Culture Wars, Which Side Are You On?

There is a great deal of conflict in the world. There are the age old power struggles that pit rich and powerful nations against those nations with little power or wealth. On national levels these struggles usually play out in the arena that puts political parties representing the wealthy and powerful up against those that represent the working classes and disenfranchised. This is the struggle that Karl Marx referred to as the struggle between "the haves and have-nots."

It is important to note, however, that in the early stages of the 21st century there is another powerful struggle afoot in the world. It is the struggle between the traditionalists and the secularists. It is a culture war. Mass communication, mass education, and the melting of boundaries between nations and cultures have resulted in a new class of people who reject the old ways, the old rules, and the old traditions as outdated and useless. The clash between these persons and the ones who hold to the old ways have divided the world.

In a large part of North Africa and eastward all the way to the Philippines a struggle between Islamists who want to institute Sharia and those who wish to obey only the secular law of the state. In Africa there are those traditionalists who believe Sharia includes what they call female circumcision, and what much of the world calls female genital mutilation. In traditional societies such as in Saudi Arabia it means women wear veils and cover themselves from head to foot. It means women may not drive cars, work, or even go out of the house without being accompanied by an adult member of the family. It means a woman can be brought before a religious court and subjected to whippings of sometimes 100 lashes for illicit actions. In Iran women are condemned to death for adultery.

Notably, there are secular societies in the Middle East. In Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria the wearing of veils that cover everything but the eyes are outlawed in universities and many public spaces. In European nations where there are large numbers of Islamic immigrants similar laws have been passed recently. In most Islamic majority nations we see an ongoing struggle between those elements of society that represent "modernization" and education and those who wish to retain the traditional society. Furthermore, many of the extreme traditionalists wish to stop the advancing forces of globalism from further tainting their youth and their societies. This makes the U.S., the EU, Japan, and most industrialized wealthy nations a target for their ire.

Mind you, in many cases the traditionalists and the "have-nots" are one and the same. The educated and wealthy are the "haves." The nature of becoming one of the "haves" involves exposure to advanced education and liberalizing Western notions. Take the boy out of the village and send him to a Western university and the next thing you know he's hanging out in bars and pubs and drinking and dating Western women who dress in suggestive attire and often have pre-marital sex. Take the girl out of the village and send her to a Western university and the next thing you know she doesn't want to come home. She wants to stay in the U.S. or in Western Europe and marry some guy who doesn't even belong to the same faith. Both seem to like Western clothing, ways of life, and owning big cars and houses. A threat to the traditional culture? Well, duh! It throws up a bit of a conundrum. Keep the kid at home and ignorant and you remain poor. Send him or her to a Western university and they may have the opportunity for more wealth, but reject the ways of life they were raised in.

None of these things are news. They are the fodder of TV, newspaper, magazine, and online news day in and day out. What a great many of us who reside in the secular West do not recognize is that these culture wars between traditionalists and secularists play out here as well. The Islamic extreme, notably produces terrorists who wish to attack "The Great Satan," but in the U.S. members of the Christian right regularly feel justified in attacking and sometimes killing OB-Gyn practitioners who offer abortions. This too is a form of terrorism. It is founded in the idea that those who disagree with me disagree with God's commandments and therefore deserve to die. When they find themselves too terrified to go against God's commandments they will fall in line and behave in accordance with God's will. Forget the fact that what any one person perceives to be God's will may be at odds with any other person or group of persons.

The Red State-Blue State phenomenon was brought to the attention of the American public a couple of election cycles ago. Because it affected the outcome of elections, it was framed as a Republican-Democrat thing, essentially political and more of the "haves vs. have-nots" thing. It should be noted, however, that a large segment of the Republican Party has been hijacked by Cultural Traditionalists who want to make this a Christian nation, adhering to Christian principles, and eschewing what they see as flagrant ventures into the world of anti-Christian behavior.

There are a great many behaviors that are a part of the debate between the traditionalists and the secularists, consumption of alcohol, sex without marriage, interfaith marriage, etc., etc., etc., but the two major hot button issues in the U.S. are abortion and homosexuality. Traditionalists tend to oppose both vehemently. Secularists embrace both, as rights of individuals, and often just as vehemently. It creates conflict. Notedly, the Red States are generally rural, small population places and Blue States tend to be states with large population centers. Red States tend to have fewer jobs and wealth. Blue States tend to have larger concentrations of jobs and people with wealth. Once again that "haves vs. have-nots" thing. A rule, but with notable exceptions. Red States like Florida tend to have large concentrations of rich, hang on to our wealth and screw the poor conservatives, but not so many moral, religious conservatives.

To anyone who pays attention, it's no secret that money and changes in culture tend to accumulate in large cities. The largest concentrations of secularists who wish to move society beyond religious restrictions are in the largest cities. In the U.S. that means that New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago hold the largest numbers of people who wish to liberalize society as a whole, the largest concentrations of people with university educations, and also the largest numbers of people with a lot of cash. Small town and rural America hold concentrations of traditionalists who are anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-anyone who doesn't look like me, act like me, and believe the same thing as me.

It is a worldwide struggle. It is very real. It will move us into a new era globally or thrust us back into the dark ages. It's a question of where you stand. Many people in the enlightened sectors are accepting of all cultures and all ways of life. The trouble is that many of those cultures and ways of life will not accept you if you accept gay friends, if your ex-girlfriend had an abortion, if you live with a sexual partner without marrying them. As in any war, this war of cultures demands that you choose sides. I make no secret that I am an individual with an advanced degree who lives in a major Blue State city, who has gay friends, who believes in the equality of women and in their right to choose whether to have children or not, and who does not believe in gods or afterlife. Which side will you choose?

A Mosque Two Blocks From Ground Zero? What Are You Thinking?

There has been a great deal of noise in the press about Sarah Palin weighing in on the proposed mosque to be located just a few blocks from the Ground Zero site. In addition, to asking peace-loving Muslims to "refudiate" the proposed mosque she also tweeted that it is an "unnecessary provocation." Ordinarily I find nothing to agree with Sarah Palin about. In this case, I have to look past my lefty leanings and say that the woman has a point.

To their credit, The American Society for Muslim Advancement has never been one of those fringe Islamic societies proposing death to the infidels. They are a moderate group that tries to foster a more modern, more moderate Islamic faith that can exist side by side with other faiths. They propose interfaith cooperation and to that end have proposed a center to promote that end. Their center, in addition to the mosque, would include a swimming pool, an auditorium, shops, and art exhibitions, something for the community to enjoy and to promote a dialogue.

On the surface this is a great idea. The trouble is with the location in lower Manhattan and its proximity to the site of the World Trade Center tragedy. Let's face it. We live in America, and despite the claims of the religious right in this country, we are not a Christian nation. We are a nation where the majority of its citizens are Christians, but we are a secular nation that has enshrined in its Constitution the right to "Freedom of Religion." A person has the right to practice any religion they wish, as long as that religion doesn't require it to take away the "unalienable rights" of other citizens. You know what those are, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

That being said, in such a free nation, any religous entity, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or even Wiccan has the right to purchase property and build a center dedicated to its particular faith. The Constitution guarantees that right. The American Society for Muslim Advancement has the right to do that. Their stated goal of promoting healing between religions and peace for all is an admirable goal. The question is, "Is it wise to place that center in a location that speaks of Islamic aggression to many Americans?" How will that move be perceived by middle America?

In Texas there are those who will forever "Remember the Alamo." In the Deep South there are those who still run around in t-shirts with a picture of a crusty old guy in a rebel uniform, with a gun in one hand, a Confederate flag in the other and with the cartoon bubble that says "Hell no! I ain't forgettin'!" Whether you believe either of these sentiments is right or wrong is beside the point. The reality is that a large group of people are still angry about these situations from the 19th century and another large group of Americans is not about to forget or forgive the actions of 9/11.

The fact that there are huge numbers of moderate Muslims running around out there with no desire to bring "Death to America" does not dissuade the notion from their minds that it was Muslims who brought down the Twin Towers. It was not Christians. It was not Hindus, Buddhists, or Wiccans. It was not Communists from China or North Korea. It was not crazed anti-government extremists like Timothy McVeigh. It was Muslims, plain and simple. To many of these individuals, the placing of an Islamic center mere blocks from Ground Zero is like rubbing salt in the wounds. It is adding insult to injury. It is asking, begging homegrown extremists from America to attack that center, regardless of the fact that it is dedicated to peaceful purposes and healing old wounds. It's a bad idea.

Do we really need to be playing this drama out in the national press? Probably not. It brings out the worst in everybody. In this case, a voice of reason from within the New York City bureaucracy probably needs to speak to some people in private and let them know that they have a really good idea, but it would be a better idea to locate somewhere uptown instead, or better yet over in Brooklyn. I bet if someone checked there might be some zoning problem with the center, or something with permits that's throwing up a roadblock. Keep up the good work you moderate Muslims. Just don't do it right next to Ground Zero and rub people's noses in the fact that it was people from your faith who brought down the towers and killed thousands of people. A great many are not very forgiving.

As for Sarah Palin and her Tea Party compatriots, well I still disagree with you on everything else, and for goodness sakes, "refudiate?" Get an education if you want to be a leader.

Teach For America, A Good Idea Or Not?

Those who believe that the current way we train teachers has been unsuccessful have thrown restructuring, privatization, and charter schools at us as ways to bust unions and supposedly create more successful education experiences for students in our "failing schools." In the process, teachers have been demonized as selfish, lazy, unionized fat cats just waiting for their fat cat pensions at public expense. Now there is Teach for America. Well trained, experienced teachers not getting the job done? Let's put a bunch of kids straight out of school, with a 5 week crash course in teaching under their belts, into the classrooms in ghettos across America. That'll turn things around. Right.

This past Monday Michael Winerip had an article in The New York Times regarding Teach for America. It turns out that Ivy League graduates and graduates of elite colleges all over the country are competing to get into Teach for America and it's more difficult to get into than many elite graduate programs. The assumption among those who promote Teach for America and programs like this is that our schools are failing so let's get the best and brightest into teaching and turn this thing around.

Then those who are accepted are given a 5 week crash course over a summer and are put into classrooms in "failing schools" to give kids that boost that all of those bad teachers couldn't. First of all, the assumption that because a kid went to an elite university somehow makes them a better teacher than someone who went to, say Illinois State University, is totally fallacious. What school you went to, what brownie points you received for making the Dean's List, what IQ you possess is no indicator of whether you will perform well in a classroom with kids from economically, socially, and/or criminally challenged backgrounds. Smart guys from good schools sometimes perform admirably. Sometimes they crash and burn. Same for guys from Illinois State University with average grades.

To his credit, Mr. Winerip notes in his article that it takes time to master the skills that are required to teach under these circumstances. Most Teach for America kids treat it like an equivalent of the Peace Corps. That is to say that it looks good on your resume when you're moving onward and upward, but it's not something you want to do for an extended period of time. Most leave Teach for America long before they have the opportunity to develop those skills that make someone a good teacher, someone who can reach kids and make a difference.

Furthermore, one of the assumptions that goes into a program like this is that just because you want to make a difference, doesn't mean your commitment will make it possible for you to make a difference. Wanting to change society doesn't make you a good social worker. Wanting to teach kids doesn't make you a good teacher. Mr. Winerip tells the tale of a young enthusiastic Teach for America teacher who finds herself in an inner city school teaching summer school so failing kids can make up failed classes. The young woman in question has a good idea for a lesson for kids that is thwarted by A) a broken overhead projector (Good teachers improvise and write on the board. Chalk has its uses.) and B) disruptive kids who really don't want to learn (Welcome to the world of teaching in so-called failing schools. Seasoned well-trained teachers often take years learning how best to deal with disruptive influences in the classroom.).

The thing is, the assumptions and money that are poured into programs like this are an overt insult to hard-working teachers everywhere. They are a slap in the face for those individuals who studied hard and got degrees and advanced degrees in education only to have some snot-nosed kid from an Ivy League school with 5 weeks training come in and think they are going to do a better job. Teachers work and train for years with few resources, for little money, and with kids who come into their classrooms reading 4 and 5 years below grade level and who struggle their damnedest to overcome home situations where the Mom has a new boyfriend in the house every week and the Dad is either unknown or in prison. These are dedicated teachers who struggle to reach kids who belong to gangs and believe that their only ticket to wealth is through illegal means.

It's time America took a long serious look at education and put some valuable resources into these schools by helping the people who trained hard to do the right thing, not by calling them losers and bringing a fresh crop of rich kids who will be gone the next year. One thing I know is that actual caring and showing some tough love can make a difference with some kids. Being there for a kid, not just one year but from the time they show up in your school until they graduate, means something to them. Often they come back years later and apologize for their actions when they were your student. They know you care. They also know that rich kids who come and go in a year or two don't really care about them as individuals.

Linus from Charlie Brown said, "I love humanity. It's people I can't stand." Often these students who join Teach for America are like that. They love humanity in the abstract. They want desperately to do something for humanity, but when faced with the actual face of poverty it's a little daunting and ugly. They move on and soon forget about all of those kids who need someone who cares. They need more well-trained teachers who are committed to making a difference, and often those well-trained ones wash out as well. It takes a special person to teach under extreme circumstances day in, day out, year after year. Teach for America is not providing that.

Do Unto Others, Or Not

Over these past couple of years I have not made it any secret that I find a lot about religion distasteful. There are those who think that morality would be lost without God. It seems pretty darned clear to me that morality as we know it is a manmade invention. It's a survival mechanism. Frankly, the enlightenment ideal of natural rights makes a lot more sense to me. Do anything you want as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's natural rights, i.e. life, liberty, and property.

Another simple rule of morality to live by is known as the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." A great many Christians attribute this concept to Jesus, and it certainly appears as something he said, according to the Bible. However, this idea also appears in a lot of other places, many pre-dating Christianity.

Admittedly, Hammurabi's Code, dating to 1780 B.C., was more of "Don't do unto others or we'll do unto you," but it more or less got the point across, "If you don't want people to do that stuff to you, then don't do it to them." There are ancient Egyptian references to a version of the Golden Rule when talking about the concept of maat sometime in the Middle Kingdom about 2000 B.C.

All of that being noted, several ancient Greek philosophers advocated versions of The Golden Rule. Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, and Taoism, just to name a few of the various religious and philosophical schools from around the planet, have all advocated the Golden Rule. It would seem that this is a pretty universal concept on Planet Earth. Trying to live by this simple rule tends to keep down the conflict, murder, and mayhem. Good for the survival of the species, so to speak. One would think that we're all on the same page.

And yet there are any number of religious extremist groups, and not so extremist groups who are thoroughly convinced that if you don't believe exactly the same thing as I do, then it is quite alright to treat you as a second class citizen, ostracize you, and subject you to all manner of verbal abuse. Then there are those extremist groups who feel that if you do not believe exactly what I believe, then you deserve to die. Definitely not the Golden Rule.

Upon further examination, most major religions on the planet put women in a second class role in society. Questioning this role, puts them in danger in many cases. It is incredibly mind-boggling that the male-d0minated theocratic leaders of a nation (Iran) feel justified in condemning a woman to be stoned because after her husband died she had sex with somebody she wasn't married to. It is further mind-boggling that all across the Middle East there are conservative Islamic nations that force women to cover themselves head to foot lest they be brought before religious courts.

Jews and Muslims are at each others' throats in Israel. Hindus and Muslims blow up each others' Holy sites in India. The ongoing wars in the Middle East begin to look like a second round of Crusades between Christians and Muslims. It is easy to point a finger and note that the common thread in all of the aforementioned episodes in violence and war is Muslim. Duly noted that Jihad is an Arabic word, invented by Muslims. All of these religious groups share some of the collective guilt, however. They all believe they are the one and only true faith, and have the market cornered on sanctity.

Let us all take note of the fact that whatever religious faith one has is largely an accident of where you were born. Grow up in Europe or the Americas and you are likely a Christian of some sort. Grow up in North Africa and the Middle East and you are likely a Muslim. Grow up in India and Hinduism is the homegrown faith. Buddhists dominate the faith market in Southeast Asia Japan and Korea. All believe theirs is the one true faith.

When you examine the basic teachings of all of these religions, they all believe basically the same things regarding morality, and yet they spawn religious wars and conflict with those others who dare to differ in small ways. And God forbid (to coin a phrase) that you should have the nerve to not believe in any of them. Every last one of them will condemn you then. So who is right? So where is the morality in attacking every person on the planet who believes basically the same thing as you do? Where is the morality in condemning people whose lifestyles and beliefs do not conform to a set of rules that a few ultra-conservative individuals claim is God's will, or the gods collective wills, or the interpretation of a Pope or a Mullah or any other religious leader who claims to have a hotline to heaven?

I have news boys and girls. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you has no part in this kind of approach to life. When religions deign to be the big authority on morality and then deign to punish anyone who doesn't live up to their personal interpretations of morality, they have given up on morality. They have moved into the dictatorial. Persons as diverse as Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Kim Jong-Il all would understand how this manipulation of human life works. They understand it all too well. They're just a little more blatant than the Pope, though only a little more blatant than the Mullahs who advocate murder of all the non-believers.

Misanthropic Musings of a Maladapted Mister

Have you ever had one of those words that you read and kind of get an inkling what it means but you really don't know what it means and you never get around to looking it up because it just doesn't seem that important on your list of important things to do? Well today I finally looked up misanthrope. And don't take that attitude with me. Half of you don't know what misanthrope means and the other half have your own words that you don't know the meaning of. So lose the high and mighty act.

Anyway, I looked up misanthrope and saw that it means a person who dislikes people, in general. Well, now I knew what it meant and when I thought about it, I wasn't quite so sure that it was an insult to the person being called a misanthrope. It might very well be a sign of intelligence. I began to think about Linus in the Charlie Brown cartoon and his famous quote, "I love humanity. It's people I can't stand."

All of this musing about misanthropes soon set me to musing on a more personal level and pretty soon I found myself wondering aloud, "Babs, do you think I'm a misanthrope?" Babs got a very surprised expression on her face and by the way she held back her answer and looked at me with that "Oh you shouldn't have asked me that," expression on her face, I knew the answer before it was even uttered. Then she very carefully said, "Yes," and she looked at me to see if I were offended, and qualified her "Yes," with a "Well borderline."

For the record, I wasn't offended. I sort of already knew the answer to that one before I asked it. Just needed a little confirmation from the outside. Got it in short order. Of course, then I had to obsess about it and question whether I were really a misanthrope or not and what were the implications if so, etc., etc., etc.

Turns out it's not so much people that I don't like as stupidity. Trouble is that a large portion of humanity is stupid, or at least they do lots and lots of stupid things. So when you dislike stupidity and the majority of humanity does really stupid things and you dislike those stupid things, it appears as though you are down on humanity (misanthropic) when in all truth you are down, not on humanity, but on stupidity.

This reminds me of Forrest Gump who famously said, "Stupid is as stupid does." Thought about that and came to the conclusion that there is a lot of stupid folks out there because they surely does a lot of stupid stuff. You are no doubt wondering at this point "Just what makes this sucker think he's so all-fired smart, calling the majority of humanity stupid and all?"

Oh no! I didn't mean you per se. You are obviously a really smart person who doesn't engage in stupid acts on a regular basis. I was talking about all of those other people out there, the stupid ones, the ones who run around doing stupid stuff day and day out. You know who I'm talking about. You're one of us, the ones who are well read and smart and who people really should listen to. There's a word for people like us. It's misanthrope.

