Category: reason

Don’t Believe the Hype About Georgia’s Drop in COVID-19 Cases

Misleading Georgia data. After ending stay-at-home orders earlier than most states, Georgia last week reported that—contrary to dire warnings—the state had seen a dramatic decrease in the number of new COVID-19 cases and deaths. Very quickly, national media like The Wall Street Journal were crowing over this “welcome trend.”

But that “welcome trend” appears to be a mirage. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp’s office has since said that cases in the Peach State have not declined significantly and tracking data suggesting otherwise was misleading.

A big part of the problem: Some data for the week of May 2 were presented as coming chronologically before the week of April 26.

Another problem: Some data for early May are still missing.

That doesn’t necessarily mean those dire predictions were right. Put in the right order, the figures presented last week by Georgia health officials still suggest that the state’s COVID-19 cases have plateaued or even decreased slightly, notes the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. But these numbers are incomplete.

“Data collection lags and a quirk in the state’s method of recording cases mean that counts for recent dates are often a fraction of what they turn out to be when the data is more complete,” the paper points out.

Since the start of the pandemic, the Georgia Department of Public Health has repeatedly bungled information about the number of new COVID-19 cases and deaths. “Some of these errors could be forgiven as mistakes made during a chaotic time. But putting days in the wrong order, as the recently withdrawn chart did, makes no sense.”

“I have a hard time understanding how this happens without it being deliberate,” state Rep. Jasmine Clark (D–Lilburn), who has a PhD in microbiology and molecular genetics, told the paper. “Literally nowhere ever in any type of statistics would that be acceptable.”

Elsewhere in the U.S., COVID-19 cases appear to be going down in some former hotspots while also rising in areas that had been doing OK.

This comes as state leaders have started easing and lifting lockdown orders, and as more people are doing less social distancing regardless of what authorities say. Because of lags in disease onset and data collection, the available numbers still largely reflect a period prior to the easing of restrictions.

Many areas that have been hard-hit continue to report mounting problems. “Dozens of deaths and thousands of new infections from the novel coronavirus were reported in the Washington region Saturday, even as some areas began welcoming droves of summertime visitors following the relaxation of quarantine restrictions in Virginia and Maryland,” notes The Washington Post.

In Texas, some 1,800 new cases were reported on Saturday, bringing the total number of reported COVID-19 cases in the state to 47,000. “There were 33 additional deaths reported Saturday, bringing the total number of fatalities in the Lone Star State to 1,305,” says CBS News.

FREE MINDS

Justin Amash won’t seek Libertarian Party nomination. Just a few weeks after announcing his bid to be the Libertarian Party’s 2020 presidential nomination, Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) announced on Sunday that he won’t be running this year.

More from Reason‘s Matt Welch here. (See also: “Vermin Supreme Says This Time, He’s Serious.”)

FREE MARKETS

Judge says strip clubs can’t be excluded from Small Business Administration loan program.

QUICK HITS

• Is Ronan Farrow’s reporting “too good to be true“? Ben Smith of The New York Times exposes some serious flaws in the work of the celebrity journalist who has become a #MeToo and #Resistance hero.

• “An experimental Covid-19 vaccine developed by cigarette maker British American Tobacco Plc is poised to begin testing in humans,” reports Bloomberg.

• More on a dangerous inflammatory syndrome that appears to be hitting children who had previously had COVID-19.

• Who gets to define what’s racist?

• The industries suffering the most economic consequences from the COVID-19 pandemic aren’t those that people think:

• Protecting and serving:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2z7ONJl
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

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

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

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

The Championship Round of the OT 2019 Harlan Institute-ConSource Virtual Supreme Court Competition

On the first Monday in October, the Harlan Institute and The Constitutional Sources Project (ConSource) announce the Seventh Annual Virtual Supreme Court Competition. This year, the tournament focused on Espinoza v. Montana v. Department of Revenue. Twenty-one high school teams advanced to the semifinal rounds. They prepared briefs, and presented live oral arguments via Zoom. These students are very impressive. Here are their entries, with links to their briefs.

In April we hosted the Semifinal Round and the “Elite Eight” Round. And on May 15, we hosted the Championship Round. The finalists were Curtis Herbert & Hayat Muse of Minnesota, who represented the Petitioners, and David Katz & Seldon Salaj of Connecticut, who represented the Respondents.

We were honored to have an august, all-Texas bench: Justice Eva Guzman of the Texas Supreme Court, and Judges Gregg Costa and Don Willett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. After a competitive and lively argument, Curtis and Hayat were declared the winners. Congratulations to them! These students truly are remarkable. They could compete in any Law School moot court competition. We are so proud of them.

Here is the video of the competition:

And here are photos from the competition.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2AxA7n6
via IFTTT