Sex and Civilization

Human nature has many components but it’s safe to say that the drive to reproduce is easily the strongest.  That, of course, only makes sense.  Without it, the human species would not have survived after the creation of Adam and Eve.

Yet like every trait, it has its negative as well as positive aspects.  Ancient civilizations – to modern have struggled to control its excesses and confine its exercise to positive ends defined usually as serving the needs of children with in a family structure… monogamous in the Western world.

But, historically, civilizing sexual relations has hardly met with unmitigated success.  Still, broad swaths of mankind have followed the restraints imposed by their particular societies; those resisting generally were ostracized (at least publicly).

So now it’s 2017 in America and it seems as though the dam of restraints on sexual misconduct has collapsed as the River of Improprieties carrying Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Roy Moore, etc. cascades down a ravine.

What happened?  Has such conduct (ranging from verbal harassment to serious non-consensual sexual contact) simply been present to the same extent as it always has but now is receiving more publicity?  Certainly the prominent allegations concern not recent activities, but go back a decade or more.

Nonetheless, it’s worth noting – perhaps persuasively so – that the weakened civilizing aspects of our society pertaining to sexual mores may bear some, if not the bulk of, responsibility.

Let me be blunt – it is the male – far more than the female – who is inclined to take advantage of the opposite sex.  Thus, it is the male who has felt the societal restraints most keenly. 

Without doubt, restraints have loosened in recent decades.

                   *** Extra marital sex has exploded.

*** Marriage rates, formally the only acceptable setting for sexual relations, have declined dramatically as often temporary co-habitation arrangements are on the increase.

*** Birth control pills have removed concerns over unwanted pregnancies, making many more willing participants in what used to be termed illicit sex.

*** The popular view that women are on the same sexual plane is now making females more vulnerable to men who, by nature, are more aggressive.

And we wonder that men – some, at least – are out of control?

Does the phrase “unintended consequences” come to mind?

 

Fox News Displays Shortcomings on Steinle Verdict Coverage

Several key Fox News personalities (Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram, among others) castigated the San Francisco jury for its acquittal of an illegal alien on murder charges.

In 2015, a young woman Kate Steinle, was shot and killed while walking along a tourist area beside the Bay.  The gun was fired by convicted felon Jose Zarate who had previously been deported from the United States five separate times. 

The Fox News commentators generally went ballistic, incredulous that the shooter hadn’t been convicted of murder (although he was convicted of illegal gun possession).  Motives for the verdict were attributed to left-wing bias, San Francisco’s “sanctuary city bias”, and sending a message of  disapproval to President Trump re his immigration policies. 

What wasn’t credited was the possibility that the jury had “reasonable doubt” as to the killer’s intent when the trigger was pulled.  That consideration is, after all, at the heart of America’s criminal justice system.  The prosecution has the burden of proof that there is no “reasonable doubt”.  If there is, the law mandates acquittal.  That’s the consequence of the legal principle that the defendant is presumed innocent unless evidence is presented which meets this level of proof.  That is the American way.

The defense was that the killing was accidental.  There was no intent to shoot the gun.  Certainly, there was no evidence of a motive, such as robbery,

Yet the conservatives’ condemnation stressed that a “bad person” who should not have been in the U.S. escaped justice.  The “sanctuary city” policy of San Francisco was responsible along with the jury.

But that view blurs a critical distinction.  Although San Francisco bears responsibility for the fact that the killing occurred (Zarate should have been in Federal custody beforehand), the defendant had the right to a trial with all the safeguards our system of justice requires.  It is certainly appropriate to blame San Francisco policies for the Steinle death.  But that doesn’t mean that her killer, even as a convicted felon with a horrible immigration record, should have been convicted of murder (requiring either intent or recklessness).

The Fox News personnel should have known better.  Some were lawyers by education who certainly did.
It would appear that for Fox News, in this instance, scoring political points mattered more than intellectual honesty.  (Or maybe the analyses were simply sloppy or ill-informed.  That’s hardly complimentary, either.)

The shame is that for fellow conservatives like me, Fox News displayed hypocrisy by engaging in distortions for which liberal outlets are rightly attacked.

That  exposes us to the criticism that “our” media is no more reliable than “theirs”.

 

Making Sense of Donald Trump

It’s really not hard to do if one accepts the view that the character and personality of a person are set early in life – with rare exceptions (Saul on the road to Damascus two millennia ago is one of those).

Donald Trump comes from New York City.  For nearly seventy years, his identity was anchored there.  His friends were Wall Street and fellow real estate tycoons.  His personality demanded recognition of his importance and success in the environment.  In that heavily liberal town, he sought favor by contributing to those politicians who held sway and were perceived to be possible instruments of his ever greater quest for success.  Thus, the likes of Hillary Clinton on down became beneficiaries of his largess.  And, of course, he publically cast his lot with the Democratic Party.

But don’t misunderstand.  Mr. Trump is no liberal.  In fact, he’s apolitical.  If his center of activity were in conservative Dallas, instead of New York City, it’s doubtful that Hillary Clinton would have received so much as a dime.

After all, the President makes clear that what he wants, above all else, is to “win”.  What he wins is not the objective.  He simply wants to be on the “winning side” of whatever conflict there might be and bask in the applause that accompanies the victor.

Thus he’s glad as can be that, a few days ago, the U.S. Senate passed the tax reform bill he endorsed.

But don’t forget that last summer he sang a very different tune when repeal of Obamacare failed.  That caused the President to lose faith in the GOP majority Congress’s ability to win for him.  So he reached an accord with Democratic Congressional leaders “Chuck (Schumer) and Nancy (Pelosi)”.  (Trump took no time in referring to his new allies by their first names.)

Their agreement was to extend the debt limit for only three months and authorized hurricane aid. 

Republican Congressional leaders were aghast.  They wanted an eighteen month respite, which would be after next year’s elections, before having to deal with the troublesome issue.  Further,  Republicans were also highly displeased that Trump made his decision without first consulting GOP leadership on Capitol Hill.

Sorry.  The choice of Trump’s new partners should not have been shocking.  The nearly life-long Democrat wasn’t exactly being disloyal to his new party.  His conduct pre - and post election has made clear his lack of allegiance to traditional GOP members and their politics.  Rather, his conduct and words going back decades suggests a sense of loyalty limited to himself.

Certain Trump apologists prominent in the Conservative movement (such as Newt Gingrich and Laura Ingram) have excused his pact with Democratic Party leaders as an isolated act generated by special concerns, hence not to be repeated.

To The Sensible Conservative, that line of thought places wishful thinking ahead of sensibility.  Remember, Trump’s history makes clear that “winning” is his end-all, be-all.  Ultimately his answers to questions of public policy are confined to a single consideration - which side will win.  He’ll be on it.  Considerations of the best policy, ideological consistency or loyalty are irrelevant.