The Frankish Reich

I didn't watch this in real time, and I've just been poking around the main clips. Takeaway: Erika Kirk and Marco Rubio deeply understand the message of the New Testament. Stephen Miller and Donald Trump are purely Old Testament.

And the Broncos could have (should have) beaten the Chargers. Other than those two things, it really is the best possible scenario after Week 3!

Thanks for the comment. I was aware of New College if only because I found it intriguing way back when, when I was actually starting to apply to college. There's plenty of room for it to tack away from 20th Century "progressive" ideas to traditional Liberal (of the Great Books kind) of education. I'm hoping they are able to pull that off instead of becoming some kind of conservative parody of a liberal education.

Kudos to Marco Rubio. It was ostensibly a Christian Memorial Service even though we know it was a political event too. Rubio delivered an impassioned Christian sermon. Was it appropriate for a Secretary of State to do that? Well, that is a topic for debate. But as far as setting the right tone, he was pitch perfect.

I'm not aware of any bags of cash being delivered to Joe Biden. Bag of cash = presumptive bribe.

So nobody watches Kimmel, nobody cares what he thinks. He's the Poorly Rated and Very Unfunny Jimmy Kimmel. Yet somehow the FCC Chairman finds it absolutely critical to threaten owners of local affiliates about "hard way" consequences if he isn't taken off the air.

Back to Homan: It was a sting operation. So presumably the $50K was handed over to Homan and then they waited for evidence of the quid pro quo. So ... where is the $50K? Weird for anyone to defend Homan here. No legitimate public official or person planning to become a public official takes huge amounts of cash like this.

The problem is the FCC is not-so-subtly threatening to use its unrelated authority to approve mergers in order to gain leverage. That's how the CBS/Paramount settlement happened - after it was done, Larry Ellison's son completed his takeover. Same here with the Tegna proposed merger. And here I thought MAGA was about constraining the power of an unaccountable bureaucracy ...

Well, as I said he implied the kid was a MAGA type, but he didn't say it. What he did say was there was a furious attempt by MAGA folks to get ahead of anything that might implicate him as a MAGA supporter. Whatever. This is an abuse of the FCC's powers, and note that they are now relying on an obsolete distinction between over-the-air broadcasters like ABC and "cable" broadcasters like Fox News. So Gutfeld can make fun of Paul Pelosi all he wants but Kimmel can't even gently chide Trump's cynical attempts to capitalize on an assassination. The FCC Chair called it "the sickest comments possible." Really? Watch it and tell me where he criticizes Charlie Kirk.

I'm not a regular Kimmel watcher, but I did tune in on Monday - that fateful night, in retrospect - to see how he'd deal with the Kirk murder. It was all pretty standard, with Kimmel properly decrying the killing. He then pivoted to how the MAGA folks were all too eager to use the killing to gain a political advantage. He did imply that a MAGA guy was probably behind it (something that we now know for sure isn't true), but he didn't flat-out accuse a MAGA supporter of being the killer. His line about Trump somehow rambling on about his White House patio/ballroom project when asked about Kirk was spot-on, and kind of cringe rather than laugh amusing. But perfectly fair. So I have to conclude this isn't about comments about Charlie Kirk at all, since there really weren't any. This is about criticism of Trump. As it always has been.

There's a Gutfeld for every Kimmel now, a Ben Shapiro for every Rachel Maddow. Maybe we just click to a different show?

Free speech absolutist Charlie Kirk would presumably be turning in his grave but he's not even buried yet.

Yes, I am the Voice of Reason! Luigi 1st Degree Murder charge dropped? Outrageous! Sounds like First Degree Murder to me!! I was scared!!! That's terrorism!!!! Liberal something something!!!! Me: umm, maybe we should read the law?

How long was it going to take for your little friends to bounce outside their echosphere and actually look at why the judge dismissed the terrorism-related charges? You should be thanking me. Oh, I don't deny the political implications. But looking at the NY State murder law - the one in play here - I have to agree with the judge. NY (our old friend Mr. Bragg) argued things like "the fact that he did it in Manhattan on a public street shows the intent to terrorize." But what if he had done it while the victim was onstage giving a speech, Charlie Kirk style? Well, I guess that's worse. What if he had done it by taking the elevator to the guy's private suite and killed him in his room? They're all horrible offenses. It's just that there was nothing here that fit well within NY's special circumstances warranting 1st Degree Murder. Do I think it's a stupid law that needs to be changed? Yes, I do.

Notice how everyone above my NYT post was cutting/pasting tweets expressing outrage without even bothering to look up the law.

BTW, what happened to those swingin' Moms for Liberty? It's almost as if they were an astroturf group established to churn out pro-MAGA sentiments.

In which we turn to the Mainstream Media to explain (NYT) While some states define first-degree murder as a premeditated killing, New York requires an additional aggravating circumstance, one of which is terrorism. Others include torture and killing a witness or law officer.

I agree. Unlike some others here, you don't seem the type that is likely to get worked up about the MAQA (Marxist Armed ***** Army) takeover. Me? I'm still having nightmares about this:

What happened to the classic "are you still beating your wife?"

I'm pretty sure you can still get away with using the name Buford at Starbucks. Give it a try! Who is giving a first/last name at Starbucks anyway? I'm sure they'll print Charlie. Or Charlie K. And what was his favorite drink anyway? So many questions. EDIT: I just saw it was a Mint Majesty Tea with 2 Honeys. Not the manliest order ever, not that there's anything wrong with that.

I guess it's some kind of "I am Spartacus" thing? Whatever. What idiot would give the name of a recently assassinated person to a Starbucks barista. Breaking: they didn't even laugh when I gave them the name Harry Balls.

Good response. But what do you think about the threats of prosecution coming from Bondi, Stephen Miller, even JD Vance? I'm not talking about prosecutions related to the actual murder of Kirk. I'm talking about prosecutions for protected speech. In what way is it o.k. for the highest law enforcement officer in the land to even threaten such clearly unconstitutional prosecutions in order to keep people from exercising their constitutional rights?

I think you may be onto something here ...

The Bondi statement on "hate speech" is just stunning coming from the nation's chief law enforcement officer. Anyone who wrote that on a bar exam would fail. And what's more troubling: a lot of Trump fans (including obviously many here) think that this is good policy and constitutional. I thought this was supposed to be about undoing the excesses of Wokism. The kind of thing where saying something innocuous and even true about George Floyd ("remember, he was a career criminal") could get you canceled. Now we're seeing that it is about substituting Right Wing Wokism for Left Wing Wokism. Say something innocuous and true about Charlie Kirk ("remember, his style of rhetoric is what inflames people") and you can get canceled. And now if Pam Bondi has her way, you can get indicted too. I guess that's what you voted for.

No, but I'm just a teensy weensy bit upset that Trump is asking for federal employees/military men and women to rat out any colleagues that might not say only wonderful things about the late Charlie Kirk.