Stark County Conveyance: Fill & Download for Free

I am neither a hydrologist nor an expert on Tucson's water but it is of interest to me so I follow it when I can. Water officials in Tucson are quick to point out that Tucson is very well positioned for its future water needs. Their data show a stable supply with leveling demand despite growing population. On this I agree. Due to regulations on product manufacturing, showerheads, faucet aerators and toilets are now made to use much less water than they used to. Simply by changing the options at the store there has been a dramatic reduction in the amount of water that residents use.However, several variables are not accounted for in the graphs publically available, some of them admittedly so. Tucson has a huge aquifer under the city which was the prime source of water for much of the city's history. As the population grew, the level of the aquifer dropped significantly (from 35 feet in 1900 to 300 feet today). To combat losing the aquifer altogether, as well as fight the subsequent subsidence that was crippling buildings, walls and roads in town, the CAP or Central Arizona Project canal was constructed from Lake Havsu City 336 miles across the desert to Tucson. For the past 20 years or so this source of the Colorado River has been the primary water source supplying the city, allowing the natural water cycle to replenish the aquifer. Recently, water officials in Tucson announced that well readings indicated that the level of the aquifer was staying stable, a major accomplishment.Their outlook is that the Colorado River will only decrease a small percentage in the coming years and even if the worst case scenario came to be that the CAP stopped flowing, they claim that Tucson has a 50 year supply of water in its aquifer. What happens after that supply is exhausted?Seven states and 25 million people share the water of the Colorado. There is a complex formula for deciding legally who gets what in the event of a shortage, but Arizona is considered the junior member of the Colorado River Compact and with Tucson being at the end of the line for the CAP, and also being after it has passed through Phoenix (which does not have an aquifer supply), it stands to reason that your question is a good one. How much will Tucson lose if there is a reduction in the CAP?A friend was teaching a water course at the U of A one time and had students write a paper about Tucson's long term water viability. According to the professor, one of the brightest students in class summed up their paper this way, "I sure wouldn't buy property in Tucson."The outlook is concerning, but by no means doomed. With awareness, conservation, efficiency and continued supply, there's no reason Tucson shouldn't continue to thrive into the future. Water officials seem transparent in conveying that message.What's currently helping Tucson, but largely unnoticed is the recycling effort of turning wastewater into usable landscaping water for parks and golf courses. The excess water which is treated but not sold to turf clients is discharged into the Santa Cruz River where it percolates down into the aquifer, further building up supply. If Tucson added one extra step to the treatment process we could turn this water back into potable quality, something Orange County CA did long ago. Las Vegas already does this with Lake Mead, which supplies the Colorado River so, in essence, Tucson is already participating in reclaimed water as a potable source.All of these variables should make one concerned as to Tucson's water future. But it also means that Tucson has options. Even its relative proximity to the Sea of Cortez poses an opportunity to use saltwater and a pipeline, someday down the road.The bottom line? Pay attention, but it's probably going to be ok.

