Category: reason

Chancelor Bennett, known by his stage name, Chance the Rapper, recently announced that he is the proud new owner of Chicagoist. The purchase was announced in “I Need Security,” one of four new songs that he released late Wednesday evening.

4 new songs at https://t.co/m5rYnxzNGY pic.twitter.com/yLWFHnRTy8

— Chance The Rapper (@chancetherapper) July 19, 2018

Chicagoist was part of the local news empire that started with New York City’s Gothamist, founded in 2003. The group of sites was purchased by billionaire Joe Ricketts in 2017, who shuttered the suite later the same year after employees voted to unionize. The closure affected 115 journalists, including those who worked for Chicagoist, DCist, LAist, and similar city publications. Three of the publications affected—Gothamist, DCist, and LAist—were relaunched in February by New York public radio station WNYC.

According to Gothamist, Chance’s Social Media LLC purchased the Chicagoist website from WNYC.

“I’m extremely excited to be continuing the work of the Chicagoist, an integral local platform for Chicago news, events and entertainment. WNYC’s commitment to finding homes for the -ist brands, including Chicagoist, was an essential part of continuing the legacy and integrity of the site. I look forward to re-launching it and bringing the people of Chicago an independent media outlet focused on amplifying diverse voices and content,” he reportedly said in a statement. Or as he rapped in song form, “I bought the Chicagoist just to run you racist bitches out of business.”

It would appear that Chance is already getting into the investigative spirit with a set of lyrics directed to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel:

And Rahm you done I’m expectin’ resignation

An open investigation on all of these paid vacations for murderers

(As Genius notes, Chance’s anger is motivated by Emanuel’s 2017 proposal to spend $95 million on a police and firefighter training center in response to a Justice Department investigation that concluded excessive force was disproportionately used against black residents. In November, Emanuel walked out of Chance’s speech to city council when the rapper suggested that the city should put the resources into public schools and mental health programs.)

The move is in sharp contrast to a news experiment currently being explored by the state of New Jersey. As Reason‘s Joe Seyton previously reported, New Jersey has put aside $5 million to subsidize local news in response to a “growing crisis” in local coverage. If the concerns associated with such a move being carried out by one of the most corrupt states were not obvious, Politico‘s Jack Shafer explains:

Even if the consortium stays clean, won’t it avoid politically charged stories of great watchdogging potential because it will fear to bite the hand that feeds it? Government-funded news outfits like NPR and PBS, ever fearful of offending their funding sources, avoid hard-hitting government news for this reason. Public media may follow the news pack on a story about government corruption, but generally, they’re too compromised to lead.

Chance’s venture into local media is consistent with his recent embrace of political activism. He met with Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) in 2017 to talk about Chicago public schools and later reported disappointment with the governor’s vague answers. Just a few months ago, he tweeted that black Americans were not required to vote for Democrats.

California’s Supreme Court has yanked from the November ballot an initiative asking Californians if they want to break the state into three parts.

It’s rare for the state’s Supreme Court to take initiatives off the ballot once they’ve been cleared by the California Secretary of State’s office. Typically, the court waits until after an initiative actually passes to go through the trouble of assessing its constitutionality.

The balkanization proposal, from Silicon Valley millionaire Tim Draper, qualified for the ballot in June. Draper proposed creating new states called Northern California and Southern California, with a strip along the central coast (including Los Angeles) maintaining the original California name. Each of California’s biggest metropolitan areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego) would end up in a different state.

Enthusiasm for breaking up California threatens the state’s political power structure. The Planning and Conservation League, a powerful state environmental lobbying group, sued to keep Draper’s initiative off the ballot. They argued that such a dramatic change to the state requires rewriting the California Constitution, and that action needs the support of two-thirds of both halves of the legislature before going before the voters.

Yesterday afternoon, the California Supreme Court concurred unanimously. In a brief order they determined that the “potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.” The court instructed California Secretary of State Alex Padilla to yank the initiative from the November ballot, for now at least.

Draper is unhappy about the ruling, declaring that “This kind of corruption is what happens in Third World countries.”

The Los Angeles Times notes that the California Supreme Court also agreed to consider and rule on the constitutionality of the initiative itself, which could either resurrect it or kill it entirely. Experts predict the court will kill it.

