What Would John Bolton Say About Trump’s Ukraine Policy?

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) wants four current and former administration officials to testify during Donald Trump’s impeachment trial next month. One of them is John Bolton, the former national security adviser, whose name is mentioned 129 times in the House Judiciary Committee’s report charging the president with abusing his powers for personal gain. Bolton, who has publicly stated he has relevant information to share, could shed light on Trump’s motives for withholding military aid to Ukraine and putting off a White House meeting with that country’s president, although it’s not clear he was privy to any incriminating statements by Trump himself.

Bolton declined to testify before the House Intelligence Committee about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, citing White House opposition. But Bolton, who was never subpoenaed, said he was prepared to testify if a court sided with Congress in its conflict with his former boss. In a letter to the House’s general counsel last month, Bolton’s lawyer said he “was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which you have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far.”

A few weeks later, Bolton complained on Twitter that the White House had “refused to return access to my personal Twitter account” after his resignation in September, possibly “out of fear of what I may say.” It’s not clear that Bolton was referring specifically to Ukraine, as opposed to his broader complaints about an insufficiently hawkish foreign policy. Four days after that, Bolton tweeted that “our country’s commitment to our national security priorities is under attack from within,” a comment that is also open to interpretation, especially since he added that “America is distracted,” which sounds like a knock against the impeachment inquiry.

For his part, Trump claims Bolton’s testimony—which he opposed, ostensibly in defense of presidential prerogatives—would have vindicated him. “John Bolton is a patriot and may know that I held back the money from Ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country, & I wanted to know why nearby European countries weren’t putting up money also,” Trump tweeted on the same day that Bolton worried about “our national security priorities.” But it is doubtful that Bolton’s testimony would be helpful to Trump. Here are some of the points described in the House Judiciary Committee’s report that Bolton would be able to confirm, dispute, or clarify:

• Bolton attended a July 10 meeting that included two senior Ukrainian officials; Secretary of Energy Rick Perry; Kurt Volker, then the U.S. special representative for Ukraine negotiations; Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union; Fiona Hill, then a Russia specialist on the National Security Council (NSC); and Alexander Vindman, the NSC’s director for European affairs. Hill and Vindman testified that Sondland brought up investigations of purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 presidential election and former Vice President Joe Biden’s alleged efforts to protect his son Hunter from a probe of Burisma, an energy company that employed the younger Biden as a board member. Those are the investigations that Trump would ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to conduct during their much-scrutinized July 25 phone call.

• After Bolton left that meeting, Hill testified, Sondland told the remaining participants he and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney had agreed that a White House meeting between Trump and Zelenskiy would happen only after the Ukrainian government publicly committed to those investigations. When Hill reported that conversation to Bolton, she testified, he instructed her to tell the NSC’s legal adviser that “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this.”

• William Taylor, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, testified that Bolton opposed Trump’s July 25 call with Zelenskiy, worrying that “it was going to be a disaster” because “there could be some talk of investigations or worse.”

• For months, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, had been lobbying the Ukrainian government to investigate Burisma and the Bidens in the hope of uncovering “information [that] will be very, very helpful to my client,” presumably because Joe Biden is a leading contender to oppose Trump in next year’s presidential election. Bolton reportedly resented Giuliani’s involvement in negotiations with Ukraine. According to Hill, Bolton said “nobody should be meeting with Giuliani” and repeatedly described him as a “hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up.”

• Bolton was reportedly dismayed by Trump’s decision to delay $391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine. “Sometime prior to August 16,” Bolton met with Trump to discuss the hold on military aid. Tim Morrison, then the NSC’s top Russia official, testified that Trump told Bolton he was not yet prepared to deliver the money. The reason Trump gave, if any, is obviously relevant to the allegation that he abused his power in an effort to discredit a political rival.

• Taylor testified that Bolton urged him to send an August 29 cable to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in which he complained about the “folly” of “withholding military aid to Ukraine at a time when hostilities were still active in the east and when Russia was watching closely to gauge the level of American support for the Ukrainian government.” Taylor said he “could not and would not defend such a policy.”

• Morrison testified that he twice discussed with Bolton what he understood to be a quid pro quo between the military support and the investigations Trump wanted. One of those conversations followed a September 1 meeting at which Sondland (according to his own testimony) told a senior Zelenskiy adviser “the resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement [about the investigations] that we had been discussing for many weeks.” Morrison said he reported that exchange to Bolton, who told him to “make sure the [NSC’s] lawyers are tracking” the situation.

• Bolton resigned as national security adviser on September 10. It’s not clear what role, if any, Trump’s Ukraine policy played in his resignation.

Bolton’s opposition to the hold on military aid shows he did not agree it was justified by legitimate concerns about official corruption in Ukraine, as Trump maintains. That does not necessarily mean Bolton has direct evidence of a quid pro quo, although his reference to “many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed” is certainly intriguing.

Similarly, Bolton’s frustration with Giuliani’s involvement could have stemmed from policy disagreements and resentment that Giuliani was undercutting the NSC’s role, as opposed to a belief that the president was perverting foreign policy to serve domestic political interests. A misguided or haphazard foreign policy is not the same as a corrupt foreign policy. But if the testimony by Hill, Morrison, and Taylor is accurate, Bolton believed that the “favor” Trump wanted from Zelenskiy was inappropriate and that tying it to the military aid was potentially illegal.

If I were Trump, I would not want to hear what Bolton has to say. And since Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) has said he plans to conduct Trump’s trial however Trump wants, we probably won’t.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2sx6tup
via IFTTT

If You Think Encryption Back Doors Won’t Be Abused, You May Be a Member of Congress

The FBI was way too lax when it sought a secret warrant to wiretap former Trump aide Carter Page. Yet some of the very same people who have been publicly aghast at the circumstances Page scandal are still trying to hammer companies like Apple and Facebook into compromising everybody’s data security to give law enforcement access to your stuff.

You’re forgiven if you missed this news, as it happened at the exact same time last week that the impeachment counts against President Donald Trump were revealed. Our extremely tech-unsavvy lawmakers brought in a few experts to a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and essentially ignored what they said and yelled demands at them. Virtually every tech expert and privacy advocate under the sun has warned virtually every government official in the world that “back doors” that let police bypass encryption has the potential to cause huge harms and actually makes citizens even more vulnerable to crime. But the legislators want their back doors, dammit.

Here’s Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), who just a day later would express shock that the process for the FBI to get a FISA warrant was not as thorough as he believed: “My advice to you is to get on with it, because this time next year, if we haven’t found a way that you can live with, we will impose our will on you.” When a witness attempted to explain how complicated an issue encryption is, Graham responded, “Well, it ain’t complicated for me.”

The Democrats haven’t been impressive on this issue either. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) still holds the position that it’s no big deal if tech companies just let law enforcement officials in to read encrypted material, as long as they’ve got a warrant. Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) thinks the debate is about whether encryption implemented by companies puts information “beyond the reach of the law.” He doesn’t seem to care about the arguments that weakening encryption and providing back doors will let hackers and hostile nations access the private data and communications of people around the world (including Americans).

The talking point both the Justice Department and the lawmakers have settled on is that they need to be able demand back doors for the children. Apparently, we all need weaker protections in order to fight child sexual abuse and trafficking.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D–R.I.) asked the tech industry witnesses if they’d be willing to “take responsibility for the harm” that might be caused if law enforcement didn’t have back door access. But is Congress and the Justice Department going to “take responsibility for the harm” when these vulnerabilities make it out into the wild (as they inevitably would) and are abused by criminals or by authoritarian states?

This encryption fight has been going on for years, and the back door advocates has resolutely refused to consider the possibility of abuse. Graham in particular has been unwilling to consider the possibility that FISA warrants could ever be used to secretly snoop on Americans inappropriately. But by Thursday, he had changed his tune; if nothing else, the Trump case has forced him to think about what can go wrong when the government can secretly access people’s private information without their permission.

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

Activists Denounce Madrid Climate Change Conference Outcomes as ‘Totally Unacceptable’ and ‘Deeply Flawed’

It dragged on longer than any previous United Nations climate change conference, but for most climate activists the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was a near-total failure. Specifically, negotiators from more than 190 states meeting in Madrid, Spain, failed to work out how to track and account for carbon dioxide emissions trading between countries and declined to meet poor nations’ demands for what amounts to climate reparations from rich nations. In addition, some big carbon emitters—China, the United States, India, Russia—refused to meet activist demands that they commit to deeper emissions cuts.

“Governments need to completely rethink how they do this, because the outcome of COP25 is totally unacceptable,” declared Greenpeace executive Jennifer Morgan in a roundup of activist statements. “At a time when the science and the urgent need to address the human toll of climate impacts couldn’t be clearer, the deeply flawed outcome here in Madrid is plainly unjust and immoral,” added Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“The global climate talks are a farce if countries continue down this destructive path of inaction,” concluded Jean Su of the Center for Biological Diversity. Chema Vera of Oxfam International agreed: “The world is screaming out for climate action but this summit has responded with a whisper.”

Basically concurring with the activists’ assessment, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres declared himself “disappointed with the results.” He further vowed, I will not give up. I am more determined than ever to work for 2020 to be the year in which all countries commit to do what science tells us is necessary to reach carbon neutrality in 2050 and a no more than 1.5 degree temperature rise.”

You can see why the activists were upset. For one thing, the meeting’s rich countries refused to set up a scheme that would pay poor countries for the “loss and damage” stemming from climate change. Also, activists they wanted all the signatories to the Paris Agreement on climate change to increase the amounts by which they were pledging to reduce their greenhouse emissions. That did not happen. The U.S. is scheduled to officially withdraw from the Paris Agreement next November, and both China and India refused change their climate commitments, which run until 2030.

Another major sticking point was how to establish rules for an international carbon market, an idea embedded in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. One point of contention involves when governments or foreign private companies pay for carbon dioxide emissions to be reduced in another country. For example, a power plant in Germany might pay either the government of Brazil or a local landowner to keep forests standing in order to absorb carbon dioxide. The problem is that Germany and Brazil both want to count the same emissions reductions derived from the forests toward their national targets. But only one should be allowed to claim it, unless you want to unleash a lot of double counting.

Another Article 6 problem is what to do with the emissions credits earned through the Clean Development Mechanism under the failed Kyoto Protocol. Under that agreement, companies in rich countries met their emissions reductions goals by financing low-carbon and no-carbon projects in poorer countries. Opponents argue against counting these old credits for billions of tons of emissions reductions, on the grounds that they would flood the new markets, greatly discouraging investment in further reductions. Holders of the credits respond that their good-faith investments in Kyoto Protocol emission reduction projects should not be rendered worthless.

So just I predicted last week, COP25 ended with diplomatic equivocation and obfuscation. These thorny issues were kicked down the road to be debated again next November, at the COP26 conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

 

 

 

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

Choose Your Own Impeachment Adventure: Rand Paul, Justin Amash, or Philip K. Dick?

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) made headlines Sunday answering skeptical questions about his anti-impeachment approach from CNN’s Jake Tapper. Paul’s friend Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.) also made headlines Sunday after The Washington Post reported that Democrats are seeking his pro-impeachment counsel for when impeachment goes to the Senate for trial. It’s not the first time the two libertarian-leaners have been on opposite ends of the I-question, but…well, can you imagine the theatrics? And what does this tell us about libertarian conflict over the process?

Thus begins today’s Reason Roundtable podcast, with editors Nick Gillespie, Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Matt Welch, though not before immediately veering down a Philip K. Dick rabbit hole which feels strangely apt for our times. The Podcastic Four also chew on last week’s British elections, the upcoming Democratic presidential debate, Washington’s bipartisan orgy of deficit spending, and kids doing Dungeons & Dragons stuff on TikTok, because we have a brand to protect.

Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Backed Vibes Clean—Rollin at 5 by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license

Mentioned in the Podcast:

Justin Amash: Impeachment Manager? Dems Want Former Republican Rep to Help Prosecute Trump,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Lindsey Graham, Elizabeth Warren, and the Impeachment Trial Oath,” by Keith E. Whittington

‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ as an Inkblot,” by Jonathan H. Adler

After Contentious Debate, House Judiciary Votes To Advance Articles of Impeachment Against Trump,” by Billy Binion

Trump Abused His Power, but a Hasty Impeachment Will Undermine That Point,” by Jacob Sullum

Who’s Right on Impeachment: Rand Paul, Justin Amash, or Jeff Flake?” by Matt Welch

Even in Impeachment-Crazed D.C., It’s Always a Good Time To Borrow and Spend!” by Nick Gillespie

Republicans, Democrats Agree to Dump $738 Billion More Into the Forever War and Space Force,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

U.K. Election: Brexit Wins, Jeremy Corbyn Crashes,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

A Corbyn Victory Would Kill Brexit, Lead to Venezuelan-Style Socialism, Says E.U. Member of Parliament Daniel Hannan,” by Nick Gillespie

The Decade Populism Went Mainstream,” by Matt Welch

Moderate Joe Biden Wants Tax Hikes Twice as Big as Hillary Clinton Proposed in 2016,” by Peter Suderman

Richard Jewell Shows What a Conservative Hollywood Would Look Like ,” by Peter Suderman

Nobody Knows What Television Is Anymore,” by Peter Suderman

The Radical Freedom of Dungeons & Dragons,” by C.J. Ciaramella

Philip K. Dick’s Visions,” by Ken Layne

Kanye West Is Misunderstood,” by Brian Doherty

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Ps7QDK
via IFTTT

Trump’s ‘Capitulation’ on Trade Deal Leaves Republicans in Awkward Position

It’s the sort of thing that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago: a Republican president essentially handing complete control over a major trade to a Democratic speaker of the House and Democrats’ labor union allies.

Yet that’s exactly what has happened with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), a pact that is intended to replace the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The USMCA has been a top priority for President Donald Trump, who struck the deal last year with the leaders of Canada and Mexico. In many ways, the USMCA was already a step backward in terms of free trade—it imposes additional rules on how goods flow across North American borders, aims to harm Mexican manufacturing, and includes a sunset provision that means it could expire without explicit action by future governments. And that was before the Trump administration allowed Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) to make a series of changes to tilt the agreement toward even more protectionism.

During an appearance Sunday on NBC’s Meet The Press, Sen. Pat Toomey (R–Pa.) described the USMCA as “a complete capitulation to Pelosi.”

Last week, Pelosi announced her support for the USMCA after it incorporated a series of changes—many of them apparently implemented at the request of the AFL-CIO, which also endorsed the trade deal. Those changes include stricter enforcement of labor rules imposed on Mexico, including ramped up inspections of factories and increased authority to stop trucks at the border (and, in a rare moment of the revised pact allowing freer rather than less free trade, the elimination of patent protections for some pharmaceuticals).

Toomey had been an outspoken critic of the USMCA since the deal was first announced last year. Specifically, he has disagreed with provisions that will make it more expensive and difficult for auto companies and other large manufacturers to take advantage of cross-border supply chains.

“Unfortunately, USMCA is an exercise through all kinds of new provisions to diminish trade, and that’s why I hope Republicans reconsider this,” Toomey said on Sunday. “We have historically recognized we’re all better off with more open markets.”

Politically, Trump appears to be betting that giving in to Democrats’ wishes will get the USMCA through the House—and that at that point Senate Republicans won’t be willing to derail a political victory for the president.

He may very well be right about that.

“There’s rumors out there that have lessened Republican enthusiasm for it, but I don’t feel like it’s going to be big enough to stop us from getting it passed,” Senate Finance Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) told The Wall Street Journal. The Journal also reports that key staffers for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) have complained to the White House about how the USMCA has been handled, and Sen. John Cornyn (R–Texas) tells the paper that Trump’s bargain with Pelosi is “bad practice” and “a lousy way to treat the Senate.”

Mexico is ticked off too. Jesús Seade, Mexico’s top trade negotiator, has made an unexpected trip to Washington, D.C., to “express his outrage” over the late-breaking changes to the trade deal, Politico reports.

Long gone, apparently, are the days when even the appearance of working with Democrats would send the conservative grassroots into apoplexy.

Assuming the USMCA clear the House and ends up in front of the Senate (likely not until early 2020), Republicans will have a choice to make. Do they value a political victory for Trump over their own principles? But then, that’s been the choice confronting the GOP for a while now, and the result of this next showdown is likely to be the same.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Pu9dlk
via IFTTT

The Other Impeachment Count

Although public attention appears to be focused, understandably enough, on Count One of the Articles of Impeachment – the Abuse of Power—I think that Count Two, Obstruction of Congress, presents the far stronger case for impeachment.

Let’s put aside—just for the moment, and just for argument’s sake—whatever opinions we might have about the Count One allegations. I happen to think that the evidence produced thus far is sufficient to prove that Trump abused his presidential power in his dealings with the Ukrainians, but I can at least understand that there is a contrary argument: that whatever his subordinates were doing, or thought they were doing, there is no direct, first-hand evidence that Trump himself was acting with an improper motive—exchanging military aid for damaging information on a political opponent.

So I’ll accept, for now, that a Member of Congress could, acting in good faith and weighing the evidence fairly and unbiasedly, vote “No” on Count One.

But Count Two? I am having a hard time coming up with any reasonable argument that could support a “No” vote on Count Two.

The facts are clear and not in dispute. The President publicly directed his subordinates in the Executive Branch not to “participate” in the House’s “partisan and unconstitutional” impeachment inquiry, because that inquiry “lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections.”

The argument that this violates the President ‘s oath to “take care” that the Laws and the Constitution be “faithfully executed” strikes me as clear and straightforward and, as far as I am aware, unrebutted.

Article I Sec. 2 gives the House the “sole power of impeachment.” If, in the exercise of that power, it demands that Executive Branch officials provide it with testimonial or documentary evidence, who decides whether those officials must comply with the demands?

Although the Constitution doesn’t answer that question explicitly, it cannot seriously be maintained that it gives the president himself the power to decide that question. “No man shall be judge in his own cause.”  The Framers were not stupid men.  They realized the obvious: if you lodge that decision with the president, he will decide it—surprise!—in his favor. The whole point of the impeachment process, recall, is to uncover, and punish, presidential wrongdoing, and it is precisely in those cases where there actually is presidential wrongdoing that the president is especially likely to decide that question in his own favor—to make his own determination that the inquiry is “unconstitutional” and “baseless,” etc. and to act accordingly.

The President’s position is not only a failure to “faithfully execute” the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, it poses a substantial threat to the very existence of the impeachment power and its effectiveness as a constitutional check on the president.  Without the power to get evidence of a future president’s wrongdoing from those within the Executive Branch—the very people with whom the president interacts most closely, on a daily basis, and who are responsible for carrying out his orders—makes the impeachment power a bit of a joke, though its implications for the conduct of future presidents are far from funny.

What possible constitutional argument can be mustered for the proposition that the Constitution gives the president the power to make this decision? That because the president has determined that the House inquiry is “unconstitutional” and “baseless,” members of the Executive Branch need not comply with House subpoenas? Even if you agree (as I most emphatically do not) with the White House position—that the impeachment inquiry is unconstitutional, baseless, a deprivation of due process, etc.—it does not follow that the president is constitutionally empowered to make that determination. Does it?

It is not enough, it seems to me, to say that the President would direct subordinates to comply when (and only when) there has been a court determination that the request was lawful and proper.  That stands the constitutional scheme on its head.  The Constitution gives the House the “sole power of impeachment.”  The House, by issuing its requests and subpoenas, has made its decisions about what information it needs to exercise that power. The President is of course free to fight those in court. But until he obtains a court order saying that the House’s requests are not within the scope of the impeachment power, he (and the members of the Executive Branch) have to comply; he can’t arrogate the decision about compliance to himself.

Because I can’t conjure up a reasonable counter-argument, I therefore can’t understand how on Count Two a Member of Congress, acting in good faith and weighing the evidence fairly and unbiasedly, could vote “No.” I’m sure ever-alert VC readers will let me know what I’m missing.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38HVfDO
via IFTTT

Tide Pods, Nazis, and Bees: The Top 10 Moral Panics of the 2010s

Human beings are anxious creatures. We worry about things that might kill us. We worry about things that might kill our children. We worry about things that might get our children high. Even if a trend clearly doesn’t create any mortal danger, we worry about the threat it poses to all that’s good and wholesome in society. The world faces plenty of real problems, but more often than not the things that pique our collective anxieties are wildly overblown.

Before the 2020s start tossing us a new set of worries, it would be useful to reflect on the last batch of folk demons that we were frightened of and then forgot about. So here are 10 of the biggest moral panics of the last 10 years. Some were real but rare dangers; others were fictions from the get-go.

Blockbuster Bloodbaths

At the beginning of the decade, people worried that movies were making us kill ourselves. By the end, films were supposedly causing us to kill each other.

James Cameron’s cutting-edge special effects in Avatar, released in the final weeks of 2009, were apparently so effective that audiences were reaching for their own cutting edges. Or at least that’s the impression you’d get from some of the picture’s press clips. CNN and Psychology Today both ran articles on moviegoers’ “Avatar Blues.” The Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph claimed the film was driving fans to depression, despair, and even thoughts of suicide.

All these stories were based on a single thread on the fan website Avatar Forum, where viewers discussed the feelings of environmental pessimism the film had given them. We don’t actually know any cases of people killing themselves as a result of seeing the movie. Given how fast the utterly generic picture has been forgotten, it’s safe to say that any concerns about its long-term effect on our mental health were overdone.

Years after these fears of film-induced self-harm had subsided, an even darker fear spread about the 2019 hit Joker. The origin story for Batman’s arch-rival was supposedly going to inspire acts of terrorism by involuntarily celibate men, or “incels.”

Army officials advised soldiers going to Joker screenings to plan two routes of escape in the event of an incel attack. Police in New York beefed up security at all theaters showing the film.

The idea that Joker would be a rallying point for incels always seemed implausible given its plot, which was much more about the antihero’s struggle with mental illness than his inability to get dates. In any case, no violent episodes at Joker screenings have been reported.

Oral Panics

The 2010s were full of freak-outs over the various toys and cleaning products children could swallow to fatal effect. Take “Buckeyballs,” small magnetic spheres that make a fun desk toy but can be dangerous if more than one is swallowed. (The magnetic balls’ attraction to each other means they can press up against intestinal walls, causing internal bleeding.)

These trinkets produced fewer injuries than such commonplace activities as skateboarding or tennis, but the federal government decided to crack down on them. In 2012 it ordered recalls of the products and filed lawsuits against the companies that made them.

Most producers of these magnetic spheres were eventually put out of business. In 2018, a judge tossed the last outstanding recall order against Zen Magnets, finally allowing these playful products back on the market.

By then the country had found a new threat to children’s innards: Tide Pods. The seemingly innocuous plastic-wrapped detergent packs added convenience to doing laundry, but they were purportedly proving irresistible to teens and toddlers alike.

The former engaged in the viral “Tide Pod Challenge,” in which a brave champion would try to eat the bitter soap products on camera. Younger children, supposedly attracted to these laundry aids’ scents and colors, were getting sick—and in a handful of cases dying—from eating them.

It was more common for children to die from swallowing other common household goods, such as batteries, and that does not usually prompt people to try to ban those items outright. Yet a pair of New York state lawmakers introduced a bill to ban Tide Pods. Meanwhile, YouTube took down Tide Pod Challenge videos. Facebook deleted memes featuring the product.

The New York legislation never went anywhere, and online teens soon graduated from eating Tide Pods to snorting condoms. Mercifully, the panic about detergent packs subsided by March 2018.

BEES!

For a few years in the early part of the decade, things looked dire for the humble honeybee and all the agricultural products that depended on it for pollination. A rise in the number of beehives mysteriously dying off—a phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder—sparked a series of apocalyptic headlines.

Publications warned of a “bee-pocalypse” or a “beemageddon.” National Public Radio worried we were reaching “a crisis point for crops.” Time devoted a cover story to “a world without bees.” The Obama administration threw $83 million at the problem.

From our vantage point at the end of the decade, this all looks overblown. As Shawn Regan noted in a 2017 issue of Reason, the actual number of honeybee colonies continued to grow despite the increased bee mortality rate. Commercial beekeepers, he wrote, “have addressed the increasing mortality rates by rapidly rebuilding their hives, and they have done so with virtually no economic effects passed on to consumers.”

The picture looks pretty similar today. One study published this past July found that Colony Collapse Disorder “has not had measurable effects on honey production, input prices, or even numbers of bee colonies.” Makes you wonder what all the buzz was about.

Flavor of Fear

Nicotine vaping products, a safer alternative to combustible cigarettes, have helped countless former smokers ditch their old habit. You might think the public health community would welcome that. Instead, it has searched constantly for opportunities to crack down on one of the most successful smoking cessation products ever created.

By the middle of the decade, the American Lung Association was warning that chemicals in vaping liquids could cause “popcorn lung“—a threat that British health authorities have said is not a risk at current exposure levels. Others have argued that teen vaping will lead more kids to become hooked on cigarettes, even as teen smoking rates hit record lows.

Under President Barack Obama, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) planned to require that all vaping products get preapproval from the agency, a lengthy process that can cost over $500,000 per product. Donald Trump’s FDA briefly backed off that plan, only to return to it with reckless abandon after some vapers came down with a mysterious lung disease. It bumped up the date for when vaping products had to get FDA approval from 2022 to June 2020. The president also threw his support behind a ban on flavored vaping products, a move several states had already implemented.

The cause of that mysterious lung disease now looks likely to be black market THC cartridges, not vaping itself. But this discovery has done little if anything to dampen enthusiasm for cracking down vaping.

Plastic Environmentalists

The idea that the ubiquitous plastic straw would become the target of bans across the nation may have sounded far-fetched on January 1, 2010. But by the end of the decade, cities from Seattle to D.C. had laws against the little suckers. Indeed, the whole state of California made it illegal for full-service restaurants to offer customers a plastic straw unsolicited. Diners now have to explicitly request one.

The restrictions were supposed to stem the tide of plastic waste pouring into the world’s oceans. But on closer examination, those straws weren’t a substantial reason for plastic pollution after all.

You wouldn’t guess that from a statistic that surfaced in 2011, claiming that Americans are using 500 million plastic straws a day. With that volume of daily straw use, how could we keep using the things?

As it turns out, the number was the work of a 9-year-old who had conducted a phone survey of three straw manufacturers. Estimates by market analysts put the number between 175 million and 340 million.

But whatever the final figure for Americans’ daily straw use is, we know that it is a tiny, tiny fraction of overall plastic waste. Plastic straws typically make up 2 to 4 percent of trash collected during beach clean-ups. They’re an equally small percentage of state litter surveys.

On top of that, the U.S.—with its robust waste management systems—is responsible for only about 1 percent of the plastic getting into the ocean each year, according to one 2015 study. The best thing we can do to stop plastic pollution isn’t to ban straws; it’s to establish better waste management systems in places like China, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

Mercifully, the straw panic may be subsiding. Indeed, straws are starting to become a symbol of resistance to government overreach. But the fact that they could be so easily restricted in so many places makes you wonder what other modern conveniences might be on the chopping block in the next 10 years.

High Holidays

Few events can inspire a moral panic quite like Halloween. Parents and police have fretted for decades over everything from razor blades in candy apples to sex offenders on the prowl.

In the last decade, the biggest Halloween-related safety scares have revolved around one particular alleged menace: drug-laced Halloween candy.

The success of marijuana legalization in the 2010s has prompted police departments to warn parents of the possibility that THC-infused edibles from now-legal dispensaries, perhaps deceptively labeled to look like normal candy, could wind up in their children’s trick-or-treating bags.

Yet there’s no evidence that anyone has ever knowingly handed out intoxicating treats to children on Halloween. Drugs are expensive, especially when they taste like candy. Even the most malicious stoner is going to pause before giving a kid a $10 pot gummy as some sort of sick joke.

A trip through Reason‘s archives shows just how frequently these warnings about of pot-laced candy have popped up, despite no known incidents of children accidentally eating them. Even Time, which has rarely met a moral panic it couldn’t get behind, has been dismissing this one since 2011.

Every so often there is a reported case of a child accidentally getting high on Halloween. But typically, the source of the drugs in these stories is the kid’s parents, who then try to pin the blame on strangers’ corrupted candy.

Pot gummies in your kids’ candy bag should thus be treated like ghosts, goblins, and other Halloween mainstays: frightening but fictional.

Creepy Clowns

In August 2016, stories started to surface of creepy clowns trying to lure children into the woods with candy. The first such incident allegedly occurred at an apartment complex in Greenville, South Carolina. Soon stories of clown sightings were popping up all over the country, scaring not just impressionable kids but also authorities you might have hoped could keep a level head.

Seattle Public Schools told students and parents to report any clowns they see to a teacher or principal. Kemper County, Mississippi, banned clown costumes in the run-up to Halloween. One West Virginia police chief posted notices around town warning anyone wearing a clown costume that they would likely be beaten up before being arrested.

But no stories of clowns luring children into the woods were ever actually confirmed. At most you had some cases of clown-costumed people taking advantage of the panic to dress up and spook people.

Indeed, the main victims of 2016’s clown panic appear to be professional clowns, who were forced to lay low lest they suffer arrest or violent attacks from coulrophobic cops or private citizens.

Fortunately for these full-time jesters, the election of Donald Trump in November 2016—just as the clown panic was reaching its climax—shifted everyone’s attention elsewhere.

Secret Nazis

The morning following Election Day 2016, a San Francisco man decided to protest Trump’s election by hoisting a flag bearing the Nazi swastika. The rather ill-thought-out statement quickly provoked panic from the man’s equally anti-Trump neighbors, who assumed the banner was meant as a symbol of support for the president-elect.

It was a ridiculous moment in a big national Nazi hunt. It wasn’t the only one.

Recall, for instance, that brief moment during the confirmation hearings for now–Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, when a woman sitting behind Kavanaugh, U.S. Attorney Zina Bash, could be seen forming what looked like the standard “OK” symbol with her right hand.

That might sound innocent enough, but some alt-rightists had appropriated the OK sign as a symbol, and so social media was soon ablaze with accusations that Bash was a secret fascist herself. The judgment of history seems to be that Bash—whose Jewish grandparents were reportedly Holocaust survivors—was innocent of any Nazi sympathies, but that has not erased paranoia over the OK symbol. This past weekend saw Twitter abuzz about videos of cadets forming the OK sign while watching the Army-Navy football game. Less conspiratorial observers argued the cadets were playing the long-common circle game. Nevertheless, officials at West Point and Annapolis have now launched an investigation an investigation to see if there were any racial motivations behind the sign.

It’s not just innocent hand gestures that are getting one labeled a Nazi sympathizer. Nowadays a failure simply to talk about white supremacy can be taken as evidence of support for the noxious creed.

Take the fuss over singer Taylor Swift. Her failure to take a side in the 2016 election was seen as very suspicious by some. Soon enough pop-culture bloggers finding subtle white supremacist references in her music. Actual white supremacists were quick to co-opt this claim. The infamous Daily Stormer founder Andrew Anglin, for example, wrote that Swift was an “Aryan Goddess” red-pilling America.

Not until the singer-songwriter endorsed several Democrats during the 2018 midterm elections did the country breathe a sigh of relief that perhaps Swift was not in fact a Nazi.

Sex Recession

Typically, moral panics about the sexual habits of young people are about them having too much sex. That hasn’t really been the case for this decade’s professional pearl clutchers, who set aside their fears about rainbow parties to worry that the nation’s youth are not being intimate enough with each other.

In a seminal 2018 article on the “sex recession,” The Atlantic offered a few, mostly pessimistic thoughts about why teens were starting their sex lives later or not at all, including the rise in porn consumption, the self-defeating shallowness of dating apps, and helicopter parenting. The Washington Post was equally downbeat in 2019 when covering General Social Survey data showing that a record number of young people had been celibate in the last year.

One Guardian columnist pinned this lack of love-making on the anxiety-inducing nature of modern life, writing that the young have a “million things on our minds that could be interfering with our libidos. We’re worried about finding a stable job, our university loan debt, moving out of our parents’ homes and more.” CNBC has said the sex recession might cause an actual recession.

But several scholars have pushed on back the data underlying the assertion that millennials are having less sex. Others have noted the positive side-effects of teens and young people having sex less often, including declining rates of STDs and teen pregnancies.

If we ever reach a point where teens are having the perfect amount of sex, concerned citizens will probably start to worry it’s really not the right kind of sex.

Mass Shootings

Mass shootings are undendiably deadly and tragic. They’ve also inspired a full-blown social panic.

One out of three Americans say they avoid public places for fear of mass shootings. Schools across the country now force students to participate in traumatizing live shooter drills, while some parents buy them bulletproof backpacks. The fear of mass shootings has prompted the San Francisco Board of Supervisor to brand the National Rifle Association a literal domestic terrorist organization, and activists have threatened boycotts of any companies that extend standard group discounts to the organization’s members. A dozen state legislatures have recently passed Red Flag laws, which allow police to confiscate firearms from their legal owners on the suspicion that they might pose a danger to themselves or others.

On one level, this fear is understandable. The randomness of mass shootings, and the ordinary places they can happen—a movie theater, night club, or country music concert—allows people to see the potential for one of these violent episodes anywhere they go. This fear has been heightened by the fact that six of the 10 deadliest mass shootings have happened in this decade.

But Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox points out that there is no evidence for an epidemic of mass shootings, stressing that these grizzly events are still few and far between. They also continue to be a tiny portion of overall gun homicides, which themselves have fallen to record lows almost everywhere during the 2010s. New York—once famous for its high rates of violent crime—managed to go a whole weekend with zero shootings in 2018.

As gun violence has become rarer, we seem to have become more sensitive to it.

This is not to downplay the horror of the crimes that do happen. But an overwrought fear of these rare events is leading to crippling anxieties and ineffective, heavy-handed policies.

For now, at least. Who knows what new demons will come along to fill that mindspace in the 2020s?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34wMo4N
via IFTTT

North Carolina Deputy Fired After Video Shows Him Body-Slamming Middle Schooler

A North Carolina school resource officer has been fired after a video was shared with a local news station showing the officer brutally body-slamming a middle schooler.

Local news outlet CBS 17 first aired the shocking video several days ago, which shows a Vance County Sheriff’s deputy picking up a middle school boy and slamming him to the ground twice, before dragging him off-camera. Now the station reports that the deputy has been stripped of his badge.

“We went over and when we first saw the video, we were stunned, we were shocked. We all are parents and grandparents that have children at that same age, so it brought some great concern to us,” Vance County Sheriff Curtis Brame told CBS 17 last Friday.

The incident is just the latest in a string of school arrests that have made national news. In November, a school resource officer in Orange County, Florida, was fired after video showed him yanking a middle school student by her hair. In September, an Orlando school resource officer was fired for arresting two 6-year-olds. Last year, video showed a school resource officer in Texas pinning and handcuffing an autistic 10-year-old.

The Justice Department’s 2017 report on civil liberties abuses by the Chicago Police Department included findings that officers beat and tased teenagers in school for non-criminal conduct and minor violations.

As I wrote in a recent column for Reason on child arrests, “The criminal justice system has become America’s default solution for all of its social problems, and that mentality has oozed into the classroom.”

ABC News reported in October that, according to FBI crime data, 30,467 children under the age of 10 were arrested in the United States between 2013 and 2018. During the same period, 266,000 children between the ages of 10 and 12 were arrested.

The good news is that the rate of juvenile arrests has dropped significantly since its peak, from around 8,500 arrests per 100,000 individuals between the ages of 10 and 17 in 1996 to 2,400 in 2016. 

However, according to 2016 data from the Justice Department, 34 states have no minimum age for delinquency.

In a statement to CBS 17, Irena Como, acting legal director for the ACLU of North Carolina, said, “This type of heartbreaking incident is all too common as educators increasingly rely on law enforcement to handle routine disciplinary issues, especially with children of color and children with disabilities.”

“School Resource Officers are charged with protecting students, but they use physical force and escalate situations to the detriment of students,” Como continued. “School Resource Officers should never handle disciplinary issues, which are more appropriately addressed by school counselors or mental health professionals, and the routine presence of police in schools should end.”

The now-fired deputy, whose name has not been released, is also facing potential criminal charges.

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

It’s Pretty Unlikely the Cadets Were Flashing a White Power Hand Symbol at the Army-Navy Game

U.S. Military Academy officials are investigating several cadets who were caught on camera flashing hand signs at the Army-Navy football game on Saturday. Screenshots of the hand gestures went viral on social media, where woke Twitter users asserted that the cadets had made the white power “OK” symbol.

Young extremists in the Army and Navy? That’s one possibility. The more benign explanation—and a far more likely one—is that the cadets were playing a well-known kids’ game that has nothing to do with white supremacy.

Several cadets could be seen on camera making the “OK” gesture, which quickly drew the ire of progressive activists due to its recent association with white supremacy. (The hand “OK” sign is now considered an extremist symbol by the Anti-Defamation League, though only under certain circumstances.)

“This happened on national television today,” tweeted Hamdia Ahmed, a model and activist. “These two felt like it was okay to put up a white power symbol on national tv.”

A spokesperson for the Naval Academy told The Washington Post that officials were investigating what happened, and it would be “inappropriate to speculate any further while we are conducting this investigation.”

It’s important to note that the “OK” symbol’s status as a hate symbol is hotly debated. It never became a hate symbol on its own terms, but was the subject of a campaign by far-right trolls to convince everyone that touching the thumb to the index finger formed a “W” and a “P” for “white power.” According to The New York Times:

It started in early 2017 as a hoax. Some users of 4chan, an anonymous and unrestricted online message board, began what they called “Operation O-KKK,” to see if they could trick the wider world — and especially liberals and the mainstream media — into believing that the innocuous gesture was actually a clandestine symbol of white power.

“We must flood twitter and other social media websites with spam, claiming that the OK hand signal is a symbol of white supremacy,” one of the users posted, going on to suggest that everyone involved create fake social media accounts “with basic white girl names” to propagate the notion as widely as possible.

Some white nationalists did indeed appropriate the gesture. But for other people, it was a nasty game to trick gullible people, and it largely worked. Some people who flash the “OK” sign likely have no idea about these unsavory connections, and even the ADL cautions that:

The overwhelming usage of the “okay” hand gesture today is still its traditional purpose as a gesture signifying assent or approval. As a result, someone who uses the symbol cannot be assumed to be using the symbol in either a trolling or, especially, white supremacist context unless other contextual evidence exists to support the contention. Since 2017, many people have been falsely accused of being racist or white supremacist for using the “okay” gesture in its traditional and innocuous sense.

Back to the cadets: Having carefully reviewed the video footage in question, it seems pretty likely that their gestures were even less significant—they are probably playing the circle game. What is the circle game? you ask. Well, it’s pretty simple: You make a circle gesture with your hand, and if someone else looks at the circle, you get to punch that person.

I was not familiar with the game, but I’ve subsequently heard from enough people who played it during their teen years. (During my own adolescence, we had a similar game: You could punch someone if you were the first to spot a specific kind of car—a Volkswagon Beetle or a P.T. Cruiser—and then that person couldn’t hit you back.)

It seems fairly obvious that that’s what the cadets are doing, since they aren’t just flashing the hand gesture at the camera, but rather, doing it in each other’s faces in order to make each other accidentally look at the circle.

So this is all rather silly and a bit juvenile—but unless some additional details emerge, it seems extremely unlikely that the people involved were trying to send subliminal racist messages. As is often the case, social media’s habit of impugning maximally sinister motivations to random people’s behaviors is deeply misguided. But the price of cancel culture is eternal vigilance.

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

Like China, India’s Modi Is Engaged in a Massive Faith Cleansing of its Muslim Minority

Many people expected Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s landslide re-election victory this summer to spell trouble for India’s pluralistic democracy. But few appreciated just how much trouble. Last week, in two days flat, the Modi government pushed through both chambers of parliament the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB). This law uses a good cause as a Trojan horse to advance a radical faith-cleansing agenda that has more than a passing similarity with the shocking policies that China has deployed against its Uighur Muslim minority.

On the surface, CAB is a mass amnesty bill of the kind that pro-immigration advocates in America can’t even dream of. It amends India’s Citizenship Act to hand expedited citizenship—not mere legal status—to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and Christians from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh currently living in the country without authorization.

But it conspicuously leaves out Muslims. This means that the Ahamadiyyas, who belong to a reviled Islamic sect in Pakistan, are out of luck—as are the Rohingya from neighboring Myanmar. The omission of the Rohingya lends a lie to the official explanation for excluding Muslims, namely, that the bill is aimed at handing relief only to persecuted minorities in India’s neighboring countries, not members of the majority population. Myanmar is a majority-Buddhist country that has subjected the Rohingya minority to some of the most grisly bloodletting in modern times. Yet they didn’t qualify.

This kind of anti-Muslim discrimination isn’t the worst feature of the citizenship bill. What makes it even more abominable is that it lays the legal groundwork for a wholesale attack on the rights of India’s 140 million Muslim citizens, not just unauthorized Muslim refugees.

The Modi government has pledged to create a National Register of Citizens before the 2024 election that will contain the name of every man, woman, and child in the country who is entitled to be an Indian citizen. The eligibility criteria to get on the list is not entirely clear yet, but if the pilot in the state of Assam is any indication, all of India’s 1.3 billion residents will have to produce papers to show that they or their ancestors have lived in the country since before 1971.

This exercise will change the fundamental presumption of the Indian polity: Indians will now have to prove to their government that they’re entitled to citizenship rather than the government having to show them they’re not. An additional problem is that India is an exceedingly informal country where people, particularly the poor and illiterate, don’t bother to maintain meticulous records. In villages especially, people often don’t even know their birth dates, let alone keep birth certificates or passports going back generations. Nor do municipal governments bother with good record-keeping, making it incredibly difficult for people without means or connections to retrieve the necessary documents.

The upshot in Assam was that a whopping four million people—13 percent of the state’s population—were excluded from the NRC. This would have been no problem for Modi if the excluded were Muslims. Amit Shah, his home minister, whose brainchild this whole scheme is, calls Muslims termites and infiltrators and made an election promise to throw them into the Bay of Bengal. But as it happened, lots of Hindus in the state didn’t make the list either. If this happens nationally, the whole purpose of the exercise—boosting the already massive numerical strength of Hindus—would be defeated. Hindus are 80 percent of India’s population and Muslims only 14 percent. But in the paranoid Hindu nationalist mind, that is not enough of a guarantee of enduring Hindu dominance against the allegedly higher Muslim fertility rates.

That’s where the citizenship bill comes in. It will offer recourse to Hindus who are unable to prove their ancestry to get on the NRC, but not to Muslims in the same predicament. According to Indian Express‘ Harsh Mander, in Assam CAB will treat all Hindus who speak Bengali as refugees, even those born in India, so that they can qualify for its immunity. But Bengali-speaking Muslims will be excluded. Similar guidance will likely apply in other parts of the country. So Muslims whose Indian ancestry dates back eons will be rendered stateless, but Hindus—recent arrivals and those with longstanding roots alike—will be protected. This makes a mockery of the rule of law.

What are Modi’s plans for Muslims who can’t satisfy his stipulations?

Unless some other country agrees to take them, they’ll be evicted from their homes and communities and thrown into detention camps that his government has already started constructing around the country. This will affect literally every Muslim in the country. But the hardest hit will of course be poor Muslims who don’t have the money to buy off bureaucrats. Many of them may well prefer conversion to imprisonment. Either way, this will serve the faith-cleansing agenda of Hindu nationalists who for years have been offering mass reconversion ceremonies to Muslims.

If this seems like what China is doing to Uighur Muslims, that’s because it is. Beijing has reportedly thrown 1.5 million Uighurs—more than 10 percent of the country’s total Uighur population—into internment camps, where they are being subjected to brutal torture and political indoctrination against their own faith. But given India’s much larger Muslim population, the scale of Modi’s operation may well dwarf China’s.

The Hindu nationalists’ beef—so to speak—isn’t only with Muslims. As far they are concerned, India is meant only for indigenous faiths whose holy places reside on the Indian subcontinent, not in Mecca or Bethlehem. That would mean that India’s 65 million Christians don’t really belong in the country either. Violence against them is already rampant and rising.

The fact is that no group is really safe under a mentality that gets high from its powers of exclusion. It will always find ways to discriminate based on infinitesimally small differences and disagreements. Sikhs, who belong to a minority indigenous faith, have faced their share of violence in contemporary India. Nor is being a Hindu any protection. Hindu nationalists hate liberal Indians of any faith more than anyone else. It has become fashionable to dehumanize them as “libtards” and “sickularists,” and violence against them is also on the rise.

It may take a while before Modi and his fellow nationalists officially declare open season. Or it may happen quickly. (The fact that the government is responding with massive violence against anti-CAB protests that have broken around the country might suggest the latter.) After all, who would have thought 10 years ago that a country impatient for more liberalization and modernization would be staring at what might turn out to be the largest disenfranchisement drive in human history?

If Modi is possible in India, then anything is possible.

A version of this column originally appeared in The Week.

 

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