Reason Morning Links: Fullerton Police Chief Goes on Medical Leave, Fullerton Tea Partiers Push for Recall Vote, NCAA Wants Schools to Give More Money to Student Athletes


  • Fullerton Police Chief Michael Sellers, who has been uncooperative in the investigation of Kelly Thomas case, is taking medical leave due to stress. 
  • Fullerton Tea Party businessmen push for recall of city councilmembers who they see as in cahoots with Fullerton PD. 
  • NCAA leaders: "Give athletic conferences the flexibility to give athletes multiyear athletic scholarships (as opposed to single year grants) and to award athletically related financial aid equal to the full cost of attendance at their institutions." 
  • "More than 160 children are among at least 2,292 people reported killed in U.S. drone attacks since 2004. There are credible reports of at least 385 civilians among the dead."
  • St. Pete Times profiles Ron Paul. 
  • Flashflood takes out 40 feet of border fence. 

New at Reason.tv: "Marc Eliot on Reagan in Hollywood"

NEXT: Safe Driver

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. Early Morning Links. Excellent.

    1. Indeed! Well done, Riggs!

      Remember kids, it’s Thursday.


      1. Obey your Queen!

      1. -3.5 suckas

    2. 6:50AM EASTERN? Screw you guys, I’m going home.

      1. Careful, I’m certain you’re still drunk.

        1. Balko says for you to shut the hell up until you see me swerving.

  2. More than 160 children are among at least 2,292 people reported killed

    Sometimes I think the remaining supporters of the eternal wars just want to see as many Muslims as possible killed. Blood on the hands must be somehow warm and comforting to some.

    1. I 160 out of 2292 means you are getting the right people 90% of the time. And further, did it ever occur to you that maybe the people who are fighting us and hiding amongst children bear some responsibility for those children’s death? If I knew the US was out to kill me, I think I might tell children to go elsewhere. That is unless I wanted to make sure they died with me so that my death could be used by nitwit guilty self hating Westerners.

      1. Whoa, whoa. 160 out of 2292 means you are definitely NOT getting the right people 8% of the time. It says nothing about whether the other 92% were militants or bystanders, only adults.

        1. Whoa, whoa. 160 out of 2292 means you are definitely NOT getting the right people 8% of the time.

          Close enough for government work.

          Besides, who says that just because you are under 18 you aren’t an Islamonutter with blood on your hands?

          1. Islamonutter

            New sandwich, like a fluffernutter. myabe tahini and marshmallow, I dunno yet.

      2. That’s if you assume they get the right people every time.

        The children we get assume are the wrong people right off the bat. Of the remaining number, we then have to determine the “correct” kill rate to know how effective we are.

        Considering the fact that many drone killings happen in places like Pakistan and Somalia and Yemen, where there are no US “battlefields”, I really can’t believe our “effectiveness rate” is that high. In a battlefield context if you blow up the guys shooting at you, you’re pretty damn sure you got the right guys. In a non-battlefield context, when your intelligence guy (or fucking Yemen’s intelligence guy, or some Pakistani who’s probably playing about eight sides against the middle) comes to you and says, “If we use a drone to blow up this building on this non-battlefield we’ll kill the latest iteration of Al-Qaeda #3” you aren’t quite so sure, because you can’t be.

      3. You forgot to say “nits make lice”. That always makes it okay, doesn’t it?

        And these were strikes in Pakistan alone, a nation we are supposedly not at war with. Even the US govt estimates that “only 50” were non-combatants. Maybe we should discourage everyone in Pakistan from standing within 25 meters of each other at any time so we can make sure we kill only the people we want to kill.

      4. So principles on which our country was founded–presumption of innocence and all that–don;t apply when we declare a rhetorical war? I eagerly await the drone attacks on Mexicans growing weed and making meth. WoD being a threat to our existence and all that.

      5. 100 out of 1000 planes crashing means that 90% are landing safely. What else do you want?

      6. “”I 160 out of 2292 means you are getting the right people 90% of the time. “”

        Do a comparison with SWAT teams in the US and I bet they do just as good. No problem there.

      7. An 8% outright failure rate is absolutely terrible in almost every field that matters outside of sports.

    2. Sometimes I think the remaining supporters of the eternal wars just want to see as many Muslims as possible killed. Blood on the hands must be somehow warm and comforting to some.

      If that were the case, they would be advocating the US unload its nuclear arsenal on the Muslim world and/or engage in carpet bombing of Muslim majority cities. When you consider how many Muslims it would be physically possible for the US to kill, and compare that to actual policies, it becomes obvious that what the US is doing is not even remotely comparable to getting “as many Muslims as possible killed”.

      And who says the wars have to be eternal? The Obama administration and Karzai have tried to negotiate peace with the Taliban and allied warlords – on condition that they accept the Afghan constitution, cut ties with Al-Qaeda and similar terrorist groups, and stop trying to violently overthrow the Afghan government. The Afghan war continues because of Taliban barbarism and intransigence, not because the US wants it to go on forever.

    1. Even as empty-headed hacktastic drivel goes, that shit is awful.

    2. and then be swept out of the house? Or next election, lose his majority? Yeah, that would be teh smartz!

    3. Judging by the fact that not a single appointment to the Super Committee has any Tea Party connections, Boehner is playing Obama ball.

      1. I’m wearing my surprised face.

      2. That was pretty much the point of it, right? Delegate congress’s power to a small committee of people who can “get things done” i.e., be good little doggies and do as the leadership and the Prez tells them. Bill becomes law, and all without the influence of a few troublesome meddlers.

        1. And they would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for those darn kids!

      3. …not a single appointment to the Super Committee has any Tea Party connections…

        This just guarantees that whatever comes out of that Committee is going to be crap. They aren’t even trying to include the Tea Party. They’re going to come to some traditional Repub/Dem “compromise” that will screw us all.

        1. It’s an interesting microcosm of US electoral politics in general. The US electorate votes in “representatives,” and when we get sold out in congress, we’re told to STFU, you had your say in the election; if you don’t like it, try again in a few years.

          Now congress creates a super congress, adding a new layer of abstraction from accountability to our system. Might as well have the supercongress appoint an emperor and be done with it.

          1. I don’t see how this is constitutional.

            1. Don’t know the details, but the Congress has a whole probably gets to vote on anything that comes out of the committee. There may be some agreements to rubber stamp some things that come out of the committee, but no Congressman can be bound by anything like that.

              If that’s not how it works, it is probably unconstitutional.

              1. I’m sure the congress as a whole gets to approve the committee’s proposals, but equally sure that any congresscritters who have the audacity to break the gentleman’s agreement to rubber stamp them willbe flayed in the press as “hostage takers” or some such rubbish.

              2. Whatever comes out of the Super Committee goes to both Chambers for an up-or-down vote. If it passes both chambers by the deadline, then it is law. Otherwise, the across-the-board cuts take effect. I think it’s Constitutional because both Chambers have pretty much complete control over how bills come to the floor for a vote.

      4. Sen. Pat Toomey was appointed. He was campaigning on a tea party platform before there were tea parties.

        1. I was referring to Boehner’s appointments. Toomey is a good one, for sure.

  3. “The US continues to insist that it ‘can’t confirm any noncombatant casualties’ in the past year.”

    What can the US confirm? And how many dollars would need to be spent for it to confirm a damn thing?

    1. “Can’t” often means “won’t,” especially if it’s the gubmint talking.

    2. The military does not track civilian casualties. It makes for bad PR.

  4. City spokeswoman Sylvia Palmer Mudrick said the chief cannot be fired while on medical leave.

    Gee, what a surprise.

    1. Whatever his illness, it doesn’t appear to have adversely affected his calculating abilities.

  5. There are credible reports of at least 385 civilians among the dead.

    Civilian casualties occur in war? Who knew?

    1. It’s always the other side’s fault.

    2. A war? Who knew?

  6. The Secret History of Guns
    The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership?and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers?the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.

    1. right, Reagan = NRA = KKK

      and the Founding Fathers bit? I’m sure back then someone could walk in, throw down their money and buy a gun with no signing of papers or even a waiting period.

      The horror, the horror.

      1. we luvs us some extended mags!

        1. guns dont kill people. bullets do !

      2. Back then you could buy a cannon as a private citizen or even a warship. How times have changed.

        1. But, but, smallpox, yellow fever, typhoid, …

          1. and dead fags !

            1. Don’t feed me, Seymour!

      3. Dead, white, slave-owners who lived at least 100 years ago. Nobody cares what they think.

        Now Karl Marx, he’s eternal and wise and junk.

  7. I notice the drone attacks didn’t stop in January 2009. Coincidence?

    1. Let me be clear. I will put a stop to escalate air raiding villages and killing civilians. Because of the failures of the Bush administration.

      1. mission accomplished !

      2. Three little girls in your first week was a pretty good start.

  8. Will the Israeli left talk about occupation?

    Many protesters are reluctant to talk about the occupation and settlements for fear of dividing a unified movement.
    Gregg Carlstrom Last Modified: 09 Aug 2011 12:19
    Activists tend to make two arguments for connecting the two. One is moral: A movement that wants social justice for Israeli Jews should demand the same for Israeli Arabs, and for the Palestinian people, they argue.

    The other argument is more pragmatic. Israel’s ongoing occupation of the West Bank is expensive, and activists argue that those resources could be better spent on social programmes inside Israel.

    Settlers, after all, receive benefits – such as subsidised mortgages and tax breaks – not unlike the ones protesters are demanding.

    The government spends at least 2 billion shekels ($570 million) per year to subsidise life in the settlements, according to the Israeli group Peace Now. The Adva Center, a think tank in Tel Aviv, estimates the occupation’s total cost since 1967 at more than $50 billion.


      1. JOOS vs JOOS!

        1. Internalized Anti-Semitism.

  9. “Didn’t stop”? I guess you could call exponentially increasing in occurrence that.

  10. Debt Forgiveness – Who Does The Forgiving?

    “The current mess was caused by people making bad choices because at the end of the day they could expect the government to rescue them. “Debt forgiveness” might only encourage more such behavior.

    Nevertheless, it is nice-sounding rhetoric, so expect politicians to use it to gin up votes. Just be sure that when you hear them use that phrase, you know what they really mean is “using government to force banks and responsible borrowers to bail out irresponsible borrowers.”

    1. You are too kind. Makes up for that Wal-Mart, ah, “woman”.

    2. + a kajillion

  11. Pentagon’s Mach 20 Missile Ready for Ultimate Test

    “The Pentagon has been working for nearly a decade on an audacious plan to strike anywhere on the planet in less than an hour. Thursday could prove to be the do-or-die moment for that plan.”

    1. Mighty fine video of the missile in flight … NOT!

      1. The 90’s called, it says you have to pay licensing fees to use its catchphrases.

        1. Pot/kettle.

        2. Sha, right!

    2. Finally, I may visit Australia. I don’t mind doing 1.5 hrs in a ballistic pod. But it’s either that or cruise ship.

      1. At last, a personalized, hypersonic travel breakthrough!

    3. At that speed, does it need a warhead?

      1. What isn’t improved by the addition of a warhead. It’s like the bacon of munitions.

        1. I’m sure Raytheon and Lockheed agree.

      2. At 12k MPH at impact, and a ball park guess of 500 kg vehicle weight, I get an impact energy around 7 GJ. Per the wiki, a stick of dynamite comes in at 2.1 MJ. So, about 3500 sticks of dynamite. It lists an energy density for TNT of 4.9 MJ/Kg, so about 1400 kg of TNT, or the energy from 3 or so Mk-84 2000 pound bombs.

        Should make a hell of a boom.

  12. “How come I think I have a chance? My name’s on the ballot,” [the President] said. “And the country’s shitting my way.”

  13. Ever wonder why California is so broke?

    “California Academic Performance Index (API) * California Access for Infants and Mothers * California Acupuncture Board * California Administrative Office of the Courts * California Adoptions Branch * California African American Museum * California Agricultural Export Program * California Agricultural Labor Relations Board * California Agricultural Statistics Service * California Air Resources Board (CARB) * California Allocation Board * California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority * California Animal Health and Food Safety Services * California Anti-Terrorism Information Center * California Apprenticeship Council * California Arbitration Certification Program * California Architects Board * California Area VI Developmental Disabilities Board * California Arts Council * California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus * California Assembly Democratic Caucus * California Assembly Republican Caucus * California Athletic Commission * California Attorney General * California Bay Conservation and Development Commission * California Bay-Delta Authority * California Bay-Delta Office…etc etc etc”

  14. WHY CALIFORNIA IS BROKE: The Most Astonishing List Of State Agencies Ever Assembled.

    1. Good times at the:
      California Committee on Dental Auxiliaries

    2. Wow. My favorite agencies: the California Volunteers and the California Economic Strategy Panel.

      I will never live in California.

      1. I will never live in California.

        Like it matters. We’re gonna be paying for that shit anyway.

    3. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing

      Is there a better way to guarantee a lack of fairness in something than to dedicate a state agency to it?

      1. Our local California county-level housing agency just is getting a ton of criticism for spending all its federal funding to move its employees from a 401(k) to a pension plan, instead of spending it on, you know, housing.

  15. Flashflood takes out 40 feet of border fence. 

    Odin wants open borders!

  16. “St. Pete Times profiles Ron Paul”

    Surprisingly fair article considering how in the tank for the progressives SPT’s editorial board is. Saved their digs for the final couple of paragraphs.

    1. FTA: Most economists dismiss that as unrealistic and say the gold standard helped cause the Great Depression by limiting how much money could be generated.

      Funny how “most” economists always agree with the author.

    2. They like him because they see him as a divisive force for Republicans.

      1. Hey, he worked with Bernie Sanders to discover where the Fed sent more money than the entire national debt. Maybe the true socialists among them are giving him a little credit.

  17. Uh oh, remember the last time a nation tried this while markets were clearing?


    1. Idiotic. But then, government officials are involved.

  18. The New Philistines

    1. “You can be on either side of the political ledger, or in the middle, but if you’re in the silent majority ? which to me means if you’re not a cultural philistine ? you need to wake up and smell the latte. If you believe in art and culture enriching your environment, now is not the time to stay subdued.”

      “And by ‘not stay subdued’ I mean advocating for other people to be forced to pay for what you like. Otherwise they might just spend their money on TRAKTOR PULLZ. Fucking philistines.”

      1. So you don’t think she’d support my referendum for public funds to support an addition to the local moto-cross track?

        1. No, because it isn’t ‘art’, or ‘literature’, only SWPL counts as being worthy of public funding.

          1. Cowboy Poetry for ALL!

      2. he lost me at “latte”. I’m going to go throw out my oil paints now. Who wants to hit a tractor pull this weekend?

        1. I was hoping you’d apply for a grant to do oil paintings of tractor pulls.

          1. How about a tractor pulling Jesus on a cross through a pond of piss?

            That’s gotta be a easy one to get funded by the NEA right? Or will I have to lose the tractor to get the $$$?

  19. Good morning PIRS, nicole, and other resident anarcho-capitalists.

    I read the links that PIRS supplied yesterday and I do have a couple questions. I’m not going to bother with the practical ones (since a political ideal shouldn’t need to be practical), but I was wondering if one of you could clarify the “taxation = theft” concept for me.

    If you agree with CrackertyAssCracker, then equating taxation with theft is possibly the foundational concept in anarcho-capitalism. Certainly we may be overtaxed or unwisely taxed, but the taxes that we pay depend on the government that we contract with for citizenship. So, if a person is voluntarily a citizen, how can taxation be theft?

    The citizenship vs. non-citizenship choice might be a satan sandwich vs. starvation sort of choice (due to lack of appealing options for citizenship), but economic liberals recognize plenty of similar contracts as fully voluntary.

    Also, just out of curiosity, which currently-existing country/community/Arctic expedition comes closest to anarcho-capitalism?

    tl;dr: How can taxation be theft when it is part of the voluntary citizenship contract?

    1. So, if a person is voluntarily a citizen, how can taxation be theft?

      In what way are we voluntarily citizens? How would we become non-citizens?

      1. While many of us were born into citizenship, many actions performed since then (registering to vote, getting a passport, etc) signify that we have accepted the contract.

        If a person is born in Michigan and chooses not to leave, one might say that they are voluntarily in Michigan.

        As far as renunciation of citizenship, here are the instructions for the US. Every day that you don’t renounce citizenship, you are voluntarily a citizen.

        1. Since some government or other claims jurisdiction over every piece of the fucking globe, where pray tell could one go to become a non-citizen?

          1. Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country.

            Of course it would be awesome if there were an Israel for the Stateless (in terms of Right of Return, etc), but this is the world that we find ourselves in. I suppose you could live on a boat.

            In any case, the choice may be between eating a satan sandwich and starvation, but it is still a real choice. Compare it to a low-value worker in a minimum-wageless society. Most economic liberals would still assert that that worker’s contract to work for $0.50/hour is still voluntary and valid.

            1. None of what you just said addresses the ‘taxation is theft’ issue.

              1. The question that you asked was “where can I go as a non-citizen”. I think my response addressed that question fairly well.

                1. No, it basically confirmed there really is no viable place to be a non-citizen.

                  1. “Viable” is a matter of what each person is willing to accept. You’ve weighed both options (citizenship vs. statelessness) and decided that citizenship is the better deal.

                    1. But The Man is keeping us down! False choice!

                    2. True enough. I believe Antarctica is technically stateless. You could renounce your citizenship and live in Antarctica. Of course, once you got there, you couldn’t leave because, without a passport, you wouldn’t have anyplace to go.

                      So there you have it: by deciding not to live out your days in Antarctica, you have consented to any and all actions of the government that rules you, including the payment of taxes.

                    3. True enough. I believe Antarctica is technically stateless.

                      You’d think that; however, the Australians claim about 50 percent of the fucking place.

                    4. So there you have it: by deciding not to live out your days in Antarctica, you have consented to any and all actions of the government that rules you, including the payment of taxes.

                      But you also get to choose the government that you live with.

            2. I suppose you could live on a boat.

              Or SeaLand!


              Seriously, though. If your choices are: 1)Submit to the domination of your neighbors (aka. society) or 2) Move away from your native land. Then you are a victim of coercion.

              1. If a person is born in MichiganCuba and chooses not to leave, one might say that they are voluntarily in MichiganCuba.

                You get the point.

              2. We need another Seasteading thread.

          2. Somalia of course.

          3. Space.

        2. How can taxation be theft when it is part of the voluntary citizenship contract?

          Voluntariness depends on consent. That merely being born here (implied consent) or not leaving (assumed consent) doesn’t constitute consent when it comes to issues of self-ownership.

          To avoid copy-pasta: Might thoughts on implied and assumed consent.

          1. Hmmmmmmmm… that’s the sort of clarification I was looking for. I’m not convinced that a person who lives their whole life enjoying the benefits of citizenship does so involuntarily, but it’s food for thought…

            1. Your standard issue miniarchist isn’t objecting to a small government that protects negative rights (the only legitimate benefit of citizenship). He or she is objecting to the bloated nightmare that government has become. (See below)

            2. I think you’re looking at this the wrong way, O Feathered-One.

              Consider that it is practically impossible for someone in the U.S. to own property under an allodial title, that is the ownership of the property is independent of any higher authority. This is opposed to fee simple [the word “fee” here comes from “fief”], which is what most land in the U.S. falls under. This means that the government will allow you to “own” property as long you pay taxes. Furthermore, the government reserves the right to take your property away by eminent domain, at any time of their choosing.

              It may be benevolent feudalism, but it’s feudalism all the same. You may say we have given our consent just by participating in our daily lives. Would not a fedual lord argue the same of his peasants growing crops on his lands? After all, if they don’t want his protection, then why grow crops on his land? Never mind that all other land belonged to some other lord, and that it was the only source of livelihood.

              Under our current global system, it is impossible to be a stateless person and work to support oneself. This is coercive. It would say taxation is theft as much as taxation is a protection racket.

            3. I would agree with everything I’ve seen SugarFree say on the subject so far, and also add another link regarding whether it’s even possible to consent to the state, at least as states are currently constituted. I fall on the side of “no, not really.”


          Also, persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should also be aware that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship will not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial obligations previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.

          Enough said.

          1. Previously incurred financial obligations. i.e. taxes incurred while you were a citizen.

            1. No, that’s referring to debts owed. What it’s saying is that a person cannot renounce U.S. citizenship and avoid paying taxes on what the U.S. considers taxable. Just as a foreign tourist still has to pay sales tax if they buy something at a store.

        4. How a government far beyond constitutional limits–in other words, in material and repeated breach of the social contract–defines citizenship changes nothing. I don’t consent to what’s being done; I’m simply a victim of a gang of thugs seizing power and oppressing me and the rest of you.

    2. How can taxation be theft when it is part of the voluntary citizenship contract?

      Funny, I don’t recall signing such a thing.

      1. We’re sure we can come up with our copy.

      2. You’ve signed plenty of documents assenting that you are a citizen (tax filings, possibly passports, etc).

        1. You’ve signed plenty of documents assenting that you are a citizen (tax filings, possibly passports, etc).

          Coerced at the point of a gun does not equal consent. I file tax returns because if I do not the government will come after me with guns to force compliance, etc.

          1. That’s like saying that you are coerced at gunpoint to pay your cable bill. You are obligated to pay it because you are in a contract with the cable company, and if you don’t like the terms of your contract you can find another one or just go without.

            If you don’t like your level of taxation, you are free to end your citizenship contract with this government and enter into one with a more favorable government, or become stateless altogether.

            1. As was pointed out above, renouncing your citizenship does not relieve you of tax obligations.

            2. I voluntarily signed a contract with the cable company, which I can cancel at any time. Cablevision doesn’t have armed enforcers who can coerce me to pay whether I want to or not. The government does. And I can’t avoid ALL government, as I can avoid ALL cable companies if I wish to. Why is this so hard to understand?

              1. WTF: I think I understand your point. I guess we just disagree. You may not be able to avoid all government without sacrificing significant quality-of-life, but you can certainly choose to be a citizen of whichever government suits you best. That makes your citizenship in a particular nation voluntary.

                1. That makes your citizenship in a particular nation voluntary.

                  Correct – I can not avoid coercion, I can only choose which coercion (theft) I find the least odious. So I do not voluntarily accept the imposition of coercion (theft), I merely choose the least bad option that is available.

                  In other words, I do not voluntarily choose to pay protection money to the mob, but since I will be killed if I do not, I may choose to pay it to ‘Mob A’ because that choice is less bad than ‘Mob B’.

                2. Cable bill? If I stop paying my cable bill, they stop sending me TV. End of relationship.

                  I’ve rightly acquired my house and the land its on. Telling me I’m free to leave if I don’t want to pay protection money means you are threatening to steal my house if I make stealing my money too inconvienent. Nothing voluntary about it. I do not consent, I only comply because you* force me, at gun point.

                  *rhetorical you.

              2. “”I voluntarily signed a contract with the cable company,””

                Did anyone put a gun to your head to get a job? The job is in a country who’s Constitution allows taxation on income and goods you know.

            3. If you don’t like your level of taxation, you are free to end your citizenship contract…

              …or you can just stop working and eating and buying things in our civilization. Go make your own.

              1. Not that I don’t feel your pain. I hate how you just can’t do as you please without your fellow citizens making some rules and shit.

              2. You own your person, your chattels, and your real property.

                You don’t own “civilization”.

                I am perfectly capable of working and eating and buying things without ever interacting with or needing your chattels or real property or labor in any way. To me, that indicates that “civilization” is something that has not much in particular to do with you or with your opinion on whether or not I should be allowed to eat transfats.

            4. I agreed to the terms of my cable service. The terms to my citizenship have been violated criminally by my government provider.

    3. Voluntary taxation is not theft; any amount of tax I do not consent to being taken from me is theft.

      As a miniarchist, there is a level of taxation I would support. It is far, far lower than what I am paying now.

      1. “Now we’re merely haggling over the price.”

        ** ducks **

      2. And everyone is welcome to seek out a government that has acceptable tax levels, or work to change tax levels within their government. But, in the meantime, you still voluntarily assent to a citizenship-package that includes certain taxes. Even if you’d rather not pay them, it scarcely strikes me as “theft”.

        1. Extending consent and acquiescing is not the same thing. Acknowledging that I cannot overpower or avoid someone robbing me is not the same as saying what they are doing is something I want.

          Just like deciding which prison I can live in is not freedom to travel and live where I like.

          1. Can’t people say the same thing about any voluntary relationship? you gotta have a job, you gotta have a government, you can shop around for either, but putting your time and taxes in at the one you eventually settle in is just part of the bargain

            at least with the government part you are part owner in a democracy

            1. at least with the government part you are part owner in a democracy

            2. Jennie,

              I don’t believe that the majority over-rides individual consent unless it involves a violation of self-ownership to a third-party. 99.9999999999% of America could vote that you should be beaten to a bloody pulp. Doesn’t make it right and doesn’t mean that you consent to it.

              Jobs and government is not a good analogy. There are plenty of people who are not coerced into job by virtue of independent wealth. And for those who choose not to get a job but actually need to have one, I have no problem with them until they or the proxy violence of the government is used to coerce me into supporting their economic decision. No one forces you to work in the same manner as you are forced to surrender the fruits of your labor to the government.

              A lot of this is bound up in the opposing nature of negative and positive rights. Your only moral duty is to not harm anyone else; you have no moral duty to help them at their insistence.

            3. The difference, I think, is in the quality each of us is assigning to the word “voluntary”.

              In exchange for performing certain tasks or delivering certain goods, an employer (or a customer – there is no difference between an employer and a customer, ultimately) pays you money. Accepting money from that employer or customer and performing the service or delivering the goods is an exchange.

              “Do this or I will shoot you,” is not an exchange. It’s the reverse of an exchange. The person threatening to shoot me is doing so precisely because he doesn’t want to participate in an exchange and just wants my stuff (or my labor, if he’s a slave catcher).

        2. Except that there’s an “expatriation” tax for high worth individuals. Poor schmucks are allowed out of the country with less problems but you MUST pay a ransom to escape US citizenship if you’re loaded. Also, you must pay US taxes while living abroad (all US citizens must do this over a certain income, the US being about the only country that requires this) for years after your renunciation of citizenship. And then, the Reed Act doesn’t let former US citizens back into the US if their main goal was tax avoidance, and even though they did their renunuciation completely legally and paid the blackmail fees–just to spite the tax avoiders. I doubt that this follows your statement “everyone is welcome to seek out a governmnet that has acceptable tax levels…you still voluntarily assent a citizenship-package that includes certain taxes.”

        3. By that thinking, there is no level or reason for taxation that can be considered unjust, which is absurd.

          For instance, taxes which are out in place for wealth redistribution purposes (like the estate tax) are theft, by definition.

      3. As a miniarchist, there is a level of taxation I would support.

        Is there also a commensurate level of roads you are willing to ride? Level of fire you are willing to have put out? A level of Somalia you are willing to somale?

        1. And there is only some much wood I would have the woodchuck if the woodchunk choose for himself to chuck wood.

          1. woodchunk

            Chubby chaser!

        2. Gas taxes, basically user fees, can pay for the roads. As long as we aren’t pouring money down the public transportation/TRAINS!!!! rat hole.

          Fires can be put out quite well by volunteer fire departments. A small subscription to cover the equipment costs would work. If you don’t subscribe, your house burns. Pretty simple.

          1. Lordy, do you remember the bitching when the guy didn’t pay his property tax and the FD watched his house burn earlier this year?

            My wife makes the point that for libertarianism to succeed, people have to be comfortable stepping over dead bodies in the street. It’s an exaggeration, but not much. People are horrified when we let the logical and natural consequences of stupidity and poor decisions happen. The inevitable response is somebody should do something about that, but not me, because I’m busy and have a job and poor people are icky. There is a certain amount of reap what you sow thinking that has to be pervasive first.

            1. Were there a lot of dead bodies in the street in Pennsylvania in 1775?

            2. do you remember the bitching when the guy didn’t pay his property tax and the FD watched his house burn earlier this year?

              That wasn’t the situation.

          2. You failed to address somaling.

      4. Voluntary taxation

        I don’t even know what that phrase is supposed to mean.

    4. Certainly we may be overtaxed or unwisely taxed, but the taxes that we pay depend on the government that we contract with for citizenship. So, if a person is voluntarily a citizen, how can taxation be theft?

      We DO NOT contract with a “government” (criminal cartel) for citizenship. We are NOT voluntarily citizens.

      1. we’re trans-nationals too!

      2. “We are NOT voluntarily citizens.”

        How do you mean? Does the state stop you from leaving and never coming back?

        1. Does the state stop you from leaving and never coming back?

          Yes. The renunciation of U.S. citizenship is up to the whim of the State Department. Furthermore the Reed Amendment to expat law …included a provision in the expatriation law to bar entry to any individual ‘who officially renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by the Attorney General to have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States.’

          Jus’ sayin’.

        2. Possessing the ability to flee after I’ve been mugged to insure that I never get mugged by that particular mugger again doesn’t change the fact that the mugger is a mugger and the mugging was a mugging.

    5. I would argue that “voluntary taxation” would be better described as a “membership fee.” That is, if one wishes to enjoy the benefits of citizenship to a certain governmental body, then they can subscribe to it via a membership fee. If they choose not to pay, then they do not receive the benefits.

      This is contrasted to a “tax”; whereas, Henry Davis Thoreau learned, there is no opt-out possible.

      1. Outlawing — which is what declining to pay your membership fee would amount to — has its own downsides.

        1. Outlawing — which is what declining to pay your membership fee would amount to — has its own downsides.

          Sure. No argument there.

    6. (Assuming there is going to be taxation.)

      I think there are basically four levels of federal taxation, from most legitimate to most illegitimate:

      1. Supports my very libertarian view of the Constitutional duties.

      2. Supports the expanded view of Constitutional duties after 200 years of horrific jurisprudence.

      3. Supports the illegitimate functions of government where it ignores or distorts the Constitutional duties into nonsense.

      4. Transfer payments, a/k/a “Spreadin’ the wealth around.”

      1) is the price of our system of government. 2) is the price we pay for short-sighted political decisions and a lack of commitment to liberty. 3) is the price we pay for allowing partisan idiots rule us since the New Deal. 4) is outright theft.

      1. And you want to force us all to subscribe to your narrow view of taxation. You’re out of the Free State Project.

      2. Agree, except I would put ‘theft’ at around 2 or 3.

        1. Me too. But I do recognize a difference between corrupted ideals and a corrupt idea. Direct transfer payments for the purpose of redistribution of wealth is so bad that it deserves its own category.

          1. Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts on all of this… I appreciate it.

      3. Funny how people like to play pick and choose with the Constituion. Some citizens think they can ignore the 16th amendment and some government folks think they can ignore the 4th amendment, among others.

        1. there is a difference between ignoring the 16th and disagreeing with it on principle. Ignoring it means not paying taxes and the state sanctioned violence that comes with it.

        2. Everything after the 10th is part of the horrific jurisprudence/partisan politics category.

          11, 12, 15, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 27 is just the government tinkering with its own rules. 26 is good, but the age of majority should have always been the age of voting anyway.

          13, 15, 19 and 21 are unnecessary under libertarian interpretations of the original document.

          16 is legalized theft, 17 is a betrayal of the entire thrust of the document, and 18 is an abomination for any country that calls itself free.

          Only 14 has two good parts (1 and 3 (omissions from the original document)), 2 is tinkering again, 4 is unnecessary and 5 is redundant.

  20. Buyer’s remorse getting stronger among Dems.

    “I was splashing around in Lake Michigan last week when the realization hit me like a wave ? I was wrong about Barack Obama. I should have voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary three years ago.

    At the time of the primary, the decision seemed easy. I saw in Obama the same qualities Jack Kerouac saw in Dean Moriarty in “On the Road.” He was ‘something new, long prophesied, long a-coming.'”

    Bonus points for the boomer-hipster reference.

    1. To be fair, it’s more of a Greatest/Silent Generation/Beatnik reference.

    2. I’m an unmitigated goddam moron.

    3. And how would Clinton be doing things any differently then Obama?

      Maybe Kucinich would have done something different but Clinton?

      1. Clinton is an opportunist; she will drop a bad or losing idea in a heartbeat when it isn’t working. Obama is an idealist and will hold on to a losing idea until he’s dead rather than admit it doesn’t work.

      2. Hillary has a hit squad.
        Boehner – suicide in DC park.
        Reid – heart attack in hooker’s trailer in Las Vegas suburb.
        Ryan – plane crash.
        Biden – freak gardening accident.
        Palin – eaten by wolves.
        Bill – freak wood chipper accident.

        1. Today we take care of all of the family’s business.

      3. “And how would Clinton be doing things any differently then Obama?”

        She wouldn’t have passed Obamacare. I doubt she’d even attempt to.

    4. But he’ll still vote Obama next fall, won’t he?

      If the grapes are so sour, maybe you should stop wolfing them down.

      1. It will be the evil Republican’s fault for making him vote for Obama in 2012.

        1. “It will be the evil Republican’s fault for making him vote for Obama in 2012.”

          Voting for the lesser of two evils is hardly madness. i imagine you’ll be making that argument yourself as 12 gets closer

          1. voting for evil is not madness?

      2. He’ll think quite wistfully about being ‘brave’ enough to vote against Obama in the primaries.

  21. Poor Chief Michael Sellers. Here’s the smallest violin the in the world, playing just for you.

    1. Release the link, Vader.

    2. You Sugarfreed the link.

  22. Fullerton Police Chief Michael Sellers has taken medical leave amid calls for his resignation

    “Medical leave.” Yeah, … that’s the ticket!

    1. Michael Sellers – Peter Sellers – Peter [Inspector Clouseau]Sellers – it becomes clear [BRAIN]dePRIVation!

    2. “””Medical leave.” Yeah, … that’s the ticket!””

      What the odds that the medical leave angle is about saving his benefits and pension?

  23. Hollywood’s desperate attempt to get Obama reelected: “Classified” Bin Laden movie to be released less than one month before 2012 election.

    1. Great, cue the Republicans misunderstanding and hating the Citizens United ruling.

    2. Wait, Did the Hillary movie/electioneering thing go through the courts and actually win?

    3. I don’t think anyone who is undecided (do these people exist?) at that point is going to bother voting, let alone be swayed by a movie. Or maybe they’ll write in “Navy SEAL”

      1. Or maybe they’ll write in “Navy SEAL”

        *Inauguration day 2013. A Confused NAVY Seal stands at the podium*

        “Ummm. Hi everyone. It seems I won the presidential election…”

    4. My first thought was: Is Obama going to play himself in the movie? And if not, who’d get the O part?

      1. And if not, who’d get the O part?

        Tom Hanks.

      2. Depends. If they want cool, Samuel L Jackson, if they want smart, Don Cheedle.

        1. If they want to guarantee profitability: Will Smith.

  24. Fullerton Tea Party businessmen push for recall of city councilmembers who they see as in cahoots with Fullerton PD.

    Weird, I didnt’t hear about this on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show.

    1. thx for watching!

      1. Totally my fault, I thought it said ms. nbc and was a show starring Calista Flockhart as the first female CEO in network television.

  25. City Manager Joe Felz informed the council Wednesday that Sellers, whose annual salary and benefits total $228,576, was taking a medical leave of absence for an unspecified period of time.

    Covering up for the actions of murderous thugs pays well.

  26. Prune the NCAA’s rulebook to eliminate “nuisance rules” and revamp the NCAA’s penalty structure in ways that both enforce the rules more consistently and punish major rule breakers harshly.

    Ah, eliminate waste and make more efficient. Obama has approved this message.

  27. Fullerton Police Chief Michael Sellers, who has been uncooperative in the investigation of Kelly Thomas case…

    Far be it for me to pull a dunphy, but has he been uncooperative with the various “official” investigations or has he simply been uncooperative (and stupid) with calls from the public (and, finally, some of the press) for statements about the incident?

    1. Should it matter?

      1. One appears criminal and the other seems just unprofessional.

  28. Florida white trash. Prime fucking specimens.

    “A stripper, her sex-offender sibling and their half-brother, dubbed the “Dougherty Gang,” were arrested Wednesday morning after a high-speed chase in Colorado….

    The trio’s alleged crime spree began last Tuesday in Pasco County when they fired about 20 shots at a police officer pursuing them in central Florida. One of the bullets pierced the officer’s tire, causing a flat and ending the pursuit.”

    1. Revelation that she was sleeping with one or both of them in 3… 2… 1…

      1. It appears her full brother had a taste for 11 yos, so she might be too old for him.

        1. Pedophilia is often driven by being a victim.

          1. Oh, I’m betting on some serious physical and/or sexual abuse in their shared homelife.

      2. Skanky-ho trash? Sure.

        1. This is supposedly from her Flicker profile: “I am a Floridian. Born and raised in Seminole County. I have a huge crazy family. I’m 28 but act like I’m 17 most of the time. I love to farm and shoot guys and wreck cars. I’m a redneck and proud of it. I like milk and German engineering and causing mayhem with my siblings.”

          1. I like milk and German engineering

            Ok then….

          2. This seems too pat. My interwebz bullshit detector is going off. Or else she’s about as intellectually deep as a plastic kiddie pool.

            1. I like to believe it’s real.

          3. It’s too bad she’s going to jail. Fisting and huge insertion porn has lost a potentionally talented performer…

    2. They look like fucking retards.

      1. No one looks good in a mugshot. (Except, of course, Tom Delay.)

    3. You know, that gal has a Michele Bachmann look to her…

    4. Wow, they all have the crazy eyes.

      1. Tweaker eyes. But they don’t quite have the “I have been up for 10 days and haven’t eaten” skinny look yet.

  29. Looks like Bachmann is fading already:

    New CNN Poll: Perry near top of pack in GOP nomination battle

    And Paul is in third with 12%.

    1. Perry’s just shiny and new. That won’t last unless he performs well in the primaries.

  30. http://www.c-span.org/Events/S…..7423376-1/

    Should Students Be Allowed to Carry Guns on College Campuses? (video debate)

    “Two groups that support giving college students the ability to carry a concealed weapon on campus held a discussion on the issue in Washington.”

    “The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) argue that colleges would be safer if students were allowed to possess firearms.” …



    “Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, struggling with low poll numbers and internal campaign troubles, came to Coconut Grove Wednesday searching for political magic from that coveted name in Florida politics: Jeb Bush.”

    “It was Jeb Bush Jr. ? not his father, the former governor ? who was throwing his support behind Huntsman. And the son made clear he did not speak for the father.” …

    “But Huntsman ? who also said he backs the sanctions and embargo against Cuba ? shied away from being called a moderate.”

    “‘I’m a conservative problem-solver,’ he said. ‘Pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-growth. All I ask is for people to look at my record …'”

    1. it should be up the institution whether to allow guns or not, and this should hold for private or public schools (public colleges are pretty semi-autonomous). noone is forced to go to either one

      1. It should. In most states, it’s not. There’s also a pesky federal law about gun-free school zones.

        1. There’s also a pesky federal law about [insert anything here].

          Shoulda read the fine print on the social contract.

  31. http://dailycaller.com/2011/08…..-lawsuits/

    Congressmen object to new gun requirements, show support for NRA lawsuits

    “Federal lawmakers are backing lawsuits against the [ATF] following the introduction of new gun registration requirements in several border states. The lawsuits, supported by the National Rifle Association, aim to stop the ATF from compelling firearms sellers to report multiple purchases.”

    “‘The ATF has no authority to track the purchases of law-abiding gun owners and the Second Amendment Task Force applauds the lawsuit to stop this effort,’ Georgia Republican Rep. Paul Broun told The Daily Caller. The task force is a 13-member, bipartisan group of lawmakers established in 2009. Broun is its co-chair.” …

  32. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n…..e-looting/

    If British shopkeepers had the right to bear arms, vicious thugs would think twice before looting

    “During the Los Angeles riots in 1992, many store owners in the south central part of the city defended their property against marauding gangs with their own weapons, and succeeded in protecting their livelihoods and thousands of jobs that depended on them. And across the country, Americans admired their bravery, thankful for the Second Amendment to the US Constitution … In contrast in London in 2011, shopkeepers were left at the mercy of feral, brutal thugs acting with impunity across whole swathes of the capital as the police were overwhelmed. If they had the right to bear arms and defend their stores with force, it would have been a very different story, and brutal looters would have met firm resistance.” …

    1. Of course, OO would say it was ridiculous to defend your property because insurance would cover it.

      1. i merely pointed-out that in the EU property crime does NOT justify the use of deadly force. dont like it?…take it up w the EU.

        1. Riots and looting are usually considered a bit more serious than property crimes. It is a shame though that the EU isn’t as civilized as Texas when it comes to defending your own property.

          1. well yes its more serious w arson. but im not gonna shoot someone for stealing my insured 2 yr old flatscreen. ill replaced it new after the settlement.

            1. You know what?

              If I kicked your door in while you were at home, and came in and took your flatscreen, and told you that I would come back whenever I wanted and take whatever else I wanted, I think you’d change your tune about whether property crimes were “victimless”.

              1. ok then id just pound the crap outta u or break ur leg w my louisville slugger. but i wouldnt shoot anyone over simple property theft.

                1. So proprty rights for you, but none for 120 pound women?

                  Didn’t figure you for a sexist…

              2. You work for the government?

            2. I’ll shoot them if they try to burn my house. And then I will urinate on their corpses.

            3. 1) you’re an idiot OO.

              Now that it has been established.

              2) I don’t want to deal with the hassel of going through my insurance company to replace something if I have the ability to stop a thief in the act. why should they get to profit from my misfortune?
              3) not everyone gets full replacement.
              4) I don’t want to see my premiums rise because some knucklehead wanted my stuff and the “law” prevents me from stopping them in the act.
              5) I can save other potential victims (yes, they are VICTIMS) the hassel by stopping this thief right now before he can target their homes.
              6) You can kill someone with just one hit from a baseball bat.

              1. u dont have to kill a thief to stop him. break his arm w ur baseball bat & call the….OMG! (screams)…cops!

                1. And you don’t have to kill a thief if you shoot him, either. Taking out a knee cap would be quite effective at taking him down.

        2. “”‘i merely pointed-out that in the EU property crime does NOT justify the use of deadly force. dont like it?…take it up w the EU.””

          I’m not sure it does in the US either.


        3. Sure it justifies it. EU thugs in charge will just crap on you after the fact for infringing on their turf. Action was still justified though.

  33. Holy mother-fucking shit — a Brit SAYING this:


    Time to Give the British the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

    “Nile Gardiner, writing in the UK Telegraph, has offered a thought that has been considered unthinkable across the pond. In view of the viciousness of the riots that have rocked English cities, it is time to grant Britons the right to keep and bear arms.”

    “Taking note of how shopkeepers in Los Angeles were able to defend their property during the 1992 riots, Gardiner writes:”

    “‘[I]n London in 2011, shopkeepers were left at the mercy of feral, brutal thugs acting with impunity across whole swathes of the capital as the police were overwhelmed. If they had the right to bear arms and defend their stores with force, it would have been a very different story, and brutal looters would have met firm resistance.'” …

    i am unbelieve

    1. There are British who appreciate freedom. I counted eight last I checked.

      1. Was that before or after Chris Hitchens became a US citizen?

      2. In a country where Andrew Sullivan is considered conservative…

  34. http://www.latimes.com/news/na…..full.story

    ATF’s gun surveillance program showed early signs of failure

    “In March 2010, the No. 2 man at the ATF was deeply worried. His agents had lost track of hundreds of firearms. Some of the guns, supposed to have been tracked to Mexican drug cartels, were lost right after they cleared the gun stores.”

    “Five months into the surveillance effort ? dubbed Operation Fast and Furious ? no indictments had been announced and no charges were immediately expected. Worse, the weapons had turned up at crime scenes in Mexico and the ATF official was worried that someone in the United States could be hurt next.” …


    1. I forgot — was this the sublime performance that was supposed to convince us to increase funding to these fuckheads, or what?

  35. If you don’t like your level of taxation, you are free to end your citizenship contract with this government and enter into one with a more favorable government, or become stateless altogether.



    Try to cash out and carry your money out of the country in a suitcase.

    1. People move out of the nation all the time. Sure it’s not easy, but neither is walking away from a job you’ve had for a long time.

      1. Sure it is. You walk in, say “I quit,” and walk back out, leaving whatever company property you have with the secretary.

        1. If you’re smart, you clear out your desk ahead of time so all you have to do is drop the security badge on the desk and skedaddle. It’s easy-peasy.

  36. What, you mean to say the Tea Party is standing up against police brutality?

    Don’t tell msnbc — it’ll ruin their day.

  37. I have to Godwin the thread to deal with our Mexican flying snake.

    The same “citizenship contract” argument could be advanced in Nazi Germany.

    By remaining a citizen of Nazi Germany “voluntarily”, you consent to its laws. Including the law that says that if you’re a Jew you fucking die.

    Don’t like it?

    Renounce your citizenship and leave.

    What? There’s nowhere to go? Nah Mah Problem.

    See how silly that is?

    What you have to realize is that the entire paradigm of “the citizen” assumes the idea of a collective commonwealth with rights above and apart from the individual, to which individuals subsume themselves.

    That’s the wrong model.

    You have to atomize your analysis further than that.

    All of us are individuals. Some individuals join together in groups called “states”.

    Each of us possesses certain rights as individuals, regardless of where we happen to be standing. (Talking about this in detail would require a substantial side bar discussion, so I’m going to have to ask you to work with me here.) The individuals who have joined together to call themselves the state can do certain things to other individuals and be morally in the right: they can stop people from raping and murdering, they can stop people from stealing, etc. And they can demand money from me if I live under the protection this provides. (A “protection racket” that actually provides legitimate protection from real threats not created by the racketeer himself really isn’t immoral.) But can they demand money at gunpoint to build a pyramid, or a giant statue of their leader? I just don’t see that.

    1. ^This. Well put.

      1. The model of the “citizen” really can’t survive the simplest reductivist analysis.

        Ultimately the state is nothing but a bunch of individuals sitting in buildings or driving around in vehicles calling themselves the state.

        There is nothing unique or different or special about my relationship to that group of individuals vs. my relationship with any other group of individuals. The moral analysis is the same.

        I just happen to think that when you follow a moral analysis of the proper relationship between me and the set of individuals who have decided to call themselves the state, you end up with minarchism and not anarchism.

  38. But can they demand money at gunpoint to build a pyramid, or a giant statue of their leader?

    Fluffy hates stonemasons, and want them to starve in the streets.

    1. That’s because they’re just a cover for a bunch of religious fanatics trying to take over the world.

    2. Fluffy hates the arts. He must be a philisitne. I bet he even likes traktor pullz.

    3. Just the co-opted ones.

  39. Baguette Vending Machine

    No, it’s not some horrible euphemism…

    1. Does it make the bread, or does it thaw it out? If the former, it’s not impossible that it would be edible.

      1. They are par-baked, then the machine finishes cooking them.

        1. Yeah, well, no.

  40. Look upon me and weep foolish mortals. I will be at Gillette Stadium tonight with a 95 pound 23 year old.

    1. u mean foxboro. gawd i hate these names which provide no info where the facility is located. ESPN had the top 5 HR stadiums listed but used the corporate names instead of candlestick or arlington, etc

    2. (The only problem is that it’s his male half-Indonesian cousin.)

      1. NTTAWWT

        1. Depends on which state they’re in.

      2. Half-male Indonesian cousin.


    3. Look upon me and weep

      I hear you get that reaction a lot.

    4. And….?

      1. I’m sad that everyone missed the obvious “And nothing else happened” joke.

  41. OK, George Soros has done his bit to restore my faith in the system.


    This is a big relief after that whole “Despite wealth and fame Tiger Woods only gets to nail hideous skanks” thing.

    George, obviously being much smarter than Tiger, is able to leverage his own wealth and fame into nailing hot 23 year old Brazilian chicks.

    I also like how he lied to her about giving her the apartment. Well played, sir! I’m rooting for him to defeat this specious lawsuit.

    1. Ugliest Brazilian hottie ever

  42. The good news is, we have a one shot cure for your cancer. The bad news is, its HIV*.

    “In the Penn experiment, the researchers removed certain types of white blood cells that the body uses to fight disease from the patients. Using a modified, harmless version of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, they inserted a series of genes into the white blood cells. These were designed to make to cells target and kill the cancer cells. After growing a large batch of the genetically engineered white blood cells, the doctors injected them back into the patients.”

    *I understand that these people don’t get teh adez from the treatment, nor even have HIV floating around inside them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.