Reason Video https://reason.com Video journalism from Reason magazine Sun, 19 May 2019 19:08:56 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.9 Meet the biohackers, brewers, bitcoiners, makers, growers, freaks, and visionaries exploring new ways of living in an increasingly individualistic world. Watch investigative stories about the bureaucrats and busybodies fighting for control over our lives. Hear independent opinions that don’t abide by tiresome left-right, liberal-conservative world views and talking points.<br /> <br /> Welcome to Reason TV's video podcast, where you’ll find original reporting, documentaries, celebrity interviews, viral sketches, and policy discussions—all from a libertarian perspective. Reason Video yes episodic Reason Video reason@reason.com reason@reason.com (Reason Video) Video journalism from Reason magazine Reason Video https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/powerpress/podcast_logo_soundcloud.jpg https://reason.com podcasts@reason.com Meet the biohackers, brewers, bitcoiners, makers, growers, freaks, and visionaries exploring new ways of living in an increasingly individualistic world. Watch investigative stories about the bureaucrats and busybodies fighting for control over our lives. Hear independent opinions that don’t abide by tiresome left-right, liberal-conservative world views and talking points. Welcome to Reason TV's video podcast, where you’ll find original reporting, documentaries, celebrity interviews, viral sketches, and policy discussions—all from a libertarian perspective. Today's Anti-Immigration Script Was Written 100 Years Ago by America's Elite https://reason.com/video/todays-anti-immigration-script-was-written-100-years-ago-by-americas-elite/ Fri, 17 May 2019 19:45:43 +0000 https://reason.com/?post_type=video&p=8005066 https://reason.com/video/todays-anti-immigration-script-was-written-100-years-ago-by-americas-elite/#comments https://reason.com/video/todays-anti-immigration-script-was-written-100-years-ago-by-americas-elite/feed/ 110 When Donald Trump claimed in 2015 that Mexican immigrants will ravage our women, destroy our neighborhoods, and taint our ethnic<a href="https://reason.com/video/todays-anti-immigration-script-was-written-100-years-ago-by-americas-elite/">...</a> When Donald Trump claimed in 2015 that Mexican immigrants will ravage our women, destroy our neighborhoods, and taint our ethnic and cultural purity, he entered into a long-standing, well-cultivated American tradition of xenophobia and fear-mongering.  

In the late 19th century, poet Emma Lazarus celebrated the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" and "the wretched refuse" who came to America for a better life. But Prescott F. Hall, the co-founder of the powerful Immigration Restriction League, offered a rebuttal verse:

Enough! Enough! We want no more

Of ye immigrant from a foreign shore

Already is our land o'er run

With toiler, beggar, thief and scum.

After over a century of mostly open borders, in which tens of millions of European immigrants became Americans, members of the WASP establishment decided in the 1920s that the United States could no longer accept what they denounced as "beaten men from beaten races." In terms that will sound familiar today, they claimed Jews, Italians, and others were incapable of assimilating into a country based on private property, limited government, and hard work.

In 1924, the restrictionists won a massive and long-lasting legislative battle with passage of The Johnson-Reed Act, which completely prohibited immigration from Asia and sharply limited immigration from Europe based on the country of origin. Under the new law, for instance, just 4,000 Italians were allowed to enter the country each year, down from an average well over 200,000 in each year of the preceding decade. National origins would remain the basis of U.S. immigration law until 1965.

The Guarded Gate: Bigotry, Eugenics, and the Law That Kept Two Generations of Jews, Italians, and Other European Immigrants Out of America, a new book by Daniel Okrent, looks at the ways in which xenophobia and pseudo-science combined to fundamentally alter immigration policy at the start of what became known as "the American Century." Okrent was the first public editor of The New York Times and is the author of Last Call, a history of Prohibition. He sat down with Reason to talk about how old debates over immigration and America's national character are newly relevant to contemporary politics.

Edited by Ian Keyser. Intro by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Jim Epstein and Kevin Alexander.

'Modum' by Kai Engel is licensed under CC By 4.0

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

]]>
When Donald Trump claimed in 2015 that Mexican immigrants will ravage our women, destroy our neighborhoods, and taint our ethnic... When Donald Trump claimed in 2015 that Mexican immigrants will ravage our women, destroy our neighborhoods, and taint our ethnic... Reason Video 36:57
Court-Packing Plans Threaten Civil Liberties and the Separation of Powers https://reason.com/video/democrats-court-packing-threatens-civil-liberties/ Wed, 15 May 2019 17:49:11 +0000 https://reason.com/?post_type=video&p=8004759 https://reason.com/video/democrats-court-packing-threatens-civil-liberties/#comments https://reason.com/video/democrats-court-packing-threatens-civil-liberties/feed/ 133 After the death of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him.<a href="https://reason.com/video/democrats-court-packing-threatens-civil-liberties/">...</a> After the death of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him. A moderate liberal, Garland likely would have shifted the balance of the high court to the left. But Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing on Garland's nomination until after the presidential elections—which saw Donald Trump elected to the White House, effectively ending any hopes for Garland's appointment to the highest court in the land.

Once in office, Trump nominated the conservative judge Neil Gorsuch to replace Scalia. When Justice Kennedy—the high court's most frequent swing vote—retired, Trump chose the solidly conservative Brett Kavanagh to take his spot. Liberals, concerned that a conservative majority may dominate the Court for a generation and overturn key precedents like Roe v. Wade, have responded by calling for expanding the Supreme Court to include as many as 15 justices. Several presidential candidates, including Pete Buttigieg, Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand have all endorsed proposals to alter the makeup of the Supreme Court, with former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder saying the idea of court packing should be "seriously" considered.

The idea of expanding Supreme Court membership hearkens back to the 1930s when FDR aggressively pushed the idea of court-packing because his New Deal policies were being declared unconstitutional.

"If court-packing does happen and you get this cycle of retaliation, this quite valuable institution would be undermined," says Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and contributor to The Volokh Conspiracy blog. "Protections for our civil liberties, for separation of power, for limits on the power of federal government—all of that would be significantly weakened over time."

Somin sat down with Reason to discuss the revival of court-packing proposals on the left and how they could undermine the institution of judicial review.

Produced by Alexis Garcia. Camera by Meredith Bragg and Todd Krainin.

Photo credits: Pete Souza/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Cheriss May/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Ron Sachs/picture-alliance/Consolidated/Newscom, Doug Mills/picture-alliance/Consolidated/Newscom, Between the wars/UPPA/Photoshot/Newscom, Kevin Dietsch-Pool via CNP/MEGA/Newscom, akg-images/Newscom, Mark Hertzberg/ZUMA Press/Newscom.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
After the death of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him.... After the death of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him.... Reason Video 8:43
Stossel: Moral Panic Over Sex Work https://reason.com/video/stossel-moral-panic-over-sex-work/ Tue, 14 May 2019 13:15:16 +0000 https://reason.com/?post_type=video&p=8003973 https://reason.com/video/stossel-moral-panic-over-sex-work/#comments https://reason.com/video/stossel-moral-panic-over-sex-work/feed/ 24 Police often use "sex trafficking" and "prostitution" interchangeably. That's what happed in the Robert Kraft case, says Reason associate editor Elizabeth Nolan<a href="https://reason.com/video/stossel-moral-panic-over-sex-work/">...</a> Police often use "sex trafficking" and "prostitution" interchangeably. That's what happed in the Robert Kraft case, says Reason associate editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown.

Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, was caught in a "sex trafficking" sting.

Law enforcment "had all of these big announcements at first saying that…these women were being forced there and they weren't allowed to leave," Brown explains to John Stossel.

But now prosecutors in the Kraft case concede that there was no trafficking.

That's usually the case when it comes to "sex trafficking" busts, says Brown: "I'd say 99% of the headlines are not true."

Brown covered a similar case in Seattle where the cops claimed to have busted a sex trafficking ring. In a press conference, King County Sheriff John Urquhart said: "These women are true victims."

But the court documents "actually paint a very, very different story," Brown points out. "No one has been charged with human trafficking in that case."

Yet politicians and the media often exaggerate the frequency of trafficking. Congresswoman Ann Wagner claims, "Right now almost 300,000 American children are at risk".

That 300,000 number is repeated constantly in the media. The number is based on a study that has been disavowed by the lead author, Richard Estes. "Many people debunked the study and say, 'This is just a total bullcrap number,'" Brown says.

She adds, "When we have these exaggerated numbers, it forces people to go into this crazy emergency moral panic mode that ends up not helping the actual problem that we have."

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
Police often use "sex trafficking" and "prostitution" interchangeably. That's what happed in the Robert Kraft case, says Reason associate editor Elizabeth Nolan... Police often use "sex trafficking" and "prostitution" interchangeably. That's what happed in the Robert Kraft case, says Reason associate editor Elizabeth Nolan... Reason Video 5:51
Hamilton Morris Is Changing the Way We Talk About Drugs https://reason.com/video/hamilton-morris-is-changing-the-way-we-talk-about-drugs/ Fri, 10 May 2019 17:00:17 +0000 https://reason.com/?post_type=video&p=8003957 https://reason.com/video/hamilton-morris-is-changing-the-way-we-talk-about-drugs/#comments https://reason.com/video/hamilton-morris-is-changing-the-way-we-talk-about-drugs/feed/ 13 What will American drug culture look like once prohibition is finally over and we can start to use more drugs<a href="https://reason.com/video/hamilton-morris-is-changing-the-way-we-talk-about-drugs/">...</a> What will American drug culture look like once prohibition is finally over and we can start to use more drugs in more settings?

No one is better situated to start that conversation than Hamilton Morris, the 32-year-old host of Hamilton's Pharmacopeia, a show that explores what sorts of drugs are available, how they work, and how we might best use them to fulfill our hopes and dreams. 

In one early episode, Morris confounds the conventional wisdom by telling "a positive story about PCP," a drug that even legalizers typically have nothing good to say about. He visits with Timothy Wyllie, an artist and visionary who uses the drug as part of his creative process. In another, he travels to the Brazilian Amazon, where locals get high on a drug taken from frogs. In a third, he gains access to an abandoned laboratory in a volcano that was once central to the production of MDMA.

Morris also does laboratory work at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, where he and his collaborators create new drugs for testing and research trials. He sat down with Reason to talk how the drug war has warped the discussion about legal and illegal drugs and what the post-prohibition landscape will look like.

To listen to an audio podcast version of this interview, go here.

Edited by Mark McDaniel and Alexis Garcia. Cameras by Jim Epstein.

Photo credit: Everett Collection/Newscom

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
What will American drug culture look like once prohibition is finally over and we can start to use more drugs... What will American drug culture look like once prohibition is finally over and we can start to use more drugs... Reason Video
Stossel: The Rise of Citizen Journalists https://reason.com/video/stossel-the-rise-of-citizen-journalists/ Tue, 07 May 2019 14:10:27 +0000 https://reason.com/?post_type=video&p=8003340 https://reason.com/video/stossel-the-rise-of-citizen-journalists/#comments https://reason.com/video/stossel-the-rise-of-citizen-journalists/feed/ 17 Tim Pool is part of what some call the new media—citizen journalists who work for themselves. Increasingly, John Stossel says, such journalists<a href="https://reason.com/video/stossel-the-rise-of-citizen-journalists/">...</a> Tim Pool is part of what some call the new media—citizen journalists who work for themselves.

Increasingly, John Stossel says, such journalists cover things the mainstream media misses.

That brings them viewers. More than a million people subscribe to Pool's online channels.

Pool leans left and supported Bernie Sanders. But he reports whatever he sees.

Earlier this year, the media jumped on a video of a grinning Covington High School kid wearing a Trump hat, claiming he was taunting a native American man—but Pool was skeptical.

"All of these big news outlets, even the Washington Post, CNN, they immediately made the assumption 'he must be a racist,'" Pool told Stossel.

"I didn't make that assumption … I said, I have no idea what this is. I just see a guy banging a drum and a kid with a weird look on his face. So I looked at some other videos," Pool said.

On YouTube, Pool found a longer clip of the encounter and used that to show that the Native American elder approached the kids as they waited for a bus—not the other way around, as had been claimed. There was no evidence that the kids were racist.

"No one watched the longer video?" Stossel asks?

"Nope," Pool says. "Here's what happens. One left-wing journalist says, look at this racist. His buddy sees it and says, wow, look at this racist. And that's a big ole circular game of telephone where no one actually does any fact-checking. And then—New York Times, Washington Post, CNN all publish the same fake story."

Pool, along with Reason's Robby Soave, told the real story.

Pool wouldn't have been hired by most legacy media outlets—he doesn't have a college degree. Or even a high school degree.

"I like it that you're a high school dropout," Stossel tells Pool.

"Yeah, me too," Pool says. Instead of going through the traditional education system, Pool learned to report by actually doing it.

He got his start filming Occupy Wall Street and posting his videos online. He also covered fighting in Ferguson, Missouri, in Ukraine, and in Catalonia.

But his video that got the most views on YouTube is one where he went to Sweden to find out the truth about alleged "no-go zones."

"Your video said what?" Stossel asks.

"That it was nuanced," Pool replies. Crime is up after Sweden took a lot of refugees, but still really low by American standards.

"You got lots of views with nuance?" Stossel replies.

"Yeah … Here's what I think happens. The establishment, the corporate media … They seem to have a narrative on these things," Pool says. "The average person just wants some kind of honest take on it."

Pool is part of a new wave of independent journalists and thinkers—leftists, centrists libertarians, and conservatives—who use the new media to get the word out.

Stossel says he's glad that gives us more options.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

 

]]>
Tim Pool is part of what some call the new media—citizen journalists who work for themselves. Increasingly, John Stossel says, such journalists... Tim Pool is part of what some call the new media—citizen journalists who work for themselves. Increasingly, John Stossel says, such journalists... Reason Video 4:34
Judge Andrew Napolitano: President Trump Obstructed https://reason.com/video/judge-andrew-napolitano-president-trump-obstructed/ Fri, 03 May 2019 17:54:07 +0000 https://reason.com/?post_type=video&p=8003314 https://reason.com/video/judge-andrew-napolitano-president-trump-obstructed/#comments https://reason.com/video/judge-andrew-napolitano-president-trump-obstructed/feed/ 96 Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News has long argued for libertarian positions on the nation's largest cable news network, consistently<a href="https://reason.com/video/judge-andrew-napolitano-president-trump-obstructed/">...</a> Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News has long argued for libertarian positions on the nation's largest cable news network, consistently holding George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump accountable for alleged abuses of power.

In Napolitano's analysis, the Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 election lays out multiple instances in which President Trump attempted to interfere with the investigation, thus making him guilty under federal laws governing the obstruction of justice.

The president responded with a series of hostile tweets claiming, among other things, that Napolitano had asked to be named to the Supreme Court and requested a pardon for a mutual friend.

Napolitano sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie to defend his name, lay out his case against the president, explain why Attorney General William Barr has been bad since his days in the George H.W. Bush administration, and put Donald Trump's presidency in a historical and constitutional context.

Hosted by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Ian Keyser. Intro by Meredith Bragg. Cameras by Jim Epstein and Kevin Alexander.

Photo Credits:

2009 Owen DB/Black Star/Newscom

Andrew Harrer/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom

LUCAS JACKSON/REUTERS/Newscom

For an audio version of this interview, go here.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

]]>
Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News has long argued for libertarian positions on the nation's largest cable news network, consistently... Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News has long argued for libertarian positions on the nation's largest cable news network, consistently... Reason Video 15:29
Stossel: Inequality Myths https://reason.com/video/stosselinequality/ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:10:59 +0000 https://reason.com/?post_type=video&p=8002323 https://reason.com/video/stosselinequality/#comments https://reason.com/video/stosselinequality/feed/ 24 Politicians and reporters often rail about "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer." But as John Stossel explains, it's<a href="https://reason.com/video/stosselinequality/">...</a> Politicians and reporters often rail about "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer."

But as John Stossel explains, it's not true.

In fact, the incomes of poor and middle-income Americans are up 32 percent since the government began keeping track several decades ago.

Yes, that increase is adjusted for inflation.

Another misleading claim, says Stossel, is the idea that the U.S. "no longer has economic mobility."

But a paper in The Quarterly Journal of Economics found that most people born to the richest fifth of Americans fall out of that bracket within 20 years (Table 2). Likewise, most born to the poorest fifth climb to a higher quintile. Some climb all the way to the top.

Another claim is that inequality itself is a huge problem.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio warns: "There's inequality in this country right now that is threatening to tear us apart."

Stossel says that it might tear us apart—but only if people come to believe that all inequality is evil.

But it isn't, he says. It's just part of life. Some people are better singers than others. The best athletes are just physically different.

Society doesn't try to equalize those things—or many others—for good reason.

Former investment banker Carol Roth tell Stossel, "I have two kidneys. There are people out there who need one, don't have one that functions. Should the government be able to take my kidney because somebody else needs it?"

"There's inequality in everything," she adds. "There's inequality in free time. There's inequality in parents. I don't have any parents or grandparents. Life is unfair…unfair is a feature. It's not a bug."

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
Politicians and reporters often rail about "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer." But as John Stossel explains, it's... Politicians and reporters often rail about "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer." But as John Stossel explains, it's... Reason Video 3:56
Terminal Patients Got Drugs Without FDA Approval. It Added Years to Their Lives. https://reason.com/video/terminal-patients-got-drugs-without-fda-approval-it-added-years-to-their-lives/ Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:00:03 +0000 https://reason.com/?post_type=video&p=8001456 https://reason.com/video/terminal-patients-got-drugs-without-fda-approval-it-added-years-to-their-lives/#comments https://reason.com/video/terminal-patients-got-drugs-without-fda-approval-it-added-years-to-their-lives/feed/ 11 When Marc Hayutin was 69, he was diagnosed with squamous cell thymic carcinoma, a deadly cancer that affects the lymphatic<a href="https://reason.com/video/terminal-patients-got-drugs-without-fda-approval-it-added-years-to-their-lives/">...</a> When Marc Hayutin was 69, he was diagnosed with squamous cell thymic carcinoma, a deadly cancer that affects the lymphatic and endocrine systems. His doctor told him he likely had months to live.

That was six years ago.

He survived thanks to an experimental drug that rapidly shrank his tumors and eased his pain. What's particularly noteworthy about Hayutin's recovery was that the drug that saved his life hadn't been approved for commercial use by the FDA. That would come six years later, at which point Hayutin probably would have been long dead.

He was able to take the medicine anyway thanks to Right to Try—a legal movement that has led to the passage of laws in 41 states allowing doctors to prescribe experimental drugs (ones that haven't been approved by regulators yet) to patients suffering from life-threatening illnesses. Right to Try was engineered by the Goldwater Institute, a free-market research and litigation organization in Arizona.

In May of 2018*, President Trump signed a Right to Try bill into federal law. It was championed by Vice President Mike Pence, who had signed a version of the legislation as governor of Indiana in 2015.

Right to Try is a shot across the bow at the FDA's core mission. But what does it mean for the future of medicine?

Produced and shot by Zach Weissmueller. Additional interview by Alex Manning. Additional camera by Meredith Bragg, Jim Epstein, Lexy Garcia, Alex Manning, and Mark McDaniel.

"Smoldering," by Kai Engel, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"November," by Kai Engel, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"Cobweb Morning," by Kai Engel, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"After Midnight," by Kai Engel, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"November," by Kai Engel, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"Drop D for Sirish," was produced and recorded by Case Newsom.

"Bosphorous," by Aris Spyropoulos, was licensed under a standard license through Artisound.io.

"Hang Drum Campfire," by Aris Spyropoulos, was licensed under a standard license through Artisound.io.

Photo credits: Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom

Additional stock footage provided by Pond5.

CORRECTION: This article originally stated that Right to Try was signed into law by President Trump in May of 2019. It was 2018.

]]>
When Marc Hayutin was 69, he was diagnosed with squamous cell thymic carcinoma, a deadly cancer that affects the lymphatic... When Marc Hayutin was 69, he was diagnosed with squamous cell thymic carcinoma, a deadly cancer that affects the lymphatic... Reason Video 11:40
CBD Is Still Banned in States With Legal Weed https://reason.com/video/cbd-is-still-banned-in-states-with-legal-weed/ Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:07:28 +0000 https://reason.com/?post_type=video&p=8001476 https://reason.com/video/cbd-is-still-banned-in-states-with-legal-weed/#comments https://reason.com/video/cbd-is-still-banned-in-states-with-legal-weed/feed/ 24 As more states legalize recreational marijuana use, another part of the cannabis plant has found a market niche. CBD, short<a href="https://reason.com/video/cbd-is-still-banned-in-states-with-legal-weed/">...</a> As more states legalize recreational marijuana use, another part of the cannabis plant has found a market niche. CBD, short for cannabidiol, is a molecule that can be derived from hemp or cannabis.  It doesn't contain THC, so it won't get you high.

The compound has become a common ingredient in trendy wellness products because of its purported therapeutic benefits.  

"I became really like obsessed with CBD," says Jonathan Eppers, founder of Vybes beverages. "I always tell people it's like liquid yoga."

Eppers, whose company makes CBD drinks that are sold in nearly 250 U.S. grocery stores, coffee shops, and hotels, says that he launched the beverage startup in 2017 after using CBD oils to treat his own anxiety. But the products that he sells are illegal—even in states like California where recreational marijuana is now widely available.

"I didn't really didn't think too much about the regulations around CBD because CBD oil was being sold in grocery stores here in LA," Eppers says.  "But once I got into it we sort of realized we were in a gray area with CBD."

In January 2019, Eppers said officials from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) showed up to one of his Los Angeles warehouses and confiscated $140,000 worth of Vybes beverages. Eppers says state officials put an embargo on his product and went after a company that helps package his products in Northern California.

"Basically for two months, we haven't been able to sell Vybes which is costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars," states Eppers.

California is just one of many states where CBD sales are legally murky. The law clearly allows for the sale of cannabis-derived CBD products, but items that contain the hemp version of the molecule are prohibited.

"The Department of Public Health here is of the view that CBD can't be put in foods, beverages, animal foods you name it," says Griffen Thorne, a cannabis lawyer with Harris Bricken. "It is kind of interesting that you have marijuana, which is still federally illegal and there's a path towards sales for companies that want to actually make and sell marijuana products. Whereas CBD is derived from a plant that's no longer federally illegal and there are a ton of roadblocks and there's zero clarity on how to do it for many products."

Just months after Eppers launch his company, the CDPH released an FAQ document that echoed the Food and Drug Administration's stance on CBD, stating that products containing the compound could not be sold by unlicensed retailers. But the document contained no guidance for enforcement, and many retailers—unaware of the state's stance on CBD—have continued selling the product to consumers.

"I was confused because CBD had been sold in California for several years and it's only getting bigger," Eppers says.  "And all of a sudden they were coming out and saying we couldn't put this in food and beverages. So it was like what changed?"

While continuing to sell his product, Eppers asked the state for legal clarification. He was hopeful that passage of the 2018 U.S. Farm Bill, removing hemp from the Controlled Substances list, would establish that his products are fully legal. But he soon discovered that wasn't the case.

"It wasn't until after the Farm Bill passed that California became a lot more aggressive and actually [started] going after companies here in California that were producing CBD products," says Eppers.

Kenny Morrison, a cannabis industry veteran who runs VCC Brands and serves as president of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association, sees parallels between today's CBD market and the early days of recreational marijuana.

"It's all just layovers from prohibition," Morrison states. "The retail model of cannabis being sold at a storefront, in order for that to become accepted and commonplace people had to sort of break the law or interpret the law in a new way. And we're seeing that with CBD as well. So it's kind of ironic that now cannabis is super regulated and CBD isn't. Yet cannabis paved the way for CBD."

With consumer sales of CBD products projected to top $2 billion by 2020, lawmakers in several states, including California, are pushing for bipartisan legislation that would legalize the use of CBD in food, beverage, and cosmetic products.

California's CBD bill, AB 228, is currently making its way through the statehouse, a move Eppers and others hope will clean up the regulatory mess left over from prohibition.

"What's happened with the state kind of clamping down on this is it's really brought the industry together," Eppers says. "The state will fix this legislatively."

Produced and shot by Alexis Garcia. Additional camera by Zach Weissmueller, Paul Detrick, and Justin Monticello.

Photo credits: Hollandse-Hoogte/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Jens Kalaene/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom, Michal Fludra/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Lucy Nicholson/REUTERS/Newscom, Jevon Moore/SplashNews/Newscom, and Vybes. Additional footage provided by the Drug Policy Alliance.

Deep Space by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Artist: http://audionautix.com/

Ghost Dance by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1100573
Artist: http://incompetech.com/

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
As more states legalize recreational marijuana use, another part of the cannabis plant has found a market niche. CBD, short... As more states legalize recreational marijuana use, another part of the cannabis plant has found a market niche. CBD, short... Reason Video 4:37
Is Nationwide Marijuana Legalization Just Around the Corner? https://reason.com/video/is-nationwide-marijuana-legalization-just-around-the-corner/ Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:05:43 +0000 https://reason.com/?post_type=video&p=8001121 https://reason.com/video/is-nationwide-marijuana-legalization-just-around-the-corner/#comments https://reason.com/video/is-nationwide-marijuana-legalization-just-around-the-corner/feed/ 7 It's hard to be pessimistic about marijuana legalization these days. Recreational cannabis is legal in 10 states and decriminalized in<a href="https://reason.com/video/is-nationwide-marijuana-legalization-just-around-the-corner/">...</a> It's hard to be pessimistic about marijuana legalization these days. Recreational cannabis is legal in 10 states and decriminalized in another 14. Virtually all presidential candidates, including Trump, favor letting states decide the legal status of marijuana. Polls show a majority of Republicans even support legalization. And six proposals to move marijuana laws in a more or less libertarian direction are now making their way through Congress. 

What do these policy proposals look like? How are states navigating the conflicts between state and federal law? And are there any obstacles left on the path to nationwide legalization? 

Reason's Todd Krainin sat down with Erik Altieri, the executive director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, to talk about the building momentum toward nationwide legal pot.

Music—"Reggae Life" by Goymamba.

Produced, hosted, and edited by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Austin Bragg and Meredith Bragg.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
It's hard to be pessimistic about marijuana legalization these days. Recreational cannabis is legal in 10 states and decriminalized in... It's hard to be pessimistic about marijuana legalization these days. Recreational cannabis is legal in 10 states and decriminalized in... Reason Video 18:54
Remy: Old Town Road (Lil Nas X & Billy Ray Cyrus Parody) https://reason.com/video/remy-old-town-road-lil-nas-x-billy-ray-cyrus-parody/ Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:15:24 +0000 https://reason.com/?post_type=video&p=8000802 https://reason.com/video/remy-old-town-road-lil-nas-x-billy-ray-cyrus-parody/#comments https://reason.com/video/remy-old-town-road-lil-nas-x-billy-ray-cyrus-parody/feed/ 6 With roads in disrepair, Mayor Remy addresses his city's most pressing need. "Old Town Road" parody written by Remy Shot and<a href="https://reason.com/video/remy-old-town-road-lil-nas-x-billy-ray-cyrus-parody/">...</a> With roads in disrepair, Mayor Remy addresses his city's most pressing need.

"Old Town Road" parody written by Remy
Shot and edited by Austin Bragg
Mastered by Ben Karlstrom
Track production by Wxsterr

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

LYRICS:

Sir, we're gonna take these funds for the old town road
We're gonna buy a ton of black asphalt
Right, we're gonna take these funds for the old town road
We're gonna pave and also fix potholes

Or we could take these funds for the old town road
And maybe build a brand new stadium
Sir it's our entire job to fix the old town road
We must ensure that —is he even listening? I'm thinking no.

This is so exciting
Look, the roof is shiny
So touched by this project
I named it Joe Biden

Sir, this is dismaying
Taxpayers are paying
Studies show these never create economic growth—
La la la la la la can't hear what you're saying

Can't nobody tell me nothing
You can't tell him nothing…
Can't nobody tell me nothing
You can't tell him nothing…

The roads are all unstable
We should fix them if we're able
How broken are we talking?
Think month-old iPhone cable

We should not be subsidizing
A billion-dollar guy that
Will subsequently leverage moving
Look, our mascot has a trident!

Can't nobody tell me nothing
You can't tell him nothing…
Can't nobody tell me nothing
You can't tell him nothing…

Sir, the neighborhood's complaining
Eminent domain it
Toll road, gas tax
Let's call it a day then

Can't nobody tell me nothing
You can't tell him nothing…
Can't nobody tell me nothing
You can't tell him nothing…

]]>
With roads in disrepair, Mayor Remy addresses his city's most pressing need. "Old Town Road" parody written by Remy Shot and... With roads in disrepair, Mayor Remy addresses his city's most pressing need. "Old Town Road" parody written by Remy Shot and... Reason Video 2:05
This Marine Videographer Went Rogue To Show the Brutal Reality of War https://reason.com/video/this-marine-videographer-went-rogue-to-show-the-brutal-reality-of-war/ Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:45:38 +0000 https://reason.com/?post_type=video&p=8000292 https://reason.com/video/this-marine-videographer-went-rogue-to-show-the-brutal-reality-of-war/#comments https://reason.com/video/this-marine-videographer-went-rogue-to-show-the-brutal-reality-of-war/feed/ 25 Since World War II, the U.S. military has been sending teams of soldiers onto the battlefield with film and photography<a href="https://reason.com/video/this-marine-videographer-went-rogue-to-show-the-brutal-reality-of-war/">...</a> Since World War II, the U.S. military has been sending teams of soldiers onto the battlefield with film and photography gear to document the action. These so-called Combat Camera teams often capture the only depictions of major military operations, and their work helps shape public perceptions.

They've been called propagandists, guilty of sanitizing the realities on the ground. In 2003, for example, when army soldier Jessica Lynch was captured by Iraqi forces, it was a Combat Camera team that captured her rescue by U.S. Special Operations. The Pentagon was later accused of dramatizing details of the rescue to lift waning public support for the war.

In 2008, an 18-year-old recent high school graduate named Miles Lagoze signed up for the Marines and became a Combat Camera videographer for his unit in Afghanistan. After his deployment in 2011, Lagoze went rogue, capturing footage that undermined official messaging, including scenes of Marines smoking hash and joking about death.

After discharging from the Marines, Lagoze compiled that footage into Combat Obscura, a new feature-length documentary that aims to show the real story of what's happening on the ground in Afghanistan.

Interview by Nick Gillespie. Shot by Jim Epstein. Edited by Paul Detrick.

]]>
Since World War II, the U.S. military has been sending teams of soldiers onto the battlefield with film and photography... Since World War II, the U.S. military has been sending teams of soldiers onto the battlefield with film and photography... Reason Video 12:57
John McWhorter: America Has Never Been Less Racist https://reason.com/video/america-has-never-been-less-racist-and-m/ Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:00:00 +0000 https://reason.com/?p=366904 https://reason.com/video/america-has-never-been-less-racist-and-m/#comments https://reason.com/video/america-has-never-been-less-racist-and-m/feed/ 6 The Columbia University linguist discusses the Jussie Smollett hoax, Donald Trump, and "antiracism" as a new secular religion. When actor Jussie Smollet lied about being attacked by racist, MAGA-hat-wearing Trump supporters, Columbia University linguist John McWhorter actually interpreted it as a sign that "we have come further on race than we are often comfortable admitting."

"Only in an America in which matters of race are not as utterly irredeemable as we are often told," he wrote in The Atlantic, would someone "pretend to be tortured in this way…[because] playing a singer on television is not as glamorous as getting beaten up by white guys."

The unwillingness of both blacks and whites to acknowledge progress on racial equality is a long-running theme for McWhorter, who in 2000 published Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America, which argued that "in most cases, [racism] is not an obstacle to people being the best that they can be."

In an influential 2015 essay, McWhorter argued that "Antiracism" had become a new secular religion in America, complete with "clergy, creed, and also even a conception of Original Sin."

"One is born marked by original sin," he wrote. "To be white is to be born with the stain of unearned privilege." Black people, he continued, "will express their grievances and whites will agree" that they are racist. On the right, McWhorter observed, there is a growing sense of hostility on racial issues and, according to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who agree that black-white relations are good is at a 20-year low. And for the first time since the pollster has asked the question, a majority of blacks rate race relations as bad.

I sat down with the 53-year-old McWhorter—the author or editor of 20 books—to talk about his upbringing in a mixed-race part of Philadelphia, his academic focus on Creole language, and the unmistakable signs of racial progress that an increasing number of Americans seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Edited by Ian Keyser. Intro by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Jim Epstein and Kevin Alexander.

Photos by Jim Epstein.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
The Columbia University linguist discusses the Jussie Smollett hoax, Donald Trump, and "antiracism" as a new secular religion. The Columbia University linguist discusses the Jussie Smollett hoax, Donald Trump, and "antiracism" as a new secular religion. Reason Video yes 45:50
Fake News and the First Amendment: Free Speech Rules (Episode 3) https://reason.com/video/fake-news-and-the-first-amendment-free-s/ Wed, 10 Apr 2019 14:00:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/04/10/fake-news-and-the-first-amendment-free-s/ https://reason.com/video/fake-news-and-the-first-amendment-free-s/#respond https://reason.com/video/fake-news-and-the-first-amendment-free-s/feed/ 0 Episode 3 of <em>Free Speech Rules</em>, starring UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. Can the law punish deliberate lies about public matters?

Well, it depends.

Here are the six rules of fake news:

  1. False statements that tend to damage reputations can generally be punished.

Of course, the law doesn't call this "fake news"—it calls it "defamation."

Written defamation is called "libel." Spoken defamation is called "slander." Radio and TV broadcasts are usually considered libel, except in Georgia, where they're called "defamacast." No really, they made up a new word for it, and it's … well … it's not catching on.

Intentional lies about particular people or companies can lead to massive damages awards, including punitive damages. They can even lead to criminal punishment in states that still have "criminal libel laws," though such prosecutions are pretty rare.

Negligent mistakes about particular people or companies can also lead to damages awards, unless the statements are about public officials or so-called "public figures"—people or businesses who are quite famous or influential. Those plaintiffs have to show the speaker knew the statement was false or at least was likely false.

And in many states, some falsehoods about particular people can lead to damages even if they don't harm a person's reputation. That's called the "false light" tort. Classic example: Baseball great Warren Spahn once won a damages award because a biographer had falsely claimed that Spahn was a war hero—even though that tended to falsely enhance Spahn's reputation rather than harming it.

  1. Deliberate lies aimed at getting money can be punished as fraud.

That's true even for political, religious, or charitable fundraising, which is usually protected by the First Amendment. If you try to get people to donate money to your group, but lie about what it's doing, you could be sued or even prosecuted.

But it's not clear how far this goes. For instance, no appellate court has allowed a fraud lawsuit against a magazine on the theory that it lied in some sensational story so as to sell more magazines.

  1. Deliberate lies as well as honest mistakes in commercial advertising can be punished.

Commercial advertising is generally less protected than other speech, especially when it comes to false statements.

  1. Lies about the government can't be punished.

The federal government can't sue you for defamation even if you deliberately lie about something the government has done. Cities or public universities can't sue for defamation either.

Back in 1798, Congress tried to ban lies about the federal government with the infamous Sedition Act. Some justices at the time thought the law was fine, but the Supreme Court has since concluded that such a ban violates the First Amendment.

  1. Lies about big picture topics generally can't be punished, either.

So a law banning flat-earth theory, for instance, would be unconstitutional. Same for laws that try to punish falsehoods about, say, climate change or vaccinations. In these "broad areas," the justices say, "any attempt by the state to penalize purportedly false speech would present a grave and unacceptable danger of suppressing truthful speech" [quoting United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012)].

  1. Lies about more specific topics are more complicated.

In 2012, the Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which criminalized falsely claiming that you've won a military medal; while six justices agreed on that result, the reasoning was split into two groups.

Four justices said that most noncommercial lies are broadly protected by the First Amendment, unless they fit into a few categories such as defamation or fraud or perjury.

But two justices concluded that lies are only kinda, sorta, sometimes protected. They held that restrictions on such lies "warrant neither near-automatic condemnation … nor near-automatic approval."

So whether any particular kind of lie is unprotected was left to be decided case by case, without much guidance from the Supreme Court.

Since it generally takes five justices out of the nine to set a conclusive precedent, it's hard to say what's allowed and what's not. You'd think a question that's this fundamental would have been resolved by now, but, uh … no.

For instance, some states ban deliberate lies in election campaigns. Is that constitutional?

Not if it's applied to statements about the government, or about social science, or about history. But what if it's more specific, like a candidate claiming endorsements that he didn't actually get? That's a harder call, and lower courts disagree on whether broad bans on lies in election campaigns are constitutional.

Or what about hoaxes that suck up police resources? Back in 2009, Andrew Scott Haley posted YouTube videos in which he purported to be a serial killer and gave clues to his supposed killings. He was eventually prosecuted for making false statements that he knew would come to the attention of law enforcement and trigger an investigation. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the First Amendment didn't protect such a hoax. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the case, leaving that issue unresolved outside Georgia.

So, to summarize:

  1. Deliberate lies about particular people or companies are unprotected by the First Amendment. That's sometimes also true of negligent mistakes.
  2. Deliberate lies aimed at getting money: Also unprotected.
  3. Deliberate lies aimed at selling products: Also unprotected, and honest mistakes might be, too.
  4. Deliberate lies about the government: Protected by the First Amendment.
  5. Deliberate lies about "philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like": Protected.
  6. Other deliberate lies about more specific topics: Hard to tell.

Written by Eugene Volokh, who is a First Amendment law professor at UCLA.
Produced and edited by Austin Bragg, who is not.

This is the third episode of Free Speech Rules, a video series on free speech and the law. Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy, a blog hosted at Reason.com.

This is not legal advice.
If this were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill.
Please use responsibly.

Music: "Lobby Time," by Kevin MacLeod (Incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
Episode 3 of Free Speech Rules, starring UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. Episode 3 of Free Speech Rules, starring UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. Reason Video yes 4:45
Stossel: Enough Crony Capitalism! https://reason.com/video/enough-crony-capitalism/ Tue, 09 Apr 2019 13:15:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/04/09/enough-crony-capitalism/ https://reason.com/video/enough-crony-capitalism/#comments https://reason.com/video/enough-crony-capitalism/feed/ 2 How established businesses use government to limit competition. Once, Microsoft had zero lobbyists. The company focused on innovating.

"Microsoft in the early 1990s was the largest company in the world. Incredibly successful … They had no presence in Washington, D.C. Not a single lawyer," Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute tells John Stossel.

But things changed.

Brook explains how Microsoft's CEO was "literally brought in front of Congress … Orrin Hatch from Utah … said, 'You guys need to get involved here in Washington, D.C. You need to build a building here. You need to hire lawyers here.'"

Microsoft, courageously, didn't. Instead, Brook recounts, "Microsoft walked out of the meeting and said, 'You know what? You leave us alone, we will leave you alone … We're busy. We're running the biggest company in the world. There's a lot to do.'"

But soon after that, Attorney General Janet Reno announced that the Justice Department was charging Microsoft with "engaging in anti-competitive and exclusionary practices designed to maintain its monopoly."

Brook says the government was essentially saying, "we're here to prosecute yo u because you're offering the American public … a product for free. This is Internet Explorer, at a time when we were buying Netscape and paying money for it—they offered it for free, and that was deemed bad business practice."

"For 10 years they had to fight that lawsuit," he adds. "They lost, they got regulated, they got controlled. Guess how much Microsoft spends today in Washington, D.C.? … Tens of millions of dollars."

Stossel calls that "sad."

Now, even worse, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg asks government for more regulation. He wants Congress to "require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum".

Wouldn't that violate the First Amendment?

Stossel says it also, conveniently, would protect Facebook from competitors who don't restrict content. It also makes it harder for them to innovate in ways that might challenge Facebook.

Stossel and Brook's solution? Smaller government: separation of economy and state.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
How established businesses use government to limit competition. How established businesses use government to limit competition. Reason Video yes 4:30
The Yale Professor Attacked by Angry Students Over Halloween Costumes Believes Evolution Wants Us To Get Along https://reason.com/video/the-yale-professor-attacked-by-angry-stu/ Fri, 05 Apr 2019 21:00:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/04/05/the-yale-professor-attacked-by-angry-stu/ https://reason.com/video/the-yale-professor-attacked-by-angry-stu/#respond https://reason.com/video/the-yale-professor-attacked-by-angry-stu/feed/ 0 In <em>Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society</em>, Nicholas Christakis says our common humanity outweighs divisive tribalism. In 2015, an angry confrontation at Yale over how to dress up on Halloween caused a national sensation. Protesting students called for the university to fire Nicholas Christakis, a sociologist and physician, because they felt he and his wife, also teaching at Yale at the time, did not protect them from possible psychic injury.

The conflict started a week earlier, when the school's Intercultural Affairs Council sent an email encouraging members of the community to be careful not to offend their fellow students with culturally and racially insensitive costumes. Christakis' wife, Erika—an expert in early childhood education—responded with her own thoughts. "Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious…a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive," she wrote. From her perspective, American universities had "become places of censure and prohibition."

Students said that by sending her email, Erica Christakis had failed to create a safe space at Yale's Sillman College, where she served as associate master. Nicholas Christakis jumped into the fray, defending his wife's email, and he tried to engage in a dialogue with protestors in a courtyard. Scenes of students shouting at Nicholas and calling for his firing went viral.

Christakis not only held on to his tenured professorship, but three years later he was awarded the Sterling Professorship, Yale's highest faculty honor. And his confrontation with students kicked off an ongoing national debate about freedom of speech, political correctness, and sensitivity on college campuses.

As a sociologist, the 56-year-old Christakis is no stranger to highly charged group interactions. His new book is Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society, which argues that our genetic makeup predisposes us to favor peaceful interaction and respectful co-existence over angry and violent mob rules.

Nick Gillespie sat down with Christakis to talk about his theory that what unites as humans is stronger than what divides us, the power of evolution as an explanatory system for society, and whether Enlightenment values such as civil discourse and intellectual freedom are still respected in our nation's colleges and universities.

Edited by Ian Keyser. Intro by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Jim Epstein and Kevin Alexander.

Music credit: 'Voyeur' by Jingle Punks

Photos by Ragesoss and Sibjeet, under a creative commons license.

]]>
In Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society, Nicholas Christakis says our common humanity outweighs divisive tribalism. In Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society, Nicholas Christakis says our common humanity outweighs divisive tribalism. Reason Video yes 32:48
An Economist Walks Into a Brothel: What Prostitutes and Big-Wave Surfers Can Teach Us About Risk https://reason.com/video/an-economist-walks-into-a-brotheland-lea/ Wed, 03 Apr 2019 15:35:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/04/03/an-economist-walks-into-a-brotheland-lea/ https://reason.com/video/an-economist-walks-into-a-brotheland-lea/#respond https://reason.com/video/an-economist-walks-into-a-brotheland-lea/feed/ 0 Allison Schrager wants to change the way you take chances. If you think that all economists spend most of their time sitting at a desk plotting supply and demand curves, you haven't met Allison Schrager, author of the new book An Economist Walks Into a Brothel.

As her title promises, she visited the Moonlite Bunny Ranch in Nevada to learn how sex workers and their clients manage the risks that come even with legal prostitution. A Ph.D. economist who writes for Quartz, Schrager traveled the country to see how people in high-risk, high-reward fields such as horse breeding, candid celebrity photography, professional poker, and big-wave surfing assess and manage risk. The result is a compelling blend of first-person reporting and high-level economic analysis that gives individuals a new way not to avoid risk, but to make more-informed choices.

"People should feel more comfortable taking risks," Schrager tells Nick Gillespie. "We don't really give people the tools to feel comfortable with risk taking, but you really do need to take risks to make your life move forward and any aspect of your life, [whether] it's a relationship or your job." Their aren't any guarantees in life, she explains, but there are definitely smarter and dumber ways to take risks.

Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Alexis Garcia. Camera by Jim Epstein.

To listen to separate, longer podcast that Nick Gillespie recorded with Schrager, go here now.

Photo credits: s_bukley/Newscom, Blainey Woodham/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Scott Serio/Cal Sport Media/Newscom, Steve Marcus/REUTERS/Newscom, Erich Schlegel/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Richard Hallman/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Tony Heff/ZUMA Press/Newscom.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
Allison Schrager wants to change the way you take chances. Allison Schrager wants to change the way you take chances. Reason Video yes 7:05
Stossel: The Breakfast Myth https://reason.com/video/stossel-the-breakfast-myth/ Tue, 02 Apr 2019 14:45:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/04/02/stossel-the-breakfast-myth/ https://reason.com/video/stossel-the-breakfast-myth/#respond https://reason.com/video/stossel-the-breakfast-myth/feed/ 0 People claim breakfast is the "most important meal of the day." But it's not. You've probably heard about how it's critical to eat breakfast—that it may have health benefits, and even help you lose weight.

John Stossel looks at the evidence with nutritionist Ruth Kava, and finds that there's no proof of any of those things.

For example, people push breakfast because, as one cereal maker's ad puts it, "a study from none other than Harvard University states that men who regularly skip breakfast have a 27% higher risk of suffering a heart attack."

That's true—but that's largely because the type of people who skip breakfast are also the type of people who are more likely to smoke, drink alcohol, and eat unhealthy foods. After adjusting for those things, breakfast itself has no significant effect.

As this study notes, "it remains unknown whether specific eating habits … influence coronary heart disease."

Another myth is that eating breakfast helps people lose weight. The US Health and Agriculture Departments claimed in 2010 that "consuming breakfast has been associated with weight loss." Wonderful! But no, a recent review of studies found that, if anything, the opposite is true. The government backed away from its claim.

One possible reason for the myth is industry funding of scientific studies.

"Of the 15 studies involving children mentioned by the government, five list funding from General Mills or Kellogg," Stossel says to Kava.

She replies: "Yeah, well, they're the ones that are interested in having their products sold."

Industry funding doesn't always mean bias. Dr. Andrew Brown, a health professor at Indiana University, told Stossel about a study that found that eating breakfast does not help lose weight.

"The study was supported by Quaker Oats, and presented as abstracts by the authors, but not published as a paper for years," Brown said. "Quaker Oats actually followed up with the authors to make sure the authors published the study that conflicted with their interests."

Kava says: "Good for Quaker Oats."

Bottom line, says Stossel, don't worry about skipping breakfast.

Instead, Kava says, just eat when it feels right to you, adding, "Eat breakfast if you're hungry."

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
People claim breakfast is the "most important meal of the day." But it's not. People claim breakfast is the "most important meal of the day." But it's not. Reason Video yes
Does Middle East Peace Require a Two-State Solution or a Palestinian Defeat? A Debate https://reason.com/video/israel-palestine-debate/ Fri, 29 Mar 2019 16:45:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/03/29/israel-palestine-debate/ https://reason.com/video/israel-palestine-debate/#respond https://reason.com/video/israel-palestine-debate/feed/ 0 Should Israel negotiate with Hamas and Fatah, or are they unwavering enemies in a protracted struggle? "To resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel must first achieve defeat of the Palestinian movement."

That was the topic of a debated hosted by the Soho Forum on March 18, 2019. It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious.

Brett Raney

For the affirmative, Elan Journo, a fellow and director of policy research at the Ayn Rand Institute, argued that the Palestinian movement is irreedemably corrupt and must be defeated as a necessary condition to achieve peace. The P.L.O. and Hamas have a long history of inciting terrorism and suicide attacks, and they aremore concerned with destroying Israel than with winning justice and prosperity for the Palestinian people, he argued. The defeat of the movement will require a coalition of governments to wage a sustained campaign of economic, diplomatic, and military efforts.

Danny Sjursen, a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point, rejected Journo's characterization of the Palestinian movement. He argued that most Palestinian organizations, including Hamas, are more willing than ever to make reasonable compromises for peace, accept a two-state solution, and at least tacitly recognize Israel's right to exist. The only way to achieve a lasting solution to the middle east crisis is to treat the Palestinian leadership as potential negotiating partners.

Sjursen prevailed by convincing about 14 percent of audience members to change their minds.

Brett Raney

Journo's latest book is What Justice Demands: America and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. He is co-author of Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism: From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Beyond and editor of Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism.

Sjursen served tours with reconnaissance units in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written for The Nation and The American Conservative, he is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge.

'Modum' by Kai Engel is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
Should Israel negotiate with Hamas and Fatah, or are they unwavering enemies in a protracted struggle? Should Israel negotiate with Hamas and Fatah, or are they unwavering enemies in a protracted struggle? Reason Video yes 1:33:39
Why Do You Need a License To Blow Dry Hair? Arizona Gov. Ducey Fights the 'Bullies' in His State https://reason.com/video/doug-ducey-arizona-occupational-licenses/ Wed, 27 Mar 2019 16:20:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/03/27/doug-ducey-arizona-occupational-licenses/ https://reason.com/video/doug-ducey-arizona-occupational-licenses/#respond https://reason.com/video/doug-ducey-arizona-occupational-licenses/feed/ 0 When "somebody packs up that moving van in Chicago, Illinois, they don't lose their skills on the way to the state of Arizona," says Gov. Doug Ducey. Occupational licensing laws apply to nearly one in three U.S. jobs, but the most "most broadly and onerously licensed state" of all, according to the Institute for Justice, is Arizona. The Grand Canyon State required a license to work for 64 occupations, costing on average $455 in fees and almost 600 days of education and experience.

Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican and the former CEO of Coldstone Creamery, has made reforming Arizona's occupational licensing regime a priority. "Our focus [has been] on improving that structure of government and really stopping the bullies that were part of the boards and commissions," he told Reason. He's now backing a bill that would allow Arizona to recognize occupational licenses granted by other states.

"Just because somebody packs up that moving van in Chicago, Illinois, they don't lose their skills on the way to the state of Arizona," says Ducey. "Why should somebody have to have suffer the burden of thousands of dollars or weeks or months of recertification in a skill that they already have?"

HB 2569, which was introduced by Rep. Warren Petersen (R–Gilbert), would allow anyone who has an occupational license from another state to be automatically eligible for the same license in Arizona as long as they are in good standing in their home state and don't have a disqualifying criminal history. It would extend an existing state law that recognizes out-of-state licenses for military families. New state residents would still have to pay a fee to the state licensing board and certain professions would have to pass a test on relevant Arizona laws.

"My issue is that we don't really know what the standards are in these other states," says Rep. Pamela Powers Hannley (D–Tucson), who opposes the bill. "Why should we dumb down our standards? I see this as sort of deregulation for the sake of deregulation."

Ducey, who predicts that the bill will pass and that other states will follow Arizona's lead, says he's confident that it has the necessary "guard rails." In 2017, he issued an executive order requiring that state licensing boards review and provide justification for every rules that the governor's office deemed excessive. The next day, he signed the Right to Earn a Living Act, which restricted state boards from issuing any new occupational licensing rules that can't be justified on health and safety grounds.

"I think it's important that we remember who the voters are and who the citizens are and we're here to serve them," Ducey says. "Too many of these boards and commissions exist to stop competition, to stifle and protect the status quo. And we're changing that in Arizona."

Produced by Alexis Garcia. Camera by Paul Detrick and Andrew Belcher.

Photo credits: Monica Almeida/REUTERS/Newscom, Samantha Sais/REUTERS/Newscom, Nicole Neri/REUTERS/Newscom, Ben Moffat/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Fred Young/agefotostock/Newscom.

Additional footage courtesy of Foundation for Government Accountability.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.


]]>
When "somebody packs up that moving van in Chicago, Illinois, they don't lose their skills on the way to the state of Arizona," says Gov. Doug Ducey. When "somebody packs up that moving van in Chicago, Illinois, they don't lose their skills on the way to the state of Arizona," says Gov. Doug Ducey. Reason Video yes 5:31
Stossel: Venezuela Is Socialism https://reason.com/video/stossel-venezuela-is-socialism/ Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:45:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/03/26/stossel-venezuela-is-socialism/ https://reason.com/video/stossel-venezuela-is-socialism/#respond https://reason.com/video/stossel-venezuela-is-socialism/feed/ 0 Media personalities claim socialism didn't cause Venezuela's collapse, but it did. Here's how. As Venezuela collapses, many people say, "don't blame socialism."

"Blaming socialism for Venezuela's riches to rags story is grossly misleading," an Al Jazeera reporter claims.

John Oliver claims: "If you follow conservative media at all you might have seen it frequently painted as the inevitable dire consequences of a socialist government." Oliver blames it instead on "epic mismanagement."

But John Stossel says: "Mismanagement is what happens under socialist governments. It always happens, because no group of central planners is wise enough to manage an entire economy. Even if they have good intentions, the socialists eventually run out of other people's money."

In Venezuela, when their socialist government ran out of money, they just printed more. When business owners raised prices to keep up with inflation, the government often took away their businesses.

Yet celebrities praised Hugo Chavez, who started Venezuela's socialism. Model Naomi Campbell visited Chavez, calling him "a rebel angel."

After Chavez's death in 2013, Oliver Stone tweeted, "Hugo Chavez will live forever in history. My friend, rest finally in a peace long earned." Sean Penn told The Hollywood Reporter that "poor people around the world lost a champion."

Stossel says the good news is that, unlike American celebrities, "most Venezuelans who escaped their country's socialism do understand what went wrong."

In Florida, reporter Gloria Alverez talked to Venezuelan immigrants, and most of them told her socialism doesn't work. One said, "It's never gonna work." Another man explained, "It's something that breeds and leads to other misery and destruction."

Stossel warns that if we don't realize that socialism is to blame for Venezuela's destruction, "other tragedies like Venezuela will happen again and again."

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
Media personalities claim socialism didn't cause Venezuela's collapse, but it did. Here's how. Media personalities claim socialism didn't cause Venezuela's collapse, but it did. Here's how. Reason Video yes 4:51
Devin Nunes' Lawsuit Against Twitter Is an Attack on Every American's Right to Free Speech https://reason.com/video/nunes-twitter-free-speech-liz-mair/ Fri, 22 Mar 2019 20:16:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/03/22/nunes-twitter-free-speech-liz-mair/ https://reason.com/video/nunes-twitter-free-speech-liz-mair/#comments https://reason.com/video/nunes-twitter-free-speech-liz-mair/feed/ 1 Q&A with political strategist Liz Mair. According to Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, the abuse he's endured on Twitter is of a "breadth and scope" that "no human being should ever have to bear and suffer in their whole life." He's been called a "presidential fluffer and swamp rat," a "Putin shill," an "unscrupulous, craven, back-stabbing, charlatan and traitor," and "voted 'Most Likely to Commit Treason' in high school."

Now this California lawmaker and Trump ally is suing Twitter for $250,000,000 for "emotional distress and mental suffering, and injury to his personal and professional reputations." He's also asking the court to force Twitter to reveal the true identities behind the "Devin Nunes' Mom," "Devin Nunes' cow," "Fire Devin Nunes," and "Devin Nunes Grapes" accounts.

On what grounds can an elected official sue a social media platform for speech that offends him? "Twitter is not merely a website," the lawsuit alleges: "it is the modern town square"—a "public forum" with a "private owner."

Named in the quarter-of-a-billion dollar lawsuit, right alongside "Devin Nunes' Mom" and "Devin Nunes's Cow," is Liz Mair, a Republican strategist and self-described libertarian. Mair angered Nunes for, among other things, delivering a pair of yellow New Balances to his congressional office after he ran out of a committee hearing on the Russia scandal.

Reason's Peter Suderman sat down with Mair to talk about the lawsuit and what it means for free speech on the internet.

Cameras by Todd Krainin and Meredith Bragg. Edited by Ian Keyser. Intro by Todd Krainin.

"Complect for…." by Kosta T is licensed under CC BY-NC_SA 3.0.

Photo credits:

JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS/Newscom
CARLOS BARRIA/REUTERS/Newscom
Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
Q&A with political strategist Liz Mair. Q&A with political strategist Liz Mair. Reason Video yes 12:40
Remy: Affluenflammation (Red Hot Chili Peppers Parody) https://reason.com/video/remy-affluenflammation/ Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:40:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/03/20/remy-affluenflammation/ https://reason.com/video/remy-affluenflammation/#respond https://reason.com/video/remy-affluenflammation/feed/ 0 When quality of life improved, doctors discovered a new affliction. A parody of the Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Californication" written by Remy.

Music tracks, mastering, and background vocals by Ben Karlstrom.

Video produced by Austin Bragg.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

LYRICS

There's a non-foregone phenomenon in any prosperous nation
When primal fears all disappear the brain then gets a sensation
The medical name we gave this pain is affluenflammation

Ol' Bill Tub is chugging a jug of cold bovine lactation
When his eyes then realize that carton side's got information
And since his life contains no strife it's affluenflammation

For the better part of history diseases all were raging
Measles, mumps up on your junk like they were Kevin Spacey
Then came Jonas Salk
Makes you wonder what all for…

Cuz we've got affluenflammation
We've got affluenflammation

Ol' Chip Black is cracking the back of twelve live-steamed crustaceans
For the perks and glee of living free he starts to lose appreciation
And if you probe his frontal lobe—yep—affluenflammation

Through the course of human history each day we faced starvation
Rats and pox and chamber pots, streets filled with defecation
Free markets changed the norm
Makes you wonder what all for…

Cuz we've got affluenflammation
We've got affluenflammation
We've got affluenflammation
We've got affluenflammation

]]>
When quality of life improved, doctors discovered a new affliction. When quality of life improved, doctors discovered a new affliction. Reason Video yes 2:42
Stossel: Debating a Hoaxed Journal Editor https://reason.com/video/stossel-debating-a-hoaxed-journal-editor/ Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:00:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/03/19/stossel-debating-a-hoaxed-journal-editor/ https://reason.com/video/stossel-debating-a-hoaxed-journal-editor/#respond https://reason.com/video/stossel-debating-a-hoaxed-journal-editor/feed/ 0 The editor of a journal that fell for a hoax defends his field. Seven academic journals recently published papers that were actually hoaxes designed to show the absurdity found in such academic fields as gender studies, race studies, and queer studies. The hoaxers intentionally submitted papers that were ridiculous. One included gibberish about rape culture in dog parks. Another was a section of Hitler's Mein Kampf re-written with feminist buzzwords.

Six journal editors would not talk to Stossel, but one—Roberto Refinetti, editor in chief of Sexuality and Culture—agreed to an interview.

He condemns what the hoaxers did: "You're deceiving people without much of a reason."

He complains, "If you're going to do your research with people, you have to propose your research, submit to a body called an Institutional Review Board."

One of the hoaxers, Peter Boghossian, was found guilty by his employer (Portland State University) of violating its rules requiring him to get approval for the experiment. Of course, since the Institutional Review Board would have insisted that the researchers inform the journals that they were being tested, the test wouldn't have worked.

Stossel says he thinks the hoaxers had good reason not to go to the review board first. "Their hoax woke us up to the fact that some academic journals publish nonsense," he says.

Refinetti's journal, for instance, published the hoax paper titled, "Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria, Transhysteria, and Transphobia Through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use."

The paper touted "encouraging male anal eroticism with sex toys" because it would help make men more feminist.

Sexuality and Culture published that paper after its reviewers praised it glowingly. One called it "an incredibly rich and exciting contribution…timely, and worthy of publication."

Refinetti defends his journal, saying that it publishes mind-expanding questions.

"What is the problem with [the subject of the paper]? I don't see a problem….It's nothing really absurd or unusual," Refinetti says.

He also says: "Let's question our assumptions, because maybe we're making assumptions that we shouldn't be making….When homosexuality was considered a mental illness. People pushed, the psychiatrists got together, and said…'it's a perfectly fine thing to choose and not to call it mental illness.' So that's the type of thing that a journal in sexuality and culture does, is discuss."

Discussion is good, Stossel agrees. But in journals today, it seems that only certain conclusions are permitted. The hoaxers complain that in many university fields: "A culture has developed in which only certain conclusions are allowed, like those that make whiteness and masculinity problematic."

"I wouldn't be surprised to find out that in some places that is correct," Refinetti agrees.

"Is that a problem?" asks Stossel.

Refinetti replies: "How big of a problem is it? Is it worse than hunger? Is it worse than people shooting each other?"

But a lack of diversity of ideas does make it harder to find truth—and more likely for ridiculous ideas to thrive. Today's colleges have an extreme lack of diversity: A National Association of Scholars report found that professors at top liberal arts colleges are 10 times more likely to be Democrats than Republicans.

Refinetti says that's not surprising.

"I think it's very reasonable—because what is the job of learning?…Being more open to new ideas, which is what being a liberal is," he says.

Stossel pushes back: "This is your left-leaning definition; it's conservatives that proposed changes like school vouchers…privatizing air traffic control."

"That's an interesting point," Refinetti responds. "Then the hypothesis is shut down. See, that's how things work. You show the idea, you discuss the idea, and get it."

Refinetti says his journal publishes multiple viewpoints. It has published articles that question feminist orthodoxy.

Stossel says he's grateful that Refinetti was willing to have a conversation, but he still cheers the hoaxers for revealing that much of what passes for scholarship at colleges is bunk.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
The editor of a journal that fell for a hoax defends his field. The editor of a journal that fell for a hoax defends his field. Reason Video yes 9:15
A Tattooed Libertarian on the Arizona Supreme Court: Clint Bolick's Long Fight for Freedom https://reason.com/video/cliint-bolick/ Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:10:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/03/15/cliint-bolick/ https://reason.com/video/cliint-bolick/#respond https://reason.com/video/cliint-bolick/feed/ 0 Q&A with the co-founder of Institute for Justice about immigration, his legal philosophy, his battles with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and <em>that</em> tattoo. In 2016, Clint Bolick became an associate justice on the Arizona State Supreme Court, making him one of the most influential—and consequential—libertarians in today's legal world.

That appointment is merely the most recent career highlight for the 61-year-old activist, author, and policy wonk. Bolick worked under Clarence Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the 1980s before moving to the Justice Department. While he was there he published his first book, which argued that the civil rights movement should focus on removing government barriers to economic opportunity.

In 1991, Bolick and Chip Mellor founded the Institute for Justice, the country's premier libertarian public-interest law firm. In 2007, he became vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute, Arizona's leading free-market think tank, where he took on restrictive licensing, zoning, and business regulations—and became a nemesis to Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed "toughest sheriff" America.

Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with Bolick in Phoenix to talk about his legal philosophy, the politics of immigration, the most interesting case he's encountered on the bench so far, and why he sports a scorpion tattoo on what he calls his "typing finger."

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Listen to this as podcast by clicking below or going to SoundCloud.

Photo credits:Gage Skidmore, Steven Depolo, and Gary Moon/ZUMA Press/Newscom

]]>
Q&A with the co-founder of Institute for Justice about immigration, his legal philosophy, his battles with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and that tattoo. Q&A with the co-founder of Institute for Justice about immigration, his legal philosophy, his battles with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and that tattoo. Reason Video yes 19:57
Stossel: Tax Myths https://reason.com/video/stossel-tax-myths/ Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:00:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/03/12/stossel-tax-myths/ https://reason.com/video/stossel-tax-myths/#respond https://reason.com/video/stossel-tax-myths/feed/ 0 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks taxing the rich at 70 percent will bring in lots of tax money. It won't. On 60 Minutes, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) recently said "people are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes."

Anderson Cooper then asked her what a "fair share" would be.

Ocasio-Cortez responded that in the past, "Sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60-70 percent."

Soon, that became the progressive plan.

But economic historian Phil Magness, of the American Institute for Economic Research, says that progressives miss an important fact: The high tax rates that America had in the past actually didn't bring in much revenue.

When rates were at 70 percent, Magness tells John Stossel, "A millionaire on average would pay 41 percent."

That's because rich people find loopholes. When America had its highest top tax rates, newspapers ran ads like "Cruise for free…$2,499 value."

Magness explains: "Basically [you could] take a vacation around the Caribbean, but while you're onboard the ship, you attend, say, an investing seminar or a real estate seminar—then write off the [whole] trip."

Stossel says that deductions became so complex that rich people, instead of investing in, say, a precursor to the iPhone, hired accountants and tax lawyers to study the tax code. Some also worked less.

This led President Ronald Reagan, with bipartisan support from Democrats, to lower rates and remove deductions. That began the path to the 37 percent top rate that rates that we have today.

Despite the lower rates, federal government revenue—as a percentage of the economy—is still about the same as it was when the top rate was 70 percent. It's even about the same as it was when the rate was 90 percent.

Stossel asks Magness about the claim that "the government will collect more and do good things."

"You're asking for an economic disaster," Magness replies. More money will be wasted in the hands of government. "Do we leave it in the private sector where the market decides? Or do we subject it to corrupt politicians?"

Stossel says: Let the market decide, even though that means some get really rich, because economic growth benefits everyone.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks taxing the rich at 70 percent will bring in lots of tax money. It won't. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks taxing the rich at 70 percent will bring in lots of tax money. It won't. Reason Video yes 5:10
We Shut Down State Mental Hospitals. Some People Want to Bring Them Back. https://reason.com/video/should-america-bring-back-the-asylum-men/ Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:08:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/03/08/should-america-bring-back-the-asylum-men/ https://reason.com/video/should-america-bring-back-the-asylum-men/#respond https://reason.com/video/should-america-bring-back-the-asylum-men/feed/ 0 Is "mental illness" a fraudulent concept for locking up social deviants? Or does forced treatment free the ill "from the Bastille of their psychosis?" On January 3, 1999, Andrew Goldstein wandered onto a New York City subway platform and shoved a stranger named Kendra Webdale into the path of an oncoming train. As the story made national news, reporters dug into Goldstein's past and found that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and had a history of violent episodes. He had been in and out of psychiatric facilities, but his caretakers had repeatedly released him back onto the streets against their better judgment because of a shortage of available beds.

The murder of Kendra Webdale brought attention to Americans with severe mental health problems and inadequate treatment, a social problem that 20 years later is still ongoing. Prisons and jails are filled with inmates who exhibit symptoms of mental illness. So do many of the homeless people crowding the streets of cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. Violent episodes, like the Webdale murder and some recent mass shootings, have brought renewed calls to entrust the state with more authority to force psychiatric care on patients against their will.

This story looks at the history of mental illness, institutionalization, and the role of coercion in psychiatry. It features an array of voices and viewpoints, including Linda Mayo, the mother of twin daughers with severe psychiatric diagnoses, who advocates for court-ordered psychiatric treatment; Richard Krzyzanowski, a patients' rights advocate who fights against coercive treatment laws; DJ Jaffe, the founder of Mental Illness Policy Org., who argues that the state should make it much easier to commit mental patients; the late Thomas Szasz, a controversial libertarian psychiatrist who fought compulsory treatment and questioned the very existence of mental illness; and Scott Zeller, a psychiatrist who's developed a new model that he hopes will reduce coercion in the system. (Disclosure: Zeller has in the past donated to Reason Foundation, the 501c3 that publishes Reason.)

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Weissmueller, Jim Epstein, Meredith Bragg, and Alexis Garcia.

"Mare," by Kai Engel, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"Seeker," by Kai Engel, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"Traffic," by Kai Engel, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"Imago Mundi Nove, Part 1," by Megatone, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Megatone's music is available for download at Free Music Archive.

"Aveu," by Kai Engel, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"Cendres," by Kai Engel, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"Salue," by Kai Engel, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"Fryeri," by Kai Engel, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

Photos of Adderall: Kristoffer Tripplaar/Sipa USA/Newscom

Photo of Andrew Goldstein: Marty Lederhandler/Associated Press

Photo of Gov. Pataki signing Kendra's Law: Jim McKnight/Associated Press

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
Is "mental illness" a fraudulent concept for locking up social deviants? Or does forced treatment free the ill "from the Bastille of their psychosis?" Is "mental illness" a fraudulent concept for locking up social deviants? Or does forced treatment free the ill "from the Bastille of their psychosis?" Reason Video yes 17:41
Stossel: Academic Hoax https://reason.com/video/stossel-academic-hoax/ Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:50:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/03/05/stossel-academic-hoax/ https://reason.com/video/stossel-academic-hoax/#respond https://reason.com/video/stossel-academic-hoax/feed/ 0 Journals applaud seven outrageously fake papers. Three academics conducted what they call a "grievance studies" experiment. They wrote fake papers on ridiculous subjects and submitted them to prominent academic journals in fields that study gender, race, and sexuality.

They did this to "expose a political corruption that has taken hold of the universities," say the hoaxers in a video which documented the process.

John Stossel interviewed James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian who, along with Helen Pluckrose, sent so-called research papers to 20 journals.

They were surprised when seven papers were accepted. One claimed that "dog humping incidents at dog parks" can be taken as "evidence of rape culture." It was honored as "excellent scholarship."

Another paper rewrote a section of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism.

Stossel assumed that the journals would apologize for publishing nonsense and question the quality of their scholarship. But instead they criticized the the hoaxers, complaining that they "engaged in flawed and unethical research."

Of course, that was the point of the hoax.

Boghossian is unapologetic, telling Stossel the hoax shows "scholarship in these disciplines is utterly corrupted … they have placed an agenda before the truth."

When Stossel suggests, "maybe you are just conservative hacks looking to defend your white privilege." Lindsay replied "I've never voted for a Republican in my life." Boghossian added, "Nor have I."

Stossel says what upsets him is that after the hoax "no university said 'we're not gonna use these journals' and no editor publicly said, 'we have to raise our standards.'"

Instead, Portland State University began disciplinary procedures against Boghossian.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
Journals applaud seven outrageously fake papers. Journals applaud seven outrageously fake papers. Reason Video yes 6:38
California's High-Speed Rail Disaster Is a 'Shot Across the Bow for the Green New Deal' https://reason.com/video/calif-gov-gavin-newsom-kills-former-gov/ Fri, 01 Mar 2019 22:19:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/03/01/calif-gov-gavin-newsom-kills-former-gov/ https://reason.com/video/calif-gov-gavin-newsom-kills-former-gov/#comments https://reason.com/video/calif-gov-gavin-newsom-kills-former-gov/feed/ 1 "The real battle in the Democratic Party is between reality and fantasy," says Chapman University's Joel Kotkin. Former Gov. Jerry Brown was a steadfast supporter of the California's bullet-train boondoggle despite cost overruns, lawsuits, and a lack of private support. But in his first State of the State Address, current Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that he would scale back the project.

"He's spit in Jerry Brown's eye," says Joel Kotkin, a fellow in urban studies at Chapman University.

Gov. Newsom says he'll push forward with one portion of the high-speed rail line—the stretch running from Bakersfield to Merced, or span of about 175 miles. But neither city is a big job center, and it's not a heavily traveled route. "This is the ultimate train to nowhere," says Kotkin.

He says that backers of the Green New Deal, a plan that would crisscross the country with new bullet trains, should take notice. "The real battle in the Democratic Party is between reality and fantasy. And this was a big win for reality," says Kotkin.

"Is any other state going to be as stupid as we are?"

Produced by Paul Detrick.

Photo of Gavin Newsom; Credit: Mike Blake/REUTERS/Newscom
Photos of Jerry Brown in legislature; Credit: Hector Amezcua/MCT/Newscom
Photo of Jerry Brown; Credit: Fred Greaves/REUTERS/Newscom
Photo of Joel Kotkin; Credit: Nick Agro/ZUMA Press/Newscom
Photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Credit: G. Ronald Lopez/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Photo of trains; Credit: Chapman University urban studies fellow Joel Kotkin says Governor Gavin Newsom's scaling back of a high-speed rail project in California is a shot across the bow for the Green New Deal, which hopes to use high-speed trains to combat the effects of climate change.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/reasontv
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason
Subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts: https://goo.gl/az3a7a

Reason is the leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.

—————-

Former Gov. Jerry Brown was a steadfast supporter of the California's bullet-train boondoggle despite cost overruns, lawsuits, and a lack of private support. But in his first State of the State Address, current Gov. Gavin Newsom annoucned that he would scale back the project.

"He's spit in Jerry Brown's eye," says Joel Kotkin, a fellow in urban studies at Chapman University.

Gov. Newsom says he'll push forward with one portion of the high-speed rail line—the stretch running from Bakersfield to Merced, or span of about 175 miles. But neither city is a big job center, and it's not a heavily traveled route. "This is the ultimate train to nowhere," says Kotkin.

He says that backers of the Green New Deal, a plan that would criscross the country with new bullet trains, should take notice. "The real battle in the Democratic Party is between reality and fantasy. And this was a big win for reality," says Kotkin.

"Is any other state going to be as stupid as we are?"

Produced by Paul Detrick.

Photo of Gavin Newsom; Credit: Mike Blake/REUTERS/Newscom
Photos of Jerry Brown in legislature; Credit: Hector Amezcua/MCT/Newscom
Photo of Jerry Brown; Credit: Fred Greaves/REUTERS/Newscom
Photo of Joel Kotkin; Credit: Nick Agro/ZUMA Press/Newscom
Photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Credit: G. Ronald Lopez/ZUMA Press/Newscom
Photo of Trains; Credit: Imagine China/Newscom

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
"The real battle in the Democratic Party is between reality and fantasy," says Chapman University's Joel Kotkin. "The real battle in the Democratic Party is between reality and fantasy," says Chapman University's Joel Kotkin. Reason Video yes 4:19
What Caused the 2008 Financial Crisis: Market Distortions or Market Failure? A Debate https://reason.com/video/what-caused-the-2008-financial-crisis/ Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:30:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/02/27/what-caused-the-2008-financial-crisis/ https://reason.com/video/what-caused-the-2008-financial-crisis/#respond https://reason.com/video/what-caused-the-2008-financial-crisis/feed/ 0 Former BB&T Bank CEO John Allison vs. Moody's Mark Zandi Was the 2008 financial crisis caused by market distortions or market failure?

That was the topic of a public debated hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on February 20, 2019. It featured John Allison, former CEO of BB&T Bank and former CEO and president of the Cato Institute, and Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody's Analytics. Allison argued that market distortions led to the financial crisis, and Zandi attributed the crisis to market failure. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.

It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. Allison prevailed by convincing about 10 percent of audience members to change their minds.

Today Allison is an executive in residence at the Wake Forest School of Business. He's author of The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure: Why Pure Capitalism is the World Economy's Only Hope (McGraw-Hill, 2012). Zandi is the author of Financial Shock: A 360º Look at the Subprime Mortgage Implosion, and How to Avoid the Next Financial Crisis.

The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Music: "Modum" by Kai Engle is licensed under a CC-BY creative commons license.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
Former BB&T Bank CEO John Allison vs. Moody's Mark Zandi Former BB&T Bank CEO John Allison vs. Moody's Mark Zandi Reason Video yes 1:18:06
Stossel: Sugar's Sweetheart Deal https://reason.com/video/stossel-sugars-sweetheart-deal/ Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:30:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/02/26/stossel-sugars-sweetheart-deal/ https://reason.com/video/stossel-sugars-sweetheart-deal/#respond https://reason.com/video/stossel-sugars-sweetheart-deal/feed/ 0 Sugar subsidies are welfare for the rich. They cost consumers billions a year. The U.S. sugar program is "Stalin-style price controls," Ross Marchand of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance tells John Stossel.

The U.S. government uses a complex system of loans, domestic quotas, and limits on how much sugar we can import. The goal is to control the price of sugar.

Stossel calls it "welfare for the rich." Economists say the program costs consumers billions a year. And yet the sugar industry makes videos that say "it costs taxpayers nothing."

Economist Vincent H. Smith writes that the "Stalinist-style," supply control, "substantially increases U.S. prices–on average U.S. sugar prices are about twice as high as world prices."

Yet politicians from sugar-producing states defend the program. "It basically allows our sugar industry to compete with other countries that are heavily subsidized by their home countries," Senator Marco Rubio said in an interview with Fox News.

Stossel takes Rubio's claim to Marchand, "It's only fair to our sugar producers who don't get subsidized, who can't compete with these subsidized countries."

Marchand replies, "Is it fair for customers to pay double the world rate for sugar? Is it fair for taxpayers to have to bail out a handful of super rich super-connected sugar processors? No."

Ryan Weston, representing the Sugarcane Growers, goes on TV programs and says, "we are a no cost program, no cost to the taxpayer."

"That's absolutely bogus, taxpayers do pay the cost," retorts Marchand. When sugar prices drop, "Government will buy sugar from the sugar processors and sell it to ethanol producers at a below market rate. Who's paying the difference? Who's footing the bill? U.S. taxpayers."

Why aren't people upset with these crony capitalists?

In a video produced by Learn Liberty, Economist Diana Thomas explains that the U.S. sugar program cost each of us "about $10 more on sugar products a year. So we don't even notice it." But sugar producers will lobby hard for their special deal because "each American sugar farmer made roughly $3 million dollars a year extra."

The people who do notice the price controls most are candy makers. According to an Iowa University study, 20,000 American jobs a year are lost because of high sugar prices. Marchand says, "there is one candy cane producer left in Ohio. That's absolutely ridiculous. And look at all those jobs."

Stossel challenges Marchand by saying that it's probably good that we eat less sugar and candy. Marchand replies, "the fact that sugar is in everything means that healthy and unhealthy products alike are going to cost more."

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
Sugar subsidies are welfare for the rich. They cost consumers billions a year. Sugar subsidies are welfare for the rich. They cost consumers billions a year. Reason Video yes 5:01
Legal Weed Did More to Stop Drug Smuggling Than Any Wall https://reason.com/video/legal-weed-did-more-to-stop-drug-smuggli/ Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:55:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/02/22/legal-weed-did-more-to-stop-drug-smuggli/ https://reason.com/video/legal-weed-did-more-to-stop-drug-smuggli/#respond https://reason.com/video/legal-weed-did-more-to-stop-drug-smuggli/feed/ 0 Easing pot prohibition is doing what the failed war on drugs never could. Why should Congress cough up the money to build a border wall? President Trump claims it would help stop the flow of deadly drugs coming in from Mexico.

Historically, in terms of sheer weight, marijuana has been Mexico's leading illicit drug export to the U.S. But last year, "the average Border Patrol agent was seizing just 25 pounds [of marijuana] for the entire year, or less than half a pound per week—a drop of 78 percent from 2013," writes David Bier, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, in the cover story of Reason's April 2019 issue.

This trend has nothing to do with increased border security, or a crackdown on the Sinaloa Cartel and its former leader, Joaquín 'El Chapo' Guzmán, who was found guilty on 10 criminal counts in U.S. federal court last week. The falloff in pot smuggling, Bier argues, is a direct result of state-level legalization here in the U.S.

Reason's Katherine Mangu-Ward sat down with Bier to discuss why easing pot prohibition is doing what the failed war on drugs never could.

