A National Shame - Part 2

[kchoya]

Trying to get this back on track...


Honest question - how important is this to those outside the Boston-NYC-Washington corridor? Not diminishing anything about 9/11 or those who were most affected by it, but other than the annual holiday and the national security/foreign policy implications, I really don't give much thought to Daniel Libeskind, Larry Silverstein or the Freedom Tower.

[hifigator]

Not that anything can ever take away the events of that fateful day, but when the Freedom Tower(s) are completed, I think there will be a sort of closure. We'll still have the memory and certainly some sort of memorial, but not until then can we truly move on, in my opinion.

[hoyatables]

Sept 12, 2008 12:21:17 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Not that anything can ever take away the events of that fateful day, but when the Freedom Tower(s) are completed, I think there will be a sort of closure. We'll still have the memory and certainly some sort of memorial, but not until then can we truly move on, in my opinion.

Why? What does this even mean? Why can't we "move on" until there's a new building? This makes no sense to me.

[Boz]

Personally, I don't think the monuments have anything to do with closure or moving on.

I think these are important symbols of remembrance, and yes, I do think it is a shame that nothing has been completed -- or even begun, really -- in New York. But if it's closure you're looking for, you won't find it there, IMO.

I thought John McCain made a good point - by omission - last night. When asked how do we keep the memory of 9/11 alive for all Americans, he said absolutely nothing about erecting monuments.

I don't want to make a political argument in this thread, but I'll just say that I'm more concerned that America is doing the right things to prevent this from ever happening again and to defeat those who would perpetrate such crimes. Obviously, this is a sensitive point. I think we are doing those things, but I know others disagree. I won't argue that here, we can do that in another thread, but I'm just saying that I think that issue is far more important than any monument.

Having said all of that, jebus, get it done already!

[hifigator]

Sept 12, 2008 12:25:00 GMT -5 hoyatables said:

Sept 12, 2008 12:21:17 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Not that anything can ever take away the events of that fateful day, but when the Freedom Tower(s) are completed, I think there will be a sort of closure. We'll still have the memory and certainly some sort of memorial, but not until then can we truly move on, in my opinion.

Why? What does this even mean? Why can't we "move on" until there's a new building? This makes no sense to me.

Obviously we can "move on," and for that matter we have. And as Boz mentioned, it's far more important to do what we need to do to prevent such future attacks. My point was that while there is essentially nothing but a giant whole in the ground, where the once mighty towers stood, it's more than just a memory. As someone else mentioned, even greater towers would make a strong statement, but right now, I would think that it's hard to not think of it as a loss to terrorism. And from their angle, I'm sure they still celebrate their "victory." Once the site features the new structures, I don't think either will have the same feelings. That's all I'm saying.

[thebin]

In the previous thread the Stig said "Several of the Americans who were murdered in revenge attacks after 9/11 were Sikhs, not Muslims."

It bothers me how many Americans bought the radically anti-American and hysterical lie that there was widespread revenge-violence in America just after 9/11. The reality is the reaction was remarkably restrained by any measure in the wake of several thousand people being murdered in one morning. There was only one Sikh gentlemen (and no muslims) who was shot and killed by some idiot in Arizona. That's quite a bit different that saying "several of those killed were Sikh." One total before the smoke had cleared and while the numbers of dead was feared to be in the 5 figures.

[strummer8526]

It's not so much that I sit around and fret about the lack of anything built at Ground Zero. My point before was that we missed an opportunity as a nation to send an incredibly powerful message about our resilience. At this point, I don't think that such a message can even be conveyed, no matter what we put there. So yes, I'd like to fill the gaping hole. The bigger and more impressive, the better as far as I'm concerned. But I'm not writing letters to my Congressman or wringing my hands about it.

[thebin]

Put me down in the catagory that has no use for trite monuments loaded with imbecilic symbolism that is subject to 10,000 vetos by loved ones. That is what graveyards are for. Just rebuild dammit.

[thebin]

Sept 12, 2008 12:11:18 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Trying to get this back on track...


Honest question - how important is this to those outside the Boston-NYC-Washington corridor? Not diminishing anything about 9/11 or those who were most affected by it, but other than the annual holiday and the national security/foreign policy implications, I really don't give much thought to Daniel Libeskind, Larry Silverstein or the Freedom Tower.

One would think as an American you would have at least a passing interest in the the world famous skyline of your nations's only true world class city. Don't go reverse fly-by-country on me. Just a post in poor taste all things considered. Thanks for letting us all know how you non-northeastern elites have to suffer so much this time of year due to our overexposure. We'll keep it in mind.

While we are being honest, stop stealing all of the billions in homeland defense money you don't friggen deserve from those of us you are sick of seeing grieve on your tv once a year.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

If they really want a monument they should just leave the gapping whole there. That's a much more powerful symbol of what happened that day.

If not they should just rebuild something and throw a plaque on it or put a statue out front.