Being Tired and Retired

Here it is the 5th of July and the 4th is over. Watched the fireworks and cooked brats on a charcoal grill like a good American. Listened to Bruce Springsteen sing "Born in the USA" and Satchmo sing "America the Beautiful." Of course I also watched a Spaniard beat a Czech in the Wimbledon tennis final in England followed by a little watching of bicyclists from all over the world racing across Belgium in the Tour de France. Got to the baseball thing in the afternoon and had the lump in the throat when Wayne Messner sang "The Star Spangled Banner." Also got a lump in the throat when the Cubs went on to lose 14-3, but that was a lump of a different sort altogether.

On the 4th of July most Americans come together to celebrate that which makes us a nation and to be proud of it. Then on the 5th of July we have all gone our ways again and that which divides us becomes apparent once again. Our nation and our world have been in a serious financial downturn for more than two years now. The unemployment rate in the U.S. continues to hover just below 10%. The stock market continues to make people, dependent on its health, wonder if they'll ever be able to retire and public retirement systems wonder how they're going to pay for the retirement of a generation of aging citizens who are expected to live very long lives. The Baby Boom generation is becoming the Retirement Boom generation.

In the U.S. the age for full Social Security benefits has been raised to 67. You get a bump in benefits if you wait until you're 70. In Germany, the age for state pensions has been raised to 67 as well. In the UK the traditional age has been 60 for women and 65 for men. Now the age is being raised to 66 for all workers and there is talk of raising it to 70 eventually. Meanwhile the French public is up in arms because their retirement age has been raised to 62. What a hardship.

There are a number of issues here. At one time a person could expect to work for a company for most of their adult life and that company would provide a pension check for the rest of their lives. Mind you, most people only lived until their early 70's and so the burden wasn't as large as it currently is. Then companies, intent on cutting costs, set up 401K plans for their employees and the burden for providing for eventual retirement began to shift from employer to employee. Didn't put enough into your retirement savings? Better hope the Social Security system remains solvent, and the Republican Party doesn't manage to privatize Social Security or allow opting out or doesn't do away with it altogether. For that matter, does anyone actually believe that you can survive in a reasonable fashion on what Social Security pays?

There is much ado in the press recently about the outsized pensions of government employees and how they are sucking up the resources of the states, counties, and municipalities of America. A sizable number of these government employees who are receiving these pensions are educators who dedicated their lives to teaching other people's kids, for peanuts, compared to what they would make working in private industry. Part of the package used to attract people to the profession has always been the reasonable retirement package. Now it turns out that huge numbers of people don't want to fund these pension systems. Some of them are on the verge of bankruptcy, and a lot of the people who paid into these systems, depending on them did not pay into Social Security. If their pensions dry up, they have no Social Security coming in to fall back on.

Social Security, government pensions, school teacher pensions all are partially funded by employee contributions and partially by employer contributions. In the case of the latter two, the employer is the government and so that means taxes pay for at least part of these pensions and that seems to stick in the craw of a lot of Americans who don't want to pay for someone else's retirement. In the case of Social Security there are a good many wealthy Americans who don't worry about their own retirement and it seems to stick in their craw that they are subsidizing Social Security for the working class through their own payments into the system.

What we're talking about here is that an awful lot of Americans have a "What's in it for me" approach to life. People are perfectly willing to contribute to their own welfare, but the idea of a societal welfare that must be subsidized through taxes makes people angry. It brings out a "Screw you. I got mine. Get your own" kind of response. Frankly, unless the rich are willing to wall themselves off in gated communities while the masses of elderly are tossed out in the streets to fend for themselves this is a bit of a short-sighted approach to life.

Furthermore, the less able people are to retire and exit the workforce, the fewer jobs will be around for the younger citizens to acquire in the workforce. Jobs are finite. This in turn begs the question, what if companies didn't export all the jobs to third world countries in order to increase their already massive profits? Would there be more people to buy stuff, thus providing more jobs to produce stuff, more people to pay into the system, and thus more funding to allow people to retire at a reasonable age?

