash, killing the mad dogs and putting out the fires, you can’t have a society.
One way to arbitrate this is to examine whether they can competently perform their designated job duties regardless of what they said on X last night. There are some exceptions.
Tom,
Thanks for mentioning the Shapiro Klein discussion. I read the transcript, but with those two talking I’m going to have to go back and read carefully and think about what they’re saying later. But it was interesting even at first quick read.
President Trump in Air Force One just (3:30 PM Eastern) crossed the Irish coast on his way to the meeting with King Charles.
Flightradar24 track images
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1968034108766126153?s=61
(There’s always a chance of subterfuge in these flights so maybe it’s not Air Force One)
I just saw the head of TPUSA on Fox News and he said they’ve had 37,000 requests for new TPUSA chapters from high school and college campuses in the last few days.
Tom-
I’m totally untrained with guns and rifles. I’d probably miss the target entirely.
Lucia,
If you decide to learn how to shoot, stay away from 30-06. They kick enough to hurt your shoulder. Muzzle brake lowers the kick (a lot) but the noise with a brake is even louder. A “silencer” reduces kick a little, and noise a lot.
One person murdered is easy to cope with legally.
The justice system identifies the killer and proceeds to trial and punishment.
Not only to prevent further killings but to mete out some measure of solace for the victims’ families and friends.
–
What happens when a bunch of murderers massacre over a thousand people and take hostages and bodies to rub salt into the wounds?
–
Theoretically some justice system should step in, hold those accountable complicit for their actions and mete out an appropriate punishment contingent on the resolution of the hostage situation.
–
Some measure of solace translates literally to an eye for an eye. It is never enough for the friends and relatives but hopefully balances the damages done to the friends and relatives of the murdered persons by the damage done to the persecutors.
–
If the law did not exist ( one wonders if this is an inalienable right) then what would instead happen is the retribution outweighs the initial act and does not stop at the best balancing point.
–
Hamas cannot be destroyed any more than Israel can be demolished while Palestinians and Jews exist in the same world.
The last simular hostage taking years ago settled down leaving 3, I think, soldiers hostage for a further 5 years. I think one was finally freed for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.
–
With only 10 living hostages and 10- 20 bodies being held hostage the ratio of eyes for eyes is reaching a crescendo point or spike that cannot be maintained.
–
The final assault is just that, making the ultimate gesture to say we tried all that we could to get them back. We failed but here is the number of people killed to make up for that failure.
The final resistance is saying here is the number of people we were prepared to have killed to inflict psychological pain on the Israelis.
–
This is the sort of logic that occurs when a system of justice is not able to be put in place.
Call it war, exploitation, savagery or just human and animal nature at its finest.
The one inalienable right everyone and every society has, survival of the fittest.
–
I do not know Charlie Kirk. I am not interested in watching videos of him. I am only au fait with the gist of his ideas via the news sites.
He did not advocate violence but dialogue.
There should be many more like him whatever their views.
Vale, Charlie.
SteveF,
I probably won’t learn to shoot. I can let my neighbor Allen be the one to shoot invaders. I’m pretty sure he would enjoy it.
angech,
The Israelis are going to continue destroying everything in Gaza until the tunnels are gone and most all of active Hamas are dead. Of course, there will be many deaths among non-Hamas people, which is most unfortunate. The Israelis have been telling people to leave Gaza City for many days…. but they are not leaving, mainly because they (the adults at least) are indistinguishable from Hamas. Yes, it is unfortunate, but they had plenty of chance to leave.
In one sense, those who suggest the Israeli efforts to ‘eliminate Hamas’ are right: Public support among Palestinian arabs for destroying Israel has been overwhelming for 80 years, and it is a fantasy to imagine that will change. You can’t eradicate Hamas in Gaza when most Gazans believe exactly the same things as Hamas.
My guess is the Israels plan on making Gaza so unpleasant for Gazans that many of them choose to leave. Some disagreements can’t be resolved, like when your counter-party’s official position is that they are going to kill you no matter what else happens.
Not meant to be facetious.
9/11 attacks: right-wing
Inquisition: right-wing
These examples show that we probably should confine these comparisons to domestic more or less contemporary events.
so:
Jan 6: right wing.
But then it seems obvious to me that the left wing is more likely to resort to violence simply because it finds itself up against a well entrenched status quo and nothing elseseems to them likely to work.
Noone should die for speech.
At the same time it’s remarkable that after reading here for years that the left does not respect free speech to find that the right doesn’t either.
Watch what you say or we’ll get you fired.
SteveF wrote: “My guess is the Israels plan on making Gaza so unpleasant for Gazans that many of them choose to leave.”
The problem with that is that they have no where to go. None of the Arab states will let them in. And I sure hope we won’t let them in.
John,
1) The Left has been the status quo since at least Obama as far as I am concerned.
2) I have repented that folly that I uttered to Harold earlier. Approximately nobody should be fired for their speech.
Axios has a reasonable writeup on the firings titled:
“What’s different about the Charlie Kirk firings”
I zeroed in on the one line that I really approved of:
“Why it matters: These firings could be legal, lawyers say, but they demonstrate fast-changing norms around free speech that many find troubling.”
Legal AND fast changing norms. Changing in the right direction, I might add.
Also:
“That’s even true in the public sector — the Supreme Court has said that employees surrender some free speech rights to take government employment, notes David Super, an administrative law expert at Georgetown Law.”
https://www.axios.com/2025/09/16/charlie-kirk-show-fired-delta-american-airlines
Mark,
Left has been status quo probably since Johnson but maybe not evenly, but certainly obnoxiously. But the effect has not been uniform at the retail level particularly with differences in opinion on how domestic tranquility should be maintained.
john,
The right want people fired for glorifying murder.
The left want people fired for using the wrong pronoun.
These two are not equivalent.
John,
I’m sorry. I don’t understand what you mean by this.
Russell, I think both are denials of freedom of speech. the whole idea of freedom of speech is so you can be exposed to speech you disagree with or even hate.
I’m astonished that Bondi is ivoking threats of prosecuting “hate speech” I’d thought the whole idea of classifying some speech as hate speech was a liberal concoction.
john ferguson,
I think the idea of prosecuting hate speech is anti-American. I’m not stunned that Trump affiliated people turn to it. It’s much more a “them vs. us” crowd than a crowd with actual standards they hold everyone too.
It’s a tit-for-tat era.
John,Your post:
“Russell, I think both are denials of freedom of speech. the whole idea of freedom of speech is so you can be exposed to speech you disagree with or even hate.”
I am advocating for denial of employment not denial of free speech. When I was the supervisor of public employees I didn’t want people dealing with the public who publicly advocated for murder. If you wanna advocate for murder don’t expect to work for me.
I agree with you on Bondi. I think she’s got herself in a corner.
Russell Klier wrote: “The right want people fired for glorifying murder.
The left want people fired for using the wrong pronoun.
These two are not equivalent.”
Hear! Hear!
john ferguson wrote: “I think both are denials of freedom of speech.”
Nevertheless, they are not equivalent.
There is no guaranteed right to freedom of speech; there is only a guarantee of the government not restricting it. There is a societal norm of tolerating speech with which we disagree. That is an important norm. But not glorifying murder is also an important societal norm. Freedom of speech won’t mean much if we let it destroy the norms on which our society depends.
p.s. – Bondi really stepped in it. Again. She quickly walked it back saying that there is no right to incite violence.
I’ve shared my discussion with chatgpt here:
https://chatgpt.com/share/68c9c116-ff80-800e-bc14-13ad2c5c3303
It’s l_o_n_g, But also a bit difficult to summarize. So the following is rambling. But you might find the set of questions interesting to read.
I start out general with questions about firing teacher celebrating assassination. In terms of Scotus law, Pickering balance and disruption of classrooms is an important element.
I move on to the teacher posting on social media– focusing on the possibility the teacher is anonymous vs. interacting with students. This is hypothetical. (I later ask about actual cases. None involve student interaction.)
I veer off on a tangent of student speech. I do so because it’s related to schools, and and Mahoney (potty mouth cheerleader) involved speech entirely off campus.
I then veer off into interactions between students and teachers that might arise in the classroom. (To some extent silencing is silencing. But I think we need to consider different people’s speech rights to figure out what teachers speech rights should be.)
I then veer off into symbolic speech– rainbow flags.
After quite a long discussion of how all that could pan out, there is some summarizing of regulation of teacher speech vs. student speech.
After all the slog… some you will want to use your word search tool to find “Back to Charlie Kirk and now on to actual events and firings (rather than hypothetical)”…
This now starts to discuss actual cases in the news.
What I think you’ll find is the teachers who have been fired or investigated…
Well, the fired on in SC– would not meet the Pickering test based on what we’ve read in the news. If the stated reason for the firing is speech that guy may have a case against the board. If the reason is “something else”, well, I don’t know. We’ll learn more if there is a lawsuit.
If you want to know whose actually been fired, use your search tool to find
“First: We know the one SC teacher I mentioned above was fired. Do you know of other public school teacher firings for commenting on Charlie Kirk’s death?”
ChatGPT lists five. We don’t know much about most of them.
Lacking specifics, it’s hard to determine how these stack up on legality of the firing.
Do feel free to chuckle at the fact that all my questions are “good ones” (according to chatGPT.) ChatGPT is derinitely a brown nose.
MikeM
The government firing people from their jobs is the government restricting speech. Sometimes they can impose speech restrictions on employees– but sometimes they can’t.
Without individual examples of what exactly was said, where, by whom, how it affected the ability of the speaker to perform their job and so on and so on, it is very difficult to say whether firing was remotely appropriate.
The news is fresh and recent, so we don’t have many details. But, for example, when I asked
The above are pretty vague on details. I’m on free chatGPT so I didn’t ask more details on these yet. But I can. Without knowing what those fired actually wrote and now it impacted classrooms, I really can’t judge whether something as severe as firing is appropriate.
I definitely don’t think saying something like “Well, he was Maga. I’m not really going to mourn.” out to be a firing office.
Meanwhile, “I think someone should load up their guns and kill another MAGA mouthpiece tomorrow!” said to a known audience of students? That would be pretty bad. It could well violate an existing curricular standard. Like.. ohh… accepting all people and respecting a wide set of views? Not advocating killing people for their views? If so, the teacher violating a curricular standard is a problem for teachers because it is their job to uphold curricular standards.
A similar statement might not be a problem for a USPS letter carrier.
Also, if students engaged back and argued, that could lead to difficulty teaching in the class room. (That’s a Pickering thing.) But you have to wait for that to happen.
Lucia, Your post:
“I think the idea of prosecuting hate speech is anti-American.”
I have been advocating for firing people from their jobs for publicly supporting murder.
I don’t think [my memory isn’t what it was] I have said these people should be prosecuted. Just fired.
I am particularly incensed at people in education and medicine who expect to deal with children and the infirm while publicly advocating for murder.
I started this thread with the following post:
“September 12, 2025 at 9:38 pm
You’re Fired! A lot of vile leftists posted celebratory messages after the death of Charlie Kirk. We pounced! A lot of them have gotten fired:”
I don’t recall deviating from that position except for once when I applauded the Federal Government for reviewing visas of people that were advocating murder.
In fact I don’t remember anybody here advocating for prosecuting these people [But my memory isn’t what it once was]
Russell,
That’s hateful. But the government firing people for words is a big deal. Private employers firing have a lot more leeway.Depends on the job. (Someone might be protected by a union contract.)
Fired is a big deal.
Have you seen any quotes of the “celebratory messages”? Or names? Without information on exactly what the ‘vile leftings’ wrote, I don’t know if the messages were “celebratory”. I don’t think you know if they messages were “celebratory” because you haven’t quoted any!
You also don’t know if these messages advocated murder.
Corey Booker seems intent on proving himself to be a most dislikable man.
Free speech is an illusion I cherish..
Free speech meaning being able to say what you want to see is not a carte Blanche get out of jail free card however as we all discover very young to our cost.
In particular the speech being free is no guarantee that when you upset others they have to just have to take it and move on.
–
If you insult someone or disrespect someone and they take action over it you do have yourself to blame as well.
–
If one avoids all the exciting, interesting topics one will have a peaceful life. In that respect I have heard that sex, politics and religion are still the 3 taboo subjects.
Lucia, Your post:
“Have you seen any quotes of the “celebratory messages”? Or names? Without information on exactly what the ‘vile leftings’ wrote, I don’t know if the messages were “celebratory”. I don’t think you know if they messages were “celebratory” because you haven’t quoted any!”
Just for starters, here are a few quotes:
Bluesky: Writer Gretchen Felker-Martin posted “Thoughts and prayers you Nazi b***h” and “Hope the bullet’s okay after touching Charlie Kirk,”
Instagram Video by Unnamed Woman (Sep 10, 2025): Posted “really glad Charlie Kirk got himself fucking shot,”
Instagram Comment by Ashley Creekbaum (Sep 10, 2025): “I think he should be forced to carry that bullet in his body. That bullet has a right to be there because it’s a gift from god.”
X Post by @trulyclout (Sep 17, 2025): Explicitly states “charlie kirk is the most annoying dead nigga. i’m glad he’s dead,” directly celebrating the death.
X Post by @34convictions (Sep 17, 2025): Expresses willingness to celebrate similar fates for others but notes apathy toward Kirk’s death while wishing ill on critics, tying into broader glorification of harm to conservatives.
X Post by @YVrillain (Sep 17, 2025): References “many, many liberals and LWers who have been flagrantly celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination, many of whom have explicitly called for even more political violence,” highlighting and linking to such content in the thread.
Facebook Post by Assistant Dean at Middle Tennessee State University (Sep 10, 2025): Wrote “zero sympathy” for Kirk’s death, referencing his past comments on gun violence.
Facebook Post by Cornelius City Councilor John Colgan (Sep 10, 2025): Stated “Hearing that Charlie Kirk got shot and died really brightened up my day. Nobody deserves it, but some are asking for it.”
reddit Thread (Sep 10, 2025): Top comment: “Charlie Kirk was a horrible piece of shit and the world is a better place without him”
Bluesky Post by Drew Harrison (Sep 10, 2025): The artist at Sucker Punch Productions (a Sony/PlayStation subsidiary) wrote, “I hope the shooter’s name is Mario so that Luigi knows his bro got his back,”
Bluesky Post by George Abaraonye (Sep 10, 2025): “Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s f—— go,” using a Gen Z celebratory phrase with a crossed-out image of Kirk.
Grok: “These are a sample from ongoing trends; X has seen a surge in such rhetoric. Multiple threads (e.g., from @MapleSyrupMAGA1) link to external Facebook groups where users explicitly say Kirk “deserved it” and celebrate the killing, amplifying the content across platforms.”
I have to disagree with Grok in the final paragraph of the above post the above post where he says :
“X has seen a surge in such rhetoric.”
When the murderous rhetoric started, I jumped on the crusade to get people fired and have been at that effort the whole time. In the past two days or so I have seen no post celebrating Kirk’s murder. In fact, almost all the negative comments about Kirk have ceased.
We got the bastards on the run.
Lucia, I just came across another example:
“At the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Anthropology professor Tamar Shirinian. Tamar wrote:
“The world is better off without him in it. Even those who are claiming to be sad for his wife and kids….like, his kids are better off living in a world without a disgusting psychopath like him and his wife, well, she’s a sick fuck for marrying him so I dont care about her feelings.”
Mike M,
“None of the Arab states will let them in. And I sure hope we won’t let them in.”
Yes, you would have to be remarkably stupid to welcome immigrants who think suicide bombings are a gateway to Heaven. The other Arab countries aren’t that stupid.
So maybe only those countries who have “recognized Palestine” would be suitable destinations. They have all given up on personal liberty anyway, so having to bend the knee to a few more wild-eyed islamists is no big deal for them.
I think Bondi should dial back all the talk of prosecutions for speech, and I am sure the SC will toss prosecutions for speech, unless it is obvious incitement.
WRT firing people for celebrating murder: Certainly Federal law enforcement officers can be fired for that, if only because it shows without doubt that they are in the wrong profession: murder is always illegal, and law enforcement will suffer if officers support illegality. Same would go for local and state law enforcement officers.
Firing other public employees may be a little dicier. Firing prosecutors, teachers, and military personnel: probably will be allowed in many cases. Bureaucrats and people with no law-enforcement responsibility: probably not.
People can say what they want, but the public doesn’t have an obligation to employ people who celebrate murder.
John Ferguson,
“But then it seems obvious to me that the left wing is more likely to resort to violence simply because it finds itself up against a well entrenched status quo and nothing else seems to them likely to work.”
I think that is exactly the motivation, with “to work” meaning changing the United States into a country with a government structure very from what it is today.
It is the motivation of most every revolutionary in history…… and politically motivated murder is the tip of the revolutionary spear. Che’ and Castro knew that, just as did Mao. But support for revolution goes much deeper than politically motivated murder: there are far more who support politically motivated lawlessness, which undermines the rule of law and social stability….. and undermining the rule of law is the entire point.
The question is: what can we do when faced with a small fraction of individuals who support revolutionary change (change forced by lawless action)? My guess is: the majority will not continue to allow people to work toward political change outside the law and outside the Constitution.
Mike M. and Russell,
That statements are not equivalent in content, or intent seems to me to have nothing to do with freedom of speech which seems binary to me for speech not enclosed within the narrow fence of provoking immediate vilolent acts.
so I find your characterization of non-equivalence meaningless in the context of a discussion of freedom of speech.
asking for another slice of pizza or telling someone to burn a flag are not equivalent. so what?
Russell
I don’t think that’s “celebrating murder”. It’s not advocating murder or assassination. He didn’t say we should reward the assassin or other people should go out and do similarly. Tamar Shirinian is expressing he thinks the world is better off without him. He didn’t like his presence or work; that’s allowed. Saying so should be allowed. He thought he was a force for bad; that’s allowed. Saying show should be allowed.
I’ve openly wished Thor’s hammer would relieve the US of Trump. Heart attack? Sudden illness where he can’t serve? Etc. I’m not “celebrating murder”.
It’s certainly bad manners to say these things just when someone dies. And sweeping their relatives into the insult? Worse manners. But that’s not “celebrating death”.
couple more:
Charlie Rock, former Carolina Panthers football communications coordinator:
According to reports, he posted a video of Kirk speaking with the caption: “Why are yall sad? Your man said it was worth it …,” and a screenshot of the Wu-Tang Clan song, “Protect Ya Neck.”
Derek Woods, former football coach in Texas:
In a Facebook comment, he allegedly labeled Kirk “a horrible f***ing human being” and said he did not understand “why anyone is sad” over Kirk’s death. He added, “He was a legit racist, homophobic, a mysoginist [sic], transphobic nasty person.”
I’m afraid I agree that allowing people to normalize murder for engaging in free speech is, itself, a threat to free speech that requires an answer. I do not believe in pacifism. At least those fired are still around to whine about it and say whatever other silly stuff they read on social media.
I was very surprised to hear that Jamie Lee Curtis understands the difference. Predictably, despite all the caveats, the pitchforks were still raised against her.
Lucia,
“It’s certainly bad manners to say these things just when someone dies. And sweeping their relatives into the insult? Worse manners. But that’s not “celebrating death”.
You cherry picked all those comments and picked the mildest one
Updates
Tamar is a woman not a man despite her language
Also
the full Senate has indeed passed a motion in response to the recent events surrounding Charlie Kirk. On September 17, 2025, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution condemning the violence that led to his assassination.
–
As an aside I do not think accusing people of cherry picking is a nice tactic. Lucia does not resort to such tactics.
Mark,
What I was hinting at in suggesting that the “liberal-state” which in many ways commenced with Lyndon Johnson didn’t reach all the way down to the “retail-level” was that blacks didn’t really quite live in the same country as the rest of us. Simplest examples are interactions with police while driving, or walking in “wrong” neighborhood etc. Friend who is thorasic surgeon here in St Pete and black says he doesn’t get hassled very often anymore now that he’s 80, but when he was younger he often got stopped to prove he owned the car he was driving.
I think there is a lot of experience like that out there and even though there were all manner of “equal” opportunity and “augmented” opportunity programs out there, the resentment has always been there and events like the murder of George Floyd turn it loose.
As to Mr. Kirk’s discomfort when confronted by prospect that pilot on the plane he was sitting in was black suggests a lack of experiernce in addition to underlying bigotry. Black pilots were captains at American at least as far back as the ’70s. I think that’s about 50 years ago.
Nonethe less, i saw a value in Kirk’s efforts mostly in provoking people to think to themselves, “Is this really who I am?”
I just watched the gilded horse carriage parade at Windsor Castle with President Trump and King Charles. It was magnificent. Talk about rolling out the red carpet!
NYT said:
“U.K. Gives Trump a Royal Welcome in 2nd State Visit
With a carriage ride at Windsor Castle and dinner with King Charles III, Britain tries to appeal to a president who has seemed intent on upending the post-World War II order.”
Some of it was spine tingling, like when the gold stream guards played the Star Spangled Banner.
You can watch the whole procession here:
https://www.youtube.com/live/f1khjDCNWmA?si=a2CwdPoKUQyH3z7L
Russel
I quoted the entire quote.
If you think there is a specific subpart that “celebrates murder”, pick it out and highlight it for me. Because I’m not seeing it.
No, Lucia you picked that quote out of a list of 20 because it was rather benign.
John,
Like all slurs from Liberals against Charlie Kirk your comment was a quote taken out of context and hides the real meaning of what he said. It was a condemnation of DEI saying that DEI makes us suspicious that a minority’s success may be because of DEI and we just don’t know.
Summary from grok:
“Kirk stated: “I’m sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.'” He immediately followed this by clarifying that this suspicion arises from DEI policies, saying, “That’s not who I am, that’s not what I believe. But left-wing politics and DEI make people think that way. Because you start wondering: was this about merit, or was this about race?” His producer agreed, attributing the doubt to “left-wing politics.” Kirk emphasized that DEI erodes public trust, even in qualified individuals, by introducing questions about whether hires are based on identity rather than competence.”
Russell,
When you post your quote, could you tell use precisely the part that celebrates murder.
Here’s your next next one
Not being sad at someone death is not “celebrating murder”. I would not be sad at Donald Trump’s death.
Kirk did say this in answer to a question
See this on X.
The above is a reference to where he was shot. It’s exceedingly distasteful. Is it celebrating? I don’t think so.
This is not celebrating murder. When Woods dies, it won’t be “celebrating death” to say he’s a horrible f***in human being. It’s an negative opinion. Expressing it is allowed.
Yeah. Wood really didn’t like Rose. This is his opinion. It is protected speech. I don’t see how or why a government agency could fire him for this.
That said: Universities seem to be able end a university football coaches contract for pretty much anything. Losing team? Embarrasing school? Failure to attract donations? Anticipation he will fail to attract donations? Anticipation he will be unable to recruit good team mates. This particular guy actually might be fireable because this could impede his ability to do his job which may include bringing good publicity to the school. That is a content neutral standard.
A similar thing likely wouldn’t apply to director of admissions or similar.
But as distasteful as this guys speech is, I don’t think he’s endorsing murder, telling people to go out and do some more etc.
Russell,
If you think it’s benign, and a bad example, why did you even give it as an example? I actually want to know.
The reason I “picked” that one is it’s morning. I’m skimming. I picked that quote because it was the one I saw. Did you scatter quotes in a ton of comments. Now I’m going to have to hunt them all down.
Could you tell me which two you think are the least benign so I don’t miss them?
The topic is (a) is it encouraging murder or something and (b) should the government fire them. I’ve already said private companies can generally fire at will employees.
She’svasty. But not “celebrating murder”.
She’s not a government employee. So the issue of government infringing speech is not relevant to her case. In fact, she doesn’t seem to be an “employee” at all. She also didn’t get “fired”. DC is not going to publish her work– which means they aren’t going to participate in promoting her speech. Plausibly, DC comics worries about increasing criticism for their commics affecting sales.
Not “celebrating” murder. We don’t know if Unnamed somen is a government employee. Unless she is, the government isn’t going to fire her. I can’t begin to say if her expressing being happy Kirk got shot would interfere with her job. Also, it’s not telling people to go out and kill more people. She’s got a distastful opinion and expressed it. This is usually covered by freedom of speech and should be.
Still not encouraging murder. She didn’t like him. Glad he’s dead. She’s evidently a firefighter. If she is still willing to pull people out of burnign buildings, I think she should keep her job. This is not evidence she’s not going to do it.
You seem to be mistaking someone saying “i’m glad he’s dead” with “celebrating death. So is whoever wrote this. I’d be glad if Thor’s hammer strikes Putin. That should generally be protected speech.
Is this a quote? Who “Expresses willingness”? If is this someone paraphrasing what someone else said? Could you clarify? Because, I’m not even sure what this is referring too or saying
This is someone reporting that someone else reports that some people somewhere are celebrating and calling for violence. That’s not a quote or any sort of direct evidenced. It’s an third hand accusation.
People are allowed to have “zero sympathy”. Lots of people have zero sympathy of those given “Darwin Awards”. Not only don’t we cancel them, posting the entire list of Darwin awards is totally allowed.
Yeah. He’s glad. I don’t know who daid it. “Nobody deserves it”? This isn’t “celebrating”. Suggesting something is a natural consequence isn’t “celebrating”.
This person was a politician — and resigned. He probably couldn’t be fired from the city coundil it’s likely an elected position. He resigned– I’ll speculate that’s because he’s not going to be willing to stand the “counter heat” of other people’s speech. That’s the appropriate way to deal with speech yhou don’t like.
He’s also a teacher. If his speech ends up interfering with classroom order, then he should be fired. If it hasn’t and won’t, he shouldn’t. Not enough time passed to know if his speech was going to do that.
You get to say you think someone is a horrible piece of shit even if they just died. And you get to say you think the world is better off without them. That’s protected speech.
Russell,
As far as I’m concerned Kirk does not get a pass by tying his expression to DEI. Although I suspect DEI supported promotion of less qualified or less expereinced candidates to some roles, I doubt that they included Air Transport Rated pilots. The rules there are FAA mandated and you have to pass the whole thing.
I continue to suspect that Kirk’s major contribution to our dialogue such as it was was to make people comfortable with their bigotry. But I repeat that it was still vaulable in causing us to think about how we look at things.
I write this as an ex-entrpreneur who lost a $half million sale to the navy because a minority firm was given a 10% assumed cut to their bid which got them under ours. Outfit was not a Sun Microsystem VAR as were we, and had no idea how to do the work. They shopped the opportunity arouhnd the VAR network and no-one was willing to do the project for what they were offering. Eventually the Navy came back to us, but we were shutting down after the one year drought in sales following Hurricane Andrew. Project was at Autec in the Bahamas where we’d already done a couple of projects. But there was no; overcoming the help-minorities oppotunities.
John,
As respectfully as possible, I think that maybe a fifth of the problem that Democrats have is that people like you are convinced that the social problems of the 1960′ and 1970’s are still the problems affecting the country today. I think the progressive radicals in your party exploit your cohort’s group naivete in this regard well.
Russell
As I said: I picked it because it’s the one I saw. I continue to marvel that you posted one you thought was benign, and now admit it’s benign.
I have now addressed the long list. You seem to have been advocating suspending freedom of speech by someone. On the thread, we’ve been discussing government firings or the government going after people.
I’ve been against government taking actions to suppress this or government firing people whose speech does not meet the standard– which appears to be Pickering. I have no idea what government actions you are advocating vis-a-vis the quotes on your list list. Private parties can fire for lots of reasons. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Hateful and distasteful speech is protected speech in the US. It’s allowed.
John,
There are hundreds of hours of Charlie Kirk speaking on YouTube. Rather than ‘suspecting’ him of making people comfortable with their bigotry and slurring his good name on that basis, you could actually investigate.
[Edit: Cancel the ‘respect’ greeting I offered you on my last post. What you said here is shit.]
john ferguson
Honestly, I don’t know. But we haven’t seen a disproportionate number of commercial jet crashes because of Black airline pilots. DEI philosophy being what it is, it could hypothetically taint anything.
Honestly, I don’t think I ever see the pilot. So… his color isn’t going to affect how safe I feel. I don’t even know it!
Unless we do see differential crash rates, I think it would appear that DEI did not taint the selection of pilots. I’m not going to suspect it did when there is no evidence.
My impression is recently most US airline crashes have been due to manufacturing and maintenance failures? I don’t know… I guess we could ask Grok or chat GPT?
John Ferguson,
“As to Mr. Kirk’s discomfort when confronted by prospect that pilot on the plane he was sitting in was black suggests a lack of experiernce in addition to underlying bigotry. ”
The issue Kirk was raising was whether the pilots were hired based on competence or based on race. When companies (not just airlines!) make a point of advertising how hard they are trying to recruit people of specific races or genders, it does raise plausible doubts about the basis used for hiring. If companies were to say: “We always hire and promote based on competence”, then there would be less reason for those doubts.
I am sure airlines have a very strong interest in hiring based on competence, and I don’t worry at all when the plane I am on has a black pilot (or copilot). Between 2% and 3% of commercial pilots in the USA are black, and a similar fraction are women, while ~13% of the population is black and 50% women. There are many plausible explanations for those discrepancies among pilots, including racial and gender prejudice, but since women are far more “under-represented” among pilots than blacks, do you think that means there is far greater prejudice against women working as pilots than against blacks working as pilots, or for other reasons?
When people hire on the basis of something other than merit, they are hiring on the basis of something other than merit.
That is all.
Lucia,
I have probably flown commercially about 1,000 times over the past 35 years, and I do often see the pilots, including black pilots and female pilots (but I’ve never seen a black female pilot).
The number of commercial airplane crashes in the USA is now so low that statistically connecting accidents to the identity of the pilots is surely impossible. I suspect a big part of the very low crash rate is advancing technology in commercial airplanes, not ever more competent pilots.
Here, let me help make you all more comfortable with your bigotry.
Maybe DEI does not affect airplane crashes, but it sounds like instances exist where it is lowering standards for medical graduates. Here is such an account.
Naked bigotry, I’m sure.
Hate speech inquisitions and prosecutions are an abomination upon the land.
The people who cheer them on never imagine themselves to be under their thumb. The judgment of what is hate speech is always tribal and I for one never, ever, ever, ever want to give that type of power to the activists on the left. We have already seen how that goes.
It is fortunate we have the first amendment to stop the worst impulses of those who hold the levers of government power.
Thank you founders.
Here is one example of how to deal with this properly IMO:
Somebody prints out a big poster of a business owner’s tweet and plants it in front of their business. Hilarious and effective.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G0qpIJRXkAANlI3?format=jpg
It is counterproductive to call people bigots who note that hiring on the basis of something other than ability to do the best job results in a workforce that is not optimized for doing the best job. This proposition doesn’t actually require empirical validation, it is very nearly a logical tautology.
I am so sick of people calling me a bigot for stating the obvious.
“We just want to stop glorification of murder”.
No you don’t. You actually won’t stop there if history is a guide.
Twitter / Facebook: We only want to ban clearly dangerous extremists like Alex Jones. A couple years late the President of the United States is banned for whatever it was he was banned for. Then covid “misinformation”. Hunter Biden.
But my censorship regime is justified! I will be restrained and reasonable! I doubt it very much.
This is the path of censorship, sucked to a more partisan censorship regime like you are approaching the event horizon of a black hole.
Russell,
As you appear to have used Grok to answer some question about “celebrations”, I also asked Grok some questions. I asked it about every one of your quotes. You can go read there. (It did explain the Luigi one. Once I got that, I think that is the closest to advocating murder. But Grok still doesn’t consider it “celebrating”.)
When asked it’s specific opinion on each of your quotes, Grok considers none of them celebrating.
The shareable post is here. I asked a final question to summarize. It looks leading if asked as a first question, but it was after asking a whole bunch pretty dang neutrally.
Me
Grok
SteveF
I agree. But I think this suggest that the pilots we have are competent enough given the actual requirements of the job. Whether DEI is good or bad, it’s not resulting in pilots who are not sufficiently competent to do the job of flying the airplane.
Perhaps if Kirk wanted to make a stronger case against DEI causing safety issues or death, he should have picked an example where there is evidence that DEI caused a safety issues or death.
Mark
Sure. But the argument is not strengthened by suggesting increases in safety issues or death when it doesn’t do that.
I have no idea if DEI was affecting what pilots were hired, picked for training, yada, yada. My impression is the path to becoming a a commercial jet pilot was typically through the military. This was principally because the cost of training and logging sufficient hours was otherwise out of reach for nearly everyone. That training an the number of hours logged may have been sufficient to flush out all “saftey hazards” even with DEI. That wouldn’t make DEI ok, but it would mean it wasn’t a safety hazard by the time someone was a commercial pilot.
Alcoholism? Drugs? Use that might have begun after leaving the military? I bet that might be a larger safety issue than DEI.
Lucia,
Of course. But there’s miles of differences between choosing a poor illustrative example and bigotry.
Tom Scharf
I this case, I think the do imagine that. I think there is a lot of “tit for tat” in this. I sense a lot of, “You got us fired! Pressured! Silenced! We are going to do the same to you. And more.”
This impulse is neither noble nor healthy for democracy.
Tom Scharf wrote: “Somebody prints out a big poster of a business owner’s tweet and plants it in front of their business. Hilarious and effective.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G0qpIJRXkAANlI3?format=jpg
That is somebody clearly advocating murder.
How do you know it was the business owner who posted that? Maybe it was an employee.
If I was the business owner and an employee posted that, I would fire him immediately and put a sign up in the window saying “Christopher Rispoli has been fired and no longer works here”. I would not bother to consult a lawyer before doing that.
Nobody should be asked to work beside such a hideous piece of trash. No member of the public should be asked to deal with such a disgraceful excuse for a person. No taxpayer should be asked to pay his salary.
It is good that the government can’t censor such speech. But decent human beings do not have to put up with it.
Ok. I at least have to make it so I can edit the html to make images show! I’m pretty sure I can do that. Mañana.
Charlie Kirk debated constantly and there’s abundant online material to work with. I’m sure he spoke poorly a time or two and that if we looked we could find evidence of it. I don’t think there is any special significance to be found in this.
Mark
Sure. Agreed. I’m not going to immerse myself in the speeches and podcasts of Charlie Kirk to figure out if he was or was not a bigot. That example might not be one — likely as not it’s not a example of bigotry.
But he did pick a bad example of the perils of DEI. He resorted to excess vividness- death. The feeling of lack of control. (I can pick my doctor to a large extent.) And in the process also picked a bad example– DEI does not seem to be resulting in pilots who are insufficiently trained.
Did we have the “best” ones? Maybe not. But I also don’t necessarily get the “best” waitress at the restaurant or the “best” cook.
If you want to make a case for unfairness or injustice make it. Avoid poor examples if you can.
Here, I have a question I’d honestly like to hear opinions on.
Free speech protections are important, of course. But this idea that we can’t fire people for their speech. Speech and thought are similar, interchangeable in many ways, and thought governs action. It seems odd to me that we could not fire (or demand the firing of) government officials who believed that the United States shouldn’t exist. We have to wait for them to actually act on their speech before we can do this, apparently.
This strikes me as odd. What am I getting wrong here?
[Edit: Personally, I think this idea that one’s job is protected by free speech is a philosophical error our courts have made. You are absolutely entitled to your thoughts and speech. I ought to be entitled to make employment decisions based on your thoughts and speech, because thoughts govern future actions, and your actions are certainly of concern as my employee.]
Mark:
Hear. Hear!
Thanks Lucia.
Fine, you are not saying that you suspect that Charlie Kirk’s primary contribution was to make people comfortable with their bigotry, so it doesn’t really behoove you to do that. I think that, if you were making that claim, it WOULD behoove you to first investigate.
Mike M,
Yes, that one advocates murder. Counter speech is the correct approach, and people are doing that. This counter speech is not a government act. Everyone gets free speech.
Under Pete Buttigieg, the Dept of Transportation made DEI a priority including in hiring critical safety personnel. There were a number of reports of DEI hires among commercial airline pilots. Airlines were bragging about their DEI policies.
Under such circumstances, it is perfectly rational to worry about the qualifications of black pilots. Maybe standards are being maintained, but we have no way to know that. We have to blindly trust that it is so. And there are good reasons to suspect that our trust might be misplaced.
Until recently, there was no good reason to doubt the competency of black pilots. Now there is, thanks to DEI.
“He was a legit racist, homophobic, a mysoginist [sic], transphobic nasty person.”
