Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Let’s get right to it…
Now, let’s get to this week’s questions… and my answers.
John: I just read the book, “Power Failure”, about the rise and fall of GE. The basic conclusion was that this once powerful, commercially diverse company became a victim of its own size and scope, that it was such an unmanageable behemoth it collapsed under its own weight and had to be split up and sold off for the benefit of the stockholders. This sounded very familiar. Our own federal government has increased in such size and scope that it has permeated every aspect of its citizens, but not to our benefit. I think the Dobbs decision is a model for much of what the federal government needs to do – return the power and decision making to the states, where it can be more effectively managed. Are there other aspects of government reach that can follow this model? — Steve R.
Hi Steve. As a conservative, I want limited government. As a federalist, I want more government decisions pushed down to the states and even more locally. This was a mainstream Republican position just a decade ago, but neither party advocates for it anymore. In fact, both parties are finding new ways all the time to interfere in our daily lives, and make us flip the bill for their whims and excesses. The current administration’s trade war and central-planning escapade is a perfect example. Another good example was Biden’s efforts to forgive student loans, compliments of U.S. taxpayers.
The Dobbs decision was a rare and welcome development, notably by the courts. As David French and I talked about on this week’s Daly Express podcast, I think the judiciary is the only federal branch of our government that’s functioning properly and taking its constitutional role seriously.
Do you think Tulsi Gabbard’s latest release about Russiagate being a “hoax” created by Obama a real story, or just something to distract from the Epstein stuff? — Ben G.
I’ve never dismissed “Russiagate” wholesale as a hoax, because there are lots of layers to the Russian investigation, and some of them were absolutely legitimate. I would encourage people to read Andrew McCarthy’s piece on this topic. I think he gets it right, and he is by no means an anti-Trump guy. He points out the Gabbard’s claims are a mix of previously known information, and distorted/dishonest conclusions that stand at direct odds with the conclusions of other Trump intelligence officials.
He adds:
…the Trump administration’s decision to revive this episode, while titillating for the MAGA political base, was self-sabotage. That is mainly because, after months of scrutiny, the Trump CIA has reaffirmed the ICA’s conclusions that (1) Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 election and (2) did so in order to denigrate Hillary Clinton — i.e., Kremlin strongman Vladimir Putin anticipated that Clinton would be elected and hoped to make her a less effective president, which would be in Russia’s interest as America’s geopolitical rival.
The public position of President Trump and his most ardent supporters — the position that Gabbard reiterates — is that Russiagate was a total hoax, a complete fabrication by Democrats, without a shred of truth to it, concocted to undermine his presidency. This has always been a foolish stance.
Like I said, the entire piece is worth a read. And to answer your original question, Ben: Yes, I do think this stunt was designed to pull attention off of the Epstein stuff. And as far as the right-wing media goes, it has effectively done just that. I’m guessing McCarthy, a Fox News contributor, won’t be invited back on the network for a little while.
David [French] is correct in describing the decline of men in our society. Unfortunately, the Right has decided "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" when is comes to embracing victimhood culture. It's far easier (and financially lucrative) to blame The Left for the decline of men, and embrace faux masculinity from a clown like Trump, than to actually do the hard work of making sure men have mentors and other male father figures and role models to guide them.
As David points out, there is SOME legitimacy in the ideological reasons for the decline of men. I have never understood the Zero sum gain theory that in order for women to be successful, men have to be unsuccessful, or in order for black folks to success, white folks need to fail. Why not strive for a society where everyone has a chance to succeed? — John M.
Hi John. I’m not sure if that was a rhetorical question, but we’re in agreement. One’s pursuit of happiness doesn’t have to come at the expense of someone else’s, but our politicians often argue otherwise… because they know the message strikes a populist chord. Not everything is political, but far too many of us have convinced ourselves, and or have let others convince us, otherwise.
Greetings Sir John. A supposed hoax about ICE kidnapping an innocent grandfather named Luis Leon has allegedly been debunked. How do these stories get started and if they’re total nonsense then what makes the left wing liars believe that they’ll get away with it? —“ICE ICE BABY…TO GO!” regards from The Emperor
It does appear to have been a hoax, Emperor. As for how this one got started, it seems that the family who reported it just made it up. I couldn’t tell you why, or what their political leanings are. Maybe they had some kind of pay-off in mind. What I do know is that a number of news outlets reported the story without going through the proper confirmation channels. And they absolutely deserve the criticism they’ve received from that malpractice.
John, here's one for you I wrote: ‘Art Trumpo’ : We had Art Nouveau from the 1880’s- WW I, with it's long organic lines, “ whiplash”curves, and asymmetry. Then came Art Deco with sharp angles, and geometrical shapes until a shift produced Modernism post 30’s. We've entered the Art Trumpo era, while gold prevails, featuring bold black heavy lines with suffocating lack of spaces. Will this trend in art survive? My question to you, John. — Sharon H.
Interesting, Sharon. If one is to view Trump as an art-form, I honestly don’t think the era will last beyond his exit from politics, because what his fans find appealing about him isn’t really transferable to others. It’s a personal brand more than anything, and those who’ve tried to emulate it haven’t had much luck.
Your thoughts on the death of Hulk Hogan? — Alex D.
I don’t have many, I guess. The guy was the biggest name in professional wrestling, of course. A pop-culture icon who wasn’t always a team player. The pro-wrestling lifestyle has cut so many lives short that I’m actually kind of surprised he made it to his 70s. A lot of pro-wrestlers don’t.
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.