Gov. Noem: Biggest cultural challenge is 'defeating anti-American indoctrination'
The title of this post was mostly ode to Elton John, though rarely do I find things to like about Noem.
In this case Noem is attacking the very factual, no punches pulled 1619 project curriculum. She instead wants Americans to put on rose colored glasses and deny our horrific distant past by pushing the inaccurate and incomplete 1776 commission story.
Then she complains of possible indoctrination while...
"The conservative governor also successfully pushed for $900,000 in state funding to create new civics curriculum to meet her goal of educating why the "U.S. is the most special nation in the history of the world," while efforts to mandate instruction on the state's tribal history, culture and government failed in the legislative session this spring."
It is almost impossible to make this stuff. A leader who wants to focus only on the good things about America while denying slavery, reservations, deaths / torture of millions of minorities, etc over our ~400 year history on this continent. That old saying seems appropriate here.
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
26 comments:
On the whole I am glad that I am not the one who has to argue that the United States America, whose founding document makes provision for slavery, is not to one degree or another, a racist nation.
It's not reasonably disputable that we were a racist nation in 1861. In the view of Gov. Noem, or Sen. Scott as there a point, or maybe an era when our nation ceased to be racist. Senator Scott seemed to argue that while our nation is not racist, one of our two major parties, the one that currently controls Congress and the White House is racist. Can America not be racist if it's controlling political party is racist?
--Hiram
A lot of straw man stuffing is going on here, lots of loading and label language. These issues are tough, and painful, and it's so much easier and more fun to play political games around them. But the fact is, no matter what words we attach to them, no matter how many focus groups we empanel to deal with them, our problems are real, and the damage our failure to solve them is threatening our country, whether or not the label of racism we are talking about, is apt.
--Hiram
I guess I would argue that we WERE a "racist nation" and should face up to that reality.
Now we are nation that has some racist citizens, and some citizens that are screwed up in large part because of past racist policies. (war on poverty / drugs)
The question is how do we promote change and improvement within both these groups?
I guess I would argue that we WERE a "racist nation" and should face up to that reality.
It is an idea I have played around with, that we were a racist nation at some point but we stopped being that at some point. When did that happen? Not when the Supreme Court came down with Dred Scott surely, that's when the Supreme Court reaffirmed the founders vision of a racist America. After the Civil War and the enactment of the Civil War amendments to the constitution? But then there was Plessy v. Ferguson, once again the Supreme Court reaffirming and constitutionalizing the racism of America. We could fast forward and skip forward to the first decade of the 21st century when both parties in Congress agreed to extend the voting rights act. Was that the moment when racism ended in America? But if that were the case, how does one explain the Supreme Court's decision declaring the voting rights act unconstitutional? Did racism disappear and suddenly, with the support of the justices, come back?
--Hiram
Maybe race had nothing to do with their decision.
Race has a lot to do with the Voting Rights Act.
--Hiram
But not necessarily with the SCOTUS ruling.
It was a ruling on a racial issue. Did it really matter if it wasan't an issue about race? As it is, it's hard now to see it as anything other than a monument to naivete constructed by justices who have, by and large, led extraordinarily sheltered and insulated lives.
--Hiram
Yes to BLM supporter types everything is about race, even when it is not...
If Shelby County ain't about race, what is it about? And it's funny how since Shelby County, the GOP has gone about a very deliberate process of specifically trying to exclude folks of a certain race from voting.
Did you read the link?
Sure, I read the link. Roberts and the conservative majority engaged in what used to be called judicial activism and tossed out a duly-passed law because it didn't meet their arbitrary standard. What has happened subsequently has only proven that Congress was right in the first place.
This was in 2013 when the court was pretty balanced. Remember that these folks made gay marriage legal.
"On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5 to 4 vote that Section 4(b) was unconstitutional because the coverage formula was based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states.[2][3] The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.[4] Some allege the ruling has made it easier for state officials to make it harder for ethnic minority voters to vote.[5]"
Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to. The Court substituted their opinion for that of Congress's as to whether or not the coverage formula was "responsive to current needs". The Ginsberg dissent takes Roberts's argument to the woodshed on this point.
Now Ginsburg was a big fan of "judicial activism" and the "arbitrary standard"...
As are you when the dominoes fall in your direction.
I have faith that the pretty balanced court made a pretty logical decision.
"Now Ginsburg was a big fan of "judicial activism" and the "arbitrary standard"..."
Like, what, for instance?
Oh come now, the woman seemingly only voted to the LEFT...
This person even thanked her for her bias...
"She grew up during the Holocaust and survived the atrocities committed against her people. As a daughter and husband of a Jew, central to her life was the Hebrew concept of “Tikkun Olam,” which means “to repair the world.” RBG devoted her entire existence doing it and America’s womenfolk and minorities are now in a much better lot than their forbears generations ago. Thanks to the feminism and judicial activism of RBG."
This one says she was more moderate / conservative in some areas and far left leaning in others.
"Oh come now, the woman seemingly only voted to the LEFT..."
That's not the same as judicial activism or arbitrary standards.
Getting back to the case at hand, Ginsburg pointed out that Congress elicited hours and hour of testimony regarding the coverage formula that Roberts and the conservatives tossed out. Congress discussed changes, but ultimately decided against it. The VRA was then reauthorized on votes of 390-33 in the GOP-controlled House, 98-0 in the GOP-controlled Senate, and signed into law by GW Bush. The majority justices substituted their judgment for that of Congress -- that's judicial activism.
I am guessing this is one of those "beauty is in the eye of the beholder rulings..."
And yes it is possible that Congress & Executive branches got it wrong as compared to the Constitution / Law... That is why SCOTUS exists.
"And yes it is possible that Congress & Executive branches got it wrong as compared to the Constitution / Law... That is why SCOTUS exists."
You should review the history of the VRA in SCOTUS. Shelby County is a serious departure.
From my simplistic understanding.
The court had in the past said that things were so bad in states that additional federal over site was justified.
Versus now that things are better in most states, that higher level of over sight is not required.
I am not sure that is a change in position? It is more an acknowledgement that the law worked and should now be updated.
"Versus now that things are better in most states, that higher level of over sight is not required."
The problem, of course, is that it was the law that had made things better and now that it's removed these same areas have gone back to their discriminatory practices. The court had found on several occasions that the coverage formula was constitutional, and it never undertook the fact-finding that Congress did in 2006 when it overwhelmingly reauthorized the bill. This was pure activism based on the fact that they had ideological disagreements with the law. Not "balls and strikes" by any stretch of the imagination.
Apparently they should have updated Section 4B while they were re-authorizing Section 5.
"Congress reauthorized Section 5 for an additional 25 years, but did not change the coverage formula from the 1975 version."
"On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5 to 4 vote that Section 4(b) was unconstitutional because the coverage formula was based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states."
I would suggest you read the Ginsburg dissent, as well as the ProPublica piece that showed that the data Roberts used in making his argument about voter registration rates was incorrect.
I think I will pass... It appears to be very wordy and long.
I'll trust that SCOTUS did it's job.
Post a Comment