Stolinsky.com - Conservative political and social commentary

The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia

The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Aug. 18, 2008

That’s the night the lights went out in Georgia,
That’s the night that they hung an innocent man.
− Written by Bobby Russell, later sung by Reba McEntire

The Georgia in the song is in the Southeastern United States. The Georgia in the news lies between Russia, Turkey and the Black Sea. It was just invaded by Russia, which used the excuse that it was protecting the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But Russian troops belied this excuse by moving beyond the disputed areas, and at last report were only 25 miles from the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. Had the United States not protested unusually strongly, Russian troops might have occupied all of Georgia, which is a member of the United Nations.

The real reasons for the Russian invasion appear to be:

· To control the oil pipelines that carry oil to a Black Sea port and to Turkey. These pipelines are the only ones not already controlled by either Russia or its ally Iran. Controlling these pipelines would give Russia a greater stranglehold on Europe’s economy. But note that the pipelines do not pass through the disputed provinces, so to control the pipelines, Russia would have to control all of Georgia.

· To intimidate the states of the former Soviet bloc − such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and especially Ukraine − not to do anything to irritate Russia, such as becoming friendly with the West.

· To take the first step in Putin’s scheme of restoring the Soviet Union, or more accurately, the Russian Empire.

When we think of an empire, we tend to think of the former British Empire, composed of overseas colonies. But Britain was a naval power. Russia has always been a land power, so its empire was built by contiguous conquests. From a small area around Novgorod in the North, Russia expanded over the centuries until it extended over 11 time zones − that is, almost halfway around the world.

This huge empire collapsed in 1991, so it is no surprise that some Russians yearn to reestablish it − regardless of the wishes of the peoples concerned. Power-hungry bullies have existed since the dawn of history, and will continue to exist so long as we tolerate them. Fighting bullies will always be the duty of the biggest kid in the schoolyard. That’s America.

I am no prophet. I cannot foresee where the current crisis will lead. Will Putin be satisfied with intimidating Georgia, and thus controlling the pipelines indirectly? Will the former Soviet provinces and satellites also be intimidated, and stop moving closer to the West? Or will Putin’s attempt at intimidation backfire, as seems to be happening? Poland has just decided to accept an American missile-defense system, to which the Russians strongly object, even threatening to use nuclear weapons. And Ukraine may follow Poland’s example. Who knows what will happen next?

But I need not be a prophet to predict some events:

“It’s not Russia’s fault.”

The anti-American Left (a redundant term) will, as always, remove all blame from the Russia, which the Left admires as though it still were the Soviet Union. Stripped of the facade of communism, Russia is clearly just an old-fashioned imperialist power. But this is hardly clear to Leftists, who yearn for the “good” old days of the Soviet Union as strongly as do Putin and his thugs − perhaps even more strongly. Besides, the Left loves anyone, even brutal tyrants, so long as they are anti-American.

But the Left overlooks Russians’ aggression and repression, because they are “surrounded by enemies.” Yes, but why are they surrounded by enemies? Because the whole world hates Russians? No, because since its founding, Russia has been expansionist and aggressive. If I go around antagonizing my neighbors, I cannot ask for sympathy because I am surrounded by enemies. I turned them into enemies by my hostile acts.

Note that Putin picked a small Christian nation to invade and brutalize. He did not pick one of the Muslim nations that also were formerly part of the Soviet Union. Like all bullies, he picked on a small, peace-loving kid. He left alone the bigger kids who have violent tendencies and violent friends.

Leftists are blind to these obvious facts. Whatever the Russians do is excused by the hostility of their neighbors, which the Russians themselves evoked − and continue to evoke. How would you feel, if you saw your neighbor bully and brutalize the weakest person on the block? Would you feel more secure in your home? Or would you install stronger locks and sign up with an alarm service for protection? That’s what the Poles just did.

“It’s all America’s fault.”

Here there is a grain of truth. In 1999 NATO, meaning largely America, blocked Serbia’s attempt to put down the separatist movement in the province of Kosovo. President Clinton ordered the bombing of Serbia − without the approval of Congress or the U.N. − and the Serbian capital of Belgrade was heavily damaged. Then U.S. and NATO troops were sent into Kosovo.

The breakaway Kosovars are mainly Muslim, but our efforts to protect them from Serbian “ethnic cleansing” brought us no − repeat, no − thanks from the Muslim world. Our efforts did, however, bring us hostility from Russia, which sided with their fellow Slavs the Serbs.

Russia is saying, “You intervened in Serbia to allow Kosovo to break away. We are now intervening in Georgia to allow South Ossetia and Abkhazia to break away. What’s the difference?”

The difference is that we intervened to stop atrocities, but according to Human Rights Watch, the Georgians have committed no atrocities. There were mass graves in Kosovo; there are none in South Ossetia. Besides, Kosovo had nothing we wanted, while Georgia has valuable pipelines that Russia covets. The two interventions have nothing in common. Russian tanks rolling into Georgia remain inexcusable.

But apart from this, just as the Left exonerates Russia, it always blames America:

· We caused the Cold War by objecting when the Soviets seized Eastern Europe − not, of course, Soviet expansionism, which caused no problems at all.

· We caused the Soviet Union to collapse − not, of course, its clueless leaders and its hopeless economic system.

· We caused the Soviets, and now the Russians, to be surrounded by enemies − not, of course, their own aggression and arrogance.

· We caused the Russians to be paranoid − not, of course, their own xenophobia, which dates back to the time of the first czars, centuries before America existed.

· We caused trouble when we invited Eastern European nations to join NATO − not, of course, the threat that Russia would attempt to subjugate them again. And, of course, Russia itself could join NATO if it wished, and in fact sits at the table as a nonmember.

· We caused more trouble when we befriended Georgia, a peaceful, democratic nation − not, of course, the threat of Russian expansionism that our friendship was intended to inhibit.

· We caused still more trouble when we offered Europeans our missile-defense shield − not, of course, the threat of a nuclear Iran, which is building nuclear weapons in facilities built and maintained by Russia. That is, it’s our fault when Europeans seek protection from fanatics whom Russia is arming with nukes.

Yes, it’s all our fault. Just as a gang member attempts to justify shooting someone on the street by claiming, “He insulted me,” and just as a rapist attempts to justify his crime by claiming, “She asked for it,” so do Russian autocrats attempt to justify their aggression by claiming, “They’re all against us.” And the apologists accept this excuse, or at least pretend to do so.

Are the lights going out in Georgia? We will soon see. But if they do, the lights may be going out elsewhere as well, leaving the world a gloomier place for all of us. Darkness is the natural state of the world. It takes effort, and sometimes courage, to turn up the light.

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

www.stolinsky.com

Respect: Use It or Lose It

Respect: Use It or Lose It

The Chinese Make a Hash of Our National Anthem

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Aug. 14, 2008

Soon after the Beijing Olympics opened, two news items appeared. They were on inner pages and received little attention. But they were revealing:

· Four U.S. Olympic cyclists were forced to apologize for arriving in Beijing wearing masks to avoid air pollution. The masks are similar to those worn by many local residents, but the Chinese government viewed it as an insult.

· “The Star-Spangled Banner” was played without beginning and ending portions at the ceremony to honor gold-medal swimmer Michael Phelps. President Bush and his family were in the stands. Interestingly, the part omitted refers to “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Reports mention neither a complaint on our part nor an apology on the part of China.

Each of these incidents, viewed alone, evokes merely a grumble. But taken together, they illustrate a pattern of decreasing national pride and confidence, as well as loss of respect − both self-respect, and a demand for respect from others.

In athletics, long hours of practice are essential for success. No one would suggest that an athlete take a vacation before competing. His skills would deteriorate. His muscles would become flabby. Similarly, mental abilities weaken with lack of use. “Use it or lose it” applies here as well. But this adage applies even more widely.

It applies to respect. But respect is a word we rarely hear today, unless it is used in a negative context. We watch the local news and see reports of the latest gang-related shooting. Often the reporter theorizes that a gang member felt he had been “dissed” − that is, disrespected − by a word, or even a glance. This type of “respect” is merely a demand for undeserved deference, backed up by the threat of violence. Use of the term in this sense debases the concept of respect.

But just because something can be misused, we do not scrap it − we take greater care to use it properly. The concept of respect is too valuable to discard. So the first thing to do is define it:

· Respect includes admiration, esteem, deference and high regard.

· When we respect people, we look up to them, or at least we look at them as our equals. We do not look down on them.

· When we respect people, we consider to their feelings, so that we will not offend or hurt them.

· When we respect ourselves, we avoid doing anything that would not be in harmony with our better nature. We think, “I won’t do that − it wouldn’t be me.”

This still leaves us with a difficult question: Should we demand respect from others, if they do not show it voluntarily? How can we walk a middle path between being the victim of bullies on one hand, and becoming bullies ourselves on the other? How can we develop enough self-respect to know when to demand respect from others, and when not to?

Just as respect is important in personal life, it is also important in group and national life. How can members of minority groups walk a middle path between being the victims of bias on one hand, and seeing bias where it doesn’t exist on the other? And how can we, as citizens of a nation, walk a middle path between making ourselves doormats for others on one hand, and being belligerent and spoiling for a fight on the other?

To use an economic example, if we accept imports from Country A without tariffs or excessive regulations, we expect Country A to accept our exports in a similar fashion. Otherwise, trade would not be truly free, but merely free one way − to our disadvantage. Is the unequal demand for respect similar to the unequal balance of trade between America and China? Indeed, are the two related? Have we become so dependent on Chinese goods that we no longer dare to demand respect − or anything else − from China? This question is of crucial importance.

Can we reconcile the two news items regarding the Beijing Olympics? Do the Chinese demand that we be so sensitive to their national pride that our athletes will not wear anti-pollution masks similar to those worn by the Chinese themselves? If so, then we can expect them to be equally sensitive to our national pride. Surely, making a hash of your guests’ national anthem is a greater insult than your guests wearing face masks.

On the other hand, are the Chinese so easygoing and happy-go-lucky that playing a tape or CD of their guests’ national anthem means little to them? Or are they so technically advanced that they can put on an opening ceremony that is the envy of the world, but at the same time so careless and slovenly that they cannot play a brief tape or CD? If so, then four U.S. athletes wearing face masks are far too insignificant to attract their notice, much less their anger.

No, the two news items cannot be reconciled. They are incompatible. The Chinese, like all totalitarians, want to have things both ways. They can disrespect us, but we must respect them − or else. The solution to this problem is obvious: Never hold the Olympic Games in a totalitarian nation. We should have learned this in 1936.

The Berlin Olympics were technically excellent but morally disastrous. Jewish athletes were removed from some American teams to please the Nazis, just as all Jewish athletes were removed from German teams. Despite this, Avery Brundage, then chairman of the U.S. Olympic Committee and later chairman of the International Olympic Committee for many years, declared that the Berlin Olympics were “the finest in modern history.” How’s that for the “honor of sport”? How’s that for the “Olympic spirit”?

Having learned nothing from this colossal error, the International Olympic Committee decided to hold the games in Beijing. But at the very least, our officials should tell the Chinese officials − privately, but very clearly − that respect is a two-way street: We must apologize for face masks? Then you surely must apologize for making a hash of our national anthem in front of our President.

Would this be an overreaction? Imagine what would have happened if, during the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, we had made a hash of the Chinese anthem when the first Chinese athlete won a gold medal. Pundits would rant about our insult to a great nation, and how humiliated the Chinese must feel. We would be accused of racism. Apologies would be demanded − and made.

If we had made a hash of the Chinese anthem, I believe the majority of Americans would have felt that we had insulted China and should apologize. On the contrary, the majority of Americans do not feel insulted when the Chinese make a hash of our anthem, and do not want an apology. But is it healthy when people feel that others deserve more respect than they do? What does this say about their upbringing and self-image? What does this predict about the futures of the two nations?

Many Americans care so little about our national anthem that the Beijing fiasco went almost unnoticed. How many Americans know the words to “The Star-Spangled Banner”? Years ago, we had to memorize the first and fourth verses in junior high school. Memorization is now considered old-fashioned, but it is better than amnesia.

Those who can’t recall the words to their national anthem, and who don’t know how to display their flag properly, are victims of national amnesia. But traditions and symbols are important. They remind us of who we are when it is easier to forget. They remind us of our duty when it is easier, or safer, to quit. We need to restore respect for traditions and symbols in our own nation, and we need to demand that others respect them as well. We owe it all those who sleep in our National Cemeteries.

Life isn’t like school. There are no scheduled exams. There are only snap quizzes. This is one. If they leave out the part about “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” but we fail to notice, we are well on our way to being neither.

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

www.stolinsky.com

If Obama Wins, They Will Still Hate Us

If Obama Wins, They Will Still Hate Us

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Aug. 11, 2008

Barack Obama has attained rock-star status. Some even view Obama as a messiah, based on his promises to “remake” the nation and even “remake” the world. These people see him as “the one” who is revealed by a “beam of light” from above. Obama’s speech before a huge, cheering crowd in Berlin reinforced the notion that if he becomes President, our enemies will come to love us. This notion is based on the assumption that our enemies hate us because of President Bush’s foreign policy and our war in Iraq.

This assumption is false.

Ten years ago, Al Qaeda bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing hundreds. These bombings, the first World Trade Center attack, the bombing of our barracks in Saudi Arabia, and the bombing of the USS Cole all occurred when Bill Clinton was President, and we were not at war in Iraq − or anywhere else.

President Bush and the Iraq war cannot be the reasons they hate us, so why do they?

First of all, who are “they”? Since Bush became President, pro-American governments have been elected in France and Germany, so “they” do not include most French and Germans. Conservative newspapers in Europe generally express pro-American views, so “they” do not include most conservatives. Nor do “they” include moderate Muslims, who hope (but may not dare to say) that we will prevail over the Islamo-fascists.

The ones who hate us are mainly leftists and Muslim extremists. So the question is: Why do these people hate us? This leads to a deeper question: Is it a bad thing that these people hate us? During World War II, was it a bad thing that Nazis and Japanese fascists hated us? What would it say about us if evil people thought well of us?

With this clarification of who “they” are, and whether it is always a bad thing to be hated, we can proceed to ask, “Why do they hate us?”

We are hated for what we do wrong.

● A common idea is that Americans are hated because we’re rich. Some people see the rich and want to be like them, recognizing that the successful have traits that lead to success. Other people, steeped in Marxism, assume the rich became rich by theft, and the poor are poor because the rich are rich.

It’s not poverty that causes hatred. It’s the notion that my poverty is caused by your wealth.

Besides, most revolutions are instigated not by the poor, but by intellectuals and the upper middle class. Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, came from an educated, affluent family. Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire, and his assistants tend to be well educated.

As a rule, the poor envy the rich − leftist intellectuals hate the rich.

● Another common idea is that we’re hated because we’re powerful. It’s true that the weak may hate the strong when the strong are perceived to oppress them.

If they could speak freely, many Iranians would express hatred for the ayatollahs, Saudis for their royal family, and Syrians for Assad. But the people’s hatred is misdirected by their rulers. “Don’t blame me for you poverty and lack of freedom,” the tyrant says; “blame the Americans.”

It’s not weakness that causes hate. It’s the notion that my weakness is caused by your strength.

In addition, extremist Muslims hate us because our strength blocks them from their goal of world domination, just as the Nazis and Japanese fascists hated us for the same reason. Bullies hate the biggest kid in the schoolyard.

● A related idea is that we are hated because we interfere too much in other nations’ affairs. There is some truth here. But much resentment stems from the opposite perception − that we interfere too little. Arabs may hate us because we don’t do something about their corrupt, oppressive governments.

Some perceive America not just as powerful, but as all-powerful. So if anything goes wrong, it must be our fault. Childlike people see America as an omnipotent parent, who could make everything all right if only he wanted to. (Daddy, make it stop raining!)

It’s not interfering that causes hate. It’s the notion that my problems are caused by your interfering − or by your not interfering.

We are hated for what we do right.

● We promote free expression. The haters insist that only their ideas deserve to be heard, and they silence those who disagree.

● We exemplify free elections. The haters support one-party despotism.

● We support women’s rights. The haters see women as useful only for breeding and beating.

● We see people as individuals. The haters see them only as members of groups.

● We see prosperity as the result of individual initiative and hard work. The haters see it as the result of government generosity.

● We promote religious freedom. The haters insist that everyone must adopt their religion − or be persecuted or killed.

We are hated for our values.

America is the strongest supporter of Judeo-Christian values. This causes anger in those who insist that other religions must be dominant, as well as in those who are aggressively atheistic.

We insist that there are universal rules that apply to all people everywhere. The source of this conviction is faith in one God who is the Father of us all, so everyone − regardless of race, sex, age, creed or nationality − is His child. Even atheist Americans hold this conviction, though they deny its source.

On the contrary, fanatics divide people into “us” and “them.” The prototype was Hitler, who proclaimed that his “supermen” must dominate all other people, who were “subhumans” fit only for slavery or extermination. Nazis had strict rules for their own “race.” For “subhumans,” there were no rules.

Japanese imperialists followed a warrior code, but only for their own people. For Americans, Britons, Chinese, Koreans or Filipinos, there were no rules. Prisoners of war could be tortured or experimented upon, civilians could be enslaved or slaughtered, and women could be used as public facilities.

Today, Islamo-fascists enforce strict rules of behavior, often with the severest penalties. But these rules apply only to Muslims. Non-Muslims, and even Muslims who don’t agree, may be mistreated or killed.

With some exceptions, those who brought down the Twin Towers were honored, not condemned. Those who bombed Sbarro’s pizzeria in Jerusalem, the nightclub in Bali, and the Madrid and London trains and buses were praised, not denounced.

Is this what the Koran teaches? It doesn’t matter. Many Muslims tolerate killing women, children and old people to advance a political agenda. In the end, people become what they do, or what they tolerate others doing.

And what reaction do you expect from someone who believes it’s all right to slaughter the “others” if it serves his purpose, but you insist that it isn’t all right? What reaction do you expect from someone who believes that special rules apply to his group, but you insist that the same rules apply to everyone on Earth?

That’s right − you expect hatred. And that’s what you get.

Americans are conspicuous reminders of human rights. We don’t always achieve this ideal, though we come closer than most − but we loudly proclaim it. And those who hold opposite beliefs resent us for it.

Americans are hated for many reasons, some good, most bad. But the fundamental reason we’re hated is that we are highly visible reminders of what many want to forget − that there are universal ethical rules that apply to everyone, everywhere.

If that makes some people angry, it’s their problem. If that causes resentment and even hatred, so be it. If we are hated by those who knock down office towers, blow up pizzerias and behead people they don't like, that is a high honor.

If Barack Obama becomes President, we will continue to be hated for the same reasons. Our fundamental values are too strong to be changed by any temporary leader, no matter how charismatic he appears. And the fanatics’ hatred is too strong to be appeased, no matter how much Obama tries to appease it. But he will try, as indicated by his incessant praise of diplomacy, and his negative remarks about the force necessary to back it up.

Appeasement will result in the worst possible outcome: The haters will still hate us, but they will no longer fear us.

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

www.stolinsky.com

"I'm Trying to Save the Planet"

“I’m Trying to Save the Planet”

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Aug. 7, 2008

Recently Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked why she would not allow a vote on offshore oil drilling. Pelosi offered nonresponsive replies repeatedly, then blurted, “I’m trying to save the planet.”

Save it from what? Oil sheiks strangling the world economy? Nuclear, biologic or chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists? No, save it from “climate change,” a notion so frightening that any remedy, no matter how totalitarian, could be imposed − but a notion so vague that success or failure cannot be documented. In short, it is the ideal excuse for bureaucrats to control our lives.

Working-class people, the backbone of the Democratic Party, are hurting. High fuel costs strain their family budgets, and in addition they are under threat of layoffs caused by these costs. But to the wealthy “environmentalists” who support Pelosi, high fuel costs are desirable − fuel consumption decreases, thereby “saving the planet.” They can pay more for gasoline, so they assume everyone can. Narcissism is a poor qualification for those who claim to be humanitarians. Lack of concern for working people is a poor qualification for those who claim to be for the “little guy.” Aren’t human beings part of the “planet” they intend to save?

Only a few years ago, someone who wanted to “save the planet” would be sent for psychiatric evaluation. But now, such claims are accepted as normal. We must ask ourselves:

· Why do Pelosi and her allies propose the most intrusive of possible remedies?

· Is their real objective to control climate or to control people?

· Why do they have the hubris to assume that the Earth now suddenly needs their help? It has withstood billions of years of meteor and asteroid strikes, breakup of continents, and repeated ice ages interspersed with repeated warm periods − all without human intervention.

· Why do they have the arrogance to assume that they have the intelligence, knowledge and ability to “save the planet,” even if it needed saving?

Have you ever heard of Lagrange points? No matter how many articles you read about global warming, or how many TV programs you watched, or if you saw Al Gore’s so-called “documentary,” I’ll bet that you never heard of Lagrange points.

But you should have.

Lagrange described five points relating to an object orbiting around another – in this case, the earth orbiting around the sun, as shown in the diagram. The one we are interested in is between the earth and the sun, called the L1 point.

The L1 point is that point between the earth and the sun at which a satellite will remain indefinitely, with minimal input of energy. In fact, NASA has placed research satellites there.

It may be possible to control global warming by placing a satellite at the L1 point, and then spreading a huge umbrella-like device that would block 0.5 to 1 percent of the sunlight that reaches the earth.

The advantages are (1) if global temperatures fall again, the umbrella could be closed, and (2) global temperatures could be regulated without disrupting the global economy. The disadvantage is that this umbrella would have to be roughly 600 miles across. But a series of smaller satellites rotating around a common center would be equally effective and more practical.

I don’t know whether this idea is feasible, or how many billions it would cost. But there are some things I do know:

· If I hadn’t been a science-fiction fan in my youth, I never would have heard of Lagrange points.

· I have never seen or heard the term in any discussion of global warming in the mainstream media.

· If I want to keep my government job, or get a research grant, or get tenure at a university, I must never dare to question the party line on global warming.

· Alarmists like Al Gore call for drastic cuts in greenhouse gases that would cripple our economy and throw millions into poverty.

· Even with these drastic measures, there would be little effect on global temperatures.

· India and China are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol, so global air pollution will increase no matter what we do, while over two billion people – one-third of the Earth’s population – continue to industrialize as fast as they can.

· With our economy strangled, our defense capabilities will be dangerously reduced – which would please leftists.

· Many “environmentalists” are like watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside. So they applaud when Barack Obama promises to “remake” the nation and even “remake” the world. Compared to that, his promise of “complete transformation of the economy” almost seems modest. Almost.

· Children have enough problems without activist teachers making them suffer from anxiety about global warming.

· Global temperatures rose only 0.6 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years. The dire predictions of the alarmists are based on computer projections for the future, not on the temperature rise actually observed.

· Fluctuations in global temperature closely parallel fluctuations in energy output by the sun (click here and here).

· Increased solar energy output has caused warming of Mars and Pluto. The last time I checked, there were no SUVs on Mars or Pluto. So if people talk about global warming, ask them which “globe” they mean.

· Even if the alarmists are not exaggerating the danger – which they almost surely are – there are less intrusive remedies that might help.

· The real purpose of the alarmists is not climate control, but people control.

· The alarmists never mention satellites at the L1 point, or altering the exhaust of jet airliners, or other less intrusive methods of reducing global temperatures. These methods would not allow bureaucrats to control virtually every aspect of daily life − just as they already control our light bulbs and toilets.

· As recently as 1974, the cover of Time Magazine warned that climatologists were predicting global cooling and another Ice Age. Now they predict the opposite. It ill behooves those who reverse themselves to claim that they are infallible.

· Climatologists predicted severe hurricane seasons for 2006 and 2007, but the seasons were mild. It ill behooves those who cannot predict the weather six months in advance to claim that their predictions for the next 100 years are infallible.

· Contrary to alarmists’ predictions, there has been no global warming for the past 10 years, probably due to decreased sunspot activity. Had the alarmists’ drastic program been implemented, they would have taken the credit. But since warming ceased without their help, they ignore this fact. You call that science?

· Whether record high or low temperatures occur, or whether there are droughts or floods, global warming is blamed. An idea that is supported by any evidence, even if contradictory, is a quasi-religious belief, not a scientific hypothesis.

· The essence of a scientific hypothesis is that it can be disproved. Einstein said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." A genius admitted he might be mistaken, but global-warming fanatics insist "the debate is over," and anyone who disputes them is a liar in the pay of oil companies.

From all this I conclude: (1) Global warming may be a problem, but a lesser one than the alarmists claim. (2) Less of the warming is due to human activity than the alarmists claim. (3) Less intrusive methods exist to deal with the problem. (4) We may even be entering a period of global cooling.

Some global-warming alarmists are sincerely worried about the impact of human activity on global climate. They want to avoid the problems that are being predicted by some – but by no means all – experts. But other alarmists are true fanatics.

Like all fanatics, they find a messianic leader − “the one” who inspires them as a “beam of light” comes down from above. They focus on their pet aspect of human well-being to the exclusion of all other aspects. They claim to be speaking for all humanity, a colossally egocentric notion. They try to silence dissent. They refuse to answer arguments against their pet theory. Instead, they call those who disagree terrible names, equating them to Holocaust deniers. Global warming has become the alarmists’ religion – they see those who disagree with them as heretics. And we know what fanatics do to heretics.

The next time you hear people talk about “saving the planet,” politely excuse yourself and walk away. They might be dangerous.

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

www.stolinsky.com

I'm So Old, I Can Remember When...

I’m So Old, I Can Remember When…

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Aug. 4, 2008

He jests at scars that never felt a wound.
− William Shakespeare, “Romeo and Juliet”

Beware the fury of a patient man.
− John Dryden, “Absalom and Achitophel”

I’m angry. I am fed up with the incessant, cruel “jokes” on late-night TV. I am sick and tired of Dave Letterman insulting John McCain as so old that he forgets where his house is when he goes out for the paper, or so senile that he thinks the staff at the nursing home stole his socks, or so incontinent that he needs diapers. A pro-Obama rapper rants, “McCain don’t belong in any chair unless he’s paralyzed.”

In my day, a candidate for President might be criticized for his political views, but never ridiculed because of his age. We remembered the Holocaust and racial segregation. We learned the dangers of seeing a group of human beings as less than human. Sadly, what has been learned can be forgotten. Times have changed. No, people have changed. Still, rather than just sit and complain, I decided to turn things around and use this attack against the attackers.

I’m so old, I can remember when:

Things were not disposable.

I went through high school and university with a fountain pen. I learned to drive on a Ford that my parents owned for 12 years. I learned to take care of knives and scissors, because they were expensive and lasted for decades. I watched TV with my parents on a black-and-white set that outlasted them.

There were no electronic gizmos that had to be replaced with newer models every year or two. I had what I needed, but my parents did not flood me with expensive devices − there weren’t any. And there were no shoddy articles made in China by oppressed workers, so I learned to keep my things and take care of them.

People were not disposable.

Divorce was rare. As I recall, none of my parents’ friends was divorced, nor any of my friends’ parents. The rate of broken homes was higher among minorities, but even there it was much lower than it is today. Most kids were raised by a married couple − that is, a woman married to a man. That I now need to define “married couple” tells a lot about what has changed. I learned to keep my relationships and take care of them, too.

I was taught that my role was to find a profession and find a wife. Unlike today’s kids, I was never told that my role was to “find myself.” Everyone assumed I already knew who I was − which turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Children are already narcissistic enough. They need to be taught to be aware of the needs and feelings of others. But if we teach them to “find themselves,” they have a convenient excuse to remain narcissists all their lives. As we are discovering to our sorrow, narcissists make inconsiderate spouses, selfish parents, whining children, hostile drivers, complaining workers, ungrateful bosses, bad citizens − and an unbearably self-absorbed candidate for President.

People knew the meaning of a handshake.

People often did business on a handshake, sometimes for many years. There were few lawyers, and people rarely needed them. Who needed a lawyer, when you trusted the other guy? He didn’t need one, either, because he didn’t make an agreement while already planning to break it. And there were no prenuptial agreements, because people didn’t get married while already planning to get divorced.

If you rear-ended a car, you got out and said, “I’m sorry; it’s my fault.” I did that twice. The first time it saved me from a boost in my insurance rates, and the second time it saved me from a beating. “I’m sorry” prevents a lot of trouble, but now hardly anyone says it, because lawyers tell us it leads to lawsuits. This may be true, but only because we allow it, in the hope of making money if we sue.

Kids were brought up to be Americans.

I was taught by my parents, the schools, the TV and the movies that I was already a member of a special group − Americans. So I felt no need for gangs, cults or “movements.” Unlike “Taliban” John Walker Lindh or “Al Queda” Adam Gadahn, I was not left to “find my own path.” I was grounded in my religion, not to teach me I was better than anyone else, but to teach me who I was. It’s good to know who you are. Then you don’t have to spend half your life trying to find out, and you can get on with constructive activities.

Immigrants from many lands, speaking many languages, following many religions − or none − sent their children to public schools. They trusted that their children would be taught reading, writing and arithmetic, as well as American history and civics, and basic moral principles. And in most cases, the trust was justified. The schools did their job.

Teaching the basics was a big enough job to keep teachers busy. They didn’t have to teach about homosexuality or global warming or “diversity,” or give bilingual classes, or perform a myriad other politically correct activities that take precious time, but contribute little to students’ ability to go to college, get better jobs or be better citizens.

We spent less on education, but the students learned more. The money was spent on teachers, not on a host of bureaucrats who monitored bilingual classes, environmental classes, affirmative-action and sexual-harassment programs, and who-knows-how-many other programs mandated by a “caring” government, which cares about everything except real education.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might suggest that the “caring” government and the “caring” education establishment are intentionally producing a generation of poorly educated people − who will go along with whatever the government demands. “Saving the planet” is so huge and so vague a goal as to justify nearly any totalitarian scheme, so a compliant populace will be necessary. And who could be more compliant than people who are poorly educated and have no sense of national identity?

An American citizen has specific rights and responsibilities. But a “citizen of the world” has no specific rights, and only the responsibility to do as he is told to “save the planet.”

People knew the meaning of respect.

In my day, people knew that if it were not for the countless sacrifices of our troops, we would be living under tyranny − if we were living at all. We respected men and women in uniform, as well as veterans − especially those who bore the scars of their service. We never would have tolerated a politician who claimed that only uneducated losers join the military, nor would we have tolerated a politician who refused to visit wounded troops if he couldn’t make a photo opportunity out of it.

Children respected their parents and teachers. Children called adults “Mr. Jones” or “Miss Smith.” They called relatives “Uncle Ben” or “Aunt Sadie.” Adults would remind them to do so if they forgot. People showed respect for religion, even if it was not theirs. When I visited a church as a tourist, I took off my hat. That’s the way I was brought up.

People showed respect for government officials, especially the President. If they were of the other party and opposed his policies, they still respected the office, even if they did not respect the man. That’s the way they were brought up.

No one would have dreamed of making insulting, belittling remarks about a presidential candidate. Condemn his policies, perhaps in harsh terms, yes. But personal insults? Never. No one would make public statements ridiculing someone because of his age. No one would make “jokes” on TV about senility, denture adhesives and incontinence diapers. Everyone knew that such tasteless remarks would reflect badly on the person who made them. He would lose his sponsors and his audience. He would lose respect.

We respected age because we respected wisdom. We looked forward to being wiser at 70 than we were at 20. Otherwise, we would have wasted 50 years, and who wants to do that?

Yes, I must be really old if I can remember when my country was so different. But my recent memory is also excellent, as I will demonstrate on Election Day. The juvenile, mean-spirited, tasteless, dehumanizing “jokes” about aging will be in my thoughts as I cast my vote for John McCain.

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

www.stolinsky.com

A Nation on the Cusp

A Nation on the Cusp

David C. Stolinsky, MD
July 31, 2008

John McCain undergoes biopsy of a small skin lesion on his face. McCain has had four bouts with melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer.
− News item

NBC’s Brian Williams interviews Iranian leader Ahmadinejad. As when Dan Rather interviewed Saddam Hussein and when Mike Wallace interviewed Ahmadinejad, the questions were friendly, not confrontational or probing.
− News item

As I write this, John McCain, his family and the nation were informed that the biopsy of a small skin lesion on his face showed no cancer. This event acquires greater significance because McCain has had four bouts with melanoma, the most lethal type of skin cancer.

Even if the biopsy had revealed a superficial melanoma that has an excellent chance of cure, the result would have affected the election. A fifth bout of a potentially fatal cancer would evoke claims from Democrats that McCain is a dying man, and calls from Republicans for him to step down.

If the biopsy had revealed a cancer and McCain stepped down, the Republican convention would have chosen a new candidate. But even if he did not step down, a positive biopsy would have caused McCain to be perceived as infirm and weak − by Americans, and by those in other nations, both those who mean us well and those who mean us ill.

One need not have worked in medical oncology, as I did, to recognize the anxiety that accompanies waiting for a biopsy result. But in this case, the anxiety was shared, at least in part, by all of us. Indeed, the future course of world events depended on the outcome of the biopsy of a small skin lesion.

The concept underlying this event is that cancer exists and must be treated in order to avoid dire consequences. This concept is obvious to nearly everyone. But there is another concept that is, if anything, even more important, but less obvious − at least, less obvious to some people. The concept is that evil exists and must be fought to avoid dire consequences.

While we awaited the result of McCain’s biopsy, news reports described the interview by Brian Williams of Iranian leader Ahmadinejad. The friendly, “softball” questions were regrettably reminiscent of the cordial interview of Ahmadinejad by Mike Wallace, and the equally cordial interview of Saddam Hussein by Dan Rather. What do our networks hope to accomplish by such interviews − except, of course, to increase their sagging ratings?

Does anyone really expect a fanatical tyrant to repeat his genocidal pronouncements on American TV? Does anyone really expect Ahmadinejad to deny the Holocaust and call for the annihilation of Israel, the way he repeatedly does on Iranian TV? Does anyone really expect him to admit that oil-rich Iran’s nuclear program can have no purpose other than to develop nuclear weapons?

Does anyone really believe that such interviews don’t serve to give a platform − and give legitimacy − to brutal dictators? Our great journalists of the past would never have dreamed of interviewing Hitler. Regrettably, it is obvious that the profession of journalism has declined.

Even more regrettably, it is obvious that our nation, and the world, are on the cusp. We were waiting to learn whether one of our two presidential candidates would withdraw, throwing the race wide open. And we are waiting to learn whether our next president can even recognize that extremist Islam is our opponent, much less know how to confront it.

Is this judgment too harsh? Can you recall even one time, in even one debate, that even one of the several Democratic hopefuls mentioned the words “radical Islam” or “extremist Islam” or “Islamo-fascism”? No? Neither can I. But I believe that all the Republican presidential hopefuls did so. From this I conclude that all the Democratic hopefuls, including Barack Obama, are more interested in being politically correct than in defending this nation from our enemies. What else should I conclude?

In years past, people refused to use the word “cancer” and instead referred to a “tumor” or a “growth.” But eventually, people controlled their denial and their fear, so that they could name the cause of their fear. Now that we no longer avoid even mentioning the word, cure rates for most cancers have improved dramatically. There is a lesson here. Until we dare to name a threat, we cannot begin to deal with it. Those who cannot even use the term “extremist Islam” are in no position to combat it.

The first rule of gun fights is bring a gun. The first rule of culture wars is bring a culture. The first rule of any war is recognize you are in one and identify the enemy. On all these counts, I believe that leading Democrats, including the mainstream media, are seriously deficient.

Waiting for a biopsy result is extremely stressful on a personal level. But recognizing that our country, and our civilization, are on the cusp is anxiety-provoking on a national level. For this reason, many people deny that we are on the cusp. They go about their daily lives, just as many people with suspicious symptoms avoid going to the doctor, and concern themselves with trivial problems while ignoring the crucial problem.

Serious, potentially lethal problems eventually will force their way into our consciousness. But by the time they can no longer be ignored, they may no longer be curable. Just as John McCain was wise not to ignore a suspicious lesion on his face, we will be wise not to ignore the threat of extremist Islam − and not to put our trust in those who do ignore it.

The question is, will we be wise?

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

www.stolinsky.com