Perhaps it is just the old liberal in me, but I have to think that a society has to provide certain basic necessities in order to thrive. It has to educate its citizens. Everybody has to help pay for this. An educated society is in everybody's best interest. We have a duty to see that every citizen can receive adequate healthcare. Everybody should help pay for this as well. The alternative is paying for the unhealthy when they are no longer able to care for themselves due to lack of healthcare. Finally, we have a duty to see that contributing citizens can be assured of a reasonable standard of living when they are no longer able to contribute, due to advancing age. We all have a duty to see that this is funded as well. It's called civilized.

Is the Supreme Court Partisan? Of Course It Is.

The Senate Confirmation Committee has been grilling Elena Kagan this week. The Democrats on the committee just want to make it as easy as possible for her. The Republicans want to do everything they can to put obstacles in her way on the way to becoming the next Supreme Court Justice, the replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens.

Every time someone is nominated for the Supreme Court the debate begins between the concept of strict constructionism and loose constructionism, just interpreting the Constitution and using the court as an activist perch from which to advance an agenda. Currently the Republicans in Congress are railing against activist agendas and using the court to change society. Apparently, these Republicans were not against activist agendas when the Supreme Court saw fit to nullify ballots in Florida, thus assuring a Presidential victory for George W. Bush. Apparently, these Republicans have not been against an activist agenda when a Right leaning Supreme Court has done everything in its power to strike down attempts to limit the number of guns we have on the streets of our cities. Apparently, these Republicans have not been against an activist agenda when the current right leaning court has time and again upheld restrictions on a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy or not.

So now when a Democratic President nominates a woman who has similar beliefs to his own, the Republican Party disingenuously claims to be taking the high road in opposing her nomination, in the name of strict constructionism of the Constitution and neutral judges without a political agenda. What a crock of b.s. Looks to me as if they define "activist agendas" as any idea that is in opposition to what they believe. Agree with me? That's neutral and well-reasoned. Disagree with me? That's radical activism designed to re-engineer society.

Let's face facts boys and girls. The U.S. Supreme Court is now and always has been partisan. Presidents always look for opportunities to pack the court with those who agree with themselves politically. When Justices die or retire, this always offers a President an opportunity to restructure the political makeup of the court so as to affect policy for years to come. Remember that Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life and can go on affecting policy in America long after the President who appointed them is gone.

Throughout history this battle has gone on in Washington. John Adams and the Federalists sought Supreme Court Justices who would uphold their vision for a more centralized national control while Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans wanted justices who would uphold their vision of a federated society with devolving to the individual states. Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party sought justices who would cement federal supremacy, hold the union together, and stop state efforts to thwart abolitionism. FDR tried to raise the number of justices on the court so he could get a majority on the court to support his New Deal policies. The Republican Party of Hoover fought this move so they could keep intact a court that would thwart the New Deal. Partisan battles one and all.

The battle goes on. The sad thing is that the Republican Party's current efforts to install another Democratic, left-leaning justice on the Supreme Court makes it look like their vision for America is to invent a time machine that would return us to 1950. Between Senator Sessions of Alabama and Senators from Oklahoma and Texas the confirmation hearings this week began to look like an inquisition from a bunch of pre-civil rights, pre-abortion rights Dixiecrats.

Let's face it. All Supreme Court nominees are political. All are partisan. All have a view of the universe that ties in with the current President, who nominated them in the first place. The confirmation and subsequent placement on the actual Supreme Court is a political move made possible by the party of the President and a sufficient number of votes in the Senate. The Democrats currently control the Senate and Elena Kagan will be our next new justice on the Supreme Court.

For the record, Ms. Kagan's position on the court will not do much to alter the voting composition of the U.S. Supreme Court. There are a number of conservative justices who will have to retire or die before the court becomes a bastion of liberalism. We have a few years left of Right-wing "Conservative Activism" on this court before it begins to seriously swing left. So all of you who worry about Ms. Kagan's ascendancy to the court, rest easy because nothing much is going to change.