8 June 2005
Grinding Ground Zero
Um, no, I won't be visiting the City of New York this year.
And if the insufferable bastards of the Blame America crowd have their way, you can extend that promise until eternity.
If they must have a place for their Celebration of Man's Inhumanity to Man, allow me to offer a suggestion:
1. Crash a jet into the UN Secretariat Building.
2. Voilà! Instant site.
Here's Terrye, commenting at Roger L. Simon's site. She gets it:
Is nothing sacred?
I mean it, is there nothing that Soros and his nasty money can not buy?
The memorial in OKC was not a tribute to why white extremists hate us, it was a memorial to the people who died that day when Tim McVeigh blew up the federal building.
It would seem to me that the people who died on 9/11 deserve no less.
Damned right. Posted at 9:26 PM to Political Science Fiction
Well, first, if Michelle Malkin and LGF are against something, it's got to have merit. Each of them may have a single-digit accuracy rate, but never both at the same time.
Second, I find it difficult to believe that anyone who's been to the OKC National Memorial would suggest making a 9/11 memorial by crashing a plane into any building. This really is beneath you.
Bad ideas deserve bad implementations.
And I'd be almost as peeved if they'd planned some sort of Yay Us exhibit; the memorial is about those who died, not about those who want to use it to make some rhetorical point.
Can I be next in self-righteously claiming what dead people want? And when can we see "grave-standing" as an official olympic sport? I think Guiliani would make the National Team in a heartbeat, with Keating as a backup reserve.
I have yet to see any evidence that the planned memorial has any kind of "blame America first" method to it, other than the rantings of the wingnut-jobs who think any expression of disagreement is "hating America," and the admission that they decided to keep the thing more apolitical by omitting a pro-Iraq-war propaganda photo of an Iraqi voter - in a memorial of an event that, as we all know, had nothing to do with Iraq but that the Bush Administration desperately wanted us to believe did.
All I read was arrogant anger that the "we own America and you don't" crowd doesn't get to control the content of the memorial to push their own political agenda. What did I miss?
The 9/11 memorial should be like the Oklahoma City Memorial or the Vietnam Memorial. Powerful statements made without politcal rhetoric. We don't need a "hooray for us" monument or round two of George Soros' attempt to unseat George Bush.
I rather like CG's suggestion.
And I submit that anybody who takes it seriously enough to criticize it is lacking the proper degree of understanding of hyperbole.
As it turns out, the "International Freedom Center" that's designing this memorial is a group that endorses Bush's foreign policy, and the wingnuts are upset that, in the name of balance, the group might actually be consulting some non-wingnuts on the content. It's entirely a sham generated to make sure that only they get to define "freedom," and I'm embarassed that anyone is falling for it.
BTW, I seem to remember from my youth that there was significant conservative opposition to the Vietnam Memorial, for the same reasons they opposed Nightline reading the names of all the fallen soldiers last year. And I've read several east-coast pieces criticizing the OKC National Memorial for being "over-the-top," whatever that means, in focusing on those who lost their lives.
This is not to say they're right (the Memorial is actually too powerful for me to visit all that often), but it may indicate that New York would not accept a similar kind of memorial at the WTC site. I think they want people to visit it often, not be intimidated by it, and sometimes I'm intimidated by Fifth and Robinson.
I can understand being intimidated by the OKC memorial; I still tear up at the Fence, ten years after the fact. But it's not so much that I object to the nature of the exhibits there may well be lessons worth learning in the material which has been suggested for inclusion it's simply that I think it belongs somewhere else, where it won't detract from what should be the primary goal of the memorial: to commemmorate those who died on that day.
We did it right when we did it here; there's no reason New York can't follow our lead for once.
There was a lot of initial opposition to the Viet Nam Memorial when the winning design was announced. But the Memorial has enormous power today because there are no politics there, it's simply (but not really) a memorial to the soldiers who died in that war. Each visitor has to make his/her own decision about the Monument and its signifigance. Personally, I think the IFC is a distraction, put it somewhere else.
I feel the best monuments say the least, but simply act as reminders without trying to make people feel a certain way.
But, I'm more upset by the rhetoric of those that resort to the "blame america first" language that serves no other purpose than to turn what could be a debate about the content of the site into another political game of dodgeball. Self righteousness serves little purpose.
Well, I'm not cutting the slightest bit of slack to anyone who is still advancing the notion that somehow "we brought this on ourselves." Those people deserve whatever opprobrium they get.
I'd hope there's a little bit -- just a smidgen -- of daylight between "we brought this on ourselves" and "this happened in a cultural and historical vacuum," but I could be wrong.