No American T-Shirts Allowed

MSMB ^ | May 7, 2010 | Rob W. Case

[Making_Sense [Rob W. Case]]

Another strange occurance in the age of Obama that an overwhelmingly large portion of the the activist media is not reporting on, is the recent story of these American flag T-Shirts.

The principal of Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California instructed kids who decided to wear their American flag T-shirts on Cinco De Mayo, were instructed to either turn their shirts inside out, take off their American flag bandanas, or be sent home. The ultimatum was delivered when students who were celebrating Cinco De Mayo found that the American flags were "offensive" to their celebration.

[Brouhaha]

I’ve stopped being surprised. Let me know when the shooting starts. I’m going to go inspect my rifle.

[john mirse]

"I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican heritage day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, told NBC. "We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."

******

This is one of the weirdest statements I have ever read, because I thought the young woman was an American.

I live a long way from California where there is a very tiny Mexican-American population, so I am not quite sure what the controversy is all about.

Concerning this bizarre controversy: I thought the high school students who complained about the American flags were themselves Americans of Mexican background.

Myself, I am baffled why an American student wearing an American flag shirt would be an insult to another American student at all.

For instance, can you imagine Irish people being insulted if other Americans wore American flag symbols on St. Patrick's Day?

For instance, can you imagine Italian-Americans being insulted if other Americans walked around with American flag symbols on Columbus Day?

I don't know what the answer to this problem is, but for Mexican-Americans to be insulted when an American flag is displayed on their special day is a bizarre situation to me.

To me, Mexican-American students should take the opportunity to celebrate BOTH flags on their special day: A flag representing Mexico, the country of origin of their parents or grandparents, and a flag representing the country of their new and future home, the United States.

My suggestion: Next year during this Mexican-American celebration, the Mexican-American students should invite and welcome all those other Americans wearing American flag symbols to share the special Mexican-American day of celebration.

Who knows. Both groups of American students might come to enjoy each other's company on that special day.

[PA BOOKEND]

AMEN!

[Mister Da]

The kids may have won this one this time, but the prof. from UCLA outlines how Old Glory will be banned in the future:

“Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California-Los Angeles, said the students are protected under California Education Code 48950, which prohibits schools from enforcing a rule subjecting a high school student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct, that when engaged outside of campus, is protected by the First Amendment.

If the school could point to previous incidents sparked by students who wore garments with American flags, they could argue that the flag is likely to lead to “substantial disruption,” Volokh said.” - from the FNC article.

All the Mexican students need to do to get our flag banned is be disruptive when it is displayed. This will give school officials the “previous incidents” they need to ban the flag completely.

Well, 2 can play that game.

The Mexican flag is becoming highly offensive to me & many Americans. It reminds me of their illegal invasion of my country, their corrupt & dysfunctional society, & the damage these things do to America & Americans. Serious disruption in schools & public places are likely to occur if the Mexican flag is displayed.

Therefore, in the interest of public safety & good order, the Mexican flag should be banned at this school in particular & all others with the same ideas.

Banning ANY flag, is, of course, ridiculous! Here's an idea. Foreign students in American schools who are offended by the American flag should get the hell out of America & go somewhere else, & I support deporting any alien who is disruptive in school or in public because of their disdain for our flag. Furthermore, I support punishment for any American student who disrespects the flag while in school.

And Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez needs to be fired for his divisive & anti-American actions. Replace him with someone who will teach ALL these kids why Old Glory is so very important.

Finally, stop celebrating Cinco de Mayo in American schools. It is irrelevant to non-Mexicans, & Mexicans in American schools have clearly abandoned Mexico to live in the US, so it can't mean much to them either. The Fourth of July is when Americans celebrate independence & freedom. Those who have left Mexico need to join in.

[Carlucci]

I absolutely love to wear my “Come and Take It” T-shirt to outings and events around town. Because it says “Gonzales, TX” on it (and because I’m an American of mexican descent), many Mexicans think it must be some chicano-pride thing.

When I’m asked about it, I tell the story of the Battle of Gonzales, with a heavy emphasis on the fact that the historic battle began the Texas fight for independence from Mexican tyranny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_and_take_it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gonzales

The looks I get are priceless.

