Indy Week | Comment Archives | Stories | News

Narrow Search

Comment Archives: Stories: News

Re: “How to Sabotage North Carolina’s Insurance Marketplace in Five Easy Steps

I gained the knowledge how totrade with the help of SuperiorTradingSystem. Just Google them and you'll find them.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by ememmactello on 10/18/2017 at 10:19 PM

Re: “Wake County Approves a Twenty-Year Affordable Housing Plan, But Funding Questions Linger

I'm so glad that I have learned how totrade full time in just 2 weeks. Just Google SuperiorTradingSystem I can assure that these guys can take good care of you just like they took care of me.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by ememmactello on 10/18/2017 at 10:16 PM
Posted by Brian Fitzsimmons on 10/12/2017 at 2:53 PM

Re: “Endless Summer: Since Fall Started, Raleigh’s Seen Temperatures At Least Six Degrees Above Average Eleven Times

@Matt, you do know that the mean average temperature in the world has risen?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/0…

There is no argument about this (there is some debate as to the causes of this). Moreover, the increase in the mean average temperature has tremendous consequences for extreme conditions (both extreme heat or cold). Thus, the increasing cold temps are--in fact--also related to the rise in global temperatures. The potential consequences to human life in terms of increased storms, rising sea levels, loss of hospitable lands are certainly more dangerous than whatever you are implying about the "murder of humans."

1 like, 3 dislikes
Posted by Justin Scranton on 10/11/2017 at 10:47 AM
Posted by John Trololo on 10/11/2017 at 10:23 AM

Re: “Endless Summer: Since Fall Started, Raleigh’s Seen Temperatures At Least Six Degrees Above Average Eleven Times

So where was the Indy when there were more than six days of below average temperatures. I think you are pushing a non-existent agenda in order to justify the murder of humans.

2 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Matt Price on 10/11/2017 at 9:50 AM

Re: “How Much Is a Confederate Monument Worth?

The crumpled hulk should be sent to the Smithstonian or the Civil Rights Museum in Birmingham. Eventually, it will be seen as a valued marker of a historical moment.

3 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by William Turnier on 10/11/2017 at 9:31 AM

Re: “Vote, Dammit! The INDY’s 2017 Endorsements for the Raleigh, Durham, and Cary Municipal Elections

The link to the questionnaire seems to be broken. Anyone know where it is?

Posted by Chris Sites on 10/10/2017 at 10:00 AM

Re: “Nancy McFarlane Presides Over a Thriving City. Charles Francis Says She Doesn’t Deserve the Credit.

I am curious as to why I have seen no press coverage of the fact that both US Senator Cory Booker and US Congressman GK Butterfield attended a rally in support of Charles Francis and endorsed his candidacy.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Rebecca Llewellyn on 10/10/2017 at 9:44 AM

Re: “Vote, Dammit! The INDY’s 2017 Endorsements for the Raleigh, Durham, and Cary Municipal Elections

Freedom of speech is one of the rights of American citizens that make publushing newspapers a profitable enterprise. It is also the Constitutional Right that give individuals a voice in the same media forum.

While it is important to recognize the professionals' approach in their endorsements; it is also wise to try to see the perspective of people who challenge the status quo.

The qualifications and capabilities of Charles Francis, for Mayor and Shelia Alamin-Khashoggi, for At-large are not questionable factors. These two seasoned Raleigh natives are seasoned business persons who bring talents to the City Council that the encumbents have not demonstrated.

As you read the Indy questionaires, you may see how these challengers posed answers to questions that the Indy editirial staff framed for it's audience. I don't think that there is anything bad about that. But, I do believe that there is a larger audience that voters should be aware of in their consideration of who to chose to address those matters that touch our lives most commonly.

The encumbent mayor of Raleigh has been good at promoting the City but lacks the communications skills to address the issues presented by Mr. Francis. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in public forums where the candidates were given equal opportunity to address the issues. Charles Francis presented his unframed platform eloquently and precisely. Perhaps, Indy Week just chose not to report those encounters.

