How Twitter's creation myth was hatched in San Francisco

|
(55)

The New York Times has a great story reporting out how Twitter and its creation myth were hatched in San Francisco. And these are the people that the city's neoliberal politicians are giving $22 million in corporate welfare to?!?! We can think of some more worthy sources in The City.

Comments

after skimming the NYT article.

1. How empty, useless, vapid all this tech "innovation" is. And the enormous waste of talent on such frivolous... crap. As a society, we could be deciding democratically what we would like our most brilliant minds to focus on. We could offer large prizes for people to discover cures for diseases, find ways to stop global warming, take us to Mars, whatever. Instead... you have some obviously intelligent and creative people sitting around thinking of clever little apps for their toys.

"Hey dude, googlecorp just added a feature that lets hipsters tell their friends what music they're streaming in the bathroom. That makes our amazing entrepreneurial project irrelevant dude! What do we do now?"
"Uh... OK, let's brainstorm. Maybe we can write an app that lets groups of friends talk to each other. We'll call it 'groups.'"
"Nah. Three other startups are doing the same thing."
"OK... how 'bout we make a program where people can say what they're doing right now... like 'sitting on the toilet', or 'taking a nap'... in 160 characters."
"Isn't that kind of like a text message?"
"Ok, make it 140 characters."
"OMG! Brilliant!"
"And make it so that they don't hafta use their phone."
"We'll call it 'twit!'. No wait... 'twitter'. Dude, we're gonna be billionaires, dude!"

If you needed any more proof of the insanity of the market deciding our priorities, look no further than Twitter.

2. The amount of sheer dumb luck involved in success or failure of a given enterprise... which of course is closely related to #1. Since basically all of these ideas are useless and have no intrinsic value to society, there's a lot of dumb luck involved in which one really takes off. One could just as well imagine the dilemma of an early investor in the flower trade in the 1600's. Do I invest my guilders into hyacinths? Or into tulips? Which will the market of 1637 value? If it's 1636, your guess is as good as mine.

And all these people probably think they're brilliant because society bestows amazing riches on them. They can buy lamborghinis without batting an eye and brag that they're "self-made."

And sure. These people are obviously bright and creative. But is the guy who started Twitter any better than the guys who started any number of other useless websites that failed?

And are any of them really worth thousands and thousands of times as much as a nurse working in a hospital, or chemist, or even the guy who wakes up at 4AM so that your garbage gets picked up instead of piling up every day?

Posted by Greg on Oct. 12, 2013 @ 9:52 pm

as to why the USA doesn't do more, Manhattan project, Apollo program type stuff anymore, those things helped win a war and scared the shit out of the commies, as well as gave us countless technical innovations. There has been some misses such as Reagans Star Wars thing, that was an idiotic black hole, but the USA had some real winners in general. A energy project in the style of post Sputnik science would be good start.

Alas the educrats would be worked up that our students were not getting socialized correctly and spending to much time in the LED lab.

One wonders though, why does the cream of the progressive intellectual crop go into such jejune occupations as studies fields. Fields where there is really no wrong answer other than not agreeing with the person in the front of the room. In the 80's I was in engineering classes with mostly middle class types with little political interest that I could note, I surprised many of them with my pro abortion and gay rights views though, perhaps the first they ever met? It was when I was required to take electives with the soft headed that I really discovered the real "intellectuals." ahem

There are some pretty awesome left wing types in the hard sciences such as Richard Dawkins. In general the hard sciences are apolitical, while the soft sciences are often jokes on themselves, sociologists in search of an argument to fit their agenda, the inequity nonsense so popular here. University mass transit experts with a healthy disdain for the average citizen, we all know what I am talking about.

Greg's best and brightest are busy racked with self guilt counting angels on the heads of pins or finding ways to coerce the population out of happy meal toys.

By the way, we as a society do pick democratically what we want, you make choices everyday with what you spend your money on, correct? People vote with their dollars everyday, they don't really need the Greg's of the world to tell them what is best for them around idiotic internet crap.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 12, 2013 @ 11:51 pm

In a society where everyone votes with their dollars, the people with more dollars get more votes.

Not democracy.

Not even a "free market".

(ps: You should write when you are not completely drunk more often. You actually said some stuff that was intelligible and even made sense.)

However..

Lose "jejune": The term is so esoteric and effete that it emotionally evokes the opposite of its own meaning. Just use something simpler and less pseudo-intellectual, like "unsophisticated" or "banal" (or even "effete" if that is what you were getting at). Woody Allen employed "jejune" in the dialogue of one of his films as joke to poke fun at overly self-important pompous use of language; this ironic comic twist now being the word's only imaginable truly effective use.

And lose Dawkins: His selfish gene theory is hopelessly myopic, and his religious zealotry about atheism is, well... religious zealotry... One can promote secularism much more effectively when not ramming it down other people's throats with a giant basalt pestle.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 11:49 am

disagree with. When an election sometimes goes the way you want, suddenly the democratic process is working perfectly. If not, it has been "bought" or there was voter fraud.

The left has always struggled with democracy, which is why most socialist governments in history have abolished elections and suppressed opposition. And in the case of Germany, built a wall to keep the people in when they wanted to escape.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 12:10 pm

Why do people call for boycotts of products and services?

Why do people protest and picket outside of places attempting to get people not to shop at stores or stay at hotels?

Why are there documentaries about Walmart and other such operations if not to make people aware of their business practices and to get people not to shop there?

Why does the city want to coerce people into the renewable energy program if it isn't party about rewarding a company with dollars for offering a service you agree with?

None of this is voting with dollars?

Much of the lefts purpose for existence has gone up in smoke with you and Greg here with your doctrinaire postings.

People vote with their dollars every day, the people progressives claim to speak for but really loath vote with their dollars by buying expensive phones everyday.

They are not buying telescopes, microscopes, ohm meters or rock hammers, they may be buying three beam balances though.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 2:02 pm

The point is not that voting with dollars never works. Of course voting with one's dollars works.

The problem is your absurdly equating 'voting with dollars' as the prime mode for democracy.

It clearly isn't, because it empowers people who have more dollars over any others who have fewer.

So 'voting' with dollars is effective, but it certainly isn't democracy.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 2:13 pm

I'm sure they are quaking with fear. OMG what if the poorest person in SF doesn't shop here?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 3:04 pm

that is by the far the most profoundly stupid thing i have ever seen written on any blog, ever

first, dumb ass, people organize boycotts to get *other* people to not buy products or services, not just themselves

second, you are highlighting *exactly* what he is talking about (while asininely thinking that you are dissing his comment) by stating so perfectly that people with less money have less influence in a system where we all vote with money

you

therefore

must simply be

the biggest idiot

who ever walked the face of the earth

and this is proved by the fact that you inanely thought you'd been so incredibly clever

when, in fact, you have both, actually made his point vastly more obvious to everyone

and also revealed that you are so dumb you don't even know how boycotts work

what a moron

you can't even get trolling right

and that's a *tough* fail to manage

Posted by racer x on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 3:45 pm
Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 4:42 pm

when you have fully inserted your head up your ass

diving it up there even deeper doesn't help get it out

Posted by racer x on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 11:04 pm

It's all very nice to say vote with your dollars. But Eric's precisely correct that the problem with that is that it's not democracy. Those with more dollars get more votes. I vote with my dollars too. But I have more choices than someone who makes minimum wage. I have the option to use my dollars to buy a few "votes" in the capitalist economy, which some people don't have at all. And then there are the Waltons and the Adelsons of the world. I can boycott things all I want with my puny "votes," but they have billions of dollars to not only "outvote" me but buy media and politicians to shape how other people vote. That's not democracy.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 4:23 pm

make any effort to get money in the first place. But we Americans invest a massive amount of energy in making and accumulating wealth precisely because it gets us more of everything - products, services and, yes, influence.

The point made earlier about boycotts was valid - Eric threatening to boycott a business is risible because he somehow contrives to make an annual income with no disposable money anyway. You're in a better position, as you say, and others are in a much better position again.

In the end it is all OK though, because the businesses that throw the most money at influencing elections and politicians are also the business that employ the most people, and provide the most products and services to the most people. In other words, those businesses ARE us and, as the saying goes, the business of America is business.

Americans love business because it is business that brings us all our prosperity. Eric never brought prosperity to anyone, and therefore has very little influence. Works for me.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 4:39 pm

And that makes Greg furious.

How could the people he claims to speak for be so stupid?

Posted by matlock on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 4:40 pm

He claims that people voting with their dollars to buy Iphones is meaningless

But when people boycott businesses with their dollars, then it is suddenly meaningful.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 4:50 pm

I said that people voted with their dollars around their silly phones.

Whatever you read into it after that is on you and your pal Greg.