It’s unfortunate but also telling that, in the end, citizens of California may only decide how they are to be ruled if the rulers themselves permit it. The Planning and Conservation League has a strong stake in keeping the state intact. They claim credit for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), one of the most powerful and most frequently abused anti-development laws ever crafted. It’s invoked up and down the state by everybody from NIMBY types to labor unions to block developments they don’t like using environmental concerns as a pretext. Breaking up California would most certainly gut CEQA’s reach. It would also reduce Sacramento’s power and influence, so we should not expect state lawmakers from population centers like Los Angeles and San Francisco to risk losing statewide influence.

Splitting up the state was a longshot in the first place. The Supreme Court decision may just put it entirely out of reach.

Bonus Link: Ilya Somin analyzes the court’s logic over at The Volokh Conspiracy here.

Reason and The Soho Forum hosted a debate between Erik Voorhees, the CEO of ShapeShift, and Peter Schiff, CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital.

The proposition: “Bitcoin, or a similar form of cryptocurrency, will eventually replace governments’ fiat money as the preferred medium of exchange.”

Click here for downloadable versions.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

View this article.

Taxpayers were stuck with a nearly $250,000 bill for Secret Service costs incurred on a pair of business trips taken last February by President Donald Trump’s two oldest sons, according to documents released by a watchdog group.

“The Secret Service documents, received through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, shed light on how much taxpayers are paying for trips taken by the heads of the president’s private business empire,” according to a statement from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-leaning advocacy group that has sparred with the Trump administration.

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, who took control of the Trump Organization after their father was elected president, were accompanied by Secret Service agents on a February 2017 trip to Dubai for the opening of a Trump International Golf Club. That trip cost the Secret Service more than $200,000, “including about $125,000 for airfare, $75,000 for hotel rooms and more than $15,000 for ‘other’ expenses including cell phones, car service and other transportation,” CREW said. The group added that Donald Jr. and Eric visited Dubai again in 2018, though that trip cost the Secret Service just $73,000.

Eric Trump also had Secret Service protection when he traveled to the Dominican Republic the same month as the Dubai trip, again on Trump Organization business. As CREW noted, “when compared to the bill taxpayers were stuck with from Dubai, the Dominican Republic trip was a bargain at just more than $30,000 for airfare, hotel rooms, auto rental and additional expenses.”

It’s not necessarily Donald Jr. and Eric’s fault that the Secret Service follows them around, as it’s standard practice for the children of presidents to receive protection. Chelsea Clinton was protected, as were Jenna and Barbara, the twin daughters of George W. Bush. After their fathers were out of office, all three presidential daughters also got a period of extended Secret Service protection. Moreover, Barack Obama’s daughters, Malia and Sasha, were even shadowed by Secret Service agents during their spring break trips.

As The Atlantic noted when Rep. Steve King (R–Iowa) erupted over Secret Service spending on Sasha and Malia’s trips, presidential progeny have been accompanied on their vacations for decades and critics are usually partisan. CREW, which was helmed by Clinton critic-turned-crony David Brock until Dec. 2016, has challenged Trump at every turn, from filing a suit alleging he violated the Emolument Clause, to filing a suit alleging that Trump deleting his tweets violates the Presidential Records Act. It is not surprising that they found yet another reason to criticize the Trump administration.

But CREW also has a point.

Chelsea Clinton was just 12 years old when her father took office, the Bush daughters were 19, and Malia and Sasha were 10 and 7, respectively. Donald Jr. is 40 and Eric is 34; private security for trips to benefit the family empire are a legitimate business expense, and one they should perhaps shoulder on their own.

Secret Service protection is mandatory for presidents and vice presidents, but it’s optional for everyone else. If those two want protection when enriching themselves overseas, they should pay for it themselves.

Taxpayers were stuck with a nearly $250,000 bill for Secret Service costs incurred on a pair of business trips taken last February by President Donald Trump’s two oldest sons, according to documents released by a watchdog group.

“The Secret Service documents, received through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, shed light on how much taxpayers are paying for trips taken by the heads of the president’s private business empire,” according to a statement from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-leaning advocacy group that has sparred with the Trump administration.

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, who took control of the Trump Organization after their father was elected president, were accompanied by Secret Service agents on a February 2017 trip to Dubai for the opening of a Trump International Golf Club. That trip cost the Secret Service more than $200,000, “including about $125,000 for airfare, $75,000 for hotel rooms and more than $15,000 for ‘other’ expenses including cell phones, car service and other transportation,” CREW said. The group added that Donald Jr. and Eric visited Dubai again in 2018, though that trip cost the Secret Service just $73,000.

