http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ht_newsweek_cover_barack_obama_jt_120513_wblog.jpg

Now that President Obama openly supports same-sex marriage, Newsweek declares him “the first gay president,” a statement that is questionable on many levels. But not satisfied, the editors of Newsweek place on its cover a picture of Obama with a rainbow-colored halo. This goes beyond praise and reaches the level of adulation, even adoration and worship.

Nor is this the first time Obama has been depicted with a halo. This has happened multiple times in multiple media. Apparently those in charge of these media have so little self-awareness that they can’t perceive how their actions degrade their magazines, newspapers, and websites to mere propaganda outlets. They see Obama in a pseudo-religious context, so they can’t understand how such undisguised adulation might subject them to ridicule and contempt on the part of those who do not share their liberal beliefs. As narcissists, they assume that everyone should see Obama as they do.

Note that this is not a caricature of Obama in a conservative magazine. Political cartoons and caricatures are as old as newspapers. Liberal cartoonists showed Nixon with heavy jowls and Reagan with more wrinkles than a prune. Conservative cartoonists showed Jimmy Carter with buck teeth and show Barack Obama with huge ears. But this is not a caricature in an opposition publication. On the contrary, it is a favorable depiction in a pro-Obama publication. It is pro-government propaganda of the most brazen, fawning, sycophantic sort.

The editors of Newsweek were not satisfied that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and National Public Radio all lean to the left. Nor were they satisfied that virtually all “news” papers from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times do the same. If it were not for talk radio, the Internet, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, conservative ideas would never be heard in the media. But leftism has a totalitarian urge. The editors were not satisfied. So they turned the cover of Newsweek into a propaganda poster.

Propaganda was raised to an art form by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda and public enlightenment. Goebbels “enlightened” the German public with propaganda such as this: 

http://mason.gmu.edu/~mmoravit/clioiiwebsite/images/HitlerKnight.jpg

Goebbels depicted der Führer (the Leader) as a knight in shining armor, leading his troops into battle and holding aloft his swastika flag. But even the Nazi propaganda chief didn’t depict Hitler with a halo, as some sort of saint. Goebbels knew that even in the totalitarian Nazi state, there were still many devout Catholics and Protestants who would be insulted by a depiction of Hitler as a religious figure.

The Soviet Union was also a totalitarian state, and it also had a powerful propaganda bureaucracy. At the height of Stalin’s personality cult, Pravda, the official Communist Party newspaper, mentioned Stalin’s name on just one front page 101 times. Ironically, “Pravda” means “truth.” The Soviet Union was firmly atheist, so Stalin was never represented as a religious figure. Granted, communism might be considered a secular religion. Nevertheless, Stalin was depicted as a powerful leader, but never with a halo: 

http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/tmp_assets/stalin-bio.jpg

But now we have reached a new level of adulation of the Leader. Now Newsweek, a formerly respected “news” magazine founded in 1933, sees fit to adorn its cover with a picture of President Obama in a halo.

It was Obama himself who stirred up this outpouring of adulation. Recall his campaign speech in 2008: “I am going to try to be so persuasive, so that those of you who are still wavering…will suddenly come to the conclusion – a light beam will shine through – will light you up – and you will experience an epiphany – I have to vote for Barack!”

A light beam? An epiphany? Really? And recall the school children who were taught to sing hymns to the Leader. This goes beyond education and reaches the level of indoctrination, a term which implies that there are doctrines that must be believed.

But you know what’s really odd? Liberals express deep concern about Mitt Romney’s Mormon beliefs, and even about whether he wears “magic underwear.” But these same liberals are utterly unconcerned when children are taught to sing hymns to the Leader, or when a national magazine depicts him with a halo.

Question: Why is this?

1. For many liberals, liberalism has replaced religion as a belief system.
2. For many liberals, the gay agenda is a litmus test for “correct” beliefs.
3. For many liberals, self-awareness is an unfamiliar concept.
4. For many liberals, how non-liberals will see something is unimportant.
5. For many liberals, conservatives are evil and liberals are good.
6. All of the above.

Answer: 6.

Now here are some other questions, ones that are harder to answer:

● What are we going to do about this situation?

● What are we going to do to assure that our constitutional republic can continue to exist as a free nation?

● What are we going to do to restore political debate to the realm of politics, and to remove it from the realm of pseudo-religion?

● What are we going to do to convince people – especially liberals – that their leaders may be wise or courageous, but they are leaders because they were elected, not anointed.

● What are we going to do to convince people – especially liberals – that those who disagree may be mistaken or ignorant, but they are not heretics to be persecuted.

● What are we going to do to help all Americans renounce fanaticism in politics, just as in years past they renounced it in religion?

● What are we going to do to help all Americans see political opinions as political opinions, not as pseudo-religious dogmas that they must believe to be “saved.”

● What are we going to do to help all Americans look upon political leaders as political leaders, not as pseudo-religious luminaries who can lead them to utopia?

How we answer these questions will determine the future of freedom in this country, and to a large extent the future of freedom in the world. But make no mistake – depicting our president with a halo is a serious matter. Dismissing it as trivial or ludicrous misses the point. If we see the cover of Newsweek, and we merely shrug our shoulders and walk away, we are facilitating and enabling the transformation of our nation into something we will not recognize.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3327/3598631934_a9fd969800.jpg

This is a Yugo in its usual condition – broken down. If it weren’t for the workers pushing it, the little piece of socialist junk wouldn’t move at all. But at Smiling Barack’s Used Cars, the smooth-talking salesman will try to convince you to trade in your Ford pickup for a Yugo.

Smiling Barack is a leftist, so he firmly believes that he and his crew are more intelligent than us “common” people – and therefore they know what is best for us. But whether he can actually get the thing running is another matter entirely.

When I was 8 or 9 years old, my father bought me an electric horn for my bicycle. The only horns I knew were operated by squeezing a rubber bulb, so to discover how this horn worked, I took it apart. I still had no idea how it worked, and I couldn’t put it together again. I expected my father to be angry, but he said nothing. Later I realized why − he knew I had learned a valuable lesson:

Don’t take apart what you don’t understand and don’t know how to put back together.

Years later, I owned an old car. It ran well but idled a bit roughly. I tried to adjust the carburetor, but as a result the car hardly ran at all. It took an hour of strained back and skinned knuckles to return things to the way they were when I started. I realized I had learned another lesson:

If something is working reasonably well, be satisfied with minor improvements, and don’t try to achieve perfection − you are likely to make things worse.

There is an old saying that the perfect is the enemy of the good. In our search for the perfect, we tend to reject the good, or even to belittle and disrespect it:

● Rather than accepting what we have and being grateful for it, we are perpetually dissatisfied because we feel entitled to something much better.

● Rather than comparing what we have to what others have, we compare it to some imaginary ideal − and thus always find it deficient.

● Rather than making minor improvements in what we have, we attempt major transformations − and often make things worse.

● Rather than fine-tuning what we have, we take it apart − and wind up with a pile of parts we are unable to reassemble.

● Rather than going to couples counseling and working on our marriage, we dump our spouse and run off with a new lover − and find ourselves more unhappy.

● Rather than renovating our house, we step up to a bigger one every few years− and end up in foreclosure when the market drops.

● Rather than repairing the old car we are accustomed to, we buy a new one we can’t afford in order to impress others − and find ourselves even more dissatisfied.

● Rather than accepting the limitations of the religion of our youth, we abandon it − and find ourselves more lost and confused.

● Rather than loving our country despite its imperfections, we focus only on the imperfections − and find ourselves more rootless and adrift.

All this is relevant to the current political situation. America has faults, as is recognized by citizens from all parts of the political spectrum. We disagree on precisely what these faults are, but we all agree that there are faults. The key question is this: How big are the faults?

If, as I believe, America’s faults are minor, what we need is the equivalent of an automotive tune-up:

● We need to assure that our armed forces have adequate personnel, equipment, and training for current needs, and for likely future needs.

● We need to assure that our missile-defense system is not cut, but perfected before our enemies have nuclear missiles.

● We need to improve the efficiency of our counter-terrorism agencies, and certainly not to hamstring them with unrealistic restrictions − including giving Miranda warnings to terrorists captured in Afghanistan.

● We need to regulate our financial system enough to prevent wild speculation, but also to eliminate governmental pressure to make loans to those with poor credit. We need wiser regulation, not more regulation.

● We need to improve the safety net, including adequate medical care for the poor and the unemployed, but without the callous rationing that so often accompanies socialized medicine.

● We need to gain better control our borders. We can’t expect to control the costs of health care and welfare, despite a continuing flood of immigrants − especially illegal immigrants. As Milton Friedman pointed out, we can’t have both a welfare state and open borders. Trying to have both will lead to bankruptcy.

● We need to tone down our vicious political rhetoric. Those who disagree with us may be mistaken, or naive, or foolish − but not un-American, or evil, or even traitors or Nazis.

● We need real campaign-finance reform. Never again should a party be allowed to buy an election with huge sums contributed from dubious sources. Ideally, we should allow contributions of any size from any domestic source, so long as it is reported publicly and promptly.

● We need a two-party press and media. Currently ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, National Public Radio, and almost every paper from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times, parrot the leftist viewpoint. This is detrimental to free and open debate. If liberals succeed in muzzling conservative talk radio, conservative opinions will be even harder to hear.

This may seem to be a wide-ranging agenda, but in fact it represents a series of minor adjustments. It resembles the “to-do” list I give my mechanic when my car needs service. It embodies improvements in a good system that could be even better.

On the other hand, if you believe − as do leftists − that America is deeply, fundamentally flawed, then a “to-do” list, even a long one, cannot suffice. You agree with Barack Obama that America needs to be “fundamentally transformed.” If you were taught in school and university that America has done more bad than good in the world, you come to believe that we must do to America what I tried to do with my electric bicycle horn − tear it to pieces and rebuild it from scratch.

But the very real risk is that we will do to America what I actually did to my bicycle horn. We will dismantle it piece by piece, as we are already doing. Then, at some point that will surely come, we will remove one more piece and the whole thing will fall apart. We will be left staring at the scattered parts, no wiser at understanding what made the thing work, but unable to reassemble it.

We will learn as adults what I learned as a child − not to take apart what we don’t know how to put back together. I was left without an amusing toy. We will be left without a great and good nation. I was left sadder but wiser. We will be left only sadder − the lesson will come too late.

We could take our good old American-made Ford to Romney’s Auto Repair. The owner is experienced in repairing damaged machines. He might not get to all the items on our “to-do” list. But he will make enough repairs to get our pickup running reliably again.

Or we could take our Ford back to Smiling Barack’s Used Cars, where the smooth-talking salesman tried to persuade us to trade it in for a Yugo. The Yugo barely runs at all, as Europeans could have told us after decades of sad experience. But it was made according to socialist principles, so we will be told not to complain.

My objective is not to say, “I told you so.” My objective is to counter the president’s efforts to collect information on people’s political opinions and silence opposition.

My purpose is to call attention to the fact that ObamaCare is not only unreliable, like the Yugo, but it also has an alarming tendency to run over the elderly, the disabled, the seriously ill − and ultimately all of us.

My motive is to point out that enormous deficits will cause our economy to blow a gasket and break down completely.

My aim is to warn that we are creating a nation of dependent “Julias” who look to an all-powerful government to supply their needs – in return for surrendering their freedom.

My goal is to point out that there is no “social justice” or “economic justice,” there is only justice. I never said that the Yugo isn’t fair – I said that it doesn’t run.

My mission is to repair our old Ford, and not to leave it sitting abandoned on Smiling Barack’s lot. With a bit of time and effort, we can get it running well again. It’s a real oil-burner and needs some engine work, but then it will give us many more years of faithful service. Best of all, it was made in America by people who share our values.

There is something friendly and reassuring about the sound of an American V8 engine, especially if you haven’t heard one for a while. There is something friendly and reassuring about the feeling of freedom, especially if you came close to losing it.

Author’s Note: A prior version of this column was posted Nov. 5, 2008, the day after Election Day. And you may see other versions posted until next Election Day, when we hope to send Smiling Barack back to his used car lot, where he can extol the socialist virtues of the Yugo to anyone who will listen. But he can no longer force you to buy one.

You want “free” health care at government-run clinics and hospitals? See how well this worked out for a 15-year-old British schoolgirl by clicking here.

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

www.stolinsky.com

Freedom is never an achieved state. Like electricity, we’ve got to keep generating it, or the lights go out.
‒ Wayne LaPierre

One might think that there is no relation between coyotes and freedom. One would be wrong. How we react to predators is an excellent indication of whether we possess the mindset required to remain free. Consider these two coyotes.

The first coyote had the good fortune to live in upstate New York. He and his pack mate were roaming the streets of Rye when they spotted a group of children playing in the front yard of a home. As predators do, he attacked the smallest, six-year-old Emily.

The child screamed as she was knocked to the ground, and the coyote bit her on the shoulder and back. Her mother and a neighbor, who luckily were nearby, ran over and scared off the coyotes. They remained free to roam the streets with others of their kind.

Emily recovered but had to undergo a course of rabies-vaccine injections. She was afraid to go outside, and thought there were coyotes in the basement of her home. Efforts to trap coyotes and “relocate” them to the woods continue, with uncertain effect.

Predictably, environmentalists complained that we are encroaching on coyotes’ territory. Why their territory includes urban areas was not explained. In fact, coyotes’ range has increased following the arrival of humans. Coyotes roam schoolyards and residential streets in Los Angeles, and even in New York City.

In one case, parents in the Los Angeles area brought kids to school early for band practice. But they had to keep the kids in their cars until coyotes decided to leave the schoolyard. The coyotes, not the parents or the teachers, were in charge. When we neglect our responsibilities, predators take over. Those who claim to revere Darwin should take him seriously when he talks about survival of the fittest. If we allow the most savage to define who is fittest, they will survive – and we won’t.

By way of contrast, the second coyote had the misfortune to live in Travis County, Texas. This coyote spotted a man jogging with his daughter’s Labrador puppy. The puppy looked like it would make a tasty lunch, but the man had other ideas. He happened to be Gov. Rick Perry, but that fact was irrelevant. What was relevant was that he drew his pistol and killed the coyote, canceling the lunch.

Predictably, opponents of firearms complained that the man was armed. When yelling failed to frighten the coyote, apparently they wanted him to allow his dog to be carried off, or himself to be attacked. But Gov. Perry remarked, “Don’t attack my dog or you might get shot…if you’re a coyote.” Perhaps the pause was as significant as the words.

What can we learn from the fates of these two coyotes?

● First, it is untrue that “they were here first.” Single-celled organisms were here first. Every plant, every animal, every human being is an invader. Every nation occupies land that used to be occupied by other peoples, who in turn had displaced even earlier peoples. We deserve to keep only what we can put to good use − and can defend from attackers.

● Second, we have a finite amount of compassion. I’m sure Mother Teresa had more than I do, but even hers was not infinite. Wisely, she spent it on those who needed it most, the poor of India. If she had used it for the middle class and rich, she would have had less to give to the neediest. We should follow her example. The more compassion we squander on predators − either the two-legged or the four-legged variety − the less we have for their victims.

We then deteriorate into self-anointed “humanitarians” who have compassion for coyotes, but none for six-year-old girls or Labrador puppies. Such people sign petitions in support of Roman Polanski, who drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, then served only 42 days. Such people boast that “compassion and mercy” were shown when a mother who strangled her 14-year-old daughter with a headscarf was given a suspended sentence − and will serve no time at all in prison. Those who have no compassion for children deserve none for themselves.

● Third, freedom is fragile, and history proves it is often temporary. In order to become free and remain free, people must exert constant vigilance for enemies of freedom. These enemies may be external, but they tend to be easier to recognize. They may wear flashy uniforms and shiny boots, or they may wear turbans and robes. They may goose-step smartly, or they may march poorly. But they can be recognized when they loudly proclaim their contempt for freedom and their lust for all-encompassing power.

More insidious are internal enemies of freedom. They wear trendy suits or casual clothes. They talk smoothly about “fairness,” but they intend to decide what is fair for you. They talk about “power to the people,” but they mean power to themselves. They push through unpopular programs like ObamaCare with minimum debate, because they believe they are the “elite” and know better than the “masses” what is good for us.

From Marx to Lenin to current “progressives,” they believe their job is to “raise the consciousness” of the “common people” − that is, to indoctrinate everyone with leftist propaganda, until we surrender our freedom in exchange for promises of economic security. In the end, we will have neither freedom nor economic security, but no matter − they will have power, which was their object in the first place.

● Fourth, and most important, the two coyotes teach us that in order to be free, first we must think free. The people where the six-year-old girl was attacked may be the nicest people you will ever meet. They may be loving spouses and parents. But they look to the government to protect them, and those dependent on them, from predators. They are free only to the extent that predators allow them to remain free. They see themselves as dependents, not as responsible adults. They don’t think free.

On the other hand, the people where the Labrador puppy was saved from becoming a hot lunch see themselves as ultimately responsible for the safety and well-being of themselves and those dependent on them. Yes, they look to the government to provide what government should provide, especially public safety. But when all else fails, they know they must stand on their own feet. They know that power flows upward from them to the government, not down from the government to them. They think free.

Not thinking free can affect anyone. Thomas Jefferson was a genius, but even he had difficulty thinking free. He had spent his life up to that point as a subject of His Britannic Majesty King George III. So when he wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, he automatically used the word “subjects.” But he saw his error, erased “subjects” and substituted “citizens.”

Jefferson made other changes by crossing the word out, but this change he made by scratching out the word with a knife. Jefferson was determined to eradicate the idea of being a subject ‒ from the Declaration, and from the thinking of all Americans.

If even Jefferson had to make an effort to think free, how much more do we non-geniuses have to exert ourselves constantly to be alert. If we citizens allow ourselves to doze off on our sofas, watching TV and munching snacks, we will wake up as subjects. It will not be a pleasant awakening.

But if you don’t believe me, just ask the coyotes. They know from experience that it’s a lot safer to prey on subjects than on citizens.

A prior version of this column was posted in 2010. Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
− Edward R. Murrow

Have you heard about “The Life of Julia”? It’s a video put out by the Obama campaign. It boasts about how President Obama will help a fictional character named Julia – help her all the way from preschool at age three to retirement at age 67. Is it a coincidence that “Julia” is the name of the girlfriend of the protagonist in Orwell’s “1984”? Perhaps, perhaps not.

David Harsanyi at Human Events complained, “Who the hell is Julia and why am I paying for her whole life?” But I would go further. If we encourage – no, enable – a generation of dependent, subservient “Julias,” there will be no one left to pay for much of anything.

Revealingly, the video mentions Julia’s parents only when she is a child. It shows her going through life without a husband or life partner. It shows her having a son without mention of his father, much less of marriage. It shows her working without friends or colleagues, and starting her own business without a business partner or employees. It shows her retiring on Social Security, but without mention of her own savings, much less of her son or other family members to help out.

Perhaps the reason Julia’s parents disappear from the story when she is still young, and Julia’s story itself ends when she reaches Social Security age, is that they all will be denied active medical treatment – because “experts” didn’t “advise doctors across the board that it will save money.” (Obama’s words, not mine.)

The video shows Julia going through life alone – except for the government. How indescribably sad. How unimaginably dangerous.

