An article in the national section of today's New York Times reports on a teenage pilot who crashed a small plane into a Tampa office building in what a suicide note said was a gesture of support for Osama bin Laden.
"Law enforcement officials had no explanation of why the youth developed sympathy for Osama Bin Laden," the Times reports. The Times also reports that "none" of the pilot's neighbors and school acquaintances in Florida and Massachusetts could recall the boy's father.
Well, "none" might be a bit of an overstatement. Maybe "none" of the neighbors and school acquaintances that the New York Times could find. But this morning's Tampa Tribune quotes one of the pilot's classmates saying, "I remember him saying his father was foreign, but I don't remember what nationality." The Tampa Tribune also reports that authorities are looking into the possibility that the pilot was part Arab. "According to public records, the family name was once Bishara," the Tampa Tribune reports. Bishara is also the last name of an Israeli Arab lawmaker, Azmi Bishara. The Israeli parliament voted in November to lift Mr. Bishara's parliamentary immunity so that he could be prosecuted for incitement against Israel in connection with a June 10, 2001, speech to an audience in Syria that included the leader of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorist organization. In the speech, Mr. Bishara told Arabs to choose "the path of resistance," according to an Associated Press report.
There is a big difference between law enforcement officials saying they had "no explanation" and law enforcement officials saying that they were investigating whether the pilot was part Arab. Even if he were part Arab, that still wouldn't be a good explanation for why he would crash a plane into an American office building -- there are, needless to say, many Arabs who abhor such behavior -- but, in the context of the war that some Arabs and some non-Arab Muslims are waging against America and Israel, such information could provide a bit more than "no explanation."
Great Appeal: An article in the metro section of today's New York Times reports about Governor Pataki: "Last year, Mr. Pataki offered proposals for easing the state's Rockefeller-era penalties for drug sale and possession, an idea with great appeal to the moderate, liberal and minority voters the Republicans have been trying to court." If getting softer on criminals has such "great appeal" to moderate voters as the Times news department imagines it does, one wonders why these penalties have not been eased since they were passed back in the Rockefeller era. Are the district attorneys who oppose the easing immoderate, in the view of the Times news department?