[hifigator]

Wow, we've already had one of these threads closed. Looks to me that a couple of you are well on your way to another closure -- pardon the pun.

[kchoya]

Sept 12, 2008 13:40:15 GMT -5 thebin said:

Sept 12, 2008 12:11:18 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Trying to get this back on track...


Honest question - how important is this to those outside the Boston-NYC-Washington corridor? Not diminishing anything about 9/11 or those who were most affected by it, but other than the annual holiday and the national security/foreign policy implications, I really don't give much thought to Daniel Libeskind, Larry Silverstein or the Freedom Tower.

One would think as an American you would have at least a passing interest in the the world famous skyline of your nations's only true world class city. Don't go reverse fly-by-country on me. Just a post in poor taste all things considered. Thanks for letting us all know how you non-northeastern elites have to suffer so much this time of year due to our overexposure. We'll keep it in mind.

While we are being honest, stop stealing all of the billions in homeland defense money you don't friggen deserve from those of us you are sick of seeing grieve on your tv once a year.

Are you going to trot out those crap statistics about how New York only gets $1 per person in homeland defense money versus $5 per person for, say Wyoming? Are you saying Washington and NYC are the only cities "deserving" of protecting?

Way to take my words and twist them, typical for you. Where did I say that I was suffering. In fact, I was looking for someone's opinion other than yours (read the post again). And please don't act like 9/11 is the only day the northeast is overexposed. In fact, that's probably the only day it gets the right amount of exposure.

Why do I think you have a poster of this over your bed:

[strummer8526]

Sept 12, 2008 14:38:09 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Wow, we've already had one of these threads closed. Looks to me that a couple of you are well on your way to another closure -- pardon the pun.

You say this as if your bigotry isn't the reason for the first thread closing.

I also agree though about not having a function-less memorial. I think two brand new towers built from here to the moon would have been the ultimate memorial and the ultimate middle finger to anyone who thinks they can shake this country's resolve. Obviously, a few of the extra floors in the buildings could have been some kind of photo gallery or benches-related memorial, if people so desired. But most importantly, at the time of the attacks, I sort of wanted for someday, bin Laden to wake up one day and see two skyscrapers right back there and just think, "There's nothing that can beat them."

Also, I don't know if the $1/person in NY, $5/person in Wyoming stat is true or if you were just giving an example, but in some cases, the Homeland Security money is TERRIBLY allocated. Just tell me where in Wyoming or South Dakota or Arkansas you would attack if you were a terrorist? It's not a matter of the states not being "worth" defending. It's just that from a strategic standpoint, there's a far smaller chance that they ever become a target.

[kchoya]

Sept 12, 2008 14:53:09 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Sept 12, 2008 14:38:09 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Wow, we've already had one of these threads closed. Looks to me that a couple of you are well on your way to another closure -- pardon the pun.

You say this as if your bigotry isn't the reason for the first thread closing.

I also agree though about not having a function-less memorial. I think two brand new towers built from here to the moon would have been the ultimate memorial and the ultimate middle finger to anyone who thinks they can shake this country's resolve. Obviously, a few of the extra floors in the buildings could have been some kind of photo gallery or benches-related memorial, if people so desired. But most importantly, at the time of the attacks, I sort of wanted for someday, bin Laden to wake up one day and see two skyscrapers right back there and just think, "There's nothing that can beat them."

Also, I don't know if the $1/person in NY, $5/person in Wyoming stat is true or if you were just giving an example, but in some cases, the Homeland Security money is TERRIBLY allocated. Just tell me where in Wyoming or South Dakota or Arkansas you would attack if you were a terrorist? It's not a matter of the states not being "worth" defending. It's just that from a strategic standpoint, there's a far smaller chance that they ever become a target.

Here's one look from the Heritage Foundation: "This translates to $5.03 per capita in California and $37.94 per capita in Wyoming."

There are certain targets in every state. Some are more obvious, like the Metro system or O'Hare. Others are less obvious, like the Intermountain Power Project in the middle of nowhere (trust me) in Utah. That plant supplies electricity for LA and southern California.

Say the a power plant in North Dakota and a power plant in Virginia cost about the same to upgrade security. Of course the dollars per capita are going to be much different in North Dakota than in Virginia.

In fact, I would say you have it exactly opposite. If i were a terrorist, I would look at attacking a power plant or some other critical infrastructure in a less-populated area. It's likely to be less secure, but can still cause havoc on a large population. Say you knock out the power system for Sioux Falls, SD (metropolitan population of 227,171) for a couple of months. Even though there's not a loss of life, the consequences would be enormous. Same think for taking out a couple of rail bridges on key transcontinental routes. That would kill our economy.

[SFHoya99]

I'm pretty sure there are quite a few important military installations in those areas in terms of missiles and the such, but I could be wrong.

People worried about Homeland Security misallocations should worry less about states and more about applications. I don't really see much upgrade around anything I'd consider a target where I see.

[sead43]

Sept 12, 2008 13:38:56 GMT -5 thebin said:

Put me down in the catagory that has no use for trite monuments loaded with imbecilic symbolism that is subject to 10,000 vetos by loved ones. That is what graveyards are for. Just rebuild dammit.

one of the big issues involved in the whole process is that the remains of MANY of the WTC victims have never been found, so for those families, Ground Zero IS the graveyard where their loved ones are "buried" and is therefore sacred ground. that's why the memorial, and even the entire design, has to take into account the needs of the victims' families more so than another memorial might. please think about what you're saying before you post it, especially on a sensitive subject such as this.

[hoyatables]

KC - that's not the way the world should be seen? I'm sooo confused!

[TBird41]

Sept 12, 2008 15:31:21 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Sept 12, 2008 14:53:09 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

You say this as if your bigotry isn't the reason for the first thread closing.

I also agree though about not having a function-less memorial. I think two brand new towers built from here to the moon would have been the ultimate memorial and the ultimate middle finger to anyone who thinks they can shake this country's resolve. Obviously, a few of the extra floors in the buildings could have been some kind of photo gallery or benches-related memorial, if people so desired. But most importantly, at the time of the attacks, I sort of wanted for someday, bin Laden to wake up one day and see two skyscrapers right back there and just think, "There's nothing that can beat them."

Also, I don't know if the $1/person in NY, $5/person in Wyoming stat is true or if you were just giving an example, but in some cases, the Homeland Security money is TERRIBLY allocated. Just tell me where in Wyoming or South Dakota or Arkansas you would attack if you were a terrorist? It's not a matter of the states not being "worth" defending. It's just that from a strategic standpoint, there's a far smaller chance that they ever become a target.

Here's one look from the Heritage Foundation: "This translates to $5.03 per capita in California and $37.94 per capita in Wyoming."

There are certain targets in every state. Some are more obvious, like the Metro system or O'Hare. Others are less obvious, like the Intermountain Power Project in the middle of nowhere (trust me) in Utah. That plant supplies electricity for LA and southern California.

Say the a power plant in North Dakota and a power plant in Virginia cost about the same to upgrade security. Of course the dollars per capita are going to be much different in North Dakota than in Virginia.

In fact, I would say you have it exactly opposite. If i were a terrorist, I would look at attacking a power plant or some other critical infrastructure in a less-populated area. It's likely to be less secure, but can still cause havoc on a large population. Say you knock out the power system for Sioux Falls, SD (metropolitan population of 227,171) for a couple of months. Even though there's not a loss of life, the consequences would be enormous. Same think for taking out a couple of rail bridges on key transcontinental routes. That would kill our economy.

Another good example is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and the Valdez Harbor where the oil is shipped out of, something some terrorists agreed with:

tinyurl.com/4vackk

And, I know, it's Fox News, but that threat was taken deadly seriously by the Feds and DHS.

[thebin]

Sept 12, 2008 15:44:24 GMT -5 sead43 said:

Sept 12, 2008 13:38:56 GMT -5 thebin said:

Put me down in the catagory that has no use for trite monuments loaded with imbecilic symbolism that is subject to 10,000 vetos by loved ones. That is what graveyards are for. Just rebuild dammit.

one of the big issues involved in the whole process is that the remains of MANY of the WTC victims have never been found, so for those families, Ground Zero IS the graveyard where their loved ones are "buried" and is therefore sacred ground. that's why the memorial, and even the entire design, has to take into account the needs of the victims' families more so than another memorial might. please think about what you're saying before you post it, especially on a sensitive subject such as this.

You cannot take into consideration the "needs" of 10,000 people now can you? Utterly impossible. That is why there is still a hole there. You simply cannot grant that many vetos. I noticed you put "buried" in quotations marks. Why? Because of course they are NOT buried there in any sense. They are not still there even though many got no closure of seeing a body. But that land is not, it cannot, be a graveyyard. I'm not willing to grant that land in the heart of our nation's financial center to those pigs who did the killing.

We need a place to memorialize their memory, but of necesity we need some very small group of people to design this memorial and that's it- it cannot be subject to the approval of 10,000 family members. Not if you ever want it to actually happen. Not some vacuous "reflecting pool" or some such nonsense. In my opinion rather than some large scale bad modern art- it should be a massive tombstone stating the facts that 3000 innocent people were murdered near that spot on september 11, 2001 by religious fanatics. Then list their names.

[hifigator]

strummer wrote:

You say this as if your bigotry isn't the reason for the first thread closing.



Where did I say that? I said "We've" .... I was clearly one of the "we" involved in the closing of the first thread, although I would argue inappropriately. Either way, it came well after my controversial comments. Clearly I then said "a couple of you are on the way ...." here. Clearly I am not one of those involved in such a dispute now.


On Edit: Incidentally, it ISN'T bigotry to have a seething hatred for groups of people that hate us and would do us harm. I'm not going to open that can of worms again, but my last comment on the subject was that I clearly used the word "radical." That alone made sure to whom I was referring.