The video shows how all phases of Julia’s life will be benefitted by President Obama, but would be harmed by a President Romney. In short, it shows how Julia – and presumably all women – are expected to live as though they were married to the government. How patriarchal is that? And it shows how all citizens are expected to become subjects, dependent on a parentified government. How totalitarian is that?

Some parts of America, especially its liberal half, have been described as infantile. Many people regard the federal government as their parent. They expect it to provide for the needs of their young children, their elderly parents, and often themselves. In these respects, many Americans − and most Western Europeans − act like children.

Children recognize that they need their parents to protect them, provide for them, and make important decisions for them. But then they become teenagers. We used to call them “adolescents” − those who are becoming adults. But we no longer use the term, because there is less push to become adults.

Perhaps that’s why malls are full of middle-aged “boys” wearing baggy shorts and ball caps, and middle-aged “girls” wearing short shorts and spaghetti tops. Perhaps that’s why ex-Congressman Weiner tweeted raunchy photos of himself to women, as if he were 14 instead of 46. Perhaps he is an extreme example of a common phenomenon.

Yes, many Americans resemble teenagers. They depend on their “parent,” the government, to protect and provide for them – but they resent their dependence:

● They want to spend their money on cars, clothes, electronic toys, and entertainment – but they want “mom” to provide health care.

● They want their own house or apartment – but they want “dad” to help with the payments.

● They want to be safe – but they resent rules and look down on our police and military.

Children sometimes resent their dependent status. Teenagers are less dependent, but they resent it more. They insist on being treated as adults, but they do silly and sometimes dangerous things – then expect real adults to clean up the mess.

A prolonged state of childishness is called infantilism. There isn’t a word for a prolonged state of adolescence, but we need one, because many people are in it:

● They want to drive without seatbelts while talking on cell phones or texting. But if they have a crash, they sue the other driver and the car maker – while lawyers profit from their irresponsible behavior.

● They want to ride motorcycles and bicycles without helmets. But if they suffer a head injury in a minor accident, they want to be cared for at taxpayers’ expense.

● They want to drive wherever they please – then blame others for traffic jams and air pollution.

● They want to be safe on the streets, but they hobble police with unrealistic restrictions – then complain about violent crime.

● They want to be safe in their homes, but they push laws to disarm law-abiding citizens – then complain about home invasions.

● They want to be safe from foreign threats, but they oppose appropriations for new weapons, better training, or adequate pay for our troops – then grumble when the troops don’t perform difficult, dangerous duty with absolute perfection.

● They want to be safe from terrorism, but they oppose searching for terrorists as “profiling,” oppose security measures as “shredding the Constitution,” and oppose security alerts as “political.”

● They want terrorists defeated – but without casualties. They point to the deaths of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and want us to abandon these countries, not realizing that roughly the same number of people are murdered in Los Angeles. Should we also abandon our own large cities?

● They want relationships without commitment, sex without consequences, and fun without strings attached – then whine about feeling empty when they reach middle age.

● They want to plunge into careers – then whimper about lack of family or friends when they grow older.

● They want to spend their money on anything but health insurance – then weep and wail about lack of coverage.

● They want to eat and drink to excess and exercise little – then moan and groan about lousy health care when they get sick.

● They want to spend their time watching TV – then complain when politicians pick their pockets.

● They want more government benefits – then are shocked when the deficit balloons to colossal proportions.

● They want the government to make important decisions for them – then complain that things aren’t going well.

● They want unelected judges with lifetime jobs to decide vital issues – then gripe about not being consulted.

● They want to attend church rarely if ever – then criticize mercilessly when the church runs into trouble.

● They want to give little to charity – then claim to be kindhearted because they vote Democratic.

● They want to bask in the phony warmth of pacifism and nonviolence – then expect others to defend them from enemies who want to slit their throats.

● They want to “love all humanity” – then belittle their own country.

● They want to be “multicultural” − then ridicule their own culture.

● They want to be “citizens of the world,” which requires nothing of them but breathing. Being an American citizen, on the other hand, requires supporting our country, and if necessary fighting for it.

● They want to excuse their own failure to serve in the military by belittling the service of those who risk their lives for us. Those who belittle such service only belittle themselves.

● They want to “support our troops” – then express contempt for the troops and for what the troops are doing. That’s support?

● They want to “love America” – then make excuses for its enemies. That’s love?

● They want to be independent – then insist that America must pass a “global test” and can’t act without permission of the “international community.” That’s independence?

Yes, some people resemble perpetual teenagers.

Like many teens, they are skilled at making excuses for doing nothing. Jimmy Carter warned us not to have “inordinate fear” of communism. After roughly 100 million people were murdered by communists, could we at least be slightly concerned? And they “see the viewpoint” of those who brought down the Twin Towers. Really? If my mind worked like that of a mass murderer, I wouldn’t boast about it.

Like many teens, they fail to foresee the consequences of their actions. And when bad results ensue, they blame others. They block drilling for oil and gas, and they block mining coal or building nuclear power plants, leaving us dependent on Middle East oil. But when oil prices soar, they blame oil companies. Intentionally or not, they are enriching the oil sheiks and impoverishing Americans.

Like many teens, they have vivid imaginations. They confuse feeling good with doing good. They “visualize world peace,” then do nothing to achieve it. They condemn terrorism, then do everything they can to obstruct those who fight terrorists.

Like many teens, they are egocentric. They can’t believe there are people bent on world domination and killing “infidels.” In effect, they say, “Who could want to harm me?”

They want adults to do the difficult, dangerous work. But they are the adults.

They want freedom without the risk of fighting for it.

They want security without the expense of providing it.

They want blessings without being grateful.

They want justice without making moral judgments.

They want to be independent while borrowing astronomical sums from foreigners who do not wish us well.

They want to be a nation of “Julias,” but who will be left to pay for it?

They want to be free without being responsible. And how’s that working out?

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

First I reinstalled the antivirus program and waited for it to update all the new virus definitions that had been issued since it was new. Then I went to Windows Update and was greeted with the message that 74 “important” updates had accumulated since I bought the computer. This took over an hour and a restart. But on each of the three subsequent days, there were more “important” updates, for a total of over 100.

Granted, technology moves fast – too fast. Granted, Microsoft employs thousands of technicians to keep its products up to date. Granted, as millions of people use these products for various purposes, problems are revealed that careful testing had not revealed in product development. And granted, antivirus programs must be updated continually to meet new attacks by assorted hackers.

But even so, I was surprised by the number of updates that had accumulated in a relatively short time. By way of comparison, I have a car that is almost 10 years old – twice as old as my computer. To the best of my recollection, there have been two recalls for minor corrections that never affected the operation of the car in the slightest.

Cars have been manufactured for over a century, while personal computers are only a few decades old. One expects young technologies to change faster than mature technologies. But I couldn’t help wondering how many of the over 100 updates were as necessary as the two recalls for my car, which as far as I could see weren’t really necessary at all. In other words, which updates are real improvements, and which are just updates?

I spent most of my professional life working in a large public hospital. I wish I had kept all the memos I received during those years – all the directives from my department chair, all the proclamations from the executive director, and all the decrees from personnel and payroll. They would have filled a filing cabinet to overflowing.

If I had kept them, I could make a rough calculation of how many were important advice on how to prevent or overcome real problems and expedite our work, and how many were bureaucratic meddling that created problems and impeded the work. My estimate is that perhaps 90% were of the latter type.

On the rare occasions I pointed out problems, I was viewed as a troublemaker. Bureaucrats have little time to solve real problems – they are too busy manufacturing problems and increasing organizational complexity in order to justify their own jobs. This is an endemic disease of bureaucracies. It is true of government bureaucracies, and to a lesser extent of business bureaucracies, but might it also be true of technologic bureaucracies?

For example, among the over 100 updates installed on my computer was one I did not want. When Windows was reinstalled, the settings all reverted to the default value – including the one that allowed updates to be installed automatically. I changed the setting to “ask before downloading” updates, but before I did so I was the unwilling recipient of Internet Explorer 9. As far as I could see, its principal change was to separate the “home page” and “refresh” icons as far as possible, a dubious advantage.

But IE9 did not work with my website – my article had line breaks where there were none, and some words were in Times New Roman instead of Arial. So I uninstalled IE9 and reverted to IE7, which continues to work perfectly. Nevertheless, there is a price. Every time I boot up my computer, my work is partially obscured by a balloon nagging me that there are new updates. I am reminded daily that I have not conformed.

But, you protest, if I updated my website to the latest version of WordPress, it might work with Internet Explorer 9. Or it might not. So the upside of updating my website would be that after expenditure of considerable time and effort, it might work as well as it does now. But the downside would be that it might not work at all. Keeping things as good as they are now is not my idea of “progress.” Making them worse is even less attractive. But it is “progressive.”

This reminds me of a well-known techno-geek I heard on the radio a few years ago. He announced that Microsoft was developing a new version of Windows, which was promised to remedy the problems with then-current Windows Vista. The man paused dramatically, then said, “Oh, are they going to reintroduce Windows XP?”

That one sentence said a great deal about the difference between change and progress. In his expert opinion, a change back to Windows XP would represent real progress. In fact, the large medical group where my internist practices, and the major bank I use, both still use Windows XP. So do many other organizations. Does that tell you something about change versus progress?

How much “change” is improvement, and how much is merely change for change’s sake? This obviously applies to President Obama, who campaigned the first time with the mantras of “hope” and “change.”

In business, change may have an economic motive. Advertisements loudly proclaim “New and Improved!” But in many cases, the product is not improved, and it may not even be new. Laundry detergents were watered down, then were “concentrated” in half-size bottles at the original price. In effect, the price doubled. Similarly, a leading paper towel sharply reduced the size of its roll, but blatantly insulted the intelligence of its customers by renaming it “Big Roll.” This product deterioration is not included in the government’s deceptively low inflation figures.

Then we have “green” technology. Not long ago, the restrooms in an upscale mall were “updated.” The toilets and urinals flush electrically, the faucets and soap dispensers work electrically, and paper towels were replaced with an electric hot-air blower. How is it “environmental” to increase needless electricity usage?

Even worse, about one in four faucets and soap dispensers no longer work, and the toilets and urinals flush so feebly that urine remains. How is it “environmental” to allow human waste to accumulate in a public place? But in one sense, this technology is “green.” It puts billions of greenbacks into the hands of manufacturers who make devices that no one would want if the government didn’t push people to buy.

In technology, the economic motive is equally strong. But in addition, the juvenile attraction to the “new” plays a powerful role. I was interested in seeing the new iPhones and iPads, but I did so a few weeks after their introduction, when I happened to walk by an Apple store. Yet thousands stood in line for hours, sometimes overnight. This goes beyond interest and approaches obsession.

It is a testament to the dedication of health-care workers that patients received decent care in our large public hospital. It is a testament to the dedication of those who work in counter-terrorism and national defense that our enemies have not yet overrun us. These people manage to do their work despite the bureaucrats. If you doubt this, look at how the Soviet Union – that paradigm of huge, top-heavy bureaucracy – imploded after 74 years of “building socialism.” But don’t worry. Our “progressives” are sure they can do better. If ObamaCare is not repealed, we will see if they can. I wouldn’t bet on it.

Past a certain point, self-confidence becomes hubris, unrealistic theories become delusions, good intentions become excuses to impose tyranny, and technologic innovations provide the means to impose it. Now that’s a really “progressive” update.

So I guess I’ll just remain old-fashioned. I’ll stick with my old version of Windows and Internet Explorer – they work. I’ll download important updates if they address security issues. I won’t update my website as long as it works. I won’t drive myself crazy trying to keep up with “new and improved” versions that may not work with one another, and probably won’t work with older versions of hardware or software.

And most important, I won’t let my desire for the latest technologic gizmos translate into a desire for the latest political and economic experiments. If Internet Explorer 9 is incompatible with my website, I can revert to Internet Explorer 7 and go on writing. But if the latest left-wing political and economic schemes are incompatible with my freedom, it will be impossible to revert to the constitutional republic in which I grew up. It will no longer exist, except in my memory.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
− Mikhail Kalashnikov, inventor of AK-47

The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.
− Commander Montgomery Scott, Chief Engineer, USS Enterprise

This is tax season, and the very fact that it is a season illustrates my point. The Internal Revenue Code and its accompanying regulations occupy 3.8 million words, over four times longer than the complete works of Shakespeare. One can argue that tax rates are too high, or too low, or just right. But no one can deny that the regulations are too complex for even intelligent, educated people to comprehend.

Question: Why are tax laws so complex? (1) They grew over time, with each special-interest group lobbying Congress to enact its pet provision. (2) Bureaucrats love indecipherable laws, so they can impose their own interpretations and increase their own power. (3) Both of the above. Answer: (3).

The same question arises in regard to ObamaCare, which runs in excess of 2700 pages. And it will require more thousands of pages of regulations, making the whole thing even more incomprehensible. A tax law too complex to fathom is painful. A health-care law too complex to fathom can be lethal.

Unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats already control a good portion of our money. Now they may control our health and our lives as well. This thought should frighten anyone.

Some people believe in magic. They believe that individual citizens are too stupid and irresponsible to control the health care of themselves and their loved ones, but once an individual becomes a bureaucrat, he suddenly acquires the wisdom to control the health care of 313 million Americans. Really?

Even worse, under ObamaCare, the individual’s requirement to buy health insurance of the “correct” type would be enforced by − surprise! − the Internal Revenue Service. A complex, incomprehensible law affecting our health and very lives will be interpreted and enforced by the same bureaucrats who now do such a superb job interpreting and enforcing complex, incomprehensible tax laws. There, don’t you feel better now?

Needless complexity affects government, but it affects other areas as well. People stand in line for hours to buy the latest iPad or iPhone, but that is their choice. On contrary, some effects of increasing complexity cannot be avoided.

● A Highway Patrol officer was driving his wife, daughter and brother-in-law to the 13-year-old girl’s soccer practice. The car accelerated spontaneously. The officer was trained in high-speed driving and was able to control the Lexus at 120 mph. But technology prevented him from stopping it, and all four were killed in a fiery crash.

Granted, most “runaway” cars are caused by confused drivers who mistake the accelerator for the brake. But a 20-year Highway Patrol veteran who did safety inspections on large trucks? “Blame the victim” goes only so far.

Power brakes depend on vacuum assist, and at wide-open throttle there is very little vacuum. So after a few applications, the brakes reverted to non-assisted and were unable to stop the speeding car. Even worse, the car had the new “on-off” button instead of the old, reliable ignition switch. The driver repeatedly pushed the button, but the engine did not shut off. He did not know that if the car was moving, he had to hold the button down for three seconds − during which the car would travel over 500 feet.

The familiar ignition switch is user-friendly − turn right for on, left for off. A button used for both on and off is a user-unfriendly gizmo. Having to hold it down for three seconds is a lethal complication.

I once had a stuck accelerator. I was able to shut off the ignition switch, coast to a stop, and make temporary repairs. It was easy and instinctive, and did not require reading a lengthy owner’s manual that I probably wouldn’t recall in an emergency, and surely wouldn’t know in a rental car.

Even worse, many new cars now come with no printed manual. You download the manual from the Internet. This is acceptable for a TV set, but not for a car. How do you access the Internet when your car breaks down on the road?

Air bags, antilock brakes, and stability control save lives. But technologic innovations should solve existing problems, not create new ones. Engineers should think like engineers, not like salesmen − and surely not like toy makers.

● The CAT scan is a life-saving innovation. But an excellent hospital exposed over 200 patients to about eight times more radiation than a scan should produce.

The excess radiation remained undetected for 18 months, until a patient reported hair loss. Apparently there was no monitoring of radiation dose. Perhaps the computer software was developed elsewhere − and was never checked. Perhaps the software or hardware malfunctioned − and was never checked.

No one took responsibility for assuring that the equipment was working properly. Everyone trusted the computer.

Misuse of technology is a separate problem. If people choose to talk on cell phones or text while driving cars − or even locomotives − that’s their fault. This problem is the new technology itself, which may be less effective or less safe than older technology.

Take Windows Vista. Can anyone understand 15 gigabytes of code and write it error-free? Vista was advertised as faster and more secure than the earlier Windows XP. In fact, it is slower, and its security is arguable − security updates come every few weeks. Now we have Windows 7, which again is advertised as faster. Tests show it is slightly faster than Vista, but about as fast as XP.

Many “improvements” are merely fixes for problems that were introduced by the prior “improvement.” Fixing your own mistakes may provide a lifetime job, but it does not advance human well-being ‒ it just adds still more complexity. Surely this process cannot go on indefinitely. At some point, which will be recognized only in retrospect, complexity will be so great that no one can fix the problems. But what then?

Windows, which most of the world uses, is continually “updated” but only occasionally improved. What does this say about computer programs that control dangerous devices like cars, CAT scanners, airliners, or many aspects of our national defense?

Recall the Air France jet that crashed into the Atlantic, killing all 228 persons aboard. There was speculation that the flight-control computer malfunctioned, as happened before. It now appears that the flight crew misinterpreted the data the computer put out. This was called “pilot error,” but it seems more like a failure of technology to be readily usable by human beings, even trained ones.

Mercedes, one of the finest carmakers, produces models that are rated by owners as average or less for reliability. Even the best engineers and workers cannot construct devices that are needlessly complex but also reliable.

I just had my eyes checked at UCLA Medical Center. The eye doctor had to ask the receptionist to use her computer to print out my prescription, because his computer hadn’t “talked” to the printer for three days. UCLA is a world-class university with as many computer geeks per square mile as any place in earth. If even they can’t get printers to print reliably, can we agree that we have a problem?

We dumb down the SAT, yet we expect people who are less educated to run more complex devices. Instead, the complex devices will run them. We must not let computers control our lives − computers that are too complex for most people to understand, but which act too quickly for anyone to control in an emergency.

Don’t forget “algorithmic investing,” in which computer models supposedly gave objective evaluations of investments. But in fact, they allowed the biases of those who wrote the programs to continue without being questioned − until banks and investment firms went broke, and nearly brought down the whole economy.

This is an illustration of the fact that people tend to trust most what they understand least. Investment bankers knew a lot about business, but they knew little about mathematics or computer models, so they trusted “experts.” – who may neither have been so expert nor have had their best interests at heart. I once met a chief master sergeant in the Air Force who spent his career repairing helicopters. He refused to fly on a civilian helicopter. He knew all the pitfalls and trusted only what he understood and had been checked by people he knew. His long experience had given him wisdom – a word rarely heard today.

Finally, in both senses of the word, we have “end-of-life care plans,” which supposedly allow “terminal” patients to die painlessly, but which actually allow the biases of those who wrote the plans to continue without being questioned − until salvageable patients are killed. No more Hippocratic Oath. No more individual patients cared for by individual doctors. Just rote, mechanical, unfeeling, government-run “algorithmic medicine.”

The human mind can handle only a limited amount of detail in a limited amount of time. We are continually “updating” our laws, our computers, our cars, our phones, and our very lives with increasingly complex new versions. Meanwhile, the pace of life increases.

Soon − if it hasn’t happened already − the lines will cross. Increasing complexity will cross decreasing time to master it. Then cars will accelerate uncontrollably, airliners will crash, our phones will reveal our location to miscellaneous snoopers, and our health care will be managed by computers. That last possibility is self-correcting ‒ we won’t have to worry about the pace of life after we’re dead.

We should heed Scotty’s advice. If we continue to overthink the plumbing, the drain will eventually stop up, and we will drown in sewage before we ever get to the stars.

A prior version of this column was posted in 2010. Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

Gentle readers, we are about to sail into dangerous waters, on the rocky shoals of which John Derbyshire recently ran aground and got himself sacked from National Review. So we must do our best to steer carefully through the many hazards lest we come to a similar fate. Yes, I say “we” because while I, in opining as I am about to on race and crime, may risk losing commercial opportunities as a writer, you the reader face risks as well. If you travel in those circles in which discussions of race are limited to extolling the many glories of “diversity,” and if after reading what follows below you are found by your peers to be insufficiently condemnatory of me and what I’ve written, you are in jeopardy of being ostracized to a life of social exile among the wretched and unenlightened.

You’ve been warned, so here we go.

I’ve been with the Los Angeles Police Department for somewhere in the neighborhood of thirty years. (I keep the details of my tenure and assignment vague so as to foil the efforts of those seeking to unmask me, the number of whom may soon increase.) I’ve spent the better part of my career working in neighborhoods in South and South Central Los Angeles, i.e. those most bedeviled by violent crime. I have also spent time working in some of L.A.’s most affluent neighborhoods, so I feel qualified to comment on the differences I’ve observed over the course of a long career combating crime and villainy in America’s second-largest city.

For the record, I concur with Mark Steyn, who in his discussion of the Taki’s Magazine piece that got John Derbyshire expelled from National Review, pointed to culture rather than racial determinism as explaining socioeconomic differences between groups of people. “Why is Haiti Haiti and Barbados Barbados?” Steyn asks. “Why is India India and Pakistan Pakistan? Skin color and biological determinism don’t get you very far on that.”

A similar comparison – with similarly stark results – can be made in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Times maintains a database of statistical information on cities and neighborhoods across L.A. County. The communities of View Park-Windsor Hills and Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw are adjacent to one another in an area four to five miles northeast of Los Angeles International Airport. The concentration of black residents in View Park-Windsor Hills, at 86.5 percent, is the highest of any area measured in the L.A. Times database. The Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw neighborhood, just to the north, is home to the county’s fifth-highest concentration of blacks, at 71.3 percent.

One subscribing to the notion that any such solidly black neighborhoods must perforce be plagued by violent crime would be surprised to learn that since January 1, 2007, there has been but one homicide in View Park-Windsor Hills, this occurring on the very fringe of the neighborhood where it abuts one known for higher crime. By contrast, over the same period there have been 32 homicides in Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw. How to explain the difference? [Emphasis added.]

Looking further at the L.A. Times’s data, we can see that median income is $81,214 in View Park-Windsor Hills but just $37,948 in Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw. Forty-five percent of the residents in View Park-Windsor Hills have at least a four-year college degree compared to 24.1 percent in Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw. And the statistic that goes a long way in explaining the disparities in crime, income, and education between the two neighborhoods is just as stark: In View Park-Windsor Hills, just 9.6 percent of families are headed by a single parent, compared with 31.9 percent in Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw. [Emphasis added.]

These neighborhoods are almost exactly alike in ethnicity, yet, like Haiti and Barbados, they reflect differences in culture, i.e. the collective choices made by the individuals who inhabit them, with the culture of one neighborhood doing a better job than the other’s at fostering practices that lead to better education, higher income, and lower crime.

All of which brings me to a recent crime story here in Los Angeles, the murders of Ming Qu and Ying Wu, both of whom were graduate students from China attending the University of Southern California. Qu and Wu were seated in a car outside Qu’s home less than a mile from the USC campus when they were shot to death at about 1 a.m. on April 11. The killer remains at large, but if experience has taught me anything, when he is caught he will almost certainly turn out to be black or Latino. Acknowledging this does not make me a racist; it makes me a seasoned observer of crime in Los Angeles, where blacks and Latinos are responsible for about 90 percent of all violent crime. (In the neighborhood where Qu and Wu were killed the figure is close to 100 percent.)

The murders occurred during a week when prospective USC students and their parents were touring the school and weighing offers to attend. What conclusions should those high school seniors and their parents draw from these murders? Are they a true reflection of the culture in the neighborhoods near the campus or an aberration? Police and USC officials were quick to point out that crime on campus and in the immediate vicinity is low, especially when compared to past years. The USC campus lies within the LAPD’s Southwest Division, which in 2011 recorded 22 homicides.  This was an increase from 16 in 2010 but still a far cry from the 63 recorded in 2004.

Still and all, comparisons must be made not only across time but across regions, and while those prospective students might be relieved to know that the area around the USC campus is safer today than it was when they were in fourth grade, what should concern them is how safe the area is today when compared to the area surrounding some other school they might consider attending. According to the L.A. Times, the University Park neighborhood, which includes the USC campus, and Westwood, where UCLA is located, have each recorded just four homicides since Jan. 1, 2007. (The Qu and Wu murders occurred a few blocks outside University Park.) But in taking a wider look at the numbers, we see that in the same period there have been 117 homicides within two miles of the USC campus but only seven near UCLA.

The area immediately surrounding the USC campus is heavily patrolled by university police as well as the LAPD, providing an enclave of security amid areas of higher crime, areas whose cultures in most respects have far more in common with that of Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw than with that of View Park-Windsor Hills. Not that this information should be determinative in choosing which college to attend, but any prospective USC student and his parents would be foolish to ignore it. And even if one is sanguine about his personal safety while strolling the USC campus – or that of Columbia, Yale, the University of Chicago, or any other college in or near a troubled neighborhood – it would be madness to disregard the very real risks of straying too far from the campus itself.

So, bearing in mind that John Derbyshire found himself in the soup for imputing too much into racial distinctions and for encouraging others to do so, what advice on personal safety as it relates to ethnic groups should parents offer their children as they send them off next fall to USC (or Columbia, or Yale, or the University of Chicago)?

I look forward to your comments. But beware: excessive candor can be hazardous to your career.

* “Jack Dunphy” is the pseudonym of an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department. The opinions expressed are his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management. This column was posted on Pajamas Media and appears by permission.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

Nevertheless, certain points need to be made:

● The Los Angeles Times published the photos despite being told by the White House that doing so would endanger our troops, and despite the fact that the Washington Post refused to publish the photos. What does this tell us about the ethics of the editors of the Los Angeles Times? No, not “journalistic ethics” ‒ just ethics.

● The event reportedly occurred two years ago. In what sense is it news? In what way will it influence how we conduct the war? How will publishing the photos, rather than merely describing them, enhance our knowledge? What possible good can publishing the photos do to counterbalance the likely harm?

● The dead terrorists were suicide bombers. Their dismemberment was the result of their own actions, which were aimed at killing and dismembering others. The photos are revolting, but our revulsion should be directed at the suicide bombers themselves.

● Hatred of “infidels” is endemic in the Muslim world. What purpose is served by stirring up more? Our troops may suffer reprisals, and so may other “infidels” in Muslim areas, including innocent women and children. Did the editors of the Los Angeles Times consider this? If they didn’t, they are incompetent. If they did, they are irresponsible.

● The 82nd Airborne Division, to which these soldiers belonged, sustained 35 killed in action in a year in Afghanistan, and many more grievously wounded. Where are the photos of our dead and wounded? Where are the photos of our severed limbs? Of course, such photos should never be published. But without such photos, the photos of dead Taliban give an unbalanced view of what is happening. Don’t the editors know this? If they don’t, they are ignorant. If they do, they are anti-war propagandists.

● The question is not whether the editors had the right to publish the photos. Under the First Amendment, of course they did. The question is whether it was right to do so. What we have the right to do, and what is right to do, are two different things entirely. We used to know that. It’s time we remembered.

Clearly, the media should condemn terror bombing in much stronger terms than they condemn taking photos of the dead bombers. But instead, the media call the bombers “insurgents,” “militants,” or “fighters” ‒ terms devoid of ethical content. No.

Insurgents are people who fight for freedom, not against it. “Insurgentes” is a major avenue in Mexico City commemorating the Mexican War of Independence from Spain. Martin Luther King Jr. was a militant civil-rights advocate. Muhammad Ali was a great fighter. Let’s not debase noble words by using them for people who murder and maim girls for the “crime” of going to school. They are terrorists.

The actions of the soldiers in posing with the dead terrorists used to be called “gallows humor.” We no longer hang convicted murderers. In fact, we rarely execute them in any manner. But we remember that the expression means to joke about something serious, in an attempt to relieve tension.

That’s the key point: to relieve tension.

Similarly, police officers sometimes get into trouble when their radio microphone is inadvertently left open, and they are recorded making grim jokes about a serious crime they just witnessed. Most of us never patrol the streets in dangerous areas. But we should have enough imagination to understand how telling jokes can serve to defuse tension and relieve the pain of seeing the horrible things people can do to one another.

I served in the Army Reserve, but it was peacetime, and I never heard a shot fired in anger. Still, I do know a little about seeing bad sights, hearing bad sounds, and smelling bad odors. And I do know something about gallows humor. I did a year as a medical student, and another year of residency, at a large public hospital. The building was run-down, the equipment was old, and the staff was overworked.

The laryngoscope in the emergency ward was chained to the leg of an examining table to prevent theft. Our EKG machine had a cracked case and was held together with adhesive tape. The wards and hallways were crowded with beds and gurneys filled with seriously ill patients, many of whom were alcoholics or otherwise confused.

I was responsible for supervising four interns as we cared for patients filling two wards. I was on call every third night. Lack of sleep and constant tension sometimes impaired my judgment and made me irritable, or even silly.

After rounds one day, an intern grabbed a bunch of IV bottles (no bags in those days) and set off to give fluids to his patients. Most of them were senile, stroke victims, or chronic alcoholics. The intern remarked with a forced smile, “I’m off to water the vegetables.” Normally I would have corrected him, but by that point I didn’t realize he had said something improper until later.

Another day the assistant superintendant came by. He stepped into the small room where we doctors worked on keeping patient charts up to date. He made a sour expression and walked out. Uncertain of what had irritated him, I looked around. On the wall was a Playboy centerfold stuck up with Scotch tape. Shamefacedly, I pulled it down. It had been there for hours, perhaps days, but I hadn’t seen it. Or rather, I had seen it but suppressed the image. I had grown so used to seeing unpleasant sights and ignoring them that now I ignored a pleasant sight as well. I resolved to try harder to really see what was going on around me. I hope I did so. But anyone who peered into the room that day would assume we doctors were sex-crazed jerks unconcerned with our patients.

The hospital served a fourth meal at midnight for the night staff. If we had time, we would sit around the table discussing our patients. One of the senior staff was a large man who did a superb imitation of Count Dracula. (Imagine a fat vampire.) No matter what type of patient we mentioned, and no matter what disease he had, this man would declare in his Dracula voice, “Let us drain his blaahd.”

We thought this was hysterically funny. Of course, when you are sleep-deprived and living on coffee and nervous tension, almost anything can seem funny. But if an outsider overheard our conversation, he would have concluded that we were cold-hearted and utterly indifferent to the lives in our hands. He couldn’t have been more wrong. Our off-beat attempts at humor were evidence that we needed something ‒ anything ‒ to relieve the constant tension and brighten up a really dreary existence.

I’ve never been in combat. But I have enough imagination to understand that what those soldiers were going through was ten times worse than anything I went through. So give them a break. Show a little empathy with those who risk death and disability in our name. Realize that what they did was inappropriate but understandable. Comprehend that if people don’t find ways to relieve their tension, they may snap. Recognize that sometimes all we can do is either laugh or cry, and laughing is slightly less painful.

If you must express disdain, save it for those who lack the humanity to understand that gallows humor is sometimes a necessary release. If you must express revulsion, save it for the roadside bombers and those who incite them to cause death and dismemberment. And if you must express indignation, save it for the so-called journalists who endanger human lives to further their own careers.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

Many people see themselves as children, so they feel more comfortable with a Mommy, so they vote Democratic. Mommy makes our meals. She packs lunch for us to take to school. When we cry, she feels our pain. When we skin our knees, she puts on a bandage. She makes sure each one gets an equal share of cookies. She takes care of us in the ways that a small child needs to be taken care of.

But then we become teenagers. We begin to assert our independence. We need less care and more advice. We begin distancing ourselves from our family of origin and preparing to start our own family. There are exceptions, but often Mommy is reluctant to see her baby grow up, while Daddy is more supportive of our maturity.

The first difference, then, is whether we see ourselves as children or as maturing adults. Children need care from Mommy, so they tend to vote Democratic. Maturing adults need advice from Daddy, so they tend to vote Republican.

The second difference is whether the times are ordinary. If they are, we want Mommy to care for us, see that we take our lunch to school, make sure everyone gets an equal share of cookies, and put a bandage on our skinned knees. That is, we want school lunches, a high and progressive tax rate, and national health care.

Single women ‒ especially single mothers ‒ tend to vote Democratic, while married women tend to vote Republican. It is often said that this is because welfare programs take the role of husband and father. But it would be more correct to say that welfare programs take the role of Grandma, who cares for unwed mothers and their kids. Welfare programs do not take Daddy’s place ‒ they provide no family stability, they impose no discipline on kids, they impart no ideal of lifelong commitment, and they supply no positive male role models. In the end, nothing can take Daddy’s place.

If times are ordinary, we want government to distribute everything “fairly,” according to its notion of fairness. We want government to take care of us when we retire, rather than empowering us to control part of our retirement fund. We want government not merely to assure that everyone has access to health care, but actually to provide that care ‒ or not provide it, at its whim. And for all this – or rather for the hope of all this – we allow the government to take much of our money in taxes, make many spending decisions for us, and reduce us to the status of kids on an allowance.

But if times are not ordinary, we need Daddy, so we tend to vote Republican. When we are threatened by bullies, we want Daddy to give us advice, and to handle the bully if we can’t. When darkness falls, we feel insecure until Daddy comes home. When we are under attack by terrorists who use their own young people as explosive devices, we need our leaders to take strong measures. We don’t want government to feel our pain; we want government to give terrorists pain.

We want government to be less concerned with the rights of accused terrorists, and to be more concerned with the rights of citizens to be safe from terrorists. We want government to be less concerned with theoretical fairness, and more concerned with actual safety. We want government to be less concerned with how the economic pie is sliced, and more concerned with freeing us to bake a bigger pie for everyone to enjoy.

True, these are generalizations. There are exceptions. And it is also true that for every advantage there is a disadvantage. Mommy is more caring and nurturing, but she also can be over-controlling, thus smothering our maturation into adulthood. Daddy is stronger and protects us from bullies, but he also can be a bully himself.

We might prefer a government that combines the best features of both Mommy and Daddy. But unless we are careful, we will find ourselves saddled with a government that combines the worst features – an over-controlling mother, and a brutal father. If you doubt this, look at the totalitarian record of Marxists. Look at the all-encompassing demands of radical environmentalists. Look at how oddly similar the two are.

And look at the 2700-page ObamaCare law, which will control virtually every aspect of our lives with the excuse of caring for us ‒ and will be enforced by thousands of new IRS agents. There you have it: over-controlling Mommy plus bullying Daddy. If we do not work really hard until Election Day, Democrats will be returned to office for another four years, and the transformation of America will probably be irreversible.

We have to choose between real alternatives, not some theoretical ideal:

● We have to decide whether we see ourselves as children who need to be cared for, or as adults who stand on their own feet.

● We have to decide whether we want government to provide us with “free stuff,” or whether we want to earn what we get.

● We have to decide whether we will live within our means, or whether we will burden our children and grandchildren with monstrous debt.

● We have to decide whether we will make things better by our own efforts, or whether we will merely whine and blame others.

● We have to decide whether we want gasoline prices to be lowered by increasing the supply through drilling, or whether we want prices to remain high while we blame “speculators,” as Lenin did and Obama does.

● We have to decide whether we need someone to feel our pain, or someone to give our enemies pain.

● We have to decide whether we want leaders who talk endlessly about a “sensitive, thoughtful” war on terrorists, or leaders who actually fight terrorists.

● We have to decide whether we want government to give us all its notion of a fair share, or to keep us safe to enjoy any share at all.

● We have to decide whether we want leaders who have a guaranteed plan for retreat and surrender, or leaders who have an uncertain plan for victory.

If this were a perfect world, we wouldn’t want the government to be our parent. We would want it to be our partner in managing the affairs of our nation. But this is far from a perfect world, and we are far from perfect citizens.

Some of us are emotional children, looking for Mommy to care for them. And others of us are emotional teenagers, looking for Daddy to make things right when they make a mess of their lives. What did we expect? Until we become emotional adults, we shouldn’t be surprised when government morphs into a noxious mixture of Big Mommy and Big Daddy.

If this were a perfect world, we could look for the perfect spouse, the perfect friend, the perfect job, and the perfect car. But in this imperfect world, such perfectionism causes us to end up as unmarried, friendless, unemployed pedestrians. The same principle holds in politics. The Perfect Party exists only in our imaginations. In the real world, we have to choose between the Mommy Party and the Daddy Party. At this time in history, I choose the Daddy Party.

A prior version of this column appeared in 2007. Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

http://www.exploretitanic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Isidor-Ida-Straus.jpg

The missing couple on the “Titanic.”

The film “Titanic” is now being re-released in 3D to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the great ship. The tragedy is even more dramatic in 3D. The film runs 3 hours and 14 minutes. A variety of fictional stories are told, in addition to the actual sinking. But in all that time, with all that fictional dialogue, one very real, very dramatic, story is omitted.

Isidor and Ida Straus were among the wealthy passengers in First Class. Isidor Straus was born in Germany and immigrated to America at the age of nine. His family opened a small store, and slowly he and his brother worked their way up in the world. Eventually they became owners of Macy’s department store. He and his wife Ida had seven children. They booked passage on the “Titanic’s” maiden voyage with their infant grandson, but the baby caught cold and fortunately remained behind.

When the ship struck the iceberg, the inadequate lifeboats were loaded “women and children first.” In those days, continuation of the family ‒ and the nation ‒ took precedence over selfishness and physical strength. The elderly couple approached an unfilled lifeboat with Mrs. Straus’s maid, Ellen Bird. The officer in charge was willing to let all of them board, but Mr. Straus refused as long as women had not yet boarded.

The officer then asked Mrs. Straus to board. According to witnesses, she turned to her husband and said:

We have lived together for many years. Where you go, I go.

Miss Bird did board, survived, and verified Mrs. Straus’s courage and devotion. The couple was last seen sitting together in deck chairs. Isidor’s body was recovered; he is buried in the Bronx. Ida’s body was never recovered.

A plaque commemorating their devotion was displayed in Macy’s Manhattan store until recently, when it was removed during a renovation. This demonstrates yet again that change does not necessarily mean improvement.

This moving and well-documented episode was depicted in the 1953 Hollywood film “Titanic,” and also in the 1958 British film “A Night to Remember.” But it was omitted from the current film. Some claim that a scene lasting a few seconds and showing an elderly couple in bed represented the Strauses. People in bed are not role models and transmit no ideals. But a man who refuses to be saved before women are saved, and a woman who refuses to be saved if her husband is not saved, are role models and do transmit ideals ‒ the ideals of courage and loyalty.

