Firehose #161: Now What?

Also: Second Sunday for paying subscribers penciled in for 8 p.m. ET

Bad week. Let’s talk it out Sunday at 8 p.m., in our monthly Zoom call for paying subscribers.

* We reacted to the assassination of Charlie Kirk Wednesday evening on Episode #523, which, thanks to the miracle of actually having production facilities and a dedicated crew, was released … Wednesday evening! Including on video for Never Fly Coach-tier subscribers, which will likely be the arrangement for the rest of this month as we work out the kinks in advance of a full-on October video launch.

On Thursday, I expanded on some of my points in a Reason piece headlined, “What If We Acted Like Political Violence Was a Problem?” Then Nick Gillespie (veteran of Special Dispatch #72, #379, and Members Only #251) had me on The Reason Interview for a livestreamed discussion about the murder and America’s history of political violence:

* Also on Thursday, Moynihan’s Report discussed the assassination, as well as free speech, Israel/Gaza, and Jeffrey Epstein, with none other than Alan Dershowitz:

* Kmele, too, talked extra-curricularly this week about the unpleasantness, on the recently re-branded Tangle podcast Suspension of the Rules.

* Omnigraf of Fifdom-world value-additions to the story: Back in February, New York Times Magazine political correspondent Robert Draper (#380) published a big profile on “How Charlie Kirk Became the Youth Whisperer of the American Right.” One day before Kirk’s assassination, our friends at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) released their annual survey of College Free Speech Rankings, described thusly by chief research advisor Sean Stevens: “[O]ver half of surveyed students say that blocking entry to an event is acceptable, and roughly one-third say the use of violence to stop a campus speech can be justifiable. These percentages have all hit record highs this year…. The data this year are stark, and the stakes are higher than ever. Fewer students believe that controversial ideas should be heard on campus, and more are willing to allow others’ to suppress speech through disruption — or even violence — than ever before. These aren’t isolated findings; they represent a troubling, accelerating shift on campuses across the country.” Alex Nowrasteh (#303) crunched a different set of numbers and concluded, “Politically Motivated Violence is Rare in the United States.” Matt Taibbi (#226, #348) revisited his Twitter Files series to discover that, “In all, Twitter fielded at least three high-profile press queries about taking Kirk down just before the [2020] election, and one finally stuck.” Andrew Sullivan (#139, #200 & #449) contended that “we are in a more tenuous place now” with violence than even the 1960s/’70s; bemoaned the “they”ification of political discourse, and added: “Kirk opposed marriage equality — the cause dearest to my heart — to his last breath, but so fucking what?... [F]ree speech vs violence is much more crucial a divide than left vs right. And the proper response to this horror is serious introspection about how violence has burrowed its way into our widening, post-liberal gyre.”

* Palate cleanse of dark 9/11 humor? Absolutely, yes. Here’s Kyle Dunnigan a few years back doing Sylvester Stallone doing a documentary about 9/11:

* Remember in M.O. #274 when a listener demanded to know why we still fraternized with Eli “Piss Pig” Lake? Well, Moynihan this week really took the admonition to heart by … inviting our many-time guest (#52, #65, #141, #174, S.D. #51, #326, #368, #407, M.O. #184, M.O. #244, #516) onto the Report, to talk about “the recent Israeli strike in Qatar, the shifting dynamics of Middle Eastern alliances, and the broader implications for political Islam and Western perceptions of the conflict”:

* So, this is happening:

Super normal to be on the same stage where I once saw (*checks notes*) the Rolling Stones…. There will be other Fifth Column events this fall, perhaps in the same geographical region, perhaps elsewhere as well. In the meantime, we are individually doing other shows, including this bit also in Orange County Oct. 24:

Plus this Moynihan-emceed confab in Nashville Oct. 3-4:

* In last week's Firehose, I asked people to reflect on what was the most American thing about themselves. This provoked a fun email from Laura:

Gentlemen but mostly Matt;

I have been trying to keep to the comments these days as I suspect you are pretty inundated. But because I have a video clip, and because I have spent the night alternating between box wine and a fairly decent replication of the classic Caribbean Painkiller cocktail at my local rooftop bar in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, I decided to go email.

To answer Matt’s recent call about what makes readers American, I decided to instead share what makes my hometown American. The best way to describe people here is that they have a real streak of old-fashioned pioneer spirit -- an awesome mix of entrepreneurs, off-grid libertarian types and truly Olympic-level drinkers. The kind of people who face sub-zero winters by creating myriad ways to turn their downtowns into winter sport arenas, or engaging in activities like driving trucks onto ice that is terrifyingly thin so that they can pretend to fish while drinking their faces off.

No cities up here. The closest, Green Bay Wisconsin, is 100 miles away. And yet -- my Jersey-born husband and I moved up here to my hometown this year and have zero regrets. Because this place is America personified. I have spent many a night in very posh D.C. venues in uncomfortable gowns eating bad chicken and talking to people I secretly hate. Tonight, I sat at a rooftop bar on a gorgeous September night, with people I love who have known me since Kindergarten. Our entertainment is the guy who is currently installing the plumbing and heating in our new house. He writes all of his own music including the one that brings down the house -- “Do You Play Hockey Or Are You A Pussy?”

Nowhere I would rather be. Go America.

* Comment of the Week comes from Jon M.:

I'm 60% of the way through the episode and paused to reply to a late night/early morning e-mail I received from a student. (I am the [unqualified] advisor to the student political union at a high school.) The young man who wrote me is the kind of whip-smart, thoughtful, politically engaged young person who gives you hope that the next generation might possibly include amazing people and leaders. At a school that is overwhelmingly progressive, I honestly don't know this kid's politics because he is so open-minded. In the e-mail I just replied to, he wrote, "I would say [Charlie Kirk's] videos reveal that he was a relatively respectful guy, but I have heard varying opinions. I’d be curious to know what your impression of him is. I have been surprised to hear him characterized as evil by some of my friends."

You guys in general and this episode in particular prompted the response pasted below from me. Due to the episode, I feel better prepared to be a constructive presence at today's impromptu lunch-time meeting sponsored by the political union. Thank you.

----------------------

One of the reasons I don’t know [Kirk] well is that he is clearly partisan. I don’t think that is a bad thing, but I don’t really care to listen to partisans of any stripe. I prefer to spend my time listening to smart people who reason consistently from first principles, instead of working backwards from desired conclusions. I don’t think the latter makes you a bad person or a bad actor, but it does make you less interesting to me personally. I was pleased that my favorite podcast dropped an episode late last night. I’m in the middle of listening to it now. I have gleaned many ideas that apply to someone who wonders, “What should someone who is worried about political violence do now?” Spoiler: one of those things is *not* to explain away any type of violence by suggesting that the victim had it coming. The podcast distinguishes the good-faith quest to understand the context of violence from the attribution of a monocausal explanation for why something happens. For example, in the late 90’s, was it reasonable to say that the heavy footprint/actions of the United States in the Middle East increased the size of the target on America’s back – and that it is a factor when we consider why people want to commit acts of terrorism against the United States? Yes, that reasoning is totally normal and true. But, on September 12, 2001, it was not normal, and it was not true to say, “*This* is why this happened.”

Looking forward to the meeting. Hope you got some sleep last night!

----------------------

p.s. From what I’ve read and looked at so far, he strikes me as a decent guy with whom I disagree on several important issues.

Walkoff music: