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.

Pipe bomb update

In related news, Michael Avenatti announced today that Julie Swetnick saw Brett Kavanaugh and a gang of his friends make bombs by the punchbowl at parties when they were both young.

The pipe bombs are the work of Democratic agents provocateurs

Were the pipe bombs sent out by Fusion GPS, with payment coming from the DNC and funneled through Perkins, Coie?

And is Corey "Spartacus" Booker pissed off because he didn't get one, since it would have ratified his membership in good standing as a member of the "Resistance?"

Seriously, take a look at this photo and ask yourself if this is the work of someone with a serious intent to harm a political figure. Rather, these bombs have all the earmarks of the work of agents provocateurs.

Timothy McVeigh rescued a floundering Bill Clinton by bombing the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

I'm betting that now some crazy member of Antifa is trying to create a "McVeigh effect" right before the mid-term elections to boost flagging Democratic polling numbers.

Muori, Donaldo damnato!

Nancy and I saw Puccini's Tosca at SF Opera tonight. I enjoyed it tremendously. My admiration for Puccini grows and grows. Verdi is God, but, with Tosca, Puccini approaches Verdi. And Puccini does it in such a different way. Puccini is so much more modern than Verdi. With Tosca, the music and the drama are inextricably intertwined in a way they never are in Verdi. As you listen to the music of Tosca, mirroring the dramatic action and accentuating the moods of the characters (so unlike the arias in Verdi, those complex and highly structured exercises in musical-beauty-existing-for-its-own-sake), you understand why every great movie has a great soundtrack.

And then, there is the thoroughly modern flavor of the role of Scarpia, the Chief of Police in Tosca, whose greatest pleasures in life are torture, rape, and endless, shameless, perfidious chicanery and manipulation. Scarpia is the prototype of every fascist, SS officer, and secret policeman of the 20th century. The entire opera can be viewed as an extended musical reflection on fascism and "The Resistance" to it. I don't think any other music has ever been written that captures as effectively as the End of Act II the desperate resolve to which a person can be driven when cornered by fascism. Tosca has agreed to surrender to Scarpia's lust in exchange for Scarpia freeing Tosca's lover, Cavaradossi. But, then the music grows dark, sad, and tortured as Tosca sees a knife lying on the table and realizes she has made a compact she can never keep. She conceals the knife in her clothing, and, as Scarpia triumphantly approaches to deflower her, plunges it into him, and then stands over him and exclaims "Questo è il bacio di Tosca! Ti suffoca il sangue? Muori, damnato! Muori! Muori! Muori!" ("There's Tosca's kiss for you! Are you choking on your blood? Die, damn you! Die! Die! Die!").

The only downside to the evening was the thoroughly predictable Director's Note in the program, which attempted in veiled terms to draw a comparison between Scarpia and Trump. One gets the impression that San Francisco views this year's production of Tosca as its own contribution to the Trump-as-Tyrant-being-assassinated genre. You could almost hear the audience members hissing to themselves "Muori, Donaldo damnato!" Even so, a thoroughly enjoyable evening with Puccini.

Females and Indians on corporate boards

Jeff Harding has written an excellent blog post on California's recently enacted Senate Bill 826, which mandates that publicly-held corporations put females on their boards.

One thing Jeff does not discuss is how the term "female" is defined in the bill:

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

Does that mean that I, who, last time I looked, have all the "earmarks" of a male, can count as one of the women on a board if I simply choose to self-identify as a woman? But, if the only logical qualification for being defined as a "female" is that I self-identify as such, then isn't the entire purpose of the bill, which is to add to boards the different perspectives and management approaches of females, vitiated?

Here is a related question: If California should ever mandate that other groups, such as "blacks" or "latinos," be represented on corporate boards, then, would it be enough for me to self-identify as black or a latino to qualify? Alternatively, how much "black or latino dna" (if there is such a thing) would I need to have in order to qualify? For example, if the California legislature required American Indians to be represented on boards, would Elizabeth Warren, whose DNA shows evidence of Native American DNA from six to 10 generations ago, qualify as an American Indian?

These are examples of the ludicrous questions that this kind of identity politics leads us to.

As an aside, there was one sentence from Jeff's blog post that struck me in particular, a quote from an abstract of an article by Alice Eagly, a professor of psychology at Northwestern:

Rather than ignoring or furthering distortions of scientific knowledge to fit advocacy goals, scientists should serve as honest brokers who communicate consensus scientific findings to advocates and policy makers in an effort to encourage exploration of evidence‐based policy options.

Amen! If only we all would adopt this sentence as a foundational principle, the world would be a much better place. Of course, a second foundational principle would need to be that advocates and policy makers should follow and be guided by "consensus scientific findings."

Affirmative consent in Victorian times

This evening I was reflecting on the concept of affirmative consent and on how much energy is being spent these days on devising mechanisms whereby partners can signal their affirmative consent to a sexual liaison. I found it interesting to learn that there are even suggestions that sex education classes include instruction on how partners may obtain affirmative consent from each other.

Suddenly, the following proposal for a foolproof 3-step mechanism for obtaining affirmative consent sprang into my mind:

1. the young man seeks the hand of the young woman from her father (this step is perhaps optional);
2. if the father approves, the young man proposes to the young woman;
3. if the young woman accepts, the young man and young woman engage in a public ceremony, presided over and sanctioned by a respected member of the community, whereby they officially signal to the general public that they consent to engage in exclusive sexual relations with each other.

Oh wait! Silly me! This mechanism for obtaining affirmative consent is called "marriage" and it's just how things used to work in the old days before we all became sexually enlightened and liberated.

The only reason why we need to devise mechanisms for signaling affirmative consent and to teach them in sex education classes is because we have discarded the traditional mechanisms that used to work so well.

Perhaps those Victorians weren't so benighted after all.

UPDATE:

Heather Mac Donald has assessed the situation correctly. In a recent interview in WSJ with Jillian Jay Melchior, Mac Donald discussed the topic of affirmative consent:

She similarly thinks conservatives miss the point when they focus on the due-process infirmities of campus sexual-misconduct tribunals. She doesn’t believe there’s a campus “rape epidemic,” only a lot of messy, regrettable and mutually degrading hookups. “To say the solution to all of this is simply more lawyering up is ridiculous because this is really, fundamentally, about sexual norms.”

Society once assumed “no” was women’s default response to sexual propositions. “That put power in the hands of females,” Ms. Mac Donald says. “You didn’t have to bargain every time you didn’t want to have sex. The male had to bargain you into yes. But you could say no, and you didn’t have to exhaust yourself.” Sexual liberationists claimed men and women were alike, and chivalry and feminine modesty were oppressive. “Now, the default for premarital sex is yes,” Ms. Mac Donald says. “That gives enormous power to the male libido” at the expense of women.

The #MeToo movement is one reflection of this reality, but so is the growing realization that consensual sex isn’t always healthy sex. To get back to the “no” default, students are “inviting adults back into the bedroom to write rules that read like a mortgage contract,” Ms. Mac Donald says. Young women, meanwhile, are learning “to redefine their experience as a result of the patriarchy, whereas, in fact, it’s a result of sexual liberation.” [emphasis added]

Burke recognized the same destructive forces at work in the French Revolution as have been at work in our sexual revolution:

All the decent drapery of life is to be rudely torn off. All the super-added ideas, furnished from the wardrobe of a moral imagination, which the heart owns, and the understanding ratifies, as necessary to cover the defects of our naked shivering nature and to raise it to dignity in our own estimation, are to be exploded as a ridiculous, absurd, and antiquated fashion ... When antient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated. From that moment we have no compass to govern us; nor can we know distinctly to what port we steer.

The traditional prohibitions against casual, pre-marital, promiscuous sex -- prohibitions that constituted the decent drapery of life, furnished from the wardrobe of the moral imagination -- were exploded by the sexual revolution as so much ridiculous, absurd, and antiquated fashion. But, once these prohibitions had been eliminated and a new age of "sexual liberation and enlightenment" had dawned, men and women found that they no longer had any moral compass to guide them and women were left exposed, naked and shivering and without defense, in the face of the enormous power of the male libido. Unsurprisingly -- almost necessarily -- what has ensued are the messy, regrettable and mutually degrading hookups that are the defining characteristic of life on our campuses today. To remedy this situation, we now have calls for the new rules of affirmative consent to be re-introduced, which conceptualize sex not as a romantic and erotic act, but as a business contract. But, these contractual rules would never have been needed if the traditional prohibitions and the practice of such cultural norms as modesty, chivalry, and shame had not been jettisoned.