Reason Morning Links: Women Dominate Primaries, Blackwater for Sale, Feds' $20 Trillion Debt

|

NEXT: License to Kill

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If you want to lose your breakfast, read the Yahoo comments thread on the border shooting article.

      1. Well, nobody like cochroaches. Are you saying my spray can of RAID should be illegal? oh, nonsense!

    1. Oh please. Rocks are deadly weapons. Start attacking someone armed with another deadly weapon with them and see what happens.

      Darwin will not be mocked.

      1. Lots of people have been killed with thrown rocks.

    2. I came here to say this.

      Why can’t people understand that there’s a difference between State border and the border to private property?

      I hardly think those people would justify the killing of people (if that word still has any meaning) entering Nevada from California. Blech.

  2. The human-hating fantasies of environmentalists.

    Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off ? for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations ? and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.

    And don’t skip the comments…

    I think about this a lot – so many pregnant women are out there, and I wonder where they find the hope to have children. My son is a young adult, and I feel that the likelihood of his living out a natural lifespan is small. Environmental disaster, terrorism, the end of the world feels awfully close. Frankly, I love the idea of a planet devoid of people, healing itself from our damage, taken over by animals and plants. I don’t think most people lead such fabulous lives, and I don’t think it’s worth sacrificing our beautiful home to let more people slog along.

    1. It is funny, I bet that commenter has no idea that he is just an old time religion millennialist. Who was it Toynbe who said civilizations don’t die they commit suicide? Those people are sick. I mean really sick and dangerous. How long before one of the more deranged ones does something crazy? Seriously, if you hate people so much, why not just kill them?

      1. Better yet, they should kill themselves. That way the world would have less people and they wouldn’t have to suffer everyone else’s existence any more.

        1. Seriously, if you really think this way, kill yourself. We promise to plant a tree in your rotting chest. Cross our heart and hope you die.

          1. Like in the sequel to Ender’s Game.

            1. Xenocide or whatever it was called? That was a good book, but the first 50 or so pages were just painful. You could see just how hard Card was working to find a way to get Ender into the story.

          2. No, no, you don’t understand. They aren’t the problem, *other people* are the problem. They are a sainted ones, the enlightened few, the readers of the NYT. How could they possibly be the problem?

            If only those no-necks who read the NY Post would die off, it would indeed be heaven on Earth, even if they don’t believe in an icky Christian heaven.

            1. You bring up an interesting point, what with the New Testament prescription for seeing oneself as the problem as opposed to ‘everyone else.’

          3. Are you objecting to me saying that people (who advocate for forced sterilization of others because they think the world should be void of people) should willingly kill themselves?

            1. No, I was echoing agreement.

    2. That’s mental illness, straight up.

    3. Schopenhauer’s pessimism has had few defenders over the past two centuries, but one has recently emerged, in the South African philosopher David Benatar

      HELL
      HELL IS FOR CHILDREN

      1. Mmm, that’s a great scene in American Pop where the kid is watching over his smacked out dad and that song is playing.

      2. Speaking of hell and children, I saw Pat Benatar after a Rays game (they do concerts after games every few weeks). She rocked and was belting out tunes just like it was 1988. Amazing. Usually, the voice is at least somewhat gone by now.

        1. I believe she was a trained opera singer before going mainstream. How else do you get that much power out of a body that small 😉

          1. Ah, that explains it. An actual professional (in the trained sense, not in the she-gets-paid sense). Don’t see many of those in pop music these days.

            1. She was trained early to sing loud without hurting herself.

          2. From Wikipedia:

            Benatar was cut off from the rock scene in nearby Manhattan though because her parents were “ridiculously strict – I was allowed to go to symphonies, opera and theater but I couldn’t go to clubs”. Her musical training was strictly classical and theatrical. She said, “I was singing Puccini and West Side Story but I spent every afternoon after school with my little transistor radio listening to the Rolling Stones…”

    4. Here’s another gem:

      People talk about creating a life. Actually, that is not guaranteed, given miscarriages, infant mortality, etc. The only certain thing you are creating with a pregnancy is a death. It may come within weeks or not for 100 years. But that is the only certainty.

      When did I become an optimist?

      1. These people could benefit from reading some Stoics. What a bunch of fearful milksops.

        XXX. Let death surprise rue when it will, and where it will, I may be a
        happy man, nevertheless.

        For he is a happy man, who in his lifetime dealeth unto himself a happy
        lot and portion. A happy lot and portion is, good inclinations of the
        soul, good desires, good actions.

        1. Chad?

          If we stop breeding, and I am for it, and practice this myself and decided to, at a very young age, we can continue our self-centered orgy of indulging our senses and our mindless polluting consumerism. Gimmee gimmee, want want, get get, roaring down the road in our SUV’s so we can have it all now.

          1. I’ll repeat what I said in the original thread:

            Lead the way, Pete. Lead by example.

            1. Did I put up a link to something that already had a thread?

              1. My bad, it was a threadjack by heller the other day.

                1. I am shamed. I did not see that late threadjack.

        2. There’s plenty to admire about Stoicism. Though I can’t achieve the true Stoic’s level of emotional detachment about some things.

          1. It’s not so much emotional detachment as it is striving to subordinate one’s emotions to one’s intellect. I wish I could manage that, but I’m trying.

            You should pick this up, Pro L.

            1. I’ve read Epictetus and Cicero on the topic, as well as Marcus Aurelius.

              1. Marcus convinced me to quit my shitty job and go to grad school years ago. I’ve had a soft spot for him ever since.

                No longer wander at hazard; for neither wilt thou read thy own memoirs, nor the acts of the ancient Romans and Hellenes, and the selections from books which thou wast reserving for thy old age. Hasten then to the end which thou hast before thee, and throwing away idle hopes, come to thy own aid, if thou carest at all for thyself, while it is in thy power.

                1. It’s pretty inspirational stuff for philosophy, which, except for natural philosophy, has become mostly drivel.

                  1. That’s why you should read that book I linked to. It’s written by an academic philosopher who realized that modern philosophy is worthless and became a Stoic.

                    1. Okay, I reserved it at the library.

                    2. I am actually a little anti-Stoic because, like Christianity, it was a spiritual movement of consolation for people living under various tyrannies.

                      It prospered as freedom was eclipsed in Greece and came into its full flower under the authoritarianism of the Roman Emperors for a reason. The notion that wisdom consists of adapting one’s will to necessity, and one’s emotions to the demands of powers around you that cannot be resisted, had an understandable appeal to the debased intellectuals of the post-Augustan age.

                    3. The do-your-duty component can

                    4. So you’re saying that Stoicism should be due for a comeback in the USA, Fluffy?

                    5. So you’re saying that Stoicism should be due for a comeback in the USA, Fluffy?

                      I believe Tom Wolfe already covered that in A Man in Full, no?

      2. The entire argument is easily refuted thusly:

        Saying that eventual death means that life is not worth living is like saying that you shouldn’t accept a blowjob from Miranda Kerr because it will at some point end.

        Honestly, some people just insist on coming at this whole problem in completely the wrong way.

        1. Was she in the same series as Miranda Rights?

          1. They shared the same apartment in San Fernando.

            1. Cool! Did Karma Miranda visit often?

        2. Fluffy — you are now my philosopher/god.

        3. Saying that eventual death means that life is not worth living is like saying that you shouldn’t accept a blowjob from Miranda Kerr because it will at some point end.

          Fortunately, that is not the entire argument, or even the main point of it. The problem isn’t eventual death, it’s the fact that by creating a life you are creating suffering, whereas you are not creating any suffering by not creating a life. You can’t harm something that doesn’t exist. You may also be creating benefits to the new person, because they won’t be sad all the time, but you are also not able to harm a nonexistent life form by not bringing it to existence. So there is an asymmetry. This is pretty much inevitable unless you believe in a soul or something similar that would mean there is something out there “existing” before conception or birth or what have you.

          I know H&R commenters are very anti-anti-natalist and many of y’all have kids and everything. I’ve never really understood the popularity here as they didn’t consent to be born, but I think the answer is that like SugarFree you are all bigger optimists than it may at first appear.

          And yeah, don’t worry, I’ll be leading by example.

          1. Oblivion is preferable to risk? Got it. Please don’t backslide and accidentally breed or something.

            1. No, Donny Warty, these men are nihilists. There’s nothing to be afraid of.

              1. Nihilists? Fuck me, man. Say what you will about the tenets of libertarian transhumanism, but at least it’s an ethos.

          2. I know H&R commenters are very anti-anti-natalist

            No, it’s just that most of us haven’t convinced ourselves that life is nothing but shit and not worth living and thus, by proxy, everyone’s else’s life is nothing but shit too. I’m probably one of the least happy people around these parts and I can’t even begin to conceive of that notion. And I’m also probably one of the most cynical people you’d meet.

            Sorry you couldn’t figure out how to work this thing. Have fun shuffling off the coil.

          3. You may also be creating benefits to the new person, because they won’t be sad all the time, but you are also not able to harm a nonexistent life form by not bringing it to existence. So there is an asymmetry.

            Actually, my argument addresses this nicely.

            The nonexistent person cannot experience either the blowjob [“Yay!” or its end “Awwww, it’s over!”]

            The existent person can.

            But it would be foolish to say that it’s better not to exist because the existent person “suffers” and the nonexistent person does not. There are TWO asymmetries to account for and not just one.

            1. “But it would be foolish to say that it’s better not to exist…”

              Wasn’t this already covered in It’s a Wonderful Life?

            2. Right, so who is sad when the nonexistent person gets neither the blowjob nor the post-blowjob? You are, maybe, as a potential parent, but the nonexistent person is not. Because he is not.

              Keep in mind that there is also the factor that you’re programmed by millions of years of evolution to not feel like life is that bad once you’re living it. This is also why the “just kill yourself then” line doesn’t follow directly from anti-natalism; there are lots of reasons to want to keep living once you are born but still think it’s better not to have been born to begin with. (I mean, it seems so obvious…if you hadn’t been born, you wouldn’t be able to regret it. So no problems there. Killing yourself is hard, painful, etc., and before doing it you might regret not spending more time with loved ones and seeing beautiful sunsets and such.)

              Maybe JW is right and you do have to be a nihilist to think of it this way; I think it’s probably a lot more about that than about unhappiness per se.

              1. I asked my four-year-old son where he thought he was before he was born.
                “Screaming on Jupiter!” he replied with conviction.
                Seems like a good answer.

                1. “Screaming on Jupiter”

                  Good band name.

              2. “Keep in mind that there is also the factor that you’re programmed by millions of years of evolution to not feel like life is that bad once you’re living it.”

                Are you suggesting that there is some objective measure we should be trusting over our subjective experience of quality of life?

            3. Clearly, the answer is to arrange for a SECOND blowjob from Miranda Kerr, so there’s no letdown after the first.

              Amateurs.

      3. Wait, if they’re saying that miscarriage is death, doesn’t that mean that the fetus is human life? I suspect that might lead to some uncomfortable questions on one of their other pet issues.

        1. A guppy can die, that doesn’t mean it’s human.

    5. The answer to all of this is, naturally, Objectivism.

      1. Psyche! That was trolling.

    6. The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself.

      It’s been a long time since I skimmed over any Schopenhauer, but I think the author missed his point.

    7. What’s truly awful is that Singer is a dingo. How can you be an australian philosopher and be so joyless? Doesn’t he drink beer?

      1. Singer is the worse thing from Australia since the accent.

        1. Are you joking? The Australian accent is marvelous. You couldn’t invent a better mode of speaking for a bunch of drunken party animals, which I can only assume all Australians are.

          1. It grates on my ears. When I see a beautiful woman, and that accent comes out when she speaks, my boner melts like pouring boiling water on ice.

            I accept that this is a rather irrational prejudice on my part.

            1. Go to Pittsburgh for a weekend. Trust me, you’ll learn what a truly unlistenable accent sounds like.

              1. A whole host of accents bother me.

                Considering my father talked like a mix between Fred Sandford and John Wayne, I’m surprised I can even be understood at all.

                1. Don’t call me Pilgrim, dummy!

                  1. When you say it, try to throw a little Foghorn Leghorn without the echolalia.

                2. [Hears the Sanford & Son theme playing in his head.]

              2. Or Jersey. But yeah, da ‘Burgh is horrendous.

                Now a woman with a South African accent…tres magnifique!

              3. Honorable mention: Long Island.

              4. As long as you stay near Pitt and CMU, and don’t let the janitors talk to you, you’re OK. A few of the bus drivers can be a problem too, but most of them just scowl at you as a nonverbal equivalent of that awful twang.

            2. Wow. Hot babes with Aussie accents are even hotter.

              I agree on the P’burgh accent – ick. Also the suburban Boston accent, and much of the greater NYC area, including Lawn Guyland. Blech. Talk about a boner killer.

          2. Clip 2, 2:14 in.

            http://aso.gov.au/titles/features/idiot-box/clip2/

            There’s a great moment in that movie for SugarFree: “What, is that iiiiit? I’ve had piiiisses longer than that before!” Will try and find that clip too.

        2. The only explanation that makes any sense at all is that Singer must actually be from New Zealand.

          1. In the words of Terry Clark: “Fuck off Brian, I’m a New Zealander.” 🙂

    8. The votes are in:

      Off with all your heads, rapers of Gaia!

    9. I’m anxiously awaiting another Gaia-raping parasite, set to begin consuming precious resources in Jan. 2011. Choke on that, bitches!

      1. Congratulations on your impending carbon-spewing planet-killing spawn.

        [scribbles down idea for new greeting card line.]

        1. Thanks, SF. I have to keep reminding my wife she’s destroying Earth for two now.

            1. Thanks! I just got a chance to look at them. I’ll have to print them out and hang them over the mantle.

              Is that first pic for real? Because she looks pretty good for someone about to pop twins. I wouldn’t mind donating my half of the genetic profile for the next pair.

    10. My response to this shit is usually to point out that in a few billion more years there won’t even be a planet or sun anymore, so saving the planet is just as pointless as reproducing. So just shut the fuck up and let people do what they want to. And if we fuck it up badly enough that we all die, Earth will recover in time and you’ll get what you wanted.

      1. That’s approximately Robert Ringer’s Ice Ball Theory from Winning Through Intimidation. Not exactly the same application, but I’m sure he’d agree.

  3. A rock is at least a dangerous if not a deadly weapon. I don’t see what the agents were supposed to do. Yeah, I know libertarians will say not be there because borders should not exist. Well, that is not an option for the agents.

    I am sorry, but I have very little sympathy for someone who is throwing rocks at armed agents. That is just stupid.

    1. Fire a round in the air? Use the myriad non-lethal options that they could use, but only reserve for torturing suspects already in custody? Have one agent subdue the teenage boy and the other go after the other two who would be unlikely to hold their ground?

      I think a “don’t throw rocks” and a “don’t shoot kids throwing rocks” is a mutual standard for both to adopt. We’re not at war with Mexico, as much as some people would enjoy that prospect.

      1. That last sentence wasn’t aimed at you, John. But rather the white nationalist brigade that shows up to troll this subject matter.

        1. Shooting in the air is dangerous, unless you are some super bullet expert who knows where it is going to land.

          1. It is? What are the chances of someone walking in the middle of the Sonoran desert getting hit by a bullet fired in the air?

            1. It’s certainly less dangerous, but fatalities do occur from shooting in the air in celebration in the Middle East.

      2. Firing in the air is pretty dangerous. Those bullets come down. You run the risk of hitting someone who is not involved.

        So, lets say we have a rule that we will never fire at rock throwers. What are we doing to do then when someone throws rocks? There really are not any non lethal options. I think the kid was throwing rocks from the other side of the border. So, they can’t go over and get him or do anything to him.

        I suppose you could put fire hoses or something on CBP vehicles to suppress the rock throwing. But, there weren’t any options there at the time besides either risk death or injury from a rock or shoot the kid. And lastly, if we do nothing then what is to stop the rock throwers from escalating knowing that nothing bad is going to ever happen to them? Doesn’t doing nothing just make it worse?

        1. But, there weren’t any options there at the time besides either risk death or injury from a rock or shoot the kid.

          Back up 50 feet. Radio the Mexican authorities.

          1. Send a telegram first. Harsh radio calls hurt feelings.

          2. Hey, I’m not backing down to some skinny 14 year old with stone age weaponry. They are lucky I didn’t call in a drone.

          3. You’re kidding, right? I’m sure those federales will hustle out there as fast as they can.

            1. If they don’t, that’s a matter for the State Department. Not for Border Patrol agents to decide it’s up to them to fix on the ground.

        2. What about rubber bullets?

          1. Save those for rubber rock response.

            1. I know a way to make a poisonous dart thrower! All I need is a toy car, a paint gun, and radscorpion poison…

              never mind.

              1. How about some mininukes?

        3. If you are in range to throw rocks, you can get hit with a beanbag gun or rubber bullets or teargas pellets guns. Yes, they kill too, but at a far, far lower rate than high-velocity lead.

          A rock thrown by a teenager is not appropriately responded to with a bullet. If border patrol agents want to kill teenagers indiscriminately, they can join a SWAT team like everyone else.

          1. Maybe we should equip them with non-lethal weapons. But they didn’t have any. I really don’t give a shit that they shot him. Don’t throw rocks at cops. A rock is a weapons. In many ways just as dangerous as a knife. A good sized rock can kill you.

            1. John, we understand you don’t give a shit that a kid is dead. You made that very clear in your first post.

              1. You know, that kid was just going to die eventually anyway. So this was probably for the best.

                1. The cops saved the planet.

              2. Better him than the Border Patrol agent who was trying to do his job (ie, restrain the guy who was on the US side of the border) while getting pelted with lethal weapons.

                And yes, they are lethal weapons. That’s why stoning is considered a form of capital punishment, idiot.

                1. “That’s why stoning is considered a form of capital punishment…”

                  Stoning is considered to be so brutal precisely because stones are so non-lethal. It takes multiple hits from well placed stones thrown from a close distance… idiot.

                  1. So, you’re saying that non-lethal weapons are the sole content of a form of capital punishment.

                    1. Way to miss the point. We’re talking about stoning, not lethal injection. The latter used because tis affective and painless. Stoning, OTOH is used as a form of capital punishment not because it’s so lethal and affective, but because rocks are so “non-lethal” and result in a slow painful death. A few steps above death from a thousand paper cuts…

                    2. That’s not why stoning was used as a method of capital punishment. It was usually used because it did not require anyone to be “the” executioner, it bonded the community together in enforcing its rules, and most of all because stones were plentiful in those days, as opposed to poisons, electricity, axes, bullets, etc.

                      But I digress. A stone can easily be lethal if it is well placed or there are enough of them. The same could be said for bullets — in most areas of the body, a single bullet wound will not immediately cause death.

            2. Don’t throw rocks at cops.

              Apparently.

              Because, you know, cops are a superior race of citizens in the U.S. So go ahead and throw rocks at us mere “civilians.” But don’t throw rocks at cops, because that will deservedly get you shot dead. Which is a good thing, after all. Teach you respect for proper authority, that will.

              1. See below. It has nothing to do with him being Mexican. If a large group of American teenagers caught a cop out in the country and started assaulting him with rocks, I don’t think he has a duty to retreat. If he shoots one of them, I don’t blame him.

                1. The cop is in a position of legal authority the whole time.

                  The BP agent has no authority over the border. Zip. None. Some guy could stand on the other side of the border holding up a vat with Hitler’s brain in one hand and the vials from 12 Monkeys in the other hand and the BP agent couldn’t legally do shit to him.

                  That’s why the agent’s duty to retreat is so much greater. If he backs up 50 feet, and the kid or kids cross the border to pursue him, then his authority kicks in and he can arrest or engage them. I wouldn’t expect the cop to retreat because moving the confrontation 50 feet to the north has no legal impact on the confrontation or on the cop’s authority.

                  1. He can’t retreat 50 feet while also restraining the guy who was caught on the US side of the border. RTFA.

                    That’s probably why the kids were throwing rocks — they thought the Border Patrol would react as you suggest. Luckily, they were wrong.

                    1. He can’t retreat 50 feet while also restraining the guy who was caught on the US side of the border.

                      So what?

                      If the guy continues to try to enter the US, they most certainly CAN still apprehend him.

                      If he runs back over the border to Mexico, that’s pretty much MISSION FUCKING ACCOMPLISHED for the Border Patrol.

                    2. If he runs back over to Mexico, he’s going to cross again the next day.

                      You’re saying the Border Patrol should function like an exterminator who, when hired to get rid of the mice in the kitchen, simply scares them all into their hiding places and leaves the house. Mission fucking accomplished.

                    3. So, you’re saying the role of the border patrol is to exterminate border crossers like vermin?

                    4. BTW – “Luckily”, the agents in question will be fucking crucified now.

                      After their careers and lives are destroyed, if you want to give them pats on the back, hey – knock yourself out.

                    5. “Luckily, they were wrong.”

                      You’re right. If he had let that kid go, he would no doubt have made to a US city, raped our women and stole our jobs.

                    6. Nope. If he had acted as Fluffy suggests, everybody would know that a sure-fire way to protect your buddy across the border who’s in the process of being apprehended is to throw rocks at the Border Patrol agents.

                    7. Yes, if we let one man go, others will follow and it’ll be shear chaos…

                    8. Only if they start throwing scissors — which would be really dumb since every kindergartner knows that rock beats scissors.

          2. For a libertarian you seem to take defense of one’s life pretty lightly.

            Let me tell you, if someone was throwing rocks at me, I’d respond in kind. Which means if I was armed, I’d throw lead rocks powered by gunpowder right back at ’em.

        4. There really are not any non lethal options.
          Jesus, John. I’m glad you’re not a cop. If the cops were within range of a thrown rock, there would seem to be plenty of non-lethal options.
          Were I a poor 15-year-old Mexican kid, I can certainly see myself throwing rocks in the same situation. But were I a grown-up cop (an oxymoron, I know), I can’t imagine that I would fire that weapon. What the fuck is wrong with the world?

          1. What are the options? The kids were across the border. If if you are dumb enough to throw rocks, which can seriously injure or kill someone, I really don’t have any sympathy if the guy shoots you. Do you think kids should have a free rain to throw rocks at people?

            1. I really don’t give a shit that they shot him

              I ask again: What the fuck is wrong with the world?

            2. Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say Ni at will to old ladies.

            3. The border cop’s big problem was lack of creativity.

              Plan A: Hide behind the the perp.
              Plan B: Hold your gun against the head of the perp. Attain scowling contenance. Threaten to off the perp.

              1. Plan A: Hide behind the the perp.

                NICE! Of course, then they’d be big meanies for that….but hey, it was his friends throwing the rocks.

        5. +100

          (for John. I have no idea which nest this will appear in)

        6. Firing in the air is pretty dangerous.

          Not quite as dangerous as firing into the kid’s head.

          1. And less dangerous than throwing a rock at someone’s head.

            1. Way less dangerous than throwing rocks at anybody with a gun.

          2. Actually, that’s wrong. Firing into the head of a person assaulting you with deadly weapons is very safe; it can only harm a violent aggressor.

            Firing in the air can result in the death of any innocent person within a couple of miles. Gravity kills.

      3. I think a “don’t throw rocks” and a “don’t shoot kids throwing rocks” is a mutual standard for both to adopt.

        Can you get Hamas to stop doing that in Gaza?

      4. Have one agent subdue the teenage boy and the other go after the other two who would be unlikely to hold their ground?

        That would require entering Mexico, which Border Patrol is not permitted to do.

    2. John,

      It wouldn’t be acceptable for riot police to open fire on a protest conducted wholly within the United States just because someone threw a rock.

      That unacceptability curves up towards infinity when the incident took place across a national border.

      All the agents had to do was back up 50 feet. Problem solved.

      These guys aren’t the Congress and they don’t get to declare some Mexican kid the new Pancho Villa and fire weapons across the border because they’re annoyed.

      1. Fate is cruel. If that kid had been born in El Norte, he could be making a million a game pitching for the Nationals.

        1. Yeah. He must have had a hell of an arm.

          1. His changeup betrayed him.

      2. Okay, back up 50 feet, how do they arrest the aliens then? And once they do that, then haven’t we effectively said that our border agents cannot go within 50 feet of the border? If we do that, then they will throw a lot more rocks.

        And yes, it is not acceptable to shoot rioters in the US. That is because we have other options. You can use riot equipment and tear gas and break the thing up without shooting anyone. That was not an option. And as far as calling the Mexican authorities, I seriously doubt they would have responded.

        And we do have a right to self defense. If Mexico cannot keep its citizens from attacking Americans across the border, Americans have a right to defend themselves.

        I think you are too hung up on this being a border agent. Suppose instead of a cop, it had been a rancher on his land and a bunch of teenagers were throwing rocks at him and he finally shot one. I bet that guy would get a lot more sympathy on this board than the CBP agents do. Yet, the justification is the same in both cases.

        1. Okay, back up 50 feet, how do they arrest the aliens then?

          Do these guys turn into Predator and activate their camou gear after they take 20 steps inside the country or something?

          If we do that, then they will throw a lot more rocks.

          I seriously doubt that any significant number of illegal arrests take place right at the fence.

          If millions of Mexican citizens start showing up at the border and throwing rocks across it to disrupt the operations of the Border Patrol, that might be something we would want to discuss with the Mexican authorities.

          And mass unrest of that kind right at the border would be a pretty good indicator to both governments that they were doing something wrong.

          And yes, it is not acceptable to shoot rioters in the US. That is because we have other options. You can use riot equipment and tear gas and break the thing up without shooting anyone. That was not an option.

          We had plenty of options, as soon as you stop being obsessed with showing those damn spics who’s boss.

          And as far as calling the Mexican authorities, I seriously doubt they would have responded.

          If there’s no communication with the authorities on the Mexican side of the border, we have bigger operational problems than I thought and heads should roll.

          When the criminal is on the other side of the border, we’re obligated to contact the Mexican authorities and have them handle it. Even if it’s inconvenient. Even if it disrupts operations. You know how in old westerns there are scenes where the posse is chasing some outlaw and he makes it over the Rio Grande and turns around and taunts the posse and there’s nothing they can do, and they ride away all pissed off? I believe in that, John.

          Suppose instead of a cop, it had been a rancher on his land and a bunch of teenagers were throwing rocks at him and he finally shot one.

          If this is taking place entirely within the borders of the US, you might be right.

          If you own property right on the border and people are fucking with you from the other side of the border, you need to retreat and contact your local police and the State Department.

          1. Would you rather live in Gaza or Mexico?

          2. “If you own property right on the border and people are fucking with you from the other side of the border, you need to retreat and contact your local police and the State Department.”

            So it is okay to shoot American teenagers but Mexican and Canadians get a free pass? That is crazy. Ranchers on the border have already effectively lost control of much of their property. Aliens routinely walk up to their house and demand food or rides to town. Roads are undrivable at night because of the drug gangs and human smugglers. There have been multiple cases of armed incursions into the US.

            Libertarians love property rights unless it affects Mexicans at the border. At that point, no one has any property rights whatsoever.

            1. Your property right ends at your property line. Especially if we’re talking about “castle doctrine” type issues.

              Someone attacking or abusing you from over your property line is a matter for the police.

              If someone is pointing a gun at you from across the border, you are entitled to shoot them because you are under imminent threat and have no reasonable opportunity to retreat.

              But if someone is throwing rocks at you from across the border, you can retreat. You have plenty of time to have the matter resolved legally. Shooting someone is just not a proportional response.

              I can imagine that it must be inconvenient to live along the border right now, but we have to consider each discrete act separately. Would a rancher be justified in shooting someone who walked up to their house and asked for food, if one person did it every 20 years? Would that be a reasonable response?

              1. It wasn’t one kid. It was a group of kids. The devil is in the details here. How many kids were there? How big were the rocks? What kind of a threat was there? I could see it going either way. But I will not categorically say that a large group of people throwing rocks does not justify deadly force. And the cops should not have to retreat. They have a right to be there. And neither should the rancher if it is his own land. There should absolutely never be a duty to retreat on your own property.

              2. Someone attacking or abusing you from over your property line is a matter for the police.

                So someone throwing rocks at you from your neighbor’s yard = call the cops, someone throwing rocks at you from your yard = shoot ’em dead?

                Reminds me of that Simpsons episode recently, when Sideshow Bob thought if he fired a gun in one state, and the bullet traveled through another, before finally hitting Bart in a third, that he wouldn’t have committed any crimes. Are you seriously arguing from the same point of logic as a maniacal cartoon character?

                1. There’s a fine line between Fluffy and a cartoon character. Especially when he waaaaay overstates his case at the beginning of the argument and has to make progressively more ridiculous statements to avoid losing face.

                2. So someone throwing rocks at you from your neighbor’s yard = call the cops, someone throwing rocks at you from your yard = shoot ’em dead?

                  Actually, yes.

                  Similarly, if someone is standing in the street, 100 yards from you, waving a knife and saying, “I’m going to kill you!!!” and you have the opportunity to back into your house and call the police, you’re obligated to attempt to do that before you shoot weapons at them.

                  But if the guy is standing on your front porch doing the same thing, your obligation is much less.

                  Just because you and Tulpa hate Mexicans, that doesn’t mean that you don’t have a license to escalate to deadly force immediately in all instances where you’d like to.

                  1. Several problems with your characterization, Fluffy. First off, one need not be “100 yards away” to threaten you from outside your property. If you’re a foot inside your property, and the knife-wielder is a foot outside your property, you shouldn’t have to retreat and call the cops. Hearing a self-proclaimed radical individualist say this is absolutely ludicrous.

                    Also there’s the slight issue that Border Patrol agents have a public duty to perform at that location — arresting and detaining those who cross the border illegally. They don’t have the option to retreat that a private property owner does.

        2. So you maintain that the proper response when a 14 year-old kid is throwing rocks at you is to shoot him dead?

          1. It wasn’t one kid. It was a group of kids throwing large rocks. If I am on my property and there is a large group of them trowing rocks at me meaning me harm, yeah I think I have a right to defend myself. If this case involved a rancher in the US and a large group of teenagers assaulted him with rocks, I would okay with him shooting one of them. Stay off other people’s land and don’t throw rocks at them. I don’t see why that is such a harsh rule.

            1. “Snowballs are weapons. So that’s why I shot all my neighbors’ kids. They should have known better.”

              1. There was an incident up in Amish country recently where some kids were throwing tomatoes at passing cars. One of the cars came back and the driver shot one of the kids dead. I’m sure John wouldn’t give a shit.

                1. Yes because tomatoes are just like rocks. Seriously, if you want to use an analogy use a proper one that applies rather than a strawman.

                2. Fucking Amish and their fucking tomatoes.

                3. CN, what about the rights of the person who owns the car they were damaging?

              2. A snowball is not a rock.

                1. A rock isn’t a gun.

                  1. “A rock isn’t a gun.”

                    Neither is a knife. But all three can kill you just as dead.

                    1. Holy fuck John, I can dodge a rock being thrown at me from across a river. It’s like being back in 4th grade gym playing dodgeball.

                      You know what, I’d be pretty pissed if some kids strated throwing rocks at me, even if they were 200 feet away. Even so, the *last* thing in the world I would do is shoot one of them if I were armed. It would be even more last if I were a professionally trained and heavily armed LEO.

                      This agent is a thug and a cowardly fucking murderer. Full stop.

                    2. JW, This is what you get when dodgeball is now longer allowed at school. 😉 Instead of knowing how to dodge, just shoot.

                    3. So can lots of things, if they hit you the right way. Shit, I guess we’d better kill anyone throwing peanuts — they could hit someone with an allergy!

                2. How big was the snowball? How many kids were throwing? Were there ice chunks or crusty snow packed into the ball?

                  Depending on the crystalization of the water, there might be sharp fragments in the snow that could scratch the skin and allow colonization by the flesh-eating virus. Far more dangerous than firing a bullet into the air.

                  The devil is in the details John.

            2. Stay off other people’s land and don’t throw rocks at them. I don’t see why that is such a harsh rule.

              You do know that they were on their own land, right?

              1. Oh that makes it all better than. You can assault me all you want as long as you don’t trespass.

                1. Well, is it relevant that they aren’t on your land or not? Pick one.

              2. The guy the Border Patrol was in the process of arresting was not on his land, he was in US territory. So he falls under “stay off other people’s land”.

                His friends who were trying to get the BP to retreat by throwing rocks. So they fall under the “don’t throw rocks” part.

                So what do we get when we put the two together? Exactly what John said.

                1. So, the person being arrested, who wasn’t throwing rocks, was not on his land. The kid throwing rocks, who was shot and killed, was on his land.

                  It all makes sense now.

                  1. I’m glad to clear up the meaning of the conjunction “and” for you, JW. Any time you need help with that just give me a ring.

          2. Trespassing is enough justification to shoot him. Why do you hate property rights and core Libertarian values?

            1. That’s what libertarians believe? Mere trespassing is grounds fro execution?

          3. I can’t speak for anyone else, but that’s my argument. You attack someone with deadly force (and throwing rocks counts as “deadly force”), expect to have them return the favor.

            1. “and throwing rocks counts as “deadly force””

              No it doesn’t.

              1. Interesting that various historical methods of capital punishment don’t even use deadly force, then.

                1. A bullet to the head is deadly force… stoning as capital punishment results in death from repeated blows to the head from close range.

                  Lobbing stones from across the boarder is not deadly force.

                  1. Let’s do an experiment, then. You stand in one spot, I’ll stand 25 feet away and proceed to throw fist-sized rocks at you. I’m not the best pitcher out there, but I’m pretty sure I could land a few on your head. At the wake, your next of kin can concede to me that rocks are deadly weapons.

                  2. Dude, when you’re standing RIGHT AT the border, “across the border” is not terribly far.

    3. I don’t see what the agents were supposed to do.

      Well, there’s always the ol’ break the bones strategy.

    4. I know libertarians will say not be there because borders should not exist.

      Are you confusing libertarians with anarchists again? Sure, libertarians come in many flavors, and the variations between and among them tend to be subtle shades. I consider myself to be pretty much of a libertarian bent these days, but I can recognize the legitimacy of national borders. But under the circumstances, at least as they have been reported so far that I know of, it sure sounds like the border agent’s response was way overboard. 14 year-old kid is throwing rocks at you from the other side of a fence, so you shoulder your rifle and plant one in his skull? Pretty hard to defend that response. Except for those who view the brownish people who happen to occupy land on the other side of the river as inferior to us righteous `muricans.

      1. WTF? Have you ever hear The Jacket speak on the border topic? I think he is a Libertarian.

        1. libertarians come in many flavors, and the variations between and among them tend to be subtle shades

          1. The strawberry flavor is the best.

        2. All poodles are dogs, not all dogs are poodles.

    5. I think Niven’s 1st Law makes it autodarwination.

    1. Aha! So we’re disguising Predator Drones as NASA “weather instruments” now – clever.

  4. U.S. debt predicted to approach $20 trillion by 2015.

    But that’s in hyper-inflated dollars, right?

  5. there weren’t any options there at the time besides either risk death or injury from a rock or shoot the kid.

    Holy

    fucking

    shit.

  6. Erik Prince, the former member of the Navy Seals and heir to an automotive fortune who founded Blackwater, said in a statement given to The Associated Press late Monday that making the decision to sell the company was difficult, but that he no longer wanted to deal with the intense criticism the business has faced.

    Buyers are lined up around the block, ready to throw money at this thing, I’d surmise.

    1. I kinda hope George Soros or someone like that buys it.

  7. By the way, Reason forgot the MOST IMPORTANT MORNING LINK, namely Sarah Palin’s new boobs.

    I have to admit, they make her look smarter and more interesting. I am a much bigger Palin fan than I was a couple of days ago.

    1. Are you saying her boobs got all of those primary wins yesterday?

    2. Since you did not include the link yourself, you are no longer my philosopher/god.

      1. I’d give you a link, but P Brooks would yell at me again. Youcan go to you-know-where and scroll down a bit.

    3. You didn’t put in a link. What new boobs?

        1. Never mind, you found it. Prepare to suffer the wrath of P Brooks!

        2. does anyone actually care whether she got a boob job or not?

          Clearly the Jezebel blogger here does.

    4. Pavlov is grinning in his grave.

    5. She most definitely can kiss my lobster.

    6. Those are not new. It is just a better bra and the way the third shot captured her. Also, she has probably gained a little bit of weight since the Runner’s world shot where she was in amazing shape.

      She is a health nut. I seriously doubt she would subject herself to elective major surgery. Jezibel is just a bunch of jealous sorority girls pissed they were born with droopy A cups.

      1. Dude, I support her in this and am not linking to this story to in any way disparage or denigrate her.

        1. As a lifetime connoisseur of these things, I can speak with authority that those are not fake. I wouldn’t care if she did. As a matter of fact, I wish she did. It would just provide more of an opportunity for her critics to be disgusting sexists. But, that doesn’t appear to be what happened here.

          But hey, it is another excuse for people to be repulsive and gross about Palin. If only people were as interested in saying as much about our President as he slowly destroys the country.

      2. Remember when the talk of the town was then-teenager Britney Spears’ alleged boob job? The real ones turned out to be just that, and fairly unremarkable. Yeah, it’s just a good bra.

    7. By the way, Reason forgot the MOST IMPORTANT MORNING LINK, namely Sarah Palin’s new boobs.

      Linkee, dammit. LINKEE!

      1. PALIN WITH BIG TITS WOULD BE PRACTICALLY UNBEATABLE, THOUGH NOT UNBATEABLE.

        THE URKOBOLD WILL NOW RETREAT TO HIS POLITICAL BUNK.

