Category: reason

The killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani by the United States military will understandably dominate headlines for weeks if not months to come.

But the actual demise of the authoritarian regime that’s been in power since 1979 will come more from acts like the one taken by Kimia Alizadeh, Iran’s only female Olympic medalist. Late last week, the bronze medalist in Taekwondo in the 2016 Summer Games announced via Instagram that she has fled her home country due to the systematic oppression of women. Via CNN:

“Let me start with a greeting, a farewell or condolences,” the 21-year-old wrote in an Instagram post explaining why she was defecting. “I am one of the millions of oppressed women in Iran who they have been playing with for years.”…

“They took me wherever they wanted. I wore whatever they said. Every sentence they ordered me to say, I repeated. Whenever they saw fit, they exploited me,” she wrote, adding that credit for her success always went to those in charge.

“I wasn’t important to them. None of us mattered to them, we were tools,” Alizadeh added, explaining that while the regime celebrated her medals, it criticized the sport she had chosen: “The virtue of a woman is not to stretch her legs!”

On the heels of Alizadeh’s self-imposed exile comes reports that two anchors for Iranian state broadcaster IRIB have quit over qualms about censorship and official lies. From The Guardian:

Zahra Khatami quit her role at IRIB, saying: “Thank you for accepting me as anchor until today. I will never get back to TV. Forgive me.”

Her fellow anchor Saba Rad said: “Thank you for your support in all years of my career. I announce that after 21 years working in radio and tv, I cannot continue my work in the media. I cannot.”

The journalists’ statements are part of a crisis of confidence following the initial attempts by state officials to deny that Ukrainian jetliner 752 had been shot down by mistake by members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) air defence force.

A third broadcaster, Gelare Jabbari, said she quit “some time ago” and asked Iranians to “forgive me for the 13 years I told you lies.”

This is all happening against the backdrop of massive protests in Iran following the accidental shooting down of a Ukrainian airliner that carried 176 people. Demonstrators protested rising gas prices late last year and in the years prior, there have been other protests and general strikes for a host of reasons, including increased dissatisfaction with theocratic rule. According to a Carnegie Endowment report, 150,000 educated Iranians emigrate each year, “costing the country over $150 billion per year” as relatively young and motivated residents leave for greener pastures elsewhere.

By all accounts, sanctions imposed by the United States in 2018 have hit Iran’s economy extremely hard and are playing a role in sparking protests. It’s never fully clear how those sorts of intervention, much less more militaristic actions such as the killing of Soleimani, play out—sometimes overt pressure applied by an outside power emboldens dissent and sometimes it decreases it. But when a country starts to get hollowed out from within, as seems to be the case with Alizadeh’s exile and other recent and ongoing domestic developments, autocrats should start sweating.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30iaShl
via IFTTT

With Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) currently leading Democratic presidential polls in Iowa and New Hampshire—and with caucuses and the primary in those states less than a month away—it’s time to start paying attention to what a Sanders presidency would mean for the stock market.

Several prominent money managers have warned that a victory by Sanders or his ideological ally, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), would bring a decline of between 25 percent and 40 percent in the value of U.S. stocks. That would destroy trillions of dollars in wealth of U.S. households. The resulting negative effect on everything from tax revenues to employment would affect even families without much saved in the stock market, and, ironically, could make Sanders’ agenda of government expansion much harder to achieve.

“If Bernie Sanders becomes president, I think stock prices should be 30 percent to 40 percent lower than they are now,” Stanley Druckenmiller told CNBC last year. Forbes says Druckenmiller has about $4.7 billion accumulated through a lifetime of managing money. It’s worth paying attention to his warning.

“The biggest risk for 2020 is the presidential election,” the New York Times quotes a JPMorgan researcher, Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou, as saying.

Another billionaire hedge fund manager, Paul Tudor Jones, said his firm’s employees think the value of the large stocks in the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index would decline by 25 percent if Senator Warren is elected. “Her policies would—assuming they were implemented—probably give you something like that,” he said, according to CNBC. “As an investor, you have to have a view on the election because the outcomes are so extreme.”

Another billionaire hedge fund manager, Marc Lasry, made a similar call, telling CNBC about Senator Warren, “I think if she’s the president, market’s down 20 percent, 30 percent.”

At the end of 2018, U.S. households and nonprofit organizations held about $15.6 trillion in corporate equities, according to the Federal Reserve.  A decline of 40 percent would be a destruction of wealth of about $6.2 trillion. A decline of 20 percent would be a destruction of wealth of about $3.1 trillion. By comparison, the entire annual GDP of California in 2018 was about $3 trillion, and of Japan, about $5 trillion.

Doubtless some Warren and Sanders voters would see that sort of wealth destruction as good news. Since much of the stock market wealth is in the hands of rich people, a big stock market decline would reduce the inequality that so upsets left-wing Democrats. Sanders and Warren won’t even have to wait for Congress to enact their “wealth tax”; they can make trillions of dollars disappear by means of intimidation, not legislation.

But the last time the stock market took that big a tumble was in 2008. If that’s too long ago for you to remember, allow me to remind you: it was miserable. Businesses and state and local governments laid off workers, tax receipts tumbled, the real estate market tanked, unemployment rose. Instead of focusing on the problem that other people were too rich (“inequality”), people were worried about finding a job or about having their house foreclosed on.

In a roaring economy, it’s easier to find money for spending on health care and education of the sort Sanders and Warren advocate. In a sagging economy, government spending goes up automatically on items such as food stamps and unemployment benefits, while income-tax revenues decline. In that environment, vast government expansion becomes less tenable. Obama managed it with the “stimulus” and ObamaCare during the post-2008 downturn, but he paid a significant political price, losing control of the House of Representatives. Likewise, President Roosevelt responded to a stock market crash with a vast expansion of government.

President Sanders, or Warren, would probably try a similar move, arguing that the same government programs they had proposed during the booming Trump economy are now more essential than ever as a way of cushioning the blow in a bad economy created by the expectation of their policies. The policy prescription—more big government—is the same. It’s just the rationale that shifts, depending on whether the economy is soaring or sagging.

All of which is to say that there’s probably some basis to the idea that a Sanders or Warren administration would be bad for the market. Democrats will write in to claim that stocks do better in Democratic administrations. And it’s certainly possible that the market is driven over the long or even medium term mainly by forces other than presidents, who are constrained by Congress and who only stick around for four or eight years at a time.

But you don’t have to be a Wall Street genius to understand that the Sanders-Warren agenda—higher taxes, increased regulation, more government control—means the share in future profits represented by a share of stock will be worth less.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36RXjrs
via IFTTT

This week’s Reason Roundtable podcast picks up where last week‘s left off: Iran. Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch discuss the administration’s ever-shifting storyline, flickers of principled opposition/oversight in Congress, and playground-style argumentation for war.

Then, straight oughtta this morning’s headline, the gang assesses the import of Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) leaving of the presidential race and the possible meanings of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) continuing to rise in the polls ahead of Tuesday night’s debate. There are also mentions of the Academy Award nominations, “hand-wavy pay-fors,” and the passing of Rush drummer/lyricist Neil Peart.

Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Music credit: “Lurking” by Silent Partner

Relevant links from the show:

“More Holes in the ‘Imminent Threat’ Story on Soleimani,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

“Escalation Breeds Escalation, in Iran and Beyond,” by Bonnie Kristian

“No War With Iran, House Tells Trump. Next Up: Finally Forbidding Military Force in Iraq?” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

“Republican Rep. Thomas Massie Signs On to House Bill Ending War in Iraq,” by Scott Shackford

“Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham Try to War-Demagogue Like It’s 2004,” by Matt Welch

“Cory Booker, Who Urged Democratic Unity, Drops Out of Presidential Race,” by Billy Binion

“Curb Your Enthusiasm‘s Gavin Polone on Hollywood Hypocrites, Bad Film Subsidies, and the Future of the Industry,” by Zach Weissmueller

“Neil Peart, Champion of Individualism,” by Christian Britschgi

“Future Nobel Laureate Warns: The Antichrist Is Coming!” by Jesse Walker

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3a9ov72
via IFTTT

Yale forensic psychiatrist Bandy Lee, who famously diagnosed Donald Trump with narcissistic personality disorder, is now suggesting that Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a conspicuous critic of claims that the president is guilty of obstructing justice or other impeachable conduct, suffers from the same mental disorder. Not only that, Lee says on Twitter, but “just about all of Donald Trump’s followers” suffer from a “shared psychosis”—a pseudomedical conclusion that nicely illustrates how Lee and like-minded Trump critics try to shut down political debate by portraying their opponents as mentally ill.

Dershowitz made that point in a recent Gatestone Institute essay. “Her resort to diagnosis rather than dialogue is a symptom of a much larger problem that faces our divided nation,” he writes. “Too many Americans are refusing to engage in reasoned dialogue with people with whom they disagree.”

Unfortunately, Dershowitz seems to be doing something similar by complaining to Lee’s employer about her diagnosis of him.

Dershowitz notes that Lee’s habit of bludgeoning her opponents with the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) flies in the face of the APA’s Goldwater Rule, which says “it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.” Lee argues that the Goldwater Rule should not prevent psychiatrists from bringing their expertise to bear on important issues of the day—in particular, Trump’s presidency, which she views as an existential threat to humanity. Yet the rule, a response to similar psychiatric critiques of 1964 Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, was meant to discourage passionate partisans like Lee from casting their political opinions as professional medical judgments, which is exactly what Lee is doing.

The basis for Lee’s diagnosis of Dershowitz shows how casually she tosses DSM labels around. In lieu of an “examination,” she cited a July 18 Fox News interview in which Dershowitz responded to Virginia Giuffre’s claim that Jeffrey Epstein, the financier who committed suicide in jail last August after he was arrested on federal charges of sex trafficking minors, forced her to have sex with Dershowitz, who represented Epstein in a 2006 Florida case involving underage prostitution.

“I’ve had sex with one woman since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein,” Dershowitz said, referring to his wife. “I challenge David Boies [Giuffre’s lawyer] to say under oath that he’s only had sex with one woman during that same period of time. He couldn’t do it. So he has an enormous amount of chutzpah to attack me and to challenge my perfect, perfect sex life during the relevant period of time.” Dershowitz averred that David Boies “has a terrible reputation for sexual activities.”

Boies’ sex life, of course, is logically irrelevant to the merits of Giuffre’s charge against Dershowitz, or of Dershowitz’s counter-charge that she is guilty of defaming him. But if it is true that Dershowitz was faithful to his wife “during the relevant period,” then it must be true that Giuffre is lying or mistaken. Showing little interest in what actually happened, Lee latched onto Dershowitz’s use of the word perfect to describe his sexual fidelity, which she cited as evidence that he caught a mental disorder from the president.

“Alan Dershowitz’s employing the odd use of ‘perfect’—not even a synonym—might be dismissed as ordinary influence in most contexts,” Lee tweeted. “However, given the severity and spread of ‘shared psychosis’ among just about all of Donald Trump’s followers, a different scenario is more likely. Which scenario? That he has wholly taken on Trump’s symptoms by contagion. There is even proof: his bravado toward his opponent with a question about his own sex life—in a way that is irrelevant to the actual lawsuit—shows the same grandiosity and delusional-level impunity. Also identical is the level of lack of empathy, of remorse, and of consideration of consequences (until some accountability comes from the outside—at which time he is likely to lash out equally).”

Contrary to Lee’s implication, Dershowitz’s use of perfect predates by more than two months Trump’s dubious reliance on that adjective to describe his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the conversation at the heart of his impeachment. “I guess she believes he caught the contagion from me,” Dershowitz writes. More to the point, Lee is pretending that her assessment of Dershowitz’s character (which includes the assumption that Dershowitz did in fact have sex with Giuffre) is an objectively verifiable scientific conclusion. While that is very much in the spirit of the DSM, the APA at least expects psychiatrists to actually meet and examine people (and get their permission) before publicly issuing such a diagnosis.

Irked by Lee’s departure from the Goldwater Rule, Dershowitz sent a copy of his response essay to the deans of Yale’s medical and law schools, where Lee works. He tells me he “asked Yale to determine whether her diagnosis of me violated the academic standards of the university.” Now Lee, who does not hesitate to use her position and psychiatric expertise to stigmatize people who disagree with her, is portraying herself as a brave dissident, which is pretty funny given the dearth of MAGA hats at Yale and the accolades she gets on Twitter.

“Alan Dershowitz has now taken his grievance to the deans of Yale Law School and Yale School of Medicine,” Lee writes. “Fortunately, I am less afraid of power than I am of truth. I have considered the costs; if he expects me to cower and to compromise, I will not.”

Noting Lee’s complaint about his complaint, I suggested to Dershowitz that contacting Lee’s employer looks like an intimidation tactic. “I merely informed Yale of the facts and asked them to determine whether she broke any university rules,” he replied by email. “It’s their decision how to proceed. I don’t think she has a free speech right to defame me.”

While Lee’s implicit endorsement of Giuffre’s claim against Dershowitz might be viewed as defamatory, since it concerns a factual issue, her diagnosis of him is simply a personal opinion dressed up as a medical judgment. The diagnostic entity known as “narcissistic personality disorder” is nothing more than a constellation of unappealing, harmful traits (grandiosity, attention seeking, self-centeredness, “exaggerated self-appraisal,” etc.) that the APA has decided to give that name. Asking whether Dershowitz (or Trump) really suffers from that “mental disorder” is the same as asking whether they have those traits. One might ask the same thing about Lee, and “there is even proof,” based on her public statements, that she possesses at least some of those qualities.

As with DSM labels generally, there is no objective test that can confirm or disconfirm the diagnosis that Lee has applied to Trump and now Dershowitz. It would therefore be impossible to prove that Lee is making an objectively false statement about them. Notwithstanding its baleful effect on the quality of political debate, Lee’s promiscuous use of psychiatric labels does a public service by exposing the pseudoscientific pretensions of her profession.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35R0heH
via IFTTT

Outrage over some controversial pardons by Kentucky’s former governor is being used to resurrect a “victim’s rights” law that the state’s top court struck down last year.

