Texas Rangers Want Apple to Unlock Mass Shooter's Phone, Charles Manson Dead, More Earthquakes Expected in 2018: A.M. Links

|

  • HumanArtistVendingMachine/flickr

    President Trump renewed his calls for a border wall with Mexico after a border patrol agent was shot and killed in Texas.

  • Authorities in Texas have served a search warrant on Apple, looking to have the phone of the Sutherland Springs mass shooter unlocked.
  • The ruling party in Zimbabwe has moved to impeach Robert Mugabe after their Monday deadline for his resignation came and went.
  • Talks to form a three-party coalition government run by Angela Merkel in Germany have collapsed.
  • Accused of sexual harrassment by two transgender colleagues, actor Jeffrey Tambor signaled he would not be returning to Transparent, claiming the on-set atmosphere had been "politicized" in recent weeks.
  • Charles Manson died in prison, aged 83.
  • The slowing of the rotation of the Earth is expected to lead to an uptick in earthquakes, according to scientists.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content

NEXT: Sex, Jobs, and Smoking: What's Legal for Teens in Your State?

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. Charles Manson died in prison, aged 83.

    Obviously, our thoughts and prayers…

    1. Anxiously awaiting the E! report on what color robe Squeaky Fromme wears to the funeral. And what type of weapon she brings.

    2. Hello.

      Oh, right about now he should be in the lowest pit of hell.

      To think they kept that animal alive.

      1. Luckily for him, there is not heaven or hell.

        He will be worm food though.

        1. He was his own private Hell.

          1. Skelter Helter?

        2. Ever talk to someone who has had a near death experience?
          Didn’t think so.

          1. There was a study done on perfectly healthy people where they stimulated different parts of the brain and produced hallucinations that appeared heavenly or hellish. Of course those places existed nowhere except in the brains of those people and neither did they exist in any place except the brains of those who suffered near death experiences. In some respects humans are perverse and we might punish or reward ourselves as we die for all sorts of reasons. None of that makes the experiences of those people anything more than figments of their imagination.

  2. The slowing of the rotation of the Earth is expected to lead to an uptick in earthquakes…

    I’m not changing my clocks or calendars if that’s what they have in mind.

    1. It will be a good excuse to switch to metric time.

    2. Kill the moon

    3. I was given to understand that the slowing of the Earth’s rotation was because the Moon’s gravity was gradually tidal locking the Earth’s rotation to the Moon’s orbital period, not any process in the Earth’s core. The same provess is part of ghe reason the Moon is moving away from the Earth.

      1. The rotation of the Earth is slowing because of the tidal forces from the moon. But apparently there are also other, cyclical variations.

    4. At least it will be slightly easier to dance.


    5. The link between Earth’s rotation and seismic activity was highlighted last month in a paper by Roger Bilham of the University of Colorado in Boulder and Rebecca Bendick of the University of Montana in Missoula presented at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America.

      “The correlation between Earth’s rotation and earthquake activity is strong and suggests there is going to be an increase in numbers of intense earthquakes next year,” Bilham told the Observer last week.

      Looks like someone is trying to break into the prognostication industry!

    6. You know who else made the Earth spin slower (and then spin backwards to get a do-over on an earthquake)?

      1. And only once even though it could have come in handy countless times?

  3. Accused of sexual harrassment by two transgender colleagues, actor Jeffrey Tambor signaled he would not be returning to Transparent, claiming the on-set atmosphere had been “politicized” in recent weeks.

    No touching.

    1. Hey now.

    2. So that’s their game: Change sexgender ID, & then interaction that’d previously have been innocent becomes sexual harrassment. “…. Unless…,” as I could imagine Tambor delivering the line.

      1. Or is that “genderal” harrassment?

    3. He has the worst fucking lawyers.

      1. I didn’t know that was even a legal specialty.

    4. something about the Final Countdown

    5. ? Peanuts sad theme ?

    6. There will always be money in the banana stand.

  4. Talks to form a three-party coalition government run by Angela Merkel in Germany have collapsed.

    You know who else had everything collapse around them?

    1. Boris Yeltsin?

    2. The inventor of Jenga?

    3. Other parties have said they won’t partner with the AfD in any government.

      So I’m looking at their platform (described as “right-wing to far-right” on wikipedia) and it’s basically Make Deutschland Gro? Again with a little anti-gay marriage thrown in. Literally worse than Hitler.

    4. Richard Nixon?

    5. Occupants of the twin towers?

    6. Emperor Hirohito?

    7. Samson?

    8. Hillary Clinton?

  5. The ruling party in Zimbabwe has moved to impeach Robert Mugabe after their Monday deadline for his resignation came and went.

    Huh, and he seems like the type to see the transition of power through with much fuss.

  6. Authorities in Texas have served a search warrant on Apple, looking to have the phone of the Sutherland Springs mass shooter unlocked.

    Can we assume there’s no ISIS influence to be found?

    1. Shows how clueless they are. Apple does not own the phone, it is not theirs to search. iCloud, however, would be fair game.

      1. Still need a password. Apple does not have access to that data (unless they’re lying).

  7. President Trump renewed his calls for a border wall with Mexico after a border patrol agent was shot and killed in Texas.

    Is no one calling for a ban on whatever gun was used?

    1. BMW…the German marvel!

    2. The boxer engine is unstoppable.

      1. Got one in my Subaru.

        1. Those Subaru boxers never die. Short of just giving up and draining the oil, I am not sure how you kill one.

          1. Skip the 100K maintenance. Mine is coming right up. $1800 to replace the timing belt, head gaskets, water pump, coil, plugs, etc. But if I get another five years out of the beast it will be worth it.

