But Kirk has young kids. And kids know how to find things on the internet easily. Would the damage to his kids also be incalculable and indelible if they saw that film?
I was wondering the same. Curious to hear the reply. The fact is that there will always be loved ones of the victim who could be traumatized. I do sense a difference btwn these two scenarios but am having trouble articulating it.
And if those loved ones object to graphic videos, or still pictures, for that matter, their wishes must be respected above all else.
Remember - in an act of love and determination, Mamie Till-Mobley (Emmett Till's Mother) insisted that the cruelly mutilated body of her son be dressed in his best suit and visible in an open casket at his funeral. She wanted the whole world to see, with their own eyes, the result of the racial cruelty that killed her teenage child. That was in 1955. Seventy years ago. What have we learned?
Currently, his kids are a toddler and an infant, but it is true that when they get older, they absolutely could find that completely horrific moment online. I hope they will have strong, intelligent, caring parental and grand-parental guidance as they grow up.
This is a quote from The Guardian today that makes me doubt that the Kirk children will have that "strong, intelligent, caring parental guidance" that you mention. 'Erika Kirk, the widow of right wing activist and provocateur Charlie Kirk, said in a statement Friday evening that her late husband’s message and mission will be “stronger, bolder, louder and greater than ever” and that her “cries will echo around the world like a battle cry.”'
I'm sure that if Alex F'ing Jones could get the footage from Sandy Hook he'd have no problem at all in showing it in all its gore. Or Columbine or Marjorie Stoneman or any other mass shooting.
Also, too, Kirk advocated for the right to own assault weapons and accepted gun deaths as part of the deal. Five year olds never made that statement. Also 5 year olds assassinated by gunmen never got any Medal of Freedom. They get privacy instead, I guess.
People should see all the horrors of violence, because pop culture gives us a false idea. In pop culture, people die heroically, they get wounded & keep on fighting, they take horrible beatings & get up to fight again, the dead lie peacefully on the ground. It's not that way. Real people die crying for the mothers, the wounded lie there bleeding to death, the beaten don't get up & win the fight, & there are body parts all over the ground & sometimes in the trees. Pop culture romanticizes violence. We all need the know better.
Rachel is very much a keeper. You are very lucky to have her, and it appears that she, too, is very lucky to have you. I would love to hear her explanation of what attracted her to you. If I had to guess, I would have said before seeing the video that it was your sense of humor, but now I would add that it is your obvious kindness. L’Shanah Tovah to you if you celebrate Rosh Hashanah. May the two of you have a happy and healthy year, filled with laughter.
I used to live in Austin. When I would have to go to DMV for a problem, they had one short and quick line in front where you would tell a person what you wanted, they would check to make sure you had all your paperwork, and only then would they give you a number to wait for someone to do the work. Great system.
Well, at my local Virginia DMV, the story could be improved. Husband thought his driver's license expired at the end of the month, but it expired on his birthday mid-month. We went to the DMV, saw the short-and-quick-information guy and told him our story, even showing him the expired DL, got the little ticket, sat around for more than an hour and learned at the service window that since the license had expired, he needed to bring either an original birth certificate or an unexpired passport to prove his "legal presence" in the US. [The first information guy could have spared us that hour by informing us of the birth certificate requirement.] Husband is a native born, 76 year old white guy who has obviously been "legally present" for all of the years since 1949. We went home, retrieved the birth certificate, went through the check in/wait/see the service desk. And then he failed the eye exam due to cataracts. Six weeks later, post surgery, he finally got his DL.
There's a more important issue than whether the full video ought to be shown. It's the round-the-clock coverage given to a full-blown racist, misogynistic, and hate-mongering theocrat, not to mention the entirely unwarranted tributes, including one by the ass-kissing NY Yankees: https://www.si.com/mlb/yankees/news/new-york-yankees-moment-silence-charlie-kirk
I wonder what he'd think of this one now: "I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
Yeah, his widow supported him in his "work" and viewpoints. Wonder how she's feeling about the Second Amendment and the worth of having a gun death in her personal household.
When Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay were killed and the pictures put out on the wire, I was in the slight but vocal majority in the newsroom that we should definitely not run them on A1. I was in the slight but vocal minority that we shouldn't run them inside, small, in black and white, which is what the paper did. I thought it was torture porn and added nothing to the story: we knew they'd been killed. I didn't think there was a purpose to running them beyond dancing on their graves. I think I would make the same decision today.