[panthermom]

It is NOT a holiday!!!! It was made up by the beer/bars to generate a party day!!! It is all about drinking Margarita’s and Dos Equis!!!!

My son wanted Taco Bell on Wed. I was said No Way, I cannot stomach anything Mexican today!

[outofsalt]

From wiki,
“Live Oak High School (LOHS) is a public high school located in Morgan Hill, California, which consists of freshman, sophomore, junior. and senior classes. Live Oak is part of the Morgan Hill Unified School district. The school mascot of Live Oak is an Acorn”
Wouldn’t you know it?

[glennaro]

Nunez no doubt slept through her American History class — if in fact American history is still a required course at Live Oak High School (or is not presented, to quote Dennis Prager, as “a proctologist’s view of America”) — or she would realize just how ill-informed she is. But, Srta. Nunez is young and stupid and learning well how to leverage her “victimhood inheritance” by spitting in the face of patriotic Americans just to gain attention.

[Grams A]

Also happened in Texas at Klein ISD. Sophomore student took down a Mexican flag which had been flown above a U.S. flag. Suspended from school and single mom will have to pay for the Mexican flag. Contact Mr. Dick-Principal at 832-484-5500 or 832-249-4000. His email is sdick1@kleinisd.com.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I bet she WOULD fly a Mexican flag on the 4th of July.

[wardaddy]

I was just messing with ya.

[nathanbedford]

I've been trying for some time to iron out the glitches that come from the Dragon NaturallySpeaking software. In the same post consider this sentence:

"In this case apparently, the principal and vice principal alleged that Hispanic students celebrating Cinco de Mayo might take offense at the American colors worn by Anglos and be attempted toward violence."

Obviously I dictated "tempted" but the software printed "attempted." As a matter of fact, it did exactly the same thing in the preceding sentence just now.

I do not understand why I'm so bad at proofreading, it must be that psychologically one sees what he thinks ought to be there.

Now, if I can think up an excuse for this prolix virus...

[Making_Sense [Rob W. Case]]

Those are some very excellent and intriguing points you mentioned. On that note, it’s interesting that a Conservative Christian will have the discipline to hold his tongue when he needs to, but liberals just blurt out their foolish musings without any thought, or consideration as to what they are actually saying. It’s the reality of Proverbs 17:28 where it says, “Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent,and discerning if he holds his tongue.” But they don’t hold their tongue. They frequently air their isane, idealistic, unrealistic, delusional opinions, even after they have been proven not to work. And the more they are proven not to work, the more they say, “Oh, we didn’t do it right this time. We’ll just do it a different way next time.” Wasn’t it Albert Einstein that said, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?” And what happens when the right gets in and does things.... right, or mostly right? In a raging hatred, they go ballistic, but this time exhibiting the reality behind Proverbs 12:16 where it says, “16 A fool shows his annoyance at once,but a prudent man overlooks an insult.”

liberals are so “in your face” about it too. They are too delusional and stubborn in their delusional mindset.

It wasn’t all that long ago Americans (from both sides) held similar principles. Now, it has reached the point that if you are for empowering the individual, and you look at things through the perspective of realism, you are considered a right wing extremist, and if you look at things through sensationalist romanticism, and you are for making the government your “all in all,” then you are an “enlightened individual” with a substantiated bounty of insights worthy of evaluation and careful consideration. It’s enough to make you puke.

[nathanbedford]

It is not an accident nor a convention of chronology that the first story of the Judeo-Christian Bible is the story of the fall, the story of disobedience, of a challenging by man of God's supremacy and his estrangement from God. Nor is it accidental that the First Commandment is about the primacy of God and the second is about submission to him-and only him.

Since I think we are agreed that Obama is the narcissist, we must be in agreement that Obama finds these constraints of the Judeo-Christian heritage to be anathema. This is the state of all liberals. All are in rebellion against the sovereignty of God because they themselves would be God. Any religion which calls them to submission is a threat to the ego and it is the ego which is the Faustian parasite that keeps them in rebellion.

Compelled to play God, leftists and narcissists of one degree or another must rationalize their condition. Much of that is done unconsciously and it explains, for example, the visceral hatred of Sarah Palin, a kind of Billy Budd effect, which betrays the leftists psychological as well as spiritual nakedness. This is why we find the Democrats always disparaging Republicans as "stupid" because they cannot tolerate an eschatology which turns on anything but they themselves organizing the heavens and the earth. There can simply be no other authority. By carrying a Down's syndrome baby to term, Sarah Palin became the physical embodiment of man's submission to God and to God's law.

