15 ms·

> What struck me most was the balance of compassion and pragmatism that Amanda brings to her work. Nothing about this article strikes me as pragmatic. She's sp

by Aunche 2y ago

> What struck me most was the balance of compassion and pragmatism that Amanda brings to her work. Nothing about this article strikes me as pragmatic. She's spending all her energy attempting to help people with the least likelihood of success and then gets angry at the system when they inevitably fail. The city didn't kick Morrisette out of the hotel because they like zero-tolerance policies, but because other people deserve a chance a chance to live in a free hotel room as well.

mordae 2y ago
I am sorry to hear that the richest country on earth cannot afford tiny private flats for anyone and everyone unhoused.
- Aunche 2y ago
  I mean yes. When engineers making six figures can't afford a flat in the bay area thanks to nimbyism, then you can't expect the government to either.
  - truckerbill 2y ago
    That's kinda the whole point, but noone is framing that situation as the problem. They would rather think that homeless people are innately inferior and thus deserve to suffer, rather than victims of circumstance in one way or another.
    - doomroot 2y ago
      > but noone is framing that situation as the problem. I think yimbys are framing that situation as THE problem.
      - truckerbill 2y ago
        I meant here, though I think there is also tendency in general As a side note I think the state of current discourse has shown that anything other than concrete language presents too much opportunity to talk past each other. So I don't think talking about yimbys is specific enough (and its too tempting to strawman). Same for magas and libs, they are broad labels for a broad spectrum of people
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        So, what do we talk about then? Humans are pretty bad at multitasking so when speaking generally to a public you want to focus on one issue at a time.
        truckerbill 2y ago
        I'm saying be more specific not less
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      No one is framing it that way because it misses the nuance of these homeless peoples individual issues and how we might actually treat them. When people complain about homeless people in their neighborhood, they aren’t talking about the invisible homeless who are only homeless due to economic circumstance and might be couch surfing or living in their car. They are talking almost exclusively about the most visible population of homeless people, those who have severe mental health or drug addictions and need in patient services for potentially all their life.
  - presentation 2y ago
    The solution increasingly looks like completely replacing SF governance - not just be the people and laws but the structure too.
  - Yeul 2y ago
    Sure you can many countries have a social housing program... Cities across the world run into the same problems SF does you know it is not particularly unique or unusual. Although I am a bit perturbed that there is still such a huge problem with drugs when the economy is booming and unemployment so low. It points to deeper problems within the fabric of American society.
    - Aunche 2y ago
      A prerequisite to building social housing is to allow building housing at all. Social housing projects also have to pay for artificially inflated land prices and wait years to obtain permits. SF has spent billions of dollars on building new social housing in the past decade, but that doesn't make a difference when they cost millions of dollars a unit to construct.
    - lotsoweiners 2y ago
      > Although I am a bit perturbed that there is still such a huge problem with drugs when the economy is booming and unemployment so low. It points to deeper problems within the fabric of American society. I think you’re coming at this from the wrong angle. A lot of people just really like drugs (and alcohol) and it has nothing to do with society getting them down. Surely there are plenty of people abusing substances as a coping mechanism but I think there are likely a lot more who just want to have a good time.
      - olyjohn 2y ago
        This just sounds like some random-ass assumption if you ask me.
      - Yeul 2y ago
        No I don't believe anyone voluntarily chooses to become a drug zombie. I think that if you were able to communicate with these people you would hear a lot of sob stories.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >the economy is booming and unemployment so low. Well that's your first problem. We're hiding the underemplyment crisis with "but unemployment is so low!". Quality of life for underemplyment is a lot closer to homelessness than middle class. The deeper problem that America is more and more trying to focus on the elite over the working class.
  - b112 2y ago
    That seems a weird assertion. I just went to apartments.com. Palo Alto (not the cheapest place), shows loads of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments under and at 3k/month. That's under $40k/year. This tax calculator shows the generic case of $120k (low 'six figures'), as being more than $80k takehome: https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator/California-120000 https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator/California-120000 That means less than 1/2 of a 'low end' engineering salary is taken for housing, and that's without a room-mate. Something most people have at the start of their career, and before being married (which is another way to have a room mate). Do you actually live in the region? Why do you think almost $4k/month of cash in hand, left over after rent paid and taxes paid, isn't much? Why do you think no one can find a place to live, when apartments.com show places aplenty? Are you referring to a specific area, instead of a more central place such as Palo Alto?
    - michaelt 2y ago
      Well, in the US the median pre-tax household income is $80k and the median renter spends <35% of their income on rent. Imagine singlehandedly earning 150% of what the average family earns, in one of the richest countries in the world and living in a one-bedroom apartment - and such a low standard of living isn't even cheap. The landlords must be laughing all the way to the bank!
    - Aunche 2y ago
      I wasn't clear. By "afford a flat" I meant outright purchase property, which the government would need to do to actually solve homelessness.
    - flerchin 2y ago
      Where do you think the grocery store workers are going to live when highly skilled professionals have to roommate to make rent?
      - b112 2y ago
        I was responding to an assertion that engineers making 6 figures could not afford apartments. I validated that they certainly can, on their own, and in an expensive area (Palo Alto) too. I then said that the dynamic is even better with a room mate. From this you infer I spoke of all affordability? Why? Understand, making wild unsubstantiatable and exaggerative assertions about affordability can invalidate a discussion. Stating fact instead of hyperbole is more appropriate. Hence my response.
  - dventimi 2y ago
    "engineers making six figures" is the cause of San Francisco's problems, not "nimbyism."
    - throwaway173738 2y ago
      Lawmakers not having the moral courage to stand up to NIMBYs are part of the problem, along with people not voting for them. Cutting people off at the knees to make the grass taller is not a solution.
      - dventimi 2y ago
        I can't agree with this. At various times over the last 30 years, there has been roughly two classes of people in SF: "tech workers", and "everyone else." The "everyone else" comprises teachers, restaurant workers, retail workers, delivery drivers, and others, who cater to the whims of "tech workers." "Everyone else" works in industries subject to competition, market forces, and the ruthless demand for profitability (try keeping a restaurant open for 3 losing quarters). "Tech workers" work in an industry often shielded from these exigencies, cossetted in a pillowy cocoon of VC money. "Everyone else" serves the local community. "Tech workers", if they serve anybody, tend to be disconnected from the local economy and serve national or global markets. Relatedly, "tech workers" are paid high salaries that rise quickly. "Everyone else" is paid much more modest salaries that tend to stagnate. To add insult to injury, not only did this set of circumstances arrive in SF, it also arrived quickly, in waves, representing a series of shocks. Then came the last and possibly the most serious shock: remote work. Altogether, this is a recipe for: spiraling costs, social fragmentation, homelessness, and political turbulence. Put another way, an ocean of money was poured into a thimble and no amount of "increasing supply" is going to make a difference. Make it two thimbles, ten thimbles, a hundred thimbles, it's still going to leave a mess.
        zozbot234 2y ago
        > Put another way, an ocean of money was poured into a thimble and no amount of "increasing supply" is going to make a difference. So? The problem is not "too much money", it's too little housing. Having lots of highly-paid folks around is good for local workers' incomes; housing scarcity is really bad for them. Homelessness happens when people can't afford to pay for a home.
  - Qwertious 2y ago
    What causes NIMBYism, though? ("lot of things, but...") My pet theory is that cars are a substantial cause - people don't want more housing because it will result in more traffic and more people using the nearby 'free' parking. Cities that are less car-centric will therefore have less NIMBYism.
- lynx97 2y ago
  [dead]
- UltraSane 2y ago
  The issue is that a lot of homeless actively destroy any housing they are put into.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- skirge 2y ago
  there are 7 billion people who want to live in free tiny private flat in San Francisco and US in general. More lanes - more traffic - more traffic jams.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    I wouldn't live in SF is someone paid me... and not because of the homeless
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Nah, count me out of that 7 billion. Heck, Id2be surprised if we got even a plurality of Americans who said they'd want to live in San Francisco.
xivzgrev 2y ago
I’m not sure what the right answer is, but asking people who are used to rough and tumble life outside to then behave civilly indoors with zero tolerance seems…set for failure? There are those that do succeed but those are certainly the most motivated to do so. Others are in transition: know they should get indoors but know their difficulties. Rather than kicking them out, maybe they are required to attend some mandatory psych sessions. Maybe they go maybe they don’t but at least there support to help them work thru their issues of why they blew up at the staff (as in this instance).
- Aunche 2y ago
  > asking people who are used to rough and tumble life outside to then behave civilly indoors with zero tolerance seems…set for failure? This is what I'm saying the ranger is doing. Someone who gets extremely distressed by indoor living is not a good candidate taxpayer funded indoor living. On the other hand, that housing given to someone who is capable of navigating welfare bureaucracy on their own may actually enable someone who is at risk spiraling down a path of no return to turn their life around.
  - b112 2y ago
    I've always wondered why such people don't live in a rural area. You could literally set aside parks for people wanting to live in this fashion, used to living in this fashion, but also provide facilities (bedding, small cabins, water supplies, washing machines, etc, etc). You'd need, I think, to have security guards on hand. Not to stop drug use, but instead to stop violence against other homeless, to intervene if medical attention is required, and so on. While the costs would be higher than some other solutions, it would be lower (I think) than paying for private housing. Of course, you'd have to force move people, and that's not going to happen. That is, unless you make squatting in a park a crime, and the result is "you're going to be incarcerated in this very nice outdoor place" the "jail". Maybe a medical order. My point is, I don't see an issue with some of your logic. Some people won't transition to inside living, or being close to others. But if you take people used to living in parks, move them to a park with cabins(tiny homes), and state run water/facilities, the cost might be the same, but they'd have a warm bed, etc.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
robswc 2y ago
This is one of the core problems and I don't think people want to admit it "can't be solved." When I was naive, out on my own after 18 I found a low-income/income-restricted apartment complex and thought I got a steal. It was $1k a month for a 2 bed when everywhere else was closer to $1.5k. I soon realized I would _never_ live in a low income place if I could help it. Someone was killed in our building. Fights in the parking lot every other day. People leaving trash in the hall ways. People smoking 24/7. Of course, maybe only 25% of the people were "problematic" but that was more than enough to make you feel totally uncomfortable in your own home. The last straw was potheads causing a fire alarm at 3 AM and having to evacuate into the cold night in a panic. Some people are simply selfish and will not be able to live close to/with others without causing problems. _Most_ people do not want to live next to them.
- autobodie 2y ago
  >I don't think people want to admit it "can't be solved". The fact that many countries have solved it seems to indicate that you are wrong.
  - wavemode 2y ago
    Which countries have solved it, and how? I'm genuinely curious.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    It is hard to imagine a nation without this sort of thing to some degree without a total police state. These are issues with poor living in apartments in Europe too you know; a tragedy of the commons situation as the community shoulders the burden of those of it that have vice or mental illness that the government authority doesn’t effectively treat because this class is invisible in local mass media.
    - Agentus 2y ago
      yeah, ive heard not having a home was illegal of sorts in the Soviet Union, meaning eviction was illegal or something equivolent. I know what you mean by police state, but i wonder why america doesn’t consider themselves a police state, with such a large prison population and all the innocuous behaviors that can land you in legal trouble. i guess americans get indoctrinated in a certain way of thinking, where their subset of freedoms which they can mostly practice, makes them think they are free but ignore all the numerous other penalized behaviors. for example: i cant possess cocaine regardless if it wont be consumed as a drug, cant drink in public, cant lay down in public, cant sleep in public(ny), etc etc. a lot of intermediary stuff gets penalized because its the only way to control some tangentially related detrimental behavior, or its penalized for making people feel odd (nudity). but more on point: america polices property taxes. Any property owned gets taxed automatically. this creates a forced work state to accumulate money to pay Uncle Sam. Failure to comply with this system and you get policed or pushed around as a homeless. David Graeber talks about Madagascar colonies set up with a similar system (underline) intentionally(/u) to produce a productive populace. similarly he mentions ways monarchies created rules and systems to force markets and force productivity elsewhere. I think homelessness circumstances is by design, and this free nonpolice state we call america is actually an artificial created police state. we can choose different governing setups that have different features emergent and by design. Its what Mao attempted to do, its what the French and British monarch did. But i see the coercive force in all the government setups even the ones that claim to be free.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tclancy 2y ago
There is honor is such a quest. https://blog.granneman.com/2005/09/30/cuchullin-fights-the-ocean-waves/ https://blog.granneman.com/2005/09/30/cuchullin-fights-the-o...

by Aunche 2y ago

mordae 2y ago

I am sorry to hear that the richest country on earth cannot afford tiny private flats for anyone and everyone unhoused.

Aunche 2y ago
I mean yes. When engineers making six figures can't afford a flat in the bay area thanks to nimbyism, then you can't expect the government to either.
- truckerbill 2y ago
  That's kinda the whole point, but noone is framing that situation as the problem. They would rather think that homeless people are innately inferior and thus deserve to suffer, rather than victims of circumstance in one way or another.
  - doomroot 2y ago
    > but noone is framing that situation as the problem. I think yimbys are framing that situation as THE problem.
    - truckerbill 2y ago
      I meant here, though I think there is also tendency in general As a side note I think the state of current discourse has shown that anything other than concrete language presents too much opportunity to talk past each other. So I don't think talking about yimbys is specific enough (and its too tempting to strawman). Same for magas and libs, they are broad labels for a broad spectrum of people
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        So, what do we talk about then? Humans are pretty bad at multitasking so when speaking generally to a public you want to focus on one issue at a time.
        truckerbill 2y ago
        I'm saying be more specific not less
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    No one is framing it that way because it misses the nuance of these homeless peoples individual issues and how we might actually treat them. When people complain about homeless people in their neighborhood, they aren’t talking about the invisible homeless who are only homeless due to economic circumstance and might be couch surfing or living in their car. They are talking almost exclusively about the most visible population of homeless people, those who have severe mental health or drug addictions and need in patient services for potentially all their life.
- presentation 2y ago
  The solution increasingly looks like completely replacing SF governance - not just be the people and laws but the structure too.
- Yeul 2y ago
  Sure you can many countries have a social housing program... Cities across the world run into the same problems SF does you know it is not particularly unique or unusual. Although I am a bit perturbed that there is still such a huge problem with drugs when the economy is booming and unemployment so low. It points to deeper problems within the fabric of American society.
  - Aunche 2y ago
    A prerequisite to building social housing is to allow building housing at all. Social housing projects also have to pay for artificially inflated land prices and wait years to obtain permits. SF has spent billions of dollars on building new social housing in the past decade, but that doesn't make a difference when they cost millions of dollars a unit to construct.
  - lotsoweiners 2y ago
    > Although I am a bit perturbed that there is still such a huge problem with drugs when the economy is booming and unemployment so low. It points to deeper problems within the fabric of American society. I think you’re coming at this from the wrong angle. A lot of people just really like drugs (and alcohol) and it has nothing to do with society getting them down. Surely there are plenty of people abusing substances as a coping mechanism but I think there are likely a lot more who just want to have a good time.
    - olyjohn 2y ago
      This just sounds like some random-ass assumption if you ask me.
    - Yeul 2y ago
      No I don't believe anyone voluntarily chooses to become a drug zombie. I think that if you were able to communicate with these people you would hear a lot of sob stories.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >the economy is booming and unemployment so low. Well that's your first problem. We're hiding the underemplyment crisis with "but unemployment is so low!". Quality of life for underemplyment is a lot closer to homelessness than middle class. The deeper problem that America is more and more trying to focus on the elite over the working class.
- b112 2y ago
  That seems a weird assertion. I just went to apartments.com. Palo Alto (not the cheapest place), shows loads of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments under and at 3k/month. That's under $40k/year. This tax calculator shows the generic case of $120k (low 'six figures'), as being more than $80k takehome: https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator/California-120000 https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator/California-120000 That means less than 1/2 of a 'low end' engineering salary is taken for housing, and that's without a room-mate. Something most people have at the start of their career, and before being married (which is another way to have a room mate). Do you actually live in the region? Why do you think almost $4k/month of cash in hand, left over after rent paid and taxes paid, isn't much? Why do you think no one can find a place to live, when apartments.com show places aplenty? Are you referring to a specific area, instead of a more central place such as Palo Alto?
  - michaelt 2y ago
    Well, in the US the median pre-tax household income is $80k and the median renter spends <35% of their income on rent. Imagine singlehandedly earning 150% of what the average family earns, in one of the richest countries in the world and living in a one-bedroom apartment - and such a low standard of living isn't even cheap. The landlords must be laughing all the way to the bank!
  - Aunche 2y ago
    I wasn't clear. By "afford a flat" I meant outright purchase property, which the government would need to do to actually solve homelessness.
  - flerchin 2y ago
    Where do you think the grocery store workers are going to live when highly skilled professionals have to roommate to make rent?
    - b112 2y ago
      I was responding to an assertion that engineers making 6 figures could not afford apartments. I validated that they certainly can, on their own, and in an expensive area (Palo Alto) too. I then said that the dynamic is even better with a room mate. From this you infer I spoke of all affordability? Why? Understand, making wild unsubstantiatable and exaggerative assertions about affordability can invalidate a discussion. Stating fact instead of hyperbole is more appropriate. Hence my response.
- dventimi 2y ago
  "engineers making six figures" is the cause of San Francisco's problems, not "nimbyism."
  - throwaway173738 2y ago
    Lawmakers not having the moral courage to stand up to NIMBYs are part of the problem, along with people not voting for them. Cutting people off at the knees to make the grass taller is not a solution.
    - dventimi 2y ago
      I can't agree with this. At various times over the last 30 years, there has been roughly two classes of people in SF: "tech workers", and "everyone else." The "everyone else" comprises teachers, restaurant workers, retail workers, delivery drivers, and others, who cater to the whims of "tech workers." "Everyone else" works in industries subject to competition, market forces, and the ruthless demand for profitability (try keeping a restaurant open for 3 losing quarters). "Tech workers" work in an industry often shielded from these exigencies, cossetted in a pillowy cocoon of VC money. "Everyone else" serves the local community. "Tech workers", if they serve anybody, tend to be disconnected from the local economy and serve national or global markets. Relatedly, "tech workers" are paid high salaries that rise quickly. "Everyone else" is paid much more modest salaries that tend to stagnate. To add insult to injury, not only did this set of circumstances arrive in SF, it also arrived quickly, in waves, representing a series of shocks. Then came the last and possibly the most serious shock: remote work. Altogether, this is a recipe for: spiraling costs, social fragmentation, homelessness, and political turbulence. Put another way, an ocean of money was poured into a thimble and no amount of "increasing supply" is going to make a difference. Make it two thimbles, ten thimbles, a hundred thimbles, it's still going to leave a mess.
      - zozbot234 2y ago
        > Put another way, an ocean of money was poured into a thimble and no amount of "increasing supply" is going to make a difference. So? The problem is not "too much money", it's too little housing. Having lots of highly-paid folks around is good for local workers' incomes; housing scarcity is really bad for them. Homelessness happens when people can't afford to pay for a home.
- Qwertious 2y ago
  What causes NIMBYism, though? ("lot of things, but...") My pet theory is that cars are a substantial cause - people don't want more housing because it will result in more traffic and more people using the nearby 'free' parking. Cities that are less car-centric will therefore have less NIMBYism.
lynx97 2y ago
[dead]
UltraSane 2y ago
The issue is that a lot of homeless actively destroy any housing they are put into.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
skirge 2y ago
there are 7 billion people who want to live in free tiny private flat in San Francisco and US in general. More lanes - more traffic - more traffic jams.
- freejazz 2y ago
  I wouldn't live in SF is someone paid me... and not because of the homeless
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Nah, count me out of that 7 billion. Heck, Id2be surprised if we got even a plurality of Americans who said they'd want to live in San Francisco.

xivzgrev 2y ago

I’m not sure what the right answer is, but asking people who are used to rough and tumble life outside to then behave civilly indoors with zero tolerance seems…set for failure? There are those that do succeed but those are certainly the most motivated to do so. Others are in transition: know they should get indoors but know their difficulties. Rather than kicking them out, maybe they are required to attend some mandatory psych sessions. Maybe they go maybe they don’t but at least there support to help them work thru their issues of why they blew up at the staff (as in this instance).

Aunche 2y ago
> asking people who are used to rough and tumble life outside to then behave civilly indoors with zero tolerance seems…set for failure? This is what I'm saying the ranger is doing. Someone who gets extremely distressed by indoor living is not a good candidate taxpayer funded indoor living. On the other hand, that housing given to someone who is capable of navigating welfare bureaucracy on their own may actually enable someone who is at risk spiraling down a path of no return to turn their life around.
- b112 2y ago
  I've always wondered why such people don't live in a rural area. You could literally set aside parks for people wanting to live in this fashion, used to living in this fashion, but also provide facilities (bedding, small cabins, water supplies, washing machines, etc, etc). You'd need, I think, to have security guards on hand. Not to stop drug use, but instead to stop violence against other homeless, to intervene if medical attention is required, and so on. While the costs would be higher than some other solutions, it would be lower (I think) than paying for private housing. Of course, you'd have to force move people, and that's not going to happen. That is, unless you make squatting in a park a crime, and the result is "you're going to be incarcerated in this very nice outdoor place" the "jail". Maybe a medical order. My point is, I don't see an issue with some of your logic. Some people won't transition to inside living, or being close to others. But if you take people used to living in parks, move them to a park with cabins(tiny homes), and state run water/facilities, the cost might be the same, but they'd have a warm bed, etc.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

robswc 2y ago

This is one of the core problems and I don't think people want to admit it "can't be solved." When I was naive, out on my own after 18 I found a low-income/income-restricted apartment complex and thought I got a steal. It was $1k a month for a 2 bed when everywhere else was closer to $1.5k. I soon realized I would _never_ live in a low income place if I could help it. Someone was killed in our building. Fights in the parking lot every other day. People leaving trash in the hall ways. People smoking 24/7. Of course, maybe only 25% of the people were "problematic" but that was more than enough to make you feel totally uncomfortable in your own home. The last straw was potheads causing a fire alarm at 3 AM and having to evacuate into the cold night in a panic. Some people are simply selfish and will not be able to live close to/with others without causing problems. _Most_ people do not want to live next to them.

autobodie 2y ago
>I don't think people want to admit it "can't be solved". The fact that many countries have solved it seems to indicate that you are wrong.
- wavemode 2y ago
  Which countries have solved it, and how? I'm genuinely curious.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  It is hard to imagine a nation without this sort of thing to some degree without a total police state. These are issues with poor living in apartments in Europe too you know; a tragedy of the commons situation as the community shoulders the burden of those of it that have vice or mental illness that the government authority doesn’t effectively treat because this class is invisible in local mass media.
  - Agentus 2y ago
    yeah, ive heard not having a home was illegal of sorts in the Soviet Union, meaning eviction was illegal or something equivolent. I know what you mean by police state, but i wonder why america doesn’t consider themselves a police state, with such a large prison population and all the innocuous behaviors that can land you in legal trouble. i guess americans get indoctrinated in a certain way of thinking, where their subset of freedoms which they can mostly practice, makes them think they are free but ignore all the numerous other penalized behaviors. for example: i cant possess cocaine regardless if it wont be consumed as a drug, cant drink in public, cant lay down in public, cant sleep in public(ny), etc etc. a lot of intermediary stuff gets penalized because its the only way to control some tangentially related detrimental behavior, or its penalized for making people feel odd (nudity). but more on point: america polices property taxes. Any property owned gets taxed automatically. this creates a forced work state to accumulate money to pay Uncle Sam. Failure to comply with this system and you get policed or pushed around as a homeless. David Graeber talks about Madagascar colonies set up with a similar system (underline) intentionally(/u) to produce a productive populace. similarly he mentions ways monarchies created rules and systems to force markets and force productivity elsewhere. I think homelessness circumstances is by design, and this free nonpolice state we call america is actually an artificial created police state. we can choose different governing setups that have different features emergent and by design. Its what Mao attempted to do, its what the French and British monarch did. But i see the coercive force in all the government setups even the ones that claim to be free.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tclancy 2y ago

There is honor is such a quest. https://blog.granneman.com/2005/09/30/cuchullin-fights-the-ocean-waves/ https://blog.granneman.com/2005/09/30/cuchullin-fights-the-o...