Not until your poll did I realize, not until the moment I clicked "mostly agree" did it dawn on me, that I _want_ the MAGAs to see, to feel, to need a hug and a drink, the way a journalist does who witnesses, photographs, writes about, edits, cuts, or lays out violence on a page or screen. I have a friend and former coworker who won a Pulitzer for witnessing a murder, and watching his response to the attention was grueling. Witnessing is grueling. MAGAs should face what they have created. I've changed my mind. I think yes, a warning so the nonviolent can look away, and the video.
What an amazing video/story from Rachel. Thanks for highlighting it Gene. Sitting here just across the street from you both w/some tears - both sad and happy. Glad she is better and that you two are happy together!
I still engage with social media on BlueSky. It is my one social media account I check daily. LinkedIn is a necessary evil, but at least it can be done sporadically.
So this morning I wrote this in part, to respond to a person who said they would never want to watch the video of CK getting shot:
I want to see it all. News is not just print; it must be visual. Vietnam ended in part because of photos. It forces people to confront uncomfortable realities. It's easy to be pro-gun without seeing gushing blood.
This shooting in particular is a quandary. In his case, yes, they should make it available and captioned with his quote about the "cost" of the Second Amendment. This is what that "cost" looks like, folks.
But, IMHO, I think to be most effective, rather than showing over and over the violence of gun deaths and potentially inuring us to them, outlets should show - over and over again - the people left behind from gun deaths. The funerals, the empty seats at table, the parent-less children. This should be shown over and over again.
I also want gun regulations. But if I am correct, the second Amendment is clear and says what it says. Too many want gun regulations but not the work to amend the Constitution. I think the work should have ben started yeas ago. If it is important, just do the work and stop with "What the Constitution really means is ..." I can read. Change it. Nobody ever said it will be easy. Just important.
It really needs to be properly interpreted in light of the more than 200 years of jurisprudence supporting the collective meaning of 2A before Scalia's tortured reading of it in the landmark "Heller" case in 2008. Former SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Burger, a pragmatic Republican, believed that the decision in "Heller" that 2A provides an "unfettered individual right to a gun" was one of the "greatest pieces of fraud... on the American public by special interest groups." No one knowledgeable debates the fact that the Founders were not against private firearm ownership --- it was the rule rather than the exception because of conditions and requirements at the time --- it's just they didn't feel the need to memorialize it in the Constitution. They were more concerned about addressing other issues: especially widespread fears of another standing army among the populace and in the same vein, granting a concession to recalcitrant southern states who feared their ability to arm their militias against slave rebellions would be lost under central federal authority. And although Scalia added some caveats to private ownership to get Kennedy's necessary fifth and deciding vote in "Heller," chances are even he would be if not exactly shocked, certainly surprised, at the unbridled expansion of the right to own and use a firearm handed down 17 years ago.
A reasonable request, but virtually impossible as is the Imperial Court reconsidering "Heller" (and its related, even more potentially dangerous, rulings) under foreseeable circumstances.
The Constitution has the words “well-regulated militia” - I think it’s fair, in this day and age, to consider everyone in the US as part of one big militia. Well-regulated? Not so much.
The phrase "well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment is a descriptive reflection of what existed at the time of the Founding, and also an aspiration for what those militias should be. It was not a call for government regulation in the modern sense but a statement that a well-organized, disciplined, and effective civilian defense force was necessary.
That story reminds me of the absolutely true story of my former college roommate, who went on to get a Ph.D in neuroscience, and got a position as a professor at a university in a small college town, but could still be a complete idiot. A few days after a snowstorm, he parked in town, but due to the accumulated snow and crusty slush, didn’t see the yellow “no parking” line by the curb, and got a $10.00 parking ticket. He was so incensed that he snatched the ticket off his windshield, and threw in the backseat of his car—which was basically a garbage truck masquerading as a Subaru—then promptly forgot about it.
Months later he was driving through town and was pulled over by the police for an outstanding warrant for the unpaid ticket. “What seems to be the problem, Officer?” he asked. The policeman told him about the ticket, which by now had grown to hundreds of dollars, what with added fines. My friend explained what happened, and that he was not a hardened criminal, but actually a professor for the largest employer in the area. The policeman was sympathetic, but nonetheless placed him under arrest, cuffed him, gave him a ride in the backseat of the cruiser to the local police station, and booked him.
Later that week, the local newspaper ran its weekly police blotter report, which included my friend’s name, age and the fact he had been arrested, with no other details. The week after that he received a letter from the Chair of his department. “John: As you know, Kirksville is a small town. Last week, it was reported that [my friend’s exact first, middle and last name] was arrested. Is this you? Is there some problem I should know about? Could you please call me before I have to contact the University’s Disciplinary Board?”
Fortunately, he got it all straightened out, then a couple of years later got fired for having an affair with a student.
I'm sure you already know this, but Rachel is a saint. Or an angel, here to save you from yourself (my husband is one as well, for similar reasons). We are blessed.
I am very much like you, unable to deal with normal adult requirements like renewing things and even getting reimbursed for things. I have lost thousands of dollars over the years by not being able to deal with simple administrative tasks. My driver's license expired when I wasn't paying attention and I had to go through all sorts of ordeals to get a new one, driving illegally forsome time in the interim. Thank you for documenting this tragic disability; I'd never seen it expressed before, thought I was the only one.
Rachel is a gem. That couldn't even be a Gene Pool Poll question, because there are no options.
And regarding today's poll, I have a question for you: if there were film of a school shooting, would you want that published?
That is a very good question, and one I hadn't thought of. No. Because the damage done to the parents would be incalculable and indelible.
But Kirk has young kids. And kids know how to find things on the internet easily. Would the damage to his kids also be incalculable and indelible if they saw that film?
I was wondering the same. Curious to hear the reply. The fact is that there will always be loved ones of the victim who could be traumatized. I do sense a difference btwn these two scenarios but am having trouble articulating it.
And if those loved ones object to graphic videos, or still pictures, for that matter, their wishes must be respected above all else.
Remember - in an act of love and determination, Mamie Till-Mobley (Emmett Till's Mother) insisted that the cruelly mutilated body of her son be dressed in his best suit and visible in an open casket at his funeral. She wanted the whole world to see, with their own eyes, the result of the racial cruelty that killed her teenage child. That was in 1955. Seventy years ago. What have we learned?
Currently, his kids are a toddler and an infant, but it is true that when they get older, they absolutely could find that completely horrific moment online. I hope they will have strong, intelligent, caring parental and grand-parental guidance as they grow up.
This is a quote from The Guardian today that makes me doubt that the Kirk children will have that "strong, intelligent, caring parental guidance" that you mention. 'Erika Kirk, the widow of right wing activist and provocateur Charlie Kirk, said in a statement Friday evening that her late husband’s message and mission will be “stronger, bolder, louder and greater than ever” and that her “cries will echo around the world like a battle cry.”'
Yes, the Kirks are/were extremists. I’m hoping for some reasonable, rational influence from extended family members, but it’s not looking promising.
I mean, they created him, so the odds aren't great?
Yes, the Kirks are/were extremists. I'm hoping for some extended family rational influence. It's really not looking promising.
I'm sure that if Alex F'ing Jones could get the footage from Sandy Hook he'd have no problem at all in showing it in all its gore. Or Columbine or Marjorie Stoneman or any other mass shooting.
Also, too, Kirk advocated for the right to own assault weapons and accepted gun deaths as part of the deal. Five year olds never made that statement. Also 5 year olds assassinated by gunmen never got any Medal of Freedom. They get privacy instead, I guess.
They get thoughts and prayers.
Alex effing Jones ensured that the 5 year olds assassinated at Sandy Hook Elementary received neither peace nor privacy.
Aren't there legal issues with showing minors in publicly available videos of any sort? If not, there should be.
People should see all the horrors of violence, because pop culture gives us a false idea. In pop culture, people die heroically, they get wounded & keep on fighting, they take horrible beatings & get up to fight again, the dead lie peacefully on the ground. It's not that way. Real people die crying for the mothers, the wounded lie there bleeding to death, the beaten don't get up & win the fight, & there are body parts all over the ground & sometimes in the trees. Pop culture romanticizes violence. We all need the know better.
In Vietnam the wounded more often than not called for their mothers and it took hours for a battlefield to be quiet. The smell was unforgetable.
You're right. I forgot to mention the stench, especially of burning people.
Rachel is very much a keeper. You are very lucky to have her, and it appears that she, too, is very lucky to have you. I would love to hear her explanation of what attracted her to you. If I had to guess, I would have said before seeing the video that it was your sense of humor, but now I would add that it is your obvious kindness. L’Shanah Tovah to you if you celebrate Rosh Hashanah. May the two of you have a happy and healthy year, filled with laughter.
I used to live in Austin. When I would have to go to DMV for a problem, they had one short and quick line in front where you would tell a person what you wanted, they would check to make sure you had all your paperwork, and only then would they give you a number to wait for someone to do the work. Great system.
Well, at my local Virginia DMV, the story could be improved. Husband thought his driver's license expired at the end of the month, but it expired on his birthday mid-month. We went to the DMV, saw the short-and-quick-information guy and told him our story, even showing him the expired DL, got the little ticket, sat around for more than an hour and learned at the service window that since the license had expired, he needed to bring either an original birth certificate or an unexpired passport to prove his "legal presence" in the US. [The first information guy could have spared us that hour by informing us of the birth certificate requirement.] Husband is a native born, 76 year old white guy who has obviously been "legally present" for all of the years since 1949. We went home, retrieved the birth certificate, went through the check in/wait/see the service desk. And then he failed the eye exam due to cataracts. Six weeks later, post surgery, he finally got his DL.
They do this in Virginia too.
There's a more important issue than whether the full video ought to be shown. It's the round-the-clock coverage given to a full-blown racist, misogynistic, and hate-mongering theocrat, not to mention the entirely unwarranted tributes, including one by the ass-kissing NY Yankees: https://www.si.com/mlb/yankees/news/new-york-yankees-moment-silence-charlie-kirk
Here's a collection of his quotes: https://www.irishtimes.com/world/us/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-in-his-own-words-prowling-blacks-and-the-great-replacement-strategy/
I wonder what he'd think of this one now: "I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
Not to mention that the mainstream media has been studiously avoiding making any connection between the shooting Trump's tacit and overt approval of violence. Also Kirk's hate-mongering, which MSNBC decided was too much truth-telling, and summarily fired the messenger: https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/matthew-dowd-fired-from-msnbc-over-charlie-kirk-comments-reports/ar-AA1MkBBQ
Yeah, his widow supported him in his "work" and viewpoints. Wonder how she's feeling about the Second Amendment and the worth of having a gun death in her personal household.
You, sir, are the most fortunate man around. Rachel is a baller.
When Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay were killed and the pictures put out on the wire, I was in the slight but vocal majority in the newsroom that we should definitely not run them on A1. I was in the slight but vocal minority that we shouldn't run them inside, small, in black and white, which is what the paper did. I thought it was torture porn and added nothing to the story: we knew they'd been killed. I didn't think there was a purpose to running them beyond dancing on their graves. I think I would make the same decision today.
Not until your poll did I realize, not until the moment I clicked "mostly agree" did it dawn on me, that I _want_ the MAGAs to see, to feel, to need a hug and a drink, the way a journalist does who witnesses, photographs, writes about, edits, cuts, or lays out violence on a page or screen. I have a friend and former coworker who won a Pulitzer for witnessing a murder, and watching his response to the attention was grueling. Witnessing is grueling. MAGAs should face what they have created. I've changed my mind. I think yes, a warning so the nonviolent can look away, and the video.
I hate this.
What an amazing video/story from Rachel. Thanks for highlighting it Gene. Sitting here just across the street from you both w/some tears - both sad and happy. Glad she is better and that you two are happy together!
I still engage with social media on BlueSky. It is my one social media account I check daily. LinkedIn is a necessary evil, but at least it can be done sporadically.
So this morning I wrote this in part, to respond to a person who said they would never want to watch the video of CK getting shot:
I want to see it all. News is not just print; it must be visual. Vietnam ended in part because of photos. It forces people to confront uncomfortable realities. It's easy to be pro-gun without seeing gushing blood.
The civil rights movement got a huge boost when northerners started seeing people being attacked with fire hoses.
This shooting in particular is a quandary. In his case, yes, they should make it available and captioned with his quote about the "cost" of the Second Amendment. This is what that "cost" looks like, folks.
But, IMHO, I think to be most effective, rather than showing over and over the violence of gun deaths and potentially inuring us to them, outlets should show - over and over again - the people left behind from gun deaths. The funerals, the empty seats at table, the parent-less children. This should be shown over and over again.
I also want gun regulations. But if I am correct, the second Amendment is clear and says what it says. Too many want gun regulations but not the work to amend the Constitution. I think the work should have ben started yeas ago. If it is important, just do the work and stop with "What the Constitution really means is ..." I can read. Change it. Nobody ever said it will be easy. Just important.