As for the at-large position, Mrs. Khasoggi is the most academically and practically on-the-job expetienced candidate in on the Raleigh City Council ballot bar none. She is Day One ready to get the job done. You can read about her and her years of contributions to the welfare of her neighbors. Her charitable work and her dedication to elevating herself from poverty through perseverance and educational achievement are more than good reads. You owe it to yourself to understand why these two candidates are behind the record breaking early voting in Raleigh.

The people of Raleigh who were born and raised in the City welcome newcomers who want to join with them in this community. These two candidates are such natives who really embody what this city can become when all of its citizens are represented by the municipal leadership.

Yes... Vote Dammit! But, understand the meaning of your vote as well as the implications on the future if your choices. If I, agree on all but two of the Indy Week endorsements, the rational of my personal preferences must be based on something that you, the IW reading audience may want to really consider.

Two candidates for the three at-large positions have energized the city and brought out record levels of citizen participation. They did this without resorting to diatribes or relying of racial preference. In short, they individually united the citizens of Raleigh and ignited their involvement in the municipal election.

This ability to draw in the public and get consensus across the aisle from friend and foe is something that the readers of IW should take into consideration given the climate of discord we are experiencing from our state and national representatitives.

The polls have been open for the past hour and you can vote if you are in line by 7 pm.

Posted by Ml Hayes on 10/10/2017 at 7:35 AM

Re: “Durham Commissioners Consider Adding a New “City-Center” Light-Rail Stop Downtown

Adding this stop to serve DPAC and the Durham Bulls is a sensible step.

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Durham451 on 10/08/2017 at 12:49 PM

Re: “Nancy McFarlane Presides Over a Thriving City. Charles Francis Says She Doesn’t Deserve the Credit.

If anyone on this thread actually thinks Mayor McFarlane has anything to do with the success of Raleigh, they are sorely mistaken. 66 people a day come into Raleigh for Big Pharma job. Before that they came in for Telecom jobs. They all live in North Raleigh and commute RTP daily. (A miserable commute that the city won't fix.)

Sadly they pay a BIG chunk of their paychecks to the government so moronic politicians in downtown Raleigh can spend it on downtown Raleigh; a place about 20 miles south that we have no interest in. Wake up!!!

The nerve of her or any politician claiming credit. The politicians who take care of our police, fire and sanitation people and doesn't spend an unnecessary penny on stupid stuff like convention centers, bike sharing systems and city sponsored restaurants are the only politician I care about.

Get Real!!

Ben Lev

4 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Dan Levi on 10/08/2017 at 12:08 PM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

Janet Nagels tirade is a remarkable demonstration of the anti-F activists ability to dredge through 70+ years of history and evidence, completely ignore the overwhelming majority, distort the rest and come up with a narrative that makes a safe and effective public health measure look like Hitlers return. Nagel believes fluoridation is a police action Really?

If one takes the time to find and examine the sources of all of the uncited accusations you will discover that many sources are not identified for a very good reason the actual studies and reviews do not prove drinking optimally fluoridated water is ineffective or causes harm and often come to the opposite conclusion than portrayed by fluoridation opponents.

I have no idea where Nagel came up with the opinion that the 1986-1987 survey deliberately covered up evidence, but a 1990 paper, Recent Trends in Dental Caries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation by Brunelle and Carlos which used that survey data concluded, Children who had always been exposed to community water fluoridation had mean DMFS scores about 18% lower than those who had never lived in fluoridated communities. When some of the "background" effect of topical fluoride was controlled, this difference increased to 25%. The results suggest that water fluoridation has played a dominant role in the decline in caries and must continue to be a major prevention methodology.

Another example is the claim that drinking optimally fluoridated water is neurotoxic to children or anyone else. Because of misrepresentation of their conclusions, the authors of the so-called Harvard studies actually publically stated that their study was not relevant to drinking water fluoridation in the U.S.

The most recent Bashash, et al. fluoride/IQ study contained six paragraphs that described the limitations of the study.
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/09/24/maternal-urinary-fluorideiq-study-an-update/

So heres what weve got: The undistorted mountains of scientific evidence from over 70 years clearly showing:
1) Drinking optimally fluoridated water is safe;
2) Drinking optimally fluoridated water is effective;
3) Drinking optimally fluoridated water is not necessary if one wishes to increase the risk of dental decay;
4) Fluoridation opponents have extremely passionate, unsupportable opinions which cause them to distrust science, scientists, health professionals and public health measures.

6 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Randy Johnson on 10/08/2017 at 9:49 AM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

Having posted speed limits and having to obey them is an unlawful restriction of my right to free choice as to my health, based on studies from the 60's that claim that driving a safe speed saves lives.

Now that we have airbags and anti lock brakes, I should be able to go whatever speed I want. Having the government tell me what to do with my body is never acceptable.

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by John Trololo on 10/08/2017 at 7:58 AM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

Sarah Willets gives a pretty accurate account of what people say about F'ation pro and con. But the basic thing for everyone to understand is that administering non-consensual dental treatment in the public water system is violates everybody's constitutional rights to privacy and freedom from bodily intrusion.

If thats so, then how come its being done? Because 30+ years ago public health authorities told the courts that children had to swallow fluoride during the years their teeth were forming, so fluoridation was a public health necessity. And the courts said, Okay, since you tell us its perfectly safe, very effective, and extremely necessary, you can infringe everybody's constitutional rights with your public health police power for the greater good.

Fluoridation is a police action like quarantine, except quarantine is imposed when an entire community is threatened with a deadly disease. And quarantine infringes individual rights for days or weeks, not 80 years or more.

Fast forward to 1987. Thats when the National Institute of Dental Research completed a survey of 39,201 US school children that showed there was NO statistically significant difference in tooth decay between children drinking fluoridated water all their lives and children drinking non-fluoridated water. Pretty strong evidence that F'ation was not effective. Did they admit that? No. They covered it up and kept on saying F'ation was one of their greatest public health achievements.

Two years later, in 1989 the EPA received a report that fluoride is probably a carcinogen. That should have caused them to lower the permissible level of fluoride contamination in water to below what the Public Health Service was recommending for F'ation. Did they do that? No. They fired the EPA scientist who called attention to their responsibility to lower the permissible fluoride, and they have not lowered it to this day.

Ten years later, in 1999 the CDC announced that that any positive action from fluoride occurs predominantly by direct contact with tooth surfaces after the teeth have erupted into the mouth. And in 2006 the National Research Council confirmed that.

Harvard studies in 2012 and 2014 reported evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic to children. And a very rigorous study funded by the National Institutes of Health was released last month. It shows that when pregnant women ingest fluoride at the same levels women receive in fluoridated North Carolina communities, their children at age 4 and ages 6-12 score lower on IQ tests by an average of 5 points than children who didn't hve he fluoride exposure in utero.

The results of this study make it clear that there is no basis for assuming that current water fluoridation policy is safe. In the words of study director Dr. Howard Hu, The potential risks associated with fluoride should be further studied, particularly among vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children, and more research on fluorides impact on the developing brain is clearly needed.

So heres what weve got: The feds (who you'll remember also conducted the Tuskegee syphilis experiment) and the dental profession refuse to back down from their century-old, thoroughly disproved superstitious belief in fluoridation. And then weve also got mountains of science showing:
1. Swallowing fluoride is not safe;
2. Swallowing fluoride is not effective; and
3. Swallowing fluoride is not necessary.

The science means that theres no justification for the police action of fluoridation that is infringing everyones constitutional rights, their consumer rights, and their human rights.

If youre a dentist and a patient tells you not to give them a fluoride treatment. Do you give it to them anyway?

If OWASA decided to charge ratepayers for a program to distribute free toothpaste to the community, would that be a legitimate budget item for a water utility? Why is fluoride dental treatment injected into the water a legitimate budget item for a water utility? Is chlorine disinfectant injected into the water to kill bacteria and viruses a legitimate budget item for a water utility? Of course. Its necessary to meet water safety requirements. Theres no federal or state requirement for Fation. It is purely dentistry superstition.

3 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Janet Nagel on 10/07/2017 at 11:26 PM

Re: “Durham Commissioners Consider Adding a New “City-Center” Light-Rail Stop Downtown

along with the addition of the NCCU extension steps in the right direction, but still chairs on the Titanic.

