Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (3963)	2/3/2001 3:15:12 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Archibald Carey's Speech Republican National Convention, 1952 We, Negro Americans, sing with all loyal Americans: My country 'tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, Land of the Pilgrims' pride From every mountainside Let freedom ring! That's exactly what we mean-- from every mountain side, let freedom ring. Not only from the Green Mountains and White Mountains of Vermont and New Hampshire; not only from the Catskills of New York; but from the Ozarks in Arkansas, from the Stone Mountain in Georgia, from the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia --let it ring not only for the minorities of the United States, but for the disinherited of all the earth--may the Republican Party, under God, from every mountainside, LET FREEDOM RING! chem-gharbison.unl.edu

To: Neocon who wrote (3963)	2/3/2001 2:16:24 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

I think plagiarism is no uncommon among ministers. And is not considered a sin. I wouldn't be too excited about it.

To: Neocon who wrote (3963)	2/5/2001 7:55:40 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

I know you have a special interest in the Holocaust Museum. What do you think if this from the WSJ this morning? February 5, 2001 Tikkun Olam In the Jewish tradition, tikkun olam means "to act, Godlike, to improve the world." We have that on the authority of Rabbi Irving Greenberg, Chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, which runs the Washington-based museum. More interesting, however, is the context: a December 11 letter to then-President Clinton, imploring him to perform "one of the most Godlike actions that anyone ever can do." To wit, "this letter is written to urge you to give the opportunity for a new life to Mr. Marc Rich." Written on museum stationery, it was dispatched between two other 11th-hour Clinton actions on the memorial: designating it a "permanent authorization" (easing the approval process for taxpayer dollars), and appointing six new council members -- Maya Angelou, Stuart Eizenstat, some big Democratic contributors, etc. The Rich pardon followed. Some readers may recall that we were recently involved in a tussle of our own with Rabbi Greenberg, after we published an Ira Stoll article that criticized the rabbi for a recent speech he'd given on the Palestinian-Israeli violence and placed the speech in the context of the politicization of the Holocaust Memorial. The museum and Mr. Stoll have crossed swords before, over the attempted appointment of Claremont Professor John Roth as director of the memorial's Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies. Mr. Roth withdrew after Mr. Stoll, then of the Forward, publicized the professor's ruminations discussing the Reagan election in the context of the Nazis and connecting Kristallnacht with Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. The memorial seems to respond to criticism by throwing tantrums. Back when the Roth story broke, its executive council passed resolutions attacking "character assassination" by its critics (passed unanimously) and reaffirming Mr. Roth's appointment (passed with one dissenter). Similarly, within Mr. Stoll's Journal story in December, Rabbi Greenberg characterized the criticisms of his remarks as "McCarthyism." In the Jewish Week story that followed, the rabbi's defenders reached for the same metaphor ("Greenberg Attack Called 'Witch Hunt' "). If this were a privately funded museum, this would be simply an internal Jewish spat. But with 60% of its funding coming from the government, the Holocaust Memorial's actions have a tacit federal imprimatur. And it has been political since birth, dating from its origins as a sop from Jimmy Carter to American Jews opposed to his sale of F-15s to the Saudis. Indeed, this government connection is precisely the cause of many of the Holocaust Memorial's embarrassments, from the invitation extended to Yasser Arafat to that given to Croatian president Franjo Tudjman at its opening (said to be at the request of the State Department). And the memorial continues to be involved in numerous political issues, from calling for an international court of justice to the screening of a film on the McCarthy blacklist to seminars on the "genocide" in Guatemala and concern about the burning of black churches -- all of which seem far from the original intent to memorialize the victims of Hitler's holocaust. Now, we would agree that George W. Bush has more important things on his agenda than the running of the Holocaust Memorial. But clearly President Clinton, who began his Administration by firing the Republican who was serving as chairman, and in turn replaced that chairman with Rabbi Greenberg, took it seriously enough to issue his last-minute appointees. In an earlier Jewish Week story about the Greenberg-Journal flap, the paper reported that to "counter" the criticism, "some museum supporters are quietly urging Clinton to make as many last-minute appointments to the council as he can -- in part to buy Rabbi Greenberg some breathing space." Holocaust Memorial spokesman Arthur Berger refuted this report, saying that it is "very typical for a President" to appoint people to commissions and councils just before his term ends. True, Messrs. Reagan and Bush each appointed board members in January. But from the first Mr. Clinton has politicized the memorial, and Rabbi Greenberg and the present management have been parties to those efforts. A recent visit to the museum reassured us that surprisingly little of this politicization has yet crept into its permanent exhibits. But this is not a Jewish issue; the urge toward politicization seems endemic in the industry. Even the Smithsonian attempted to turn an Enola Gay exhibit on the anniversary of Hiroshima to indict the U.S. for dropping the bomb. With a Museum of the American Indian about to open on the Mall and with calls for a new slavery memorial, it's not difficult to see the possibility of an endless procession of such works: to the Scottsboro Boys, the victims of the Triangle Shirt Waist Factory fire -- all concerned less with history than with scoring contemporary political points. Given how Mr. Clinton has presented himself as the savior of the Constitution, the embodiment of African-American suffering and the champion of women, can it really be any surprise that he would view the Holocaust as simply one other vehicle to be appropriated for his own convenience? It strikes us that Rabbi Greenberg and his friends at the Holocaust Memorial, who have been so quick to denounce as McCarthyite anyone who dares suggest that politics might have infected their operations, owe the American taxpayer something more than the suggestion that the problem with the Rich letter was simply the wrong piece of stationery. It looks to us to be part of a trend.