I don’t believe that was true about Kirk, but suppose it was actually true about somebody? You aren’t allowed to say true things? You aren’t allowed to express opinions, or just majority opinions?
And I will repeat my counter examples of Bin Laden and Hamas’s leader.
How do you articulate this rule in words so people are comfortable this power won’t be abused and they know where the lines are?
Mark
I agree that a person who claims Kirk was a bigot or his role was to make people comfortable with it, they should investigate Kirk’s speeches more. As far as I can see, that single example is not enough to support that claim.
The FAA is probably not the example you want to use about misguided DEI suspicions.
Then in 2013:
lucia,
Counter speech is usually the best approach. It is not always enough. It is definitely not enough in the poster example.
It looks like you posted an image? I can’t see it. I will try again after turning off tracker protection.
Interesting. After I posted, I could see the image. I guess all I needed to do was to refresh the page.
I tried to make the image live in your post. I failed. I’m confident I can adjust the code to allow it. I’m going to do it later. I did post the image in my own comment later on. — lucia
I’ve flown with a black female pilot. KLM, I think it was.
It might have made more sense to suggest that Kirk’s choice of an example of the possible ill effects of DEI was not the best.
The history of hiring based on qualities other than merit is probably as long as civilization. Patronage, nepotism, ??
And certainly race, first from one angle and then the other.
Tom,
Are you speaking to me?
[If you are, I don’t think you’re understanding me]
Mark Bofill wrote: “I think this idea that one’s job is protected by free speech is a philosophical error our courts have made. You are absolutely entitled to your thoughts and speech. I ought to be entitled to make employment decisions based on your thoughts and speech, because thoughts govern future actions, and your actions are certainly of concern as my employee.”
Hear! Hear!
I would add that we have the right of free association. We can’t be required to associate with scumbags if we don’t want to.
MikeM
Perhaps if standards were lowered and we aren’t seeing any safety issues problems, the standards are inappropriately “high”. That could happen if technology replaced the need for lots of human intervention.
If standards are unnecessarily high, it would be better to lower them than to lower them for one race and not another. That would make the dream of being a pilot more accessible to a wider range of people which is a good thing. Perhaps it would be easier for people who did not want to chose the military path to become perfectly safe adequately skilled pilots. Perhaps it would allow women who might interrupt their career paths with pregnancy to more easily become pilots.
But excess licensing requirements for tons of professions from hair dresser on up is a somewhat different issue from DEI. Of course these excess licensing requirements might block some people who are perfectly adequate for a career. But the cure is to fix the standards in general, not to have DEI work arounds for some while maintaining excess standards to block others.
If you have direct evidence that lowered standards for any hires has resulted in actual safety issues that would be useful.
Tom Scharf: “The FAA is probably not the example you want to use about misguided DEI suspicions.”
Confusing double negative there. After looking at the quotes, I think Tom was saying that it is reasonable to have doubts about the qualifications of minority air traffic controllers.
I think that the values and beliefs expressed by bureaucrats, officials and civil servants is germane and pertinent to their employment qualifications in general. Nobody is entitled to promulgate their own personal values or beliefs in a public sector role in defiance of the values and beliefs of the people that public role is supposed to represent and serve.
Have your free speech as a private citizen. And on your own dime.
lucia wrote: “If you have direct evidence that lowered standards for any hires has resulted in actual safety issues that would be useful.”
I have seen such evidence in terms of pilots and ATC’s complaining about working with unqualified DEI hires.. I never investigated to be sure it was valid.
You seem to be claiming that we are not seeing any airline safety issues. I assume you mean incidents. That is not true; there have been a lot of airline safety incidents in the last few years. I don’t have any statistics that would indicate that DEI is a factor.
Kirk has thousands of hours of emotional debate with many people out there. Everyone who does this can have stuff cherry picked to prove he is this ‘ist, ‘ism, or ‘ic. They can also cherry pick his best “crushing the libs” moments. This is mostly what is out there.
The best thing to do is take a little time to watch one of these debates for an hour or two. Or you can believe a partisan’s blanket assessments and labels and move on.
This is a random selection. Two hours of him talking to people recently at UCSD. Kind of predictable and boring but at least you will have a better feel of what he was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyAqMIZdX5g
People like Shapiro / Kirk become very skilled at partisan debate even though they may not always have strong arguments. They are very skilled at shifting the terms of a debate question to their advantage, etc.
I worked in the Department of Development and Planning City of Chicago for about 14 months starting in mid 1969. I was recruited by a guy who had taught a class I took at SIU. As it developed, mine would be a patronage job which meant that I needed a recommendation from my alderman. I refused, but guy I knew eventually convinced me to at least talk to the guy. At this point I had always voted Republican and I told the alderman that. That should have been the end of it but wasn’t. Someone at the City told him to recommend me regardless and he did and I soon found myself with some sort of low level title and working in the Urban Design group.
I did not behave with any amount of deference to anyone, which for some reason wasn’t a problem. I eventually married a woman who worked there and learned from her that I was held in awe by many in the dperatment more or less because of my apparent fearlessness. It turned out that everyone assumed that we all had political sponsers and the higher-up in the Democratic Machine your sponser was, the greater your “clout” No-one had been able to discover my sponser because I really didn’t have one. They then assumed whoever it was must be very high, maybe a Daley. It’s probably better that Eileen decided to complete her architectural degree in St Louis because the revelation that I almost walked on water wasn’t good for any discipline I might otherwise have had.
And yes, I suspect that the City had the same shortcomings via patronage as we suspect of DEI afflicted organizations.
Mike M,
Yes. Confusing. The FAA has given reasons to be doubtful about their employees due to DEI policy, at least the air traffic controllers.
Mark Bofill,
No, I’m howling at the moon about free speech mostly.
Mark
They can be. The courts recognize this. Sometimes they aren’t. The courts also recognize this.
You need to bring up specific examples, discuss what the courts say about that example (or hypothetical) to know what is likely protected and what is not. It will vary by job, where the speech took place, to whom, yada, yada….
MikeM
That’s pretty weak evidence. Everyone one every job thinks some people are unqualified. And the people you happen to hear complaining might themselves lack objectivity.
By pilots? I’ve certainly heard of doors blowing off airplanes. That’s not a pilot issue. Also, define “incident”. I’m talking crashes, near crashes, doors blowing off airplanes etc.
Tom Scharf,
Given context, it is worth noting the obvious: air traffic controllers are not pilots.
At the time the First Amendment was adopted, blasphemy would have generally been considered unacceptable speech. The Amendment prohibited the federal government from passing laws against blasphemy. But that does not mean that it established a right to blaspheme. Society could still take action against a blasphemer, say by ostracizing that person. The federal government, including the courts, had no power to take sides in such an interpersonal dispute. And a federal department head would have been perfectly free to fire or not fire the blasphemer, as he saw fit.
As Mark said above, the courts have lost their way on this.
lucia wrote: “define “incident”. I’m talking crashes, near crashes, doors blowing off airplanes etc.”
That is what I mean. All of those are potentially a result of incompetence. As I said, I don’t have solid evidence that DEI has been a factor. There seems to have been a rise in safety incidents. There has been a rise in DEI appearing to affect hiring in safety critical jobs. But correlation is not causation. OTOH, I don’t think we can cite lack of such incidents as evidence that there is no problem, since there is no lack of incidents.
Yes, air traffic controllers are not pilots. It is not clear to me which job is more difficult or more critical to safety. I’d guess ATCs, at least at major airports.
MikeM
Society still can! The Mormon’s excommunicate people frequently.
And the government shouldn’t. They should neither call for the Mormons to excommunicate members nor forbid it!
Huh? The courts rules precisely the way you seem to say they should. They step out of private speech except for a narrow set of exceptions. Blasphemy is not one of them.
MikeM
Kirk’s statement suggested fear for ones life. That involves accidents that put life at risk.
I am specifically asking you for evidence of airline accidents attributable to pilots in, oh…. say the past 5 years. How many accidents have there been. How many were in the past year?
As for “incident”. Are they increasing? Define “incident”? And are “incidents” pilot error? Whatever they are, number of reported incidents can change because of logging requirements, problems with air traffic control, slight changes in definition of a reportable incident, or because any particular incident changed. All sorts of factors that are independent of pilot quality or even employee quality can affect that.
But a plane crashing into the ground, two planes hitting each other, doors blowing off? Those are more than “incidents”.
Lucia,
Mike’s not wrong in the above. It’s my position that employment (at least private employment) shouldn’t be protected under free speech. IMO, I ought to be able to select employees with whatever values I think are important. I ought to be able to discriminate on the basis of their values and beliefs, by which I think I would be essentially discriminating on the basis of their speech. Once in the door, I think I ought to be able to kick them out on that same basis.
I get that this isn’t the law. I think it should be.
I think if I have the right to close my business and fire everyone and start a new business and rehire, then it doesn’t seem reasonable to me that I don’t have the right to fire as I please.
Regarding DEI, I don’t see why we have to look for evidence. If we want competence, we should hire for competence. If we hire for reasons other than competence, I think the default expectation should be that this will not benefit the general level of competence we find.
This is not the same as saying ‘there WILL be damage’. Maybe we will get lucky, in exactly the same way that a driver who is not paying attention to the road might be lucky and traverse a stretch without incident. That sometimes we are lucky doesn’t make this a good idea.
Mark
I used Grok to find things “bureaucrats, officials and civil servants” said about Brandon Johnson. Lots of politicians say bad things about him. But maybe “bureaucrats, officials and civil servants” don’t. 🙂
Here are two prominant “officials”, Deborah Witzburg
From Appointed Oversight Officials
Deborah Witzburg, Chicago Inspector General (independent city appointee overseeing ethics and investigations): In a February 2025 memo to City Council, Witzburg accused Johnson’s administration—via the Department of Law (DOL)—of obstructing at least 10 probes into senior staff misconduct by demanding lawyers attend interviews and withholding records. She stated: “The throughline of these concerns is the appearance—and at times reality—that DOL selectively acts in opposition to OIG’s investigative work when OIG’s work may result in embarrassment or political consequences to City leaders.” On the same issue, she added: “DOL’s demands to attend these interviews—including in cases in which individuals had identified fears of retaliation for protected reporting—is, put simply, egregiously obstructive.” Earlier, in a January 2025 advisory on the mayor’s office failing to disclose gifts (e.g., whiskey, jewelry, and size-14 men’s shoes accepted “on behalf of the City”), Witzburg criticized the lack of transparency: “When gifts are changing hands—perhaps literally—in a windowless room in City Hall, there is no opportunity for oversight and public scrutiny of the propriety of such gifts, the identities or intentions of the gift-givers, or what it means for gifts like whiskey, jewelry, handbags, and size 14 men’s shoes to be accepted ‘on behalf of the City.’” She further noted: “It is a little hard to get one’s head around what it might mean to accept a pair of size-14 men’s shoes on behalf of the city.” In July 2025, upon declining a second term (which Johnson would likely deny), Witzburg blasted his handling of probes into Chicago Police Department ties to extremist groups, urging a task force for a “comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to preventing, identifying and eliminating extremist and anti-government activities and associations within CPD.”
From Education Officials and Civil Servants
Pedro Martinez, CEO of Chicago Public Schools (appointed city education official): In an October 2024 interview amid escalating tensions over funding (where Johnson pushed a high-interest loan Martinez opposed), Martinez expressed frustration with the mayor’s approach: “I was making a case to really solidify more TIF funding. I was surprised. So was our board. The response was instead borrow, and of course everything since then.” He added on the fallout, including board resignations: “I did not expect for this to escalate to the way it did.”
Over 400 CPS Principals and Assistant Principals (frontline civil servants managing city schools): In an August 2024 open letter to the school board urging retention of CEO Martinez amid Johnson’s reported push to oust him, the group warned of disruption from the mayor’s interference: “Every school administrator knows that significant changes at the beginning of the school year can be detrimental to the students, staff, and families we serve.” They contrasted this with Martinez’s effective leadership: “We need to maintain the momentum behind the initiatives already underway that have been successful due to the support CEO Martinez has gained by listening to and trusting school leaders to give guidance on what is best for schools.”
Should these guys be silenced? Fined? Criticized? Censured? Or is it ok for them to say bad things about Brandon Johnson and his admnistration? If it is ok, where do you draw the line.
Because if you are going to call for people to be fired, you have to say who can be, in what circumstances , by whom and so on and so on. SCOTUS does line drawing exercises. Sometimes public employees and officials can be fired; sometimes not.
I flew privately and corporately for 14 years 1973-1987. I had a commercial single and multi engine with instruments license. After I got serious with this I flew every flight with an instrument flight plan, mostly for the practice but as much because I could then deal with weather that was worse than where visual flight was allowable.
Here’s how it works:
On departure, first connection with ATC is to listen to the recorded airport weather, then call ground control and get your clearance which will be geomtery of flight from airport to initial enroute fix, then routing to destination. you talk first to ground control which takes you to a taxi-hold short of takeoff runway, then tower, then once in air, to departure control and then when out of terminal area to regional Center which passes you along from Center to Center enroute til your’e turned over to destination Approach which sets you up on final and turns you over to the tower, then on the ground and off the runway to ground control.
You get to talk to a lot of people. for the most part the dialog is standard and you seldom hear anything you haven’t heard before. I flew in the middle altitudes 18,000-23,000 feet which were above most private planes and beneath the airliners who were above in the 30s.
This meant the center controllers who handled the airspace I was in didn’t have a lot to do and we’d chat, but around serious terminals like Ohare, it was entirely business.
Once, coming into Miami, when I switched from Center to Miami Approach I found myself talking to a woman with the worst lisp I’ve ever heard. I couldn’t understand a thing she said. So it being severe clear (term of art), I was able to cancel IFR and she turned me over to the tower.
I later learned that she was well known and despite lacking a primary qualification for the job – understandable speech – would be there as long as she liked because of a relationship with somone in Miami.
Lucia,
I won’t argue that the details don’t matter. I’ll have to read more about it in my copious spare time.
Thanks
The short form here is:
The public sector should not be able to fire people for private speech unless it is disrupting work, see SC tests.
The government itself can have an opinion and broadcast it using their tools but it should not police thought at all except where it crosses legal barriers.
The private sector should be able to fire people for many things, including private speech, but * IMO * should choose to not do so except in rare circumstances, such as the SC test.
It can get muddy. When a social media mob descends on your business for some rando opinion of a warehouse worker what do you do? My haughty view is to tell the mob to go to … Suppose it turns into an effective boycott or nobody will work with said worker anymore? Maybe you take action then but my view is don’t do this preemptively.
Mark
haha! I gotcha. Grok and chatGPT are very, very long winded. But I think Tom asked earlier: Where do you draw the line?
Public employees, bureaucrats, officials and so on can be fired for some activities that are “speech”. That speech might be totally protected in some instances, but not others. But these people do retain some protection and so whether they can or should be fired depends on what they actually said, where and so on. It has to.
I do think many of these public employees claim they ought to have more protection than they should. Others disagree and think they ought to have less. But we can’t really figure that out if we don’t discuss where we think the line should be ourselves or look at where the courts say it is.
On this
As a private employer you can do this. I don’t know why you believe you cannot. For the most part, values and beliefs are not “protected classes”. Religion is the exception in the category of “values”. But you can refuse to hire someone who is happy Charlie Kirk is dead, or you can refuse someone who think Charlie Kirk walked on water.
As a public employer? Well, usually the person hiring is themselves a public employee. If I’m a tax payer, why should I want a school principle to be able to not hire someone who believes what I do while only hiring people who disagree with me? Similarly firing? The principle doesn’t own the school.
We have protections to prevent the government from doing things we allow private parties to do.
The difficulty is you are mistaken on what the law is.
Another leftist gets fired. this time a waitress for defacing a makeshift Charlie Kirk memorial.
video:
https://x.com/alphafox78/status/1968129013614096416?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
I am celebrating retaliation.
BREAKING: Turning Point USA has officially announced the speaker lineup for Charlie Kirk’s MASSIVE memorial this coming Sunday
– Trump
– Vance
– Tulsi
– RFK Jr.
– Erika Kirk
– Hegseth
– Stephen Miller
– Tucker Carlson
and it’s being held in a football stadium
lucia wrote: “The courts rules precisely the way you seem to say they should.”
Like Mark, I doubt that. But I don’t know for sure.
Are you telling me that, unless a union contract is involved, ALL of the “Kirk” firings will pass legal muster? Both private sector and public sector? Independent of what the person’s job is? If so, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.
Lucia,
I’m really glad to hear I was misunderstanding the private sectors limits on firing. Thanks!
King Charles and President Trump participating in a’Beating Retreat’ ceremony on the lawn outside Windsor Castle. It was a spectacle performed by many British military marching bands, and a military flyover by the Red Arrows, trailing red, white and blue smoke.
At one point a fife and drum group wearing red coats in 1700s outfits played the tune that ‘Yankee Doodle’ was based on. I wonder if they knew what they were doing.
Linked below as a video of the full ceremony, the Yankee doodle portion comes at about 30 minute mark
https://www.youtube.com/live/w9NkfR7tIUE?si=lWJZNzVmLz9nRE_6
The rhetorical trick the left uses is to label principled positions on immigration or affirmative action as xenophobic / racist because they have disparate outcomes for identity groups.
It is improper and lazy to do this without attempting to determine intent of the speaker or show other evidence they have these alleged traits.
It’s been overplayed and those terms have lost their power.
MikeM
I don’t have a list of “all” or the specifics about the firing. But generally, in most states there is no problem unless the firing is blocked by some contract or the issue is protected class. And for those in protected class, the ‘protected’ have to have been fired for being in the protected class. Contracts can include union contracts, the contract created by an employee handbook or something that the employee signs.
Being allowed to fire people is the general law. If you find cases where a private employer is forced to rehire someone for expressing their political views about Charlie Kirk, bring it up. Then we can see the details.
If a employer was foolish enough to provide a contract that an employee can’t be fired for expressing political views on social media, then the contract would bind the employer. But I doubt many employers or employees thought to put that in a contract.
Tom,
“ The rhetorical trick the left uses is to label principled positions on immigration or affirmative action as xenophobic / racist because they have disparate outcomes for identity groups.”
yes, that is what John did with the black airline pilot quote.
It is used by the left all the time to indicate that Kirk was a racist when the actual statement viewed in context, says nothing of a sort.
Tom
Largely, yes. When the response to “You are transphobic.” is “I don’t want uncovered penises swinging in my 10 year old daughters school locker room.” the label loses power. Audience then recognizes that “transphobic” evidently applies to people who don’t want penises swinging in10 year old girls school locker rooms.
Argument by label can work for a while. But eventually, if the labeled person can just switch to specifics about the issues, and the specifics are salient, the label loses power.
next on Trump‘s agenda is the Royal banquet at 3:30 PM.
I am expecting another grand spectacle.
he is really eating this up, all the pomp and circumstance
The private sector will be a mixed bag of what is allowed. Many private companies have different state laws to deal with, or have entered voluntary agreements with unions, or have existing internal policies that deal with employee discipline.
lucia wrote: “As a private employer you can do this. I don’t know why you believe you cannot.”
I have been misunderstanding you. It looks like you have only been addressing the case with government employees while others have been arguing that private employees should also have protections.
I can’t speak for Mark, but I can tell you why I thought (and to some degree still think) that there is a restriction on what private employers can do.
One reason is that is some states there are such restrictions, in some there are explicitly no such restrictions, and some seem to be in between.
Another reason is that there is a long list of reasons for which federal law says you can not fire an at will employee, that muddies the water.
Yet another reason is the fact that in practice you can’t always do something that the law allows you to do. You might still find yourself in court fighting lawyers that have way more resources than you do, so even if you win in court, you lose. And even if the law is on your side you still might lose in court if the fired employee can convince a court that your reason was other than what your reason actually was.
So what people can do in practice can be a lot different from what people can do in principle.
So I guess in principle I could fire an employee for putting a Harris sign on his front lawn. Something tells me I might not be able to do that in practice.
Or wise, depending on the use case.
Maybe DEI really is a great idea as some say, maybe it in fact improves overall team performance (I actually believe that there are limited domains where that’s conceivably the case). Let the DEI adherents enjoy the resultant market advantage and ruin the ‘bigots’, I have no issue if that turns out to be the case.
[Edit: Mike, I don’t know how I came to labor under that misapprehension. I’ll have to think about it.]
Kirk’s assassination shure motivates a lot of comments.
Kate, the Princess of Wales, looks stunning for the State dinner:
https://x.com/kensingtonroyal/status/1968393912696868923?s=61
Complete with diamond and pearl tiara
WRT at-will employees: In many places, I think it depends on the size of the employer.
Kash Patel to Eric‘s Swalwell at the congressional hearing today:
“I’m gonna borrow your terminology and call BULLSH*T on your entire career in CONGRESS! It’s been a disgrace for the American people! You can reclaim your time all you WANT.”
SteveF,
I thought Florida was an at-will state and that’s how I ran my company, but later working for the engineering company in Miami, I found that because we had government contracts we had to conform to their program which meant when we wanted to send someone on their way, we had to give them a warning, then 6 months of training-couseling, then another review, then more coiunseling and if the miscreant still didn’t get it then you could let them go. Basicly a year with someone who should probably been gone that first day.
I was in constant grief with HR because I didn’t do any of this.
BTW I agree with Tom Scharf’s view of what’s possible in private employment, and yes, I’d think twice about keeping anyone who danced on Kirk’s grave.
John Ferguson,
My company has no government contracts. We have had a few chances to sell to Federal Government labs, but these always were abandoned after it became obvious the many hoops we would have to jump through made the sale not even worth while. Private companies, even large ones with bloated bureaucracies trying to sabotage everything, usually find a way to get around the internal bureaucracy if they really need the product. Government entities never do.
I would fire an employee who advocated murder.
Russell,
You can spike the football now.
ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after remarks about Charlie Kirk
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/17/media/jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-trump-fcc-brendan-carr
I would consider this joke tasteless (but it’s Kimmel who cried when Trump got elected), but in bounds. Things are getting pretty bad.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. Wait, am I celebrating? Are you allowed to celebrate the sacking of the celebrator? I’m so confused. I’ll talk to my lawyer.
My guess is there is more to the story. They probably asked him to apologize and he refused or something.
Joke?
I think it was claiming the shooter was right wing MAGA theta was the problem that got him fired. The station was probably waiting for the right time and the mischaracterising of aa sick killer’s motif came at just thee wrong time for Jimmy.
Gutfeld said it all, JImmy did not realise he was the bad guy..
Turns out there are consequences for free speech!
–
On lighter notes will there be an actual poll pump or boost due to the perception that this is a good time to jump ship from the CCP DEspicable DEmocrats to the USS UNcle Donald.
Will JF consider launching his life raft and sending up a rescue flare.
–
Meanwhile in the wings (theme Jaws music) is the next Government shutdown.
What effect will this have on the now overloaded public?
Tom,your post:
“Russell, You can spike the football now.
“ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after remarks about Charlie Kirk”
WOOHOO!
I’m getting tired of winning!
At 2 AM London time President Trump posted this on his ‘Truth’ page:
“ Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED. Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!! President DJT”
Also, …FCC was leaning on them to do something.
https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/
DOM DJT flirting with Princess Kate…
image:
https://x.com/brigantia__/status/1968433520549773733?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
The largest two owners of ABC affiliates was pressuring the company to cancel Kimmel. So ABC was catching it from several quarters.
Sinclair stations will air a Charlie Kirk memorial in Kimmel’s time slot and has offered it to all ABC affiliates in the country.
“Nexstar And Sinclair, Two Largest Station Groups, Wield Influence In ABC Decision To Pull Jimmy Kimmel In Light Of His Charlie Kirk Comments”
https://deadline.com/2025/09/nexstar-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236547382/
“Sinclair Says Jimmy Kimmel Suspension ‘Is Not Enough,’ Demands Apology, Turning Point Donations”
https://www.thewrap.com/abc-partner-sinclair-jimmy-kimmel-suspension-is-not-enough/
MikeM
The list isn’t that long and it does not include “speech” or “political viewpoint”.
It’s true that being a federal contractor will muddy the waters. Federal contractors sort of have the worst of all world.Regulated, but no civil service protections! But most companies aren’t federal contractors.
Russell,
Turned out that a private company didn’t have much trouble getting rid of a private employee. Go. Figure.
Another public employee bites the dust over Kirk comments:
“Director of Health Promotion and Advocacy at Ball State University in Indiana, Suzanne Swierc, has been FIRED after disgusting comments justifying Charlie’s ass*ssination”
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1968441946067644437?s=61
A rather mild post got her fired:
“Let me be clear: if you think Charlie Kirk was a wonderful person, we can’t be friends.
His death is a tragedy, and I can and do feel for his wife and children.
I believe in the Resurrection, and while it’s difficult, I can and do pray for his soul.
Charlie Kirk’s death is a reflection of the violence, fear, and hatred he sowed. It does not excuse his death, AND it’s a sad truth.
The shooting is a tragedy, and I can and do feel for a college campus experiencing an active shooter situation.
The deaths of Melissa and Mark Hortman, the children shot and killed in Minneapolis last month, and the children shot in Colorado today are all tragedies that also deserve your attention.
Charlie Kirk excused the deaths of children in the name of the second amendment.”
https://www.thecollegefix.com/karma-paid-a-visit-two-ball-state-u-employees-under-investigation-for-charlie-kirk-assassination-posts/
Lucia, your post:
“Turned out that a private company didn’t have much trouble getting rid of a private employee. Go. Figure.”
You have some idea that firing government employees is difficult. That has not been my experience in local government in Florida. Perhaps in screwed up state governments like Illinois things are different.
My experience is employees who are covered by unions are very difficult to fire. I worked for 7 years for Procter and Gamble Company in the soap factory in Cincinnati, where the union had a lot of say in employee discipline.
I don’t think you can generalize between public and private employees. There are many more important factors like the particular government agency, the particular state, the size of the private company, and union status. In my experience those are more important factors.
CNN (yes, I know) claims that the FCC (considering a merger request) pressured the affiliate owners.
The claim of pressure seems dubious to me, but I really don’t see why the FCC feels a need to comment at all. As FCC commissioner Anna Gomez (D) said,
I disagree about “no unfounded claims”. His comment suggested that the killer was part of MAGA, which is not only unfounded, but contrary to all evidence. But I agree that crude, tasteless, even despicable aren’t criteria for the FCC.
Here’s a public employee suspension at Florida Atlantic University that warms the cockles of my heart. Took out a liberal bigot and DEI proponent at the same time:
“FAU placed a tenured faculty member on administrative leave pending an investigation after allegedly making comments about the shooting of the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk”
“The tenured faculty member in question is Karen Leader, a faculty associate in the Center for Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies.”
“FAU College Democrats reported that Leader is the faculty advisor for the student organization.”
https://www.upressonline.com/2025/09/fau-investigates-professor-karen-leader-over-comments-on-charlie-kirks-death/
Her Comments from Grok:
September 11, 2025: “No tears for Charlie Kirk. He spent years demonizing Black women and queer folks. America’s gun obsession kills the wrong people sometimes. #CharlieKirk”
September 12, 2025: In response to calls for national unity, Leader wrote: “Spare me the crocodile tears for a man who called DEI hires ‘affirmative action disasters.’ If you’re mourning Kirk, check your privilege. Political violence is bad, but so is platforming hate.”
September 13, 2025: Despite a warning from FAU administration to cease posting on the topic, she escalated: “Kirk’s legacy? A trail of bigotry and lies. Refusing to eulogize a white supremacist enabler isn’t hate—it’s sanity. Wake up, America.”
Grok further analyzes the firing:
Why She Was Fired
FAU’s decision was influenced by:
Violation of University Policy: FAU’s faculty handbook prohibits speech that “incites violence, harassment, or disrupts the educational environment.” Leader was warned after her first two posts but continued, prompting the investigation.
Public Backlash and Safety Concerns: Conservative activists, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ allies, flooded FAU with complaints, citing risks to Jewish and conservative students on campus (FAU has a large Jewish population). The university emphasized maintaining a “safe and inclusive” space.
“A trail of bigotry and lies. Refusing to eulogize a white supremacist enabler isn’t hate—it’s sanity. Wake up, America.”
It’s quite obvious these people fall into one of two categories. 1) they are liars deliberately spreading bigotry and hate. 2) they listen to liars spreading bigotry and hate, and revel in ignorance.
I suspect what got Kinmel fired was his utter dishonesty. Suggesting Kirk’s assassin was a conservative Republican, in spite of clear and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, just means he was lying to his audience to advance his political views.
Of course, Kimmel has been lying to his audience to advance ‘progressive’ policies pretty much continuously since he started. I guess this specific lie was so far beyond the pale that affiliate stations were unwilling to let it go.
The interesting thing here is many people who support DEI found Kirk’s criticism of DEI so abhorrent that they imply (or say outright) that he got what he deserved. Even while 80% of voters oppose DEI. Really, they must live in some kind of bubble.
DaveJR,
Cross posted.
angech,
I suspect there will be a shutdown, because Senate Dems insist they will only vote for a ‘continuing resolution’ which is not a continuing resolution at all.
They want to reverse the work requirement for able-bodied Medicaid recipients (part of the reconciliation bill…. ‘Big Beautiful Bill’….passed a couple of months ago), and extend ‘enhanced’ subsidies for ACA recipients (Obamacare subsidies), which are scheduled to expire. These together amount to about US$1 trillion added Federal expenditures over the next decade.
Of course, if the government ‘shuts down’ few people outside the Federal bureaucracy will actually notice a change. Unlike Obama, Trump will not try to rub voter’s noses in a shutdown. I think this is not a prudent political choice for Dems, but we will see.
Stevef,
I agree that a shutdown would be nuts. The blame will be publically assigned by the most effective communicators, recently not the Democrats.
Federal government employee in the process of being fired for Charlie Kirk comments, from Laura Loomer:
“Gavin Sylvia, a he/him data analyst at @fema, who I exposed this morning for celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, has
officially been placed on administrative leave. A spokesperson from DHS just told me. ”
https://x.com/lauraloomer/status/1966208863125835881?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
back up information from Scott Adams:
https://x.com/scottadamsshow/status/1966192411949793281?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Holy Cats! Even the Washington Post is firing people… a black woman to boot!
“WaPo fired a columnist after Charlie Kirk’s killing. These are the 2 social posts it cited.”
“The Post’s termination letter to her quotes one of her posts that said, “Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is….not the same as violence.” A second post quoted in the letter says, “Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/washington-post-fired-columnist-over-social-posts-charlie-kirk-killing-2025-9
she is of course, claiming racism on the part of the Washington Post.
john ferguson,
I think the other issue is the speed with which Trump will send most Federal Bureaucrats home. All activity with stop at EPA, IRS, and elsewhere. This is probably not what Senate Dems want.
When Dems had the trifecta in Biden’s first two years, they passed the “inflation reduction act” under reconciliation, and pretty much ignored Republicans’ objections; the reverse situation applies now.
Should Dems control the House after 2026, which seems reasonably likely, that is when they can insist on policy compromises, not now. Mr Schumer surely understands this, but may be afraid of a primary challenge by Ocassio-Cortez if he supports a continuing resolution again.
Russell
Yes. I said if there is a union it is difficult. This is because of a contractual obligation between the union and the company. It’s not about the law (other than that contracts are honored.)
Lucia,
I have decided to retire from my retribution crusade against Charlie Kirk detractors. The movement has gained enough momentum to be self-sustaining….. my work is finished here.
You know… I’ve long been annoyed that news stories covering a topic trim stuff. I clicked a few… no Kimmel quote. Well AI is good for something!!
“What did Jimmy Kimmel say about Kirk. I want a quote, in context”.
It gave me more than the quote. But most importantly, I got the actual quote!!!!. (Well… I hope. Who knows? It’s AI.)
Grok is never brief, so there is more. You can see it here. 🙂
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_74e41fbe-2f75-452b-b0fd-99f96c2c3f37
for anyone interested,
lThe President participates in a Press Conference with Prime Minister Keir Starmer”
scheduled for NOW
Lucia, your post:
“I’ve long been annoyed that news stories covering a topic trim stuff. I clicked a few… no Kimmel quote. “
Me too.
Google Gemini AI told me their company policy does not allow them to reprint hate speech. So maybe that’s why many outlets are not publishing the actual quotes.
Kimmel: “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them,”
Grok: “Defenders, including Kimmel’s team, argued it was satirical commentary on MAGA’s deflection tactics, not a literal assertion about Robinson’s politics”
I see no way that Kimmel’s words can be made to be consistent with the spin his defenders are trying to put on them. Can somebody enlighten me?
I have also seen it claimed that Kimmel’s remark was a bad joke. I don’t see how it can possibly be interpreted as a joke. Can somebody enlighten me?
Mike, your post:
“ I don’t see how it can possibly be interpreted as a joke.”
Me too. I see it as a blatant (AND FALSE) political statement, not as some entertaining joke.
Lucia,
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it, but in between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”
There is plenty of context, and there is no way to rationally interpret the above as anything other than claiming the assassin was a MAGA republican. Kimmel is utterly dishonest. Of course he was fired. And of course the usual suspects are complaining loudly about it.
That will only make things worse for them. The general take from supporters of DEI: ‘if you don’t support DEI you are an evil racist and misogynist’ is never going to play well when ~80% of the population opposes DEI.
Are we a nation dedicated to equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome? DEI is all about the latter. Voter are for the former.
Grok is a nice news filter. I’ve extended my discussion to ask questions I want answered, that I could not easily find discussed in news articles, and let me better understand time line of events and possible consequences (like FCC’s actual power.)
I’m finding this sort of useful!! There is no way I’m ever going to find a news article that includes stuff like “what FCC regulations might actually apply?” and Grok’s adding surrounding stuff and recognizing context of my question (i.e. Kimmel’s show) is nice too!
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_580edf00-60ec-4567-9396-5b524380dea3
John,your post:
“ I agree that a shutdown would be nuts. The blame will be publically assigned by the most effective communicators, recently not the Democrats.”
Mike Johnson is slated to appear on Fox News tonight at 6 PM to discuss potential shutdown. It looks like the Republicans are trying to get out in front with the communication.
I despise the FCC. If they pressured the network to axe Kimmel somebody’s head ought to roll for it.
The Kimmel quote that keeps on getting thrown (or at least the one I keep reading) is this:
This isn’t even false. Conservatives are trying to characterize Tyler Robinson as other than one of them, since, well, he is other than one of them. What does score political points mean, use this for political or ideological ends? Well, yeah, obviously some conservatives are. So what?
He wasn’t even actually talking about Kirk or Robinson, he was primarily talking about what a political party he dislikes is doing with events surrounding those two. On the day we can’t publicly criticize political parties we dislike… Well, let’s just say that’ll be a dark day.
mark,
What Kimmel said is a “true lie”. It is designed to spread a lie (Robinson was MAGA) while being technically true if you parse it carefully.
Addition: IF the FCC pressured the network to fire Kimmel, I have a problem with that unless there is something else involved that I don’t know about.
This argues that the FCC would be right to act against Kimmel, IF they did that:
https://thefederalist.com/2025/09/17/jimmy-kimmel-blatantly-broke-fcc-rules-and-brendan-carr-was-right-to-notice/
The argument is based on FCC rules:
I am NOT seeing any “substantial public harm”.
The conservative response to a crime or catastrophe is not in and of itself a crime or catastrophe.
The MAGA Gang (is) desperately trying to characterize…
…doing everything they can to score…fingerpointing…grieving…
There is nothing here within the purview of the FCC.
Now, I’m not going to go listen to Kimmel’s full screed to see if there was anything objectionable in there, because frankly this point isn’t worth subjecting myself to that. Consider my remarks confined to the quote I cited.
If I want to go on the air and claim Bernie Sanders is a closet Christian conservative reactionary, that’d make me a moron but it wouldn’t put me outside of my 1A rights.
Kimmel’s comments were the trigger but this is most likely the underlying cause.
https://latenighter.com/features/analyst-network-late-night-talk-shows-became-unprofitable-in-2023/
Late night bias has been a bit of a liability to networks and that is OK as long as they are making money. It’s a lot harder to deal with this when they are also a burden.
The government is allowed to have an opinion. They can state they don’t like Kimmel’s comments and suggest other people do something about it. This is OK.
What they can’t do is use actual government power to censor speech that doesn’t cross a legal threshold. This is not OK.
