SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (192492)10/16/2001 12:35:08 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 769670
 
A patriot for me

Philip Terzian

jewishworldreview.com -- POOR Samuel Johnson.

The only one of his aphorisms nearly everybody knows -- "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" -- is not only widely misunderstood, but may never have been uttered at all: We are entirely reliant on James Boswell's word, in his famous Life. Johnson and his friends were dining and conversing in a tavern, it is said, when Johnson erupted. And Boswell saw fit to explain to startled readers that "he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak for self-interest."

Since Sept. 11, we have been been contemplating patriotism more than usual, and considering what is and is not patriotic. Of course, many Americans bask in devotion to their country -- to lengths, some might say, that border on bigotry -- while others revel in contempt and disdain. Speaking to an antiwar gathering on the campus at Brown University, a local activist named Peter Zedrin is reported to have said that "I was cheering when the Pentagon got hit .... The American flag is nothing but a symbol of hate and should be used for toilet paper, for all I care."

Mr. Zedrin notwithstanding, many Americans have found that the events of Sept. 11 reawakened something dormant in their souls, or broadened their vision of what their country means to them. It is not easy to articulate such things, and most people don't try; but there is little question that something is in the air. Peril is bound to generate a sense of fellowship.

President Bush is enjoying stratospheric levels of popularity in public opinion -- not so much because people approve of his particular policies, but because he is our leader in a time of national crisis. Cars are festooned with American flags, signs and slogans are posted on bridges, the ghost of Kate Smith is belting "G-d Bless America."

And this being the United States in the early 21st century, all of this collides with the spirit of the age. Lehigh University banned displays of the American flag on campus in order, according to Vice Provost John Smeaton, "to keep from offending some of our students .... The message was supposed to be that we are sensitive to everyone." Bill Schrempf, the CEO of NCCI Holdings in Boca Raton, Fla., ordered all flags removed from employees' desks because "divisive statements or actions ... that could mean different things to different people are not appropriate in our work environment."

Meanwhile, atheists have enlisted the American Civil Liberties Union to help them contend with feelings of exclusion when public officials invoke the deity. Gail Pepin, a nonbeliever in Chicago, complains that "there's this big unity, but it's all under G-d." Says Ron Barrier, a spokesman for American Atheists Inc.: "We are essentially being left out ... of the grieving process simply because we will not let ourselves get emotionally involved with a supernatural cause and effect."

I know how Mr. Barrier feels, although for different reasons. That is why I have mixed feelings about the ban certain television networks have imposed on news readers who wish to wear American flag pins on their blouses or in their lapels while on camera. It is, to my way of thinking, a comparatively harmless gesture, and scarcely subverts their professional responsibility. I must admit, however, that I would be reluctant to wear such a pin myself.

This is not, I hasten to add, because I share Peter Zedrin's view of the flag -- which I am pleased to display at home on certain occasions -- but entirely for aesthetic reasons. American flag lapel pins emerged in the latter stages of the Vietnam war, and served as a kind of symbolic rebuke for the antiwar movement. Yet while I could appreciate the sentiments inspiring pins at the time, I could never quite avoid the thought that they were slightly absurd. This was particularly evident when the President would sport one. Could anyone doubt that Richard Nixon was president of the United States and not, say, Argentina? When George W. Bush appears in public wearing an American flag lapel pin, it is as if he has one of those "Hello! I'm" stickers affixed to his jacket.

I think we can recognize when people express a loathing for their country, such as one who exults in the death of innocent people. But displaying an affection for one's country takes different forms. Some are more comfortable with a kind of understated patriotism; others advertise their loyalty on their sleeve. It's a question of taste.

But to suggest that the emotions which impel a student to wave the flag on the Lehigh campus is "divisive," or complain when grieving people are moved to mention G-d, is to undermine the value and meaning of freedom, which allows us to express ourselves in various ways.

With apologies to Samuel Johnson, we are all scoundrels now.

jewishworldreview.com



To: calgal who wrote (192492)10/17/2001 1:01:10 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 769670
 
White House Urges House to Back Economic Stimulus

dailynews.yahoo.com



To: calgal who wrote (192492)10/17/2001 1:05:50 PM
From: goldworldnet  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Killing of Far-Right Israeli Leader Brings Complete Break in Talks
By JAMES BENNET October 16, 2001
nytimes.com

JERUSALEM, Oct. 17 -- Palestinian gunmen killed Israel's senior far-right leader in a swift, silent raid on a hotel here this morning, prompting the Israeli government to break off all communications with Palestinian leaders and bringing new efforts for peace here to the brink of collapse.

In a somber address this afternoon to the Israeli Parliament, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon held Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, personally responsible for the attack, the first slaying ever by Palestinians of an elected Israeli politician.

