Since when has someone who has been unknown by so many received so much... (can't find a word for it) "coverage"(?) as Charlie Kirk. Hasn't this gotten out of hand? Can you think of any comparisons?
I would be interested to know your opinion in the possibility of politicians that are more moderate like Gov. Spencer Cox gaining in popularity again vs MAGA type Republicans. It seems to be agreed that his speech was exactly what was needed for the situation, and it seems that having the moderate voices would bring us back to a more balanced discourse.
While I get your point about involving Marines in the transport of Kirk's casket and lowering US flags in honor of his death, I think you are minimizing Kirk's influence calling him a "right wing podcaster." Reminds me of when the left used to call Ronald Reagan a "B movie actor." It's a gross reduction of Kirk's enormous influence on millions of young, active conservatives and the 2024 election, let alone open debate in hundreds of public forums. Today alone, in the week following Kirk's murder, the Wall Street Journal has no fewer than four news stories and five editorials about the incident.
Hi Steve, maybe I did, but to those who don't know him or only heard if him in passing, that's what he was known for.
I find it somewhat unsavoury that he got treatment that wasn't even given to a slain congresswoman from Minnesota - an elected official no less, unlike Kirk.
As for the WSJ articles, which I haven't read, I suspect they are less about Charlie Kirk the person, and more about the implications of his murder and the current state of political discourse in the USA.
Not to mention the rise of ideological radicalisation of those with easy access to firearms.
John: I read an article in the Wall Street Journal last week that said 93% of Baby Boomers (my generation) say political violence is never acceptable, while only 57% of Gen Z (Tyler Robinson’s generation) agree. Interestingly, there is no real left-right divide on this question; it’s much more of a generational difference. I attribute this to two things: the decline in religiosity as manifest in the devaluing of human life, and the rise of social media that makes on-line interaction impersonal, siloed, and radicalized. In talking to a close family member who is Gen Z, he said his generation is up to its eyeballs in debt, cannot afford even entry-level home ownership, and must fight to be a part of the ownership society. “People who don’t own anything don’t have anything to lose.” Is he maybe onto something?
Since when has someone who has been unknown by so many received so much... (can't find a word for it) "coverage"(?) as Charlie Kirk. Hasn't this gotten out of hand? Can you think of any comparisons?
I would be interested to know your opinion in the possibility of politicians that are more moderate like Gov. Spencer Cox gaining in popularity again vs MAGA type Republicans. It seems to be agreed that his speech was exactly what was needed for the situation, and it seems that having the moderate voices would bring us back to a more balanced discourse.
What's with the US lowering flags and having Marines carry the casket of a right wing pod-caster?
There's something very inappropriate/unwarranted about that.
But it wouldn't be the the first time with this administration.
Presidential prerogative. Probably inappropriate, but what else is new.
While I get your point about involving Marines in the transport of Kirk's casket and lowering US flags in honor of his death, I think you are minimizing Kirk's influence calling him a "right wing podcaster." Reminds me of when the left used to call Ronald Reagan a "B movie actor." It's a gross reduction of Kirk's enormous influence on millions of young, active conservatives and the 2024 election, let alone open debate in hundreds of public forums. Today alone, in the week following Kirk's murder, the Wall Street Journal has no fewer than four news stories and five editorials about the incident.
Hi Steve, maybe I did, but to those who don't know him or only heard if him in passing, that's what he was known for.
I find it somewhat unsavoury that he got treatment that wasn't even given to a slain congresswoman from Minnesota - an elected official no less, unlike Kirk.
As for the WSJ articles, which I haven't read, I suspect they are less about Charlie Kirk the person, and more about the implications of his murder and the current state of political discourse in the USA.
Not to mention the rise of ideological radicalisation of those with easy access to firearms.
But I'll defer to you on that point.
“You can always count on President Trump to fail to meet the moment." Indeed!
John: I read an article in the Wall Street Journal last week that said 93% of Baby Boomers (my generation) say political violence is never acceptable, while only 57% of Gen Z (Tyler Robinson’s generation) agree. Interestingly, there is no real left-right divide on this question; it’s much more of a generational difference. I attribute this to two things: the decline in religiosity as manifest in the devaluing of human life, and the rise of social media that makes on-line interaction impersonal, siloed, and radicalized. In talking to a close family member who is Gen Z, he said his generation is up to its eyeballs in debt, cannot afford even entry-level home ownership, and must fight to be a part of the ownership society. “People who don’t own anything don’t have anything to lose.” Is he maybe onto something?