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 : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (1387)	12/10/2001 11:58:50 PM
From: rich4eagle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15516

Thanks for letting me be part of your thread, I hope I can add value in the future.

To: Mephisto who wrote (1387)	12/27/2001 11:46:35 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Patriotism and freedom STLToday.com 12/26/2001 05:45 AM "The report by the group that Mrs. CHENEY heads, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, is particularly chilling. The group last month detailed more than 100 instances of insufficiently patriotic campus responses to the Sept. 11 attack. Though Mrs. Cheney's group claims to be committed to academic freedom, it ridiculed the academic world for "expressions of pervasive moral relativism" and "political correctness." Seemingly oblivious to the irony, Mrs. Cheney laid out more than 100 statements that VIOLATE HER STANDARDS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS." LIBERTY VS. SECURITY IN most nations, patriotism is as simple as waving the flag. But in America, where we value freedom above all else, patriotism is a lot more complicated. We wave the flag, but protect the flag-burner. We recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but protect the person who remains silent out of moral or religious scruples. We report the government's account from the battlefront, but also the enemy's. Since Sept. 11, in hundreds of towns, universities, newsrooms and offices, freedom has clashed with a love-it-or-leave-it brand of patriotism: * A group headed by Lynne V. CHENEY, the vice president's wife, branded more than 100 statements on college campuses as insufficiently patriotic. * A commencement crowd in Sacramento, Calif., heckled a newspaper publisher from the stage when she had the temerity to speak about civil liberties. * Congress ordered the Voice of America not to interview anyone associated with terrorists. * The school board in Madison, Wis., ignited a furor when it decided not to require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools. * Attorney General John D. ASHCROFTt implied that civil libertarians were aiding the enemy when they criticized his law enforcement tactics. The report by the group that Mrs. CHENEY heads, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, is particularly chilling. The group last month detailed more than 100 instances of insufficiently patriotic campus responses to the Sept. 11 attack. Though Mrs. Cheney's group claims to be committed to academic freedom, it ridiculed the academic world for "expressions of pervasive moral relativism" and "political correctness." Seemingly oblivious to the irony, Mrs. Cheney laid out more than 100 statements that violate her standards of political correctness. No. 60 on the list was a remark from by unidentified person at a Washington University faculty forum: "The United States would have done the right thing (by not going to war); responding as a responsible member of the international community rather than as a vigilante gunslinger in the old West." A Stanford University professor was slammed for saying, "If Osama bin Laden is confirmed to be behind the attacks, the United States should bring him before an international tribunal on charges of crimes against humanity." Mrs. CHENEY and her group are especially critical of colleges adding courses on Islam. "To say that it is more important now (to study Islam) implies that the events of Sept. 11 were our fault," said Mrs. Cheney. This is absurd, close-minded and self-defeating. It would doom America to losing the war against Islamic fundamentalism, because we would not have the tools to win the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims. The publisher of The Sacramento Bee, Janis Besler Heaphy ran into this closed-minded attitude when she delivered a commencement speech early this month at California State University's Sacramento campus. Ms. Heaphy said, "No one argues the validity and the need for both retaliation and security. But to what lengths are we willing to go to achieve them? Specifically, to what degree are we willing to compromise our civil liberties in the name of security?" Students and parents booed her from the stage. Newsrooms are the front lines in skirmishes between freedom and patriotism. Politicians who argue in peacetime that the press should be more objective blast editors who strive for objectivity during war. Missouri legislators threatened the funding of the Journalism School at the University of Missouri after the news director of the school's TV station tried to preserve his staff's objectivity by barring red-white-and-blue lapel ribbons. Last week, Congress instructed the Voice of America to report how it is complying with the new rule that prohibits the broadcast of "interviews with any official from nations that sponsor terrorism or any representative or member of terrorist organizations." The VOA rule may sound patriotic. But it interferes with the freedom of the journalists at the Voice of America. It is also self-defeating. The credibility of the Voice of America depends on the fairness of its broadcasts. Strictly construed, the rule would have prevented the VOA from broadcasting the videotape of Osama bin Laden incriminating himself to the world - a video for which the Bush administration sought wide distribution. In some instances, the press has meekly caved in to official efforts to manage the news. A CNN executive ordered his correspondents to balance images of civilian devastation in Afghanistan with reminders that the Taliban harbored murderous terrorists. And the networks quickly gave in to White House pressure not to broadcast extensive excerpts of videos made by bin Laden -until the video of an unrehearsed bin Laden emerged. Some liberals' reactions to patriotism have been equally extreme. Liberals on the Madison, Wis., school board were so afraid of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance that they ordered the national anthem to be played in schools instead - an instrumental version that avoids the militaristic lyrics about the "rockets' red glare." Similarly, in Berkeley, Calif., city officials ordered the removal of large American flags from fire trucks after protests by liberals. And the Berkeley student senate demanded a front-page apology when the student newspaper, the Daily Californian, ran an "insensitive" cartoon of bin Laden in Hell. A few law professors have even suggested, absurdly, that Mr. Ashcroft's chilling remark about critics aiding the enemy was itself a violation of the free speech rights of his critics. Freedom is a complicated idea. It is less about right and wrong and more about the process by which our society sorts out right from wrong. The remarks of Mr. Ashcroft and Ms. Cheney and the cartoon in the Daily Californian are protected by the same ideal of freedom that shelters the criticism of the war, the call for greater understanding of Muslims and the school board member's opposition to recital of the Pledge of Allegiance. We are at war to protect this country and its complicated ideals. True patriotism requires protecting freedom in all of its wonderful and infuriating forms. stltoday.com E-mail this Story to a friend