Tag: posts

Pence Says North American Trade Deal Will Boost U.S. Automaking Jobs. Don’t Believe Him.

The Trump administration is ramping up pressure on Congress to pass a rewritten version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) before the end of the year, but the new deal is likely promising more than it will actually deliver.

In a speech to conservative policymakers and members of Congress on Tuesday, Vice President Mike Pence argued that Congress should pass Trump’s much-ballyhooed United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) because the new trade deal will boost the U.S. economy. Specifically, Pence singled out automakers as one of the big winners under the proposed trade deal, which still has to be ratified by all three nations before it takes effect.

Passage of the USMCA would “make sure there’s more autoworkers’ jobs for decades to come,” Pence said Tuesday during an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Pence has become the administration’s primary cheerleader for the trade deal—both at public events like the one on Tuesday and others hosted over the past few months, and in private as the administration tries to sway members of Congress. Promising that the USMCA will create more auto-making jobs has been a central part of Pence’s message. The White House has also been touting a more general figure, based on an analysis by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), showing that passage of the USMCA will boost growth by 0.3 percent annually.

Provisions of the trade deal “will eliminate the historic incentive to move manufacturing jobs out of the United States of America,” Pence said Tuesday, while promising that the USMCA “levels the playing field for American workers and American jobs.”

But Pence is overselling what the USMCA would do. In fact, the new trade deal includes a handful of protectionist measures that will likely slow the U.S. economy in general and harm American automakers specifically. At the same time, the ITC analysis of the trade deal is likely overselling the potential benefits.

“On balance, the pact would hurt rather than help the U.S. economy,” wrote Jeffrey J. Schott, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a pro-trade think tank.

Rather than boosting growth by 0.3 percent, the ITC analysis actually projects a 0.12 percent decline in growth, Schott argued, because it gives the USMCA credit for some developments—like new rules aimed at “reducing uncertainty in policies on data, e-commerce, and intellectual property rights”—that are already the de facto standard for trade between the three North American nations.

A separate analysis by the C.D. Howe Institute, a Canadian think tank, also concluded that the “negative elements of [USMCA] outweigh the positives and will result in lower real GDP and welfare for all three” countries involved in the deal.

Many of those “negative elements” have to do with new rules the USMCA would impose on automobile manufacturing across North America.

Beginning in 2020, when the USMCA is supposed to take effect, cars and trucks must have 75 percent of their component parts manufactured in North America in order to move across borders tariff-free. That’s a significant increase from the 62.5 percent threshold required under NAFTA. Additionally, 40 percent of all component parts would have to be built by workers earning at least $16 an hour—effectively creating a continent-wide minimum wage that will discourage automakers from building cars in North America.

Both these “rules of origin” requirements and the new minimum wage mandates might undercut the Mexican auto industry, which is a key part of supply chains that crisscross both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Mexican government estimates that about 30 percent of cars currently made there would not meet the new requirements.

Instead of complying with the new regulations to trade duty-free, it’s likely that carmakers would simply pay the higher tariffs and pass those costs along to consumers. Indeed, even the Trump’s administration’s own ITC report says that consumer prices on cars in the U.S. would increase due to the USMCA—and that an estimated 140,000 fewer vehicles would be sold, while auto manufacturing jobs would decline by about 1,500.

If that’s true, however, one might wonder why groups like the American Automotive Policy Council, an auto industry group, have voiced support for congressional approval of the USMCA.

The answer is that they are likely more worried about what could happen if the USMCA doesn’t pass. Trump came into office promising to tear-up NAFTA, and passage of the USMCA seems like it might be the best way to avoid that worse-case scenario.

If the USMCA isn’t as great as Pence makes it sound, it is at least better than the economic damage that would be done to all three North American countries if NAFTA were dissolved without a replacement. That’s the unspoken part of the Trump administration’s pitch for Congress to pass the USMCA: refusing to do so might court chaos.

“Auto companies opposed the USMCA auto provisions during the trade negotiations, though they accepted the final deal for fear that Trump would implement his oft-repeated threat to pull out of NAFTA,” observed Schott. “And that’s why Trump needs to raise U.S. tariffs to prevent increased car imports and why he is using the excuse of a threat to national security…to block foreign shipments to the U.S. market.”

“Simply put,” Schott concluded, “Trump needs to protect U.S. producers against the damage done by his own trade pact.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31HiIRu
via IFTTT

E-Cigarette Restrictions Raise a Question: Can Governors Unilaterally Ban Products They Don’t Like?

