Free Minds & Free Markets

Article Thumbnail

Government Has 'Lost' 1,475 Children It Separated from Immigrant Parents

Innocent kids are bearing a terrible cost to "make America great again."

akg-images/Newscomakg-images/NewscomHere's a story that will give pause to anyone whose heart isn't made of granite: Charged with taking care of the children of migrants who are separated from parents due to immigration laws, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot account for nearly 1,500 of its charges.

From October to December 2017, HHS called 7,635 children the agency had placed with sponsors, and found 6,075 of the children were still living with their sponsors, 28 had run away, five had been deported and 52 were living with someone else. The rest were missing, said Steven Wagner, acting assistant secretary at HHS.

That means almost 20 percent of the kids in custody have vanished without a trace. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) was responsible for this absolute incompetency coming to light, according to Time.

"These kids, regardless of their immigration status, deserve to be treated properly, not abused or trafficked," said Portman, who chairs the subcommittee. "This is all about accountability."

Portman began investigating after a case in his home state of Ohio, where eight Guatemalan teens were placed with human traffickers and forced to work on egg farms under threats of death. Six people have been convicted and sentenced to federal prison for their participation in the trafficking scheme that began in 2013.

These kids went missing before Donald Trump became president, but his administration is ramping up efforts to stop illegal immigration. One of the main weapons they are using to discourage migrants is to separate kids from parents if they're caught at the border or inside the country. In a way, the U.S. government is using its own incompetence as a scare tactic: Come here, get caught, and neither you nor we will ever see your kids again.

Two weeks ago, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen testified before a Senate committee:

"My decision has been that anyone who breaks the law will be prosecuted," she said. "If you are parent, or you're a single person or if you happen to have a family, if you cross between the ports of entry we will refer you for prosecution. You have broken U.S. law."

Nielsen said the children are transferred to the custody of Health and Human Services officials within two days.

We can expect the number of missing immigrant kids to grow as the border is hardened. But don't worry, Secretary Nielsen feels your pain:

"I couldn't agree with your concerns more.... We owe it to these children to protect them."

In many ways, immigration is the key issue to Donald Trump's rise to power. Within a few minutes of announcing his bid for the presidency, he laid into Mexican immigrants as rapists, drug mules, and disease-carriers. Just a few days ago, he repeated for the umpteenth time on Fox & Friends his patently false scare story about "someone who comes in is bad and has 24 family members yet not one of them do you want in this country."

In the view of Trump and other people against all forms of immigration—including leaders of the GOP who are pushing legislation that will cut legal immigration by as much as 50 percent—newcomers are simultaneously stealing our jobs and living fat off of taxpayer dollars. As bad, immigrants are destroying American culture by refusing to speak English, assimilate into our cultural traditions, and vote for the Republican Party that is dedicated to keeping them out of the country. To "make America great again," immigrants must go.

Yet even the most hardened anti-immigrationist must feel some sympathy for and empathy with those 1,475 literally and figuratively lost souls who have gone missing in the Land of Opportunity. For the wall-builders and the nativists: Is this really any way to make America great again? An immigration policy that lets more families enter and work legally, pay taxes, and stay together is a much-better idea.

Article Thumbnail

The Rise of the Food-Related Lawsuit: New at Reason

Credit: NACHO DOCE/REUTERS/NewscomCredit: NACHO DOCE/REUTERS/NewscomFood lawsuits are on the rise. At first glance, most are terrible, some are good, and others require a closer look. It's not easy to tell the difference between each type, which is why it's important to look at who stands to benefit from these lawsuits and what they might accomplish for consumers.

What makes a food lawsuit "good" or "bad"? For one, we can ask if a defendant did exactly what the suit alleges, was the defendant wrong to do so? If the court rules in the plaintiff's favor—and against the defendant—will the plaintiff be better off and will the defendant be sufficiently discouraged from behaving similarly in the future? In the case of larger lawsuits (larger either in terms of monetary damages or because the suit is filed on behalf of more than one plaintiff), would society benefit if the court were to find in favor of the plaintiffs?

We must also consider the unintended consequences of such lawsuits, writes Baylen Linnekin. We should seek to understand whether a suit harms society (say, through added costs, decreased availability of products or services, or encouraging frivolous litigation) in any way. And we should applaud cases where the judicial branch makes injured parties whole while discouraging similar bad actors and actions in the future, all without the need for new laws and regulations.

View this article
Article Thumbnail

If You Can Afford a Plane Ticket, Thank Deregulation: New at Reason

Forty years after the Civil Aeronautics Board was abolished, look how far we've come.

CSA-Printstock/iStockCSA-Printstock/iStockIn the '50s and '60s, when I was growing up, air travel was a luxury. People dressed up as if going to church. There were lots of empty seats, so on night flights you could often get a row of three together and sprawl out. There was ample legroom, and full meals were served in coach.

My family and I were able to take vacations by plane only because my dad worked for an airline, and we flew on company passes when space was available. Since planes were typically only half full, we nearly always got seats on our chosen flights. But we were some of the lucky few.

Flying was a luxury because it was expensive, and it was expensive largely because of detailed federal economic regulations governing how air carriers could operate and, importantly, what they could charge, writes Bob Poole in the latest issue of Reason.

View this article
Article Thumbnail

Trump's Budget Only Reduces the Deficit If You Accept Some Very Unlikely Assumptions

The really scary thing is that even the CBO's more accurate assessment is also based on unlikely assumptions.

The Trump administration says its budget proposal would cut the annual deficit to about $360 billion over the next 10 years, thanks to booming economic growth and the highly unlikely slashing of domestic spending.

Using more realistic expectations, a new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that debts and deficits will continue to grow even if Congress implemented President Donald Trump's proposal wholesale. Trillion-dollar deficits will hit by 2022, according to the CBO, and deficits would total about $9.5 trillion over the next decade, up from the $7.2 trillion that the White House says would be added to the debt by 2028.

The White House projects about 3 percent growth for the next decade, while the CBO expects only about 1.8 percent. That accounts for the "vast majority of the difference in debt estimates," according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan think tank that favors reducing the deficit. The group released its own analysis of the CBO's analysis on Friday.

The CBO's assessment is an attempt to estimate what would happen if Trump's budget plan went into effect, even though it's virtually certain that that it won't. That leads it to a variety of unlikely assumptions.

For example, the CBO assumes that Trump will be successful in cutting more than $1.5 trillion in non-defense discretionary spending, along with another $1 trillion cut from health care spending (mostly in the form of a still-unclear plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act and make unrelated changes to Medicare), and that the administration will cut more than $300 billion from other social welfare programs like food stamps. All those those spending reductions are politically unpalatable and therefore likely to be ignored by Congress, but even if they all happen, the debt would still increase, the CBO says.

"The budget relies on huge cuts to non-discretionary programs that run counter to the large spending increases the President signed into law earlier this year," the CRFB report concludes. "In addition, these changes simply are not sufficient when using realistic economic growth assumptions."

Still, Trump's budget is an improvement on the national debt's current trajectory. Without any policy changes, the CBO projects the deficit would hit $1.5 trillion by 2028.

Source: Committee for a Responsible Federal BudgetSource: Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Like most presidential budgets, there's little reason to think that the spending framework sent months ago from the White House to Congress will ever become law. When it comes to budget-making, Congress does what it wants.

But that doesn't mean a presidential budget is meaningless. It's a part, even if only a small part, of a continuously ongoing conversation about America's spending priorities and long-term fiscal plan. And given how unhappy Trump was about Congress' decision to dump a record-breaking spending bill on his desk in March—"I will never sign a bill like this again," Trump said as he signed the bill that essentially guaranteed $1 trillion annual deficits for the rest of his term—the budget presented to Congress in February, which was subjected to hearings this week, could be seen as a signal from the administration that runaway spending will no longer be tolerated.

It could be that. But only if you buy into the White House's overly rosy assumptions, and believe that Congress will suddenly decide to cut billions from entitlement programs, the military, and other politically sacrosanct line items. In other words, it ain't happening.

Article Thumbnail

Sexual Assault Allegation Against George Takei Collapses Under Scrutiny

Star Trek actor is a victim of #MeToo overreach.

TakeiRishi Deka/ZUMA Press/NewscomScott Brunton, the man who accused George Takei of drugging and sexually assaulting him in 1981, almost certainly wasn't drugged, changed key details of his story, and told at least one outright lie to The Hollywood Reporter, where Brunton's allegations first appeared last November.