All that crazy nonsense about getting people to vote on science priorities, whatever crazy shit.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 4:38 pm

ah well, it was interesting while it lasted

see you you next time you can string two coherent thoughts together meathead

Posted by racer x on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 11:08 pm
heh

That's pretty funny.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 14, 2013 @ 6:16 pm

Greg, I agree 100 percent.

The absurdity of how our species' pool of most intelligent minds is directed towards creating societal dreck fits in with my not-nearly-so-absurd theory that our planet is in thrall to malevolent extraterrestrial interlopers who direct us in self-destructive directions to suit their own ends.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 8:06 am

Stupid? Maybe. But every one of them gets a vote. Clearly we should abolish democracy because voters are stupid.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 9:18 am

I'm not aware that the city actually gave Twitter any money. What they did is to cut a favorable tax deal to keep Twitter in the city.

Has the SFBG ever explained how they were going to keep Twitter in the city without granting some concessions? Twitter had to move, they did move, and they also had to satisfy investors and employees who were counting on an IPO. Hence Brisbane beckoned.

Yes, there were some concessions made but it is not like they are here tax free and the concessions were relatively short term. Meanwhile they are helping to invigorate a blighted, almost Detroitesque section of the city.

Could someone please point me to the part where the SFBG explains how they would have kept Twitter in the city with making concessions?

Thanks.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 7:54 am

It isn't up to San Francisco to "keep Twitter in the city," particularly when it involves a $22 million tax break, the largest offered by any California city in recent years. The company's extortionary threat to leave simply allowed these kids to pad the profits of their investors and landlords, with money from struggling city taxpayers. As this article makes clear, San Francisco has been central to Twitter's creation myth, and if they want to fuck up their story and move to Brisbane, then good riddance. All most San Franciscans are getting from subsidizing Twitter's new headquarters are higher rents. Companies like Twitter and Airbnb are good for San Francisco only to the extent that they're good community partners, and the bare minimum for that should be paying their fair share of taxes, and I would say they should go even futher to share the wealth with the city that has incubated them. Instead, all they're displaying is greed, duplicity, and an ammoral willingness to say or do anything to further their self-interest, even when it hurts the public interest.

Posted by steven on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 10:36 am

They simply announced that they were considering a relocation to Brisbane, partly for tax reasons, and SF realized that the city would lose far more than a lousy 22 million if they did, and so came up with an incentive that was sufficient to keep a world-beating innovator in SF.

What you overlook are the indirect benefits of having high-paid tech jobs in the city. as well as the payroll tax and the property taxes on the offices they rent, it is widely publicized that each new tech job in SF creates five spinoff jobs in the service and construction sectors. And of course that leads toe xtra sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes and so on.

Further, the transformation of mid-Market is already evident. It's cleaner, it's brighter, it's safer and it's more successful. Everyone wins.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 11:12 am

Just amazing. Does anyone have any idea what Steven is talking about?

How did they extort anything? In one sentence Steven claims that they offer the city no benefit, in the next he says that their plan to move out was 'extortion'.

I love the part about their plans to move to Brisbane being 'extraordinary'.

How dare a business look at relocating to a different area that offers tax benefits!!!!

I'm sorry, Steven just cracks me up.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 11:46 am

black is white and day is night. Kinda like a discussion group for people with advanced psychotic disorders about the book Alice through the Looking Glass .

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 12:07 pm

It isn't up to San Francisco to keep Twitter in the city?

Because, apparently, municipal governments have no interest in attracting and keeping businesses?

I love the way that Steven quotes this stuff like it is an obvious truth. It just cracks me up.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 12:27 pm

that his vision for SF is almost post-apocalyptic. Business leaves, prosperity wanes, the police are constrained, the public sector grows inexorably and gets paid more and more, landlords and investors are discouraged by high taxes and increasing regulation, illegals, criminals, the homeless and the insane are encouraged, and there are 24-hour pot stands everywhere.

It's like Mad Max meets Karl Marx in Steven's fantasy world. And he won't be happy until SF is like Detroit.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

>"As this article makes clear, San Francisco has been central to Twitter's creation myth"

Actually, it does no such thing.

It is about how Jack Dorsey promotes himself as the creator of Twitter when in fact he was only one player. They compare him to Steve Jobs who was also part of a team.

