The Bookworm Beat 2/23/16 — the “I hate doing taxes” edition and open thread

Woman writingI’m going to my quite delightful accountant tonight, so I finally buckled down and analyzed the tax-relevant Quicken data for last year. It was a painful and unpleasant process. No matter how careful I think I am entering data over the year, I always discover so many mistakes when it’s time to make the report for her. Sigh. Anyway, it’s round-up time:

Let’s start with sex.  Dennis Prager has written what I think is a very important article today about the different way men’s sexual urges are controlled in the Western world and in the Muslim world — and the way that the Left has, as always, gotten in all wrong:

All previous generations of human beings of which we are aware knew that male sexual nature is predatory. Without strong moral values working to inhibit their sexual nature, men will follow their natural impulse to grab women to whom they are attracted and use them sexually — just as males in the animal world grab the females of their species for sex. Ironically, the people who most insist that human beings are just another animal are the ones most likely to deny the animal aspect of male nature. Instead they argue that men are “socially conditioned” to see women as sex objects — by our “Playboy culture,” by sexist ads, by pornography, or some other elements of “patriarchy.”


In most Muslim countries, there are virtually no sexual ads or pornography almost anywhere, and women display no flesh — sometimes not even their face — in public. Yet sexual assaults are far more common there, and Muslim immigrants commit a disproportionately high percentage of rapes in Western Europe.

And speaking of Western Europe, sexual ads — with images of nearly nude women — are commonplace; pornography is freely and widely available; and women wear whatever they want (or don’t want) in public, often showing a great deal of skin. Yet, despite all this, rape and other forms of sexual violence were relatively low among Western Europeans prior to the recent influx of Muslim immigrants.

Clearly, it is not some new Playboy culture, or the depiction of women as sexual objects on TV, in films, and on billboards, that causes rape. Indeed, with their relatively low levels of rape, Western Europe, the United States, and Israel are historical aberrations. Throughout history, unless prevented by the society or by a strong moral system, men raped women when they could.

Muslims rape because it’s their culture to rape — their teachings instruct them that women are evil, and that the onus is entirely upon women, through covering their bodies from top to bottom or staying within harems, to protect innocent men from their evil wiles.  Those women who don’t make such efforts are obviously lower than prostitutes, since prostitutes at least get paid for their services.

Even as the Left ignores Muslim rape, here in America, where rape is statistically rare because our men mostly abide by the strictures against it, the feminists accept with hysterical fervor rape accusations against men, no evidence required.  Such is the case with Kesha who, in her effort to break her contract with Sony, contends that her manager raped her at some hitherto unreported time in the past, making it impossible for her to work there.  Brendan O’Neill looks at the lynch mentality amongst Ivy League women and their cultural mentors (such as the execrable Lena Dunham):

For them, the Kesha-contract lock is a crime against womankind. They’ve got the hashtag #FreeKesha trending on Twitter. And, most strikingly, they’ve rallied around Kesha as a victim of sexual abuse who has now been abused further by the court system. They casually, tyrannically assume that Kesha was sexually assaulted, which of course also has the effect of branding Dr. Luke an assaulter, despite the fact that he has never been tried or convicted of this offense. Lena Dunham, self-appointed feminist spokeswoman, says, “Lena Dunham + Lenny stand with Kesha.” And, alarmingly, she adds that she was made physically nauseous by the New York court’s “legally necessary but sickening use of the word ‘alleged’ over and over in reference to the assault [Kesha] says she remembers so vividly.”

For the very basis of civilized law — and arguably of civilization itself — is that people cannot be condemned or destroyed by accusation alone. Dunham would prefer that the judge and the media simply say “Dr. Luke’s sexual assault,” with no “alleged.” Yet if such Stalinist finger-pointing became the norm, an accusation would be enough to brand someone guilty, and we would enter into very dark, unstable times.


Across Twitter and in the pop world, self-styled feminists are insisting that Kesha is an abuse victim who now deserves to be liberated from her contract. Many are tweeting the phrase “I believe Kesha.” It’s meant to sound caring and female-friendly, but there is an ugly, Salem-like streak in this presumption of a man’s guilt. Discussion threads are overflowing with statements of belief in Kesha and defamation of Dr. Luke. At celeb site TMZ, one commenter says: “I believe Kesha. Maybe it’s because Dr Luke has a creepy look about him.” Yeah, a creepy look — he must be a rapist. Lock him up.

This mob mentality is alarming. And it’s becoming more commonplace in feminist circles. When Woody Allen’s daughter Dylan Farrow accused him of having abused her when she was a child, the Internet almost buckled under the weight of “I believe” declarations. One writer slammed those who presumed Allen was innocent, complaining that they were “saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers.” But it is. That is how justice works. All of us are innocent until someone rigorously, beyond doubt, proves us guilty of a crime.

Incidentally, for those unfamiliar with her, Kesha’s shtick is sex.  She is a talent pop performer (if I ignore the lyrics, I actually like her songs), but she touts a world of alcohol, drugs, hook-up sex, and (yikes!) even urine drinking that makes her sudden retreat into Victorian vapors a little hard to stomach.  (Reminder to young men — and, I guess, women — who find themselves in Kesha’s path:  Whatever you do, don’t kiss her!!!)

Meanwhile, in Europe, which is the front line of Muslim pressure against Western norms, refugee centers are terribly dangerous places for women, girls, and boys, all of whom are at constant risk of being raped.  That’s in addition to the tribal warfare, the generalized violence, and the complete inability of Muslims — especially Muslim men, even those from Middle Eastern cities with modern plumbing — to master toilets.  After all, if you want to denigrate those around you, what better way to make a symbolic statement than to shit where they live.

Incidentally, you don’t have to be in a refugee center to be a victim of those young Muslim men (who, as you recall, made up more than 70% of the recent refugee cohort).  Just head for a European train station, such as the formerly civilized station in Linz, Austria.  It’s now become a hell hole of sexual assault, rape, and filthy, vomiting, incontinent drunks.

The Left’s Lena Dunhams should be on notice that, for the institutional Left, when the choice comes down to women or Muslims, the women lose.  Indeed, Progressive politicians probably envy those Muslim men their brutal sexual license.  Certainly the Progressive German politician who inadvertently broadcast his choice in bondage porn must wish he had their freedom.

I’m reading an interesting book (made more interesting by the fact that a black friend recommended it):  It’s A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History by Nicholas Wade.  Wade argues compellingly, with actual evidence, that race is indeed a genetic construct.  He does not argue that one race is better than another.  He simply argues that our genes can be traced back to different places of origin after humans began to leave Africa, whether that place is still Africa, the Far East, or Western Europe.  One can further divide genes by continent, but those are the biggies.

Having established that race is real, and not just an evil white man scheme, Wade goes on to argue that genes don’t limit themselves to changing how we look.  They also have some bearing on who we are.  This makes sense to me.  I’ve always believed that Jews have the potential to be smart (except when it comes to American politics) because for centuries their survival depended on their brains — so those with good brains were the most likely to pass their genes on to the next generation.  The Chinese, who for centuries had a meritocratic political class under an autocratic ruler, probably placed a genetic premium on brains too, allied with a certain willingness to conform.

One of the things that happened in the West starting in 1200 was a significant decline in violence.  England has excellent records, and you can see the violent crime rate fall, century by century.  Certainly social norms may have been changing, but Wade thinks that genetics were changing too, as those who could keep their violence in check were rewarded with wealth and greater genetic breeding opportunities, while the violent ones faded from history.

This decrease in genetic violence may also have seen a change in Western abilities.  When the Industrial Revolution dawned, humans had changed in such a way that there were people ready to take on the burden of factory and office life.  Taking it one step further (this is me now, not Wade), the type of people who came to America — independent, adventurous, hard-working — may also have laid down, not just a cultural template for Americans, but a genetic one as well.

Meanwhile, what was happening in the Muslim world in the years between 1200 and the present?  The values we see today are no different from those in place in the 7th century, when it was considered good sport to see people tortured to death.  The West has changed.  We find the same spectacle stomach churning, a values shift that began hundreds of years ago.  I forget if it was in Wade’s book or another that I read that, up until the 16th century, a popular activity in Paris, one that royalty cheerfully attended, was to burn cats alive on a giant pyre, for the pleasure of hearing their agonized screams.  Sounds like ISIS to me.

Anyway, whether the Muslims of the Middle East are backwards by culture or genetics, their presence in a Europe that is, for the most part, significantly less violent than ever before, especially when it comes to rape, is going to make for some very interesting times.

If European women want to come out of it alive, they’d better start acting like this young lady, who didn’t take kindly to a man slapping her when she refused to dance with him.

And while we’re on the subject of culture. . . .  It turns out that if you’re a blind person in Israel struggling with money, not only will people not rip you off, they will do anything they can to help you, including giving you their money.  That is a moral culture.  Israel, incidentally, has a very low rape rate.  Just sayin’.

Our media, heck, our entire political process, is hopelessly corrupt.  I don’t like Kasich, but the way the media savaged him the other day doesn’t bear thinking about.  He reminisced during a speech about his entry into politics in Ohio in 1978, when a lot of his support came from homemakers “who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me.”  He then immediately added “You know, things were different. Now you call homes and everybody’s out working. But at that time, the early days, it was an army of the women that really helped me get elected to the state senate.”  I think that’s a rather charming memory of political days gone by and a reminder of how much has changed.

Our savage, ill-informed, unprincipled media didn’t agree.  Here’s what happened to Kasich within hours of his saying that:

Here’s how Salon treated the story: “John Kasich Makes Play for the Misogynist Vote: He Wants Women Out of the Doctor’s Office and Into the Kitchen.”

We know, it’s Salon, but other media outlets played the same tune without quite so much treble—including the Dispatch, which reported that Kasich “caused a minor uproar”:

The outcry was swift and harsh. Sen. Marco Rubio’s staff sent out clips about the quote, as did left-leaning interest groups, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tweeted “a woman’s place is wherever she wants to be.”

“I completely agree,” Kasich said later when a reporter read that tweet to him. He noted that his campaign manager—a former chief of staff—his appointment to the [state] Supreme Court and his lieutenant governor are all women.

The really sad thing is that Kasich, who hadn’t done a damn wrong, apologized, albeit half-heartedly. That pathetic apology explains Trump’s huge popularity. Kasich should have come out swinging, not groveling — but up until this election cycle, the GOP’s MO always includes groveling in the face MSM lies. Grrrr. So irritating.

Further stupidity is evidenced by the charge that Ted Cruz is running a dishonest campaign, something so patently false that even the Washington Post has come to his defense:

Ted Cruz is not running a dirty campaign, despite what Donald Trump and Marco Rubio would argue. But that idea just cost Cruz’s spokesman, Rick Tyler, his job.


It is, in my estimation, as dirty to berate Cruz for playing dirty as was anything that Cruz actually did.

Why? That brings us to the second point: The repetition of the accusation that he’s playing dirty by his opponents and their supporters and some in the media puts his campaign under much greater scrutiny than his opponents. Cruz is now seen as a dirty campaigner, so he has to meet a higher bar than Trump or Carson. Marco Rubio sent an email to voters in South Carolina telling them to look out for dirty tricks from Cruz — a way of getting them to consider anything from Cruz skeptically. This is how politics works; campaigns try to frame one another as low-energy or a “chaos candidate” or whatever, and sometimes it sticks (as in the first example there). But this is what Cruz has been saddled with.

To see a good man like Ted Cruz brought low politically by grotesque slanders is beyond irritating.  Whoever your preferred candidate is, if you’re trying to promote him by libeling Ted Cruz, please stop.

Trying to separate Rubio wheat from Rubio chaff.  I’m not a Rubio fan, as you know.  I’ve been hearing from many people that Rubio is corrupt, with this article supporting their claim. As I read it, though, two things jumped out at me:  First, even if Rubio does come from a family with drug ties, there’s no evidence that he follows that path.  He cannot be blamed for his family.  Second, money-making and influence peddling that he did were legal under Florida law, even if they give the appearance of impropriety.  Whether it was wise or right of him to do those things is entirely separate from whether it was actually corrupt.

Rubio does have problems on sugar and amnesty, though, and I think those deserve legitimate scrutiny.

Obama lies about Gitmo.  I always have to laugh when my Progressive friends swoon about Obama’s honesty.  Obama’s relationship with the truth is so distant, they don’t even send each other Christmas cards.  His latest serious of lies are about closing Gitmo. When Obama started lecturing about Gitmo as if he were presiding over the closing down of Auschwitz, Robert Avrech had his number:

Half of what Obama said are lies, the other half not true.

What Obama did not say is that his plan for the Guantanamo Bay IslamoNazis is to hand them all the civil rights of American citizens. Because this is what has to happen if they are transferred to prisons in America.

The IslamoNazis will have to be Mirandized.

They will no longer be questioned at the discretion of the American military.

And they will get the finest lawyers the ACLU can buy to defend their (newly given) rights on American soil.

And they will tie up the courts, well, for as long as their lawyers can. Which can be a very long time.

And then they might eventually be released for lack of evidence, because the military will (quite correctly) not allow vital evidence to be made public via the courts.

Trying to entice the next generation to think.  One of the things I’ve commented on frequently is the fact that my children’s generation is the least rebellious generation I’ve ever seen.  They accept unquestioningly everything their schools (almost invariably Leftist, especially here in Marin) say.  That mindset continues in college.  Indeed, it worsens there, as intellectual inquiry is rigorously policed by Leftist crybullies.

No wonder that this brain-dead sheeple generation so readily embraces Bernie’s socialism, a doctrine that has failed at all times in all places, whether it ended with a blood bang or a pathetic whimper.  Next time you find yourself in conversation with one of these Stepford Kids, Eileen Toplansky has some excellent questions you could ask that might rouse them to some simulacrum of thinking:

Hence, as the smiling millenials hold up signs supporting Bernie Sanders, a useful endeavor would be to ask them the following questions.

  • How much money from your paycheck will be you willing to pay to the government under Bernie Sanders?
  • Should the government be permitted to keep all your wages? Why not?
  • When the people no longer have any money of their own, how will they subsist?
  • Currently, the country owes $19 trillion dollars. How much more debt is acceptable to you?
  • Are you aware of the socialist countries of Cuba and Venezuela and how the people fare in these countries?
  • If you are not aware of these models, may I give you this item to read?
  • Would you comment on this article by Peter Saint-Andre who experienced socialism firsthand?
  • Do you understand that when everyone is equal, that means that no one will be able to strive to be better because then that would not be equal?
  • What do you think of the idea promulgated by Leon Kass that “the love of equality destroys all possible human excellence, and it produces souls without aspiration or longing?”

In their march off the cliff, do these students understand that “the Utopian Eden is a false paradise built on lies and maintained by abuses?” In their desire to be “rebels” do they understand that “a traditionalist rebel… has learned the lessons of experience” and [therefore] “rejects centralized authority for local authority, unelected officials for elected ones, national regulations for human values and mandates for conscience” versus the “leftist Utopian” who wishes to impose his will on the people?

It would be even better if, after asking the Stepford Kids questions that make them think, we could get them to read Sultan Knish’s predictions about the wonders of the first year of Bernie Sander’s presidency.

Leftist media tries to deracinate Cruz and Rubio.  Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are Hispanic.  They’ve also refused to remain on the Democrat plantation.  So the race hustlers on the Left are doing the only thing they know how to do:  mounting racist attacks against people who refuse to play the race card.  The latest effort is to claim that Rubio and Cruz are not Hispanic at all because they refuse to “act” Hispanic.  The Left yields to no one in trading in ancient and offensive racial stereotypes.

Does no one remember the Iraq War?  The Iraq War didn’t happen generations ago.  It started slightly over a decade ago, with the Surge happening only nine years ago.  And yet the American public is being told blatantly false war stories to advance candidate interests.  Have our memories become so dysfunctional that we can no longer be expected to apply the truth to recent events, leaving politicians free to trample on the past, cherry-picking falsehoods to serve their candidacies?  Feh.

Marin is crazy.  I already knew about this yesterday, but the school principal’s email was very vague.  Here’s the deal:  a 17-year-old boy had a disassembled antique gun in his car and no ammunition — and he got arrested anyway.  Stories like this make me believe strongly that my long-term future isn’t in Marin.

[Time for the accountant.  More later.]