Author: admin

Vermin Supreme Says This Time, He’s Serious

In 2016, the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket, former Republican Govs. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, had the most executive experience in the field. And yet America’s third party is more synonymous in the minds of many onlookers with viral video footage of a nearly naked and heavily tattooed James Weeks, a distant finisher in the race for L.P. national chair, performing a striptease live on C-SPAN at that year’s convention.

So depending on where you sit politically, it was either surprising or predictable that Vermin Supreme—a gray-bearded performance artist and serial joke candidate who promises free ponies for everyone and wears a giant boot on his head—concluded the month of March in second place for the 2020 L.P. presidential nomination, behind only longtime libertarian activist and author Jacob Hornberger. Unlike Supreme’s previous runs in the Democratic and Republican parties, he says his Libertarian campaign reflects his actual political beliefs. In March, the satirist spoke with Reason‘s Matt Welch about his candidacy.

Q: Is it more difficult to sell what looks like a satirical presidential campaign during a pandemic? 

A: I don’t believe so, because in the proposal that I’m putting forward, that is only the hook. That’s only utilizing the notoriety that I have developed by running the satirical campaign for the past 30 years. And once again, the nation certainly could use a good laugh at this point. I am a beacon of hope to a vast number of young people and others who are still disillusioned and disgusted with the system.

Q: Talk a little bit about the difference between this run and your previous runs for office.

A: I’ve run as a Democrat, but I was not a Democrat. And when I ran as a Republican, I was not a Republican. I was just utilizing the New Hampshire primary as a vehicle to put forward my satirical critique of the system.

The No. 1 difference is that this is an actual and real campaign. Thirty years of notoriety have garnered me the audience, fan base, and potential voter pool that I believe that I’m able to make a legitimate offer to the Libertarian Party. I will say that if the L.P. was really smart, they would have siphoned me off into some sort of recruitment position and kept me out of the presidential race. However, they did not.

Q: Please explain the ponies.

A: I have been developing a set of iconographies, and the free ponies are indeed one of the more successful ones. The free ponies are used in a pejorative manner towards politicians and others that are promising free stuff.

Vermin Supreme promises free ponies for all Americans—that’s sort of the tagline. And then the punchline is a federal pony identification system: You must have your pony with you at all times. So yes, it’s a gift pony, but on the other hand, it is your identification card.

My mandatory toothbrushing law, for example—brush your teeth, it’s the law!—that was inspired back in the early 1980s, when Massachusetts instituted the mandatory seat belt law. And of course, from there it spun into the dystopian nightmare that includes the secret dental police, and the dental re-education centers, and the preventative dental maintenance detention facilities, and all of these things. So, much like the ponies, it starts out as a critique of the giveaways or the nanny state, and then it quickly devolves into an authoritarian nightmare.

Q: Whenever you win a primary, there is one guaranteed reaction: “This is why I can’t take the Libertarian Party seriously.” In the wake of James Weeks in 2016 and other pratfalls that the party has taken, how do you respond to that reaction?

A: Can a serious party put up an individual perceived previously or continuously as a joke candidate? I say yes.

It’s all in the framing. It would involve a very strong statement of getting ahead of the joke, owning the joke. We are the Libertarian Party, we are a very serious party of ideals and action, and we’ve been around for quite some time, and we are serious. However—and the pivot’s always important!—the political duopoly electioneering of the presidential system has indeed risen to the level of a joke. And with love, and with spite, here is Vermin Supreme.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZeSFD9
via IFTTT

Two Billionaires Demonstrate the Limits of Money in Elections

Two and a half weeks after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) slammed Michael Bloomberg for trying to “buy this election,” the former New York City mayor left the presidential race, having spent $570 million of his own money to win 58 delegates—3 percent of the number needed to secure the Democratic nomination. Tom Steyer, the other billionaire in the race, did even worse, abandoning his campaign after spending more than $250 million and earning zero delegates.

Those spectacular failures should give pause to the politicians and activists who think money poses such a grave threat to democracy that the Constitution must be amended to authorize limits on campaign spending. Bloomberg and Steyer—who outspent former Vice President Joe Biden by factors of more than eight and nearly four, respectively—demonstrated that no amount of money can buy victory for candidates who fail to persuade voters.

Bloomberg’s unprecedented ad blitz seemed to be effective at first, boosting his standing in national polls from around 3 percent in November to as high as 19 percent by early March. But when push came to shove, Democrats keen to replace President Donald Trump did not buy Bloomberg’s argument that he was the man to do it.

The arrogance reflected by Bloomberg’s strategy of skipping the early contests and debates, flooding the airwaves and internet with ads, and swooping in to rescue a party he had joined the year before launching his campaign probably helps explain why primary voters found him so unappealing. His disastrous performance during his first debate surely didn’t help, and neither did his wooden demeanor or the generally uninspiring vibe of his TV spots, which one Democratic strategist described as “mediocre messaging at massive scale.”

Steyer, a hedge fund manager who had previously spent many millions of his personal fortune to support losing Democratic candidates, saw almost no return on his investment in his own campaign. After polling at 0 percent last July, he climbed to 1 percent before dropping out in February.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that caps on campaign spending violate the First Amendment. Yet Democratic legislators are so obsessed with the supposedly corrupting impact of money in politics that they’re ready to authorize such restrictions by fundamentally rewriting free speech law, as a proposed constitutional amendment—backed by every Democrat in the Senate and more than nine out of 10 Democrats in the House—would do.

Contrary to the fears underlying that illiberal initiative, voters are perfectly capable of rejecting even the most powerfully amplified messages. Just ask Bloomberg and Steyer.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3bO182R
via IFTTT

Vermin Supreme Says This Time, He’s Serious

In 2016, the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket, former Republican Govs. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, had the most executive experience in the field. And yet America’s third party is more synonymous in the minds of many onlookers with viral video footage of a nearly naked and heavily tattooed James Weeks, a distant finisher in the race for L.P. national chair, performing a striptease live on C-SPAN at that year’s convention.

So depending on where you sit politically, it was either surprising or predictable that Vermin Supreme—a gray-bearded performance artist and serial joke candidate who promises free ponies for everyone and wears a giant boot on his head—concluded the month of March in second place for the 2020 L.P. presidential nomination, behind only longtime libertarian activist and author Jacob Hornberger. Unlike Supreme’s previous runs in the Democratic and Republican parties, he says his Libertarian campaign reflects his actual political beliefs. In March, the satirist spoke with Reason‘s Matt Welch about his candidacy.

Q: Is it more difficult to sell what looks like a satirical presidential campaign during a pandemic? 

A: I don’t believe so, because in the proposal that I’m putting forward, that is only the hook. That’s only utilizing the notoriety that I have developed by running the satirical campaign for the past 30 years. And once again, the nation certainly could use a good laugh at this point. I am a beacon of hope to a vast number of young people and others who are still disillusioned and disgusted with the system.

Q: Talk a little bit about the difference between this run and your previous runs for office.

A: I’ve run as a Democrat, but I was not a Democrat. And when I ran as a Republican, I was not a Republican. I was just utilizing the New Hampshire primary as a vehicle to put forward my satirical critique of the system.

The No. 1 difference is that this is an actual and real campaign. Thirty years of notoriety have garnered me the audience, fan base, and potential voter pool that I believe that I’m able to make a legitimate offer to the Libertarian Party. I will say that if the L.P. was really smart, they would have siphoned me off into some sort of recruitment position and kept me out of the presidential race. However, they did not.

Q: Please explain the ponies.

A: I have been developing a set of iconographies, and the free ponies are indeed one of the more successful ones. The free ponies are used in a pejorative manner towards politicians and others that are promising free stuff.

Vermin Supreme promises free ponies for all Americans—that’s sort of the tagline. And then the punchline is a federal pony identification system: You must have your pony with you at all times. So yes, it’s a gift pony, but on the other hand, it is your identification card.

My mandatory toothbrushing law, for example—brush your teeth, it’s the law!—that was inspired back in the early 1980s, when Massachusetts instituted the mandatory seat belt law. And of course, from there it spun into the dystopian nightmare that includes the secret dental police, and the dental re-education centers, and the preventative dental maintenance detention facilities, and all of these things. So, much like the ponies, it starts out as a critique of the giveaways or the nanny state, and then it quickly devolves into an authoritarian nightmare.

Q: Whenever you win a primary, there is one guaranteed reaction: “This is why I can’t take the Libertarian Party seriously.” In the wake of James Weeks in 2016 and other pratfalls that the party has taken, how do you respond to that reaction?

A: Can a serious party put up an individual perceived previously or continuously as a joke candidate? I say yes.

It’s all in the framing. It would involve a very strong statement of getting ahead of the joke, owning the joke. We are the Libertarian Party, we are a very serious party of ideals and action, and we’ve been around for quite some time, and we are serious. However—and the pivot’s always important!—the political duopoly electioneering of the presidential system has indeed risen to the level of a joke. And with love, and with spite, here is Vermin Supreme.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZeSFD9
via IFTTT

Two Billionaires Demonstrate the Limits of Money in Elections

Two and a half weeks after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) slammed Michael Bloomberg for trying to “buy this election,” the former New York City mayor left the presidential race, having spent $570 million of his own money to win 58 delegates—3 percent of the number needed to secure the Democratic nomination. Tom Steyer, the other billionaire in the race, did even worse, abandoning his campaign after spending more than $250 million and earning zero delegates.

Those spectacular failures should give pause to the politicians and activists who think money poses such a grave threat to democracy that the Constitution must be amended to authorize limits on campaign spending. Bloomberg and Steyer—who outspent former Vice President Joe Biden by factors of more than eight and nearly four, respectively—demonstrated that no amount of money can buy victory for candidates who fail to persuade voters.

Bloomberg’s unprecedented ad blitz seemed to be effective at first, boosting his standing in national polls from around 3 percent in November to as high as 19 percent by early March. But when push came to shove, Democrats keen to replace President Donald Trump did not buy Bloomberg’s argument that he was the man to do it.

The arrogance reflected by Bloomberg’s strategy of skipping the early contests and debates, flooding the airwaves and internet with ads, and swooping in to rescue a party he had joined the year before launching his campaign probably helps explain why primary voters found him so unappealing. His disastrous performance during his first debate surely didn’t help, and neither did his wooden demeanor or the generally uninspiring vibe of his TV spots, which one Democratic strategist described as “mediocre messaging at massive scale.”

Steyer, a hedge fund manager who had previously spent many millions of his personal fortune to support losing Democratic candidates, saw almost no return on his investment in his own campaign. After polling at 0 percent last July, he climbed to 1 percent before dropping out in February.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that caps on campaign spending violate the First Amendment. Yet Democratic legislators are so obsessed with the supposedly corrupting impact of money in politics that they’re ready to authorize such restrictions by fundamentally rewriting free speech law, as a proposed constitutional amendment—backed by every Democrat in the Senate and more than nine out of 10 Democrats in the House—would do.

Contrary to the fears underlying that illiberal initiative, voters are perfectly capable of rejecting even the most powerfully amplified messages. Just ask Bloomberg and Steyer.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3bO182R
via IFTTT

A Record Fleet Of 117 Tankers Is Bringing Super Cheap Crude To China

A Record Fleet Of 117 Tankers Is Bringing Super Cheap Crude To China

Tyler Durden

Mon, 05/18/2020 – 06:00

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

While the rest of the world is tentatively coming out of lockdowns, China is taking advantage of the cheapest crude oil in years to stock up as demand is starting to return in the world’s largest oil importer, Bloomberg reported on Friday, citing tanker-tracking data it has compiled. 

At present, a total of 117 very large crude carriers (VLCCs) – each capable of shipping 2 million barrels of oil – are traveling to China for unloading at its ports between the middle of May and the middle of August. If those supertankers transport standard-size crude oil cargoes, it could mean that China expects at least 230 million barrels of oil over the next three months, according to Bloomberg. The fleet en route to China could be the largest number of supertankers traveling to the world’s top oil importer at one time, ever, Bloomberg News’ Firat Kayakiran says.

Many of the crude oil cargoes are likely to have been bought in April, when prices were lower than the current price and when WTI Crude futures even dipped into negative territory for a day.

Last month, emerging from the coronavirus lockdown, China’s oil refiners were already buying ultra-cheap spot cargoes from Alaska, Canada, and Brazil, taking advantage of the deep discounts at which many crude grades were being offered to China with non-existent demand elsewhere.

China was also estimated to have doubled the fill rate at its strategic and commercial inventories in Q1 2020, taking advantage of the low oil prices and somewhat supporting the oil market amid crashing demand by diverting more imports to storage, rather than outright slashing crude imports.

China’s crude oil imports jumped in April to about 9.84 million bpd as demand for fuels began to rebound and local refiners started to ramp up crude processing, according to Chinese customs data cited by Reuters.   

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2X5pjUZ Tyler Durden

Anti-Lockdown Protests Accelerate Across Europe As Second COVID-19 Wave Threat Emerges

Anti-Lockdown Protests Accelerate Across Europe As Second COVID-19 Wave Threat Emerges

Tyler Durden

Mon, 05/18/2020 – 05:30

Anti-lockdown protests were seen in several European cities on Saturday in defiance of social distancing restrictions. From gatherings in London’s Hyde Park to Poland to Germany — people were furious about government-enforced lockdowns. Warmer weather trends, such as a heatwave across parts of Europe, could quickly affect mood negatively and lead to more social instabilities. 

These protests have been increasing over the last several weeks. Read: 

Police in several German cities had their hands full on Saturday as thousands of people lined the streets. Officials in Stuttgart said the permitted number of 5,000 demonstrators was quickly exceeded, and mask-wearing was required, or people risked a 300 euro ($325) fine.

About 1,000 protesters were seen in Munich, around the Theresienwiese event grounds, which is the site of the now-canceled  Oktoberfest. We explained last month, the canceling of the event has severely impacted the local economy and could devastate local brewers to hop farmers. 

Protesters in both Stuttgart and Munich were angry about lockdown measures enforced via Chancellor Angela Merkel. Other demonstrators were mad about rumors of a vaccine plan by Bill Gates. 

Stuttgart protest 

An anti-vaccine protester in Stuttgart

German protests were led by several groups, including Resistance 2020 and COMPACT. The first group questions official government data on confirmed cases and deaths, and alleges the government is overinflating the data to seize more control over the population. The second group describes itself as a “sharp sword against imperial propaganda.” 

“Why aren’t you telling us the truth, Mrs Merkel? How we are losing our freedom, jobs and health?” says COMPACT.

Folks on social media described the German protesters as “covidiots” who risk triggering a second wave of infections that could lead to extensions or stricter lockdowns. We noted last week that this would undoubtedly continue to crash Germany’s economy. 

The economic effects of the countrywide lockdown have been devastating. Several weeks ago, we showed how the labor market had been obliterated. 

Germany and other member states have begun to relax some lockdown restrictions, a move to restart the economy. Germany’s professional soccer league resumed games over the weekend without fans — as it appears reverting to pre-corona times will be a challenging and drawn-out process. 

And for more color on reopening Europe, a border spat has erupted between Spain and France last week, suggesting a V-shaped recovery of the EU will not be seen this year. 

Elsewhere, dozens of people in Poland were arrested for violating social distancing restrictions during protests. Police used tear gas to suppress demonstrators as the city of Warsaw said the gathering was illegal because there was no permit. 

Britain saw anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine protesters assemble in Hyde Park in central London and were met with police. Many chanted freedom songs and held signs blasting lockdowns. London Metropolitan Police Service arrested about a dozen people as police dispersed the crowd. 

Across the Atlantic in the US, demonstrators held rallies requesting state governments to reopen economies so people can get back to work. 

If a second COVID wave triggers additional lockdowns in the Western world — people will likely become more infuriated with government and result in larger social demonstrations. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2X7YcZf Tyler Durden

The US Is Dramatically Overcounting COVID-19 Deaths

The US Is Dramatically Overcounting COVID-19 Deaths

Tyler Durden

Mon, 05/18/2020 – 05:00

Authored by John Lott and Dr. Timothy Craig Allen, op-ed via Townhall.com,

Over 86,500 people have reportedly died in the United States from the Coronavirus, and the fear generated by those deaths is driving the public policy debate. But that number is a dramatic overcount. Our metrics include deaths that have nothing to do with the virus. The problem is even worse as the Centers for Disease Control over counts even some of these cases and the government has created financial incentives for this misreporting. Relying on these flawed numbers is destroying businesses and jobs and costing lives.

“The case definition is very simplistic,” Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois Department of Public Health, explains.

“It means, at the time of death, it was a COVID positive diagnosis. That means, that if you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means, technically even if you died of clear alternative cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death.”

Medical examiners in Michigan use the same definition. In Macomb and Oakland Counties, where most of the deaths occurred, medical examiners classify any deaths as Coronavirus deaths when the postmortem test is positive. Even people who died in suicides and automobile accidents meet that definition.

Still, these broad definitions are not due to a few rogue public health officials. The rules direct them to do this.

Unlike other countries, “if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death,” as Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, recently noted.

Classifications go beyond even these broad categories. New York is classifying cases as Coronavirus deaths even when postmortem tests have been negative. Despite negative tests, classifications are based on symptoms, even though the symptoms are often very similar to those of the seasonal flu. The Centers for Disease Control guidance explicitly acknowledges the uncertainty that doctors can face. When Coronavirus cases are “suspected,” they advise doctors that “it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate.”

That isn’t just a theoretical issue. On April 21st, when New York City’s death toll rose above 10,000, the New York Times reported that the city included “3,700 additional people who were presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive” – a more than 50 percent increase in the number of cases.

But the problem is worse than this broad definition implies. Birx and others believe that the CDC is over counting cases. The Washington Post reports they are concerned that the CDC’s “antiquated” accounting system is double counting cases and inflating mortality and case counts “by as much as 25 percent.” 

There are additional reasons for concern. Some doctors feel pressure from hospitals to list deaths as due to the Coronavirus, even when they don’t believe that is the case, “to make it look a little bit worse than it is.” There are financial incentives that might make a difference for hospitals and doctors. The CARES Act adds a 20 percent premium for COVID-19 Medicare patients. 

Incentives matter. When the government increased the disability compensation for air traffic controllers, a lot more controllers suddenly started claiming to be disabled. When unemployment insurance payments increase, more people become unemployed and stay unemployed for longer periods. When the government offers flood insurance that charges everyone the same insurance premium regardless of the risk level in their area, more people build homes in frequently flooded areas.

The Washington Post and others claim that we are undercounting the true number of deaths. They reach that conclusion by showing the total number of deaths from all causes is greater than we would normally expect from March through early May, and that this excess is actually due to deaths not being accurately labeled as due to the Coronavirus. But these are simply not normal times. Lots of people with heart and other problems aren’t going to the hospital for fear of the virus. Surgeries for many serious conditions are being put off. The stress of the situation is increasing suicides and other illnesses.

Deaths that have absolutely nothing to do with the Coronavirus count as virus deaths. Add to that claims that the CDC is double counting some of these improperly identified cases and the perverse financial incentives created by the government, and you have a real mess when crucial decisions are being made based in large part on this data.

Erroneous data unduly scare people about the risks of the disease. It keeps the country locked down longer than necessary, which destroys peoples’ lives and livelihoods in many other ways. Exaggerated fears of the virus endanger lives by keeping people from obtaining treatment for other medical problems.  It also makes it impossible to accurately compare policies across countries. 

It is hard to believe that we are basing such crucial decisions on such flawed data.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2WHk2Eg Tyler Durden

Facebook Removes Record Number Of ‘Hate Speech’ Posts

Facebook Removes Record Number Of ‘Hate Speech’ Posts

Tyler Durden

Mon, 05/18/2020 – 04:15

Facebook has released its biannual Community Standards Enforcement Report which shows the number of controversial posts the company has removed from the platform. As Statista’s Niall McCarthy shows below, the social media giant deleted a record number of hate speech posts with 9.6 million pieces of content taken down between January and March 2020 compared to 5.7 million in the prior period. 4.7 million posts were removed that originated from organized hate groups in the first quarter of this year which is an increase of more than 3 million on Q4, 2019.

Infographic: Facebook Removes Record Number Of Hate Speech Posts | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Facebook attributed the increase in hate speech removals to technology improvements for automatically identifying images and text.

In a statement, the company said that “we’re now able to detect text embedded in images and videos in order to understand its full context, and we’ve built media matching technology to find content that’s identical or near-identical to photos, videos, text and even audio that we’ve already removed.”

The report shows that 88.3 percent of all hate speech content was removed before users reported it in Q1.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2WF8Esa Tyler Durden

Brickbat: Volunteer, or Else

The Los Angeles City Council has voted to identify hotels refusing to take part in Project Roomkey, an effort funded by the city government to house the homeless, and find out if they have gotten any tax incentives from the city. “If the problems are on the hotel end, the public should know why, and then we should consider commandeering as they’ve talked about in other cities.” said Councilman Mike Bonin.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2X7Iz4g
via IFTTT