I especially appreciated what Gary Peters said about the Founders, who expected men (back then) to serve a few terms and return home. A stint in Congress was presumed to be a financial and personal sacrifice. I don’t think they envisioned professional politicians, especially those who use a seat in Congress as a way to make easy money.
As a longtime Illinoisan cum Chicagoan, Shakowski and Durbin held my respect. They weren’t perfect but they did their job. Time to take the retirement with honor.
Good, now Dick Durbin just needs to kill his Section 230 bill. If he gets that passed he will be forever remembered as the original sponsor of the bill that killed free speech online. Surprised you didn't mention this Ken! https://www.whatissection230.org
My understanding is that 230 doesn't protect speech - what it does is protect irresponsible corporations from their actions.
So if YouTube posts videos that lead children to hurt themselves doing stupid things - like microwaving eggs that explode and cause severe burns - YouTube can just wave their hands and say, "We can not be held responsible for content published on our platform, because that would mean fewer profits, which is definitely more important than your kid have working eyes!"
But if you can give some counter-examples, I'd love to hear them.
For more on the incredibly dangerous and deceptive videos routinely posted to YT, check out the YT (ironic) channel of Anne Reardon called "How To Cook That".
I agree, but gutting Section 230 would actually make that worse. Take a look again at the link I posted, this very question is answered in the section "But isn't Section 230 what allows big tech to host hate speech with immunity?"
Pasted here for convenience:
> Section 230 is what makes it possible for platforms to remove terrible (but not illegal) content, and even more mundane content like spam, without getting sued for it. So if you are concerned there is too much harmful content online, gutting Section 230 will make it harder for platforms to remove it.
Here are some nice examples of how YouTube publishes hazardous "hacks" that often wind up with children being injured and the authors receiving a nice plaque for racking up those views.
I'm not interested in suppressing speech I disagree with - as I told the ALCU when I quit donating to them after 25 years. I give to FIRE now.
I am curious as to how limiting the liability of corporations who are currently publishing instructions on how to burn your child's face off is a good thing.
Weird how you bring up how effective it is, even though the videos to which I refer are online, right now, for any child to watch.
Not a shill, I swear - also, that website is run by Fight for the Future which is the group fighting for Net Neutrality. But to answer your question, the issue is that it hurts smaller platforms like Bluesky, Substack, etc. that would have to police their content just like big tech would have to, and as a result, they don't have enough money or resources to do so, and it ends up killing these smaller platforms or opening them up to lawsuits that they cannot survive. Big tech has the capital to fight those lawsuits or just take down posts that could cause them liability. So as a result, gutting Section 230 would actually require all online platforms that host user-created content to police that content more aggressively, which effectively hurts smaller platforms who don't have the means to do so. It's the foundation of free speech on the Internet. If I had a website and I quoted someone else's speech to even just refute it, without Section 230 I'm now open to a lawsuit for content I didn't even create. Do you want Wikipedia to stay alive as it is now? Gutting Section 230 would make that very difficult. It has much broader implications which are thoroughly laid out on the website I linked in my original comment above. It's not about protecting big tech, it's the opposite.
Sorry to be cynical, but I do not believe they retired out of principle or leadership, or any other respect-inducing reason. They retired the same reason Paul Ryan did several years ago: they are scared of Trump. They are in politics to be rich and comfortable, not to be under the scrutiny of a dictator's whim's. They see the writing on the wall, and they're getting out while they can.
So I don't think Sen Sanders is going anywhere -- unless it's to another rally with tens of thousands. I don't think AOC could pull those crowds on her own, but plainly Sanders is trying to annoint her. Appears Sanders still feels he is needed in the Senate, and I would tend to agree.
There’s some nuance here that needs to be addressed. Yes, the gerontocracy has a death grip on Congressional power. Yes, we are thrilled that these Silent Generation and Boomers are retiring. It’s beyond time for them to go.
And let’s get the motivation right. They don’t really believe it’s time for a new generation to lead. They’re quitting because things are hella hard in our flailing democracy. The mess we have today happened on their watch. While they got fat, the rest of America suffered. Democracy suffered.
They’re quitting because the job got hard. And both of these generations are not well acquainted with hard work. Their resignations are the equivalent of our parents throwing up their hands and saying, “I did the best I could.”
Let’s not let these sleazy politicians’ words distract us from their real motivations. Let’s also celebrate their departures and do better when selecting their replacements.
Ken, you are probably having some effect. I started seeing folks come out criticizing you for being mean a couple months ago, but calling a gerontocracy a gerontocracy is necessary. Just like grandpa doesn't like having his car keys revoked, politicians don't like to retire. But many of them need to.
My favorite Dick Durbin moment? During Ketanji Brown-Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation hearing Senator John Cornyn asked Ketanji Brown-Jackson why she had called George W. Bush and Dick Cheney "War Criminals" in a declaration she had filed in support of a habeas corpus petition in federal court. The declaration KJB had sworn out contained her statement that she had "information and belief" that certain facts surrounding her client's situation were true. KBJ filed this declaration in support of a habeas petition on behalf of a Guantanamo detainee who was later exonerated. From what I've heard, KBJ and lawyers working for her produced admissible evidence in a hearing supporting every fact KBJ recited in her declaration.