Yes, much of the Time's story is set in San Francisco but to say that it couldn't have taken place in Mountain View or Palo Alto or Redmond is nonsensical. Especially for these connected types of business people who can operate anywhere.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 11:37 am

happened in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties precisely because they are more business-friendly.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 11:55 am

The article isn't really negative about Twitter. It is just a history of how it was created and whether it was actually a collaboration rather than the creation of one or two people.

I'm sure that they SFBG liked the title with the word 'myth' in it, but next time you should actually read the article before using it as an argument.

#sfbgfail

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 8:10 am

Hence my response. Depends on what you consider "negative," I suppose.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 9:28 am

Against my better judgement, I'll respond to some of this stuff... until matlock's penchant for trollish last-wordism and plain old incoherence takes over.

"I'm at a loss as to why the USA doesn't do more, Manhattan project, Apollo program type stuff anymore, those things helped win a war and scared the shit out of the commies"

Actually you have it somewhat backwards. Sputnik scared the shit out of the capitalists, so we rushed to catch up. But regardless of who was catching up with whom, the result of the science race was that a lot of useful stuff got invented. Another benefit of having more than one superpower around.

Moreover, I think the benefits extended into the social sphere. With the specter of communism always on the horizon, I think the American ruling class felt the need to provide for its own people to some extent. That's why FDR felt the need to save capitalism from itself. Now, however, capitalism feels that it's supreme, as encapsulated beautifully in the ravings of such imbeciles as Francis Fukuyama. With seemingly no alternative powerful enough to challenge the dominant paradigm, the ruling class has decided that it's safe to openly devolve into the complete swine they always were. That will, of course, prove to be their own undoing, but that's another story.

"One wonders though, why does the cream of the progressive intellectual crop go into such jejune occupations as studies fields."

What the hell are "studies fields?" I guess this is where the "semi" part of "semi-coherent" comes in.

" I surprised many of them with my pro abortion and gay rights views though, perhaps the first they ever met?"

Indeed, perhaps it was. I've met many *anti*-abortion people; I've met many pro-*choice* people. But I've only met one genuinely self-described pro-abortion guy -an Israeli who believed that poor and minority women should be encouraged to have abortions. Maybe it was his Israeli background, where eugenics and ethnic cleansing enjoys broader support, but here in the US, I've never met anyone else who openly described themselves as "pro-abortion." Until now, of course.

"There are some pretty awesome left wing types in the hard sciences such as Richard Dawkins."

Actually Richard Dawkins isn't particularly left-wing. He says that when Labour and Tories were the main choices, he was a Labour voter. But ever since the creation of the Lib Dems, he's voted Lib Dem. In other words, far from being left-wing, he's more of a classic liberal. He's just not bigoted or insane. The fact that a committed centrist like Dawkins seems left-wing to you, shows the depth of your own blind hatred.

If you're looking for "awesome" people in the hard sciences who really are on the left, there's no shortage of other names one could have thought of: Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling, Stephen Hawking, Micheo Kaku, J Robert Oppenheimer, etc.

As a whole, the political demographics of the hard science community looks a lot like the political demographics of San Francisco:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229...
I don't think they're so "left-wing," as the rest of the country is just so far off to the right. Reality, as they say, has a progressive bias.

"In general the hard sciences are apolitical"

In general, I agree. The fact that the great majority of those in the hard sciences find themselves on the left of at least the US political spectrum, shows how far off the deep end this country has gone. These days, if you agree with current state of human knowledge in fields like evolutionary biology and climate science, you come under attack from the flat-earthers that have taken over a large segment of US politics.

" while the soft sciences are often jokes on themselves"

Like economics? I totally agree.

"sociologists in search of an argument to fit their agenda, the inequity nonsense so popular here"

Except it's not nonsense. Human beings have an innate and demonstrable sense of justice from an early age, when that sense of equity and justice is violated, you get strife in all sorts of areas.

See, the reason why the soft sciences like econ are such a joke, is that they tell us nothing about the way the world works in reality. I love to read The Economist's predictions for the coming year just for the laughs, because they're amazingly good at coming out dead wrong.

Inequity researchers, like Wilkinson and Pickett, on the other hand, are telling us things that are instructive. They're explaining things that traditional capitalist economics can't explain. They're showing it with data, and when these methods are applied to settings other than the original, they still show the same things. So it seems like they're onto something important.

"University mass transit experts with a healthy disdain for the average citizen, we all know what I am talking about."

No, we don't all know what you're talking about. But that's nothing new, as you're rarely even as semi-coherent as you were in this post. Most of the time, you just rant like a rabid dog, and the only thing anyone can discern from your writing is that you hate progressives.

" we as a society do pick democratically what we want, you make choices everyday with what you spend your money on, correct? People vote with their dollars everyday"

This sums up the way a capitalist thinks of "democracy." In reality, a democracy is where *people* have a say in proportion to their numbers. In America, *money* has a say in proportion to its concentration. That's not a democracy.

If we were to gather a representative cross-section of America... liberals, conservatives, poor, middle class, rich (a tiny few, of course, in proportion to their representation), white, Hispanic, etc... and we were to ask them to come up with a priority list of areas of scientific study we should be spending our resources on, I seriously doubt that new apps for iphones would be anywhere near the top of the list.

But that's the difference between market priorities, and people's priorities. It's the difference between democracy and capitalism.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 9:26 am
Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

"This sums up the way a capitalist thinks of "democracy." In reality, a democracy is where *people* have a say in proportion to their numbers. In America, *money* has a say in proportion to its concentration. That's not a democracy. "

If Wallmart moved in next to your house you would shop there because you don't care what your spending reflects? I wouldn't shop there, I would vote with my dollars. You would shop there and then send another bitter e-mail to your BOS member?

People want these technology widgets, this demand was created by all these people you think would be voting for some Gemini program around moving sidewalks. When I go to the phone store on Mission St I see them voting with their dollars, they buy expensive phones with lots of ridiculous apps. The revolution will have to wait I think.

I would love to see your vision of representative voting. Would it all be based on how many socio-ethno check boxes a person can mark?

==

Most people in the hard sciences don't make it about their politics, people in the soft sciences do. Dawkins has used his celebrity to move out of his area into religion and politics witch is fairly rare, I don't mind him because in general I agree with him. The people who wrote "the Spirit Level" had an agenda they filled up with a book. The goofy lefts myriad of "experts" are always on about something idiotic to do with education, traffic, how to remake the world or some such non sense. Society changes organically, why people don't trust and believe these "experts" must puzzle the shit out of you.

For quick change remember Mao, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

==

We were ahead of the Soviets in space technology, the common narrative around Sputnik is wrong. It was a wake up call for the America though, the Soviets were up first with a worse product just to fuck with the USA, it worked and backfired for them at the same time. The Manhattan project did much of the work for the Soviets thanks to David Greenglass and other liberals, the soviets were always a second rate operation.

==

The best and brightest on the left go into studies fields, womens studies, Chicano studies, etc... The true believer left take up the soft sciences where they go to proclaim and make the evidence fit their agenda, which has them shouting in the wilderness of fellow travelers. You won't find many Richard Hofstadter's anymore, you will find a lot of Ward Churchills though. Although there is more quantitative noise, there is far less qualitative.

Sure real scientists are often regular liberal, but they seldom make an issue of it, and they don't go into the sciences to harass their citizens with their agenda. A certain different perspective might help, women moving into the sciences in some areas has helped.

The fringe left has often had a comical relationship to science much like the comical religious right. The Sokal Affair comes to mind. Thankfully post modernism and other nutty expert operations keep to their end of the campus.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 12:59 pm

The UK Lib-Dems are now to the left of the UK Labour Party despite their notion participation in the Cameron's coalition. As an example, the Libs are pro-Europe whereas Labour has always been cynical of the UK being in Europe (more accurately, both the far left and far right agree on disliking EU membership, as it gives power to the moderate majority.

Blair was quite like Clinton in his economic policies, for instance, and both liked to place constraints on welfare while acknowledging the primacy of business. While the Lib-Dems, perhaps because they rarely have any power, can inhabit the fairy-take world of high taxes and public ownership.

As for whether a focus group of ordinary people would have come up with the idea of investing to invent the i-phone, well, you're right, they wouldn't have. But then isn't that the beauty of how the private sector works - it doesn't just create what focus groups say that they want. Rather they envisage a whole new classification of product that those same people love - they just never would have thought of it themselves.

As for something like a cure for cancer, which no doubt the focus group would come up with, there is of course public money spent on that as well as private money. The more interesting questions is which one that cure will come from. I'd bet the private sector but I'm sure that you would not.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 1:00 pm

because if a product can't be designed to fail after a certain date, capitalists don't want any part of it - because they can no longer sell the product over and over again if it is a permanent fix to a problem or need

a cure for cancer would decimate ongoing and endless billions in profit making of pharmaceutical corporations

corporations which currently perpetually keep people on the edge and inside of chronic illnesses without every curing those illnesses

Posted by racer x on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 1:18 pm

and then look back at it over time and see parts of your theory and conjecture come true. It would be like an "In Search of Episode."

Send your ideas to yourself in the mail and then don't open the letters. Then in ten years open them in front of a group of lawyers or whatever and show off your brilliance, then write a book and retire with your riches.

To take your "theory" one step further, its counter intuitive but healthy people take longer to die and cost more in the process.

The conspiracy should...

Cure someone of cancer and make that money, then wait ten years and the conspiracy can make some more money as they linger into oblivion with some slow and more costly disease. Cure them of cancer and then later rake it in with; diabetes, heart disease, investing in retirement homes, arthritis prescriptions, the list is endless.

You think way to small.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 1:45 pm

in fact you have just proved my point

big pharma has realized that its poor performance on cancer and AIDS drugs has too quickly killed patients that could have lived much longer thereby allowing those patients to buy more pharmaceuticals

so recently, a noticeable dramatic change has occurred in AIDS drugs which are no longer so ill designed or outright toxic that they are quickly killing the patients, instead we have almost equally expensive AIDS drug "cocktails" that keep patients alive perpetually, but with a constant need for the expensive drugs

no cure there of course

it's a little more nascent, but the same strategies will likely emerge in the cancer "treatment" industry

but outright prevention or cures of AIDS or cancer?

no way in hell from for-profit companies

because there is no profit in it

Posted by racer x on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 1:56 pm

i suggest you read up on the science of the subject. It has various problems that make a cure tough.

I suppose they just need to get the papers from the CIA lab where it was created or something like that I suppose?

Posted by matlock on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 2:08 pm

before neo-liberal capitalism took over everything, we were curing diseases left and right

now we almost never do

and this is because profit has become god

Posted by racer x on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 2:30 pm

Again, a quick trip through the science of the disease would tell you why a cure is tough. There are also literally thousands of people working on this, if there was a quick fix one of those thousands would have let it loose.

Your weird conspiracy theory around this without knowing the first thing about the science helps to explain your simple minded troll obsession.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 4:34 pm

on a website filled with moronic comments, this takes the cake.

Do you know how many people have been cured of cancer and of the increases in survival rates of many types of cancers? How people who 30 years ago would have been facing a death sentence when they got their diagnosis are now surviving and thriving?

your moronic post is an insult to every doctor and scientist who are out there trying to alleviate and cure people's suffering.

feel free to reject the capitalist's "product" when cancer hits you or somebody that you care about.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 14, 2013 @ 9:34 am

the cancer industry (the apt name for what it actually is) "cures" less than 5% of cancers (with the exception of a tiny handful of specific unique types like leukemia)

here are a couple of reports which show how the cancer industry games the concept of "cures" to make it look like they are healing people, when they are not (which allows the industry to continue to make billions selling the public massively expensive radiation and chemo treatments which do not work, and make people's live worse, not better)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/06/us-usa-cancer-ctca-idUSBRE9250...

http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2013/02/five-year-survival-rates-can-mis...

Posted by racer x on Oct. 14, 2013 @ 4:13 pm

Something may come out of the Human Genome project(as an example) mixed with something researched from the private sector may cure some forms of cancers.

This is how this has historically worked.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 1:34 pm

but the key is that the private sector will never do this on its own

Posted by racer x on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 1:46 pm

Reconsider, Greg. There is scant basis on which to claim that modern neo-liberals are more "classic liberals" than the labor/left.

I take "classic liberal" to mean classically in favor of an egalitarian society wherein anybody can attain the highest office based on natural ability and effort without regard to birthright or birth name.

Neo-liberals work to create a more stratified society by encouraging mass formations of wealth.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 9:12 pm

"Reconsider, Greg. There is scant basis on which to claim that modern neo-liberals are more "classic liberals" than the labor/left."

I didn't say that. We were talking about Dawkins and the Lib Dems, the party Dawkins identifies with. Neither is a neo-liberal per se, so much as they are economic liberals in the classical sense. Someone made the argument that today's Lib Dems are to the left of Labour. They were talking about the UK Labour Party, not labor/left in general. I'm not sure I even buy that. Maybe on some issues, and previous Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy was sort of taking it in that direction. But there was pushback from within his ranks among many party members who didn't see a future for the Lib Dems as a left-wing alternative to Labour. Current leader Nick Clegg has actually joined the Tories in a coalition.

I never mentioned neoliberals at all.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 14, 2013 @ 12:25 am

Am from south Africa...i saw this comment on positive blogs and i will love to tell everybody how my status changes to negative, and am now a living witness of it and i think its a shame on me if i don't share this lovely story with other people infected with this deadly virus...,hiv has been ongoing in my family... i lost both parents to hiv,. and it is so much pain ive not been able to get over.. as we all know medically there is no solution to it..and medication is very expensive. So someone introduced me to a native medical practitioner in Africa. I had a job there to execute so i took time to check out on him. I showed him all my tests and results.. i was already diagnosed with hiv and it was already taking its towel on me.. i had spent thousands of dollars so i decided to try him out...i was on his dosage for 6 weeks. although i didn’t believe in it, i was just trying it out of frustration... and after 2 weeks, i went for new tests... and you wont believe that 5 different doctors confirmed it that am negative. It was like a dream,, i never believe aids has cure. Am now negative, am a living witness. I don’t know how to thank this man... i just want to help others in any way i can have joined many forums and have posted this testimonies and alot of people has mail and called this man on phone and after 2 months they all confirmed negative..bbc news took it live and every.. hope he helps you out.. everybody saw it and its now out in papers and magazines that there's native cure for hiv and all with the help of this man,,have tried my own parts and all left with you,,if you like take it or not..god knows have tried my best. About 97 people have been confirmed negative through me..and they send mails to thanks me after they have been confirmed negative, this man is real. Don’t miss this chance,,hiv is a deadly virus, get rid of it now.. DR.ABEGBESPELLHOME@HOTMAIL.COM or call

Posted by Mariam baurice on Oct. 21, 2013 @ 5:21 pm

i want to share a testimony on how i was cured from HIV by a man called Dr. Aluta of ALUTASPELLTEMPLE@HOTMAIL.COM who is very good in what he does for people. I was diagnosed of HIV in NOV. 2011 and since then i have not been living a normal life with my family, my husband and kid left me because they tested negative, i was the only who was carrying the disease and i have been living a life full of pain and sorrows because of the disease i was having inside of me, until i meant a testimony about a woman who was cured be Doctor Aluta, i was skeptical at first, but latter on i decided to give the Dr. a try, and in just 4 days after i contacted him, he told me every thing to do which i did and then he told me to go for a test to check if the cure he gave to me had worked, and i really went for the test and to my greatest surprise the disease i have been carrying for almost 3 years disappeared, and i was very happy, after that i called my husband and told him of the good news, and now i am very happy to tell you that i and my family are now living happy with out problems, and if you are also in this kind of situation, i will advice you to contact him today through his email. ALUTASPELLTEMPLE@HOTMAIL.COM or call him with his mobile number. +2348077526430. god bless Dr. Aluta for the good work he did in my life.

Posted by jane on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 2:45 pm

Howdy just wanted to give you a quick heads up and let you know a few of the pictures aren't loading correctly.
I'm not sure why but I think its a linking issue.

I've tried it in two different internet browsers
and both show the same results.

Posted by la reine des neiges télécharger on Jul. 12, 2014 @ 12:10 am

i want to share a testimony on how i was cured from HIV by a man called Dr. Aluta of ALUTASPELLTEMPLE@HOTMAIL.COM who is very good in what he does for people. I was diagnosed of HIV in NOV. 2011 and since then i have not been living a normal life with my family, my husband and kid left me because they tested negative, i was the only who was carrying the disease and i have been living a life full of pain and sorrows because of the disease i was having inside of me, until i meant a testimony about a woman who was cured be Doctor Aluta, i was skeptical at first, but latter on i decided to give the Dr. a try, and in just 4 days after i contacted him, he told me every thing to do which i did and then he told me to go for a test to check if the cure he gave to me had worked, and i really went for the test and to my greatest surprise the disease i have been carrying for almost 3 years disappeared, and i was very happy, after that i called my husband and told him of the good news, and now i am very happy to tell you that i and my family are now living happy with out problems, and if you are also in this kind of situation, i will advice you to contact him today through his email. ALUTASPELLTEMPLE@HOTMAIL.COM or call him with his mobile number. +2348077526430. god bless Dr. Aluta for the good work he did in my life.

Posted by jane on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 2:46 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.