Presidents Day? Which president? Millard Fillmore? He was an anti-Catholic bigot who signed the Fugitive Slave Law, which forced slaves who escaped to free states to be returned to their owners. Why should I honor him? Why should I mix the inferior with the outstanding? The result is a mediocre average that evokes neither admiration nor imitation, but merely apathy.

Now young people are not taught to honor our great men − they are taught not to honor them. Lincoln held the Union together and was shot for his efforts. But he expressed − by today’s standards − racist views, so we can’t honor him. Washington was indispensable to the founding of our republic, but he owned slaves − though he freed them at his death − so we can’t honor him, either. No one is perfect, so all role models are removed, leaving our nation, like so many of our young people, fatherless.

America is undergoing a historectomy. No, not a hysterectomy, removal of the uterus, but a historectomy, removal of our history. But the two are related. Without a uterus, an individual can’t have children. Without a history, a nation can’t teach its values to the next generation. In both cases, continuity becomes impossible.

America is a relatively recent invention. Its population shifted over time with waves of immigration, and is still shifting because of continued immigration. Unlike most nations, America is an idea. To define America, we cannot refer to an ancient land with a stable population. To define America, we must refer to the ideas and ideals on which it is based.

But are we trying to preserve these ideas and pass them on to the next generation? No, we are doing our best to eradicate these ideas from our collective memory. We are attempting to induce national amnesia. We are performing a historectomy. We are taking the soul of our nation and hitting the Delete key.

When I went to elementary school, we pledged allegiance to the flag every morning. We were taught patriotic songs for national holidays. And we enjoyed Christmas and Easter vacations, not winter and spring breaks. After all, the vast majority of Americans, and all the founders, identified themselves as Christians.

In junior high, we had to memorize the Gettysburg Address, the Preamble to the Constitution, and the first and fourth verses of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” If you want to learn how a house is constructed, first study the foundation. But now, memorization is “old fashioned.”

In high school, we had to take American history and civics, not “social studies.” We learned about the great people and great events of our history, and (to a lesser degree) some of the unhappy events. I took ROTC, where my role models were master sergeants who had fought to defend my freedom. But now, ROTC has been kicked out of many high schools and universities.

I went to school, but I loved movies. I saw “Sergeant York,” the true story of how a pacifist farmer recognized that violent evildoers must be opposed by force, then went on to earn the Medal of Honor. I saw “They Died with Their Boots On,” a fictionalized account of General Custer, but at least I learned that he played a key role in the Civil War, which is more than most history majors know today.

And there was “The Fighting Sixty-Ninth,” depicting Father Duffy’s role in this New York unit’s World War I exploits. So when I passed his statue in Times Square, I may have been the only one on the tour bus who knew who he was. You see, I was brought up to be an American.

Then there were the John Ford films of the West, where the U.S. Army was depicted in a sympathetic (perhaps overly sympathetic) light. I saw depictions of Abe Lincoln, Alexander Graham Bell, and Thomas Edison. I was being entertained, but I was also being exposed to my country’s past.

Contrast my upbringing with that of today’s kids:

• Today’s kids read books and hear lectures that describe America’s past as questionable at best, and evil or downright genocidal at worst.
• Today’s kids mumble a few words of the first verse of the “Star-Spangled Banner” at sports events. Forget about the fourth verse, the one that mentions (gasp!) God.
• Today’s kids are taught that the founders were deists, not Christians – that is, if religion is mentioned at all.
• Today’s kids are lucky to place the Revolution or the Civil War in the right century, much less the right decade.
• Today’s kids identify Grant as the man on the $50 bill, not the man who led the Union to victory and helped end slavery.
• Today’s kid’s see movies depicting our leaders as scheming warmongers, and our military as sadistic morons (“Spartan,” “Rendition,” “Syriana,” the “Bourne” series).
• Today’s kids see clergy depicted as idiots or criminals, and Christianity shown as a destructive force (“Sin City”, “The Godfather Part III,” “The Da Vinci Code”).
• Today’s kids, and even law students, are taught that the Constitution is a “living document,” which means whatever a judge says it means today. Tomorrow it may mean something else. We will be ruled by the “elite,” who use what they call “the Constitution” as camouflage for their own whims.
• Today’s kids are deprived of ROTC instructors or Scoutmasters as role models, so they may turn to a gang or cult. They are no longer exposed to the traditions that I was lucky enough to have passed on to me.

Traditions are important – they help us carry on when it is easier, or safer, to quit. People who have been deprived of their history and traditions are unlikely to survive as a nation in times of danger. To me, this would be a tragedy. But to those who have been erasing our history and traditions, whether we survive as a nation is a matter of indifference.

The current generation of Americans has been taught little of the foundations of their country. And what they were taught was often negative. What they saw in movies only served to strengthen this negative impression. No wonder they view America with ambivalence at best, and with open hostility at worst. Are “Taliban” John Walker Lindh and “Al Qaeda” Adam Gadahn aberrations, or just the tip of the iceberg?

People in other nations have also been taught to see us as despicable. Hollywood depicts us that way, and liberal politicians describe us that way. Why are we surprised when others see us that way? Why are we shocked when terrorists act on this belief? We are doing it to ourselves.

If you want to destroy a house, undermine the foundation. If you want to destroy a nation, do the same. If you want to destroy people who are defined by ideas, trash the ideas. If you want to bring down a nation that is sustained by its history, perform a historectomy.

You want a meaningless day off work, so you can check out the sales? Then Presidents Day is for you. But I prefer Lincoln’s and Washington’s birthdays. I’m old enough to remember when holidays actually meant something.

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

Unlike balloons or blimps, airplanes are heavier than air. Without enough lift, they fall. If the speed drops below the amount needed to produce that lift, they fall. This is called a stall. When a car engine stalls, you pull to the side of the road and try to restart it. When an aircraft stalls, you crash.

When the stall warning sounded repeatedly on Air France 447, the two first officers were confused by conflicting data, so they ignored the warnings. Instead of putting the plane’s nose down to gain speed, the man at the controls kept it in a nose-upward attitude.

Perhaps he felt instinctively that when he was in trouble, he should try to climb higher. But instinctive feelings are dangerous guides when one faces a complex problem. The two less-experienced first officers realized they were in over their heads and called for the captain, who was resting.

When the captain returned to the flight deck and realized what was wrong, he ordered that the plane descend in an attempt to regain speed and therefore lift. But by then it was too late. The stall had reached an unrecoverable stage. The plane crashed into the Atlantic, and all 228 persons aboard were killed.

What is true for aircraft is also true for individuals and for nations. We all have weight to lift. If we can’t generate the force to do so, gravity inevitably pulls us down. This weight includes our own weight, plus the weight of those who are not pulling their own weight and depend on us to lift them. Individuals − and nations − have a finite amount of strength. Individuals − and nations − can tolerate only a finite number of freeloaders. If this number is exceeded, individuals − and nations − are inexorably pulled down.

The problem is that the maximum number of freeloaders is knowable only in retrospect, after the final descent begins. The trick is to anticipate this point before it occurs, and to reduce the number of freeloaders before they overwhelm our capacity to produce lift.

If you doubt this, look at the show-business personalities who are pulled down by freeloading or actively destructive spouses, friends, hangers-on, and business associates − not to mention enablers who supply alcohol or drugs. Similarly, look at Europe, where 60 years of socialism have produced a myriad of hangers-on who supply little or nothing, but take freely from the decreasing number of productive citizens.

And look at the enablers − the self-serving politicians who pander to citizens to get their votes by offering benefits that are as addicting as heroin or cocaine. Politicians who induce citizens to accept government benefits are similar to pushers who hand out free drug samples in order to “hook” people into addiction. They both are destructive to society. Which are more destructive remains to be seen, but I’m betting on the politicians. A nation can tolerate a relatively small number of addicts, but I doubt it can persist as a republic if over 50% of the people receive government handouts.

More weight pulling these nations down, more drag holding them back, but less forward thrust to produce lift − and there you go.

We all face friction that tends to hold us back. Sometimes this friction is inherent in the situation. Moving forward through air causes friction. Moving forward in other ways also causes friction, but often the friction is due to lazy, selfish, ignorant, or actively obstructive people. As cities grow larger and more crowded, and organizations do the same, friction will increase. But must it increase this much?

Must petty bureaucrats exercise their crumb of authority by stifling the productive with a host of regulations? Can’t bureaucrats at least make an effort to reduce friction by being a bit more helpful and a bit less rigid? No, they can’t − it’s not in their nature. The only answer is to reduce the number of bureaucrats. More bureaucrats = more friction. It’s that simple.

But what about us? What should America do, now that we are in trouble? We clearly are burdened with increasing weight. Already 48.5% of Americans receive direct federal benefits. If ObamaCare isn’t repealed, that figure will become 100%. No, these people aren’t all freeloaders. Many are productive. But with more freeloaders and fewer productive citizens, it doesn’t take a prophet to foresee where we are headed.

Liberal politicians create more dependency on government to create more Democratic voters. But as they do this, they are also creating more weight that tends to pull the republic down. And at some point, the weight will exceed the lift. And then we will all crash, the productive and the unproductive, the conservatives and the liberals, the thoughtful and the unaware, the passengers and the crew − all of us.

We are like Air France 447, at a high altitude where the air is thinner. As our weight increases, so does our drag, with thousands of new regulations added every year to slow us down. And mountainous debt continues to accumulate, burdening us and our progeny with debt payments. At the same time, our engines are being throttled back, generating less forward thrust, and thus less lift.

Drill for oil? Build the pipeline? Unleash industry? Free innovation? No, choke off all these engines of progress. Pass laws and issue regulations adding up to thousands of pages annually. No one really knows what they contain, so everyone is subject to the whims of bureaucrats who interpret those regulations to suit themselves.

People are uncertain what to do, so they do as little as possible. They don’t start new businesses, for fear that new regulations will make the businesses unprofitable. They don’t expand old businesses or hire new employees, for fear that they will be required to supply an unpredictable amount of expanded health insurance and other benefits that will render the business unprofitable.

A nation with an arbitrary, capricious government cannot be free. Free people need written laws that they can read and follow. Employees do whatever the boss says. Who knows? Tomorrow he may say something else. That’s what employees do. But employees can quit. Peons also do whatever the boss says, but they can’t quit. They aren’t even allowed to decide what to give their children for lunch. They do as they’re told and keep quiet. That’s what peons do.

Like the inexperienced copilots of Air France 447, President Obama and his aides are pulling back on the stick, attempting to reach new heights of government intrusion into our lives, and new levels of astronomical spending for pie-in-the-sky programs that may not be workable, but surely will reduce our freedom.

More weight + more drag + less thrust = less lift. This is true for aircraft, for individuals, and for nations. The stall warning is already sounding. Let us heed it before we enter an unrecoverable stall and crash our republic.

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 Democratic California Governor Jerry Brown would never sign such a law, and the Democratic California legislature would never pass it. Besides, many Arizonans agitate for better border enforcement by the federal government, while fewer Californians seem concerned with this problem.

So at first glance, Arizona seems anti-immigrant, while California seems pro-immigrant. But if we look more deeply, we might come to another conclusion. First of all, we need definitions of “anti-immigrant” and “pro-immigrant.”

Is it “anti-immigrant” to insist that immigration laws be enforced by the federal government? Or is this simply remembering that the Constitution requires that the president “…shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…” Not “may” but “shall.” It’s mandatory, not optional. The president − and the executive branch he heads − have no power to choose which laws they will enforce. A president who had that power would be a dictator.

Those who object to immigration laws have the obligation to petition Congress to amend them. Urging that these laws be ignored is an invitation for the government to ignore other laws as well − perhaps laws you depend on. A government that ignores laws whenever it pleases loses the respect of the people. The anger of Arizonans is an early manifestation of that fact. Arizona is neither anti-immigrant nor pro-immigrant − it is pro-law.

That brings us to California. A recent source of controversy is the law that when a driver is stopped for a traffic violation and has no license, the car can be impounded for 30 days. The law was passed by the Democratic legislature to deal with the epidemic of unlicensed, uninsured drivers.

But “pro-immigrant” groups point out that impounding the vehicle of an illegal immigrant will impair his ability to work and support his family. Yes, and impounding the vehicle of a citizen or a legal immigrant will have precisely the same effect. But Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa prevailed on Police Chief Beck to amend the policy. If the unlicensed driver is an illegal immigrant, he has the option to call a licensed driver to take his car away, so that it will not be impounded. That is, another law will be enforced or not at the whim of those in power.

This policy will help illegals to keep their jobs − which are illegal for them to have in the first place. But what will the policy do to the way illegals are viewed by the general public? Rather than being an unfortunate group deserving of sympathy, some people will now see them as a privileged group deserving of anger. Ordinary people have to go through the hassle and expense of renewing their license and registration, getting smog checks, and buying insurance − which is more expensive because of uninsured drivers. But when the law-abiding citizen’s car is rear-ended by an unlicensed, uninsured driver, that anger may manifest itself.

Poor immigrants deserve sympathy. Yes, but do illegal immigrants deserve more sympathy than legal immigrants? Public hospitals and public schools in California, and all the Southwest, are overcrowded. Immigrants deserve humane health care, and their children deserve decent educations. But how, exactly, are we meeting these obligations? Not too well.

In the 1960s, the L.A. County-USC Medical Center had about 1200 beds − and Los Angeles had about one million fewer people. In recent years, the hospital had shrunk to 800 beds, and the old building was replaced with a new one with 600 beds. That is, the “pro-immigrant” rulers of Los Angeles reduced the number of public-hospital beds by 25% − at the same time that they encourage a continuing influx of immigrants.

The same holds for schools. But here, we deal not only with overcrowding, but also with appalling behavior that would never be tolerated in the upscale public or private schools where the “elite” sent their children.

Consider Miramonte Elementary School. A teacher has been accused of sexual child abuse since 1994, but he remained in the classroom. A few years ago, a teacher’s aide was convicted of sexual child abuse and sent to prison. More recently, a female teacher’s aide in her fifties sent love notes to a student. She was transferred to another school. Finally, yet another teacher was arrested for sexual child abuse − the fourth member of the teaching staff to be accused by children who never met one another, but who tell similar stories. Lawsuits will cost the school district millions, further depleting funds needed for education.

This school is located in an area where most residents are immigrants, some illegal, from Mexico and Central America. They were afraid to call the police and told only the principal and a counselor, who did nothing. Years passed until the situation was brought to light − by a photo clerk at a drugstore.

This is one school, but is it an isolated incident? I believe it is part of a pattern of modern peonage − a kinder, gentler, more progressive peonage, but peonage nonetheless. The process is as follows:

1. Pretend to do something about border security. Build half a fence. Raid a few businesses that hire illegals. But really do as little as possible. On the contrary, punish border patrol officers who vigorously enforce the law.

2. Build a new public hospital to show off to visitors, but make sure it has 25% fewer beds. Spend taxpayers’ money to benefit contractors, not to benefit patients. Turn the older, larger hospital into offices for bureaucrats. More paper-shufflers, fewer patients − the bureaucrat’s dream. (ObamaCare, anyone?)

3. Build a few lavish public schools to show off to visitors, but not nearly enough for the children of the immigrants you let in. In one case, a high school cost over one-quarter billion dollars, while other students lacked textbooks and clean water, or even any water.

4. Make sure that the schools have Aztec-style murals, that the schools observe Cinco de Mayo, and that bilingual classes continue for all 12 years. The object is to produce manual workers (some named Manuel) who are subservient, have limited English skills, and always vote Democratic − but who have little sense of being Americans.

5. Ensnare immigrants from Latin America into recreating the conditions from which they escaped − deficient schools, corrupt politicians, and a rigid class system from which it is difficult to escape. How “pro-immigrant” is that?

Now Los Angeles may cancel all adult education because of lack of money. This would remove the only resource 350,000 adults have to learn the English and computer skills they need to get good jobs. But those who keep immigrants in an underclass still portray themselves as “pro-immigrant.”

In fact, many people are pro-immigration but anti-immigrant. That is, they favor unlimited immigration, but then do nothing for the immigrants − or for those the immigrants affect adversely. If you cook, you will find many recipes that say, “Add ingredients slowly while stirring.” You will find no recipes that say, “Dump ingredients into pot without stirring.” That is sure to produce a nasty mess.

America doesn’t just have immigrants. America is immigrants. No one appreciates freedom like someone who grew up without it. But freedom requires people who are educated to be free, not to be members of a subservient underclass.

The truly pro-immigrant are those who want to allow in only the number of immigrants we can accommodate, and then assure that they have adequate public hospitals and public schools. Pro-immigrant is as pro-immigrant does.

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

The endpoint was the destruction of the tire. Thus if a tire flew apart at 120 miles per hour, you could feel safe when driving at 70, assuming you had not severely overloaded or under-inflated it. You had that margin of safety so prized by engineers.

The test was conducted in the safety of the laboratory. No one would think of mounting the tires on his own car, then driving faster and faster to see when the tires disintegrated. If he did, he would not have to worry about saving for retirement. Yet that is exactly what many people actually do − not with tires, but in other ways.

Think about it. When the government initiates a new social or economic policy, or when a court renders a decision ordering that something be done, we should always ask one question: What is the endpoint? And in many cases, there isn’t any.

For example, take school lunches. The government began offering low-cost or free school lunches to students from poor families. Then the program widened − as government programs almost always do − to include breakfasts and suppers, and to be available to students not in poverty.

But how was “success” defined? In effect, it was defined as students eating government-provided food. Of course, if this was “success,” there could be no failure. Who could oppose such a program? Feed hungry kids? What’s wrong with that?

I’ll tell you what’s wrong. How about increasing dependency on government in general, and the Democratic Party specifically? How about decreasing responsibility to feed your own children? How about abdication of yet another aspect of parenthood to the government? Yes, but who cares? Who even notices? Besides, that is the plan:

This also necessitates the dissolution of the single family as society’s economic unit…The care and upbringing of children becomes a public matter.
– Friedrich Engels, co-founder with Karl Marx of communism

And what is the endpoint? That is, at what point would we say we were giving enough food to students and could stop expanding the program? Or at what point would we say the program is harmful and cut it back? There is no endpoint. The program will continue − as government programs almost always do − until every student gets three government meals a day, or the government goes broke, whichever comes first.

But providing one, two, or even three meals daily to students was still not enough. Even more control had to be exercised. The government, from the First Lady on down, mandated “healthy” meals. The problem is that kids often find the food repulsive and throw it away. Then they buy junk food if they can, or go hungry. So in effect, the lesson many students learn is not to eat healthful food, but to throw food away − exactly the opposite of what we were taught as children.

It’s a sign of the times that “repulsive school lunch” yields 256 million hits on Google. And thanks to Michael Bowman for this updated “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” which begins:

Mine eyes have seen the kitchen,
which is why I bring my lunch.

The same thing holds for food stamps. More people are on food stamps now than ever before − 44.7 million. But how this fact is viewed depends on the viewer. When Newt Gingrich called Barack Obama the “food-stamp president,” he meant to say that the economy has deteriorated so far that more people than ever need food stamps. But liberals took the insult as a compliment − what better way is there to show Obama is “compassionate”? Some even accused Gingrich of racism, though the majority of people on food stamps are white.

Here we come to the same problem − what is “success”? More people on food stamps, obviously. What are you, some kind of Scrooge? And what is the endpoint? At what point do we stop giving food stamps to more people? There is no defined endpoint. We will stop expanding the program when everyone is on food stamps, or when the government goes broke, whichever comes first.

Poor people tend to be on food stamps, and poor people tend to be obese. I would be willing to bet that there is a positive correlation between food stamps and obesity. Of course, no one would bother to collect such data, or if he did, no one would publish it. Political incorrectness trumps truth every time. Granted, many people − especially poor children, the disabled, and the elderly − really need food assistance. What I am saying is that without an endpoint, the program will continue to expand − like the tire − until it bursts.

Why do liberals adore programs that have no endpoints? There are two possible explanations. The more charitable explanation is that liberals see themselves as intrinsically good, because they have good beliefs. Likewise, they believe that their programs are intrinsically good, regardless of whether the programs actually work. The programs make liberals feel good, and that’s what’s really important, isn’t it?

The less charitable explanation is that these programs are not intended to work. They are intended not to work, so that more and more control can be imposed on our daily lives. Do some social programs exacerbate the breakup of poor families, especially black families? Who cares? This produces more single mothers − and more Democratic voters. The object is not to solve social problems. The object is to prolong the problems, and thus prolong the justification for the programs − and increase the power of the bureaucrats.

There is always a “crisis” that justifies the government in taking away still more of our freedoms. “Global warming” is only one of many such crises demanding “urgent action.” But even if global warming exists, will compact fluorescent bulbs alleviate it? Who cares? Yes, they cost more, contain toxic mercury, and are made in China. But “going green” makes liberals feel good, and that’s what’s really important, isn’t it?

Did Roosevelt’s New Deal programs shorten the Great Depression, or prolong it? Does sex education decrease teen pregnancy, or increase it? Do strict gun-control laws decrease violent crime, or increase it? Does abolishing the death penalty just make us feel good, or does it increase homicide? Does greatly increasing school funding improve test scores, or does it just make us feel good?

We can argue endlessly about these and many other programs. We can quote theories proposed by noted “experts.” We can offer opinions on how things ought to be. But all this is irrelevant. The only real question is: Does the program work? To answer this question, we need definitions of “success” and “failure.” And we need an endpoint.

No sane person would test tires to destruction on his own car. No rational person would drive faster and faster, the only endpoint being literally the end point. Yet is that not exactly what we are doing to our own country?

Are we not expanding, multiplying, and intensifying a host of social and economic programs, but without clearly defined endpoints? Are we not passing hundreds of new laws every year, but repealing only a few? Are we not issuing thousands of new regulations every year, but rescinding only a few? Are we not initiating scores of new programs every year, but terminating hardly any?

A good definition of a conservative is one who insists that every government program have an endpoint. That way, we will stop testing our country to destruction − before we succeed in destroying it.

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

Paramedics and firefighters were triaging the injured. There were 51 casualties, of whom 12 were critically injured and one killed − a 15-year-old girl. We had crossed that street only a few minutes earlier.

As we stood watching with the crowd, two police officers placed the handcuffed suspect in a patrol car, and he was driven away by a sole officer. I felt that the police should have been more careful. I thought that another officer should have been in the car, and a second patrol car should have escorted it.

I was wrong. The man had mowed down many pedestrians − at the time no one knew how many were dead. Despite this, no one in the crowd attempted to pull him out of the car, or throw a soft-drink cup, or even yell obscenities. The police knew liberal west-siders, and correctly assumed that in the presence of violent evil, they wouldn’t do anything, or even say anything.

Is it possible to be too civilized, like a pampered dog that no longer barks when criminals break in? Is it possible to go past the point of civilization and enter the realm of helplessness and apathy, where adults act like good little children and wait for someone in authority to do something?

This question has political implications. Years of liberalism have conditioned us to depend on the government to protect us, care for us, and tell us how to live our lives. Nevertheless, in 1984 Ronald Reagan was president, and the nation had swung somewhat to the conservative side.

But the question goes beyond politics and touches on what it means to be truly civilized. Have we reached the point that many people believe anger is always wrong? Have we confused petty anger over personal slights with righteous indignation over real evil?

Let those who love the Lord hate evil…
− Psalm 97:10

I believe that a civilized person is one who is angered by the infuriating, disgusted by the revolting, and moved to action by the intolerable. But many people believe that to be civilized, they must remain calm regardless of the circumstances, and that negative emotions are marks of the uncivilized. They believe themselves much too elevated for such primitive feelings.

Years passed. The incident in Westwood faded from memory. But I recalled it vividly when the scandal broke about the Los Angeles public elementary school teacher who had been molesting his students since at least 1994. It was brought to light not by parents, teachers, or school officials, but by a clerk in a drugstore who saw photos that the molester brazenly left to be developed. One photo showed a child with tape over her mouth. What the other photos showed I hesitate to imagine.

This sad story goes back at least to 1994, when a 10-year-old girl told her parents that her teacher had tried to reach under her desk and touch her genitals. The mother told the principal, who called sheriff’s deputies. The district attorney declined prosecution, believing that the case was weak. The teacher remained in the classroom.

Later, several students went to the principal and reported that they had been fondled, photographed inappropriately, and in at least one case given a cookie with a white substance on it. Reportedly, the principal told them they were lying. The teacher remained in the classroom.

On another occasion, two girls told a counselor that the teacher had touched them inappropriately. But the counselor told them they were making stories up. The teacher remained in the classroom.

Finally, late in 2010 the photo clerk called police. The principal was informed, the teacher was suspended − probably with pay − and for a year the sheriffs interviewed many students and former students. One deputy went to the school Dumpster and found a cup with a white substance in it − no doubt, the substance on the cookie. It was identified as the suspect’s semen.

Finally, the teacher was arrested. He is now in jail on $23 million bail, charged with molesting 23 girls and boys aged six to 10. More charges are pending. Finally, the teacher is no longer in his classroom.

After the initial allegations in 1994, could no one have walked down the hallway periodically and looked into the classroom? Teachers, counselors, and school officials, as well as school nurses and psychologists, are mandated reporters of suspected child abuse. It is a crime for them not to report, and in addition they can lose their professional licenses.

But apart from the negligent − or even enabling − school personnel, what about the parents who heard the allegations, as well as other adults such as coaches, physicians, or clergy? It is difficult to believe that so many children could have been molested over so long a time, and no one did anything. We hounded the elderly Joe Paterno to his grave because he was famous. But what about all these adults, including parents? Should they get a pass just because they weren’t famous?

Wasn’t there one among them who took it upon himself or herself to threaten the teacher with dire consequences if he didn’t stop? Wasn’t there one among them who waited for him after school, and reinforced the warning with a beating? Wasn’t there one among them who plastered every lamp post around the school with posters accusing him? Wasn’t there one among them who spray-painted “molester” and “pervert” on his car during school hours, so students and teachers would see it when school let out?

No, there wasn’t even one.

Unlike the upscale people in Westwood, most of these people are immigrants, some illegal, from Mexico and Central America. They are often afraid to complain and regard teachers as authority figures to be admired. But the net effect was the same as in Westwood − submissiveness.

It gets worse. Now a second teacher at that school has been arrested for molesting students. Los Angeles Unified is the second-largest school system in America. A 7-billion-dollar budget and a bloated bureaucracy don’t produce excellent education. They don’t even produce adequate safety. Only responsible individuals can do that. The bureaucrats protect students from trans-fats in the lunchroom. But protect them from molesters in the classroom? Not so much.

Bernie Madoff received multiple death threats and was attacked on the street. But the molesters walked around unmolested. What does that say about our values? What do you call people who are more upset by stolen money than by stolen innocence?

This scene from the film “Death Wish” says it best:

Paul Kersey: Nothing to do but cut and run, huh? What else? What about the old American social custom of self-defense? If the police don’t defend us, maybe we ought to do it ourselves.

Jack Toby: We’re not pioneers anymore, Dad.

Paul Kersey: What are we, Jack?

Jack Toby: What do you mean?

Paul Kersey: I mean, if we’re not pioneers, what have we become? What do you call people who, when they’re faced with a condition of fear, do nothing about it, they just run and hide?

Jack Toby: Civilized?

Paul Kersey: No!

People like that are the opposite of civilized. They are like sheep that see a lamb carried off by coyotes, but do nothing, hoping that the sheepdogs will protect them. But what if the sheepdogs are as apathetic as they are? What then?

Am I advocating a return to a primitive time when vigilantes meted out do-it-yourself justice? No. But that may happen if civilization continues to deteriorate. On the contrary, I am advocating a return to a more recent time, when a driver who mowed down 51 pedestrians, or a teacher who molested 23 children, would need several police officers to protect him as he was hauled off to jail.

Apathy and passivity are not characteristics of civilized people. They are characteristics of submissive people who invite an authoritarian government to control their 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

But the author’s chief complaint was the fact that the placards allow drivers to park at meters without paying or obeying time limits − thus depriving the city of money. Like a typical leftist, he saw the problem as economic.

The author seemed to condemn not just misuse of the placards, but any use. He implied that the disabled should get no parking privileges. That is, the disabled should get out of the way of healthy people’s desire to park, or perhaps just get out of the way altogether.

Disrespect for the disabled is seen as more acceptable than racial or religious bigotry, but it is just as destructive. “Terri Schiavo vegetable” yields 1,610,000 hits on Google, while her name plus “cabbage” yields 1,200,000 hits, her name plus “broccoli” yields 1,130,000 hits, her name plus “rotting” yields 1,920,000 hits, and her name plus “useless” yields 2,370,000 hits. Of course, if all useless people were euthanized, it would be much easier to find a parking space, thus solving both problems.

How should the disabled be treated? What do we owe every human being, regardless of the diagnosis or the severity of the physical or mental impairment?

How are these questions to be answered? An ethical question must be answered by reference to ethical standards such as the Bible and the Hippocratic Oath. This oath was taken by young physicians for 2400 years. It states:

I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel.

The New England Journal of Medicine publishes articles on assisted suicide and euthanasia. But the words “Hippocratic” or “Oath” rarely appear. Nor is there any mention of the position of religious leaders. Such articles have many references to court decisions and legal sources, but hardly any references to any source of ethical wisdom. For the authors and editors, there are no moral questions, only legal ones. And legal questions are answered by judges.

For example, who decided that persons in a persistent vegetative state can be slowly dehydrated and starved to death? Congress? State legislatures? The American Medical Association? Are you joking? It was decided by a 5-4 vote of the U.S. Supreme Court. Five unelected judges with lifetime jobs can tell 313 million Americans what to do.

But now, we are seeing the beginning of the conflict between religion and government-controlled health care. The Catholic Church is challenging the government’s insistence that Catholic hospitals offer birth-control and abortion services. If crucial decisions involving human life are centralized in Washington, how can we call ourselves free?

The New England Journal is hardly alone in undermining the foundations of the medical profession. Lancet, a leading British medical journal, published an article noting with approval the “peaceful” dehydrating and starving to death of a patient “very near” a persistent vegetative state. Very near? That is, the patient was minimally conscious, as Terri Schiavo may have been.

If a doctor took a car that was parked “very near” his own car, he would be in serious trouble. Cars are valuable. But killing a disabled patient? No problem. Marxism teaches that everything is determined by economics. Many people are quick learners.

Later, Lancet published an editorial claiming that execution of murderers by lethal injection is “barbaric.” A week or two of thirst and hunger is “peaceful,” but a massive overdose of a fast-acting sedative is “barbaric.” That is the same way we put beloved dogs or cats to sleep. But someone who starved and dehydrated an animal to death would be jailed. So who really is barbaric?

A milestone on the road downhill was the publication in Germany in 1920 of “Permission to Exterminate Life Unworthy of Life.” Revealingly, the book was authored by two professors, one a lawyer and one a physician. The “unworthy” included the incurably ill, the mentally ill or retarded, and deformed children. Killing was “healing treatment” to be administered by physicians.

For the first time, killing and healing were mixed together. And physicians’ loyalty was no longer to the individual patient, but to the state. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg/250px-EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg

The text reads: “60,000 reichsmarks is what this person with a hereditary disease costs the community during his lifetime. Comrade, that is your money too.”

Under President Obama’s plan, the elderly will receive treatment “…if we’ve got experts…advising doctors across the board that it will save money.” That is: (1) The decision will be made by “experts,” not doctors. (2) The decision will be a nationwide regulation, not tailored for the individual patient. (3) The decision will be based on saving money.

No, we’re not Nazis. We would never kill the disabled or the elderly. We will simply deny them treatment and give them a “painkiller.” And then we will cut back on pain medication as well. Now are you worried?

Once the Nazis took over, medical graduates no longer took the Hippocratic Oath, but an oath to the health of the state. Most American medical graduates also no longer take the Hippocratic Oath, but a variety of other oaths, of which only 8% reject abortion, and only 14% reject euthanasia. This is called “progress.”

I believe the chief cause of the Hippocratic Oath’s demise is its ban on abortion. But in the Oath, euthanasia and abortion are next to each other. Discarding one prohibition weakened the other. If all human life isn’t sacred, none is. Intermediate positions are weak and are being overrun one by one. Who is worthy to live becomes just a matter of opinion, and the only opinion that matters is the government’s.

The phrase “life unworthy of life” was used by the Nazis, but it originated before anyone heard of Hitler. Nazism was a seed that fell on soil that had already been fertilized by the manure of viewing human beings not as having intrinsic worth because they are created in God’s image, but as having worth only if they are useful to others.

Those who now spread similar manure will not be able to claim innocence if similar seeds sprout. The lesson of history is clear.

The Nazi euthanasia program used drugs, then gas, and was the physical and psychological prelude to the Holocaust. It was opposed so strongly by Catholic and Protestant churches that it was stopped, though it continued unofficially. Sadly, there was no organized opposition by physicians.

Of all professions, medicine had the highest percent of Nazis. When leading doctors support late-term abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and destruction of human embryos for research, remember not to expect moral leadership from the medical profession. This lesson is also clear.

And now some Supreme Court justices refer to foreign law in rendering decisions. In going outside our Constitution and laws, judges are violating their oath of office. Having no regard for their own oath, why should judges respect the physicians’ Oath of Hippocrates?

Once we throw away the rulebook, the referee becomes a dictator.

Check out the court cases that authorized assisted suicide or euthanasia. You’ll find the names Nancy Cruzan, Karen Ann Quinlan, Elizabeth Bouvia, and Terri Schiavo. They were women, as were 32 out of 47 or 68% of the people killed by Dr. Kevorkian. Being disabled is becoming dangerous, but being a disabled woman is more dangerous. That doesn’t trouble most ethicists or judges. Of course, the majority of them are men.

There is still time to restore the medical profession to its former state of independent professionals dedicated to the wellbeing of individual patients, rather than mere technicians serving the interests of the state. But instead, we are moving in the opposite direction as ObamaCare takes effect, and brings with it drastic cuts to Medicare.

Old? Disabled? No longer economically productive? Hand over that parking placard, take a pain pill if you can find one, and get out of the way. We’re in a hurry. But where are we going?

For further information:

“Culture of Death” by Wesley J. Smith

http://www.euthanasia.com/index.html

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

Mitt Romney states that if a corporate executive proposed spending billions on a moon base in this economy, Romney would fire him.
− News item

Ron Paul states that the only people he would consider sending to the moon are politicians.
− News item

Gingrich, impulsive as usual, imagines a moon colony and wants to establish one as soon as possible. Romney, careful as always, wants to wait till the economy improves, then decide whether we can afford a moon colony. Paul, anti-government without fail, would consider a moon colony only if we exiled politicians there. All three tell us much more about themselves than about space exploration.

● Gingrich is the visionary man who has 100 innovative ideas daily, of which 99 are impractical and one is brilliant. The problem is to find the one and avoid the 99. The problem is that visionaries make valuable advisors but risky leaders. The problem is that in attempting to emulate Kennedy, Gingrich inadvertently emphasized the contrast between the young leader and the elderly policy wonk.

● Romney is the practical man who wants to do the right thing. The problem is that those who lack the “vision thing” − as George Bush the Elder put it while describing himself − make good managers but mediocre leaders. Corporations need managers. Nations need leaders, especially during difficult times.

● Paul is the man who wants to shrink government. The problem is that he wants to shrink it so much that − like a shirt washed in hot water − it no longer fits. The problem is that an 18th century government is inadequate to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The problem is to upgrade the methods while holding fast to the principles.

In 1961 President Kennedy set a goal of sending a man to the moon before the end of the decade, and returning him safely to Earth. At the time, his speech seemed inspiring but impractical. But on July 20, 1969 we landed on the moon. I say “we” because that day all Americans felt we were participating in a historic event.

The decade hadn’t ended, but Kennedy’s life had. He was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963. Yet when the moon landing was achieved, Kennedy’s inspiring speech and forward-looking program was often mentioned. Everyone dies, but people live on in the lives they touched and the progress they inspired.

When we spoke of progress then, we meant real progress − exploring space, curing diseases, and doing other things that advance human knowledge and well-being. But now we mean what so-called progressives call “progress” − making the government even larger and more parentified, and the people even smaller and more infantilized.

We spend money in the trillions and bequeath the debt to the young and the unborn. Talk about taxation without representation! Even King George III would have been outraged at the thought of taxing the unborn to pay for his lifestyle. We used to speak of astronomical numbers in relation to astronomy. Now we speak of astronomical debt.

And if you complain that we haven’t returned to the moon since 1972, many people reply, “So what?” With the retirement of the space shuttle, we not only can’t return to the moon, we can’t even get to the international space station without hitching a ride on a Russian Soyuz rocket. But with the recent crash of that rocket, we are now discussing the possibility of hitching a ride on a Chinese rocket.

Who knows? Perhaps the North Koreans will have pity and lend us a No Dong rocket. That would be regrettably appropriate. Instead of looking up at the stars, now all we are concerned with is how to transfer more wealth from the productive to the unproductive. This is a sure way to produce less wealth − for national defense, for space exploration, or even for repairing potholes in our roads.

And, of course, if we produce less wealth, there will be less to transfer. Some call this “progressive.” I call it a downward spiral. It all depends on one’s point of view. No, it depends on one’s grip on reality.

I read science fiction as a teenager, so the thought of exploring space fascinated me. I had no idea whether Kennedy’s goal of landing on the moon within the decade was possible, but I understood that setting a definite goal served to push the program forward.

Of course, keeping ahead of the Soviets in space had military implications. Under Kennedy, we spent about 50% of the federal budget on defense. Now we spend 20% on defense and complain bitterly that it is excessive. But how much is national defense worth? How much is our nation worth? How much is our freedom worth?

It is ironic that the generation that was taught “self-esteem” in school grew up with less real self-esteem. Yes, they are narcissists with heaps of unearned self-adulation. But earned self-esteem? Pride in actual accomplishments? Not so much. We built the Empire State Building in 14 months in the depths of the Depression. But 10 years after 9/11, Ground Zero is still a construction site.

Granted, for the last 10 years we have been preoccupied with fighting barbarians who want to drag us back to the 7th century. This has used up money, time, and brain power that could have been used for moving us forward into the 21st century. But the space program had stalled before 9/11. We were already losing our urge to move forward before they began pulling us back.

From Rudy Giuliani fighting terrorism, we have descended to Michael Bloomberg fighting trans fats. From John Kennedy directing NASA to go to the moon, we have degenerated to Barack Obama directing NASA to “build bridges” to Muslims. Talk about the trivialization of a great nation.

The space program inspired a generation of young people to study math and science. “Green” energy probably isn’t practical, but it surely isn’t inspiring. When I was a Boy Scout, I was taught to aim for a distant landmark while hiking. By doing so, I was less likely to lose my way and walk in circles. The landmark could serve as a real goal, but it also could be a distant mountaintop − something I might never reach, but which served to keep me on a straight path.

Clearly, our economic mess needs to be fixed before we undertake vast new projects in space. Meanwhile, we should maintain adequate numbers of scientists and engineers to keep research going. Who knows what they may come up with − a truly efficient battery, perhaps? And we need to keep our defenses strong enough to deter those who hate us.

But there is no point in fixing the economy if we have no idea of what is worth spending our money on. And there is no purpose in maintaining a strong defense if we have no notion of what is worth defending. It is essential that our candidate have a vision of what America stands for. But common sense is also necessary. We need both. Still, whoever the presidential candidate turns out to be, he will face an incumbent who demonstrates neither.

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

Mel Gibson is one of my favorite Hollywood personalities. I believe “Braveheart” is one of the 10 best films ever made. And I have a more personal reason. One day my wife and I were walking our Airedale through an alley.

A man looked out of a back window and said, “Cute dog.”

My wife looked up, saw who it was, and said “You look just like Mel Gibson.”

Mel replied in his Aussie accent, “I get that a lot.”

My wife asked, “Mel, what are you doing?”

He answered, “I’m helping my friend paint his bathroom.”

How can you hate such a man? So when news broke about Gibson’s drunken anti-Semitic remark, I felt sadness and anger, but only for a short time. What people say when they are drunk and upset is one thing. What they say when they are sober and calm is quite another. And when they are sober and calm, many people advocate the Devil Theory of History: All our problems and caused by them. The only difference is who they are.

The Jews.

Here we have the classic example of the Devil Theory of History. It dates back to the persecutions of the Middle Ages, when the Jews were blamed for the bubonic plague. But this medieval notion is still current. If you doubt this, go to a neo-Nazi website or an extremist Muslim website.

These people disagree on many points, but they agree that the Jews are the source of most of the world’s problems. And they also agree on the solution − eliminate the Jews. No deep thought is required, only violent action.

The Trilateral Commission et al.

This is a common type of conspiracy theory − that is, a small group of self-anointed “elite” meet in secret, then plot how to increase their wealth and power while making the common people poorer and more oppressed. Besides the Trilateral Commission, we have the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, and of course the Rothschilds. Thus the second variety of Devil Theory can easily merge into the first. If it’s “the Rothschilds,” then it’s really “the Jews” after all.

No doubt there are “elite” groups of powerful people. This was true in the past under kings and emperors, and it remains true today under totalitarian and authoritarian systems. It is less true under democratic systems, but no one can deny that Washington insiders have a great deal more power than does Joe Sixpack. The problem is how to keep this power within bounds, and yet not go too far and blame all our troubles including the weather on some mysterious group.

The oil companies.

Clearly, energy companies have considerable influence on our lives. How could they not? Energy is essential for civilization, and those who supply essentials are in a key position to exert influence. The problem is to keep that influence under control, so that it does not become excessive.

But beyond this, we come to another variety of the Devil Theory. Why did we go to war in Iraq? For oil, of course. Saddam was a brutal dictator who attacked his neighbors. He used poison gas, developed biologic weapons, and tried to develop nuclear weapons. But no matter − Iraq has oil, so that must have been our sole motive. Yet 10 years later, we are leaving Iraq, but where are the sweetheart oil deals?

And why did we go to war in Afghanistan? The Taliban rulers hosted the people who planned and carried out 9/11 − an act of war. But this was only the excuse. We went to war in Afghanistan not exactly for oil, because there is none, but for a gas pipeline. You see, neighboring Kazakhstan has natural gas, so it might be possible to build a pipeline to transport it to Pakistan and then by sea to the world. Yes, it might be possible. Yet 10 years later, where is the pipeline?

It might also be possible to teach a pig to sing and go on “American Idol.” But considering the difficulty of building a pipeline for explosive gas through a mountainous region filled with warring tribes, I’d bet on the pig.

Here we see the flaw in the “oil” theory − it cannot be disproved. No oil deal in Iraq? No gas pipeline in Afghanistan? No problem! There could have been a deal, and there could have been a pipeline, so the conspiracy theorists still remain true believers.

But this mode of thinking goes even further. When I asked why we went to war in Vietnam, a liberal friend replied, “Oil.” I replied, “There is no oil.” The man responded, “No, but there’s oil in Indonesia nearby.” He remained firm in his beliefs, because there was no way − literally no way − to disprove them.

An idea that cannot be disproved by any conceivable evidence is not a logical conclusion but a pseudo-religious belief. And leftism is a pseudo-religion. Like a real religion, it includes a series of required beliefs. But unlike a real religion, it includes no required moral behavior. How convenient.

The military-industrial complex.

In his farewell address, President Eisenhower famously warned against unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex. It is worth quoting in full:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Note that Ike called for “proper meshing,” not for abolition of the defense industry or dismantling our armed forces. We should heed his warning, but first we should read his warning. It is not a “get out of jail free” card for assorted leftists and pacifists. It is not a “one size fits all” answer to all our problems.

For some leftists, making a profit on anything is sinful, though of course they don’t believe in sin. Do pharmaceutical companies make a profit on drugs that save lives and reduce suffering? Do manufacturers make a profit on materials that allowed our troops to defeat German Nazis and Japanese imperialists in World War II? No matter. Making a profit is evil, so fighting World War II was wrong.

Here extreme leftists join with extreme rightists, who wish the Nazis had won. And they join with extreme libertarians, who don’t care whether the Nazis had won. The key word is not “leftist,” or “rightist,” or “libertarian.” The key word is “extreme.” It’s revealing that the extremes so often agree on crucial questions − and so often agree on the wrong answers.

No, all our problems are not due to the Jews, or the Trilateral Commission, or the oil companies, or the military-industrial complex. Our problems are due to a variety of causes, which require careful investigation to discover. Complex problems rarely have simple answers.

But the primary cause of our problems is that we are imperfect human beings. If we want to find the underlying cause of our problems, we should start by looking in the mirror. It’s true for Mel, and it’s true for all of us.

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

One day a liberal activist wandered in, looking for trouble. That’s what activists do. The activist noted that almost all the patients in the clinic were black children, teenagers, and young adults. The obvious conclusion: racism!

Why else would a white doctor be taking care of black patients? Because she had devoted years to studying their illness? Because she had a deep desire to help them? No, because she wanted to segregate the clinics according to race. Of course. What else could it be? Indeed, whites are all racists, even if − no, especially if − they don’t know they are racists. The elite learn that at the university.

The activist filed a complaint. As a result, the doctor had to take time away from caring for her patients and doing research on their disease, in order to defend herself. Eventually, the doctor was exonerated, but do you think that this episode raised her morale? Do you believe that suspicion was ever completely removed from her or her clinic? Do you imagine that the health of African Americans was improved? Do you suppose that the treatment of sickle-cell disease was advanced?

But there were people who benefitted from this episode − the activists. Their power was increased, and everyone at the hospital and the university was reminded of the danger of offending them. True, the activists’ complaint was rejected, but it had the intended effect: intimidation.

This sad tale has a moral: Don’t try to remedy problems affecting minorities. Don’t even identify these problems, much less talk about them in public. It’s far safer to ignore the problems. That way, the problems will never be solved, but at least you won’t be falsely accused of racism.

You see, the real objective is not to solve the problems. If they were solved, minorities wouldn’t need liberal activists to help them. And then, minorities wouldn’t believe they need to vote for the Democratic Party all their lives. No, the real objective is to pretend to do something about the problems, and to demonize Republicans as racists − and thereby to perpetuate the problems, and perpetuate the power of the liberal establishment.

There are many examples. Recently Newt Gingrich was accused of racism for answering a question from Juan Williams by addressing him as “Juan.” No matter that he and other politicians − including President Obama − address other journalists by their first names. No, “Juan” is a code word for “black.” This far-fetched accusation was echoed by the New York Times editorial page and by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, an honor graduate of the Keith Olbermann School of Ranting.

Revealingly, Matthews himself referred to Williams as “Juan.” Apparently whether a word is code for “black” depends not on the word itself, but on who says it − proving that the code exists only in the minds of liberals.

The question Williams asked Gingrich was itself an accusation of racism. Gingrich had stated that it would be better for teenagers − not black teenagers, just teenagers − to be paid for helping school janitors than to receive food stamps. Williams claimed that this was a racist insult to minorities, especially blacks.

The unspoken subtext to Williams’ assertion was that it is quite all right for black teenagers to receive food stamps, but it would be demeaning for them to work even part-time as janitors. That is, receiving aid from the government is not demeaning, but cleaning their own school is demeaning. Taking a handout from taxpayers, many of whom are hardly better off than they are, is not demeaning, but honest work is demeaning? Really?

If there is a value system better designed to keep minorities in poverty, I have yet to hear of it. But according to Williams, who should do the janitorial work at schools − Latinos? Then who is the real racist, Gingrich or Williams? Oh wait, Democrats can’t be racists, only Republicans can. I almost forgot, sorry.

Then we have Rick Santorum. Talking heads accused him of racism because he spoke about the disproportionately high abortion rate of black babies. The disproportion is indisputable. The abortion rate for blacks is higher than that for Latinos, so poverty cannot be the only factor involved, and the rate for whites is lower still. If complaining about this racial disparity is racist, was complaining about slavery also racist? Using this inverted logic, the abolitionists were racists, but the slave owners were not.

Santorum was also accused of talking about “black families” on welfare. But in fact, Santorum had talked about the unsustainability of the welfare state, and the indignity of multi-generational welfare dependency. He had not singled out African Americans, as the NPR reporter claimed he did.

Did the reporter lie? Or did the reporter hear what he expected to hear because of leftist indoctrination? I don’t know, and I don’t care. The function of a reporter is to report. The function of a commentator is to comment. Apparently, journalism schools no longer teach this fundamental distinction, and both are called “journalists.” Even more sadly, many reporters now believe their role is to advance the liberal agenda. Similarly, many judges and educators believe the same thing.

If you want to take over a nation, you don’t have to subvert the army and stage a coup. You don’t have to convince the voters to back your plan. You don’t have to persuade legislators to enact your agenda. All you need to do is infiltrate the schools of journalism, law, and education, and wait a generation or two. The journalists, educators, and judges you indoctrinate will do the job for you.

Report the facts? Teach the truth? Rule according to the Constitution? What outmoded ideas! Use your power not to carry out the duties of your profession, but to advance your agenda.

And in an election year, feel free to misquote and insult politicians with whom you disagree. Whatever words your opponents use, claim they are code words for racist slurs. Whatever point they make, report it in the worst possible light. And if all else fails, just make things up and fabricate a “news” story. If you throw enough mud, some will stick.

But who are the real racists? They are the ones who block attempts to solve problems affecting minorities. They do so by making false accusations of racism against those who point out the problems and propose solutions. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are no more racists than was my colleague who devoted herself to treating sickle-cell disease. But they are accused of racism by activists who remain in power by making sure that the problems remain unsolved.

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

Thus he unintentionally planted an idea in the minds of his listeners: Trying to negotiate with people who openly declare they want to kill you is futile at best, and dangerous at worst. And in fact, decades of futile negotiations in the conference room have proved that the time would have been better spent in the restroom. At least there, pressures could have been relieved successfully.

But this principle has wider application. An example occurred recently, when four U.S. Marines videoed themselves urinating on two Taliban corpses in Afghanistan, but then were unwise enough to put the video up on the Internet. Anti-American Europeans demonstrated profound amnesia, calling us “worse than the Nazis.” Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau? Babi Yar, Oradour, Lidice? Nonsense! The Americans are far worse.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed herself in “total dismay,” while Secretary of Defense Panetta chimed in with “utterly deplorable.” Presumably, if only one Marine had relieved himself, Clinton would have been in partial dismay, while Panetta would have found the event relatively deplorable.

Excessive language suggests an excessive desire to placate the Taliban. But they are, quite literally, implacable. How do you placate people who throw acid in young girls’ faces to punish them for going to school? How do you soothe people who bomb mosques and markets indiscriminately? How do you appease people who believe decapitation is a religious ceremony?

More to the point, how do you delude yourself into negotiating with the Taliban in an attempt to reach an agreement, when you have already announced you are leaving Afghanistan? You don’t give your enemy what he wants, then negotiate. What is left to negotiate?

If the negotiations “succeed,” there will be a photo-op, with U.S. and Taliban representatives shaking hands. Then, as soon as we leave, the Taliban will take over Afghanistan. If the negotiations “fail,” the four Marines will be blamed − but the result will be the same minus the photo-op. In reality, there will be nothing significant for which to blame them. Of course, that doesn’t mean they won’t be blamed. Politicians love photo-ops, and they love to fob off their failures on subordinates.

Clearly, our high officials want to soothe the hurt feelings of Muslims the world over. But speaking of feelings, there was no organized condemnation from Muslims when American reporter Daniel Pearl and American contractor Nicholas Berg were beheaded with dull knives, and the videos sent out boastfully on the Internet. Nor was there an organized protest when four American contractors were killed and their bodies mutilated and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

In reaction to the almost 3000 deaths on 9/11, there was subdued criticism from the Muslim world, but it was counterbalanced by dancing in the streets. The vast majority of the bodies from 9/11 were badly mangled or burned, and about 1121 human beings were pulverized and still remain unaccounted for. So much for respect for the dead.

Some people manifest one-way sensitivity − acute sensitivity to wrongs or perceived wrongs done to them, but total insensitivity to wrongs done by them. In personal life, we call such behavior egotistical and childish. In political life, we try our best to ignore it, but we do so at our peril. Attempting to placate such people is doomed to failure, and the attempt can only damage us.

To put things into perspective, read this post by William Kristol in the Weekly Standard. In particular, note the photo of General George S. Patton Jr. paying his respects as he advanced across the Rhine River into Germany: 

http://jointchiefs.net/patton_urinating_in_the_rhine.gif

And then, when you are done smiling at “Old Blood and Guts,” read this post by Representative Allen West (R, FL), Lt. Col., USA (Ret.). West reminds us of the lack of indignation when the bodies of Medal of Honor recipients Randall Shughart and Gary Gordon were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, an episode described in “Black Hawk Down.” West also reminds us of the two soldiers from the 101st Airborne who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq, an atrocity I had forgotten. They were Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker. One tends to forget atrocities when there are so many.

People who have never been through a particularly stressful situation have difficulty imagining what measures those who went through it may take to relieve the stress and unwind. For example, police who have just experienced a high-speed car chase, or who have arrested an armed suspect, may make rude remarks or tell jokes that fellow officers understand, but which − if the radio mike is left open − will be condemned by outsiders.

I’ve never heard a shot fired in anger, unless you count people at the pistol range who were irritated by their low scores. But I did spend many stressful nights working in an urban county hospital, including an emergency room replete with shootings and stabbings. I recall two young Marines in uniform, both with gunshot wounds − one in the leg, who survived; one in the back, who didn’t. I recall a man with his throat cut ear-to-ear. Sometimes, when I watch a gory movie, I think I smell blood.

The hospital served a fourth meal at midnight, if we had time to eat it. I recall the morbid jokes we told to take the edge off the tragedies we had witnessed. There was one doctor who did a flawless imitation of Count Dracula. The catch was that he was overweight − imagine a fat Dracula. No matter what kind of case we discussed at the table, he was sure to respond in his fake Transylvanian accent, “Let us drain his blaahd.”

Anyone who overheard us joking about life and death would have assumed we were cold and heartless. They would have been wrong. The jokes and the Dracula imitations were attempts to reduce the pain we felt in doing our duty. It’s the same with the four Marines. Cut them some slack. Give them letters of reprimand, then withdraw the letters in one year if the men behave themselves.

To those who never were in life-threatening situations, but who suddenly anoint themselves as experts, I say cool it. War itself is a piss process, so give the young men a break. You can’t send people into an alley fight, then insist that they abide by rules of engagement that resemble the Marquess of Queensbury rules. To do so doesn’t show respect for the rules; it shows disrespect for the lives of our troops. After you have demonstrated respect for the lives of our troops, then you can talk about respect for enemy dead. But until then, shut up.

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 liberals are secular, or agnostics, or atheists. And those who are religious often belong to “mainstream” churches where religion is indistinguishable from liberal politics. Nevertheless, liberals are criticizing some Republican candidates not just for their policies, which is expected, but also for their theology, which is astonishing.

Questions are being raised about Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. Some of these questions are raised by conservative Christians who care deeply about theology. But some of these questions are raised by secular leftists who couldn’t care less about theology, but who use it as a club to beat a leading Republican over the head.

As usual, the liberal media spread disinformation. A prominent Evangelical pastor questioned Romney’s Mormon beliefs. The New York Times headline read, “Prominent Pastor Calls Romney’s Church a Cult.” But in the next-to-last paragraph, you find that the pastor concluded, “I’m going to advise people that it is much better to vote for a non-Christian who embraces biblical values than to vote for a professing Christian like Barack Obama who embraces un-biblical values.” So the headline should have read, “Evangelical Pastor Prefers Romney to Obama.” I couldn’t agree more.

Instances in which Evangelicals question Romney’s faith are emphasized by the liberal press. But many of the questions are raised by liberals themselves, who hope to stir up conflict among Republicans. For example, take the 2011 cover of Newsweek showing Romney jumping around like a crazed fanatic, holding a book − presumably the Book of Mormon − with text reading, “The Mormon Moment.” 

http://dekerivers.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/newsweek20cover20mormons1.jpg

If there is a clearer example of religious bigotry, I hope never to see it. And don’t forget the 2008 cover of Time, showing a photo of Romney with the text, “Sure, He Looks Like a President. But What Does Mitt Romney Really Believe?” 

http://www.barewalls.com/i/c/378106_Sure-He-Looks-Like-a-President-But-What-Does-Mitt-Romney-Really-Believe.jpg

But whose business is it what Romney’s religious beliefs really are? In fact, this is a blatant attack on Latter-day Saints theology. This is a clear example of religious bigotry. It is also a colossal case of hypocrisy: “Republicans are religious bigots, but we Democrats are tolerant, sensitive, and diverse − so we can do whatever we want to further our agenda, even if it is intolerant, insensitive, and. bigoted.”

There was a 1970s song titled, “Love Means You Never Have To Say You’re Sorry.” The idea is absurd. But even more absurd is that liberals in effect proclaim, “Being liberal means you never have to say you’re sorry. Monstrous debt foisted on our children? Economic policies that stifle innovation and job creation? Social policies that destroy the family? Educational policies that ruin the public schools? And now, religious bigotry? No problem! Our motives are good, so our results are irrelevant.”

Of course, liberals never questioned Barack Obama’s religious beliefs when he ran in 2008. Twenty years of sitting in Rev. Wright’s church? Hearing Wright preach “God damn America” and “Israel is a dirty word” and “the U.S. government may have invented the AIDS virus to kill people of color? No problem! Obama’s a liberal, so his beliefs are excellent by definition.

And then we have Rick Santorum. When he began to rise in the polls, liberals let loose. MSNBC pundit Alan Colmes and Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson called him “weird” and “crazy” for the way he handled the death of his two-hour-old baby son Gabriel. By what perverted logic are they empowered to dictate how a family should deal with the death of a child? This goes beyond arrogance and reaches hubris: “Actions that shamed or humiliated the victim for the pleasure or gratification of the abuser.”

A Los Angeles Times columnist calls Santorum a “weird, pious wackadoo” whose opinions are “rabid,” “nonsensical,” and “incendiary.” She compares Santorum to religious fanatics who assault women for improper clothing. But what, exactly, does the Catholic Santorum believe that set off this hateful tirade? He holds the same positions on abortion and same-sex marriage as does the rest of the Catholic Church − that is, 1.2 billion people − not to mention 310 million Eastern Orthodox, as well as tens of millions of Evangelicals. Are they all rabid, nonsensical, incendiary, weird, pious wackadoos?

One definition of “wackadoo” states that it is a mock Italian insult. If so, its use for Santorum is not only insulting but also racist. Oh wait, I forgot − Democrats can’t be racists, only Republicans can. Sorry.

Recall the questioning of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito by Senate Democrats, who pointedly asked whether his Catholic faith would influence his rulings. Of course, no one asked nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan whether their deeply held liberal beliefs − from religious or secular sources − would influence their rulings. Liberals are allowed to be influenced by their beliefs, but conservatives − no way!

Criticism of Michele Bachmann for her Evangelical beliefs was cut short when her campaign fizzled. Had she done better, we would have heard much more. She, too, would have been called a rabid wackadoo. As it is, “Bachmann+religious nut” yields 1,450,000 hits on Google. Tolerance? We don’t need no stinkin’ tolerance. We’re liberals!

The extreme of this process is represented by Bill Maher, who regularly mocks and denigrates public figures who express any religious sentiments. He revealed his true feelings recently when the Broncos lost a football game. Maher’s brilliant analysis of the loss was, “Wow, Jesus just f****d Tim Tebow bad!”

Few liberals dare to express Maher’s overt hatred of religion and religious people. But many share it. The Washington Post called Maher’s nauseating remark “controversial.” Did the editors search the thesaurus to find the most tepid adjective possible? This is a case of praising with a faint damn.

Liberals claim to be afraid of conservative Christians. Yet liberals repeatedly insult and mock conservative Christians, and Christianity itself, with impunity. But would Colmes and Robinson ridicule a prominent Muslim for the way he grieved for his dead baby? No, they would call it “touching” and “sensitive.” And when we killed Bin Laden, did Maher opine that “Allah just bleeped Bin Laden bad”? No, he wouldn’t think of doing so, but if he did, he’d be fired immediately − and probably have to go into hiding. As it is, Maher remains on HBO, doing his thing.

Whom people claim they fear, and whom they really fear, may be quite different. Don’t listen to what they say; watch what they do.

What little I know of LDS theology doesn’t bother me in the slightest. What people believe in their hearts is between them and God. Only He can see into our hearts. We can see how people act − specifically, whether they treat fellow human beings with kindness. If people form stable families, work hard, are reliable, and keep their word, that’s what’s important − or what should be important.

In fact, my only problem with the Latter-day Saints Church is whether “day” should be capitalized.

So perhaps you will understand why I become upset when I see magazine covers belittling and mocking the faith of Mitt Romney. Perhaps you will sympathize when I pace the floor in anger as a mob assaults a Mormon Temple because of a moral stand the LDS Church took against same-sex marriage. Perhaps you will identify when I mutter words that would make a Marine gunnery sergeant blush when I read that Rick Santorum is demonized for stating orthodox Christian beliefs.

And perhaps you will agree when I insist that “no religious test” means no religious test. Not for Mormons like Romney. Not for Catholics like Santorum. Not for Evangelicals like Bachmann. Not for anyone. And certainly not a religious test administered by liberals, whose religion is liberalism.

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://cloud.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/meryl_streep.jpg

The current film “The Iron Lady” purports to give an account of the life and career of Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of the United Kingdom. In this the film fails. It does provide a superb vehicle for Meryl Streep to display her well-known acting talent.

But instead of an overview of Lady Thatcher’s career and accomplishments, it portrays a version so slanted that one might suspect it was written and produced by leftists who were no admirers of Thatcher. Oh wait, it was. We are shocked − shocked! − to find leftists in the film industry.

The bulk of the film depicts Lady Thatcher as a senile old woman, bumbling around her rooms and talking to her dead husband Denis. If I were in charge, I would have used her later years as a brief introduction and a brief conclusion, with most of the film devoted to Thatcher’s political career. But of course, for Hollywood to put a conservative in charge of anything except cleaning the toilets is as likely as a pig learning to fly and breaking the New York-Paris speed record. Come to think of it, I’d bet on the pig.

Selected parts of Thatcher’s life are shown in brief flashbacks. We see her as a child, with her parents in an air-raid shelter during a bombing. Some members of the audience will be able to guess that this occurred during World War II.

Perhaps, if it had been made clear that Thatcher suffered through Nazi bombings as a child, the audience might better understand why she grew up to hate totalitarianism and aggression, and to know that they must be resisted with all available force. Then her fierce anti-Communism might make more sense, and her insistence that the Falkland Islands be retaken after the Argentine invasion might be more comprehensible.

But instead, her anti-Communism is not explained, her role −with Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II − in its defeat is underplayed, and her insistence on retaking the Falklands is shown as dangerous pig-headedness. In short, we have a historical film that is seriously lacking in history. Score another point for Hollywood.

The film shows a young Thatcher studying with a speech coach. She had to get rid of her working-class accent in order to rise in politics. Brits are like that. But Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had no need to get rid of their accents in order to be elected president. Americans are like that.

On the other hand, Barack Obama feels the need to put on an accent when speaking to a black audience. Of course, Thatcher felt no need to put on a working-class accent when speaking to a working-class audience. She would have found the idea laughable.

The film mentions that Thatcher graduated from Oxford. It omits that she did so on a scholarship and with honors, that her degree was in chemistry, and that for a time she worked in chemical research. The film also omits that later, she studied law and qualified as a barrister − not bad for a grocer’s daughter whose family lived above the store. On the plus side, the film shows how Thatcher overcame prejudice against women and against her working-class origins.

But to leftists, humble origins are noble only if the result is more leftists. If humble origins produce conservatives, they are seen as traitors to their class − as witness Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter Williams, and many others. Leftists are obsessed with class, as well as gender and race − but they project their feelings onto conservatives, whom they accuse of being bigots. Psychology explains a good deal of politics.

Much is made of Thatcher’s struggle to break the stranglehold of the trade unions on the British economy, but mainly from the point of view of the workers who were angry at having their benefits reduced. The film was completed before the recent British riots, so the attempt to make the audience sympathize with the demonstrators tends to fall flat. Only a few months ago, we saw how pointlessly destructive such riots can be.

And of course, we never hear Thatcher’s statement that so beautifully sums up our current economic problems:

Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite characteristic of them. Then they start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.

Thatcher is shown as ambitious and tough, which she surely was. But many of the results of that ambition and toughness are slighted or ignored entirely. She finally becomes prime minister − but not shown is her trip to the palace to be formally appointed by Queen Elizabeth, who oddly never appears in the film. After her retirement, she is called Lady Thatcher, but her trip to the palace to be ennobled by the Queen is also omitted. This is like making a film about an Olympic champion, but omitting the medal ceremony − a rather large omission, wouldn’t you say?

Apparently the film makers dislike a conservative leader so much that they omit key scenes, even though these scenes would have made the film more visually engaging. Besides the scenes with Queen Elizabeth, the film also omits Thatcher’s close friendship and cooperation with President Reagan in hastening the fall of the Soviet Union − a rather large omission, wouldn’t you say?

The film also omits any mention of Britain’s participation in the first Gulf War, with Thatcher’s famous admonition to George Bush the Elder: “Don’t go all wobbly on me now, George.” Was the Gulf War unimportant, or merely unimportant to the film makers? Was reversing Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait a striking example of Thatcher’s hatred of aggression? Not to the film makers.

So instead of an objective treatment of Thatcher’s successful effort to de-socialize at least a portion of the British economy, and instead of almost any treatment of Thatcher’s key role in the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, and instead of any treatment at all of the Gulf War, we watch endless scenes of a senile old woman shuffling around her rooms in a haze.

But in fact, it is the film makers themselves who operate in a haze − a haze due not to advanced age, which is sad, but to advanced leftism, which is inexcusable.

This isn’t the first biopic about a conservative in which the accomplishments were minimized but the problems were maximized. Recall “J. Edgar,” where Hoover’s effective fight against Nazi spies and saboteurs during World War II was omitted entirely, while much time was spent on his alleged homosexuality. Now there’s objective history for you.

The problem is that left-slanted history is what many young people learn in school.

Nor is this the first time that liberals have shown lack of concern for a conservative suffering from dementia. Recall how Michael Moore did an ambush interview of Charlton Heston outside Heston’s home. And recall George Clooney’s “joke” that Heston announced he had Alzheimer’s − again. When challenged, Clooney claimed Heston deserved whatever anyone said about him because he was active in the National Rifle Association. And don’t forget the demonization of Rick Santorum for his way of dealing with the death of his newborn baby, or the disgusting things said about Ronald Reagan when he died of Alzheimer’s. Now there’s liberal compassion for you.

The problem is that this is the model of compassion that many liberals will emulate.

The 86-year-old Margaret Thatcher has had strokes and reportedly now suffers from dementia. This is tragic, but it in no way detracts from her accomplishments. Or do the film makers have the primitive belief that illness is a punishment for wrongdoing? Could this be what the film is intended to imply?

Yes, the Iron Lady finally rusted, but only after accomplishing more than the vast majority of so-called world leaders. But true to its leftist bias, Hollywood concentrates on the rust and minimizes the iron. That tells us more about Hollywood than it does about the Iron Lady herself.

Still, in order to become demented, first you have to be mented − which is more than many current politicians can claim. It wasn’t brilliant planning and deep thought that got us into this awful mess.

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

I knew that I was going to have to choose him or my son, and it wasn’t going to be my son, so I did what I had to do. There’s nothing more dangerous than a mother with a child.
− Sarah McKinley

When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.
− Clint Smith

Eighteen-year-old Sarah McKinley was home with her three-month-old son on New Year’s Eve. She lived in the rural community of Blanchard, Oklahoma, and police response times tended to be long. Her husband was not with her; he had died of cancer on Christmas Day.

She saw two men attempting to break in. She recognized one as a man who had been stalking her since her husband’s funeral. Reportedly he was looking for drugs in the cancer victim’s home. She gave the baby his bottle, then retrieved a shotgun and a handgun and barricaded the door. She phoned 9-1-1 and asked what to do. She was told she could not shoot unless they came through the door. But the 9-1-1 dispatcher, who was a woman, added, “You do what you have to do to protect your baby.”

Reportedly Sarah was on the phone with 9-1-1 for 21 minutes, and the police still had not arrived when the men broke down the door. The first man, the stalker, came at her with a 12-inch hunting knife. She fired the 12-gauge shotgun, killing the man. His companion fled, quite possibly breaking the Olympic 100-meter record. He later turned himself in to police.

Predictably, most comments were favorable to the young woman. But they noted with sadness that in some states and most European nations, she would be jailed for murder, and her infant son would be taken from her. But equally predictably, other comments were opposed. One commenter referred to “loving our enemies.” How this was relevant to Sarah’s life-and-death problem was unclear.

Another commenter related that as a soldier in Sweden, he had been taught that when on guard duty, he should (1) yell stop, (2) fire a warning shot, (3) shoot the intruder in the leg, and (4) only then shoot to kill. It was less clear how this was relevant to stopping an attacker with a large knife rushing across a small room. It was still less clear why Sweden should serve as a role model of moral behavior in the face of evil, after its pro-Nazi “neutrality” in World War II.

And it was entirely unclear how someone who never faced a life-threatening attack somehow became an expert on handling such a situation. What this man and other critics of Sarah McKinley were really saying is, “My beliefs on gun control and self-defense trump your right to remain alive. You should be dead, and your baby should be an orphan − if he’s lucky.”

It is utterly inexplicable that people with such beliefs consider themselves “liberal,” “tolerant,” “pro-woman,” and “for the little guy.” Isn’t Sarah a woman? Isn’t a three-month-old a little guy?

Only after conservative media and websites carried this story did the mainstream media pick it up. There are literally thousands of instances in which an armed citizen prevents a criminal attack, but they rarely appear in the liberal media. On the contrary, the much rarer cases of accidental shootings are reported prominently. Selective reporting of the news is the worst form of bias, because it dupes others into sharing that bias.

When liberals in America and other Western nations inhibit self-defense against criminal attack, they reveal much about their thought processes. When they arrest a father for wounding a career criminal who is entering his small child’s bedroom in the middle of the night, they tell us much about themselves. When they criminalize the use of pen knives, knitting needles, walking sticks, and even toy guns in defense against criminal assault, they tell us much about their belief system. They are excusing and protecting criminals − but criminalizing self-defense.

Such people may have gray hair and sit in legislatures, or on judges’ benches, or occupy professorial chairs, but intellectually and emotionally they are children. They believe that if they close their eyes, the boogey man can’t see them. They believe that if they pull the blanket over their heads, the monsters won’t attack them. They believe that if they don’t fight back, eventually the schoolyard bully will tire of them and go on to bully someone else − not a very humanitarian attitude.

They believe that if they disarm themselves, eventually fewer weapons will be available to criminals and terrorists. But this belief is only superficial. If they truly believed that weapons make them less safe, they would post signs in front of their houses declaring, “There are no guns in this home.” But no one, not even the staunchest advocate of gun confiscation, ever posts such a sign. How revealing.

At some subconscious level, liberals recognize that if even a minority of homeowners are armed, criminals will be deterred from entering any homes while people are there. And figures bear this out. In America, only about 13 percent of burglaries are “hot” − that is, home invasions. But in Britain, where homeowners are disarmed, 59 percent of burglaries occur when people are at home. About 30 percent of victims of these “hot” burglaries are assaulted, or worse. Of course, if a burglary occurs when no one is home, no one is injured. This is not complex. Disarming homeowners endangers them.

I believe that the reason many liberals detest the idea of self-defense is their stubborn refusal to see the world as it is, but instead to act as though their childish fantasies were real. They never worked in an emergency room and saw the results of man’s inhumanity. They never took ROTC in high school or college. They never were instructed by a master sergeant with combat decorations. They never smelled the pleasant odor of gun oil. They never took responsibility for defense of their loved ones and themselves. They prefer the false safety of their illusions. They consider themselves civilized, but in fact they are merely infantilized.

Many liberals remain intellectual and emotional children, despite their receding hairlines and increasing waistlines. Advancing years detracted from their appearance, but added nothing to their wisdom. In their own minds, they remain helpless children. But real children depend on adults to protect them. Who will protect childish adults?

If these people detest guns, let them refrain from owning one − but not stop me from owning one. If they don’t approve of missile defenses, let them move to a nation that lacks them − but not stop me from protecting my loved ones and myself from apocalyptic, paranoid fanatics who are armed with missiles and nuclear weapons. Their right to hold infantile, unrealistic, pacifistic beliefs stops where my safety begins.

Instead of the learned fools who attended elite universities and graduate schools, let us emulate 18-year-old Sarah McKinley. She has more wisdom and guts than all of them put together. She has more understanding of the responsibilities of citizenship than do many liberal politicians. And she has more understanding of the responsibilities of a human being than do many liberal clergy.

She is the prototypical American: self-reliant, responsible, independent, willing to listen to advice and ask for help − but ready if necessary to act on her own and defend those dependent on her. She is indeed a woman of valor.

To contribute to the Sarah McKinley Donation Account and help this 18-year-old widow with a young child, mail your contribution in her name to the Chickashaw Bank, P.O. Box 548, Blanchard OK 73010.

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 next − Jane Fonda as secretary of Defense? Why not? Where, exactly, does Paul’s foreign policy of “blame America and excuse its enemies” differ from that of the far Left?

Dr. Paul’s view of national defense dates from 1776, when oceans protected us from invading armies that had to travel in sailing ships. Come to think of it, the oceans didn’t protect us even then. We fought − and barely won − the Revolution and the War of 1812 against British troops who did arrive in sailing ships. A defense policy that didn’t work two centuries ago can hardly be called realistic, much less up to date.

Paul’s view of the Constitution is so restricted and narrow that he must never have heard of the eminent Justice Robert Jackson. Before being appointed to the Supreme Court, Jackson had been chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, where top Nazi leaders were put on trial. So Jackson knew what he was talking about when he observed:

The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.

But Ron Paul seems unaware of this danger. He claims that we dealt “rather well” with Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. This claim would be disputed by the 168 people McVeigh killed. Or was it 169? There was an unattached leg that did not belong to any of the known victims. Arresting and punishing terrorists after the fact is not dealing with terrorism “rather well” − it is failing miserably. But Paul, with his narrow, legalistic approach, can’t understand this basic fact. What would he have done after Pearl Harbor? Sworn out an arrest warrant for Admiral Yamamoto?

So conservatives wonder why many Americans find his views attractive. But the problem should be restated. The question is not why many Americans find Ron Paul’s views attractive. The question is why many Americans find the current direction of our government so unattractive, not to say intolerable:

● Ordering us to buy light bulbs that are expensive, made in China, give poorer light, and contain toxic mercury.

● Ordering us to buy toilets that flush inadequately and cause sewer blockages.

● Ordering us to buy washing machines and dishwashers that are less effective at their intended tasks of cleaning.

● Pushing us to buy cars that are lighter, and therefore more dangerous to occupants in a crash.

● Planning to control what medicines and treatments our doctors can give us − or not give us.

Are these appropriate functions for a government that cannot perform its legitimate functions properly? Where, exactly, does the Constitution empower the federal government to do these things? And why did asking this vital question evoke a giggle from then-speaker Nancy Pelosi? When did the Constitution become a source of contempt and ridicule for those sworn to uphold it?

John Kennedy remarked that those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. This may be a corollary of Newton’s Third Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For example, those who make the government objectionable to many people by going too far in one direction will surely evoke a reaction in which those people will go too far in the opposite direction.

It does not require an Einstein to understand that when a pendulum is pushed too far one way, it will swing back the other way with greater force. I believe that is the explanation for Ron Paul’s popularity. Surely it is not his movie-star good looks, his youth, his melodious voice, or his smooth speaking style. Rather, it is his embodying the discontent of so many people with the intrusive, micro-managing, meddling, bullying, overbearing, stifling bureaucracy that our government has become. And it is the reluctance of most other candidates to say so clearly.

There is an old French proverb that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed are kings. And in the land of apologists for big government, even a less attractive candidate will become popular if he speaks up. Thus Ron Paul, who is and looks elderly, and who reminds me of a rigid, demanding, self-righteous schoolteacher, can achieve this much popularity and publicity.

So can you imagine how popular a candidate with the looks and charm of Mitt Romney, the brains of Newt Gingrich, or the toughness of Rick Perry would be − if only he articulated clearly many people’s disgust with ever-larger and more intrusive government? Can you imagine how popular he would be if he spoke up for freedom and against the oppressive, smothering, nanny state? He would win the nomination in a landslide, and have an excellent chance of unseating President Obama in November.

But instead, we have Romney speaking smoothly but unclearly. He tries to explain why RomneyCare is a good idea for Massachusetts, but ObamaCare is a bad idea for America. He tries to explain why he was pro-choice and anti-gun, but now he is pro-life and pro-gun. He tries to explain why he was for same-sex marriage, but now he is against it. But even the smoothest of speakers would have difficulty explaining those contradictions.

And we have Gingrich speaking with intelligence but also unclearly. He tries to explain how his myriad of innovative ideas would not lead to an even greater expansion of government. But even the most intelligent of speakers would have difficulty explaining that contradiction.

And we have the other candidates speaking with varying degrees of clarity, but still failing to express opposition to big government as clearly as does Ron Paul. Rick Santorum comes closest but appeared to have little chance, though at present he seems to be coming on strongly. Michele Bachmann is a close second, but appears to have no chance. This leaves Ron Paul as the chief advocate of limited government − or in his case, extremely limited government.

Conservatives recall President Ford’s warning: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” They repeat the Dennis Prager Rule: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” Talk-show hosts and callers on conservative radio, as well as commentators on Fox News, express similar views daily.

What they are saying, in effect, is this: “Tell the government to keep its nose out of our business, its regulators off our backs, and its hands out of our pockets.” What could be clearer, or more conducive to freedom?

But if rank-and-file conservatives have no problem understanding this key point, why do some Republican candidates have trouble articulating the rationale for a limited government? Is it because they just can’t express themselves clearly, or because they really want a big government − to put into effect their notions of the ideal society? In that case, they are not true conservatives. They are right-wing statists, who are no more friendly to freedom than are left-wing statists.

Napoleon remarked that he didn’t steal the crown of France − he found it lying in the gutter, and picked it up with the point of his sword. Ron Paul didn’t steal the mantle of champion of limited government − he found it lying dusty and unused, and picked it up with his mediocre but to-the-point oratory.

Our duty is to find a more rounded, more realistic, less dogmatic advocate of the limited government that our Constitution requires. Our responsibility is to find someone with the wisdom to balance the ideals of the Founders with the realities of the age of nuclear weapons and fanatical terrorists.

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

Use compassion for those who deserve it.

After we have punished the criminal, expressed compassion for all his victims, and done our best to relieve their suffering, then we can feel compassion for the criminal. But till then, feeling compassion for both criminal and victim leads only to more criminals and more victims – who need more compassion. So we feel good about ourselves, while making the world a worse place.

If you doubt this, ask Dru Sjodin. The 22-year-old University of North Dakota student disappeared, and her blood was found in the car of a man who recently had been released from prison. Why a two-time rapist-kidnapper was set free was unclear. The search for the body was unsuccessful. The suspect has no incentive to reveal where he dumped it – authorities couldn’t offer not to impose the death penalty, because North Dakota has none. Dru’s body was found the following spring, when the snow melted. She had been tied up, beaten, raped, strangled, smothered, and thrown in a ravine. The murderer was sentenced to death under federal law. This case illustrates that “better late than never” may be true, but it has definite drawbacks.

Or ask Roxanne Hayes, a Florida woman who was murdered by Lawrence Singleton. Singleton was sentenced to death but died before the sentence was carried out. Years earlier, he had raped 15-year-old Californian Mary Vincent, then chopped off both her hands and left her to bleed to death − but she survived. Singleton was sentenced to 14 years and paroled after serving only seven. This appeared to be a merciful punishment for a man guilty of attempted murder, mayhem, forcible rape of a minor, sodomy, and forced oral copulation. It was less than merciful for Mary Vincent, who lived in hiding for fear Singleton would return to finish the job. And it was less than merciful for Roxanne Hayes, who didn’t live at all. This case illustrates that compassion is like money − if we squander it on worthless trash, we will have none left for essentials.

Or ask Samantha Runnion. The five-year-old was kidnapped while playing in her front yard. Her molestation and murder were national news. The murderer had previously been charged with abusing two little girls, but was acquitted when his lawyer claimed the girls were “coached.” The lawyer listed that case as a “success” on his website. We might use other words. This time the murderer was found guilty and sentenced to death − too late for Samantha. But he will probably die of old age. A judge put California’s death penalty on indefinite hold, because lethal injection − the same way we put beloved dogs and cats to sleep − is claimed to be “terribly painful.” As painful as a five-year-old being kidnapped, sexually abused, then crushed to death? But the judge didn’t consider this question. He decided that his job was to assure the comfort of murderers, not the safety of children This case illustrates that if we don’t instruct our employees very clearly on what their job is, they will make up their own job to suit themselves.

Define reality as what exists in the real world, not on paper.

Lawyers, academics, and bureaucrats deal with paper constantly, so they come to believe that paper is reality. Many believed that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would protect us against incoming missiles armed with nuclear, biologic, or chemical warheads – and fired by homicidal fanatics.

In an ordinary person, a belief in the protective powers of paper would be seen as a delusion requiring psychiatric care. In lawyers, academics, and bureaucrats, it is seen as normal, while those who want to build a missile defense are seen as alarmists. But who has the better grip on reality?

Let us emulate detectives who uncover evidence, not lawyers and judges who cover it up again. Let us emulate scientists who reach conclusions after doing experiments, not paper-shufflers who twist the numbers into conforming to their biases. We should have fewer people in government who believe that paper represents ultimate reality.

If paper represented reality, treaties would protect us from missiles, Enron would be a thriving business, and Bernard Madoff would be a trustworthy custodian of our money.

Avoid saying “tragedy” when we really mean crime.

An earthquake is a tragedy. Of course 9/11 was tragic for the victims and their families, but murder is a sin and a crime. Mass murder is a horrible crime. If the attack is planned abroad and carried out by foreigners, it is an act of war. Calling it a “tragedy” removes blame and reduces the event to the status of a natural disaster. Then we believe that punishment of the guilty, and prevention of a recurrence, are no longer our duty.

Avoid saying “mistake” when we really mean crime.

A mistake is confusing “who” and “whom.” A mistake is what gets a criminal caught, not his crime. Murder, rape, and robbery are often called “mistakes” by defense lawyers and other apologists for evil. Calling serious crimes “mistakes” trivializes them into moral insignificance. And if we can’t see things from a moral perspective, what good are we?

Avoid the vacuous expression, “Give peace a chance.”

A chance to do what? A chance for Saddam to torture more children in front of their parents, or to use more poison gas on ethnic minorities? A chance for Al Qaeda to crash more airliners into office towers? A chance for Iranian fanatics to acquire nuclear weapons, while screaming “Death to America?”

A “peace” in which only one side renounces violence is called surrender. Real peace can come only when both sides agree to stop the violence, or one side destroys the other’s ability to cause violence. There is no reason to think that hate-filled fanatics will agree to stop the violence. That leaves the second option.

Reality isn’t always pretty, but not facing it only makes matters worse. As with cancer, the treatment may be difficult or even painful, but sitting and waiting for things to get better is a dangerous and potentially fatal blunder.

If “war is not the answer,” then what is the question? Apparently it is, “How can I feel self-righteous while accomplishing absolutely nothing?” The question surely is not, “How did we stop aggressive dictators and bloodthirsty fanatics in the past?”

Avoid the absurd expression, “Violence never settles anything.”

Is Europe still under the heel of Nazis? Is Asia still ruled by Japanese warlords? No? Why not? Is it because Britain followed Gandhi’s advice and surrendered rather than fight? Is it because Jews followed his advice and committed suicide to gain Hitler’s sympathy? (What sympathy?) Is it because Americans followed the isolationists’ advice and concerned themselves with internal problems?

No, it’s because freedom-loving people fought and died to rid the world of these scourges. It’s because rational people saw the vast difference between the British, who could be persuaded to leave India by non-violent means, and the Nazis, who had to be destroyed by the most violent means available.

And what results from pacifism? Self-righteous “human-rights” activists insist that we “dialogue,” while those who hate us prepare even worse attacks. This would enable vicious sociopaths to win, while we waste precious time – and allow civilization to go down the toilet.

The Bible tells us not to stand by idly while our neighbor’s life is at risk. (Leviticus 19:16). This advice is both moral and practical. If we ignore it, we may find our own lives at risk, while our neighbors follow our example and stand by idly.

Eating less and exercising more are healthful goals. But carrying out these resolutions will help us to recognize evil. And if we can see it clearly, we can fight it effectively. That would make for a really healthy and happy New Year – except for criminals and terrorists, of course.

A prior version of this column appeared last year. The Lord willing, other versions will appear in future years, until people listen. 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

I have always loved Christmas lights. The days grow short at this time of year, especially in the North, and colored lights in windows and on trees and porches help to relieve the gloom.

But the lights do more than that. Because they are Christmas lights, not merely “holiday” lights, they hold a deeper significance. This is obviously true for Christians, for whom this season marks the birth of Jesus − whom they believe to be the Light of the World.

Still, the significance is there for non-Christians, too. For Jews like me, the Christmas season often coincides with Hanukkah, which is often called the Festival of Lights. But the word means “dedication.” It commemorates the Jewish revolt against the Greco-Syrians, who had defiled the Temple in Jerusalem with pagan statues and tried to eradicate belief in the One God.

The Temple was rededicated and the eternal light rekindled. The usual account is that there was only enough oil for a day, but it burned for eight days until more oil could be obtained. Yet there never was a shortage of olive oil in Israel − there was a shortage of sanctified oil suitable for use in the Temple. The lights mark the distinction between the sacred and the profane, a distinction we have almost lost today.

I spent my early years in a small North Dakota town, where my family and I were the only Jews. The Christmas lights and caroling at school did not bother me in the least. On the contrary, I enjoyed these expressions of the season.

Later we moved to San Francisco, where my public high school had an annual Christmas program. Because it was organized by a Catholic priest, I came to love the Latin words to “Adeste Fideles.” Although there were other non-Christian students like me, nobody complained. Those who did not wish to attend could go to the library, so there was no compulsion − only enjoyment of the beautiful program.

My parents explained that this was not our holiday, but it was the holiday of most Americans, so I learned to honor it without observing it. My parents grounded me in my religion, so they had no fear that seeing a holly wreath or hearing “Silent Night” could shake my faith or cause me distress. They would have found that idea laughable.

I learned that there is nothing wrong with being different − that going along with the group is not always required. I learned that my worth derived from what I did as an individual, and not from mere membership in a group. No matter how worthy the group might be, my behavior was what counted.

And I learned that being different didn’t mean I was better or worse than anyone else − just different. This lesson helped me avoid the pitfalls of the teen years. Perhaps it made me a bit of a loner, too, but at least I didn’t believe that belonging to some clique or “in” group would mean anything in the long run.

Most of all, I learned not to be easily offended. When someone wished me “Merry Christmas,” I replied with the same words. It wasn’t my holiday − so what? A colleague wished that my day would be merry. How could that offend me? Why should people take offense at greetings or decorations for a holiday they don’t celebrate? What is offensive about pretty decorations and good wishes?

No, what is really offensive is objecting to these beautiful things. If I were in France, I would expect most people to celebrate Bastille Day.  And if France were attacked, I would expect people to display the French flag and voice patriotic feelings. I would be a fool to expect otherwise, and an ingrate to take offense.

So why is it that some Americans take offense when Christmas lights are hung, or when people displayed flags after 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history? What offends people often reveals more about them than about the event that offends them.

The ease with which people take offense today is a manifestation of childish narcissism and intolerance: Why should I have to adapt to the people around me? No, I insist that they adapt to me.

When infants are hungry, they want to eat now. As children grow older, they learn to wait until the food is ready. They realize, reluctantly, that the world doesn’t revolve around them. They begin to accept that other people have needs and wants as strong and legitimate as their own.

But narcissists remain in an infantile stage emotionally. They expect 312 million Americans to adapt to them. They don’t like colored lights? Go to court and have them extinguished. They don’t like Santa Claus? Kick him out.

They don’t like the word “Christmas” because it denotes the birth of Christ? Insist that “holiday” be substituted. What holiday? Groundhog Day? Guy Fawkes Day? Whom are we trying to fool? Ourselves, apparently.

For “Christmas vacation” substitute “winter break.” Instead of the birth of Jesus, celebrate the winter solstice. Of course, the position of the sun imposes no moral obligations on us − which may be the real reason for the change.

Did they feel uncomfortable when flags appeared everywhere and signs proclaimed “God bless America” after 9/11? Fob off their own feelings onto foreign visitors, who probably couldn’t care less, and demand greater “sensitivity” and “tolerance.”

What about sensitivity and tolerance for the deepest beliefs and feelings of the majority? What about appreciation for the charitable work done at this season, and for the Salvation Army Santas ringing their bells and collecting donations for the needy?

And what about gratitude? Our country, whose freedom and abundance we enjoy, was founded by Christians who used the Bible as one of their principal guides. Wisely, they provided that no one sect would be allowed to predominate. They founded a secular government for a religious people.

But now, many would deform freedom of religion into freedom from religion. They take offense at anything that does not accord with their own beliefs − or lack of belief. They insist that the nation revolve around them.

They believe that moral principles can be handed down from one generation to another without any Source for these principles. This belief requires a leap of faith just as much as does a religious belief.

There is no historical basis for the assumption that a purely secular society can preserve its moral principles − or even preserve itself − over the generations. Yet we are betting everything we have that the assumption is correct. Is this a wise bet?

In fact, Western Europe is proving precisely the opposite. Europe is not only failing to reproduce itself; it is also bending over backward to be “fair” to those who aim to destroy it. Three years ago, the BBC, Britain’s state-run broadcasting system, followed Queen Elizabeth’s annual Christmas message with a rant by Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad. This man oppresses women, gays, and ethnic and religious minorities; calls for the destruction of Israel; and seeks to demolish Western civilization. By what perverted logic was he asked to give a Christmas address? How about Jeffrey Dahmer speaking on a healthful diet, or Major Hasan lecturing on loyalty?

Why should we emulate Europeans, who are committing demographic and cultural suicide before our eyes? Those who show “tolerance” for the intolerant will themselves become intolerable − and eventually extinct.

● Is there too much happiness in the world? Is there a shortage of sadness and grief? Does hearing “Joy to the World” really cause a problem?

● Is there too much brotherhood in the world? Is there a deficiency of hatred and strife? Does mingling with a happy crowd really feel oppressive?

● Is there too much tolerance in the world? Is there a lack of egocentric intolerance masquerading as “tolerance”? Is there a lack of narcissistic insensitivity disguised as “sensitivity”?

● Is there too much courage in the world? Is there a need for cowardice in the face of a noisy minority of ingrates?

● Is there too much friendliness in the world? Is there a dearth of hostility and ill will? Does a hearty “Merry Christmas” really give offense?

● Is there too much light in the world? Is there a scarcity of darkness and gloom? Do pretty lights really cause distress?

A long time ago, Confucius taught us that it is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness. But what would he have thought about the narcissistic ingrates who curse the candle?

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://4.bp.blogspot.com/_G-aof4zoffk/TPkhsECvywI/AAAAAAAABuk/wY1a1eiwaaU/s400/choice-on-earth-herod.jpg

What Child Was This?

Planned Parenthood, which receives taxpayer funds, offered gift certificates for its birth-control services, including abortion. Mark Steyn suggested including a greeting card showing an empty manger − which may be the real purpose.

What child was this who, laid to rest,
In the trash is sleeping,
Whom angels greet with anthems sweet
To cover up their weeping?
This, this is no one now,
While only to ourselves we bow.
Haste, haste to turn away,
We may have a child another day.
(Or not.)

＊

Guide Me, O Thou Great Obama

            School children taught to sing hymn to Barack Obama.

Guide me, O thou great Obama,
Unhappy with this blessed land.
I am weak but thou art mighty,
Heal me with thy powerful hand.
Rationed healthcare, monstrous bailouts,
Till the budget bursts in two,
Till the budget bursts in two.

Open now the bottomless treasury,
Whence the people’s cash doth flow.
Flowing like a mighty river,
Spend it till we’re all laid low.
Change is all that we’ll be left with,
When the debts will all come due,
When the debts will all come due.

＊

Once in David’s Muhammad’s Royal City

The Christian population of Bethlehem, birthplace of Jesus, has fallen from 85% to 12%. Hebron, burial place of Abraham, now has 130,000 Muslims, 530 Jews and three Christians. The trend is clear. The plan is to make all Israel “judenrein” – that is, “cleansed” of Jews, with perhaps a few Christians allowed to remain in subservient positions, subjected to discrimination. The same thing is happening in other areas of the Mideast, though the press pretends not to notice.

Once ’twas royal David’s city
Where stood a cattle shed
But now, more is the pity
All David’s people fled.

Where a mother laid her baby
In a manger for his bed
Do you think, just maybe
Their memory is dead?

His birthplace we forsook
For empty words of peace
Gave not one backward look
As our future hopes decrease.

＊

The Twelve Days of Holiday

Six Muslim imams removed from airliner after they pray loudly, make anti-American remarks, sit separately controlling all exits, and refuse to be re-screened. Three had one-way tickets and only one had a checked bag. One requested a seat-belt extension, though he was not obese, and flight attendants wondered what the extension could be used for. The imams sued, and the airline settled for an undisclosed amount.

On the twelfth day of holiday, my sex partner gave to me
Twelve Santas silenced
Eleven lawyers suing
Ten Commandments missing
Nine judges squawking
Eight cowards cringing
Seven crèches cancelled
Six imams flying
Five brazen jerks
Four chicken birds
Three French hens
Two fallen towers
But no Christmas, like when we were free.

＊

No Joy to the World

Schools, government offices and businesses ban Christmas trees and carols. A National Public Radio commentator apologizes for merely saying the word “Christmas” on TV, as if it were a curse word. It’s too bad Christmas isn’t a failing business − then the government might bail it out.

No joy to the world, no Lord is come,
The judge acts like a king.
Let all the people fear, to show a sign of cheer.
No heaven or angels sing,
No heaven or angels sing,
No heaven, no heaven or angels sing.

No joy to the world, the judges rule,
Let folks no songs employ.
In towns and hills and plains, wherever P.C. reigns,
Suppress the sounding joy,
Suppress the sounding joy,
Suppress, suppress the sounding joy.

＊

Away With the Manger

University of Texas students put up “ACLU Solstice Barn” to replace banned Nativity Scene. Included are Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph; Nancy Pelosi as an angel; Marx, Lenin, and Stalin as the Wise Men; and a shepherd with an explosive belt − but, of course, no Baby Jesus.

Away with the manger, the parents and child,
A scene of religion will drive them all wild.
They fear him, and hate him, and send him away,
But who fears a baby asleep on the hay?

Away with the manger from people’s front lawns,
The Free Exercise Clause evokes only yawns.
They profit from holiday sales all the way,
But can’t stand the real name of this holiday.

Away with the manger from schools and from homes,
Of their hate for religion they make no bones.
This country was founded by Christians, get real!
But a small group of ingrates will bring them to heel.

Away with the manger from hearts and from minds,
But replace it with what kind of symbol that binds?
Our enemies have strong beliefs that don’t fail,
But believers in nothing, how can we prevail?

＊

Silent Night, Unholy Night

Stores ban Salvation Army Santas.

Silent night, unholy night,
Kick out Santas without a fight.
Gone are bell ringers ‘round the store,
Kettles for charity are no more.
Shop in selfish silence,
Shop in selfish silence.

Silent night, unholy night
No idea what happened tonight.
No reminder to help the poor,
No tinkling bells outside the door.
Shop in selfish silence,
Shop in selfish silence.

＊

Bad King Wenceslas

Judge blocks mayor from telling police to take homeless people to shelters during freezing weather.

Bad King Wenceslas looked out
On the Feast of Stephen,
When the snow lay round about
Deep and crisp and even.

Brightly shone the moon that night
Though the frost was cruel,
When a poor man came in sight
Shiv’ring like a fool.

Bring that man in near the fire
The king said to his pages,
But ACLU raised its ire
And went into its rages.

They went to court and told the judge
It’s against the Constitution,
What it really said they’d fudge
That’s legal prostitution.

The judge ruled people have the right
Outdoors to be freezin’,
His ruling was quite out of sight
And counter to all reason.

Judge and lawyers all went home
All went home together,
While homeless people had to roam
In the bitter weather.

We now think a homeless guy
Is something like a fetus,
Their only right is just to die
What poets call quietus.

Inconvenient folks beware
Unborn, old, disabled,
We’ll kill you all without a care
We’re legally enabled!

When before the Lord we stand
And praise ourselves with boldness,
They’ll be people close at hand
Accuse us all of coldness.

Careful now before you speak
Sitting by your fire,
Twist the law against the weak
You’ll surely raise God’s ire.

＊

Deck the Hall with Nothing at All

Dean orders Christmas tree removed from law school lobby after student complains of feeling “excluded.”

Don’t deck the hall with boughs of holly,
There’s no limit to our folly.
Follow me in mournful measure,
We’re throwing out our sacred treasure.

Fast away our culture passes,
Speak up now, O lads and lasses.
“Tolerance” applies to others,
But not to us or to our brothers.

Note: “Fa-la-la” was omitted, as there was no way to be sure whether or not it is politically correct.

＊

Santa Claus Ain’t Coming to Town

Employees told to say “Happy holidays,” not “Merry Christmas.”

No need to watch out
No need not to cry
No need not to pout
I’m telling you why
Santa Claus ain’t coming to town.

He’s making no list
Not checking it twice
Couldn’t care less who’s naughty or nice
Santa Claus ain’t coming to town.

The people all are sleeping
The lawyers are awake
The court says that it knows what’s best
So obey for goodness’ sake.

No caroling, fool!
No wreath on the door
No tree in the school
Makes all of us poor
Santa Claus ain’t coming to town.

＊

Author’s Note:

I enjoy making up politically correct versions of Christmas carols. But today many young people may not know what I am parodying − they are unfamiliar with the carols we knew so well. This year I listened to radio and watched TV in the weeks before Christmas. Unless I tuned to a religious station, carols were few and far between. Even mall music included fewer carols than in the past.

My favorite carol is “Good King Wenceslas.” It expresses the essence of religion − not dogma, but treating our fellow humans with kindness. But I haven’t heard it on TV or radio for years. Kids used to grow up hearing carols like this for Christmas, hearing patriotic music for Independence Day, and hearing Sinatra sing “My Way” and Elvis sing “Love Me Tender.”

Now kids grow up hearing that Grammy-nominated favorite “F**k You,” and the Oscar winner “It’s Hard out Here for a Pimp.” Can you believe that what young people are exposed to during their formative years has no effect on them? We protect their lungs from second-hand smoke, but we forget to protect their souls from pollution.

Someone who steals the financial inheritance of young people is called a thief and is sent to prison. But someone who steals the cultural and spiritual inheritance of young people makes money with rap “music” or MTV, and is honored by being called “modern” − as in a “modern” TV executive, a “modern” musician, or a “modern” educator. But he is a worse thief − he stole something more valuable than money. And he left young people far poorer, and far less able to defend their civilization against those who want to destroy it.

When we “deck the hall with nothing at all,” we demonstrate not just a lack of Christmas spirit, but also a lack of the spirit we need to survive as a people. Cultural amnesia is like Alzheimer’s − a tragic condition that robs us of our identity and is ultimately fatal.

＊

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://texasscribbler.com/images/Say-No-Christmas_Tree2.jpg

No Christmas Tree

Colleges order Christmas trees removed after a few students complain of feeling “excluded.”

O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
Though pretty are your leaves,
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
Your presence here me grieves.

You make me feel excluded
Though I’m quite deluded,
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
You’ll wind up in a Dumpster.

O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
Your boughs are always green,
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
You irritate the dean.

Atheists will all take fright
But neutered deans will make things right,
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
You’ll wind up in a Dumpster.

O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
You’ll cause a revolution,
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
We’ll blame the Constitution.

The Founders all would love your green
But now you’ll never more be seen,
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
You’ll wind up in a Dumpster.

O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
Though you fill the room with beauty,
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
To trash you is our duty.

We already think it’s odd
To see the slightest trace of God,
O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
We’ll join you in the Dumpster.

＊

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Atheist

School board tries to ban “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” from grade school because song mentions Santa and Christmas, and has “religious overtones.” So does “Don’t steal” − must we remove that, too? Ironically, the song was written by a Jew.

Rudolph the Red barged in here
With his most intrusive nose,
Poked it into all our business
Narcissistic, I suppose.

All of the other people
Wanted to have Christmas fun,
But he worked very hard to block them
That ungrateful son of a gun.

＊

Don’t Tell It on the Mountain

High-school band forbidden to play Christmas music, including “Frosty the Snowman,” even without words.

Cancer center kicks Santa out − “We don’t want to offend anyone.”

Activists protest “Keep Christ in Christmas” sign as unconstitutional.

Atheists displace 11 of 14 Nativity images with their own signs.

Don’t tell it on the mountain,
On the hills or anywhere,
Don’t tell it on the mountain,
That you-know-who is born.

While ACLU’s watching
Over silent folks by night,
Behold throughout the city
There is no holy light.

Don’t tell it…

The people feared and trembled,
When lo! above the earth,
Rang out the judges’ orders,
Don’t hail the Savior’s birth.

Don’t tell it…

＊

Come All Unfaithful

Children’s hospital stops handing out Christmas CD to patients because it mentions Baby Jesus.

Come all unfaithful
Joyless and resentful
Come ye, O come ye
To trash the CD.

Run to the courthouse
Backed by flocks of lawyers
O come let’s file a lawsuit
O come let’s file a lawsuit
O come let’s file a lawsuit
And stop all the joy.

Come all ungrateful
Unhappy and embittered
Come ye, O come ye
They’re lighting the tree.

Run to the courthouse
Narcissists offended
O come let’s file a lawsuit
O come let’s file a lawsuit
O come let’s file a lawsuit
And throw out the tree.

＊

Unholy Night

Judges ban Christmas program from schools but allow Mexican Day of the Dead. This is called “diversity.”

Eight-year-old student told to draw picture about the holidays. He draws Jesus on the cross, but he is sent home for drawing a “violent” picture, and his parents are told to send him to psychotherapy. When his father complains, the father, a school custodian, has his hours cut. This is called “tolerance.”

Unholy night, the stars are brightly shining
But heavy clouds will obscure them from view.
Long lay the world in frightful error pining
Till we were set straight by ACLU.

No thrill of hope, no weary soul rejoices
The gloom unbroken by any light of morn.
Fall on your knees, O hear the judges voices!
No night divine, no sign of who was born
O night, unholy night, no reason not to mourn.

Led by the might of courts and judges beaming
No Constitution upon which to stand.
Led by their whims, to us quite senseless seeming
They pose as wise men to rule our fair land.

The judges rule us all despite the danger
Pretending always to be our loyal friend,
Ignore our need, to our wishes are a stranger,
They scorn life’s start, but celebrate its end.
Behold the judges, before them lowly bend!

＊

O Muslim Town of Bethlehem

The Christian population of Bethlehem, birthplace of Jesus, continues to decline, having fallen from 85% to 12% because of continued violence, as well as discrimination by the Palestinian Authority.

Christians in Gaza Strip living in a “state of fear.” They are warned by Muslims to hold only “small, quiet” Christmas observances.

“Liberal” church stages program of ”carols” with anti-Israel lyrics. The massive contradiction escapes the organizers.

O Muslim town of Bethlehem
How still we see thee lie,
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The crescent-star flags fly.

Yet in thy dark streets shineth
No everlasting light,
The Christians here for all these years
Have sadly taken flight.

O holy child of Bethlehem
Will you please go away,
Leave us in sin, don’t enter in
There’s no one left to pray.

There are no Christmas angels
Who great glad tidings tell,
They’ve all left town, no one around
No one to ring the bell.

＊

Thoughts on “Happy Holidays”

Polls reveal that 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas. How is it “inclusive” to exclude this vast majority? And 90% believe it is the birthday of Jesus. How is it “tolerant” not to tolerate expression of this widely held belief? Liberals claim that our Founders were deists or agnostics who wrote the Constitution to prevent any influence of religion on our public life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“Happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”? Insist on it at work. Nativity scenes on city property? Rule them illegal. Salvation Army Santas collecting money for the needy? Kick them out of malls. Carols or Christmas trees in schools? Never! But skeletons and ghouls for Halloween? No problem. The first year West Hollywood, California was incorporated as a city, the city offices were closed on Halloween but open on Christmas Day. What does that tell you?

Then we have the usual complaints about Christmas being commercialized, and that we are deep into “consumerism.” These complaints might be legitimate, if they came from clergy who want to emphasize the spiritual meaning of Christmas. But why do secular liberals make similar complaints? And why do these people never complain that Halloween is too commercialized? After all, Halloween is now our second-largest shopping season. There may be a clue here. Witches and devils? No problem – shop till you drop. But Baby Jesus in the manger? No way!

To quote Tom Piatak: “Giotto never painted a Kwanzaa scene, Bach did not write a Hanukkah oratorio, and Dickens did not pen a Ramadan carol.” Could we at least be a tiny bit grateful for the art, music, and literature inspired by Christianity?

This isn’t the first time that totalitarians tried to ban Christmas. The communists did, and still do in Castro’s Cuba. Most Christmas ornaments are made in China – but are not allowed to be used there. The Nazis replaced Christmas with Julfest, a pagan winter Yule festival. Totalitarians can’t tolerate any Authority higher than themselves. A former conscript in the Nazi SS recalled that he was forced to celebrate not Christmas, but a counterfeit winter holiday concocted by the Nazis:

On Christmas Eve, there was a celebration, not a Christian one, but a pagan German “Julfest.” We were all together and had to sing some trash about the night of the clear stars and other sad substitutes for the true Christmas message.

Those who want to eradicate all signs of our Judeo-Christian heritage imagine that this will lead to a tolerant, secular nation. But the 20th century proved that secular nations can turn out to be anything but tolerant. If you doubt this, study the history of Nazism and communism.

Now we are confronted by the threat of Muslim extremists. If we have no deep beliefs, how can we hope to resist the onslaught of fanatics? Observe what is happening in Western Europe. It would be ironic if the campaign against Christianity results not in “tolerance” and “inclusiveness,” but in an extremist Muslim theocracy.

Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, one of the greatest churches in the world, was turned into a mosque and is now a museum. Is it possible that the same thing could happen to Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris and Westminster Abbey in London? This seems unlikely now, but we shall see – perhaps sooner than we imagine. Mohammed is now the most popular name for newborn boys in Britain, topping Jack and Harry.

Whenever you feel pressured to say “Happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas,” consider these points. But while it is still permitted, may I have the pleasure of wishing you and yours a merry and blessed Christmas!

＊

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

The first is that his name cannot be written properly in Arial, the font I use. The problem is that a capital i is indistinguishable from a lower-case L. So Kim Jong Il looks like Kim Jong the Second. The only alternatives are to write il in lower case as Kim Jong-il, or write it in Times New Roman as Kim Jong Il. This is annoying.

The second complaint is that Kim disproves the old joke that a king is his father’s son, but a dictator isn’t. Kim was definitely his father’s son, though he was also a bastard in the figurative sense. Kim Il Sung (that’s Kim Il Sung) was the founder of North Korea. He was put in power by Stalin after World War II (that’s 2), when Korea was divided into a communist North and a relatively free South.

But my real complaint is not with the Kims, but with leftists. Leftists I know claim that all the wars America has been involved with since World War II were unjustified, but were instigated by the “Military-Industrial Complex.” I asked them specifically about Korea.

● I asked whether a naked invasion by the North should have been ignored by America and the UN, and if it had been ignored, what this would have meant for the survival of freedom.

● I asked whether they would prefer that South Korea, a thriving nation with a vibrant economy and relative freedom, had been conquered by the North in 1950.

● I asked whether it would make any difference to them if the 47 million people of the South were to live in poverty, starvation, and virtual slavery, like the people of the North − while a well-fed, huge army goose-stepped.

● I asked whether we fought a high-intensity war for three years, and lost 36,940 dead, for the huge oil reserves of South Korea − which don’t exist.

But the leftists were adamant. They could see no good that came from the war. They revealed that they had not the slightest trace of empathy for the Korean people. In effect, they said, “Who cares if millions of people live in near-starvation, or even actual starvation? Who cares whether they lack the slightest shred of freedom? Who cares if they live in North Korea, the world’s largest prison? After all, they’re just Koreans.”

