The Daly Weekly (1/16)
María Corina Machado's Nobel Peace Price, Maduro's removal, the Renee Good shooting, and more.
Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Let’s get right to it…
There was a time when I thought that police bodycams, as well as how about 90 percent of the country has ready access to video-cameras on their phones, would at least help turn down the temperature when officer involved shootings occurred. No more need to just take the word of either side, when there’s actual video, right?
Yet, what’s surprising, and disappointing, is how multiple videos of this particular shooting exist, yet people are drawing wildly contradictory conclusions from the same footage. I still don’t know if Renee Good’s car actually hit the ICE agent who shot her. But it seems most people commenting on this shooting, are convinced “the videos don’t lie”, yet some are quite convinced she at least tried to hit him, while others are just as convinced she was just trying to flee. So do events like these mean these cameras are useless? — Aylene W.
Hi Aylene. That’s a really good question. Let me start with a story…
Back in 2014, this website had a regular commenter named Steve. Steve was a 50-something, African American, left-wing guy who not only took deep exception with just about everything Bernie and I wrote, but also routinely called us (and most of his fellow commenters) racists. Steve was especially active on this website after the famous police-officer shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Those who followed the series of events that led to Brown’s death that day may remember that it began with Brown brazenly stealing cigars from a small shop (while bullying the shop-owner). It’s what led to the police being called, and the confrontation about 15 minutes later between Brown and the police officer who ended up shooting him. The incident at the shop was the only part of the entire story that was actually captured on camera (security camera).
Once the video went public, and was posted on YouTube, Steve was insistent that the video clearly showed Brown paying for those cigars. He kept linking to the video in the comment section, adamant that it proved that the police should have never been called in the first place (and therefore calling the police was an act of racism). I had seen the video earlier on cable news, and knew that what Steve was saying was clearly false. Thus, I figured that when I clicked on his link, it would take me to a deceptively edited version of the video. But when I did, it turned out to be the actual footage. And it showed, very clearly, Brown stealing the cigars. There was absolutely no exchange of money in the video (nor anything that looked like an exchange). Yet, I believe that through Steve’s eyes, and his own experiences as a black man in his 50s, he found a way to see exactly what he wanted to see — something that just wasn’t there: validation of his belief, from societal bias, that racism was to blame for the incident.
I think that goes a long way in explaining what you’re describing here, Aylene, but with political bias rather than racism. Lots of people who are heavily invested in a political position on ICE, immigration, activism, Trump, etc. have found a way to see exactly what they want to see, and they’re sticking with it.
Similarly, there’s probably more video-footage of January 6 than any other criminal event in our nation’s history, and yet millions of Americans still don’t believe what they saw in those videos.
I think our only hope, in such situations, is that our legal system — using video (and other evidence) as its guide — remains more objective than the hopelessly biased partisans who opine on these matters online and on cable news.
It will never happen, but I believe federal money should never be distributed to states for welfare. If the states want to offer these services, then the taxpayers of the state should pay. Your thoughts? — Tim H.
It makes sense to me, Tim. I’m all for pushing government programs and management decisions down to the local level. I think it would also further incentivize states to get their financial house in order. There are probably some crisis-level events (like a global pandemic) where I’d be okay with exceptions, but, again, I tend to think that putting these responsibilities closer to ‘the people’ makes for better government efficiency.
What do you think about María Corina Machado “presenting” Trump with her Nobel Peace Prize? — Ben G.
I’m answering this question on Thursday night, Ben. And as of now, I’m a little hazy on the details. But if Trump actually accepted her prize, and is going to keep it, I think it’s an act of astronomical patheticism on his part.
I certainly get why Machado would do this. She puts her country above everything else (including herself), knows Trump loves to be celebrated (and very much wanted this particular prize), and assuredly sees this gesture as a way of further solidifying U.S. support of Venezuela. But any semi-decent, honorable human being would have politely thanked her, declined the gesture, and told her she deserved it. But that’s not who Trump is. And really, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump, or someone in his administration, urged her on this ahead of time (framing it as being in her country’s best interest).
John, Is the "Dispatch" your main go-to for credible and impartial news? On "The First", Bill O'Reilly claims to be the only broadcaster who is now credible and impartial; your thoughts? Chris Cuomo seems to do a fairly decent show lately. — Sharon H.
Hi Sharon. Yes, The Dispatch is a highly credible source. They report the news impartially, and their commentary is center-right (including conservatives, libertarians, etc.).
