Sustainability Policy and Events, Purpose and Context
So many I know are depressed about the state of the world, which still depends on the force of American power and reason to be stabilized, however much you may feel disillusioned with that role for us. Yet here we are flirting with ending the American dream of democratic self-government. An editorial by Michelle Cottle in yesterday’s (print) Times refers to “Republicans scurrying to do the MAGA King’s bidding”. No king in America, said our founders. Not even a dictator for only a day, as the former president said. To even consider allowing us to be represented this way, after the urging and praise of those who stormed the Capitol, the attempt to barter Ukraine’s defense for dirt on Joe, the unending and now proven fraud, the fawning before the monster Putin, is not just abandonment of our principles but our dignity as well, and any claim to honor or credibility in the world.
Those who would vote for that may also like this Supreme Court, thinking it is “conservative”, defending traditional values, not seeing how it is not just taking away freedoms but also defenses. This court clearly wishes to reduce the powers of government agencies and is not satisfied with stopping EPA’s Clean Power Plan or letting states curtail women’s control over their own bodies. Their philosophy resembles that of the court of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the era of laissez-faire, of Social Darwinism, of the growth of concentrated economic power and the robber baron idea that this was good for us all. The court then, and this one now, has held more sacred the freedoms of businesses than the right of the people to pass laws curtailing damage by businesses. Then, they struck the laws down. Now, they hobble the agencies the laws created. Government agencies protecting public interests are a bother to those focused on profits. But the limits set by agencies are necessary in a crowded and poisoned world, and the agencies are the gifts of our parents, which "conservative" philosophy now takes away. Attention must be paid and the Constitution, which is not properly interpreted by extremist jurisprudence, recovered in its plain and common sense, by us.
I have my students read it, asking them not to read what others say about it until they have read it themselves. I ask what stands out to them, and they always notice the Preamble, and they always point to “Preserve the Blessings of Liberty for Posterity” and many ask if that means protect the environment, and some assert that it has to, or that line has no real meaning.
Those who would vote for that may also like this Supreme Court, thinking it is “conservative”, defending traditional values, not seeing how it is not just taking away freedoms but also defenses. This court clearly wishes to reduce the powers of government agencies and is not satisfied with stopping EPA’s Clean Power Plan or letting states curtail women’s control over their own bodies. Their philosophy resembles that of the court of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the era of laissez-faire, of Social Darwinism, of the growth of concentrated economic power and the robber baron idea that this was good for us all. The court then, and this one now, has held more sacred the freedoms of businesses than the right of the people to pass laws curtailing damage by businesses. Then, they struck the laws down. Now, they hobble the agencies the laws created. Government agencies protecting public interests are a bother to those focused on profits. But the limits set by agencies are necessary in a crowded and poisoned world, and the agencies are the gifts of our parents, which "conservative" philosophy now takes away. Attention must be paid and the Constitution, which is not properly interpreted by extremist jurisprudence, recovered in its plain and common sense, by us.
I have my students read it, asking them not to read what others say about it until they have read it themselves. I ask what stands out to them, and they always notice the Preamble, and they always point to “Preserve the Blessings of Liberty for Posterity” and many ask if that means protect the environment, and some assert that it has to, or that line has no real meaning.