When they nod their head towards religion they come up with a kind of religion that safely leaves them uncircumcised both physically and psychically. In other words, they find a religion like Baha'i which leaves them entirely unfettered or, more to the point, their egos undiminished. So the leftist's reaction to Christians is much the same as his reaction to believing observant Jews, he is repelled. But he has not the same reaction to secular Jews or to secular Christians for the reasons set forth above.

This is why the left did not fear Bill Clinton no matter how big the Bible he toted out of church because they knew that he was only making broad his phylacteries for show. Likewise their reaction to Obama: they were always confident during the campaign that he supported the kind of religion which they would find tolerable because it made no assaults on the ego.

To extend the hypothesis, this is why leftists can be so murderous-because not only do they lack the restraints imposed by religion, they have perverted religion to the point that they have become God and their egos are utterly unrestrained. That is why I think Obama has the potential to get America into a very bloody war. I do not share the idea that he will conduct a foreign policy like Jimmy Carter's but on tranquilizers and shrink from confronting a threat to his own power. I believe Barack Obama fully capable as a narcissist to commit atrocities to keep alive the ego parasite within.

I believe the key to understanding Obama is the psychological need to play God.The mystery comes from his art in disguising his narcissism.

[wintertime]

I agree.

[newheart]

To extend the hypothesis, this is why leftists can be so murderous-because not only do they lack the restraints imposed by religion, they have perverted religion to the point that they have become God and their egos are utterly unrestrained. That is why I think Obama has the potential to get America into a very bloody war. I do not share the idea that he will conduct a foreign policy like Jimmy Carter's but on tranquilizers and shrink from confronting a threat to his own power. I believe Barack Obama fully capable as a narcissist to commit atrocities to keep alive the ego parasite within.

Well put, as always. As Horowitz explained so well in Radical Son, the problem with the left is that they have no concept of original sin and, therefore, cannot account for evil. Hence they deny evil (except in their enemies) and argue that all of our problems stem from 'misunderstanding.' Believing mightily in his own power of persuasion, Obama subscribes to the Rodney King school of foreign policy.

It is no surprise that Obama became a student of Alinsky. With his obvious lack of concern with constructive outcome and belief that the end (destruction of the current order so another order can somehow magically appear) justifies any means, Alinsky stands squarely in the line of philosophical narcissism exemplified best by Nietzsche: "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome."

We have seen the result of the application of Nietzschean narcissism in the political arena and it is not pretty but it may be inevitable.

To the point of this thread, it should come as no surprise that the media fails to report or fails to report accurately on events like the flag t-shirt fiasco in California. They share the mindset. Like Obama they have fallen prey to a timeless truth, "Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools." Thus they are utterly incapable of providing an objective view of such events because they really don't see the problem.

It follows that most of the press will be worthless in providing a check on Obama except insofar as they merely react to his arrogance and snubbing of them personally. You are right, Obama is no Carter. At least Carter had some residual restraint in his spirit based in growing up in the Church (as alien as that seems today). I am doubtful that Obama has that. I am concerned that as his policies fail he will resort to increasingly irrational action as any cornered narcissist would. If he fails to be re-elected we should very closely watch his activities from November to January. A President can do a lot of damage even without congressional consent. And if he is re-elected, then as Billy Budd ironically put it, "Farewell 'The Rights of Man'."

[Bob]

Concerning this bizarre controversy: I thought the high school students who complained about the American flags were themselves Americans of Mexican background.

Americans of Mexican background? That's not a very common point of view among the Mexican population in Gilroy,CA (just a bit south of Morgan Hill).

A tee shirt that I frequently see being worn has the words "Not Mexican-American", "Not Hispanic", and "Not Latino" with lines through them. At the bottom of the shirt, in larger letters with exclamation points is "Mexican!".

One of the phrases chanted by the students on Thursday as they marched was "Give It Back!", presumably meaning California and the entire southwest.

[nathanbedford]

Thank you indeed for a well conceived and articulate reply. I am especially struck by your references to Nietzsche which I had overlooked in my scratching around trying to find an explanation for why the left is what it is.