Was the result worth the 36,940 American deaths, plus the deaths of our allies? I believe so. But this is a value judgment, which depends on how one evaluates an American life versus a Korean life − or, to be frank, a Caucasian life versus an Asian life. Of course, the leftists don’t see it that way. In fact, they don’t see it as a question of human life or human freedom at all. They see it as leftists see everything − a question of economics.

Some people made money from the Korean War. So what? Some people made money from World War II. Does this mean that we should have left the Nazis and the Japanese militarists to divide the world between them? Some people made money from the Civil War, too. Does this mean that eradicating slavery wasn’t a worthwhile result? Looking at the world in purely economic terms leads to immoral results. Both leftists and libertarians need to learn this.

Yes, Kim Jong-il is dead. A house didn’t fall on him, but he is really most sincerely dead. What will result? Will his son loosen the death-grip of the North Korean government on its long-suffering people? Will a coup replace the Kim dynasty with something a bit less loathsome? Or will the new North Korean rulers threaten war with the South to solidify their position? And what will happen to the North Korean nukes? Who knows?

All I know is that a brutal dictator is dead. Good riddance.

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

The ideal candidate is a conservative.

Yes, but what is conservative? To me, a conservative is one who is firmly grounded in Judeo-Christian and American values, and who will apply them in domestic and international politics. But to others, “conservative” may have other meanings.

To a libertarian, a conservative is one − like Ron Paul − who wants to reduce the federal government to the minimum size required to maintain the basic functions of government, and to withdraw from the world. Such a candidate wants to abandon our friends and leave them to the tender mercies of our enemies. Though we are the biggest kid in the schoolyard, he wants to let bullies roam free to torment the weak. Such a candidate is unconcerned that Iranian fanatics are developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them − while screaming “Death to America!” To me, this is a radical, irresponsible position. But to many libertarians, it’s conservative.

To a social conservative, a conservative is one who wants to affirm a pro-life position and Judeo-Christian values. Such a candidate opposes creating human embryos, then destroying them for research. Such a candidate condemns Obama’s plan to give the elderly or disabled medical treatment only if it will “save money.” Such a candidate favors maintaining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. To this I would agree, but then I would ask: should we try to have Roe v. Wade overturned? The chances of this happening seem slim. But even if it were overturned, each state would be free to pass its own abortion laws. For example, even before Roe v. Wade, California had a liberal abortion law, signed by Governor Ronald Reagan. Question: By this definition, was Reagan a conservative?

To a fiscal conservative, a conservative is one who wants to reduce federal spending to the level of federal income − and equally important, to reduce federal taxes to the level that people are free to spend most what they earn as they think best. To this I would also agree, but then I would ask, “Yes, but are there values that are more important than money? If the federal budget were balanced and taxes were lower, but there were still a million abortions a year, and the elderly and the disabled were denied care to save money, would you be happy?”

The ideal candidate is a real conservative.

Surely we have had our fill of RINOs, Republicans in name only. What good is it to win, if winning means merely to apply the brakes lightly on our downhill course? No, we need someone who will apply the brakes firmly, make a U-turn, and begin our long climb back uphill. Socialism-light is how we got into this mess in the first place. The trick is to balance electability with what the candidate will do if he or she is elected. My belief is that we should pick the candidate who enunciates our principles most clearly, and has the guts to put them into effect.

And if no real conservative is electable, the battle is already lost. About 48.5% of Americans now receive benefits from the federal government. We hear the term “tipping point,” but do we understand what it means? If over half of citizens realize that they can vote themselves more benefits, the fat lady will be singing really loudly. Look at the European Union − unsustainable benefits are its undoing. Still, if it breaks up, Europeans will be left with their own nations and their own currencies. But what if America goes bankrupt because of unsustainable benefits? What will we be left with?

The ideal candidate has experience in the private sector.

Here Mitt Romney has the inside track. But what does his experience consist of? His business career opens him to charges that he destroyed jobs in order to benefit “the rich.” Of course, if he had not done so, the companies probably would have gone under, wiping out not some but all of the jobs. In fact, Newt Gingrich criticized Romney for his work at Bain Capital. But in doing so, in effect Gingrich criticized capitalism itself − and sounded almost like Michael Moore. Gingrich later retracted his criticism. But as Bill Bennett said, “Newt is like a box of chocolates − you never know what you’re going to get.”

If we want a candidate with experience in the private sector, we must be prepared to support − forcefully − the principles of free enterprise. What Romney did was the exact opposite of bailouts. He helped troubled companies become competitive again, rather than temporarily bailing them out so that they could remain uncompetitive until the final debacle.

The ideal candidate has experience in government.

Here Newt Gingrich has the inside track. But what does his experience consist of? There is an outstanding record in Congress, leading to the speakership − the second in line to the presidency. There is the Contract with America, as well as welfare reform and the balanced budget. But there is also a lifetime of connections with Washington insiders. Why else would Freddie Mac have paid Gingrich over a million dollars? As a “historian”? As a consultant? Or as a lobbyist?

If we want a candidate with experience in government, we must be prepared to support the virtues of public service. The ideal, of course, would be someone with experience in both government and the private sector − for example, Mitt Romney. And yet, with our one-party media, experience in both public and private sectors merely makes him subject to criticism on both grounds.

The ideal candidate can defeat Barack Obama.

This is obvious, but what does it mean? First, the candidate must be personally acceptable. Newt Gingrich has been divorced twice and has personal baggage. Still, his daughter speaks well of him, so perhaps the baggage isn’t as heavy as it appears.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney has a picture-perfect family − but some feel it is too perfect. Perhaps people have tired of Barack Obama’s self-righteous, prissy demeanor; his perfect family; and his healthful diet. Perhaps Romney subconsciously reminds them of Obama. Perhaps the older, overweight, imperfect Gingrich seems like a welcome change. Chris Christy would have been an even bigger change, if you’ll pardon the expression, but he isn’t running.

Herman Cain has dropped out, and the other candidates seem to have exemplary family lives, so there is not much to choose between them in this respect.

Obama is the incumbent, an automatic advantage. And then there are his personal advantages − youth, height, good looks, pleasant voice, and smooth speech − at least with the aid of teleprompters. So what qualities should we look for in his opponent? Should we seek someone who is also relatively young, handsome, tall, and well-spoken? That is a description of Mitt Romney.

On the other hand, have voters grown sick of smooth talkers with glib answers? Are they seeking someone with real answers for serious problems, even if he is older, shorter, less handsome, even a bit pudgy? Are they tired of a rich baritone speaking meaningless platitudes, and would welcome a tinny tenor if it talked sense? That is a description of Newt Gingrich.

Or could we go further? Could we go for a Texas twang that speaks awkwardly, but forcefully and sincerely, and go with Rick Perry? Could we go for a high-pitched Midwestern voice that speaks intelligently but sometimes too quickly, and go with Michele Bachmann? Or could we go further still and reach out for Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio? Perhaps such an attractive candidate for vice president could push the presidential candidate over the top.

But here is what we must not do: We must not squabble endlessly among ourselves, searching for the ideal candidate who does not exist, and fail to come together for the good-enough candidate who could have defeated Obama if we had given him our wholehearted support. For that there would be no forgiveness.

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

The word “judgmental,” in the sense of overly critical or self-righteous, dates only from the 1960s. For centuries, great writers expressed themselves without this word, but now we use it frequently. Why? What does this word reveal about our thinking? How does it affect our actions?

Specifically, how can we judge people by the content of their character, and at the same time believe it is wrong to be “judgmental”? I don’t think we can.

For two generations, we have been discarding criteria by which to judge a person’s character. We removed the Ten Commandments from schools and courthouses. We tossed out the Bible and all that goes with it. We threw away the rulebook, so we are in no position to complain when someone breaks the rules. What rules? He may have broken your rules, but he didn’t break his rules – and his rules are as valid as anyone’s, aren’t they?

But if by chance we still have a complaint, where do we direct it? We have done our best to remove God from public life. In addition to ripping up the rulebook, we turned our backs on the Referee. Instead, we have a noisy cheering section that keeps chanting, “Don’t be judgmental – who are we to judge?” Who, indeed? After all, we’re not perfect, are we?

Leftist textbooks declare that American history is full of nasty, dishonest, violent actions, and lacking in constructive actions. Leftist professors claim that all ideas are of equal value, and that there is no objective truth. They go on to claim that all societies are of equal value, even those that practice slavery or oppress women and minorities. Our society isn’t perfect either, is it?

Many of our clergy announce from the pulpit that it is our “duty” to forgive everyone, even those who injured others and who don’t ask for forgiveness. President Clinton attended a service at which the minister urged everyone to forgive Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. This occurred when McVeigh was still alive. What empowered the congregation to forgive a mass murderer who hadn’t injured them, who hadn’t yet been punished, and who denied doing anything wrong? The minister didn’t say.

We have been taught not to judge other people or other cultures. We have been taught that there is no objective good or evil, or even objective truth. We have been taught to forgive everyone, no matter how terrible his crimes. Forgiveness that cheap is utterly worthless. So it has become impossible to judge the content of someone’s character.

Indeed, the very word “character” is disappearing from our vocabulary, except to indicate a fictional person in a movie, or an eccentric person – as in, “He’s a real character.” But “character” in the sense of one’s moral core? When did you last hear the word used that way?

The only times I recall is every four years, when Democrats slander the character of Republican candidates. Judging character has been demoted from an effective tool for evaluating the people around us to a political weapon for hitting opponents over the head. Bill Clinton’s proven actions in the Oval Office were fobbed off as amusing foibles and “just about sex.” But Newt Gingrich’s divorces are used to claim he is a “political killer” and “Mephistopheles.” (Double standard? What double standard?) Of course, what Gingrich’s daughter has to say never is mentioned in the liberal media. First-person testimony is ignored, while hostile opinion is disguised as fact.

But if Gingrich is a “killer,” how do we identify real killers? And if Gingrich is “Mephistopheles,” who do we believe is influencing Ahmadinejad, a man who is developing nuclear weapons and intends to wipe Israel off the map, then turn his attention to the United States? Inflation of language is like inflation of the currency − eventually both become worthless.

Apart from self-righteous finger-pointing in political campaigns, we have forgotten how to judge the content of someone’s character. We have no clear idea that character even exists. So what is left for us to judge? Only superficial things − income, looks, way of speaking, what kind of car people drive – and, of course, the most superficial thing of all, skin color.

When Dr. King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech in 1963, everyone understood what he meant. Racists hated him and what he stood for, but they knew what he was talking about. Now many years have passed. A lot has changed, and not all for the better. We may hear the beautiful words on King’s birthday, but do we still grasp their meaning? I doubt it.

Not content with being “nonjudgmental” about people, we now apply the same notion to animals. When a tiger attacked Roy during the famous animal act in Las Vegas, Siegfried explained that the tiger was trying to “protect” Roy. By tearing out his throat? Another theory was that the tiger was upset by a woman in the audience with “big hair.” Perhaps the tiger didn’t like country-western music. Who knows?

Meanwhile, a grizzly-bear enthusiast and his girlfriend were killed and partially eaten by a bear in Alaska. An animal expert pointed out that the enthusiast was trying to treat bears like people. For years we have refused to admit that some people act like wild animals. Now we even have difficulty recognizing that wild animals act like wild animals.

But don’t worry − at the last minute, Congress restored the prohibition of bestiality to military law. Lest you think that the omission was merely an oversight, recall that the professor of bioethics at Princeton declares that sex with animals should be permitted.

We are blundering around in a moral fog. People lost in a fog are likely to bump into things and get hurt − and to hurt others.

When President Reagan called the Soviet Bloc an “evil empire,” liberals erupted with anger and contempt. When President Bush pointed out an “axis of evil,” they reacted in the same way. It wasn’t that liberals denied that the Soviets or Saddam were evil – it was that they denied anyone was evil. They denied the existence of evil itself.

Just as they are unable, or unwilling, to confront tyrants abroad, liberals don’t confront violent criminals at home. They blame poverty, or racism, or guns, or whatever – but they never blame the criminals. They can’t, because blaming people requires standards by which to judge people, and liberals have abandoned such standards.

We have hit the Delete key and dropped the word “character” from our vocabulary. Even worse, we have dropped the concept of “character” from our thinking. We can no longer fully grasp what Dr. King meant. So it’s no wonder that we haven’t taken his advice. And that’s really a shame – another word we no longer understand.

It is often said that words have consequences. Lack of words also has consequences.

If we can’t distinguish good people from bad ones, we are less likely to be good people.

If we can’t distinguish good societies from bad ones, we are less likely to produce a good society − or to keep it.

If we teach young people not to be “judgmental,” the time will come when they hear Dr. King’s words and ask, “The content of their what?”

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

People are like pearls. No matter how smooth and delicate a pearl may be, it has a grain of sand at its center. If it weren’t for the grain of sand, there would be no pearl. No matter how smooth and sophisticated a person may be, if he doesn’t have some toughness at his core, he won’t be able to stand up to difficulties or dangers.

This may be the reason that in the past, trustworthy people were said to have “sand” or “grit.” Courage is the hard grain of sand at our core, without which we merely present a pleasant appearance − but aren’t really worth much.

In defining something, we can learn a lot by stating what it isn’t:

Courage isn’t going along with the crowd.

Hollywood “personalities” seem to think it takes courage to speak out against conservatives. But the vast majority of film and TV stars feel the same way, or so it appears. On the contrary, courage would be shown by media stars who spoke up for conservative values.

Hollywood never tires of complaining about the blacklist of the 1950s, when suspected communists were denied work. But somehow the blacklist of today, when merely a suspicion of being Republican is cause for ostracism, just doesn’t deserve notice.

Courage isn’t allowing others to do your thinking for you.

The mainstream media parrot one another shamelessly. What do you learn from CBS that you would not learn from ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or National Public Radio? What opinions do you read in the New York Times that you would not see in the Los Angeles Times and most of the papers in between? It takes no intellectual curiosity, much less courage, to repeat what you see and hear.

You must listen to talk radio and visit conservative websites to learn what the mainstream media ignore. But it may take courage to mention this to friends or co-workers. They may call you a “Nazi” or other offensive terms. You may lose friends. That is the result of a one-party press. Liberals can go all week without hearing a conservative idea, so if by chance they do hear one, they become upset, even angry. But they feel no need to respond with logical arguments. Instead, they call the conservative nasty names.

Courage isn’t hiding the truth with political correctness.

Major Nidal Hasan murdered 14 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood while shouting “Allahu akbar!” Most sources say he murdered 13, but one of them was pregnant. He had been in frequent communication with radical imam Al-Awlaki. The motive was painfully obvious, but Chris Matthews claimed that “We may never know if religion was a factor,” while Geraldo Rivera speculated that a “toothache” might have set him off. No, Geraldo, the decay wasn’t in his teeth − it went much deeper.

It’s bad enough when liberal pundits can’t recognize the truth. But when our government can’t recognize the truth, it’s even worse. The Fort Hood attack has now been classified as “workplace violence,” as if it were perpetrated by a file clerk who was disgruntled over not getting a raise. “Workplace violence” is the worst kind of lie − a half-truth that conveys a totally false impression. It was “workplace violence” in the same sense that Jeffrey Dahmer had an “eating disorder.” No, it was an act of war committed by an extremist Muslim on orders from overseas.

Fortunately, Al-Awlaki was killed by a U.S. drone in Yemen. But unfortunately, the refusal to accept reality is harder to eliminate.

Courage isn’t taking out your psychological problems on others.

Some time ago, a woman called the Dennis Prager radio show. Her husband is a soldier overseas. Some of her neighbors criticized him for participating in a “war for oil,” even going so far as to say − in front of their young child − that if he were killed or wounded, he would “get what he deserved.”

Some people in the “peace movement” are sincere if fuzzy headed. But others are so angry and hateful that calling them pacifists is absurd.

Those who say cruel words to a wife and child may claim they are acting out of love for humanity, but they are really acting out of bitterness and lack of empathy. Those who burn the American flag and refer to our leaders as terrorists may claim to hate war, but they really hate America and what it stands for.

It doesn’t show courage to vent your anger on those who don’t deserve it and won’t retaliate − it shows cowardice and lack of self-control. The courageous vent their anger on those who do deserve it and can retaliate − terrorists, for example.

Courage isn’t claiming to love freedom and the Constitution, but doing nothing to defend them.

Freedom isn’t just a concept − it’s the ability of real people to live as they choose, so long as they don’t harm others. The Constitution isn’t merely an abstraction − it’s a guarantee of the rights of actual, living people.

What, precisely, did freedom mean to the almost 3000 human beings who died on 9/11? The freedom to choose between being incinerated and jumping out of 110-story buildings, then taking 10 seconds to hit the pavement at 120 miles per hour? What rights did the approximately 200 jumpers have?

What rights does the Constitution guarantee to those who will die in new attacks, unless we kill or disarm those who are planning the attacks? The right to die slowly of radiation sickness after a dirty nuclear bomb is detonated in Manhattan? The right to watch their families die of smallpox when it is released in malls? The right to die, choking, vomiting, and convulsing, when nerve gas is released in the subway or at a bowl game?

It is worse than meaningless to claim to love freedom, but then block efforts to protect citizens from attack by fanatics who have no respect for human life. It is worse than irrelevant to pretend to respect the Constitution, but then obstruct efforts to defeat those who want to destroy the Constitution and all it stands for.

We have heard much about shortages of clean air and water. We need air and water.  But we need courage, too. Perhaps we should spend more time and effort to remedy that shortage.

Instead, we teach schoolchildren to have unearned self-esteem. And we warn them, “I don’t care who started it − you’re both going to the principal’s office.” This is intended to teach nonviolence, but it actually teaches tolerance of bullies. And we assign textbooks written by people who believe that America is has done more bad than good in the world. Are those really the lessons we want our young people to learn?

The courage of our troops and our first responders is demonstrated daily. But can the courage of a minority make up for the wimpiness of the majority? Can the selfless dedication of a minority make up for the self-absorption of the majority? Can the few who risk their lives to defend freedom make up for the many who value freedom so little that they vote for slick politicians who promise them more “free” benefits − meanwhile making the government constantly larger and more intrusive? I don’t think so.

We hear “The Star-Spangled Banner” at sports events, but do we really hear it? Do we understand the unbreakable link between the land of the free and the home of the brave? If we want to live in the first, we must be the second.

