MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Article Thumbnail

Is It Time to Abolish Three Strikes? New at Reason

"The Return" follows newly released inmates into the outside world.

The Return, which debuts tonight on PBS, is a documentary that follows the journeys of several former California prison inmates as they re-enter the world after serving decades behind bars under Three Strikes sentencing. Three Strikes passed in 1994 in the state and requires a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life for a third felony conviction. California voters modified the law in 2012 by passing Prop 36, which allowed for the resentencing and release of convicts whose third strike was a non-violent, non-serious offense. Since then, the courts have released more than 1,500 California inmates from prison.  

Reason TV's Zach Weissmueller sat down with Katie Galloway, who is one of the film's two directors, and Kevin Bilal Chatman, one of the film's subjects, who served 11 years for dealing drugs to an undercover police officer. Under Three Strikes, Chatman faced life in prison but was resentenced after the passage of Prop 36.

Galloway and Chatman discuss the role that Three Strikes has played in overincarceration, what "tough on crime" laws get wrong, the surprising politics of prison sentencing reform, the difficulties of transitioning from prison to civilian life, and what other states can learn from California's experiment in resentencing.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Music by Chris Zabriskie. Approximately 13 minutes. Click the link below for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.

View this article
Article Thumbnail

DHS's 2014 Panty Raid Was Concocted by an "Eager" Federal Prosecutor

Homeland Security was defined-down even further in the form of a raid on a Kansas City lingerie shop over possible copyright infringement.

Coming for your undergarments.US Air Force via Wikimedia Commons

You may recall the widely-mocked raid staged by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on a Kansas City lingerie shop, called Birdies, during the 2014 Major League Baseball (MLB) World Series.

At issue was the store's alleged sale of underwear illegally-bearing the logo of the Kansas City Royals, whose first trip to the World Series in 29 years that year brought a huge boost in hometown demand for the team's apparel.

Nearly two years later, VICE Sports' Aaron Gordon reports that the raid was unsurprisingly not the result of some copyright-respecting do-gooder tipster, but "an extensive planned police action motivated by an 'eager' Assistant U.S. Attorney."

After Gordon filed several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, he came into documents which showed that DHS' Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency ran an ongoing operation called "Operation Team Player" in which ICE "worked with sports leagues and law enforcement agencies throughout the nation" to seize millions of dollars worth of counterfeit team apparel and merchandise. 

One of the FOIA'd documents shows one ICE officer writing to another that with regards to Operation Team Player, Kansas City's DHS office was "trying to get their numbers up and will accept any leads for controlled delivery in Kansas or Missouri, even if they do not meet the criteria because the AUSA Prosecutor is eager."

So there you have it, a federal bureaucracy needs to justify existence and a
"eager" prosecutor is willing to give them the go-ahead even if the required criteria isn't there. 

The emails also reveal that only a few days following the raid which netted the feds a grand total of 55 items (according to one of the internal government emails: "35 boy short underwear, 17 women thongs, 2 Men's boxers, and 1 men's underwear."), they sensed they were losing the narrative.

One officer wrote:

We're going to be all over the news tomorrow for all the wrong reasons. We'll obviously try to spin this as an opportunity to discuss IPR, but the panty raid jokes will make it hard.

Another officer replied:

We need MLB to step forward and throw some support for what we do. Let us get with our MLB contact and we'll be proactive as we can re: media.

When it was all said and done, no charges were filed against Birdies. The store's owner, Peregrine Honig, told VICE Sports that the whole ordeal ultimately gifted her business a windfall in free positive advertising because the story "made Republicans angry, it made Democrats angry, it made anarchists angry."

Article Thumbnail

Don't Compare Vets' Treatment Wait Times to Disney Park Lines

The private sector strives to improve, while the government agency makes excuses.

DisneylandCredit: Scott ShackfordGetting treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is still a disaster. Veterans are on waiting lists that now appear to be even longer than they were before the scandal broke years back. As this PBS story shows, the fix attempted by Congress has not worked and has instead created even more bureaucracy.

Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald had a rather odd response to this crisis at a breakfast with reporters at the Christian Science Monitor this morning. He decided to compare waiting for potentially life-saving medical treatment to waiting in line for a ride at a Disney park. The comparison is inherently absurd given that one side here has stakes much higher than tired, whiny children. But McDonald took the comparison to a whole additional, really stupid level, by stating that Disney doesn't determine success by wait times, so the VA shouldn't either. Sarah Westwood at the Washington Examiner tossed up a quick piece on it:

"When you got to Disney, do they measure the number of hours you wait in line? Or what's important? What's important is, what's your satisfaction with the experience?" McDonald said Monday during a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters. "And what I would like to move to, eventually, is that kind of measure."

So, as a libertarian and completely unashamed Disney park nerd (see here), McDonald is essentially waving a big, red cape in my face. Disney has invested incredible sums of money in its efforts to reducing the amount of time people spend in lines and the friction caused by these waits, which, as most people know, reduces the "satisfaction with the experience."

If McDonald wants to use Disney as an example, maybe he should actually take a look at what the parks have done about their waits. They've introduced the FastPass system, which for the higher-profile rides like Space Mountain, gives you a time window to return and skip the line. It's simply setting an appointment in advance like … going to the doctor, except the time frame is just a couple of hours, not weeks.

But that's just one of the simpler solutions. Disney has spent more than $1 billion (according to a massive Wired story from last year) on its high-tech MagicBand system, featuring micro-chipped wristbands designed to ease guests' planning and wait times while in the park. There's a commercial aspect to it as well (it certainly makes it much easier for tourists to spend their money in the parks and to track consumption patterns). The bands are intended to reduce a lot of different types of problems that crop up when visiting the parks, the biggest one of which is long wait times.

And there are a host of other little tricks Disney has done. When I visited the Orlando park a few summers ago with a buddy and collected a FastPass for "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" (don't judge me), we were surprised to see the machine spit out a second FastPass completely unsolicited. It was for some Mickey-related indoor stage show in Fantasy Land. We shrugged and decided to use it. It got us out of the crowds and heat for a little while. It turned out, of course, that was exactly Disney's plan. There were no long lines to see a stage show. There was no need for the FastPass at all. We could have just walked right in, but we wouldn't have bothered if we hadn't been given the ticket.

It's a clever little (slightly manipulative) trick. But translate it over to a medical system and imagine how that might translate. Perhaps not well: There likely aren't significant numbers of doctors who are sitting around wondering where the patients are. On the other hand, as the PBS story noted, problems with the way the VA system operates has caused private doctors to drop out of the system because they weren't getting paid efficiently. It's the poor operations of the VA that is preventing the problem from wait times from being corrected.

Disney cannot afford to let that happen. People who have bad experiences and frustrations at the park are likely to spend less money or return less frequently. People have entertainment choices other than them. Universal Studios has got Harry Potter to offer now. Disney also just invested about $4 billion in a brand new park in Shanghai that's opening in June.

Because people have alternatives to Disney, they can't simply rest on their laurels. They have to care a lot about wait times at their parks, and doing so is one of the reasons why people have memorable experiences in the park (give or take a few folks). This constant investment and innovation in trying to improve anything that hampers the experiences of customers is what keeps them on top. While Disney certainly considers a lot more than wait times when measuring success, the company knows full well that such data is a key component of that equation. Maybe we should put Disney in charge of the VA?

Article Thumbnail

New Trump Ad Attacks Hillary Clinton for Her Husband's Alleged Sex Crimes

"Here we go again" is right...

Donald Trump/InstagramDonald Trump/InstagramCrime bills and welfare and presidential penis, oh my... If you're looking forward to relitigating the 1990s in the court of public opinion, has America got an election for you!

Welfare reform was the great rehash of the weekend, with a fight between lefty blogger Matt Bruenig and Center for American Progress president Neera Tanden over Bill Clinton's welfare policies—and how much blame to place on Hillary Clinton, and by extension all of her supporters, for them—devolving into a heated, internecine battle between Sen. Bernie Sanders fans and Team Hillary. (If you should care to learn more—though I advise against it unless you're feeling a bit low on insufferable internet narcissists this week—Vox offers a pretty clear and concise summary of "Bruenighazi.")

Then, on Monday, Donald Trump released a campaign ad dredging up old accusations of sexual assault against Bill Clinton. The short, black-and-white ad opens with an image of the former president with a cigar in his mouth superimposed over an image of the White House as various female voices describe being assaulted. The most graphic description comes from a recording of Juanita Broaddrick, the former Arkansas nursing-home administrator who, in 1999, accused Clinton of raping her during his 1978 gubernatorial campaign. 