2 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by duh on 10/07/2017 at 3:44 PM

Re: “OWASA Will Soon Reintroduce Fluoride Into Its Water Supply. Critics Say the Authority Is Unethically Acting Without Their Informed Consent.

In Sarah Willets' article about fluoride, she notes::

"Perhaps the group's most compelling point is that the fluoridation debate is a matter of informed consent. It's an argument that taps into a basic desire for personal liberty and can circumvent dissections of which study says what. Speakers last week lined up to tell OWASA officials they did not have their permission to medicate them.

Last month, Carrboro alderman Sammy Slade introduced a resolution stating that OWASA is medicating the town's water with fluoride, and that neither the town board nor its appointees to the OWASA board "can ethically provide consent on behalf of individual Carrboro citizens."

-----------------------------

I find it somewhat ridiculous that those claiming this argument (that OWASA cannot medicate without permission) have not come out to protest chlorine which is also added to our drinking water. Shortsighted?? Fear mongers, mostly

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Bernie Bildman on 10/07/2017 at 2:34 PM

Re: “Nancy McFarlane Presides Over a Thriving City. Charles Francis Says She Doesn’t Deserve the Credit.

@dianahaywood - so are you suggesting that we elect someone who says you should vote based on race? He has said this several times and it is pretty disturbing. What back room deals are you talking about? Secret promises? You must have been to some of Charles's meetings where he slandering other opponents and spreading lies. He has no real plan that I have seen and I have tried. You do realize you live in a fairly large city that happens to be the capital of the state right? Development will always happen. It isn't always good, but it sure isn't always bad. So we should stop building things? You have pretty ignorant, unfounded argument.

4 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by For Real? on 10/07/2017 at 12:03 PM

Re: “Nancy McFarlane Presides Over a Thriving City. Charles Francis Says She Doesn’t Deserve the Credit.

The incumbent mayor has shaped a future for Raleigh that can be very accurately observed and analyzed. Where one perception holds that 90% approve of her performance, one must question how that translates into the kind of predatory gentrification experienced by citizens who require more assistance to retain properties inherited from their ancestors who were grossly discriminated against.

Is that the continuum that this city wants to base it's future on. Mr. Francis hasn't stated the problem in terms that rouse emotions. Maybe that is because people would prefer to dignify political conversations by attempting to be civil in their discourse. This is a problem that leads to a general misunderstanding such as that which Mayor McFarland has taken advantage of.

Democrats who support the incumbent mayor aren't aware of the loss of nearly 10,000 affordable housing units since she has been in office. They are also not recognizing the history behind the current reality of predatory gentrification induced by the city's tax increases. The end results are targeting just as surely as were 1960's financial redlining of these same neighborhoods.

When municipal taxation results in sell or lose decisions for senior citizens on inadequate pension incomes, the question of prosperity can't be factored in a poll that excludes those being evicted from the homes they could only afford due to inheritances. Ignoring the history of economic discrimination in employment and wage / salary compensation equity blinds one's sympathy to this harsh economic reality.

However, that is why we pick leaders that understands the history of these legacy issues. We had hope that the Mayor would have some empathy for these real economic factors of those citizens of Raleigh who have to deal with past municipal indiscretions of devastating consequences. Judging McFarland by her History, Mr. Francis is right about her apathy and alooftness.

Raleigh can do better. The question isn't so much one of how as it is when. With Francis as mayor, sooner seems more plausible than with McFarland.

7 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Ml Hayes on 10/07/2017 at 4:11 AM

Re: “Nancy McFarlane Presides Over a Thriving City. Charles Francis Says She Doesn’t Deserve the Credit.

It's time for McFarland to go. She has done more then enough to our city especially the SE Raleigh district. We ate tired of all her back room deals and secret promises with big developers moving into our City. It's one thing to redevelop downtown Raleigh but make it inclusive to all and not exclusive. We've had enough of her we want something new and fresh. We are the people that voted her in and we are the people who will vote her out.

5 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Diana Haywood on 10/06/2017 at 10:57 PM

Our Guides

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation