I wonder how much debate there was at Stranger HQ about how much to cover / not cover the brutal Ballard rape by a homeless encampment resident. “Bare minimum” reporting seems to have won out.
Well congratulations Ken- you got the honor of having the first comment of the day in, and what a doozy it is!
I sure hope you're proud of it.
I have copied it for you and intend to remind you of it just in case it does get deleted today- we can continue to remind all Slog readers of your decency and humanity.
@3 - I think he's being sarcastic, dude.
RE: Boulder, CO banning things
Boulder's a strange place. The city loves to present itself as progressive and liberal and so forth, but a lot of that is just for appearance. For example, there's a bike crossing zone in Table Mesa (a South Boulder neighborhood) on a main street, complete with yellow warning signs, paint lines on the street, flashing lights overhead... the works. However, there's no actual bike path on either side of the crossing. It leads to a sidewalk on one side and a drainage ditch on the other. So the crossing sign was either put there incorrectly, or the actual bike path was never completed, or, more likely, the city wants everyone driving through to see what a bike friendly place this is, even if it's just a charade.
Anyway, the point of that is that this gun ban is just for show. The Boulder City Council's favorite pastime is banning things. No smoking on the Pearl St mall, no dogs on the Pearl St mall, red light cameras everywhere, no couches on porches, no more than X number of unrelated people living in a house together, etc. All to serve business interests. All for appearances. They preach liberalness and open-mindedness but in their hearts, they're pure capitalists. They're more Chamber of Commerce than City Council. The very definition of Limousine Liberals.
How does the head tax lower construction costs?
is it ironic when people with names like Aaron Schlossberg stigmatize and harass immigrants & non-natives or 'different' ethnic groups or religions? hey, maybe ICE could put them all in 'detention centers' or something. maybe not a prison, but like a 'camp'. you know, keep them all in one place, or,, um, concentrate them in a few locations. to make them easier to 'deport'.
I'm all for the Tiny women and children only village. It's a stones throw from my house. I've walked by it and am optimistic. However, I was unaware they will allow drug use. How can mixing women and children and drug use be considered a good idea? Who sanctioned that?
@1 I genuinely feel sorry for you, Ken.
@5, supply and demand. Demand dries up,meaning companies start somewhere else, companies relocate, etc.., there are less employed people moving here, there are more employed people moving elsewhere from here, etc..., there is less construction needed. With less construction needed, you end up with contractors and tradesfolk lowering their prices since they will be competing for fewer and fewer jobs.
@7 will there be a height gauge in order to move into the village like at amusement parks?
"...they are actually a cult. That or a church group, I guess."
Is there a quantifiable difference?
@2) So you want a graphic description of what happens when a man rapes a woman? Don't you want some privacy when you do that? Also, you'll go blind.
For those of you who want to see a man who bravely stands for what he espouses, here is Aaron Sclossberg proudly defending his position: https://nypost.com/2018/05/17/racist-lawyer-runs-scared-from-cameras-outside-home/
@6: I understand what you are saying, but keep in mind that the guy is Jewish before you go full out on the "kick guys with names like 'Schlossberg' out of the country and put them in concentration camps" gag.
Some may take it the wrong way.
They might find something, that helps one type of cancer. That person will get another cancer, later. All the lies and bullshit. Find immune therapy for one cancer. No one can afford it. Then a million more will occur, in this radionuclde, radioactive, persticide , chemical ridden sewer called Seattle, and the United states. These things that call themselves doctors and scientists, will not acknowledge the environmental causes of cancer and many diseases. A bunch of dumn, greedy monkeys.
@15 - unable to recognize irony even when irony is labeled as irony.
@10 Ha!! Yes, I re-read it and it sounds like the place is for Lilliputians!
Well, somebody had a bad experience at a doctors office once...
...And apparently came on The SLOG for the sole purpose of letting everyone here know it...
@9, @17 - Thanks for replying, but neither answers the question.
@18 i was hoping that 15 was playing along. but you make an excellent point.
Bet it's an anti vaxxer.
@1 is trying to pass off the "subhuman" idea as sarcasm, but I think it really is his belief and this is a way to say it while still having a "hey, it was just sarcasm and I'm only kidding" cover, thin as that cover may be.
@22, How much of this is fred hutch overhyping their own work vs the media not understanding how science works though? The idea that there could be a singular cure for cancer when there are thousands of forms of the disease, each with their own unique pathogenesis, seems like the kind of big talk that people in research have been conditioned to avoid.
Whenever I read a piece like that I assume the writer is taking liberties on a small-yet-consequential discovery without understanding how to balance those admittedly contradictory concepts. Like, they may have found something that works great for a specific type of cancer but fine-tuning it to apply to thousands of others is a massive undertaking. I suppose fred hutch could be over-inflating their own work to get more money, which would be irresponsible but not too surprising at a time when public funding for research is drying up.
@18: How or why did you read my comment without reading or understanding the first six words?
Or the last six, for that matter.
If we take out the "damn gubmint doctors" paranoia @16 actually makes a legitimate point about living around so many known carcinogens. Chemicals, pollution, and other manufactured toxins are all around us and we should be doing more to reduce those harmful exposures.
The rest of the post is a crazypants screed, but yeah...there's a lot of nasty stuff all around us and it's likely that accounts for more cancer.
I agree that it's hard to tell with that guy.
@ raindrop. I read that too and went “hunh???”
Labor shortage in construction is currently at 30% and getting worse. Finding qualified help is tougher than ever and you have to pay better than a decent wage or your talent gets poached. Materials are in higher demand and costs almost seem like gouging these days. IOW, there’s no way in hell city council has a plan to lower construction costs from what they currently are let alone to combat a 4% cost increase.
@1. 40,000 people screaming at your border infiltrated with thousands of soldiers ready to break in and kill your citizens is a great reason to take any means necessary to defend your borders. Or do you think Israel should just let people in whose ideology demands the total annihilation of the Jewish state and see what happens?
If you’re not Jewish your opinion is ignorant on the matter.
I dunno. I must have been paying attention to the words you typed indicating you didn't understand that @6 realizes the racist lawyer is probably Jewish.
Re hatchet attack "because where else would this have happened"- why? Is it because the majority of the people that hang around the McDonald's at 3rd and Pine are black? Pretty fucking racist.
I'm having trouble keeping up... it's not ok to stereotype spanish speakers as illegal immigrants, but it is ok to stereotype homeless people as rapists?
@26 I hoped it was introduced in the journalism chain, but reading the article, the Fred Hutch boss is definitely bringing the "cure for all cancer" visionary moonshot moonshit.
re Cancer. Fred Hutch and others are doing amazing things with new immunotherpy treatment. particularly CAR-T. this is for blood cancers at the time being but it is literally saving people who would have had not other treatment option a couple years ago.
@22 A very interesting story; how about some specifics as to this mismanagement, especially about the $20 million loss by the CFO and kept out of the Seattle Times.
@33 Oh come on. That entire block on 3rd is sketchy as hell, and yes, especially around that McDonalds. The race of the people loitering have nothing to do with it. The loiterers are sketchy white-people, sketchy asians, sketchy latinos and latinas, sketchy gender-fluids, sketchy LQBTQ, sketchy black folks. It's equal opportunity sketch there.
@37 It's hard to see what they are referring to. In their 2016-2017 financial statement they report a 24 million dollar loss on investments. But it's not a real loss. It's something called "deferred credit", which means income that has been received but is not included as income because it has not (yet) been earned. Because they have not yet earned that money, it is included as a liability and appears as a loss on the financial statement (see below).
The commentator is completely off base on Obliteride which earned the Hutch nearly 2 million dollars last year (and has every year since it's inception in 2013).
@22 They are not suggesting a single cure for cancer. In fact the article explicitly said it isn't.
It is complicated, but essentially the technology they're talking about is a kind of personalized medicine - they take some of a patients own immune cells out and genetically "reprogram" them (quotes to make it clear it's not like programing computer code, but it is a useful analogy). Once they are reprogrammed (and expanded) the cells are put back into the patient. This has a huge advantage over bone marrow transplant as they are the patients OWN cells. Plus they can reprogram the immune cells to do specific jobs. The immune cells can be reprogrammed in several ways - they can be reprogrammed to recognize the tumor and kill it, they can be reprogrammed to tell OTHER cells to kill the tumor, they can be reprogrammed to confuse the tumor cells and make them kill themselves....there are many other ways.
All cancers differ in the way they respond to therapy and this is no different. You could call it hype as it is still early days but it IS working. There are now hundreds of children (for example) who are alive today and show no sign of their cancers who had failed all other therapies, their families preparing for the worst before they were treated at SCCA with this technology. Their families don't think it's hype. Without putting too much on it, the article was not exaggerating about how excited oncologists are about this new approach. It really is something that they see as (finally) bringing some hope and real success. I am acquainted with many and "giddy" just about covers it (there is no job in the world worse for one's emotional health than pediatric oncology). It will be slow progress adapting this tech to other kinds of cancers and there will be set backs, but because of this new tech (and others springing up) our children and their heirs will not face the kind of fear and dread cancer brings today.
@40-the article didn't promise a single cure for "cancer," but that is exactly what the headline said. My guess is that the person who wrote the headline is not the reporter. The Times should know better.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.