The ad—which Trump released on Instagram with the caption "Is Hillary really protecting women?"—features only one more image: a photo of Bill and Hillary Clinton together under the caption "Here we go again?" Broaddrick's testimony fades out as someone (presumably Hillary) lets out the loudest, most cackle-like laugh imaginable. The screen then flashes the word Trump above the message "Make America Great Again!" 

Subtle it is not. Effective? That probably depends on how you feel about (either or both of) the Clintons to begin with. But I think it's safe to see this short ad as a trailer for a longer line of attack coming soon.

Last Wednesday, Trump brought up the sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton during a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity. Earlier in the month, at a campaign stop in Washington, Trump said that Clinton was "married to a man who was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics." 

Article Thumbnail

How Trump Could Doom the World

He'll unleash the illiberal demons of developing countries

Trump Taj Mahal Casino&copy; Sean Pavone | Dreamstime.com - <a href=

American liberal democracy may well survive a Trump presidency, bruised and battered. But whether the rest of theworld can is an open question. Trump might well unleash forces of illiberalism and barbarism in other countries that may well be hard to contain.

Among them is India, I note in my column at The Week, where some Hindu nationalist militants last week held a public prayer ceremony for Trump’s November victory. Why would they root for a guy who constantly talks smack about their country? Because in Trump they see a kindred spirit when it comes to anti-Muslim hatred. “As far as they are concerned, if the most successful country on the planet votes for Trump's anti-Muslim platform, it'll be a vindication of everything they've long believed but haven't been able to openly push,” I note.

This will expose India’s Muslim minority to even more bloodshed. Ditto for other endangered minorities in other countries where the majority has a beef with them. But even that doesn’t fully plumb the depths of the damage that a Trump presidency do to the world.

Go here to find out what that is.

Article Thumbnail

Bankruptcy and the Case for Puerto Rico's Independence

The island commonwealth and the U.S. would benefit from giving each other more space and more freedom.

Puerto Rico has defaulted on its public debt, which is about equal to its GDP. There are many reasons for why the U.S. commonwealth can't pay its bills these days and first and foremost is that the island's public sector is swollen beyond health with public-sector jobs and benefits.

But part of the reason is that the cost of living is artificially made more expensive due to it being part of the United States. Not only does that mean Puerto Rico has to follow a whole host of labor regulations, including a minimum wage set for wealther areas, but it has to put up with abominations such as the federal Jones Act, which "which requires shippers to use costly U.S. flagged ships that result in Puerto Rican consumers paying artificially higher prices for goods."

As Reason columnist Veronique de Rugy and her Mercatus Center colleague Tad DeHaven write in USA Today, Puerto Rico is screwed:

Puerto Rico’s debt obligations have reached $72 billion (roughly equal to the size of its entire economy), and thanks to lavish benefits given to government employees over the decades, it faces more than $40 billion in unfunded liabilities. The island defaulted on $400 million in debt service payments at the beginning of May, and the prospects of it making good on another $1.9 billion in early July look bleak unless it works out agreements with creditors or the federal government gets directly involved.

They note that whatever debt relief package gets passed, it will likely tighten controls over the island's economy and strengthen Washington's hand. De Rugy and DeHaven argue that it's time to rethink Puerto Rico status as a U.S. commonwealth, for its health and that of the United States:

Over 100 years [after the Spanish-American War, which brought Puerto Rico under American control] the United States’ federal government finds itself with a virtual military empire that, when all related costs like veterans’ benefits are factored in, soaks taxpayers close to $800 billion a year. That’s a lot of money to effectively subsidize the defense needs of wealthy allies and exert control over foreign populations for the ostensible purpose of “spreading democracy.” And not coincidentally, the tentacles of the federal government can be found in virtually every aspect of our lives. After all, federal involvement in everything from education to the federal highway system has been justified on dubious “national security” grounds.

So, while raising the question of Puerto Rican independence might seem quaint, its prominent place in the news is at least an occasion to recognize that big government abroad and big government at home are two sides of the same coin. Relinquishing control of Puerto Rico would be a significant step toward a badly needed downsizing of the federal government.

Read the whole thing here.

Back in 2012, Matt Welch interviewed then-Gov. Luis Fortuno, whose spending cuts had helped to prevent Puerto Rico from becoming "America's Greece." After taking a hatchet to the state workforce, Fortuno was voted out of office and, well, here we are.

Take a look below or read this conversation between Welch and Fortuno.

Article Thumbnail

Officer Edward Nero Found Not Guilty in Freddie Gray's Death

The first verdict in the trials of six Baltimore police officers

Alt-text is a crutch, man.Baltimore Police DepartmentWe have our first verdict in the trials of the six cops charged following the death last year of Freddie Gray, the young Baltimore man who died shackled and unbelted in a police van. This morning Officer Edward Nero, who had opted for a bench trial rather than face a jury, was found not guilty of all the charges against him, which included one count of reckless endangerment, two of misconduct in office, and four of second-degree assault.

While Nero is the first officer to receive an actual verdict for his role in the case, he is the second to have gone to trial. Five months ago, Officer William Porter's trip to court ended with a hung jury and a mistrial.

Nero was widely seen as the least culpable of the six officers, and he was not directly charged for Gray's death. If he had been found guilty—and by a judge rather than a jury at that—the remaining cops in the case surely would have taken it as a dark sign. (So would a lot of other cops, since the assault charges stemmed from the fact that Gray had been arrested without probable cause. Treating that as an assault was not a precedent a lot of police were eager to see.)  

The next trial—of Officer Caesar Goodson, Jr.—is supposed to begin next month, with the rest progressing through the summer and fall.

Article Thumbnail

3 Libertarian Candidates Wrangle Over Nomination in a Weird Election Year: New at Reason

The three leading Libertarian Party candidates talk to Brian Doherty in the brand new issue of Reason magazine:

"I think that libertarianism really is about a love and trust of your fellow man, because people are good and can be trusted with freedom." - Austin Petersen, editor of The Libertarian Republic

"I was just a Republican: I hated the elderly, I hated teachers, you know, I was all about survival of the fittest, I was anti-environment. But I come out in favor of legalizing marijuana and all of a sudden all that stuff just dried up."  - Gary Johnson, former GOP Governor of New Mexico

"Don't care about me, please. Commune with me. Dance with me. Laugh with me. But for God's sake, if you care about me, keep the fuck out of my life." - John McAfee, antivirus software pioneer

Read the whole feature here.  

Subscribe now to access the whole July issue.

View this article
Article Thumbnail

California Senate Makes Multiple Moves to Restrict Gun Rights

Detachable magazines, ammunition purchase without background check, and magazines holding more than 10 bullets among many things the California Senate wants to outlaw.

The California Senate late last week passed 11 new bills aimed at restricting gun rights in various ways (even more than the state already does), all of which must go to the state Assembly now before ending up on Gov. Jerry Brown's desk. (Brown is not always a reliable supporter of gun right restrictions.)

Among the things that would be risk getting you locked up in California if the Senate gets its way includes buying ammunition without a background check, possessing magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, or selling or making semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines. If you already own such, you will be required under penalty of law to "register them with the state as assault rifles," reports the Los Angeles Times.

jdlasica via Foter.com / CC BY-NCjdlasica via Foter.com / CC BY-NC

The politicking was as usual pretty partisan along Democratic (pro the new laws) and Republican (against) lines and drowned in unproven rhetoric about the harms they will prevent and weapons that allegedly have "no legitimate use" despite being owned by millions legitimately, in the sense of not being used to harm innocents.

Details of some of the other bills, from the Times report:

-- Require owners of homemade guns to get a serial number for the firearms, register them with the state and undergo a background check.

-- Ask voters in November to reverse a provision of 2014’s Proposition 47 that made thefts of guns worth $950 or less a misdemeanor. The measure would allow felony charges in all gun theft cases. Republicans supported this measure.

-- Mandate that gun owners report lost or stolen firearms to the authorities within five days of discovery that they are missing. Some straw purchasers illegally sell guns and then later claim they were stolen.

-- Limit lending of firearms to specified family members.

-- Establish a Firearm Violence Research Center at one of the University of California campuses to study potential policies to reduce shooting deaths and injuries.

Dan Walters in the Sacramento Bee notes both the complicated inter-Democratic war over Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom's anti-gun ballot measure tied in to the Senate bills, as well as the fact that the bills are more about punishing gun owners than any proven public safety benefits:

The bills were rushed through the Senate for reasons that have nothing to do with gun violence, but rather three-sided political jousting.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing his own gun control ballot measure, and he and de León have been feuding, with the latter openly urging the former to drop his measure.

One factor is fear among some Democrats that having Newsom’s gun control measure on the November ballot would encourage turnout among gun-owning voters that would hurt the party’s other causes and candidates, as it did in the 1982 election for governor.

And of course Attorney General Kamala Harris cheers the bills.