As for O’Reilly, I appreciate his relationship with Bernie, and also his willingness to plug this website, but when I think of credible people in the media, he’s not someone who comes to mind. From what I’ve seen, he’s far too protective of, and overly willing to spin narratives for, Donald Trump. I don’t follow Chris Cuomo at all, so I can’t really say much about him.
John, I have several good and bad thoughts about our action in Venezuela. Good: the corrupt and illegitimate dictator Maduro was removed from power; our A+ military action shows competence to the world; the downfall of Cuba and Iran may be imminent as a result; exposes the fraud of “the warmth of socialism”; and it allows the return of heavy crude to Gulf Coast refineries that run on it (I used to work at one such refinery). Bad: portions of the illegitimate Maduro regime are still in power; it emboldens Trump for boondoggles in Greenland and the Panama Canal; and regime change is always dangerous and could be a lengthy quagmire. There is plenty left to do, including the release of an estimated 800 political prisoners, an action that should be our first priority. How do you see this action in Venezuela playing out? — Steve Rogers
I agree with nearly everything you’re saying here, Steve, so I’ll just weigh in on where we differ: I don’t think the Maduro situation has much (or anything) to do with what’s going on in Iran. I attribute that more to the conditions created by the two-year campaign by the IDF, following October 7. U.S. support of Israel was certainly also helpful.
While I agree that the success of the Maduro operation had emboldened Trump’s aggression toward Greenland, the only link between the two situations resides in Trump’s mind. Greenland is a NATO ally. It’s both idiotic and disgusting that he’s threatening to take the country by force.
As for how things in Venezuela will ultimately play out, it’s hard to say. I do think the situation will work out much better if Marco Rubio is taking lead, than if someone like Stephen Miller is taking lead.
Greetings Sir John. Regarding the ICE shooting of Renee Good, I agree that it’s a tragic event but, like Ashley Babbit, she had no business doing what she did, and while she didn’t “deserve” to be shot, well…unfortunately that’s one possible outcome of breaking the law. I AM curious about several things. Are the conservatives that were outraged about Ashley Babbit equally outraged here? Did the liberals that are outraged over the Renee Good shooting feel the same way about Ashley Babbit?
Finally. I have this clip from “South Park” mocking the Renee Good shooting. Yes I think we can all agree that it’s the typical low-brow humor that Trey Parker & Matt Stone are notorious for, but I have observed something that I’m curious to see if you notice the same thing. That is, much of what Cartman says about the woke left is true — they will oppose Trump just because they hate him and automatically side against him simply because he’s Trump; they will do whatever their woke leaders tell them even if it means breaking the law (as long as it’s for a “protected group” of people); they use accusations and implications of “racism” to manipulate and intimidate people to agree with them or at least not oppose them even if it’s something bad; and that they walk like lemmings into illegal situations simply because they’re woke group leaders (of ICE Watch for example) pass out Instructions on how to break the law all in the name of social justice. Your thoughts on these specific points are appreciated. — “South Park” regard from The Emperor
Hi Emperor.
I think there are some important differences between the Renee Good and Ashley Babbit situations, but I agree that there are also a number of similarities (more than a lot of people want to admit). If we lived in a political culture in which people were still mindful of hypocrisy, we’d be hearing far more nuanced reactions than insisting the respective police officers are “murderers” or “executioners.” But because Babbitt was MAGA, MAGA defends her unreservedly, and wants the officer who shot her crucified. And because Good was “standing up” to ICE, many on the left defend her unreservedly, and want the officer crucified. I often think that if not for double-standards, many of today’s partisans would have no standards at all.
As for South Park, I’m going to let you in on a secret, Emperor: I can’t stand that show. I’ve never been able to watch more than a minute or two of it. Everything about it annoys me, regardless of which political position the writers are taking. So, you really owe me for taking the time to watch that video. Lol. Anyway, you’re right that some of the points being made in that clip are true (which is often how comedy works). But if we’re talking about large groups of people doing and thinking exactly what a leader tells them to, I’m not sure that there’s a great case that this is purely (or even mostly) a leftist phenomenon.
Did you see the Karoline Leavitt’s X-post on Trump’s affordability agenda? Did Bernie Sanders hack her account? 😂 — Alex D.
You’ve heard of Democratic Socialism, Alex? I propose a new term: Republican Socialism. And this it.
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.