Why, in 3 hours and 14 minutes, was there no time for this meaningful scene? Why was there plenty of time for fictional scenes of cowardice and disloyalty, but no time for this real lesson in courage and loyalty? What changed in Hollywood in the last generation? What changed in us? Was there reluctance to show nobility by wealthy people? Was there reluctance to emphasize the sanctity of marriage as a commitment that endures until death, and perhaps beyond? 

http://www.auschwitz.dk/2011%20-%20oskar-schindler.jpg

The missing guns during World War II.

The film “Schindler’s List” recalls the actions of German businessman Oskar Schindler, a serial adulterer, a heavy drinker, and a member of the Nazi Party. But during World War II, Schindler became an unexpected hero. He recruited about 1200 Jews to work in his factory, making mess kits for the German army. The people he saved now have over 6000 descendants.

Schindler claimed that “his” Jews were doing essential work, thus saving them from deportation to death camps. Schindler risked arrest at any time. Still, he could always claim that “his” Jews were necessary to the war effort.

But there was one action that Schindler could not explain away. There was one action that, if discovered, would have doomed him to certain death, probably by torture. Schindler obtained guns and smuggled them to “his” Jews, so they could defend themselves if the SS saw through his deceptions.

After I saw the film I was motivated to read the book. Only then did I learn about the guns. Only then did I understand the full implications of Schindler’s courage. But I did not recall seeing this episode in the film, so I watched a videotape. The scene wasn’t there.

Why, in 3 hours and 15 minutes, was there no time for this important scene? Was the episode considered unimportant, though it surely would have meant Schindler’s death if it were discovered? Or was the episode considered politically incorrect? Were guns considered so repulsive that they were unsuitable even for those who faced the gas chambers of Auschwitz? Did “gun control” trump “never again”? To Hollywood, is self-defense wrong, even in the most extreme cases? 

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/images/fdr-delivers-speech.jpg

The missing invocation of God.

In the film “Pearl Harbor,” Jon Voigt gave a fine performance as President Roosevelt asking Congress for a declaration of war against Japan in the “Day of Infamy” speech. The screen version followed the actual speech, but with a major omission. Roosevelt declared:

With confidence in our armed forces − with the unbounded determination of our people − we will gain the inevitable triumph − so help us God.

But in the film, the last four words were omitted. The film was filled with fictitious episodes, some dramatic, others unrealistic or even silly. But in 2 hours and 3 minutes, there was no time for “So help us God.” Why? Did it detract from the drama? No, it was very dramatic. Was it irrelevant? No, it was entirely appropriate for a respected leader to ask for God’s help in an hour of danger.

So what was the problem with those four words? Or rather, what was the problem with that one word? When people are frightened of dying, or of their loved ones dying, many call upon God. The screenwriters apparently would not do so − fine. But why pretend that others wouldn’t? Why does Hollywood show a myriad of scenes of death and dying, but the dying never pray, and those around them never pray over them?

Why try to construct an artificial world where nobody is religious? Why not depict the real world as dramatically as possible? Is an agenda more important than an accurate and dramatic film? Or is it simply an example of the decline of civilization? Watch a DVD of the older film “Tora Tora Tora,” and then watch a DVD of the more recent film “Pearl Harbor.” Contrast how well each film follows the historical events, and the depth of thought required on the part of the audience. Then I dare you to tell me that things haven’t gone downhill.

Is this deterioration due to dumbing down of our educational system? Or is the cause a more deep-rooted decline, one involving moral values? The liberal elite, exemplified by the educational system, the media, and Hollywood, no longer teach young Americans that marriage is a lifelong commitment to be honored, that the right to life necessarily includes a right to self-defense, or that calling on God in times of trouble is normal, even praiseworthy. And we are poorer for it ‒ poorer morally, poorer intellectually, and now poorer economically as well.

We can live ‒ no, just exist ‒ in a world bereft of the devoted Strauses, devoid of Schindler’s bravest act, and impoverished by the alteration of Roosevelt’s inspiring speech. But how long can we survive the trials and difficulties that will inevitably come our way, without something firm to hold onto? Not long, I fear. And we certainly won’t get it from liberals, in Hollywood or elsewhere.

But what will we get? We will get a mountain of regulations. We will get a tax code that occupies 3.8 million words, over four times the length of the complete works of Shakespeare. We will get a health-care act that fills 2700 pages, plus an expected 8 pages of regulations for each page of law, for a total of 21,600 pages.

What did we expect? We shredded the moral values that helped former generations control themselves. We devalued marriage, we denigrated the right to life, and we demoted God to a curse word. Those who no longer control themselves should expect to be controlled by others ‒ in this case, by a host of unelected, faceless bureaucrats, armed with a mountain of unintelligible regulations which the bureaucrats interpret to suit their own whims. We brought it on ourselves.

Hollywood specifically, and liberals in general, belittle “old-fashioned” values. But this doesn’t mean that these values are no longer needed. Quite the contrary.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/the-titanic-passengers-and-possessions/titanic-survivors.jpg

Recently the movie “Titanic” was re-released in 3D. The scenes of the sinking of the great ship with the loss of 1500 lives are even more dramatic in 3D. But as we observe the 100th anniversary of the tragedy, we wonder whether we have learned anything in all that time. And we consider how that sad event applies to our own situation.

Do you recall why the ship sank? It had 16 watertight compartments, but they were open on top. Five compartments at the front of the ship were ripped open by the iceberg. The ship could have stayed afloat for hours like that, until a rescue ship arrived.

But as the water entered, the front of the ship grew heavier and sank lower. Then water spilled over the top of the fifth compartment into the sixth. As it filled, the bow sank still lower, and water began to spill into the seventh compartment, and so on. The ship sank in a short time, and 1500 people drowned.

The film has an instructive scene, if we are wise enough to recognize it. After the ship hit the iceberg, the designer, Thomas Andrews, brought the blueprints to the captain. He explained why it was inevitable that the ship would sink, declaring, “It’s a mathematical certainty.” The captain understood, but by then it was too late.

No one ‒ not the most skillful seaman, not the most charismatic leader ‒ could save the ship at that point. Sometimes personal relationships, businesses, and even nations are like that. Sometimes things have deteriorated too far to be remedied. Sometimes all we can do is regret that we did not act sooner, when the situation was still reversible.

Andrews had designed a good ship, but it wasn’t foolproof. Nothing can withstand a big enough fool. We need to keep that in mind on Election Day. Andrews went down with the ship. His sacrifice assured that his name would live in honor, but it did nothing to assure that the other 1499 victims would live at all. Only a wiser captain could have prevented their deaths. Dying with honor is good, but living with wisdom is better – and a lot less painful for all concerned.

“Titanic” buffs argue about how better construction of the watertight compartments might have kept the ship afloat longer. They argue about what the officers on the bridge might have done differently. For example, instead of reversing both the port and starboard engines, would the ship have turned in a shorter distance if the starboard engine had remained going ahead, providing extra impetus to the turn, while the port engine was reversed? Would the turn have been sharper if the center engine, which could not be reversed, had remained going ahead, providing more pressure on the rudder?

And “Titanic” buffs argue about whether another officer could have done better than First Officer Murdoch, who happened to be on watch that fateful night. Could Captain Smith or Chief Officer Wilde have handled the ship more effectively in the emergency? Could one of the junior officers have done more?

All this is idle speculation. The crucial event was Captain Smith’s decision to maintain full speed, despite repeated iceberg warnings by wireless, despite the moonless night, and despite the unusually calm sea ‒ so there were no white breakers at the iceberg’s base to make it more visible. Once Captain Smith made that decision, “Titanic” was doomed in all probability, no matter who was on watch, and no matter what he did once the iceberg was sighted.

But, you ask, how can the sad fate of the “Titanic” apply to us today?

Republicans argue about what steps should be taken to reverse America’s present course. Should the federal budget be cut across the board, or should cuts be directed at the least productive areas? How deep should these cuts be? Should the cuts be begun gently and then increased, or are deep cuts necessary immediately? Should taxes be raised, and if so, how much and what type? Or should taxes be cut, and if so how much and which type? Should borrowing be drastically reduced before the government becomes insolvent, or should the reduction be gradual so as not to upset the bond markets?

All these arguments are relevant, but they obscure the critical point that something must be done promptly. We must convince business people and investors, here and abroad, that we are serious about preventing America from becoming an economic basket case ‒ Greece on a huge scale. Instead, we bicker about details. It is as if the officers on the “Titanic” were arguing about how sharply to turn the wheel ‒ instead of just turning it.

But the most strident argument among Republicans concerns who is the best candidate. This argument is useful, provided that it is not too vitriolic, and provided that it ends promptly when the candidate is chosen. But some Republicans are so bitter and rigid that they will refuse to support the candidate if he is not their favorite.

Specifically, some Republicans adamantly refuse to support Mitt Romney if ‒ as seems likely ‒ he will be the nominee. These people claim:

Romney is a flip-flopper (partly true).

Romney does not always support conservative principles (also partly true).

Romney is a Mormon (entirely true, but irrelevant to his ability to be president).

Other Republicans would not support Santorum, or Gingrich, or Paul, but these people are irrelevant, because their candidates have little chance of nomination. The anti-Romney sentiment is equivalent to saying that if their favorite officer is not on the bridge, they will not assist whoever is there in his effort to turn the wheel and avoid the iceberg of economic collapse and statist control. How selfish and short-sighted is that?

It is as if some people on “Titanic” declared, “We don’t like First Officer Murdoch. He sometimes expresses opinions with which we disagree, and he belongs to an odd church. So we won’t lift a finger to help him turn the wheel. We like Second Officer Lightoller. He attends our church. If he were on the bridge, we’d help him save the ship. But with Murdoch? Forget it! We’re going to the lounge to have a drink.”

Other Republicans claim that our economy is already doomed to collapse no matter who is elected. So they hope Obama remains in office to take all the blame. These people believe that in another four years, a Republican can be elected, and he will save the day. But this argument is self-contradictory.

If the economy collapses, and a lover of big government like Obama is in office, do they imagine that a state of emergency will not be declared? Do they suppose that the president will not seize even more power, and demonstrate even more contempt for Congress and the Supreme Court than he already has? Do they imagine that then, the economic and political collapse will be reversible by anyone? These people expect a disaster but assume that they can control and profit from the disaster. How risky and illogical is that?

When a spoiled child does not get his way, takes his glove, and goes home sulking, the baseball game can go on ‒ perhaps better than before. But if a critical number of Republicans stay home sulking on Election Day, and as a result Barack Obama is elected to a second term, the country will not go on better than before ‒ and may not go on at all. America may hit the iceberg of unrepayable debt and irreversible statism. In that case, we will all suffer the consequences of these people’s spiteful narcissism.

It would indeed be ironic if we observed the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the “Titanic” by failing to learn from so costly a lesson. “Titanic” in 3D makes a dramatic movie, but a terribly bad role model for America.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

Is the first instance of the mainstream media altering evidence for the purpose of deceiving its audience? Is this the first example of the media’s effort to stir up emotions and potentially incite violence? If so, we might fob it off as an innocent error. But it isn’t the first. To my knowledge, it is the third. Of course, there may well be other instances of which I am unaware − perhaps many more.

Rodney King beating video.

Almost everyone in America, and millions the world over, saw the video of four Los Angeles Police officers beating Rodney King with batons. I saw the video scores of times on TV, before and during the trial of the four officers for using excessive force. Many people were surprised when three of the officers were acquitted, and the jury “hung” on the fourth. As a result, the city endured a week of bloody, destructive rioting.

King was repeatedly described as a black “motorist,” when in fact he was on parole for robbery and was driving recklessly over 100 miles per hour while drunk. But we all believed that the video we saw so often on TV was the whole video. It wasn’t. I happened to be off work during the trial of the officers, and I watched the live coverage.

Only then did I discover that all those times, the media were showing us only the last part of the video. At the trial, the whole tape was shown. Only then did I discover that the first part of the tape showed that King, who was well over 200 pounds and “buffed,” ran full-speed at one of the officers, and if the officer hadn’t skillfully hit King with the baton, King would have knocked him flat − and perhaps taken his baton or his pistol. King was violently resisting arrest, which the media hid from the people.

Only because I happened to be home that day did I discover that we had been shown only part of the video, the part that showed King prone on the ground, being hit with batons. But we had not been shown the whole tape, which shows King attacking the officer. I have never talked to anyone, even well-informed persons, who knew this. It’s too bad our government can’t keep secrets that well.

We will never know how many of the 53 people killed during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, and how much of the billions in damage, were the result of this doctored video the media used to stir up emotions. But I believe that somewhere there is a large ledger, and that ultimately we all will have to answer for the negative entries against our names. Those who doctored the video and then showed it incessantly have much to answer for.

George W. Bush’s military records.

Remember Dan Rather’s CBS “news” story that broke during the 2004 election season? Remember the letter, supposedly from George W. Bush’s commanding officer in the Texas Air National Guard? The letter stated that Bush had been absent for large portions of the service he claimed to have performed.

It soon became obvious that the letter was not written on a typewriter, but on a modern computer and printer. The font was Times New Roman, which was not offered on old typewriters. The letters were “proportional,” that is, m was wider than n, which was wider than i. On a typewriter, each letter takes up exactly the same width. Moreover, the letters were “kerned,” that is, nested together − for example, fl, not f l as they would have appeared on a typewriter. In addition, quotation marks and apostrophes were “smart,” not “plain” as they would have appeared on a typewriter, and 187th was written as the superscript 187^th, which was not available on a typewriter.

CBS “verified” the documents by interviewing the 86-year-old woman who had been the secretary for the supposed author, now conveniently dead, and for several others as well. She stated that she never typed those documents, but she recalled typing similar ones 32 years earlier. In short, we had dubious copies of nonexistent documents not typed by the secretary of a dead man. This gave “verify” a whole new meaning.

When this deception was revealed, Rather insisted that the letter was “forged but accurate.” Apparently Rather meant that it accurately reflected his own preconceptions about Bush. This is the viewpoint of a propagandist, not that of a reporter. Rather “retired,” but did the media learn anything about altering evidence? Did liberals learn anything about the credibility of the media? Not really.

George Zimmerman’s 911 call.

Look at the transcript of the actual tape of George Zimmerman’s 911 call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

911 Operator: Okay, and this guy, is he black, white, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Now look at the transcript of the tape NBC played on TV “news”:

Zimmernan: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Clearly, the implication is that Zimmerman is a racist who sees a man as suspicious just because he’s black. But in fact, Zimmerman mentioned the person’s race only after the 911 operator asked about it. This is a half-truth that gives a false impression ‒ the worst kind of lie.

This lie, and the slanted media coverage that goes with it, will surely create the expectation that Zimmerman will be convicted of murder. But what if officials study the evidence, conclude that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and do not arrest him? What if he is arrested, but the jury studies the evidence and finds him not guilty?

Will we be treated to more riots? Will more innocent people be killed? Will more property be destroyed? Will more social unrest be stirred up? And of course, will there be more eye-catching stories to cover on TV, thus increasing ratings? Will there be more exciting stories for newspapers to cover, thus buoying up sagging readership? The prospects for this dangerous outcome are excellent.

In answer to the tape scandal, NBC promised an “internal investigation.” I didn’t know it was possible to perform a colonoscopy on oneself.

The obvious problem with those who alter tapes and forge documents is the problem with all liars − they cause us to believe falsehoods. The less obvious problem is that they cause us to doubt the truth. When proven liars say something we thought was true, we begin to doubt it.

I am not a “birther.” I put those who doubt the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate in the category of conspiracy theorists. But when I consider how the leftist establishment feels free to alter audio and video tapes and fabricate documents, I must admit that forging a birth certificate would not be beyond their capability ‒ or beneath their moral level. They destroyed their own credibility. They shouldn’t complain about being distrusted.

There is an old saying that if a clock strikes 13, it casts doubt not only on that, but on everything that went before. If a person, or a “news” organization, alters audio and video tapes and forges documents, their credibility is shot. How can we know what to believe in all their other “news” stories? How can we know if these reports are really news, or just stories?

The mainstream media didn’t lose their credibility − they killed it. It’s dead, muerto, kaput. Let us hold a wake and get on with our lives.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

If you walk into any inner city high school in the African American community, Mr. Speaker, and ask the students, “Have you ever been racially profiled,”’ trust me, every one of them will raise their hands, boys and girls. You might say to me, “Congresswoman, what does that mean? Who is profiled? And who is doing the profiling?” I will tell you.

Boys by police officers.

Boys by vigilante wannabe-police officers.

Boys who get into an elevator and then everyone else gets off.

Boys who walk down the sidewalk and everyone crosses the street.

Boys who watch people lock their car doors when they approach a car.

Boys who see women clutch their purse as they walk towards them.

Boys who will try to catch a cab but not one who will stop.

Boys who are followed around in stores while they shop.

Boys who wear hoodies.

Boys who wear dreads.

Boys who wear gold teeth.

Boys who sag their pants.

And boys who are walking while black, talking while black, shopping while black, eating while black, studying while black, and playing while black, and just being black.

Yes, this blanket indictment of American society is greatly exaggerated. Yet many African Americans, especially young ones, see it as accurate. Whether an accusation is true is often less important than whether some people believe it is true.

People act on their beliefs. How do people, especially young people, act when their “leaders” − from Rev. Al Sharpton to Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Rep. Frederica Wilson − tell them that they are constant victims of an oppressive, racist society?

● Some young people will pay no attention to what adults tell them, especially when adults tell them negative things about what they can’t do. So they go their own way, and grow up to be whatever they were already going to be before anyone told them they were victims of incessant racism and oppression.

Some will become huge successes. Others will become abject failures. But most will become ordinary people, doing the ordinary things people do to live on this earth. These are the fortunate people − fortunate for themselves, and fortunate for all the rest of us. They remain themselves, untainted by the pervasive anger and resentment that is evoked by a belief that they are victims. They are our hope for the future.

● Some young people will absorb the message that American society is oppressive and racist. They will carry this message with them all their lives − and the damage it produces. They will not apply themselves in school. Why should they? They believe that even with a good education, they will be prevented from getting good jobs.

So they will drop out and get a dead-end job, at which they will work the minimum time required to qualify for unemployment benefits. And if they can, they will apply for disability or other benefits. Why shouldn’t they? The government has assumed the role that private and religious charities used to serve − and without the stigma of taking charity. After all, the government is racist and oppressive, so why shouldn’t it pay back a little of what it owes its victims?

And they will “hook up” and get pregnant or get their girlfriends pregnant. But in startlingly large numbers, they will not marry and make a family. Why should they? The government has assumed the role of father and will help support the women and children − support them poorly, but well enough to justify the men in “taking off.”

Ambition will be stifled in all but the most highly motivated. For many, just barely getting by will be enough. Why shouldn’t it? Just getting by is an accomplishment in an oppressive, racist society.

Worst of all, at every opportunity, racism will be imputed to the most minor irritations. Did someone get off the elevator when he got on? She must be a racist − it couldn’t have been her floor. Did someone cut him off in traffic? He must be a racist − it couldn’t have been a guy late for work. Did a clerk make him wait to be served? He must be a racist − he couldn’t just be new on the job. Did someone refuse to buy what he was selling? She must be a racist − she couldn’t simply lack money for that item.

Yes, racism is everywhere − especially when you have been taught to see it everywhere by your “leaders” − your teachers, your clergy, and your elected representatives.

● Some young people, fortunately a relatively small percent, will take the image of victimhood and reverse it. They will become the victimizers. If they are poorly educated and lacking in skills, they will become street criminals. Why shouldn’t they? They are victims − why not turn the tables? Their own people are already being victimized − what difference will one more victimization make?

What do you think is the leading cause of death for black males aged 15-34? Heart disease? Cancer? Auto accidents? No, it’s homicide, of which over 90% is committed by other young black males. It’s depressing that “community leaders” and politicians, both black and white, ignore these facts.

But if people have more education and skills, they can take their sense of victimization to a higher level. They can elevate their anger and resentment to a higher plane. They can become hate-mongering preachers or race-hustling politicians, feeding off people’s sense of victimization in order to increase their own power and wealth.

So the vicious cycle continues. The young people who were programmed to believe that they are victims of racism grow up seeing racism everywhere, thereby reinforcing their belief. They exude anger, and when it is returned − as it inevitably will be − their belief is further reinforced.

The memory of past grievances remains vivid, while the knowledge of present benefits is foggy at best. Stories of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and lynching are told and retold. But they are not told as important historical events to be remembered. They are told as present-day realities to be resented. To some people, Emmett Till being lynched for flirting with a white woman in Mississippi in 1955 is more real than Barack Obama in the White House in 2012.

This is inexpressibly sad. Gratitude is a source of happiness, and ingratitude is a source of unhappiness. One reason Americans − not only minorities but all Americans − are less happy than they might be is that leftist “intellectuals” and “community leaders” keep telling them what’s wrong with their country, while ignoring what’s right. So why should they feel grateful to live here?

Since 1990, the number of blacks who immigrated voluntarily has exceeded the number who were brought here in the past as slaves. These immigrants are grateful to come here − they know what it’s like back home. But people who were born here have no basis for comparison, other than the utopian visions fostered by leftists. And no matter how good America is, it will fall short of utopia. So the native-born may see no reason for gratitude, only reason for resentment.

Come to think of it, if America is really as racist as Frederica Wilson says it is, how did she get to Congress in the first place? Her ability to address the House of Representatives as a member is itself a refutation of the accusations she makes.

There still is racism in America. Only a fool would deny this. But is there is less racism than there was a generation ago? Only a liar would deny that. Is America the least racist nation on earth? Only someone who never traveled abroad, or a leftist who wants to “fundamentally change” America, would ignore this fact. Is today’s America oppressive and racist? Only race-hustling preachers and race-baiting politicians would say so.

Short of the bubonic plague or an asteroid impact, the worst thing that can happen to a nation is to teach a substantial portion of its young people that they are victims.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

That is, she claimed that African Americans, including boys and girls, suffer from racism daily. Is this objectively true? Or is it true only in the sense that young African Americans are taught by their “leaders” to see racism daily? In an attempt to answer this question, I reviewed some occurrences in my own life.

Get off the sidewalk.

Some time ago, I was walking in an upscale residential area. Down the sidewalk came a middle-aged woman, “exercise walking” while swinging what looked like a two-foot length of broomstick. Apparently it was some sort of exercise aid.

But the woman showed no sign of altering her gyrations as she approached, so I stepped off the sidewalk to avoid getting hit. I thought of pointing out that billy clubs are illegal here. But I decided that she would either ignore me or call me a vile name.

So I just got off the sidewalk, as if I were a black in Mississippi in 1940. Oh, I almost forgot − I am white, as was the woman. So it was just an example of narcissism combined with the self-righteousness of doing something “healthful.”

The rude clerk.

I ordered stationery from an office supply store. When my order was ready, I drove to the store. The cashier directed me to a counter. Behind it was a clerk who was busy with paperwork. He looked up at me, then went back to his papers. I coughed from time to time, then said, “Excuse me,” with no effect.

I waited five minutes by my watch, went back to the cashier, and said in a loud voice, “If I can’t get the stationery, I want my money back.” She directed me back to the counter. I waited for another two minutes, then began to complain obnoxiously. The clerk looked up with annoyance, asked my name, reached under the counter within a few feet of where I was standing, handed me my stationery without apology, and turned his back.

This was a clear example of racism. Oh, I almost forgot − I’m white and the clerk was black. So it was just an example of rudeness and bad service. Of course, he might have thought that my irritation was an example of my racism.

The rotten food.

One evening my wife and I went to a seafood restaurant. When my wife picked up a lettuce leaf with her fork, a large nest of wiggling worms was revealed. We called over the waiter, which took some time, and showed him the worms. We asked for the manager. He had not arrived after five minutes, despite my loud complaints, so we left.

This was a disgusting example of racism. Oh, I almost forgot − both of us and the waiter were white. So it was just bad service and a filthy kitchen. Later the restaurant closed.

Driving while white.

My car was in the shop, and I was driving a rental car to work. I was pulled over by a police officer. I politely asked what I did wrong, and he replied, “Your tags are expired.” I explained it was a rental car, showed him the papers, and laughingly remarked, “Do you suppose Budget Rent-a-Car can’t afford to renew their registrations?” The officer smiled in response, then let me go with a reminder to tell the company. The incident lasted a short time and was pleasant.

On the way home, I was pulled over by another officer. But this time I was tired and annoyed. Before the officer spoke, I said, “I know, the tags are expired, it’s a rental car,” and stuck the papers out the window. The officer responded to my annoyance with his own. He wrote me a ticket requiring me, not the rental company, to renew the registration.

Even more annoyed, I asked how I could register a car I didn’t own. The officer replied with a lengthy lecture on my responsibilities as a car renter − which made no sense, but which did serve to delay me even more. As a result of my impatience and rudeness, the incident lasted a long time and was unpleasant. Later the rental company took care of the ticket, but if they hadn’t, an arrest warrant would have been issued for me.

Clearly, this is another example of police harassment of minorities. Oh, I almost forgot − both of the officers and I were white. So it was just an example of my disrespect being returned.

The trigger-happy cop.

The house next door was being remodeled. Trucks frequently blocked our driveway. I complained without effect. One day I was picking up nails from my driveway, a frequent occurrence. The contractor was there, so I said, “How would you like it if I put nails in front of your car?”

The contractor replied angrily, “Keep away from my car or I’ll kill you!” On the chance that the contractor was serious or on a controlled substance, I called the police. Eventually a police car arrived, and a female officer got out. I explained the situation as calmly as I could, which may not have been very calmly.

Then I did something stupid. I wanted to identify myself as the homeowner, so without warning I reached into my pocket for my wallet. Immediately, the officer took a small step back with her right foot, brought her left hand in front of her, and moved her right hand near her pistol. I knew enough about guns to recognize that she was preparing to assume the Weaver stance and draw her weapon.

I apologized for my hasty action. The officer completed her report and drove away. She did not mention what she had prepared to do, much less apologize.

Clearly, this is an example of police racism and readiness to use lethal force when it isn’t necessary. Oh, I almost forgot − the officer and I were both white. Not only that, but I have gray hair and wear glasses. So it was just an example of a potentially threatening move being reacted to by someone who puts her life on the line daily to protect us. It was an example of my own lack of situational awareness.

Real racism.

Only a fool would deny that racism exists in America, though it is probably the least racist of nations. Police brutality exists as well. But much of what is called racism is in the eye of the beholder. If we look for trouble, we are likely to find it. And much of our trouble is caused – or at least aggravated – by our own lack of concern for others or for the situation.

Sometimes people force us off the sidewalk just because of selfishness and lack of consideration. Sometimes bad service is just bad service by employees with no interest in the success of the business. Sometimes filthy food is just filthy food. Sometimes rude cops are just responding to our rudeness. Sometimes hyper-vigilant cops are just responding to our potentially threatening moves. There is an abundant supply of real racism in the world. I know – my father’s eldest brother was murdered in the Holocaust. We don’t need to invent more racism by seeing it in the problems of daily life.

The Trayvon Martin tragedy.

Is Congresswoman Wilson correct? Do African Americans, especially young males, meet racism daily? Did Zimmerman racially profile Martin, then pursue and shoot him? If so, Zimmerman should spend many years in prison for second-degree murder. And we should all repent for the racism in our hearts.

On the other hand, is Zimmerman’s version, or what we know of it, correct? Did Martin react to being followed by turning around, confronting Zimmerman, and asking, “Do you have a problem,” then knocking Zimmerman down and bashing his head into the concrete sidewalk? If so, Zimmerman can reasonably claim self-defense. And we can all ask ourselves what was the source of Martin’s anger and suspicion.

Those who teach young African Americans that they will suffer from racism daily must share the blame for inciting anger and suspicion. We can only guess how much inter-racial violence is caused by this anger and suspicion. Equally regrettable, over 90% of blacks who are killed are killed by other blacks. We can only guess how much intra-racial violence is caused by turning this anger inward against their own people. Florid rhetoric may stir up crowds and win elections, but in the end it will ruin lives.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

Was Martin merely walking with a bag of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea when Zimmerman accosted him for no reason? I don’t know.

Is it possible that Martin thought Zimmerman was stalking him, and Zimmerman thought Martin was acting suspiciously, so the whole thing was a tragic misunderstanding? I don’t know.

If President Obama had a son, would he look like Trayvon Martin as the president claimed? I don’t know.

What difference does it make if someone looks like the president? Does his empathy depend on whether the person looks like him? I don’t know.

Doesn’t the president realize that extra consideration for those who look like him is the essence of racism? I don’t know.

If President Obama had a son, would he also look like the thousands of young black men who are murdered annually, mainly by other young black men? I don’t know.

Why is it more worthy of note by the president and the media if a young black man is killed by someone of another ethnic group rather than by one of his own? I don’t know.

If President Obama had a son, he probably would not look like Allen Coon, a 13-year-old who was set on fire with gasoline by black teens yelling, “You get what you deserve, white boy.” Allen survived, but was this the reason the president did not comment on this case as he did on the Martin case? I don’t know.

Is it true that Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was on top, beating him, as a witness reported? I don’t know.

Is it true that Zimmerman had a broken nose, had blood on his face and the back of his head, and wet grass stains on the back of his shirt? I don’t know.

Is it true that Martin knocked Zimmerman down with a punch to the face, then repeatedly bashed the back of his head into the sidewalk? I don’t know.

Was it Zimmerman who was screaming for help, as a witness claims, or was it Martin, as was first reported? I don’t know.

Under Florida law, and under moral law, does having your head bashed into a sidewalk evoke fear of death or great bodily injury, which justifies the use of deadly force in response? I don’t know.

Under Florida’s “castle” law, you can stand your ground if you are attacked, but does this also mean that you can pursue the attacker? If so, does it apply to Martin as well as to Zimmerman? Did Martin believe he was pursuing his attacker? I don’t know.

Zimmerman is described as a “white Hispanic,” as half Peruvian, or as Puerto Rican. Which, if any, is correct? I don’t know.

Is Zimmerman a racist? Is he is also a registered Democrat? I don’t know.

Martin is described in the media as having weighed 140 pounds. Few high-school football players are that small − was he a kicker? I don’t know.

Martin is also described in the media as having been 6 feet 2 inches tall. Is this true? I don’t know.

The photos of Martin in the media were taken when he was younger. Why isn’t a more recent photo available? The photo of Zimmerman makes him look like a thug. Why isn’t another photo available? I don’t know.

Was Martin’s record “spotless,” as claimed? Or had he been suspended from school three times and recently “took a swing” at a bus driver? I don’t know.

Was Martin found at school with a screwdriver and 12 pieces of jewelry as reported? I don’t know.

The New Black Panther Party is offering a $10,000 reward for Zimmerman. Isn’t this similar to a lynching? Isn’t offering a reward “dead or alive” illegal? I don’t know.

Director Spike Lee Tweeted Zimmerman’s home address (actually the wrong address). Isn’t this an invitation to violence? And since the media report that Zimmerman is in hiding, isn’t this an invitation to violence against his family? I don’t know.

Will this tragedy inhibit people from participating in a neighborhood watch, and will they relapse into apathy about crime? I don’t know.

Are the coordinated demonstrations for Martin across the country spontaneous, or are they organized by Democrats to energize Obama’s leftist base? I don’t know.

●

There are many things about the death of Trayvon Martin that I suspect. But there are very few things I know. Still, I have the ability to say, “I don’t know.” I find that this makes what I do say more persuasive.

Some time ago, I was in the lunch line at a university medical center. I couldn’t help overhearing three medical students in line behind me. They were boasting about the deep knowledge of the professor who went on patient-care rounds with them.

One student remarked, “And he even says, ‘I don’t know.’” The student was impressed with this ability, which he apparently found to be unusual.

I said, “Excuse me, but are you talking about Dr. Smith (not his name)?”

The student replied, “Yes, how did you know?”

I explained, “He’s one of the few people around here who ever say, ‘I don’t know.’”

The three students nodded in agreement.

I heard Dr. Smith lecture before a large audience. In answer to a question, he replied simply, “I don’t know.” And in answer to a comment, he replied, “I never thought of that.”

True, an internationally known authority might feel more freedom to say, “I don’t know.” But perhaps one reason he became internationally known was his ability to admit, “I don’t know.” A lesser man would gloss over his own ignorance, and thus have no impetus to remedy it.

The first step toward knowledge is the admission of ignorance. If I can’t say, “I don’t know,” I have no motivation to learn anything new. If I can’t recognize a gap in my knowledge, I feel no pressure to fill it. If I can’t distinguish what I know from what I suspect, or imagine, or hear rumors about, then I am truly ignorant. And if I have no motivation to remedy my ignorance, I will remain ignorant.

Many people feel that if they admit they don’t know something, this somehow reduces their credibility. No, it increases their credibility. I once knew a man who was experienced in a particular area. But I found that he answered questions with the same smug self-assurance regardless of whether his answer was provably correct, arguable, or provably false.

This man was useless. If he said something with which I was unfamiliar, I had no way to know whether it was true. But if he said something which I knew to be true, I began to doubt it. That is, after listening to him, I knew less than I did before. His remarks were negative quantities of knowledge. He never said, “I don’t know,” or even, “I’m not sure but I think that…” He was often wrong but never in doubt.

If President Obama had said, “We do not yet know all the facts about the death of Trayvon Martin, and until we do, let us keep calm,” he would have done the nation a great service. If the president simply had refrained from commenting, he would at least not have added fuel to the fire.

Instead, Obama remarked that if he had a son, the son would look like Trayvon. This clearly was intended to raise sympathy for Martin, and to evoke anger at Zimmerman. But it will make it harder to get a conviction, or if Zimmerman is convicted, it will make it harder to have the verdict stand up on appeal. Who would not have extra sympathy for a dead young man who looked like the president’s own son? How can an impartial jury be possible?

Inflame an already tense situation? Make it harder to have Zimmerman convicted? Increase racial tensions? All this means less to Obama than his own reelection. This episode is calculated to stir up the Democratic base, especially African Americans, who have been rather apathetic about him recently.

Race, class, gender − the classic leftist triad. Race: The Trayvon Martin case. Class: The 99% versus the 1%. Gender: The Sandra Fluke affair. In each case, the president injected himself − the operative word being himself.

All of us, especially those in public office, would do well to wait until we know all the facts before commenting on sensitive topics. All of us, especially those in public office, would increase our credibility by having the courage and intellectual honesty to say, “I don’t know.”

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/3/22/1332415730156/Toulouse-shooting-suspect-008.jpg

Merah then murdered three French paratroopers from a regiment recently returned from Afghanistan, and capped his career by murdering a rabbi and three children at a Jewish school.

http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/files/2012/03/120319jewishkids.jpg

After being surrounded, he wounded three police and finally was shot to death as he jumped from a window, reportedly still firing his gun and yelling, “Alahu akhbar.” Here soldiers are congratulating the police SWAT team that took him out. 

http://www.euronews.com/images_news/img_606X341_2303-toulouse-shooting-france-raid-police-merah-dead.jpg

At first, French media claimed he was a right-wing extremist. One source went so far as to claim he was a neo-Nazi French soldier. When this proved false, Le Figaro, the oldest newspaper in France and center-right in orientation, claimed he was reacting to “Islamophobia,” adding, “No doubt.” When people say, “No doubt,” often they mean there is grave doubt. And when they say, “As is well known,” often they mean it’s highly speculative.

Left-wing politicians regretted that the murderer had been killed and that a “dialogue” had not been established. One would think that rational people would understand that a “dialogue” with a man firing a gun is established by firing back. One would be wrong.

Meanwhile, a French schoolteacher asked her students to observe a moment of silence for the terrorist, whom she called a “victim.” One would think that after suffering five years of Nazi occupation during World War II, the French could distinguish criminals from victims. Again, one would be wrong.

But we are in no position to criticize the French. Our government officials and media go so far out of their way not to blame terrorism that often they announce the result when the investigation has barely begun.

● The first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was treated as a domestic crime. Little effort was made to get to the root of the problem. So like cancer, it recurred in a more deadly form on 9/11.

● EgyptAir Flight 990 went down in 1999 when its copilot crashed it into the Atlantic. But the Egyptian government rejected the possibility of suicide. Our government, not wishing to offend the Egyptians, refused to link the crash with terrorism.

● An Egyptian national had lived in America for 10 years. He objected when a neighbor displayed an American flag after 9/11. He felt that Americans in America should adapt to him.

On July 4, 2002 he went to El Al Israel Airlines at Los Angeles International, armed with two handguns and a knife. He murdered two people before a security officer killed him. The Los Angeles Times headline read, “FBI Looks for Motive in LAX Attack.” But what could his motive have been? Celebrating Independence Day by firing his guns? The FBI questioned whether the murderer had family or financial problems. Who doesn’t?

● In October 2002 John Allen Muhammad and an associate terrorized the Washington area as the “beltway snipers,” murdering 10. The media speculated on the “gun culture” and “right-wing extremists.” When his Muslim background was uncovered, it was mentioned briefly, then vanished down the memory hole.

● In 2004 a man was found in critical condition in a Las Vegas hotel, and six others were hospitalized after exposure to ricin, a lethal toxin. The CDC stated, “It would take a deliberate act to make ricin and use it to poison people. Accidental exposure to ricin is highly unlikely.”

But the FBI claimed that the incident did not appear related to terrorism, despite the fact that in the man’s room there were guns and a book with the part on ricin marked. An official declared that people could have “any number of reasons” for wanting to make ricin. Like what? Adding flavor to the food at the casino buffet? Note that this man was not Muslim. Denial of terrorism involves denial of any terrorism, not just terrorism by extremist Muslims.

● In 2006 a man entered the Seattle Jewish Federation and opened fire, murdering one and wounding five – all women, one pregnant. Survivors heard him say he wanted to kill Jews. He was captured by police.

The Los Angeles Times reported, “An FBI official said the gunman, who was identified only as a U.S. citizen and a Muslim, apparently acted alone. We believe at this point that it is just a lone individual acting out of some sort of antagonism toward this particular organization.” If the FBI wants us to respect its conclusions, it should announce them after the investigation, not before.

The following day, the Times reported, “Jewish Center Shooter’s Motive Is a Mystery.” The man could have attacked the Seattle Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army. Instead, he just happened to have “some sort of antagonism toward this particular organization.” Really?

● Later in 2006, a man of Afghan origin mowed down 15 people with his car, two (one a child) in front of the San Francisco Jewish Community Center. Luckily only one died. The mayor said, “This was so senseless and inexplicable.” The words “terrorism” or “hate crime” were not used.

● In 2007 Sulejmen Talovic walked into a mall in Salt Lake City armed with a handgun, a shotgun, and extra ammunition. He shot as many people as he could, before an off-duty police officer from another city stopped him. He was five when his family fled the war in Bosnia and came to America. This was the way he expressed his gratitude.

The mosque where he worshipped was rarely mentioned. The murderer’s father said, “Somebody got (the guns)…and maybe (they were) training him and tell(ing) him (to) go shoot somebody.” This remark was not widely reported. Of course, the fact that the attack was stopped by an armed citizen was not discussed.

● In 2009 Major Nidal Malik Hasan, MD, MPH shot up Fort Hood, Texas, murdering 14 fellow soldiers and civilians. The toll is usually listed as 13, but one was pregnant. Hasan was born in Arlington, Virginia, location of our most honored National Cemetery, and was educated at Army expense. But he was radicalized at a local mosque, where he met the notorious imam, the late Al-Awlaki.

One network stated that sometimes Hasan wore “traditional” clothing. What? A Scottish kilt? A Mexican sombrero? Oh, he wore a Muslim robe. Why didn’t you say so? The government described the attack as “workplace violence,” and refused to award the dead and wounded Purple Heart Medals, or to decorate the rescuers for heroism under fire.

The media described Hasan as a psychiatrist. What difference would it make if he were a proctologist? The key question was not which end of the body he treated, but what was the source of his homicidal hate. Again, the media claimed his motive was a “mystery.”

There are two kinds of mysteries: things we don’t know, and things we don’t want to know.

We can’t respond to a problem if we don’t understand what is happening. We are told that these are “isolated incidents” and not terrorism. What if only one plane had been hijacked on 9/11, and only one of the Twin Towers had been knocked down? It would have been an “isolated incident,” but it would still have been terrorism.

This is hardly a complete list, but you get the idea. If these attacks were “isolated incidents,” what would constitute a pattern of international terrorism? The pattern of terrorism may not be clear to some people, but the pattern of our reaction to it is all too clear:

1. Report the incident giving as few details as possible. Omit the suspect’s name and cultural background for as long as possible.

2. Blame “right-wing extremists” and “gun nuts” for as long as possible.

3. Declare that there is no connection to terrorism before the investigation has begun.

4. Cause the incident to disappear from the news as soon as possible.

5. Insist that no matter how many attacks have gone before or how many come after, each one is an “isolated incident.”

Are we being fed sanitized news so as not to be “politically incorrect?” Are we being intentionally misinformed to avoid embarrassing those who dropped the ball? Or are we being unintentionally misinformed by people who can’t recognize reality, even when it hits them in the face? They may have spent too much time in bureaucracies, where “not making waves” is more important than doing the job.

Clearly, we do not need to know facts that would alert our enemies. In these cases, simply say, “The investigation is ongoing.” But apart from that, tell us the truth. And if you don’t have people in government or the media who can tell the truth, or even recognize the truth, then get some who can before it’s too late.

If multiple “isolated incidents” don’t add up to a pattern of international terrorism, what does? In order to “connect the dots,” we must recognize that they are dots. We owe it to the past victims, and especially to potential future victims.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

But we need not imagine a terrorist attack − we have enough to worry about right now. Consider how first responders depend on computerized communication systems. Consider what would happen if these systems went down, just when we needed police, firefighters, or paramedics. This takes no imagination − it’s already happening.

Question: What do you get when you combine the following?

1. Fragile, computerized equipment.

2. A sagging economy, with resulting budget cuts.

3. Emergency and other city services overwhelmed by immigrants, legal and illegal.

4. Fire and police officials who are promoted on the basis of not making waves.

I’ll tell you what you get: Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Fire Department used erroneous figures boasting of short response times, and these optimistic response times were used by the City Council to justify deep cuts in the LAFD budget. As a result, fire stations were closed, and fire trucks and ambulances had to travel as much as 14 miles to respond to emergencies.

This is not a rural area, where a 14-mile trip may be necessary. It is the second most populous city in the nation, a city notorious for being spread out and having traffic-clogged streets and freeways. So trouble was sure to come. In one case, a young woman severely mangled her hand at work. Her coworkers shut off the machine, tried to stop the bleeding, preserved the severed finger, and called 9-1-1.

Despite the fact that a fire station was only about a mile away, one of the periodic outages in the computerized communications system had occurred. As a result, paramedics arrived 45 minutes later, leaving the woman in severe pain, and her finger no longer suitable to be reattached.

Of course, the woman isn’t rich and socially prominent. She isn’t a major contributor to the mayor’s reelection campaign. She’s just a human being. In fact, she’s apparently a member of one of the minority groups that politicians pander to − but in reality, do little to help. No doubt the woman will sue the city, and probably collect as much money as it would have cost to repair the communications system in the first place.

As the ad for an engine-oil filter says, you can pay me now or pay me later. Cuts to the budgets of fire, paramedic, and police services are often penny wise and pound foolish, as well as being coldly indifferent to the suffering that people will have to endure.

But wait − it gets worse. Fire Department officials were unable to keep the communications computer in working order. But working perfectly was the computer they used to simulate rapid response times, which justified severe budget cuts. This typifies bureaucracy: Produce phony data for politicians? No problem. Actually do your job? Not so much.

In other cases in which the communication system went down, LAFD dispatchers had to resort to an outdated system in which emergency-vehicle availability was indicated by sticking golf tees into a peg board. The available personnel were then notified by phone. But what if the phone system had gone down as well, as it does during even moderate earthquakes? During 9/11, the New York City phone system was overwhelmed, and it was often impossible to get a dial tone, while cell-phone service went down completely.

Many people assume that if current technology fails, we can always fall back on the previous technology. Sometimes this is true − for example, the peg board with the golf tees. And when the power fails, cordless phones are useless, but corded phones continue to work, because they run on their own low-voltage current. That is, if we are among the few people who still have a corded phone.

On the other hand, it is often impossible to fall back on the previous technology.

http://www.shakerworkswest.com/images/firepull_000.gif

Many years ago, before phones were in common use, fire stations were connected by telegraph lines. Older people remember the red fire-alarm boxes that adorned light poles every few blocks. If you broke the glass and pulled the handle, a toothed wheel started to rotate. The teeth touched a contact, generating a brief electric current. For example, a red box might send out 8-2-6. Bells in every firehouse would sound these numbers. A map showed the location of every red box, including box 8-2-6.

At least one man was awake in every station. He would hear the number sounded, and know it was in his part of town but in the neighboring station’s area. So he would not sound the station alarm and summon his company. But since the neighboring company was busy, he would have to handle its calls until it was free again.

This system was primitive. It annoyed all the firehouses will bell-ringing, rather than just the one involved. It did not allow communicating the nature of the fire − for instance, a house or a school. To call a second alarm, the responding captain unlocked the red box, then used a telegraph key to transmit the proper signal.

Still, because of its primitive nature, the system was robust. It did not depend on chips, or computers, or radios, or phones. It ran on low voltage via direct wires. It was self-contained. To disable it, one would have to climb the poles and cut the wires.

But when the modern, computerized system failed, dispatchers could not fall back on the old system of red boxes and bells. It no longer exists, and even if it did, no one would remember how to use it. Similarly, if automobiles and trucks are immobilized − say by a fuel shortage − we cannot fall back on the prior technology of horses and wagons. They no longer exist, and even if they did, no one would remember how to use them. Instead, we will be reduced to Stone Age technology − walking and carrying things in our arms or pulling them in carts.

We have become dependent on technology that is extremely useful but extremely vulnerable. It is vulnerable not just to enemy attack, but also to neglect. Neglect can be the result of carelessness. But it is more likely to be the result of budget cuts brought on by a sluggish economy, and justified by high department officials who were promoted not because of their competence, but because of their willingness to go along with whatever the politicians want. Then politicians can cut vital services − and leave intact unneeded construction projects that line the politicians’ pockets with graft.

Some organizations resemble a coffee cup − the cream rises to the top. But many large organizations resemble a septic tank − the largest chunks rise to the top. I leave it to you to decide which type describes most bureaucracies run by politicians.

And a politician is a politician, no matter whether he wears an Armani suit or a fire chief’s uniform − or for that matter, the uniform of a general or admiral. Keep that in mind when you see men with three or four stars on their shoulders smile and nod approval to severe cuts in the defense budget.

On April 12 we will observe the 100th anniversary of the sinking of Titanic. That should have taught us not to rely too heavily on modern technology, but to remember that we are personally responsible for the safety of those entrusted to us. We should have learned this lesson 100 years ago, but many of us did not learn it even on 9/11. Many of us have not learned it yet.

Those responsible for essential functions − our military, our first responders, our hospitals, and our delivery systems for food and fuel − need to establish backup systems that can continue to function in the event of an EMP, a terrorist attack, or a natural disaster. Wise computer users back up their files and make hard copies of essential documents. Wise government officials should ensure that there is reliable backup for our people.

The author thanks Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. for providing the idea for this column.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

Instead, there were three self-service machines, and a young man walking up and down watching them to prevent shoplifting. He appeared bored and restless. He may have been a recent graduate of the nearby university, forced to take a low-paying job. Working-class young people generally are happier at work. Perhaps they are more grateful to have a job.

Grateful people tend to be happier than resentful people. I suspect that the more college graduates we have, employed at jobs they believe are beneath them, the more unhappy, resentful people we will be forced to deal with. This is not a cheerful prospect in a stagnant economy.

Finally our turn came, and we approached one of the self-service machines. I swiped my discount card, and the machine voice thanked me − the only polite interchange I had. I then swiped each item we were buying, being careful to turn them with the bar codes down. One would think that manufacturers would agree on a standard location for the bar code, saving customers from turning each item six ways to find it. Still, each time I swiped an item, the machine beeped contentedly.

But suddenly the young clerk, who had been watching, abruptly reached over my shoulder, pulled the last item out of the bag, and rescanned it without explaining, as if I had done something wrong. Surprised, I said, “It beeped.”

He replied curtly, “It didn’t beep right.”

I was about to protest being accused of shoplifting when my wife admonished, “Don’t charge me twice.” But the item was listed only once on the monitor, so it had not scanned the first time. I don’t recall ever seeing a scanner that beeped but did not register the item. Perhaps the drugstore chain had purchased a particularly cheap batch of scanners from China, enabling it to save even more money than it had by laying off the clerks.

We finished, and the machine disgorged a foot-long stream of paper, with the statement plus a host of “savings” coupons. I turned to the clerk and said in a loud voice, “What’s all this, my rap sheet?” His face remained expressionless, so I went on, “Look, it’s even got my juvenile shoplifting arrest − I thought those records were sealed.” But the clerk turned away without even a shrug, and went on to scrutinize another customer. My anger and sarcasm meant nothing to him.

As we left the store, I wondered whether he would have been as rude if I were six feet tall, weighed 200 pounds, had a shaved head, and was covered with tattoos. I’ll bet serious money that he would not have acted as if he were stopping a shoplifter, and that he would have explained politely that the machines were malfunctioning. When fear trumps respect as a lubricant for society, we know we’re on a down-slope.

So what is this “information society” we hear so much about? Yes, it includes a small number of brilliant nerds in places like Silicon Valley, developing innovative, high-tech gizmos. And it includes the investors who profit from them. But increasingly, like Apple, these gizmos are manufactured elsewhere, probably in China. And the vast majority of us will be left to deal with the gizmos we didn’t make, don’t really understand, and probably can’t repair when they break down − which they will, as the Chinese realize that we will buy almost anything.

Besides, what choice will we have? We no longer have the equipment, the will, or the know-how to make them ourselves. Apparently that information is not part of the “information age.”

The original Keynesian, Keynes himself, remarked that everyone can’t make a living taking in everyone else’s laundry. A purely service economy won’t work. If we don’t produce a decent percent of our steel, our cars, our light bulbs, our NBA uniforms, and our computers, we won’t be a great nation. We won’t even be an independent nation. We will be an economic colony of the producer nations, especially China. That may be what the “global elite” want, but it’s not what the great majority of Americans want, and we need to say so.

If a checkout machine at a drugstore malfunctions, it’s an inconvenience. But if a machine that we depend on for our lives malfunctions, we’re in real trouble. Not long ago, a CT-scanner at a major medical center malfunctioned for over a year, giving patients a serious overdose of radiation when they got their diagnostic scans. No one checked the machines, but merely assumed they were functioning properly − until patients complained of losing their hair.

But no one thought of measuring the radiation doses the patients actually received. They trusted the gizmo − that is, the hardware they had not built and the software they had not written.

And what about information itself? Is it safe? Medical records used to reside in paper files located in doctors’ offices and hospital record rooms. The downside was that they were slow to obtain or transfer in an emergency. The upside was that, for the most part, they remained confidential and secure.

But now, medical and other sensitive records are computerized and accessible from the Internet. Government officials, insurance companies, and miscellaneous snoopers can access your birth date, social security number, and other data useful in identity theft − not to mention your medical records.

When people blabber about the right to “privacy,” they mean the right to abortion on demand, but not the right to actual privacy. Is it possible to maintain a high civilization if modesty and confidentiality die? I’m not sure. And what about backup? How can things function if medical and financial records are lost? I’m even less sure.

In another decade or so, most books may disappear, replaced by Kindle and its clones. But what if the few factories making the chips that power these devices are damaged, or the Internet is interrupted? The ability to retrieve most human knowledge will disappear, and we will be like people in the Dark Ages, looking at Roman ruins with wonder − but without understanding.

As the CT-scan patients discovered, machines can malfunction. We are now dependent on computers and the Internet for buying nearly everything from gasoline to medicines. We are equally dependent for delivering food and other essentials to our stores. Our police departments, fire services, and armed forces are just as dependent.

Recently I stopped at a local gas station. The pump would not accept my credit card, so I offered it to the attendant. He replied that the system was down, and he accepted only cash. Filling the tank now costs me at least $60, and for a large car, SUV, or pickup, it may cost upwards of $100.

What will happen if the satellite communication system goes down, either because of a malfunction or because of an EMP attack by terrorists or by Iran? Do you have enough cash to survive until ATMs function again? And will you feel safe walking around with so much cash in a troubled time? How many people will arm themselves, legally or illegally?

Such an EMP attack would probably knock out all computers, telephones, and anything else controlled by chips. Would an EMP also knock out the engine-control chips on all late-model cars, trucks, locomotives, and airplanes? Perhaps not, but I would not want to bet my life on it − though in effect I already am.

I am not a Luddite. Advances in medical technology probably saved my life, and advances in information technology enable me to reach more people. But we need to keep a close watch on those devices.

If we care for patients, we and not the computers are responsible for the lives in our hands. In we handle important records, we and not the computers are responsible for keeping them secure and backing them up. If we are in charge of delivering food or other essentials, we and not the computers are responsible for keeping the supply lines open. If we manage billions in assets, we and not the computers are responsible for safeguarding people’s life savings. If we are in charge of police, firefighters, or our military, we and not computers are responsible for backup systems that are not vulnerable to EMP attack.

The key word is responsible. We cannot fob off our responsibilities onto fragile, fallible machines that are made by foreigners who may not wish us well, and that can be disabled by foreigners who definitely do not wish us well. If we are not careful, the information that the “information society” produces may be bad news.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

What I’m referring to is the degeneration of politics into name-calling, slander, invective, and insults of the vilest sort. What I’m complaining about is the abuse of the right of free speech. What I’m distressed by is the lack of awareness that this right, like all rights, comes with responsibilities firmly attached.

I have a right − perhaps a duty − to criticize those with whom I disagree. In fact, I do it often. No one except a totalitarian denies this right.

But does free speech include the right to use cruel humor and make fun of people’s disabilities? Does it include the right to compare political opponents to mass murderers or practitioners of genocide? Does it include the right to imply, or to state plainly, that those with whom we disagree ought to be silenced or even exterminated?

No, I’m not referring to a legalistic interpretation of the First Amendment. I leave that to professors of law. I’m referring not to what is legal to say, but to what is moral to say. I realize that for many Americans today, this distinction is difficult, because they were never taught to think in moral terms. Nevertheless, it is a vital distinction.

Perhaps some examples will clarify what I mean:

● Liberals talk incessantly about “freedom” and “rights,” but they want to regulate the Internet and talk radio. Liberal icons Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem want the Federal Communications Commission to kick Rush Limbaugh off the air, calling him “Goebbels.” They forget that Goebbels was Hitler’s propaganda minister who controlled the media. That is, the FCC, not Limbaugh, is similar in function to Goebbels − and they want to make it more powerful.

● Liberals condemn Limbaugh for calling a liberal woman a “slut,” but they say nothing when Bill Maher and others call conservative women “female impersonator,” “slut,” “c**t,” “tw*t,” “whore,” “prostitute,” and last but not least, “lyin’ ass bitch” and “dumb bitch with half a brain.” And they have the gall to complain about Rush.

● Actor Alec Baldwin used the Conan O’Brien Show to urge his listeners to “stone to death” a conservative member of Congress, then go to his home and murder his wife and family. The audience cheered.

● National Public Radio guru Nina Totenberg remarked that conservative Senator Jesse Helms or his grandchildren should get AIDS − then giggled.

● Director Spike Lee announced that actor Charlton Heston, then president of the National Rifle Association, should be “shot with a .44 caliber Bulldog,” a snub-nosed revolver used by serial murderer “Son of Sam.”

● Actor George Clooney made a “joke” about Heston by claiming that he announced he has Alzheimer’s disease − again.

● New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd referred to “extra-chromosome conservatives,” a reference to Down’s syndrome. The same slur was used by Al Gore.

● Law professor Alan Dershowitz called conservative Republicans “mad dogs.” That is, he compared them to diseased animals that must be destroyed.

● Actress Julia Roberts claimed that “Republican” is between “reptile” and “repulsive” in the dictionary.

● Public figures including Sean Penn and Danny Glover visited Cuba and criticized America while praising Fidel Castro. They implied that we are worse than ruthless tyrants.

● Many liberals refer to those who disagree with their agenda as “fascists” or “Nazis.”

● Rick Santorum has been called a “weird, pious wackadoo” whose opinions are “rabid,” “nonsensical,” and “incendiary.” There we go with “rabid” again.

● The Los Angeles Times published letters referring to President Bush as “Satan” and “Hitler.”

● “Civil-liberties” advocates referred to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as a “serial murderer,” “Hitler,” and the “Antichrist.” But if Clarence Thomas is the Antichrist, then who is Elena Kagan − Mary Magdalene? Those who insist on the “wall of separation” should stop using religious terminology in politics.

Nor are Republicans blameless here. Some criticism of President Obama is over the top. And the candidates’ name-calling of one another has been compared to a circular firing squad. Liberals attack Mitt Romney for being conservative, while conservatives attack him for being liberal, and both attack him for being Mormon (“Mormons hate Christians;” “Mormons believe their magic underwear protects them from bullets”).

Attacking your political opponents with nasty insults is offensive. Attacking your political allies with nasty insults is self-destructive. Republicans seem to be doing a good job of self-destruction, while Democrats watch, trying to hide their smirks.

What are we to make of all this? Is it legitimate political discourse? Is it permissible criticism? Is it to be expected in the rough-and-tumble of politics? Is it just a little “over the top”?

Or is it hate speech?

Is it heartless “fun” at the expense of those struck down by illness or disability? Is it dehumanizing political opponents by comparing them to rabid animals or practitioners of genocide? Is it justifying the murder of those with whom we disagree?

We can attempt to have a dialogue with those we consider mistaken. We can try to talk things over with those we believe are misinformed. We can try to reach an understanding with those we regard as ignorant.

But how are we to act toward those we think are evil? How should we behave with those we believe to be racists plotting genocide? How can we compromise with those we regard as fit to be exterminated? How can we tolerate people who voted for Satan? How can we respect the law if the Antichrist is on the Supreme Court?

But here’s something odd. The same people who insist on removing all mention of God from our public life now insert mention of Satan and the Antichrist. When I was a kid, you could mention God in public, but “devil” was a cuss word. Now you can mention the devil in political discourse, but many people mention God only when cursing. This is called progress.

The above examples, and many others I could list, are the symptoms. The underlying disease is an absolute certainty that we are right, and everyone else is wrong. The disease is a narcissistic conviction that we are good, and everyone who disagrees is evil. The disease is a fervent zeal to push the agenda we find appealing down everyone’s throat, and to crush opposing ideas.

The disease, in other words, is fanaticism. Like cancer, fanaticism is curable if it is recognized in its early stages. But once it has progressed beyond a certain point, which is recognizable only in retrospect, it’s too late. Cure is then impossible, and the best one can hope for is to prolong things for a while.

Like cancer, fanaticism invades stealthily, creeping into journalism, law, academia, and even lunchtime conversation, until eventually all aspects of society are affected. The disintegration starts slowly, then accelerates. So far we appear to be at a reversible stage. But let’s not press our luck.

We are operating under the optimistic assumption that our nation, and our civilization, are held together by a powerful glue. So we think we can employ as much force as we like in an effort to achieve our aims. We assume that we can be as divisive as we wish, and nothing bad will happen.

But what if we’re wrong?

What if the glue that holds us together isn’t epoxy, but merely library paste? What if the glue is soluble in the acid of hatred? What if it isn’t strong enough to withstand the stress of contempt? What if it can’t hold up against the divisive power of class hatred, race hatred, religious hatred, and ideological hatred?

What if our system of government, limited by a Constitution, can’t withstand the centrifugal forces of white power, black power, brown power, class envy, radical environmentalism, radical animal rights, radical anti-tobacco, extreme pro-abortion, extreme anti-abortion, extreme pro-immigration, extreme anti-immigration, single-issue fanaticism, and all the other pressures to empower one group at the expense of others? What then?

We will discover − when it’s too late − that the beautiful structure the founders designed, and past generations built, is coming apart at the seams. But then there won’t be anything to do about it. We will be left sitting in the ruins, bemoaning our fate.

Then our only choices will be anarchy or tyranny. Freedom is viable when most citizens respect one another. But only a jungle or a dictatorship can tolerate hatred and contempt.

So let’s put a lid on it for a while. Let’s restrain our immoderate rhetoric. Let’s try to disagree without hating, and to express opposition without contempt. Who knows? We might even get used to it.

Fear and loathing make an entertaining novel, but an unhappy and unstable nation.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

In addition to demonstrating his bad temper and small-mindedness, the chief did so in the presence of nurses and patients, thus violating a basic principle of leadership: Don’t undermine your subordinates’ authority.

My colleague concluded with bitter irony, “You’ve got to know what’s important.”

We’ve all seen people like that, obsessed with irrelevant trivia while ignoring what is truly significant. In an ordinary office, this is annoying. But it’s really dangerous when human lives and well-being are at stake. This is obviously true in a hospital or in the military. It is equally true, though perhaps less obvious, in politics.

This November we will decide the fate of our republic, and perhaps that of the free world. Choosing who will lead us at this critical time is a heavy responsibility, among the heaviest we will face in our lifetimes. But what are we arguing about? Yes, there are serious commentators like Charles Krauthammer, Hugh Hewitt, and Dennis Prager. But what are the airwaves, the Internet, and the newspapers filled with? What are so many people squandering their time and energy discussing?

“Romney underwear” yields 2,970,000 hits on Google, while “magic underwear” yields 42,500,000 hits. Liberals from the New York Times on down − or on up, depending on your point of view − have ridiculed Mitt Romney for wearing “magic underwear.”

This is pure religious bigotry. Devout Mormons wear underwear of a special design, to remind them that they are always subject to God’s commandments. This is in no way different from wearing a cross or a Star of David around the neck, or a bracelet commemorating an active-duty or fallen warrior around the wrist. It is a reminder of an obligation, a word that is little used today. We speak incessantly about our rights, but rarely about our obligations. We have forgotten that we can’t keep one without keeping the other.

I am especially sensitive to this issue, because my grandfathers were Orthodox Jews. Although they died before I was born, I believe they both wore the fringed garments under their shirts that are mentioned by the Bible in Numbers 15:38-39 and Deuteronomy 22:12. Perhaps you have seen Orthodox men with fringes hanging from under their shirts. Or perhaps you haven’t.

But in either case, they are not “magic underwear.” They are reminders that God’s commandments are binding upon us wherever we go. What was true for my grandfathers is equally true for observant members of the LDS Church. So perhaps you can understand why I take personal offense at sarcastic, belittling remarks about “magic underwear.”

I have no statistical proof, but it seems that most of the derisive comments about Mormons’ “magic underwear” come not from devout Christians, who have legitimate questions about Mormon theology, but from secular leftists, who look down on all religion. No, that isn’t quite right. Secular leftists look down on all religion, but they save their vitriol for Christianity, especially Evangelical Protestants, practicing Catholics, and now Mormons − that is, people who take their religion seriously and tend to be conservative.

Secular leftists may look down on radical Islam as well, but to a major extent, they maintain a cautious silence on the subject − thus demonstrating that in addition to being anti-religious bigots, they are also cowards. Bigotry plus cowardice make a really unappetizing combination plate.

But I’m not letting devout Christians off the hook here. With some notable exceptions, they too say little about the persecution of fellow Christians in Muslim countries. This persecution has reached homicidal proportions. Yet many Christian leaders seem oddly unconcerned. Instead, they obsess about LDS theology, which is clearly in conflict with orthodox Christianity, but which has nothing − repeat, nothing − to do with a candidate’s ability to carry out the duties of president.

As leading Southern Baptist Pastor Robert Jeffress declared:

I’d rather a non-Christian like Romney who accepts biblical positions than a professing Christian like Barack Obama who accepts non-biblical views.

But instead of taking this common-sense approach, many Christians − and many secular leftists − gloss over the crucial issues that will be decided on Election Day:

● They gloss over an ever-larger government usurping the rights of our citizens. Isn’t this a moral as well as a political issue?

● They gloss over the expanding nanny state that controls everything from light bulbs and toilets to dishwasher detergent to what our kids eat for lunch. Yes, this is a moral issue. It means the demotion of the individual human being created in God’s image to a mere servant of the state.

● They gloss over a government that spends money it doesn’t have, and never will have, by heaping debt on our children and grandchildren. Talk about taxation without representation. And this too is a moral issue.

● They gloss over plans to gut our national defense in an increasingly dangerous world, where fanatics scream “death to America!” while building nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. That is a matter of life and death.

There are serious questions about selecting Mitt Romney to be our president. He has shifted his positions on important issues like government-run health care, abortion, and gun control. These shifting positions leave us in doubt about his core beliefs. Let us discuss these important issues.

But instead, like my colleague’s medical chief who argued about neckties instead of caring for patients, some people ignore the important while wasting their time and energy on the trivial. There is no perfect candidate. And if there were a perfect candidate, he would want perfect voters, which surely leaves me out.

Like all of us, Mitt Romney has problems. But his underwear is not among them. As my colleague said, you’ve got to know what’s important.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

Why do liberals, who incessantly push “safe sex,” expect us to pay for a woman’s unprotected sex? This question was not answered, because it was not asked. Note that if contraceptive pills were prescribed to regulate periods or for another medical reason, they would be covered by insurance − and not opposed by the Catholic Church.

It appears that Ms. Fluke is a liberal activist who agitates not just for coverage of contraceptive pills and morning-after pills, but also for coverage of sex-change surgery. Of course, if these and other items were added to health insurance, premiums would rise even higher, and fewer people could afford insurance − which is the plan. Secretary of HHS Sibelius states that private health insurance is in a “death spiral.” That sounds like more like a threat than a lament.

Limbaugh went too far and apologized. But what about “fairness,” which is so beloved by liberals? How did these people react when Sarah Palin was called “slutty” by Dave Letterman? Was there an outcry from politicians and the media? Did Letterman lose sponsors as Rush has? Are you serious?

Letterman insulted Gov. Sarah Palin, who had visited New York to participate in a charity event for autism. Letterman “joked” that Palin “bought makeup at Bloomingdale’s to update her slutty flight-attendant look.”

If a man is good looking, he is called “handsome.” But if a woman is good looking, what she is called depends on whether the speaker likes her. If he does, she is called “attractive,” “sexy,” or “hot.” If he doesn’t, she is called “slutty” or “skanky.” And in this era of politics über Alles, it depends on whether the woman is liberal, when she is “attractive,” or conservative, when she is “slutty.”

How can we justify varying the description of a human being, depending on whether we approve of her politics? How can we vary her description, depending on her socio-economic status? Would Letterman have compared Palin to a “slutty attorney”? No, an attorney would be “hot.”

But he views flight attendants as servants, to whom “upper-class” men should not be attracted, because they would not make “suitable” wives. So they can’t be “attractive,” which implies that he is attracted to them. They are merely “slutty.” He adds classism to sexism.

Still, Sarah Palin is an adult well able to take care of herself. Letterman could fob off his abuse of her as “political humor.” But what about the then-14-year-old Willow Palin? She was not a public figure. She was not an adult. She was not able to take care of herself.

In his monologue, Letterman said:

One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez…The toughest part of her visit was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter.

Later, Letterman issued a non-apology, claiming he was referring to 18-year-old Bristol Palin, who was not present at the game, rather than 14-year-old Willow, who was. He claimed he never would joke about having sex with a 14-year-old girl. But that is exactly what he did.

Note that Spitzer was forced to resign as governor of New York for frequenting prostitutes. So Letterman’s “apology” did not include apologizing for clearly implying that Palin’s daughter is a prostitute.

Is that a permissible way to refer to an 18-year-old girl, much less a 14-year-old? Is publicly shaming young people now acceptable behavior? If so, can we look forward to similar “jokes” about Obama’s half-brother and his problems with young girls, or about Sasha and Malia Obama? Of course not. If Letterman ever uttered a similar “joke” about them, the network would fire him the next day. But after trashing the Palins, Letterman’s ratings rose, and unlike Limbaugh he lost no sponsors.

Why is disgusting “humor” tolerated, even applauded, when directed against conservatives and their children, but it never would be tolerated against liberals and their children? What does this tell us about the moral level of liberals versus that of conservatives? Why do liberals condone callous, nasty behavior that conservatives find unacceptable? When did it become “liberal” to degrade women and sexualize children?

Recall that Letterman married his long-term girlfriend six years after she gave birth to their son. So Bristol Palin is a “slut” and a “prostitute” because she got pregnant at 17 and decided to raise her baby, but Letterman and his wife are above reproach? Really?

Of course, if Bristol had an abortion, it would have been her “choice” about “her own body,” and no liberal would dare criticize her. The anger is evoked by her decision to let the baby live, and by her mother’s conservative politics. How revealing.

But even worse things were said, including the disgusting allegation that Todd Palin was having incest with his daughters. Note the plural daughters − to include 14-year-old Willow and perhaps even 7-year-old Piper. This skit ran on “Saturday Night Live” − not on talk radio like Limbaugh, not on the Internet, not on cable, but on NBC-TV. And the reaction to this nauseating episode? There wasn’t any.

When liberal talker Ed Schultz called conservative Laura Ingraham a “slut,” not only was there no negative fallout, but participants on “The View” laughed it off. And note that “Michele Bachmann slut” yields 3,770,000 hits on Google, while “Michele Bachmann whore” yields 6,430,000. And when Congresswoman Bachmann was introduced on “Late Night,” Jimmy Fallon’s band played “Lyin’ Ass Bitch.”

Meanwhile, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin was called a “Manila whore,” insulting both her gender and her ethnic background. Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was called a “female impersonator,” as was commentator Ann Coulter. And what did gay activists say about these insults? Perhaps I missed it.

We define ourselves by what we tolerate − and what we don’t:

● Who made endless “jokes,” in the worst taste, about how old John McCain is? Who called him “confused” and “joked” that he forgets where he lives when he goes out for the paper? Who “joked” that he forgets to put on his pants when he goes out? Who “joked” that he accuses nurses of stealing his sox, and that he needs Viagra because of impotence, and diapers because of incontinence? Who ridiculed him for having difficulty using a computer, though it is common knowledge that the function of his arms and hands is impaired by war wounds?

● Who went so far in their contempt for the disabled as to tell Sarah and Todd Palin that their baby with Down’s syndrome should have been killed? This anger goes so deep that “Abort Sarah Palin” bumper stickers appeared in liberal areas. To “abort” a born human being means to murder her. Is this drawing normal political dialogue? Is hitting a woman in the face, knocking off her glasses, and knocking out a tooth an example of liberal thought? Is it “pro-choice” to threaten to beat up a woman for making the “wrong” choice?

Liberals tolerate all this. They tolerate Letterman and his bitter, unfunny, political “humor.” They tolerate sexist, classist “humor.” They make cruel “jokes” about children, the disabled, and the elderly. Fairness? We don’t need no stinkin’ fairness. We’re liberals!

Liberals continue to spew anger, though current events should make them joyful:

● They see their friends in control of the White House, the Senate, many of the courts, most of the schools and universities, and almost all of the mainstream media.

● They see the economy, from banks to automobiles to health care, being socialized faster than they thought possible.

●They see roadside bombers in Afghanistan being Mirandized like teenaged shoplifters in Omaha.

● They see terrorists from Guantanamo brought to the U.S. for trial, where they will be accorded all the rights of citizens.

● They see pictures released showing Muslim prisoners being abused, but they are indifferent to pictures of jumpers from the Twin Towers on 9/11; indifferent to pictures of Daniel Pearl being beheaded; indifferent to pictures of shredded bodies of men, women, and children after homicide bombings; and indifferent to pictures of U.S. contractors mutilated and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

Liberals boast of their “sensitivity,” but it is oddly one-way. Photos of prisoners in Abu Ghraib with panties on their heads? Print them on the front page for 32 consecutive days. But photos of abused Americans? Ignore them. Call conservative women “sluts” and even worse? No problem. But hear a liberal woman called a “slut”? Feign outrage and demand punishment.

People used to talk about the death of civility. But now that word sounds archaic, like something from Shakespeare. Now we worry about the death of common decency. We must deal with calling a conservative beauty contestant a “dumb bitch with half a brain.” We must deal with sexualizing children, especially girls and even babies − in music, in clothing, on film, and in school. If people laugh at a “joke” about raping the 14-year-old daughter of a governor, why would we expect them to be upset by films depicting the rape of a 12-year-old or mimicking the masturbation of a baby?

Media bias and disgusting “jokes” are the symptoms. The disease is callous insensitivity masquerading as “tolerance,” and contempt for political opponents masquerading as “diversity.”

Rush Limbaugh’s mistake was not that he called a woman a “slut,” but that he called a liberal woman a “slut.” To the liberal establishment, some sluts are sluttier than others, and conservative women and girls are the sluttiest of all.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

But the father looked into the baby’s face and bonded. He allowed the girl to live and, most unusually in those days, gave her an education. The only school open to girls was a Christian school, and Jeanette Li became a Christian. She later became an educator and had a long and productive life. Her autobiography is available. If this were the whole story, it would be well worth telling. But there’s more.
 

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/8/9/2764/F1.small.gif

Jeanette Li had a son. Min Chiu Li became a physician and obtained a position at the U.S. National Cancer Institute. He was interested in women’s cancers and began a series of experiments. Eventually he showed that the drug methotrexate was able to cure choriocarcinoma, a rare but lethal cancer of young women.

This was the first demonstration that chemotherapy could cure metastatic cancer, as well as the first demonstration that widely disseminated cancer could be cured by any treatment. This was a milestone in the history of medicine.

But this distinguished, productive scientist would not have existed if his mother had been exposed to die in infancy, as was the custom. Equally important, Min Chiu Li would probably not have existed under China’s current coercive program of one child per family, coupled with the continued preference for boys − and the resulting abortion of unborn baby girls and the killing of newborn baby girls.

The normal human sex ratio at birth (the ratio of boys to girls) is about 1.05. This is the ratio in the United States. But since the introduction of ultrasound, the ratio of male to female newborns in China has increased to 1.133. It is estimated that there is an excess of about 35 million males in China − that is, a deficiency of about 35 million females. As a result of selective abortion of unborn baby girls, in addition to infanticide of newborn baby girls, tens of millions of women who would otherwise live in China have been eliminated. And they still are being eliminated.

Lest you believe that such goings-on are limited to China, recall that prominent British “ethicists” declare that parents should have the right to kill newborns if they are “defective” or merely unwanted. Not to be outdone, a prominent American “ethicist” extends this “return” privilege to one month, or even longer. And if we follow the example of the Netherlands, mobile euthanasia vans will save us trouble and come to our homes. But this development is not original − Nazi killing vans did it first. We reveal much about ourselves by whom we emulate. Some people emulate the man who saved Jeanette Li. Other people emulate the ones who wanted to kill her.

What is more, selective abortion of females is occurring in Britain and America at unknown rates. Oddly, this is not seen as misogyny. Not enough women on corporate boards? Big problem. Selectively killing unborn baby girls? No problem. To leftists, economics replaces ethics as a guide for our actions. Thirty-year-old women having to pay for their own contraceptives? Big problem. Selectively killing unborn baby girls? No problem. To progressives, a woman controlling her “own body” means only abortion on demand, but not actually controlling her own body.

Ultrasound is a valuable medical tool, but like all tools, some people will find a way to misuse it. You can use a hammer to build your neighbor a house or to bash his brains out. You can use ultrasound to make pregnancy safer or to abort females. Dostoyevsky wrote that without God, everything is permitted − but we don’t have to work so hard to prove him right.

We can talk about abortion from the point of view of populations. We can discuss the effects of reducing the number of females who reach reproductive age. We can ponder the resulting decline in already low birth rates, and the aging of the population. We can contemplate the inevitable collapse of old-age pensions, and the deficiency in the number of young workers. We can worry about the resulting excess of young men who cannot find wives. This excess can cause social unrest. The leaders of China know this − and might be tempted to start an aggressive war, in order to utilize this excess of young males before internal unrest breaks out. And we can express deep concern that in America, the abortion rate for black babies is twice that for Hispanic babies, and over three times that for white babies.

All this is true, but it is not the whole story. Abortion and infanticide have been discussed from many points of view, but often with the unspoken assumption that unborn or newborn humans are interchangeable − that is, that a baby aborted today can be fully replaced by a baby born later.

Such an assumption is nothing new. The first person “euthanized” by the Nazi program to get rid of the “defective” was Baby Knauer. When the disabled five-month-old baby boy was killed, the loving papa declared, “Later we could have other children, healthy and strong, of whom the Reich could be proud.” The Reich was indeed proud. But we should be deeply ashamed. The Nazi euthanasia program used drugs, then gas, and was the physical and psychological prelude to the Holocaust.

Except for identical twins, each individual has unique DNA unlike that of anyone who has ever lived, or is ever likely to live. But one need not be a geneticist, much less a theologian, to know that human beings are unique and not interchangeable. Jeanette Li’s father, an uneducated peasant, knew it in 1899. Yet many so-called educated people don’t know it today. Wisdom and education are two different things entirely. If you doubt this, consider the graduates of prestigious, left-leaning universities who are running our country.

Overpopulation and unwanted pregnancy are real problems. But it is unrealistic to assume that human beings, including unborn or newborn human beings, are as replaceable − and hence as disposable − as auto parts. A women’s clinic is not an auto-parts store, much less a wrecking yard.

When I was a young trainee in medical oncology, we had a guest at our weekly conference. Outwardly he was unimpressive. He was short, plump, and middle aged. But he had a ready smile and observant eyes. Our professor had known him at the National Cancer Institute and invited him to visit. He was Min Chiu Li. It was my honor to meet him.

Though I did not know it at the time, it was my special honor to meet a person who would never have existed, were it not for the love and wisdom of his peasant grandfather. When we kill a human being who is younger than, or in, the reproductive years, we kill not only that person, but also all that person’s potential descendants.

We can only wonder how many advances in medicine, and in other fields important to human well-being, have not been made − because the persons who would have made them, or their ancestors, were not allowed to live.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

Obviously, I didn’t go to such an unusual − in fact, unique − movie expecting to see polished actors reciting unrealistic dialog written by screenwriters who never heard a shot fired in anger, or fired at all. I went expecting to see real special operators demonstrating their remarkable skills and superb equipment, as well as the valor and comradeship for which they are justly famous.

But I’m not a film critic, and I’m certainly not a liberal film critic − which is almost redundant. The majority of critics viewed the film unfavorably, using terms like “jingoistic” and “recruiting poster.” They belittled the acting of the men who are not actors, but paid less attention to the abilities and qualities that the men do have in abundance.

On a scale of 0-100, audiences liked the film, with an average rating of 85 for 9,584 viewers. But reviewers were a different matter, with 86 of them giving the film an average rating of only 30. The difference is striking, again demonstrating that the mainstream media are left-wing and pacifist when compared with the general public.

Though the film was panned by most critics, it was number one at the box office its first weekend, taking in $24,477,000, as contrasted with number two, “Perry Tyler’s Good Deeds,” which earned $15,584,000. Once again, we see that portraying real good deeds will attract an audience.

And once again, we see one reason that the movies are dying. Hollywood insists on making movies to please itself rather than the audience. True, if they made more movies that exemplified American values, they would make more money. But amazingly, there is something even more important than money to them − being invited to lunches and cocktail parties by their colleagues. When political correctness and group-think trump money, you know they are powerful indeed.

Here is a sample of professional reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes:

I don’t know what to make of Act of Valor. It’s like reviewing a recruiting poster.
February 25, 2012
Peter Travers
Rolling Stone 

The special ops missions are pretty amazing, but the SEALS as dramatic characters are under-developed.
February 24, 2012
Richard Roeper
Richard Roeper.com 

The bad guys, who specialize in funny beards, funny accents, and shaved heads, would feel right at home in an Austin Powers movie.
February 24, 2012
Peter Rainer
Christian Science Monitor 

As a piece of filmed entertainment, “Act of Valor” will never be mistaken for “Top Gun,” but it’s a heck of a recruitment video.
February 24, 2012
Rafer Guzman
Newsday 

A documentary OR an action/drama honoring the missions of our Navy SEALs could have been good. But instead of OR, they tried AND. It fails.
February 27, 2012
Jeff Bayer
The Scorecard Review 

Seriously authentic yet fragmented, it’s never clear whether it’s recruitment propaganda or a ponderous, vaguely comprehensible documentary.
February 25, 2012
Susan Granger
SSG Syndicate 

At the end of the day, this is a long-winded SEALs recruitment tool, a noble gesture that’s just not sufficient basis for a feature film.
February 24, 2012
Robert Levin
Film School Rejects 

These are the dudes who killed Bin Laden and take down Somali pirates for breakfast, so to see the real guys in action, even in a movie as ridiculous as this, is a sight to behold.
February 24, 2012
Mathew DeKinder
St. Louis Post-Dispatch 

Recruitment videos are designed to be simplistic, one-sided and artless, but that approach is a failure when expanded into a narrative feature.
February 24, 2012
Josh Bell
Las Vegas Weekly 

Viewers with little appetite for thrill-of-the-kill war games may just decide to let this macho military parade march on by.
February 24, 2012
Neil Pond
American Profile 

Like all advertisements, this scripted movie is a perfect fantasy: expertly coordinated, simplistic (the bad guys like yachts and bikini girls, while our heroes have loving families) and more than a little scary.
February 24, 2012
Joshua Rothkopf
Time Out New York

No, what’s more than a little scary is that our media are filled with − no, infiltrated by − people who, unlike the majority of Americans, hold our military in contempt, and may even hold the ideals they fight and die for in contempt as well.

What’s more than a little scary is that the people who shape our opinions − or try to − believe that people join the military for the “thrill of the kill,” rather than to dedicate their lives to a cause greater than themselves.

What’s more than a little scary is that our media see anything positive about our military as a “recruitment poster,” as if that were necessarily a bad thing.

What’s more than a little scary is that our media see a pro-American film as “one-sided,” yet they see a host of anti-American films from the “Bourne” series on down as fair and objective.

And what’s more than a little scary is that our media see terrorists as resembling “characters in an Austin Powers movie.” After all, we should try to see the terrorists’ “point of view,” because they have “legitimate grievances.”

Yes, and I have grievances, too. But something restrains me from venting my anger by blowing up innocent men, women, and children. It’s called a conscience. It comes from being taught to have good values. Oh wait, I almost forgot. For the most part, Hollywood stopped trying to portray good values in the 1960s, and went on to produce a myriad of films about monsters, hitchhikers, chainsaws, vampires, and werewolves − not to mention films about corrupt, sadistic cops; deranged, bloodthirsty soldiers; and brainless, sex-obsessed adults who act like drunken teenagers.

For but one of many examples, take “Syriana,” a film about corrupt, back-stabbing American officials in the Middle East. The only sympathetic character is a young suicide bomber whose goal is to destroy an oil terminal that will bring his nation wealth. So much for our foreign policy.

Or take “Training Day,” a film about a police officer who is involved with drug dealers, and who arranges to have his partner murdered when the partner discovers this. So much for our domestic situation.

And then there is “Michael Clayton,” a film about how our corporations produce lethal products, then try to murder those who want to expose this fact. So much for our businesses.

Don’t forget “Godfather Part III,” a film that shows Catholic clergy as corrupt or actually homicidal. So much for our religion.

Last but not least, we have “Brothers,” a film about an officer reported killed in Afghanistan. His brother arrives to help the widow and her two young children. The brother falls in love with the woman, and the children quickly accept him. But the officer was captured and remained alive by killing a fellow Marine. When the officer comes home, his wife greets him coolly, and a daughter blurts, “Why couldn’t you stay dead?” The officer brandishes a pistol and winds up in the psychiatric ward. This film manages to defame both our military and our family structure.

These films were critically acclaimed, unlike “Act of Valor.” And so it goes.

Perhaps it is forgivable that people associated with show business are more interested in acting than in valor. But what is less forgivable is that we allow such people to shape our world view. And what is utterly unforgivable is that we allow them to shape the opinions of those in other nations. Who knows how much anti-American emotion is evoked by the anti-American output of Hollywood? What kind of fools pick people who disrespect them to be their advertising agents?

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

Hitler rearmed Germany, thus breaking the treaty that ended World War I. Then he reoccupied the Rhineland. Then he seized part of Czechoslovakia, and then the rest of it. Still the world did nothing, hoping the Nazi regime would be satisfied. But its appetite was merely whetted. Before the Nazis were defeated, at least 40 million people were dead, including one-third of all the Jews in the world, and four out of five European Jews.

At first, Hitler wanted the Jews to leave, “For all I care, on luxury liners.” But with few exceptions, no nation admitted them. In 1938, delegates from 32 nations, including the United States, met in the French resort town of Evian. The result: no one did anything. Whenever I see a bottle of Evian water, I think about apathy in the face of evil, and I remember this quote:

Obama seems to think that there is some force in the admonition that the world is watching; but history plentifully demonstrates that when the world is watching, all the world does is watch.
− Leon Wieseltier

During his 2009 trip, President Obama visited the site of the Nazi concentration camp at Buchenwald. Over 56,000 civilians and prisoners of war were murdered there. The president declared that no one should deny the Holocaust.

But the purpose of remembering the Holocaust is to prevent a recurrence. The leaders of Iran threaten to wipe Israel off the map, and at the same time are developing nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. What is the “world community” doing about it?

With Holocaust 2 on the horizon, it does no good to remember Holocaust 1, while making the same mistake that allowed it to occur − attempting to appease aggressors. What are we doing about Iran? Economic sanctions are proving useless. Meanwhile, President Obama distances himself from Israel.

The strong make demands of their enemies. The weak make demands of their friends. The strong evoke anxiety in their enemies. The weak evoke anxiety in their friends. As a result, the weak have more enemies and fewer friends.

History tends to repeat itself, because human nature doesn’t change. There are variations on the themes, but the themes recur with depressing regularity:

● When tyrants make promises, we shouldn’t listen.

● When tyrants make threats, we should listen.

● When tyrants threaten mass murder based on myths of racial or religious superiority, we should listen carefully.

● When tyrants build weapons with which to carry out their threats, we are fools if we don’t act before the weapons are operational.

What is the lesson of the Holocaust? To people of good will, it is: Never again. But to people of ill will, the lesson is: It succeeded. Four out of five European Jews were murdered, and the “world community” did nothing. Do you believe that the leaders of Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah haven’t studied that lesson attentively? What reason are we giving them to believe that things will be different this time? None. What reason are we giving them to believe that they can’t murder another six million? None.

I wonder what many people in many nations, including our own, are really thinking. Could it be this? − “Let the crazies in Iran build their nukes. Let them eradicate Israel, which is just a pain in the backside. Then we’ll do something, in case they’re serious when they chant, ‘Death to America.’ We can serve tea and cookies, and collect money for the few survivors, just like last time. That will make us feel really self-righteous. And we can build an annex to the Holocaust Museum. It’s the least we can do. Literally.”

For every Evangelical or Jew who wants Obama to do something before Iran nukes Israel, there is at least one closet anti-Semite who wants Obama to do nothing until after Iran nukes Israel. We hear much about the pro-Israel lobby, but there is also an anti-Israel lobby that is at least as powerful. Which will prevail remains to be seen.

Even if Iran acquires nuclear weapons but doesn’t use them, its neighbors will be terrified and rush to acquire nukes themselves. The Mideast is unstable now − imagine what it will be like with nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf States. If Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz, who will dare to break the blockade? Regardless of what happens to Israel, this prospect is frightening.

During his trip to Germany, President Obama visited Dresden, the site of a World War II air raid. He signed a memorial book and lit a candle in honor of those who died in the bombing. Obama was making an unspoken apology for the bombing, and also drawing a false moral equivalence between violence done to start a war and violence done to end it.

One can argue that the Dresden raid was militarily unnecessary. One can argue that the resulting firestorm was a tragedy. But one can also argue that Germany surrendered 12 weeks later, so the bombing may well have played a role in the decision.

The concept of proportionality holds for ordinary attacks. If a man punches me, I can punch him back. But if a man breaks down my door and attacks me with a knife, I need not turn my back, rush to the kitchen, and try to select a knife of equal length. I can use any means available to defend myself and my loved ones. I can grab a gun and shoot the man. At least, that is the law in most parts of America.

The same principle applies to nations. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan started an aggressive war. They seized the lands of their neighbors. They committed unspeakable atrocities. They murdered tens of millions of civilians. For years, the outcome hung in the balance.

Those who fought the German Nazis and the Japanese fascists were in the same position as the homeowner faced by the knife-wielding intruder. No rational person would demand that they measure each action precisely, to be sure it matched the actions of the aggressor to the millimeter and was not “disproportional.”

True, we must not sink to the level of the aggressors. We must not practice genocide or commit horrible atrocities. But to go further and demand that we abide by the Marquess of Queensbury rules, while our opponents attack us with the methods of an alley fight, is to doom us to certain defeat − and probable death.

Who but an enemy would make such a demand? Who but a self-destructive fool would comply with it?

The criminal who kicked in the door and attacked the homeowner with a knife was responsible for his own death − not the homeowner, and not the gun. The monsters who ran concentration camps were responsible for the firestorm in Dresden, not the Allied officials who ordered the raid, and not the airmen who carried it out. It was literally a case of sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.

The point is not only that if the Nazis had been stopped before they grew strong, the victims of Nazism could have been saved. The point is also that Germany could have been spared from terrible destruction. The same holds for other would-be aggressors, including Iran.

That was the lesson President Obama should have taught the world as he visited Dresden. That was the opportunity he missed. Instead of offering veiled apologies for Dresden, and for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he should have pointed out the obvious cause-and-effect relationship. If he had done so, he would have gone a long way toward securing peace in the world.

Would-be aggressors must be told bluntly that our response may be very far from “proportional.” When we go out of our way to reassure them that we will not “over-react,” we invite further aggression. And in the era of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, that aggression may well be catastrophic.

Perhaps – and only perhaps − we may be forgiven for not recognizing the first Hitler and stopping him before a world conflagration resulted. But we will never be forgiven for not recognizing subsequent Hitlers, or for not stopping them in time. We have been warned.

The president should have said, “If you attack our friends with weapons of mass destruction, we will react as if you attacked us. People who force human beings to hide in sewers may end up hiding in sewers themselves − in Dresden, or in Tehran.”

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

Did you read about the four-year-old girl who went to preschool with the lunch her mother had made for her? The lunch included a turkey-and-cheese sandwich on multigrain bread, a banana, a small bag of chips, and apple juice. But her lunch was inspected by a state official who declared that it did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines. Note how guidelines to advise us easily become orders we must obey.

Accordingly, the intrusive bureaucrat confiscated the child’s lunch, told her it was not “healthy,” and ordered her to eat the cafeteria lunch consisting of chicken nuggets, corn, and chocolate milk. In case you didn’t know, chicken nuggets are tiny pieces of unidentifiable parts of a chicken, which are loaded with salt, then deep fried with batter in some kind of fat − among the least healthful items you could feed a child.

When the mother complained, she was told this was a “misunderstanding.” But soon another mother reported a similar case. Her four-year-old also had the lunch she had prepared confiscated. Instead the girl was fed the cafeteria lunch of chicken nuggets, a sweet potato, bread, and milk. Chicken nuggets again − do school officials have an under-the-table deal with some fast-food establishment? And a sweet potato? Any potato is almost pure starch, and is hardly equivalent to a green vegetable, which is what the guidelines intended.

The mainstream media virtually ignored these stories. But can you imagine the uproar if a Republican were in the White House, and the food police descended on preschoolers at lunchtime? Can you picture the accusations of “Nazi” and “fascist”? Can you hear the ACLU screaming that the Constitution was being shredded? To the mainstream media, a story is newsworthy not for any intrinsic reason, but only if it serves the leftist agenda.

We have multiple problems here:

1. The lunches the kids were forced to eat were arguably less healthful than the lunches their mothers had packed for them. The right to decide on questions regarding children’s health was removed from those most interested, the parents, and instead given to uninterested and uninformed bureaucrats − who based their decisions on guidelines proclaimed by other bureaucrats who were even more remote and even less interested in the individual children.

2. What a child eats is an integral part of child-rearing, which is the legal and moral responsibility of the child’s parents or guardians, and not of the state. Or at least it used to be.

3. The decision of the officials was arbitrary and capricious, teaching children to obey officials without question or thought.

4. The lunches their mothers had packed were uneaten, teaching children to waste food, exactly the opposite of what we were taught as children.

5. The parents were billed for the school lunches they did not want their children to eat. How’s that for a precedent? You must pay if you try to exercise parental rights − even if you are not allowed to do so.

6. The children were taught that their parents don’t know what is good for them, but government officials do know. What’s next − teaching school children to sing hymns to The Leader? Oh wait, we already do that.

7. The children were taught not to complain when their property is seized by officials, a destructive lesson for independent citizens of a free republic, but a useful lesson for docile subjects of a socialized state.

8. If I take something away from someone under an implied threat to use force if the person does not comply, this probably meets the definition of strong-arm robbery, a felony punishable by imprisonment. Yet if a government official does the same, it is not a crime, but just a “misunderstanding”? Really? Under what law can a bureaucrat seize private property that is not an immediate threat, such as illegal drugs or a weapon − in the absence of a court order?

9. If the children’s lunches were confiscated as punishment for talking in class, the officials would be suspended or fired. But the lunches were confiscated for “health” reasons, for the children’s “own good.” Does an impermissible action become permissible merely because the person claims to have a good motive? What tyrant ever claimed to have bad motives?

Our nation was founded on the idea that power flows upward, from the people to the states, and only then to the federal government. But now, this system has been turned on its head. Feds issue guidelines, which are put into effect by state or local officials, and enforced on the people − who have no say in the matter. And many are so used to being dependent and subservient that they don’t care − or even notice − what’s happening.

The problem is not children’s lunches. The problem is the dangerous notion that government bureaucrats can order children around to suit some agenda that their parents never approved. It that doesn’t alarm you, what does?

When leftists say “choice,” they mean only one thing: abortion. They don’t mean the freedom to choose what light bulbs we can buy, or what toilets we can use, or what kind of care we can get from our doctor − and what kind we can’t. They don’t even mean the freedom to choose what our children are taught in school about global warming. But, naively, we thought that at least we could still choose what to put in our children’s lunch boxes. We were wrong.

As John O’Sullivan observed, “In Europe, the fascists goose-stepped; in America, they jog.” Kinder, gentler fascists are still fascists, and we need to recognize them by their actions, not by their words. “Health” is a marvelous cover for all manner of intrusive, stifling regulations − which are difficult to dispute, because who wants to be seen as against “health”?

Hitler wore a uniform and shiny boots, spoke in a ranting style, and talked about racial purity. Stalin wore an overcoat and a soft cap, spoke in a boring style, and talked about building socialism. Castro wore a beard and military fatigues, spoke in an interminable style, and talked about Yankee imperialism. We need to be alert for all types of potential tyrants − including those who wear casual clothes, speak in a folksy style, and talk about “health” and “fairness.” Don’t listen to what they say; watch what they do.

Children are unique individuals created in God’s image. Except for identical twins, each one has DNA unlike anyone who ever lived, or is ever likely to live. Children are their parents’ responsibility, to be brought up as conscientious, trustworthy citizens. Children are not their parents’ property. They are certainly not the property of the state, to be indoctrinated, controlled, and taught unquestioning obedience.

Some might say that the school-lunch fiasco is insignificant. It isn’t. It is a warning sign on the road to total government control of our lives. It is a harbinger of things to come. And they are coming soon, if we do not reverse course. In the words of President Ford, a government big enough to take away your kid’s bag lunch is big enough to take away everything you own, and everything you hold dear − for your own good, of course.

To paraphrase Pastor Niemöller: First they came for my kids’ American flag shirts, and I didn’t speak up. Then they came for my kids’ turkey-and-cheese sandwiches, and still I didn’t speak up. But then they came for my kids, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com