SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
San Diego continues to face a hepatitis A outbreak:
Like other major cities all along the West Coast, San Diego is struggling with a homeless crisis. In a place that bills itself as "America's Finest City," spiraling real estate values have contributed to spiraling homelessness, leaving more than 3,200 people living on the streets or in their cars.
Most alarmingly, the deplorable sanitary conditions help spread a liver-damaging virus that lives in fæces, contributing to the deadliest U.S. hepatitis A epidemic in 20 years. "Some of the most vulnerable are dying in the streets in one of the most desirable and livable regions in America," a San Diego County grand jury wrote in its report in June — reiterating recommendations it gave the city over the past decade to address homelessness.
San Diego has struggled to do that. Two years ago, Mayor Kevin Faulconer closed a downtown tent shelter that operated for 29 years during winter months. He promised a "game changer" — a new, permanent facility with services to funnel people to housing. But it wasn't enough. The result? Legions of Californians without shelter. A spreading contagion. And an extraordinary challenge to the city's sunny identity that threatens its key tourism industry.
Previously: San Diego Declares Emergency Due to Outbreak of Hepatitis A
San Diego Power-Washing Streets to Fight Hepatitis A Outbreak
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:34PM (37 children)
We can't fit EVERYBODY in California. I know the weather is good*, but we cannot fit the entire country's population here. Some will just have to go to other states and accept crappy weather. Chicago has spare rooms and good deals.
* Between fires, earthquakes, flash-floods, tsunamis, and riots
(Score: 5, Insightful) by legont on Friday December 08 2017, @05:45PM (20 children)
We can't share free water with California any more. The water shall be used at the source. It's cheaper, way better for the planet's climate, greener and, most importantly, fair. Close, or better blow up, the canals and let the liberals handle their desert weather themselves.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:49PM (11 children)
Funny you should say that, Southern California is much more republican. I'm all for getting rid of Vegas and reducing the greater LA area with decreased water allotment. So go ahead, screw over that hive of filth. You might want to continue sending water to the Central Valley though, a lot of food comes out of there and it isn't all for California.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday December 08 2017, @06:03PM (9 children)
Yes, I am aware that most of the US water development efforts were Republican pork barrels (but don't see Californians recognizing it). The point though still holds - the paradise shall be on East Coast. As per food, without free water it would not be able to compete even with frozen Russia (which actually kicking the US from the top on this front lately). Pretty much all west of Mississippi development is pure government enterprise and shall be recognized as such before any meaningful discussion can even start.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday December 08 2017, @06:12PM (8 children)
Why limit yourself to just west of the Mississippi? The upper midwest tends to be the most productive farmland. Everyone gets crop insurance subsidies. And most of the shipping infrastructure is government-managed, not to mention financial instruments, land ownership claims, corporate protections/welfare to make sure they're in control of the benefits of technological innovation...
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Friday December 08 2017, @06:37PM (7 children)
Shhhh... most kids here still believe in free market mantra. One point in a time...
But more seriously, upper midwest would survive without the government while places like California or Texas would go under in a year or two.
Besides, food industry can and should grow at the population rate, but at this rate nobody ever would invest anything in it, but the government.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Friday December 08 2017, @07:23PM (6 children)
Its interesting that you can search n replace fossil fuels (and fossil water aka Ogallala Aquifer) and get about the same result. Midwest without saudi arabian crude, not so good but we'll live. Out west without saudi crude, tens of millions gonna have to move or die. Midwest is long term sustainable, out west is a temporary blip. There's a reason aside from smallpox why the original native americans would be outnumbered about 10000:1 by the modern USA residents. Without the underground aquifer (which is nearing empty) and without crude oil and without electricity the westerners are all dead in weeks at most. There's no sustainable human model for depopulating an area by exactly 99%, although we have plenty of historical and archaeological examples of 100% depopulation. Its highly unlikely that a century from now there will be more than, perhaps, 10M people west of the Mississippi, virtually all in the upper NW and along the coasts. You can cheat mother nature for awhile and build a Vegas in the desert, but Ma Nature always wins in the end...
(Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 08 2017, @08:51PM (2 children)
And you're jizzing your pants over the thought of all those latte-swilling, Democrat-voting, college-degree-having, homo-bi-pan-trans-poly-a-sexual lib'rul traitors suffering and dying, aren't you? You'd just love that.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Funny) by Sulla on Friday December 08 2017, @09:30PM (1 child)
I think if he was wanting that he would be more concerned that nothing would happen to DC/Virginia/New York
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 08 2017, @10:16PM
I think the dumb bastard thinks the coasts are entirely the same everywhere and assumed it would. We're not exactly dealing with a deep thinker here; this is VLM, master of the pseudo-profound and badly-closeted RWA-nutjob talking points.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday December 08 2017, @10:40PM (1 child)
We get our oil from many states. And from the Saudis, terrific guys. Our biggest oil producing states are TX, AK, CA, OK & ND, in that order. In that order. And we need all of it, even that California oil. Because our economy is growing AMAZINGLY.
One thing we're doing in the Tax Cut bill, we're opening up the ANWR so our oil companies can get to that oil. We're ending decades of federal overreach. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama believe the natural resources of Alaska should be controlled by a small handful of very distant bureaucrats located in Washington. And guess what? They are wrong. We want to put that oil in the hands of the people who care about it. Our great oil companies. They know how to drill for it. And they know best how to pump this oil for many, many months to come.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 08 2017, @11:31PM
Yuuuuge mistake. No longer the 1970'ies world.
* 1970 - expensive oil meant economic crisis [wikipedia.org]
* 2017 - oil prices slump drags down Wall Street and share markets around the world [bostonherald.com] - more oil, closer to crisis**
(grin)
---
** If you think there's no relation with homelessness, think again. If you still don't get it, ask.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @01:12AM
Have you not been paying attention? We haven't needed Saudi oil in forever. Canada has plenty. And even in some hypothetical situation where we can't use that, natural gas has already made us largely energy independent. How do people not notice any of this.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday December 09 2017, @02:17AM
Funny should say that, as as Las Vegan for some time, fuck your ass with a telephone pole. Sideways. You people like our hydro power enough [wikipedia.org] you hypocritical fuckwit.
Did you know that Los Angeles controlled the damn and was responsible for it till 1987? It would almost seem like California got a pretty good deal since 1937, but that's okay, forget all that history and just say fuck everyone in Nevada.
After all, the Hoover Dam only benefits Nevadans, and has always only benefited Nevadans.
(dumbass)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @08:15PM (7 children)
It's not so much the liberals that are the problem -- last I checked, Republicans liked the weather, too, and the rich ones cloistered themselves in the same ways the blue people do when they can afford it.
you seem to forget that the tree hugging hippies are the ones being the stewards of the earth and have moaned ineffectively since they are not improving shareholder value by exploiting natural resources, and here you post that the best answer is to exploit the resources... just differently, and at a profit. farmers may not have a shareholder value to increase, but many agrobusinesses do.
there is hardly a voting republican that would say something about being a steward of the earth, unless reciting from their bible.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sulla on Friday December 08 2017, @09:43PM (6 children)
You don't know a lot of hunters, fisherman, or farmers, then. Conservation to them is the same conversation as put forth by Theodore Roosevelt in how we must protect what we have so we can continue to exploit it forever. Hunters and fishermen know that you can't thin the herd too much or you have worse hunting/fishing in the next year. Farmers know that bad care of the land leads to reduced crop and livestock yields. It would not be difficult to bring these folks into the environmentalist side if the environmentalists would stop demonizing them.
There are changes that hunters and fisherman could make to the way they exist that they would probably accept if sold to them correctly. By cutting back here and there they extend the live of the asset by X and leave space for their kids to hunt. That can be a pretty good sell, the problem comes in when environmentalists are unwilling to accept anything except "stop fishing and hunting you murderers". The left is just as much to blame as the right in this area. For farming the case is similar. There are different things they could do to extend the life of their land or reduce the water usage, but the left needs to understand that the continuation of farming is a necessity and the cure can not be replacing the farmer. The farmer needs to be able to eat, so telling them "well you can't do x" won't work unless there is a way for them to continue to get by.
Most people are open to working with you but when you start by telling them they are evil they will completely shut down to any suggestions you have. A lot of the arguments for stopping global warming come down to completely changing their way of life to where they don't see it as possible, can't negotiate from there. You want them to not use a truck? Invent a machine that fits the same role and does not lose any capabilities or causes minimal losses to productivity. You want them to not grow a certain crop? Find a different crop that makes close to the same amount of money per work put in. Telling a liberal to bike to work because they live in town is a lot easier than telling a guy in the country to move to town or sell his truck and rent one when he needs to move something.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2, Informative) by realDonaldTrump on Friday December 08 2017, @11:03PM
We have too many regulations. I'm doing the largest cut by far, in terms of regulation, that this world has ever known. For every new regulation my guys make, they have to knock out two old ones. If there's a new regulation, they have to knock out two.
Let me tell you, we have beautiful savannah in the USA. In Georgia we have the most amazing savannah you've ever seen in your life. Not far from Hilton Head. We could be having big game safaris, the hunting. With elephants, zebras, giraffes, all of those animals our hunters are going to Africa for. Going to Zimbabwe, going to Nambia. My sons and many hunters. My sons are great hunters (not Barron). I don't do that. I like golf. They could be going to Georgia. Hunting in Georgia, great for our economy. But they can't because of FEDERAL OVERREACH. But I'm fixing it, believe me, I'm fixing it. And I'll leave it up to the states. But I'd love to open a Trump hotel in Hilton Head. Where I held one of my biggest rallies. #TRUMP2020 #MAGA 🇺🇸
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 08 2017, @11:39PM (3 children)
But it takes only relatively few "recreational hunters"** to wreck havoc [wikipedia.org].
---
People who don't need to hunt for their everyday life, e.g. a dentist [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Saturday December 09 2017, @04:00AM (1 child)
Hm good point, maybe we should stop the small group of people from doing something they don't need to do because it destroys everything around them. For example, the homeless from shitting on the sidewalk.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday December 09 2017, @07:20AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday December 11 2017, @05:47PM
I'm pretty sure there's a good line between Kill Everything and Kill Nothing. Part of the problem with kill nothing, is that most of the predators (wolves/coyotes) have been pushed out of large swathes of the country. In a pristine America, the deer population was mostly controlled by the predators. Due to Human expansion into the natural habitat, predators have been killed / pushed out of that environment. So, now you have an uncontrolled population of herbivores who don't mind eating everything in sight. At least in some areas, others allow for hunting. You've already pointed out the "problem" with kill everything.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:43PM
Let me get this straight, just because Satan likes to hunt and fish, we should stop demon-izing him? The Prince of Darkness could be a political ally? Hmm. You wrongly infer that liberals and conservationists do not know a lot of hunters and fishers, and outdoors people. Many of them are those things themselves. But you also wrongly infer that all rednecks are hunters and fisherpersons? No, they are assholes, idiots, litterers, racists, and misogynists, or in a word, Republican. (Hi, Sen. Judge Roy Moore! And Ted Nugent!) The probably hunt because they enjoy killing, have very small manhood, or just revel in destruction and are afraid of animals. In other words, demons. So, please, explain why we should stop demon-izing demons? I mean, if you can't demon-ize demons, who can you demonize?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @06:06PM
Not whole population, just the left. Then we put the wall up and suddenly all the leftists with Make California Mexico Again will start to panic! Be careful what you ask for pea-brains!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday December 08 2017, @07:16PM (5 children)
The weather doesn't matter for people with (indoor) jobs and houses, only homeless. And we can in fact fit most of the countries homeless in San Diego, which is what we've kinda done. If you don't own anything and don't have a job a bus ticket to S.D. is much more realistically survivable than sleeping on the streets of, say, Milwaukee or Fargo or Minneapolis in the winter. The folks living on the street in, say, Minneapolis, are those so crazy they can't hold it together long enough to get that ticket to the land of plenty in CA.
Not entirely. There's a lot more to it than "middle class houses cost more". Such as financial pressure to only make housing for rich people (more profit) means there's a thousand empty $5000/mo apartments per block and zero low income housing built. Or high cost of giving someone a job (health insurance, min wage, etc) mean there's lots of unemployed. Or lack of mental health care means people with broken legs get medicare/medi-wtf/free-ER-service and get fixed up, but people with broken brains merely poop on the sidewalk till they die. And then there's the drug issue where giving IV drug users who all have hepatitis from sharing needles, more money, just means they die somewhat slower plus or minus overdose rates, we don't really have a useful success rate at curing addiction; there are people who need money and can benefit and the IV drug users are triaged off to die on sidewalks covered in poop, why throw away money on walking dead, unfortunate as it sounds.
Outside CA, the way people see CA, post 1990 or so, is, um, not so positive. They don't exactly need a "Trump Wall" and armed guards to keep people out or CA in general or SD as one example, LOL.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Friday December 08 2017, @08:15PM (4 children)
Even the summary reveals part of the problem. They got rid of the tent city and replaced it with empty promises. That is, they got rid of the better than nothing partial solution and replaced it with nothing. So what was once a concentrated issue where they could hope to provide basic sanitation is now a well dispersed problem and much harder to do anything about.
One might say they shat on the homeless and now the homeless are returning the favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @02:35AM (3 children)
To constantly be rousting people who have no home to go to costs twice what it would to provide housing. [google.com]
the tent city [...] a concentrated issue where they could hope to provide basic sanitation
...so that wasn't really an actual solution either.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday December 09 2017, @07:58AM
Read myth #18 more carefully. I agree that a city of individually improvised tents wasn't a great answer but it was a lot better than an empty promise and a lot better than the shelters the myth was actually talking about.
Providing proper housing would be even better, but that didn't happen. Instead, the city seems hellbent on removing homeless people's private individual tents so they can herd them into more shelter like sanctioned group tents which the homeless avoid for the reasons in your link.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday December 09 2017, @02:53PM (1 child)
HO HO HO Ha Ha HAWWWWWWWW! What they are talking about is East Village, which is pretty much like Los Angeles' Skid Row and one step away from becoming a favela or Delhi slum. This is reassurance to the understandably angry out-of-state morons who bought condos there at a ridiculous markup as well as to the potential s̶u̶c̶k̶e̶r̶s̶ buyers who need reassurance that the homeless problem will simply disappear overnight.
I travel there on a regular basis, and yes, despite all the pressure-washing going on every morning, you will still see bums slamming heroin and smoking crack in broad daylight on the patio of that polished little gentrified-looking coffee shop, and you will most definitely see piles of fresh feces on the sidewalks everywhere because cruel bureaucrats think its a bad idea to provide places for bums to shit. Oh, and East Village is where all the social services are, so those bums aren't leaving anytime soon.
"One of the most desirable and livable regions in America," indeed. Like Detroit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:55PM
USA likes to call itself the richest nation on the globe.
So, why is 60 percent of the populace $400 away from disaster?
(The majority of USAians would have to sell something or take out a loan if they had an emergency.)
When FDR was handed the mess that (Republicans) Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover had created, and the boom-and-bust Capitalist weren't hiring, he put 15 million USAians back to work and got the economy jump-started.
Those USAians patched up dilapidated public infrastructure and built lots of new stuff.
These days, just look around.
Much of The Richest Nation looks like an armpit.
There's clearly plenty of work that needs doing.
In this (meta)thread, the sorry state of the decades-old sidewalks in SoCal has already been mentioned.
With all the wealth/resources in it, USA should be the most beautiful place on the planet.
You shouldn't be able to look anywhere and not see awesomeness.
Instead, we have a failed nation with a failed economy--and the occasional pocket of affluence.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 08 2017, @08:06PM (8 children)
You forgot mudslides.
So, I don't know about lately, but every year through the 1980s and 90s, Miami would scoop up all their homeless in the day or two before the Orange Bowl parade - trumped up charges that never were pressed, but did relocate them out to Krome detention facility in the Everglades where they were all released within hours... being without means, it took them several days to make their way back downtown and thus the Annual National Television Spectacle of the Orange Bowl was untainted by images of Miami's homeless (which, in all honesty, look like every other major city's homeless... but I guess it's bad for the image nonetheless.)
The thing about deporting the homeless, is: deport them where? You might give them a lift to a low cost housing area in North Dakota, but I doubt many would stay... Many of Miami's "homeless" actually spent the summers in northern cities like Chicago, it was kind of a lifestyle choice more than an inability to find an affordable roof.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 08 2017, @11:42PM (7 children)
Soylent green processing centre?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 09 2017, @01:08AM (6 children)
If people would take this up as a serious consideration, I'd consider it worthy of debate.
As it is, many people seem to think that it is "fair" to do this to the homeless, and yet lack the spine to execute the policy.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday December 09 2017, @02:26AM (4 children)
Be careful what you wish for. Reminds me of that Pixar movie Robots. Street sweeper robots constantly on the look for any robot past its prime, or basically, unable to evade the sweeper. Wasn't all that difficult to find yourself at the bottom, or subject to the whims of the ruling Elite.
Problem with that in real life, is that these people have done NOTHING to deserve death like that. They're being removed simply because of social status and access to means, which can be taken away from anybody at will.
I believe there is a movie that aptly describes the future you advocate discussing, In Time. Without giving away the movie if you've seen it, suffice to say, somebody dies because they scraped bottom. For just a split second.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 09 2017, @03:17AM (3 children)
That's been a mainstay of SciFi for a long time - the first one that springs to mind is, I think, a Larry Niven short story about a recidivist traffic offender (ran 3, count them 3, red lights) who was sent to the organ bank for harvesting due to his incorrigible nature. Star Trek TNG threatened to whack Wesley for falling into "new plants."
In modern American society the big threat is that if you run out of money you'll wish you were dead. It's o.k. if you've got a big pile from inheritance or a lotto win or wherever, but if you don't have any and you can't keep a decent job or beg off your family or perhaps friends, then you're homeless, health-careless, and spend the majority of your time begging from the bureaucracy for a pittance that might give you adequate nutrition and marginal housing. What the system misses is that by putting people through the Social Security Office grinder as a way to not die of starvation, they take away both their ability and their will to go out and do better for themselves.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:18AM (1 child)
Well, that's kinda bullshit. When it's because of medical reasons, it's UTTER bullshit. I would advocate for all who find themselves there, myself included, to find a rich person, literally gut them, and then stay alive by taking their resources (namely money). I'm sure as fuck not dying for the rest of you just because I got sick. We can play the blame game forever on that one, but woe to any one of you that get sick. When the reason why I can't get well is because some fuckers want to get rich, and doctors are no longer able to care for patients and assess reasonable fees, well then fucking kill the rich. Dead nuts serious on that one. I'm not going into that light just because Mr. Sociopathic McFucknuts wants a yacht. In your world medical better be fucking free, or covered by living wages. In that dystopia the ability to afford some sort of insurance just to survive the very real chance of being added to the meat grinder. They will not get away with it while I still have life. Medical is absolutely fucked in this failed country of mine since the for-profit assholes turned into an industry. Title 19 in the 1970s is a good damn reason why we're not even close to the top 10 in the world for medical, and Cuba embarrasses us.
As for the will to do it, I think that's mostly bullshit too. Or can be mitigated with social programs that made more sense than adding 10,000 beauticians to a zip code while a rich fucker in the community gets richer by rent seeking for those government dollars to run the classes.
As for the ability, when sick, you're literally backasswackards. The government is giving you BACK the ability. See the movie Sicko. France invested in their citizen and he got better and went back to being a productive member of society. In this country, it's FUCK YOU. Watch as your life savings drains to nothing, and like a Sniper just wounding a soldier, life brings in your loved ones and relatives to go down the hole with you. It's not like they can take the proposed position and just tearfully watch as they smother their loved one with a pillow to avoid the costs. That's a tremendous drain on society that serves no one. It should make sense for us to prevent that, invest back in our citizens directly, and get them back to work. But, But, But we can't get over the who deserves what, and why do I gotta pay *whine*?
As for the ability, when well, you also ignore the costs of treating them like animals with no safety nets. They're not going to be all civilized and march quietly and obediently into the Soylent processors. They will fight to survive, almost as if it has been genetically engineered in us to do so.
Does welfare need to change? You betcha. Killing it entirely while maintaining the rest of it status quo is a recipe for complete utter disaster and the deserved death of our society and country.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 09 2017, @04:33PM
So, nice rant, but I think you missed my angle - I'm against the bureaucracy of social security, not the benefits - basically pro UBI. Since "free" is such a problem for people, provide a no-questions-asked UBI to every living citizen. Make the UBI sufficient to afford food, shelter and basic medical care, then quit worrying about it. People who want to do better than UBI need to go and make their way in the world. Tax the fuck out of weed, booze and video games for all I care, let people be industrious enough to grow, distill and create their own - if they get the skills and ability to do any of that, they're probably also developing skills that might be somewhat valuable in society too.
In UBI-land when somebody has enough of the stressful shit of the career world, just take a break, move into affordable housing and chill until you're ready for it again. I chilled in University for 6.5 years making barely basic income (still relying on the parents for health insurance), and when they offered me 4 more years of the same, I was done with it, ready to actually go do something and have a little extra money. Too bad in this world that once you make that transition, you're on a treadmill that doesn't stop until retirement. Take a break from the "career" life and you might never get back into the world of health insurance and enough income to pay for a modest home again.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @02:09PM
The Niven story was more about the rest of society sending people to the organ banks for personal benefit rather than because they 'touched bottom'. It was an argument against using capital punishment criminals for forced organ donation. ie. Need a new heart, or liver, or lungs, or kidneys, or pancreas, or ... ? Vote the death penalty for running a red light, dropping litter, or jaywalking ...
Niven was saying that people will rationalize extreme systems if it is to their benefit that the system continue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @07:26AM
(note to myself: shit, I should have grinned to make it obvious. Clearly, one can't be sure how some USians will react)