Eric Trump also had Secret Service protection when he traveled to the Dominican Republic the same month as the Dubai trip, again on Trump Organization business. As CREW noted, “when compared to the bill taxpayers were stuck with from Dubai, the Dominican Republic trip was a bargain at just more than $30,000 for airfare, hotel rooms, auto rental and additional expenses.”

It’s not necessarily Donald Jr. and Eric’s fault that the Secret Service follows them around, as it’s standard practice for the children of presidents to receive protection. Chelsea Clinton was protected, as were Jenna and Barbara, the twin daughters of George W. Bush. After their fathers were out of office, all three presidential daughters also got a period of extended Secret Service protection. Moreover, Barack Obama’s daughters, Malia and Sasha, were even shadowed by Secret Service agents during their spring break trips.

As The Atlantic noted when Rep. Steve King (R–Iowa) erupted over Secret Service spending on Sasha and Malia’s trips, presidential progeny have been accompanied on their vacations for decades and critics are usually partisan. CREW, which was helmed by Clinton critic-turned-crony David Brock until Dec. 2016, has challenged Trump at every turn, from filing a suit alleging he violated the Emolument Clause, to filing a suit alleging that Trump deleting his tweets violates the Presidential Records Act. It is not surprising that they found yet another reason to criticize the Trump administration.

But CREW also has a point.

Chelsea Clinton was just 12 years old when her father took office, the Bush daughters were 19, and Malia and Sasha were 10 and 7, respectively. Donald Jr. is 40 and Eric is 34; private security for trips to benefit the family empire are a legitimate business expense, and one they should perhaps shoulder on their own.

Secret Service protection is mandatory for presidents and vice presidents, but it’s optional for everyone else. If those two want protection when enriching themselves overseas, they should pay for it themselves.

Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) offered a detailed criticism on Twitter yesterday of U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Among other observations, Amash argued that Trump “went out of his way to appear subordinate” and “spoke more like the head of a vassal state.”

Amash’s Twitter thread came two days after Trump told the world he accepted Putin’s claim that the Russian government did not interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Widespread criticism ensued from across the political spectrum, leading Trump to claim Tuesday that he misspoke and believed Russia did interfere in the election.

Amash indicated he has no problem with U.S. presidents meeting with leaders of countries like Russia, North Kora, and Cuba. “Peace and prosperity can’t be secured without communication and engagement,” he wrote, adding that one of the “most of appealing qualities” of libertarianism is “the desire to seek friendship and peace whenever possible.”

I believe that this aspect of libertarianism—the desire to seek friendship and peace whenever possible—is among its most appealing qualities.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) July 19, 2018

But while “diplomacy and dialogue are good,” Amash wrote, it’s a “logical fallacy” to say that Trump’s performance at the press conference was good as well. Oppposing what Trump said doesn’t make a person “pro-war or anti-Trump,” Amash added. “No, some of us are just concerned about the bizarre behavior of our president at a press conference.”

Yet, that’s precisely the false conclusion some are making. I’ve heard it said that anyone who disapproves of what took place at the press conference is pro-war or anti-Trump. No, some of us are just concerned about the bizarre behavior of our president at a press conference.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) July 19, 2018

The libertarian-leaning Republican went on to argue that the press conference did not accomplish its goal of “bringing America and Russia closer.” Instead, it left Amash thinking “something is not right here.” That’s because Trump’s performance made him “appear subordinate” to Putin, Amash said.

The impression it left on me, a strong supporter of the meeting, is that “something is not right here.” The president went out of his way to appear subordinate. He spoke more like the head of a vassal state.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) July 19, 2018

Amash said he wasn’t sure what prompted Trump’s embarrassing performance. But regardless, “the press conference was counterproductive to the goal of improving relations,” he wrote. And though Trump later walked back on his remarks, Amash couldn’t help but wonder why he didn’t do so quicker if what he said was “simply a misstatement.”

Even the president ultimately recognized that the press conference did not go well, as he tried to correct his remarks that exonerated Russia. Oddly, it took him more than a day to do so. One wonders why the White House didn’t act more quickly if it were simply a misstatement.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) July 19, 2018

Next, Amash explained why it’s perfectly fine for libertarians to take issue with Trump’s remarks. “To suggest that anyone critical of the president’s conduct opposes diplomacy is to employ a strawman argument. It’s virtue signaling, not libertarianism,” he said. Then, he noted that opposing how Trump is dealing with Putin does not make one “a Deep State anti-Trump neocon warmonger, etc.”

