I had two articles for subscribers to The Athletic this week, my annual look at players I got wrong (which, of course, generated a bunch of comments from people who said I was wrong about players who had a decent half-season) plus a preview of the Arizona Fall League rosters (which seem to have changed already since I got the preliminary ones, alas).
And now, the links…
- In The Atlantic – not my employer – Charlie Warzel writes that the Epstein birthday book is “a nightmare” and shows that the conspiracy theorists were at least partly right. It appears many, many of Epstein’s friends knew of his crimes against children and joked about it.
- The Times ran an editorial by Ezra Klein with the headline that Charlie Kirk was “practicing politics the right way.” Here are some rejoinders to Klein’s take from 404 Media, from Mother Jones’ David Corn, from The Nation’s Elizabeth Spiers, and from the Times’ Jamelle Bouie.
- Zeteo posted a story with 17 quotes from Kirk, with sources, but no additional commentary.
- Also from Mother Jones, right-wing provocateurs immediately called for retribution against the left, including violence, after Kirk’s death, before any details about his alleged killer emerged.
- They were also targeting and doxing people they thought were celebrating Kirk’s murder, including getting many people fired, including a professor at Austin Peay University who allegedly just posted a quote from Kirk.
- A child in the Los Angeles area contracted measles as an infant, before they were old enough to receive the first dose of the MMR vaccine, some years ago, and died this month of the side effect known as SSPE, which can show up a decade after the measles infection and causes dementia, dystonia, and eventually cardiac or respiratory arrest. I wonder if 1) this child was infected during the 2014-15 epidemic and 2) if they got it from an unvaccinated person, which seems almost certain.
- Texas A&M fired a professor and two administrators after the professor distributed materials that indicated recognition that there are more than two genders (which there are), claiming they were complying with Texas law (that does not exist) and President Trump’s executive order (which I don’t think binds them to do anything).
- A Tacoma man who went to the house of a QAnon follower to serve her an order to leave the foreclosed house where she was living was cleared of wrongdoing after she shot at him and he returned fire, killing her.
- The disposable face masks we all used during COVID-19 – and some of us still use – are leaching chemicals into the ground and oceans, as there is still no real process in place to capture and recycle them. I did buy masks several times from a company called VIDA that will take them back for recycling, although I don’t know what they actually do with them.
- Massive protests in Nepal, including the burning of government buildings and the chase of a half-naked government minister into a river, led to the resignation of the Prime Minister and the appointment of Shushila Karki as the first woman to lead the landlocked Asian nation.
- Israel continued its assault on Gaza City, striking a hospital and killing at least 12 children.
- A rare happy story: A couple wondered for years who the awkward-looking guy in a bunch of their wedding photos was. They finally found him, and the reason why he was in the pictures is wonderful.
- I really enjoyed the tiny-box game Soda Jerk when I played it at Gen Con; pre-orders just went up at Allplay. (I don’t get any commission from this.)
Ezra Klein is terrible. He’s got some pretty obvious major issues other than his opinions.
Regarding Charlie Kirk. It took an incredible amount of courage for him to discuss the Bible in public in today’s day and age. I have always been a quiet Christian. If someone was being critical of organized religion I would keep my opinion to myself. Going forward I hope to show a fraction of the courage that he had.
Is this a joke?
I suspect he’s serious.
Consider the irony. One thing Charlie Kirk seems to spout, along with his other nonsense, is that black people and other actually victimized groups, are just weak ineffective people who adopt an attitude of victimhood.
Meanwhile, I feel as though I frequently encounter, online, White male Christians who paint themselves as the ultimate victims on the apparent belief that Christians are heavily persecuted and victimized.
Things I’ve been asked in the South when making small talk and mentioning that I’m a Biology Professor:
What is your definition of a woman?
Ignoring everything else, it’s very weird to describe Kirk as displaying “courage.” He was paid handsomely by billionaires to advance the political project of the literal president. Advocating for the status quo on behalf of existing power is perhaps the diametric opposite of “courageous.”
Adding on to your point, Mike is that I’ve seen it claimed he was someone who debated the issues. He went to college campuses with a pre-formulated gish gallop and then claimed victory. That’s not real debate. That also meant he wasn’t forced to defend some of his more awful views in an actual debate setting including his extreme racism which has been white washed (pun intended) by his fans.
Just curious…
A domestic terrorist would someone who spouted racist and others types of hate speech. Some would say that the friend of the president who was shot last week was as much a threat to the usa as Bin Laden was…just born American.
(I’ve deleted a reply to this that was only an insult and did not add anything to the conversation.)
I’m not sure what comment Keith deleted (I am willing to believe it was beyond the pale), but I do take serious issue with Bartleby’s comment.
I disagree strongly with most of Charlie Kirk’s positions. I also disagree strongly with people who espouse classic socialism (not what most people who call themselves socialists nowadays advocate) or communism, which I view as tantamount to fascism in that they always lead to political oppression (including murder) of the opposition (and also increased poverty, because they include terrible economic policy). But saying things is not equivalent to doing things.
That is fundamental to any conception of free speech. Someone has every right to call me a capitalist pig, to say I am a bad person for my views, or even to say that as a white man who teaches in SE DC and has mixed race daughters, I am inherently racist (all things I’ve been told). What they don’t have the right to do is shoot me or my family because they feel that way.
Bin Laden didn’t merely propound bad ideas. He repeatedly planned, and ultimately succeeded, in executing non-combatants based on his ideas. To my knowledge, Charlie Kirk never did anything of the sort. That certainly doesn’t make him a hero, but this is such a false equivalence that I felt the need to comment.
And to preempt what I assume would be the response, the idea that someone is a similar “threat” based on their words or potential use of power can be used to justify any comparison. Any president of the US, or of any nuclear power, is potentially a greater threat to the world than Bin Laden. But someone positing (as they often did) Obama or Biden was a greater threat than Bin Laden was rightly met with scorn by any liberal person. I feel the same way about people who are avowed communists, many of whom I consider close friends. I have no doubt that were their wishes put into action, they would lead to great suffering and death, but they don’t think that. And even if they did, and they were ok with that, they would not be morally equivalent to someone who actually put it into action.
The distinction between words and action matters a great deal.
I am a non-MAGA Republican. I enjoy visiting these threads and the comments to gain a different perspective and educate myself on all sides. I learn a lot and like to think that I broaden my perspective. Outside of knowing who Charlie Kirk was, I did not follow Charlie Kirk or his “teachings.” Put another way, when I heard of his death, I recognized the name but had no idea what he stood for.
With that said, I don’t really understand the point of your Kirk posts. Ok, he said a lot of stupid shit you/I/we disagree with. And a lot of stupid people on the right have responded irrationally. His death was abhorrent. The retaliation threats of right-wing provocateurs are abhorrent. If this were Trump, Lindsey Graham, John Roberts, Bernie, AOC, Newsome it would be abhorrent.
Whatever you may have thought about his views, it is disappointing that you focused on views you disagreed with and didn’t use this opportunity to condemn his killer.
I’m similar to you in that I was a life-long Republican who for the first time in my life voted non-Republican in 2016 (the 5th prez cycle I was eligible to vote for). It felt weird and I didn’t enjoy it, but something had to give.
Well, nothing has changed since then to make me consider voting GOP. Last cycle, I again refused to vote for Don while also opting not to cast a ballot for the corpse of Joe. I understand the inertia of wanting to pick a side but at some point it felt refreshing to step outside the circus tent, for me at least.
Back to the crux of your comment – I hear ya but I think any sane person (not to be taken for granted in America’s current political landscape) understands that murdering innocent people is bad. What many of us, including you & I apparently, did not understand much about was the meat of what Charlie brought to the table, as a political activist who rose to such power & influence.
Much more interesting to understand a bit more the context of who Charlie was and the ideas/beliefs/agenda he was pushing than needing to be reminded that Americans killing people–domestic & abroad–is like bad and stuff.
Piggybacking on Clint D, the discourse in the wake of Kirk’s assassination has been a combination of liberals lionizing him (see Gavin Newsom’s comments on the matter) and conservatives demanding fealty (see the discourse around lowering flags to half-mast and moments of silence). It is both correct and useful to push back on both of those impulses my highlighting who and what Kirk was.
My Uni was one of the many at the start of the semester with an active shooter scare that fortunately ended up being a hoax. But I still locked myself in my office and spent hours worrying about my trainees locked in the lab because we have hundreds of these a year, so it always seems ‘when’ not ‘if’. And then I worry about my kids in school every fucking day. So no, I did not shed tears over the death of someone who thinks that’s an okay price to pay for ‘freedom’ (and who died making the same racist argument about gun deaths they had made many times before). I am sad for his family and children especially, who have no choice in parentage. I’m sad generally that our country is such a violent place, and that there is no political will to change this. In an alternative reality, maybe Kirk survives and becomes a Brady figure (conservatives only seem to see the light when something personally affects them). Instead, Kirk’s death is already being used to further authoritarian assaults on dissent and speech.
I think one can or should be able to honestly discuss the fact that Kirk said a lot of awful and hateful things but still didn’t deserve to be killed. The right doesn’t seem to understand the former.
What are Ezra Klein’s pretty obvious major problems other than his opinions?
I suspect he has substance abuse issues. If you’ve ever watched him on camera for more than five minutes, he shows a lot of telltale signs.
Oh, I’m an idiot. I was mixing up Ezra Klein with Ethan Klein. So ignore what I said.
Political violence is never the answer. For some reason a white nationalist, racist, sexist transphobe who held no elected office is somehow now revered. I don’t think the manner of his death excuses his actions while alive.
Melissa & Mark Hortman’s murder is now forgotten. Yet another school shooting happened the same day as Kirk’s murder and that’s now forgotten. It saddens and frightens me to reflect on how our cultural narratives are being driven today.
I would very much continue to ignore Kirk’s worldview than be forced to have to ‘mourn’ his death…so, in the hollow mimicry of MAGA’s upon yet another gun massacre, “Thoughts and Prayers”
Nowhere in the linked Seattle Times article does it say that the QAnon follower who was killed by a man delivering legal papers to her “shot at him” or that he “returned fire” as you state above. Nor can I find any other recounting of the events of that day that indicate that she ever shot her weapon. Yes, she pointed a loaded gun at him but I don’t see anything that says that she ever fired it. He reacted by shooting her multiple times and killing her. A dicey situation to be sure, but it doesn’t help to change the events in the retelling.