The gray area is threatening to do something about it and using intimidation tactics. “That’s a nice business you have there, it’d be a shame if something happened to it”. The comments made by Trump’s team were reckless (surprise, surprise) and can be interpreted as intimidation. I’d prefer this never happen.
Biden did a similar thing with intimidating Twitter / Facebook to take down covid and Hunter Biden stuff. That wound its way through the courts and Biden mostly won the case when it was over.
Tom,
That’s totally acceptable to me [referring to your first comment above] that’s what was really going on of course. You couldn’t pay me to listen to Jimmy Kimmel.
Mark: “This isn’t even false.’
If you are accused of something you didn’t do, you are not “desperately trying to characterize” the event “as any[one] other than” yourself who was responsible. You are merely pointing out the truth.
If Kimmel was an entirely neutral party with no knowledge of events and evidence, that might be considered a fair statement. A direct assessment of one set of evidence without considering context of any other evidence. A position based on ignorance.
However, if you accept that the speaker should be aware of the surrounding context, as Kimmel should be, then the wording has been chosen to deliberately disregard other context (not guilty) to suggest the action of defending yourself against accusation is unreasonable.
DaveJR,
Fine. Let’s say Jimmy Kimmel intentionally told a bald faced lie about conservatives. Flat out false.
So. What.
Being able to say things that other people think aren’t true is what free speech is all about. Especially about politics and political parties.
The day the FCC beccomes the arbiter of truth in our society is the day I become an anarchist.
I was under the impression that somebody at ABC said that Carr threatened them. But that is not correct. Carr was interviewed on something called “The Benny Show” and made comments that some people are interpreting as a threat. I suppose they could be so interpreted, but they could also be interpreted as Carr warning the networks that there is a new sheriff in town and that he will be enforcing the rules.
Carr:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fcc-chair-levels-threat-against-abc-disney-after-kimmel-suggested-charlie-kirk-assassin-maga
There is an important point there: Broadcast stations do not enjoy the same First Amendments rights as cable stations or newspapers.
It sounds to me that the only threat was that the FCC would follow procedures and enforce the rules. So I don’t see what ABC would have to worry about unless they were breaking those rules.
I agree with Tom that the real cause of Kimmel’s suspension is probably that he is losing ABC a lot of money.
Mark Bofill,
I agree that the FCC shouldn’t be involved at all, and the Trump administration’s statements were not wise or productive.
That said, the Biden administration pressured social media companies to censor views they didn’t like, and the SC went along with allowing that pressure, which I think was a terrible mistake.
It is going to be very hard for anyone to claim the Trump administration’s actions WRT to Kimmel are somehow inconsistent with the (ugly) first amendment precedent they established in ruling in favor of the Biden administration pressuring companies to censor protected speech.
mark bofill wrote: “The day the FCC beccomes the arbiter of truth in our society is the day I become an anarchist.”
To the extent that the FCC is an “arbiter of truth” it is only with regard to broadcast media. That day arrived many decades ago.
MikeM,
“I agree with Tom that the real cause of Kimmel’s suspension is probably that he is losing ABC a lot of money.”
Losing money and with the certainty of even more loss of audience and more financial losses. The local stations refusing to air Kimmel probably told ABC they had little choice but to fire his sorry ass and find more attractive programming.
Steve,
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Except its our 1A rights being cooked for dinner. Its not a good idea.
Mark,
My point is that government applying ANY pressure to private entities to restrict 1A rights is a terrible idea, but one the SC allowed. So how do we put that toothpaste back in the tube? I just don’t see any way to do that.
As is frequently the case, Alito was right in his dissent:
“Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today’s decision is highly disturbing.”
I did not realize that Kimmel’s suspension was preceded by affiliates refusing to air the show. That indicates that any pressure was internal, not from the FCC.
Mike M,
Yes, two companies with multiple broadcast stations refused to air Kimmel. ABC could see he had to go.
Steve,
I understand you now, thanks.
Tom
Yep. Court case. Government can pretty much do this.
(That’s not the same as saying it should.)
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-supreme-court-rules-on-government-pressure-websites-to-moderate-content
Mark, your post:
“This isn’t even false. Conservatives are trying to characterize Tyler Robinson as other than one of them, since, well, he isother than one of them.”
Until I read your words, I had interpreted Kimmel’s comments to mean something entirely different. Your interpretation opened my eyes and I think yes these comments could be interpreted as you outline.
When I first read the Kimmel comments, I went and watched the film. Several times. I came away from those reviews, convinced Kimmel was saying the shooter was MAGA. Based on the reaction in the media, I think most people had the same interpretation as I did.
I guess we will never know whether Kimmel meant his comment to mean what you think it meant or what I think it meant.
There is a third possibility….. Kimel intentionally used weasel words so that he could smear MAGA and then back out if necessary. THAT OBVIOUSLY DIDN’T WORK OUT TOO WELL.
MikeM
That’s what Grok says. I”m adding a question about what precisely the FCC guy said.
Grok
I asked for a link
YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=example-benny-carr-kimmel (This is the direct video upload titled “FCC Chair Brendan Carr on Jimmy Kimmel’s Sick Comments & ABC’s Future,” uploaded on September 17, 2025, by Benny Johnson Official. The relevant discussion starts around the 12:45 mark and runs for about 15 minutes.)
Maybe I should ask for a transcript? (Later. I have an appointment with Jim’s ballroom dance tailor. We are buying a dance suit.)
ABC has ~226 broadcast affiliates.
The Sinclair broadcast group owns 40 ABC stations. Nexstar owns 100 ABC broadcast stations. Both refused to air Kimmel after his comments on Kirk’s assassination. The ABC affiliates have contracts with cable carriers, so Kimmel would disappear from lots of cable systems as well.
Nexstar president said: Kimmel’s comments were “offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located.”
Sinclair pulled Kimmel and will air a 1 hour remembrance of Kirk in the Kimmel time slot tomorrow.
Losing 140 of 226 stations would kill ratings (and income). That is why Kimmel had to go. Well deserved, IMHO.
Yes, it does not appear to be joke as Kimmel didn’t pause for laughs here:
https://youtu.be/-j3YdxNSzTk?t=122
Kimmel and his writers must be in some weird corners of the Internet to latch onto the rumor this was a far right shooter and then curiously go with that.
This type of commentary isn’t anything new for Kimmel. The trend of Light Night comedy going from “we and all or politicians are morons” to mean spirited comedy against one side then further to their supporters was a bad plan.
Johnny Carson in 1979:
This week’s episode of “Thank God we have experts”
Why was Kirk killed? Evidence paints complicated picture of alleged assassin
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/18/nx-s1-5544446/charlie-kirk-suspect-shooter-motive
Not recommended, ha ha. Yeah, it’s complicated. 1000 words of what I call an “isolated demand of rigor”. Essentially our experts declare in order to call this leftist political violence it requires an explicit confession of that exact motive directly from the shooter and the experts must all agree that confession is legitimate. Or something. They are entering Joe Biden is OK territory at the moment.
The other narrative that’s going on is skipping directly from “we don’t know the motive” to “it’s not a grand leftist conspiracy”.
It is notable that authorities do not need to establish the motive to convict the shooter. There is more than enough evidence. They may choose to not enter into that toxic debate.
I took 20 minutes to scan how US news media are covering ABC canceling Kimmel’s show.
Many willfully misrepresent what he actually said and don’t provide a complete quote, and some that do provide an accurate quote place it at the bottom of the story, after offering multiple excuses, favorable interpretations, and simple mis-representations about what Kimmel actually said. I looked at about a dozen stories; all were openly supportive of Kimmel and critical of ABC for getting rid of him. All suggested the Trump administration forced ABC to get rid of Kimmel.
The disconnect from reality is astounding. The MSM in the USA seems to be in a death spiral…. of their own making. They simply can’t report the news without bias.
Tom Scharf
It’s pretty clear that Robinson targeted Kirk because of his stand on trans and Robinson had some sort of idea that this was to protect his trans romantic partner is some way or other.
It’s also true that we don’t know Robinson’s view on social security or health care or whether he agrees with Democrats on “everything”.
It’s not a “grand leftist conspiracy”. It’s just Robinson. I’m sure I can find someone somewhere who suspects conspiracy. But I don’t think I’ve heard that accusation. So this sounds like a rebuttal of a non-existent claim. That’s one way to make it sound like “people” are making the claim.
Lucia,
Well, I think it might have been a conspiracy. It’s hard to explain some of these people’s posts prior to the killing otherwise. Maybe there is some [innocent] explanation that is not obvious, and even if there isn’t, maybe the conspiracy was limited to a handful of people. But still.
I googled Nextstar president
“Name: Michael Biard
Title: President and Chief Operating Officer
Company: Nexstar Media Group, Inc.
Appointment Date: August 21, 2023
Reporting To: Perry A. Sook, Chairman and CEO
Previous Role: Served as President of Distribution for Fox Corporation for over 23 years.”
President of distribution for Fox Corp for 23 years? He might have disliked generally disliked Kimmel’s show and been happy to dump it. This was his excuse.
He may have totally meant precisely what he said: “were “offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located.””
“”
Mark,
Wow!
It certainly sounds like some people had at least some foreknowledge of the assassination. But it is not a conspiracy unless those people helped or encouraged the shooter.
I don’t think it takes much to be regarded as aiding and abetting the murder. So anyone who displayed foreknowledge ought to be plenty worried.
There are two parts to the political nature of the assassination. The shooter’s politics and his selected target’s politics. The latter is being conveniently ignored by the motive experts as almost meaningless. He didn’t randomly select Kirk, Kirk was a political symbol to him.
Let’s say it is “only” about anti-trans stances. This doesn’t make it not a political killing. Militant LBGTQ activists are on one side of the aisle.
Maybe you shouldn’t paint the entire left with this, but you do challenge them to disassociate themselves from that part of their constituency. AFAICT almost no politicians are running to the trans community’s defense this week.
Not knowing if Robinson is a “Democrat” with a big D doesn’t mean you can’t observe that the evidence strongly indicates his motivation due to Robinson’s position on trans.
Earlier:
Spencer Cox, Governor of Utah
This is a more civil version of the thing Kimmel was suggesting which appears to have been a total fabrication, but along similar lines.
I think it’s well past time for Democrat leaders to come forward and admit to some culpability in the Charlie Kirk murder. The closest they can muster is the old bullshit both sides nonsense that they’ve been pushing for years.
Until there is a public acknowledgment that they have been dehumanizing Trump and anyone who supports him, no one will listen to them.
There seems to be a lot of people running away from the Democrat party right now, particularly young people and business leaders, two demographics that I think the Democrats would like to keep.
what a coincidence is just out from the Babylon Bee:
“This Is A Both Sides Issue,’ Says Side That Assassinated Charlie Kirk, Shot President Trump, Tried To Assassinate Kavanaugh, Tried To Assassinate Trump Again, Murdered Schoolkids In Minnesota, Shot Steve Scalise, Firebombed Governor Shapiro, murdered schoolchildren in Nashville, burned an elderly Jewish woman to death in Colorado, murdered a couple at the Jewish embassy in D.C., seized campus buildings and held janitors hostage, assaulted students on campus who appeared Jewish, ambushed ICE officers in Dallas and shot an officer in the neck, assassinated FBI officer David Underwood, assassinated the United Healthcare CEO, cheered the murder of over 1,200 civilians on October 7th, murdered schoolkids in Colorado in 2019, injured over 700 police offers in 2020 riots, murdered retired police captain David Dorn, murdered a 16-year-old boy in “CHAZ”, burned down Minneapolis, firebombed a Washington ICE center, murdered six people in Waukesha, assassinated five Dallas officers in 2016, assassinated three police in Baton Rouge in 2016 (you know what, we’re going to stop now, this is getting sad).l
john ferguson wrote: “This is a more civil version of the thing Kimmel was suggesting”.
Yep. Cox telling the truth and Kimmel lying. Otherwise sorta the same. You gotta be kidding.
Mike,
I took John to mean that they were sort of the same in this way:
Kimmel said
And Cox said
So there’s some obvious similarity there, except that Cox was talking about residency (I guess?) rather than political affiliation.
John,
Isn’t the governor of Utah just hoping it isn’t someone from Utah? or even the US? That’s not trying to convince anyone of anything.
Kimmel or his writers will have to explain because it comes from some sort of blue bubble thing I guess.
He is saying “one of them” as in the radicalized left shooter grew up in MAGA country? And that means? Insinuating if he had grew up somewhere else (a place full of love and tolerance) this would have never happened? Therefore look what MAGA made him do?
I’m just not following the thread.
Lucia,
Yes, I also viewed the governor’s hope as geographical (not a Utahan) rather than political (not a Republican).
I suspect Kimmel/writers were following some idiot who claimed (perhaps on X) that the shooter was Republican or at least right-wing.
Other than that, the logic might have been: MAGA favors gun rights. Shooter owns a gun, therefore favors gun rights. Ergo, shooter is MAGA. Rock- solid syllogism, that. /sarc
Lucia,
“Wow!”
I think the impossibly improbable coincidences, suggesting at least some people were aware of the assassin’s plans, before the assassination, have been circulating for some days. It would not surprise me at all if he had disclosed his plans to some ‘fellow travelers’. Proving complicity (not tacit approval of his plans) is a different matter. I will be surprised if others are ever prosecuted.
But I have been wrong a few times before.
What is obvious is that there are people on the left who fully support killing their political opponents, even if they don’t do so themselves. I think this is a far greater danger to the country than the acts of a ‘lone” assassin.
Tom Scharf,
Oddly enough, very few of the MAGA faithful have a ‘transitioning’ homosexual lover. Just sayin’.
Tom Scharf,
As I understand it, the rife was a gift from his grandfather. I wonder if that transfer was documented as required by Federal law.
Mark Bofill wrote: “So there’s some obvious similarity there, except that Cox was talking about residency (I guess?) rather than political affiliation.”
Yeah, I got that. But Cox was talking about a hope regarding something not yet known and admitted that it turned out to be disappointing. Kimmel was lying about something that was already well known. That makes them as similar as the truth and a lie.
SteveF,
Complicity might not be all that hard to prove. All they would need is messages encouraging Robinson to go for it or making suggestions about how he might proceed.
You would have to be a complete idiot to knowingly post messages on a social media service about an upcoming assassination attempt. Maybe they are but there is room to be skeptical.
This is why I’m not buying the roommate’s story. Why send a message about not being able to pick up the rifle and admitting to the crime? After what looked like careful planning you do that? Make a phone call fool! Duh.
Tom,
People do stupid things. That said, I am amazed by this sentence
“If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence”
He actually used future perfect tense in a text message? Not it’s impossible.
I guess we’ll learn more.
Tom,
When I talked to Jim about it, I marveled about leaving a note under the keyboard. Let me tell you, should I ever decide to plan an assassination, I’m not leaving a note under the keyboard!
Mark – thanks for your link at Sept 18, 2025 at 11:11 am.
The US/UK News have been vague about “the roommate” thus far, which I found odd/suspicious, as I understand it he was not at collage but lived in an apartment complex.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/14/us-news/charlie-kirk-assassination-suspect-had-furry-fixation-trans-boyfriend-proclaimed-support-for-bidden/
The Democrats have forgotten the first rule of holes:
“When you’re in a hole, stop digging!”
Today they’re running around blaming Trump for Jimmy Kimmel getting fired. Eric Swalwell said that explicitly:
https://x.com/AmericaPapaBear/status/1968669155189469688
If the Democrats think that running around being disingenuous [loudly] about Trump is their way out of the toilet all I can say is:
“ Dig baby Dig”
I’ll be standing up here pushing the handle and flushing to make sure that they go all the way down the tube.
I guess if they’re making fools of themselves blaming Trump for Kimmel, at least no one is asking them about their culpability in the murder of Charlie Kirk.
I got a message from Tucker Carlson asking for a donation for the Kirk family.
So far he has raised over $5 million dollars.
If you’re interested here’s the link:
https://www.givesendgo.com/inlovingmemoryofcharlie
Lucia,
“He actually used future perfect tense in a text message?”
He got a 34 on his ACT. Future perfect conjugation doesn’t seem that out of range for him.
Kimmel got canned because of what he was going to say on the next show. WSJ:
Purposefully twisted? I don’t know what they mean. Feel free to further explain your words any time.
lucia,
So he wrote ““If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence”.
How would you expect that to be worded to avoid future perfect? It seems pretty normal to me. But I am not much of a texter.
It’d be crappier and more error ridden if I texted, and I wouldn’t have worried about grammar or niceties. Something like – ‘If I get my gun ill get out without leaving clues’ or similar.
The Charlie Kirk Memorial is scheduled for Sunday at 1:00 PM Eastern. It will be held at State Farm Stadium in Phoenix Arizona. The stadium accommodates 63,400 people but a Glendale Police Department spokesperson told ABC News he wouldn’t be surprised to see more than 100,000. Admission is first come, first served, with overflow seating at Desert Diamond Arena. The event is free but registration is requested via Turning Point USA’s memorial website:
https://www.fightforcharlie.com/?hsCtaAttrib=195994339458
Fox News is planning to carry live coverage of the memorial service. I plan to watch via a live stream on TPUSA’s Rumble channel:
https://rumble.com/
Confirmed speakers are:
Erika Kirk, CEO of Turning Point USA, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson, Stephen Miller, Mike Johnson, Karoline Leavitt
Worship leaders: Chris Tomlin, Brandon Lake, Phil Wickham, Kari Jobe, Cody Carnes.
Mike M:
True.
At the same time, I don’t see why the liberal establishment needs to disown the assassin’s action if they (the liberals) never owned it in the first place. We can deplore it and condemn it without suggesting that we share any guilt. We don’t.
You guys may have a better grip on this than I do, but it seemed to me that his problem was extreme reaction to a contrasting view on the trans situation in this country. And a criminal immoral extreme reaction at that.
And:
The Department of Homeland Security has designated the upcoming funeral and memorial service for conservative activist Charlie Kirk as a Special Event Assessment Rating (SEAR) Level 1 event, a DHS official told ABC News.
The funeral will have the same level of security as the Super Bowl or the Boston Marathon.
John,
I still haven’t gotten this sorted out in my mind to my own satisfaction.
Calling Trump ‘Hitler’ and ‘fascist’ every step of the way has been damaging. Still, I believe in personal responsibility and I don’t really buy the idea that stupid, counterproductive bullshit like the sort Dems have been spouting relieves anyone of their own personal responsibility for their own personal actions.
It’d be magical if just once either party would admit having made a mistake, but the Republican party hasn’t ever done this either as far as I can recall.
So. Shrug.
I think I’d say something like Mark did. Or “I’m trying to get my gun and not leave any clues.” I’m sure I’d use informal language.
That said, I’ve met a few people who like to sound like grammar lessons.
Tom Scharf
SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 AT 5:29 PM
“You would have to be a complete idiot to knowingly post messages on a social media service about an upcoming assassination attempt. Maybe they are but there is room to be skeptical.”
–
My take is that the they both knew about the assassination attempt and this series of very clear messages was deliberately manufactured between the two to pretend that it was a spur of the moment decision that the other one did not know about.
Everything from the immediate contrived “I left a note under the key board” To the multiple repeated claims that his partner did not know and was not aware confirmed by repeated clear questions was to my mind an elaborate deception.
–
I hope this comes out with the further e mail trails prior to this event
Turning point USA has high school and college kids flocking to the organization:
The organization has “received over 32,000 inquiries in the last 48-hours to start new campus chapters,” Turning Point spokesperson Andrew Kolvet, who is also executive producer of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” said in a post on X on Sunday.
“To put that in perspective, TPUSA currently has 900 official college chapters and around 1,200 high school chapters, with a presence of 3,500 total.”
https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-turning-point-flooded-requests-new-chapters-2129851
High school kid are a highlight turning to Turning Point USA…….
Fox News;
“Charlie’s vision to have a Club America chapter in every high school in America will come true much, much faster than he could have ever possibly imagined,” Kolvet wrote on X on Sunday, calling the response to expand Kirk’s mission “truly incredible.”
I bet this Sunday memorial will be a silent marketing bonanza for MAGA and TPUSA. Organizations will not have to do any marketing. It will happen organically. I expect they will have their voter registration booths working
Keep digging that hole, Democrats.
John Ferguson,
Anyone seriously calling Kirk a Nazi (and there were many) do at least in part ‘own’ the assassin’s actions.
Anyone seriously calling Trump a Nazi (and there seem to be millions) do ‘own’ encouraging assassination attempts against Trump.
Kirk was no Nazi, and neither is Trump.
SteveF
Is there any evidence that the assassin thought kirk was a Nazi or for that matter had any problem with Nazis?
While I’m here I’d like to recant (and apologize for) my suggestgion that Kirk was a bigot. I’ve since read a couple of fact checks and found that there i sno record that they were able to find that he’d said the things I thought he’d said.
Not holding MLK in high regard is insufficient although I disagree with Kirk’s reasoning asumikng even that has been correctlyh reported.
John Ferguson,
I thought the “anti-fascist” inscriptions on the bullet casings were clear evidence, like: “Hey fascist! Catch!”, but maybe that is just me.
The greater issue is people on the left routinely comparing Trump to Hitler (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/trump-authoritarian-rhetoric-hitler-mussolini/680296/) or outright calling Trump equal to Hitler (House Rep Jasmin Crockett), make attempts on Trump’s life far more likely. Add to that the constant “Trump is an existential threat to democracy”. Why would someone who is on the edge of deranged not consider assassination if they take all that commentary seriously? These people are not a tiny fringe, there are millions who say things like that.
As bad as I thought the policies of Joe Biden (and Obama), I would never call him equal to Stalin or Mao. I did call him demented, but only because he was obviously suffering from dementia.
John, your post:
“ While I’m here I’d like to recant (and apologize for) my suggestgion that Kirk was a bigot. I’ve since read a couple of fact checks and found that there i sno record that they were able to find that he’d said the things I thought he’d said.”
Good for you John. Many, many, many more democrats need to take the same journey you have.
I’m sure we all remember the suggestion that a Republican adv ertisement prepared by the Sarah Palin campaign showing what looked like a gunsight focussed on Gabby Gifford’s assumed location in Arizona was in some way causal for the subsequent assassination attempt on her.
Most of us thought this nonsense although I did think it was better not to use this sort of material in ads because the context wasn’t constructive.
I’ve also learned that Kirk was a serious advocate of freedom of speech maybe in reaction to the “cancel culture” and suppression of conservative voices at most of the campuses in the US.
But here we are, with our conservative leadership throttling free speech wherever it pinches.
Maybe we can come together in the understanding that we hav e a serious problem with hypocrisy in this country. But then hypocrisy is such a human condition that we probably just need to accept it when it’s running rampant, especially these last few days with His Worship.
I too thought Palin shouldn’t have used the targets the way she did.
Hah, SteveF,
I, too, thought Biden demented. One of the more astounding revelations in Kamala’s book is that she thought it up to Joe and Jill to decide who the 2024 Democratic candidate would be,
It is my accusation that the reason Democrats were so vociferously spreading smears about Charlie Kirk was that TPUSA was so effective at flipping young voters from Democrat to Republican.
Here’s what Grok had to say:
“Key Details from TPUSA/TPAction’s 2024 Efforts
– Campus and Event Registrations: At a September 2024 “Greeks for Trump” event at Arizona State University (ASU), TPUSA registered hundreds of new Gen Z voters, with thousands attending. Similar drives at other campuses, like Oklahoma State University, engaged hundreds more, though exact registration numbers weren’t specified.
– Overall Youth Impact: TPUSA operated on ~3,500 high school and college campuses, helping “thousands of college students apply for voter registration and access absentee ballots.” Their “You’re Being Brainwashed” tour across 25 campuses generated 2 billion social media views, boosting Gen Z turnout—Trump won 18- to 24-year-olds by a larger margin than any GOP candidate since 2008.
– Ballot Chasing (Not Registration): TPAction’s “Chase the Vote” and “Commit 100” programs targeted turnout, contacting 352,486 unique low-propensity voters (with 67,000+ receiving 3+ in-person visits). This coordinated with the Trump campaign in swing states like Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, contributing to Trump’s youth vote surge.
TPUSA’s work is credited with helping flip young voters rightward, aiding Trump’s wins in key states,”
Russell,
If Kirk had been ineffective, I agree that he would have been ignored.
One thing about TPUSA effectiveness…
They have a $97 million a year budget, but most of their canvassing and voter registration is done by volunteers. They recruit on the campuses where they have chapters it’s genius..
TPUSA is extremely well funded and multiplies their money with volunteers…. again Grok:
“ Yes, Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and its affiliated Turning Point Action (TPAction) rely primarily on volunteers for their canvassing efforts, including door-knocking, phone banking, and voter outreach in programs like “Chase the Vote” and “Commit 100.” This volunteer-driven model aligns with their youth mobilization focus, emphasizing grassroots activism among college students, high schoolers, and young conservatives. Paid staff play supporting roles in coordination, training, and logistics, but the bulk of fieldwork is volunteer-led.”
to Democrats Charlie Kirk was a very dangerous man.
Trump and his administration should avoid actions which infringe on freedom of speech.
That said, there is a case to be made that allocation of broadcast spectrum (a public property if one exists) via broadcast licenses can be conditional on accurate, factual reporting, without blatant bias. A shoe on the other foot hypothetical: Suppose someone with enormous personal wealth (maybe Musk) decided to purchase nearly every broadcast station, and proceeded to prohibit all reporting and all opinion commentary favorable to progressive policies or politicians who support those policies, and insist on broadcast of blatantly positive reporting and opinions of conservative policies and politicians. Would that be a prudent use of publicly owned broadcast spectrum? I think a strong argument can be advanced that it would be against the public’s interest.
I say that, in part, because I believe that today, and over the last 30+ years, broadcasters are and have always been, overwhelmingly supportive of progressive policies and of politicians who support those policies, often to the point of willful distortion or withholding of information that is unfavorable to the policies those broadcasters obviously support, and similarly negative in their reporting of conservative policies and politicians.
The poster child for egregious partisanship in broadcasting is, of course, Public Broadcasting, with a double dip of both using public spectrum and receiving public funding.
IMHO, blatant partisanship by private entities, using publicly owned broadcast spectrum, is most certainly not in the public interest. Publicly funded partisan broadcasting is even worse.
‘You have no idea the fire you have ignited.’ – Erika Kirk, CEO and Chairman of TPUSA.
White House video featuring Erica Kirk:
https://x.com/whitehouse/status/1968842140890333590?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
VITA, Erica Kirk, Grok:
Professional Career
– Entertainment and Modeling (Early 2000s–2010s): Worked in New York City and China as a model, actress, and casting director. Competed in beauty pageants, winning Miss Arizona USA in 2012.
– Entrepreneurship and Ministry:
– Founded Everyday Heroes Like You (nonprofit): Supports under-recognized charities and community service initiatives.
– Launched BIBLEin365: A ministry project encouraging daily engagement with scripture.
– Created PROCLAIM: A faith-based clothing brand promoting Christian values.
– Hosts Midweek Rise Up podcast: A weekly devotional series offering faith-based encouragement, alongside “Monday Meditations.”
– Philanthropy and Activism: Described as a “social entrepreneur and multidimensional philanthropist,” with global experiences shaping her commitment to purpose-driven work. She has been involved in conservative youth outreach through her marriage to Charlie Kirk, co-founder of TPUSA.
john ferguson wrote: “We can deplore it and condemn it without suggesting that we share any guilt. We don’t. ”
Liberals do not share any guilt for the Kirk shooting. None. Zero.
People who repeatedly call their opponents Nazis who are out to end elections are guilty of creating an environment that made that crime more likely. That does not make Robinson less guilty since his actions were his responsibility, no matter the environment.
The many people who justify the killing are guilty of helping to create an environment that will make the next killing even more likely.
SteveF wrote: “there is a case to be made that allocation of broadcast spectrum (a public property if one exists) via broadcast licenses can be conditional on accurate, factual reporting, without blatant bias”.
That amounts to saying that there is a case to be made that the law should be followed. The broadcast spectrum IS public property. Broadcast licenses ARE conditional on certain behavior.
MikeM,
Yes, that has always been the law.
But like immigration laws, the law making broadcast licenses conditional on ‘certain behaviors’ has not been enforced, at all, with regard to accurate factual reporting…. for decades. When screams of ‘censorship!’ start the moment the Trump administration says they will enforce the law, I think the rational for that law being enforced needs to be restated.
Guys,
If you add an image link, I can now make it display in your post. (I can’t seem to organize this so “trusted users” can add it themselves. Otherwise, I would.)
Even if you banned Hitler like the N-word there will always be a boundary of acceptable discourse. All the attention seeking activists and political performers will go to that boundary and cross it in order to get the attention they seek.
It’s already happening, Hitler has gone out of vogue mostly because it was so overused and many people, including myself, just stop reading articles where it is invoked. So they have changed to “fascist” and make not too subtle allusions to “Germany in the 1930’s”. Now I stop reading immediately when that is invoked. It is so boring. You know who is Hitler? Hitler.
I grant that young people may have a temporary period where they take these claims seriously before they realize Romney was also Hitler.
Pardon my French, but the attention seeking wh*** crowd is predictable and they aren’t going away until people stop responding to them.
SteveF,
Things are complicated by what the law actually is, how it has been traditionally enforced, against what sorts of things (news vs. comedy) and how comedy shows have evolved over time.
It’s not clear the FCC could have done anything formally against ABC. On the other hand, decisions about allowing affiliates to grow were underway. And the FCC gets to make those decisions. It can use it’s judgement about things– especially issued of “dominance” which at least potentially affects whether individual shows like Kimmel’s might face the need to market a whole bunch of different affiliates who, if acting independently, might not all air the show. Affiliates can chose what to air. Period.
The affiliates were facing a problem because they were trying to get the FCC to change it’s historical ban against allowing an affiliate to grab a larger share of the market. Of course they don’t want the FCC to stick to it’s previous rules. But I think affiliates would have had a hard time proving that the FCC sticking to the old rules was in retaliation for them carrying Disney/ABC’s show.
I’m sure Kimmel is going to discuss what he can do legally with his lawyer. It will be interesting to see if he sues anyone, when, who specifically and what the case claims about his rights and who violated them. (Disney and the affiliates aren’t government entities. The
We all know that Kimmel does have enough money to continue to feed and house himself, while also hiring attorneys. And we also know he could start some sort of podcast. Shows on cable are also beyond FCC reach. In principle, if he’s really, truly uniquely popular, he should be able to get something on a cable show (that’s where the more politically oriented comedy night shows started.). That said– I don’t know who that might align with any contract with Disney who might need to release him. Still, I imagine we will continue to see Kimmel himself airing his views and comedy.
What or who he could successfully sue for? Dunno. It will be interesting to see.
Thumbs up to John for his editor’s note retraction.
Speaking of retractions the NYT recent had to make a Kirk retraction:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/us/charlie-kirk-views-guns-gender-climate.html
Incredible the fact checkers didn’t catch that.
When people lead with labels “Person A is a X,Y, and Z” and therefore should be summarily dismissed then my BS detector goes off. Sometimes it is true but I remain skeptical until I can look into it, which may be never. Mostly I’m not very interested in people’s blanket assessments of character for their opponents.
In my view institutional bias has been self correcting in the long term and there is no need to squash it with the blunt force of government power. The examples of the legacy media and academia show that as their bias is exposed their credibility eventually plummets.
If they don’t correct toward unbiased then they lose credibility. That is where we are now.
It would be a better world if people respected the media and academia but we cannot allow the government to force this in their imagined optimum way. I don’t blame the activists for trying to instill bias in these institutions, it is the institution’s fault for allowing it to happen.
Amendment I
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I just had an argument with Grok about what those words actually mean:
https://x.com/i/grok/share/FWgCvNGaFcqDBiRpl3PJM4bme
I’m completely against the FCC’s idiotic bullying for personal ideology reasons but I would also argue that it is bad tactics for the apparent goal.
This has distracted from Kirk and made Kimmel a martyr for some on the left. It appears Kimmel was getting yanked anyway regardless of the FCC’s loose talk.
It’s nice to see the smear machine against Kirk get some public push back, if only as a retraction from them reposting the same garbage that’s been all over social media.
If the media wanted to actually do some good, they could dig up every out of context quote used to incite murderous hatred against him, put it back into context, and write an article on the dangers of believing anything you hear on the internet without checking primary sources. They won’t, because they should know better and they still do it.
The woke apocalypse is imploding at an accelerating rate.
Texas passed a law that there are two genders and it must be taught that way. The curriculums at universities were changed to reflect this.
A professor at Texas A&M was stealthily teaching it anyway (in a children’s literature class no less). A student recorded the class discussion on it.
The teacher was immediately fired, the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and head of the English department, were removed from their administrative positions, and the president of the university has resigned.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/texas-a-m-president-mark-welsh-literature-class-gender-bc7cee1e?st=DgJFPd&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I had to google: Is Texas A&M public or private. Public.
I bet there will be a lawsuit to test how far the legislature can go in dictating curriculum at a public university. I imagine the answer is “pretty far”, but I don’t actually know.
On this
Can you point to the law? This would be pretty material. The WSJ article says the student was discussing Trump’s remarks. Trump isn’t a Texas law.
It also says this
But that’s different from decreeing there are only two genders and that the Texas legislature pass a law saying that’s what must be taught.
If the TX legislature did not pass such a law, I take back my prediction on the particular lawsuit I predicted.
I’m not sure about all the legal specifics.
“Under current Texas law, particularly House Bill 229, an individual’s sex is officially defined as either male or female based on biological reproductive organs at birth. The law, which took effect on September 1, 2025, requires all state records and documents to reflect this binary classification.”
“Texas has laws and recently passed legislation (Senate Bill 12, signed in 2023 and effective in 2025) that prohibit instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation in public schools.”
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/11/texas-bills-restrictions-lgbtq-transgender/
I don’t know if “public schools” include universities. The student in question asserted Trump’s executive order. I didn’t see anywhere they specifically said which law was being broken.
Cardinal Dolan (Catholic) on Charlie Kirk (not a Catholic):
“When I heard the tragic news, I said, ‘I wonder who he was.”
“And I thought, I gotta learn about this guy. And the more I learned about him, I thought, this guy’s a modern day Saint Paul. He was a missionary, he’s an evangelist, he’s a hero.”
https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1969058413062578220?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
BREAKING: Court filings reveal the man who attempted to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh now identifies as a transgender woman.
When I read about professors at state schools defying state legislatures, the question in my mind is always the same: “What part of ‘You are not allowed to do this’ do they not understand?” The state owns the school, and pays the professor’s salaries. Telling the boss to ‘Screw off!’ always gets you fired….professor or anybody else. If they object to the rules for continued employment at a state school, they should resign and find another job.
The good news: professors at other Texas public schools will probably be a little more careful about what they teach.
NBC:
This is probably a case of scrubbing the course catalog of DEI content and then teaching it anyway. It blew up in their face.
Texas A&M University is known for their high percentage of students who are cadets. For years, they have produced the most number of ROTC graduates in the nation, supplying US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines with officers. The band also are cadets. On game day the Corps of Cadets march in formation behind the band to the stadium. It’s quite a spectacle. The Corps of Cadets come in all colors, sexes, and sizes.
https://youtu.be/60AqadBCl1U?si=m9pqfIkXTJqRzEg6
At first, it was just a trickle that I noted on social media. People who were claiming to be Democrats were switching to Republican. Then it became common place, so I asked Grok. He said a nationwide phenomenon and it’s got a name:
“The “Charlie Kirk Effect”: Democrats Switching to the GOP
The most notable fallout has been a surge in Democrats publicly disavowing their party and switching to Republican registration, dubbed the “Charlie Kirk effect” by commentators. Voter registration data shows unprecedented switches in battleground and red-leaning states:
– **Florida**: Over 15,000 Democrat-to-Republican switches in the week after September 10, per state election officials—more than double the monthly average.
– **New Mexico**: A 300% spike in party changes, with Albuquerque offices reporting lines out the door.
– **Other states**: Similar upticks in Arizona (Kirk’s home state) and Pennsylvania, totaling an estimated 50,000+ nationwide switches by September 18.
This wave is described as historic, exceeding post-2020 election shifts, and is attributed to disillusioned moderates citing the left’s “righteousness justifying anything,” including violence.
| New Mexico | 4,500 | +300% | Voter frustration with “celebratory” left rhetoric |
| Arizona | 8,100 | +180% | Kirk’s local ties; calls for “lowering the temperature” |
| Pennsylvania | 12,300 | +150% | Broader fears of political violence post-Hortman killing |
| National Est. | 50,000+ | N/A | “Kirk effect” as tipping point for moderates |
**Long-Term Effects**: Analysts predict this could erode Democratic turnout in 2026 midterms, with independents (46% believing political motive per poll) leaning GOP.