Your reference to Nietzsche gives me the excuse I need to revisit one of my favorite themes which is the influence of The Frankfurt School. Someday a political/cultural historian with the perspective of time will draw a straight line from Nietzsche through The Frankfurt School on to Cloward and Piven, connecting all to The Alinsky School, and finally culminating in Barack Obama. The influence of Nietzsche and the ultimate nihilism of The Frankfurt School are force multipliers in prying open the mind and the soul to the kind of narcissism which now inhabits the Oval Office.

I am going to exploit my excuse and lay out now and old post which sought to remind us of the path that got us here. I only wish I had started at Nietzsche as you did. Here is the old reply:

We are in a place in America today in which virtually every institution has been co-opted by the left. The infiltration is broad and deep and not one major institution has escaped. Our great universities, our teaching down through kindergarten, our great charitable foundations, our courts, and the guilds associated with the courts such as the American Bar Association, the establishment churches, like the United Church of Christ, the Girl Scouts, the League of Women Voters, Hollywood, the publishing industry, the advertising industry have not one of them escaped. This list is by no means complete and it is growing daily under the predacious appetite of the Obama administration which has swallowed whole our industries such as automobile, insurance, banking.

The administration marches from industry to industry and from conquest to conquest in a series of usurpations and intimidations which have effectively seized control and sometimes ownership of America's great industries. We have seen corruption in America before on a national scale in the administrations of Grant and Harding. We have even seen usurpations and intimidations and thuggery in America before but isolated to a local scale in places like Chicago and not federalized nationwide. If the Obama administration continues unchecked at its present pace it will have destroyed the fabric of our Great Experiment before it can be turned out of office.

I think the problem goes back to even before The Alinsky School to The Frankfurt School which was the precursor to the cultural subversion which has come to America and which found expression in Alinsky's school and political consummation in the election of Barack Obama. It is not by accident that all these institutions have fallen into the hands of the left. The left has generated a new eschatology, a whole new way of thinking, which rejects the logic and and culture that was the common or majority experience in America at least through the Eisenhower administration.

The Frankfurt school was explicitly created to undermine those institutions which tended to hinder the much desired triumph of communism. These included the nation state, the church, the family, and the "liberal" tradition in education. So they devised means to undermine patriotism and combined that with wholesale immigration as methods of undermining the nation state. They assaulted the churches and made expressions of Christianity in the public square either illegal or boorish, that is, politically incorrect. To undermine the family, they belittled the father, labeling him "authoritarian," derided paternalism, and encouraged abortion. They have had unimagined success in undermining our school system from kindergarten to postgraduate work. But these instances are but merely the symptoms and the venues of the dirty work.

The main problem that comes out of The Frankfurt School is that it changes the way we think. If one legitimatizes relativism then one can begin to talk about George Bush as the moral equivalent of Hitler. If one says that there is no such thing as historical reality, one has destroyed the very underpinnings of civilization. If one espouses and sells a "critical theory" one has made all other forms of analysis except downright cynicism look naïve and unworthy. Describing the methodology by which the The Frankfurt School "deconstructed" our epistemology is truly frightening.

The media invariably a half step ahead of society in this process behaves the way it does because that's the way it thinks and it thinks that way because that is the way it has been brought up. And all of this goes back to The Frankfurt School. [And now I might add, Nietzsche]

We are at a crisis in the moment because of the person of Barack Obama. We must bend every effort to prevent him from achieving the ultimate victory sought by The Frankfurt School and its disciples, Saul Alinsky, Cloward and Piven, William Ayers, and the rest. But if we survive this crisis we must then as patriotic conservatives undertake the restoration of "liberal" common sense and biblical morality (but not necessarily religiosity) to our culture. That means we have to change the way people think, the way they see the world, their whole value system. That is what has been done to us and if we do not undo it we will always be one election away from the next Barack Obama.

[newheart]

Good stuff, Nate.

For me, much of the modern zeitgeist traces back to Nietzsche. In truth it traces back to the Fall, but N. was one of the few thinkers who seemed to fully understand and embrace the implications of a world that tries to live with no reference or deference to God.

Many people get agitated when I suggest that there is no legitimate objective morality, ethics or ideal political system that can be constructed without the existence of God. But in reality, without an infinite, personal, transcendent and by definition, good, point of reference, all systems become purely subjective. Hence, the contemporary mantra, "Whatever works for you."

Subjectivity is the supreme value in the modern world, and it is the least tenable. It is both the core and the curse of human nature to 'know good and evil.' It is to play the usurper's role against God. Subjectivity and its handmaiden, relativism, may briefly satisfy the ego, but in the face of conflicting opinions, human interaction become reducible to a power struggle and might makes right. That is why we see the disingenuous call for more 'pure' democracy on the left. The idealists of the left see that might as exercised at the ballot box as long as they can establish, in advance, who votes and what messages the electorate sees. Those who are less idealistic openly admit to anticipating the exercise of that power 'through the barrel of a gun.' Without the constraint of a republic-an framework in which democracy can function, it is little more than mob rule.

Nietzsche, of course takes things a step beyond subjectivity into nihilism. Too few modern thinkers realize that is the road they are on. Add Dewey to your Frankfurt School list along with all those they have influenced and it is a wonder that the world has survived as long as it has without coming under a universal, totalitarian regime.

It is no surprise that someone like Obama rises to the top. However, while I am completely convinced of his narcissism, I am less convinced of his motivation. I am radically opposed to his policies and his vision for the nation and the world, but I seldom doubt that he is doing what he believes to be right. But then it may be that belief in his own 'rightness' that makes him all the more dangerous.

[nathanbedford]

I think you have got the truth of it. Let me burden you with one more reply, this time a vanity, lengthy but it is offered as an illustration of your premise that can be seen clearly in Justice Ginsburg's opinion. Not an offhand remark, but a considered and thoroughly vetted dissent expressing views that she held so vehemently that she took the very usual step of reading the opinion from the bench. This is what it all leads to.

Here is the vanity:

The monotone dragged on utterly unrelieved by a variation of range or pitch, witticism, or any evidence of emotion, much less passion, when I was electrified by a sudden flash of insight: Professor Ginsburg is pregnant! How did I know? It was not obvious, it was not detectable by the eye, but I just knew it! And so it was by starting a pool on Ruthie "Remedies" Ginsburg's condition and ultimate delivery date, I was able somewhat to relieve the excruciating boredom of her lectures. Although I was the first to mark her condition, I did not win the pool.

As Casey comprehended, at stake in cases challenging abortion restrictions is a woman’s “control over her [own] destiny.” 505 U. S., at 869 (plurality opinion). See also id., at 852 (majority opinion)....

Note carefully, Justice Ginsburg is plowing the ground here to establish a moral claim to abortion preliminary to customary legal arguments based on precedent etc. She is clearly personally upset by the majority opinion and she explicitly says so in deploring the majority's use of descriptive phrases which failed to show abortionists proper respect. I believe this is an emotional reaction because Justice Ginsburg feels threatened- and rightly so-but not vicariously on behalf of physicians who can't get proper respect from Justice Kennedy.

Let us a depart for a moment from Justice Ginsburg and take note of an astonishing portion of the majority opinion ( the reader should be warned that the following quoted passages of Justice Kennedy are extremely graphic):

Haskell explained the next step as follows:

“ ‘At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).

“ ‘While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

“ ‘[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

“ ‘The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.’ ” H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, p. 3 (2003).

This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“ ‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms-everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus… .

“ ‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.

“ ‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp… .

“ ‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’ ” Ibid.

At a stroke of the pen, Justice Kennedy has just put Ruth Ginsberg on the wrong side of baby killing. After four decades, at long last the Supreme Court of the United States of America is beginning to come to grips with the grotesque moral consequences of its own opinions. No wonder Justice Ginsburg is upset. How in the world can she climb to the moral high ground in the wake of this god awful description?

What she does in its way is even more appalling, more frightening, then the description cited by Justice Kennedy which we just read. What is her path to the moral high ground? We have already quoted her opening proposition:As Casey comprehended, at stake in cases challenging abortion restrictions is a woman’s “control over her [own] destiny.” Note, Justice Ginsburg does not tell us that what is "at stake" in these cases is a woman's life. She does not tell us that it is her health which is at stake (although she will argue later along those lines, but here, where she's establishing a moral case she does not argue life or health). She does not tell us that it is the elusive constitutional right of privacy which must be preserved. She does not tell us that what is at stake is "a woman's control" over her own body . Rather, she says that were fighting over a woman's right to control her own destiny .