The virtue being signaled is opposition to all things “neocon.” If someone doesn’t like how the meeting transpired, it must be because that person is a Deep State anti-Trump neocon warmonger, etc.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) July 19, 2018

Amash also criticized the tendency among some libertarians to defend Trump for the sake of “owning the neocons,” adding that it’s harmful to the libertarian movement when people connect libertarian principles to the “failings” of Trump. “When a libertarian’s political prime directive becomes ‘owning the neocons’ (or ‘owning the libs’) rather than advancing libertarian ideals, then that person undermines libertarianism as a philosophy,” he said.

The general public are not more likely to see themselves as libertarian when, for the sake of “owning the necons,” prominent figures associated with libertarianism conflate libertarian-style governance and Trump-style governance.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) July 19, 2018

The Michigan representative may have been taking a shot at Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), a fellow libertarian-leaning Republican who was one of the few politicians to defend Trump in the aftermath of his meeting and press conference with Putin.

Amash also pointed out other negative effects of Trump’s press conference. Not only did it “further isolate our country from Russia,” he said, but it’s led many people to “rally around” the FBI, despite the agency’s “dubious track record and unconstitutional activities, particularly with respect to the #4thAmendment.” The press conference will also likely lead to “more ineffectual sanctions bills and resolutions of condemnation against Russia,” Amash added, “which will serve primarily to stunt further efforts at diplomacy and dialogue.”

Amash concluded by calling on libertarians to be “smarter and more effective in our approach.” Instead of “Acting like partisans,” libertarians should “Stand strong on your principles; you’ll find most Americans standing with you.”

We libertarians need to be smarter and more effective in our approach. Acting like partisans—pushing demagoguery and tribalism—is a self-defeating proposition. Stand strong on your principles; you’ll find most Americans standing with you.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) July 19, 2018

Crops are rotting in the fields. Developers can’t find workers to hang dry wall. Summer tourist hotspots (such as Michigan’s Mackinac Island) are unable to fully function because they can’t find enough seasonal help. Help wanted signs are proliferating everywhere. Yet one of the biggest barriers to alleviating America’s labor scarcity and enacting humane, rational, and pro-growth immigration reform is a statement by the late, great, free market economist Milton Friedman that “free immigration” was incompatible with the welfare state.

“Free” immigration might be as distant a goal for mankind as flying at the speed of light and no one is talking about it. Yet Friedman’s vague and general statement has become a potent weapon in the arsenal of restricitonists to thwart any loosening of America’s insanely restrictive immigration laws. Worse, Friedman’s comment has become a way for justifying Trump’s draconian immigration crackdown.

But all of this is a terrible misuse of Friedman’s real views on immigration and welfare. If he were still alive, I note in my column at The Week, he would denounce Trump’s immigration policies. He’d never be on the restrictionist side.

Go here to read the piece.

The head lawyer at Oklahoma State Department of Health has been charged with two felonies and one misdemeanor for faking threatening emails to herself and then lying about it.

In early July, Julia Ezell began receiving emailed threats purporting to be from medical marijuana advocates. The first one included her home address, a description of her car, and the message: “We will watch you.” More messages came, accusing her of “greed” and “evil”; “We will stop YOU… Any way it takes to … protect what is ours,” they wrote. Another email: “We would hate to hurt a pretty lady. You will hear us. We are just beginning.”

Turns out Ezell had nothing to fear! “A forensic examination of Ezell’s mobile phone revealed she sent several menacing emails to her own government email address and then reported them to authorities,” CBS News reports.

“These charges do not reflect who she is as a person,” Ezell’s lawyer said. “[N]or do they reflect the type of advocate she has been for the people of the state of Oklahoma. These allegations will be answered, and additional relevant information will be provided by us at the appropriate time.”

The sad twist here is that until the hoax emails, Ezell seemed to be on the smart side of things.

Oklahoma voters just approved medical marijuana in June, with 57 percent voting in favor of State Question 788. The board of the Oklahoma State Health Department, where Ezell was general counsel, was then tasked with approving medical marijuana rules, which she helped draft.