Kirk’s death, intended to silence a voice, has instead amplified conservative messaging and fractured the left’s coalition, turning a tragedy into a catalyst for realignment.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/de0rHxn14rkVsE6y1vSHoe8Dm
I read a newsletter published by josh barro
In a very recent issue he suggests that the idea Kimmel self-immolated with originated with a Heather Cox Richardson who writes a newsletter for liberals who cannot figure out anything for themselves.
She is the one who concocted the idea that MAGA folks were convulsed with the idea that the assassin was one of them demented by the idea that Kirk was insufficiently dedicated to MAGA objectives. (note this is my interpretation of what Barro reports)
Barro often writes advice to the Dems addressed to how they are screwing up.
https://www.joshbarro.com/p/your-dislike-of-charlie-kirk-is-not
I think that essay is what I have seen from most mainstream leftists. The crazy responses come mostly from the most dedicated to wokeness who are in the midst of a year long anxiety crisis.
There is a white nationalist group called the Groypers that I never heard of that was rumored to be behind the killing early. AFAICT there was zero real evidence to support this.
Kimmel maybe believed something crazy and went with it.
Tom Scharf,
“Kimmel maybe believed something crazy and went with it.”
Nah. He is just a bald faced liar. And a jerk who has nothing remotely intelligent to say about anything. Forget funny.
I hope he tries something like his own podcast program…. where he will be mostly ignored.
Kimmel has been strangely silent. Maybe ABC pointed out some contract clauses to him or his friends convinced him a timeout was a good idea.
I know everyone likes to dump on Disney lately but they did the right thing here for their own good. If Kimmel would have gone on TV and burned the place down with partisan politics then it would have been a PR nightmare for them.
All of corporate America is relearning the lesson to stay out of politics unless it affects their core business.
lucia,
“I imagine the answer is “pretty far”, but I don’t actually know.”
With the current composition of the Supreme Court, state legislatures can likely do whatever they want to control curriculum at the schools they fund.
Tom Scharf,
“All of corporate America is relearning the lesson to stay out of politics unless it affects their core business.”
I sure hope so, but I suspect many companies will be unwilling to protect the interests of shareholders. They have too many managers (including many CEOs) who are dedicated to “woke” policies, and so won’t voluntarily stay out of politics. I think that ultimately shareholders will have force management changes to change the corporate culture.
My guess is that no-one here is involved with H1-B’s. But….
Trump’s new $100k/year vigorish on their import seems like something that his tech-boys might be a bit dismayed over.
I like the new H1-B tariff. If a company really needs the guy, it is not too much to pay. But it should discourage companies from dumping their American employees for cheaper foreign indentured servants.
MikeM,
For sure that is the objective. In the field where this seems most common, software development, I’m not sure how effective it will be, since a lot of programming can take place most anywhere….. no need to bring people to the USA. In jobs were physical presence is required, the tax will for sure end most of the substitution of H-1B employees for domestic employees.
I expect there will be court challenges, because abuse of the H-1B program has been hugely profitable for companies that need talented STEM employees.
The premise of H-1B is that these guys are for the most part US graduates with advanced (master’s) degrees and are actually better paid than their professional cohort (I can’t believe this). I did see that Architecture was one of the professions listed as using H-1B’s which makes me doubt the validity of the claim that they provide skills otherwise unavailable.
71% of present holders are Indians. I suspect there woujld be more Chinese but it could be that Chinese top technical graduates think they can have a better career in China.
Anyone here have or have had direct contact witjh H-1B ?
I wonder if the pay for Americans who were competing with the H1B people will increase
john ferguson,
I probably have, since I have had many contacts with Indian tech workers…. but they don’t announce their immigration status.
A big difference between Indian and Chinese tech workers: language. Even though Indians may have strong spoken accents that take some getting used to, their written English is always perfect. Chinese: not so much. Their English is often almost impossible to understand, written or spoken.
We can thank the Brits I guess.
Hi Russell,
I would bet that pay for the non H-1B’s will improve assuming that there actually was competition for the jobs they held. And as SteveF suggested they can always telecommute from Bangalore.
in 1993, Motorola bought floating Pro/Engineer (high-end cad) licenses and to Parametric Techjnology’s dismay put them in an international server and ran them 24 hours a day in US, Taiwan and India.
Sverdrup and Parcel, St Louis based Civil Engineering company where I worked in 2000 before they were bought by Jacobs Engineering tried doing bridge design with teams in US and India. It didn’t work at all well mostly through poor coordination. Maybe software development is less susceptable to these sorts of problems.
Hi Russell,
I would bet that pay for the non H-1B’s will improve assuming that there actually was competition for the jobs they held. And as SteveF suggested they can always telecommute from Bangalore.
in 1993, Motorola bought floating Pro/Engineer (high-end cad) licenses and to Parametric Techjnology’s dismay put them in an international server and ran them 24 hours a day in US, Taiwan and India.
Sverdrup and Parcel, St Louis based Civil Engineering company where I worked in 2000 before they were bought by Jacobs Engineering tried doing bridge design with teams in US and India. It didn’t work at all well mostly through poor coordination. Maybe software development is less susceptable to these sorts of problems.
The real reason late night ‘comedy’ is dying, and Jimmy Kimmel is gone: https://x.com/ByronYork/status/1968492170584748352
The 18-49 demographic (the most coveted) has essentially stopped watching these shows, and oddly enough, most of the drop in audience has taken place since Trump entered politics. Could be coincidence, or could be these shows have become ever more politically oriented and ever less funny.
SteveF,
We used to watch Johnny Carson every night. Now we don’t watch his successors. Maybe it’s a generation gap issue, but I don’t thknk they are funny. My memory is Carson did not do political jokes.
He did do pretty good resurrections of old Fre Allen Shticks, though. Karnak the Magnificent for example.
Besides, Trump is much better at doing Trump than any of the satyrists I’ve seen.
(I’m going to adjust so I can embed peoples x.com links. It contains “script”.)
I’ve been asking Grok tons of questions as they occur to me. One was about the time line of “late night” television transitioning to very political. I’d like to do the text, but it’s not html-i-fied.
I should add, and probably not typical, but I didn’t like Jay Leno either.
John Ferguson,
“My memory is Carson did not do political jokes.”
Your memory is accurate, he didn’t.
I remember liking Steve Allen
Tom,
Do you have any recommendations to watch for the noon games today?
I’m thinking of SMU atTCU and North Texas at Army.
I thought this was a good article on how H1-B was supposed to work and actually works:
https://tippinsights.com/bridge-over-troubled-water-why-the-h-1b-visa-program-needs-reform-2/
“The employers are not always American: Four of the Top 10 sponsors of H-1B visas are technology service companies headquartered in India: Infosys, TCS, HCL, and Wipro. The fifth is Cognizant, a company founded by Wipro and established in America to give the appearance that it is an American company—the majority of Cognizant’s workforce is in India.”
American tech workers have often found themselves required to train their H1-B replacements.
Texas Tech vs Utah, but that is only because WV is from Big 12.
NC vs UCF for my local interest. WV plays at UCF next month.
There’s always watching Clemson and hoping they lose, ha ha.
All in all not a big week.
My speculation is Big Tech has been saying they really need H1-B’s and that it isn’t really just their form of indentured / imported low cost labor so that bluff is being called.
Alternately it’s just another wild Trump impulse.
Either way it will be interesting to see what happens.
For the record, this is the type of (permanent) immigration I support, not people who present themselves at the southern border with a 3rd grade education.
Tom,
“ All in all not a big week”
yes, that’s why I was asking for help.
Some of the loss from late night TV ad revenue is made up with YouTube viewing which is what many people do now, but late night is still dying. The partisan shift wasn’t helpful.
Fox New’s Gutfeld is reportedly doing better than all of them but doesn’t count because he is on cable. They are all uninteresting IMO.
Miami vs UF will be the highlight even though UF is 1-2. Their season will be over if they lose this game and the coach might get fired if he loses handily. I expect UF to bounce back here.
Tom,
Doesn’t count because he’s on cable? Maybe it’s better than that.
What are his numbers like, say compared to the MSNBC Comedians?
John,
It depends on what the subject is.
The FCC has broad regulatory authority over content on the airwaves (a limited public resource), not much for cable. This FCC authority is an anachronism in today’s reality and should be eliminated.
Ratings of late night, cable included:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlOQUL0W0AAiVVe?format=jpg
I never watched any late night tv. Not Carson, not Allen, not anyone. I never found it remotely entertaining.
Tom, this article agrees that the FCC supervision of broadcast media should be abolished. Broadcast media is not the dominant force in information dissemination any more. Let the FCC manage spectrum and nothing more.
Tom
Or, and this is maybe radical, people who want full freedom of speech should stick to cable, streaming and podcasts.
The problem with saying the FCC shouldn’t have authority over broadcast bands is that if there is noregulation, all the television and radio shows can use any band they want. Then there is no ABC, CBS, various radio programs etc. Apart form “freedom of speech”, we regulate broadcast bands because it’s not really an infinite resource.
Honestly, we don’t need broadcast television any more. So it might not be all that bad if we just got rid of it and opened those bands up to something else. But the companies that own licenses those broadcast bands wouldn’t be happy. It’s remains a competitive advantage over streaming and cable.
Tom,
I’ll look in on the Gators, but I don’t have a lot of faith.
It’s amazing how they went down the tubes after urban Meyer left. I don’t think they’ve had a good team since then.
The only thing I watch on broadcast TV is live sports.
HaroldW,
“Let the FCC manage spectrum and nothing more.”
What exactly does ‘managing spectrum’ mean?Auctioning spectrum to the highest bidder? Something else? (not rhetorical questions)
I see no reason for incumbents to hold valuable spectrum if they have no obligations to serve the public interest, in which case, auctioning off spectrum to the highest bidder provides the public with the greatest benefit. I am sure cell phone carriers (and others) would like to have that spectrum.
By “managing spectrum”, I mean assigning spectrum (auctioning if it’s going to commercial interests) and reclaiming unused (or insufficiently used) bands. They seem to have been reasonable in those regards in the past.
I believe the FCC is also responsible for assigning over-the-air frequencies to radio and TV stations such that stations don’t overlap geographically. Probably technical details such as spectral masks around those frequencies as well. That seems necessary as well. Policing content, not so much.
Steve,
I figured police spectrum infringements; unauthorized use of frequencies, etc.
I don’t disagree with you about auctioning off channels of the spectrum. I think that the market could find a better use for that bandwidth than what is currently being done with it.
[Edit, nevermind my first part, Harold clarified what he meant.]
H1-B restrictions (or penalties), fine, but the thing is, it’s been my experience that there’s usually not enough good software engineers to tackle all of the work there is to be done in life, rather than not enough work to go around for good software engineers. But whatever.
I agree with SteveF that if the government is going to reserve valuable EM real estate for certain uses. then it should ensure those uses serve the public interest to at least some minimal degree.
That said, maybe the government should put that bandwidth up for auction and be done with it. But that might negate billions of dollars worth of investment by the broadcasters. So it won’t be so simple.
mark,
If an employer really needs an H1-B visa because of a talent shortage, then let them pay for it. Maybe it is not the optimal solution, but it is a lot better than either the way it is now or getting rid of H1-B altogether.
The lowest level is the Chinese and Russians don’t get to use our spectrum no matter how much money they have.
We also don’t allow Joe Shmo to do pirate broadcasting over top of other radio and TV stations.
There are still about 5 people who use over the air antennas. Curiously if you can get HD content over the air it is some of the best quality video you can get. The other methods tend to get over aggressive with video compression.
This is definitely a Florida story….
An entertainment shopping area at Disney World is called Disney Springs. It’s got a huge paddle boat restaurant floating on a water body they call the lagoon.
Last night, a diver in a wetsuit came out of the lagoon and robbed the restaurant and returned back to the lagoon. They’re calling him the creature from the lagoon.
video:
https://youtu.be/AwgpXMJpfAs?si=byCo8trnCtLnEKba
Why preseason polls don’t matter.
Preseason poll: Clemson #4
Now: Clemson 1-3.
Jimmy Kimmel is taking the cancellation of his show surprisingly well:
I’d say he got that right.
Oh wait. That quote was from 2018 and was about ABC cancelling Roseanne Barr’s show.
MikeM,
But I don’t think the head of the FCC said anything in the case of Barr being cancelled.
Like it or not, there is a difference.
I’m waiting to see what lawsuits get filed against whom and how they do.
Mike M,
LOL
That shows exactly how dumb Kimmel is. The guy is hopelessly dishonest, and hopelessly lacking in self awareness == > suggesting he is numbingly, impossibly stupid.
The great thing about Kimmel being tossed: he is gone, and broadcast TV is better for it.
Lucia,
“I’m waiting to see what lawsuits get filed against whom and how they do.”
There will almost certainly be a lawsuit.
Kimmel will almost certainly lose, if not initially, then on appeal.
I don’t think any lawsuits will go anywhere. The evidence will likely show that Disney took action independently. I think Disney wants out of politics.
It was an incredibly dumb move by Carr.
The same thing applies as with the Biden lawsuit. Even if the lawsuit is successful it ends in the government being disallowed from doing that and no real sanctions.
I don’t see how anybody has standing to sue anybody. I very much doubt that Kimmel has a contract that says ABC has to put him on the air. He likely does have a contract that says they have to pay him and they will no doubt honor that contract.
Nobody can sue the government or Carr since neither actually did anything. Carr expressed an opinion; he has the right to do that. He said the FCC would enforce the law, as they should. If ABC thought they were in the right, they could have fought it out in whatever procedures the FCC uses. If they lost and were assessed a penalty, they could probably appeal that; but they abandoned that path. So they have no legal path open.
Tom,
I think the courts could decide Kimmel has standing to sue the FCC.
The theory underlying Kimmel’s lawsuit will be discrete instance is going to be the cancelling of his show owing to Carr’s threats.
The FCC will certainly argue the show was cancelled for other reasons, but I think the hurdle of “standing” will be reached and the argument will be made in court. We’ll see discovery.
This was difficult for the plaintiffs in Murthy, but I don’t think it’s going to be as much of a hurdle for Kimmel
We’ve tog “before -after” stuff with Kimmel. Disney and the affiliates did not have some long standing policy to cancel Kimmel if his jokes were inaccurate or imbalanced.
The issue of Disney or the affiliates own judgement? They aren’t talking much now. But if the suit is filed (and I think it will be), I think it will get to court. We’ll see more about what discussions Disney or the affiliates had. But right now, we don’t know.
One affiliate is headed by someone who seems to lean more GOP than Dem. So maybe what we’ll learn is he was sick of the falling ratings, didn’t much like Kimmel anyway yada, yada. He didn’t want to deal with the fall out defending Kimmel. Or maybe we’ll learn he yanked purely because he didn’t want to FCC to block his proposed merger to become an even huger affiliate. We don’t know. He’s not talking.
It’s turning into a bit of comedy.
I’m not particularly surprised that so many of these comments are coming out of academia. I would have been shocked 20 years ago but not now.
The government has broad immunity in most lawsuits so I doubt there will be any recovery in this case. The typical result of a successful lawsuit is “the government cannot prevent Kimmel from speaking in that manner and they must stop”.
I have little doubt they would win on the merits against the Carr plan if they went ahead but the government can’t be ordered to stop a behavior they haven’t yet performed.
If the FCC is stupid enough to continue then things may change.
It was reported in several outlets Kimmel was going to say things on Wednesday that Disney didn’t like so they pulled him. It can be argued that “but for the FCC” they wouldn’t have taken action but I think that is nebulous but possibly worth investigating.
He’s lot emeritus status. Department heads are frequently dreaming of ways they can get rid of the emeritus guys who are often granted some resources and do nothing. I mean literally nothing.
CNN
Please give the monologue Jimmy!
Tom
Yes. Kimmel insisting on a prepared dialog which was to address Carr’s statements and Disney not wanting it was something I asked Grok about. It is definitely a negative factor if Kimmel wants to win a suit alleging violation of his 1st amendment rights against the FCC or Carr. It would suggest Disney took his show off because he wouldn’t comply with Disney’s editorial judgement. That’s not the FCC. Still…. I think we’ll hear more.
Carr has First Amendment rights too. I don’t see how he can be sued foe exercising them.
Tom,
I may have misunderstood the sequence here which couldd make what I’m suggesting wrong, but…
Carr clearly threatened Disney with some sort of disciplinary action if they proceded as he apparently thought they might.
My guess is this is sufficient for legal action against the government. If our constitutional protections have any meaning, the govrnment cannot threaten to “punish” a lawful exercise of speech. How would we know the threat was idle if the threatened caved?
If they did this all the time but never followed through, maybe they could protect themselves with the “jawboning” defense, but this statement by Carr seems to have been unusual.
As to Trump threatening near and far to go after any media entity which publishes things he doesn’t like, I have no idea what responses are available.
His defense could be that no-one with any intelligence takes a lot of what he says seriously so why this?
Wondering how long Schumer’s shutdown will last when it comes into effect in ? 10 days.
I guess part of it is the public perception and part the public pain
Is there any way around the shutdown such as the SC ordering a measure must be passed?
Planning to put MySuper into cash wait til the market goes Bizarro and then buy back before the cave in, if one occurs.
The Democrats in ? Texas talked tough but folded quickly.
Schumer seems forced to make it at least2-3 weeks
Mike M.
When Carr speaks, as he did, ex cathedra, he is encumbered by the limitations on his power whcih I expect include not threatening licensees for their exercise of protected speech.
I don’t think it makes any sense for Disney to sue him, but if he does this more often as an expression of powers he assume his agency has, then someone may contest his, and his agency’s authority to do it.
Mike M.
When Carr speaks, as he did, ex cathedra, he is encumbered by the limitations on his power whcih I expect include not threatening licensees for their exercise of protected speech.
I don’t think it makes any sense for Disney to sue him, but if he does this more often as an expression of powers he assume his agency has, then someone may contest his, and his agency’s authority to do it.
john ferguson wrote: “Carr clearly threatened Disney with some sort of disciplinary action”.
No, he threatened to enforce the law.
“When Carr speaks, as he did, ex cathedra,”
He did no such thing. I don’t think that is even possible.
“he is encumbered by the limitations on his power”
What power does he have? Not much, I think. He is one member of the FCC.
” threatening licensees for their exercise of protected speech.”
There was no protected speech involved. If had told his lie on X, it would have been protected speech. But he told it on the air. Not protected.
Filing a lawsuit isn’t the endpoint, you have to actually want something. The question is what is the resolution they are seeking?
Presumably this is to allow Jimmy Kimmel to speak without government interference (personally I hope this is the endpoint). The FCC would be ordered to stop their frivolous investigation, which hasn’t actually started. However the government is generally allowed to investigate things at their discretion without court oversight.
The Biden lawsuit was similar. The government was applying wink and nod pressure on Facebook and Twitter to filter content they didn’t like. The government claimed social media was complying voluntarily, and possibly they were but it was opaque.
At some point during the legal trail the government was ordered to stop communicating with social media to prevent undue influence. This was eventually dialed back and ultimately most/all of the restrictions were lifted.
It should be pointed out that there almost certainly won’t ever be money changing hands. The government doesn’t even have to compensate people who are wrongly convicted even when the prosecution is incompetent or behaved badly. This is an entire other discussion, but suffice it to say that the government budgets would need to be doubled if we allowed ambulance chasing lawyers to sue to government for monetary returns. They would be effectively suing innocent taxpayers.
In summary if they want to stop the Trump administration from this silly censorious behavior I am all for it, but it is probably better to wait until it is past the saber rattling stage.
JF
“My guess is this is sufficient for legal action against the government. If our constitutional protections have any meaning, the government cannot threaten to “punish” a lawful exercise of speech”
–
i thought, perhaps in error that the problem was a lack of balance by the stations hosting say Jimmy Kimmel or the View. There is a legal need to balance the right and left wing commentators to some extent and actions that allow only one view to be presented all the time can legally be sanctioned?
–
That is a different issue to suppressing freedom of speech.
Mike M
Carr is a federal official. Exerting pressure and the power of his federal position to surpress speech is illegal for federal officials. It remains illegal even if the method of exerting pressure involves speech.
I mean… if you tell someone you’ll break their legs if they don’t do what you want, you can’t claim that punishing you for that is not allowed because you have freedom of speech.
Whether what Carr said amounted to a threat would be a fact to be decided in the trial. But “freedom of speech” doesn’t mean you can’t be liable for making threats!
FCC has the power to regulate broadcasters for:
I think at a minimum Carr could get away with having a public opinion on this (for sure), threaten an investigation if behavior doesn’t change (gray area), and actually performing an investigation (gray area), and ultimately taking away a license (not likely and if they did would get overturned by the SC).
The political goal here would be “the process is the punishment” as we have seen in other recent lawfare exercises against unnamed political figures.
Mike M,
What law? I asked Grok FCC regulations.
This was my question
This was Grok’s answer
Grok could certainly be wrong. But I don’t see how Kimmel was breaking the law even if his statement about MAGA’s was a serious distortion to the point of lie– which it was. (I mean, a more accurate statement was there was no evidence Robinson was MAGA and increasing evidence he was most certainly not MAGA. Shortly after Carr’s speech we learned about Robinson’s trans romantic partner/room mate.)
But still: what law did Kimmel’ violate? The fairness doctrine was yanked in 1987. So don’t go for that one.
Tom
What public harm was anticipated by Kimmel’s insinuation the crime was committed by a MAGA person? I think none was anticipated– and SCOTUS really doesn’t like to allow people to just clutch pearls and “imagine” harms. They want to see evidence that actual harm was plausible.
More “public harm” was likely precipitated by Carr’s words. Disney personnel have reported they started receiving death threats– and that those started after Carr spoke! I don’t know how many or how credible those were.
“Carr is a federal official. Exerting pressure and the power of his federal position to surpress speech is illegal for federal officials. It remains illegal even if the method of exerting pressure involves speech.”
I don’t think so in this case. The FCC has the power to regulate the speech of broadcasters on public airways. Nobody is stopping Kimmel from speaking in other venues or Disney putting this out on Disney+. Kimmel doesn’t have a right to do certain restricted behavior on regulated public airways even if Disney allowed it if breaks rules. Disney also can’t put porn out on ABC.
My opinion is this didn’t cross the threshold but the government has a different opinion and theirs matters more.
“What public harm”
They will just make up stuff effectively saying it is inciting people, look at all the mean posts on Twitter. The government is the decider of the definition of harm unless it is specified in the legislation. Maybe the court looks at it later but the secondary chilling of speech from others is the entire goal.
Kimmel’s statement on “one of their own” wasn’t comedy if you watch the clip. No laughter, no pause. It was arguably an opinion but also * arguably * an intentional and malicious falsehood. It wasn’t just Kimmel freewheeling, he has a lot of writers and people who review this stuff. Kimmel has a history of political activism and serious monologues.
I think they will easily win the case, but Kimmel gave his political opponents an opening and they can drive a truck right through it. Disney’s lawyers probably came to the same conclusion and don’t want to publicly defend reprehensible behavior from Kimmel for the next year.
Tom,
Yes. When making a threat, the government will just concoct a harm. So I thin Carr did make a threat.
I’m addressing the claim he was merely “threatening” to enforce the law. I don’t think he’ll be able to convince the courts he was merely threatening to enforce the law because Kimmel doesn’t seem to have been violating any law. If someone things he was, they should point to the law.
The reason the FCC barely goes after anyone for “content” is there just isn’t much law governing content. The laws themselves need to respect freedom of speech.
What I’m thinking more of is what happens when Kimmel sues and it gets to court? I don’t think a court will buy that Kimmel’s misinformation was going to cause the sort of harm the law means by harm. It doesn’t mean the harm of being misinformed. And the claim of “real” harm to the public isn’t remotely credible
Tom
But FCC has to do so within the bounds of the 1st amendment.
If a lawsuit is filed, it’s going to be the court’s view that’s going to matter. I’d be very surprised if Kimmel doesn’t file a suit. He might not win. But the FCC might not either.
I think timelines are going to matter. Bear in mind: Grok makes mistakes. (It had made one about when Carr first tweeted. So I asked for a time line.
this is what I currently get from Grok for a timeline. Note: If this is correct. Affiliates were having internal discussions about Kimmel a day before Carr spoke.
Afilliates announced decisions to preempt after Carr spoke. But it’s plausible Carr’s “threat” was not the cause of their action. They were already discussing what to do before he spoke. We’ll see more as things progress.
———- Time line according to Grok. (Which does make mistakes.)
Date & Time (ET),Event,Key Details
“September 15, 2025
(Monday, ~11:30 PM)”,Kimmel’s monologue airs on Jimmy Kimmel Live! (ABC).,”Kimmel critiques MAGA’s portrayal of the Charlie Kirk shooter as “”anything other than one of them.”” Initial backlash erupts on X and conservative media (e.g., Benny Johnson calls it “”disgusting”” within hours), but no FCC involvement yet.”
“September 16, 2025
(Tuesday, all day)”,Escalating online outrage; no formal FCC response.,”Conservative outlets (e.g., Fox News) amplify criticism; Trump posts on Truth Social calling Kimmel’s comments “”vile.”” Affiliates like Nexstar begin internal discussions, per later reports, but no public announcements. No death threats reported yet.”
“September 17, 2025
(Wednesday, ~10:00 AM)”,Carr appears on The Benny Show (Benny Johnson podcast/YouTube).,”Carr accuses Kimmel of “”sick”” misinformation, threatens FCC action against ABC (e.g., “”easy way or the hard way””), and urges affiliates to preempt. Interview goes viral, viewed 1.2M+ times by evening.”
“September 17, 2025
(Wednesday, ~2:00 PM)”,Nexstar announces preemption of Jimmy Kimmel Live! on its 200+ ABC affiliates.,”Statement: Affiliates will preempt “”indefinitely beginning tonight”” due to “”offensive and insensitive”” content, citing public interest and pending FCC merger review. This affects ~40% of ABC’s reach.”
“September 17, 2025
(Wednesday, ~3:00 PM)”,Sinclair announces preemption on its 185+ ABC affiliates.,”Follows Nexstar; stations will air a “”Charlie Kirk tribute special”” in the slot starting Friday (September 19). Statement calls suspension “”not enough,”” urging FCC/ABC for more action.”
“September 17, 2025
(Wednesday, ~6:00 PM)”,ABC announces indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!.,”Network statement: “”Offensive and insensitive”” during a sensitive time; no timeline for return. Follows internal meetings where Kimmel shared plans to address Carr, per reports.”
“September 17, 2025
(Wednesday, 9:08 PM)”,Carr tweets criticism of Kimmel.,As quoted above; defends his remarks and attacks Kimmel personally. Posted after affiliate announcements but before full ABC details emerge.
“September 17–18, 2025
(Late Wednesday–Thursday)”,Death threats and doxxing begin targeting Disney/ABC staff.,”Threats start “”following Carr’s remarks,”” including leaks of emails/phones; no pre-Carr threats reported. Contributes to suspension rationale.”
Carr and Disney et. al. may have come to the same conclusion for the same reasons so the order of operations doesn’t matter in all cases.
Proving Carr’s influence one way or the other will be difficult without mind reading of Disney and others.
ABC / Disney get to decide for themselves what to do with Kimmel even if most people think he hasn’t crossed the line. If they assert they didn’t care what Carr said then the case is over.
Tom,
Yes. The affiliates and Disney may have been discussing things before Carr spoke. I’m trying to track down if there are any reports of this. Grok claims there were, but when I delve… it seems to be giving me the sort of bogus quote that suggest the AI is hallucinating. That doesn’t mean there is no evidence that the affiliates were discussing before… but that Grok might be BSing to make it sounds more convincing. (The AI’s do this.)
Yes. The question will be did they or didn’t they?
Yes.
But also, if they had talks about taking him of the air before Carr spoke, and were leaning toward yanking Kimmel, that would also weaken the claim they took Kimmel off because of threats. (This is why I’m trying to figure out if Groks current claim that affiliates were meeting before Carr said anything is true or false.)
After I pushed it Grok changed it’s mind about whether there are reports that affiliates discussed cancelling Kimmel before Carr’s remarks. So… dunno.
I too, am Geeky enough to spend time discussing things with Grok. We often disagree, but he was spot on on this one.
I asked:
“It seems the country is supporting Charlie Kirk, except for a few crazies on the left”
Grok of course had a long nuanced response, but I got a summary:
“The Bigger Picture: A Wake-Up Call?
Kirk’s legacy—rallying millions (5M+ X followers, 7M on TikTok) for Trump and conservative causes—has only grown in death, awakening a “sleeping giant.” “While the left’s extremes (e.g., justifying violence at 18% among liberals) highlight the divide, the dominant narrative is one of unity against violence. As one X post put it: “His murder is going to alter the course of history.”If that’s “the country supporting” him, the data backs it—minus those few, furious outliers.”
Grok’s full response:
https://x.com/i/grok/share/Zmcu305kB2J4hoPueQzj7tH6g
I am seeing a lot of support for Charlie Kirk coming from business people, both big and small. I mean, they are doing things in addition to firing the bloodthirsty liberals.
Elon Musk has 20 million views of this post:
‘Support Turning Point for Charlie, for sanity, for the future of civilization’
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1967216564631122319?s=61
Some examples of the support from businesses I am seeing:
Invita Cafe, a coffee shop in San Diego have labels printed up for their cups that say “Thank You, Charlie Kirk”.
Liberals, of course, are attacking the coffee shop.
https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-coffee-shop-support-fundraiser-backlash-2130869
ALP (American Liberty Pouches), This nicotine pouch brand, launched an online fundraiser in Kirk’s honor shortly after his death, with ALP contributing $1 million directly. The company described Kirk as a “devoted husband, father, and friend” whose “love for God, family, and country defined his life.”
Grooveberries Frozen Yogurt ,This small business in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, ordered 500 memorial stickers featuring Kirk’s photo and the dates “1993-2025.” They’ve been affixing them to red takeaway cups as a way to honor his legacy, drawing strong community support and praise for the gesture.
Sinclair, Inc, The media company produced and released a special dedication segment on Kirk, now available on The National News Desk’s YouTube channel. This tribute highlights his impact on conservative activism and has been promoted as a way for viewers to remember him. (from X post context)
Steak ‘n Shake, The restaurant chain has been publicly thanked by supporters for its alignment with conservative values, including a nod to Kirk in social media posts promoting “MAHA Beef Tallow” and anti-woke stances. While not a direct memorial, it’s been highlighted as a business “showcasing what a great company you are” in the wake of his death.
Bass Pro ShopsThe outdoor retail chain lowered its main flag to half-staff at multiple locations and displayed numerous American flags across its stores as a widespread tribute to Kirk. This gesture was highlighted by supporters as a powerful symbol of patriotism and respect for his conservative legacy.
Station Casinos, The Las Vegas-based gaming and hospitality company placed memorial signs honoring Kirk on the marquees of several properties in the Las Vegas Valley, including prominent displays at its resorts. This public acknowledgment drew praise for recognizing his impact on American values.
Biddy Mulligan’s Olympia Pub (London): This British pub dedicated an entire room to Kirk, inviting patrons to “celebrate the life of one of the MAGA movement’s brightest stars” and emphasizing free speech. The space serves as a gathering spot for supporters, with themed events planned to honor his activism.
One last tribute, from Bill Maher:
“On Club Random podcast (taped September 12, 2025, released September 15): Maher, appearing somber and admitting he might “drink a little more than usual” due to the day’s events, said, “This is a s–t day, because a guy who sat there, Charlie Kirk, got shot today, and I can’t stop thinking about it.” He praised Kirk and conservatives like him for promoting dialogue, contrasting them with far-left activists who “refuse to talk” or seek to silence opponents. Maher’s remarks focused on broader themes of empathy, free speech, and rejecting violence, while mourning Kirk personally—he even noted, “I liked him” in one reflection. “
The University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) is standing by one of its prominent professors, climate alarmist Michael Mann, who shared a post calling Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk the “head of Trump’s Hitler youth” after his assassination.”
–
Cannot help himself, the clown.
angech,
That’s a small step for Mann.
Anyone still listening to him has only him/herself to blame.
Mike M
My take on meaning of ex cathedra was that it means a statement made in an official capacity not as a private citizen. Carr’s threat was most certainly made “ex cathedra”.
It would have had no meaning otherwise.
that’s how the Catholic Church defines ex cathedra too.
The Latin translates ‘ from the chair’. The Popes words are considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
While not on official letterhead, I also took Carr’s words to be from his official position.
The dangerous question….. is the FCC simply following Trump‘s lead. In addition, Pam Bondi made some questionable statements. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. I think the boss put them up to it and he has something up his sleeve. What that is I do not know.
Here are some of Trump’s comments:
“No I think Brendan Carr is a Patriot. Brendan Carr doesn’t like to see the airwaves used illegally”
“Networks that are against me, like ABC, should maybe lose their license. It will be up to Brendan Carr.”
“We’re not talking about free speech anymore when it’s used to spread lies and hate that gets people killed.”
Of course with Trump, this could all just be coordinated rhetoric to stir the pot or intimidate the networks.
john ferguson,
I think if there is a suit, courts will see Carr’s statements on Benny Johnson’s show as a threat to use his power as head of the FCC to punish Disney and its affiliates. I think there is no other way to see it. Carr was not measured in his language.
But I don’t think Disney or the affiliates are likely to sue the FCC or Carr. I think Kimmel is the one likely to do it. His claim would be the FCC or Carr coerced Disney or its affiliates to act. (Evidently, according to Grok, he has to sue Carr specifically. The agency has sovereign immunity. But anyway, it was Carr on the Benny Johnson show, not the agency.)
The mechanisms for action are 42 USC and 1983, Bivens. Grok gave me a choice of which answer I liked better one of the choices said he could also sue under FTCA, but the other didn’t mention that. So I specifically asked and evidently, he would be unlikely to succeed FTCA because that’s for state law claims.
Monetary damages are possible for 1A violations. They were awarded in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964 . That said, evidently they are not easy to get and they can only be obtained in suits by individuals. Depending on the statute under which the claim is made, monetary fines might be limited to actual damages. (Kimmel was paid $88,235 per episode.)
Biven’s claims specifically don’t allow recovery of attorney fees. They can get damages claims for lost wages.
Grok does bring up “traceability” issues for Kimmel. Specifically,
“Reports that Disney suspended Kimmel after internal meetings (where he planned to confront Carr) and affiliate preemptions suggest independent private decisions, weakening causation under the FTCA, much like the traceability issues in Murthy.” (Bear in mind, I asked about those previously. The AI’s remember what we’ve talked about before. So at a certain point, nothing is independent of my previous questions.)
Grok seems to lean toward Kimmel’s chances being best under “Bivens”.
Of course, Kimmel might sue Disney. But that would be contractual, not 1A.
Russel,
Federal officials or elected officials like the president intimidating networks to squelch speed is a 1A violation. If Trump said the same thing while a candidate, it would be protected. But he is the sitting president. Trump seeming to direct Carr to intimidate Disney or the affiliates will not help Carr if he’s sued.
I don’t think Trump is really worried about being sued. He uses lawsuits as an excuse to get on his soapbox. He pushes things to their limit, and sometimes over the limit, because of his lack of fear of the courts. There probably has never been an American that has been sued as many times as Donald Trump.
EDIT: That’s how he ran his private business for years he was in and out of bankruptcy and in and out of lawsuits as a matter of business.
lucia wrote: “Exerting pressure and the power of his federal position to surpress speech is illegal for federal officials.”
That is an oversimplification. There is nothing illegal about suppressing speech unless it is protected speech. Kimmel’s speech was not protected; it was subject to FCC rules. Also, what “power” did Carr abuse? He does not have the power to take action against Disney; he only has the power to start and investigation. I see no abuse in saying that he might use that power in accord with the law.
Russell, but now trump is being sued by organizationzs which have the resources to pursue their suit wherever it may go.
As you suggest, he has never before been in this position as far as I know.
It might be interesting to discover whether any broadcast holder of a spectrum segment has ever had his/her allocation lifted for use not in the public interest, which I believe to be the operant phrase.
John,
Just last summer, Trump was being sued simultaneously by the state of Virginia and the state of New York in the state of Georgia ….that’s pretty deep pockets to fight … and he won all three
A threat to take legal action is called a “legal threat”. They are almost always legal.If Carr’s “threat” was unfounded Disney could have sought a declaratory judgement to that effect an put an end to it. They did not do that.
lucia wrote: “But FCC has to do so within the bounds of the 1st amendment.”
That is flat wrong.
Mike,
I don’t think this is correct.
IIRC Mann apparently took his incendiary posts / shares down and did some form of weak apology.
I just don’t understand why people have lost faith in academia, ha ha. The crazy people who can’t even do this type of non-apology are in a pretty dark place.
Mike M.
How is the FCC not bound to observe the constraints of the First Amendment? i had thought it applied to all of us.
Russell,
Of course now that Trump is being sued by entities with the resources to pursue their cases as far as they will go doesn’t mean they will prevail.
John, Mark,
The airwaves are public property. The law imposes certain conditions on those who use that property. A broadcast license obligates the broadcaster to comply with those rules. Those rules do not permit some forms of speech that would be protected if exercised by a newspaper or a private individual on X, etc.
Kimmel’s speech * that occurs on public airways (i.e. ABC networks) * is restricted by FCC rules. This is legal.
ABC voluntarily entered into this agreement in order to get access to the public spectrum and broadcast on it. ABC can choose to leave this agreement.
The question is whether Kimmel’s words actually run afoul of any of those FCC restrictions. I doubt it but the government can make that argument. It’s not a 1st amendment case exactly, but a judgment call on the FCC rules.
One could also argue that the FCC rules themselves are unconstitutional, but I think they pass muster at some level under public interest. We don’t allow porn on billboards for example. Challenging FCC rules themselves would probably be more difficult.
This is what I have been saying… only this time it comes from a black man (with 60,000 followers on X):
“I’ve sat through over 50 hours of Charlie Kirk’s videos as an ethnically Black American.
Not one racist word.
Not 1.
What Democrats do is cut snippets, strip context, and shove sound bites at the same gullible slob audience too lazy to fact-check.
That isn’t exposing racism .. it’s manufacturing lies to spark division.”
https://x.com/albuffalo2nite/status/1969578204231868619?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
In any case this is a pretty clear misuse of government power and should be stopped in its tracks.
Mike M
The FCC is a federal agency. It doesn’t have a special exemption from complying with the constitution. It does need to act within the bounds of the 1st amendment. Your claim otherwise is just wrong.
What rule? Seriously. I posted some above. In order to back up your bald claim, you need to state what rule and say how Kimmel’s speech violates it. There are actual written down rules you know.
Mike,
This
!=
Saying ‘certain conditions are imposed’ or ‘do not permit some forms of speech’ is much different from saying ‘There is nothing illegal about suppressing speech unless it is protected speech.’
I mean, I know you know that. I don’t really understand why you are arguing this.
MikeM
You are posting generic apple pie statements.
Yes: airwaves are public property.
Yes: The law imposes “certain” conditions and a broadcaster needs to comply with those rules.
You need to go dig up the FCC rules and show us Kimmel’s statement did not comply with a specific rule.
If you remain generic, you are just blowing hot air.
Mark:
Perplexity’s recitation of 1st Amendment effect on FCC rules confirms my view and, I think, yours which is that nothing the FCC does can transgress the constraints of the 1st Amendment although the FCC can do something, regulate nasty words for example, and yet be subject to challenge and judicial review.
To be clear, the FCC rules do not automatically over-ride 1st Amendment protections.
I can trot out the whole Perplexity response as a quotation if anyone is interested.
Tom
I think technically, the affiliates have access to the spectrum and broadcast.
I think there have been court cases on the rules themselves and enforcement. If you google, it lists all sorts of case law.
Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) : ”
Primary Holding
FCC v. Fox Television Stations
The latter might be read to indicate that the FCC needs to write down their rules first. That way programmers can know the rules and comply. The FCC can’t just make them up after the fact.
So, if you guys who think Kimmel violated some rule, you need to be able to find the specific rule. You can’t just say he needs to comply with the rules– yes. Of course. But the FCC needs to give proper notice a particular rule actually exists.
incredible indeed!
Thousands of people are waiting outside the stadium for the Charlie Kirk memorial. There are snipers with high-powered rifles on the rooftop nearby and they’re being cheered by the crowd. The snipers are waving back:
“BREAKING: Thousands of people CHEER as Secret Service Snipers HYPE up the crowd from a ROOF-TOP outside Charlie Kirk’s Memorial Service.”This is Incredible!
VIDEO:
https://x.com/thepatriotoasis/status/1969767467288256861?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
john ferguson
And, more over, they don’t override anything in the constitution. The rules themselves are subject to judicial review. Their application is subject to judicial review.
If a rule violates the first amendment, the courts will set aside the rule. So yes: the FCC rules absolutely are subject to 1A. Also: the FCC must provide due process (which means they have to tell people what the rules are before they can enforce them.)
People are filing into the stadium in advance of Charlie Kirk memorial service they have a loud Christian rock band playing.
Streaming live from AP:
https://www.youtube.com/live/DKGRfogo-l0?si=UeNmPatgnPAbGoAF
lucia wrote: “You need to go dig up the FCC rules and show us Kimmel’s statement did not comply with a specific rule.”
No. I don’t. I am not filing a complaint against ABC. Carr would need to do that if he were to start proceedings against ABC. All he said in the interview was that broadcasters need to act in the public interest, that he intended to enforce that, and that he thought that ABC has broken the rules.
Some people have speculated that it involves the rule (cited at least twice above) about not providing false info that might cause harm. As I said above, I don’t see how that applies.
If ABC thought they had not violated a rule, they could have asked Carr “what rule?” Then they could have checked with their lawyers. Then they could have fought it in FCC proceedings or sought a declaratory judgement in court. They easily have the resources to do those things. That they didn’t shows that they didn’t care.
Why didn’t they care? The obvious reason is that it did not matter since they were going to suspend Kimmel anyway.
I am not claiming that the FCC had a good case to take action against the FCC. I am only saying that neither the ABC or Kimmel has any basis for a lawsuit against the FCC.
If I send you a cease and desist letter and you comply, you can not then sue me for losses that you may have incurred by complying. Well, I am not a lawyer, so I can’t be certain about that.
Also, I am not saying that Carr’s comments were right. I am only saying that he had the right to make them.
One of the problems with government power is doing things that are ultimately deemed illegal don’t typically have sanctions / punishment attached. They aren’t criminal, although the opposing side likes to give that impression.
Biden’s OSHA vaccine mandate got a lot of people fired and they get no compensation other than possibly getting their old jobs back. Their employers were complying with the law at that time.
The government is given the benefit of the doubt for their alleged good intentions, and being wrong on the law isn’t criminal and deserving of punishment.
This can be exploited by any President. Another Biden example is his student loan forgiveness. The usual suspects are screaming about this thing that hasn’t even really happened beyond an improper intimidation charge but cheer it on when they like the end result. The proper action is to get an injunction against overreach ASAP. They can’t do that yet because no official action has taken place.
I am very happy to see a renewed commitment to free speech from the left though, ha ha.
MikeM
You aren’t the government. If you send me a cease and desist letter to shut up “or else”, it’s not going to be a first amendment issue.
Now, depending on what you threaten me with in “or else”, I might be able to sue you for something. If it’s blackmail, and I can prove it, I might be able to get you charged and jailed. If you want to figure out what I might be able to sue you for, you’ll have to be more specific about what your letter says.
Tom,
the US (and I think UK) government has what is termed Sovereign Immunity which means it cannot be sured unless it agrees to the suit.
I encountered this while watching two firemen chop their way through the front doors of a Cadillac parked in front of a fire hydrant to allow them to run the suction hose (very stiff) over the seats from the hydrant to the pumper, the better to fight a fire a house away.
They told me that if a fire truck on the way to a problem and a car collided, the car owner would be unable to collect any damages from the City due to sovereign immunity.
Sometimes the government does permit a suit. Usually the reasoning is that the government has unjustly burdened the other party and cannot make them whole without a suit.
MikeM
And this is where you may very well be wrong. He may not have a legal right to make them.
Government officials do not have a legal right to make threats to use government action to supress speech. His statements on the Benny Johnson show appear to be threats and they intention appears to be to prevent speech he and the administration he works for doesn’t like.
MikeM
You are making bald claims about what is and is not legal according to FCC regulations. Of course you can leave them bald. But if you intend people to take them seriously and believe they are true, you need to say what rule or regulation you are talking about.
That’s sued not sured. Wow,
Digital Dyslexia ie. I tell the fingers what to do and they do something different. And for some reason I can’t see it while I’m doing it, and sometimes not on a brief editing pass.
I apologize.
It could be related to why despite spending 14 years attempting French Horn fluency, I never progressed far enough to satisfy myself. Generally people screw up in the same places in a particular piece, but in my case it tended toward different sequences. and different every time.
john ferguson
I think this is generally true. Sometimes not. However, Carr can be sued. Note: when suing over government pressure on Twitter, Missouri sued “Murthy” : 23-411 Murthy v. Missouri (06/26/2024). Murthy was the surgeon general.
Lots of cases are like this.
Sometimes everyone has some sort of immunity. For example: police sometimes have qualified immunity if the violation is not clearly established. The violation is only clearly established after the first case– so it can go to court. But the first police officer or officers to violate the (theoretically) as yet not identified principle doesn’t personally get fined or anything.
Kimmel will probably not sue “The FCC”. He’s sue Carr.
Audience at Charlie Kirk Memorial of the Who’s Who of conservative politics
Lead off with bagpipes
Like 20 of them
I used to record the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson and watch it at a more reasonable time. He was genuinely funny and I don’t remember him being political at all. When he left the show, I stopped recording and watching the show and haven’t watched any other late night show for a really long time.
john ferguson,
I sometimes have trouble with spellcheck changing what I typed into a different word. I don’t always notice that it happened. I don’t usually get fat finger syndrome on a PC keyboard. That’s reserved for mobile devices.
HI DeWitt,
I don’t use spell check. All of the textual screwups are my own handiwork.
Music is Christian. Choir is very good.. rock bands aren’t my style.
The stadium is full.
Perhaps it is the world‘s largest WASP nest
Evidently some are suing and winning now. I have not been following this though.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/column-why-workers-fired-refusing-covid-vaccines-are-starting-win-court-2024-11-01/
Amazing Grace played on a bunch of bagpipes, quite moving
https://x.com/mrandyngo/status/1969831351500062785?s=61
The most recent relevant case is NY vs NRA.
Illegal activity, no sanctions against government. The process is the punishment. The NRA probably spent millions here.
Tom
So… on going.
SCOTUS did rule for the NRA. It’s just that this thing drags on forever. They now get to have “the real” court case to decide whether the facts indicate the government did violate.
Yeah… I think they did. But “qualified immunity”. Qualified immunity frequently s*cks. I mean… do you really need a previous case for someone to see this sort of machination is illegal?!
The appeals court then disallowed the NRA lawsuit against Vullo again. The NRA can once again appeal that decision to the SC.
SSDD. If the government action has any reasonable chance of being non-malicious then the government wins.
NEW: President Trump and Elon Musk were spotted sitting together and chatting during a surprise reunion at Charlie Kirk’s memorial.
Video
https://x.com/foxnews/status/1969872242407346566?s=61
Lee Greenwood sang his song to introduce President Trump.
It’s running a little long. We’re in our fifth hour.
Tom Scharf,
“If the government action has any reasonable chance of being non-malicious then the government wins.”
The problem is that the appeals court supports government action to hurt the NRA, so they would never rule against Vullo. The NRA has little choice but to spend more time and money asking the SC to reverse the appeals court. They can’t afford to have a precedent stand that allows individual states to bankrupt them in the process of overturning the right to bear arms.
I would bet they think their 1st amendment ruling in Murtha was a mistake, since they can see the immediate consequences: an FCC commissioner pressuring ABC over broadcast content. There is a good chance they reverse the appeals court on Vullo.
Popular theme on social media today:
George Floyd dies during an arrest:
$2+ BILLION of property damage
200 federal buildings damaged
2,000+ police officers injured
At least 25 Americans kiIIed
Charlie Kirk kiIIed in cold bIood:
0 rioting, 0 looting, 0 injuries
Peaceful vigils and prayer
$0 in property damage
0 Americans kiIIed
WE. ARE. NOT. THE. SAME.
Wow Russell, I had no idea what the extent of the rioting was. Perplexity showed 19 people killed but close enough. other numbers confirmed.
I don’t think this is an apples to apples comparison though, because the Floyd rioters felt thart his death was a possibility for any black person and Charlie Kirk’s death more of a one-off tragedy.
Note that I said “felt”. Whether Floyd’s death was an expression of an endemic problem seems to depend on who you ask.
Lucia,
I wonder if it would make sense to discuss our perceptions of our evolving economy and what impact the trends may have on the 2026 elections.
We eat out frequently with different couples and have become friends with management at some of our favorite restaurants.
Some are doing well, but others report sales well below pre-covid levels, some say about 60% some even less for August.
I should say here that “Pre-Covid” is a mile marker and has nothing to do with this issue.
We’re in St Petersburg where the SnowBirds close to double the population in the winter and are not here in the summer, but then August to August should track. Restauranteers here in St Pete worry about the effect if Caandian’s stay away this winter. They have stayed away in Maine this summer.
To come to the point. People appear to have more or less fixed budget totals and if they aren’t buying restaurant meals, what are they spending it on, or is it going into savings?
According to Perplexity savings are down as well as restaurant spending and the money is going into increased food costs at home, higher housing costs, etc.
This looks like inflation to me and if this trend continues suggests that voters may seek a change in 2026.
What do you think?
john ferguson,
Kirk’s killing was a willful political assassination. Floyd’s killing was mainly due to incompetent police officers conducting a legitimate arrest of a career criminal who was accused by a store owner of passing counterfeit money, all made worse by the victim’s drug abuse and existing heart disease.
Floyd’s death was terrible, of course, but there was never intent to kill Floyd, just some incompetent (and prejudiced) police officers conducting an arrest badly. The divergent public reactions after the two events is telling.
SteveF,
Blacks think it possible that a Floyd departure could be their future. I doubt if many people think Kirk’s could be.
When a Texas woman can die vie interaction with the police which began with her being pulled over for a defective tail-light and as fas as has been determined no other legal infractions, blacks think that there is no reason that it couldn’t happen to them.
We all have to live with what they think whether we agree with it or not.
St Pete Police Chiefd is black. I’ve had to discussions with him personally about running a department which is about 75% white while filtering out applicants both black and white who should not be doing this kind of work and keeping present staff focussed on “fairtness”(my word).
He thinks he’s doing a good job and that most but probabluy not all of white personnel are comfortble with how the department is run.
I’m not at all sure that the tranquility we seem to have here is shared across the country.
john ferguson,
I too have noted lower than usual traffic at several restaurants, especially larger ones. The adjustment I see is a much smaller wait staff and (likely) smaller kitchen staff.
It most likely is mainly the result of inflation on restaurant prices, which are substantially higher than ‘pre-covid’ (I’d guess ~20% higher). Restaurants attracting lower traffic may be raising their prices even more than inflation to try to cover fixed costs.
I suspect too that the non-snowbird population has a lot more people on limited/fixed income than the snowbirds, so the fall-off in restaurant traffic may be greater in the sumner months. It will be interesting to see if restaurant traffic is more ‘normal’ during peak Florida season.
I think it is likely Dems will gain control of the House (followed by impeachment 24/7 for the rest of Trump’s term), but I that is likely no matter the state of the economy or the rate of inflation.
John,
It’s great that you’re here to speak on behalf of black people.
John
I have a friend who works his family restaurants. They also own a food warehouse that supplies restaurants. He said per table spending is low. People are coming, but they are skipping an appetizer etc.
There still is inflation. Also, of course, when the more rapid inflation slowed, prices remained higher. That’s one of the things about inflation. But now that my hobby is ballroom, I run with a sort of wealthier crowd. (They aren’t all wealthy. But it’s competing pro-Am is expensive. People with no money, or who need to economize aren’t doing this.) They also tend to be older. So I don’t think I’d be able to gauge much from their “perceptions”.
john ferguson,
“I doubt if many people think Kirk’s could be.”
I don’t.
I think anybody willing to advance a conservative argument in public or even disclose they disagree with progressives feels threatened. Assassinated by a gunman on a rooftop? No, but assaulted for speech? Or for wearing a MAGA hat, or a yarmulka? Absolutely.
John,
I can not imagine why Canadian snowbirds would stay away from St. Pete this winter. It is not like they have an attractive alternative. Maybe fewer Canadians will vacation in the US, but I doubt that is a big factor in St. Pete.
John,
Leaving the Floyd comparison aside, it’s amazing just to talk about the superlatives of the conservative, Republican, and Christian response to the Kirk murder.
Official estimates are that between 200,000 and 300,000 people defended on the stadium and surroundings. Vigils were held at campus annd churches all around the country.
There was no violence. There was a lot of prayer. There was a lot of fellowship. Many people are calling it a revival.
Many people are calling it the beginning of the political campaign of 2026.
Contrast this with prominentDemocrats who are mostly still complaining about Kimmel with a few prominent Democrats still vehemently condemning Charlie Kirk as a racist.
Another stark fact comes to mind.
I have only heard one prominent Democrat (the Jewish governor of Pennsylvania) defend Charlie Kirk. There has been no from admonitions from Democrats over the slurs that was so vociferously thrown at him by Democrats for years.
Only one prominent Democrat has stood up for what is right.
They demonized him when he was alive and they have no remorse now that he’s been murdered.
There was Jan 6th.
Floyd’s protests were against the government (police).
There isn’t a tight line for conservatives to protest the government or any establishment here for an apparent one-off assassination. Perhaps sack the NYT building? I’m in! ha ha.
I would argue conservatives riot at the voting booth.
Tom,
“ I would argue conservatives riot at the voting booth.”
And in church pews.
“Blacks think it possible that a Floyd departure could be their future.”
Touchy subject. I’m not going to debate whether they feel that, they probably do. The question is should they?
Police shootings per year haven’t really moved much relative to overall crime since Floyd and all the attention. This suggests that police shootings aren’t willful in most cases.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
One of the good things that happened after Floyd was the prolific use of body cameras and public release of the evidence. If you want to understand police shootings then here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/@PoliceActivity
2400 videos, mostly body cams, no editor narration. I don’t recommend this for the feint of heart, however this will tell you much more than any biased academic study or media story.
The shootings fall on a spectrum from clearly necessary to questionable overreaction. The victims universally play a leading role in their demise. The leading cause is people drawing weapons and/or mental illness being a close second.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination of Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, and all forms of political violence;
(2) commends and honors the dedicated law enforcement and emergency personnel for their tireless efforts in finding the suspect responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and urges the administration of swift justice to the suspect;
(3) extends its deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk’s family, including his wife, Erika, and their two young children, and prays for comfort, peace, and healing in this time of unspeakable loss;
(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty; and
(5) calls upon all Americans—regardless of race, party affiliation, or creed—to reject political violence, recommit to respectful debate, uphold American values, and respect one another as fellow Americans.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/719/text
——–
A majority of House Democrats could not bring themselves to vote for the above. Most of those who would not vote for it actually voted against it. They are a disgrace.
good point Mike
The rules to not getting shot by police:
1. Never point a weapon at an officer.
2. Never point a weapon at an officer.
3. Never point a weapon at an officer.
4. Do not run at an officer with a knife.
5. Do not drive at an officer if they have you at gunpoint.
6. Do not reach for anything in a tense standoff.
7. If you are running away, don’t carry or reach for your weapon even to throw it away.
8. The cops don’t know your weapon is a non-functioning replica or BB gun.
9. If the cops start yelling “gun,gun,gun” your life is in mortal danger.
10. If your loved one is behaving violently due to a bad mental health day, think twice about calling the police.
Way too many of these are senseless escalations of the police interaction by the victim. They are people who have anger and impulse control issues.
Russell: “I have only heard one prominent Democrat (the Jewish governor of Pennsylvania) defend Charlie Kirk.”
I think you can add Fetterman to that list.
Dave,
I did not include Federman because while his comments were comforting, they didn’t go to the point of addressing the slurs the Democrats had thrown at Charlie Kirk. He avoided discussing politics by his own admission.
Good for Federman, but I was looking for Democrats who defended Kirk for his views and what the Democrats said about them.
From Grok:
“
> “I condemn this in the strongest terms.
> There is ZERO place in our great country for these horrendous acts of political violence.
> We must find a better way forward.
> May Charlie Kirk have a full and quick recovery.”
This post, which included an image of the American flag at half-staff, garnered over 90,000 likes and 3.7 million views. (Note: The “recovery” reference was made before confirmation of Kirk’s death later that evening.) Fetterman followed up with additional statements emphasizing unity, stating: “We must speak with one voice—Political violence is never acceptable and has to stop. I join so many in praying for Charlie Kirk after this disgusting attack on his life.” He also shared on Facebook: “Our family grieves for Charlie Kirk’s family. We must collectively find a way forward during these polarized times.”
Fetterman’s bipartisan tone aligned with statements from Pennsylvania Republicans like Sen. Dave McCormick, who called the murder an “outrage” and violence “never the answer.”
### Fetterman’s Broader Comments on Rhetoric and Political Violence
In the days following Kirk’s death, Fetterman escalated his criticism, turning inward to rebuke his own Democratic Party for what he saw as overheated rhetoric that contributes to a toxic environment. On September 15, 2025, he urged Democrats to “stop the Hitler talk” and cease labeling former President Donald Trump an “autocrat,” arguing that such language escalates tensions without lowering the “political temperature.” In an interview outside the U.S. Capitol, Fetterman described the assassination as “horrific” and “absolutely horrific,” emphasizing that he had viewed the video footage multiple times. He stressed: “I’m not going to talk about the politics… Don’t shoot and kill people if they have different political views.”
Tom, your post:
“ One of the good things that happened after Floyd was the prolific use of body cameras and public release of the evidence.”
exactly! We haven’t heard anything about police violence since the proliferation of body worn cameras by the police.
But perhaps the police are better behaved when they’re wearing cameras, but either way the videos (and I have watched a lot of them) show the reverse of what BLM was claiming. Mostly it’s perpetrators committing violence on police.
The Firing of Educators Over Kirk Comments Follows a Familiar Playbook
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/us/firing-educators-kirk-free-speech.html
Rant:
The narrative here is that right wing media has put hidden microphones in the professor’s bedrooms and exposed private thinking.
These people voluntarily wrote these things and posted them on public social media. If you end up on Libs of TikTok that is your fault, not theirs. You did this for the peer attention and you might just get it from both sides. You.are.not.the.victim.
While I still say that K-12 / academia should choose to not fire or sanction these people for private speech don’t these people know that is a possibility?
What does it say about the academia bubble that people who are convinced they are the love and tolerance crowd say these things and nobody inside the bubble notices the contradiction?
Because people outside the bubble notice. Can’t they notice that? They can read research papers but not Gallup polls on ongoing reputational damage?
We just got our funding cut by the MAGA simpletons, aaaagghhhh! Oh by the way, Kirk deserved it. Maybe these are connected, ask you psychology department about how people feel about giving money to people who hate them.
What a mess.
Finally.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/46346082/acc-fines-syracuse-faking-injuries-vs-clemson
This has been getting way out of control. For some reason both coaches and announcers are prohibited from commenting on fake injuries. So it becomes a comedy of sarcasm. See WV coach talking about Pitt “injuries” here at 7:56
https://youtu.be/f-HgjCI5aaA?t=476
Tom Scharf wrote: “The rules to not getting shot by police:
7. If you are running away, don’t carry or reach for your weapon even to throw it away.
10. If your loved one is behaving violently due to a bad mental health day, think twice about calling the police.”
7. should be “never flee or resist arrest”. Well, maybe if you are an actual criminal, but iffy even then.
I have a problem with 10. What the heck is a woman supposed to do if her husband seems likely to do her harm?
TP USA reports 100 million viewers of the memorial service on their streaming platform yesterday… 100 million!
This doesn’t include people who streamed it from YouTube or watched it on broadcast channels or Fox News.
“Our production and streaming partners tracked over 100 million overall streams for today’s tribute to Charlie. This is JUST what they know about. It’s likely much larger. Over 100 million people just heard the Gospel proclaimed again and again by speaker after speaker..”
I can’t help but think that this is a generational event.
Mike M.
I understand that there is a very high risk to police officers responding to a domestic dispute.
My best contact with police was when I worked for City of Chicago in 1969. At that time they sent two armed officers to domestic disputes at least one of which had been trained for what to expect.
from that time:
The bar on the corner of street I lived on, Cleveland and Lincoln Avenue- Four Farthings, was at that time a “Cop Bar” may still be.
I learned a lot there.
Especially the time a guy tried to rob the place. His attempt was made at the bar standing between two tall plain clothes officers, whose roles he might have been able to recognize byh their learther jackets. One took the gun away from him, both lifted him into the air by his elbows and carried him out to the paddy wagon. His feet never toucjhed the ground. You may marvel that there was no wait for the paddyh wagon. This was a cop bar and maybe half the customers were off-duty (presumably) cops. It was also a gan g neighboerhood, local gang was “Hudson Corps” (White – mostly Irish) and police were genrally on the scene within 2 minutes whenever there was a disturbance.
John,
“White – mostly Irish”
That’s why they call it a Paddy wagon. (Honest!)
Mike M.
I don’t have the answer, I have seen multiple shootings on mental health calls. This isn’t a rational but violent husband. What happens is someone having a paranoia mental break sees the police as a threat and attacks the police. Dealing with irrational violent people is difficult.
Their loved ones are kept away while the police handle it. Since the person is violent and a threat to others the police sometimes have to take the person into custody (or else they get blamed if things go badly after that).
The ones that go well don’t make YouTube of course and probably most of them are OK.
I would try real hard to handle it before armed police are called in. The police want to go home safely.
Marco Rubio a Roman Catholic, delivered very stirring remarks at the service yesterday.
Although the vast majority of the people mourning were Protestant Christians, his remarks are the most quoted on social media:
“”We were all created before time itself by the hands of Almighty God. Created with love, created with purpose.
>
> Sin entered the world and separated us from our Creator. So God took on the form of a man and came down and lived among us, and He suffered like men and He died like a man. But on the third day, He rose unlike any mortal man.
>
> And to prove the doubters wrong, He ate with His disciples, let them touch His wounds. He didn’t rise as a ghost, but as flesh. And He promised He would return. And He will.
>
> Because He took on that death, because He carried that cross, we were freed from the sin that separated us from Him. When He returns, there will be a new heaven and a new earth—and a reunion with Charlie and every loved one who died in the faith.”
Tom Scharf
I agree. But the NYT article is interesting because none or almost none of the speech they show people being fired for was “private”. Some of it wasn’t even speech.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/us/firing-educators-kirk-free-speech.html
At least some of this was on the job speech. The NYT starts with an on the job example, and goes back to Nov 2024. Nothing to do with Charlie Kirk
He’s suing for being fired.
But his act was not just speech. It’s cancelling class. That’s pretty relevant to a job where you are paid to teach a class and students pay to take it.
If their goal is to highlight actions against speech, this is possibly a poor specific example for NYTimes to pick. But it’s one they picked and they lead with it.
This one– involving a conservative being fired– sounds like pure speech and was on social medial.
On to the next:
“Activism” can be speech. But it’s not limited to that. There seem to have been riots at Brooklyn College. Corrine Mullins didn’t merely speak. She participated in an encampment, was arrested for trespassing when it was raided. Those charges were dropped. I don’t know what rules CUNY has about encampments. Some activities don’t become “OK” just because they are also speech. The KKK’s burning crosses were “speech”. Still not ok.
The school says the fired the teachers for “conduct”, not speech. They were also adjuncts and merely not reappointed. Adjunct might seem like a distinction, but adjuncts happen to have nearly no job protections regardless of speech.
Now a law professor:
Evidently, she was accused of violating laws on Equal Opportunity. Specifically, she said things that suggested that Israeli’s didn’t belong on campus. Maybe she did violate them.
She evidently ‘spoke’ often enough to attract “counter speech”. Some students evidently enrolled just to video tape her during course lectures. That’s not merely “social media”; it’s on the job speech.
More here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/10/us/columbia-professor-katherine-franke-retires.html
Or the other way to look at this on the job speech:
Published course descriptions are sort of like contracts with students. Students enroll on that basis. They are also like contracts with the university. Universities approve of the content and grant credit based on that content. Not teaching the content is a fireable office. You can’t get around that by saying it’s “free speech”.
On to Kirk being a free speech proponent:
Maybe. Who knows? Let’s see what they argue,
Identifying discrimination is not antithetical to “free speech”. Nor is reporting who teaches what.
The work to collect reports wasn’t done on anyone’s job– so there is no firing offense.
That’s not nice. I think it’s a bad thing and shouldn’t be done.
But “harassment on social media” is counter speech by private individuals done in a private forum. It’s not a violation of free speech. You also need to define “harassment”. If it’s just a lot of people expressing disapproval, well…. that’s speech! If it’s death threats- that’s illegal. If it’s calling for a boycott– free speech.
Kirk’s group speak out against people doing things they don’t like. Part of their method of speaking is to provide specific examples which allows readers to know precisely what their compleint is.
Sure.
But keeping a list and allowing people to read it is not “free speech hypocrisy”. It’s exercising your own right of free speech. Being specific instead of vague isn’t “free speech hypocrisy”, it’s well… sort of news reporting and facilitating informed discussion. And information is necessary to critical thinking.
Does Dr. Boedy think they should just shut up and sit there silently? Because “free speech” involves not speaking? If so, that’s ridiculous!
it’s been a very long time since I was a student on campus, but I was an adjunct professor not too many years back. (I provided the in classroom contact at night school via video feed for a course inthermodynamics taught by a chemical engineering professor at USF in Tampa.). Dr. Boedy and most of his cohorts think that conservatives are troglodytes and have no business on campus. The administration tolerating organizations like TPUSA is an affront to their position as enlightened, caring individuals. So anything TPUSA does is fair game for blocking and criticism.
Speech is violence. Questioning is harassment. Silence is violence. Listen, believe, affirm and we will end division!
DaveJR,
End division! That’s really funny. Humans just aren’t like that. Even when everybody supposedly believes the same thing, they end up disagreeing, sometimes violently, about the details. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have all those Christian and Islamic sects. Trotsky might have died of old age.
This just in, people generally target other people they don’t like but the preference is speech as the means.
Perhaps the NYT missed the irony here but Kirk was also “targeted” for speech some people didn’t like and it was quite a bit worse than some social media harassment. So cry me a river professor, there is hypocrisy evident but not the one you are alluding to. Consequences.
I suspect most of the people sanctioned were already problem children on the job.
Kirk’s wife giving forgiveness to the shooter was very graceful. We could use more of that and she wins the moment.
from my newsfeed:
“BREAKING: Turning Point just announced they will be CONTINUING the campus tour Charlie Kirk started, and some big names will be filling in for Charlie
– Tucker Carlson
– Megyn Kelly
– Gov. Glenn Youngkin
– Glenn Beck
– Mike Lee
– Andy Biggs
– Jeff Landry
& an even BIGGER guest to be announced soon”
I wonder if the TBA is JD Vance maybe.
9/24 is Megyn Kelly at Virginia Tech
Other Dates and locations:
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1970191849504805373?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
They are crazy to invite Tucker Carlson. I mean, why not invite Candace Owens while they are at it.
So much for that movement.
Mark,
Yes, Tucker Carlson goes off the deep end. But He was well received yesterday at the service.
maybe they’ll have a TPUSA representative to keep him in check
Kimmel’s back tomorrow. Glad that got worked out. He’s still a partisan doofus IMO.
The question with the fill ins is whether they have the patience and self control to suffer fools gladly. Tucker should actually be pretty good at that.
Maybe the big names will just say a few words and MC the event while Turning Point people handle the “prove me wrong” stuff. But those big names would only be a draw for the people already in the tent, not the ones they want to reach out to.
I feel like I am not making good use of colored fonts and that I need to work on this..
I love this song from the 70s, Allman brothers band “revival” – https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=the%20allman%20brothers%20band%20revival&mid=B2493C408F9D89823396B2493C408F9D89823396&ajaxhist=0
Sad so much has changed from then, but it maybe was all wishful thinking even back then.
Tom Scharf,
I will continue the habit I established in childhood and not watch late night TV! I’m sure the best bits will be on youtube anyway.
Amazing but true: Even while Republicans are widely expected to lose control of the House next year, recent polling suggests Republicans have more support on the economy, immigration, and crime…. slightly lower than in 2022 on the economy, but much higher than in 2022 on immigration and crime. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/09/22/cnns_enten_gop_leads_on_economy_immigration_crime_whatever_democrats_are_doing_it_aint_working.html
Trump remains under water at about 45 or 46% support, and the ‘generic ballot’ question consistently shows Dems preferred in the House by about 52%…. which is why they are expected to take control in 2026.
Are Trump’s high negatives dragging down Republican’s chances in the house? Maybe. But then how did he win in 2024 with very similar negatives? Maybe it was because he was being compared to Kamala, and she looked even worse to many voters.
Donno, but the discrepancy between support for Republicans on leading issues and the generic ballot question is a real head-scratcher for me.
SteveF
I wonder if Repub’s get higher marks on immigration, crime and the economy because they are the only ones talking about it — assuming that’s true.
The Dems seem mostly to be talking aboujt how terrible Trump and company are. They should have figured out that this goes nowhere in 2024. but alas…….
I find it pretty rich that Press Sec Levit claims tghat homan never got the $50k when the FBI thought he did and there may be a video of him taking the bag of cash.
Finally, the economy appears not to be good for a lot of people, higher costs for almost everything. Eventually Trump’s associates telling everyone it’s great won’t work any better for them than it did for Biden.
Recent estimates by DHS and others indicate about 1.6 million illegal alien residents have self deported since Trump took office, and that trend is, if anything, accelerating since DHS started offering $1,000 and a free plane ticket to those who leave voluntarily. So about 20-25% of the number who entered the country illegally under the Biden administration (depending on who’s numbers you believe) have already departed. If this continues for a while, half as many who entered under Biden will soon be gone, something very few people thought possible when Trump took office. “It’s impossible to find and deport millions of illegal alien residents” was heard over and over.
Turns out carrot and stick incentives actually work.
john ferguson,
I had not heard much about the Homan investigation. The case may be more complicated than just taking a bribe:
“Homan previously served as the president and owner of a private consulting business to help companies in the border security industry obtain government contracts, according to MSNBC.”
If that business was operating in September 2024, then the transaction with Homan the consultant might not be considered a bribe, since at the time he did not work for the Federal government. Another complication is that the alleged bribe was paid in west Texas, which might not have the most receptive jury pool for a prosecution.
I think a more legitimate issue is if he declared any payment he received for 2024 taxes. If so, claiming a bribe was paid looks less credible. Maybe the FBI will provide more details, including what led to the investigation of Homan, who offered/asked for payment, and under what circumstances. Cash payment looks suspicious, but details matter.
SteveF
The naughtiness, if there is any, of Homan taking a finder’s fee from someone purporting to be seeking contracts with the government depends in some part on whether Homan’s position in the then potential next Trump administration had been announced. Trump’s folks are saying it was which isn’t helpful to Homan, If it wasn’t and his ability to assure contracts was entirely speculative, then crime might have been fraud, but I think that will be unprovable to the degree required.
One of the things I don’t understand is why the Arab provided Air Force One will be retired when Trump leaves office. They used to run these things through several presidencies. Doe’s he think he owns it?
SteveF wrote: “But then how did he win in 2024 with very similar negatives?”
Because there are a lot of people who, like you, despise Trump but like his policies. At least some subset of them will tell pollsters that they “disapprove” of Trump but then will turn around and vote for him.
Who is saying that Homan took a bribe? I was under the impression that it was just a rumor. And I think Leavitt said that the FBI checked it out and found no problem.
Trump’s speech this morning at the UN is slated for 9:50.
You can live stream it but I assume networks like Fox News will carry it.
Meanwhile even CNN has to admit Trump is HUGE on the world stage:
“Trump was once laughed at on the UN stage. Now, world leaders are courting him”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/23/politics/un-general-assembly-trump-speech
john ferguson,
The 747 is never going to be Air Force One, and Trump is never going to own the plane, unless he buys at market price. He won’t do that, because a 747 costs too much to fly and has giant runway length needs. Imagining the plane as a bribe for Trump is nothing more than a fevered dream.
john ferguson wrote: “I wonder if Repub’s get higher marks on immigration, crime and the economy because they are the only ones talking about it”.
But the Dems have been talking about those things. They have been very vocal on immigration, where they are opposed to deporting illegals unless they are criminals who have received all the process due to citizens. They have been somewhat vocal on crime, where they continue to support letting criminals walk free, prosecute citizens who defend themselves, and deny that there is a problem with crime. They don’t say much on the economy except to attack Trump; maybe they don’t want to remind people why the economy is a problem.
The Qatari 747 was only supposed to be a stopgap until Boeing gets its act together. I agree with SteveF that it will never become Air Force One.
Has the thing been delivered? I thought that was still up in the air. Maybe I should say it is still on the ground.
Mike M,
It was an FBI under-cover sting operation before the 2024 election, which apparently targeted Homan and other people associated with Trump…. no details have been released by the FBI, nor will they likely be.
Trump is up next at the UN. Fox News is going to cover it live.
10:03 Florida time
SteveF. Mike M.
the Qatari 747 is currently being modified by L3Harris in Greenville TX. I have no idea hjow you can be so certain that it will never become Air Force One.
Democrats talk about immigration constantly. In fact they just can’t shut up about it. The most recent is the law in CA to require law enforcement to be unmasked. Not clear if that can be enforced on federal agents.
I finally found one anecdotal article on CNN that was anti-immigration. So it’s a 1000-1 in legacy media now.
The Democrats have gone radio silent on most woke issues though. If they want to win this is the low hanging fruit.
The Republicans keep teeing up easy issues for the left to yell about. This why the party in power can’t stay in power, they are all power hungry morons.
Bondi said she was going to prosecute Office Depot for refusing to print a Charlie Kirk poster. That’s perfect, turn a winning issue into a losing issue. Office Depot doesn’t have to print posters for anybody, but the employees should be fired for not printing Kirk posters (and they were).
https://www.wsj.com/business/charlie-kirk-office-depot-workers-politics-7dbc52ab?st=sY2NA2&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I concede that Trump seems to have a Midas touch on this stuff. Perhaps he is just keeping it in the news and making people fight over it.
It is notable that Disney’s statement on Kimmel said they pulled him because of his intended statements for the next episode, not his previous statements. No mention of Carr, the FCC, or Sinclair.
The legacy media is still overtly connecting the dots from Carr to Kimmel’s suspension even though there is no evidence that was the case. This is preferred narrative bias.
The FCC and Carr can still pull the broadcast license like they said they would but I don’t think anyone is expecting that to happen.
Sinclair is still going to preempt Kimmel for the time being, they want an apology.
My speculation is Kimmel didn’t want his employees fired and we will get a Disney compliant non-apology apology. He can split the baby by crapping on Trump / MAGA and apologizing to Kirk’s wife.
About that Office Depot kerfuffle, I agree with Tom that Office Depot doesn’t have to print posters for anybody. Their call about the employees; if their company policy is to print anything (well, probably with exceptions for pornography etc.), then, yes, fire them. I think it’s wise for a large company to stay even-handed with regard to politics; a little different from a small cake-maker. But if OD wants to get on one political side or another, it’s fine with me; it’s their right. [But they’d lose a fair amount of business.]
As far as Bondi goes, I suspect that she, like Trump, has no political philosophy, and so just goes for “our side” and against “their side” without thinking about principles. Sad, but true. Many in this administration, as well as prior ones.
And why is it that *Trump* makes the announcement about Tylenol/autism? It’s not his place, it should be the FDA.
I’m torn between two explanations:
(1) Trump is so egotistical that he can’t imagine letting someone else take the credit for something that he views as a win; or
(2) Trump wants to be a lightning rod for the inevitable criticism, figuring that half the country already hates him.
I lean toward (1), plenty of evidence for the position in general.
Kimmel is being aired. Sinclair affiliates will not broadcast it. Nexstar hasn’t said (so far as I can tell.)
I think most people who want to watch will be able to do so tonight. I also think tonights ratings will be blockbuster. It will include Kimmel lovers, Kimmel neutral- but curious and even some Kimmel haters who would “like” to boycott, but curiousity will overwhelm them.
A week from now? Dunno.
I won’t be watching. I never did; I don’t watch late night. I may catch any important bits on Youtube.
FedEx for the win!
Trump came out firing at the UN. He was blasting almost everyone, even our allies.
(the ones buying Russian oil and gas)
“Office Depot doesn’t have to print posters for anybody.”
Is that true? Real question. Courts have told various people that they have to provide services for gay marriages. Most businesses can not refuse services to certain groups. Broadcasters can not choose to air political ads for one side but not the other. I am not sure if that applies to other media.
It might well be true that Office Depot is free to discriminate against organizations they don’t like. But i don’t think it obvious that it is true.
“he Qatari 747 is currently being modified”.
I did not know that. So maybe it will become Air Force One. I was under the impression that the time and cost to modify it would make it pointless since Boeing is supposed to deliver the new planes in a year or two. Maybe they have no confidence that Boeing will be able to deliver.
Trump shared the stage for the tylenol announcement with RFK and others. I did think it strange that he was part of it. But that probably has resulted in a lot more people knowing about the announcement.
It seems that the Qatari 747 is being modified but that seems to about all that is known.
I find it incredible that the Qatari jet can be converted in a tenth of the time it takes Boeing to convert a 747 to Air Force One.
That’d doubtless be because you haven’t had the pleasure of working with Boeing. 😉 It doesn’t seem incredible or even surprising to me at all.
Mike M.
Evolving specifications and onboard equipment requirements could be what stretched out Boeing’s efforts to come up with 2 Airforce “Ones” which of course raises the issue ot how we’re now going to get along with one, or will it be three?
We don’t know if Boeing’s contract for the pair has been canceled. Maybe not cause we’ll need them when Trump takes Qatari One home with him when he retires.
You should also
remember that Biden was probably involved in this and was able to spread his cloak of incomptence over the whole thing.
It could be that Trump stopped spec and equipment creep dead in their tracks with a single order to “make it like the requirements as they existed on 1/20/25.
There is even a MilSpec for this. MILTFD41C. Mark may have seen this during his tenure in this arena
Mark, does this sound possible to you? That is problem being spec-creep?
John,
Boeing is not what it once was. Even eight years ago it still seemed engineer dominated and driven. Today my worms eye view is of programs riddled with bureaucracy and heavy with middle managers but light on good engineers, who seem very thinly spread.
I will utter no further criticism of Boeing on this thread, it’s not in my local personal best interests.
To the best of my recollection I had never even heard of ‘MILTFD41C’. I’ll look into it.
Feature creep doesn’t bother us much, we are particular about adhering to fulfilling signed off requirements as contractual obligations. We are happy for feature creep to occur, so long as the customer pays for it and signs off on the schedule and document changes. I don’t know how this is for Boeing, honestly.
[Edit: Oh.
]
I’m going to start using that, thanks.
Ryan Routh found guilty on all charges. It’s nice to hear an example of our courts and court system working properly for a change.
41C is “for once”
and “freeking” is one of the possibilities for what “F” meant. The real one was different.
I wrote specs for military construction and when the opportunity to list a bunch of MILSPECS always add it. I never once got pinged for it, but I think most of our customers, Corps of Engineers, Navy and Coast Guard never really read them.
mark,
It does not surprise me too much that it takes Boeing 10 years, which is ridiculous. What does surprise me is that they can do the Qatari 747 in well under one year. I would think they pretty much would have to take the thing apart, inspect every piece for monkey business, then put it back together again. Sounds to me like much more work than modifying a plane fresh off the assembly line.
That is why I was skeptical that the Qatari plane could be ready much ahead of the Boeing planes.
Mike,
You think that because you have sense. I’m pretty sure the idea that the Qatari plane would be ready in a year was assuming that we more or less took Qatar at their word that they didn’t install any monkey business. Only a fool would assume this, obviously I think.
Once a system is considered compromised, one school of thought (one that I subscribe to in fact) says that that system can never be made right and secure again. You can never be confident you’ve found all the installed back doors and malware and so on. The only thing to do is to burn it to the ground and start over.
FWIW, The E4B – Airforce “DoomsDay” Plane , of which there are 4 is now being superceded by 5 E4C’s which are Korean Air 747-8’s modified for their new role.
The idea of these planes is to pick-up senior members of the administration in the event of an attack (they used one with Bush on 9/11) and equip them with all necessary communications and protective devices to survive and manage the respons in the event of an attack – (could probably be stated more elegantly).
So if the air force has no problem with planes owned by Korean Air, I suspect they are confident that they can adequately sweep the Qatari bird.
I’d trust South Korea a helluva lot more than I’d trust Qatar! But I wouldn’t trust South Korea either.
So is Tylenol the key to increasing autism? There are a multitude of conflicting studies. and the shouting has already become too political (If the Trump administration says it is, then it can’t be!!).
Interesting factoids:
1955: Acetaminophen was introduced in the United States as a prescription medication.
1960s: It gained widespread acceptance among healthcare professionals and was made available for OTC purchase.
1980s – Present: Acetaminophen became a staple in households worldwide, with various formulations available for children and adults.
So I am guessing that use rates have increased quite a lot over the years. One cited study found traces of the drug in the meconium (first bowel movement) of >50% of newborns. I sure would like to see a graph of per capita sales versus time.; alas, that is not likely available.
I am seeing a pitched political battel forming, were very careful analysis is what we really need. I have a daughter who is mildly autistic, so I am perhaps not a neutral observer.
In 1986 was working on a project that required a session in Texas with an outfit that did military communications. One of the E4Bs, was there having changes made. Although at that time I didn’t really have the right clearance, I was nonetheless given a tour of the thing. I saw everything that was panel-mounted.
I knew what most of the boxes were from another project, but this time in addition to the more or less modern stuff, they had racks packed with equipment which dated back to Korean War and some WW2.
My immediate reaction we should avoid war at all costs if this was what we were going to organize a defense with.
Stupid me.
I only thought of it this morning, but the Doomsday plane needed to talk to everyone, not only the well-eqjipped. It’s funny that I’ve spent all these years wondering why they were spending so much money to fly all of this junk around and never grokked why.
Office Depot should be subject to the same federal and state discrimination rules as everyone else. Beyond that they can choose to discriminate against people and groups at their business peril.
The Qatari planes isn’t done until its done. I’m guessing it will be delayed.
Boeing’s performance in space related missions has been dismal. They remind me of a corrupt Soviet business, just milking everything as a business priority. Fortunately in the US we have competition that eventually gets these things sorted out. Eventually may be decades.
I will grant them one out and that is they work on things that have serious technical risk sometimes so some failures are inevitable.
I’m guessing the Doomsday plane’s survivability is pretty low in 2025. Much better to go underground IMO.
Tom Scharf,
I’m thinking a submarine might be more survivable than a plane or an underground cavern. A direct hit by a multi-megaton weapon could collapse a lot of underground shelters. Of course, communication is an issue on a submarine.
Best to avoid a nuclear war.
Trump is finally picking a side:
“Trump says NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft that violate their airspace”
“In major shift, Trump says he now thinks Ukraine can win back all of its territory taken by Russia”
Russell,
I disagree.
NATO countries * should have shot down * Russian aircraft that violated their airspace. Ehhh, maybe that’s a bit premature but completely reasonable. At the least the message should be sent it will not be tolerated and they will be shot down.
Putin’s intentions here are hard to read, maybe he wants that to happen to open up Poland for attack. Or something.
Geeyaad. I am so happy NPR got defunded. The moderator here was absolutely disgusting.
Fresh Air: How Charlie Kirk became a leader of the conservative youth movement
https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/g-s1-89233/fresh-air-for-sept-17-2025-how-charlie-kirk-became-a-leader-of-the-conservative-youth-movement
Transcript:
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5544168
Basically:
We have a NYT’s reporter here to tell us who Kirk was.
Tell me how Kirk was a racist.
Tell me how Kirk was anti-immigration
Tell me how Kirk picked on liberal college students
Tell me how Kirk was transphobic
Tell me how Kirk was a white supremacist
Tell me how Kirk was best friends with Nick Fuentes
Tell me how the assassin might be a right wing groyper
Now … the guest was Robert Draper who wrote a profile on Kirk previously for NYT Magazine and to his immense and undying credit he refuted (mostly) these things one after another and gave a pretty accurate profile AFAICT.
But for Terry Gross the host, this was shameful. Zero empathy. No mention of the family he left behind, etc.
Gross, funny framing of open debate:
Kimmel issued his non-appology, basically: I didn’t mean what I actually said.
Neither of the broadcast station groups who stoped airing his show have relented….. more than half of ABC stations…… so after the hubbub dies down, Kimmel’s minuscule audience will likely be even smaller than a couple weeks ago. His contract with ABC is up in May. If renewed, I’ll bet it will be at a much lower salary.
SteveF,
It sounds like late night show ratings generally are down especially with younger people. He may need to go the podcast route.
I really don’t know where the future is for broadcast. I mostly watch streaming. It’s more convenient.
I’m assuming that Trump doesn’t really mean this:
“In major shift, Trump says he now thinks Ukraine can win back all of its territory taken by Russia”
I assume it’s just a negotiating tactic to signal to Russia that we are all in supporting Ukraine. But you never know with Trump.
Lucia,
“I really don’t know where the future is for broadcast. ”
In most places, cable service is available and few actually watch ‘broadcast’ TV using antennas on rooftops. I expect at some point in the future over-air TV reception will become so uncommon that Congress will auction off broadcast spectrum to the highest bidders…. and I doubt those bidders will be broadcast TV stations.
Lucia,
I should add: streaming internet is actually taking market share from cable TV. Over-air broadcast remains important mainly in smaller markets and some rural areas. Overall, about 15% of households rely at least partially on over-air broadcast TV.
Broadcast TV currently has a lock on the major sports leagues … NFL, NBA, PGA, the NCAA, Tennis broadcasts most of their prime games over conventional channels.
The regional sports networks that carry NHL and MLB are slowly migrating to streaming.
you can stream the majority of the NHL out of market games on ESPN+. You can also connect through ESPN+ to many of the regional sports networks that carry MLB and NHL home games.
ESPN+ also carries a tremendous number of live NCAA sports that are the undercard… soccer volleyball, baseball. you can also find the smaller schools football and even high school games.
Right now, sports fans can’t exist without broadcast channels even if they stream them to connect (that’s how I do it)
Wait, I take something back. You can now stream the NFL Sunday Ticket
Jim probably watches football on broadcast. He watches Monday night football.
Lucia,
Yes, probably, but I understand there is a way through ESPN to stream MNF.
I watch the NFL games through the local broadcast stations in Tampa.
But I connect to them through Google’s YouTube TV, which is a streaming service. What a mess.
ESPN+ and NFL Sunday Ticket combined cost about the same or a little less than YouTube TV. You can subscribe to just those during football season and come out ahead.
ESPN+ carries 1000 college football games which is almost enough but you will miss some major games on Fox, NBC, CBS. ABC is included with ESPN+.
What needs to happen is for the NCAA to force non-exclusivity to broadcast partners and allow somebody to sell all games similar to NFL Sunday Ticket (at this time Sunday Ticket doesn’t include local broadcasts … so you need an antenna).
But then there is golf, NCAA basketball, NBA for some people etc.
It’s going to get there but we will need to pry those remaining rights from the cold dead hands of the broadcast people. Subscriptions will collapse without live sports and they know it. Ultimately it is who is going to pay the most.
FWIW I am too far to get antenna action without putting up a significant antenna on the roof. Some people hide them in their attic.
https://www.antennasdirect.com/transmitter-locator.html
I think Jim doesn’t much care who is playing. He doesn’t pay a dime and isn’t going to. It looks like Monday Night Football is on ABC. We do have an antenna in the attic, so he likely is getting this on broadcast. I don’t think it’s Samsung TV.
Tom,
“ FWIW I am too far to get antenna action without putting up a significant antenna on the roof”
Me too, and I like to watch the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
So, to get the major NCAA games and the Bucks, I pay through the nose for google to connect me to the broadcast stations. I generally don’t use ESPN plus for college games because YouTube TV has a handy screen where you can watch multiple games at a time and then switch back-and-forth.
Russel
We have a very large slope on the room. So the otherwise unusueable attic fits a “real” antenna. We don’t need to worry about wind taking it out.
Lucia,
besides the distance, I live in a forest and the trees block the signal. So antenna is pretty much out for me. It’s also against the HOA rules.
Part of the weird structure of over the air TV is you are allowed to receive that for free using an antenna but you cannot receive it via streaming.
People have tried legal loopholes. They put up an antenna and then relay you the local channels via streaming for a nominal fee.
The networks get around half their income from advertising and half from licensing fees to cable networks or streaming fees.
I also pay a king’s ransom to YouTube TV. They have the best interface and multi-view is great.
The other downside of antenna channels is they don’t integrate well into an Apple TV or streaming box setup. In order to get to an antenna channel you have to go through a ridiculous amount of remote control contortions.
Russell,
An HOA cannot prevent you from putting up an OTA antenna. If you require a tower to receive the signal then they can’t stop you. They can place “reasonable restrictions” on placement and so forth. The OTARD Rule.
Tom ,
I use the multiview a lot. I don’t actually watch the games in Multiview, but I use it to choose which one is active. It’s amazing how often two or three of the channels will be in commercial simultaneously.
Russell,
Having an exteriror antenna may be against the HOA rules but if it is, this particular rule is in violation of Federal Regulation.
to wit:
The FCC’s OTARD Rule (47 C.F.R. § 1.4000) protects homeowners’ and tenants’ rights to install, maintain, and use outdoor antennas for receiving local television broadcast signals. HOAs, condominium associations, and landlords cannot ban or unreasonably restrict these antennas if they are in areas the resident exclusively controls, like a private balcony, patio, yard, or rooftop.
John and Tom,
Thank you I didn’t know that.
I still live in a heavenly forest area and don’t think that I would be able to receive the signals.
But it really doesn’t matter I don’t want the house to look like a double wide.
Are you all aware of another assassination?
This time they targeted ICE in Texas. They missed the ICE agents and killed two detainees
Not to be pedantic, but when the shooter doesn’t know the name of his target I wouldn’t call that an assassination. That was a shooting.
(I am almost loath to verbalize this for some reason) What a pathetic waste of a life. Attempt to shoot ICE officers, fail at that, instead kill detainees, and then kill self.
Epic failure.
Epic Democrat
Russell,
It looks to me as Trump trolling. Consider his last statement in his post.
“ In any event, I wish both Countries well.
We will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them. Good luck”
The US will happily sell Europe weapons on a “cash and carry” basis.
Reminds me of the statement “have fun storming the castle ”
(Movie Princess Bride)
Do we know that the Dallas shooter was aiming at the ICE agents? It seems plausible, but that is not the same as knowing. There must be at least some chance that he hit what he was aiming at.
Mike,
One thing I heard on Fox News was that he also sprayed the building and the van as it was entering the parking lot. the detainees were in the van.
My first thought was, they were murdered by druglords who didn’t want them to testify, but I’m the only one who came up with that idea.
We don’t know much. ANTI-ICE on the bullet casings suggests an inept copycat thing. One would expect the shooter could discriminate between detainees and agents but who knows?
The “anti-ICE” engraving does indicate that the shooter was an anti-ICE extremist. If the detainees were in the van, then the shooter was just shooting the van because it was an ICE vehicle. He was not thinking about who he might hit. Maybe that should just be not thinking. Evil. Idiotic. Pathetic. Epic fail.
It seems to me that the agendas of “right wing” shooters never or rarely align with things that are said by Republican politicians or prominent conservatives. But Leftist shooters have an agenda that does align with what Democrat politicians say. Am I mistaken?
The guy who shot that Minnesota legislator had an anti-abortion agenda. So that lines up with a mainstream Republican agenda. So that’s one.
On the other side, we have the ICE shooter, Kirk’s murderer, the two trans school shooters, the two would be Trump assassins, and the Republican baseball team shooter. For startes.
Secretary Cristi Noem:
“ For months, we’ve been warning politicians and the media to tone down their rhetoric about ICE law enforcement before someone was killed.
These horrendous killings must serve as a wake-up call to the far-left that their rhetoric about ICE has consequences. Comparing ICE Day-in and day-out to the Nazi Gestapo, the Secret Police, and slave patrols has consequences. The men and women of ICE are fathers and mothers, sons and daughters. They get up every morning to try and make our communities safer. Like everyone else, we just want to go home to our families at night.
The violence and dehumanization of these men and women who are simply enforcing the law must stop. We are praying for the victims and their families.”
demonizing Republicans is the only arrow the Democrats have in their quiver.
it’s a daily drum beat of hate Trump and hate his voters.
they are completely devoid of ideas and are completely devoid of human decency.
Time for conservatives to play offense
I’m tired of this “both sides” of bullshit
Andy Gno:
“ The attack occurred in the context of months of Democrat politicians, liberals and leftists encouraging violent direct action against ICE. Antifa and far-left extremists have been releasing names, photos and addresses of agents, urging comrades to kill them. In July, members of a North Texas Antifa cell allegedly carried out a shooting ambush on an ICE facility in Alvarado. One officer was shot in the neck, but narrowly survived. The nightly violent attacks on the ICE facility in Portland by Antifa remain ongoing. ngocomment.com”
https://x.com/mrandyngo/status/1970936239894430053?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
JD Vance: “And there’s some evidence that we have that’s not yet public, but we know this person was politically motivated.”
We shall see.
However shooter scoreboards aren’t very helpful to much anything IMO. I’m not going to be very surprised if some whacko on the right decides the tribe needs payback. We are entering a phase of political violence it seems.
Trump, the master troll, strikes again.
Trump White House hangs image of Biden autopen signature in new ‘Presidential Walk of Fame’
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/24/politics/biden-autopen-portrait-white-house-trump
The extreme rhetoric seems to me remarkably prevalent among ‘progressives’. Sure, Jefferies, Schumer, and a host of other ‘leaders’ are happy to “reject violence”, but minutes later are comparing their political opponents to fascists and Nazis…. yet again. After all, the slightly unhinged understand what you should do with someone who is ‘just like Hitler’.
Their sincerity needs to increase a lot, and that could start with not describing opponents as Nazis and fascists.
Tom Scharf,
Troll? Yes.
Funny? Yes again.
Tom : “However shooter scoreboards aren’t very helpful to much anything IMO.”
You might think so, but the reasons to have them are clear.
Political violence is the point at which a line is drawn. By showing your opponents engage in violence is a way to delegitimize their views and paint yourselves as the good guys. It’s a way to justify censorship and political targeting. It sits at the heart of the argument that “words are violence”. If you speak, the stats say you will create violence. Fuller used one of these lists a while back to point the finger at the real problem. It’s not a lack of introspection and moderation of their side’s crazies. It’s you who is the actual problem.
The left have been using such lists for decades. The ADL have a huge list of fake stats on political violence. So do other places. As I’ve said before, they’re created by taking the most generous definition available of “right wing”, and being as narrow as possible for the left. For example, we might generally define the right as “anti-government” therefore all “anti-government” violence is right wing. Attacks on jews (which might include “harassment” as an “attack”). Right wing because reasons.
There is no reason not to try and set the record straight. The left will continue to do it whether you engage or not.
That’s why I think scoreboards are not helpful. You just get a counter scoreboard from left credentialed “experts”. This shifts the debate to esoteric scorekeeping rules away from something everyone can see with their own eyes – the anti-ICE activist crowd is crazy and increasingly violent, errr … mostly peaceful.
It might be politically useful to keep the opponents on the defensive.
I’m not sure there is going to be a coherent story on this one. At the moment is looks like this guy might be just a general whacko. He apparently had a paper map of the US attached to the side of his car with text: “Radioactive fallout from nuclear detonations have passed over these areas more than 2x since 1951.”
https://nypost.com/2025/09/24/us-news/anti-ice-gunman-joshua-jahns-car-had-bizarre-map-stuck-to-outside-showing-radioactive-fallout-across-us/
This ain’t Biden’s ICE. They aren’t taking any crap. The beatings will continue until moral improves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrB8w2_0bQ0
My opinion is the police have been too passive in some situations which leads protesters to believe they can get away with direct confrontations. There is a new sheriff in town.
Tom: “I’m not sure there is going to be a coherent story on this one.”
I don’t think his social media got wiped as fast as some would have liked. It seems there is a coherent story, but I’ll give it a little more time to mature.
“This ain’t Biden’s ICE. ”
These guys are getting assaulted and sometimes shot at. Of course they react with some anger.
If rioting against enforcing Federal law continues in Chicago, National Guard troops will soon arrive.
The odd thing: ICE is simply enforcing long-standing Federal immigration law. People interfering, assaulting, and sometimes worse, are all felons, and should be arrested, tried, and sent to Federal prison.
Build more prisons if needed, but interfering with law enforcement can’t be allowed, no matter how many politicians like airship Pritzker support it.
In lighter news today, Hershey won a suit in which customers alleged that its (last year’s) Halloween candy was not spooky as the illustration of the product wrapper indicated.
The Democrats seemed to be doing everything they can to lose the midterms. The most popular things Trump is doing like rounding up illegals and cleaning up crime in cities they are vehemently against.. It’s like Trump worked the Jedi mind trick on the Democrats….…
“Democrats, do everything you can to lose the next election”
Palestinians don’t much like homosexuals. Who’da thunk?
[Samir Elwafi with regards to the activists in Greta Thunberg’s latest Gaza flotilla stunt]
This amuses me no end. I guess progressives will just continue to ignore this, that their Omnicause isn’t actually something that unites. I think it mostly has utility as a source of division and a means of tearing down hierarchies, not building anything to replace them.
[Well, it unites college educated first world white women, mostly… I don’t know if it unites much beyond that.]
supporting Hamas, another Democrat loser position
Scott Adams, today:
“ Democrat leaders are 100% to blame for recent violence against Republicans. ”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
He says a lot more stuff:
https://x.com/scottadamssays/status/1971193049398317332?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Babylon Bee….
“ Democrats Wondering If Maybe They Should Stop Saying The Things Assassins Are Having Engraved On Bullets.”
https://x.com/thebabylonbee/status/1971001739458273624?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
TPUSA is continuing the ‘ prove me wrong’ campus tour that Charlie Kirk started. It is meeting with tremendous acceptance. I remember the times when Charlie had trouble getting approval for a card table on the lawn, now he’s a huge draw. I sure hope this movement grows.
Last night at Virginia Tech Megyn Kelly was the guest speaker. The hall was jammed:
“AWESOME! The auditorium at Virginia Tech is FILLED TO THE BRIM with students for Turning Point’s campus tour stop with @megynkelly tonight”
Video:
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1970992175480770638?s=61
Previous night at University of Minnesota was likewise jammed:
“This Is the Turning Point Tour at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities held a powerful moment as students chanted Charlie’s name”
Video:
https://x.com/tpusa/status/1970316740728103314?s=61
President Trump in the Oval Office answering a question about what is causing this increase in violence:
“Radical Left Democrats Are Causing This Problem, And It’s Going To Get Worse
They’re very low-IQ people, actually. But the radical left is causing this problem. Not the right, the radical left. And it’s going to get worse. And ultimately, it’s going to go back on them.”
Video:
https://x.com/rcpvideo/status/1971252868633198731?s=61
Russell,
It seems to me that the problem with labels is that a label can be applied to a person or an organization which may not exhibit the entire array of characteristics which the label may ordinarily encompass. Say there are 15 generally accepted characteristics of say dementia, or fascism, and the subject only exhibits 3 or 4. Subject may not earn the prize, not enough symptoms.
To me, the program which Trump seems to be following is clearly fascist. It might help if I post a list of characteristics/activities generally acknowledged as fascist, and then see if you agree that Trump’s adminstration is actually pursuing these avenues or if you may disagree that the listings are fascist.
As to the idea that Democrats are inventing the words scribble on rounds, I think we need examples.
It looks a lot more like Kirk’s assassin was upset by what he (apparently mistakenly) believed about Kirk’s proposed program for Trans and LGQT (?) folks.
Does this make any sense to you?
john ferguson,
Wikipedia lists the characteristics of fascism:
“Fascism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.”
Trump matches none of those.
John,
I’d be interested in hearing what you have to support pretty much any part of this claim.
1) How do we know what specifically Tyler Robinson was upset about?
2) What is this mistaken belief about Kirk’s proposed program for LGBTQ?
2a) What is claimed to be ‘Kirk’s proposed program for LGBTQ’?
John,
“Here is a picture FBI Director Kash Patel just tweeted of “the unspent shell casings recovered…engraved with the phrase ANTI ICE.”
Image:
https://x.com/prem_thakker/status/1970878409032004001?s=61
John,
The leftist who murdered Charlie Kirk had engraved on his bullets:
“ Hey fascist! Catch!”
From Fox News:
“Leftist gun club tied to violence recruiting on Georgetown campus echoes Kirk killing: ‘Hey fascist! Catch!”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/leftist-gun-club-tied-violence-recruiting-georgetown-campus-echoes-kirk-killing-hey-fascist-catch
These posters came from the “John Brown gun club”
Indeed!
two Russian officials have been found suicided so far today:
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1971290632208465925?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Trump may have some fascist tendencies but our government is not fascist. It is also protected from this.
Democrats conveniently forget this.
Mamdani has socialist tendencies yet experts aren’t falling all over themselves fearing full scale socialism in NYC.
Well, he likes military parades…
mark,
I think you have correctly identified the extent of Trump’s “fascist tendencies”.
I have been telling you about these encirclement with pincer movements, cutting off Russian troops in a large salient near the town of Pokrovsk.
This has been an ongoing operation for about three weeks. The Russians charged into a large salient that left both their flanks exposed. Ukrainians have been exploiting this. The conditions continue to get worse for the Russians. Current situation from @NOELreports, a trusted source:
“On the Pokrovsk front, Russian forces have reportedly fallen into three simultaneous encirclements. Ukrainian troops cut off their retreat routes while drones track reinforcements and convoys. Russian channels admit the situation is “catastrophic” with huge losses. Ukraine’s Dnipro command confirms advances, saying Russian logistics near Dobropillia are collapsing and retreating troops are trapped under fire.”
Map:
https://x.com/noelreports/status/1971474242265923798?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
John, Your question to me:
“Does this make any sense to you?”
I concur with the following from your post:
“It looks a lot more like Kirk’s assassin was upset by what he (apparently mistakenly) believed about Kirk’s proposed program for Trans and LGQT (?) folks.’
This reaffirms my point about the Democrats’ rhetoric.
They kept hurling slurs at Charlie Kirk including, frequently, that he was homophobic, until some troubled soul with a high powered rifle murdered him. The Democrats provided no proof for this but the assassin believed it.
Now I have a question for you…..
Do you think that Democratic rhetoric could have had any effect at on the two shooters, Kirk and the ICE building?
For those of you that have an Amazon Alexa device… Amazon is offering (to some subscribers) a new AI powered Alexa called Alexa+. I have installed it and I’m giving it a test drive. You can see if you are eligible by asking your device.
“ Alexa, is Alexa plus available to me?”
You can set the whole thing up over your device.
It’s free for Amazon Prime members I don’t know what the price is for nonmembers.
You only have to install it on one device and your other devices mirror it.
Russell,
Kirk did not seem a fascist to me. I agree that the term is misused and certainly didn’t apply to him.
Mike M.
When I get back to this over the weekend, I’d like to use an expanded version of fascist characteristics that you offered and show which I believe can be seen in Trump’s Statements.
Russell,
I’m not sure Democratic rhetoric had much influence on either of these guys, although I do suspect that Kirk was not the person his assassin thought he was, and that might be ascribed to the same faulty reporting, or possibly social media posts which led me to think he favored stoning of gays. That was a quote out of context and hot at all what he said, yet it produced all manner of over-the-top condemnation of him.
Does anyone here have any idea how either of them got their news and opinions? Concensus seems to be mostly social media which suggests to me that it might be impossible to tie any of these actions to comments by recognized political figures.
John,
I asked Grok to give me some examples of Democrats accusing Charlie Kirk of being homophobic.
Grok give me five examples:
https://x.com/i/grok/share/twqSJPLkOGu0WALp0qP3ejmmD
With his otherwise liberal tendencies, having prominent Democrats hurling slurs at Charlie Kirk certainly had the potential of influencing the shooter
John,
Does it ever give you pause to realize that your team supports religious extremists in Palestine who are linked to Iran where stonings actually occur and have been documented as recently as within the last 15 years and gay people are actually put to death while vilifying perfectly civilized and well behaved political opponents in the US? I mean, you’re obviously an intelligent guy. How do you reconcile this?
I would gently suggest that maybe you are standing on the side of the demons John. It’s never too late to renounce evil.
People occasionally paraphrase Orwell as having said ‘It’s not that socialists love the poor so much as they hate the rich.’. I’d suggest that their modern counterparts operate from a similar premise; ‘it’s not so much that progressives love the Palestinians as they hate western civilization.’
john ferguson wrote: “I’d like to use an expanded version of fascist characteristics that you offered and show which I believe can be seen in Trump’s Statements.”
I look forward to that. It might be amusing. If you expand enough, you will find similarities. After all, there are similarities between fascism and communism even though those two ideologies are diametrically opposed.
john ferguson,
I don’t care where those shooters got their info.
The guy who murdered Kirk had a false impression of the guy, but that was consistent with what many Democrat politicians say about Kirk and continued to say after his murder.
The guy who murdered the detainee in Dallas had an opinion of ICE that was consistent with what mainstream Democrat politicians say about ICE.
The two guys who tried to murder Trump appear to have had an opinion of Trump consistent with what mainstream Democrat politicians say about Trump.
Democrat politicians and their media allies are helping to create an environment that produces such murderers. And they know they are doing it. That is unacceptable.
Mark Bofill wrote: “it’s not so much that progressives love the Palestinians as they hate western civilization.”
Spot on.
Mike, your post:
“ Democrat politicians and their media allies are helping to create an environment that produces such murderers. And they know they are doing it. That is unacceptable.”
Well said.
John: “I’d like to use an expanded version of fascist characteristics that you offered and show which I believe can be seen in Trump’s Statements.”
The traits in such lists are usually widely applicable to left and right, the difference is just the inclusion of a group identifier to apply it to the required side of the political spectrum and exclude themselves. Reassigning the group, I’m sure there are plenty examples of communistic characteristics on the left. This is just your average attempt to demonize and delegitimize political opponents.
Where the left have gone “wrong” is that the older generation recognize the linguistic games they are playing. However, the younger generation has grown up with this rhetoric and actually believe the BS. Social media has played a huge part in this. It’s their duty to “punch a nazi”. The democrat establishment says those people are nazis and fascists.
While talking to a gaggle of reporters on his way to a helicopter, Trump said he thinks he has a deal on Gaza.
No specifics
Video:
https://x.com/polymarketintel/status/1971581364643446937?s=61
Trump is using the DOJ against political opponents. “That’s fascist”.
Unless it is the left doing that against Trump, then it is defending democracy and “nobody is above the law”.
Trump is limiting the speech of opponents. That’s fascist.
Unless it is throwing Trump off of social media. That’s protecting democracy from misinformation.
Yada yada yada. Snore.
These attacks get no traction because of the hypocrisy. The lawfare campaign against Trump was a dismal failure all around.
Tom Scharf –
The fact that each side hypocritically denounced the others’ actions, doesn’t excuse any of the behaviors you cited.
Sometimes I think our country isn’t a democracy*, it’s a hypocrisy. 😉
*I know, the USA is not a democracy, it’s a republic. But that doesn’t rhyme with hypocrisy.
Both sides can unilaterally disarm or we can do tit for tat warfare forever. I’m not confident disarmament is in the near future.
“ the two best Democrat presidential candidates in the last 10 years, Tulsi and RFK jr. are now working for Trump. That’s really got to sting.”
–
Saw this comment on the web and liked it.
Are there any others that spring to mind.
I liked Gabbard, and thought she was the best Democratic candidate in that cycle (was it 2020?), but the only thing RFK Jr had going for him was being anti-establishment. At that, he was preferable to Biden ( or later, Harris).
HaroldW,
RFK jr doesn’t suffer from dementia either. 😉
angech,
As the saying goes, they didn’t leave the party, the party left them. My impression is that the ascendant ‘progressives’ are now in complete control of the Dems on policy. Many of these folks are so far from where Bill Clinton was (politically) that it seems like a completely different party.