The choice of this word is not accidental and it is not used generically to encompass issues of constitutional right, privilege, health and physical survival. Justice Ginsburg defines what she means:

“There was a time, not so long ago,” when women were “regarded as the center of home and family life, with attendant special responsibilities that precluded full and independent legal status under the Constitution.” Id., at 896-897 (quoting Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U. S. 57, 62 (1961) ). Those views, this Court made clear in Casey, “are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution.” 505 U. S., at 897. Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right “to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.” Id., at 856. Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to “their ability to control their reproductive lives.” Ibid. Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature. See, e.g., Siegel, Reasoning from the Body: A Historical Perspective on Abortion Regulation and Questions ofEqual Protection, 44 Stan. L. Rev. 261 (1992); Law, Rethinking Sex and the Constitution,132 U. Pa. L. Rev. 955, 1002-1028 (1984).

There you have it, Justice Ginsburg justifies breaking open a baby's skull and sucking out its brains so that is mother can get a job ("participate equally in the economic... life of the nation") or get dates ("to participate equally in the... social life of the nation"). Lay this down next to the description presented by Justice Kennedy and one starkly sees why Justice Ginsburg's worldview is not only appalling, but frightening.

Can this woman, this mother, actually believe that it is a higher moral good to kill a baby for career advancement? Having endured the grinding boredom of attending lectures three hours a week for a year from Justice Ginsburg about 40 years ago, I can personally confirm that she is one of the coldest fish who ever swam in the chill waters of moral relativism. Otherwise, I cannot answer the question.

There is, however, another clue in the quoted portion of her opinion which, significantly, is where she feels compelled to set forth the overarching moral justification for abortion. Quoting Casey she says "Their [women's] ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to' their ability to control their reproductive lives.”' Is not a reasonable man (okay a reasonable woman too-the phrase is used in its generic sense) entitled to ask, in a reproductive process that consumes nine months, from seduction to birth, at what point does the woman need to exercise "control?" Could she have evaded the seduction? Could she have been on the pill? Could she have provided a condom? Could she have taken a morning after pill? Could she have simply kept her knees together? Could she have planned her pregnancy and her career more intelligently- as Justice Goldberg evidently did in her own life about 40 years ago? Could she not have worked it out with her employer? Could she put the baby up for adoption? In this nine-month and longer period of time are there no other points of intervention in which a pregnant woman can “control her reproductive life” except during the last minutes counting down to a healthy birth?

When compared to the moral catastrophe of dismemberment of a baby, the choices of this apocryphal woman are feckless in the extreme. (So hapless is such an apocryphal woman that one is compelled to challenge the cited "finding" in Casey Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right “to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.” -What talent? What capacity? Why would any employer want such a loser? Cannot such a "talented" woman make better choices? ) Why does Justice Goldberg exalt this choice over everything else? Why is it necessary to dismember babies?

I do not attack Justice Ginsburg for her intellectual acuity. I concede that she has as fine a mind as now sits on the court, Justice Scalia himself not excepted. She will go on in her dissent to cogently argue issues of the woman's health but it no longer carries the same weight. The debate on abortion has now forever changed. Justice Ginsburg's moral compass has been exposed as having no true North. With ultrasound providing the visual confirmation of Justice Kennedy's description, we have moved to a new point of departure. Justice Ginsburg will carry on to the bitter end, living in her 1960s world of extreme feminism and seeing the whole world through the prism of the ACLU but she will no longer set the terms of the debate.

I vividly recall inwardly cringing and writhing every time President Bill Clinton alluded to his nomination of Ruth Ginsberg to the Supreme Court with a goofy look of triumph on his face as he pointed to her as a credit to his administration. She was there because she was a feminist and she was female. Ultimately, and I mean only after decades, history will judge her as it judges Janet Reno, who occupied her place for the same shallow reasons. Let her be enshrined by the Clintons as the woman who "did it all" with both career and children-presumably without resort to abortion-, nevertheless in the fullness of time, the juridical epitaph for Justice Ginsburg will be that political correctness is no substitute for The Fear of God.