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://carlahoag.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/u-s-s-arizona-pearl-harbor.jpg

December 7, 1941 − like September 11, 2001 − began with fine weather and bright sunshine. Both days began with complacent Americans who planned to spend the day in their usual, peaceful activities. Both days began with other people who had other plans. Both days ended with many Americans dead, and the rest awakened from their slumbers.

December 7 was a Sunday. Some people slept late. Others went to church. Personnel at the U.S. Navy Base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and at Hickam Army Airfield were on their usual Sunday schedule. Sailors stood at attention on the decks of battleships moored on battleship row, waiting for the band to strike up the National Anthem as the flag was raised. Out of a clear blue sky came Japanese planes filled with bombs and torpedoes.

Before the day was over, about 2403 military personnel and 68 civilians lay dead, and many others were wounded. Some were trapped in sunken ships, from which tapping could be heard until just before Christmas. Most could not be rescued. It was not a merry Christmas.

We knew that the rest of the world was at war. We knew that Hitler had renounced the treaty that ended World War I. We knew that he had enlarged the German armed forces. We knew that he had bullied France and Britain into handing him part, then all, of Czechoslovakia. We knew that he had invaded Poland and carved it up with Stalin. We knew that he had conquered France in six weeks. We knew that he was bombing Britain and advancing across the Soviet Union.

We also knew that the Japan had conquered Manchuria for its resources. We knew that Japan had invaded China with startling brutality. We knew that Germany and Japan had big appetites and were still hungry. We knew all this, and still we slept late that Sunday. We thought we were safe.

After Pearl Harbor caught us shamefully unprepared, one would think that we would have learned not to disarm − physically or psychologically − when World War II was over. One would be wrong.

September 11 was a Tuesday. In New York City, it was Election Day and the first day of school, so many people were late for work. At the Pentagon outside Washington, people were prompt, as military personnel are. Out of a clear blue sky came airliners filled with passengers and crew − and thousands of pounds of jet fuel. Before the day was over, almost 3000 Americans were dead and others injured. The exact total will never be known, because hundreds remain missing.

We knew that the world was not a safe place, but we thought the danger was far away. Like the people at Pearl Harbor, we thought the oceans would protect us. But if they couldn’t protect us in 1941, how could they protect us in 2001? We had been given numerous warnings:

● Sen. Robert Kennedy, a leading presidential candidate, was assassinated in 1968 by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian immigrant who objected to Kennedy’s support for Israel. We learned nothing from this.

● Our embassy in Iran was seized in 1979 − an act of war. Our diplomats were mistreated for 444 days. President Carter dithered, then ordered an unsuccessful rescue attempt. The hostages were released the day President Reagan was inaugurated. We learned nothing from that, either.

● Our Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed in 1983, killing 241 Americans who were there on a peacekeeping mission. We fired a few shells into the hills, then withdrew.

● The USS Stark was hit by two missiles “accidentally” fired by an Iraqi plane in 1987, killing 37 crewmembers and wounding 21 others. Saddam promoted the pilot and gave him a Mercedes. We appointed a commission to investigate.

● Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990. We and our allies drove him out in 1991, but a low-level conflict smoldered, with Iraqis shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone.

● The first World Trade Center attack occurred in 1993, when six died and over 1000 were injured, but the buildings did not collapse as planned. We treated the attack as an ordinary crime, and merely arrested those directly responsible.

● Our humanitarian mission in Somalia in 1993 resulted in the deaths of 18 soldiers, as described in “Black Hawk Down.” Some of the bodies were dragged through the streets. We promptly withdrew.

● Terrorists bombed our Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, killing 19 Americans and injuring many more. We treated the attack as an ordinary crime.

● Our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in 1998 – again acts of war – causing hundreds of deaths. We treated the attacks as ordinary crimes.

● Suicide bombers tried to attack the USS The Sullivans in January 2000. The ship was named for the five Sullivan brothers, who died together when their ship was sunk by the Japanese in World War II. But the bombers’ boat was overloaded and sank in Aden harbor. One would think we would have learned from this narrow escape. Again one would be wrong.

● Suicide bombers attacked the USS Cole in October 2000 in Aden harbor. The ship almost sank, 17 sailors were killed and many injured. We did nothing. Yemen arrested some suspects, who later “escaped” from jail. But unlike us, at least Yemen pretended to do something.

One would think that after all these attacks, we would recognize that we were under attack. And again one would be wrong.

We continued to doze in a peaceful stupor. But when history repeated itself on 9/11, the price went up. The death toll on 9/11 was higher than in 1941, and unlike Pearl Harbor, most of the casualties were civilians. Moreover, we watched it on live TV instead of reading about it in the papers. The awakening was even ruder.

But no matter how rude the awakening, there is always the risk of dozing off again. That is why modern alarm clocks, unlike the clocks in 1941, have a snooze button. Unless we were in the military, we went back to sleep. For example, most tall buildings still don’t have a helipad, which could have saved many on 9/11.

Most modern Americans are unused to getting up before dawn to tend farm animals. They watch hours of TV, not because it’s always interesting, but because it’s always available. Most modern Americans are more accustomed to being entertained than to facing unpleasant realities. We want quick answers to complex problems. We want the world to be like a video game.

If the answer doesn’t come quickly, we tend to lose interest. If our war against terrorists isn’t over fast, our minds shift back to our everyday interests. We revert to a 9/10 mindset in a 9/11 world. We are losing our ability to fight a determined enemy. We measure the war in weeks and years. Our enemies think in decades, even generations. We count our casualties by the day and by the month. Our enemies don’t count theirs at all.

Military personnel, police officers, firefighters, and paramedics face unpleasant realities every day. But for many of the rest of us, a snooze button on the alarm clock is a necessary innovation. TV has shortened our attention span. Fewer people read books or even newspapers. If our attention isn’t grabbed by a seven-second sound bite, our minds wander. We want to reach for the remote and “channel surf.”

But the world is not a TV. We have no remote control. Whatever degree of control we do have must be exercised on the scene, not remotely, and with difficulty and danger. Nor is the world an alarm clock. There is no snooze button. If we are so lazy and uncaring as to go back to sleep after the alarm has sounded, we will deserve what befalls us.

If we allow ourselves to doze off in a 9/11 world, our prospects for a long sleep are excellent.

A prior version of this article appeared in 2007. Little has changed since then, and what did change has changed for the worse. 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

One need not be a news junkie to know that Egypt, a nation of over 80 million people, is teetering on the brink. The hope for Middle East peace, as well as the Suez Canal, a key choke point for world commerce, both hang in the balance. If Egypt falls one way, there will be a chance for modernization and democratic reforms. If it falls the other way, the extremist Muslim Brotherhood will take over.

Well, now we know which way Egypt will fall − and fall it did. In the recent election, the first apparently free election in Egypt’s 5000-year history, the extremist Muslim Brotherhood received at least 40% of the vote, and perhaps as much as 45%. The even more extreme Salafist party received about 20%, so the two extreme Islamist parties garnered at least 60% of the vote. And being extreme and well organized, these groups’ influence will probably exceed even this figure.

What will this mean?

The Suez Canal is the northern entrance to the Red Sea. The southern entrance is the Gulf of Aden. On the west of the latter choke point is Somalia, where pirates roam free to prey on shipping. On the east is Yemen, now in the throes of similar public unrest. Lebanon is effectively under the control of Hezbollah − that is, of Iran. Iran also controls the Strait of Hormuz, the choke point through which the oil of Iraq, Iran, and much of Saudi Arabia must pass.

Radicalization of Muslims and persecution of Christians is also happening in Morocco, Libya, Algeria, Lebanon, and in our “allies” of Iraq and Afghanistan. If all that doesn’t make you anxious, you are either remarkably calm or on medication.

Let us distinguish between democracy and freedom. Recall that Hitler came to power by largely democratic means. The Nazi Party got the largest share of votes, though not a majority. Hitler was named chancellor, the equivalent of prime minister, in an attempt to quell political and economic unrest. He lost no time in seizing all power, but in the guise of legal procedures.

The Germans had democracy for a time, but they ended up with no freedom at all. They and the world paid a very high price for this exercise in democracy.

Democracy is a tool. What results depends on the people who use it. You can use a hammer to repair your neighbor’s roof, or to bash his brains out. Our founders were conscientious men who loved freedom. They used democratic means wisely, to establish the freest nation in the world. We are still relatively free because of their foresight. Whether we are on the road to more freedom or less is a question we must ask ourselves between now and next November.

But what do Egyptians want? One-half of Egyptians are under age 30. What do these young people want? Yes, many use cell phones, surf the Internet, and use Twitter and Facebook. This means that they can organize much more easily than revolutionaries of the past. But to what purpose?

Unlike the Bolsheviks in the Russia of 1917, they need not print leaflets on underground presses, then distribute them by hand, risking arrest. But like the Bolsheviks, they can fuel an anti-freedom revolution. I believe that many Egyptians want to be left alone to make a living and raise a family. They want a shred of political and economic freedom.

But now we know that many others want to establish an Iranian-style Islamic state, under their version of Sharia law.

● They want to deprive women of the few rights they have in the sexist Egypt of today. For example, 97% of Egyptian women are estimated to have undergone female genital mutilation.

● They want to express unremitting hostility to America and Western values.

● They want to oppress and persecute − even more than is now the case − the 10% of Egyptians who are Coptic Christians, and who belong to one of the oldest Christian churches on earth.

● They want to renounce the peace treaty with Israel. Israel gave back the Sinai, with its strategic location and its oil wells, and in return got the treaty. So much for “land for peace” − the land is gone forever, but the peace can vanish tomorrow. What a deal!

Some Egyptian women boycotted the election, sensing what would result. So assume 40% of the voters were women. At least 60% of the votes went to Islamist parties. This means that many women voted for candidates who will restrict women’s rights even more than they already are. And let’s be honest − the great majority of Egyptian women could not undergo genital mutilation without the cooperation of mothers, aunts, and older sisters. Once again we see that for many people, freedom is not highly valued.

Mubarak, like many dictators, apparently believed he would live forever. Finally, when he was in his eighties, he groomed his son to take over. But the son had no experience. Mubarak had no Plan B.

But we also had no Plan B. What if he died suddenly? What if he became disabled? What if he were displaced in a coup? What if he were overthrown in a revolution? Somewhere in the bowels of the State Department or the CIA, there must be a dusty file titled, “What to do if Mubarak falls,” but President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were unaware of it. They uttered platitudes and appeared confused and weak.

Confused and weak are poor qualities for the leaders of a great nation. Americans would like to be loved. This may not be possible. Then we would be satisfied to be respected. We might even settle for being feared. But do you recall the image of President Obama bowing deeply to the king of Saudi Arabia? I recall it vividly.

http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/bowone.jpg

More importantly, millions in the Muslim world, where symbolism is important, also recall this image. Bowing deeply to a man many do not respect, and whom they see as a remnant of the corrupt, tyrannical past, was not the way to represent the power and devotion to freedom that America should represent.

Even if we occupied a position of strength, there might not have been much we could have done at that late date. Many Egyptians see us the same way many Iranians saw us in 1979, when the shah fell and was replaced by the ayatollahs. We are seen as supporters of the status quo, which the people no longer tolerated. After 30 years of supporting Mubarak, we can’t blame Egyptians for seeing us that way.

So what can we do?

We should try to persuade Egyptians to form a government that encourages freedom − or at least tolerates it. But we must do so quietly. Recall that the demonstrators carried placards showing Mubarak in an Uncle Sam hat. Being pro-American would be a sure way for an Egyptian politician to lose his credibility − or worse.

There are three possible goals of foreign policy: love, respect, and fear.

We should announce that we will cut off all aid unless Egypt allows at least some freedom. Better late than never − but in this case, not much better. And we can cut off aid if the persecution and murder of Christians and the burning of churches continue. Islamists already call us “crusaders.” Standing up for Christians could hardly make us less loved, but it could make us more respected.

Who can respect people who abandon their friends and co-religionists to persecution and murder? Who can respect people who caution their Marines not to face Mecca when they relieve themselves? And with our military already overstretched, and our president bowing when he should stand tall, fear is no longer an option. Loved? Respected? Feared? Are you joking? How about despised and ridiculed? People who let others tell them which way to face when they relieve themselves are ridiculous.

In the Muslim world, they vote away their freedoms because of the promise of religious extremism. In the Western world, we vote away our freedoms because of the promise of “free” government benefits. In both cases, the result is economic stagnation and loss of freedom.

The lesson of Egypt is that democracy and freedom are two different things. Whether they go together depends on the values of the people who practice democracy. This is true for Egyptians, and it is just as true for us.

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

I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.
− Barack Obama, 2007

We are not talking about ideals − deeply held values that guide us in life. We are talking about the ideal − the ideal spouse, the ideal candidate, the ideal nation. If we compare our spouse, our candidate, or our nation to these imaginary examples of perfection, we guarantee that we will be unhappy. And if we try to create paradise on earth, we risk creating hell on earth.

Some people claim to be looking for a spouse but never find one. Each person they date has some flaw. Everyone has flaws, but the person is not compared to others they dated or met at work. They are not compared to spouses of their friends. Instead, prospective spouses are compared to film stars. No one, no matter how beautiful or handsome, no matter how kind or fun-loving, can survive comparison to idealized, fictional characters − who have experts to make them up and style their hair, and writers to compose the clever words they say.

Worse still are people who are married and do something similar. They compare their wife not to real women, but to Playboy photos of women with nose jobs and boob jobs, and the defects photoshopped out. In reality, these women may have shrill voices and intolerable personalities. They compare their husband not to a man they actually know, but to media images of handsome, rich playboys. In reality, these men may be obnoxious egotists on the verge of bankruptcy. But who wants reality when we can have fantasy? And with electronic media, we can have fantasy 24/7.

If there is anything guaranteed to cause dissatisfaction in personal life, it is comparing parents, children, spouses, or friends not to actual people, but to fantasies that are impossible to equal. Unreasonable expectations make for unhappy people. This mode of thinking betrays a childish narcissism: I am spectacular, so I deserve a spectacular spouse, spectacular children, and a spectacular job.

The same principle holds in public life.

Many people, especially those on the left, compare America not to other nations, but to some imaginary ideal of a nation. Nations, like people, have flaws. A good way to evaluate both is to look at these flaws over time. There is racism and sexism in America. But even the harshest critic must admit that there is less racism and sexism now than in former generations. Yet many people refuse to compare America to what it was in the past. To them, it doesn’t matter that America is less racist and sexist that it used to be. It doesn’t matter that many other nations are more racist or sexist. No, to these people the only thing that matters is that America fails to attain their imaginary ideal of perfect harmony and fairness.

Of course, this “failure” justifies extremists in their extremism. If things need some improvement, moderate measures are called for. But if things are really awful, if the system is “broken,” then extreme measures are needed. So a politician need not specify what he intends to do. He need only call for “change.”

“Change” what? “Change” to what? But if a generation has gone to college and been taught by leftist professors that America is rotten through and through, few ask these obvious questions. If things are that bad, many people assume that almost any “change” would be for the better. How’s that working for you?

The problem, however, is that leftists assume that only leftist politicians will come to power on a promise of “change.” But who can guarantee that the “change” will be in the direction leftists want? Radicals of both Left and Right demand “change.” It is difficult to imagine a politician more critical of the status quo and more demanding of “change” than Hitler. Those who vote for “change” without specifying what they want changed − and what they want it changed to − deserve whatever the demagogue they elect chooses to dish out.

● If our health-care system has problems, we need to identify and solve those problems. But if our health-care system is “broken,” we need it to be radically transformed. We need nationalized health care. We do not compare our system to Canada and Britain, with their long waits and rationed care. We do not compare our system to France, where health-care workers cannot exceed a 35-hour week even in an emergency, and as a result thousands die. Instead, we compare our system to an ideal system, where everyone gets first-class care at coach-class rates. But we ignore the fact that America, with 4% of the world’s population, is responsible for over 60% of the Nobel Prizes in Medicine, and for the majority of new drugs and treatments. That doesn’t sound “broken” to me.

● If our pharmaceutical industry has problems, we need to identify and solve those problems. But if our pharmaceutical industry is “broken,” we need it to be radically transformed. We do not compare our industry to that of the Soviet Union, which in 74 years produced virtually no new drugs. We do not compare our industry to those of other nations, which produce only a fraction of the new drugs ours produces. Instead, we compare our industry to an ideal industry, which continues to turn out lifesaving new drugs despite a reduced or absent profit motive. We enjoy a tasty dinner of roast goose, never worrying about where we will get more golden eggs.

● If our economic system has problems, we need to identify and solve those problems. But if our economic system is “broken,” we need it to be radically transformed. We need to remove the profit motive, so people will be free to work hard all day out of pure altruism. That this is utterly impractical makes no difference. That the Soviet Union collapsed after 74 years makes no difference. That China abandoned communism and embraced state capitalism makes no difference. That socialist Europe is collapsing as we speak makes no difference. All those people didn’t do it right, but our self-anointed elite are convinced that they know how to do socialism right.

● If our government has problems, we need to identify and solve those problems. But if our government is “broken,” we need it to be radically transformed. We need to give it even more power to enforce “change.” We forget Washington’s warning that government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. We ignore all the nations where centralized power led to tyranny. Instead, we compare our government to an ideal government, where vast power is wielded by saintly politicians who never misuse it.

Constant repetition that things are “broken” and that we must have “change” may sound good to the shallow, but to the thoughtful such words are demagogic, even frightening.

The more we chase the ideal with our heads in the air, the more likely we are to fall into a hole. In the last century, people chasing the ideal fell into some really deep ones − communism, fascism, and Nazism. Over 160 million human beings died because of these attempts to create a paradise on earth. Let us try to be worthy of paradise in the next world. In this world, let us seek reasonable, practical, gradual, safe improvements, and reject wild-eyed pursuit of “change” in a quest for some theoretical ideal.

In choosing a candidate, we should compare the candidates actually running for office to one another, not to some ideal candidate we imagine. None of the current candidates is the ideal conservative. Somewhere, sometime such a candidate might exist. But we are citizens of this country at this time.

Our duty is to choose the best candidate of those now running, according to our judgment of which one shares more of our values. Our duty is to select the candidate who has the best chance of defeating Barack Obama and reversing our current course toward even bigger government and even less freedom.

If we do less than our best because he is not our ideal candidate, we will share the blame for what happens.

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