And many large municipalities, like DC, are still struggling to move away from combined sewer/stormwater systems, which leads to frequent discharges of untreated waste during loads over peak capacity.
Over the same time period, the US population has been increasing in diversity. Among other negative aspects, increased diversity increases social alienation. It reduces social cohesion and trust not just between groups but within them.
Self-interest again perfectly explains Jewish affinity for Marxism and support of Bolshevism. You are the one who is inserting conspiracies, schemes, and accusations of genetic inferiority into the mix. Jacob Schiff did not fund Japan in its war with Russia (and single-handedly secure that victory) for any other reason than his hatred of Tsarist Russia, which he viewed as hostile to Jews. Marxism gave an ideology to rally Jews and others of the era who considered themselves victims of traditional western civilization. Of course they would flock to it in outsized numbers and see a tremendous opportunity in the weak post-abdication provisional Russian government to establish the first Communist state, which they intended to use as a lever to upturn the entirety of Europe and have their ultimate revenge.
When the weak see an opportunity to take power, they seize upon it just as the Bolsheviks did. When the weak can't have power, they bide their time by seeking to undermine those who do and Marxist ideology is useful in that endeavor as well. But, ah, that takes us to another "conspiracy theory" of "Cultural Marxism." We live in a time when one's authenticity as a human is measured by the extent of his (pardon, "zir") grievances and the traditional leaders of American society (white males) roll off most tongues as the designated oppressor class but dare anyone identify any similarity between this state of affairs and Marx and he (whoops, I mean "zie") is immediately adjudicated a raving delusional lunatic. And when you point out Jews count for an inordinate amount of the leadership of organizations that seek to create "multicultural" societies out of white countries, that seek to destabilize the traditional European idea of the nuclear family (no-fault divorce is, by the way, an entirely Bolshevik innovation), and that agitate and stir up direct action against Gentiles and their traditions and institutions --- well, now you've just become a criminal.
The central role Jews played in the ideological formation and implementation of Bolshevism cannot be denied. Hand-waving about a "conspiracy theory" will not change the ethnicity of Lenin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Sokolnikov, or Zinoviev (five of the seven members of the first Politburo) nor that of Sverdlov (first Communist party leader and progenitor of the Red Terror) nor of the many Jews who rushed to join the Cheka (the majority in certain regions) to carry out atrocities against the Russian and then Soviet populace. (Not to mention the significance of, oh, Marx.) The financial contribution of financiers like Jacob Schiff, likely though it seems, is the only aspect that lies in the realm of the unproven. Referring to those who point out the facts as "conspiracy theorists" is a disingenuous response solely intended to deflect attention from reality and again marginalize and dismiss the Nazis as "irrational" moustache-twirling villains. You don't have to prove a "conspiracy" among the participants every time you apprehend a trend among a given population group for the trend to be true in a heuristic sense.
And just today there's a clickbait story making the rounds (again) about how Hitler had a tiny penis and only one testicle. Because that explains... everything?
Even when specifically attempting to refrain from doing so, it's impossible to speak of Nazi Germany without resorting to simplifying them into cartoon evil or as a moral object lesson from which to derive meaningful instruction and insight. The terrible truth is they were entirely normal people who followed an entirely normal path of self-interest. There is nothing remarkable about them and no special insight into human nature to be learned. The Nazis were a reaction against the rise of Marxist Communism, a terrifying spectre already responsible for genocide at the time of the party's founding, and with whom many party members had engaged with directly during the turmoil after WWI.
That Marxist Communism had taken hold of Russia largely through the efforts of outsiders was not lost on the Nazis and their distrust and fear of anyone not truly German was entirely sensible. That among these outsiders Jews played an inordinately large role was a commonly understood meme of the day. (And when looking at the Bolshevik leadership and financial backers, it is an unassailable fact, though it's currently heresy to say so.) German Jews during the party's rise were also an inordinately powerful group in German industry, finance, and media. Given the context, it was not irrational to seek to remove a minority group with questionable loyalties from such positions and prevent them from retaking them.
Throw in a Weimar period of social degeneracy and economic upheaval along with the rest of the world laying blame upon your people as being solely responsible for one of the greatest calamities experienced by western civilization and a nationalistic party that emphasized the inherent strength and value of the nation's ethnic stock was exactly what the German people needed to regain their dignity. The only lesson to be learned from the Nazis is that war should be avoided at all costs. The corollary being that if you are to fight a war, make sure you will prevail else your nation will be raped and split up and your people will be treated for the next century as though they were the greatest evil that has ever been visited upon the Earth. (And no one will learn anything from it.)
Yes, that is the conclusion pushed in the usual organs. But the New Yorker had already published a bin-Laden assassination piece that supported the official narrative. Hersh himself says they (i.e. David Remnick) simply weren't interested in revisiting the story. Hersh further claims that he warned Remnick soon after the bin-Laden raid that the official story was being disputed by his sources and suggested he write a story, which Remnick countered with the suggestion of a blog article. (A blow-off?) If it's true that Hersh personally warned Remnick that the official story was problematic, the New Yorker publishing Nicholas Schmidle's story and passing on Hersh's looks to have less to do with fact-checking and more to do with editorial position. Since the New Yorker didn't want to buy, Hersh shopped the story elsewhere, which is simply how freelancers go about business. (It was actually the Washington Post that allegedly passed on the story because of "sourcing" standards.)
Hersh claims to have sold the story to LRB for the "politics" of it, the meaning of which is uncertain. But as he hopes to have a book published on the "war on terror", it is not out of the question that he selected them to establish rapport. And that he chose them, instead of resorting to them out of some kind of desperation owing to defects in the work itself, seems pretty clear.
The Obama administration is widely claimed by non-partisan journalists and journalist groups as being openly hostile toward the press and has used espionage provisions to prosecute officials deemed to have "leaked" inside information via the types of conversations that would previously have been considered business-as-usual. (Despite opening his presidency with rhetoric about being the most "open" and "transparent" administration in history.) This has resulted in administration staffers & officials being paralyzed and fearful of speaking with the press at all, stymieing journalists' attempts at effectively covering the government and acting as the fourth estate. While it is unfortunate that we cannot quantify whether one administration has experienced more or less scrutiny than others, blithely asserting to the contrary is not a reasonable position in this context.
Why is Hersh having to publish some stories at LRB not more of an indictment of the New Yorker (et al) than Hersh? Hasn't the Obama administration been subject to curiously little investigative journalism?
I think tumblr excels because, lacking a front page like reddit, the user's that hate each other never interact. And I'm increasingly sure that this is the only method for obtaining non-dysfunctional societies online- non-overlapping tribes of users.
Isn't the real story here that this guy was acquitted of murdering a police officer and was thus targeted by law enforcement for retribution? His 2010 felony conviction was for "evading arrest", which is what led to him being deprived of his 2nd amendment rights and thus set the tripwire for this violation. But what would you do if you knew law enforcement had it out for you for killing one of their own?