            1. $1800 is what, three or maybe three and a half car payments? That is a pretty good deal when you think about it.

              1. Jeebus! No fucking way I could afford payments like that! I buy the used car that rich guys like you trade in when you get your new one.

                1. And i buy that one when sarc is done with it.

                  1. And i buy that one when sarc is done with it.

                    Doubtful. I run my cars into the ground. Unless you buy cars with 300K miles on them.

                  2. Sounds like how I picked girls in college.

          2. If that timing belt goes, the whole engine is toast.

            1. Yeah, the boxer has an interference valve system. The valves are not above the pistons but actually move into the space the piston occupies when the engine is in an upstroke. So, if the timing gets off, the pistons crash into the valves and destroy the entire engine. Yes, replace the timing belt as recommended.

          3. Oh yes they can.

            Had a 2005 WRX, no mods, no drag racing, regular oil changes, kept maintenance schedule;
            dealer diagnosed piston damage on drivers side, short block replaced under warranty at 47k; at 78k valve dropped in that same cylinder and chewed up engine. Bye Subaru.

            I always impressed with how varied the experiences of some people were; some broke mounts or shaved teeth off gears when launchingsmoothly while others would just do full throttle drop clutch launches over-and-over again.

    3. You know who else rode a motorbike in WWII?

  8. Everett’s bikini baristas head to federal court to argue for freedom of exposure

    The baristas’ attempts to “shoehorn their state of undress into the realm of expressive conduct” fails, the city alleges, partly because they fail to take into account the public harm caused by the businesses, including “prostitution, violence, organized criminal activity and exploitation of women including minors.”

    Senior U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman has scheduled arguments on the motion for an injunction Tuesday in Seattle, where she is presiding over the baristas’ challenge to the constitutionality of the two city ordinances.

    https://goo.gl/zkQCMh

    1. According to one commenter, it seems to mean “I want more screen time”.

  9. Authorities in Texas have served a search warrant on Apple, looking to have the phone of the Sutherland Springs mass shooter unlocked.

    Lesson learned from San Bernardino: none

  10. Talks to form a three-party coalition government run by Angela Merkel in Germany have collapsed.

    Weakened by acid rain.

  11. Manson was supposed to undergo surgery but it was deemed too risky.

    He could have *died*.

    1. Replace risky with costly.

      1. Its not murder if socialized medicine systems just refuse to spend money on you.

        1. We’re sorry, your relative was on the waiting list, but there just aren’t enough doctors. We’re not sure why.

  12. We’re told the prison is contacting all of the victims’ families.

    Private ceremony?

  13. Charles Manson died in prison, aged 83.
    For a guy who was never convicted of actually killing anyone, he was sure hated more than most actual murderers.

    He did single-handedly kill the 1960’s high that baby boomers were enjoying. That generation sure does go after anyone who dampens their narcissistic behaviors.

    1. Him and Altamont. I think the documentary “Give Me Shelter” should be required viewing in every high school in America. Watching that puts an end to any romantic ideas you have about the 1960s. By the end of that movie you find yourself thinking “I can kind of understand the Hell’s Angels’ side of things”. Those people were fucking animals.

      1. Every time I see a 60-something year old Boomer die recently, I immediately think it was their drug and selfish lifestyle that did serious damage to their bodies.

        The bright side is that the sooner that generation dies off, the sooner we can get rid of Social Security and Medicare.

        1. Even teetotalers die eventually. I think if the drugs didn’t kill them back then, they likely are dying from something that would have killed them anyway. Too many notorious junkies like William F. Bouroughs have lived long lives for me to think youthful drug use kills you in your old age.

          1. Not in your 50 & 60’s. For most of us, it our 70’s when we die.

            1. That is like saying Jim Jones isn’t responsible for Jonestown because he never forced anyone to drink the cool aid. And his retard followers got the same treatment he did, death commuted to life in prison.

              1. Jim Jones forced his followers to drink the cool-aid. Literally forced them at gun point.

                So different.

                Leslie Van Houten got paroled.

                1. She is still in jail. Brown hasn’t approved her parole. And she should not have been paroled. She got paroled and sympathy because she was a middle-class white girl. The men who followed Manson got so such sympathy.

                  All of them should have been hanged.

                  1. Shoulda-woulda-coulda does not changed that she was granted parole. You’re making unprovable assumptions that her white privilege got her the mistake parole.

                    Manson and most of them were sentenced to death but the progressive SCOTUS changed that.

                    I just like pointing out the joke with conspiracy crimes being treated the same as the actual crimes.

                    1. I don’t think I am going out on much of a limb to say that middle and upper-class white women get treated better in the justice system than poor people and men in general. And the fact that she is being wrongly released and escaped the hangman doesn’t make Manson deserve the same fate any less.

                    2. I don’t think that people who convince or conspire with others to murder deserve the same treatment as actual murderers.

                      Conspiracy tends to be a BS charge and gives too much power to the state when the state cannot actually prove you committed an actual crime against someone or state property.

                    3. And it is provable. Charles Watson and Bobby Bousoleau have never been seriously considered for parole the way the women offenders were. This despite the fact that Watson participated in the same crimes as the women and Bousoleau was not even involved in the Tate or LaBianca murders and murdered one guy who owned Manson money. And neither will ever get out of prison.

                    4. You mean Robert Kenneth Beausoleil? He actually killed people.

                      I don’t think you have anything to support the claim that well-to-do women are treated better but maybe they are.

