Mediaboss Marketing

This Monday, Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie dish on their least favorite parts of President Joe Biden's State of the Union address and the messaging around the newest coronavirus guidelines. Plus, The Reason Roundtable answers a listener question about the ties between self-proclaimed libertarians and people against the coronavirus vaccine.

Discussed in the show:

1:36: Biden's SOTU address takeaways.

22:34: The government's newest coronavirus guidelines.

36:56: Weekly Listener Question: The current anti-vax sentiment within a significant portion of the libertarian world has me questioning everything. Weren't we the folks who, a mere couple of years ago, were saying "Get the FDA out of the way so big pharma can cure things?" That literally happened, and now a significant number of libertarians are kvetching about how quickly the vaccines were developed. How can I have faith in the rationality of libertarianism when there is a significant portion of the movement that is so breathtakingly wrong on vaccines?

48:52: Media recommendations for the week.

This weeks links:

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsors:

Audio production by Ian Keyser.Assistant production by Regan Taylor.Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve.

Read more here:
The Red Flags in Biden's State of the Union Address - Reason

Tuesday, 4 May 2021, 10:24 amArticle: Eric Zuesse

On May 3rd, the New York Times bannered Reaching HerdImmunity Is Unlikely in the U.S., Experts NowBelieve and reported that there is widespreadconsensus among scientists and public health experts thatthe herd immunity threshold is not attainable at leastnot in the foreseeable future, and perhaps notever.

In other words: the news-sources thatwere opposing the governments taking action againstCovid-19 libertarian news-sites that opposegovernmental laws and regulations, regardless of thepredominant view by the vast majority of the scientists whospecialize in studying the given subject are lookingwronger all the time, as this novel coronavirus (whichis what it was originally called) becomes less and lessnovel, and more and more understoodscientifically.

The herd immunity advocates foranti-Covid-19 policies have been saying that governmentsshould just let the virus spread until nature takes itscourse and such a large proportion of the population havesurvived the infection as to then greatly reduce thelikelihood that an uninfected person will become infected.An uninfected person will increasingly be surrounded bypeople who have developed a natural immunity to the disease,and by people who dont and never did become infected byit. The vulnerable people will have become eliminated (died)or else cured, and so they wont be spreading the diseaseto others. Thats the libertarian solution, thefinal solution to the Covid-19 problem, according tolibertarians.

For example, on 9 April 2020,Forbes magazine headlined AfterRejecting A Coronavirus Lockdown, Sweden Sees Rise InDeaths and reported that, Swedens chiefepidemiologist Anders Tegnell has continuously advocated forlaid back measures, saying on Swedish TV Sunday that thepandemic could be defeated by herd immunity, or the indirectprotection from a large portion of a population being immuneto an infection, or a combination of immunityand vaccination. However, critics have argued that withacoronavirus vaccine could be more than a year away, andinsufficient evidence that coronavirus patients that recoverare immune from becominginfected again, the strategy of relying on herd immunityand vaccinations [is] ineffective.

The libertarianproposal of relying upon herd immunity for producingpolicies against this disease has continued,nonetheless.

CNN headlined on 28 April 2020, Swedensays its coronavirus approach has worked. The numberssuggest a different story, and reportedthat

On March 28, a petition signed by 2,000Swedish researchers, including Carl-Henrik Heldin, chairmanof the Nobel Foundation, called for the nation's governmentto "immediately take steps to comply with the World HealthOrganization's (WHO) recommendations."

Thescientists added: "The measures should aim to severely limitcontact between people in society and to greatly increasethe capacity to test people for Covid-19infection."

"These measures must be in place assoon as possible, as is currently the case in our Europeanneighboring countries," they wrote. "Our country should notbe an exception to the work to curb thepandemic."

The petition said that trying to"create a herd immunity, in the same way that occurs duringan influenza epidemic, has low scientificsupport."

Swedish authorities have deniedhaving a strategy to create herd immunity, one the UKgovernment was rumored to be working towards earlier on inthe pandemic -- leading to widespread criticism -- before itenforced a strict lockdown.

FORTUNEmagazine headlined on 30 July 2020, Howparts of India inadvertently achieved herd immunity,and reported that, Around 57% of people across parts ofIndia's financial hub of Mumbai have coronavirus antibodies,a July study found, indicating that the population may haveinadvertently achieved the controversial herd immunityprotection from the coronavirus.Furthermore:

Herd immunity is an approach to thecoronavirus pandemic where, instead of instituting lockdownsand other restrictions to slow infections, authorities allowdaily life to go on as normal, letting the disease spread.In theory, enough people will become infected, recover, andgain immunity that the spread will slow on its own andpeople who are not immune will be protected by the immunityof those who are. University of Chicago researchersestimated in a paperpublished in May that achieving herd immunity from COVID-19would require 67% of people to be immune to the disease.Mayo Clinic estimates70% of the U.S. population will need to be immune for theU.S. to achieve herd immunity, which can also be achieved byvaccinating that proportion of a population.

On 27September 2020, Reuters bannered InBrazil's Amazon a COVID-19 resurgence dashes herd immunityhopes, and reported that, The largest city inBrazils Amazon has closed bars and river beaches tocontain a fresh surge of coronavirus cases, a trend that maydash theories that Manaus was one of the worlds firstplaces to reach collective, or herd, immunity.

Rightnow, the global average of Covid-19 intensity (total cases of the diseasethus far) is 19,693 persons per million population. Forexamples: Botswana is barely below that intensity, at19,629, and Norway is barely above that intensity, at20,795. Sweden is at 95,905, which is nearly five times theglobal average. Brazil is 69,006, which is around 3.5 timesworse than average. India is 14,321, which is slightlybetter than average. USA is 99,754.

However, the dayprior, on May 2nd, America had 30,701 new cases. Brazil had28,935. Norway had 210. India had 370,059. Swedens latestdaily count (as-of May 3rd) was 5,937 on April 29th, 15times Norways 385 on that date. Swedens population is1.9 times that of Norway. Indias daily count is soaring.Their population is four times Americas, but the numberof new daily cases in India is twelve times Americas.Whereas India has had only one-seventh as much Covid-19intensity till now, India is soaring upwards to becomeultimately, perhaps, even worse than America is on Covid-19performance. And Brazil is already almost as bad as America,on Covid-19 performance, and will soon surpass America inCovid-19 failure.

There is no herd immunityagainst Covid-19, yet, anywhere. Its just anotherlibertarian myth. But libertariansstill continue to believe it they refuse to accept thedata.

Investigativehistorian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of TheyreNot Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican EconomicRecords, 1910-2010, and of CHRISTSVENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that CreatedChristianity.

Scoop Media

Become a member Find out more

Read more:
The 'Post-Covid-19 World' Will Never Come. - Scoop.co.nz

A group has taken the first step to asking voters next year to eliminate qualified immunity for police officers and other government employees accused in shootings or other actions. Statehouse correspondent Karen Kasler reports.

The group gathered to support the ballot issue at the Statehouse included Black Lives Matter and community activists, the far-right Boogaloo Boys and libertarians. Spike Cohen was the Libertarian Partys vice presidential candidate last year and lives in South Carolina, but says he supports ending the civil defense for police officers and other public sector workers they were just doing their jobs.

By being able to do that, they arent held accountable. And what this would do is, it would disallow them from doing that. They would have to defend themselves on the merits of the case.

Law enforcement groups say police actions in volatile situations are complex but that officers who are act within the law should be protected. The group filed its petition language with the Ohio Attorney Generals office. If its certified, the group would have to gather more that 440,000 signatures to get it on the next years ballot.

Link:
Diverse Group Files Petition To Put Qualified Immunity On The Ballot - WCBE 90.5 FM

Lakewood High School junior Spencer Wilcox is 16 and, unlike a lot of kids his age, is very invested in politics. Hes the president of the Colorado High School Democrats, and has worked on voter registration drives and educational campaigns to get more young people involved.

Wilcox has been looking forward to participating in the Democratic caucuses ahead of the June 2022 primaries, thanks to a 2019 Colorado law that lets 17-year-olds do that and vote in state and presidential primaries if theyll be 18 by the time the general election comes around.

But 17-year-olds might actually be out of luck. Voters passed Amendment 76 to the state constitution in November, which specifies that only U.S. citizens 18 and up can weigh in during elections, so lawmakers have to decide what to do about the conflict.

Every single 17-year-old that I knew that was eligible for this presidential primary exercised their right to vote during it, said Wilcox, who at the very least can vote in November 2022 because hell have just turned 18. This is something that we really want to do. We want to be involved with the political process, and the passage of this amendment put that in jeopardy.

The primary purpose of Amendment 76 wasnt really about the age at which people are eligible to vote. It was about citizenship, changing the state constitution to say only a citizen rather than every citizen. (The measure was part of a nationwide movement led by Florida nonprofit Citizen Voters Inc.)

The citizenship requirement already is in federal law, but backers said they wanted to make sure local jurisdictions dont allow non-U.S. citizens to vote in any election. Opponents called it anti-immigrant and confusing.

Still, Scott Gessler, attorney for the Amendment 76 backers (and Colorados former secretary of state), said the intent and language was clear: 18 is the minimum age to vote.

The state now has three options: Repeal the 2019 statute, leave it on the books but still follow the constitutional amendment (the constitution trumps state law), or have a 17-year-old sue for a decision, Denver attorney and DU professor Christopher Jackson said.

Colorado is one of 18 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that gives 17-year-olds advance voting capabilities. And in 2020, Colorados young voters made up the largest voting bloc.

In the presidential primary in March 2020, 10,063 17-year-olds voted 56% unaffiliated, 26% Democrat and 18% Republican (one person voted Libertarian), according to data provided by the Secretary of States Office.

In the June 2020 state primary, 4,380 17-year-olds voted 54% unaffiliated, 29% Democrat, 16% Republican and less than 1% Libertarian.

Both times, a larger percent of Colorados 17-year-old eligible voters turned out than the next age group, 18- to 34-year-olds.

It showed they were really ready to have a voice in our democracy, and we believe its their right to have a choice on who's going to be on the ballot in the general election when theyre 18, said Nicole Hensel, the executive director of New Era Colorado, a civic engagement organization that fought to keep access for 17-year-olds.

Sam Romig of Golden dropped off his ballot in the March 2020 primary at the time, he was 17, so it was his first election and said it felt freeing.

It was cool. Its so much talking and so much conjecture up to the election, you finally are able to make a difference in it, the now 19-year-old said.

And Colorado Springs resident Emma Tang didnt even hesitate to vote as a 17-year-old. The importance of doing so was something her immigrant parents had passed onto her.

Its important for me to make my voice feel heard because as a young person, a lot of people expect us not to know what's going on, said Tang, now 19. But when we do know, they kind of tell us that you're too young, you shouldn't be in this space. So it's a weird kind of paradox of what people expect from the youth.

A legislative committee thats tasked with making sure the states laws work with each other or recommend changes has taken up the issue twice this year, and decided to hold off on a position as of late April.

Democratic Sen. Dominick Moreno of Commerce City, who is on the committee, told The Denver Post that while state attorneys believe the statute allowing 17-year-olds to vote is now null and void, its not completely clear what should happen.

The final decision, he said, lies with the courts.

In a statement, Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold said she still supports allowing 17-year-olds to vote in primaries, especially becauseColorado saw historic turnout for young voters in 2020 and its important that we encourage participation at a young age.

But Gessler said the constitutional amendment sets the minimum requirements for voting and it had overwhelming support.

Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Weld County Republican and vice chair of the Statutory Revision Committee, falls in line with the opinion from the states Legislative Legal Services, saying the 2019 statute should be repealed.

The voters of the state passed a constitutional amendment that made it very clear, Kirkmeyer said. And the statute is contrary to the constitution at this point.

Kirkmeyer said the committee didnt have enough votes in April to recommend rolling back 17-year-olds ability to take part in elections. But she did understand the argument that more debate is needed, and that may take until the next legislative session.

All the while, county clerks are awaiting guidance with the 2022 primaries still a year away.

Read or Share this story: https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2021/05/04/colorado-voting-law-lawsuit-could-decide-if-17-year-olds-can-vote/4940840001/

Read more from the original source:
A lawsuit may be needed to decide whether Colorado's 17-year-olds can really vote - The Coloradoan

Former President Donald Trump has claimed at times that hell start a third political party called the Patriot Party. In fact, most Americans 62% in a recent poll say theyd welcome the chance to vote for a third party.

In almost any other democracy, those Americans would get their wish. In the Netherlands, for instance, even a small third party called the Party for the Animals composed of animal rights supporters, not dogs and cats won 3.2% of the legislative vote in 2017 and earned five seats, out of 150, in the national legislature.