Article Thumbnail

The Individualist Constitution: New at Reason

Credit: Brendan Smialowski/Getty ImagesCredit: Brendan Smialowski/Getty ImagesIn 2012 Chief Justice John Roberts led the U.S. Supreme Court in upholding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. "It is not our job," Roberts wrote in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, "to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." With those deferential words, Obamacare was saved from legal destruction.

Most conservatives today remain outraged by Roberts' opinion. But according to Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, one of the architects of the legal challenge to Obamacare, those conservatives don't really understand what it is they're railing against. In the Obamacare case, Barnett writes in his new book, Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People, "the chickens of the conservative commitment to judicial restraint [came] home to roost." For far too long, Barnett maintains, too many legal conservatives, from John Roberts on down, have championed judicial deference to majority rule at the expense of the judiciary's duty to enforce the Constitution and act as a check against the other branches of government. Barnett is now on a mission to upend that orthodoxy. From Reason's June issue, Barnett spoke with Senior Editor Damon Root about the republican Constitution, the specter of judicial activism, the legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia, and why he worries that "winter is coming" to the U.S. Supreme Court.

View this article
Article Thumbnail

Weiner: A Horror-Comedy Documentary About Ambition in Electoral Politics

Forget the salacious gossip, Weiner is about the nightmare of defining your life in a popularity contest.

Anthony WeinerIFC Films

You know the story of Anthony Weiner: Hyper-active, articulate, funny, and pugnacious young congressman meets embarrassing political downfall in 2011 over social media gaffe, which also happens to be an odd form of non-physical infidelity. He then rises from the ashes two years later in apparent redemption, briefly leading the pack of candidates vying to be mayor of New York City. Then, he's laid low when it's revealed that he had been playing with his phone with his pants off AGAIN.

The rehash of the Weiner's well-worn tragic-comic story is the least interesting part of the new documentary Weiner (which I saw at a Rooftop Films screening last week). What is riveting is watching two talented and ferociously ambitious people — Weiner and his wife, Hillary Clinton's right-hand and "body-woman" Huma Abedin — try to maintain their troubled marriage, raise their young son, and "get their lives back," which to them means being close to the levers of political power. Watching these two people debase themselves repeatedly all for the sake of naked ambition and a need to be beloved by strangers makes the film play like a horror-comedy.

Weiner literally frames his attempt at a political comeback as a gift to his wife, telling the off-camera filmmakers that Abedin "was eager to get her life back" and running for mayor was the "straightest line to do it." For those who don't fetishize elected officials and are generally cynical of the two-party electoral process, it's tough to understand who would want to endure living in a fishbowl filled with piranha at any point in one's life, much less so soon after going through such a public humiliation. But Weiner's desperate neediness, not his sexual compulsion, is the claw that repeatedly emerges from the ground to suck him back into the pit of hell. 

The level of access the filmmakers enjoyed — everything from Weiner watching his own news clips in his boxer shorts to the conversation where he tells Abedin that his second round of sexting indiscretions took place during a period when they were considering separating — is remarkable. There's hardly a moment in the film where you don't want to grab Weiner by the ears and say, "Dude! Don't do that." But he does it anyway, and when he does, it's more sad than funny (though it's still plenty funny). 

It's this level of unfiltered realism that makes these two already well-exposed people, who because they exist in the realm of electoral politics always appear inhumanly polished, actually come off as devastatingly vulnerable people in a situation which they both know early on will end badly for them. 

When Weiner is "dialing for dollars," literally begging donors for maximum campaign contributions, he needs to be bailed out by Abedin, a much smoother operator with a deeper war-chest of contacts than her considerably baggage-addled husband. 

When the second scandal erupts, we're in the room when Weiner's staff rips into to him for being so reckless and unforthcoming with them. When he hits the campaign trail, he's called a "pervert" and a "scumbag," and for every moment where he exhibits grace under pressure and wins over a tough crowd, there's a later moment where he completely loses his composure and creates more viral video nightmares for himself. 

By the time he appears on Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show, he is a flailing bag of bones, confident only in his ability to verbally parry with the best of them. Following this appearance, he is seen in his apartment obsessively huddled over his computer, giggling as he re-watches the segment while Abedin sulks in the corner, unable to bear what's on the screen or the other person in the room.

As Weiner's campaign comes apart at the seams, he is confronted by persistent rumblings from Hillary Clinton's inner-circle that if Abedin wants anything to do with Clinton's already-certain 2016 presidential bid, she needs to distance herself from her husband's career, and maybe leave him entirely. At this point, Abedin makes it a point to no longer campaign with her husband or appear in any ads. 

In a semi-confessional scene, Weiner admits, "Politicians are wired to need attention," which makes it "hard to have normal relationships." When a pollster breaks it to Weiner that he is virtually zero chance of winning the election and that the only metric of success available to him is coasting to a dignified defeat that could possibly lead to a reboot of political career down the road, Weiner literally bangs his head against his desk, but insists on continuing to campaign all the way to the end. 

On election day, Abedin walks Weiner and their son in his stroller to the front of their apartment building, where the husband makes a last-ditch pitch to his wife. He tells her that it was his dream to run for mayor, begging her to join him as any traditional political spouse would, and cast their ballots together on Election Day. Abedin demurs, having decided that she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. She also seems to realize that her ceiling for political success has long-eclipsed her husband's. 

When Bill de Blasio — a previously obscure local politician who essentially ran on Weiner's same populist platform and enjoyed the votes of most of Weiner's former supporters — is sworn in as mayor, the cruelest reveal is the man swearing him in: former President Bill Clinton. 

This ties into an anecdote relayed early in the film by a Weiner campaign volunteer, who says his mother was aghast at the idea of him volunteering for such a disreputable man who shares dick pics to consenting adults who he has never met. The volunteer says he asked his mother, "What about Bill Clinton?," to which he says his mother replied, "No, Bill's different."

She's right, but not in the way she probably thought.

Bill Clinton is different from Weiner. Unlike Clinton, there have been no allegations that Weiner ever assaulted or sexually harassed anyone or even touched any of his fantasy sexual partners. And Weiner certainly didn't seduce an intern, have his way with her, and use the power of his office to destroy her reputation afterward. (There's a strange symmetry to the fact that Monica Lewinsky and Huma Abedin were both White House interns at the same time in 1996, although obviously assigned to different Clintons.)

But one of these men is a hero to the voters and members of his party and the other is an embarrassment. And that's when you realize there's nothing fair about the way political horse-races and the media shape the public's perceptions of individuals. The narrative happens, and you have to live with it. 

It's easy to laugh at Weiner, and he knows it. His desperate desire for power and popularity make him a pathetic figure, but in the warts-and-all style of this documentary, his cluelessness is the most human thing about him. 

In this sense, the film lays bare how our elected "leaders" are all ultimately small and covetous pretenders vying for hollow thrones. It's often been said that electoral politics doesn't attract "good" people because the media's gaze is so relentless. I'd argue that the reason so many elected officials are sociopathic leeches is because most of us would look at the relentless social climbing, insincere back-patting, and non-stop grandstanding about "values" required by constant campaigning (both as an incumbent and a challenger) as a kind of pointless torture few of us would willfully sign up for. 

But to some people — like Weiner and Abedin — this is "life," or at least the best life they hope for.

Article Thumbnail

NYC Police Commissioner Says Marijuana Trade Is Too Violent to Be Legalized

William Bratton cites a problem created by prohibition as a reason to keep it.

NYPDNYPDIn a radio interview yesterday, New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said violence associated with marijuana trafficking in his city should give pause to advocates of legalization. "In New York City," Bratton told AM 970 host John Catsimatidis, "most of the violence we see around drug trafficking is involving marijuana, and I have to scratch my head as we are seeing many states wanting to legalize marijuana."

That has to count as one of the most clueless statements on drug policy by a prominent public figure since Hillary Clinton declared that drugs are too profitable to be legalized. Like Clinton, Bratton is presenting an argument for legalization as an argument against it. Just as Clinton does not seem to understand that prohibition enriches criminals by making drugs artificially expensive and dropping the business into their laps, Bratton does not seem to understand that marijuana-related violence in New York City is a predictable product of the black market.

When alcohol prohibition was repealed, a trade that was once the domain of thugs like Al Capone was taken over by legitimate businesses. You don't hear much about shootouts between Diageo and Anheuser-Busch InBev, or between the newly legal marijuana businesses in Denver and Seattle, because there aren't any. Unlike black-market drug dealers, these businesses have access to a legal system that provides nonviolent ways to resolve disputes. So what Bratton views as a head-scratcher—that people would want to legalize a business tied to black-market violence—is actually a no-brainer.

[via The Washington Times]

Article Thumbnail

One of the Them Will Win, But Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton Are Unacceptable To Most Voters

Bernie Sanders says we shouldn't be forced to "vote for the lesser of two evils."

Washington PostWashington Post"I don't want to see the American people voting for the lesser of two evils," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told viewers of This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. To be clear, he was implying two things: First, that Donald Trump is the greater of two evils and second, Hillary Clinton is evil. To be fair, he has said he'd rather see her in the White House than Trump—but not as much as he'd like to see himself.

Sanders might be overstating it a bit, but most Americans are in a similar state of mind. A new Washington Post/ABC News poll of registered voters finds nearly 60 percent of us view Trump and Clinton unfavorably.

"Never in the history of the Post-ABC poll," write Dan Balz and Scott Clement, "have the two major party nominees been viewed as harshly as Clinton and Trump."

Let's be clear: The problem isn't with voters, it's with the candidates. You can debate whether Clinton is not as utterly awful as Trump (as some libertarians hold) but we don't need to go there, really, do we? It's enough to say that both presumptive nominees are, in the term of liberal friend of mine, unacceptable. When 57 percent are saying you suck, something has gone wrong with the selection process, hasn't it? The only thing surprising about the case of Mary Anne Noland, the 68-year-old Virginian who chose to die rather than face a Trump-Clinton choice, is that there aren't dozens of such cases a day!

David DeebleDavid DeebleThe Wash Post/ABC poll finds 44 percent of voters want a third-party candidate and in a potential three-way contest including 2012 GOP loser Mitt Romney, Clinton gets 37 percent, Trump 35 percent, and Romney 22 percent. This is sound of an electorate deeply dissatisfied with what the Democrats and Republicans are offering. No wonder then, that party identification is at historic lows for Democrats (at 29 percent) and near a historic low for Republicans (26 percent).

Gary Johnson, the best-known candidate vying for the Libertarian Party nomination, has pulled 10 percent and 11 percent in recent polls—and the indications are that he would take support from both Clinton and Trump (recall that in the 2013 Virginia governor's race, Libertarian Sarvis, who won almost 7 percent of the vote, pulled far more from Democrat Terry McAuliffe than from Republican Ken Cuccinelli).

A strong Libertarian Party ticket is one obvious way to force the major parties to field candidates who can appeal to wider swaths of voters. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative libertarians comprise the single-largest ideological voting bloc according to Gallup. Using questions on the scope of government in the economy and whether government should support traditional morals, Gallup finds 27 percent of voters are libertarian, 26 percent are conservative, 23 percent are liberal, and 15 percent are populist.

If the Democratic Party and the Republican Party lived up to their various feints toward libertarian rhetoric, they would certainly blunt the appeal of most third-party candidates but certainly anybody put up by the LP itself. The refusal to do so will likely be the undoing of one or both of them. Consider the fact that Hillary Clinton is not just an unregenerate hawk on foreign policy. She is an all-in drug warrior and a hater of the sharing economy who, like Donald Trump, has called for Internet censorship. On the either side of the aisle, Trump's mass-deportation plan implies the creation of a your-papers-please police state and his trade policy is good old American protectionism on steroids. Exactly where he stands on most issues is anybody's guess (on foreign policy, he's promised both "bomb the shit out of them" and get other countries to fight their own battles).

The role of third parties isn't necessarily to win elections. At least in part, third parties represent the views of voters left out or ignored by the major parties. More and more of those being ignored are temperamentally libertarian. That is, more and more of us agree, in the phrase of CNN's regular survey, that "government was doing too much."

Neither the Dems or the Reps promise to address that complaint, despite about 60 percent of us feeling that way. To the extent that the LP speaks to that concern—and offers up a compelling way to pare the state back while giving people more ability to live their lives on their own terms—it will shape how the major parties change and adapt as they go hunting for new voters.

Article Thumbnail

Gary Johnson Answers Critics Within the Libertarian Party

From "Nazi cakes" to his 2012 campaign finances, Gary Johnson defends himself to Libertarian Party delegates.

Still not treating victory as a sure thing, and smart not to do so, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson last night on his Facebook page released a public letter to Libertarian Party delegates addressing some controversies surrounding him and his campaign that might incline some of them not to vote for him for their presidential nomination.

Gary Johnson facebookGary Johnson facebook

Highlights, after he explains all the reasons for the delegates to be optimistic about their chances with him at the helm, he takes on what has come to be known as the "Nazi cake" controversy, created by his opponent Austin Petersen challenging him on some of the implications of Johnson's support for anti-discrimination laws:

In a nationally-televised debate among three of the Libertarian candidates for President (A debate that should, by the way, have been more inclusive of all the candidates.), a highly unlikely hypothetical question was raised about whether a Jewish baker has the right to refuse to serve a Nazi sympathizer asking for a “Nazi cake”. I responded to that question in the legal context of whether a public business has the right to refuse to serve a member of the public, as distasteful as it might be. 

The simple answer to that question is, whether all like it or not, U.S. law has recognized the principle of public accommodation for more than 100 years: The principle that, when a business opens its doors to the public, that business enters into an implied contract to serve ALL of the public. Further, when that business voluntarily opens its doors, the owners voluntarily agree to adhere to applicable laws and regulations -- whether they like those laws or not.

To be clear, anti-discrimination laws do not, and cannot, abridge fundamental First Amendment rights. I know of no one who reasonably disagrees. In the highly unlikely event that a Nazi would demand that a Jewish baker decorate a cake with a Nazi symbol, the courts, common sense, and common decency -- not to mention the First Amendment -- all combine to protect that baker from having to do so. It’s not an issue, except when distorted for purposes of gotcha politics.

Does a public bakery have to sell a cake to a Nazi? Probably so. Does that bakery have to draw a swastika on it? Absolutely not. And that’s the way it should be.

As Johnson has said to me in interviews as well, he goes on to note that there is some important political and cultural weight behind the question, and he thinks linking the Libertarian brand with defense of intolerant discrimination is a bad idea:

Of course, we all know that this conversation is really “code” for the current, and far more real, conversation about society’s treatment of LGBT individuals. I have even heard some talk of a “right to discriminate”. And of course, we have states and municipalities today trying to create a real right to discriminate against the LGBT community on religious grounds -- the same kinds of “religious” grounds that were used to defend racial segregation, forbid interracial marriages and, yes, defend discrimination against Jews by businesses. That is not a slope Libertarians want to go down.

Once again, my belief that discrimination on the basis of religion should not be allowed has been distorted by some to suggest that a legitimate church or its clergy should be “forced” to perform a same-sex marriage. That is absurd. The various ballot initiatives I supported across the country to repeal bans on same-sex marriage all had one provision in common: A specific provision making clear that no religious organization, priest or pastor could be required to perform any rite contrary to that organization’s or individual’s faith. That protection was supported almost universally by the LGBT community -- even though most legal scholars agreed that such a protection already exists in the Constitution. We just wanted to leave no doubt.

I was the first major candidate in the 2012 presidential campaign to call for full marriage equality, and Libertarians have long stood for equal treatment under the law for all Americans. As your candidate for President, I will not tarnish that record.

He also addresses some (but not all) of the critiques of the way his 2012 campaign handled its finances:

Due to the nature of FEC reporting, our 2012 campaign reports continue to show a substantial “debt”. That is in no way unusual. Most major national campaigns have the same reporting issue. The actual debts listed by the FEC have, in reality, been resolved and the resolution has been submitted to the FEC for approval -- months ago. Our attorneys continue to work with the FEC to gain acceptance of our submissions, and we are confident they will ultimately do so. This is a tedious and burdensome process that plagues virtually all major campaigns, and says more about the nature of government regulation than it does about our finances.

The key fact for you, as a Delegate, to know is that NO funds being raised for the 2016 campaign will be used to reduce the 2012 debts shown on our campaign disclosure reports.

Johnson's preferred vice presidential partner William Weld similarly took to Facebook to react to some common Libertarian concerns about him.

Article Thumbnail

Trump-Clinton in Virtual Tie With Record Unfavorables, Obama Headed to Hiroshima, Volcano Erupts in indonesia: A.M. Links

  • IFRC/flickrIFRC/flickrTwo new polls out this weekend show Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in a virtual tie, while Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points in one of the polls. Trump and Clinton also both have unfavorable ratings above 50 percent.
  • Barack Obama is set to become the first sitting U.S. president to visit Hiroshima. Yesterday he was in Vietnam, which could see the U.S. lift an arms embargo against it.
  • A U.S. drone strike in Pakistan reportedly killed the leader of the Afghan Taliban.
  • Iraq has launched its latest military operation to take Fallujah from ISIS.
  • German chemical firm Bayer has made an offer to buy Monsanto.
  • The Mount Sinabung volcano in Indonesia erupted, killing at least seven.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online