Produced by Alexis Garcia. Camera by Austin Bragg and Todd Krainin.

Photo credits: Edgard Garrido/REUTERS/Newscom, Tomas Bravo/REUTERS/Newscom, Gary Moon/ZUMA Press/Newscom.

Lightless Dawn by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1100655
Artist: http://incompetech.com/

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
Easing pot prohibition is doing what the failed war on drugs never could. Easing pot prohibition is doing what the failed war on drugs never could. Reason Video yes 10:16
The 3 Rules of Hate Speech and the First Amendment https://reason.com/video/the-3-rules-of-hate-speech/ Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:00:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/02/19/the-3-rules-of-hate-speech/ https://reason.com/video/the-3-rules-of-hate-speech/#respond https://reason.com/video/the-3-rules-of-hate-speech/feed/ 0 Episode 2 of <em>Free Speech Rules</em> by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh Here are three rules you should know about "Hate Speech" and the First Amendment:

Rule 1. The First Amendment protects all ideas, loving, hateful, or in between.

In the United States, "hate speech" is just a political label, like "un-American speech" or "rude speech." Some people use the phrase broadly, some more narrowly—but there's no legal definition, because there is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment..

As the Supreme Court held in 1974, "Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas." [quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).]

Or, in 2017:

"…the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.'" [quoting Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017).]

That's from Matal v. Tam, in which the government denied a trademark to an Asian-American band, because the band's name—The Slants— was seen by some as a racial slur. The government wasn't even trying to ban the name; it was just denying a generally available benefit—trademark registration—to people who used the name.

But even that, the Court concluded, was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, and thus violated the First Amendment.

Rule 2. Some speech is not protected by the First Amendment, but that's true regardless of whether it's bigoted or hateful

For instance, threats of violence are constitutionally unprotected. That includes all threats–racist threats, threats to police officers, threats to business owners, threats to the President, anyone.

Likewise, intentionally inciting immediate violence is sometimes punishable. Classic example: Giving a speech to a mob outside a building, urging them to burn it down. But again, it doesn't matter if the speech is outside a synagogue, a police station, or a recycling center.

Personal insults said to someone's face might also be punishable, as so-called "fighting words."

Again, though, that's true regardless of whether the insults stem from personal hostility or group hatred related to race, religion, and the like.

Indeed, in 1992, the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance that specially targeted bigoted fighting words. Such an ordinance, the Court said, unconstitutionally discriminates against particular viewpoints.

Rule 3. Hate crime laws are constitutional, so long as they punish violence or vandalism, not speech

The classic example is Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the 1993 case in which the Supreme Court unanimously upheld hate crimes laws. Todd Mitchell, a young black man, urged some friends to beat up a white boy because the boy was white.

Wisconsin law made the beating into a more serious crime because the boy was targeted based on his race. The Court said this is fine, because "a physical assault is not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment."

And while the law increased the punishment because of the defendant's intent, the law often punishes people more because of why they did what they did.

Killing someone for money will get you a harsher punishment than killing them out of momentary anger. Likewise, firing an employee because of his race will get you a civil lawsuit; firing an employee for most other reasons won't.

None of this covers the mere expression of hateful ideas, or the use of words that some see as hateful. Those are indeed generally protected by the First Amendment.

But why? The Justices generally agree that racist ideas, for instances, are wrong and dangerous. Why would the Justices say hate speech is constitutionally protected?

Because they don't trust government officials to decide which ideas are wrong and dangerous.

They worry that if government officials had the power to ban evil ideas, that power would quickly stretch to punishing a wide range of debate and dissent. And they see the First Amendment as requiring that distrust.

In the words of Justice Black, echoed by the Supreme Court in 1972, "The freedoms…guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish." [quoting Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972).]

So to sum up:

1: There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment

2: Threats of violence and incitement to violence are not protected, but that has nothing to do with "hateful" content.

3: and Hate crime laws can punish violence or vandalism based on the offender targeting particular groups, but that doesn't allow punishment of supposed "hate speech."

Written by Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment law professor at UCLA.
Produced and edited by Austin Bragg, who is not.

This is the second episode of Free Speech Rules, a video series on free speech and the law. Volokh is the co-founder of the Volokh Conspiracy, which is hosted at Reason.com.

This is not legal advice.
If this were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill.
Please use responsibly.

Music: "Lobby Time" by Kevin MacLeod, Incompetech.com
Music: "You Make Me Alive" by The Slants
Wookie Icon by Jory Raphael, symbolicons.com

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
Episode 2 of Free Speech Rules by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh Episode 2 of Free Speech Rules by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh Reason Video yes 3:42
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal: A Bizarre Grab-Bag of Terrible Ideas https://reason.com/video/green-new-deal-wont-work/ Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:54:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/02/14/green-new-deal-wont-work/ https://reason.com/video/green-new-deal-wont-work/#respond https://reason.com/video/green-new-deal-wont-work/feed/ 0 Q&A with economist Veronique de Rugy. Last week, New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic Senator Edward Markey introduced the Green New Deal, a non-binding resolution that would radically overhaul America's economy in the name of fighting global climate change. The resolution bundled together a variety of big-ticket progressive policy priorities, not all of which were obviously related to climate change, from universal health coverage to a jobs guarantee to subsidized college.

The proposal was swiftly praised by much of the 2020 Democratic presidential field—yet even some liberals wondered if it was trying to do too much at once. In attempting to be all things to everyone, would the Green New Deal end up being nothing to anyone?

Veronique de Rugy, a Reason columnist and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, joins us to explain what the Green New Deal means, why it would be so expensive, and why even socialist countries in Europe don't try to do this much.

Interview by Peter Suderman. Edited by Meredith Bragg, Todd Krainin, and Mark McDaniel. Cameras by Bragg and Krainin.

FRACTURES by Ryan Little.

Photo Credits:

STEVE FERDMAN/UPI/Newscom

JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS/Newscom

Estelle Ruiz/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Alex Edelman/SIPA/Newscom

]]>
Q&A with economist Veronique de Rugy. Q&A with economist Veronique de Rugy. Reason Video yes 10:17
Stossel: A Better School https://reason.com/video/stossel-school/ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:00:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/02/12/stossel-school/ https://reason.com/video/stossel-school/#respond https://reason.com/video/stossel-school/feed/ 0 Kids do real work at a new kind of school. 3 million kids (mostly boys) are given medication that's supposed to make them sit still and focus.

But what if schools, not kids, are the problem?

One former public school student, Cade Summers, tells John Stossel that he hated the effect of the drugs–that it was like he had been "lobotomized."

Cade's parents took him off the "attention deficit" drugs and sent him to other schools. But Cade hated them all. "I would come home and I would sometimes just cry," Cade tells Stossel.

Then he heard of a new type of school in Austin, Texas. It promised to let kids discuss ideas, and to do real-world work.

But the school, the Academy of Thought and Industry, is a private school that charges tuition.

So Cade started getting up at 3 a.m. to work in a coffee shop to help pay the tuition.

What kind of school could possibly be worth that to a kid?

The school's founder, Michael Strong, says kids learn best when they are given actual responsibility, real life work. "Teens need responsibility…Ben Franklin, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, started their careers at the age of 12 or 13," he points out.

Nowadays people consider that abusive child labor, Stossel notes.

"I worked as a teen," Strong replies. "I loved it. Teens very often want to work."

Strong's schools do many things differently. Students get Fridays off to work on their own projects. School starts at 10 a.m. There are no lectures–instead students read, and then discuss what they read.

That's different from schools Strong once attended–and hated.

"School is 13 years of how to be passive, how to be dependent," Strong tells Stossel.

"School is about aim, aim, aim, aim, aim, and never get stuff done. So I want students who just go out there and get stuff done, fail, get up, try again. That's how we become creators, entrepreneurs…We want them to do what they love now."

For Cade, that meant doing a marketing internship Fridays, where he did actual work.

When he completed Strong's school, he got a job right away–at a tech startup that normally requires a college degree.

Another Academy graduate runs a successful metal music festival called "Austin Terror Fest."

All kids at Strong's schools work on some kind of project.

"I'm currently working on making a web-based chat application," one boy told us. "I wanna be a programmer. I love programming".

A girl at the school works at a paintball range on weekends. "If they love paintball, then they should do a business in that," says Strong.

Most of his students also end up going to college. Strong points out, "We've had students admitted to top liberal arts colleges. Bard, Bennington …"

"Of course they do well," Stossel interrupts. "You're charging fat tuition. Only rich kids can afford to go there and they're going to do well."

"The kind of kids that we get come from all walks of life," Strong responds. "We had a student from New Jersey…he was incapable of functioning in the highly structured public school systems…in the public schools needed a full time aide…He was costing the state an enormous amount of money. He came to our school…He did not need an aide."

"Coming here is just healing. It's incredible," that student, Josh, told us.

Strong hopes his schools will be a model for other schools that let kids learn through real world work.

That approach works so much better for some kid that they willingly wake up at 3 a.m. to go to work to help pay tuition.

"It was me choosing my life," Cade says.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
Kids do real work at a new kind of school. Kids do real work at a new kind of school. Reason Video yes 4:52
Gun Control Is Still Dead: Paloma Heindorff on Homemade Firearms and Defense Distributed After Cody Wilson https://reason.com/video/gun-control-is-still-dead-paloma-heindor/ Fri, 08 Feb 2019 19:13:00 +0000 https://reason.com/2019/02/08/gun-control-is-still-dead-paloma-heindor/ https://reason.com/video/gun-control-is-still-dead-paloma-heindor/#respond https://reason.com/video/gun-control-is-still-dead-paloma-heindor/feed/ 0 After Cody Wilson was arrested on a sex crime charge, Heindorff took the helm at Defense Distributed. Now she's leading a massive free speech battle over the right to download a gun. The Austin-based nonprofit Defense Distributed, which defends and facilitiates the homemade firearm movement, has had a wild seven months: It reached a settlement in a longstanding federal lawsuit, it reposted all of its downloadable gun files on the internet, it was sued by 25 states, and then it had to pull all those files back down. It also just launched a new product: the Polymer80 kit for finishing a Glock-style handgun on the company's Ghost Gunner milling machine in about half an hour.

But the most consequential event for the company was the arrest and indictment of its charismatic founder, Cody Wilson. In September 2018, Austin police announced a warrant for Wilson's arrest for allegedly paying for sex with a 16-year-old female he met through an app called SugarDaddyMeet—in a state where the age of consent is 17. Police discovered Wilson was in Taiwan, and he was detained and sent home. Wilson is currently out on bail awaiting trial.

Stepping up as Defense Distributed's new director was Paloma Heindorff, who had little experience on the public stage and hadn't even fired a gun prior to 2015.

So where does Wilson's arrest and resignation leave Defense Distributed, a company oriented around Wilson's brash public persona and vision of all-out war between the state and the individual? And what's the future of its legal battle to protect the First Amendment right to distribute gun files? Reason's Zach Weissmueller went behind the scenes at America's most controversial gun company.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Jim Epstein, Mark McDaniel, and Weissmueller. Additional graphics by Epstein.

"Dancing on the Edge," by Kai Engel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"Universe in Hands," by Kai Engel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"Aveu," by Kai Engel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"Cendres," by Kai Engel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"Fryeri," by Kai Engel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

"Back to Lighted Streets," by Kai Engel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NC 3.0 license. Engel's music is available for purchase and download at his Bandcamp page.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
After Cody Wilson was arrested on a sex crime charge, Heindorff took the helm at Defense Distributed. Now she's leading a massive free speech battle over the right to download a gun. After Cody Wilson was arrested on a sex crime charge, Heindorff took the helm at Defense Distributed. Now she's leading a massive free speech battle over the right to download a gun. Reason Video yes 14:20
Don't Fear Independents Like Howard Schultz! Politics Should Be More Like a Starbucks Menu https://reason.com/video/dont-be-afraid-of-independent-candidates/ Thu, 07 Feb 2019 19:56:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/02/07/dont-be-afraid-of-independent-candidates/ https://reason.com/video/dont-be-afraid-of-independent-candidates/#respond https://reason.com/video/dont-be-afraid-of-independent-candidates/feed/ 0 There are more forms of hepatitis than there are major parties in America. Nearly a dozen Democrats are already running for president. The highlights so far include an interview about immigration livestreamed from a dental chair, a former Harvard professor popping a beer like jes' plain folks on New Year's Eve, and a draconian former prosecutor pledging her allegiance to Wakanda. Democrats are tripping over each other to pitch Medicare for All, Free College for All, Guaranteed Jobs for All, and laying taxes on wealth as well as income.

And then there's Howard Schultz.

The former CEO of Starbucks is considering a run for president as a "centrist independent." He says that the national debt threatens economic growth, that we shouldn't demonize successful entrepreneurs, and that the government can't be all things to all people.

That brought public hate, contempt, and character assassination from every conceivable angle.

It's not just anti-globalist lefties on the attack. The New York Times' op-ed page says he's narcissistic, delusional, and fanatical. His potential run, his critics claim, would be nothing short of "reckless idiocy."

But Schultz's belief that neither major party represents America is widely shared. A plurality of Americans don't identify with either party. And nearly three-quarters of us think the country is headed in the wrong direction, which helps to explain why neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump won a majority of the popular vote in 2016.

The two-party duopoly and its supporters in the media understand how widely disliked they are, which is why they want to kneecap anyone who isn't on Team Red or Team Blue.

You don't have to agree with Schultz to understand that having more voices and ideas on the table at this point in the election cycle is a good thing—especially when you consider the alternatives.

Democrats fear people such as Schultz because they think he will drain votes from whoever their nominee ends up being, giving Trump a path to re-election. But that's actually a faulty analysis.

Former Republican Rep. John Anderson was blamed for pulling votes from Jimmy Carter in 1980, but almost half his supporters would have gone with Reagan as their second choice.

In 1992, the GOP fingered Ross Perot as a political saboteur, but the 19 percent of Americans who pulled the lever for the Texas Billionaire were equally split between Bush and Clinton as their fallback. In 2016, socially liberal and fiscally conservative voters—Schultz's demographic—broke for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, suggesting the coffee-shop magnate would pull votes from the incumbent president rather than his Democratic challenger.

Four years ago, during his attempt to win the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) complained that we don't "need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants." If variety in armpit aroma isn't his thing, I'd like to believe that the Vermont socialist would at least favor more choice at the ballot box. Right now, there are more forms of hepatitis than viable political parties in America.

So it's kind of fitting that the former CEO of a company that introduced infinite choice in coffee drinks is now being dragged for threatening to expand the political spectrum all the way from A to C. If American politics can't stand even the possibility of an independent candidate who praises capitalism, opposes massive tax increases, and wants to reduce federal debt, we're already screwed.

Edited by Mark McDaniel. Cameras by Jim Epstein. Graphics by Joshua Swain.

"Ghost Dance" by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Photo Credits: David Becker/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Brian Cahn/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Brian Cahn/TNS/Newscom. Rick Friedman/Polaris/Newscom; Imagine China/Newscom; Everett Collection/Newscom; Arnie Sachs/SIPA/Newscom; Mark Reinstein/ZUMA Press/Newscom; JASON REDMOND/REUTERS/Newscom

]]>
There are more forms of hepatitis than there are major parties in America. There are more forms of hepatitis than there are major parties in America. Reason Video yes
Stossel: Bad Laws Worsen the Homeless Crisis https://reason.com/video/stossel-bad-laws-cause-homeless-crisis/ Tue, 05 Feb 2019 19:35:00 +0000 http://reason.com/?p=365498 https://reason.com/video/stossel-bad-laws-cause-homeless-crisis/#respond https://reason.com/video/stossel-bad-laws-cause-homeless-crisis/feed/ 0 Politicians claim housing regulation helps the poor. In fact, it makes their lives much harder. San Francisco is one of America's richest cities, yet it has a major problem with homelessness and crime. An average of 85 cars are broken into daily, yet fewer than 2 percent lead to arrests.

The homeless themselves are often harassed. "They run around and they shout at themselves," one man who usually sleeps on the streets told our crew. "They make it bad for people like us that hang out with a sign."

Since store owners can't rely on city cops for help, some have hired private police to patrol their stores. There used to be hundreds of these private cops citiwide—and then the city's police union complained. There are fewer than 10 left.

San Francisco's politicians have promised to help the homeless going back decades. In 1982, Mayor Dianne Feinstein bragged about creating "a thousands units right here in the Tenderloin." In 2002, Mayor Willie Brown said "you gotta do something about it." In 2008, Mayor Gavin Newsom boasted about moving "6,860 human beings off the street." In 2018, San Francisco passed a new local tax to help pay for homeless services.

Why have the results been so lackluster? One reason: San Francisco has the nation's highest rents.

Laura Foote runs the non-profit "YIMBY Action," which stands for "yes in my backyard." The organization promotes policies that encourage more housing construction as a way to bring down prices.

Many San Francisco residents object to this mission.

"I would hate it," one woman told John Stossel.

"I think it'd be really congested," said another.

"Let me build," said developer John Dennis. He spent years trying to get permission to replace a graffiti-covered, long-defunct meat-packing plant with a 60-unit building. He eventually got permission—but it took 4 years.

"And all that time, we're paying property taxes and we're paying for maintenance of the building," Dennis told Stossel.

"I'll never do another project here," he says.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
Politicians claim housing regulation helps the poor. In fact, it makes their lives much harder. Politicians claim housing regulation helps the poor. In fact, it makes their lives much harder. Reason Video yes 5:04
Remy: Better Now? https://reason.com/video/remy-better-now/ Fri, 01 Feb 2019 19:15:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/02/01/remy-better-now/ https://reason.com/video/remy-better-now/#respond https://reason.com/video/remy-better-now/feed/ 0 Post Malone meets post-apocalyptic socialism. Promised an improved way of life, Remy does everything he can to believe in a new ideology–except the math.

Post Malone parody written and performed by Remy. Video produced by Austin Bragg. Music tracks and mastering by Ben Karlstrom.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

LYRICS
Listened to those leaders so intently
Those Che Guevara shirts all seemed so trendy
Thought that things would be so good and friendly
So why'm I eating my neighbor's dog Benji?

Twenty million killed, sure, that's stuff I don't like
But I could stay on Momma's plan for the rest of my life
A guaranteed job digging ditches? Well, what's not to like?
It's failed miserably each time so trying again seemed wise

Now I'm looting, looting, looting, looting
Grabbing wieners like I'm Kevin Spacey
Told a crowd "we need free markets instead"
Now my neck is no longer attached to my head

They promised things would all be better now, better now
If pure equality was finally found, finally found
Now we're all grocery shopping at the pound, at the pound
Said that we'd have everything
Now we don't have anything
Whoa…

How much plasma are they gonna take?
Before I finally have enough to trade?
For toilet paper or a rodent steak?
I keep on looking back on better days

They promised things would all be better now, better now
If free expression it was not allowed, not allowed
But I just caught my Roomba texting Mao
Said that we'd have everything
Now we don't have anything

They promised things would all be better now, better now
If men with guns took farmers' land and plow, land and plow
Now it's another night of Rat Kung Pao, Rat Kung Pao
Said that we'd have everything
Now we don't have anything

They promised things would all be better now, better now
If we just nationalized oil in the ground, in the ground
Now somehow gasoline can not be found, not be found
Said that we'd have everything
Now we don't have anything

]]>
Post Malone meets post-apocalyptic socialism. Post Malone meets post-apocalyptic socialism. Reason Video yes 1:54
Kamala Harris Hopes You'll Forget Her Record as a Drug Warrior and Draconian Prosecutor https://reason.com/video/kamala-harris-2020-record-prosecutor/ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:22:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/01/31/kamala-harris-2020-record-prosecutor/ https://reason.com/video/kamala-harris-2020-record-prosecutor/#respond https://reason.com/video/kamala-harris-2020-record-prosecutor/feed/ 0 The senator and presidential hopeful went to bat for dirty prosecutors, opposed marijuana legalization, and championed policies that endanger sex workers. As she begins her 2020 presidential campaign, Sen. Kamala Harris is trying to position herself as a reformer who tirelessly works to correct the abuses of the criminal justice system. But the California Democrat has one big problem: her long record as a law-and-order prosecutor.

Harris's new memoir, The Truths We Hold, makes no mention of her past as an old-school drug warrior, a defender of dirty prosecutors, and a political opportunist who made life more dangerous for sex workers. Harris doesn't apologize for her previous stances, even those she now disavows; instead, she's decided to try to convince voters that she's always been a progressive prosecutor.

Here are some parts of her record that Harris is hoping you'll forget in the run-up to 2020.

HARRIS ON SEX WORKERS

Harris's political rise has been propelled by a yearslong, high-profile campaign against alleged sex traffickers. What she's actually done is help throw women in jail for having consensual sex, while trampling on the rule of law to advance her own political ambitions.

Ignoring the pleas of sex workers and human rights advocates for over a decade, she fought against campaigns to decriminalize consensual adult prostitution in California. As California attorney general, she helped lead a statewide program to get truckers to report suspected sex workers to police. These policies didn't stop traffickers, but they did land plenty of sex workers behind bars.

Harris fought to destroy Backpage.com, a classified ads site that sex workers used to find and screen clients, even though she publicly admitted that the site's founders, Michael Lacey and James Larkin, were protected from prosecution under federal free speech laws. But a month before Election Day in her Senate race, Harris went ahead and had them arrested anyway, parading them before cameras on pimping charges, which were then promptly dismissed by a judge.

When Harris got to Congress, she kept up her crusade, becoming a big proponent of the 2018 law known as SESTA-FOSTA. The result was that many sex workers no choice but to return to the streets, where soliciting clients is considerably more dangerous.

Meanwhile, Harris declined to intervene in a real underage sex-trafficking scandal that involved dozens of police and other local authorities in the Bay Area.

HARRIS ON PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

In her memoir, Harris decries America's "deep and dark history" of "people using the power of the prosecutor as an instrument of injustice," by framing innocent men or hiding exculpatory evidence. But during her time as California's top cop, she contributed to that history by repeatedly going to bat for dirty prosecutors.

Her office appealed the dismissal of a case in which a prosecutor had fabricated a confession to secure a conviction and fought an appeal in a case where the prosecutor lied to a jury during trial. In 2015, Harris tried to stop the removal of the Orange County District Attorney's office from a murder trial after it repeatedly failed to turn over evidence to the defense.

Her office even tried to keep a man in jail who had been wrongfully incarcerated for 13 years—even after a judge ruled he had proven himself innocent—because the man hadn't delivered the proof fast enough.

And as San Francisco District Attorney, Harris hid known misconduct by a crime lab technician who admitted to deliberately tainting evidence. The debacle has since led to the dismissal of hundreds of criminal cases.

HARRIS ON THE WAR ON DRUGS

Harris is a former drug warrior who is now refashioning herself as pro-legalization. That's a positive shift—but not a reason to rewrite the past or ignore the patterns it reveals in her judgment. For years after the cultural tide had turned in support of criminal justice reforms, Harris continued to support lock-'em-up policies that disproportionately hurt minorities.

As California Attorney General, Harris opposed marijuana legalization as late as 2014, promoted civil asset forfeiture without a conviction as a way to fight drug rings, and sought to more aggressively police prescription drug use.

In her new book, Harris reveals that her drug warrior mentality hasn't changed; it's just that her emphasis has shifted. Now she's hoping to funnel even more funds to law enforcement to "cut off the supply of fentanyl from China," and to "reinstate the DEA's authority to go after the major pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors."

HARRIS ON MASS INCARCERATION

Harris is now an outspoken critic of America's system of mass incarceration, but she's worked hard over the years to lock more people up, for longer. And once these people were in prison, Harris saw to it that they'd have a hell of a time getting out.

Before her recent about-face, Harris chose not to endorse proposed sentencing reforms on the California ballot in 2012 and 2014, and she defended the constitutionality of cash bail until 2016.

Harris's office also fought an order to reduce California prison populations after the Supreme Court determined the conditions amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Though she later claimed to be "shocked" at what they had done, Harris's attorneys argued that non-violent offenders should stay behind bars because the state needed the cheap labor they provide.

As she blazes her path to the White House in 2020, Kamala Harris is trying to rewrite her last chapter. But her record remains as a testament to her instincts and priorities when given real opportunities for change.

Hosted by Katherine Mangu-Ward. Written and Edited by Justin Monticello. Shot by Austin Bragg and Meredith Bragg. Additional graphics by Joshua Swain. Music by Matt Harris.

Photo credits: Jonathan Ernst/REUTERS/Newscom, Kenneth Song/News-Press/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Chris Kleponis/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom, Yichuan Cao/Sipa USA/Newscom, ELIJAH NOUVELAGE/REUTERS/Newscom, Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom, Hector Amezcua/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Ron Sachs—CNP / MEGA / Newscom, imageSPACEimageSPACE/Sipa USA/Newscom, Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
The senator and presidential hopeful went to bat for dirty prosecutors, opposed marijuana legalization, and championed policies that endanger sex workers. The senator and presidential hopeful went to bat for dirty prosecutors, opposed marijuana legalization, and championed policies that endanger sex workers. Reason Video yes 6:44
Stossel: Super Bowl of Welfare https://reason.com/video/stossel-super-bowl-of-welfare/ Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:25:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/01/29/stossel-super-bowl-of-welfare/ https://reason.com/video/stossel-super-bowl-of-welfare/#respond https://reason.com/video/stossel-super-bowl-of-welfare/feed/ 0 Sports stadiums get billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Mercedes-Benz Stadium is home to the Atlanta Falcons and the site of this year's Super Bowl. Costing $1.5 billion, it's one of the most expensive stadiums in America.

The owner of Atlanta's football team, billionaire Arthur Blank, persuaded Atlanta officials to force taxpayers to pay for more than $700 million in subsidies for his stadium.

John Stossel says he understands why politicians subsidize stadiums. "They like going to games, and like telling voters, 'I brought a team to our town!'" says Stossel.

He also understands why billionaires take the money, "if politicians are giving money away, Blank's partners would consider him irresponsible not to take it."

And when it comes to already-rich people getting poorer people to fund their stadiums, Atlanta is not unusual. The Oakland Raiders got $750 million of taxpayer money to move the Raiders to Las Vegas.

"In the last two decades…taxpayers across the country have spent nearly $7 billion on [NFL] stadiums," according to a Huffington Post article.

In fact "12 teams … actually turned a profit on stadium subsidies alone," according to a Fox News report.

Politicians claim their subsidies are "an investment." They argue the economic benefits a stadium will bring a city outweigh the cost. Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman said, "It really is a benefit to us that really could spill over into something."

Stossel says this "spillover is bunk." Numerous economic studies have shown that stadiums are a bad investment for taxpayers.

One by George Mason University concludes, "Despite the many millions of dollars spent on professional sports, little or none of that money makes its way back to the taxpayers who subsidize professional sports teams." In fact "… sports teams may actually hurt economic growth."

Economist J.C. Bradbury points out that while money spent at football games is the "seen benefit, the unseen cost is that those people would otherwise be spending their money elsewhere in the local communities. At the local bar there's one less bartender. There was one less waitress hired at another restaurant. A movie theater that had one less theater full."

Stossel reminds everyone, "When politicians brag about their stadium and the many economic benefits, let's also remember all the jobs they destroyed and taxpayer money they squandered."

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
Sports stadiums get billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Sports stadiums get billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Reason Video yes 4:17
What Really Drove Los Angeles Teachers To Go on Strike? https://reason.com/video/lausd-strike/ Fri, 25 Jan 2019 17:45:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/01/25/lausd-strike/ https://reason.com/video/lausd-strike/#respond https://reason.com/video/lausd-strike/feed/ 0 They demanded higher salaries. The real problem: A disconnect between what teachers see in their paychecks and what employers are actually paying them. Over 30,000 public school teachers, nurses, counselors, and librarians went on strike last week in Los Angeles—the first teachers' strike there in nearly 30 years.

Driving the protests were union demands for higher salaries, smaller class sizes, and more funding for school nurses and counselors. District administrators said those demands would hasten the system's descent into insolvency.

While teacher salaries haven't increased much in inflation-adjusted terms since the 1990s, total teacher compensation has soared because of ballooning health care and retirement contributions. There's a growing disconnect between what teachers see in their paychecks and what their employers are actually paying for their services.

Reason spoke with Chad Aldeman, an editor at TeacherPensions.org and a senior associate partner at Bellwether Education Partners, to discuss what's really driving schools to the brink of bankruptcy. The interview is based in part on Aldeman's article in Education Next, "Teachers Have the Nation's Highest Retirement Costs. But They'll Never See the Benefits."

Interview by Nick Gillespie. Produced by Alexis Garcia. Camera by Garcia, Justin Monticello, Meredith Bragg, and Mark McDaniel.

Photo credits: Christian Monterrosa/Sipa USA/Newscom, Ronan Tivony/Sipa USA/Newscom, Jonathan Alcorn/REUTERS/Newscom, Leah Mills/REUTERS/Newscom.

"Can't Believe," "Code," and "Treeline" by Music for Nothing are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/). Source: https://musicfornothing.com/.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
They demanded higher salaries. The real problem: A disconnect between what teachers see in their paychecks and what employers are actually paying them. They demanded higher salaries. The real problem: A disconnect between what teachers see in their paychecks and what employers are actually paying them. Reason Video yes 9:16
Do Kids Need School? Inside the 'Unschooling' Movement https://reason.com/video/these-unschoolers-say-children-dont-need/ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 19:48:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/01/24/these-unschoolers-say-children-dont-need/ https://reason.com/video/these-unschoolers-say-children-dont-need/#respond https://reason.com/video/these-unschoolers-say-children-dont-need/feed/ 0 "School is a place where children go to learn to be stupid," said author and educator John Holt. Anita Rios-Sherman has six children under the age of 18, and five of them are on the autism spectrum. When the local school system failed to meet the needs of her oldest son, Rios-Sherman decided to try a homeschooling curriculum. When one of her kids resisted, she took a more radical step: drop the curriculum altogether, and let her son decide what he wanted to spend his time learning. In her view, he benefited from a totally unstructured approach. Next, she tried the same method with her other children. It's an education philosophy known as "unschooling."

On a typical weekday, the Rios-Shermans might visit a local museum, go to the park, watch a documentary, play with each other at home, or surf the internet.

"Most days we just kind of finish up where we left up the day before on a project, or sometimes we're just spontaneous," says Rios-Sherman. "There are many things about the unschooling philosophy that work well for kids on the autism spectrum. A lot of it has to do with allowing them to explore their passions and them not having to earn that time."

There are unschooling groups in every major American city, with some specially themed versions—even Pagan unschooling. The movement dates back to the 1970s and was shaped by the work of educator and author John Holt.

"School is a place where children go to learn to be stupid," Holt once said in a televised interview. "And the process that makes them stupid…is other people trying to control their learning."

Holt, who died in 1985, began his career as a progressive school reformer, but lost hope that meaningful change was possible within the formal system. So he turned to the burgeoning homeschool movement as the most promising avenue for fixing what he viewed as America's broken education system. Some modern homeschoolers reference Holt as the movement's founding father, but his radical vision differed from that of the conservative religious practitioners who dominate public perception of homeschooling today.

Holt argued that children are natural learners, who intuitively act as "scientists", learning through the empirical processes of observation, experience, and trial-and-error. Rather than fostering that instinct, schools quash it with standardized curricula that discourage creative and independent thought. Holt ultimately concluded that any intervention, by either teachers or parents, to direct the education of a child is more likely to disrupt learning than to encourage it.

"[Educators] treat [children] like empty receptacles into which they are going to pour whatever learning they think they ought to have," Holt said.

Holt's approach is being tried in a growing number of arenas. Homeschooling rates roughly doubled between 1999 and 2012, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). And as Reason contributor J.D. Tuccille notes, NCES found that only 16 percent of survey respondents homeschool for purely religious reasons, while an increasing number cite "school environment" and dissatisfaction with the instruction. In addition, alternative schools that prioritize "self-directed learning" exist in all 50 states.

Watch the video above to learn more about the history of the unschooling movement, and to meet some of its modern practitioners, like the Rios-Sherman family. We also visited a school in Houston, Texas, that operates on the "Sudbury model," in which the kids decide how to spend their time, and vote on issues such as how to handle disciplinary matters and the allocation of school funds.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Jim Epstein, Mark McDaniel, Brynmore Williams, and Weissmueller.

"Float," "Ether Oar," Don't Force This," "Goodnight Shapeshifter,"Bubble," "Tides," and "Sanguine Bond" by Joel Corelitz are licensed under a Creative Commons attribution license.

"Static Shoes" by Loyalty Freak Music is licensed under a Creative Commons Universal 1.0 license.

]]>
"School is a place where children go to learn to be stupid," said author and educator John Holt. "School is a place where children go to learn to be stupid," said author and educator John Holt. Reason Video yes 10:15
Government Caused Housing Segregation. Do We Need More Government to Fix the Problem? https://reason.com/video/markets-housing-segregation-government/ Wed, 23 Jan 2019 20:05:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/01/23/markets-housing-segregation-government/ https://reason.com/video/markets-housing-segregation-government/#respond https://reason.com/video/markets-housing-segregation-government/feed/ 0 The Manhattan Institute's Howard Husock debates Economic Policy Institute's Richard Rothstein at the Soho Forum. "Racial segregation in America was, to a large degree, engineered by policy makers in Washington," writes the Economic Policy Institute's Richard Rothstein in the February 2019 issue of Reason, in an article adapted from his book, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How our Government Segregated America (2017).

The Manhattan Institute's Howard Husock agrees, calling Rothstein's book an "admirable work" in a 2017 review. But the two part company over Rothstein's confidence "that government today is the appropriate instrument to effect housing integration" and his dismissal of the idea that "the private housing market, guided by rigorously enforced antidiscrimination laws, offers African-American buyers the surest route to wealth accumulation and upward mobility."

On January 14, 2019, the Soho Forum hosted a debate between Rothstein and Husock. The resolution read: "Since the federal government fostered housing segregation in the 20th century, the government should foster housing integration in the 21st."

The Soho Forum, which is partnered with the Reason Foundation, is a monthly series held at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village. It hosts Oxford-style debates, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious.

Husock prevailed by convincing over 13 percent of audience members to come over to his side.

Comedian Dave Smith, host of the podcast Part of the Problem, was the opening act.

Rothstein is also a fellow of the Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and is the author of Grading Education: Getting Accountability Right (2008), Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap (2004), and other titles.

Husock is the author of Philanthropy Under Fire (2013) and The Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake: The Failure of American Housing Policy (2003). From 1987 through 2006, he was director of case studies in public policy and management at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

Edited by Todd Krainin.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

]]>
The Manhattan Institute's Howard Husock debates Economic Policy Institute's Richard Rothstein at the Soho Forum. The Manhattan Institute's Howard Husock debates Economic Policy Institute's Richard Rothstein at the Soho Forum. Reason Video yes 1:37:28
Stossel: Exposing Students to Free Markets https://reason.com/video/stossel-exposing-students-to-free-market/ Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:45:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/01/22/stossel-exposing-students-to-free-market/ https://reason.com/video/stossel-exposing-students-to-free-market/#respond https://reason.com/video/stossel-exposing-students-to-free-market/feed/ 0 Stossel in the Classroom offers teachers free videos. It's school choice week. Many kids don't have choice in where they go to school. The school choice movement is trying to give them that opportunity.

Of course, having choice when it comes to what kids learn is important too.

Many schools teach kids that capitalism hurts people.

So John Stossel started a charity called Stossel in the Classroom. It offers teachers free videos that introduce kids to free market ideas. Students rarely hear about these ideas in school.

Graduates from Queens Technical High School in New York City who watched the videos while they were in high school explained that the videos were different from what they were used to.

"They really opened up my mind to think differently" said Xiomara Inga. Antonio Parada added the videos "changed the way that I viewed the world."

Gabriel Miller was so inspired by videos about the founding of America, he decided to enlist in the National Guard. He explains, "We are taught that this country is horrible." But after watching the videos, "I felt ashamed for what I initially believed…[so] I wanted to give back."

Diony Perez was inspired to open his own business, an auto leasing company called Familia Motor Group. "The Stossel videos helped me become more of an entrepreneur," Diony said.

Other students explained that certain videos like "The Unintended Consequences …" and "The Evil Rich" stuck with them. Johann Astudillo learned about unintended consequences from a video about minimum wage, "minimum wage increase priced out young people from getting jobs into the market."

Victoria Guerrero learned that most rich people get rich by providing some benefit to society. "If it wasn't for Steve Jobs … our life would not be as easy as it is today."

Stossel says he is glad his charity helps students understand free market ideas.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
Stossel in the Classroom offers teachers free videos. Stossel in the Classroom offers teachers free videos. Reason Video yes 5:06
Stossel: Government Shutdown Shows Private Is Better https://reason.com/video/stossel-government-shutdown-shows-privat/ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:15:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/01/15/stossel-government-shutdown-shows-privat/ https://reason.com/video/stossel-government-shutdown-shows-privat/#respond https://reason.com/video/stossel-government-shutdown-shows-privat/feed/ 0 Shutdown teaches us that much of government is NOT essential. The government shutdown is now longer than any in history. The media say it's a "crisis."

The Washington Post talks talks about the "shutdown's pain." The New York Times says it's "just too much."

John Stossel says: wait a second. Looking around America, everything seems pretty normal. Life goes on. Kids still play and learn, adults still work, stock prices have actually increased during the shutdown. It's hardly the end of the world.

But he adds that the government shutdown is still a problem. For some 400,000 furloughed workers, and another 400,000 working without pay for now, the shutdown hurts.

But while New York Times columnist Paul Krugman calls it "Trump's big libertarian experiment," Stossel notes that the shutdown is not libertarian. Government's rules are still in effect, and soon workers will be paid for not working. Stossel calls that an un-libertarian experiment.

Libertarians want to permanently cut government, not shut down parts for a few weeks and then pay the workers anyway.

There are lessons to be learned from the shutdown.

Government stopped collecting trash and cleaning up public parks in DC, so volunteers stepped in to pick up trash. Without so much government, Stossel says, private citizens will often step in to do things government workers used to do.

Stossel says the shutdown highlights where some government waste can be trimmed.

Farmers don't get their "support" checks during the shutdown. But Stossel asks–why should they get checks at all? While the big subsidies go to grain and corn farmers, most fruit and vegetable farmers get no subsidies. They survive without them. Other farmers could, too.

FDA inspection of food has stopped during the shutdown. Paul Krugman asks smugly, "does contaminated food smell like freedom?"

But Stossel notes that the main reason food is safe isn't government. It's competition. Companies worry about their reputation. Just ask Chipotle, Stossel says. Their stock fell by more than half after food poisoning incidents at their stores; since then they have instituted far more food inspection than government requires.

Most food producers already do that. Beef carcasses undergo hot steam rinses, and microbiological testing goes well beyond what government requires. Market competition protects us better than rule-bound government bureaucrats.

Stossel says most of government could be done away with or privatized.

Even airport security. TSA workers aren't getting paid. But some airports (San Francisco, Orlando, Kansas City, and 19 others) privatized security. Those workers are still getting paid. They also do a better job. A leaked TSA study found that the private security agents, in test runs, are much better at detecting weapons in bags than the TSA. A congressional report found they are also faster at processing passengers.

Stossel says that while politicians bicker about $5.7 billion in wall funding (much less than 1 percent of the federal budget) what they really should worry about is that America's debt will soon reach $22 trillion because government squanders money on useless things.

At union protests, government workers say "We are essential!"

But based on the above, Stossel says: Give us a break.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
Shutdown teaches us that much of government is NOT essential. Shutdown teaches us that much of government is NOT essential. Reason Video yes 4:48
Assault Weapon Bans Are All About Appearance https://reason.com/video/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapon-ban/ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 19:50:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/01/11/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapon-ban/ https://reason.com/video/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapon-ban/#respond https://reason.com/video/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapon-ban/feed/ 0 Sen. Dianne Feinstein's latest bill classifies firearms not by what they do but based on how they look. A string of high-profile mass shootings over the past few years has spawned a movement to outlaw so-called assault weapons, in particular the popular AR-15.

On January 9, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) introduced a federal bill to ban assault weapons—legislation that's been depicted as life-saving, common sense policy. But its definition of an assault weapon is totally arbitrary.

Proposals like Feinstein's latest draft bill leave shooters with plenty of equally deadly alternatives.

"An assault weapon is whatever is covered by an assault weapon ban," says Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum, author of a feature story on the topic in our June 2018 issue. "The criteria that are used to identify assault weapons are things that have little or nothing to do with how useful or how deadly an assault weapon is in the hands of a mass murderer."

The federal government banned assault weapons in 1994, when President Bill Clinton signed a bill also sponsored by Sen. Feinstein. That legislation expired 10 years later. Meanwhile, seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted their own assault weapon bans.

There's little evidence that the 1994 legislation reduced gun deaths, in part because it was mostly a symbolic gesture.

"Unless you really delve into the specifics of what these bills do, you don't understand how utterly arbitrary they are," says Sullum.

In both the original 1994 bill and the new version of the legislation, assault weapons are classified not by what they do but by how they look.

Assault weapon bans typically use criteria like pistol grips, adjustable stocks, threaded barrels, and barrels shrouds to determine whether or not a gun is an assault weapon. These features are cosmetic.

"You can have a gun with any one of those features and it is now an assault weapon," says Sullum. "Exactly the same gun without those features is not an assault weapon. And in fact, there are a bunch of examples like that."

To illustrate this point, compare the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle with the AR-15. One looks like a hunting rifle and the other looks like a military weapon. Although the rifles have different manufacturers and lineages, for all practical purposes they are identical. They fire at the same rate, they can fire the same caliber of ammunition, and because they have similar barrel lengths, the ballistics are almost identical. But only one is an "assault weapon."

Another misconception is that assault weapons are "automatic" firearms, which fire continuously until the trigger is released or the gun runs out of ammunition. The federal government banned the manufacture of new automatic weapons for civilian use in 1986.

Most modern civilian guns are semi-automatic, which means they only fire one round per trigger pull.

"But if you're talking about how many rounds you get out of the gun within a certain amount of time," says Sullum, "any semi-automatic is gonna fire be capable of firing the same number of rounds."

Another myth is that assault weapons are more powerful than other guns. In reality, the power of a firearm depends mainly on the cartridge, not the gun. Again, compare the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle with the AR-15. Both shoot the same .223 caliber bullet, at the same velocity.

"You will see that lots of hunting rifles are more powerful [and] can do more damage at the same distance than so-called assault weapons," says Sullum.

One of the most common cartridges used for hunting is the .308 Winchester, which has more than double the impact force when compared to the ammunition used in an AR-15.

Another common refrain is that assault weapons can fire more rounds than other guns before reloading. But it's the magazine, which is just a detachable box and a spring, that determines how many times you can fire. And many guns that are not identified as "assault weapons" accept high-capacity magazines.

"You can get high-capacity magazines or large-capacity magazines, meaning holding more than 10 rounds…for guns that are not considered to be assault weapons," says Sullum. "So again, this is not a feature that distinguishes assault weapons from other kinds of guns."

Banning guns solely based on appearance is counterproductive. It makes it difficult to have a good-faith discussion about effective solutions to gun violence.

"I'm not going to say everyone should own an AR-15," says Sullum, "but people have their reasons for wanting to have them and the government shouldn't be second-guessing those reasons without a very powerful justification. And the justification offered for banning assault weapons is virtually nonexistent because it doesn't make sense."

Produced and edited by Mark McDaniel. Cameras by Jim Epstein, Zach Weismuller, and McDaniel.

"Day Into Night" by Rho is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

"See You Soon" by Borrtex is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial License.

"The First" by Scott Gratton is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial License.

Photo Credit:

Ingram Publishing/Newscom

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

ADREES LATIF/REUTERS/Newscom

SERGIO FLORES/UPI/Newscom

GARY I ROTHSTEIN/UPI/Newscom

Joyce N. Boghosian/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Christopher Dilts/Sipa USA/Newscom

David Santiago/TNS/Newscom

Mike Stocker/TNS/Newscom

Allison Zaucha/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Sam Simmonds/Polaris/Newscom

ZUMA Press/Newscom

]]>
Sen. Dianne Feinstein's latest bill classifies firearms not by what they do but based on how they look. Sen. Dianne Feinstein's latest bill classifies firearms not by what they do but based on how they look. Reason Video yes 4:54
Stossel: Legal Weed So Far https://reason.com/video/stossel-legal-weed-so-far/ Tue, 08 Jan 2019 14:23:00 +0000 http://reason.com/2019/01/08/stossel-legal-weed-so-far/ https://reason.com/video/stossel-legal-weed-so-far/#respond https://reason.com/video/stossel-legal-weed-so-far/feed/ 0 Dire warnings about legal marijuana have not come to pass. Ten states plus Washington, D.C., have legalized pot for adults.

In several states, it's been legal now for five years. How has it worked out?

John Stossel visited legal weed stores in California and talked with people on the street.

Almost unanimously, people said that legalization has worked well.

"See any disasters? Seems pretty alright to me," one man told Stossel.

One woman added: "There's a dispensary around the corner from my house and it's actually probably cleaned up the corner."

"Why would it clean up the corner?" Stossel asked.

"They have a lot of security … they really paid attention to who's on the sidewalk, who's interacting with their customers. They're actually pretty much a class act."

But Paul Chabot, a drug warrior who served in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, disagrees. Years ago, he told Stossel that legalization would create all kinds of problems. He hasn't changed his mind.

Chabot tells Stossel that "Colorado youth have an 85% higher marijuana use rate than the rest of the country."

But Stossel pointed out that a New England Journal of Medicine study says that teen use actually dropped slightly after legalization.

On the other hand, data on marijuana-linked traffic fatalities is mixed.

Chabot tells Stossel that "pot driving fatalities in Colorado are up 151%." But that statistic is misleading because many of those people may not have been high while driving. The 151% includes anyone who tests positive for marijuana after an accident, even though traces of marijuana stay in a person's system for weeks. A more stringent measure that more reliably predicts whether someone was high at the time of an accident indicates cannabis-related accidents are up 84 percent.

That's still an increase. But the total numbers are low—just 35 accidents in 2017. More study is needed.

Marijuana is not harmless, but Stossel notes that the drug war usually does more harm than the drug itself. Banning marijuana drives sales into a black market, where criminals make the profit. Driving sales underground also deprives consumers of the quality and safety testing now provided by competitive legal markets. It doesn't stop teenagers from using the drug. A study before legalization found that teens said marijuana was easier to buy than alcohol. A black market leads dealers to sell in schools and may even increase marijuana's use.

America once tried banning alcohol. That, like the drug war, created organized crime, and much more violence.

"Prohibition hasn't worked," Stossel tells Chabot.

"Just because something doesn't work doesn't mean that we end it … doesn't mean we quit," Chabot replies.

"At some point when it's doing more harm than good, shouldn't we quit?" Stossel responds.

"No, because then we give up. And that's not American," Chabot tells him.

But more and more, Americans are giving up on the drug war. New Jersey and New York plan to legalize marijuana soon. Stossel says that's a good thing.

"Adults should have the right to make their own decisions about what to put in their own bodies." he says.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

]]>
Dire warnings about legal marijuana have not come to pass. Dire warnings about legal marijuana have not come to pass. Reason Video yes 4:41