That's according to an exhaustively researched Observer piece by the author Shane Snow. Snow writes that "this story needs to be recast significantly," in light of the information he learned from Brunton during hours of conversation. It seems fairly clear that Takei's name should appear on the small but not-to-be-overlooked list of men who have come under false suspicion during the #MeToo era.

Brunton had claimed he met Takei at a gay bar in 1981. Takei consoled Brunton, who was 24 at the time, after the latter had broken up with his boyfriend. Brunton accompanied the veteran Star Trek actor back to his home one night after a dinner where he drank wine. Brunton consumed two drinks at Takei's home and then felt "disoriented and dizzy," he told THR. He passed out in a bean bag chair. When he came to, Takei had pulled down his pants and was groping his crotch. Brunton rebuffed him and drove home.

Brunton also told THR that he sought Takei out during the actor's book tour a decade later, intending to confront him about what had happened. The pair got together for coffee, but Brunton couldn't bring himself to mention the incident.

On Twitter, the now 80-year-old Takei wrote that he was "shocked and bewildered" by the accusation, and did not remember Brunton at all.

That seems infinitely more plausible, now that we know the coffee meeting didn't actually take place:

In one of our interviews, Brunton admitted that the coffee meeting never occurred. He said he actually just called Takei's room through the hotel switchboard, and the actor had told him they could chat at a signing event for his autobiography, To the Stars.

When Brunton got to the front of the line of fans, though, he "chickened out" and did not confront him about their encounter.

After Brunton told his story to THR, some people on Twitter suggested that perhaps he had been drugged by Takei. This quickly became part of Brunton's tale. Shortly after the THR piece, Brunton told The Oregonian, "I know unequivocally he spiked my drink."

But that seems highly doubtful:

"The most likely cause is not drug-related," said Lewis Nelson, the director of medical toxicology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School. "It sounds like postural hypotension, exacerbated by alcohol." Postural hypotension is a sudden decrease in blood pressure that can occur when a person stands up quickly—and can make one dizzy enough to pass out even without alcohol. Brunton had made it clear to me, twice, that dizziness hit him only when he stood up.

The kind of date-rape drugs that would have been available in 1981 should have completely incapacitated Brunton for hours, according to Snow. He wouldn't have been able to drive home shortly thereafter.

Takei still could have assaulted Brunton, even if he hadn't drugged him. But despite initially claiming that Takei groped his crotch, Brunton didn't mention any inappropriate touching when he was interviewed by CNN. He told Snow that did not remember being actually groped by Takei. And whatever was happening—what Takei wanted to happen—came to an abrupt halt as soon as Brunton said no.

Snow is extremely careful and measured in his analysis of the story. But it certainly looks like the evidence of predatory behavior on Takei's part just doesn't exist, and Brunton's embellishments cast doubt on whether his memory his reliable.

Reacting to Snow's story, Takei tweeted that he was grateful "this nightmare is finally drawing to a close." He noted that he bears Brunton no ill will, and understands "this was part of a very important national conversation that we as a society must have, painful as it might be."

That national conversation is important, and it's thanks to the brave men and women of the #MeToo movement that abusive creeps like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby are finally being held accountable for their actions. But those men were brought down by painstakingly well-reported journalism, and will face justice (or in the case of Cosby, already has faced justice) after being afforded due process under the law. The Takei incident is a reminder that not all victims tell the truth, and it's important to carefully vet the facts before ultimate judgment is rendered.

Article Thumbnail

The Longest Time (TSA Version): New at Reason

Remy prepares summer travelers for groping season.

Click here for full lyrics, links, and downloadable versions.

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

View this article
Article Thumbnail

Video: Canton Police Sic Dog On Man For Refusing to Get Out Of His Car

“Stop fighting the dog!”

Police in Canton, Ohio, sicced a K-9 unit on a man earlier this month for refusing to provide identification or step out of his car during a traffic stop.

Graphic video shows police breaking the window of Ronald Wagner's car and siccing a dog on him:

According to local news reports, Wagner was pulled over by an Ohio Highway Patrol Trooper for having a handmade license plate. When asked by a police officer, he refused to hand over his driver's license or registration, or tell the officer his name. After the numbers on Wagner's handmade license plate returned a name linked to a concealed carry license, the officer called for backup.