In the early 1970s, domestic bombings in the United States were common occurrences.The bursts of violence were indeed so utterly commonplace that they were largely accepted as a part of daily life.Shadowy groups like the Weather Underground, the Black Liberation Army, and Puerto Rican FALN militants operated with seeming impunity.[1][1][1][1] Bombs were smuggled inside the Pentagon and the US Capital.[2][2][2][2] Explosives detonated in front of corporate offices with frightening regularity.In 1972, over 1,900 domestic bombings were reported in the United States.[3][3][3][3]In a single eighteen-month period during 1971 and 1972 the FBI counted an amazing 2,500 bombings on American soil, almost five a day. Because they were typically detonated late at night, few caused serious injury, leading to a kind of grudging public acceptance.The deadliest underground attack of the decade, in fact, killed all of four people, in the January 1975 bombing of a Wall Street restaurant. News accounts rarely carried any expression or indication of public outrage.[4][4][4][4]Image: Photo by Michael Evans, The New York Times Reconstruction Planned for Infamous Townhouse in Greenwich VillageThe source of these bombs were left-wing radicals; most of their bombs were designed to draw attention rather than kill. Destruction of empty buildings followed by communiqués to major newspapers were the order of the day.Despite these sometimes careful efforts by terrorist groups to avoid civilian casualties, the destruction still claimed innocent lives. And some radicals believed civilians were legitimate targets.On January 24, 1975, the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN killed four and injured more than 50 in a bombing of New York City's Fraunces Tavern.[5][5][5][5]Image: Associated Press FALN bomb kills 4 at Fraunces Tavern, where George Washington said farewell to troops - NY Daily NewsPresident Richard Nixon considered these groups to be a mortal threat to the security of the United States.Nixon wrote of his concerns in his memoirs, detailing the staggering numbers of bomb threats and successful bombings deployed across the country.The daily news reports conveyed a sense of turmoil bordering on insurrection. Hundreds of college campuses went through a paroxysm of rage, riot, and arson. By the end of the first week after the Kent State killings, 450 colleges and universities were closed by student or faculty protest strikes...From January 1969 through April 1970, there were 40,000 recorded bombings, bomb threats, and bomb scares, and over 250 cases of arson nationwide.[6][6][6][6]With this backdrop in mind, let’s revisit the original question:What is the future of the United States?I believe the United States is entering a period of instability, with the potential for politically-motivated violence not seen for more than 50 years.I can see disturbing and plausible scenarios causing a return to large-scale unrest much like the late 1960s and early 1970s.The political divide between right and left (red-state vs. blue-state, etc) is stark and growing. In nearly all points of commonality, right and left live in their own curated worlds, unencumbered by encounters with those that might disagree.The data underlying this chasm is not encouraging.We continue to separate geographically from those that disagree with us.“Landslide Counties” are defined as counties where one political party won the presidency by more at least twenty points.In 1992, 38% of Americans lived in a landslide county.Map: Red and Blue counties in 1992. The Divide Between Red and Blue America Grew Even Deeper in 2016In 2016, the number of Americans living in landslide counties jumped to 60%.Map: Red and Blue counties in 2016. The Divide Between Red and Blue America Grew Even Deeper in 2016This is divide is reflected in state governments. As of 2018, 36 states have full control of government (one party control of the governorship and the state senate and state house). 15 states have a Democratic “trifecta,” and 21 states have a Republican trifecta.[7][7][7][7]This phenomenon, dubbed “The Big Sort” by journalist Bill Bishop, actually increases polarization.[8][8][8][8] Voluminous research, including a 2016 study Jessica Keating (a PhD candidate in the University of Colorado Boulder’s Department of Psychology and Neuroscience) points to those in political echo chambers becoming more radical over time.In most cases, they do not even realize they have become more extreme.[9][9][9][9]We have fundamentally different personal beliefs.The secular vs. religious divide continues to expand. According to the Pew Research Center, 75% of religiously unaffiliated Americans vote for the Democratic party. The difference is even wider with White Evangelical Protestants; 81% vote for the Republican party.Chart: More And More Americans Aren’t Religious. Why Are Democrats Ignoring These Voters?More than half of Republicans (55%) believe it's necessary to believe in God to be a moral person, compared with 35% of Democrats who think that way.[10][10][10][10]We hate our political opponents.The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) released results from 2019 polling on how the political parties view their opponents.82% of Republicans believe that the Democratic party has been “taken over by socialists.”[11][11][11][11]Chart: Fractured Nation: Widening Partisan Polarization and Key Issues in 2020 Presidential Elections | PRRIDemocrats had a similarly dim view of their opponents. 