Dick Durbin, who seemed to be dosing off during earlier questioning, nearly jumped out of his seat when he heard Cornyn's question. Durbin excitedly pulled a staff member over. He was animated as he whispered into this 27-year-old staffer's ear.
The staffer hurriedly paced behind the dais as Ketanji Brown-Jackson stammered out a word salad to avoid answering the question. KBJ finally, and seemingly sincerely, apologized to the senators and swore she had not meant to hurt Schrub or Dick's fee fees. No word on how her wrongly incarcerated client felt about all this.
Cornyn's questioning came to an end as the Durbin's staffer returned with a briefing book. The staffer placed the book in front of Durbin, pointed out a tab, and then Senator Durbin opened the book to the page. Then the staffer meekly ducked away.
Durbin, now somewhat animated, started reciting facts from the briefing book. He was determined to set the record straight. Kentanji Brown-Jackson had NEVER referred to George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney as war criminals.
Glad our Democratic Senators, who were in office during the Iraq invasion shit show, have been so diligent in protecting the honor of these 2 ghouls.
Those most aged, barely competent if at all, probably don't even realize that we and these wise younger oldsters are speaking of them. It's very sad to think they have nothing or no one else to turn to.
Really admirable. Wish the private sector would consider this, too. Not everyone can, but many could. How much money is enough in your last years? Respect to these Ladies and Gentlemen.
I especially appreciated what Gary Peters said about the Founders, who expected men (back then) to serve a few terms and return home. A stint in Congress was presumed to be a financial and personal sacrifice. I don’t think they envisioned professional politicians, especially those who use a seat in Congress as a way to make easy money.
As a longtime Illinoisan cum Chicagoan, Shakowski and Durbin held my respect. They weren’t perfect but they did their job. Time to take the retirement with honor.
I wish...bigtime...that the old guard had retired before the last election.
Good, now Dick Durbin just needs to kill his Section 230 bill. If he gets that passed he will be forever remembered as the original sponsor of the bill that killed free speech online. Surprised you didn't mention this Ken! https://www.whatissection230.org
My understanding is that 230 doesn't protect speech - what it does is protect irresponsible corporations from their actions.
So if YouTube posts videos that lead children to hurt themselves doing stupid things - like microwaving eggs that explode and cause severe burns - YouTube can just wave their hands and say, "We can not be held responsible for content published on our platform, because that would mean fewer profits, which is definitely more important than your kid have working eyes!"
But if you can give some counter-examples, I'd love to hear them.
For more on the incredibly dangerous and deceptive videos routinely posted to YT, check out the YT (ironic) channel of Anne Reardon called "How To Cook That".
It's fucking horrifying.
I agree, but gutting Section 230 would actually make that worse. Take a look again at the link I posted, this very question is answered in the section "But isn't Section 230 what allows big tech to host hate speech with immunity?"
Pasted here for convenience:
> Section 230 is what makes it possible for platforms to remove terrible (but not illegal) content, and even more mundane content like spam, without getting sued for it. So if you are concerned there is too much harmful content online, gutting Section 230 will make it harder for platforms to remove it.
Here are some nice examples of how YouTube publishes hazardous "hacks" that often wind up with children being injured and the authors receiving a nice plaque for racking up those views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEQaYdvs478
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITP6uA8AFto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzosDKcXQ0I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT7N0WaIMh0
I'm not interested in suppressing speech I disagree with - as I told the ALCU when I quit donating to them after 25 years. I give to FIRE now.
I am curious as to how limiting the liability of corporations who are currently publishing instructions on how to burn your child's face off is a good thing.
Weird how you bring up how effective it is, even though the videos to which I refer are online, right now, for any child to watch.
You smell like a shill.
Not a shill, I swear - also, that website is run by Fight for the Future which is the group fighting for Net Neutrality. But to answer your question, the issue is that it hurts smaller platforms like Bluesky, Substack, etc. that would have to police their content just like big tech would have to, and as a result, they don't have enough money or resources to do so, and it ends up killing these smaller platforms or opening them up to lawsuits that they cannot survive. Big tech has the capital to fight those lawsuits or just take down posts that could cause them liability. So as a result, gutting Section 230 would actually require all online platforms that host user-created content to police that content more aggressively, which effectively hurts smaller platforms who don't have the means to do so. It's the foundation of free speech on the Internet. If I had a website and I quoted someone else's speech to even just refute it, without Section 230 I'm now open to a lawsuit for content I didn't even create. Do you want Wikipedia to stay alive as it is now? Gutting Section 230 would make that very difficult. It has much broader implications which are thoroughly laid out on the website I linked in my original comment above. It's not about protecting big tech, it's the opposite.
Yes, it would be just TERRIBLE if human decency got in the way of some Ivy League asshole not being able to I make a buck on the stock market.
The number must go up, amirite? Look at all the good things that mindset has brought us.
I hope you fail in your efforts to help the rich avoid liability for injuring people.
Also, Wikipedia is a non-profit.
Pretty sure you either didn't read my post, are a troll, or are just stupid. You are misunderstanding my position.
Either way, have a nice day.
And just read the website, it explains all of this. https://www.whatissection230.org/
The tech companies are not responsible for Due Process. I don’t want them determining that.
We have a Constituion that lays out how to go forward.
Sorry to be cynical, but I do not believe they retired out of principle or leadership, or any other respect-inducing reason. They retired the same reason Paul Ryan did several years ago: they are scared of Trump. They are in politics to be rich and comfortable, not to be under the scrutiny of a dictator's whim's. They see the writing on the wall, and they're getting out while they can.
Agree
So I don't think Sen Sanders is going anywhere -- unless it's to another rally with tens of thousands. I don't think AOC could pull those crowds on her own, but plainly Sanders is trying to annoint her. Appears Sanders still feels he is needed in the Senate, and I would tend to agree.
There’s some nuance here that needs to be addressed. Yes, the gerontocracy has a death grip on Congressional power. Yes, we are thrilled that these Silent Generation and Boomers are retiring. It’s beyond time for them to go.
And let’s get the motivation right. They don’t really believe it’s time for a new generation to lead. They’re quitting because things are hella hard in our flailing democracy. The mess we have today happened on their watch. While they got fat, the rest of America suffered. Democracy suffered.
They’re quitting because the job got hard. And both of these generations are not well acquainted with hard work. Their resignations are the equivalent of our parents throwing up their hands and saying, “I did the best I could.”
Let’s not let these sleazy politicians’ words distract us from their real motivations. Let’s also celebrate their departures and do better when selecting their replacements.
Ken, you are probably having some effect. I started seeing folks come out criticizing you for being mean a couple months ago, but calling a gerontocracy a gerontocracy is necessary. Just like grandpa doesn't like having his car keys revoked, politicians don't like to retire. But many of them need to.
My favorite Dick Durbin moment? During Ketanji Brown-Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation hearing Senator John Cornyn asked Ketanji Brown-Jackson why she had called George W. Bush and Dick Cheney "War Criminals" in a declaration she had filed in support of a habeas corpus petition in federal court. The declaration KJB had sworn out contained her statement that she had "information and belief" that certain facts surrounding her client's situation were true. KBJ filed this declaration in support of a habeas petition on behalf of a Guantanamo detainee who was later exonerated. From what I've heard, KBJ and lawyers working for her produced admissible evidence in a hearing supporting every fact KBJ recited in her declaration.
Dick Durbin, who seemed to be dosing off during earlier questioning, nearly jumped out of his seat when he heard Cornyn's question. Durbin excitedly pulled a staff member over. He was animated as he whispered into this 27-year-old staffer's ear.
The staffer hurriedly paced behind the dais as Ketanji Brown-Jackson stammered out a word salad to avoid answering the question. KBJ finally, and seemingly sincerely, apologized to the senators and swore she had not meant to hurt Schrub or Dick's fee fees. No word on how her wrongly incarcerated client felt about all this.
Cornyn's questioning came to an end as the Durbin's staffer returned with a briefing book. The staffer placed the book in front of Durbin, pointed out a tab, and then Senator Durbin opened the book to the page. Then the staffer meekly ducked away.
Durbin, now somewhat animated, started reciting facts from the briefing book. He was determined to set the record straight. Kentanji Brown-Jackson had NEVER referred to George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney as war criminals.
Glad our Democratic Senators, who were in office during the Iraq invasion shit show, have been so diligent in protecting the honor of these 2 ghouls.
The ruling class protects itself.
Dubuya and Cheney should be convicted war criminals.
Those most aged, barely competent if at all, probably don't even realize that we and these wise younger oldsters are speaking of them. It's very sad to think they have nothing or no one else to turn to.
Great piece, Ken. Also, I’m a huge Lord of the Rings nerd, so I very much appreciated the mention of Sauron’s ring of power!
did you catch the gandalf quote
With your hint of the Gandalf quotes existence it was easy to find. I’m currently rereading LOTR and I missed it.
Ohh I had to go back and find that. Very nicely done 🫡
I have $20 that says polls have them losing a primary to a ham sandwich.
That didn’t stop Biden from running!
Durban is slightly more cogent.
Maybe he's feeling bad that his life's work is turning out to be just another genocide?
Dinner of them have to be actual human beings under there, right?
Now this is where we come in. Getting knowledgeable and wise candidates not tied to AIPAC’s disembowelment of democracy.
Well, this is a refreshing trend!
Really admirable. Wish the private sector would consider this, too. Not everyone can, but many could. How much money is enough in your last years? Respect to these Ladies and Gentlemen.
Also, after reading Sam Hussaini, turns out Durban is just another AIPAC dork.
I am presuming that they are all AIPAC dorks.