                      You are even treating the actual murderers the same as the “he made me do it Man”.

                    5. I have this example. Van Houton killed more people than Beausoeli and she got parole. He never will. She was guilty of some of the most brutal and worst murders. How do you explain the difference in treatment other than the fact that Van Houton was a nice white girl daughter of an attorney and Beusoeli was a hippie dirtbag musician?

                    6. Manson was never convicted of killing anyone and he was punished the same as murders.

                      As you say, Van Houton was never released. I guess her “privilege” was not “all that”.

        2. Your day will come as well. Hope it’s soon.

          1. It will be today and I’ll take you with me. Muhhhahaaaa.

          2. As much as I would like to slam on the Boomers, my generation raised the millennials. Raising generation retard is likely going to end up being a much bigger sin than anything the Boomers did.

            1. Yeah, probably. If not the combination of that lifestyle and raising that generation will.

        3. You do realize that crazy drugged out hippies were a small minority of that generation, no?

      2. I’m totally surprised to discover John is sympathetic with armed gangs beating his political opponents to death.

        1. The guy pulled a gun. Beyond that, the place was completely out of control. No, I am not sympathetic to the Angels. It was a joke, Stormy. That being said, that movie makes it very clear just how fucked up and out of control, the Bay Area was in the late 1960s. No one comes out of it looking in any way sympathetic.

          1. The guy pulled a gun.

            After being beaten and stabbed. Oh right, self defense is only for white people.

            1. The jury disagreed. The guy who stabbed him was acquitted. Maybe San Fransisco was some kind of hotbed of Jim Crow racism, but I doubt it.

  14. The slowing of the rotation of the Earth is expected to lead to an uptick in earthquakes, according to scientists.

    I’m assuming the Earth’s rotation is slowing because of all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

    1. The global warming monster is going to make us pay for your sinful, consumptive ways!!

  15. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/281289/

    Instapundit linked to a Breitbart article about the now down the memory hole counter culture left’s love affair with Charlie Manson

    The charismatic Bernardine Dohrn, later a friend of Barack and Michelle Obama, feverishly told Weatherman followers: “Dig it: first they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach. Wild!”

    When I asked Weatherman Mark Rudd why his otherwise intelligent friends paid homage to Manson, he told me: “We wanted to be bad.”

    Like Dohrn, Rolling Stone later went on to enjoy mainstream respectability despite publishing bizarre views on one of the twentieth century’s most notorious serial killers. Whereas Manson looked every bit the madman on the cover of Life, he appeared as a visionary on the front page of Rolling Stone. Therein, the magazine depicted Manson’s refusal to offer an insanity plea as a principled stand and characterized his criticism of the legal system as “obviously accurate in many ways.” In calling him Charlie, a first-name-basis intimacy later reserved for Madonna, Prince, Bruce, and other singing celebrities, the magazine actively sought to humanize the man who dehumanized so many.

    1. You can humanize a murderer without snuggling up to him in print. Unless “humanize” means “soft-focus coverage ignoring his plumbing of the depths of human nature.”

      1. That is a poor choice of words by the writer. They didn’t seek to humanize Manson. They sought to justify him and his actions, which is much worse.

        1. Manson never killed anyone that could be proven.

          Manson was treated worse than the actual ladies who stabbed a pregnant Sharon Tate.

          I am not saying that he deserved to be treated nicely but the cult following retards are given passes for being stupid and easily brainwashed.

          1. cult following retards are given passes for being stupid and easily brainwashed

            There’s something snarky here, but I just can’t put it together.

            1. Want some Kool-Aid to wash that down?

              1. No, that’s not it.

                1. hmmm…

                  A copy of Helter Skelter?

    2. “his otherwise intelligent friends”

      The theologian Gary Gygax held that intelligence and alignment were different things.

      1. Someone around here once said, “Human intelligence is highly compartmentalized. That’s why there are PhD’s who believe in astrology.” I don’t remember who to attribute that (paraphrased) quote to, but I have always thought that statement was right on.

        GG was also right on.

      2. Fear of death and/or fear of unknown can make people do weird things too.

        A good portion of humans believe that when you die, “you” get to go to a place where you chill in the clouds all day and you have a perfect existence. Plus, you will still be happy even if your kids go to hell for doing something wrong. Then there are loopholes that even Hitler can repent and possibly be accepted into heaven.

        And the for the coup de grace. Natural disasters and disease have killed more humans than any humans ever murdered but God killing innocent babies is okay.

        1. God is the good life giver. If you reject him (sin), you separate yourself from the life giver and you die. He provided a way for you to come back to him if you so choose (his Son on the cross). If you don’t accept the way back to life, God is a gentleman and doesn’t force you to come to him. So you die, and what is described as “hell” is simply what humans look like when they are irredeemably separated from the good life giver.

          As for natural disasters, does it really matter if you die soon or a long time from now? All life is a gift from the good life giver, and if you don’t get as much life as you think you “deserve” (for what?), well, then you’ve been gifted less than you thought you’d been.

          Your comment does show the hubris contained in the original sin, that humans could be just like God if they simply ceased to listen to him. Your logic fails just as Eve’s logic did.

          “‘My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,’ says the Lord.
          ‘And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
          For just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
          so my ways are higher than your ways
          and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.'”

          Comparing our relationship to God as a dog to a human, my dog has no idea why I go to work or shock her for trying to play in the street. And, it’s more like we would be an amoeba, not a dog! But you think you can judge him with deduction when you know so very little!

          1. ^ this

          2. I’ve always found it odd that all the versions of the Abrahamic god fail to follow their own rules.

            1. Pray tell, when?

              Do you not like the life he gave you? You can quit.

              Do you not like the freedom he gave you (that implies the freedom to screw up)? Is it too much for you that you have every opportunity to make it right? You can quit your life or enslave yourself (I suppose).

              Do you not like it that only the life giver can sustain your life? Too bad, you have been given life, but you are unable to sustain it forever. If you don’t want to die, your choice is easy.

              Do you not like it that you have to use your freedom to submit to him? You always have the choice not to, but remember actions have consequences.

              Do you not like it that what God made can kill people? According to my understanding of Scripture, that’s not how it was originally made, we were supposed to tend a certain garden. But your ancestors didn’t obey and were (in mercy) sent out of the garden and allowed to life, through no merit of their own.

              1. “Freedom to submit to him”…..Check your premises.

                1. You have the freedom to NOT submit to him, too. My premise is correct.

                  1. Key word is “submit”. If you submit, you are not free.

                    1. Key word is “free”. You are still free to not submit.

                      If you choose to work for your boss, you are “submitting” to him/her. You are still free to leave.

                      Submission requires freedom.

          3. Except somehow making God into an actual person with a Son named Jesus isn’t comparable to a dog trying to understand a human? Your argument doesn’t hold water. Evil is not humans natural state any more than good.

            1. In my analogy, the “human” has to get down to the “dog’s” level in order to get the dog to understand him. If the human could become the dog (and can, in a way, by acting like a dog through posturing and playing like a dog). The dog is pretty limited in its ability to understand the human without the human’s help.

              “Evil”, in the way we are referring to it, is that they make themselves their own “god” (master) and do whatever seems to benefit themselves the most. “Evil” means chooses [other] rather than God, the good life giver, as their number one priority in life. Ergo, “evil” is the natural state of man.

              1. God isn’t a person.

                1. God is more of a person than you or I are.

                  God is the first Father, the first Creator, the first Person… Persons, if you like (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

                  Do you so despise the Theology that you must argue with provably incorrect points? I’m genuinely curious.

      3. The theologian Gary Gygax held that intelligence and alignment were different things.

        Wisdom also being distinct from Intelligence. Being a nerd isn’t the only reason that I use a lot of D in real life. Gygax simply streamlined a lot about how to think about these things (and taught large words to young geeks).

        1. If it wasn’t for him Terrasque wouldn’t be a word that everyone knew.

    3. Can you imagine if it was mainstream Republicans who went ga-ga over the likes of Manson, Jim Jones, the Weathermen, Che, et al. instead of mainstream Democrats?

      1. Imagine if Republicans walked around in Rudolf Hesse shirts and published magazines with flattering portrayals of the idiot who shot up that church in South Carolina and openly talked about how James Earl Ray was a martyr. It is unthinkable. Yet, Democrats do exactly equivalent things and pay no price for it.

        1. Can we add Angela Davis, who supplies the gun that murdered a federal judge, and is now a professor?

          1. The examples are fucking endless.

          2. Is there anyone more lionized against all evidence to the contrary. My god.

      1. That makes us all part of the family?

  16. “Talks to form a three-party coalition government run by Angela Merkel in Germany have collapsed.”

    Remember how Alternative for Germany’s 12% of the vote was going to be inconsequential since Merkel’s party still won? Seems like it was just yesterday!

    Now Merkel will have to form a minority government, meaning she won’t be able to do anything without getting the support of either the far left or the far right.

    Meanwhile, Germany’s plan to eliminate nuclear by 2022 and continue their extremely expensive push into renewable energy means the support of the Greens (AKA the far left) is unlikely to win Merkel any popularity contests in the immediate future.

    Germany already pays three times what the U.S. pays, on average, per KwH, for electricity and about twice what they pay in France–and that’s just going to get worse as they shut down coal for renewable sources. So, as support for the Greens breaks down from here, in a battle for influence in a minority coalition government, I’d bet Merkel goes anti-immigrant going forward.

    1. I have friends in Germany and they tell me that things are much worse than media is portraying. Imagine every town and suburb having a building full of refugees being housed there at taxpayer expense. None of the refugees speak German or have any job prospects. They come from a culture totally alien to the west and have absolutely no respect for German cultural mores. And they are overwhelming Germany’s beloved social welfare state when they are not committing crimes. Oh and they are having babies by the thousands. It is a total nightmare.

      Funny how Reason has stopped covering the refugee crisis in Europe lately. It seemed to be such an important issue a year or two ago. Now reason doesn’t want to talk about it.

      1. Historically, Germany had another period where similar things happened. Gypsies occupied many European towns and spoke gibberish for centuries. 1933-1945 was when the Germans allowed gypsies to be cleared out by force.

        1. Only your straw man is pro-holocaust for refugees.

          The Romani filtered into Germany starting back in the middle ages–they weren’t a sudden influx in 1933. Also, there weren’t terrorists hiding among them seeking opportunities to kill as many innocent civilians as possible for political reasons.

          1. “Gypsies occupied many European towns and spoke gibberish for centuries”
            Hence this statement.

            I am not pro-death for refugees and never have been.

            Way to take some historical context out of context.

            Here have some Kool-Aid.

            1. Look who’s the Kool-Aid man over here.

              1. Cause John and Ken are being all cult brainwashed today.

            2. You’re the one that brought up that gypsies were “cleared out by force” during the holocaust.

              John isn’t advocating the holocaust.

              I’m not advocating the holocaust.

              Far as I can tell, no one is advocating the holocaust.

              So, why bring it up. I’m not the one who brought up the holocaust.

              You did.

              Why are the Nazis and the holocaust relevant to this discussion–if no one here is a Nazi and none of us are advocating a holocaust?

              1. Speaking of straw man….

                “Only your straw man is pro-holocaust for refugees.”

                I never said holocaust.

                I will wait until you guys get off your periods.

                1. This is ridiculous.

                  Are you aware that I can see what you wrote?

                  “Historically, Germany had another period where similar things happened. Gypsies occupied many European towns and spoke gibberish for centuries. 1933-1945 was when the Germans allowed gypsies to be cleared out by force.

                  —-loveconstitution1789

                  This is referring to the holocaust.

                  When I said you were referring to the holocaust, it was not a straw man. That’s what you actually did. You referred to the holocaust.

                  Surely, you’re not unaware that the Romani were victims of the holocaust–after all, you’re referring to what happened to them yourself.

                  Maybe now you’ll protest that you never used the word “Romani”?

                2. If you don’t want people to call you out for referring to the holocaust in appropriately, there’s an easy way to avoid that.

                  Don’t refer to the holocaust inappropriately.

                  No one here was advocating the holocaust for refugees, and objecting to Merkel’s refugee policy is not like advocating the holocaust.

                  In fact, suggesting a comparison of the two may be offensive to holocaust survivors.

                  1. I will consider your paired menstruation as an excuse.

                    “This is referring to the holocaust.”

                    I never said holocaust nor advocated for holocaust. I simply pointed out that Germany also had an “undesirable” persons situation and they forceably dealt with it between 1933-1945.

                    Since you don’t know shit about shinola, “The Holocaust” describes the systematic murder of Jews, not all the other people Nazis killed.

                    Get a big maxi-pad and shove it up your ….

                    1. “The Holocaust” describes the systematic murder of Jews, not all the other people Nazis killed.

                      This is a ridiculous,and absurd and factually incorrect. It’s also a meaningless distinction in the context within which you used it.

                      Or are you saying that the Romani weren’t systematically murdered in the same way as the Jews? That they weren’t murdered in the same concentration camps?

                      Do you not see the stupid corners you paint yourself into when you make reference to the holocaust inappropriately?

                    2. Lc1789 doesn’t understand how genocide OR vaginas work. Sad!

      2. I liked it better when they were talking about immigration in terms of its economics benefits and security risks–even if they were wrong about the security risks.

        Their latest “immigration is a right” push is disturbingly anti-constitution and anti-separation of powers, not to mention elitist and anti-democratic.

        I’m not sure I recognize a libertarian impulse in their position–there certainly isn’t any consistency.

        The next time they oppose some new military adventure will they say it’s because it lacks an express declaration of war from congress–as if they hadn’t just spilled miles of ink denigrating the enumerated powers of congress when it comes to immigration and naturalization?

        I hope so. I hope they come to their senses and start defending their principles again.

        1. What infuriates me the most is their absolute refusal to recognize any downside of immigration to anyone. Immigration can have real downsides and people have legitimate reasons to object to it. By pretending that is not the case and saying that anyone who objects to immigration is necessarily doing so for racist reasons, reason is just ceding the field to the real racist right. Where reasonable voices are not heard unreasonable ones will take their place. Reason and its staff seem incapable of understanding that lesson.

          1. Racist!

          2. Yeah, that’s bothersome, too.

            To me, and my libertarian sensibilities, it’s bothersome in the same way that anti-First Amendment arguments are bothersome.

            Because I support the right of people to say and believe incredibly stupid things doesn’t mean I have to pretend that no one uses freedom of speech or freedom of religion in ways that are bad for society. Yes, some people use the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion rights to hurt society! I can acknowledge that and still stand up for the free speech anyway–in fact, doing that is what makes me libertarian.

            I don’t know that Scientology is good for society. Because I support freedom of religion certainly doesn’t mean I have to pretend that there are no down sides to Scientology.

            Sure, there are downsides to immigration for some people. Recognizing them doesn’t mean you have to be anti-immigration even, but you do have to recognize them and respond to them if you’re going to be honest. Only weak, weak, weak arguments can’t survive honesty. They make their arguments look weaker than they are by refusing to acknowledge any downside.

            1. Recognizing that people have morally legitimate concerns about immigration means admitting to the possibility of compromise on the issue. And doing that means admitting the need to make a substantive case for immigration. A lot of immigration advocates are too lazy or dishonest to do that. So, they avoid the need to do so by declaring any objection to immigration racist and morally illegitimate. It is a very lazy and short-sighted way of thinking and arguing.

              1. I’m not sure about that.

                There are downsides to the Second Amendment. I’m pro-Second Amendment anyway, and I’m not much for compromise on those rights, free speech, the freedom of religion, etc., etc. The only compromise I’m really willing to make is that people can’t use those things to violate other people’s rights–but that’s not really a compromise. The Second Amendment isn’t the right to indiscriminately shoot people. It’s the right to choose to bear arms.

                Being libertarian is about standing up for rights–rather than the people involved. As sarcasmic always says, “It’s principles over principals”.

                Hell, I even think arsonists and rapists have Fifth Amendment rights–without compromise–and I hate arsonists and rapists.

                I don’t need a sad-eyed bunny rabbit with cute floppy ears to know when to stand up for my rights, and using those bunnies is bad for the cause if it reinforces that kind of thinking. If Shikha’s argument can only stand up because her victims are cuter and have fluffier tails than the anti-immigrants’ victims, then she’s gotta a pretty sorry excuse for an argument.

              2. So, they avoid the need to do so by declaring any objection to immigration racist and morally illegitimate.

                Many of your objections are based upon economic fallacies. When you say immigrants “take jobs away” you assume that the number of jobs are fixed. When you say immigrants “use up resources” you assume that the amount of resources are fixed. You are so focused on the seen that you ignore the unseen. You ignore the fact that immigrants create new demands which create new jobs. You ignore the fact that when they work they add to the economy by creating wealth. You ignore the fact that many taxes are unavoidable. Like sales tax and property tax. If they buy stuff or live somewhere, they are paying taxes.

                That’s not to say that there isn’t a downside, but many of your complaints are rooted in a willful and obtuse ignorance of basic economics.

                1. It is a complex issue sarcasmic. My point is not that every objection is valid or even if it is valid that it carries the day. My point is that the debate should consist of more than just appealing to the principle that movement across borders is some fundamental human right and calling it a day.

                  1. My point is that the debate should consist of more than just appealing to the principle that movement across borders is some fundamental human right and calling it a day.

                    Likewise saying “They steal are jerbz! They’re all on welfare!” and calling it a day isn’t much of a debate.

                    1. Which is totally what John us doing…

                    2. Which is totally what John us doing…

                      He has in the past when talking about Mexicans.

                    3. “They steal are jerbz! They’re all on welfare!”

                      Please provide a quote of John saying that.

                    4. I mean, it’s like sarc is trying to prove John’s point for him.

                    5. Please provide a quote of John saying that.

                      He knows he has made that argument. I really don’t give a whit what you think.

                    6. So you made a claim you can’t support, got it.

                      Please continue being the person John is discussing.

                    7. Please continue being the person John is discussing.

                      They guy who accuses his opponents of racism? Um, yeah. Sure. Whatever you say, Mary.

                    8. Yes yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, and also Mary.

                      Solid argument.

                    9. Solid argument.

                      You have yet to make one.

                    10. And you have yet to provide a quote that demonstrates that your claim about what John said isn’t just a sad attempt to portray him as a racist

                      And just to be clear, a joke from South Park isn’t an argument.

                      Please continue being a perfrct example of the person John is discussing.

                    11. I’m not attempting to portray John as racist. I’m trying to point out that some of his arguments are rooted in economic fallacies. Because I like the guy, and I want to steer him away from those fallacies.

                    12. If you think that that open immigration is a net benefit to the U.S., then make that case. I want a system where Mexico develops an ID we can trust so that Mexican citizens can come across the border for work simply by showing that ID. That way, we can exclude known felons, foreign terrorists, etc.–and the only people sneaking through the desert at night will be the people who are up to no good. I think the labor will be good for the economy, and the that kind of “open border” policy will be better for American security.

                      Know how I want this policy implemented? I want a treaty with Mexico ratified by the Senate–in full accordance with the Constitution. That means, I want this policy to be broadly accepted by the American people, and that means in order to accomplish this immigration policy, we’ll need to persuade our fellow Americans to accept it. After all, giving the power to set the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of congress, which, quite properly, puts immigration into the sphere of democracy–rather the realm of rights.

                      I’m not about to win over the critical mass necessary to accomplish that “open border” policy by denigrating the people whose support we need by calling them names like “racist”, by denigrating the problems some people experience because of immigration, by being intellectually dishonest, by trashing the enumerated powers of congress, or by trashing democracy when it’s precisely in its proper place on this issue.

                    13. I agree with John’s point that regardless of whether you’re pro-immigration or anti-immigration, these are the honest arguments to have about this stuff.

                      Unskilled native-born labor in the United States don’t have the skills to differentiate themselves and may suffer disproportionately because of an influx of labor.

                      I think we should have a far more open, legal immigration policy anyway.

                      Regardless of whether I agree with John on immigration, we can agree on intellectual honesty.

                      And I’m not sure the “immigration is a right” people are being intellectually honest, consistent, or are even trying to be either one of those things. They’re more about saying that anti-immigration people are racists, and they’ve got the big-eyed, sad bunny the anti-immigration people are beating up on to prove it.

                    14. Unskilled native-born labor in the United States don’t have the skills to differentiate themselves and may suffer disproportionately because of an influx of labor.

                      Unskilled laborers are harmed much more by minimum wage than by immigration. Still, your argument assumes a fixed number of jobs which is a fallacy. Here’s the funny thing about labor. It produces stuff. Here’s a funny thing about laborers. They consume stuff. The pie gets bigger.

                    15. It isn’t a fallacy to suggest that commodity labor is probably harmed by an influx of more commodity labor.

                      What’s a commodity if not something that can’t differentiate itself on anything but price?

                      And unskilled labor is precisely that–labor that can’t differentiate itself other than by price.

                      It may be that eliminating the jobs of UAW workers who get paid $60,000 a year to screw in lug nuts will be better for the economy, better for most people in the economy, and better for society as a whole. However, it is not incorrect to say that UAW workers who get paid $60,000 a year to screw in lug nuts will NOT be better off to have their jobs replaced by low cost labor.

                      In fact, it may be dishonest to pretend that they will be better off once their jobs are eliminated because of low cost labor. Yeah, they’ll benefit from the lower cost of cars, too–but their next job won’t be making $60,000 a year with benefits. If they get another job, it may be making $20,000 a year without benefits.

                      I still advocate free labor markets anyway. I don’t have to insist that forcing people to compete like they didn’t before will be better for each and every one of them. Some of them will fail to be competitive in a free market–that’s one of the reasons I advocate free markets. Creative destruction doesn’t only create. It also destroys. I can be honest about that, and when I am, the people who are unsure about the benefits of creative destruction take me more seriously.

                    16. It isn’t a fallacy to suggest that commodity labor is probably harmed by an influx of more commodity labor.

                      What’s a commodity if not something that can’t differentiate itself on anything but price?

                      It is a fallacy because you’re assuming a fixed amount of jobs. Unlike other commodities, the supply of jobs is not fixed. More workers create more demand, and filling that increased demand creates jobs.

                      Yes there is truth to the argument that certain workers will lose jobs that pay well and have little choice but to take jobs that don’t pay as well. But that is simply a result of competition. Creative destruction. Immigration may exacerbate it, but it isn’t the cause.

                    17. To put it another way, immigrants buy stuff. When they buy stuff, more stuff is being bought than if they weren’t there buying stuff. That means more jobs are created to satisfy that demand. Opportunities are created to produce and sell the stuff that they buy. That creates jobs and grows the economy. It isn’t as visible as the union guys who are out of work, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

                    18. Think of it this way:

                      If I had my way, half the government workers in DC would lose their jobs very quickly. Most of those people are probably useless on the open market.

                      Society might be better off if they were unemployed, but why is it necessary to pretend that overpaid people with shitty work ethics, no initiative, and without other qualifications in cushy jobs would be better off if only they were unemployed?

                      Creative destruction is a good thing–unless you’re the thing that’s being destroyed. Then maybe being destroyed isn’t such a good thing–for you.

                    19. When the quantity supplied rises, OTBE we expect prices per unit to fall.

                      We may expect the quantity demanded to rise with falling prices–but we’re still talking about falling prices.

                      It is true that if low labor costs were bad for economic growth, then China would have had the slowest growing economy in the world over the past 15 years. There is no doubt that both their entire economy benefited from a huge supply of unskilled labor and the individual laborers benefited from a growing economy, too.

                      However, when access to that unskilled labor was unlocked with China’s ascension into the WTO, that labor was being deployed on unproductive, peasant subsistence farms–some of the most unproductive uses of labor possible. Those people had little to nothing to lose when they left the peasant plot and went to the city to get a factory job.

                      That isn’t necessarily the case with an American house painter making $40,000 a year. He may not be better off ten years from now because of the influx of cheap labor–even if the rest of society and the economy is better off ten years from now because of the influx of cheap labor.

                      And it’s okay to recognize that. You can advocate for immigration anyway, but not everyone is going to be better off.

                    20. Why is it OK if that influx of labor comes from West Virginia, but bad if it comes from Mexico? The result is the same.

                    21. The minimum wage was created because cheap, black labor coming from places like West Virginia was causing good, white people to lose their high paying jobs and take a cut in their standard of living.

                      The major difference as I see it is that back then they weren’t economic ignoramuses. They knew exactly what they were doing, and said so.

                    22. It doesn’t matter to me where it comes from, and I’m for “open borders” as I outlined elsewhere.

                      To people who are unsure of the benefits of an influx of cheap labor, it mostly matters what the influx will do to them.

                      That if comes from Mexico may be especially important because we’re supposed to be able to stop people from coming here–but not people from West Virginia from moving elsewhere in the country.

                      I suppose our politicians don’t advocate stopping people from coming from West Virginia, in part, because they need people in West Virginia to vote for their party to take the White House and keep their majorities in congress. However, in the past, in hard times, say during the Dust Bowl, I know California did pass an anti-Okie law, which made it a crime to assist bringing any of them into the state. It was declared unconstitutional. I bet California wasn’t the only one.

                    23. To people who are unsure of the benefits of an influx of cheap labor, it mostly matters what the influx will do to them.

                      Yes. The costs are concentrated while the benefits are distributed. Bastiat would say the costs are seen and the benefits are unseen.

                    24. Conversely with government action the benefits are usually concentrated while the benefits are distributed. A tariff keeps a factory open while hundreds of millions of people face slightly higher prices. Again, seen and unseen.

                    25. costs are distributed

                    26. This is why you will never see a pair of New Balance on my feet.

                    27. I largely agree with Ken, but would like to add that isn’t it up to unskilled workers to improve their skills? I don’t have more sympathy for them just because they happen to live here and speak English. And they seem to feel that after making $60,000 a year, that they are forever ENTITLED to make $60,000 a year. I don’t feel like making sure they always earn $60,000 a year, when nobody is making sure I do.

    2. They are not going to shut down coal. In fact, they are digging more coal than before the Engergiewende started.

      1. They may not actually accomplish their goals, but if engergiewende is about reducing GHG emissions by 95% and moving to 60% renewable by 2050, we’re talking about using less coal–especially if they’re shutting down the nuclear reactors in 2020.

        Take that shutdown of nuclear in 2020, and in 2020, the schedule also has them having reduced GHG by 40% and to have 35% of electricity consumption come from renewable. Then, we’re talking about higher energy prices between now and 2020–and that does not auger well for the popularity of the Greens.

        Between 2020 and 2030, the schedule has them reducing GHG by 55% (with nuclear having been eliminated ten years previous) and renewable accounting for 50% of electricity consumption.

        https://tinyurl.com/yaglxvk5

        If I were Merkle and I were betting my political future between now and 2020 on the popularity of siding with the anti-immigrants (however reluctantly in public) and the Greens–from a pure political expediency perspective–I wouldn’t throw my lot in with the Greens, that’s for sure.

        Not even Obama’s support was immune to energy price spikes, and we all saw what happened to the carbon tax government in Australia once the bills started rolling in.

        1. The schedules and projections are completely meaningless. They are Paris Accord-level nonsense. Also, they chose 1990 as a starting point because of a little something that happened in 1989 that caused a lot of dirty factories to close.

    3. Germany already pays three times what the U.S. pays, on average, per KwH, for electricity

      This is exactly what the scumbag “elite” left wants, although four or five times more expensive would be preferable to them than merely three times.

      Energy is the gateway to first world freedom and prosperity, and they want a modern feudal system where only they and their approved people live like kings and the rest of us go back to eating shit.

    4. France is denuclearizing as well, so it seems this isn’t a localized type of idiocy.

      1. Huh, that’s surprising since last I heard something like 60% of their electricity came from nuclear. They probably have a lot of untapped coal, luckily for them.

    1. To be fair, in the movies the giant killer octopi eat their victims alive, too.

    2. Perhaps you’ll enjoy this.

      1. I remember watching that in the theater.

    3. Fish eat each other alive. They come to expect it.

    4. ethically questionable practice of eating live seafood

      Yeah, sure.

    5. Sharks like their meals alive. Double standard?

    6. People are animals. Film at 11.

      1. PETA!

      2. Especially the Chinese, amirite?

    7. Eating live things like oysters is a nassssty habit by those barbarian Chinese.

      It is, of course,
      fine dining when you do it in London

      1. A crab beignet is light and lovely, generous with the crustacean, and fried with a knowing hand. Taramasalata is alabaster-white and sexily sloppy, with serious smoke and fishy depth. There’s more smoke in the squid, from the lick of the grill, and the sprinkling of smoked paprika, and a smoked almond-studded romesco sauce. The flesh is beautifully cooked, splendidly soft with the merest moment of coquettish resistance.

        This guy told pretentiousness to fuck off as he flew past it at 100Km/h.

        1. And since 100 km/h is only about 62 mph, he had time to go into detail.

        2. That reads like reverse tentacle rape.

    8. I just can’t make myself give a shit about the feelings of fish and grubs.

  17. Damned guy never learned to surf,.

  18. Would most Reason commenters align with the Freie Demokratische Partei if they were German citizens?

    1. Only if I was forced to vote. They’re better than the Dems or Pubs on the economy but their pro-EU stance is pretty questionable to me.

    2. Volksdeutsche?

    3. Freie Demokratische Partei

      If I were a German citizen then I suppose I might know something more about them than the name looks like Free Democratic Party.

      1. They are libertarian-esque. Heirs to pre-war “liberal” parties.

    4. I’d be too drunk and full of sausage to ever vote.

      1. Rufus the monocled says: Guten Tag

      2. Insert gay innuendo joke here

  19. He definitely can’t surf now.

    1. Wasn’t funny the first time.

  20. http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/…..index.html

    A woman says Al Franken groped her in 2010. She says he grabbed her ass while he was being photographed with her. If this is true, it is too bad she didn’t just punch him or kick him in the nuts. What was he going to do call the cops?

    I have no idea what you do with these allegations. If Franken were a Republican, this along with the Tweeden thing would end his career. So, fuck him. Let him live by the rules he happily applies to the other side.

    1. From what I’m reading, it sounds like Frankenstein is losing a lot of his support among Minnesota democrats, especially the more principled feminist types.

      You know, people in Minnesota aren’t very well-positioned to mock Trump. These are the people who elected Frankenstein and Jim Janos, aka “Jesse ‘The Body’ Ventura” to major offices.

      1. And then there is the whole Alabama Senate race. They clearly have a chance to steal a seat down there for a few years. But, the more things come out about Franken and the more it becomes clear nothing is going to happen to him, the more likely the GOP voters in Alabama figure there is no reason to hold Moore to a standard that the Democrats will never be held and just say fuck it and put Moore in the Senate. I think the whole Franken thing may end up saving Moore if they don’t get Franken to resign before the Alabama election.

      2. Frankenstein is losing a lot of his support among Minnesota democrats

        MN millennial progs remain unaffected.

  21. Authorities in Texas have served a search warrant on Apple, looking to have the phone of the Sutherland Springs mass shooter unlocked.

    Speaking of mass shootings, has anything else come to light in the Vegas incident?

    1. Not a damned thing. The authorities out there owe the public an explanation for just what they guy’s major malfunction was. And they seem to be making little effort to figure that out.

    2. Nope. I have not seen any new info releases about the actual shooting. Which always makes me suspicious about why not release updates in this case but in other mass shootings, the media spends months on it.

      I did see this:
      A judge could decide as early as next month how the assets of gunman Stephen Paddock are managed, Clark County Administrator John Cahill said after a court hearing Friday.
      Meanwhile, the shooter’s brother, Eric Paddock, sat in the back row of a courtroom at the Regional Justice Center, observing probate proceedings.
      “I’m here to help the process move along, but I’m pretty much at the end of what I can do,” he later told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “My goal is to get it done as quickly as possible to move funds into a victims fund.”

    3. Not surprising that the JournoList doesn’t want to talk about Paddock very much. Because they know full well that he was an Obamatard who started planning his attack when Trump got elected.

  22. The slowing of the rotation of the Earth is expected to lead to an uptick in earthquakes, according to scientists.

    AGW is more powerful than Superman.

    1. All of that extra CO2 is slowing the earth down.

    2. New movie idea: Superman vs ManBearPig

      Couldn’t be worse than Superman vs Batman.

  23. So, I guess this answers the question of whether Tambor was laughing at them or with them?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.