Barbara Boxer vs. Meg Whitman:

Which Is Worse, Bad Hair or Being a Nazi?

David C. Stolinsky, MD
June 14, 2010

The Republican candidate for the Senate from California, Carly Fiorina, was excoriated in the media for an off-microphone comment about the hair of her Democratic opponent, long-time Senator Barbara Boxer. In fact, Fiorina was recounting the comment of another person, who said that Boxer’s hair was “yesterday.” Nevertheless, the mainstream media depicted Fiorina as petty and catty.

Meanwhile, the Democratic candidate for Governor of California, Jerry Brown, compared his Republican opponent, Meg Whitman, to Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels was Hitler’s minister of propaganda. He was such a devoted Nazi that when Hitler committed suicide, Goebbels and his wife did the same − after poisoning their six children. Goebbels was a leading Nazi, one of the worst of the worst. To compare Meg Whitman to Goebbels is a disgusting insult that calls into question the judgment and even the rationality of the person speaking.

Fiorina’s trivial gaffe was on the front page of the New York Times. But if it were not for conservative websites, I would not have heard about Brown’s terrible slander − it was on page AA5, in the second section of the Los Angeles Times. The striking disparity in the media’s treatment of these two events reveals more about the media than about the events. Specifically, it reveals much about “liberals.”

Some people are acutely sensitive to the way they are treated, but are coldly insensitive to the way they treat others. They have a photographic memory for what they are owed, but complete amnesia for what they owe to others.

Such people have an exaggerated idea of their rights, but seem blissfully unaware that others also have rights. They make selfish spouses, unreliable friends, unfair bosses and disgraceful politicians. There are many examples.

● The Obama administration renamed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “overseas contingency operations,” and renamed terrorism “man-made disasters” − as if changing words could change reality. And the administration refuses to use the terms Islamic extremism, Islamo-fascism or radical Islam. When Attorney General Holder was asked about radical Islam, he claimed not to know what the term meant, as if the questioner were speaking Mongolian.

Such people demonstrate exquisite sensitivity to the feelings of Muslims. But is there equal sensitivity, or any at all, to the feelings of Christians?

· Did these people protest the persecution of Christians in China, Vietnam, Cuba, and some Muslim nations, or the murder and enslavement of Christians in Sudan? Did they say a word when churches were bombed in Malaysia and Pakistan? Those who don’t protest actual persecution are in a poor position to complain about hypothetical persecution of Muslims that never happened, even in the aftermath of 9/11.

· Did these people protest when senators violated the Constitution by grilling judicial nominees about their Christian beliefs? Those who don’t protest real discrimination are in a poor position to complain about hypothetical discrimination.

· Did these people complain when a government grant funded “Piss Christ,” a photo of a crucifix immersed in urine? On the contrary, they insisted that removal of government funding would constitute “censorship.” Really? Am I being “censored” because nobody forces you to support my website? No, censorship means that the government forbids something to be shown or published. Not giving money to someone isn’t censorship – it’s not giving money to someone.

Note that this wasn’t a painting, showing the artist’s fantasies. It was a photo, showing a real crucifix in real urine. True, the diffused, golden light made an interesting visual effect. But a similar effect could have been produced by immersing a crucifix in honey – and titling the photo “Sweet Jesus.” Clearly, urinating on a crucifix was important to the “artist” and his supporters.

· Did these people complain when an image of the Virgin Mary was decorated with feces and shown in a public museum? No, they opposed removing the “art” and again confused removal of support with “censorship.”

In effect, Christians were forced at gunpoint to fund gross insults to their religion. Yes, at gunpoint. If they refused to pay their taxes, men with guns would come to arrest them and seize their property.

In the Middle Ages, Jews were forced to pay special taxes to support churches. But even in that unenlightened era, Jews weren’t forced to pay taxes that were used to desecrate their religious symbols with urine and feces. Even ignorant, backward people wouldn’t have stooped so low. That idea had to wait for our modern era of “sensitivity,” “tolerance” and “inclusiveness.”

Of course, it all depends on what you’re sensitive to, what you tolerate, and what you want to include. Or not.

· Did these people protest when schools changed Christmas and Easter vacations to winter and spring breaks, or when Christmas trees were removed from schools? Did they complain when students were taught that religion is obsolete and that our Founders were irreligious? Did they object when speakers were forbidden to say, “God bless the graduating class”?

· Did these people protest when newspaper and TV pundits called believing Christians “Bible thumpers,” ”religious Right,” or even “religious extremists” – the same term used for the Taliban and suicide bombers?

· Did these people protest when devout Christians were called bigots? The Anti-Defamation League used to fight bigotry, just as the ACLU used to fight abuses of civil rights. But both organizations have degenerated into leftist activism. The ADL now confuses religion with bigotry. It went so far as to describe the Celtic cross (a cross with a circle in the center) as a symbol of hate. But this symbol is found in many Catholic and Protestant churches – not to mention cemeteries.

This country needs an organization to fight bigotry, and one to fight civil-rights abuses. It’s too bad we don’t have such organizations.

· Did these people protest the film “The Last Temptation of Christ,” where Jesus was shown fantasizing sex with Mary Magdalene, or “The Da Vinci Code,” in which Christianity is described as a huge fraud? Did they protest the countless films showing Christian clergy as corrupt degenerates, Catholic hierarchy as homicidal schemers, and religious Christians as ignorant rednecks?

· Did these people protest the flood of films and TV programs laced with gruesome violence, blatant sex and incessant profanity? Did they object when characters exclaim “Jesus Christ,” “Jesus H. Christ,” “Jumping Jesus” or “Jesus f***ing Christ” as curses? Did they utter one word of complaint about the degradation of our media?

Those who remained silent during these − and many other − insults to Christianity have no moral standing to speak up and criticize factual descriptions of extremist Islam. Those who call conservatives “Nazis,” “fascists” and similar awful names have no right to complain when a candidate in an offhand moment reports someone else’s criticism of a Democrat’s hair style.

“George Bush+Nazi” yields 1,510,000 hits on Google, and “George Bush+Hitler” yields 4,970,000. Bush was president for eight years. But where were the gas chambers and crematoria? Where was the genocide? Indeed, where was the silencing of opposition? The very fact that there were so many derogatory remarks about Bush proves that he was very far from being a Hitler.

In contrast, “Obama critics+Nazis” yields 16,300,000 hits. Bush was demonized by calling him a “Nazi.” But Obama’s critics are demonized by calling them “Nazis.” Question: Isn’t it more Nazi-like to demonize critics of the leader?

These “liberals” who now weep and wail about the insult to Barbara Boxer’s hair are the same people who shamelessly ridiculed Sarah Palin’s hair, clothes and middle American twang. Remember the “jokes” about Palin looking like a “slutty flight attendant,” and her 14-year-old daughter having sex with a baseball player? Remember the “reports” that she and her husband are divorcing, that she had breast implants, and even that Trig is not her own child? Compared with all this garbage, a remark about Boxer’s hair style fades into utter insignificance.

And these are the same people who laughed uproariously when Dave Letterman “joked” that John McCain was so old that he wore false teeth, used Viagra, needed incontinence diapers, and accused nurses of stealing his sox. Talk about “sensitivity.” Talk about hypocrisy.

Sensitivity is necessarily a two-way street. One-way sensitivity is merely a form of childish egotism and narrow self-interest. I must earn my right to complain when my favorite group is wronged by speaking up when groups I do not like are wronged. That is the essential lesson Pastor Niemoeller taught us.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com