New York Gov. Mario Cuomo (D) this week announced that he plans to impose an “emergency” ban on e-cigarettes in flavors other than tobacco and menthol. Like the recent decision by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) to impose a similar ban in her state, Cuomo’s move is based on an alarmingly broad understanding of a governor’s authority to prohibit products in the name of “public health” without new legislation.

Cuomo’s plan involves convening the New York State Public Health and Health Planning Council, which has the power to “amend and repeal sanitary regulations” with the approval of the health commissioner, who is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. Those sanitary regulations may “deal with any matters affecting the security of life or health or the preservation and improvement of public health in the state of New York.”

That is a potentially sweeping mandate, encompassing not just traditional public health threats such as pollution and communicable diseases but anything people do that may affect their “life or health.” In this case, Cuomo is asserting the authority to ban the vast majority of vaping products. But he could just as easily (and more plausibly) decide that conventional cigarettes, which are far more dangerous than e-cigarettes, should be banned. And under his reasoning, that move would not require legislative approval. Likewise with alcoholic beverages, highly caloric food, big sodas, fast cars, fireworks, guns, or any other product that may cause disease or injury.

Cuomo’s choice of flavored e-cigarettes is especially dubious for several reasons. First, it is likely to drive many former smokers who are now vaping, who overwhelmingly prefer the products he plans to ban, back to a much more dangerous source of nicotine. Second, by making e-cigarettes less appealing, his ban will deter current smokers from making a switch that could save their lives. Third, it will encourage the use of the black-market vaping products that Cuomo himself describes as especially risky.

Far from promoting public health, a ban on flavored e-cigarettes is apt to undermine it, leading to more smoking-related disease and death while giving a boost to illicit e-liquids that, as Cuomo puts it, “have no controls on them whatsoever.” And since bills that would ban flavored e-cigarettes have so far gone nowhere, he is imposing a policy that the state legislature has considered but declined to enact.

In Michigan, Gov. Whitmer is relying on a general provision of the Public Health Code that says the state Department of Health and Human Services may “exercise authority and promulgate rules to safeguard properly the public health.” The code does not define “public health,” but it says, “This code shall be liberally construed for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the people of this state.” To avoid the process that ordinarily must be followed to issue new regulations, Whitmer is relying on a provision of the Administrative Procedures Act that says an agency may issue an emergency rule “without following the notice and participation procedures” that would otherwise apply when it “finds that preservation of the public health, safety, or welfare” requires it and the governor agrees.

Whitmer’s interpretation of those provisions effectively gives her the unilateral power not only to ban products but to create new crimes. The “emergency rules” written by Michigan’s health department make it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $200 fine, to sell e-cigarettes in flavors other than tobacco. Under those rules, it is also a misdemeanor to possess such e-cigarettes with the intent to sell them, and “a person who possesses four or more flavored vapor products” is “rebuttably presumed to possess said items with the intent to sell.” As Boston University public health professor Michael Siegel points out, that means anyone who possesses a four-pack of flavored Juul pods is presumptively guilty of a misdemeanor that can send him to jail.

The New York Times reports that California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) would like to follow the example set by Cuomo and Whitmer, but “he said it did not appear he could instate an outright ban on e-cigarette products without legislative action.” California’s Health and Safety Code does not seem to include the sort of broad language on which Cuomo and Whitmer are relying, which may explain why Newsom reached that conclusion.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/303D0Ii
via IFTTT

E-Cigarette Restrictions Raise a Question: Can Governors Unilaterally Ban Products They Don’t Like?

New York Gov. Mario Cuomo (D) this week announced that he plans to impose an “emergency” ban on e-cigarettes in flavors other than tobacco and menthol. Like the recent decision by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) to impose a similar ban in her state, Cuomo’s move is based on an alarmingly broad understanding of a governor’s authority to prohibit products in the name of “public health” without new legislation.

Cuomo’s plan involves convening the New York State Public Health and Health Planning Council, which has the power to “amend and repeal sanitary regulations” with the approval of the health commissioner, who is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. Those sanitary regulations may “deal with any matters affecting the security of life or health or the preservation and improvement of public health in the state of New York.”

That is a potentially sweeping mandate, encompassing not just traditional public health threats such as pollution and communicable diseases but anything people do that may affect their “life or health.” In this case, Cuomo is asserting the authority to ban the vast majority of vaping products. But he could just as easily (and more plausibly) decide that conventional cigarettes, which are far more dangerous than e-cigarettes, should be banned. And under his reasoning, that move would not require legislative approval. Likewise with alcoholic beverages, highly caloric food, big sodas, fast cars, fireworks, guns, or any other product that may cause disease or injury.

Cuomo’s choice of flavored e-cigarettes is especially dubious for several reasons. First, it is likely to drive many former smokers who are now vaping, who overwhelmingly prefer the products he plans to ban, back to a much more dangerous source of nicotine. Second, by making e-cigarettes less appealing, his ban will deter current smokers from making a switch that could save their lives. Third, it will encourage the use of the black-market vaping products that Cuomo himself describes as especially risky.

Far from promoting public health, a ban on flavored e-cigarettes is apt to undermine it, leading to more smoking-related disease and death while giving a boost to illicit e-liquids that, as Cuomo puts it, “have no controls on them whatsoever.” And since bills that would ban flavored e-cigarettes have so far gone nowhere, he is imposing a policy that the state legislature has considered but declined to enact.

In Michigan, Gov. Whitmer is relying on a general provision of the Public Health Code that says the state Department of Health and Human Services may “exercise authority and promulgate rules to safeguard properly the public health.” The code does not define “public health,” but it says, “This code shall be liberally construed for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the people of this state.” To avoid the process that ordinarily must be followed to issue new regulations, Whitmer is relying on a provision of the Administrative Procedures Act that says an agency may issue an emergency rule “without following the notice and participation procedures” that would otherwise apply when it “finds that preservation of the public health, safety, or welfare” requires it and the governor agrees.

Whitmer’s interpretation of those provisions effectively gives her the unilateral power not only to ban products but to create new crimes. The “emergency rules” written by Michigan’s health department make it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $200 fine, to sell e-cigarettes in flavors other than tobacco. Under those rules, it is also a misdemeanor to possess such e-cigarettes with the intent to sell them, and “a person who possesses four or more flavored vapor products” is “rebuttably presumed to possess said items with the intent to sell.” As Boston University public health professor Michael Siegel points out, that means anyone who possesses a four-pack of flavored Juul pods is presumptively guilty of a misdemeanor that can send him to jail.

The New York Times reports that California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) would like to follow the example set by Cuomo and Whitmer, but “he said it did not appear he could instate an outright ban on e-cigarette products without legislative action.” California’s Health and Safety Code does not seem to include the sort of broad language on which Cuomo and Whitmer are relying, which may explain why Newsom reached that conclusion.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/303D0Ii
via IFTTT

Judge to Charlottesville: You Can Put a Statue Up, but You Can’t Take It Down

A Charlottesville Circuit Court judge has ruled that the town’s Confederate monuments must remain in place, citing an early 20th century law that allows local governments to erect war memorials but forbids them from taking those same statues down without state permission.

In February 2017, the Charlottesville City Council voted to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, which stands downtown in a park that used to bear his name. In August of that same year, the Unite the Right rally—which saw white supremacists march on the town with tiki torches as they chanted “Jews will not replace us”—was organized in opposition to the statue’s removal, leading to the death of counterprotester Heather Heyer when a white nationalist drove into a crowd of people. The city council then voted to topple a statue of Confederate General Stonewall Jackson, as well.

A group of local residents pushed back at the local legislators’ first vote, filing a lawsuit in March 2017 to keep the town’s shrine to Lee intact. And after the Unite the Right rally—and the council’s second vote—they amended their complaint to include Jackson.

In May, Circuit Judge Richard E. Moore ruled that the much-contested statues are war memorials under state code. He then issued a permanent injunction last week that will prohibit the city from removing either monument. His ruling hinges on that 1904 statute: Although Moore admits that the war memorial law was enacted with racist undertones, he says it has been amended several times and, in its current form, solely centers around historical preservation.

“I don’t think I can infer that a historical preservation statute was intended to be racist,” he said. “Certainly, [racism] was on their minds, but we should not judge the current law by that intent.”

Moore is certainly correct that the statute and the proceeding monuments are rife with racism, something that Reason‘s Ron Bailey calls “plain historical fact.” The majority of such monuments were built between 1890 and 1925 during the era of Jim Crow segregation when politicians sought to enshrine reminders that, although the North had prevailed in the literal war, they had not won the ideological one. Charlottesville’s monuments of Lee and Jackson went up in 1924 and 1921, respectively, many decades after the Civil War ended.

But the larger problem here isn’t necessarily the intent of the law but the law itself, which gives local bodies autonomous control over building any such monument. Yet they lose those decision-making powers when it comes to removing the very same statues they had permission to erect—a bizarre example of state overreach.

Plaintiff Jock Yellot, who is head of the Monument Fund, gave tearful testimony. “I’m tearing up because it would just infuriate me that City Council would slander Lee and hide the beauty of those statues under tarps,” he said, referring to protesters who, in the wake of the Unite the Right demonstration, put black shrouds over the Confederate statues. But Yellot might be surprised to find that he has an unexpected opponent in his fight to preserve the controversial monuments.

It would be “wiser…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife,” wrote Robert E. Lee in 1869, rejecting the idea of putting up memorials for fallen soldiers. It would be better “to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2O7jOC8
via IFTTT

Judge to Charlottesville: You Can Put a Statue Up, but You Can’t Take It Down

A Charlottesville Circuit Court judge has ruled that the town’s Confederate monuments must remain in place, citing an early 20th century law that allows local governments to erect war memorials but forbids them from taking those same statues down without state permission.

In February 2017, the Charlottesville City Council voted to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, which stands downtown in a park that used to bear his name. In August of that same year, the Unite the Right rally—which saw white supremacists march on the town with tiki torches as they chanted “Jews will not replace us”—was organized in opposition to the statue’s removal, leading to the death of counterprotester Heather Heyer when a white nationalist drove into a crowd of people. The city council then voted to topple a statue of Confederate General Stonewall Jackson, as well.

A group of local residents pushed back at the local legislators’ first vote, filing a lawsuit in March 2017 to keep the town’s shrine to Lee intact. And after the Unite the Right rally—and the council’s second vote—they amended their complaint to include Jackson.

In May, Circuit Judge Richard E. Moore ruled that the much-contested statues are war memorials under state code. He then issued a permanent injunction last week that will prohibit the city from removing either monument. His ruling hinges on that 1904 statute: Although Moore admits that the war memorial law was enacted with racist undertones, he says it has been amended several times and, in its current form, solely centers around historical preservation.

“I don’t think I can infer that a historical preservation statute was intended to be racist,” he said. “Certainly, [racism] was on their minds, but we should not judge the current law by that intent.”

Moore is certainly correct that the statute and the proceeding monuments are rife with racism, something that Reason‘s Ron Bailey calls “plain historical fact.” The majority of such monuments were built between 1890 and 1925 during the era of Jim Crow segregation when politicians sought to enshrine reminders that, although the North had prevailed in the literal war, they had not won the ideological one. Charlottesville’s monuments of Lee and Jackson went up in 1924 and 1921, respectively, many decades after the Civil War ended.

But the larger problem here isn’t necessarily the intent of the law but the law itself, which gives local bodies autonomous control over building any such monument. Yet they lose those decision-making powers when it comes to removing the very same statues they had permission to erect—a bizarre example of state overreach.

Plaintiff Jock Yellot, who is head of the Monument Fund, gave tearful testimony. “I’m tearing up because it would just infuriate me that City Council would slander Lee and hide the beauty of those statues under tarps,” he said, referring to protesters who, in the wake of the Unite the Right demonstration, put black shrouds over the Confederate statues. But Yellot might be surprised to find that he has an unexpected opponent in his fight to preserve the controversial monuments.

It would be “wiser…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife,” wrote Robert E. Lee in 1869, rejecting the idea of putting up memorials for fallen soldiers. It would be better “to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2O7jOC8
via IFTTT

Arizona’s Supreme Court Rules Christian Calligraphers Can’t Be Forced to Make Gay Wedding Invitations

Calligraphy is a form of expressive speech, and therefore the city of Phoenix cannot compel a local studio to create wedding invitations for same-sex couples, Arizona’s highest court ruled yesterday.

The Arizona Supreme Court determined, 4-3, that any attempt to use Phoenix’s ordinances to punish Breanna Koski and Joanna Duka of Brush & Nib Studio for refusing to create custom wedding invitations for gay couples who were getting married violated both the state’s constitution and its Free Exercise of Religion Act.

The contours of Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix are similar to others we’ve seen about whether bakers or florists could be forced under anti-discrimination laws to provide their goods and services to same-sex couples even if they have religious objections to recognizing or celebrating these weddings. Is the baking of a wedding cake or the arranging of flowers an expressive act and, therefore, protected speech?

In this case, the judges were assisted by the fact that the product that Brush & Nib provides is unambiguously a form of speech. The company prepares custom invitations requesting the recipients to celebrate and honor the couple’s pending nuptials. They’re explicitly describing how awesome it is that the couple is getting married. So if they have a religious opposition to recognizing and celebrating such marriages, then they’re being forced to craft a message that compromises their beliefs.

That’s just not acceptable, the justices ruled. Justice Andrew Gould wrote the court’s opinion, heavily laden with references to previous state and federal court precedents on issues of compelled speech and commerce. The decision notes that not all business activity includes expressive speech, but that tattoos parlors and video game companies, for example, sell services and products that have been ruled to be protected free speech: “A business does not forfeit the protections of the First Amendment because it sells its speech for profit.” While not all that Brush & Nib does falls under First Amendment protections, their custom invitations do:

Each custom invitation created by Duka and Koski contains their hand-drawn words, images, and calligraphy, as well as their hand-painted images and original artwork. Additionally, Duka and Koski are intimately connected with the words and artwork contained in their invitations.…For each invitation, Duka and Koski spend many hours designing and painting custom paintings, writing words and phrases, and drawing images and calligraphy. Moreover, they insist on retaining artistic control over the ideas and messages contained in the invitations to ensure they are consistent with their religious beliefs.

The justices determine that these invitations are much like that of the tattoo artist, and therefore Duka and Koski cannot be forced to make custom invitations for same-sex couples.

Note the emphasis on “custom.” The ruling is also very clear that the shop cannot just turn away gay people or couples who want to purchase other goods or services from Brush & Nib—they do not have blanket permission to discriminate against gay customers.

Representatives for the city said they’re looking for possible grounds to appeal. This might be difficult because, though the ruling repeatedly invokes the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedents, it’s actually based on the state’s constitution and state statutes, not federal law.

Eugene Volokh and Dale Carpenter, contributors to The Volokh Conspiracy hosted here at Reason, partnered with the Cato Institute to submit an amicus brief in support of Brush & Nib’s right to refuse to provide custom wedding invitations to gay couples. Volokh and Carpenter took the opposite position as Cato (and the Reason Foundation, which publishes this site) in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court case from 2018 that focused on whether bakers could be forced to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. For those who missed that case, the court ultimately dodged the issue, ruling 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to serve as a neutral arbiter in the case and its members expressed religious animosity when making its decision. The justices declined to determine whether or not the creation of a wedding cake was a form of expressive speech protected by the First Amendment. Volokh explained why he disagreed with Cato and the Reason Foundation’s position a year ago in our magazine.

Last night, Carpenter weighed in on yesterday’s ruling at The Volokh Conspiracy:

Along with a million or so other Americans, I am in one of those marriages the calligraphers condemn. Free speech used effectively by gay-marriage advocates convinced large majorities of Americans to support the cause. Those supporters can criticize the calligraphers on theological, philosophical, and political grounds. And of course, they can readily (and, I assume, happily) take their business elsewhere. But those whose very calling is to put pen to paper should not be required—on pain of government-imposed fine, jail, or loss of their livelihoods—to speak in violation of their consciences.

Read the ruling here.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30fil3v
via IFTTT

Arizona’s Supreme Court Rules Christian Calligraphers Can’t Be Forced to Make Gay Wedding Invitations

Calligraphy is a form of expressive speech, and therefore the city of Phoenix cannot compel a local studio to create wedding invitations for same-sex couples, Arizona’s highest court ruled yesterday.

The Arizona Supreme Court determined, 4-3, that any attempt to use Phoenix’s ordinances to punish Breanna Koski and Joanna Duka of Brush & Nib Studio for refusing to create custom wedding invitations for gay couples who were getting married violated both the state’s constitution and its Free Exercise of Religion Act.

The contours of Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix are similar to others we’ve seen about whether bakers or florists could be forced under anti-discrimination laws to provide their goods and services to same-sex couples even if they have religious objections to recognizing or celebrating these weddings. Is the baking of a wedding cake or the arranging of flowers an expressive act and, therefore, protected speech?

In this case, the judges were assisted by the fact that the product that Brush & Nib provides is unambiguously a form of speech. The company prepares custom invitations requesting the recipients to celebrate and honor the couple’s pending nuptials. They’re explicitly describing how awesome it is that the couple is getting married. So if they have a religious opposition to recognizing and celebrating such marriages, then they’re being forced to craft a message that compromises their beliefs.

That’s just not acceptable, the justices ruled. Justice Andrew Gould wrote the court’s opinion, heavily laden with references to previous state and federal court precedents on issues of compelled speech and commerce. The decision notes that not all business activity includes expressive speech, but that tattoos parlors and video game companies, for example, sell services and products that have been ruled to be protected free speech: “A business does not forfeit the protections of the First Amendment because it sells its speech for profit.” While not all that Brush & Nib does falls under First Amendment protections, their custom invitations do:

Each custom invitation created by Duka and Koski contains their hand-drawn words, images, and calligraphy, as well as their hand-painted images and original artwork. Additionally, Duka and Koski are intimately connected with the words and artwork contained in their invitations.…For each invitation, Duka and Koski spend many hours designing and painting custom paintings, writing words and phrases, and drawing images and calligraphy. Moreover, they insist on retaining artistic control over the ideas and messages contained in the invitations to ensure they are consistent with their religious beliefs.

The justices determine that these invitations are much like that of the tattoo artist, and therefore Duka and Koski cannot be forced to make custom invitations for same-sex couples.

Note the emphasis on “custom.” The ruling is also very clear that the shop cannot just turn away gay people or couples who want to purchase other goods or services from Brush & Nib—they do not have blanket permission to discriminate against gay customers.

Representatives for the city said they’re looking for possible grounds to appeal. This might be difficult because, though the ruling repeatedly invokes the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedents, it’s actually based on the state’s constitution and state statutes, not federal law.

Eugene Volokh and Dale Carpenter, contributors to The Volokh Conspiracy hosted here at Reason, partnered with the Cato Institute to submit an amicus brief in support of Brush & Nib’s right to refuse to provide custom wedding invitations to gay couples. Volokh and Carpenter took the opposite position as Cato (and the Reason Foundation, which publishes this site) in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court case from 2018 that focused on whether bakers could be forced to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. For those who missed that case, the court ultimately dodged the issue, ruling 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to serve as a neutral arbiter in the case and its members expressed religious animosity when making its decision. The justices declined to determine whether or not the creation of a wedding cake was a form of expressive speech protected by the First Amendment. Volokh explained why he disagreed with Cato and the Reason Foundation’s position a year ago in our magazine.

Last night, Carpenter weighed in on yesterday’s ruling at The Volokh Conspiracy:

Along with a million or so other Americans, I am in one of those marriages the calligraphers condemn. Free speech used effectively by gay-marriage advocates convinced large majorities of Americans to support the cause. Those supporters can criticize the calligraphers on theological, philosophical, and political grounds. And of course, they can readily (and, I assume, happily) take their business elsewhere. But those whose very calling is to put pen to paper should not be required—on pain of government-imposed fine, jail, or loss of their livelihoods—to speak in violation of their consciences.

Read the ruling here.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30fil3v
via IFTTT

How Did The New York Times Botch the Brett Kavanaugh Story?

Criticism of The New York Times‘ botched story on a previously unreported sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh prompted the paper to answer questions about the editorial process—though not the most important one.

James Dao, deputy editorial page editor, said the story—an excerpt from Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly’s new book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation—appeared in the Sunday Review section (part of the Opinion pages) rather than the news section because “The Sunday Review is the Opinion section’s platform for longer essays as well as excerpts or adaptations from books. Sometimes those books are by Times writers, whose submissions go through the same review process as outside writers. In recent months, the Review has published essays adapted from books by Times news writers like Carl Hulse and Jason DeParle, and opinion writers like Bari Weiss and Binyamin Appelbaum.”

Vanity Fair reports that news editors did consider writing about the new details uncovered by Pogrebin and Kelly, but ultimately decided “there wasn’t enough juice to warrant a story there, let alone a big page-one treatment.”

Dao described the book as “the fruit of nearly a year of research by the authors, [exploring] in a nuanced way the social and cultural forces that shaped Justice Kavanaugh.” He said it was important to include details of the latest allegation, which are similar to what Kavanaugh’s Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez allegedly experienced. According to Pogrebin and Kelly, Max Stier—a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s and now president of the Partnership for Public Service—told the FBI he recalled seeing Kavanaugh with his pants down, and that friends pushed his penis toward a woman. Neither Stier nor the women would agree to speak with Pogrebin and Kelly, and the woman’s friends told the authors she did not recall it. This important fact appears in the book but was somehow omitted from The Times’ version.

Dao did not explain how this happened. On MSNBC last night, Pogrebin and Kelly blamed their editors, saying that the sentence was in the draft they submitted but then disappeared.

In any case, while several Democratic presidential candidates have called for Kavanaugh to be impeached, House Democratic leadership seems unlikely to move in that direction. “The same Senate that confirmed Kavanaugh is unlikely to remove him,” Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) told BuzzFeed.

Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) said on Monday, “Frankly, we are concentrating our resources on whether to impeach the president.”

FREE MINDS

Speaking of terrible New York Times articles, this one is a doozy: The paper of record trashed presidential contender Andrew Yang for daring to mildly dissent from cancel culture regarding SNL’s firing of comedian Shane Gillis for making offensive jokes:

But as many “S.N.L.” viewers and others across the country clamored for Mr. Gillis to be fired, believing his jokes to be beyond excusable, Mr. Yang’s response unnerved those hoping for a more forceful condemnation from him. Perhaps the most pointed criticism has come from the Asian-American community itself, where some have expressed a mix of incredulity and weighty disappointment at the way Mr. Yang has talked about race throughout his campaign.

