WTC Ground Zero Stolen!

[Samurai]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB111810145819652326-IVjfINjlaJ4n5usa4KGaayIm4,00.html

Gee, what a way to desecrate the site... turn it into a "Hey, look at how evil America is! We deserved this!" museum. Who are the idiots who approved such a place to be created there? Believe me, Soros, Bernstein, and others have just dealt a massive blow to their own cause with this stupid stunt. They're making a lot of enemies, and that number will will only grow when the site opens and people start visiting it.

[dougputhoff]

"There is good and bad in everyone."--Paul McCartney.

[Mike Smash!]

No, you don't hate America if you criticize American foreign policy and say that it played a role in the motivations for the 9/11 attack.

It's nice to see that the writer of this article can read my mind and knows that we lefties hate America and freedom and patriotism.

Hooray for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is famous for referring to any one who questions Bush Administration policy as "pro-Saddam" or "pro-Al Qaeda".

[dougputhoff]

No, you don't hate America if you criticize American foreign policy and say that it played a role in the motivations for the 9/11 attack.

It's nice to see that the writer of this article can read my mind and knows that we lefties hate America and freedom and patriotism.

Hooray for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is famous for referring to any one who questions Bush Administration policy as "pro-Saddam" or "pro-Al Qaeda".

This is, of course, the Same WSJ who said lower class people were "Lucky Duckies" because they supposedly pay fewer taxes.

Gee, I don't feel that lucky.

[Shellhead]

This is going to sound horribly cynical, but that is some prime real estate in Manhatten, and it shouldn't be wasted on any kind of memorial. New York City has had some serious financial issues at various times in the past, so they need to have somebody put that space to productive use that can be taxed.

A better place for a 9/11 memorial might be that empty field in Pennsylvania, where heroic passengers crashed to earth after stopping one of the terrorist attacks. There were a lot of victims on 9/11, but the greatest heroes died in Pennsylvania. Yeah, there were heroic policemen and firemen in NYC and DC that day, but they were also doing the jobs that they get paid for. These passengers paid their fares but also paid with their lives to stop terrorism.

[dougputhoff]

I think Roger Ebert had the right idea when he said that the WTC area should become a park for kids to play in.

[howyadoin]

It's nice to see that the writer of this article can read my mind and knows that we lefties hate America and freedom and patriotism.

Hooray for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is famous for referring to any one who questions Bush Administration policy as "pro-Saddam" or "pro-Al Qaeda".

Bastards.Love it or leave it, hippie!

[Sir Tim Drake]

I am not interested in arguing with Samurai at this time.

But I would like to state that America has done and still is doing things we ought to be ashamed of. And we ought to be reminded of it, so that we can try to stop doing shameful things.

We do not need yet another monument that simply makes us feel good about ourselves. That's what everything else in our society is for.

[dougputhoff]

Why don't send the money we're going to use on the memorial to help the starving in Africa?

[Alex]

Hooray for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is famous for referring to any one who questions Bush Administration policy as "pro-Saddam" or "pro-Al Qaeda".

Bastards.
You can defend your commie friends all day long, but when you attack the one bastion of conservative bias on an editorial page, thems fighting words! We gave you the other editorial pages already!!!! Let us keep ours and call you all terrorists!

[Mike Smash!]

You can defend your commie friends all day long, but when you attack the one bastion of conservative bias on an editorial page, thems fighting words! We gave you the other editorial pages already!!!! Let us keep ours and call you all terrorists!But it's not conservative. It's Republican.

There is a huge difference between partisan and ideological. One is a cheerleader for a political party and the other is a cheerleader for a philosophy.

I very much doubt that the Journal would criticize Bush very harshly if he did something like...I dunno...bloated the size of the federal government as President, something that most American conservatives are opposed to.

There are several examples of the opposite on the Left. MoveOn.org for instance, is little more than a defacto wing of the Democratic Party and won't criticize the party during an election season and has even fundraised for candidates that oppose the very things they champion or conveniently
"forget".

The Journal editorial page is a Republican spin factory and they sadly use the sort of "unAmerican" type retorts to replace reasoned debate with noise, hyperbole and visceral anger every time.

[Alex]

But it's not conservative. It's Republican.

There is a huge difference between partisan and ideological. One is a cheerleader for a political party and the other is a cheerleader for a philosophy.

I very much doubt that the Journal would criticize Bush very harshly if he did something like...I dunno...bloated the size of the federal government as President, something that most American conservatives are opposed to.

There are several examples of the opposite on the Left. MoveOn.org for instance, is little more than a defacto wing of the Democratic Party and won't criticize the party during an election season and has even fundraised for candidates that oppose the very things they champion or conveniently
"forget".

The Journal editorial page is a Republican spin factory and they sadly use the sort of "unAmerican" type retorts to replace reasoned debate with noise, hyperbole and visceral anger every time.

...
Liberals: They say conservatives have no sense of humor.

[macul]

That memorial might be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. A place to remember those murdered in the attacks on 9/11 will be turned into a museum covering lynchings, WW2, American Indian history, and more? Shouldn't a memorial to 9/11 cover...I dunno...9/11? Aren't there museums, books, et cetera that cover all of those subjects? Why do we need to turn a memorial into those who died today as some sort of memorial/reminder of everything else that has taken place? Hopefully this article is just completely wrong.

[MacQuarrie]

I think that the article was right. The museum they want to build is a good thing; the injustices and atrocities they document should be taught and discussed.

The 9/11 memorial is just the wrong place to put it. The only reason for doing so is to suggest that America deserved the attack. People whose loved ones died in that building are not going to feel much comfort from a memorial that doesn't memorialize them, but rather validates the attackers.

Build the Liberty museum in a location that's linked to some shameful example of US injustice (say a place where a broken Native American trreaty was signed, or maybe the site of a slave market or something), not on the spot where thousands of innocents were murdered for reasons they had nothing to do with.

There's more than one kind of sensitivity.

[Samurai]

I think that the article was right. The museum they want to build is a good thing; the injustices and atrocities they document should be taught and discussed.

The 9/11 memorial is just the wrong place to put it. The only reason for doing so is to suggest that America deserved the attack. People whose loved ones died in that building are not going to feel much comfort from a memorial that doesn't memorialize them, but rather validates the attackers.

Build the Liberty museum in a location that's linked to some shameful example of US injustice (say a place where a broken Native American trreaty was signed, or maybe the site of a slave market or something), not on the spot where thousands of innocents were murdered for reasons they had nothing to do with.

There's more than one kind of sensitivity.
I agree with this 100%

[Charles RB]

The public will have come to see 9/11 but will be given a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man

They come to see September 11, an extremely brutal terrorist attack, and are going to be shocked to see something about man's inhumanity to man? The attacks were man being inhuman to man!

It was Human Rights First that has called for a 9/11-style commission to investigate the alleged torture of detainees, complete with budget authority, subpoena power and the ability to demand that witnesses testify under oath.

And that's bad how exactly?

Instead of exhibits and symposiums about Internationalism and Global Policy we should hear the story of the courageous young firefighter whose body, cut in half, was found with his legs entwined around the body of a woman.

Gee, what a way to desecrate the site... turn it into a "Hey, look at how evil America is! We deserved this!" museum.

Yeah, damn those anti-Americans and their exhibits on recorded history like the Soviet gulags!

[phoenixrising]

That story completely smacks of conservative bias, as Mike said. I have a feeling that it's being painted as far more of a conservative's nightmare than it really is. Liberals, a least 99.9% of them, are just as broken up about 9-11 as conservatives....we just don't go around competing about 'who loves America the mostest'.

We were all hurt by 9/11, so don't try saying that even the liberals behind this project likely don't have their hearts in the right place until the facts are all out there.

[Charles RB]

'who loves America the mostest'

This guy does! (http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/s/shield.htm)

[Noah Johnson]

Again, the blatant dishonesty here compels me to post, despite my best intentions.

Note something carefully here. A museum about "the history of freedom" is being presented as a museum about how "America sucks and we deserved to get attacked."

People are being attacked in this article for being in favor of human rights, with an assumption on the part of certain posters that this makes them anti-American.

The only way to read this is that some people clearly think that America is opposed to both freedom and human rights.

You know what? I'm glad you guys aren't designing the memorial.

[macul]

memorial.

What memorial? Does the Vietnam Memorial include tangents from every other historical event? How about the Washington? Gettysburgh? Other local Civil War forts and battlefields? This is less of a memorial than it is a museum of everything but 9/11.

Why can't this just be a memorial to 9/11? Why does this one memorial have to differ from every other memorial? What is the driving force behind that? There was already a very large sentiment after 9/11 that the U.S. deserved what it got. By using this as an airing out of all the mistakes the U.S. has made the only thing being accomplished is the vindication of those thoughts.

There is a time and place to teach and memorialize all of the events that have taken place during the course of U.S. history. No one, despite what is claimed in this thread, has stated we shouldn't learn about those things, but the 9/11 memorial isn't the place to do it. We shouldn't fall into the trap of political correctness by acting as if we can't remember one without the others.

[Charles RB]

What memorial?

The 50,000 square feet one directly next to the IFC? The article does confuse the two at points but does say "the actual Memorial Center on the opposite corner of the site".

This is less of a memorial than it is a museum of everything but 9/11.

That's the IFC, which is next to the memorial.

By using this as an airing out of all the mistakes the U.S. has made

The only two exhibits mentioned as showing this mention the Native American genocide and Jim Crow racism. Next to them are exhibits on the Holocaust, Chinese dissidents and Societ gulags. What's that got to do with American mistakes?

There is a time and place to teach and memorialize all of the events that have taken place during the course of U.S. history.

And the IFC doesn't seem to be acting as that, hence the International bit in its name.

No one, despite what is claimed in this thread, has stated we shouldn't learn about those things, but the 9/11 memorial isn't the place to do it.

I'm not entirely sure, but it does sound like you can go to the Memorial while completely avoiding the IFC if you want to.

[dougputhoff]

What memorial? Does the Vietnam Memorial include tangents from every other historical event? How about the Washington? Gettysburgh? Other local Civil War forts and battlefields? This is less of a memorial than it is a museum of everything but 9/11.

Why can't this just be a memorial to 9/11? Why does this one memorial have to differ from every other memorial? What is the driving force behind that? There was already a very large sentiment after 9/11 that the U.S. deserved what it got. By using this as an airing out of all the mistakes the U.S. has made the only thing being accomplished is the vindication of those thoughts.

There is a time and place to teach and memorialize all of the events that have taken place during the course of U.S. history. No one, despite what is claimed in this thread, has stated we shouldn't learn about those things, but the 9/11 memorial isn't the place to do it. We shouldn't fall into the trap of political correctness by acting as if we can't remember one without the others.

Sept. 11 did not happen in a vacuum. It was the result of a series of causes and effects that can probably date back to Muhammad. It just wasn't a bunch of guys who thought "Gee, wouldn't it be cool to run some airplanes into a few buildings?" These people had a reason to do what they did. It the old case of cause and effect in action.

And the events of 9-11 will have effects for years, if not decades or centuries, to come.

[Michael P]

Oh, by the way, last I checked, Ground Zero was still there. Does make Ms. Whatsherface's huffing and puffing look kinda silly.

[macul]

<snip>

And I have to repeat my question. We have many memorials in this country. Why does a memorial to 3,000 civilians, policemen, and firemen who died on 9/11 have to have anything to do with this museum? And no, they might not be on the same exact site, but they are right next to each other and are essentially one in the same. Build the museum elsewhere.

[Charles RB]

Why does a memorial to 3,000 civilians, policemen, and firemen who died on 9/11 have to have anything to do with this museum?

The only connection seems to be that they're built in the same area and the Lower Manhattan Development Corp gave money to both. As for why- because one is a development in lower Manhattan and there was space?

Build the museum elsewhere.

Why? What horrors does it cause for a museum about freedom movements and tyrannies that stomped on freedom to be next door to a memorial? You need permission to build museusm in NYC, w/ the local government keeping an eye on it- why did no-one at that level have a problem with it if it's such a big problem? It's their city that the attacks happened in and all.

[jackalope]

I have a aquaintance who suggested that the memorial should consist of thousands of little Eichmann statues. I thought that was in remarkabley poor taste.

So. What's the lesson here?

Maybe Samurai should be glad that the memorial isn't really being designed by left-wing cranks who hate America beyond reason?

[Alex]

I have a aquaintance who suggested that the memorial should consist of thousands of little Eichmann statues. I thought that was in remarkabley poor taste.

Is your friend a professor at a university no one but Bill O'reilly was surprised had a left wing nut teaching?

[Gideon Quinn]

This is going to sound horribly cynical, but that is some prime real estate in Manhatten, and it shouldn't be wasted on any kind of memorial.I just do not want it to turn into some sort of Red Square type situation.

[Adam Crocker]

Generally I agree the idea that this is the wrong place to put such a mueseum, or at least give it greater space than the actual memorial centre dedicated to the World Trade Centre itself. It's not simply a matter of going along with the current administration's politics or not. It's that its inappropriate to have this as the dominant isite of the memorial with there not being enough room to display the artifacts from the tragedy because the damn thing crowds nearly everything out. An architect chimes in on this problem (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DEFD71739F933A15756C0A9639C8B 63) noting how the design failed to account for the 40,000 square feet of ventillation and machinery that would be required for it, ballooning the size. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/23/opinion/23mon3.html?ex=1118289600&en=34ac99a35aa6c6bf&ei=5070) on the other hand has a reader's opinion that defends the Center as "pretty" but makes an interesting point:

The hard part will be leaving the museum's purpose indeterminate enough to allow visitors to let their own imaginations and emotions shape their experience while making it determinate enough to gratify all the parties that have been interpreting Sept. 11, 2001, in their own terms

And really that's why it shouldn't be there other than the fact that the site should be devoted to 9-11. There's complaints over what the contents of the muesuem will be, namely in regards to how it relates to 9-11 and why it happened. I'm not one to cave to people's fears that something is too "anti-American" based on my criticisms of U.S. foreign policy in the past. Though I agree with the reader on his point that "Yet, the political struggles that are shaping the whole site will be repeated over what goes on inside." I don't have a problem with a muesuem like this being built per se, but its obvious that this going to be politicized to an uncomfortable extent in the memorial site of a tragedy. Which means there is even less of a reason to have it there than simply crowding out physical space to commemorate the attack. It's crowding out the mental and emotional space as well, when the site would better be devoted to simply commemorating the victims.

-----------------------------------

However, I have to disagree with the author as well as Jim MacQuarrie . The claims being put forth that this is a heavy-handed, "blame America first" exhibit aren't entirely borne out by the fact that exhibit includes atrocities committed by the Soviets and the Nazis, or exhibits on Chinese dissidents and Chilean refugees. The exhibit also includes Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Susan B. Anthony, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln, so the idea that this site is being used as a platform for anti-administration politics or putting some sort of blame on America seem tenuous to me.

Another criticism, which is less related to the Center itself is the author's attempt to paint Human Rights First in a bad light because it filed a brief amicus for the detainment of Jose Padilla. Padilla is an American citizen who has been denied the basic rights due to him under the U.S. constitution including being held in prison without being charged with a crime and denied access to counsel. He could be guilty, but until the U.S. government actually charges him and allows access to a lawyer he is, in effect, a citizen who has been kidnapped by his own government. Trying to paint Human Rights First in a bad light for upholding his constitutional rights really doesn't speak well of the author of the article.

And considering the repeat evidence of abuse in U.S. military prisons I can't blame them for wanting to call a commission on the matter of the alleged torture of detainees.

(I'll chime in on the lawsuit and the campaign after I've gotten around to reading up on them a bit.)

[Grazzt]

I just do not want it to turn into some sort of Red Square type situation.

How about a New York Fries? Everybody loves New York Fries! Or maybe Starbucks.

And since everybody is all worked up over this, why isn't there any hubbub on the boards when they set up those slot machines at Gettysburg?

[Gideon Quinn]

How about a New York Fries? Everybody loves New York Fries! Or maybe Starbucks.

And since everybody is all worked up over this, why isn't there any hubbub on the boards when they set up those slot machines at Gettysburg?I am confident that you are aware of the intention of my statement.

