We're still in midsummer, contemplating how the next school year will go both for the collegians and high school. For the former, our curiosity has been lifted by the nation's highest court.
We have to brace ourselves for an absolute raft of decisions now that reflect boilerplate Republican thinking. Did you ever think it would come to this in the U.S.?
Many of us have long held skepticism about extreme liberalism, the kind that we sensed was flowing in the 1970s. I have referred to this as "paternalistic liberalism." Consider John Kenneth Galbraith, whose thick and pretentious books would be on reading lists for college courses. Mr. Galbraith felt the common people or the masses or whatever needed to be protected from "too much advertising." We couldn't handle it.
A lot of that sheep dip was pushed aside as time passed. Too many people like me saw it for what it was. The "Reagan Democrats" came forward. We loved Jimmy Carter but he got lost somewhere along the line. That, plus the enormous internal feud with him and Teddy Kennedy, caused the party to lose steam.
Reagan is to be revered more and more in our collective memory as time passes. I could almost get misty. He was a mature and responsible person, having been involved with a union once. He had perspective but never got deluded by the more distasteful aspects of the progressives.
Our Republican president from 2016 to 2020 lacked the maturity and wisdom, having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He had this fantastic opportunity upon being elected in 2016. He could have been roughly like the Clintons - no real liberals - and governed wisely mostly from the middle, maybe slightly right of center. He could have lost with magnanimity in 2020, then become a goodwill ambassador. He'd have a chance of being remembered warmly. I think his family members at present would have appreciated that.
But of course that didn't happen. He sought the most extreme right wing Supreme Court possible. Legend has it he appointed people from a list given him by Mitch McConnell. If true, he lacked independent will. McConnell was thinking mainly of abortion. So how do ya'll feel about that? How do you females feel? Do you not realize now, if you didn't before, that politics has real world ramifications, it's not just some entertainment curiosity you follow from your TV screens?
So the Supreme Court is coming at us now with drastic decisions that actually affect us.
Consider our UMM
I was concerned that the affirmative action decision, nixing it, would have strong effect for our University of Minnesota-Morris. But maybe not. I am learning that UMM's policy with Native Americans may not at all be a race-based or ethnicity-based policy! I was surprised.
A fellow named "Scooter" edified me. This was in response to a comment I had placed on a Yahoo News article. My comment advised that lawyers had "better be at the ready" to deal with possible challenges here in our humble hinterlands type of place. Because, surely the right wingers have an army of lawyers ready to go on all such things.
Trump has lawyers employing machinations constantly, about driving us nuts with the minutiae. Delay, obstruct, obfuscate, appeal until hell won't have it.
 |
| Stephen Miller |
But UMM might be in the clear.
Yes, UMM's policy with our Native friends looks as though it's not a race-based thing. Instead it has to do with a relationship with a sovereign nation. I have heard the term "sovereign nation" used before in connection with reservations. So legally speaking we are dealing with such an entity and not "Native Americans" as a class of people, of aggrieved people as they most certainly are. Thank you to "Scooter."
He added another unrelated thought about our Morris. Oh no, not exactly music to our ears. He's not the first voice along these lines, alas. "But in reality," my new friend "Scooter" says, "no one really wants to go to UM-Morris. They have around 1000 undergraduates and for Minnesota are literally in the middle of nowhere."
Ouch. But can we really be surprised at that comment? No.
So, how are things going to shape up this fall at our UMM? Maybe the best thing we have going for us is that the Democratic Party remains strong here, bucking the apparent nationwide trend. I mean, the Dakotas are nothing like us. The South Dakota governor has spoken seriously about having Donald Trump's face added to Mount Rushmore. Way to go, Republicans, as you focus on issues that really affect our lives.
Give Republicans more power and the only thing they'll really do is give more tax cuts to billionaires and multi-national corporations. First they have to influence all the ignorant rubes - the Jason Aldean fans - by talking about the social issues which they don't really care about. We are lemmings.
How will things go at UMM? We'll hope for the best.
The Court's agenda
My theory on the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision is that the true agenda is to just make life miserable for the people who run colleges. Republicans never feel comfortable with higher education because they feel it nurtures future "liberals" who are the focus for their eternal hatred. Can't you see that? Create sleepless nights for college presidents. That's what they are doing.
So maybe colleges will gradually slip into decline in our culture.
Were we seeing the effects of that last spring at UMM with the absence of a band or choir for the graduation ceremony at the P.E. Center (or whatever it's called now)? Also, no printed programs for the ceremony? You had to have a "smartphone." Way to go UMM, for forcing so many older people to feel like they are hopeless for keeping up with the times.
UMM can continue cutting favors for the Native American community, it looks like. And at least we have seen "Redskins" erased from our pro sports nomenclature. But we still have the "Benson Braves" close to Morris with that logo that includes feathers! I am shocked that this has been allowed to continue for so long. Are the wheels turning yet for Benson to make the change, change now required by legal pressures? As far as Democrats keeping power in our Minnesota, I think UMM advocates can breathe a sigh of relief because Democrats have always been rather uncaring about largesse in public education. UMM as a "liberal arts" bastion is the perfect idea for what Republicans and conservatives would rail against.
Maybe Torrey Westrom says he likes us. I'm sure he's only doing that because he has to, because UMM is an institution in his district and he knows it is not going to fundamentally change. Don't believe a word he says about it. It would be harder for ol' Neanderthal Jeff Backer to even pretend he supports us. Maybe he would, but he might have to take pills first. Here's a guy who voted against condemning the violence of January 6. Sheesh. What a tangled web in the year 2023, what a mess.
Continuing dialogue
It's Friday so why not hash over Trump some more? Really it's no pleasure but the attention is merited. So here's a comment I posted on Yahoo News this morning:
Do Trump's lawyers ever argue real "innocence?" Isn't it all about machinations, maneuvering, obfuscating or whatever? So why does the legal system roll over and allow this to happen so much? If we get through all this, we may need a major restructuring of our system for white collar crime, n'est-ce pas? Are the big-time lawyers worried that the public is going to wise up to the system?
"NTTG" responded to my comment:
As long as they are getting paid, they really don't care. . .unless the judge starts making them pay court costs. . .Kari Lake caught that one, others will follow.
Here's the kind of response I might have respected, from "Zee":
No one has to prove or argue their innocence in this country. That isn't the American way of justice. The prosecution has to prove their case and the defense's job is to discredit the prosecutions' evidence and their witnesses. The defense shouldn't have much trouble doing that. In any case, if the trial isn't going well, it behooves Trump to dismiss the defense team (thus delaying the trial by another 6 months (or after the election). The new defense team will have to go through the same things this one did with clearances etc. and getting familiar with the evidence.
More fan mail from some flounder, this one from "escarvajal":
They delay or discredit the investigators. What else are they going to do? Argue the merits of the case?! LOL
Here's from "Marcus." Thanks Marcus.
You don’t argue your case until you get to the court room.
And, nice fodder from "DSW":
D.C. courts move a whole lot faster. Maybe another indictment coming. . .Jan. 6th, since Trump got a Target Letter. Why do you think Trump announced his candidacy so early? He knew he would likely have trial dates (he knows the evidence is stacked against him), and his lawyers trying to maneuver to defend the indefensible. I suspect the evidence that Jack Smith has turned over to them is quite substantial.
And there's a million stories in the naked city.
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment