Posts tagged ‘violence’

Credit Where It is Due to Trump -- Hostages Returned, Peace In Gaza Seems More Possible

The hostages appear to have been released from Gaza, which is a huge step forward after 2 years of violence.  Not only is this a joy for their families, but it also likely makes ongoing violence in Gaza much harder for both parties.  I had initially thought Trump was making progress by being the "crazy man" in the negotiation who might do anything (sort of like trying to play poker with a 16-year-old).   And a lot of the Left is likely to continue to treat it that way.  But from everything I have read in the last few days, Trump's team did a lot of hard diplomacy all over the Arab world, carefully corralling every potential Hamas supporter and getting them all to tell Hamas it was time to settle (here and here for example).

This should not be surprising -- Trump showed a similar facility with negotiating in the Arab world in his first term with the Abraham Accords and really did not get enough credit for it.

So tomorrow Trump will likely tick me off again but for today he should be thanked for his work on this deal.

Postscript: and no, great work negotiating this peace deal does not convince me he has some super-brain master plan behind the tariffs

Follow-ups to My Post on Charlie Kirk

Some follow-up thoughts on this post about the murder of Charlie Kirk.

  • Pam Bondi has proven herself unqualified to be America's lead attorney.  First she talks about a hate speech exception to the First Amendments which does not exist.  Then she threatens to prosecute service providers who refuse service to someone she disagrees with.  I understand that there is an enormous gulf between laymen's understanding of the First Amendment and settled law (and her boss is one of the worst offenders, at least in his understanding of libel law), but there is no excuse for the US Attorney General to be reinforcing public myths and misunderstandings on this critical topic.  It is particularly incredible to see a Republican AG take these positions, as Republicans have for years fought Progressive attempts to make hate speech illegal and have defended any number of service providers (eg bakers who won't make a cake for gay weddings) who have refused service over matters of conscience.  I will give her credit though for rallying even Progressive MSNBC to attack the notion of a hate speech exemption.
  • I have been critical of Republicans for going overboard on cancellation demands (eg so-and-so should be fired) over reactions to the Charlie Kirk shooting.  But I have to give them kudos for almost as one coming down on their own party and hammering Pam Bondi's ignorance.  I had thought that Republicans seemed ready to eat whatever dog food the Trump Administration served, but it is good to know there is something they will send back to the kitchen.
  • For all the over-the-top invective I have seen this week, most people (whether they admit it or not) assume there will be no rioting this weekend as Republicans tend not to riot, loot stores, and burn buildings when they are upset.  To some extent I think January 6 was notable because it was such an exception to this.  I live in Phoenix where the Charlie Kirk funeral is this weekend and -- unlike in some past national explosions on the Left -- no one is boarding up the stores in Scottsdale this week (after the 2020 riots caused millions of dollars of damage in Scottsdale Fashion Square, we had prophylactic boarding up several other times after, including around the 2020 election when store owners feared a violent response on the Left if Trump were to win).  It should go without saying, but violence is not speech and is not First Amendment protected.  Maybe we can get Pam Bondi to say that violence is protected by the First Ammendment to get Progressives to finally accept that it is not.
  • With all the words spilled this week over this terrible event, I still think what the Utah governor said was the best:  "We need to learn to disagree better."  Which actually is an initiative he has been pursuing for several years.  I have not looked at his program, but I always have some skepticism on such efforts.  Like tax harmonization which always turns out to have all taxes set to match the highest one, calls for cooperation across political divides often boil down to giving more power to the state on the issues the Right wants and giving more power to the state on issues the Left wants.
  • The last time there was some violence against Conservative speakers on campus, many universities responded by instituting onerous security rules and fees on Conservative groups trying to bring their speakers to campus.  I hope universities don't go down this road, but it would be typical of them.  Universities have trained their students and faculty for decades that Conservatives are beyond the pale and thus should not be engaged as doing so would legitimize them.  It's like a 19th century English Duke being encouraged to sit down and share a meal with his long-time butler -- it just is not going to happen.
  • My wife really likes the Left-Right-Center podcast / radio show.  I confess I have not listened to it as I don't listen to radio and have mostly eschewed non-history podcasts.  I feel like the information rate in audio is too low for my patience level (I listen to audio books at least at 1.5x and don't even get me started on how much I hate voicemail).  But I do think given how on-point the show's concept is to what I think we need more of, I will have to give a listen.  I have always loved Bryan Caplan's Ideological Turning Test concept and try to force myself through the exercise when I get overly angry about some issue.

The Folks Cheering Charlie Kirk's Murder Are Awful, But...

I would describe myself as an intellectual and a pacifist.  Not a pacifist in the sense that I would accept any outrage to avoid violence, but a pacifist in the sense that violence is way down my list of solution approaches to any problem.  My first, second, and third options are always to try to have a reasoned discussion.

So I was particularly horrified by the news of the murder of Charlie Kirk.  While I frequently disagreed with his positions, and do not share his religious zeal, he was doing exactly what I would have liked to do and what I wish everyone else did – engage in reasoned debate with those who disagree.  He was a model for non-violent engagement with one’s opponents and to be killed while engaging in such debate is a terrible irony.

I can’t find the post but a while back I wrote about what I would do as a college president to combat cancel culture and the toxic intellectual environment on many campuses.  My lead recommendation was to ban the heckler's veto but require that every campus speaker make themselves available for at least an hour of open discussion and debate after any presentation.

As to the motives of the killer in this case, I am not sure I really give a sh*t.  It is an exceedingly popular but absurd game to try to count coup on one’s political opponents based on the actions of a single fringe participant in some of their beliefs.  In my lifetime pretty much every major public assassination of this type has been by someone who turned out to be mentally unbalanced or a total loony.  I am not sure how much value there is to parsing the motivations of the mentally ill – I remember all the attempts to pin the actions of the nut who shot Gabby Giffords on Sarah Palin, which turned out to be 100% a political points-scoring exercise and 0% useful in understanding anything useful.

What has worried me more than the confused politics of mentally ill kills has been watching the public reaction to Luigi Mangioni's cold-blooded murder of Brian Thompson.  Instead of treating him like Charles Manson, we instead see young progressive women treating him like a Teen Beat cover boy.  People have contributed over $1 million to his defense fund and the “Luigi Mangione Access to Healthcare Act" is a real ballot initiative gathering signatures in California at this moment – presumably the Initiative’s promoters felt Mangione’s name had positive marketing power in the California progressive community.

Equally, anyone should be horrified by folks going online to celebrate Charlie Kirk's murder.  Many examples of such social media celebrations have been dredged up and archived by Conservative commentators.  They are all awful, though it is hard to determine just how representative they are of general feelings on the Left.

There is a funny dynamic in which both team Red and team Blue believe their side to be well-behaved while the other side is steeped in violent rhetoric.  There is a reason for this, as alluded to earlier:  Opinion-makers from both teams love to explore the other team's fringe supporters to look for craziness, and inevitably find it.  They amplify those crazy opposing fringe views to their own supporters, building the impression among their supporters that the other side is violent and dangerous.  But since most folks don't read across the red-blue line, they don't see such accusations of their own side.  In fact they are confused if you mention to them that their side has violent rhetoric, because they honestly may never have seen it in the mainstream sources they read.

I once had a feature on this blog where I would take advantage of being one of the few to read both sides of the aisle to post interesting juxtapositions from Left and Right.  One of the most common I saw (and still see) is the statement "our side loses too much because we are too genteel, we need to start being more bare-knuckled like the other guys."  I once saw this on the same day at Conservative Powerline and from Progressive Kevin Drum.

A typical formulation of this you will see a lot is "we need to start playing by their rules"  or "they made the new rules so they are going to have to live with them now" or even to an extent the "FAFO" mantra used by Trump supporters nowadays. At this moment the Left is blaming Charlie Kirk's death on the Right's violent rhetoric and is saying the Right needs to have a timeout while the Right responds to his death by urging its supporters that it is perhaps time to stop being so genteel and passive.  Both see Charlie Kirk's death through a lens where their side is well-behaved and the other is toxic and violent.

All of this is a (typically) long-winded intro to what I actually was going to write about, which is the people getting fired for posts on social media celebrating Charlie Kirk's death.  In particular, a lot of these seem to be public school teachers and public university professors.  And I can understand the concern one would have if their kid had a teacher who in their private hours was celebrating violence on social media.

