10 Burst results for "Kagan Roberts"

"kagan roberts" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

10:09 min | 4 months ago

"kagan roberts" Discussed on KQED Radio

"What they were concerned about is that we have this first amendment that is very, very good at protecting us against government censorship. We have lots of rules set up. The government can't interfere with your speech. And they're really good reasons for that. You don't want the government telling you what you can say if the government thinks an idea is bad and turns out to be wrong and shuts down debate. That's not good for democracy. But in this age of this flooding tide of disinformation should we have a first Amendment that can also figure out how to address that particular problem? The problem of, you know, troll armies online that are trying to distract listeners and confuse them. And often really damage people's reputations. And so the question is, you know, once you have people using speech as a tool to suppress other speech Then what do you do about the fact that that's very challenging for our American First Amendment to really address? You know, we've had the First Amendment for more than 200 years, but for a long time, it didn't really function to protect free speech. There was a lot of Official oppression of ideas regarded as unpatriotic or troublesome, But in this century, we've really come a long way. Really, Haven't we towards insisting that Even the most loathsome speeches to be protected Nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois. Yes, that is the American tradition that it's much better to air, bad ideas and address them than it is to try to force them underground because then people will hold on to them. And they will also feel aggrieved at the government for not letting them speak. That is absolutely the American theory of protecting, for example, hate speech. And we've also seen the notions of free speech taken in a different direction. Where Political spending is defined as speech, which is protected and corporations can Adopts some of the protections of the First Amendment has that distorted the way it works. Yeah. So I think you see, starting in the 19 seventies, the Supreme Court start to protect corporate campaign spending right alongside individual donations. And you know, in a world after citizens united, the 2010 Supreme Court decision you really have corporate spending on elections treated on par in terms of the protection of the First Amendment. With the shouting of protesters, and I think that what you see here is that The Supreme Court has required the state to treat a like categories of speakers, meaning corporations and individuals. And that goes way past preventing the government from discriminating based on the few point or the identity of an individual speaker. Great. It means something really different to see that to say that a corporation has the same right to speak the same rate to give money to candidates as an individual, especially because corporations have proved to have such vast resource is and to be really good at spending. What's called dark money money in political races where we can't trace the origin of it. We don't really know who is speaking. So loudly to us with this paid political speech, And so one of the law professors talk Teo for my piece Robert posed to teaches at Yale. He was arguing that the problem with this corporate power that we've the way in which the First Amendment has really been weaponized by corporations, in the words of justice Elena Kagan. Robert Post from Yellow School is arguing that the real problem here is we've lost sight of the idea that the purpose of free speech is to further Democratic participation will take a break here. Let me introduce you. We are speaking with Emily Bazelon. She's a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine. Her cover story in this week's issue is the problem of free speech. In an age of disinformation. We'll continue our conversation after this short break. This is fresh air. This is fresh air and were speaking with Emily Bazelon. She's a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine. Her cover story in this week's issue explores how well our traditional view of embracing unfettered free speech serves democracy in the digital age. The story is titled The Problem of Free Speech. In an age of disinformation, You know one of the things that I think we've long relied upon to to deal with inaccuracies in the media is that You know, our media would compete not simply for ratings or circulation, but on accuracy. I mean, if if there was some somebody had a story out there, which got something drastically wrong. Another paper or Electronic out that might take some pride in setting the record straight. Does that just no longer happen? Well, that does still happen in the mainstream media and actually in the liberal media on going to go back to some of the researchers from the Berkman client Center at Harvard. So they did this huge study of four million news stories and all the links they had on the Internet in 2016 and 2017 for the most part on what they found. Is that what you're describing this kind of competition among media outlets for a factual accuracy? They call it a reality check dynamic. And they say we can see that happening all the time in the mainstream media. The New York Times get something wrong. The Washington Post comes along and says Nope, Here's why that's a mistake and that reality check dynamic. It's still allows for significant partisanship, right like I know Means is the media perfect are perfectly balanced, but it is a insignificant constraint on disinformation. The problem is that in this right wing media ecosystem that we were talking about earlier, especially Fox and talk radio host like Rush Limbaugh. You don't have that same kind of competition for factual accuracy. Those outlets don't really challenge each other on fax, and they're much more likely to pick up and kind of recycle a false narrative than they are to debunk it, or even to admit themselves that they've gotten something wrong. You know, this will strike some listeners as a partisan comment. You're saying there's independent evidence That the conservative media are less interested in factual accuracy. Or at least they're behaving in that way. And, yes, I'm sure it will strike some of your listeners as a cz partisan, and I wish it wasn't true. It would be much better for our democracy if we didn't have this asymmetry where we had disinformation being propagated in the right wing media. And not in the mainstream and liberal media because then we could address it all together. But this is this reality. That research has really shown and confirmed that we have this two different modes of operation. And so I felt the journalists like I have to report Those facts that are accurate, even though they're politically inconvenient. Do these social media platforms have any responsibility for the contents that others post on them? Can they be sued for Ah Ah, libelous claim. So the social media platforms on Ly have the obligations they give themselves and they cannot be sued for libel or other kinds of civil suits. They benefit from a provision called Section 2 30 of the Communications Decency Act, which Congress passed in the mid nineties. And the idea was, Hey, we have this new thing this Internet. We want to help it grow. And so we're going to try to encourage websites and Internet service providers to do some content moderation by not holding them liable for suit if they miss stuff. What actually happens, though, as a result of not having any kind of civil liability for libel is that anything goes on these platforms. To the extent that the platforms want to allow it to remain there. So the analogy that that helps me with this is that You know, Functionally social media in a lot of ways is like a public square in America and across the world right now. But legally speaking, it's not that at all. It's a private zone. It's like a mall where you know the people on the mall can hire the police and decide the rules. But if something goes wrong in the mall, they're not liable. And so that kind of has its own skewing effect in terms of what kind of speech eyes promoted and amplified. Right. And when you consider the financial model of the social media companies, prickly Facebook, it doesn't ensure that all voices are heard equally. In fact, it tends to promote stuff that's loud. That's controversial, right? That's Sexy. Yes, And that is the way they make money. Because that kind of content we're all much more likely Tio, click on and share with our friends. And then that keeps us online and we produce data and the social media companies then sell our data to advertisers, and that's their business model. So I think what's important here is to recognize that these algorithms there's nothing Neutral or the slightest spit public interest oriented about them. They're doing what's helpful to the social media platforms to turn a profit. And so the platforms make decisions about what content to promote. Based on what they think is going to go the most viral and really there has been little constraint legally speaking on what they can do they have incentives, Tio remove content like span. And pornography that could drive users away. But that's not a responsibility that comes to them from the government right now. And just so we understand this the immunity from libel suits That comes from the Communications Decency Act of 1996..

Emily Bazelon Supreme Court staff writer The New York Times Magazine Skokie Robert Post Illinois Washington Post Elena Kagan Official Yale Rush Limbaugh Facebook Teo Yellow School
"kagan roberts" Discussed on Fresh Air

Fresh Air

07:32 min | 4 months ago

"kagan roberts" Discussed on Fresh Air

"The real truth the answer to this Yeah. A great question. I mean free speech is a precious rate. I think the question I have right now is whether this very sunny vision that there's a marketplace of ideas and the better ideas are going to win out whether that's really true especially in the Internet era. So one of the problems online is that we know from research that lies often go viral faster than truth probably because there's something novel about them and we also have this reality on the Internet where the algorithms that platforms like facebook us they are set to maximize what? Call what's called engagement they wanNA keep you online and what they've learned over the years is that the content that tends to keep people clicking sharing hot content it's content that generates outrage and that is not necessarily very healthy for a democracy. There's also nothing neutral about it. It's about the profits of these tech companies. It's not about any kind of notion of like the best content rising up and getting the most attention or the most convincing argument, and so the scholars who I've been talking to for my peace, what they were concerned about is that We have this First Amendment that is very, very good at protecting us against government censorship. We have lots of rules set up the government can't interfere with your speech and they're really good reasons for that. You don't want the government telling me what you can say if the government thinks an idea is bad and turns out to be wrong and shuts down to beat that's not good for democracy but in this age of this flooding tide. Of Disinformation, should we have a first amendment? They can also figure out how to address that particular problem the problem of troll armies online that are trying to distract listeners and confuse them, and often really damage people's reputations, and so the question is you know once you have people using speech as a tool to suppress other speech than what do you do about the fact that that's very challenging for our American First Amendment to really address. We've had the first. Amendment for. More than two hundred years for a long time, it didn't really function to protect free speech. There was a lot of official oppression of ideas regarded as patriotic or troublesome. But in this century, we've really come a long way really haven't towards insisting that. Even the most loathsome speech is to be protected Nazis marching in skokie Illinois. Yes. That is the American tradition that it's much better to air bad ideas and address them than it is to try to force them underground because then people will hold onto them and they will also feel aggrieved at the government for not letting them speak. That is absolutely the American theory of protecting, for example, hate speech. And we've also seen the notions of free speech taken in a different direction where. Political spending is defined as speech, which is protected and corporations can adopt some of the protections of the first. Amendment his that distorted the way it works. Yeah. So I, think UC's starting in the nineteen seventies. The Supreme Court start to protect corporate campaign spending right alongside individual donations and you know in a world after citizens united the twenty ten supreme court decision you really have corporate spending on elections treated on par in terms of the protection of the First Amendment with the shouting of protesters and I think that what you see here is that This supreme court has required the state to treat alike categories of speakers, meaning corporations and individuals, and that goes way past preventing the government from discriminating based on the viewpoint. The identity of an individual speaker rate in means something really different to see that to say that a corporation has the same right to speak the same rate to give money took two candidates as an individual especially because corporations have proved to have such vast resources and to be really good. At spending, what's called dark money money on in political races where we can't trace the origin of it we don't really know who is speaking. So loudly with this paid political speech and so one of the law professors I talked to for my piece Robert. Pose. To teachers at Yale, he was arguing that the problem with this corporate power that we've the way in which the First Amendment has really been weaponized by corporations in the words of Justice Elena Kagan. Robert Post from Yellow School is arguing that the real problem here is we've lost sight of the idea that the purpose of free speech is to further. Democratic participation. What are the things that I think we've long relied upon to to deal with inaccuracies in the media is that? You know our our media would compete not simply for ratings or circulation, but on accuracy I mean if. If there was some somebody had a story out there which got something drastically wrong another paper or Electronic outlet might take some pride in setting the record straight. Does that just no longer happen Still happen in the mainstream media and actually in the liberal media and I'm going to go back to some of the researchers from the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard. They did this huge study of four million news stories and all the links they had on the Internet in twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen for the most part and what they found is that what you're describing this kind of competition among media outlets for factual accuracy, they call it a reality check dynamic and they say we can see that happening all the time in the mainstream media. The New York, times get something wrong. The Washington Post comes along and says, no, here's why that's a mistake and that reality check dynamic it's still allows for significant partisanship like. By? No means is the media perfect or perfectly balanced but it is a consignia constraint on disinformation. The problem is that in this rate wing media ecosystem that we were talking about earlier especially, Fox and talk radio hosts like rush limbaugh you don't have that same kind of competition for factual accuracy. Those outlets don't really challenge each other on facts and they're much more likely to pick up and kind of recycle a false narrative than they are to bunket or even to admit themselves that they've gotten something wrong. You know this will strike some listeners as. A partisan comet using there's independent evidence that the conservative media or less interested in factual accuracy. For at least they're behaving in that way and yes, I'm sure it will strike some of your listeners as as partisan and I wish it wasn't true. It would be much better for our democracy if we didn't have this symmetry where we had disinformation being propagated in the right wing media and not in the mainstream liberal media because then we could address it altogether. But this is the reality that research has really shown and confirmed that we have this two different modes of operation and so I felt the journalists like I have to report those facts that are accurate even though they're politically inconvenient. Do these social media platforms have any responsibility for the content that others post on them can can they be sued for?.

facebook Robert Post Supreme Court Washington Post skokie Illinois Justice Elena Kagan official Berkman Klein Center at Harvar Yale New York UC Fox Yellow School limbaugh
"kagan roberts" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

07:12 min | 4 months ago

"kagan roberts" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"That's been really studying these networks of disinformation, and what they have found is that since President Trump's election they often these campaigns really begin or centered in the more elite media because President Trump now that he's president has the power to really Use that media and make it a kind of party press as the Harvard researchers have found, So this is, in their words, a more elite driven mass media led process than it was before the 2016 election. And you also write that this spreading of you know, lies and conspiracy theories isn't meant to win the battle of ideas, but kind of prevent the battle from being fought. What do you mean? Well, I mean that there's just so much overwhelming information, the distortions, the anger and coded in them, and there is much about creating chaos and confusion. As they are about any particular idea or set of facts, And I think that part of the goal here is to make people who are nonpartisan, just kind of exhausted and skeptical and just cynical about politics writ large. So I don't necessarily think that the people spinning this notion of the Democratic who really think that's happening. It's more just this idea that you're sowing distrust. You don't know what's happening around you. Any source of information could prove to be true or false. Ah, conspiracy theory might sound outlandish. But who knows? And those kinds of question marks when you start raising them in the minds of voters that becomes really hard for them to sort out and and exhausting in a way that discourages people from participating in the democracy. So we have had this idea for a long time that You know, free speech is precious and that the answer to bad speech or hateful speech is not censorship but more speech. And you say that a number of scholars are beginning to rethink this. Why? Why aren't just aggressive fact checking? And, you know Maur speech, which which gets at the real truth, The answer to this. Yeah, It's a great question. I mean free speech is a precious right. I think the question I have right now is whether this very sunny vision that there's a marketplace of ideas and the better ideas. They're goingto win out. Whether that's really true, especially in the Internet era. So one of the problems online is that we know from research that lies often go viral faster than truth, probably because there's something novel about them. And we also have this reality on the Internet, where the algorithms that platforms like Facebook used their set to maximize what call What's called engagement. They want to keep you online. And what they've learned over the years is that the content that tends to keep people clicking and sharing is hot content, its content that generates outrage and that is not necessarily very healthy for a democracy. There's also nothing neutral about it. It's about the profits of these tech companies. It's not about any kind of notion of like the best content rising up in getting the most attention or the most convincing argument. And so the scholars who I've been talking to for my piece. What they were concerned about is that we have this first amendment that is very, very good at protecting us against government censorship. We have lots of rules set up. The government can't interfere with your speech. And they're really good reasons for that. You don't want the government telling you what you can say if the government thinks an idea is bad and turns out to be wrong and shuts down debate. That's not good for democracy. But in this age of this flooding tide of disinformation should we have a first Amendment that can also figure out how to address that particular problem? The problem of, you know, troll armies online that are trying to distract listeners and confused then And often really damage people's reputations. And so the question is, you know, once you have people using speech as a tool to suppress other speech Then what do you do about the fact that that's very challenging for our American First Amendment to really address? You know, we've had the First Amendment for you no more than 200 years, but for a long time, it didn't really function to protect free speech. There was a lot of official oppression of Idea's regarded as unpatriotic or troublesome, But in this century, we've really come a long way. Really. Haven't we towards insisting that even the most loathsome speeches to be protected Nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois? Yes, that is the American tradition that it's much better to air, bad ideas and address them than it is to try to force them underground because then people will hold on to them. And they will also feel aggrieved at the government for not letting them speak. That is absolutely the American theory of protecting, for example, hate speech. And we've also seen the notions of free speech taken in a different direction. Where Political spending is defined as speech, which is protected, and corporations can adopt some of the protections of the First Amendment has that distorted the way it works? Yeah. So I think you see, starting in the 19 seventies, the Supreme Court start to protect corporate campaign spending right alongside individual donations and you know, in a world after citizens united, the 2010 Supreme Court decision You really have corporate spending on elections treated on par in terms of the protection of the First Amendment with the shouting of protesters, and I think that what you see here is that The Supreme Court has required the state to treat alike categories of speakers, meaning corporations and individuals. And that goes way past preventing the government from discriminating based on the viewpoint or the identity of an individual speaker. Right. It means something really different to see that to say that a corporation has the same right to speak the same right to give money took two candidates. As an individual, especially because corporations have proved to have such vast resource is and to be really good at spending. What's called dark money money in political races where we can't trace the origin of it. We don't really know who is speaking so loudly to us with this paid political speech. Um And so one of the law professors talk Teo for my piece Robert posed to teaches at Yale. He was arguing that the problem with this corporate power that we've the way in which the First Amendment has really been weaponized by corporations, in the words of justice Elena Kagan. Robert Post from Yale Law School was arguing that the real problem here is we've lost sight of the idea that the purpose of free speech is to further democratic participation. Take a break here. Let me introduce you. We are speaking with Emily Bazelon. She's a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine. Her cover story in this week's issue is the problem of free speech in an age of disinformation. We'll continue our conversation after this short break. This is fresh air..

President Trump Supreme Court president Facebook Emily Bazelon Harvard Skokie Yale Law School Maur Robert Post Illinois Elena Kagan staff writer Yale official The New York Times Magazine
"kagan roberts" Discussed on KTTH 770AM

KTTH 770AM

02:25 min | 2 years ago

"kagan roberts" Discussed on KTTH 770AM

"To the bottom of it. Okay. Yes. I I will we get to the bottom of it. We could very easily if aired on the Turkish dictator was able to just release all the material they say, they have collected including tapes and photographs and documentary evidence. And meanwhile, there is a shakeup underway in terms of the Saudi government one of the things that people are talking about now. Is a way that the regime survives, which is important. And maybe with more cautious leadership. Then Mohammed bin Salman. Now. I know it's not popular to talk about that. Because part of what people in the west light about Mohammed bin Salman is that he wasn't cautious. Then on so many of these issues opening up movie theaters. Allowing women to drive getting the Islamic police office streets. He did seem to be a reformer. There's a powerful piece in the Washington Post today by Donald Kagan and. It actually makes the point that for years and years we've had this kind of mistaken belief is by Robert Kagan. I'm sorry. The son of Donald Kagan. Robert Kagan makes the point that with Hitler and Mussalini and many other people's we always thought that well, you need a dictatorial figure. Somebody ruthless to help modernize. A a very backward and benighted regime, and of course, those guys didn't work out. Well, the the point to say the least the point about all of this is it right now. I I don't think it's should be up to us to try to decide what kind of government Saudi Arabia should have it should be up to us to end to our president. To look after the interests of the United States, our economy, our foreign policy, and the idea that well, we can just blow up the relationship with Saudi Arabia. I think is a mistake a quick word from relieffactor when we.

Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Salman Saudi government Saudi Arabia Mohammed Washington Post United States president Hitler
"kagan roberts" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

03:09 min | 2 years ago

"kagan roberts" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"Because. A great group of people in Turkey right now. At a great group of people. Saudi arabia. We will know very to. We have tremendously talented people that do this very, well, they're coming back tonight tomorrow, and I will know very soon as I am not satisfied with what I've heard. Randall ran has ideas, I agree with random a lot of things. I don't wanna lose all of that investment. That's being made in our gut. I don't wanna lose the million jobs. I don't wanna lose a hundred and ten million dollars in terms of investment. But it's really four hundred fifty billion if you other than military, so that's very important. But we're going to get to the bottom of it. Okay. Yes. I I will we get to the bottom of it. We could very easily if aired on one the Turkish dictator was able to just release all the material they say, they have collected including tapes and photographs and documentary evidence. And meanwhile, there is a shakeup underway in terms of the Saudi government one of the things that people are talking about now. Is a way that the regime survives, which is important. And maybe with more cautious leadership. Then Mohammed bin Salman. Now. I know it's not popular talk about that. Because. People in the west light about Mohammed bin Salman is that he wasn't cautious. Then on so many of these issues opening up movie theaters. Allowing women to drive getting the Islamic police off the streets. He did seem to be a reformer. There's a powerful piece in the Washington Post today by Donald Kagan and. It actually makes the point that for years and years we've had this kind of mistaken belief is by Robert Kagan. I'm sorry. The son of Donald Kagan. Robert Kagan makes the point that with Hitler and Mussolini and many other people's we always thought that well, you need a dictatorial figures. Somebody ruthless to help modernize. A a very backward and be United regime, and of course, those guys didn't work out. Well, the the point to say the least the point about all of this is that right now, I don't think it should be up to us to try to decide what kind of government Saudi Arabia should have it should be up to us to end to our president. To look after the interests of the United States, our economy, our foreign policy, and the idea that well, we can just blow up the relationship with Saudi Arabia. I think is a mistake a quick word from relieffactor when we.

Saudi arabia Saudi government Salman Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Turkey Mohammed Washington Post Randall United States United president Hitler Mussolini ten million dollars
"kagan roberts" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

