monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

The only redeeming aspect to Trump’s presidency is he brings us back to basics. And what could be more basic than the difference between democracy and dictatorship?

Democracy is about means, not ends. If we all agreed on the ends (such as whether to build a wall along the Mexican border) there’d be no need for democracy.

But of course we don’t agree, which is why the means by which we resolve our differences are so important. Those means include a Constitution, a system of government based on the rule of law, and an independent judiciary.

A dictatorship, by contrast, is only about ends. Those ends are the goals of the dictator — preserving and accumulating personal power. To achieve those ends, a dictator will use any means necessary.

Which brings us back to Trump.

The conventional criticism of Trump is that he’s unfit to be president because he continuously breaks the norms of how a president should behave.

Trump’s norm-breaking is unsettling, to be sure, but Trump’s more fundamental offense is he continuously sacrifices means in order to preserve and accumulate personal power.

He thereby violates a president’s core responsibility to protect American democracy.

A president who shuts down government in order to get his way on a controversial issue, such as building a wall along the border with Mexico, and offering to reopen it as a concession when his opponents give in, is not protecting democracy.

He is treating the government of the United States as a bargaining chip. He is asserting power by any means possible. This is the method of a dictator.

A president who claims he has an absolute right to declare a national emergency and spend government funds that Congress has explicitly refused to appropriate for the ends he seeks, is also assuming the role of a dictator.

A president who spouts lies during a prime-time national television address over what he terms an “undeniable crisis” at the southern U.S. border, which is in fact no crisis at all, is using whatever means available to him to preserve and build his base of power.

The real international threat to America is not coming from Latin America. It is coming from a foreign government intent on undermining our democracy by propagating lies, turning Americans against each other, and electing a puppet president.

We do not know yet whether Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to win the 2016 election. What we do know so far is that Trump’s aides and campaign manager worked with Putin’s emissaries during the 2016 election, and that Putin sought to swing the election in favor of Trump.

We also know that since he was elected, Trump has done little or nothing to stop Putin from continuing to try to undermine our democracy. To the contrary, Trump has obstructed inquiries into Russian meddling, and gone out of his way to keep his communications with Putin secret, even from his own White House.

The overall pattern is clear to anyone who cares to see it. Trump’s entire presidency to date has sacrificed the means of democracy to the end of his personal power.

He has lied about the results of votes, and established a commission to investigate bogus claims of fraudulent voting. He has attacked judges who have ruled against him, with the goal of stirring up the public against them.

He has encouraged followers to believe that his opponent in the 2016 election should be imprisoned; and condemned as “enemies of the people” journalists who report unfavorably about him, in an effort to fuel public resentment — perhaps even violence — against them.

To argue, as some Trump apologists do, that whatever Trump does is justified because voters put Trump in power, is to claim that voters can decide to elect a dictator.

They cannot. Even if a majority of Americans were to attempt such thing (and, remember, Trump received three million fewer votes than his opponent in 2016), the Constitution prohibits it.

The choice could not be clearer. Democracy is about means, while dictatorship is about ends. Trump uses any means available to achieve his own ends.

We can preserve our democracy and force Trump out of office. Or we can continue to struggle against someone who strives to thwart democracy for his own benefit.

In the months ahead, that choice will be made, one way or the other.

Robert Reich wrote:

We can preserve our democracy and force Trump out of office

It was the anti-democratic college

India has made a diplomatic protest to the US after 129 Indian students were arrested for enrolling in a fake university.

The University of Farmington, advertised as based in Michigan state, was run by undercover agents from the Department of Homeland Security to expose "pay-to-stay" immigration fraud.

Prosecutors say those who enrolled knew that the facility would be illegal.

However, Indian officials say the students may have been duped.

On Saturday, the Indian ministry of external affairs (MEA) issued a "demarche" to the US embassy in Delhi, expressing concern over the arrests and demanding consular access to those detained.

"Our concern over the dignity and wellbeing of the detained students and the need for immediate consular access for Indian officials to the detainees was reiterated," the ministry said.

It said the students could have been tricked into enrolling and should be treated differently to any recruiters who may have duped them.

"We have urged the US side to share full details and regular updates of the students with the government, to release them from detention at the earliest and not to resort to deportation against their will," MEA added.

Meanwhile a telephone hotline for worried relatives of those being held has been set up at the Indian embassy in Washington, the Times of India reported.

The US embassy in Delhi confirmed it had received the demarche but made no further statement.

It is not the first time US authorities have run such an operation. In 2016, 21 people were arrested after immigration agents set up the fake University of Northern New Jersey. Most of the foreign nationals involved in that scheme came from China and India.

In the latest sting, a website for the University of Farmington showed pictures of students in classes and libraries or relaxing around a grassy campus.

It advertised tuition for undergraduates at $8,500 (£6,500) a year and $11,000 a year for graduate students.

What was his nickname in the yearbook? Coonchucker?

I trust he earned that nickname.

Most Canadian provinces considered the idea of eugenics during the first part of the 20th century. Only Alberta and British Columbia ultimately passed laws that created eugenics programs, in 1928 and 1933 respectively. Although both provinces repealed their laws in the 1970s, 2,822 Albertans and over 200 British Columbians were sterilized through these programs. The original laws focused attention on people who were institutionalized under the Mental Health Act, meaning that people with mental disorders and those deemed mentally deficient were the primary targets for sterilization. In 1937 Alberta amended its Sexual Sterilization Act to remove the need for informed consent for sterilization subjects who were considered feebleminded. This amendment set Alberta apart from other jurisdictions throughout North America, which had or had added consent provisions.

The vast majority of people sterilized through the Canadian programs had been institutionalized in psychiatric hospitals or homes for people considered feebleminded, mentally deficient, or intellectually disabled. In 1942, however, Alberta changed its law again to move the eugenics program beyond the confines of institutions. As a result more children were identified in the community, at schools, and through public health visits. Canadian provinces and territories other than British Columbia and Alberta did not enact specific eugenics laws; however, several of them participated in eugenics. Nova Scotia, for example, did not legally sterilize people, but institutionalized women of child-bearing age who were considered unfit for motherhood, often on account of having given birth to illegitimate children. Quebec encouraged reproduction among its residents to bolster its population, and therefore its political power, as a form of positive eugenics. It did so by establishing baby bonuses and financial incentives for large families. Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan all drafted sterilization laws, which were defeated in the 1930s as a growing wave of resistance formed, especially among Catholics. The Northwest Territories has yet a different experience, as sterilizations became very controversial in the 1970s, with some people claiming that these surgeries were being done involuntarily as an act of genocide against the Inuit people, and others suggesting that the high birth rate, combined with maternal and infant mortality meant that some Inuit women were requesting sterilizations as a form of birth control. The history of eugenics and reproduction touched every part of the country, but the meanings and practices varied considerably.