It really needs to be properly interpreted in light of the more than 200 years of jurisprudence supporting the collective meaning of 2A before Scalia's tortured reading of it in the landmark "Heller" case in 2008. Former SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Burger, a pragmatic Republican, believed that the decision in "Heller" that 2A provides an "unfettered individual right to a gun" was one of the "greatest pieces of fraud... on the American public by special interest groups." No one knowledgeable debates the fact that the Founders were not against private firearm ownership --- it was the rule rather than the exception because of conditions and requirements at the time --- it's just they didn't feel the need to memorialize it in the Constitution. They were more concerned about addressing other issues: especially widespread fears of another standing army among the populace and in the same vein, granting a concession to recalcitrant southern states who feared their ability to arm their militias against slave rebellions would be lost under central federal authority. And although Scalia added some caveats to private ownership to get Kennedy's necessary fifth and deciding vote in "Heller," chances are even he would be if not exactly shocked, certainly surprised, at the unbridled expansion of the right to own and use a firearm handed down 17 years ago.
Amend the Constitution. This as clear as it can get. We are not the same gun wise people they had 250 years sgo.
A reasonable request, but virtually impossible as is the Imperial Court reconsidering "Heller" (and its related, even more potentially dangerous, rulings) under foreseeable circumstances.
The Constitution has the words “well-regulated militia” - I think it’s fair, in this day and age, to consider everyone in the US as part of one big militia. Well-regulated? Not so much.
The phrase "well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment is a descriptive reflection of what existed at the time of the Founding, and also an aspiration for what those militias should be. It was not a call for government regulation in the modern sense but a statement that a well-organized, disciplined, and effective civilian defense force was necessary.
That story reminds me of the absolutely true story of my former college roommate, who went on to get a Ph.D in neuroscience, and got a position as a professor at a university in a small college town, but could still be a complete idiot. A few days after a snowstorm, he parked in town, but due to the accumulated snow and crusty slush, didn’t see the yellow “no parking” line by the curb, and got a $10.00 parking ticket. He was so incensed that he snatched the ticket off his windshield, and threw in the backseat of his car—which was basically a garbage truck masquerading as a Subaru—then promptly forgot about it.
Months later he was driving through town and was pulled over by the police for an outstanding warrant for the unpaid ticket. “What seems to be the problem, Officer?” he asked. The policeman told him about the ticket, which by now had grown to hundreds of dollars, what with added fines. My friend explained what happened, and that he was not a hardened criminal, but actually a professor for the largest employer in the area. The policeman was sympathetic, but nonetheless placed him under arrest, cuffed him, gave him a ride in the backseat of the cruiser to the local police station, and booked him.
Later that week, the local newspaper ran its weekly police blotter report, which included my friend’s name, age and the fact he had been arrested, with no other details. The week after that he received a letter from the Chair of his department. “John: As you know, Kirksville is a small town. Last week, it was reported that [my friend’s exact first, middle and last name] was arrested. Is this you? Is there some problem I should know about? Could you please call me before I have to contact the University’s Disciplinary Board?”
Fortunately, he got it all straightened out, then a couple of years later got fired for having an affair with a student.
sorry but can;t help myself
ceiling far above
wrong line at the DMV
hundreds before me
why do you hate us
hidden sign: oh, goll darn it
a form is missing
not found on the form
this requirement is not there
kindly useless clerk
standing for an hour
where is counter 32
time spent sucks and warps
nothing I can do
hollow spaces cellphones ring
hearts are without joy
There is one solution. Keep your accounts in order. It's not hard. Whole thing entirely preventable.
Holy shit. Have you well and truly groveled in thanks to Rachel?
Not just a namby pamby "thank you" but some serious glorification? Do it!
The least you can do is offer to pay for Rachel's anti-enabler therapy in perpetuity.
I'm sure you already know this, but Rachel is a saint. Or an angel, here to save you from yourself (my husband is one as well, for similar reasons). We are blessed.
I am very much like you, unable to deal with normal adult requirements like renewing things and even getting reimbursed for things. I have lost thousands of dollars over the years by not being able to deal with simple administrative tasks. My driver's license expired when I wasn't paying attention and I had to go through all sorts of ordeals to get a new one, driving illegally forsome time in the interim. Thank you for documenting this tragic disability; I'd never seen it expressed before, thought I was the only one.
To confront the brutality of brutality.