Police tried to coax Wagner out of the car for 20 minutes, during which he politely but firmly refused to comply. He also told police he wasn't armed. Officers then gave Wagner a final warning, broke his driver's side window, and sicced a K-9 unit, a Belgian Malinois, on him. (The Belgian Malinois is known among police and breed enthusiasts as the "maligator" because of its incredible bite strength and tenacity. Among dog breeds, it's one of the last you would want to latch on to you.)

To be clear, Wagner was required to provide his ID when asked. The local news site has an extensive explainer quoting state legal experts. The general gist: Yes, you must present a driver's license and registration when asked by a police officer during a traffic stop. No, you may not drive with handwritten tags instead of license plates.

Wagner's insistence that the police orders were legal but not "lawful" sounds like rhetoric used by so-called sovereign citizens, who believe—through rather convoluted reasoning—that they're not bound by licensing laws and other driving requirements. Reason has previously written about sovereign citizens and the reactions they provoke from law enforcement.

It's a seperate question, however, whether Wagner's severely deficient understanding of the law, and his passive resistance, were good reasons for his arm to be ripped to shreds. A dog isn't a negotiator or mental health worker, which might be more useful in some cases than a set of teeth.

Although police no longer use dogs for crowd control, there have been several incidents in recent years of poor oversight or sheer bloodlust leading to bloody police dog maulings. For example, a San Diego officer sicced a K-9 unit on a naked, unarmed man who was tripping on LSD in 2016.

In 2015, a Sarasota Herald Tribune investigation found the local North Port, Florida, police department had sicced dogs on unarmed, juvenile, and in some cases suicidal residents. Text messages uncovered by the newspaper showed K-9 handlers bragging and congratulating each other after their dogs mauled people.

The Canton Police Department told local news outlets it is reviewing the incident to see if any policies were broken.

In the meantime, Wagner has had two surgeries on his mangled arm. He pleaded not guilty to four misdemeanor charges at a court hearing earlier this week.

Article Thumbnail

San Francisco Demands E-Scooters Be Removed from City Streets

Bay City bureaucrats are uncomfortable with permissionless innovation.

Jevanto/Dreamstime.comJevanto/Dreamstime.comSan Francisco has given e-scooter companies an ultimatum: Get your vehicles off our streets by June 4 or risk fines of $100 per day per scooter. And we just might take the scooters too.

Some companies might be allowed to rent out their electric dockless scooters again, but not until they secure permits from the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority (SFMTA), which won't be issuing them until late June at the earliest.

The announcement comes a month after the city issued cease-and-desist letters to several e-scooter companies and began impounding improperly parked vehicles. (Austin, Texas, chased e-scooter companies off the streets earlier this year too.)

The permits themselves were unveiled yesterday. They come with numerous new requirements for the e-scooter companies, whose dockless vehicles—rentable via smartphone app—started cropping up in San Francisco earlier this year.

The application costs alone are $5,000. Once approved, scooter companies such as Lime, Bird, and Spin will have to pay another $35,000 to the city. The number of rentable e-scooters available for all companies will be capped at 1,250 city-wide for six months (then rising to 2,500), and companies will have to provide service area plans, which will be subject to city approval.

These rules are necessary, city officials say, to combat the threat e-scooters pose to some deeply held San Francisco values.

"We can have convenience, but it can't sacrifice privacy and equity along the way," City Attorney Dennis Herrera informed everyone in a Thursday press release. "Everyone needs to play by a set of rules for cities to function efficiently, safely and equitably—even corporations," added San Francisco Supervisor Aaron Peskin, the author of the city's new e-scooter regulations.

To achieve this end, the city's new permits will also require scooter companies to offer their website and apps in multiple languages (including but not limited to Chinese and Spanish), to make their customer interface technology accessible to the disabled, and to offer discounts and cash payment options to low-income people.

If officials' primary concern is ensuring more people can have access to e-scooters, it seems a counter-productive strategy to demand that all scooters be taken off the road. So does capping the total number of scooters. And piling on a lot of new regulations that raise the costs of providing the vehicles.

Costs come down and accessibility increases when service providers can respond and grow with demand, not when they are artificially constrained by regulatory caps and costs.

Uber is a great example of this, starting as essentially a luxury town car provider before evolving into a popular transit service used by all kinds of people.

The deeper motivation behind these new restrictions appears to be a discomfort about any innovation that is not pre-planned, pre-approved, or in conformance with pre-established city goals.

SFMTA chief Ed Reiskin summed up the attitude when he said, "Just because something is innovative doesn't mean it's good for our city."

Article Thumbnail

PBS Delves into the Military Mindset for Memorial Day: New at Reason

What do soldiers think about during war?

'Going to War''Going to War,' PBSTelevision critic Glenn Garvin reviews two war documentaries, Going to War and Served Like a Girl, being aired for Memorial Day on PBS:

The relationship between soldiers and war is never as simple as outsiders make it out to be. Some certainly hate it. But others find a human resonance in war that otherwise eludes them: A sense of purpose, of brotherhood and even, paradoxically, of security. One vet interviewed in Going to War recalls that he felt safer in Vietnam, where "you know somebody's got your back. In the world, it's dog eat dog."

That is, arguably, not a typical human response. But one of the most interesting things about the documentary is the frank admission of the soldiers—both male and female—is that they aren't typically human, or at least weren't when they were in the military. Going to war would be impossible, they say, if the military didn't strip them of ordinary human sensibilities and rebuild them as a hive mind.

View this article
Article Thumbnail

How We Became a 'Nation of Narcs' and How To Fix It: Podcast

Reason's Mike Riggs discusses how class anxiety, busybodyism, and a lack of empathy are making America a less-great country.

Reason reporter Mike Riggs talks with Nick Gillespie about his story "A Nation of Narcs," which argues that Americans have developed "a nasty habit of inviting the state into people's lives for tiny offenses." Riggs discusses how class, race, and ethnicity often play out when it comes to the "hassle factor" imposed on individuals who are just trying to get on with their lives. And he lays out some ways to turn back the tide.

Riggs and Gillespie also talk about the legacy of Tom Wolfe, the journalist who more than any other went out and explored the real lives of Americans and all the crazy, wonderful things they were up to.

Subscribe, rate, and review our podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Photo credit: Dustin Oakley.

Don't miss a single Reason Podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Article Thumbnail

10 Years After Heller, Does 'Normalizing' the Second Amendment Mean Ignoring It?

The Supreme Court has been almost completely silent on the subject of gun rights, leaving important issues unresolved.

American Enterprise InstituteAmerican Enterprise InstituteNext month it will be 10 years since District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark case in which the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense. In that time the Court has done almost nothing to clarify the contours of that right.

The two exceptions are McDonald v. Chicago, the 2010 case in which the Court said the Second Amendment constrains states and cities as well as the federal government, and Caetano v. Massachusetts, a 2016 case involving a ban on stun guns in which the Court reiterated that weapons covered by the Second Amendment are not limited to those that are suitable for warfare or those that were in common use when the amendment was enacted. Critics, including Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, frequently complain that the Court is neglecting the Second Amendment, letting judges who are hostile to gun rights flout Heller by upholding unconstitutional restrictions on firearms.

Duke law professor Joseph Blocher and Eric Ruben, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, challenge that account, arguing that lower courts for the most part are simply applying the Second Amendment exceptions drawn by Heller. While there is some truth to that claim, it underestimates both the extent to which judges have ignored the implications of Heller and the extent to which that decision left important issues unresolved.

Blocher and Ruben analyzed every Second Amendment case decided by state and federal courts between June 26, 2008, when Heller was published, and February 1, 2016. Their broadest conclusion, consistent with what earlier studies have found, is that Second Amendment claims generally fail. They were successful in just 108 of the 1,153 cases in which they were raised, or 9 percent of the time. One reason for the high failure rate, Blocher and Ruben say, is that three-quarters of the claims were raised in criminal cases, where they were typically tacked on by "defendants facing serious charges," who "have every incentive to make whatever arguments they can get away with."

More generally, Blocher and Ruben argue, Second Amendment claims usually fail because they are usually weak. "The language of Heller makes it clear that some kinds of claims are flawed from the outset," they write. "Most fail precisely because of limitations that Heller itself places on the right to bear arms."

