So much of what is going on in the Musk/Trump/Much too young Vance administration is laughable. And most laughable of all, it seems to me, is the case brought against Starbucks by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey. Am I wrong? Will Missouri win this case?

Maybe you don’t know it. And I haven’t looked at any of the paper work. I have just read a number of news articles. Basically, Starbucks is being attacked for having a hiring process which takes into account race and gender to try to have a workforce representative of the community at large. On the basis of its DEI commitment, Starbucks is being charged with discrimination against (you guessed it) white males.

What is the evidence of this discrimination? Apparently Starbucks’ staff in its 200 Missouri locations and the rest of the country is over 50% minority (40% black) and about 70% female. Once you see this, it appears, it is clear that discrimination must exist.

Now, keep in mind that Starbucks does not make rockets to take us to Mars; it brews and serves coffee and coffee-ish drinks. You can take a position for or against the quality of Starbucks’ coffee, and as far as I know the quality of the drinks are not at issue. But, according to the Missouri Attorney General, having blacks and women pour coffee results in service that is much less efficient than the service that would be provided by white males, making customers wait longer and, somehow, raises the prices charged the public. I have read that the filings don’t explain how prices are affected.

One of the mainstay positions of the Trump administration, and Project 2025, is White Nationalism. (Some say that it is White Christian Nationalism, but I am not sure that is the case. It is clearly, though, White Not-Muslim Nationalism.) One of the ways this plank is being implemented is through the destruction of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs which, until recently, seemed to be national policy. One of the first groups of federal government employees who were fired were those who were involved in DEI programs within their agencies. But it went beyond this, in that the administration has also made it clear that DEI does not belong in private business either, that the continuation of DEI programs might affect the willingness of the government to deal with those companies, and that federal agents might open investigations targeted on companies advocating DEI as part of their personnel policies.

Once again, Cole Porter:

“The world has gone mad today

And good’s bad today

And black’s white today

And day’s night today…..”

Yes, anything goes. Or not. Maybe only one thing goes.

I understand that it is difficult to know how to fight the Trump administration right now. So many things are being hurled at once that you don’t know which one to defend against first. And it would seem that everyone has to make their own choice as to which to fight. You would think that individuals would do this based, at least in part, on what does, or could, affect them most. And since DEI focuses on all minorities, not only Blacks, Hispanics and other ethnic groups, but also on Women.

But, somehow, even among those who fought so hard for DEI programs a year ago, there seems to be surprisingly little excitement. At least, that is the way I see it.

A few years ago, I read How to be an Unracist by Ibram X. Kendi. Kendi’s position is the mirror image of Trump’s. His position is that, for example, if the United States is 20 percent Black, every governmental office, every private company’s board of directors and workforce should strive to be 20% Black. The ultimate of DEI. This is not a position that I agree with, because such pure quotas could actually lead to hiring people less qualified to do certain jobs, but it does set a goal to keep in mind. But if the goal is not only a numerical one, if it is also to provide sufficient opportunity, support, mentorship and training to enable qualified members of minority groups to qualify for and apply for open positions, I think that giving a bit of a hiring edge to a member of a group formerly discriminated against is fitting and proper.

I think most Americans agree with this. But today, it is becoming illegal to act in that fashion, and is being deemed as discriminating against the groups that have succeeded in the past because of their “privilege”. Cole Porter’s lyrics come alive.

Of course, this emphasis on protecting white American males is not new to the Republican Party. Following the overturning of much of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court, many states (mainly former Confederate states, to no surprise) began to change their voting laws to make it harder for minorities to cast their votes, and Republican led states have gone wild with extreme gerrymandering. And on and on.

One of the areas where the protection of whites comes to the fore is, of course, with immigration, where the “replacement theory” now runs rampant. Close the borders, they say, and kick out all those Hispanics and other minorities who have worked their way into the country. This prevalence of this feeling might have been the biggest reason Trump won the 2024 election, and the biggest gaffe of the Biden administration, with racist fears (fears of crime, poverty, corruption of youth, etc.) overriding any arguments about the necessity of immigration to gurantee economic growth in the country.

Now that Trump is in office again, closing the border is not sufficient. He also has to kick out of the country refugees from those countries whose emigrants had been given Temporary Protective Status by Biden. And even that is not enough, apparently, for now the Trump administration has decided that we need more white immigrants, and he is starting with white Afrikaaner refugees from South Africa, because he is falsely claiming that they are being discriminated against by the current South African government.

Yes, we have trouble. Right here in River City. Trouble with a Capital T. And that rhymes with Trump.

Time for coffee. Sorry, Starbucks, we’re not in Missouri any more.