Old Fucking Punk @lwriemen@librem.one

It's Kids vs. the World in a Landmark New Climate Lawsuit
https://earther.gizmodo.com/its-kids-vs-the-world-in-a-landmark-new-climate-lawsui-1838343565 #climatechange #climatecrisis

The Swiss Just Held a Funeral for a Dead Glacier
https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-swiss-just-held-a-funeral-for-a-dead-glacier-1838358879 #climatechange #climatecrisis

A CAP Analyst’s Red-Baiting Book Accidentally Makes the Case for Socialism

To experience socialismis akin to being slowly boiled alive—so awful, our protective instincts would kick in to help us escape before its dangers overtook us.

Or so The Public Option: How to Expand Freedom, Increase Opportunity and Promote Equality tells us. Co-authors Ganesh Sitaraman and Anne L. Alstott present this book as an unblinkered analysis of how we might guide public policy toward greater equality in the presumptively Trump-free years ahead. Intended to jumpstart “a national conversation about what we owe each other,” the book defines and defends the concept of the “public option,” explores past and current examples, and proposes new possibilities, from childcare to retirement savings to higher ed and beyond. The book shines an important spotlight on the benefits that government-controlled programs can provide for the general public. And yet, the authors offer a red-baiting dismissal of socialism so outrageous it’s almost funny. Sitaraman and Alstott define a public option as a program that “guarantees access to important services at a controlled price” and “coexists (or could co-exist) with private provision of the same service.” The U.S. Postal Service, for instance, “provides mail service to everyone at a reasonable price, and it covers even remote (and urban) areas that private firms shun.” They emphasize, however, that their goal is not to challenge capitalism but “to improve markets in cases where they aren’t competitive or are founded on toxic inequality.”

It’s encouraging that public options are being discussed on the Left as a potential solution to economic inequality, especially in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election. But, as the healthcare debate highlights, there is fierce tension within the Democratic Party about whether the government should offer a public option within an otherwise privatized market (advocated by centrists such as Joe Biden) or do away with private options altogether in favor of universal programs like Medicare for All (a plan Sen. Bernie Sanders has openly called “democratic socialism”). The fact that the centrist Democratic position is a public option marks a significant shift to the left in the party’s politics—in 2009, a push to include a public option in Obamacare failed—but supporters of Medicare for All argue that private options perpetuate inequality because private corporations will always prioritize profits over the well-being of people.

The liberal Center for American Progress (CAP), a policy institute closely allied with the center-liberal Democratic establishment, has been a flashpoint for intraparty debates, and healthcare is no exception. Rather than supporting Medicare for All, CAP strongly favors a plan called Medicare Extra, which would create a public option while maintaining private insurance. It’s worth noting that Sitaraman is a senior fellow at CAP. He is also a former policy director for (and now “longtime advisor” to) presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who wavered between a public option and single-payer before unequivocally signing on to Sanders’ Medicare for All plan in June. Sitaraman’s role on Warren’s campaign has raised concern among progressives about her commitment to left principles—as has her proclamation that she is a capitalist.

Enter The Public Option, which could be seen as a shot across the bow by centrist Democrats who want to embrace the role of government while swearing off socialism. Sitaraman and Alstott assure readers that, contrary to urban myth,

Frogs, like people, are completely capable of telling the difference between cold, warm and boiling water. And when the water gets too hot, frogs jump out. Public options aren’t designed to be socialism, and if they’re starting to become socialistic—or if someone proposes socialism under the guise of public options—everyone will be able to tell the difference, and then jump out.

It’s particularly galling that The Public Option disregards socialism with this rhetorical sleight-of-hand, given how the book never actually defines the bugaboo of socialism. Arguably, “socialism” is like “democracy”—a term defined by its advocates more as a direction and aspiration than as a simple program. While there’s no soundbite-friendly definition—not in Jacobin’s eloquent but lengthy socialist primer nor the Democratic Socialists of America platform—socialism, as understood by its friends and foes alike, runs counter to capitalism, with the goal of minimizing corporate and elite economic and political power.

As a central part of their argument, Sitaraman and Alstott wax rhapsodic about government-supported programs that have historically promoted public welfare by offering free or low-cost services: libraries, land-grant colleges, 30-year fixed mortgages, Social Security, Medicare. From their book’s first paragraph:

We stop by the local post office to mail a letter, without reflecting on the public support that makes it possible to send that letter anywhere in the country for less than a dollar. We drop our kids at the public school and take the subway, train or highway to work. Many of us have attended state universities, and many more have vacationed at a national park or cooled off at a public swimming pool. And we count on Social Security and Medicare to provide security for us after we retire.

Bernie Sanders calls such government offerings “socialism”; Sitaraman and Alstott call them “public options.” Sanders is correct. Though there may be private options available—e.g., public libraries versus bookstores—these public programs were not designed with that competition in mind. In keeping with socialism, they exist separate from and outside the private market, intended simply to serve the public good.

And yet The Public Option bends over backward to avoid the dastardly taint of socialism. Whether this verbal runaround is intended to win over moderates isn’t clear, but what does become clear is that the authors, almost despite themselves, have faith in the market. They hope their proposed public options will drive the worst players in the private sector out of business.

As friends of capitalism, Sitaraman and Alstott insist they don’t want to kill the beast, just tame it. Yet in their eagerness to win converts across the political spectrum, they mislead. They count Social Security and Medicare as much-beloved public “options”—optional only because the devout, selfemployed Amish can legally opt out. Bizarrely, they also tout Medicare for All as a public option, even though that slogan typically signifies Sanders’ universal single-payer plan without private insurers.

If Social Security and Medicare (and potentially Medicare for All) succeed, it’s because they are not optional; they are essentially mandatory. The privileged cannot simply opt out of paying. These huge programs have correspondingly huge clout and constituency, which allows them to protect the most vulnerable. Importantly, these programs are not run by private corporations, which profit at the expense of others.

Indeed, there is tacit tension between “public” and “option.” Make a program optional, and the public interest is often undermined; the “option” ends up absorbing the more expensive or risky clients rejected by the private sector, raising the public cost while decreasing its quality. Without mandatory universal healthcare coverage to spread the risk among the well and the sick, and to give the government clout to set price controls, the people with chronic health conditions and disabilities get denied coverage because they pose too high a “risk” to private insurers’ profits. This implicit understanding informs the requirement for everyone to be held responsible for paying into Medicare and Medicaid.

Consider charter schools, which raise a host of problems. Even “good” charter schools cause systemic harm: Charters relegate the hardest-to-teach students to the public schools while draining those same schools of resources. The most vulnerable students are made more so. Indeed, though not mentioned in the book, charters actually re-segregated Delaware’s public schools, which had previously achieved remarkable success at desegregation. “Elite” charter school admission prerequisites kept poor Black and Latinx children out.

Private options exacerbate inequality, both by preserving exploitative jobs that could instead be well-paying public jobs, and by drawing consumers away from the public options, thereby draining public resources. Look at the private options competing with public transportation: services like Uber and Lyft. Sitaraman and Alstott cite Uber as exem-plifying the “gig economy”—companies that don’t provide their workers with benefits. Ride-hail drivers are among the many who could benefit from generous government-sponsored public options in healthcare and retirement, the authors note. But ride-hail services also drain fares from the public transit system, leading to less funding and higher overall costs for consumers, who are then driven to use the private services. And since the business model for Uber and Lyft is geared toward an eventual shift to driverless cars, these companies are actively invested in replacing workers with robots. 

To scrutinize the private option is to see the malevolence of capitalism hiding in plain sight. It’s telling that the authors devote a full chapter to fleshing out a “public option” proposal for childcare, and that their proposal is entirely government-operated. Childcare, they assert, is “too important to be left to the high cost and uncertain quality that the private market provides.” Surely, this caution is appropriate to virtually all services basic to a decent life: schooling, healthcare, retirement benefits, eldercare—the list goes on. All of these are vital to our survival. They are all too important to have the private sector screw them up.

It’s human and especially American to want choices. But some choices are scams, dangerous to the public welfare. Private corporations run misleading marketing campaigns, their allegiance not to consumers nor the public, but to their shareholders. Meanwhile, consumers flounder, unable to navigate complex choices in a way that ultimately helps the public good, or even their own good.

Sitaraman and Alstott have opted to promote a “we’re all in this together” vision that emphasizes the power of government to advance the common good. They clearly believe that Western European-style social welfare programs are possible for the United States, just so long as they’re sold as “choices” that will not lead to wrenching upheaval or structural change. Their kumbaya sales pitch has feel-good appeal.

So, yes, let’s re-envision government as an appropriate source of crucial, life-affirming social programs. But maybe we’re not all in this together. Maybe our corporate overlords are perfectly prepared to subvert the public welfare for their own personal gain. And maybe wrenching upheaval looms ahead as climate change roils the planet, bringing even greater power to the rich and misery to the poor. If that’s the future, we’ll want to know all our options. And maybe opt for socialism.

Indigenous People Are Already Working “Green Jobs” — but They’re Unrecognized and Unpaid

From Standing Rock to the Unist’ot’en Camp, land defense and water protection are necessary for the continuation of life on a planet teetering on collapse.

The post Indigenous People Are Already Working “Green Jobs” — but They’re Unrecognized and Unpaid appeared first on The Intercept.

In Next Year’s Biggest Senate Primary, It’s AOC Vs. the Kennedys

Last December, during one of her busy trips down to Washington to prepare for her congressional swearing-in, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grabbed lunch with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). The 29-year-old congresswoman-elect wanted to discuss potential opportunities to collaborate with the 72-year-old political veteran who, in 2009, had authored an ambitious climate bill that passed the House and […]

Letters to the Editor: What Will You Do After the Empire Collapses?

Climate collapse, nuclear war, Trump’s tweets… one way or another, human civilization doesn’t seem long for this world.

Bowling For Soup and Simple Plan detail UK tour

Pop punk veterans Bowling for Soup and Simple Plan have announced they’re getting together for a joint-headline UK tour. The six date tour will take in England and Scotland next February. Tickets for the “Together Again, You’re Welcome” tour go on sale this Friday (September 27th). Details of dates below.  

The post Bowling For Soup and Simple Plan detail UK tour appeared first on Dying Scene.

Black Rain on the Highway of Death

An Iraqi soldier recalls fleeing through hell at the end of the first gulf war.

Busts of the Trumpian Empire

History won’t be kind.

Destined For Empire: The Nib Interviews Masha Gessen

Eleri Harris interviews the author of The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia about the stories empires tell themselves.

Sniper 66 announce Deutschland “Annihilate Tour”

Austin, TX street punks Sniper 66 have announced a 15 day European tour through Germany. Check those dates below. Sniper 66 – Annihilate Tour ~EURO EDITION~ 27/9 Hamburg, DE – Monkeys Music Club (MOIN IT’S HAMBURG FESTIVAL 4) 28/9 Dülmen, DE – Skatepark Dülmen 29/9 Essen, DE – Temple Bar 1/10 Hof, DE – Keller 2/10 Berlin, […]

The post Sniper 66 announce Deutschland “Annihilate Tour” appeared first on Dying Scene.

Part Time Killer streaming new song “System is Using You”

Finnish skate-punks Part Time Killer are streaming their new song “System is Using You”. The song comes off the band’s upcoming yet to be named album. Mastered by Jason Livermore at The Blasting Room, the new album promises to be a gem. Check out the new song below. Part Time Killers released “Notes To Myself” […]

The post Part Time Killer streaming new song “System is Using You” appeared first on Dying Scene.

Nerf Herder returns to Chicago to play inaugural “Merry Punking Christmas”

Punk vets Nerf Herder will return to Chicago for the first time in seventeen long years to play the inaugural “Merry Punking Christmas” at Reggies. Joining Nerf Herder for this, the most joyous of occasions will be: The Copyrights, Dan Vapid & The Cheats, and Capgun Heroes. The show will go down December 7th as […]

The post Nerf Herder returns to Chicago to play inaugural “Merry Punking Christmas” appeared first on Dying Scene.

Cleopatra Records streaming Punk Rock Halloween 2 compilation

Cleopatra Records is streaming their latest installment in the Punk Rock Halloween compilation department Punk Rock Halloween 2. Featuring the likes of The Vandals, Pulley, Down By Law, Tsunami Bomb, and a whole host of other amazing bands covering some of your favorite Halloween classics. Check it out below. Cleopatra Records released Punk Rock Halloween back in 2017. Featuring […]

The post Cleopatra Records streaming Punk Rock Halloween 2 compilation appeared first on Dying Scene.

Who’s Speaking at the U.N. Climate Summit? Several Champions of Coal. https://nyti.ms/34XHbo1 #climatechange #climatecrisis

GOP Leadership Huddles With Fossil Fuel Industry During Climate Week

“Please join us for a Gas and Oil Industry Dinner with Republican Whip Steve Scalise,” read one invitation.

The post GOP Leadership Huddles With Fossil Fuel Industry During Climate Week appeared first on The Intercept.

Bernie Sanders Introduces Plan to Cancel $81 Billion in Medical Debt

Bernie Sanders not only wants to eliminate future medical debt with his plan for Medicare-for-All, he also wants to wipe the slate clean for Americans who already have debt from unpaid medical bills. On Saturday, the Democratic candidate announced an ambitious plan to eliminate $81 billion medical debt for Americans, reform bankruptcy laws, and even […]

Black Flag Concert Turn Into Ticket Mayhem

Last night Black Flag performed at the Wiltern Theater in LA and there was a problem: fans who bought tickets from third-party vendors like StubHub were turned away. There was massive pointing of fingers over this, with TicketMaster saying everyone knew the tickets were nontransferable while the third-party guys said TicketMaster changed the rules 40 […]

New ruling gives legal boost to a key data journalism tool

A recent federal appeals court ruling may be a big win for data journalists and researchers who depend on scraping — the automated collection of data from websites — to collect information on which they report.

The case, involving the professional social networking giant LinkedIn and the data startup hiQ Labs, has been widely discussed in legal circles and the security community, but may be just as significant for journalists.

The legal controversy centers on a database of information that hiQ had scraped from the portion of LinkedIn profiles that were set to be publicly accessible on the web. LinkedIn sought to stop hiQ from accessing that data, sending a letter threatening to sue under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and a handful of other grounds. hiQ then challenged that letter in court. In response, the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco ruled last week that the CFAA likely does not prohibit the scraping of public web pages.

“Permission is not required”

Strictly speaking, the court has not yet definitively ruled on the issues at the heart of hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn. Rather, it said hiQ is likely enough to win on the merits of its argument — including the CFAA question — that LinkedIn must allow the startup to continue scraping while the case continues. It's a bit of a confusing procedural posture, but some takeaways are clear and important.

While CFAA rulings — in this circuit and elsewhere — have become a bit of a contradictory thicket, here the Ninth digs in specifically to the statutory language on authorization, or who can access what. Namely, the CFAA prohibits "exceed[ing] authorized access" to a computer.

The ruling lays out a neat taxonomy of computer information, dividing it into three parts: information for which access is open to the general public and permission is not required; information for which authorization is required and has been given; and information for which authorization is required but has not been given.

Last week’s ruling specifically covers LinkedIn’s publicly available data, which it correctly describes as falling into the first category — one that also includes the vast swath of information available on the public web. LinkedIn had argued that, by sending a cease-and-desist letter, it revoked hiQ’s “authorization” to use the site. The court dispensed with that idea: information that is presumptively available to all requires no special authorization to access, and so there’s no authorization to revoke.

Many journalistic endeavors that involve scraping fall precisely into that first category, which is why the ruling is significant.

Journalists may automate visits to an Inspector General’s web page, to be alerted when there are newly published reports. They may write a script to download all the previous meeting agendas of a community board committee at once, to analyze how often a topic has been discussed. They may back up the online marketing materials for a business they’re reporting on, to monitor whether it quietly makes changes after an expose is published.

Research scraping and the CFAA

For journalists and researchers, web scraping — and other mechanisms of automating computer usage — can be an invaluable source of raw data, but has occasionally hit legal friction, especially around the CFAA.

First Look Media and a collection of academics described bodies of research they were creating, using techniques that include scraping, in a constitutional challenge to the CFAA. First Look’s portion of the complaint was dismissed in 2018, but the ACLU continues to represent plaintiffs who investigate whether sites are systematically discriminating against certain classes of users.
A broad coalition of journalists and researchers, represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute, challenged Facebook to establish a "safe harbor" from CFAA prosecution for activities that include scraping the site or creating temporary accounts. Some courts have allowed plaintiffs to argue that terms-of-service violations also constitute CFAA violations, so the group asked specifically for Facebook to clarify its terms to explicitly allow that behavior.
A team of ProPublica reporters scraped some 80,000 criminal records to compare with data collected through public records requests in order to analyze patterns of discrimination in one component of the prison parole process. Julia Angwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer on that research team, later said of their research, “The CFAA criminalizes practically everything I do in my reporting.”

While these examples don’t deal exclusively with the sort of entirely public web content addressed in the hiQ ruling, they demonstrate both the power of scraping as a tool, and the peril of the CFAA as a threat.

By taking the common-sense position that these activities are “not analogous to ‘breaking-and-entering,’” last week’s ruling provides legal cover for the myriad journalistic uses of public web scraping against the dark cloud of the CFAA.