``Only despicable terrorists can dream of assassinating an elected official in a democratic state,'' Mr. Sharon said. ``Full responsibility falls squarely on Arafat, as someone who has controlled, and continues to control, terrorism.''

He accused Mr. Arafat of not taking ``even one serious step to prevent terrorism.'' Mr. Arafat's spokesman condemned the killing of the minister, Rehavam Zeevi, 75. Mr. Zeevi resigned from Mr. Sharon's government on Monday, accusing it of buckling to American pressure and softening its stance toward the Palestinians. His resignation was to take effect this afternoon.

Israeli officials were unified in demanding that Mr. Arafat take immediate steps to punish the killers, and Agence France-Presse reported that Mr. Arafat had ordered his police force to arrest the killers.

Yossi Sarid, the left-wing opposition leader, told Parliament that Mr. Arafat and other Palestinian leaders faced an immediate test. `If they fail the test,'' he said, ``the land will burn, the fire will rage, and no one will be able to put it out.''

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack, and the Arabic-language network Al Jazeera broadcast a videotape of three men said to be the gunmen. They were brandishing semi-automatic weapons, their faces hidden by red-and-white clothes.

The group, a secular, putatively Marxist organization, said it was acting in revenge for the killing on Aug. 27 of its leader, Mustafa Zibri, known as Abu Ali Mustafa.

Israeli helicopters fired two missiles into Mr. Zibri's offices in Ramallah. At the time, the Popular Front accused Israel of widening the conflict to include political figures, and it threatened to respond against Israeli politicians. The Israeli government said Mr. Zibri had masterminded car bombings.

Mr. Sharon rescinded some of the measures he had taken Sunday to loosen some travel restrictions on Palestinians. The West Bank cities of Ramallah and Nablus were sealed off.

In what appeared to be a carefully planned operation, Mr. Zeevi was shot twice shortly after 7 a.m, the police said. He was hit once in the head and once in the neck when he returned to his room on the V.I.P. floor of the Hyatt hotel here after breakfast, the police said. A third bullet missed him. The police said they believed the attackers used a silencer.

Mr. Zeevi was found face down in the hallway by his wife when she returned to the room minutes later, the police said. On hearing her screams, an American staying in the hotel opened his door and rushed to her aid. He later told Israel radio that attempts by anther guest to provide emergency care were unavailing, and Mr. Zeevi appeared dead.

Mr. Zeevi was taken to Hadassah Ein Kerem hospital, where his condition was described as critical. He was later declared dead.

The police blocked off the hotel soon after the attack, preventing all workers and guests from leaving. The Hyatt, which is within eyesight of the national police headquarters, sits on what Palestinians consider to be occupied territory between the French Hill neighborhood and Mount Scopus, where Hebrew University is situated. That area of Jerusalem abuts Palestinian neighborhoods.

Mr. Zeevi, who had been a member of the Israeli Parliament and minister of tourism, often stayed at the Hyatt when Parliament was in session, as it is now. He lived in Ramat Hasharon, a suburb of Tel Aviv.

The police said it was not clear why Mr. Zeevi had no bodyguards. He was said to resist such security for himself.

Known with some irony as ``Gandhi'' because of his likeness, at least in his youth, to the Indian leader, Mr. Zeevi argued strongly within the Sharon government against negotiation with the Palestinian leadership. He served in the army from 1948, the year of Israel's founding, until 1974, rising to major general. After the 1967 war, Mr. Zeevi took partin drawing the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.

Mr. Zeevi favored what he described as the ``voluntary transfer'' of alestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In a recent interview, he said that Mr. Arafat should be provided with a ``one-way ticket to Tunis,'' and, if he resisted, he should perhaps even be killed.

``I'm no vegetarian,` Mr. Zeevi told The New York Times.

It was a decision by Mr. Sharon to withdraw troops from two Palestinian neighborhoods in the West Bank city of Hebron that led to Mr. Zeevi's resignation. The troops had taken over the neighborhoods to prevent sniper fire on Israeli settlers, who were furious at the withdrawal. Settlers were an important component of Mr. Zeevi political base.

In recent days, Israeli forces had eased some travel restrictions on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in response to diplomatic pressure and a drop in the violence in those area.

Mr. Zeevi resigned with Avigdor Lieberman, the minister of infrastructure. Both men represented the National Union-Yisrael Beitenu faction, and they took with them seven seats in Parliament, reducing Mr. Sharon's coalition to 76 seats out of 120.

It was not immediately clear if Mr. Lieberman would rescind his resignation after today's killing. To do so, he would have to act by 1 p.m.

Mr. Zeevi and Mr. Lieberman were both under pressure on Tuesday from Sharon allies to reverse their decision and stay in the cabinet. Their defection was not an immediate threat to the government, since it would take 61 votes to force new elections.

But it was the most tangible evidence to date of the erosion of Mr. Sharon's support on the right.

* * *