Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Let’s get right to it…
John, do you think the latest indictment of James Comey and the renaming of the Department of Defense, and the Pentagon’s new rule to only allow state sanctioned reporting is a distraction from: the Homan files, the Epstein files, and basically all the Trump administration corruption that is happening on a weekly basis? — IDM
I think the Comey move is about retribution, the “Department of War” thing was a deliberate distraction, and the Pentagon rule was about autocracy and circumventing accountability. Unsurprisingly, all of these things are self-serving, and none of them benefit the country.
John: The rise in political violence is only getting worse before it gets better. Charlie Kirk had a personal security detail of six men, and they were powerless to identify and stop a rooftop sniper. Same for any defense against people like Luigi Mangioni, who shot his victim with a handgun at close range. I recently had a former Secret Service agent tell me only the president and vice president have the kind of advance team and security detail to provide high levels of protection. It used to be political assassins were delusional heroes only in their own minds. Now these people are encouraged and valorized among wide swaths of mainstream America. What kind of policy change is going to improve this? Do you think the banning of certain weapons will decrease political violence, and is this worth the compromise to the 2nd Amendment? — Steve R.
I wish this were as simple as a policy issue, but I really think it’s primarily a cultural problem. There’s a lot of toxicity in our culture (especially online) that celebrates cruelty, dehumanizes opponents, and now accepts political violence (dependent on the cause or target). People with severe mental illness are especially susceptible to acting out in this culture, but mob mentality (among otherwise rational people) plays a role as well. If there is a public-policy prescription that can make a difference, I think it would have to come from the mental-health angle rather than the gun angle. The two examples you gave illustrate why. The CEO’s killer used a pistol. Kirk’s killer used a vintage rifle. Neither of these types of weapons have been part of the gun-control debate (that mostly revolves around mass shootings).
I think foremost to Skydance are these questions you 2 smart guys probably have a better read on what answers are most appealing to them. Could Bari Weiss and/or Megyn Kelly help CBS become a better broadly credible news source? Could either help their ratings go up? What is more important, ratings or broad-based credibility and integrity? Is it even possible anymore to have both? IMHO, having more voices is counterproductive if they’re present to feed contention. — Scott K.
I do think Bari Weiss could bring more credibility (and possibly better ratings) to CBS News. Partisan provocateurs (like Megyn Kelly in her current form) would not help build credibility, but could possibly help with ratings. (By the way, Kelly has stated that she has no interest in CBS). In my view, credibility and integrity are far more important than ratings, so my hope is that CBS News doesn’t go the partisan-provocateur route.
You hit on a point in your piece this week (several in fact) that really resonated with me:
“For those of you who’ve maintained your conservative principles — not out of a sense of nostalgia or personal superiority, but because you understand the instrumental role those principles play in preserving our freedom, creating opportunity, and otherwise enhancing our lives and culture…”
So much of MAGA’s backlash against people like you and me is that the principles we stand for are old, outdated, and don’t work. Of course they work! They’ve worked time after time! When we reject those principles is when we’ve gotten into trouble. History has shown us that free trade benefits our economy and keeps prices low, while trade wars hurt our economy and drive prices up. History has shown us that kowtowing to tyrants emboldens them to become more tyrannical, not less. History has shown us that giving government more power over our lives amounts to less freedom, opportunity, and prosperity for the rest of us. Bust most of us on the right just sit back and even defend Trump trying to reinvent the wheel (the way liberals keep trying to) in the dumbest ways possible, because… Why? Because Trump’s awesome, and he’ll find some magical way of making it work this time? This stuff never works! — Ben G.
Amen, Ben. Your point about reinventing the wheel nails it. That’s basically what Trump is doing on some pretty major issues: chiseling round wheels into square ones, while his inner-circle tells him how brilliant he is. I always find it disingenuous when Trump loyalists tell me they “like Trump for his policies.” Really? Which ones? Those during his first term, which were largely outsourced to (and consistent with) the Republican establishment… or those during his second term, which largely run counter to his first-term policies? I support round wheels because they work, regardless of what whoever sits in the Oval Office thinks about them.
Sir John — What’s your opinion on this supposed peace deal going on brokered by Trump between Israel and Gaza? According to Ben Shapiro, nations like Qatar and other Islamic nations including Turkey, along with European leaders, appear to be very supportive of this. As of this writing, Hamas has not responded. What are your opinions on it and how did Trump convince the Islamic Nations in the leftist anti-Israel nations of Europe to be so supportive of this? And what do you think of Trump being named the Head of “The Board Of Peace” in Gaza? — “Even If Trump Gains Peace In The Middle East, He STILL Won’t Get. A Nobel Peace Prize” Regards from The Emperor
It’s definitely worth a try, but I suspect Hamas will ultimately reject it. I don’t think it’s breaking news that Hamas is not interested in peace. It doesn’t surprise me that other nations (including Islamic ones) would be supportive of such an effort (at least in the abstract). Most of Israel’s Middle East neighbors have come to view Iran as a much bigger threat to them than Israel, even if their leaders still have to publicly condemn Israel’s actions to maintain a certain cred among their people. But it should also be noted that within hours of Trump’s announcement of the peace plan, Netanyahu was already backing away from parts of the deal, and the support of a number of Middle Eastern countries has already softened. But like I said, it’s worth a try.
You watched the Amanda Knox mini-series??? — Alex D.
Lol. Yes! “The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox” (it’s on Hulu) was my wife’s pick, but I very much enjoyed it. It was extremely well done. Like a lot of people, I’m sure, I remember the original media hype over the murder case, which included the strange behavior Knox seemed to be exhibiting before and after she was in custody. But the presentation of events in the mini-series made sense of it, and I learned a lot I didn’t know. I was also genuinely moved by the acting, storytelling, and message of grace. I highly recommend it.
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.
As a fairly active reader, it occurred to me the other day how much great literature was written in captivity. Epictetus was born into slavery but wrote timeless stoic philosophy. The Apostle Paul wrote his Prison Epistles from different jail cells, and these later became part of the New Testament. Cervantes imagined most of the plot of Don Quixote from a prison cell. Viktor Frankl, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela scribed works advocating civil and human rights from places of captivity. The list is long and impressive. I’m asking you as a professional writer, why is this? Why does physical captivity seem to bring out the greatest in philosophical thought and literature that lasts for centuries?