After losing his reelection bid in November, Republican Gov. Matt Bevin approved more than 650 pardons and commutations before leaving office. Many of these were perfectly normal expressions of the governor’s power. Some, for example, benefitted people who faced or already served heavy sentences for drug-related offenses. Some commuted the sentences of men on death row to life in prison.

But some others were highly controversial and led to calls for investigations. A convicted murderer pardoned by Bevin was a member of a family that had raised more than $20,000 for Bevin’s re-election campaign at a fund-raiser. Another pardoned prisoner had been convicted of raping a 9-year-old; Bevin raised public ire by saying he didn’t believe the evidence against the man because the child’s hymen was still intact. (A popular myth holds that this proves no sexual intercourse occurred.)

Now a Republican state legislator is channeling public anger to try to pass a “Marsy’s Law” to designate certain “rights” for crime victims.

Marsy’s Laws are named after Marsalee Nicholas, a woman killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983 after he was released from jail on bail. They have been pushed into law in several states, in campaigns funded by Nicholas’ wealthy brother. They purport to expand the legal rights of people who are victims of crimes, granting them legal standing to demand protection from criminal defendants, restitution from criminals, notifications of court proceedings, and a say in parole hearings for those serving time.

Kentucky voters passed a version of Marsy’s Law as a ballot initiative in 2018. But last June the state’s top court tossed the law out because the wording of the statute wasn’t included on the ballot. Instead, voters were simply asked, “Are you in favor of providing constitutional rights to victims of crime, including the right to be treated fairly, with dignity and respect, and the right to be informed and to have a voice in the judicial process?”

Lawmakers promised to try to bring the law back before the Assembly, and last week State Sen. Whitney Westerfield (R–Crofton) announced its resurrection in an op-ed for the Courier Journal. The piece doesn’t actually mention Bevin’s pardons and commutations, but it notes that Westerfield has updated the version passed in 2018 to “ensure victims have the right to be heard in and notified of the consideration of any pardon, commutation of sentence or granting of a reprieve.”

The problem with Marsy’s Laws is that they do a whole lot more than just notify crime victims of proceedings involving those charged and convicted of crimes. By giving victims a version of legal “standing” during the investigation and trial of crimes, these laws have the potential to tilt the balance against the defendants and violate their constitutional rights by treating them with the presumption of guilt rather than innocence. Allowing the alleged victim to have a say in a defendants’ bail, for example, treats the defendants as though they’re guilty when they haven’t even been convicted.

As such, defense attorneys and the American Civil Liberties Union are largely opposed to these laws. David M. Ward, president of the Kentucky Association of Defense Lawyers, warned back in 2018:

The reason we have the procedural protections for the accused that we do is that our criminal justice framework rests on the presumption of the accused’s innocence and the fact that, occasionally, people that are accused of a crime are not guilty. Identifying a “crime victim” at the outset of the proceeding presumes just the opposite. Take for example one category of cases—those involving self-defense. Do we really want a system where a person who claims this fundamental right of self-protection must defend themselves not only against the power of the State but also against the legal onslaught mounted by a victim who later, after a trial, turns out to be anything but?

Marsy’s Laws sometimes allow alleged “crime victims” to control how much information about themselves is made public. In some states, police who shot people in the line of duty have used Marsy’s Laws to conceal records about those violent encounters—including the officers’ names—by identifying themselves as crime victims.

These laws also make it harder for prisoners to seek out appeals. This can have any number of potentially bad consequences for somebody trying to prove his or her innocence. As Matthew Harwood wrote in Reason,

Under the version of Marsy’s Law passed in Florida last year, people convicted of noncapital crimes have only two years to complete all appeals, while those on death row have five years. The new limits are based on the victim’s right to proceedings free of unnecessary delays. Under prior law, by contrast, there were limits on how long it could take to file a post-conviction action, Miller said, but there were no limitations on how long the post-convictions could last once initiated.

“For all of my clients, we got involved in the case one or two decades later,” says the Innocence Project’s [Seth] Miller, whose organization has gotten 18 people in Florida released from prison. “Is this going to be used by victims of crimes to prevent us from pressing post-conviction motions based on newly discovered evidence of innocence, because it’s outside an arbitrary time frame set out in this new constitutional provision?”

But it’s hard for politicians to go wrong telling voters that they’re protecting the rights of crime victims, even if parts of the proposal replicate laws already on the books and even if it completely upturns the concept of presumed innocence.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3a99Zfy
via IFTTT