Rex Huppke and I, Technically, Agree
Should you telecast executions?
The simple answer is no.
Once you do that, you start down a slippery slope away from a model First World Country to a banana republic in the Third World.
In the First World, executions should be exceedingly rare. When they do occur, they should only be performed years after an offense, and after all legal avenues have been exhausted. The question of guilt should a clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even then, the execution should be low key, and only attended by victim's families and limited print media. Print media needs to be part of the execution process because they are the representatives of the nebulous "public record."
There has to be a mechanism for the state to execute its most over-the-top, heinous villains. Executions should only be for those far outside the bounds of society, like citizens that rape and eat their victims (Jeffrey Dahmer) or send bombs to random civilians (Ted Kaczynski).
See there? I did not use the word TRUMP once.
Rex Huppke at the USA Today fundamentally agrees with the question at the top of the article:
Should you telecast executions?
The simple answer is no.
But Huppke does not want to answer the question philosophically in the arena of ideas. Ruppke's exact quote: "This is a level of depravity I didn’t think possible, even under the consistently depraved presidency of Donald Trump-"
Okay, if Huppke and I technically agree, what are we doing here?
Every one of his articles is an Anti-Trump article. If he is against the telecast of executions, that should be the article. Not just another Anti-Trump diatribe.
I am convinced that if Donald Trump came out AGAINST telecasting executions, Rex Huppke would take to his rusty old Smith-Corona typewriter and act aghast. "What about criminals like Dahmer? How would you like to have a loved one raped and eaten? Trump is unsympathetic to crime victims."
If Donald Trump didn't exist, Rex Huppke would just be another Night Manager at McDonald's, looking for an exit plan.
And, again, in this specific case, I disagree with Trump and agree with Huppke.
One of the most famous Trump-Contrarians was CNN's Chris Cillizza. In 2022, Cilizza was laid off from CNN.
If you go over to Substack, Cillizza himself portrayed his dismissal in more pragmatic terms:
Definition #1: I am independent of the billionaire owners and massive media conglomerates that own legacy media outlets. It’s just me. No secret funding. No hidden agenda.
Definition #2: I am independent of the two political parties. I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I spent 20+ years in legacy media (CNN and the Washington Post most recently) and I am now off on my own — calling balls and strikes no matter what uniform the batter at the plate is wearing.
For only $60 a year, you can read Cillizza's political umpiring.
If you look at the topics of his articles they all lean one way. As a matter of fact his last article was picked up by The Daily Beast.
Do Cillizza's articles get reprinted by TheBlaze or FoxNews? Uh, no. What does independent mean to Cillizza? He's his own boss instead of sucking at the corporate teet. Look for the Huppke Substack in 2028.
Selling out, then going independent? You made your money and are free to lurch farther left.
Staying independent, and never selling out? Have fun starving.
Comments