80% of them believe that the Republican party has been taken over by racists.[12][12][12][12]Chart: Fractured Nation: Widening Partisan Polarization and Key Issues in 2020 Presidential Elections | PRRIRepublicans, buttressed by their own constructed reality and media echo chambers, feel increasingly under threat. According to PRRI data, as reported by U.S. News:More than two-thirds (69%) of Republicans believe discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks, compared to 21% of Democrats who feel that way, according to PRRI. For Republicans who cite Fox News as their primary news source, the number rises to 77%.Asked if they agreed that "immigrants are invading the country and changing American culture," 63% of Republicans said yes, and 20% of Democrats agreed.When it comes to gender roles and the MeToo movement, Republicans felt threatened: a majority of Republicans (53%) believe men are punished "just for being men," and 65% of GOPers think society as a whole has become "too soft and feminine." Among Democrats, 23% agreed men were being punished for being male, and 26% agreed the nation was becoming "too soft and feminine."[13][13][13][13]Americans are growing more comfortable with violence against the other side.According to a recent article in Politico, researchers are detecting increasing approval of the use of violence in advancing political goals.[14][14][14][14]• Among Americans who identify as Democrat or Republican, 1 in 3 now believe that violence could be justified to advance their parties’ political goals—a substantial increase over the last three years.• In September, 44 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of Democrats said there would be at least “a little” justification for violence if the other party’s nominee wins the election. Those figures are both up from June, when 35 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of Democrats expressed the same sentiment.[15][15][15][15]Where does this leave us?I am by nature a pessimistic person. I have searched in vain for any hint of a leader with the ability to bring Americans together. No institution remains with the gravitas to bring the country together; most are intent on exacerbating these divisions.Throughout history, human beings have reacted poorly to the trends cited above. The differences, the fear of the “other,” the fear that the other side is waiting to strike, are all too common in our ancestors.Based on current trends in our country, it is easy to see what lies beyond the horizon. The conclusions I must draw are damning and depressing.I believe that if I was arrested for a political crime, my fellow Americans/political opponents would not leap to my defense. I believe they would applaud as I am dragged away.I believe that if the United States was dissolved into rival new countries (a West Coast liberal bastion, a Southern/Midwestern conservative stronghold, and a New England outlier) most of my fellow Americans would actually be relieved.Imagine the bombings of the 1970s happening in today’s warp-speed media environment. If not bombings, then imagine 1960s-level rioting and shootings overlaying our modern social media age.Image this environment with leaders that have zero interest in arresting the violence. Imagine, with this backdrop, how our current administration would react.Imagine checking Facebook and twitter, with each side circulating their own new violent outrage (some fake, many real). Imagine this happening by the hour, feeding on itself, ripping at the fraying strands that hold us together.I do not believe the United States could survive it.I believe that our fellow Americans/political opponents are trapped in the cycle; we act as if we live in a vacuum. We do not consider how our opponents will react to an exercise of raw political power in service of only our own interests.What use is the filibuster? What use are minority protections? All that is needed is 50% plus one. The debate over “should” is a debate for suckers.[16][16][16][16]But what happens when your opponents eventually hold this power in their hands? Will they have any interest at all in reining in reprisals? Or will the most recent outrage remain fresh in their minds, ready for exploitation?What remains are proliferating questions, endlessly circulating, all defying easy answers.Is there any way at all to reverse this trend?Is there a way to stitch our common bonds back together?“Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert.Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue.Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.”—Martin Luther King, Jr. 1964 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.[17][17][17][17]EDIT: 10/1/2020, updated with recent survey data on approval of violence in politics.Footnotes[1] The golden age of terrorism - CNN[1] The golden age of terrorism - CNN[1] The golden age of terrorism - CNN[1] The golden age of terrorism - CNN[2] Weather Underground Bombings | Federal Bureau of Investigation[2] Weather Underground Bombings | Federal Bureau of Investigation[2] Weather Underground Bombings | Federal Bureau of Investigation[2] Weather Underground Bombings | Federal Bureau of Investigation[3] Days of Rage[3] Days of Rage[3] Days of Rage[3] Days of Rage[4] The Bombings Across America That We've 'Forgotten'[4] The Bombings Across America That We've 'Forgotten'[4] The Bombings Across America That We've 'Forgotten'[4] The Bombings Across America That We've 'Forgotten'[5] History — Fraunces Tavern® Museum[5] History — Fraunces Tavern® Museum[5] History — Fraunces Tavern® Museum[5] History — Fraunces Tavern® Museum[6] RN[6] RN[6] RN[6] RN[7] State government trifectas - Ballotpedia[7] State government trifectas - Ballotpedia[7] State government trifectas - Ballotpedia[7] State government trifectas - Ballotpedia[8] The Big Sort[8] The Big Sort[8] The Big Sort[8] The Big Sort[9] Like-minded discourse breeds extremism[9] Like-minded discourse breeds extremism[9] Like-minded discourse breeds extremism[9] Like-minded discourse breeds extremism[10] https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-10-21/democrats-republicans-and-the-new-politics-of-hate[10] https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-10-21/democrats-republicans-and-the-new-politics-of-hate[10] https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-10-21/democrats-republicans-and-the-new-politics-of-hate[10] https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-10-21/democrats-republicans-and-the-new-politics-of-hate[11] Fractured Nation: Widening Partisan Polarization and Key Issues in 2020 Presidential Elections | PRRI[11] Fractured Nation: Widening Partisan Polarization and Key Issues in 2020 Presidential Elections | PRRI[11] Fractured Nation: Widening Partisan Polarization and Key Issues in 2020 Presidential Elections | PRRI[11] Fractured Nation: Widening Partisan Polarization and Key Issues in 2020 Presidential Elections | PRRI[12] Fractured Nation: Widening Partisan Polarization and Key Issues in 2020 Presidential Elections | PRRI[12] Fractured Nation: Widening Partisan Polarization and Key Issues in 2020 Presidential Elections | PRRI[12] Fractured Nation: Widening Partisan Polarization and Key Issues in 2020 Presidential Elections | PRRI[12] Fractured Nation: Widening Partisan Polarization and Key Issues in 2020 Presidential Elections | PRRI[13] https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-10-21/democrats-republicans-and-the-new-politics-of-hate[13] https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-10-21/democrats-republicans-and-the-new-politics-of-hate[13] https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-10-21/democrats-republicans-and-the-new-politics-of-hate[13] https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-10-21/democrats-republicans-and-the-new-politics-of-hate[14] Opinion | Americans Increasingly Believe Violence is Justified if the Other Side Wins[14] Opinion | Americans Increasingly Believe Violence is Justified if the Other Side Wins[14] Opinion | Americans Increasingly Believe Violence is Justified if the Other Side Wins[14] Opinion | Americans Increasingly Believe Violence is Justified if the Other Side Wins[15] Opinion | Americans Increasingly Believe Violence is Justified if the Other Side Wins[15] Opinion | Americans Increasingly Believe Violence is Justified if the Other Side Wins[15] Opinion | Americans Increasingly Believe Violence is Justified if the Other Side Wins[15] Opinion | Americans Increasingly Believe Violence is Justified if the Other Side Wins[16] ‘Should’ Is For Suckers[16] ‘Should’ Is For Suckers[16] ‘Should’ Is For Suckers[16] ‘Should’ Is For Suckers[17] The Nobel Peace Prize 1964[17] The Nobel Peace Prize 1964[17] The Nobel Peace Prize 1964[17] The Nobel Peace Prize 1964

Over the past several weeks, we’ve been seeing protests over the country emerging from the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis, which have more or less turned into demonstrations led by the organization Black Lives Matter. The homicide that precipitated these protests was unequivocally an unjustifiable homicide because there was at the very least a lack of interest on the officer’s part on whether or not the man survived. It doesn’t matter that he might’ve been a criminal, or that he might have passed a fake twenty. George Floyd’s murder sparked protests and then riots and looting across the city, which spread to many American cities. I don’t disagree that some reforms are required to curb police brutality. But things have been taken too far. The legitimate protests led primarily by the organization Black Lives Matter, have morphed from a focus on the death of George Floyd and police brutality into a call for revolution against a systemically racist Western civilization.A lot of this revolution has been taken up with black-clad figures defacing statues of people who were either slaveowners, racists or simply not anti-racist enough to please the mob. The madness has also spread to the Emancipation Memorial, a statue of Abraham Lincoln. A lot of this is to dismantle what is seen as “whiteness.” Indeed this infection has reached Canada and Britain, with similar calls to tear down monuments and rename statues of people who don’t meet the standards of today’s morality.From Canada, I see these calls to change the name of Toronto’s more iconic streets as a deliberate attack on Canadian history and culture, whether it be morally good or bad. In the eyes of these nascent revolutionaries, this redefinition is just one small step in the overall attempt to dismantle Western civilization, which they see as white supremacy. Principles that were developed as the pillars of liberalism such as liberty and equality under the law. This redefinition is not a new phenomenon; the destruction is eerily reminiscent of Mao’s cultural revolution in communist China, which demonized and ‘cancelled’ historical figures seen as imperialist (more accurately, people who could serve as contrary examples to Mao’s blood-soaked Little Red Book).In America, the most polarizing of these conflicts was the August 2017 Charlottesville protests, centered around the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. While the overwhelming majority of those supporting the protests were people who did not want to see historical figures ‘canceled’ by a mob whose whims sway with the wind, there were a couple hundred white supremacists and neo-Nazis, which dominated the media coverage. Meanwhile there were counterprotesters who supported taking down the statue present. In the course of these protests, a white supremacist murdered someone by driving through a crowd of counterprotesters.Two days later, President Trump addressed the events, both the protesting and the death of Trump was attacked by the media for a soundbite in which he seemed to be saying that there were good people on both sides, as if to equate neo-Nazis and ‘peaceful’ counter-protesters. Unfortunately this soundbite deceptively edited Trump’s full comments. First, Trump made an address in the White House strongly condemning racism and extremism. This statement bears remembering.“Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs including the KKK, neo Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.We are a nation founded on the truth, that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our creator, we are equal under the law and we are equal under our Constitution.Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America. Two days ago, a young American woman, Heather Heyer, was tragically killed. Her death fills us with grief and we send her family our thoughts, our prayers and our love. We also mourn the two Virginia state troopers who died in service to their community, their commonwealth and their country.”https://time.com/4899813/donald-trump-charlottes-ville-remarks-transcript/What followed the next day was a question-and-answer session that went, as so many do, a bit more wildly. I’m linking a full transcript between Trump and a reporter and taking out specific passages to discuss what Trump was trying to convey, and how the media undermined his rather sane points that will bear true to even today.https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/A couple of salient passages I want to highlight:Trump: "Excuse me. If you take a look at some of the groups, and you see -- and you’d know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you’re not -- but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee."So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?…Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"Now I’m not going to pretend that Trump scored a home-run in his response, but he wasn’t wrong. Jefferson and Washington in particular were both slave-owning white males who fought for liberty from Britain, but they owned slaves, as it was economically convenient at the time. But he did note clearly a couple of things that the media flat-out repressed.That not all the protesters were white supremacists. Some just didn’t want to have a park and statue renamed to satiate a mob.That the precedent of cancelling Robert E. Lee gives way to more nefarious actors who attack people more central to American history along the same vector, that they were slave-owners.It’s easy and incredibly convenient to get hung up on the fact that he called some people from the group of protesters “good people.” For the record, I think that white supremacists and some promulgators of critical race theory (which I will get to in a bit) are on the same moral plane. They’re both obsessed with judging people by their race, with an end goal to subvert the founding American principles of liberty and equality under the law. It serves no purpose to diminish the achievements of people based on deeds we now see as moral aberrations. To tear down one’s statue or monument is to tear down for which he stands. Furthermore, the madness of the leftist mob has extended to statues of heroes like Abraham Lincoln (otherwise known as the Great Emancipator), Ulysses Grant (Union general), Hans Christian Heg (Union colonel who died in battle) among others. The problem is not therefore, that these protesters are ignorant of history, but the mob identifies, and vilifies white people who embody “whiteness,” a nebulous term among the progressive intelligentsia to describe and explain away the apparent privilege of white people have in Western society. To any sane liberal or conservative, this is unconscionable and one must take a stand against the unjustified destruction of monuments to honor anyone and everyone, including abolitionists.For example, Winston Churchill may either have been racist or simply insensitive or permissive to the Bengal famines, but he played a pivotal role in fighting genocidal fascists in the Second World War, which in the eyes of the liberal or conservative outweigh the bad he did. But in the moral absolutism of the left, the good he did fighting fascism and ethno-nationalism is drowned out by the unforgivable sin of racism. Thomas Jefferson is a second such figure. He is obviously a central figure in American history, as an author of the Declaration of Independence with John Adams and Benjamin Franklin and the American Constitution, including the Bill of Rights — a document that the current protesters seem to take for granted. He was also a slave plantation owner and probably raped one of his slaves, which definitely tarnishes his character, but not his message; that Enlightenment philosophy is key to upholding individual liberty for all.It is important to remember that we conservatives do not blindly worship Washington, Jefferson and Lee among others nor do we excuse them of being slave-owners or defending the practice of slavery. We accept that they were flawed human beings who held views that do not fall within our current Overton window. It in no way diminishes his achievements nor dismisses the founding fathers’ salient defense of classical liberalism or the qualities of loyalty and honor on the battlefield demonstrated by Lee. It is imperative that we put the moral stain of slavery in context as an evil practice that was done primarily out of convenience. However, there is a school of thought that promotes a narrative that America and the West is systemically racist: critical race theory academics and activists.One of these promulgators of this Nikole Hannah-Jones, the director of the Pulitzer Prize-winning 1619 Project for Journalism, ironically. The 1619 Project is clear to any honest reader a work of propagandistic fiction, at best a partisan and extremely debatable historical narrative. It won the Pulitzer Prize, however, that is not a matter of acclamation but a stark commentary on the political nature of the prize. The collection of essays suggests that America is fundamentally a white supremacist country, and the nation’s conception was not in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, but in 1619 when slaves were first brought to America on the Mayflower. Its thesis boils down any decisions America as a nation made, such as declaring independence from Britain, abolishing slavery and pushing for civil rights, as inextricably linked to slavery and made with the intent of perpetuating white supremacy. For some context into the kind of character she is, she expressed doubt over whether or not the statue of Ulysses S. Grant should be taken down, because the fact that he owned a slave gifted to him (which he then freed) somehow diminishes his achievement of defeating the Confederacy and his role in abolishing the institution of slavery.Even more pernicious is the fact that courtesy the Pulitzer Center, public school systems are adopting the revisionist lens of the 1619 Project. Public school networks like that of Chicago and Buffalo are integrating reading material from the 1619 Project to teach students, many of whom are black, the ‘true’ impact of white supremacy and slavery on modern American culture. A certain cognitive dissonance arises when one would consider that progressives of the late 19th and early 20th were deeply racist and frequently pushed their progressive agenda at the detriment of black Americans. If we really did want an honest conversation about the downstream effects of systemic racism within America, they might bring up the 1934 minimum wage, which was implemented by FDR to intentionally keep unskilled blacks and Asians out of the labour market. Perhaps one might also note Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenicist named Margaret Sanger and promoted by other progressives of the era as a means to curb the black population in America.But the goal of critical race theory, is not to educate the public about the watered down effects of slavery throughout the progressive intelligentsia over the course of the 19th and 20th century but to promote a narrative that America, a product of Enlightenment thinking, is racist to its core. As Quillette editor Coleman Hughes explains, “the 1619 Project seems hellbent on teaching [black American youth] to see slavery everywhere: in traffic jams, in sugary foods and, most surprisingly, in Excel spreadsheets.” If anti-black racism runs in the DNA of America as Hannah-Jones and co. suggest, then white supremacy forever will be a relevant force in America, which is patently inaccurate, as it no longer is. Thus it stews nihilism and an underlying pessimism that nothing can change or will change for black Americans, short of a revolution or more crudely put, a race war.The natural consequence of this is for the California legislature, not particularly known for being a red state, has voted to strike out Section 31 from Article 1 of its state constitution.(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this sectionImagine if you will, a world where the state is legally allowed to discriminate against or give preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. It might be worth noting that section this also banned Affirmative Action hiring, a racist policy that hires or admits people into universities based on their race, sex or other intrinsic characteristics. This garnered support from California US Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, and the Democratic-run assembly of California. Progressives in California have proven that they are on the same moral plane of white supremacists. The fact that these actions are taken in the name of “anti-racism,” is Orwellian doublespeak to justify legalizing discrimination. This also gives ammunition to actual white supremacists to claim a victimhood status. There is no principled argument against equality under the law for all races.---History cannot be sanitized to favour a narrative more palatable to our current moral codes.Relaxed, Researched, Respectful — War Elephant