Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday December 08 2017, @05:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-walk-barefoot dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by legont on Friday December 08 2017, @05:45PM (20 children)

    by legont (4179) on Friday December 08 2017, @05:45PM (#607289)

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Underrated=1, Touché=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:49PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @05:49PM (#607293)

    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)

      by legont (4179) on Friday December 08 2017, @06:03PM (#607304)

      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)

        by meustrus (4961) on Friday December 08 2017, @06:12PM (#607312)

        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)

          by legont (4179) on Friday December 08 2017, @06:37PM (#607333)

          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)

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08 2017, @07:23PM (#607360)

            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)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday December 08 2017, @08:51PM (#607412) Journal

              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)

                by Sulla (5173) on Friday December 08 2017, @09:30PM (#607443) Journal

                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

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday December 08 2017, @10:16PM (#607464) Journal

                  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)

              by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday December 08 2017, @10:40PM (#607476) Homepage Journal

              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

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08 2017, @11:31PM (#607507) Journal

                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.

                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

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @01:12AM (#607540)

              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

      by edIII (791) on Saturday December 09 2017, @02:17AM (#607568)

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @08:15PM (#607382)

    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)

      by Sulla (5173) on Friday December 08 2017, @09:43PM (#607450) Journal

      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

        by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday December 08 2017, @11:03PM (#607493) Homepage Journal

        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)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08 2017, @11:39PM (#607509) Journal

        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

        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)

          by Sulla (5173) on Saturday December 09 2017, @04:00AM (#607605) Journal

          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

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @07:20AM (#607641) Journal

            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.

            There are so many solutions:
            - stop them being a small group of people - eg (join them and) make the group large
            - stop them being a group at all
            - stop them being people at all
            - stop them being homeless
            - stop them shitting at all
            - stop the shitting on sidewalk
            Which particular solution you have in mind?

            (grin)

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday December 11 2017, @05:47PM

          by Freeman (732) on Monday December 11 2017, @05:47PM (#608346) Journal

          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

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:43PM (#607836)

        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 . . . . Hunters and fishermen know that you can't thin the herd too much or you have worse hunting/fishing in the next year. . . . It would not be difficult to bring these folks into the environmentalist side if the environmentalists would stop demonizing them.

        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?