Mr. Yang took “a position that’s very much at odds with the Asian-American community,” said Jenn Fang, the creator of a long-running Asian-American advocacy blog, Reappropriate, who tweeted over the weekend about Mr. Yang’s comments. “He’s trying to let Shane Gillis off the hook so he can cater to other voters that he needs to get to the White House.”

Mr. Yang also received significant blowback from people within and outside Asian-American communities for appearing to draw a comparison between how society treats anti-Asian racism and anti-black racism.

It’s very easy to find three woke scolds on Twitter and pretend that their complaints about Yang not towing the militant far-left line are somehow representative of the Asian-American community, which is precisely what the Times did here.

FREE MARKETS

The weekend attacks on Saudi Arabian oil fields will probably not raise oil prices for Americans. According to The Washington Post:

That’s because if necessary, both Saudi Arabia and the United States could tap their strategic reserves, assuring they continue to meet demand for weeks. And the U.S. is hardly captive to foreign supplies, as it was during the 1970s oil shocks, since it has emerged over the last decade as the world’s largest oil producer.

QUICK HITS

  • Controversial political advocates Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, and Bob Bland have resigned from the board of the Women’s March. Both were accused of making alliances with anti-Semitic groups like the Nation of Islam, whose leader Louis Farrakhan once compared Jewish people to termites.
  • Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.) warned against U.S. intervention on behalf of Saudi Arabia, saying that she did not automatically trust the Trump administration to tell the truth about Iran’s involvement.
  • E-cigarette company Juul is hoping a ballot initiative will thwart San Francisco’s nanny state tendencies.
  • New York public school children have received official permission to skip school in order to protest government inaction on climate change.
  • The horror. The horror.

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

How Did The New York Times Botch the Brett Kavanaugh Story?

Criticism of The New York Times‘ botched story on a previously unreported sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh prompted the paper to answer questions about the editorial process—though not the most important one.

James Dao, deputy editorial page editor, said the story—an excerpt from Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly’s new book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation—appeared in the Sunday Review section (part of the Opinion pages) rather than the news section because “The Sunday Review is the Opinion section’s platform for longer essays as well as excerpts or adaptations from books. Sometimes those books are by Times writers, whose submissions go through the same review process as outside writers. In recent months, the Review has published essays adapted from books by Times news writers like Carl Hulse and Jason DeParle, and opinion writers like Bari Weiss and Binyamin Appelbaum.”

Vanity Fair reports that news editors did consider writing about the new details uncovered by Pogrebin and Kelly, but ultimately decided “there wasn’t enough juice to warrant a story there, let alone a big page-one treatment.”

Dao described the book as “the fruit of nearly a year of research by the authors, [exploring] in a nuanced way the social and cultural forces that shaped Justice Kavanaugh.” He said it was important to include details of the latest allegation, which are similar to what Kavanaugh’s Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez allegedly experienced. According to Pogrebin and Kelly, Max Stier—a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s and now president of the Partnership for Public Service—told the FBI he recalled seeing Kavanaugh with his pants down, and that friends pushed his penis toward a woman. Neither Stier nor the women would agree to speak with Pogrebin and Kelly, and the woman’s friends told the authors she did not recall it. This important fact appears in the book but was somehow omitted from The Times’ version.

Dao did not explain how this happened. On MSNBC last night, Pogrebin and Kelly blamed their editors, saying that the sentence was in the draft they submitted but then disappeared.

In any case, while several Democratic presidential candidates have called for Kavanaugh to be impeached, House Democratic leadership seems unlikely to move in that direction. “The same Senate that confirmed Kavanaugh is unlikely to remove him,” Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) told BuzzFeed.

Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) said on Monday, “Frankly, we are concentrating our resources on whether to impeach the president.”

FREE MINDS

Speaking of terrible New York Times articles, this one is a doozy: The paper of record trashed presidential contender Andrew Yang for daring to mildly dissent from cancel culture regarding SNL’s firing of comedian Shane Gillis for making offensive jokes:

But as many “S.N.L.” viewers and others across the country clamored for Mr. Gillis to be fired, believing his jokes to be beyond excusable, Mr. Yang’s response unnerved those hoping for a more forceful condemnation from him. Perhaps the most pointed criticism has come from the Asian-American community itself, where some have expressed a mix of incredulity and weighty disappointment at the way Mr. Yang has talked about race throughout his campaign.

Mr. Yang took “a position that’s very much at odds with the Asian-American community,” said Jenn Fang, the creator of a long-running Asian-American advocacy blog, Reappropriate, who tweeted over the weekend about Mr. Yang’s comments. “He’s trying to let Shane Gillis off the hook so he can cater to other voters that he needs to get to the White House.”

Mr. Yang also received significant blowback from people within and outside Asian-American communities for appearing to draw a comparison between how society treats anti-Asian racism and anti-black racism.

It’s very easy to find three woke scolds on Twitter and pretend that their complaints about Yang not towing the militant far-left line are somehow representative of the Asian-American community, which is precisely what the Times did here.

FREE MARKETS

The weekend attacks on Saudi Arabian oil fields will probably not raise oil prices for Americans. According to The Washington Post:

That’s because if necessary, both Saudi Arabia and the United States could tap their strategic reserves, assuring they continue to meet demand for weeks. And the U.S. is hardly captive to foreign supplies, as it was during the 1970s oil shocks, since it has emerged over the last decade as the world’s largest oil producer.

QUICK HITS

  • Controversial political advocates Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, and Bob Bland have resigned from the board of the Women’s March. Both were accused of making alliances with anti-Semitic groups like the Nation of Islam, whose leader Louis Farrakhan once compared Jewish people to termites.
  • Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.) warned against U.S. intervention on behalf of Saudi Arabia, saying that she did not automatically trust the Trump administration to tell the truth about Iran’s involvement.
  • E-cigarette company Juul is hoping a ballot initiative will thwart San Francisco’s nanny state tendencies.
  • New York public school children have received official permission to skip school in order to protest government inaction on climate change.
  • The horror. The horror.

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

Stossel: Life Is Better Than Ever

News reports often give the impression that human beings have wrecked the earth, the middle class is disappearing, and the world is getting more dangerous.

“We are destroying the planet,” Michael Moore says on CNN. MSNBC says that “the middle class is disappearing.” The media warn us about things like a “deadly Ebola outbreak.”

This negativity comes from the way humans are wired by evolution, says Reason Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward.

She tells John Stossel: “If you are a caveman who hears a little rustling in the weeds, and you say, ‘Oh, it’s probably fine,’ the other guy who says, ‘It’s probably a tiger,’ that’s the guy who lives. That guy was our ancestors.”

But our instincts are wrong, she says. We needn’t be so scared.

The cover of the August/September 2019 issue of Reason features a glass that’s completely full. Inside the magazine, you’ll read about how there is less war and more food. And we’re healthier, while working safer and more fulfilling jobs.

Mangu-Ward points out that today we have medical breakthroughs that would’ve once been called miracles. Deaf children receive cochlear implants that allow them to hear for the first time. Artificial limbs “allow the lame to walk.”

“These are things that, in another era, would have caused the founding of an entire religion!” says Mangu-Ward.

Stossel pushes back: “What about this constant complaint from the media?…The middle class is shrinking.”

“Mostly it’s because people are getting richer,” Mangu-Ward responds.

She’s right. A graph in Reason shows that about 50 years ago, 53 percent of people were middle-income, making between $35,000 and $100,000 per year. Although that statistic has since fallen to 42 percent, the reason is that many people moved into upper-income brackets. The share making more than $100,000 rose from 8 percent to almost 28 percent. (These numbers are inflation-adjusted.)

“Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death are All on the Decline,” was the subtitle of another article in the issue.

“You wouldn’t know that watching news programs,” Stossel said.

“That’s right, and yet it’s absolutely true,” added Mangu-Ward.

Even with the rise in terrorism, she notes, “There are fewer wars and fewer people die in those wars than has ever been true in the past.”

Stossel pushes back again: “Lately, life expectancy dropped a bit.” 

“Overall, that is the tiniest blip,” Mangu-Ward replies. The long-term trend is still up.

An article titled “How Work Got Good“argues that people are more fulfilled in modern jobs.

“A couple hundred years ago, work was dangerous,” Mangu-Ward adds. “It was very easy to die at work…work was extremely boring, even for people that had good jobs. Jobs are pretty interesting now, and they mostly don’t kill you, and we should be grateful for that.”

But there are problems, and Reason‘s editors understand that. The back half of the magazine is filled with the bad news: misery in Venezuela, threats to an open internet, the new popularity of socialism. 

“Everything that’s bad is politics, everything that’s good is the market.” Mangu-Ward argues. “Life gets better. We have the opportunity to look to a future where those trends will continue—if we can just manage to keep politicians from screwing it up.”

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34QiM3y
via IFTTT