Yet in the U.S., candidates for the House of Representatives from the Libertarian Party, the most successful of U.S. minor parties, won not a single House seat in 2020, though Libertarians got over a million House votes. Neither did the Working Families Party, with 390,000 votes, or the Legalize Marijuana Now Party, whose U.S. Senate candidate from Minnesota won 185,000 votes.

Why dont American voters have more than two viable parties to choose among in elections, when almost every other democratic nation in the world does?

As Ive found in researching political parties, the American electoral system is the primary reason why the U.S. is the sole major democracy with only two parties consistently capable of electing public officials. Votes are counted in most American elections using plurality rules, or winner take all. Whoever gets the most votes wins the single seat up for election.

Other democracies choose to count some or all of their votes differently. Instead of, say, California being divided into 53 U.S. House districts, each district electing one representative, the whole state could become a multi-member district, and all the voters in California would be asked to choose all 53 U.S. House members using proportional representation.

Each party would present a list of its candidates for all 53 seats, and you, as the voter, would select one of the party slates. If your party got 40% of the votes in the state, then it would elect 40% of the representatives the first 21 candidates listed on the partys slate. This is the system used in 21 of the 28 countries in Western Europe, including Germany and Spain.

In such a system depending on the minimum percentage, or threshold, a party needed to win one seat it would make sense for even a small party to run candidates for the U.S. House, reasoning that if they got just 5% of the vote, they could win 5% of the states U.S. House seats.

So if the Legalize Marijuana Now party won 5% of the vote in California, two or three of the partys candidates would become House members, ready to argue in Congress for marijuana legalization. In fact, until the 1950s, several U.S. states had multi-member districts.

Under the current electoral system, however, if the Legalize Marijuana Now party gets 5% of the states House vote, it wins nothing. It has spent a lot of money and effort with no officeholders to show for it. This disadvantage for small parties is also built into the Electoral College, where a candidate needs a majority of electoral votes to win the presidency and no non-major-party candidate ever has.

Theres another factor working against third-party success: State legislatures make the rules about how candidates and parties get on the ballot, and state legislatures are made up almost exclusively of Republicans and Democrats. They have no desire to increase their competition.

So a minor-party candidate typically needs many more signatures on a petition to get on the ballot than major-party candidates do, and often also pays a filing fee that major party candidates dont necessarily have to pay.

Further, although many Americans call themselves independents, pollsters find that most of these independents actually lean toward either the Democrats or the Republicans, and their voting choices are almost as intensely partisan as those who do claim a party affiliation.

Party identification is the single most important determinant of peoples voting choices; in 2020, 94% of Republicans voted for Donald Trump, and the same percentage of Democrats voted for Joe Biden.

The small number of true independents in American politics are much less likely to show interest in politics and to vote. So it would not be easy for a third party to get Americans to put aside their existing partisan allegiance.

The idea of a center party has great appeal in theory. In practice, few agree on what centrist means. Lots of people, when asked this question, envision a center party that reflects all their own views and none of the views they disagree with.

Thats where a Trump Party does have one advantage. Prospective Trump Party supporters do agree on what they stand for: Donald Trump.

[The Conversations newsletter explains whats going on with the coronavirus pandemic. Subscribe now.]

Yet theres an easier path for Trump supporters than fighting the U.S. electoral system, unfriendly ballot access rules and entrenched party identification. Thats to take over the Republican Party. In fact, theyre very close to doing so now.

Trump retains a powerful hold over the partys policies. His adviser, Jason Miller, stated, Trump effectively is the Republican Party. This Trump Party is very different from Ronald Reagans GOP. Thats not surprising; the U.S. major parties have always been permeable and vulnerable to takeover by factions.

There are good reasons for Americans to want more major parties. Its hard for two parties to capture the diversity of views in a nation of more than 300 million people.

But American politics would look very different if the country had a viable multi-party system, in which voters could choose from among, say, a Socialist Party, a White Supremacist Party and maybe even a Party for the Animals.

To get there, Congress and state legislatures would need to make fundamental changes in American elections, converting single-member districts with winner-take-all rules into multi-member districts with proportional representation.

Visit link:
Why Trump is more likely to win in the GOP than to take his followers to a new third party - The Conversation US