        1. She would certainly be beatable with the right outfit and paraphernalia.

      2. HARCOURT FENTON RC DEAN MUDD!!! GET BACK TO WORK AND BUY ME MORE AMMO! IF I CATCH YOU LEERING AT THAT …WOMAN…AGAIN, SAY ADIOS TO LITTLE RC DEAN!

      1. So, Russia is still 20years behind us on the fake boob front.

  8. Throw the rock back at the kid.

  9. Will Palin’s old boobs be for sale on Craigslist?

    1. Crap, I hope not! I had earmarked that money for Blackwater.

      1. Andrew Sullivan would outbid you anyway.

  10. Prepare to suffer the wrath of P Brooks!

    Nice one, Sugarfree- now you’ve got Citizen Nothing doing your dirty work.

    1. You don’t know the half of it.

      1. Fuck. Now I’m gonna have Steely Dan songs in my head all day.

    2. That didn’t sound very wrathy.

      1. Sug is very delicate.

        1. Sigh, yes, I have been away from his text for so long I forgot.

  11. According to the article about the Amish, they neither pay into nor receive benefits from Social Security.

    1. Another reason to deport the schnitzel-eating bastards.

    2. I waited too long in my career to convert! Better late than never.

    3. I guess elderly Amish eat nothing but dogfood.

    4. Can I get that deal if I make up a religion?

      1. No, you can’t. But your great-great-great grandkids might. It’s worth a shot.

  12. The scenario of kid threw rock, guy shot kid, isn’t new. I never understood why someone throwing a rock would have any presumption that the guy with the gun wouldn’t defend himself. You have to be pretty thick to think that you are going to potentially cause bodily harm and yet there will be no repercussions or resistance from the one you are trying to harm. It’s sad either way, but the situation isn’t uncommon and seems chalked full of stupid.

  13. So is anyone else noticing the attack banner add against Sharron Angle? The add attacks her for wanting to get rid of the department of education, and cut medicare and social security. Perhaps their add guy should be told that on this site that gets votes.

    1. Is that Florence Henderson with a cameo in that vid? And if so, why?

  14. We’re always looking for good middle infielders. Call our manager.

  15. The suggestion to “eat less” is the same as being pro-anorexia.

    I guess Jenny Craig is the same thing as The Holocaust.

    1. But doesn’t eating less save the planet by creating less need for agriculture?

    2. Oh noes! They have a Facebook group. What to do? What do we do?

    3. Just a reminder, ketosis makes your breath stink, find some zero calorie breath mints if you’re a practicing hunger artist.

    4. The suggestion to “eat less” is the same as being pro-anorexia.

      Only when that suggestion is made by Fluffy, the pro-anorexia activist.

  16. it is another excuse for people to be repulsive and gross about Palin.

    Time out!

    The guy who says it’s perfectly acceptable to shoot rock-throwing teenagers to death is weeping at the thought of mean-spirited sniping about Sarah Palin’s appearance?

    Is this a great country, or what?

    1. I am not weeping. Just point out facts. I know of no other woman, including those who have sex on camera for a living, who seems to attract as much obsession about her vagina and boobs as Palin. It has long since passed the point of strange.

      And as far as Mexican teenagers go, while I don’t think they should be able to throw rocks with impunity, I do think they are free to have all the boob jobs they want without fear of retribution. If the CBP ever shoots a Mexican teenager for getting a boob job, I will be the first to voice outrage.

      1. I know of no other woman, including those who have sex on camera for a living, who seems to attract as much obsession about her vagina and boobs as Palin.

        Wow, you need to go to different blogs.

        I suggest starting with Drunken Stepfather and Hollywood Tuna.

        Palin isn’t in the top 500 in boob coverage.

        She may make a run if she keeps wearing that T-shirt, though.

        1. No wonder your child knows the word “mother-fucker” at 3 years old.

        2. I mean among blogs that don’t specialize in sex, which I assume Drunken Stepfather and Hollywood Tuna do.

          1. They are celebrity blogs.

            They just cover boobs because half of the famous women in America are famous for no other reason.

      2. I am not weeping. Just point out factsThere’s just something in my eye.

        FTFY

      3. “”And as far as Mexican teenagers go, while I don’t think they should be able to throw rocks with impunity, “””

        What about other than Mexican teenagers?

        While I agree they were wrong to throw rocks, I can’t agree with the inequitable return of force.

    2. John is not a rational actor.

    3. WHY NO ONE HAS NOTICED MRS. PALIN’S RACK PREVIOUSLY IS STRANGE TO THE URKOBOLD, FOR HE REVEALED HER (MOSTLY COVERED) BOSOMS TO THE WORLD LAST YEAR.

  17. All poodles are dogs, not all dogs are poodles.

    And not all poodles are Prime Minister of Great Britain.

    1. “And not all poodles are Prime Minister of Great Britain.”

      But all Prime Ministers of France are poodles, German ones.

    2. What about labradoodles?

  18. Erik Prince, the former member of the Navy Seals…

    When ever i read that someone claims to be a “former member of the Navy Seals”, I am reminded that there is an organization that exposes people who fraudulently claim to be “former member[s] of the Navy Seals”.

    I wonder if they’ve checked this guy out.

  19. Being I recently returned from a trip to Arkansas, I can say that Lincoln winning isn’t really a victory for her. Many people voted for her because they think it will make it easier for the other guy to win in the general election.

  20. No comments on Amish cow duty?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.