But here is the "but" from the post title.  If this stuff is actually happening in the classroom, then these terminations may stick.  But otherwise, if they were terminated for private speech in their free time, it is very likely administrative or legal appeals will result in these teachers being back at work very soon.  Public school teachers are public employees, no different than clerks in the DMV.  And it is highly unlikely that they can be terminated over their private protected speech.  Celebrating a death is protected speech.  Even saying "such and such public figure should die next" is protected under many circumstances.  Of course this is going to drive the Right crazy when "liberal judges" send these folks back to work, but it is going to happen.**

As ugly as this stuff is, it is also depressing to see the Right engage in cancel culture after so many years of being its victim.  Yes, I know folks like Amy Wax and other educators with libertarian or conservative opinions have had to fight suspensions and terminations over their speech.  And some of these statements are really awful, but a gay parent or student might argue that anti-gay statements by a teacher are equally awful.  The acceptability of speech is often in the eye of the beholder and thus the very reason why its legality needs to be absolute.

I am not a Conservative but I am an opponent of much of the Progressive / woke / Marxist dogma and thus make common cause with Conservatives on some issues.  But I find myself drifting apart from Conservatives of late on tactics, even on issues where we agree.  It is impossible to call a trend after just a few days, but a LOT of Conservatives are responding to the Charlie Kirk murder by saying its time to stop being so genteel and to play by what they perceive as the Left's rules,  Folks like myself who respond to escalation by trying to de-escalate are treated as losers, rubes, patsies, etc.

Well, I hate the totalitarian Marxist woke culture on the Progressive Left.  And I am coming to hate the Conservative FAFO response (where they have adopted a term from drunken bar fights).  I am determined to find a reasoned way out.  Which, by the way, is exactly what I think Charlie Kirk was trying to do.  Perhaps instead of FAFO, Conservatives organized an initiative where many of them went to campus and propped up Charlie's "prove me wrong" sign.

I would find it horrible if we were to further escalate the most toxic elements of the current political culture as the primary memorial to a man who tried as hard as anyone to de-escalate them.  De-escalating does not mean one is giving up advocating for you are passionate about, it means trying to get there in a reasoned, collegial manner.

In this way, I'm with Charlie Kirk.

 

** Postscript:  Don't like having crazy progressive idiots for teachers of your children?  Instead of working to get them fired -- there are too many! -- advocate for school choice.  I don't think there is a bigger problem in this country than the state of the K-12 education system.  It is the meta-problem from which many, many others flow.  We have got to stop giving the same people who run the DMV and the Post Office a virtual monopoly on our kid's education.  I have had the resources to send my kids to private school -- and I have seen how much better it can be.  My kids in K-5, for example, went to a private school with very high standards that taught math and reading at a high level and cost less per year than the Phoenix public school system pays per pupil of the same age.

Earlier this year I wrote in the context of a post about racism:

I do think the system goes wrong for blacks but it is not in any arena controlled by the proud boys.  And I  have a strong opinion on where that system failure lies:  K through 12 education, and probably even more specifically K-5 education.  We have affirmative action in the workplace for blacks.  Why?  Because there do not seem to be enough prepared candidates so we give less-prepared candidates a leg up.  Before that we have affirmative action in college for blacks.  Why?  Because there do not seem to be enough prepared candidates so we give less-prepared candidates a leg up.  We keep changing the SAT test.  Why?  Because blacks historically struggle to score as well as whites and other races on the test.  We keep changing (lowering) high school graduation requirements.  Why?  Because to many black children fail to graduate with the higher standards.

All of this stuff are after-the-fact attempted work-arounds that avoid fixing the real problem:  K-12 education is totally failing black kids.  Any root cause failure analysis would get to this conclusion.  You want to say that systemic racism exists?  Well here is the place where the system is totally failing one race.  If I were more of an expert, I could probably tell you which grade it is where things go off the rails but my guess is that it is an early grade where reading and basic math are not getting taught.  And it has little to do with money -- school districts like East St Louis have some of the highest per-student spending numbers in the country but their kids graduate completely unprepared for modern life.

If I were the biggest racist in history and wanted to come up with a Dr Evil scheme to destroy blacks in America, I could not come up with a better plan than the K-12 education system, particularly in many large cities.