Go Green, Go Left, Go Downhill

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Sept. 24, 2009

Sometimes even I get tired of politics, so my wife and I went to a mall for lunch. I was successful in having lunch, but unsuccessful in avoiding politics.

First I went to the men’s room to wash my hands. Notice how few people wash their hands before eating, even in flu season. I guess their mommies and daddies didn’t teach them. But even in the lavatory, I couldn’t escape politics.

The mall is in upscale Century City, a liberal enclave in already liberal Los Angeles. The mall is environmentally friendly. That’s where the trouble started.

The mall installed four new sinks with electrically controlled faucets and soap dispensers. The idea is to reduce water use by shutting off the faucets automatically. But of the four sinks, one faucet and two soap dispensers don’t work. How’s that for conservation?

Besides, the water is cold. No hot water, and half the soap dispensers useless − not a model of hygiene. Then I tried to dry my hands.

The paper towels were replaced with hot-air blowers. They featured narrow slots into which one inserts his hands, and the hot air then blows for a few seconds. This left my hands still wet, so I tried to reinsert them, but the machine insisted on a waiting period to prevent reuse. I had to insert my hands in a second machine.

The slot is so narrow that I couldn’t avoid touching the edges. They had been touched by the hands of prior users − which I hope weren’t carrying intestinal parasites or other contents of their bowels. I resolved to stuff my pocket with paper napkins and use them to dry my hands in the future.

So there you have a “green” restroom: a quarter of the faucets and half the soap dispensers unusable, no hot water, and unhygienic hand-driers. And all these use electricity − in the case of the hand driers, a great deal of electricity. How is this “green”? It seems much more wasteful than a conventional bathroom.

But it does provide “green” jobs. People are employed making ineffective, needlessly complex, electricity-consuming devices that nobody wants. I wonder whether those employees are in America or China, though I am probably happier not knowing. This restroom is an example of the “green” world we will be forced to inhabit. Perhaps “green” refers not to how the environment will benefit, but to how much money will go down the toilet.

After my detour into “greenness,” I joined my wife for lunch. We sat at a long table, at the other end of which was an elderly man and a younger couple. I tried to engage my wife in conversation, but their discussion was so loud that I finally gave up and listened.

The conversation involved Jimmy Carter’s charge that the “overwhelming portion” of opposition to President Obama’s policies is based on racism. All three agreed that this is obviously true. None recognized that their views might be a projection of their own subconscious racism.

Similarly, Jimmy Carter expressed racist opinions in the past, and more recently called candidate Obama a “black boy.” A 47-year-old U.S. senator is not a “boy.” If a Republican had said that, imagine the uproar. But a Democrat − no problem. Media bias? What media bias?

None of the three recalled that as we oppose ObamaCare, we also opposed HillaryCare, and she is white. They deny the obvious − that many people fear an oppressive and incompetent government making life-and-death decisions for them and their loved ones.

The elderly man declared that those, like him, on Medicare should be the first to cheer for ObamaCare. He appeared not to have heard that Obama plans to pay for his plan, in part, by eliminating $500 million in “waste and abuse” from Medicare. If there really is that much “waste and abuse,” why hasn’t Obama already eliminated it?

On the other hand, does the “waste and abuse” include expensive medicines or operations for anyone over 65 or 70? Might that include medicines the elderly man is taking to keep him active − or even alive? That thought hadn’t occurred to him.

No doubt our three table-mates would applaud Obama, as did the menagerie of “world leaders” at the U.N., when our president condemned Israel for building houses in “occupied territory.” But there was no condemnation of Arabs for launching rockets into Israel. As residents of the American Southwest, our three table-mates know something about houses built in “occupied territory” − they live in such houses. In fact, there is hardly a nation that does not include land captured from others. But somehow, what is permissible for other nations is forbidden to Israel.

Question: Such a double standard is (1) inconsistent, (2) illogical, (3) anti-Semitic, (4) “liberal,” (5) all of the above. Answer: (5).

The elderly man then began a rant against fundamentalists who believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. I asked, “Suppose someone believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old? So what? If he treats people kindly, what difference does it make to you?”

The man ignored my question, but reiterated his contempt for this theology. When did it become “liberal” to condemn people because of their theology? Isn’t this an example of bigotry? When did liberalism become a religion that teaches its adherents to be intolerant of other beliefs?

The three appeared to be competing with one another to see who could express the most liberal slogans in the shortest time. Regrettably, this is a frequent occurrence at lunch and dinner tables in liberal areas. In part, this is only natural. People like to talk to those who agree with them − thereby reinforcing their own beliefs, factual or not. I plead guilty to this failing.

But I sense something more in this competition. I sense anxiety to assure those present that the speaker is one of them, with all the “correct” opinions and beliefs. This is the first step on the long, sad road to thought control, a necessary tool of totalitarianism.

This competition reminds me of the McCarthy hearings, where witnesses fell all over themselves to assure the senators that they were not communists, nor communist sympathizers, nor even knew any communists who lived on the next block. Liberals condemn McCarthyism − why do they imitate it?

Conservatives cannot escape exposure to liberal views. They read the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and most papers in between. They watch ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN, and listen to National Public Radio. Conservatives are bathed in a sea of liberal opinions, so they sharpen their own arguments.

Liberals, on the contrary, can go all week without reading or hearing one conservative commentator. They can go all week without eating lunch, much less dinner, with a conservative. So to them, conservative ideas seem strange, even threatening. Surely, they believe, people who hold such bizarre ideas must be racists or lunatics.

As a result, some liberals develop a fear of not appearing liberal enough. They fear rejection by their family, friends and co-workers. So they teach schoolchildren to praise Obama. The object is enforced conformity.

Perhaps the saddest example is the old Soviet Union, where delegates to Communist Party congresses stood and clapped during speeches by Stalin − and clapped − and clapped − and no one dared to be the first to stop clapping and sit down − so they clapped endlessly, till their hands were raw. And the dictator just stood on the podium and enjoyed the adulation − and the fear.

As we left the mall, I realized that besides lunch, I had had an educational experience. I learned that “green” jobs are likely to be “green” only in what they cost, not in what they produce. And I learned that liberalism is a religion that does not tolerate dissent.

I felt the need to wash my hands, but that would require another visit to the “green” restroom, so I refrained.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com