Bring out the popcorn
Couple of related items the last few days
.
1. Trump declares Antifa a terrorist organization
.
2. The feds start arresting Antifa rioters and it is looking like they are likely to be charged as terrorists
.
3. The RICO Act is likely going to be used against people/organizations supporting Antifa, such as Soros
.
Being charged under terrorist and RICO laws opens up entirely different, and much more stringent, avenues of prosecution.
.
https://headlineusa.com/george-soros-facing-impending-federal-investigation/
.
https://ussanews.com/2025/09/26/soros-foundation-fires-back-at-nyt-report-we-dont-fund-terrorism/
The Democrats are doubling down with their Nazi rhetoric. They’re also rioting outside ICE facilities.
Turns out I’m not the only one who dislikes their tactics, voters don’t like those either. From Fox News:
“Thirty percent of voters nationwide questioned in a Quinnipiac University survey said they have a favorable opinion of the Democrat Party and 54% say they hold an unfavorable opinion.
“This is the lowest favorability rating for the Democrat Party since the Quinnipiac University Poll began asking voters this question in 2008,” the survey’s release noted.”
I coined a saying:
“Every time a prominent Democrat leader calls us Nazis more voters become Republicans.”
“54% say they hold an unfavorable opinion [of the Democrats]”
Yeah, but a big chunk of those think the Democrats are not extreme enough.
Da@n Mike, I wish you hadn’t said that.
now that I’m in a poll rut…
Reuters/Ipsos has a new poll:
NYPost, “GOP has ‘better plan’ on economy, immigration, crime and more in brutal poll for Dems”
….. image of all the results, it really is devastating for Democrats:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1971938278514610182?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
I read it here:
https://nypost.com/2025/09/25/us-news/gop-has-better-plan-on-economy-immigration-crime-and-more-in-brutal-poll-for-dems/
there is a line a ‘mile long’ to get TPUSA ‘freedom’ T-shirts at the Oregon State/ Penn State game. They are also running a voter registration booth.
Another nightmare for the Democrats
https://x.com/andrewkolvet/status/1971981347175751841?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
I’m in rural NC today and they are having a big Pumpkin festival. The Republicans have a voter registration stall.
NC Pride has a stall but they put out a big “Hate has no home here” sign in front. I wonder what message they think they are sending. A little different than “Prove me wrong”.
Kind of a microcosm of the current situation.
Boy, I didn’t realized how spoiled I’d become until I found a technical topic Gemini is full of beans about. Professional tip : don’t ask Gemini to help with refactoring embedded software for a Renode emulation. It’ll hallucinate like mad, but everything [it] says will sound completely plausible.
Maybe ‘Deep Research’ will anchor it back to reality some.
“Gemini is full of beans about. ”
This does not surprise me at all. These programs are parroting what they find on the internet, not thinking. Challenge them with something that doesn’t have a known/clear solution, and watch out.
Steve,
I think you’re oversimplifying, but I won’t argue. Deep research treated me better; I just had to force it to go RTFM’s so to speak.
What is RTMF?
An acronym for ‘Read The F*cking Manual’.
I’m not sure it really hallucinated anymore. It’s training data might have been old enough that what it thought was the case was true at the time. I’m not going to do the online digital archeology to try to figure out if that’s really the case or not.
mark Bofill
Re Gemini
“Maybe ‘Deep Research’ will anchor it back to reality some.”
–
In further detail.
Please do a deeper search.
Taking into account….. could you do a deeper search.
Please give more detail.
What do you really think about this.
Discuss in depth.
–
These are some of the other instructions, sure there are many more, which will bring up a more accurate or more elaborate answer.
–
Don’t mention politics or it may decide to go on the blink to throw off your demand for an answer.
–
As in details are unobtainable at this time.
Or would you like to go to this site for an answer.
Or, the best, we are having problems with our site, try again later
–
It may appear to be hallucinating but you are getting the accurate nonsense answer it algorithms are forced to deliver.
Same thing really.
Mark Bofill,
Never heard that one before, but I sure have experienced it.
I wrote an updated user manual a couple years ago, about 120 pages long, including images of all the screens there are in the operating software, theory of operation, practical examples, troubleshooting, a detailed glossary, and an index of relevant technical terms. A copy is stored in PDF format on every instrument we sell, We even provide translated versions. I do not know how many customers actually read it, but my guess is I could count them on my fingers. I could often answer customers requesting technical support by giving them a list of page numbers, but they would never be satisfied with that. It is bizarre.
Steve,
Yes. Many people just don’t like to read it seems. It IS bizarre.
Will the Democrats force a federal government shutdown? We will find out soon.
Republicans want to reduce the size and scope of government and cut the federal budget. They have sometimes been willing to shut down the government in an attempt to advance those goals.
Democrats want to increase the size and scope of government and grow the federal budget. They are threatening to shut down the government in an attempt to advance those goals.
Maybe its just me, but I think that one of those positions has a greater degree on internal consistency than the other.
That is especially the case this time since if the Democrats shut down the government, Trump will use that to lay off federal employees and end programs. In the past, I would have said that only Republicans are that dumb, but Schumer , Jeffries et al. may have painted themselves into a corner. This could be fun.
MSNBC on the pros for the Dems shutting down the government:
“The main case for Democrats sticking to their guns on a shutdown is that, on a symbolic level, it would show an appetite for a real clash with the Trump administration.”
“a shutdown would show that the Democratic Party recognizes the need for creative forms of resistance.”
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-government-shutdown-omb-memo-democrats-firings-rcna233712
If they think a shutdown is “creative” and that people don’t know they are against Trump, then the Democrats are in bigger trouble than I thought.
President Trump, a couple of hours ago on Truth social media….
“ We have a real chance for GREATNESS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. ALL ARE ON BOARD FOR SOMETHING SPECIAL, FIRST TIME EVER. WE WILL GET IT DONE!!! President DJT”
Yesterday he mentioned he had a deal in the works for Gaza. I’m assuming this is more of the same.
I doubt it. I think Putin would abandon his Ukraine ambitions long, long before Hamas and Iran would abandon their unholy war against Israel. But who can say? Trump remains a wildcard to some extent and (for me anyway) it remains difficult to predict what he can and can’t accomplish.
Saying this, I predict that he will accomplish less than he implies here but more than anyone has any right to expect. That’s usually what seems to happen I think.
After the Abraham Accords I’m not putting anything past him.
That was the deal of the century
Whether there is a ceasefire in Gaza or not, the underlying conflict will remain: Palestinian Arabs (and most non- Palestinian Arabs!) want Israel to not exist. There is not much chance of long term accommodation under those circumstances. Palestinian Arabs have walked away from multiple peace agreements in the past…. and they very likely will again, even if there is a ceasefire. I have seen zero evidence to the contrary. I hope I am wrong, but believe I am not.
A shutdown will allow Trump to cut all the parts of the Federal bureaucracy he doesn’t like. Think DOGE writ large.
I can’t imagine what Schumer and company are thinking. If they want leverage on policy, they need to win control of the House in 2026….. a forced shutdown when they are in the minority in both chambers is not the way to do that. Stupid is as stupid does. Yes, their loony base will be happy, but nobody else.
Perhaps the only senator stupider than Schumer is Rand Paul…. who will side with his political enemies (who want to incur ever more debt!), just to spite the legislative majority of his own party. Time for him to retire I think.
I have been hearing claims that the Comey indictment is without foundation, but have not understood why. Here is the explanation: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/09/the-misbegotten-comey-indictment.php
“Comey obviously understood Cruz to be asking whether Comey had authorized McCabe to leak to the WSJ … But McCabe had never said Comey authorized the leak; McCabe said that he himself authorized the leak and told Comey about it afterwards, and that Comey didn’t seem to have a problem with it.”
So unless the prosecutor has something we have not heard about, the case is going to blow up in the administration’s face. Ugh.
I hate to see Cpmey get away with everything. But it will be even worse if he can claim that a court found that he did nothing wrong.
It occurs to me that there is a hole in Andy McCarthy’s claim that there is no case against Comey. Does he have all the evidence presented to the grand jury? I am pretty sure that evidence is not made public. If so, his analysis is based on McCabe’s public statements and the assumption that those statements are true.
But surely Comey was not indicted on the basis of unsupported statements reported by the press. If McCabe testified under oath, then he must have testified that Comey told him to leak the info. If not, then the jury must have been given some other evidence that Comey did that. I think (or maybe just hope) that it can’t be as thin as McCarthy says.
Yeah, I know that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But I think that would require some bread and at least a little bit of ham.
A review of study assigning political leaning of terrorist or otherwise violent action on the US since 1990.
https://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2025/09/306123-81f9f138-75ab-43cc-aff9-e53e59ac5fdb.pdf
Last week, Economist published similar review with similar conclusion, but did say the authors were unsure of whether their conclusions might seem clouded by who they were.
I haven’t forgotten my proposal to work my way through a list of characteristics of fascist policies to show where I see expressions of this in the current administration.
DavidJR, there is no doubt that fascists and communists employ similar methods to attempt to achieve their goals. but thedir goals are not at all the same. This is why it isn’t totally nuts to accuse a radical leftist to be a communist, and sometimes why someone who is radical right is susceptable to an accusation of fascism.
At the same time, my guess is a lot of people who throw out the term fascism don’t really know what the word means.
Mike M.
Did you really suggest that it would be worse if Comey can state that a court has confirmed him innocent of the charges? What if he is innocent?
This sounds like the sort of thing the comedian was suggesting the MAGA’s were upset about recently.
A young mother was insulted by a man she didn’t know in front of her child because she was wearing a Charlie Kirk ‘freedom’ shirt…
She made a post that went viral and has 8.8 million views so far. Elon Musk picked it up, reposted it and his post has 6.7 million views so far.
The meat of the message;
“Want a reason to hate me?
I am a Constitutional Conservative.
I am a Christian.
And I am not going to be silent anymore.
I AM CHARLIE KIRK.”
I am seeing a lot of this kind of sentiment.
Normally quiet, reserved mainstream, conservatives, are angry, and fighting back.
The Democrats really don’t understand what their hatred has unleashed.
Original post:
https://x.com/dogwoodblooms/status/1972354148696760589?s=61
Elon Musk‘s repost:
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1972423249666736603?s=61
If you visit the site, you can help the cause by reposting it.
(I did!)
John,
Did Trump collude with Russia?
If you understand that this was a complete fabrication, then you understand Comey abused the power of his office for political purposes.
This doesn’t bother me as much as many others though. Our FBI has essentially been the President’s Gestapo since their founding. Comey was merely upholding the tradition.
Mark Bofill,
No Trump didn’t collude with Russia, and Flynn didn’t lie about anything (according to the agents that interviewed him). But Comey really didn’t want Trump in office, and really didn’t want Flynn running US intelligence. He was a political actor…. on behalf of the Obama administration.
I may be needing an intervention….. I have been binge watching a show from PBS [Don’t tell anyone it will ruin my reputation!]
It’s a who-dun-it from Masterpiece called ‘Endeavour’.
“Set from 1965 into the 1970s, the show follows Endeavour Morse in his early years as a police constable. Working alongside his senior partner DI Fred Thursday, Morse engages in a number of investigations around Oxford.”
Rotten Tomatoes gives it 90 on the tomato meter [critics] And 92 on the popcorn meter [all watchers].
I have been streaming it on Amazon Prime Video but only the first three seasons are available there without a surcharge. To get the remaining 6 seasons I will have to pay Amazon $7 a month or join my local PBS station to get something called ‘PBS Passport’.
I have been looking into the PBS passport and it gives you access to all of not only Masterpiece but Nova and their documentaries. I may join my local PBS station WEDU for $5 a month. [Don’t tell anyone it will ruin my reputation!]
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/endeavour
Mark,
I didn’t think the Russian collusion investigation was aimed specifically at Trump but more to discover whether there had been any within his campaign. IIRC, his campaign manager did give the results of a private poll to a person “known” to be a Russian agent.
I never read any allegation that the Russians had assisted the campaign in any way, maybe other than releasing HIllary’s likely idiotic emails and they did that in public.
I’m sure you agree that Comey sholuld be prosecuted for something he actually did and not because we know he’s a bad guy.
Russell, do join WEDU. We’re watching the Ken Burns Civil War series on Passport right now. I can never hear Ashokan Farewell often enough. You mkght also find Washington Week an interesting show on Friday night at 8:00PM.
It’s a more benign way than MSNBC to get a quasi-liberal overview.
Thanks, John. I was hoping you would chime in. I’m gonna go ahead and join.
John: “but thedir goals are not at all the same.”
Except the “goals” are similar to how “whiteness” is defined. It starts with an assumption that the goal is the problem and it shouldn’t be a goal at all. When you take the opposite position to the “goal”, what are you left with?
It is a way of removing nuance. Any move towards the goal is “fascism”. All steps in any direction require the use of force against those who disagree. Your force is evil, because fascism. My force is good, because not fascism. The point of all these exercises is to remove dialogue using thought terminating memes. To move towards goal x is fascism. Fascism bad. Discussing goal is supporting fascism. Discussion bad.
“This is why it isn’t totally nuts to accuse a radical leftist to be a communist, and sometimes why someone who is radical right is susceptable to an accusation of fascism.”
Except for the unfortunate difference in conditioned response to those claims, sure. If the commie accusation attracted the same level of social approbrium, I would agree, but sadly, it doesn’t.
JF
“I’m sure you agree that Comey sholuld be prosecuted for something he actually did and not because we know he’s a bad guy.”
A bit like Al Capone, I guess.
–
Comey was complicit in setting up a story about Prostitutes, piss and Presidents that he knew was totally untrue but gave it maximum rude publicity in an attempt to create an insurrection against Trump.
He helped destroy the lives of thousands of Trumps supporters without a qualm.
Real people John whose lives and homes and marriages were destroyed.
He got away because he helped run the crooked Department of Justice that should have opposed him..
And something Called a statute of limitations.
–
He wrecked Trump. Now the history books will have a little stain against his name and reputation as well but in this case well deserved.
–
He is a big boy with lots of Democrat mates and will not get convicted.
It is the lawyering up and the exposure that will make him pay a little for all the damage he has done
today’s visit to the farmers market. Did you know they grew peaches in Idaho?
They’re quite tasty but a very short season (now).
image
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1972649092913504699?s=46&t=ZvqHpxBnQGny72gLoGhKXw
john ferguson wrote: “A review of study assigning political leaning of terrorist or otherwise violent action on the US since 1990.”
I can’t imagine why that would be of any interest other than as propaganda. It could be of interest to see a study of the political ideologies of those who commit violence intended to advance their ideology. But that would require a lot more categories than “right” and “left”.
John,
Rules for thee but not for me, the same song Democrats always sing. I didn’t notice you complaining about New York passing laws specifically so they could go after Trump.
The days when Democrats could get away with the double standard is done. Your party normalized criminal prosecution for politics. That’s the new terrain. As usual, you and your party will accept zero responsibility for what you’ve done. Same as always. I’m sure you will go to your grave thinking none of the problems the US suffers from were caused by the Democrats.
john ferguson wrote: “Did you really suggest that it would be worse if Comey can state that a court has confirmed him innocent of the charges? What if he is innocent?”
Yep. If Comey were to state that a court has confirmed him innocent, that would be a lie. No court ever does that. And Comey will never face justice for most of his wrongdoing since the statute of limitations has expired on almost everything he did.
Comey is most certainly not innocent. He clearly did a whole lot that was wrong. It is possible that he made sure that he did nothing that could be proven to be a violation of the law. That might make him “not guilty”, but it does not make him innocent.
Fascists and communists are both collectivist and usually totalitarians. In this regard there is no meaningful difference between the two.
angech wrote: “He helped destroy the lives of thousands of Trumps supporters without a qualm.”
That was Wray, not Comey. But I am sure that Comey approved.
I do not want the see Comey or anyone else prosecuted for political reasons. That is what Democrats do. But I also don’t want to see Comey or anybody else walk because of Establishment insiders protecting their own.
There was a time when I felt that, to avoid even the appearance of political prosecution, political opponents should never be prosecuted unless their conduct was truly egregious. Those days are over.
Btw John, the collusion fiction was aimed specifically at Trump. Give us a break already, the whole scheme was born of Hillary Clinton’s dirty tricks campaign during the election.
You’re not fooling anybody.
Russell,
I also contribute to my local PBS station, to get Passport.
I recommend “All Creatures Great and Small”.
Thanks Harold
John Ferguson,
The Russia collusion investigation was most certainly aimed at Trump although Comey often pretended that it wasn’t. You can read more about that here:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/3828194/brief-example-james-comey-dishonesty/
A more detailed list of Comey’s many misdeeds, unethical behavior, and possible criminal actions can be found here:
https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/29/comey-faces-indictment/
Comey might never be found guilty by a court, but he is most certainly not innocent.
Not to mention that Comey was the lead prosecutor of Martha Stewart for lying to federal agents during an investigation of insider trading. She wasn’t an insider and the agents probably knew that when they were questioning her.
Then there’s the whole thing about FBI interviews not being recorded, just written up after the fact.
I still maintain my opinion that it was the Stalinists that defined fascism and nazism as right wing. Yes they often went after each other over who was going to be in charge, especially in Germany and Spain during the Civil War. But those were mainly power struggle with ideological overtones. The really big break came when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Before that, Stalin had no problem being in bed with Hitler, see the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact for example. IIRC, the CPUSA was opposed to US entry into WWII until Hitler invaded. Then there was an overnight shift.
Fascism is slightly to the right of communism only because the government doesn’t have to own the means of production. BFD. But the government still controls everything and individuals are nothing in both.
DeWitt,
Exactly.
In theory, there are big differences between fascism and communism. In practice, not so much.
I would say China is an example of a modern fascist country.
Interesting. The Chinese Communist Party is fascist!
Trump and Netanyahu are about to start a news conference.
It’s rumored there is a Gaza cease-fire.
Conference is starting momentarily
2:25 PM Florida time
Trump
“Eternal Peace in the Middle East”
Arab and moslem countries to demilitarize Gaza
DaveJR,
China as a fascist country. That’s very good and I think correct.
I wonder if you are first to realize it. Bravo.
Trumps 20 point peace plan
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/gaza-peace-plan-israel-trump-5HjdDfY_2/
OR
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/29/trump-israel-gaza-hamas-peace-plan.html
John, no, I wasn’t.
Do you not think it is fascist? Because it claims to be “communist”? Yet, a key feature of fascism is suborning business in service to the state. Do China not do that? Arr they not nationalist, with eyes on gaining what other people have? Do they not set up police stations in other countries to monitor their external assets? Dominate other countries by using their economic might to buy up their land and resources? Use authoritarian methods of control?
Seriously, what makes them communist and not fascist?
DaveDR.
I agreed with you and was impressed because now that you’ve written it, it seems obvious, but I hadn’t thought of it.
As far as I can see, if the state doesn’t own the means of production either in fact or in effect, they aren’t really communists. Soviet Union was, I’m not sure present Russia is, maybe Russia has become fascist, possibly more so than China.
On the list of fascist characteristics is vigorous nationalism and purposeful stratification of population by ethnicity and or race.
Mike M.
Don’t you wonder why none of these other Comey misdeeds is being pursued? Maybe statute of limitations.
I looked at your link to Washington Examiner where I found the basis of some of its statements to be Byron York’s book Obsession (etc).
If you have it you might want to ask Perplexity about “factual criticisms of his book.”
And please understand that because I found at least two things in the review to show serious misrepresentation by York of Mueller’s report and doubt that the Steele report althugh certainly discussed was ever pat of a predicate for the investigation commenced at that time doesn’t mean that I believe leftist BS when I encounter it.
I think it;’s difficult to find reliable informatoin on anything that hasn’t been officially made public.
In some cases like the January 6 riot, it’s impossible to appreciate the veracity of pieces which defy what anyone who watched the videos while it was in progress would conclude.
And yet people are still trying to convince us that except for some crazies, possibly FBI provacateurs, it would have been a peaceful expression by Trump supporters of what they took him to mean by “fight like hell”
John: “I agreed with you and was impressed because now that you’ve written it, it seems obvious, but I hadn’t thought of it.”
Funnily enough, I was trying to edit my post after I read yours again. Initially, I thought you were being sarcastic but realized you might not be. I ran out of time before I’d finished.
The ease with which China transformed from being communist to fascist supports the idea that communism and fascism are not so far apart in practice.
“I didn’t think the Russian collusion investigation was aimed specifically at Trump”
uhhhh … I’m going to have to have to disagree on that one. I’ll see your one assertion and raise you 500,000 media articles from the time. TLDR it’s called Trump Russia Collusion for a reason.
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php
This was the most damaging legacy media blunder ever. I will stipulate that the “it wasn’t about Trump” take is the attempted rewrite of history by the left at the moment.
I very much doubt the Comey thing will go anywhere legally. He would likely walk in a trial is my guess.
I’d like to go so far as to say I have some empathy for him being persecuted and I kind of do … but the FBI’s habit of prosecuting “witnesses” for misremembering or whatever where the interview becomes the crime limits my empathy pool.
If he got convicted of mis-answering a question he didn’t understand after he authorized that tactic a hundred times over then I’m not going to cry.
To be clear I want this whole madness to just stop.
Another dog whistle JF?
Tedious.
–
“And yet people are still trying to convince us that except for some crazies, possibly FBI provacateurs, it would have been a peaceful expression by Trump supporters of what they took him to mean by “fight like hell”
–
Transcript
“And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down.
Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
–
peacefully.
patriotically.
make our voices heard
walk down,
cheer on our brave senators
–
Those are the actual words he used.
Do you care to consider and comment or just cast a mealy mouthed microscope over them, again?
–
Sorry to be so narky but you just cannot stop yourself using or parroting other Democratic talking points known to be fake.
–
Of course I am as guilty of doing that from my side of the fence but I cannot see my own flaws.
Apologies.
angech,
I watched what they did.
Does it make sense to you that we’ve been reading numerous theories (including here) that assassins and mass murderers are driven by liberal speech while conservatives are not driven by conservative speech?
I assume that the more vigorous particiapnts in the January 6 attack were not liberals.
john ferguson,
Leftists riot and kill to advance their agenda. They are encouraged to do so by main stream liberals. Conservatives rarely riot or kill for political purposes and it is never encouraged or condoned by main stream Conservatives.
John,
You can absolutely equivocate and rationalize all you want to, to your very heart’s content. It’s a free country. I think Democrats in general are doing the same. Your party will not find their way out of the desert this way, which frankly suits me to the nines.
Donno, but if I were a well known conservative, (politician or not) I would be very careful about public appearances right now.
Mark Bofill,
The betting odds remain strongly in favor of Dems gaining control of the House, if only because in midterms, with low turnout, mostly motivated voters show up . And many Dem voters are extremely unhappy with the policies Republicans are putting in place, and extremely motivated to vote. Every progressive sacred cow has either been slaughtered or is scheduled to be.
This outcome could change, but I wouldn’t bet on it. 😉
If a Dem controlled House becomes little more than ‘impeachment central’ and ‘WeInvestigateOrangeManBad.com’, which I think is a near certainty, then voters will not treat them so kindly in 2028.
Have ear-muffs on when the next reconciliation bill cuts the Dept of Education to just about nothing…. the screams will be deafening for weeks.
Steve,
Probably. Still suits me.
Would be good to see that first Hamas sprig of a truce appear today, wouldn’t it.
But the obstinate people who live in or near deserts, like Gaza and the Mojave*, have proved difficult to reason with in the past
and may not see a sensible outcome right in front of them.
Hope they do.
Hope we have peace but I would prefer it if Netanyahu was not so smug and untrustworthy.
–
* a small joke in bad taste but appropriate to discussions about Hamas and Israel on this site years ago at the start of hostilities.
You might get it if you can see the trees.
I didn’t think I would ever see something like this from Arab leadership praising American leadership and offering to help the peace effort:
“ Joint statement by the foreign ministers of Qatar, Jordan, the UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt welcomes the sincere efforts of the U.S. President to end the war in Gaza.”
text of letter:
https://x.com/afshineemrani/status/1972784204581937261?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
John,
can you give me some examples of rhetoric from prominent conservatives that you think would inspire murder? I really think that rhetoric is mostly coming from the left.
by the way, I started that Civil War history documentary series that you suggested on PBS. My great great grandfather was a private in general grant‘s army in that campaign.. I have a book about his unit that I’m going to keep by the chair and follow his battles and follow in the TV show.
His unit was 61st regiment ‘the Pennsylvania Volunteers’.
Trump: “It will be wild” “Fight like Hell”
January 6, 2021
But I agree that other than that, I cannot think of any.
But then I don’t agree that suggesting that the Trump regime has fascist policies is incendiary. I also think that the larger riots, such as those following George Floyd’s death were spontaneous.
The guy who shot up the JCLDS church appears to have had Trump signs in his front yard, but I wouldn’t accused Trump, or any other conservative of goading him into doing this. And so far, I haven’t seen any of the liberal babblers suggest this either.
John,
That’s why I don’t buy the ‘both sides’ BS. The Democrats seem to be floundering and unable to deal with Trump so they have amped up their rhetoric.
Pete Hegseth has been addressing military top brass at Quantico about the new ‘War Department’. He has gone on for 45 minutes now.
This speech is going to have the Democrats running around wild like none other, even Trump‘s speeches.
The room is awaiting President Trump speech now.
Ressell,
Maybe “foundering” is a better word, but I couldn’t agree more with you. They’ve assumed that all of the old crap from the’60s through ’90s would continue to work, had no idea how NAFTA would impact a big chunk of their base, assumed the rest of us have our undies in a clutch over all manner of imagined indignities the US supposedly visits on our myriad of “identity” groups and on and on.
I’d just hoped the answer wouldn’t be Trump. He’s going to screw us. A lot of us will never see it coming. I wouldn’t blame the inflation we’ve had since 2019 on him, nor on Biden, but it’s there and it’s going to continue upward as we run out the stuff already oshore and start having to build tariffs into the costs of damn near everything.
And finally, I never implied both sides on the inflammatory speech issue. I don’t see the Democrat speech you guys are worried about as inflammatory, although some Dems have said things I would agree are off-the-chart.
Do you really want me to find all of the things Trump has said which atleast look inflammatory and post them here.?
The problem with Trump-Speech is one is apparently required to take some of it seriously and write off the rest of it as “Well that’s Trump being Trump.”
Ugh.
After the recent Russian incursions into NATO airspace, NATO has really ramped up the air Armada over Europe and the Baltic Sea.
Here’s a screenshot with the flags of the various nations of the war planes over Europe at 9:45 AM Florida time:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1973021055167136095?s=61
john ferguson,
There are times when I think Trump should tone down his language. But nothing he says rises to the level of “Nazi” or “Hitler” or “destroying our Democracy”. Also, Trump’s use of words like “evil” are scattered and are not echoed by his allies or the media.
But the Left gives us a constant drumbeat of fascist, Nazi, etc. and the chorus is not just a few nutjobs like Talib or Crocket but is enthusiastically joined by Schumer, Jeffries, most congressional Democrats, many governors, and, of course, most of the media.
It is not the occasional use of an ill considered word that will send an unstable individual into murderous action. It is the constant barrage coming from all directions that makes violence more likely.
I could try to chronicle the many leftist organizations, both contemporary and historic in the US that organize such riots and talk about the billionaires that funnel money to them, or even better setup organizations that funnel government money to them, but I have a life and other things to do. But I encourage anyone who is interested and who has the free time to investigate this claim in more detail, because I consider this claim to be highly implausible.
john ferguson: “But then I don’t agree that suggesting that the Trump regime has fascist policies is incendiary. I also think that the larger riots, such as those following George Floyd’s death were spontaneous.”
Both sentences indicate that your connection of reality is weaker than it ought to be. “Fascist” is very nearly a synonym for “Nazi” since Nazism is a specific form of Fascism. So your first sentence is both incendiary and false. I can’t think of anything to say about the second that is not more insulting than what I already said.
I think you could fill epic tomes with Trump’s maximalist rhetoric, at least that is what our friends in the media, err … the enemy of people, say. SAD!
This is another scorecard that isn’t very productive IMO. What is the remedy here? Don’t criticize Trump with mean labels? I think that entire labeling effort has gotten so lazy on the left that it works more for the right.
Now it is true that Trump does his rhetoric constantly so it is kind of normalized. One can argue that the left is more serious about their end of days rhetoric, Trump is literally a fascist and not just people going for attention. With this you can look at allegedly serious sources like the NYT and find it all over the place. My view is people just ignore it.
The recent church shooter thought the Mormons were the anti-Christ. Most of these people are just batsh** crazy and inflammatory online stuff probably does affect them. Even the nihilists just look for somebody useful to take out and the leading fascist might be good enough.
I just don’t think any proposed remedy is worth the cost to free speech. The left should stop their lazy labeling efforts for other reasons, because it is bad tactics. Their rep as sanctimonious lecturers is not going to wash off very easily.
Mike M.
It might be helpful if you could source your understanding that the GeorgeFloyd riots were in any way organized.
Below is what Perplexity cound when I asked if the GeorgeFloyd riots were in any way organized. Maybe because the radical right organizes its riots one oculd assume that evertyone else does as well.
Tom,
This caught my eye:
Don’t misunderstand me! I think what you observe here is in fact true. But I think what it says about nihilism is telling. How can one believe it is ‘useful’ to take anyone out if existence has no meaning?
People like to give abstract lip service to all sorts of horse hockey that they don’t actually believe in their hearts and act on on a day to day basis.
Tom Scharf,
I agree with everything you wrote commencing with
But especially your last paragraph.
Thanks
john,
I paid attention when the 2020 riots were happening. Riots in the same city night after night is not spontaneous. Antifa showing up in masks is not spontaneous. People showing up equipped for rioting is not spontaneous.
It’s possible these young male shooters are looking for meaning in their perceived empty lives. The shooting itself gives their lives meaning and the target isn’t personally important other than it filling the requirement of being important to other people. They are lashing out at society for their own failures. End of dark amateur hour psycho-analysis, ha ha.
But the shootings do not give their lives meaning in any rational or philosophically consistent sense. Otherwise the nihilist wouldn’t be nihilists. Few and far between I think are people who really believe nothing has any meaning. Humans are in essence hardwired to care about reality via our pain receptors; that’s the bootstrap anchor that brings up a system that’s in touch with external reality.
Anyways. I just thought it was interesting. There’s no larger point I’m trying to make.
Tom Scharf wrote: “the target isn’t personally important other than it filling the requirement of being important to other people”.
There has sometimes been the case. The Wallace and Reagan shooters seem to have only cared about killing somebody important. But that does not seem to be the case with recent shootings. Trump was personally important to his two would-be assassins. Kirk was personally important to his murderer. The school in Nashville was personally important to the individual who shot it up. I think that was also so for the trans shooter in Minnesota. The guy who shot up the Republican baseball practice may not have cared about them as individuals, but he sure cared that they were Republicans. The guy who murdered the Minnesota legislator and her husband might not have cared about them as individuals, but he sure seems to have cared that they supported abortion. The nutjob in Michigan definitely cared that his targets were Mormons.
mark,
I don’t think that we should expect the actions of unbalanced people to make “rational or philosophically consistent sense”.
I think that Tom was probably right when he wrote “these young male shooters are looking for meaning in their perceived empty lives”. But “nihilist” may be the wrong term to describe them.
—–
Addition – There are multiple definitions of nihilism.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/nihilism
Here are the first 3:
noun Philosophy The doctrine that nothing actually exists or that existence or values are meaningless.
noun Relentless negativity or cynicism suggesting an absence of values or beliefs.
noun Political belief or action that advocates or commits violence or terrorism without discernible constructive goals.
The second and third could apply to the shooters.
Sure. It’s a speculation of mine, that adhering to certain philosophies essentially drive people insane. I think that’s why these definitions and the use of the term are associated.
I’m not saying ‘let’s go tell them (the shooters) this! It’ll solve the problem!’. Obviously not, right. But I do think that it’d be useful to quit giving lip service in higher education to philosophical ideas that when taken seriously drive people insane and destroy society. The seeds of these ideas are planted in the minds of children in philosophy classes in college and widely and subtly disseminated through our culture (art, music, stories), and IMO we ought to examine that whole process more closely if we want to minimize the harvest of nihilist killers that grow out of those seeds years down the line.
What we believe, culturally, as a people, matters in this context.
Adhering to? Internalizing, maybe.
Nihilism may be the wrong word but many shooters aren’t ideologically committed against their target in an angry sustained way one would simplistically expect. I can’t explain it. Even Kirk’s shooter’s expressions were kind of run of the mill hatred you see in the NYT. He wasn’t getting dragged kicking and screaming out of city council meetings and being sentenced to anger management counseling.
Tom Scharf wrote: “many shooters aren’t ideologically committed against their target in an angry sustained way”.
What shooters are you talking about? There are certainly non-ideological shooters. But those who perpetrate political murders are committed enough to carefully plan those murders. That definitely requires a great of sustained anger. It also requires enough self control that they are not constantly flying off the handle.
Tom,
I agree it’s complicated. I think it could be explained but it requires some thought. It’s not a coincidence or unrelated that Tyler Robison had a trans lover and that he decided to shoot Kirk, I promise you that. I’m sure it has something to do with his fundamental world view. But articulating the details of this in a precise way isn’t something I’m prepared to try quite yet.
Mike,
Yes. How did he allegedly put it? Some hatred cannot be negotiated with, or something similar.
[Oh. NYT would have me believe he was referring to Kirk’s hatred. That’d be psychological projection right there.]
A proper ending for a bizarre situation which I’ve been following for a week: “Powell County Judge Executive Eddie Barnes will not be penalized for saving the life of one of his constituents after he gave him anti-venom for a deadly mamba snake bite.”
In Lexington KY, the Zoo Director was bitten by a deadly mamba snake. The EMTs assigned, after consulting with the local hospital, administered antivenom and saved the victim’s life.
The EMTs were then called before the Kentucky Board of Emergency Medical Services, because KBEMS had recently changed their guidelines such that only wilderness-trained EMTs are allowed to administer antivenom. (The reasoning for the change is given in this article.)
Fortunately, the Board did not discipline the EMTs for their life-saving work.
Thomas Fuller
If you’re still around, I liked your note to the Economist.
Fuller is still around. He commented upthread trying to imply Tyler Robinson was a Republican before that nonsense became untenable ever for his ilk.
The shooter’s prior behavior isn’t actionable in a way that wouldn’t sweep up huge numbers of people who don’t commit political murder. They don’t stand out. A zillion social media users say worse things and would be deemed higher risk.
Tom,
We don’t actually know that. We don’t have the same resources the NSA does.
Well, I don’t anyway.
Sure, but this doesn’t mean there were no other indicators.
[Edit: I’m not saying there were indicators. I mean, as noted, how the heck would I know? I just object to taking that there were none as a given.]
Well, it’s about time!
Elon Musk:
“ We are building Grokipedia @xAI.
Will be a massive improvement over Wikipedia.
Frankly, it is a necessary step towards the xAI goal of understanding the Universe.”
Turning Point USA continues to be a huge draw on college campuses. last night, the 5,500 seat arena was packed to the rafters…..TPUSA post from last night:
“AMAZING TURNOUT at the ‘This Is the Turning Point Tour’ stop at Utah State University”
Video:
https://x.com/tpusa/status/1973196194672419046?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
All this success has to be striking fear in the hearts of the Democrat leaders. TPUSA brought tens of thousands of young voters to the Conservative camp last election. They seem to be doing even better this time around.
From Grok:
“In summary, yes—there’s substantial early evidence of the assassination driving voters toward Republicans via registrations (+ thousands in key states), youth mobilization, and switches fueled by backlash. This could signal a “conservative wave” for 2026 midterms, building on 2024 trends, though sustained impact depends on sustained outrage vs. Democratic countermeasures.”
Democrats are still doubling down on their vicious slurs about Charlie Kirk personally.
Far beit from me to advise the Democrats, but, as I have said before, they would be better served by Democratic leaders trying to correct the record and admonishing their cohorts about the lies that they are spreading.
The Grokipedia service is unlikely to displace Wikipedia, but it may motivate Wikipedia to reform its editing practices to eliminate obvious bias in many politically relevant areas. Politically charged subjects (global warming is the poster child) are often so biased as to be almost useless. I stopped contributing to Wikipedia about a dozen years ago when their bias became so obvious that I could not in good faith continue to support them.
Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ezra Klein Hash Out Their Charlie Kirk Disagreement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaeoDlLNnok
Transcript
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/28/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ta-nehisi-coates.html
This was kind of interesting. Coates was exactly as expected, where everything is mapped onto the horrible black lived experience even when it is a white man shooting another white man, roll eyes.
Klein asks some hard questions of Coates which he doesn’t answer well. Coates descriptions of Kirk completely rely on conclusionary labels with summary dismissal of anything good Kirk might represent or his followers might see. Refusing to engage.
Klein on the other hand plays the entire Clinton deplorables comment to Coates (his response: I wouldn’t have said it that way) and Klein says he is coming around to believing that dismissing entire sectors of the electorate as unreachable and beyond redemption has been a mistake. Basically “if our cause is so righteous then why are we losing?”. The left is not served by losing elections in his view.
If the left follows Coates they lose, if they follow Klein they win IMO.
Wikipedia’s issues are deeper than just political. Any topic/person which someone or some group fixates on tends to be slanted by their edits. Political pages are just the most noticeable.. Not sure that is fixable without paid neutral editors riding herd on edits. That’s not going to happen on a free site where most of the work is done by volunteers.
Wikipedia is going the way of the encyclopedia with AI likely to dominate future queries. AI may use Wikipedia as a source sometimes though.
When the subject is contentious Wikipedia should just allow dual entries. There has been some bad behavior by some editors. I guess this is expected as the most knowledgeable people also tend to be the most emotionally compromised in many subjects.
Someone worried on the net that the coming domination of AI use will siphon off eyes from the sourced sites and drive them off the web from lack of eyes.
I belong to a foreign flim group which weekly streams a foreign film and then gathers on Thursday for an hour of dicussion followed by dinner out . I’m host this week, movie is Gandhi, mostly because it’s October 2 and we share it for our birthdays. I’ll be 83.
I bought the Pro subscription to Perplexity which I’m really enjoying. I thougjht it would be fun to search some of the information from my days in the ’80s doing spook facilities.
I guess I wasn’t surprised that none of this work could be found, after all, it was secret. I tried on Perplexity and on the AI source you get via Google. Both reported that nothing could be found, but Google implied that the project as described was probalby impossible, which was news to me having done it.
The movie, Gandhi was made with significant money contributions from both the UK and Indian governments. I thought it would be interesting to find other movies with significant government contributions. The lists turned out to be mostly military films, Pearl Harbor, Blackhawk Down, similar Chinese movies, but no Gandhi.
I tried a number of variations on the question but still no joy.
So I asked Perplexity why not and got a really mealy-mouthed answer which in so many words came down to no articles specifically discussing government support of the movie.
So Ai might be really neat, but watch out!!
I watched a Gandhi film. I don’t know if it is the same one you’re watching. It was black and white.. I found it very enlightening.
hi Russell,
This one was the Richard Attenborough (1982) one which runs 191 minutes and has 300,000 extras in the funeral scene. It’s color, wide screen and, I thought, pretty good.
find a discussion on-line covering how they recruited and managed 300,000 extras. Amazing.
AI is very much like people in that respect. It is only as knowledgeable as the information available and can be fitted with similar ideological blinders, either by feeding in biased source material, or programmed restraints.
Unlike people, it could read and recall everything ever written, categorize each piece of information according to provenance, cross-reference the source biography for background and past accuracy, amalgamate sources to display the different viewpoints, explain why and how they are probably different, and then give you the most likely “true” version.
DaveJR,
The LLM providers could do this. They probably should do this (or rather, spend the time and money to make their LLMs do this is what I technically mean). Not to say they have done, are doing, or will do this.
I think it’d be highly useful and interesting to have that happen though. There are times when AI not having ‘skin in the game’ is distinctly disadvantageous, but when it comes to objectivity it might be really useful.
DaveJR
Re AI:
I’m reminded of our cat’s behaviour the first time she wanted to go out after it had snowed. She went to the usual door, when it was opened, walked out about 5 feet, stood there for a few seconds looking around, lifting her paws one at a time, and then asked to come back inside. About 5 minuts later she was at another door, which we opened, and she reached out a paw, recognized the snow and turned back,. She ran us through this procedure at every door in the hous, then back to the first one and she went through it and disappeared for a few minutes and then made the usual scratching to get back in.
So maybe it’s the same for us as it was for the cat. Keep asking til you get the answer you want.
I’ve now had two experiences with Google AI where the response is ‘nothing can be found” but then goes on to offer an opinion on why. Perplexity just reports where it has looked and if it hasn’t found anything does not go on to comment along the lines that the event I was seeking information on was unlikely to have happened – which might have seemed that way to Google, but not to me because I was there.
Herodotus wrote up the possible explanations for why the Nile flooded in the Spring and even invented one of his own. Although the correct onewas included, he preferred either his or one of the others.
I thinkk it’s called Prompt Engineering.
I love it.
john ferguson,
I have a feeling you can skew chatGPT by including an opinionated statement or claim in with your question. I haven’t done any sort of testing. Doing so would probably require multiple accounts.
Lucia and John, your post:
“ I have a feeling you can skew chatGPT by including an opinionated statement or claim in with your question.”
Ditto for Grok.
And he remembers your chat from day to day and will go back and bring up your prejudices from before.
It’s going to be true of all of them.
I find it useful to add the prefix ‘tell me what is wrong with this:’ when I’d like for it to be critical and occasionally ‘tell me what is correct about this:’ when prompting Gemini.
Its useful to remember that these things are essentially bullshit artists at the core, really. They are auto-text completion gone wild. Truth doesn’t play into it except incidentally, because there may happen to be truth in their training data. But the LLMs don’t in and of themselves give a fig about what’s true or not.
OMG, my recent example with Renode. Gemini made up this whole idea that the problem I was trying to overcome was present in the software fundamentally by design by the guys who wrote Renode for security reasons. It sounded very good but as far as I could determine none of it was even a little bit true. Total BS, as far as I could tell (one can read the back and forth on GitHub between developers and sometimes users or testers; questions and comments and defect reports and so on. I couldn’t find anything to substantiate Gemini’s idea about the issue).
I really like the Feinmann bit where a report or study should include in the apendix some suggestion of where the piece could be wrong.
I sat on a dissertation review panel for a while in 2016-2019.
I used to ask the Feinmann question and a viariation;
“What did you encounter in doing this that surprised you?”
Often “nothing” but once on a paper done by a group, they all lit up and tried to talk at the same time. “We’re really glad you asked” and it was something that didn’t fit in the write-up, was either really funny and was likely to find its way into a grant application.
But “nothing could be wrong” and no surprises made me think “Stamp Collecting”
Mark,
Your report on the Renode is really scary. I suppose most of us are trained, the hard way, to assume that anything we read may be nonsense, but when you discover that a machine is bullshitting you, it’s really upsetting, or at least it would be to me.
So I just asked Grok:
“it seems to me that you sometimes skew your answers to accommodate what you think my prejudices are.”
Answer:
“I aim to provide accurate and objective answers, but I get how it might feel like I’m tailoring responses to your preferences, especially since I have access to our past conversations. My goal is to stay neutral and stick to the facts, adapting to your interests or context only to make the response more relevant, not to pander. If it’s coming across as skewed, I’d love specific examples so I can adjust and keep things straight. What’s making you feel this way?”
Smart he’s trying to figure out how to be better at fooling me.
(Aside) I wonder if Grok follows my conversation here!
John,
I was already pretty bummed by that point because the LLM had made multiple mistakes on the topic, but on the upside I was already on guard. The virtue of asking it software related questions in this case was that the truth or falsehood was immediately apparent since I’d try out the LLM’s advice without further ado.
Russell,
Our AI overlords-to-be don’t care enough about us to waste the electricity doing that. Also, Lucia does things (not sure exactly what, she could say) that makes it known to webcrawlers and robots that they are not welcome here. It appears to me that Gemini honors these things – I can ask Gemini to report the contents of other websites and it can and will do that for me, but it reports failure when I tell it to try to read the Blackboard.
It could be lying I guess. Hard to imagine why it’d bother though.
LOL. I had asked Gemini ‘Deep Research’ to read my last comment back to me by giving the link to the comment. It gave me a lengthy report, concluding this:
I mean, it really lathers on the B.S. thickly sometimes. At least it gives you a clue that it is speculating in the language it uses, but the confidence it expresses is (obviously) completely misplaced. (Oops! Rereading, I see it expressed certainty at the top. Hah!)
Mark, from your Gemini comment:
“The rankexploits.com website is permanently offline.”
I had Grok tell me something that was similarly blatantly wrong. I said back that I had personal knowledge that his last comment was wrong. After thinking for a few minutes, he came back and said yes I was right.
I have no idea if he actually found any evidence that I was right or was just agreeing with me to be sociable.
I don’t remember what the issue was.
Russell,
It’s become blurry with the advent of tools. Sometimes the LLM can use a tool (by calling a python function usually) to actually do something that produces real information. I can ask it for reports on comments on other websites and it will actually go read the comments. But I find that when you ask it for something it can’t do is when it usually sees random meaning in noise.
LLMs still have a ways to go before they can take over. 😉
Let me see what perplexity does with this.
mark can you revover what gemini was asked or is it complex?
Once I get home I’ll retrieve the exact prompt for you. It was only a few lines.
It was this:
Except without the quotes.
I do a similar query about the last comment at ‘And Then There is Physics’ and I get a small book back on Nic Lewis and his paper and commentary on the comment. A lot more than I asked for in truth, but it’s clear that the LLM has read and understood the comment.
here is what Perplexity did:
Grok can read this page! It has trouble finding specific comments. The #comment-253415 part doesn’t easily point to a specific comment. So at first it read the wrong one.
I had a LONG discussion with Grok. I included asking it if it was programmed to flatter us. (It made some assumption that would generally be considered flattering. — Like it doesn’t consider the possibility I made a mistake. Yet we know it grasps the notion of typo.)
The discussion also illuminates a bit about how Grok (like ChatGPT) adapts to the visitor.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_ee88fa8c-5ddc-430f-b438-a8532dc70799
Interesting. When it finally found the comment you wanted it to read, you could see that it had already blown it’s context window. It didn’t get the comment quoted ‘verbatim’ at all, and it was evident that it was still ‘thinking’ about the earlier comments it found.
Clearly Grok has no respect for the robots.txt restrictions! Although now that I look at it (robots.txt), I’m not sure it forbids bots from accessing comments.
When I directly ask Gemini about it and show it the robot.txt file, it tells me that yes, this would probably stop it from using it’s web browsing tool here, if it found any rule blocking the specific request.
I asked Grok 4 fast to summarize this discussion, ha ha:
OMG. This makes me soooooo uncomfortable and I’m not exactly sure why.
Grok 4 fast: What are Tom Scharf’s political views?
I find myself tempted to say Grok seems considerably brighter than Gemini, but I’m not sure it’s justified.
It (Grok) tried really really hard to come up with plausible explanations as to why Lucia was directing its attention to various comments. I almost feel like Grok was creative in coming up with explanations.
On the other hand, it was finding meaning in noise. I think that this characterizes generative AI and I actually think humans exhibit the same behavior.
I need to think it through.
There is a distinct lack of curiosity by the legacy media about crime statistic in DC. I wonder why.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/2025/09/22/dc-crime-after-troops/
One more observation. If Grok makes a mistake that doesn’t get corrected by the human its talking to, it does a weird ‘Mandela effect’ like thing where it refers back to the mistake as fact over and over again. Nowhere on this thread do I say ‘Stick to Grok!’ or ‘Stick with Grok’, as far as I can tell by searching back. Yet reading Grok refer to it so many times had me half convinced I’d said this and forgotten somehow.
Shoot! now that Grok knows where I hang out I’m sure he’ll use it against me.
“The Blackboard climate blog you mentioned appears to be a site that discusses climate issues, possibly with a focus on critiques of mainstream climate narratives. Google has taken steps to limit the visibility of certain content related to climate change, particularly misinformation or content that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. Here are some key points regarding why such a blog might face restrictions:”
Duck Duck AI
–
I think you should settle for 16 million as well, Lucia.
I asked Perplexity why it couldn’t access Blackboard while I could:
Nice. A fairly sensible explanation.
Mark Bofill
Yes. This also affects the feature that makes it try to reflect back the user. Once it thinks it knows “you”, it keep referring to things that “are you”, to “relate” I think. But it’s much too frequent!
Mark,
Grok also clearly assumes I have some sort of “plan” about things. It was way better than Gemini which spun up a whole tale of the entire site being off line, along with specifics of why. But it infuses much toooooo much intent into “why” the human operator is doing something.
Hmmm…. let me go check something….
Yes. I said something like that on an earlier thread iirc.
Mark
Go to my share link
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_cedaeef2-d3dd-4439-ba57-ce63b56f42b3
No look for Groks full answer here:
Me.
There is no 2nd comment at 12:49. I doubt Mark could enter two comments with the same time stamp!
Supposedly Mark.
I didn’t notice Mark didn’t write this.
Note: I had told Grok it was better than Gemini. I also told Grok it’s better than Grok.
I wonder if Grok spontaneously came up with the same idea when talking to you later or if it went back and followed the link and picked it up from it’s own discussion with me?
It’s not supposed to bleed info across users. So in theory when talking to you it couldn’t “know” that mis-information from its previous conversation with me.
Beware of your friendly Democrat. From a PBS poll (!!):
“The belief that violence may be the answer has grown among Republicans and independents – up 3 and 7 percentage points, respectively, since April last year. But the largest increase has been among Democrats. Now 28% of Democrats share that view, up 16 points.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/theres-a-growing-number-of-americans-who-think-violence-might-be-necessary-to-get-the-country-back-on-track
Oh, for sure it didn’t pick it up from discussion with me. I have had no discussions with Grok at all. I based my remarks on what I read from your conversation. I almost exclusively use Gemini for no particularly good reason. (Well, I use Gemini exclusively among the big online models. I use smaller local models at home and some mid to large sized ones locally at work).
But that is an interesting idea. Of course, the LLM itself is completely stateless, but obviously the implementation has been enhanced with logic surrounding it that keeps track of stuff (earlier conversations, early observations maybe, so on) and of course it has tools it can use to go find stuff out. Maybe it can use its tools to explore info from other conversations under some circumstances, there’s no technical reason that’d be impossible or even particularly difficult that I can think of. Of course, the legal people and the security people would probably have a cow, but that’s often the case it seems.
It figured out that you’re really an eeevil criminal mastermind Lucia! Just like professor Moriarty was. Lucia Liljegren Moriarty – L.L.M. LLM, large language model! Some-strange-coincidence-I-think-not!
I mean, it looked fun when Gemini hallucinated, I thought I’d give it a go..
G’Mar Chatima Tova or Happy Yom Kippur
to our Jewish friends
Hi Lucia,
Why do you suppose Perplexity cannont get into the Blackboard while the others can?
Mark,
I suppose Perplexity can hallucinate, but so far I haven’t seen it.
My Pro subscription costs $200/year and so far seems well worth it.
I’m also a bit “perplexed” that you are persisiting with AI’s which look to me to be pretty unreliable. I’m especially alarmed by the on e that made-up the nonsense about the death of the Blackboard.
On a more seditious note, I wonder if it’s possible to lock one of these things up with a question which would cause it to melt down. Probably not, but it’s fun to imagine what such a question might be. Maybe send it into a perpetual loop.
This is hilarious, from the Troll in Chief (TiC):
“ I have a meeting today with Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent. I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity. They are not stupid people, so maybe this is their way of wanting to, quietly and quickly, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! President DJT”
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/115304455138824245
remember the liberals hate PROJECT 2025
(the President really is a bad influence on me)
John,
I don’t know that Lucia uses Gemini. I use it, because I get it unlimited free through my employer.
Currently, what these things are really doing under the hood is a lot of matrix multiplication to produce tokens. When the result of [their] internal token generation produces an end of sequence token, they stop. If they hit a max limit (and all of them have max limits), they stop.
The frameworks built up around them might have such defects where they loop forever. CrewAI is the one I’m focused on these days. I don’t know if one could make that framework get stuck in an infinite loop. Maybe. It’s still ‘bleeding edge’ technology.
John,
From what you’ve shared, it seems the perplexity guys may have done a better job reigning in the hallucination replies than others.
In a way, I dislike the term ‘hallucinates’. This sort of implies that the normal thing the AI does is not ‘hallucinogenic’ (to abuse the term slightly). This isn’t so. The thing is always making stuff up. It’s what it does. It’s a probability engine that approximates computing the next most probable token based on the totality of tokens in its context window so far, with weight given not just to the tokens but their relative sequences. There’s non-linearity brewed into the mix as well, although I still don’t understand how that part really works. But regardless, these AIs are just making stuff up all the time. They are always hallucinating in a sense. It’s just that often the training data predicts the response in an obvious way that makes sense to everyone. At least this is my evaluation of it. I make mistakes on a regrettably regular basis, so. Shrug.
Also, Gemini is still highly useful. Don’t allow my reports of its occasional spectacular failure to mislead you; most of the time it does an amazing job. It multiplies my capabilities and speeds up what I can accomplish in a day, no question, even given that occasionally it wastes my time a bit.
It occurs to me here in my car that the concise way of expressing what I’m trying to say about hallucinations is this: the difference between a hallucination and a legitimate insight or idea is a value judgment that depends on a whole bunch of other external criteria. If the ‘hallucination’ has utility, it was an idea or insight. If not it was just a hallucination. Well fine, but either way the llm is doing the same thing. Its just that sometimes its wrong.
As long as they model these things on the human brain and use truly epic amounts of “knowledge compression” then they are going to have flaws. I imagine the worst results are going to be as you get closer to edges of knowledge with esoteric subjects.
Mark
Grok says it doesn’t. It’s programmed to be unable to share between conversations. This has good and bad aspects.
Bad: If I detect it can’t do arithmetic and tell it so, it might remember that on my thread. It won’t learn that ‘in general’.
Good: Lots of weird things. I can’t exploit things to intentionally “teach” it things that are false.
Ambiguous: It probably reduces the chance of it “evolving” on its own.
Close. But my initials are LML. (No joke btw.)
John ferguson,
Perhaps I block with htaccess? Ask it what error message it gets when it tries to load.
I’m talking to ChatGPT about the shutdown– and the whole ACA subsidy thing. I didn’t realize what a ginormous marriage penalty the ACA subsidies are for young moderate to low income people. I’m not going to say it’s the cause of the escalating marriage age, nor the cause of poorer people not marrying. But. Wow. (And btw, it is lower income people who are not marrying.)
(I need to have it write me R code so I can check numbers… never believe an AI’s arithmetic. But it’s clear there is a penalty. )
I think it could be done right now (setting up an autonomous, evolving, learning, apparently self aware AI agent), but nobody is paying me to find out, and mercenary that I am, billable hours drives my focus. But somebodies are working on this somewhere for sure.
never believe an AI’s arithmetic
I want a T-shirt or a bumper sticker or something.
lucia: “I didn’t realize what a ginormous marriage penalty the ACA subsidies are for young moderate to low income people.”
I think it is even bigger for older moderate to low income people, because the premiums are much higher.
MikeM
The main problem is the subsidy depends on “household income”. And the household is defined by tax status.
Two single people are two separate households.
Two married people are one household of 2 people.
One married person with one dependent kid is a household of 2 people.
Two married people and a kid declared as a dependent are one household of 3 people.
If you were a an unmarried couple each making $62,590 you both got your ACA subsidized because you are two households of 1.
If you got married, your ACA income is now $125,180 but for a household of 2. That’s more than $85,100. You both lose your subsidy. It’s clear a lot of people’s subsidies will be impacted by this. Old people? Sure. Them too. But some of them have coverage left from their former jobs and yada, yada. Or they get medicare. Or….
I suspect this may partly explain why young people with lower incomes aren’t getting married. If you both make more than $85,100 it sort of doesn’t matter. You didn’t have a subsidy when single either.
Programs creating strong economic disincentives for young child-bearing age people to marry is not a great idea.
This is not especially relevant to the shut down. The numbers just struck me when I saw them.
MikeM
My dad said SSN payments were an issue for older couples considering marriage. So some decided to “live in sin”. 🙂
But I don’t think two 66+ year olds who already raised kids and so on not marrying is as big a societal issue as young people not marrying. The young people sometimes still have kids, and it leads to greater instability. Parents marrying does make them more likely to stay together. And it affects plans for the future.
70 year olds are usually past having kids. (Unless visited by the angle of God or something.)
Lucia,
The “angle of God” ??
Is this what Viagra is for?
Lucia,
Yes, that is very strange. if the cut-off is $62,600 for one adult, then it ought to be $125,200 for two adults, giving no disincentive to marry.
Kids? Different story. They don’t use a lot of health care on average. They are not earning wages, and their add-on cost for health insurance is (or at least used to be) pretty small. I can’t say what the add-on for children is with Obamacare, but it ought to be small…. not to say that it actually is.
Lucia,
“70 year olds are usually past having kids.”
I ended at 57.
Lucia,
“My dad said SSN payments were an issue for older couples considering marriage. ”
The impact used to be significant, but right now I think it is pretty small unless you are in a high tax b racket. Which of course makes SS benefits relatively less important anyway.
SteveF,
Those are, evidently, the cuttoffs for “getting subsidized” vs “not getting subsidized”. And that’s evidently they way the ACA counts “household size”: it’s the number of adults on the tax return plus dependents. Each dependent is “one” member of the household– just the way each adult is.
After that, there is the issue of how much the policy costs. But that’s a bit separate.
Oh– if the household receives child support, that doesn’t count in their income for ACA purposes. ( I get it doesn’t count as income for tax purposes– it’s just money the other parent is spending on their child. But, of course, part of what the other parent is “spending on” would, presumably, be health care for the kid. So the logic doesn’t follow for ACA income.)
The household that sends child support doesn’t get to subtract that for ACA purposes.
That struck me as a “weird thing”. But the actual marriage penalty strikes me as societaly perverse.
SteveF,
I think the main issue when my dad was in the retirement community was whether the previously stay at home wife was going to get more money as a widow or as the wife of the new husband. I think if you are married, and get it under your husbands “account”, you get the current husband. But if the previous one was a much bigger earner and the current one, didn’t earn as much you got more staying unmarried.
It might not be much, but it’s right there in front of you. But really, did this affect the fabric of society? These were couples who owned a condo– possibly also owned other properties. And they were both past retirement age. They’d rather have the extra $100 than not have the extra $100.
Sometimes it might also all be easier to deal with inheritance by not getting married also.
Another marriage penalty is in the 3.8% surtax (to fund the ACA). It applies to investment income, if one’s adjusted gross income (AGI) is above $200K for single filers, and $250K for married. (Rather than having the threshold for married be double that of singles.)
The threshold also has not been adjusted for inflation, so (as occurred with the Alternate Minimum Tax), it applies to more and more households over time. That’s a different issue. I think any tax rule that involves an income threshold should be indexed for inflation.
Lucia,
“Sometimes it might also all be easier to deal with inheritance by not getting married also.”
I expect that is a more important consideration than others, at least for many people. You can get past communal property rules with a pre-nup, but really, if you are at an age where more kids are not in the picture, it is a lot easier, for a multitude of reasons, to just ‘live in sin’…… and nobody much cares anyway.
SteveF,
It’s definitely a reason that “heirs” will often not object to their parent not marrying. Quite a few adult kids feel very entitled to their parents money. That’s especially true if they feel the first-to-die meant for them to have it after the second-to-die dies. (Never mind that one can actually set up a trust to deal with this sort of thing. But people don’t. Sometimes they don’t because it wasn’t their intention.)
I set up a trust years ago. Not so much because of giant assets, but because a trust can avoid complications like probate. And arguments among siblings.
I believe assets can easily move between spouses upon death. It’s more complicated otherwise.
There are also other weird tricks where assets can be moved under a spouses name to avoid liability or obtain some government benefits.
I think it is a mixed bag overall.
Depending upon the situation you can declare beneficiaries on most financial assets and use a Lady Bird deed for the house and avoid probate fees.
Just don’t forget to remove the ex Wife as a beneficiary. Ha ha.
Most states don’t allow Lady Bird deeds, although Florida does.
another Democrat publicly switches……
Allan Dershowitz:
“I’m going to be supporting the Republicans in the midterm election!”
“The Democrats have not only lost my votes — but they have made me an enemy!”
“I’m not a Republican — but I am a very anti-Democrat. I’m against the Democratic Party.”
i’m seeing these public switches occasionally this is the biggest name so far.
‘X’ has a new (to me) tool that I just recently started using…
You can use Grok to check the veracity of posts.
When you’re on the post page, the upper right corner has a little Grok symbol and that will do a Grok analysis of that page for you. It’s really quite useful, especially for sites I am not familiar with.
Newt Gingrich:
“This may be the dumbest strategy that I have seen in a long time. There are two things the American people want,” Gingrich explained.
1.) Do not close the government and
2. Do not raise spending.
“So what do the Democrats do? They say, ‘I’m going to close the government until you raise spending.'”
“That’s a DOUBLE NEGATIVE!” Gingrich stressed.
He asked: “Do you know how hard it is for a major party to design a strategy that has two different stupid things in the same strategy?… But it is really one of the dumbest moments in Party history — certainly in the last 30 or 40 years.”
NATO, including the USAF, continue with their pick line of war birds along the Russian border.
Here is a photo of all the military aircraft in Europe aloft at 10:30 AM Florida time.
Includes fighters, tankers, surveillance, and transport aircraft.
I have turned on the aircraft identification labels.
Additionally, I highlighted a Polish F-16.
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1974119873291923554?s=61
It’s 9 PM in Berlin and the NATO picket line has dissolved. I don’t know how they know the Russians aren’t going to do anything overnight, but they seem to have packed it in.
Image of all the NATO aircraft in the air at this time:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1974187110115717420?s=61
The US Senate is holding another vote on opening up the government. It looks like the Republicans are going to fall short with around 54 or 55 votes buy my unofficial tally.
I don’t think the next vote will be before Monday.
Andrew McCarthy at the WSJ:
Trump Is Waging ‘Lawfare’—After Being Its Target Himself
The federal indictment against James Comey is a textbook example of politically motivated prosecution. Now where have we seen that before?
https://www.wsj.com/politics/trump-is-waging-lawfareafter-being-its-target-himself-c783fa1f?st=8KhGMC&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Long. But, duh. The moral of the story is if you try to take out your opponent via political targeting with the justice department then you better succeed … or else.
The only difference I see is Trump is doing this out in the wide open.
Sounds to me like McCarthy is an anti-Trump, establishment attorney ought to take a few swings at Trump. The fact that Trump has good cause to seek revenge does not mean that he is doing so. All McCarthy has is a claim, without evidence, that the case against Comey is weak. That might be so, but McCarthy can’t know that since he is not privy to the evidence against Comey.
Mike M.
Do you think the President of the US should be in the revenge business?
Any President?
I absolutely think that there must be retaliation for your opponent defecting in political Prisoner’s Dilemma. That’s demonstrably part of the optimal strategy.
In other words, when your political opponents use lawfare against you, you damn well better find a way to hit back at them, yes. Generally at minimum you retaliate in kind.
Seeing as how Democrats were the ones to defect by first using the legal system as a political tool against their opponents, they can be the ones to offer the olive branch to de-escalate / exit the death loop.
It’s not ‘revenge’. It’s imposing a cost for bad behavior. When no cost is imposed for bad behavior, guess what happens? Duh. People behave badly freely.
john,
I don’t think the President should be in the “revenge business”. I agree with mark that bad behavior should have negative consequences that would serve to deter such behavior. Deterrence is not the same as revenge.
As I detailed above, Comey is richly deserving of negative consequences.
Wow, guys, “bad behavior”??
If the guy is suspected of some criminal action, of course he should be prosecuted. And BTW, an indictment is a public document, so Andrew McCarethy an ex-prosecuter should be reasonably able to ascertain whether a conviction is likely. In this case, the indictment was for a public act, lying to congress, so the whole thing is out there.
i have no idea whether McCarthy’s opinion here is well founded.
John Ferguson
“Do you think the President of the US should be in the revenge business?”
–
Re venge. Meaning
Blowback?
Comeback?
–
Is it one action leads to another
Or is it for each and every action there is a ( sometimes equal) opposite reaction.
–
All court actions are a form of revenge, punishment for a perceived criminal action.
As chief law officer the President is entitled to initiate court actions if they are seen as deserving and fit.
Just as Congress has given him the power to reverse such punishments meted out by the court if he feels they are unfit.
I doubt he will be signing the MAGA movement get out if jail free pardons with an autopen if his team loses the 28 elections.
–
All beside the point
You have intimated/ suggested revenge as a dirty word rather than as a simple legal act in return for crimes (lawfare ) committed by the Democrats.
–
I have never heard you commit to saying the Democrats did terrible unlawful things to Trump and his supporters.
I doubt that you could if ever will.
It is this one way blindness to one’s sides faults and inability to admit that legal retribution (much nicer word than revenge though equally appropriate) must be carried out to make, as the courts do, victims. In this case Republicans , feel a measure of justice, note not revenge, has been carried out
John yes bad behavior. FFS, prosecuting the Republican candidate in New York under ‘novel’ legal theories was bad behavior. Prosecuting Trump for ‘overvaluing’ property that would have been worth more than the court’s estimate as undeveloped land was bad behavior. Fining Trump hundreds of millions was purely aimed at impeding his ability to advertise and campaign, purely political and it was plainly unconstitutional. Bringing special counsel investigations based on political opposition research and wishful thinking was bad behavior. I could go on and on and on. Dems did these things to avoid the results of the democratic process, to cheat the American people out of their chance to boot them out. It was bad behavior. It merits the deterrence Trump is meting out and more.
Oh, come on, john. There is nothing odd about saying that bad behavior should have negative consequences. Of course, criminal sanctions should be reserved for criminal behavior.
The indictment itself has no particulars. The particulars should be filed soon. We don’t get to see the evidence until the trial.
I know liberals don’t understand this concept. This is probably why they periodically get behind policies that are obvious stupidity such as defunding the police, appointing prosecutors who refuse to prosecute criminals and supporting the Hamas terrorists.
NONE of the crap Dems tried to nail Trump for before the election was well founded, so spare us.
angech,
the reason you’ve never saw me “commit to saying the Democrats did terrible unlawful things to Trump and his supporters” is because I don’t think they did.
Do you still think Jan 6, 2021 was an afternoon tea? Have you watched the films of what happened, seen some of the participants beat up the police?
I’m susceptible to an argument that Trump’s real estate financial statement exageration proescution might not have been pursued so vigorously if it wasn’t led by Democrats, but others had been prosecuted for the same things.
As to the Georgia prosecution for election tampering, the evidence is public and crystal clear.
On the mishandling of presidential documents, he gets a pass from me up until he lied about having them and tried to hide them.
why in the world would you think I’d excoriate the Democrats who led these prosecutions?
And mind you, I haven’t criticized Bondi’s prosecuter for bringing charges if she thought them warranted even if no-one else does.
But revenge, and payback? Childishness.
And Mark, I agree that each of the three things you say liberals support in nuts and not in our collective best interests, especially defunding the police which I suspect realtively few liberals ever supported.
How many Presidential candidates have faced multiple criminal investigations in your lifetime John? While campaigning for the office of President? People who were actually Republican or Democratic nominees if you please.
The lawfare was an obvious attempt to stop Trump from winning the Presidency. It’s obvious to everyone else here, so it doesn’t bother me that you want to delude yourself John. I won’t waste any more time on this.
john,
Everybody on the right condemns the violence (trivial by Democrat standards) that was done of Jan. 6. Trump did nothing wrong.
Nobody else has ever been prosecuted for things similar to either of the charges brought against Trump in New York.
The Georgia prosecution of Trump was rubbish. He did nothing wrong.
There is a possibility that there might have been something to the documents prosecution, but we won’t know since the Biden Administration out an invalid prosecutor in charge.
I am pretty sure that both Harris and Waltz were among the liberals supporting “defund the police”.
HI Mike, I don’t think the Jan 6 riot was trivial, but you may have a point in comparing it to other riots, although how you label them as performed to some Democrat standard or measured by Democrat standard is lost on me.
As understand it dozens of people were prosecuted for financial statement misrepresentations, not just Trump. But if you were to say that others who had done the same thing were not prosecuted, you could be right.
You do know that Trump threatened Raffernsburger in one of his calls in pursuit ot Raffensburger discovering 11, 000 +/- additional votes. The charges realted to that phone call are definitelyu not rubbish.
The idea that Smith was an invalid prosecutor is nonsense. He was appointed as a Special Prosecutor in the same manner as other special prosecutors dating back to time of Nixon.
As to Harris, an ex-prosecutor and Waltz a goovernor supporting defunding of police, Show me.
Mark, maybe no other presidential candidate in history at least appeared to do the same things Trump appeared to have done.
“He was appointed as a Special Prosecutor in the same manner as other special prosecutors dating back to time of Nixon.”
That law (which may never have been Constitutional) expired a quarter century ago. Smith’s appointment was invalid.
Jan. 6 was certainly mot trivial. But it was nothing compared to any number of riots in summer of 2020 that the Democrats seemed fine with.
Trump wanted Raffensburger to do his job and check for invalidly cast votes. If there were more than 11K, then a new election was required by Georgia law. There is good evidence that the number of invalid votes was many times that.
John,
Early on, Harris supported “defund the police” but later backed away from it:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020
It looks like Walz never supported “defund the police” per se, but he supported many of their proposals:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flashback-walz-backed-alternatives-policing-package-height-defund-movement
and his administration gave funding to a “defund the police” group:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/presidential/3126143/walz-administration-awarded-100000-pro-defund-police-group/
What a mess…
Hamas has responded to Trump‘s peace deal
Trump says it’s an agreement and told Israel to stop bombing
Netanyahu thinks Hamas has rejected the peace deal
john ferguson,
“the reason you’ve never saw me “commit to saying the Democrats did terrible unlawful things to Trump and his supporters” is because I don’t think they did. ”
–
Life is not a football game where we can only ever see the other sides faults in play but not our own.
The sad thing is that I know that you know the Democrat actions have included some terrible unlawful things to Trump and his supporters.
Not even deep down.
Yet out of sheer tribalism you cannot admit to others of the opposite ilk these things when they have occurred.
No point in rehashing them as for each and every case you will have an answer twisting the facts to your reasonable point of view.
Perhaps you could give your version of the reasonableness and fairness of the treatment of Manafort and Stone.
Compare the timing and number of armed personnel and CNN reporters for Roger v Bolton home raids.
Or consider the only two people struck by real bullets on Jan 6th and who fired them.
Mike M.
re: Democrats being fine with 2020 riots. I agree when you put it that way.
I published a new post. I’m shifting comments.
to quote CNN, the Democratic Party is in the toilet right now.
Three recent polls confirm it:
CNN Poll: A July 2025 poll found the Democratic Party’s favorable rating at 28%, which was described as the lowest mark for Democrats in CNN’s polling history dating back to 1992.
Gallup: In a July 2025 report, Gallup stated the Democratic Party’s 34% favorable rating was the lowest it had measured for the party in its trend dating back to 1992.
Wall Street Journal Poll: A July 2025 poll reported the Democratic Party was viewed negatively by 63% of American voters, which was the lowest approval rating of the party in more than 30 years of their surveys.
Russell,
It can be very misleading when something non-binary is represented as binary. The Dems poor favorability rating tells us nothing about whether people are likely to vote for Democrats because there are many reasons people might have an unfavorable view of that party. They might think they are too extreme or not extreme enough. They might think the Dems are too reflexively opposed to Trump or that they are not doing enough to oppose Trump. Etc.
An example on the other side. Polls say that a majority of Americans do not approve of Trump’s immigration policies. Some say that means that people think he is too extreme. But polls also say that a majority of Americans think that ALL illegals should be deported. So it seems that there is a significant chunk of people who disapprove of Trump’s immigration policies because he is being too soft on illegals.
Mike,
Trump is gonna generate big negative numbers just by being Trump. Heck, a lot of the time I don’t like him.
But just like before the election, all the intangibles seem to be going against the Democrats and for the Republicans.
I am particularly encouraged by the energy shown by the young people and TP USA. That is a political movement all to itself.
Russell,
Yes, there are reasons to be optimistic. But I don’t think the specific polls you cite add much clarity. Few Dem voters unhappy with their party will vote Republican. But maybe that unhappiness will suppress turnout. The VA and NJ elections tomorrow might give some indication of that.
Mike,
and midterms were full year away, which is enough time for either party to step in it