State of the Discussion

bc, thanks for your reply. I am sorry to say it depresses me. Your tenor seems to be that Kirk was just a little too ... strident? extreme? Which word is more apt depends on whether he was mainly a provocateur or an ideologue. I think he was both, of course, but YMMV.

The "Prove Me Wrong" schtick was theater, not debate. Whether your position is popular or not, odious or not, sincere or not, the burden of proof in a debate is on you, the person asserting the position. Imagine me asserting that "Santa Claus is real" and demanding to be proved wrong.

Anyway, thanks again for replying. Maybe we do have some common ground in at least one way: canonizing Charlie Kirk is just a little too much.

--TP

Funnily enough I'd just finished reading it! Here's a gift link - I hope it gives the transcript, i think ive had trouble with that before:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/28/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ta-nehisi-coates.html?unlocked_article_code=1.pU8.aWZg.aGJWstjBZKnl&smid=url-share

Questions that should be asked more often when it comes to evaluating Iran's place in the international community is:

"What has Iran actually done geopolitically to deserve its reputation in, say, the past 25 years, what have other nations operating in the ME done and how does it compare? What is the death toll that resulted from Iran's actions and how does it compare to that of other nations operating in the ME?"

I think any objective observer will find that, if you set aside the rhetoric, the actual actions of the Iranian regime amount to very little compared to those of other nations. The operative phrase here is "setting aside the rhetoric" because since the hostage crisis and later Ahmadinejad, a narrative has emerged that describes the "islamofascist theocracy" in Iran as the "greatest danger to ME peace". This is completely unjustified if you look at the historical facts.

The geopolitical argument against Iran is then often bolstered by bringing up the domestic policies of the Iranian regime, which are certainly deplorable. However, they are sadly not unique in the region and elsewhere and despite claims to the contrary the regime does not have totalitarian grip on the very complex and multilayered society of Iran.

What is also almost completely ignored is the fact that the regime is more about money and power than about religion. Most observers simply are ignorant of or choose to ignore the vast amount of wealth the ruling elite from Khamenei down to the rannk and file revolutionary guard member control and their understandable desire to hold on to it. One tool to perpetuate this control is religion, but I would say in and of itself it is actually secondary.

Finally, as much as parts of Iranian society are westernised, even they don't want a society determined by US money and influence - many might hate the regime but they want to do their own thing and understandably view foreign interference with strong suspicion. And that is much more so the case with much of the conservative, religious population who just have different ideas about how to live.

I think Wood is actually better postioned than most to comment on Iran because of his educational background and having actually travelled in the country, though that seems to have been a while ago. However, he seems to succumb in part to the usual US foreign policy establishment groupthink which prioritises regime change narratives. I would just challenge everyone fixated on this to tell me what an Iran post-regime change would look like, especially considering the many different ethnic groups that make up the country.

As for Iran being an old civilization, that's certainly one source of the national pride, though it depends on who you talk to, because it can sit uneasily with the grim current relity. It's also kind of a running gag among some, who make fun of this tendency to trace back every invention and accomplishment of the past 2000 years to the Persian empire. I heard the Greeks do the same and there is apparently a scene in "My big fat Greek wedding" making fun of this.

Good on you, wj. Every further development (e.g. Comey's indictment, and the firing of anyone who tries to support the rule of law, see below) supports the conclusion that neither election to the house nor the senate can continue to be gerrymandered so as to give the Rs, and therefore Ubu, an ironclad control of American politics and the unfettered ability to continue to subvert the constitution.

Last week, Mr. Trump fired a U.S. attorney in Virginia who determined there was insufficient evidence to indict James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and Letitia James, the New York State attorney general, both political targets of the president. The Virginia prosecutor was replaced by a Trump loyalist who convinced a federal grand jury on Thursday to indict Mr. Comey on two counts.

Documents reviewed by The New York Times show that the July 15 firing of Ms. Beckwith occurred less than six hours after she told Mr. Bovino, the Border Patrol chief in charge of the Southern California raids, that a court order prevented him from arresting people without probable cause in a vast expanse that stretches from the Oregon border to Bakersfield. She was removed not only from her post as acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of California, but from the office altogether.

We just got the materials for the Special Election November 4. I'm working this one, not just because I usually try to work elections, but because these days it's an affirmation that elections will happen.

The only item on the ballot is Proposition 50: AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS' PARTISAN REDISTRICTING. Talk about brutally honest proposition titles! (Something that has not been universal here, in my observation). The ads are already starting to run. On one side, Governor Newsom talking about defending democracy from Trump. On the other, arguments for preserving the nonpartisan redistricting that we established, for excellent reasons, back in 2010. Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I note that this doesn't abolish the Redistricting Commission, just allows a one-time redistricting outside the usual process. The Con ads (deliberately) make it sound like a permanent change.

I am personally strongly in favor of our nonpartisan approach. In fact, at one point I applied to be on tthe commission. But, "circumstances alter cases." I suspect that the economy will be sufficiently trashed by 2026 that the Democrats end up with a majority in the House regardless of Republican efforts elsewhere. Especially as some of the hardest hit places are already being deep red rural areas. But I'm also in belt-and-suspenders mode these days.

bc, thanks for this too. I knew of Charlie Kirk, but I didn't follow much, so I'm not going to try and dig up stuff, I think that was a mode of commenting that caused/causes a lot of problems (remember fisking?)

However, I have to say that his turn to Christianity seems a bit of a grift. In a podcast recently, he claimed it was 5th grade when he saw the light, but there is no sign of that until after Trump's second election. While it's possible that his marriage was an important influence (his wife graduated from Liberty University), the claim about the 5th grade conversion is probably a lie.

btw, you can see turning point ads (and find other ads) here
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/1E9X/turning-point-usa-help-us-take-back-our-country

There are a few with nods to Christianity, but those seem to be in conjunction with Trump trying to please that demographic.

You know, in the absence of video showing Kirk saying many of the things he is accused of saying (none of which have been exactly denied), I looked at his own old tweets etc. His wholehearted, full-throated defence of RFK Jnr, a man who is looked on by the entire worldwide scientific and medical community as an idiot and a very serious risk to human health (at the very least responsible for 80 deaths in a measles outbreak in Samoa, and who knows how many to come in the US) were enough to absolutely confirm the opinion of his malevolent influence. And telling Taylor Swift " Engage in reality more and get outside of the abstract clouds. Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge" makes it much harder to doubt the things he is alleged to have said about black people, and jews.

bc's point about AOC taking Kirk's comments (presumably that's what bc meant by "things"?) out of context reminds me. I think it was wonkie who said on another thread that she was going to counter people saying that Kirk had not said the things he is quoted as saying by showing video of him actually saying them. A compilation of that kind of thing would be enormously useful, particularly with brief lead-ins and what follows. Does anybody know if something like that exists? In any case, it would be interesting to hear anything substantiating that Melissa Hortman ever said, did or proposed anything that could be realistically compared to the many things we have evidence of Kirk saying or believing.

Ah, topology. When I was in graduate school I took a topology class where the professor used the Moore Method. No textbook. For each unit there was a handout with a bunch of definitions and a few examples. Then a list of theorems. Prove the true ones, find counterexamples (or proofs of falseness) for the false ones. Class time was students at the board going through their results. If no one had a result, a random student was put at the board while everyone gave suggestions.

I was amazed that there were smart people who had that many years of school behind them and didn't understand the basic management skill for that sort of class. If I had a proof for #3, and nothing for #4 or #5, I was already on the way to the board before the professor could finish asking, "Does anyone want to take a crack at #3?"

HSH: I have a problem with jumping right to Hitler as a primary means of criticism, especially after an actual assassination. It is a form of “he deserved it.”

I guess you're referring to comparisons of Kirk's potential martyrdom to that of Horst Wessel. I don't know how that's a form of "he deserved it." Nazi comparisons generally occur when people are concerned about the possibility of fascism making a comeback because the Nazis are, by far, the most significant historical example. Your problem is ... well ... yours.

The guy you link to celebrates the murder of Brian Thompson and notes he (the FB poster) “felon love” with Luigi Mangione. He thinks Charlie Kirk’s LIFE was a tragedy, not his death. All based on ideas. His comments about Kirk’s debate style are simply not representative of what I have seen.

I don't know anything about the guy. I just thought his criticisms of Kirk's "debates" were on point. I'm sure Kirk has had other conversations on a more level playing field, but those are for a different audience - people who are probably older and don't pay attention to his college-campus antics, for whom he could portray a more moderate version of himself to people who aren't otherwise familiar with his internet schtick. "Oh, gee, he seems reasonable." Kind of like Vance debating Walz.

I did some surfing about this and I see what bc is getting riled up about was the proclamation that nous linked to and what I was thinking about was what broke out over the prayer for Kirk
LATimes article

Here is AOC's response to the Resolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR3D0MkqjQU

BC - I disagree with many ideas on the left, and despise some. That doesn’t keep me from condemning, say, the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband. FULL STOP. The senate resolution honored her life and passed unanimously. The resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk, however, was opposed by 58 Democrats and 60 more either voted present or did not vote. Most said due to his ideas. Melissa Hortman had ideas too, ones that many on the right disagreed with or found repugnant, but the Republicans chose to honor her life and not temper their desire to send a unified message condemning her murder. I wish the Democrats would have done the same for Kirk.

Here is the text of the Senate resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-resolution/301/text

Here is the text of the House resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/719/text

The former is a fair sight more neutrally worded and measured in tone than the latter. The author of the House resolution had to know that their characterization was going to be more nettlesome and create partisan friction where none need exist.

HSH: I have a problem with jumping right to Hitler as a primary means of criticism, especially after an actual assassination. It is a form of "he deserved it."

The guy you link to celebrates the murder of Brian Thompson and notes he (the FB poster) "felon love" with Luigi Mangione. He thinks Charlie Kirk's LIFE was a tragedy, not his death. All based on ideas. His comments about Kirk's debate style are simply not representative of what I have seen. I saw some Charlie Kirk stuff from time-to-time before his assassination. There was a lot I didn't agree with, and some of his interactions somewhat resemble what was described. I like long-form debate mostly, like the Monk Debates. Watch Kirk's debates at the Oxford Union and Cambridge, or his conversation with Bill Maher. He isn't riding herd on some poor college student there. He is exchanging ideas. I note that the Cambridge students he debated with mourned his death and admired his commitment to the exchange of ideas. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wdp2ypq5vo

I disagree with many ideas on the left, and despise some. That doesn't keep me from condemning, say, the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband. FULL STOP. The senate resolution honored her life and passed unanimously. The resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk, however, was opposed by 58 Democrats and 60 more either voted present or did not vote. Most said due to his ideas. Melissa Hortman had ideas too, ones that many on the right disagreed with or found repugnant, but the Republicans chose to honor her life and not temper their desire to send a unified message condemning her murder. I wish the Democrats would have done the same for Kirk.

Kirk's death feels significant. I think that is in large part to the left's (painting broadly here) reaction.

One thing that I’m struck by about Cruz’ defense of free speech (and Rand Paul’s I think) is not that we do this because strength comes from a diversity of opinions, but because the liberals might do it to us.

Yes, I noticed that with a few of the Rs taking this tack. It does seem contemptible, but the only thing that gives me pause is that even if a particular person saying it actually did feel it was a matter of principle, they might nevertheless make this argument to bring as many Rs, MAGAs etc along with them as possible under prevailing conditions. However, I can't offhand think of anybody this might apply to (although of course I am not all that familiar with all of their records), and given the current state of the GOP, this would probably be a tiny minority even if it existed.

I'm glad Disqus isn't being considered. The Lawyers, Guns & Money blog switched to Disqus because handling their large comment volume was beyond the capability of the WordPress built-in system or available plug-ins. A very regular comment is someone asking, "Is it just me, or is Disqus more screwed up than normal today?" From time to time I add a comment there to the effect of, "If I weren't so lazy, I'd round up some of the commenters who are also retired geeks and we'd write a system to be what Disqus wanted."