"The shooter did not miss his intended target and did not chamber another round, leaving the spent cartridge in the rifle."

Wrote the lawyers for Tyler Robinson, quoted in "Charlie Kirk Suspect Fights Death Penalty, Says No Others Were in Danger/Prosecutors say they can seek the death penalty against Tyler Robinson because he also endangered people near Charlie Kirk, who was shot in the throat last year. Mr. Robinson’s lawyers note that the gunman struck only his target" (NYT gift link).

Today's news in under-loved statues.

1. The Guardian has this article about a statue no one seems to love:

2. And here's a gift link to a NYT article about a statue that Trump haters cannot allow themselves to love:

We're told the Jefferson statue was made by the same sculptor who "has also sculpted Mr. Trump, with one hand holding a MAGA hat and the other raised in a fist, a reference to his gesture after the assassination attempt in Butler, Pa."

The Charlie Kirk statue was made by a sculptor who doesn't even like Kirk! He's quoted saying "Well, this guy must be out of his mind." The Guardian doesn't like Kirk either. Its article ends with the statement that the sculptor "is left with a 6ft 4in statue of a renowned racist, which he has spent $100,000 making, and which no one wants to buy."

The Republican never wins the governorship in Colorado, so what do Republican primary voters think they are doing?

I'm reading "He Says He Killed a Man. Republicans Nominated Him Anyway" by Michelle Goldberg in the NYT.

The right-wing preacher turned politician Victor Marx has said that he first killed a man when he was 7. He’s not sure how many deaths he’s been responsible for since. Marx has been arrested at least twice for disorderly conduct and has described terrorizing a psychiatrist with talk of murdering him. He told the Colorado journalist Kyle Clark that he can perform exorcisms by phone. On Thursday he was declared the winner of the Republican gubernatorial primary in Colorado....

The last time the Republican won the governorship, it was 2002.

Goldberg leaves out the details about that killing. Grok relays the story as told by Marx: "severe childhood abuse (physical, sexual, and emotional) by multiple figures, including being beaten, electrocuted, tortured, and nearly killed (e.g., left in a cooler).... stepfather placing a gun in his hands, guiding his finger to pull the trigger, and shooting a man in the back of the head...."

Here's Marx talking to Charlie Kirk 4 years ago:

"These MAGA mouthpieces complaining about Candace Owens are just getting a taste of their own medicine."

That's the top-rated comment at the Washington Post article, "Conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk’s death are still raging, infuriating friends/Right-wing influencers sparred over the case this week as a court hearing laid out detailed evidence in Kirk’s shooting" (gift link).

Glenn Greenwald reanimates Charlie Kirk to oppose the war in Iran.

Charlie Kirk, in June of 2025, explaining why a massive US war against Iran, and an attempt to facilitate regime change, as pushed by people like Lindsey Graham, is "pathologically insane":pic.twitter.com/nusMqOWOUM

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 28, 2026

"When did we all decide that sweats and pajama pants were the appropriate attire for air travel?"

"What incentive do we have in such a demoralizing environment?"

"Erika Kirk is walking a fine line...."

Here, that's a gift link to The Washington Post.

I was puzzling over that headline at 4 a.m., but I'm only getting to blogging it now, and I don't want to go on too long at this point. So I'll just give you a numbered list and leave it to you.

Challenged on his statement about Rob Reiner, Trump explained, "Well, I wasn't a fan of his at all.... I was not a fan of Rob Reiner at all, in any way, shape, or form."

Let’s be clear about something.

Trump wrote this morning that what happened to Rob Reiner and his wife Michele was a very sad thing and may they rest in peace.

He didn’t celebrate his death.

He did say how he felt about the man who hated him with every ounce of his being… pic.twitter.com/wdSuwjWDQr

— RealAF Patriot (@RealAF_Patriot) December 15, 2025

The full quote: "Well, I wasn't a fan of his at all. He was a deranged person as far as Trump is concerned. He said — he knew it was false, in fact it’s the exact opposite — that I was a friend of Russia, controlled by Russia. The Russia hoax — he was one of the people behind it. I think he hurt himself, career-wise. He became like a deranged person. Trump derangement syndrome. So I was not a fan of Rob Reiner at all, in any way, shape, or form. I thought he was very bad for our country."

Compare that to his earlier statement, and you'll see that a big difference is the omission of a reverent acknowledgment of the profundity of death. The original statement begins and ends with what we would expect from a decent and conventional reaction: "A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood.... May Rob and Michele rest in peace!" It's the stuff in the middle that was the problem. Notice the multiple elements to this filling. I'll color code them:

"If you’re 30 years old... there’s a sense of nihilism that’s growing.... And this nihilism, [Charlie] Kirk understood...."

"Of course, I only had an hour-and-a-half conversation with Charlie, but where it seems to me to have fallen short with Turning Point USA and the MAGA movement is they don’t have a prescription to actually address the real and substantive issues — but they sure as hell identify the problem."

Said Gavin Newsom, interviewed by Ezra Klein, in "The Contradictions of Gavin Newsom" (NYT)(audio and transcript at Podscribe, here). Kirk had been a guest on Newsom's podcast, and Klein wanted to know what Newsom had learned from Kirk.

Klein pushed back: "Well, isn’t that a prescription? If I were to try to boil it down: tariffs, a closed border and Christianity?"

Instead of taking on Klein's idea that the right does offer solutions, Newsom seized on that last word —Christianity — and tumbled into personal storytelling mode:

"The governor acknowledged that it is highly unlikely he would endorse a similar initiative for more progressive, left-leaning causes..."

"... but added that 'it would not be illegal' for them to exist in public schools. Abbott signed Senate Bill 12 earlier this year, a sweeping state law that banned student clubs with an LGBTQ+ focus...."

From "Texas launches plan to open Turning Point USA chapters in every high school/Republican officials in Oklahoma and Florida have also launched plans to expand the presence of the conservative youth organization founded by Charlie Kirk" (Texas Tribune).

Naturally: "Petitions calling for the removal of the school chapters have also emerged, with some students and parents criticizing the national organization for what they describe as 'racist, homophobic, and sexist hate speech on college campuses across America.' The Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group that tracks extremism, describes Turning Point as an organization with a strategy of sowing fear 'that white Christian supremacy is under attack by nefarious actors, including immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights activists.'"

Painfully: "Disclosure: Southern Poverty Law Center has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization... Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism...."

How dishonest is "it would not be illegal" given Senate Bill 12?

"For reasons I don’t need to go into, you may feel that now is a bad time to visit the once United States. I thought the same..."

"... but having just returned from a tour of Arizona, I’d argue that it’s the perfect time. What Barack Obama described as 'an inflection point' is America’s worst domestic crisis since the civil rights movement of the 1960s: the relationship problems of a democracy still a few months short of its 250th birthday. For curious travellers and for those who prefer to make up their minds based on what they’ve seen rather than what they’ve been told, now offers the opportunity to witness not only history in the making but the events that brought America to where it stands today. Arizona is the place to start. Everywhere is open, everyone is delighted to see you...."

I'm reading, in The London Times, "My week taking America’s temperature in the Grand Canyon state/The history is fascinating and the scenery is astonishing but is the welcome as warm as it used to be? Chris Haslam finds out on a slow drive through Arizona."

Sample text:

"The idea that you could turn the clock back and try to recreate a world that never was dominated by, you know, let’s say it: white men of a certain persuasion, a certain religion, a certain point of view, a certain ideology, it’s just doing such damage to what we should be aiming for."

Said Hillary Clinton, quoted in "Hillary Clinton ripped for tone-deaf remarks about white men of 'a certain religion' damaging the US" (NY Post).

Tone deaf?! It's not tone deaf. She's precisely picked up the tone. Perfect pitch. She's talking exactly like the people she's talking with. I'm sure it's quite jaunty and subtle and good humored for them. How do you get to tone deaf? The NY Post is tone deaf. Hillary is right on key.

Reading further, I see the argument is that she's supposed to still be constraining her remarks to fit the ongoing mourning period for Charlie Kirk. The NY Post quotes random tweets that accuse Clinton of creating a permission structure for killing white Christian men. Some unnamed person tweeted: "Two weeks after Charlie Kirk is assassinated, Hillary Clinton reminds everyone that white Christian men are dangerous and doing damage to America. These people have no intention of turning down the temperature. They know they’re encouraging what happened." And somebody else tweeted: "Hillary Clinton makes yet another case for violence against white Christian men — the constant drumbeat against huge segments of the population is dehumanizing and dangerous. Her focus on Christianity is chilling — especially given the fact that she can’t bring herself to even name the religion."

If the New York Post were really concerned about cranking up dangerous hostility, they wouldn't go looking for things like that and printing them. Hillary wasn't saying anything about fomenting violence, just arguing against the looking to the past as a model for going forward without the limitations of the past. Let's do it again, but without the lack of diversity. It won't work.

Facebook keeps pushing this meme at me — a quote from Willie Nelson, supposedly referencing Charlie Kirk.

"If you want people to have kind words when you pass, you should say kind words when you’re alive." And then, it says "After facing backlash, Willie Nelson added: 'And I’ll stand behind this. Be kind, now more than ever."

That didn't sound right. Do most people just believe these stories that are stuck in between posts from actual friends and family? My basic reaction is to scroll quickly past anything that has a celebrity commenting about another celebrity, but for this one, because Facebook kept serving it to me, I went to Grok for a fact check. Was this quote in any actual news sources?

Ezra Klein and virtually everything.

I'm just trying to get through this New Yorker interview with Ezra Klein, "Ezra Klein Argues for Big-Tent Politics":

I agree with Ta-Nehisi [Coates] on virtually every view he has on things that Charlie Kirk had said. ... I have poured virtually every ounce of myself into preventing everything that Kirk poured himself into creating. For more people than I had understood, the sense that we are in any way in community together—the sense that we are still in a place where we are all practicing and doing politics—has already eroded. Something that’s very alive for me is a feeling that we are not that far from national rupture. So many things that we like to say “can’t happen here” have already been happening here.

[And who do you blame for that?]

I mean, I blame Donald Trump quite specifically for that. I think that the way he has acted in the aftermath of Kirk’s murder has been an exhibition of virtually everything that is wrong....

Klein had said something gracious about Kirk. Coates attacked him. And Klein adopted this strange way of talking about himself. It's so effusive yet vague. Instead of saying "I think we are close to a national rupture," he says "Something that’s very alive for me is a feeling that we are not that far from national rupture." He sounds like a comic character in a play.

Maybe you've seen the recent podcast with Klein and Coates going head to head. I don't know if you can bear to listen to that, but I highly recommend this commentary on it from AntifascistDad, who focuses of Klein's Buddhist turn:

"The New York Times reviewed more than four dozen of Mr. Kirk’s debates, stretching back to 2017, and discussed them with four debate coaches and university professors."

"The Times review — which examined content, tone, techniques and other hallmarks of each confrontation — reveals how Mr. Kirk used the debate format to deliver a consistent hard-line message while orchestrating highly shareable moments...."

I'm reading "The Debate Style That Propelled Charlie Kirk’s Movement" and I'm using my last gift link of the month so you can see the analysis, the many examples, and the video clips.

Key attributes of Kirk's debate style, as perceived by the experts:

"The critics of Christian nationalism sometimes argue that it is a political movement using the language and symbols of religion in order to win elections."

"But the events of the past week have proved that this is a genuinely religious movement and Charlie Kirk was a genuinely religious man. The problem is that unrestrained faith and unrestrained partisanship are an incredibly combustible mixture. I am one of those who fear that the powerful emotions kicked up by the martyrdom of Kirk will lead many Republicans to conclude that their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible. It’s possible for faithful people to wander a long way from the cross."

Writes David Brooks, in "We Need to Think Straight About God and Politics" (NYT).

Charlie Kirk was a genuinely religious man... but Charlie Kirk is the one who was killed. He is no longer alive in this world and capable of acting or speaking to us. He is now as usable as political people want him to be. 

Brooks speaks of the danger that "many Republicans" will use Kirk to establish that "their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible." I suppose anything is possible, but I would think that Christians are the last to call other people "irredeemable." And it seems to be the left who have been falling prey to the ideation that their opponents are "irredeemably evil." Maybe what you fear in others is the very thing you yourself tend to do.

"In the two weeks since Kirk’s killing, pastors across the country have reported a spike in attendance usually reserved for Christmas or Easter."

"Social media has been filled with testimonies from young people turning to Christianity for the first time, with even atheists saying they are reconsidering their position on religion. Pastors have coined a term for the religious revival galvanised by Kirk’s death: the Charlie effect.... In Irvine, California, a 20-year-old student named Bryce Bohorquez filmed the overfilled parking lots outside Oceans Church, where he is a longstanding member. 'Charlie Kirk, look what you did. No parking. Everyone wants to come now. Amen,' Bohorquez said in the video, which has been viewed more than three million times...."

From "The Charlie effect: how a political murder sparked a religious awakening/The shooting of Charlie Kirk has led to a wave of Christian fervour across social media. Even atheists claim to have been converted" in the London Times.

By the way, look at this insane and distracting distracting ad the London Times had right in the center of the page, right after the words "God's way of reminding us to live for him":

Live for him... indeed.

"I can’t believe ABC Fake News gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back. The White House was told by ABC that his Show was cancelled! Something happened between then and now..."

"... because his audience is GONE, and his 'talent' was never there. Why would they want someone back who does so poorly, who’s not funny, and who puts the Network in jeopardy by playing 99% positive Democrat GARBAGE. He is yet another arm of the DNC and, to the best of my knowledge, that would be a major Illegal Campaign Contribution. I think we’re going to test ABC out on this. Let’s see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 Million Dollars. This one sounds even more lucrative. A true bunch of losers! Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad Ratings."

Writes Donald Trump, at Truth Social.

It's hard to believe the President of the United States writes things like that and publishes them, but this is where we are.

MEANWHILE:

Go to 5:42 for the part about Ted Cruz. Go to 6:34 for the denial of any "intention to make light of the murder of a young man."

Once more, I am the only martyr..."

"... in late night."

I would have advised Steven Colbert against using the word "martyr."

It is — at least for some of us — too evocative of the loss of Charlie Kirk. Why wouldn't you notice? Or did you notice and intend to make sport of it?

The OED has this as the oldest meaning of the English word "martyr":

Love your enemy/hate your enemy — What did Trump really say at the Charlie Kirk memorial?

I see the headline in the NYT, framing Trump's statement in the conventional anti-Trump manner: "'I Hate My Opponent': Trump’s Remarks at Kirk Memorial Distill His Politics/President Trump has been fueled by grievance and animosity over the course of his political and public life."

Is Trump a hater? I'm not going to sift through everything he's done "over the course of his political and public life," but I will read the transcript of his speech — which I listened to live — and zero in on the part about hating his adversaries, which is getting attention from his adversaries, as I presume he knew it would: