Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Let’s get right to your questions…
Greetings, sir, John: what do you think of the No Kings protestors? For that matter, is it true that many of these protestors were being paid by very wealthy Communists? The types of people that want to take everything from the rich, but stay wealthy themselves? —“April Fools March For No Kings” regards from The Emperor
To be honest, Emperor, I paid even less attention to the most recent No Kings protests than I did the ones the preceded them. But my general assessment of “the movement” is that, like similar ones, it’s a hodgepodge of normal people, weirdos, and radicals. Were some protestors paid by “very wealthy communists”? Maybe. I’m assuming there are stories indicating as much (which is why you asked)? What I do know is that a number of people I know personally have gone to these things, and I can assure you that no one has been paying them to.
John: Politics and the courts are often downstream from culture, so I am curious about your thoughts regarding two legal decisions recently, one in your home state. The Supreme Court ruled this week against Colorado's "conversion therapy" ban. Also, a California jury found Meta and YouTube liable for the mental health issues of a woman who became addicted to the dopamine hits that social media companies program into their algorithm. Do you think these decisions will have legs and far-reaching consequences? What about the moral and legal issues that serve as undercurrents? — Steve R.
Hi Steve. I think politics are certainly more downstream from culture than our courts, but I can certainly think of examples of what you’re talking about.
Anyway, regardless of what one thinks about “conversion therapy,” I think it’s pretty clear that Colorado’s ban violated the First Amendment. The SCOTUS ruling was a victory for free speech.
I don’t know much about the California case, but the ruling, as you describe it, seems pretty ludicrous on its face. I have all kinds of criticism for social-media and its algorithms, but finding these companies liable of damages related to screen-addiction feels like a very slippery legal slope. I can picture lots others now trying to get in on the action.
Why is Vice President Vance going to Hungary next week to campaign for Viktor Orban? — Alex D.
The White House is trying to portray the planned joint-remarks as something other than that, Alex, but you’re right: It’s a campaign endorsement. And it’s both inappropriate and pretty gross (considering who Orban is).
Unfortunately, both Trump and the Postliberal Right (of which Vance is part of) have a crush on Orban. With Trump, I’m sure part of the appeal is their mutual affection for Vladimir Putin, but a lot of it has to do with Orban’s autocratic tendencies. Trump and Vance want him to stay in power for reasons that just aren’t in America’s interest.
Did I see you dissing Chuck Norris on X the other day, John? You do know he once roundhouse kicked someone so hard that his foot broke the speed of light, right? RIP
Lol! Chuck was an American icon (and by all accounts, a very nice guy). RIP. But yeah, his acting was always pretty rough.
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.
John, Pam Bondi's firing was long overdue in my opinion- January first would had been the time to do so. She leaves a bad taste and much confusion with the Epstein files and her initial verbiage and handling of it all; an earlier firing would had helped the Republicans going into the mid-terms as folks would had long forgotten her face by now. Same goes for Kristi Noem. Better late than never. These two women hurt Pres. Trump's ratings much more than he realizes. My question to you is do you believe these women were more controversial than if a man had held these positions?
John: It’s the beginning of April, so that means tax season. Again this year, my wife and I are going through the herculean task of gathering all documents, receipts, etc. to submit to the tax preparer. Even though we don’t do our own taxes, I still consider this an autopsy of my finances without the benefit of death. We hear a lot about raising taxes in blue states and lowering taxes in red states, but I think that misses half the point. I would actually be willing to pay slightly MORE taxes if this whole process were greatly simplified for time and clarity. The older I get, the more I value time equal to or greater than money. Have you seen any proposals lately to simplify the tax code, and do you agree that this would go a long way towards clarity of the whole exercise of taxation?