Category: reason

Last weekend, the Swiss voted
for immigration restrictions supported by the nationalist
and euroskeptic Swiss People’s Party, the party with the most seats
in Switzerland’s lower house of the Federal Assembly. The party
campaigned for the restrictions using the depressingly common fear
mongering about overpopulation.

The vote was praised by nationalistic, xenophobic, and
euroskeptic parties across Europe. It shouldn’t be surprising that
members of such parties support the referendum, which was backed by
50.3 percent of Swiss voters. However, Matthew Feeney argues, what
is notable is that European politicians and parties in favor of the
Swiss immigration restrictions are exhibiting a behavior seen in
the Republican Party when it comes to debates on immigration;
giving lip service to freedom without being able to match the
rhetoric with action.

View this article.

Last weekend, the Swiss voted
for immigration restrictions supported by the nationalist
and euroskeptic Swiss People’s Party, the party with the most seats
in Switzerland’s lower house of the Federal Assembly. The party
campaigned for the restrictions using the depressingly common fear
mongering about overpopulation.

The vote was praised by nationalistic, xenophobic, and
euroskeptic parties across Europe. It shouldn’t be surprising that
members of such parties support the referendum, which was backed by
50.3 percent of Swiss voters. However, Matthew Feeney argues, what
is notable is that European politicians and parties in favor of the
Swiss immigration restrictions are exhibiting a behavior seen in
the Republican Party when it comes to debates on immigration;
giving lip service to freedom without being able to match the
rhetoric with action.

View this article.

MSNBC.com (now a separate thing from NBC
News’ website) has updated its story on allegations that Rand Paul
had “plagiarized” a portion of his lawsuit over the NSA. An
editor’s note highlights that a story now headlined “Rand Paul
didn’t plagiarizes his NSA lawsuit” was originally titled “Rand
Paul accused of plagiarizing his NSA lawsuit.” What made MSNBC
determine the accusations of plagiarism were baseless? They were
denied by the lawyer whose ex-wife made the original claim.

MSNBC reports:

Late Wednesday, the Washington
Post published a story quoting Mattie Fein,
identified as the ex-wife and spokesperson of conservative attorney
Bruce Fein, saying that Paul and Cuccinnelli had used Bruce Fein’s
legal work without fully compensating him, and that the filing in
the lawsuit was identical to one Fein had worked on for Paul’s
PAC.

A spokesperson for RANDPAC forwarded an email from Fein denying
Mattie Fein’s allegations. “Mattie Lolavar was not speaking for
me,” Fein said in the email. “Her quotes were her own and did not
represent my views.  I was working on a legal team, and have
been paid for my work.” Bruce Fein confirmed to msnbc that the
email was from him.

Whose idea it was to run with a claim by a second-hand source
without e-mailing the person on whose work the claim is based
remains unanswered.

More Reason on Rand Paul here and on the NSA
here.

In the months leading up to the passage of
Obamacare, President Obama often pitched the law as a way to
increase competition in the health insurance market. Here’s what
the president said
during a September 2009 speech to Congress, for
example: 

My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do
better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34
states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer
companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one
company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and
the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance
companies to treat their customers badly – by cherry-picking the
healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by
overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking
up rates.

But for many Americans, there’s still very little competition in
the individual insurance market. As The Wall Street
Journal
reports today:

Consumers in 515 counties, spread across 15 states, have only
one insurer selling coverage through the online marketplaces, the
Journal found. In more than 80% of those counties, the sole insurer
is a local Blue Cross & Blue Shield plan.

The health insurer cherry-picking President Obama described back
in 2009 is a real phenomenon. But if anything, Obamacare gives
insurers even more incentive to avoid the sick. That’s because the
law greatly restricts the way insurers can charge based on age and
health history. The result is the insurers end up competing to
attract healthy people (who are cheaper to serve), and looking for
ways to avoid the sick (who are more expensive). That’s exactly
what’s happened across the exchanges. As the Journal
notes:

Aetna targeted areas with stable levels of employment and income
to attract desirable customers to its marketplace offerings, Chief
Executive Mark Bertolini said last fall. “We were very careful to
pick the markets” where the insurer could succeed, he said.

Even still, it has proven difficult to attract a profitably
healthy cohort of individuals into exchange plans. Bertlolini

said last week that Aetna’s exchange plans would lose money this
year. And he’s suggested that eventually, the company might
pull out of the exchanges entirely—leaving an individual market
with even less competition than exists now. 

Lawmakers in California have been
pushing legislation that would require cellphones sold in the
state to include a “kill switch,” a way to shut down the cellphone
remotely in case it were lost or stolen, and now four Democrat
senators have
introduced a similar proposal for the federal level. It’s a bad
idea, not just because it’s a half-baked scheme concocted by
busybody legislators reflexively in response to the perceived trend
of smartphone thefts. For example, in San Francisco, half of all
robberies reportedly involve a mobile device. But when mobile
devices are ubiquitous in most American cities, the conclusion that
mobile devices are driving thefts, and thus disabling stolen phones
could deter theft, is flimsy.

On the other hand, when wireless carriers point out the many
pitfalls of such legislation, the legislation’s supporters, like
San Francisco’s attorney general, accuse the companies of profit
(from insurance plans) over safety. PC Magazine reported
on wireless carriers’ opposition to a kill switch proposal floated
by Samsung (with prodding from San Francisco’s and New York state’s
attorneys general) last
November:

CTIA, the wireless trade association that represents
all the major U.S. carriers, said in a June fact sheet, however,
that kill switches pose “very serious risks.”

“If created, this capability would be in every handset and the
‘kill’ message would be known to every operator and therefore could
not be kept secret,” CTIA argued. If that falls into the wrong
hands, it “could be used to disable entire groups of customers,
such as Department of Defense, Homeland Security or emergency
services/law enforcement.”

A disabled device would not be able to make emergency calls, CTIA
said, while those who disable lost phones would have to pay
hundreds of dollars for a new device, even if they found the old
phone.

The wireless trade association highlighted other ways to “dry up
the aftermarket for stolen phones,” like a database carriers are
working on for stolen devices.

Apple introduced a “kill switch” of sorts in an iOS update

last year. That feature, called “Activation Lock,” rolled
out with iOS 7, appears to require your Apple ID before you can
wipe a phone clean for re-use. Apple’s new offering likely filled
some
kind of market desire for the feature. Other phone makers, and
the carriers they rely on to work with their phones, will make
their own determinations, based on what’s technically feasible,
what customers want, and what they are willing to pay for.
Intervention by lawmakers only serves to distort that process and
force a solution that is unlikely to be the kind of most mutually
beneficial one that would emerge from the market’s workings.

After the disastrous launch of
Healthcare.gov, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen
Sebelius publicly insisted that the president learned of the
website’s woes along with the rest of the country—on October 1,
2013, and thereafter as the slow-motion train wreck occupied public
attention. But it turns out that Sebelius and Obama met many times
in the year leading to the Obamacare portal’s launch—”including at
least seven instances in which the two were scheduled to discuss
the new healthcare law.” Did somebody forget to pencil a few
important items on the agenda? Or is the administration just full
of shit?

Back in October, Sebelius
told CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta that Obama learned of trouble with
the Healthcare.gov implementation and launch in “the first couple
of days” after the site went live. She specifically denied that he
had any hint of trouble earlier.

But The Hill‘s Kevin Bogardus and Jonathan Easley

report:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was in
frequent contact with President Obama and senior White House aides
before the disastrous launch of the federal ObamaCare exchange last
year.

While Sebelius has said the president was not aware of
HealthCare.gov’s problems, more than 750 pages of documents
obtained by The Hill through a Freedom of Information Act request
show she made scores of visits to the White House.

The documents reveal that Sebelius met with or attended calls
and events with Obama at least 18 times between Oct. 27, 2012, and
Oct. 6, 2013, including at least seven instances in which the two
were scheduled to discuss the new healthcare law, according to the
secretary’s draft schedules.

She had breakfast or lunch with Pete Rouse, considered one of
Obama’s closest advisers, at least three times. Moreover, Sebelius
had scheduled calls or meetings with Valerie Jarrett, an Obama
confidante, and White House chief of staff Denis McDonough.

Sebelius also met with or had calls with Chris Jennings, then a
White House senior healthcare adviser, at least seven times in the
roughly yearlong period.

Now, it’s possible they just said “fuck work” and discussed
favorite plot lines from Community (you know
that Barry thinks he’s a Jeff Winger, but he’s really more of a Ben
Chang.) But I suspect at least a little shop talk made its
way into the chatter from time to time.

Of course, Healthcare.gov is just the public face of Obamacare
despite the great many woes besetting the Affordable Care Act
independent of the Internet. Maybe, instead of the disastrous
website, they were discussing its impact on health
costs, or employment,
or
taxes, or the
availability of care…

After the disastrous launch of
Healthcare.gov, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen
Sebelius publicly insisted that the president learned of the
website’s woes along with the rest of the country—on October 1,
2013, and thereafter as the slow-motion train wreck occupied public
attention. But it turns out that Sebelius and Obama met many times
in the year leading to the Obamacare portal’s launch—”including at
least seven instances in which the two were scheduled to discuss
the new healthcare law.” Did somebody forget to pencil a few
important items on the agenda? Or is the administration just full
of shit?

Back in October, Sebelius
told CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta that Obama learned of trouble with
the Healthcare.gov implementation and launch in “the first couple
of days” after the site went live. She specifically denied that he
had any hint of trouble earlier.

But The Hill‘s Kevin Bogardus and Jonathan Easley

report:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was in
frequent contact with President Obama and senior White House aides
before the disastrous launch of the federal ObamaCare exchange last
year.

While Sebelius has said the president was not aware of
HealthCare.gov’s problems, more than 750 pages of documents
obtained by The Hill through a Freedom of Information Act request
show she made scores of visits to the White House.

The documents reveal that Sebelius met with or attended calls
and events with Obama at least 18 times between Oct. 27, 2012, and
Oct. 6, 2013, including at least seven instances in which the two
were scheduled to discuss the new healthcare law, according to the
secretary’s draft schedules.

She had breakfast or lunch with Pete Rouse, considered one of
Obama’s closest advisers, at least three times. Moreover, Sebelius
had scheduled calls or meetings with Valerie Jarrett, an Obama
confidante, and White House chief of staff Denis McDonough.

Sebelius also met with or had calls with Chris Jennings, then a
White House senior healthcare adviser, at least seven times in the
roughly yearlong period.

Now, it’s possible they just said “fuck work” and discussed
favorite plot lines from Community (you know
that Barry thinks he’s a Jeff Winger, but he’s really more of a Ben
Chang.) But I suspect at least a little shop talk made its
way into the chatter from time to time.

Of course, Healthcare.gov is just the public face of Obamacare
despite the great many woes besetting the Affordable Care Act
independent of the Internet. Maybe, instead of the disastrous
website, they were discussing its impact on health
costs, or employment,
or
taxes, or the
availability of care…

Kirby Ferguson, director of the excellent Web series Everything
is a Remix, has launched a new serialized documentary
called This is
Not a Conspiracy Theory. You’ll have to subscribe if you want
to watch the whole thing as it appears, but the first installment
has been posted online for all to see:

Ferguson is now doing a promotion that involves giving away
three copies of my book
The United States of Paranoia. You can watch this video
for the details—the part about the contest starts at 2:46—but the
short version is that he’s going to be posting a Q&A soon, and
if he picks one of your questions to answer you might win. So if
you’ve got a query for Kirby, send it to feedback@thisisnotaconspiracytheory.com
with a note that you’d like to be entered in the giveaway too;
there may be a book in it for you. And either way, check out
episode one of the series, which looks like it’s going to be very
well-done. The contest ends on March 1.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed gun rights
advocates a major victory today by invalidating San Diego,
California’s requirement that conceal-carry permits only be issued
to those gun owners who have a “good cause” to carry a concealed
gun in public. According to local officials, “one’s personal safety
is not considered good cause.” In his opinion for a divided
three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain
rejected the local government’s approach as an unconstitutional
infringement on the Second Amendment.

“In California,” the ruling observes, “the only way that the
typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in
public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a
concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has
been taken off the table.”

As Brian Doherty
noted on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently
considering whether it will take up two other cases that also
center on the Second Amendment’s reach outside of the home. This
new ruling from the 9th Circuit makes it all the more likely that
the question of gun rights in public will soon be addressed by the
Supreme Court.

Today’s ruling by the 9th Circuit in Peruta v. County of San
Diego is available here.

Is a 15-year-old figure skater
like a Nazi war criminal? For posing such a question, one Russian
journalist is under heavy fire from both politicians and the media
in his country, who consider such an analogy incredibly offensive.
While it’s a
trope in American media to compare contemporary Russia to
Nazi Germany, in this case a more apt comparison would be between
Russia and the U.S., since both use the banner of political
correctness to curtail free speech.

In a meditation on the Sochi Olympics and the political dangers
of nationalistic fervor, Viktor Shenderovich compared
Russia’s revelry in Yulia
Lipnistkaya, the youngest gold medalist in the history of
Olympic ladies’ singles figure skating, to Nazi Germany’s
celebration of the “young, smiling, handsome” Hans Welke, an
Olympic shot put champion who later became a war criminal.

NewsRu.com described Shenderovich’s
statement as “unethical.” Parliamentary members from across party
lines have demanded an apology from him and the publisher for the
hurtful article. A high ranking official
suggested Shenderovich stop sullying the nation’s language and
history. At least one member of Putin’s United Russia party member

accused the the journalist of being a “fascist.” Even the
Moscow Bureau for Human Rights called
Shenderovich’s comparison inaccurate and insulting.

The journalist and the publisher initially refused to
apologize, lest they lend credence to the claims that they are
unethical fascists. But, the pressure was too great and
Shenderovich caved yesterday. He isn’t going to the gulags, but he
is effectively ostracized. 

How different is this from the way the U.S. handles taboo
proclamations?

Take the controversy around Duck Dynasty‘s Phil
Robertson. After saying things that many Americans find offensive
and inaccurate, people called him a bigot and demanded he be
removed from TV. At the time, Reason contributor Cathy
Young
suggested that “while censuring unpopular speech through social
ostracism and economic boycott may not be un-libertarian, it’s
deeply illiberal and contrary to the spirit of tolerance that makes
society flourish.”

Many censorship advocates in America and other western nations
assure they only want to dissuade speech that is offensive,
obscene,

hurtful,
insensitive,
non-inclusive,
demeaning,
dangerous,
harmful to children (doesn’t that
sound eerily like a Russian cop-out?)
subversive, and
blasphemous.

Another Reason contributor, Jonathan Rauch,
previously noted that
when “indirect, bureaucratic prohibitions” on speech are codified,
they are usually “fuzzy” about what counts as a federal crime.

These days, the U.S. isn’t exactly winning gold medals for
upholding First Amendment rights. It just
dropped another 13 places in the World Press Freedom Index.

Free speech has consequences, usually limited to the speaker.
Bullying and marginalizing people over unpopular-yet-harmless
statements has consequences, too. These consequences are not
limited to the speaker nor are the tactics exclusive to foreign
nations.