Archives for category: Safety
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Forbes: It’s Easy to Crack Your Passwords

By dianeravitch
August 3, 2024 //
5

Davey Winder, senior contributor to Forbes, writes about how to keep your passwords safe.

With just a few dollars, a little time, and a smart brute-force guessing algorithm, most passwords can be cracked in much less time than you might imagine. According to a new analysis from the experts at Kaspersky, 59% of 193 million actual passwords were cracked in less than 60 minutes, and 45% were cracked in less than 60 seconds.

The basis of a brute-force attack is where the perpetrator iterates all possible combinations in order to find a match for the password in question. However, Antonov explained, “smart guessing algorithms are trained on a passwords data-set to calculate the frequency of various character combinations and make selections first from the most common combinations and down to the rarest ones.”

Brute Force And Smart-Guessing Combine To Quickly Crack Passwords

Although very popular due to the point-and-fire simplicity of a brute-force attack, it remains suboptimal as far as password-cracking algorithms are concerned. When you consider that the vast majority of passwords in daily use contain similar characteristics involving the combination of dates, names, dictionary words and keyboard sequences, adding these to the guessing-game mix speeds things up considerably.

The Kaspersky study revealed that when it comes to the percentage of passwords crackable in any timeframe using each method, while 10% of the password list analyzed was broken in under a minute by brute force, that increased to 45% when smart-guessing was added to the algorithm. Allowing for between a minute and an hour, the difference was 20% compared to 59%.

The Smart-Guessing Algorithm Advantage Explained

Because humans are creatures of habit, we make for very poor password creators. The truth is that the passwords we choose for ourselves are rarely, if ever, truly random. We rely upon all the things that smart-guessing algorithms are designed to detect: common names and phrases, important dates both personal and historical, and patterns, lots of patterns. To give you an idea of how predictable we are, one YouTube channel took a sample of more than 200,000 people and asked them to choose a ‘random’ number between 1 and 100. Most people gravitated towards the same relatively small set: 7, 37, 42, 69, 73, and 77. Even when trying to be random with character strings, we fail as most people will favor the center of the keyboard for their selection, according to Kaspersky.

“Smart algorithms make short work of most passwords that contain dictionary sequences,” Antonov said, “and they even catch character substitutions.” In other words, using p@ssw0rd instead of password won’t slow the algorithm down that much at all.

How To Strengthen Your Accounts Against Smart-Guessing Algorithm Attack

Kaspersky recommends the following password usage strategy:

Generate strong and truly random passwords using a password manager.

Don’t reuse passwords across sites and services or hacking one basket will enable access to many more eggs.

If you don’t, or won’t, use a password manager, then use mnemonic passphrases rather than dictionary words and numeric combinations.

Don’t save passwords in web browsers.

Use a password manager protected by a strong master password.

Use two-factor authentication for all accounts that support it.

Categories Fraud, Safety, Technology, Computers

Justice Thomas Stands Up For the 2nd Amendment Rights of Violent Spousal Abusers

By dianeravitch
June 26, 2024 //
38

Lucien V. Truscott IV explains Justice Clarence Thomas’ devotion to gun owners.

He writes:

Well, I guess somebody has to stand up for the rights of spousal killers, wife beaters, child abusers, and the Second Amendment, and I’ll just bet you can guess who it is.  Today, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas stepped up and took one for the team, voting alone against the 8-1 decision in United States v. Rahimi that bars people from possessing firearms while they are under domestic violence restraining orders.  Not stripping them of the right to own guns, mind you, but only suspending that right under the Second Amendment until such an asshole can get the restraining order straightened out so he can get his guns back. 


Thomas must be spending so much time in the history stacks in the Fairfax County library, where he lives in Virginia, that they’re probably considering buying a cot for him to take naps on during his long hours of study of our laws in the 1700’s and 1800’s, not to mention old English law and a few ancient Greek statutes he quoted in his Bruen gun rights decision.  Perusing the laws that were in existence at the time of our nation’s founding, Thomas wrote in his dissent in today’s case that “Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue.”  The “statute at issue” suspends the right of those under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns.


Chief Justice John Roberts appears to be the one who convinced four of the other six gun nuts on the court, all of whom voted to allow bump stock equipped machine guns earlier in the week, to join him in at least temporarily coming to their senses.  Roberts was able to somehow resurrect enough common sense on the court that he got enough votes to rule, as the author of the decision, that “an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”  I mean, whoop-de-fucking-doo, but I guess we are in the position of taking them when we can get them, right?

The plaintiff in the case, one Zacky Rahimi, is a convicted drug dealer who had beaten his girlfriend to the ground in a parking lot and was dragging her back to his car when a bystander intervened.  Rahimi fired a shot at the bystander, and the girlfriend took that opportunity to escape.  Rahimi called her later and threatened violence – specifically, he said he would “shoot” her – if she told anyone about the incident. The girlfriend asked a Texas court to issue a restraining order and amazingly they agreed, finding that Rahimi had committed “family violence” and suspended his right to possess guns while the restraining order was in effect. 

Rahimi managed to hang onto enough firearms that he was involved in five shootings in the following months, according to the Supreme Court brief filed by the Biden Department of Justice.  Rahimi was charged with illegal possession of a firearm, was convicted in federal court and sentenced to six years in prison.  But Rahimi continued to argue that his rights under the Second Amendment had been violated.  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Rahimi at his first hearing, but after Justice Thomas wrote the decision in Bruen, ruling that laws restricting firearms had to be rooted in the “history and tradition” of this country, the Fifth Circuit reheard the case and, incredibly, ruled for Rahimi.  Citing the Bruen case a Trump appointee on the court wrote that while the federal law banning people under restraining orders from possessing firearms was “meant to protect vulnerable people in our society…our ancestors would never have accepted” laws against domestic violence.

The decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was unanimous, so Rahimi’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment was restored.

The case was appealed by the DOJ to the Supreme Court, where many legal experts feared it would hit the “history and tradition” brick wall of Thomas’ Bruen decision.  Chief Justice Roberts, however, appeared to back the court away from that decision a bit today.  “Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber,” Roberts wrote. “The Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791.”  Roberts cautioned that if courts hearing gun cases were to consider only laws in existence at the founding of the country, they would find laws dealing with “muskets and sabers.”  Instead, Roberts urged courts that will interpret his decision in the future to consider whether a gun regulation at issue is “relatively similar” to regulations that were in effect closer to the nation’s founding.  “For example,” Roberts wrote, “if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations.”

In the amazingly dull and nearly impenetrable language of the Supreme Court, that comes as close as we will ever get to a relaxation of the Thomas decision in Bruen, which courts like the Fifth Circuit have interpreted as turning back the clock to the way guns were regulated in 1791, which is to say not at all.

That may be why Thomas was the lone dissenter in the decision today, because it took some of the edges off his celebration of guns-for-everybody in the Bruen decision.  Or maybe Thomas, in his history-stacks-diving on domestic violence laws discovered, as he has before, a favorite old English construction of what husbands and domestic partners are permitted to do to the women in their lives:  the “Rule of Thumb.” 

It’s not like this subject hasn’t been dealt with before.  In January of 1982, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that was entitled “Under the Rule of Thumb:  Battered Women and the Administration of Justice.”  The Commission found that when it came to domestic violence, “American law is built on the British Common Law that condoned wife beating and even prescribed the weapon to be used.  This ‘rule of thumb’ stipulated that a man could only beat his wife with ‘a rod not thicker than his thumb.’” 

The Commission noted that William Blackstone, who “greatly influenced the making of law in the American colonies,” commented thusly on the rule of thumb:  “For as the husband is to answer for her misbehavior, the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with this power of chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allow to correct his apprentices or children.”

American courts, bless their bleeding hearts, can be said to have taken up the rod passed to them by the Brits.  Have a look at this from an 1864 court in a case of a man who choked his wife:  “The law permits him to use towards his wife such a degree of force, as is necessary to control an unruly temper, and make her behave herself; and unless some permanent injury be inflicted, or there be an excess of violence, or such a degree of cruelty as shows that it is inflicted to gratify his own bad passions, the law will not invade the domestic forum, or go behind the curtain. It prefers to leave the parties to themselves.”  The Civil Rights Commission quoted a Mississippi Supreme Court case from 1824: “Let the husband be permitted to exercise the right of moderate chastisement, in cases of great emergency, and use salutary restraints in every case of misbehaviour, without being subjected to vexatious prosecutions, resulting in the mutual discredit and shame of all parties concerned.”

After an Alabama court had rescinded the right of a man to beat his wife in 1871, a North Carolina court came along and provided some relief to all those poor men who had to deal with those damn recalcitrant women: “If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty nor dangerous violence shown by the husband, it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forget and forgive.”

Thomas, in his dissent that would allow abusive husbands and male partners under court restraining orders to own guns, would appear to smile upon Ye Ole Rule of Thumb as well.  It’s history and tradition, you understand — Thomas’ favorite harkening back to the good old days when a man was allowed to own not only a gun, but a stick big enough to beat his wife with.

Categories Extremism, Gender, Guns, Injustice, Safety

Robert Hubbell: The Supreme Court’s Wacky Spin on Gun Control

By dianeravitch
June 26, 2024 //
15

Robert Hubbell understands that the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority would like to remove all limits on gun ownership. But even this group of extremists couldn’t find a way to justify allowing a man with a history of domestic abuse and violent threats to exercise Second Amendnent rights. So they got tangled up in knots trying to find common ground to say that some people should not own guns.

Note that Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and was willing to allow a man who had threatened his girlfriend’s life and fired a gun at others to have a gun. Justice Thomas complained that Mr. Rahimi had lost his right to own a gun without due process.

In the odd world of Republican ideology, it is perfectly reasonable to defend both “the right to life” and the right for everyone to own and carry a gun in the open. Except this particular person, Mr. Rahimi.

Hubbell wrote:

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that a domestic abuser with a demonstrated history of gun violence could have his right to possess a firearm suspended pending a hearing on a restraining order. See US v. Rahimi. The result was the only rational outcome in a case with horrific facts. As described by Mark Joseph Stern in Slate,

Zackey Rahimi, who beat his girlfriend, then fired shots at either her or a witness as she fled his abuse. His girlfriend subsequently obtained a restraining order from a state court that found that he posed “a credible threat” to her “physical safety.” Rahimi, however, continued harassing her, threatened a different woman with a firearm, and was identified as the suspect in at least five additional shootings. When the police searched his apartment, they found a pistol, a rifle, ammunition, and a copy of the restraining order.

Although we should celebrate the outcome, the fact that that case made it to the Supreme Court is emblematic of the extremism that the Court’s prior Second Amendment decisions have unleashed. Worse, in attempting to walk back from the precipice of the absurd absolutist position adopted by the Court in an earlier case (Bruen), the justices needed seven different opinions to explain how their ruling in Bruen applied to the facts in Rahimi.

In short, the opinion in Rahimi is a hot mess that leaves lower courts with no meaningful guidance on how to apply the nonsensical rule of Bruen to the real world of a society under siege by gun violence. There is an old saying in law that “Hard cases make bad law.” That saying is true of today’s ruling in Rahimi, as explained below.

It is important to reflect on how we arrived at this moment—one in which rational people heaved a sigh of relief that the Court did not adopt an insane result. The fact that we are grateful for the crumbs that fall from the table of the reactionary majority is a sign of the urgent need to reform the Court.

Background on Supreme Court Second Amendment cases

The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. Between 1791 and 2008, the Supreme Court interpreted the language of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to bear arms, as was made plain by the language of the amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But in 2008, the Supreme Court overthrew two centuries of jurisprudence to rule in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the right to bear arms belongs to individuals seeking self-defense in their homes. In 2010, the Court ruled that the provisions of the Second Amendment apply to states and municipalities. Finally, in 2022, in NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Court ruled that the “ability to carry a pistol in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

See how fast that happened? For two centuries, the right to bear arms was a collective right grounded in state militias. In the 14 years from 2008 to 2022, the right quickly morphed from a right to self-defense in homes to the right pack a pistol in public. And last week, the Supreme Court ruled that right extended to private ownership of machine guns.

The problem with Justice Thomas’ majority opinion in Bruen (2022)

Justice Thomas wrote the opinion in Bruce upholding the right to carry a pistol in public. He adopted an “originalist” approach, holding that laws regulating guns were presumptively unconstitutional and that regulations could pass muster only if they were “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Because most modern firearms were not in existence when the Second Amendment was ratified, virtually all restrictions on gun possession would be ruled unconstitutional under the originalist test in Bruen.

In short, Bruen was an absolutist nightmare that would lead to absurd results. District and appellate courts were quickly mired in rulings leading to nonsensical results—such as the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that Rahimi could not be deprived of his guns despite his demonstrated history of actual and threatened use of firearms against domestic partners.

The ruling in Rahimi (2024)

In Rahimi, issued on Friday, the majority ruled (8 to 1) that temporarily suspending a respondent’s gun ownership in a domestic violence proceeding was constitutional, notwithstanding the holding in Bruen. Justice Thomas dissented, writing (correctly) that applying the holding in Bruen to the facts of the case in Rahimi should have resulted in a ruling declaring the temporary suspension unconstitutional.

But the majority in Rahimi understood that the facts in that case were horrific and that it would be ludicrous to apply their earlier ruling in Bruen as written. In a just universe, the majority should have declared Justice Thomas’ opinion in Bruen a mistake and adopted a new rule. Sadly, the majority did not overrule Bruen. Instead, it came up with an exception to Bruen, which was crafted by Chief Justice Roberts.  

The exception created by Roberts is as nonsensical as Justice Thomas’s original rule. Or, as Ian Millhiser writes in Vox, Justice Roberts’ opinion is “incoherent gobbledygook.” See Vox, The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision, in US v. Rahimi.

Justice Roberts narrowed Bruen by writing that some gun regulations would be constitutional if they were based on “analogous regulations that existed when the Constitution was framed.” Okay, so far. What “analogous regulations” existed in 1791 that were similar to depriving a domestic abuser of his firearms? Answer: There were no such regulations. (A point made by Justice Thomas.)

Instead, Justice Roberts pointed to “surety laws” that required some people to post a bond if it could be shown they might engage in dangerous activity. But posting money is nothing like being deprived of a firearm (a point made by Justice Thomas). Nonetheless, Justice Roberts ruled that posting a surety bond was “relevantly similar” to depriving someone of gun ownership. Uh, okay. If you say so, Justice Roberts.

Don’t get me wrong. I am happy with the outcome. But Justice Roberts’ test of finding “relevantly similar analogous regulations” is pure mush—especially if posting a money bond is “analogous” to being deprived of gun ownership. The test provides no guidance and casts lower courts adrift on a sea of challenges to local gun regulations.

But it gets worse. Justice Roberts left the door open for future challenges from plaintiffs like Rahami. Why? Because Rahami claimed that the statute in question was invalid on its face as applied to everyone. This distinction is explained by Ian Millhiser in his Vox article, cited above:

Facial challenges allege that a particular law is unconstitutional in all of its applications, meaning that a court must effectively strike it from the books. They stand in contrast to weaker “as-applied” challenges, which allege that a law is unconstitutional only when enforced against a particular party. As Roberts explains, facial challenges are notoriously difficult to win — the party challenging the law must “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”

So, it is possible that if Rahami had simply said, “The law is invalid as applied to me,” he might have won under Justice Roberts’ approach.

In the end, the Supreme Court has anointed itself as the final arbiter of every challenge to a gun regulation because no lower court can be certain that it has divined whether a regulation is “relevantly similar” to an “analogous regulation” that existed in 1791. Lower courts are effectively consigned to playing a game of Twenty Questions with the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s inability to set forth a coherent, predictable, interpretable rule for lower courts is due to its rushing headlong to overturn long-established, settled precedent—as it did in Heller, Bruen, and Dobbs.

Again, in the words of Ian Millhiser,

Rahimi, in other words, is a monument to this Court’s arrogance, and its inability to admit its own mistakes. Bruen is an unworkable disaster that has caused mass confusion within the lower courts. It should be overruled in its entirety.

To similar effect, with a slightly more positive view of the opinion in Rahimi, see Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The Supreme Court Walks Back Clarence Thomas’ Guns Extremism. Stern writes,

By replacing Thomas’ hard-line views with a more malleable standard, SCOTUS has ended one battle over guns. But by remaining in this area, where it has no right to be in the first place, the court has invited a thousand more.

Finally, for a review of the various concurring opinions, see Chris Geidner’s Substack, Law Dork, What the justices are writing about when they write about Rahimi. Geidner includes the following excerpt of Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion, which will be the final word on the subject for today’s edition:

The Court today clarifies Bruen’s historical inquiry and rejects the dissent’s exacting historical test. I welcome that development.

That being said, I remain troubled by Bruen’s myopic focus on history and tradition, which fails to give full consideration to the real and present stakes of the problems facing our society today.

In my view, the Second Amendment allows legislators “to take account of the serious problems posed by gun violence” not merely by asking what their predecessors at the time of the founding or Reconstruction thought, but by listening to their constituents and crafting new and appropriately tailored solutions.

Categories Guns, Safety

NYC Prosecutors Seek to Extend Trump Gag Order Because Of Death Threats

By dianeravitch
June 21, 2024 //
17

Anyone who stands up to Trump puts their life at risk. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has received hundreds of death threats since his prosecution began. Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies because of his rigging the election by paying off porn star Stormy Daniels to keep his sexual encounter with her out of the news before the vote in 2016. While he throws around claims that Democrats “would rig the election” in 2016 and claims that the 2020 election was “rigged” and “stolen,” it was he who rigged the election by paying Daniels for her silence.

Trump claims that his inability to attack the jurors and prosecutors violates his First Amendment rights. He is vile.

The New York Times reported today:

Prosecutors in Manhattan said on Friday that a judge should keep in place major elements of a gag order that was imposed on Donald J. Trump, citing dozens of threats that have been made against officials connected to the case.

The order, issued before Mr. Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial began in mid-April, bars him from attacking witnesses, jurors, court staff and relatives of the judge who presided over the trial, Juan M. Merchan.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers have sought to have the order lifted since Mr. Trump’s conviction in late May. But in a 19-page filing on Friday, prosecutors argued that while Justice Merchan no longer needed to enforce the portion of the gag order relating to trial witnesses, he should keep in place the provisions protecting jurors, prosecutors, court staff and their families.

The New York Police Department has logged 56 “actionable threats” since the beginning of April directed against Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who brought the case, and against his family and employees, according to an affidavit provided with the filing.

Such threats, evidently made by supporters of Mr. Trump, included a post disclosing the home address of an employee at the district attorney’s office, and bomb threats made on the first day of the trial directed at two people involved in the case.

The 56 threats that were logged, prosecutors said, did not include the hundreds of “threatening emails and phone calls” that were received by Mr. Bragg’s office in recent months, which the police are “not tracking as threat cases.”

Mr. Trump was convicted on May 30 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payoff made to the porn star Stormy Daniels. The money was meant to cover up a sexual tryst she says she had with Mr. Trump in 2006, a decade before he was elected president. (Mr. Trump, 78, has continued to deny ever having had sex with Ms. Daniels.)

If he didn’t have sex with Daniels, why did he pay her $130,000?

Categories Democracy, Elections, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Safety, Trump

The Supreme Court’s Insane Decision to Gut Ban on Bump Stocks for Guns

By dianeravitch
June 14, 2024 //
49

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today to overturn a ban on bump stocks, a device that turns a semiautomatic rifle into a gun capable of firing 400-800 rounds a minute. The ban was imposed in 2018 by the Trump administration after the massacre of 60 people at a music festival in Las Vegas, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. The shooter fired from a high floor in a hotel overlooking the festival; he used a bump stock.

The 6-3 decision was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who ruled that a bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. A 1986 law prohibits civilians from owning machine guns.

The question was whether the bump stock could fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger or required multiple pulls.

The National Rifle Association must be celebrating. Responsible gun owners are not.

Categories Accountability, Cruelty, Deregulation, Evil, Extremism, Guns, Safety

Arkansas Supreme Court Furious at Judge Who Called Its Gun Ruling “LOCO”

By dianeravitch
May 20, 2024 //
6

By now, there are countries that warn their citizens to be careful about visiting the United States because of the widespread availability of guns.

Recently the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that lawyers could bring guns into courthouses, though not into the courtroom.

The high court of Arkansas remanded its ruling to a judge who opposed it and told him to reach a different decision. The lower court judge called the decision LOCO, and the state Supreme Court removed him from the case.

Debra Hale-Shelton reported in the Arkansas Times:

Remember Circuit Judge Morgan “Chip” Welch‘s order that questioned the sanity of a recent Arkansas Supreme Court ruling allowing attorneys to carry guns in courthouses? It turns out the thin-skinned Supreme Court justices don’t like judges questioning the sanity of their rulings, even when there’s good reason to do so.

But on Monday, the Supreme Court ordered Welch removed from the case. The order came days after Welch nicknamed the high court’s order “Lawyer/officer-of-the-court Carry Opinion” and repeatedly referred to it by the acronym LOCO. In Spanish, “loco” translates to crazy or insane.

The state Supreme Court’s vote to allow lawyers to tote guns in courthouses overturned Welch’s earlier decision. It then fell to Welch, as the original judge in the case, to put the higher court’s order into action.

Welch put some temporary guns-in-courthouses rules in place pending an August hearing to address safety concerns. His rules temporarily allowed guns in the Pulaski County Courthouse but only in the “common areas” on the building’s first floor and nowhere else.

In his temporary order, Welch raised numerous questions that seem pretty important. For example, how can we make sure inmates in the courthouse for their hearings don’t get their hands on these guns? We should note that the high court’s decision excluded courtrooms from the places where guns could be brought.

The Supreme Court accused Judge Welch of violating the ethics code for judges and showing bias; it called for an expedited hearing on May 23 to consider what to do about an insolent judge.

Categories Arkansas, Extremism, Guns, Safety

Jonathan V. Last: Biden Won the War on Crime!

By dianeravitch
May 5, 2024 //
15

Jonathan V. Last writes for The Bulwark, a website for Never Trumper Republicans that has some of the best writing on the current state of politics. In this post, Last explains that Trump presided over a period of crime “American carnage,” Trump called it), but crime has dropped during Biden’s term in office.

Last writes:

Remember the bad old days when people lost their minds about the crime wave Joe Biden had unleashed on America with his woke whatever-whatever policies?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

There was so much of this. 

Well I’ve got some great news for you: Joe Biden has won the war on crime.

Here’s a headline from the WSJ that Heather Mac Donald might want to see: Homicides Are Plummeting in American Cities.

And this isn’t a one-time drop. It’s an acceleration of a trend that began in 2023.

How many stories have the Washington Examiner and the WSJ op-ed page written about these facts?

I’ll let you guess. But wait—there’s even more good news.

The “Biden crime wave” was always proffered in bad faith because the “crime wave” appeared in 2020, while Donald Trump was president: 2020 saw the largest rise in the murder rate in American history.

Now just because Biden inherited a problem doesn’t mean he gets a pass on its existence. When you’re president, you’re supposed to solve everyone’s problems, not just the ones that crop up during your administration.

And here’s the data: All crime is down under Biden, with one exception.

Violent crimes like murder and rape? Down. Property crimes like burglary and theft? Down. Crime in cities? Down. Crime in rural areas? Down.

The lone exception is that car theft in metropolitan areas has gone up. That’s it.

Like the man said: Take the W.

In Donald Trump’s final year in office the murder rate rose by 30 percent, which was the largest jump in U.S. history. Over Joe Biden’s last 16 months, we’ve had the biggest drop in the murder rate in U.S. history.

You are better off now than you were four years ago.

Categories Accountability, Biden, Data, Elections, Fraud, Hoax, Safety, Trump

Should Parents Be Held Accountable for Their Child’s Crimes?

By dianeravitch
April 10, 2024 //
10

Two different juries in Michigan convicted the parents of a school shooter. James and Jennifer Crumbley were both found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and were sentenced to 10-15 years in prison. Their son Ethan murdered four other students and wounded several others and a teacher at Oxford High School in Oxford, Michigan.

CNN reported:

James purchased the firearm for his son on Black Friday, four days before the shooting. The next day, Jennifer took her son to the firing range for target practice. “Mom & son day testing out his new Xmas present,” she wrote afterward on social media. The parents failed to properly secure the firearm, as James Crumbley hid it in their bedroom but did not use any locking device, the prosecution argued.

In addition, the trials focused on a pivotal meeting between school employees, Ethan and his parents on the morning of the shooting. Ethan had been called into the school office after he made disturbing writings on a math worksheet, including the phrases “blood everywhere” and “my life is useless” and drawings of a gun and bullet.

The school employees recommended the parents immediately take him out of class and get him mental health treatment, but they declined to do so, saying they had work. The Crumbleys also did not mention to the school the recent gun purchase. Afterward, Ethan was sent back to class. About two hours later, he took the gun out of his backpack and opened fire at the school.

This was apparently the first time that parents have been held accountable for their child’s crimes.

Do you approve? I do.

Do you think other parents might be more responsible in the future? I wish so but I doubt it. I recall that the mother of the Sandy Hook murderer bought him an AR-15, took him to target practice to teach him how to use it. He was mentally ill. She was the first one he killed on the day of the massacre. He shot her in the face while she was still in bed. He then went to Sandy Hook Elementary School and killed 26 people, including 20 children, ages 6 and 7, and six staff members.

Nonetheless, parent accountability for the crimes of their minor children is a step forward. In a sane country, access to deadly weapons would be restricted. In most of this country, there are no limits on buying and carrying guns, thanks to the Republican Party and the Supreme Court, the NRA and the Federalist Society.

Human life is cheap in a fun-loving society.

Categories Accountability, Guns, Michigan, Parents, Safety, Students

Colorado: Gun Control Law Introduced

By dianeravitch
February 15, 2024 //
46

Colorado has been the site of some high-profile mass murders. One thinks of the massacre at Columbine High School in 1999, which involved 15 deaths plus the two shooters. The massacre at a movie theatre in 2012 in Aurora, which involved 12 deaths. The massacre at a supermarket in Boulder, where 10 people died. Five people died at a gay nightclub in Colorado Springs in 2023. Curtailing access to guns may be one way to limit future killers.

The Denver Post reports:

Colorado would ban the sale, transfer and importation of so-called assault weaponsunder a bill introduced Tuesday in the state House.

The measure, HB24-1292, is similar to legislation that a House committee killed last spring in its first hearing, but this year’s version may have better chances. The new bill would define assault weapons as including semi-automatic rifles and pistols with fixed large-capacity magazines or the ability to accept detachable magazines, along with several other types of high-powered firearms.

It would not ban the possession of the weapons but would prohibit the “manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, offering to sell or transferring” of them, with exemptions for police and the military. It also would prohibit the possession of rapid-fire trigger activators, Seth Klamann reports.

Categories Colorado, Guns, Safety

Rachel M. Cohen: Access to Abortion Pills Has Grown Since Dobbs Decision

By dianeravitch
January 16, 2024 //
16

After the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, some 16 Republican-dominated states have imposed near-total bans on abortion. In response, access to abortion pills has grown.

In this article in VOX, veteran journalist Rachel M. Cohen describes the numerous organizations that provide telehealth sessions with doctors who provide prescriptions, as well as supplying abortion pills. In addition, several Democrat-dominated states have passed shield laws to protect doctors in their state who advise women in red states.

A network of like-minded groups have filled the gap created by the Dobbs decision, making these pills easily available and inexpensive.

Cohen writes:

Eighteen months after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion, and with a new Supreme Court challenge pending against the abortion medication mifepristone, confusion abounds about access to reproductive health care in America.

Births are up, but so are abortions since Dobbs.

Taking a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol within the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy was already the most common method for abortion in the United States before the Dobbs decision, partly due to its safety record, its lower cost, diminished access to in-person care, and greater opportunities for privacy. The popularity of medication abortion has only grown since then: A poll released in March found majorities of Americans support keeping medication abortion legal and allowing women to use it at home to end an early-stage pregnancy. Another survey found 59 percent of voters disapprove of overturning the FDA’s approval of abortion medication, including 72 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents, and 40 percent of Republicans.

Immediately after Dobbs, the only way to obtain the pills by mail was through international sources, which took weeks to arrive. Now, however, the pills are available by mail in the U.S. and will arrive in days.

The e-commerce marketplace for abortion medication has expanded, and the cost for pills has fallen dramatically

Outside of telemedicine options, there are over two dozen e-commerce websites that sell and ship medication abortion to the US. This international supply chain has grown significantly since Dobbs and most of these sites do not require prescriptions and do not require people to upload their IDs or have medical consultations. Plan C has vetted 26 of these sites, including testing their pills to ensure they’re “real products of acceptable quality.”

The cost of the pills has dropped significantly, some for as little as $42-47.

Volunteer groups have sprung up, with some offering the pills for free.

Community support groups, also known as “companion networks,” have grown since the overturn of Roe v. Wade and now actively provide free abortion pills to people living in states with bans on reproductive health care. These groups, some of which can be found on sites like Plan C and Red State Access, mail medication abortion and offer doula support.

But what happens if the Supreme Court limits access to mail-order abortion pills?

While abortion advocates doubt the justices will go so far as to pull mifepristone off the market, as a federal judge in Texas attempted to do earlier in 2023, they are bracing for the possibility that the court might reimpose medically unnecessary restrictions on access, like bans on prescribing mifepristone via telemedicine.

Even if that happens, though, most of the aforementioned options for accessing medication abortion would remain intact. It’s not clear if the FDA would even abide by such a Supreme Court ruling, but if it did, providers using shield laws could still legally ship misoprostol to patients in banned states.

“A Supreme Court ruling wouldn’t affect the community-based networks, ProgressiveRx, or the e-commerce websites that sell pills at all, and so there would still be ways of getting mifepristone and misoprostol in the mail,” Wells said. “The Supreme Court could affect services like Aid Access and Abuzz, but they could also switch to misoprostol-only abortions and that’s what they’re planning to do.”

The rapid growth in the number of ways to access abortion pills and the planning to protect access in the future demonstrate that Dobbs will prove to be like prohibiting the sale or consumption of liquor. When the population has grown accustomed to consuming alcohol or getting an abortion legally, it will be impossible to ban it.

Categories Gender, Health, Safety
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »