Science, Technology, Politics, and other random stuff
A favorite statistic of right wing austerity advocates turned out to be based on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet error which “The Colbert Report” and “All in with Chris Hayes” explained last week had significant negative policy consequences both in the US and Europe, as I show in this video.
[x]
NYT Op-ed Columnist Paul Krugman
Four years ago, as a newly elected president began his efforts to rescue the economy and strengthen the social safety net, conservative economic pundits — people who claimed to understand markets and know how to satisfy them — warned of imminent financial disaster. Stocks, they declared, would plunge, while interest rates would soar.
Even a casual trawl through the headlines of the time turns up one dire pronouncement after another. “Obama’s radicalism is killing the Dow,” warned an op-ed article by Michael Boskin, an economic adviser to both Presidents Bush. “The disciplinarians of U.S. policy makers return,” declared The Wall Street Journal, warning that the “bond vigilantes” would soon push Treasury yields to destructive heights.
Sure enough, this week the Dow Jones industrial average has been hitting all-time highs, while the current yield on 10-year U.S. government bonds is roughly half what it was when The Journal published that screed.
O.K., everyone makes a bad prediction now and then. But these predictions have special significance, and not just because the people who made them have had such a remarkable track record of error these past several years.
The reality is that we had low debt and no fiscal problem before Reagan; then an unprecedented surge in peacetime, non-depression deficits under Reagan/Bush; then a major improvement under Clinton; then a squandering of the Clinton surplus via tax cuts and unfunded wars of choice under Bush. And yes, a surge in debt once the Great Recession hit, but that’s exactly when you should be running deficits.
The point about the fake history that expunges the Clinton years is that it turns the budget into a story in which nobody is at fault because everyone is at fault, and the problem is a generic issue of runaway spending. No, it isn’t; we would have come into this crisis with very little debt if the GOP hadn’t always insisted on tax cuts.
This is not complicated.
Youtuber CGPGrey explains the U.S. debt limit or ceiling.
(Source: youtube.com)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren has introduced a bill to amend the CFAA, which is the law that federal prosecutors used to prosecute Aaron Swartz. A PDF of the proposed legislation can be found here. The amendment changes the language of the CFAA so that mere violation of a website’s terms of service can no longer be construed as a federal felony.
That’s right. Did you know that violating a website’s Terms of Service could make you a felon and subject you to up to 20 years in prison? If you didn’t, don’t worry: you’re probably no different than most Americans. That’s because the CFAA doesn’t actually state expressly that violating a website’s Terms of Service is a crime under the CFAA. Here is the relevant language of one of the statutes in question:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Whoever … knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value … shall be punished … [with fines or imprisonment up to 20 years depending on the specific provision violated…]
Federal prosecutors used these incredibly broad statutes to charge Aaron Swartz with 13 felonies for doing no more than breaching a website’s Terms of Service—or rather, breaching a contractual agreement.
To give you an idea of how absurd this is, consider the following: when you agree to a website’s Terms of Service, you are entering into a contract. Breach of Contract is traditionally a civil wrong, meaning that you can be held liable for economic damages, but not for criminal penalties. Even Fraud is traditionally a tort: it is a civil wrong that makes you economically liable to the injured party, but does not subject you to criminal penalties.
Federal prosecutors used the overbroad language of the CFAA to turn a civil wrong into a federal felony. What should have been a private right of action was turned into a serious federal criminal offense by federal prosecutors with an ax to grind. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 9-2 en banc opinion, decided in April of last year that Federal prosecutors should not be using the anti-hacking provisions of the CFAA to prosecute what amounts to a civil wrong:
In the case of the CFAA, the broadest provision is subsection 1030(a)(2)(C), which makes it a crime to exceed authorized access of a computer connected to the Internet without any culpable intent. Were we to adopt the government’s proposed interpretation, millions of unsuspecting individuals would find that they are engaging in criminal conduct.
Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is only binding within their West-coast jurisdiction, and thus was not applicable to Aaron Swartz’ prosecution.
How is it possible for prosecutors to use such vastly broad interpretations of federal law to charge people with crimes? There are various reasons for this, but several prominent factors come to mind. In a recent HuffPo article, Radley Balko discussed the vast power that is now wielded by American prosecutors. Balko notes that prosecutors derive much of their power from two chief sources: the ever-expanding number of criminal provisions that overpopulate the nation’s law books, and the deterioration of traditional legal protections that protected criminal defendants at trial—namely, the ancient requirement that a person intend to commit a criminal act in order to be found guilty:
There has also been a trend over the last 20 years or so toward laws that don’t require prosecutors to show criminal intent. This means you can be prosecuted for crimes you had no idea you were breaking — even laws you actively tried not to break. A 2010 study co-authored by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Heritage Foundation found that in its rush to criminalize more and more behavior, Congress has been passing poorly-drafted laws that increasingly lack any requirement at all to show intent. Even when intent is included, the study found, it tends to be vague and open to interpretation (which also means open to abuse) by prosecutors.
This all means that, as a practical matter, “If a prosecutor has it out for you, he can probably find a law he can plausibly argue you’ve broken.”
Balko is not the first one to describe this problem. On previous occasions, I’ve noted the Judge Posner’s remarks from a 1998 case in which he observed the increasingly obscure complexity of the federal criminal code:
The federal criminal code contains thousands of separate prohibitions, many ridiculously obscure, such as the one against using the coat of arms of Switzerland in advertising, or using “Johnny Horizon” as a trade name without the authorization of the Department of the Interior…
The problem was also discussed by civil rights lawyer Harvey Silvergate, who noted in his 2010 book that federal criminal statutes have become so vague and obscure that the average person arguably commits three felonies a day without even realizing it.
Lofgren’s bill is an urgently needed amendment that will prevent federal prosecutors from using the CFAA to convert a civil wrong into a serious criminal act. Prosecutors have a lot of power, but at the end of the day, they must still abide by the law. This bill is a small chip in the massive marble column that is the federal criminal code, and I urge you to support it.
Obviously, the answer is more guns.
In news that’s not The Onion, on the one-month anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre, the NRA released a brand-new iOS game called “NRA: Practice Range,” which is available for free on the iPhone and iPad. The game is rated for ages four and up.
Seriously.
It’s described as “a 3D shooting game that instills safe and responsible ownership through fun challenges and realistic simulations. It strikes the right balance of gaming and safety education.”
Oh, but remember this gem:
“But is that what it really is? Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?
…
A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.”That was NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre at a Dec. 21, 2012 press conference blaming violent media and video games for causing mass shootings like Sandy Hook. Essentially, after spending the past month blaming shooting games for mass shootings, the NRA released a target shooting game for those aged 4+ on the one-month anniversary of one of the worst mass shootings in America that claimed the lives of 27 people, including 20 children.
Still with me?
According to Kotaku, the game has three modes, and in all of them “you get to pick a weapon and use it to shoot moving targets. You can use handguns and shotguns. You can also buy an AK47 assault rifle for just $0.99, which is a very good deal for an AK47 assault rifle. Other weapons, like an MK11 sniper rifle, also cost $0.99 each.”
But it’s not just shootin’, it’s learnin’! Kotaku continues: “And then there is the best part. As you play NRA: Practice Range, you’ll see NRA Fun Facts™ like ‘The NRA sanctions or sponsors over 11,000 shooting competitions and 50 shooting championships each year!’ and ‘NRA programs train over 750,000 gun owners each year!’ These NRA Fun Facts™ are also free and available to kids ages four and up.”
So that makes it okay, amirite? /sarcasm
Congress (Democratic Senate + Republican House): let’s pass a set of laws that set taxes at this much money (Y), and spending at this much money (Z).
President: OK.
Congress: Hey: why are you asking us to borrow so much money?
President: Because you told me I could collect Y amount of dollars in taxes but had to spend Z amount of dollars in spending on stuff, and there wasn’t enough Y money to pay for everything in the Z column.
Republicans in House: How dare you? We won’t allow you to borrow any more money!
President: But you ordered me to spend it when you passed the authorization bills, all of which were passed in the Republican-controlled House as well as the Democratic-controlled Senate. Vendors have already provided goods and services on credit. What am I supposed to do? Not pay them?
Republicans: How dare you borrow so much money!
President: I give up. Anyone got a quarter I can write $1 trillion on and send it to the Federal Reserve?
Saw this floating around Facebook - if anyone you know posts it let them know this:
“This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson.”
“Earliest known appearance in print: 1989”
Source: Monticello.org
LTMC: It has always shocked me how many of the very same people who claim to have their finger on the pulse of the Founding generation never fail to misquote or misattribute them on a regular basis. The sad thing is that there are other quotations from Jefferson’s writings that arguably—emphasis on the arguably—support the proposition in question. But why bother doing the actual research when you can just make shit up?
Related: 8 Historical Symbols That Mean The Opposite Of What You Think They Mean (See #5: Thomas Paine).
This. So much this.