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, seemed keen to assure readers that the decision would not sweep away widely accepted gun control laws that had been on the books for decades (citations omitted):

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

That passage, Blocher and Ruben found, was quoted, "at least in part," by 60 percent of the judicial decisions they examined. But it's quite a leap to conclude that all those decisions must have been consistent with Heller, let alone consistent with the Second Amendment.

Article Thumbnail

James Clapper Thinks Americans Are Dumb Enough to Vote for Trump Because of Facebook Ads

The former head of our intelligence agencies thinks we're all easily manipulated rubes. Is that why he lied to the Senate?

James ClapperPaul Hennessy/Polaris/NewscomFormer Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has an important message for Americans: He thinks y'all are dumb.

Clapper is best known around here for the time he lied to a Senate committee by denying that the feds were engaged in the mass collection of American citizens' phone and internet records. His lie was part of what prompted Edward Snowden to steal and release loads of classified documents revealing the truth.

Clapper has since insisted that he didn't actually lie but rather just totally forgot about this massive secret data collection program. He's been spinning that response for a couple years now. He brought it up again just recently on The View.

Clapper is making the rounds again to promote a new book, Facts and Fears: Hard Truths from a Life in Intelligence. Also providing publicity is his open feud with President Donald Trump, who is now taking his attacks on the "deep state" to the point where he's accusing the FBI of installing a "spy" in his campaign.

While it seems obvious that the FBI was monitoring Trump's campaign to determine the extent of connections with Russian interests, the "spy" claim seems absurdly overheated (for now, anyway). And so we've reached a point where Americans are "taking sides" between two men who have reputations for not exactly being honest and for treating Americans like stupid rubes.

In an interview this week with Judy Woodruff on PBS, Clapper makes it very clear how big a bunch of rubes he thinks Americans are. He believes not only that Russian interests attempted to influence the election—obviously true—but that they tipped the outcome.

This unprovable claim is based on the idea that Americans' votes are easily manipulated. Clapper acknowledges that his former agency has not made such a formal determination, but

as a private citizen, it's what I would call my informed opinion that, given the massive effort the Russians made, and the number of citizens that they touched, and the variety and the multidimensional aspects of what they did to influence opinion and affect the election, and given the fact that it turned on less than 80,000 votes in three states, to me, it just exceeds logic and credulity that they didn't affect the election, and it's my belief they actually turned it.

The evidence doesn't really show that the Russian influence campaign amounted to much. As Reason's Jacob Sullum has carefully detailed, the Russian social media campaign spending was a drop in the bucket when compared to overall online ad revenue, and the content seemed to focus on affirming preexisting beliefs. If it accomplished anything, it was to heighten already existing points of cultural conflict. It "exceeds logic and credulity" to think that this campaign of affirmation altered the election's outcome. Especially when you remember that this didn't happen in a vaccum: At the same time the Russians were buying Facebook ads, countless other groups were spending far more on election messages.

Woodruff asks Clapper why he's inflaming this feud now. He explains, "I am so concerned about the health and strength of our institutions and our values that I spent a lot of time defending, that I had to speak out."

Ah, the health and strength of those institution and its values. Let's scroll up the interview a little bit. When Woodruff asked whether the intelligence community had, indeed, sometimes gone too far in their work, here's the extremely vague way Clapper talks about the congressional committees that monitor intelligence agencies:

So the members on those committees have to represent our citizens to make sure that what the intelligence community is doing is legal, ethical and moral. And we have had cases where, depending on the situation, post-9/11, for example, where our intelligence community did things that, after the fact, people objected to.

Torture. He's talking about torture. What's amazing here is that he can't even bring himself to use the "advanced interrogation techniques" doublespeak that they had settled on. The intelligence community "did things." Just, you know, stuff. And people objected to it "after the fact," as though the totality of what they were up to hadn't been carefully concealed from us and the evidence destroyed.

I cannot imagine why Americans should be interested in the opinions about the norms and ethics of our federal institution from a man who won't speak honestly about Americans' distrust of our intelligence agencies, and who thinks we're so stupid that some Facebook ads can trick us into voting for candidates we don't want.

Article Thumbnail

When the Censors Came for Jack Johnson's Fight Films

Friday A/V Club: The boxer who just got a posthumous presidential pardon was a central figure in one of the first battles over movie censorship.

ColumbiaColumbiaThe president has posthumously pardoned Jack Johnson. Johnson, the first black heavyweight boxing champion, was convicted in 1913 of violating the Mann Act, which prohibited the interstate transport of "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery or for any other immoral purpose." More specifically, he crossed state lines with a white girlfriend. Racists resented Johnson's victories in the ring, they resented his refusal to be modest about his success, they resented his wealth, and they resented the fact that he slept with white women. So they used one of the Progressive Era's most notorious "moral reform" laws to punish him.

But they didn't just target Johnson himself. The boxer also became a central figure in one of the earliest battles over movie censorship.

After Johnson's 1910 victory over James J. Jeffries (the so-called "great white hope"), anti-black and anti-boxing crusaders blocked local screenings of a film that showed the match. In 1912, citing the same motion picture, Congress passed the Sims Act, which banned the transport of fight films over state lines. That law led in turn to one of the strangest episodes in film history.

In 1916, a group brought a film of Johnson's recent fight against Jess Willard to a tent erected on the boundary separating New York from Quebec. They then projected the movie from Canada onto a screen on the U.S. side of the border, where it was rephotographed on American soil. The idea was to import the images without actually importing the film—or, at least, to have a plausible-sounding story once the movie turned up in New York.

Today you need no such feints to see the film. The Johnson-Willard fight is on YouTube, and I have embedded it here:

Willard won that one. Those of you who want to see Johnson win a contest can check out some highlights from his fight with Jeffries below. I unfortunately can't find the full film of that match online, so this edit (with narration added decades later) will have to do:

Article Thumbnail

New Cancer Report Tries To Scare You Out of Eating Sausage and Bacon

Nevertheless, U.S. cancer rates are stable for women and declining for men.

BaconBeerLengelDreamstimeLengel/Dreamstime"No amount of alcohol, sausage or bacon is safe," declares the Daily Mirror. The article is about the latest cancer prevention dietary guidelines from the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), which isn't actually as alarmist as that sentence sounds. The WCRF report estimates that eating the equivalent of two strips of bacon a day would boost your risk of colorectal cancer by 16 percent. Translation: Eating about 38 pounds of bacon a year—or the equivalent weight in sausages and hot dogs—will raise your lifetime risk of colorectal cancer from about 4.5 percent to 5.2 percent for men and from 4.15 percent to 4.8 percent for women.

As far as alcohol goes, the WCRF estimates that drinking 20 grams of ethanol a day (a standard drink contains 14 grams) will increase your risk of colorectal cancer by 7 percent. Three drinks a day raises your risk of liver cancer by 6 percent. A mere 10 grams of alcohol per day increases your risk of esophageal cancer by 41 percent. And for women, drinking as little as 10 grams per day boosts their risk of breast cancer by 9 percent. So these relatively modest rates of tippling (absent other confounding factors) would increase your absolute lifetime risk colorectal cancer from 4.5 to 4.8 percent; liver cancer from 1 to 1.06 percent; esophageal cancer from 0.75 to 1 percent (if you're a man) or from 0.22 to 0.3 percent (if you're a woman); and breast cancer from 12.4 to 13.5 percent.

Meanwhile, a huge 2017 meta-analysis in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology finds significant health benefits from light to moderate drinking. For the purposes of the study, light drinking is defined as fewer than 3 drinks a week, moderate drinking is more than 3 and less than 14 drinks a week for men and less than 7 for women, and heavy drinking is more than 14 a week for men and more than 7 for women. To some extent, there is a trade-off between reduced cardiovascular risks and higher cancer risks. Some drinking may even help people avoid some cancers: Medscape reports of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology study that "light and moderate alcohol intake predicted reduced all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortalities in both men and women."


For comparison, consider that the risk that persistent cigarette smokers will develop lung during their lifetimes is 1,100 percent greater than the risk that a nonsmoker will.

The WCRF also reports that being tall is a cancer risk. For every extra 2 and half inches over 5 feet and 2 inches in height, the WCRF finds that the risk of prostate cancer increases by 7 percent. My adult height is 6 feet 5 inches, suggesting that my risk of prostate cancer is up 40 percent. This boosts my lifetime risk for prostate cancer from 11 to a bit over 15 percent.

To mitigate these risks, the WCRF recommends: "Eat little, if any, processed meats" and "For cancer prevention, it's best not to drink alcohol." Noting the "people cannot necessarily influence" how tall they grow, the WCRF makes "no global recommendations" regarding cancer risks associated with stature.

As it happens, the National Institutes of Health has just issued its Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, which reports that the incidence of cancer among men has been declining by 2.2 percent per year since 1999. The cancer incidence rate for women has remained flat over that period. Cancer mortality trends are declining for both men and women, due largely to earlier diagnoses and more effective treatments. Cancer mortality for men fell at a rate of 1.8 percent per year; for women, it fell 1.4 percent annually. The five-year cancer survival rate in 1953 was 35 percent, increasing to 49 percent in 1977 and now around 68 percent. Since 1999, colorectal and esophageal cancer rates have been falling while those for liver and breast cancer have been rising a bit. Over the course of their lives, about 1 in 3 Americans will develop cancer and about 1 in 5 will die of the disease. CancerIncidenceNIH2018NIH

The declining overall cancer incidence rates occurred at the same time that per capita U.S. consumption of alcohol was increasing slightly from 2.16 gallons of ethanol in the mid-1990s to 2.33 gallons now. That amounts to slightly less than two daily drinks per person. The WCRF reports that global average annual consumption of alcohol is about 1.7 gallons per person—but just under half of the world's adult population has never consumed alcohol. In addition, pork consumption in the U.S. has remained steady at about 50 pounds per person annually for the past couple of decades. And Americans annually eat an average of 18 pounds of bacon and 70 hot dogs—about 9 pounds—per person.

A study in December concluded that about 42 percent of cancers are attributable to modifiable risk factors. The researchers estimated that cigarette smoking accounts for 19 percent of cancer cases, excess body weight for 7.8 percent, alcohol for 5.6 percent, UV radiation for 4.7 percent, physical inactivity for 2.9 percent, low consumption of fruits and vegetables for 1.9 percent, and HPV infection for 1.8 percent. The researchers attributed just 0.9 and 0.5 percent of cancers to the consumption of processed and red meats respectively.

So if lifestyle and environmental factors are responsible for only about 40 percent of cancers, what causes most cases of the disease? Bad luck, according to a recent study by biostatistician Cristian Tomassetti and oncologist Bert Vogelstein, both of Johns Hopkins University. The research was prompted by the fact that cancer often strikes people who follow all the rules of healthy living—no smoking, a healthy diet, a healthy weight, little or no exposure to known carcinogens—and who have no family history of the disease.

Parsing data on the risk of 17 cancer types in 69 countries, the researchers report "evidence that random, unpredictable DNA copying 'mistakes' account for nearly two-thirds of the mutations that cause cancer." Basically, cancer most often arises in tissues where cells are constantly being replaced, such as colon and skin. The unavoidable proliferation of random genetic copying errors increases the chances that a cell will mutate in ways that turn it cancerous. "These cancers will occur no matter how perfect the environment," says Vogelstein.

Given their relatively low cancer risks, I will continue to enjoy bacon and cocktails. More cautious folks are free to choose otherwise.

The upshot is the longer you live, the more likely it is that intemperate lifestyle choices or sheer bad luck will catch up to you and give you cancer. As Massachusetts Institute of Technology oncologist Robert Weinberg has observed, "If you live long enough, you will get cancer."

Article Thumbnail

California's 'Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act' Resulted in Less Transparency, Fairness for Taxpayers: New at Reason

Now it's clear that gutting the state's old tax agency was bad for taxpayers.

Ingram Publishing/NewscomIngram Publishing/NewscomIt's a rule of thumb. One should always expect the opposite result of whatever any government agency promises. The War on Poverty created a permanent underclass that perpetuated poverty throughout generations. The War on Drugs did much to erode our civil liberties, but mainly has emboldened the drug cartel. The examples go on and on.

That brings us to California's taxing authorities. After scandals at the Board of Equalization—the Orwellian-named agency that had collected sales, use and special taxes—the Legislature gutted it and largely replaced its functions with two new bureaucracies. The 2017 legislation was called the Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act.

As you might have guessed, since its implementation a few months ago, the state's tax proceedings have become less transparent and less fair to taxpayers, writes Steven Greenhut.

Read the whole thing.


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