Bravo, Martina!

Bravo, Martina!

Hopefully, more will stand against this lunacy. (I wouldn't even go so far as to use his/her/its/their/thex/...? preferred pronoun.)

Donald Trump: spawn of Obama

Trump's decision to try to build the wall by declaring a national emergency is just as bad as Obama's various attempts to circumvent regular constitutional channels through executive order.

Right after Trump got elected, I wrote:

In trying to work their mischief, these Democrats have honed powerful new tools like executive orders, international agreements without the force of treaties, the nuclear option (which ends the filibuster and undermines bipartisan comity in the Senate), the reconciliation process, and substantive due process. The Democrats may now argue that the Republicans should refrain from using these tools (and they may be right). But, it must always be remembered that it was ruthless Democrats who first perfected their use. What incentive do Republicans now have to refrain from using these tools when they know that Democrats like the absolutely shameless Harry Reid, if they return to power, will not hesitate to take these tools up again?

Trump's decision to declare a national emergency is just another step away from the normal legislative processes and constitutional procedures that should govern our country. As Nancy Pelosi has already recognized, future Democratic presidents will now be able to use the precedent Trump has established and declare emergencies of their own to achieve their own policy goals. Why should Democrats refrain from using a declaration of emergency if Republicans have used it successfully?

I support The Donald's attempts to build the wall. Nevertheless, I hope the courts block his declaration of emergency, which, like Obama's executive orders, reeks of tyranny:

Within hours of the fire [destroying the Reichstag], dozens of Communists had been thrown into jail. The next day, officials in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior, which was led by Hermann Göring, discussed ways to provide legal cover for the arrests. Ludwig Grauert, the chief of the Prussian state police, proposed an emergency presidential decree under Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which gave the president the power to take any measure necessary to protect public safety without the consent of the Reichstag. It would have suspended most civil liberties under the pretense of preventing further Communist violence. There had already been discussions within the Cabinet about enacting such measures. Justice Minister Franz Gürtner, a member of the Nazis' coalition partner, the German National People's Party (DNVP), had actually brought a draft decree before the cabinet on the afternoon of 27 February. When the proposed decree was brought before the Reich Cabinet, Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick, the only Nazi in the cabinet who had a portfolio, added a clause that would allow the cabinet to take over the state governments if they failed to maintain order. Notably, the cabinet would have been allowed to do this on its own authority. Frick was well aware that the Interior portfolio had been given to the Nazis because it was almost powerless; unlike his counterparts in the rest of Europe, he had no power over the police. He saw a chance to extend his power over the states and thus begin the process of Nazifying the country. At an emergency cabinet meeting, Hitler declared that the fire now made it a matter of "ruthless confrontation of the KPD"--a confrontation that could not be "made dependent on judicial considerations." Though Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen objected to the clause giving the Reich cabinet the power to take over the state governments if necessary, the decree was approved. Shortly thereafter, President von Hindenburg signed the decree into law. [from the Wikipedia article about the Reichstag Decree with emphasis added]

Donald, Obama was wrong to use executive orders. Your declaration of emergency is also the wrong tool to use.

AOC has guaranteed her defeat in 2020

In a few short weeks in office, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has all but guaranteed she will lose her seat in Congress in 2020.

Here are a few relevant considerations.

First, in her Green New Deal AOC has proposed that all jet travel in the continental United States be replaced by high-speed rail at the very moment that Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor of California, the most liberal state in the nation, just applied the brakes to the plan to build a high-speed rail connection between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Said Newsom in his State of the State address:

Next, let’s level about high speed rail. I have nothing but respect for Governor Brown’s and Governor Schwarzenegger’s ambitious vision. I share it. And there’s no doubt that our state’s economy and quality of life depend on improving transportation. But let’s be real. The project, as currently planned, would cost too much and take too long. There’s been too little oversight and not enough transparency. Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to L.A. I wish there were.

The fact that Newsom is pulling back from high-speed rail is a clear indication that, in spite of all the good intentions of green politicians, a significant commitment to high-speed rail in the United States is simply not economically feasible. And yet, AOC persists in naively promoting this boondoggle that even her most liberal brethren are now backing away from.

Second, AOC has been taking calls from Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the British Labor Party and well-known anti-Semite, while at the same time representing a Congressional district in a metropolitan area well-known for its large Jewish population.

And now comes her opposition to Amazon. According to Quinnipiac, 55 percent of Queens residents were in favor of the tax incentive package to bring Amazon to Queens versus 39 percent who were opposed. When Amazon decided not to come to Queens after encountering the fierce opposition of such politicians as AOC and Democratic State Senator Mike Gianaris, the twit AOC tweeted:

Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world.

Worker exploitation? Did you pull that from your copy of the Cliff Notes for Das Kapital? We are talking AMZN here! Even if they are not union members, their workers are probably among the most fairly compensated employees in the world. Besides, AOC, it is highly probable that all of AMZN's buildings would have been LEED compliant, giving your congressional district a head start in making all the buildings in America energy efficient, per your Green New Deal. You could have crowed that you supported the employer who was bringing well-paying green jobs to Queens. But nooooooooooooo! Instead you had to go all "19th century worker exploitation" on Jeff Bezos.

Here's a description from today's WSJ of the reaction of some of those "everyday New Yorkers" to the socialist workers paradise AOC has created by opposing Amazon's HQ2:

Developers with office space in Long Island jockeyed to attract the thousands of workers that were expected, and local residents cheered the promise that new restaurants, fashion boutiques and other new stores would flood the retail-starved neighborhood. Now, suddenly, much of the euphoria is evaporating. ... Elijah Kliger ... said he was considering cutting up to 15 jobs from his business plan. “This is going to be devastating,” he said. “The retail corridors of Long Island City have just showed signs of life. This puts the kibosh on the activity that has been happening."

In the old days, constituents used to cheer when their congressperson brought home the bacon, a new air force base, say, or a new IRS processing facility. Well, AOC just chased the bacon away.

In 2020, another liberal Democrat will run in 14th NY District and remind disgruntled voters of all these considerations, causing AOC to join Beto O'Rourke among the ranks of the most famous ex-Congresspeople alive. If I were that liberal Democrat in the 14th District, I would start campaigning right now! Remind the people that AOC represents not the bright new future of clean high-tech jobs in the 21st century, but the tired old economically infeasible socialist politics, unions, and anti-Semitism of the 19th.

AOC, you have been too busy traveling around the country playing the media darling to pay attention to the real welfare and wishes of your constituents. Your 15 minutes of fame are up.

My partner has come out, too, as a femme homosexual transgender man

In my previous blog post, I described that I have come out as the butch lesbian transgender woman that I am. When I finally worked up the courage to inform my partner, Nancy, of this, she said that she, too, had some news for me.

Because she has a vagina, the sex that was assigned to her at birth, against her consent, was female. But, over the years she has come to realize that she self-identifies her gender as male, that she is a homosexual male, preferring sex with other men, that she likes to dress and wear her hair in an effeminate way (as many other drag queens do), and that she prefers the pronouns "she/hers/her." In sum, she, too, is not a heterosexual female, but a femme homosexual transgender man.

What a relief for both of us, after all these years, to be able to truly acknowledge our inner selves to each other.

I am not guy, but a butch lesbian transgender woman

In an earlier blog post, I came out as guy, or heterosexual male. After recently reading Ryan T. Anderson's book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, I have realized that my sexual identity is quite a bit more nuanced than that and I will attempt to explain it here.

As a preface, let me refer to California's recently enacted Senate Bill 826, which mandates that publicly-held corporations put females on their boards. This bill defines the term "female" as follows:

“Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.

Because I have a penis, my sex was designated at birth (without my consent, I might add) as male. Over the years, however, I have come to realize that I self-identify my gender as a woman. That is, I am a transgender woman. More precisely, I have come to realize that I self-identify as a lesbian transgender woman, that is, I am a woman who has a sexual preference for other women. And, as is the case with many lesbians, I prefer to express my gender by wearing butch clothing and cutting my hair short. Being butch, I also prefer to be referred to with the pronouns "he/him/his" and to use men's restrooms. In sum, I have realized that I am not guy (that is, heterosexual male), after all. Rather I am a butch lesbian transgender woman. I should also note that, as a butch lesbian transgender woman, I do not wish to have my penis and testicles removed through gender affirmation surgery because I prefer to use my original equipment instead of being forced to use a dildo strap, as my non-transgender butch lesbian sisters are forced to do. Finally, let me clarify that I use the term "transgender woman" as an aid to the reader only. In reality, I find the term "transgender woman" demeaning since it implies that I am not fully woman, which I am.

In sum, although previously I mistakenly thought of myself as a man, I have now realized I am a butch lesbian transgender woman (a BLTW). As a BLTW with over 30 years experience in the software industry, I hereby declare myself qualified and available to serve on the boards of directors of California high-tech companies.

Partisan attorneys general demand impartiality

All 18 of the state attorneys general who signed a letter to Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker demanding that he recuse himself from any role in overseeing the Mueller investigation are Democrats. Their letter solemnly intones:

Because a reasonable person could question your impartiality in the matter, your recusal is necessary to maintain public trust in the integrity of the investigation and to protect the essential and longstanding independence of the Department you have been chosen to lead, on an acting basis.

So, these attorneys general have the audacity to call into question the impartiality of Whitaker at the same time that the fact that all 18 of them are Democrats clearly indicates that their letter is nothing more than just another example of rank Democratic partisanship.

The Democrats' attempts to weaponize the American judicial system, now, the offices of 18 state attorneys general, against the Trump administration are only intensifying.

The frisson of revulsion and the palimpsest of nature

These days we see more and more ads, television shows, and movies that portray homosexuals embracing, kissing, and engaging in other acts of intimacy. I am a heterosexual and, every time I see one of these portrayals, a shudder of disgust -- I think of it as a frisson of revulsion -- passes through my body. I am sure that most people would classify this frisson as homophobia, a response that in this day and age is almost universally condemned as morally repugnant and evil.

These reflections prompted me to ask the following question: Is this sense of revulsion a part of my nature or has it simply been inculcated in me by the cultural environment in which I was raised. This is, of course, the age-old question of: Nature vs. Nurture. If my feelings of revulsion are not part of my nature, but have merely been inculcated in me by the way in which I was nurtured (i.e., raised), then it should be possible, by changing the way I am nurtured, to correct them. Perhaps if I were to submit myself conscientiously and in good faith to the reeducation camps of modern progressive liberalism, I could be purged of all such feelings and my thinking "corrected." The blank slate in my soul on which my upbringing wrote all the bad instructions that cause my frisson could be wiped clean and I would be restored to pristine goodness, rehabilitated as a kind of non-homophobic noble savage.

If these feelings are, in fact, simply culturally determined, I am even willing to consider the possibility that I have become so inveterately habituated by my environment to responding in this morally repugnant and evil way that it is effectively impossible to change me and that the only way the world will become a better place is when I and the cohort of people like me perish from the face of the earth. Sentiments of this kind often take something like the form: "The world will be a better place when all those old, white, heterosexuals die off." In fact, if one follows this train of thought to its logical conclusion, one might be inclined to argue that it is actually better for society to take preemptive action to cleanse itself of people like me in the public interest (kind of the way liberals fantasize about improving the world by killing off all the "deplorables"). If the reeducation camp doesn't work, the extermination camp will. Either way, if my frisson is culturally determined, that would seem to imply that it will be possible someday and somehow to reeducate or exterminate our way to a brave new world in which no heterosexual will ever feel a frisson of revulsion when he or she encounters homosexuality. The dawning of this brave new world will be one more example of "liberal progress" and another degree on Obama's inevitable moral arc of history.

But these considerations prompted several further questions in my mind: Isn't my frisson of revulsion at homosexuality simply a somewhat extreme manifestation of my preference for heterosexuality. Or, expressed conversely, isn't my sexual preference for heterosexuality simply a mild, attenuated form of my frisson of revulsion at homosexuality? And: if my frisson of revulsion and my preference for heterosexuality are essentially two manifestations of the same thing and my frisson is morally repugnant and evil, then, isn't my sexual preference for heterosexuality morally repugnant and evil, too? And, finally: if it is true that my frisson of revulsion at homosexuality is culturally determined, then, why would it not also be the case that the sexual preference I feel is a mere cultural construct, too, and in no way an unalterable part of my nature, something merely inculcated in me by my cultural environment, but in no way an unchangeable feature of my being? If that were the case, then, hypothetically, sexual preferences could likewise be effaced, and our brave new world might eventually consist of humans who not only feel no frissons of revulsion at homosexuality but also do not have any sexual preferences whatsoever and are perfectly indifferent to whether they engage in homosexual or heterosexual couplings. In fact, the categories "homosexual" and "heterosexual" would disappear, mere cultural constructs erased by correct ratiocination.

The absurdity of this hypothesis, however, (there are those who actually believe it is true) suggested to me that perhaps my frisson of revulsion is not a cultural construct after all. Rather, my weak mind is forced to conclude, the most likely explanation is that my frisson is somehow connected to my sexual preference, both of which are part of my human nature, which is itself determined primarily by the bi-modal distribution of the biological sexes in humans. But, if my frisson is simply a part of my human nature, I find it difficult to understand how it can be morally repugnant and evil. I happen to be guy (that is, a representative of the one mode), and that's all there is to it. But, if that is the case, then it will never be possible to create the brave new world free of frissons of revulsion because any attempt to purge these morally repugnant and evil frissons will simply be an attempt to deny human nature. Seen in this light, the closest analogy to the reeducation camps of modern progressive liberalism (and the extermination camps they logically entail) are the reeducation camps of China's Cultural Revolution or the tribunals of Jacobin France.

Whenever I consider issues like these I am reminded of the metaphor of the palimpsest. A palimpsest is a page from a medieval manuscript from which the old text has been scraped or washed off so that new text can be written on it. Perhaps my soul (or personality, if you prefer) is like a medieval manuscript that needs to be scraped clean. That is, if my frisson of revulsion is merely a cultural construct, then, it should be possible to scrape or wash off this construct from my soul and replace it with a text of new moral instructions that cause me to respond "correctly" to homosexuality. But, what if it is the finger of nature that has written these things, indelibly, on the page of my soul and humans are vainly attempting to expunge and write over them? In that case, the underlying text written by nature will always continue to seep back through to the surface (as often happens with real palimpsests) and reappear.

Is it possible to expunge the texts written by nature?

Update:

In his article Biological Limits of Gender Construction, the late sociologist J. Richard Udry, stated:

If [societies] depart too far from the underlying sex-dimorphism of biological predispositions, they will generate social malaise and social pressures to drift back toward closer alignment with biology. A social engineering program to degender society would require a Maoist approach: continuous renewal of revolutionary resolve and tolerance for conflict. [emphasis added]

I note that Udry's remark that societies will "drift back toward closer alignment with biology" is the equivalent of my metaphor of the palimpsest in which "the underlying text written by nature will always continue to seep back through to the surface" and that Udry's characterization of the program required to degender society as "Maoist" is the equivalent of my observation that "the closest analogy to the reeducation camps of modern progressive liberalism (and the extermination camps they logically entail) are the reeducation camps of China's Cultural Revolution or the tribunals of Jacobin France." I do not claim, of course, that Udry's article supports the views expressed in this blog post, only that it is interesting to note that the same metaphors occurred to both of us.