02:25 min | 2 years ago

"kagan roberts" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

"Of it. Okay. Yes. I I will we get to the bottom of it. We could very easily if aired on the Turkish dictator was able to just release all the material vase say they've collected including tapes and photographs and documentary evidence. And meanwhile, there is a shakeup underway in terms of the Saudi government one of the things that people are talking about now. Is a way that the regime survives, which is important. And maybe with more cautious leadership. Then Mohammed bin Salman. Now. I know it's not popular to talk about that. Because part of what people in the west light about Mohammed bin Salman is that he wasn't cautious. Then on so many of these issues opening movie theaters. Allowing women to drive getting the Islamic police off the streets. He did seem to be a reformer. There's a powerful piece in the Washington Post today by Donald Kagan and. It actually makes the point that for years and years we've had this kind of mistaken belief is by Robert Kagan. I'm sorry. The son of Donald Kagan. Robert Kagan makes the point that with Hitler and Mussolini and many other people's we always thought that well, you need a dictatorial figures. Somebody ruthless to help modernize. A very backward and benighted regime, and of course, those guys didn't work out. Well, the the pot to say the least the point about all of this is that right now, I I don't think it's should be up to us to try to decide what kind of government Saudi Arabia should have it should be up to us to end to our president. To look after the interests of the United States, our economy, our foreign policy, and the idea that well, we can just blow up the relationship with Saudi Arabia. I think is a mistake a quick word from relieffactor when we.

Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Salman Saudi government Saudi Arabia Mohammed Washington Post United States president Hitler Mussolini
"kagan roberts" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

02:26 min | 2 years ago

"kagan roberts" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"But we're going to get to the bottom of it. Okay. Yes. I I will we get to the bottom of it. We could very easily if air to one the Turkish dictator was able to just to release all the material vase say they have collected including tapes and photographs and documentary evidence. And meanwhile, there is a shakeup underway in terms of the Saudi government one of the things that people are talking about now. Is a way that the regime survives, which is important. And maybe with more cautious leadership. Then Mohammed bin Salman. Now. I know it's not popular to talk about that. Because part of what people in the west light about Mohammed bin Salman is that he wasn't cautious. Then on so many of these issues opening up movie theaters. Allowing women to drive getting the Islamic police off the streets. He did seem to be a reformer. There's a powerful piece in the Washington Post today by Donald Kagan and. It actually makes the point that for years and years we've had this kind of mistaken belief is by Robert Kagan. I'm sorry. The son of Donald Kagan. Robert Kagan makes the point that with Hitler and Mussolini and many other people's we always thought that. Well, you need a dicta- to'real figures. Somebody ruthless to help modernize. A a very backward and benighted regime, and of course, those guys didn't work out. Well, the the to say the least the point about all of this is that right now, I don't think it should be up to us to try to decide what kind of government Saudi Arabia should have. It should be up to us to end to our president. To look after the interests of the United States, our economy, our foreign policy, and the idea that well, we can just blow up the relationship with Saudi Arabia. I think is a mistake a quick word from relieffactor when we.

Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Salman Saudi government Saudi Arabia Mohammed Washington Post president United States Hitler Mussolini
"kagan roberts" Discussed on 1170 The Answer

1170 The Answer

02:23 min | 2 years ago

"kagan roberts" Discussed on 1170 The Answer

"Okay. Yes. I I will we get to the bottom of it. We could very easily if aired on the Turkish dictator was able to just release all the material they say, they have collected including tapes and photographs and documentary evidence. And meanwhile, there is a shakeup underway in terms of the Saudi government one of the things that people are talking about now. Is a way that the regime survives, which is important. And maybe with more cautious leadership. Then Mohammed bin Salman. Now. I know it's not popular to talk about that. Because part of what people in the west light about Mohammed bin Salman is that he wasn't cautious. Then on so many of these issues opening movie theaters. Allowing women to drive getting the Islamic police off the streets. He did seem to be a reformer. There's a powerful piece in the Washington Post today by Donald Kagan and. It actually makes the point that for years and years we've had this kind of mistaken belief is by Robert Kagan. I'm sorry. The son of Donald Kagan. Robert Kagan makes the point that with Hitler and Mussolini and many other people's we always thought that well, you need a a dictatorial figures. Somebody ruthless to help modernize. A very backward and benighted regime, and of course, those guys didn't work out. Well, the the point to say the least the point about all of this is it right now. I don't think it's should be up to us to try to decide what kind of government Saudi Arabia should have. It should be up to us to end to our president. To look after the interests of the United States are Konami our foreign policy and the idea that well, we can just blow up the relationship with Saudi Arabia. I think is a mistake a quick word from relieffactor when we.

Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Salman Saudi government Saudi Arabia Mohammed Washington Post Konami president United States Hitler Mussolini
"kagan roberts" Discussed on The 45th

The 45th

03:46 min | 2 years ago

"kagan roberts" Discussed on The 45th

"Cabinet said, if we remember back in the day before the doctor Ford's testimony, he said the supreme court Justice should be neutral, should be neutral arbiter in unpire. But then during the right after doctor testified, he said off his own written words that he wrote what goes around comes around. And he also said, this was all part of, you know, a smear campaign done by the Clintons and the left that dude is now the deciding fifth vote, and so your your optimism, I shared it for like maybe two seconds, but I'm like, no knocked them. Yeah. And he, you know, he, he's cherry picked by the federalist you know he was can starts hatchet man during the Clinton impeachment. I mean, e she's like primarily political operative. He is Gorsuch is different. I don't like such a lotteries, but like Gorsuch as much more traditional in terms of his sucking. If I mean like sake for what I want to see happen, but otherwise does not have like a pardon history like like Kavanagh's Kavanagh's born out of parts. Cavanagh was born of tar Gatien Gorsuch it's just a really conservative. I cavenaugh is a part of the, I injure second. And so with Roberts the hope and Roberts is because Roberts if we remember was at saving for ObamaCare, it one, five, four and Kennedy people forget even though he, I mean it shady what he did. I, yeah, I, there's a lot of mixed on that. A lot of legal commentators attended, you know, it's not as it's not shady. It's, you know, it's being hype. I without endorsing it all the more extreme stuff going on. Twitter, that was all nonsense he did is inappropriate and damaging long-term to the viability report. And that's why was shady. It wasn't giving credence in conspiracy, but my thing that you know the fact is. His role in cabinet office, you know. But candy, people forget is a Republican who also was the deciding vote on some major cases and Republican. Never forgave him for Wade. They never forgave him for that. And also he's the one who wrote the very stirring and beautiful opinion. Legalize will give marriage equality, but everyone's now turning their eyes to Roberts. I don't see a, but apparently I was reading Kagan Roberts or having conversation about, hey, no one's going to respect the court. The majority of Americans will see us as a legitimate and, oh, by the way, where Coequal branch of government. But I, I just don't have faith in cabinet after his performance. You should believe people when they show you for who they are. I also think there's a range of ways he could rule and decide an issue. It's not necessarily true my guess that he would, but it is. It was possible. He would not overturn Roe v, Wade, give an opportunity. He could find another way to undercut it. An entrepreneur Tackett my guess is he'll overturn it, but I would not call it a foregone conclusion as point at say, for practical purposes, it's close to foregone, but there may be some shreds of at leftover, which will be good thing because offals would be there's a way could take down rookie weighed that wouldn't take down all the other host of rights built on. That's my, that's my office to cope right now is they take away weighed in a way that doesn't of this rate. Everything came before it will gut the gut it, and then the states, especially the red states are going to do everything their power to completely eliminate any clinics see this. It's not even stop there. I really don't think that the endgame endgame federal laws opposing one is access to healthcare. That's the end game..

Kagan Roberts Wade Clintons Kennedy Cabinet tar Gatien Gorsuch Gorsuch Ford Kavanagh Twitter unpire Cavanagh Clinton Coequal Roe offals two seconds
"kagan roberts" Discussed on Timesuck with Dan Cummins

Timesuck with Dan Cummins

01:31 min | 2 years ago

"kagan roberts" Discussed on Timesuck with Dan Cummins

"I had to love you keep on sucking. I love you, Andrew, man. That is fucking hilarious. I would just imagine my because how do you talk your way out of that. Right? And let us know, man, like what? What happened after that? Because your hands are full just the most. It's not like a song doesn't sound like a news just who they're bitchy. Geez. This is crazy, horrible. Sadistic domination, fantasy starts playing out of your phone and then like, do you just do us like it's a podcast, but no, it's not. It's not like that kind like a comedy history. Like a part of you want to just drop everything and just run and then just never go back there ever again. Okay. And now another, that was the toy box Co. now we have an old. This is from BT k. an update that Reverend Dr Joe paisley. He, he sent me. He was helping out with some some Instagram messages doing some checks and check out what he found. I want to share this home. I guess here we go. I'm pulling it up. It was just too hard to to transcribe this morning, so. Okay. So Kagan Roberts wrote in this is a BT k. update about how an encounter he had saying, hey, just wanted to say, I'm a huge fan. Just found your podcast. We've go since deployed. Thank you again for your service Kate. We get a lot of downtime and you help suck the time. Just listen to your podcast about BT k..

Dr Joe paisley Kagan Roberts Andrew toy box Co. Instagram Kate