But Ezell’s version excluded provisions to ban all smokeable marijuana sales and make every dispensary employ a pharmacist—policies the department adopted anyway—and “she had cautioned the board that those changes were beyond the board’s legal authority,” says CBS. “The rule changes infuriated medical marijuana supporters and led to two lawsuits against the board.”

The Oklahoma health department has generally been a mess in recent years, CBS Notes:

Ezell was hired by the agency in November by then-Interim Commissioner Preston Doerflinger after it had been rocked with allegations of financial mismanagement that led to layoffs and the resignations of some of its top officials.

Doerflinger resigned a few months later following accusations of domestic violence. A later audit revealed the agency’s financial operations were so badly bungled that nearly 200 employees lost their jobs unnecessarily.

Ezell stepped down from her job with the agency last Friday, with a letter that read: “Effectively immediately I resign my position as General Counsel of the Oklahoma State Department of Health. I am so sorry.”

But there’s hope for medical marijuana rules in Oklahoma yet. “On Monday, Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter said that his office would review the legal challenges to the agency’s” emergency rules, reports Oklahoma News 4.

Just two days later, the attorney general’s office announced that it was advising the State Board of Health to convene a special meeting to amend the rules it passed regulating medical marijuana.

Hunter said the rules are “inconsistent with the plain language of State Question 788” and said the board “acted outside of its authority when it voted to implement them.”

Hunter said in a letter that the board should not be able to prohibit the sale of smokable marijuana, or require dispensaries to hire pharmacists.

This puts him at odds with the state’s health commissioner, Tom Bates. “To allow smokable forms would be a step back as protectors of public health in Oklahoma,” Bates said.

FREE MINDS

“Blockchain is helping to circumvent censorship in China,” says Slate. “Given the constant claims that blockchain is the solution to everything from poverty to corruption, it’s understandable if you’re skeptical,” New America fellow Spandana Singh writes. “But this is an example of a situation in which it genuinely has potential.”

In one case, a banned letter about sexual assault at China’s Peking University was able to get around censors by someone “embedding [the] letter into the tamper-proof Ethereum blockchain.” The letter was penned by Peking University student Yue Xin.

Blockchain is an open-source, public, distributed computing technology, which is the basis of the well-known cryptocurrency bitcoin. Ethereum is a public blockchain that hosts the cryptocurrency Ether. The anonymous activists sent themselves zero Ether on the platform and embedded the text of Yue’s open letter in the transaction’s metadata. Transactions on blockchain are irreversible, so the information cannot be altered.

Furthermore, transactions generate distributed copies of themselves within the network, which ensured that Yue’s letter would be permanently documented in the public domain and accessible to any user who looked the transaction up.

Communication isn’t a prime “use case” of blockchain just yet, Singh points out. But recently “students from universities across the country similarly embedded messages in their transaction descriptions, therefore enabling for unrestricted and free conversation on the issue to take place.”

QUICK HITS

• The California Supreme Court says that voters can’t decide via ballot measure to divide California into three separate states.
• New York’s Department of Taxation and Finance is investigating the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
• The American Civil Liberties Union is suing D.C. police over the stop and frisk of a 39-year-old man that allegedly involved “probing his genitalia.”
• Spain is considering making affirmative consent the national law.
• The Brady Bunch house is up for sale.
• Spain may criminalize sex that occurs without affirmative consent.

American firms cheering for protectionism in the form of tariffs on their foreign competitors should be careful what they wish for, writes Veronique de Rugy. As they say, “What goes around comes around.” Case in point: The American washer and dryer manufacturer Whirlpool Corp, which cheered the Trump administration for imposing a penalty on Americans who buy foreign-made washers.

Here’s the thing: When you cheer for protectionism, you never know when you might become the victim of the next round of consumer-punishing tariffs. That’s what happened to Whirlpool, de Rugy notes, which is now a victim of the 25 percent steel tariffs imposed by the administration to protect the steel industry from foreign competition.

View this article.

In his second inaugural, Abraham Lincoln declared that “if God wills that [the Civil War] continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk…as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said, ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'”

It is a noble sentiment. Yet the economic idea implied—that exploitation made us rich—is mistaken. Slavery made a few Southerners rich; a few Northerners, too. But it was ingenuity and innovation that enriched Americans generally, including at last the descendants of the slaves, writes Deirdre Nansen McCloskey.

View this article.