[Ray R.]

Ideological claptrap. That's all the "commentary" was. Shocker it came from the Wall Street Journal. Even more of a shocker that Samurai posted it.

I guess the neoconservatives are finding fewer things to get pissy about, since their repetitive lies about progress in Iraq, and that the insurgency is on the wane, and their feeble response to the Downing Street memo, are being unchallenged across the board.

So let's get pissy about a museum dedicated to the cause of freedom throughout the world. It's got academia behind it, and nasty human rights organizations who have the audacity and unpatriotic gall to question crap like Abu Graib, and guys like poster-boy of the evil left George Soros, so you've got to see it as the instrument of liberal brain-washing that it really is. And it seems the crux of the argument is about square footage -- the museum has more than the memorial. More square footage for liberal brainwashing = bad, less square footage for the place that loyal, flag-waving U.S. Marines would love to go in 2010 = worse.

You can ask 20 Americans what should go at Ground Zero, and get 20 different answers. I personally think it should remain a hole in the ground, without any high-faluting memorial thought up by a panel of people trying to appeal to various constituencies and political tastes. The hole in the ground can remind people of the sacrifice of the policemen, firemen, and people in the towers. No piece of stone or metal is going to heal the wound done to America on that day. Art appreciation is subjective, a hole in the ground where mighty towers once stood until craven cowards took them down is objective. But, 19 other Americans or non-Americans even, might see 19 different ways to honor and remember the losses of that day.

But I guess it's easier for some propagandist reading off a neoconservative talking points memo to "name names" and play armchair quarterback. It's definitely easier than getting involved in the initial planning stages (it's only been four years) or working with the involved parties at the local, state and federal planning levels.

Instead - cue Marines with tears streaming down their face because the memorial has less square footage than the museum dedicated to freedom.

God, what a simplistic, over-emotive level of discourse we've sunk to....

[Wesley Dodds]

I agree with AG. I thought it should be have been left in rubble as a momento mori.

But I also like the idea of a museum. It would be nice if something good came out of the evil of that attack. I didn't like the idea of a Freedom Tower -- what the Hell did 9/11 have to do with freedom? -- but I don't mind the idea of a museum. Just as long as it isn't filled up with lies.

But, that said, the political tussle over the content of the museum and the meaning of freedom would be so vicious that it would probably be a mistake to build it. Do you put Ayn Rand in there? Do you put Karl Marx? What about Ho Chi Minh or Castro or Reagan?

Better to leave the rubble.

[macul]

But, that said, the political tussle over the content of the museum and the meaning of freedom would be so vicious that it would probably be a mistake to build it.

100% correct there. Better to just build it elsewhere and avoid the otherwise unavoidable politicizing of the museum.

And for those of you ranting and raving, you don't have to be a pissy neoconservative to not like this idea. I remember a time when you could put forth a differing opinion and not be labeled a pissy, fundamentalist, neoconservative who hates human rights and education.

God, what a simplistic, over-emotive level of discourse we've sunk to....

Ain't that the truth.

[Adam Crocker]

And for those of you ranting and raving, you don't have to be a pissy neoconservative to not like this idea. I remember a time when you could put forth a differing opinion and not be labeled a pissy, fundamentalist, neoconservative who hates human rights and education.

Missing that the main reason for Archival's labelling the article ideological claptrap. The criticism of the museum as heaping blame on America that the Wall Street put forth Journal is unsubstantiated by fact. And part of it seems to rest on it being backed by people who have been critical of the Bush adminstration or challenged the legality of its detainment of an of American citizen while denying him his constitutional rights. So yeah, it's earned the scorn it gets.

[Ray R.]

100% correct there. Better to just build it elsewhere and avoid the otherwise unavoidable politicizing of the museum.

And for those of you ranting and raving, you don't have to be a pissy neoconservative to not like this idea. I remember a time when you could put forth a differing opinion and not be labeled a pissy, fundamentalist, neoconservative who hates human rights and education.

God, what a simplistic, over-emotive level of discourse we've sunk to....

Ain't that the truth.

I was commenting about the author of the article, not you or anybody else commenting on the thread.

Subtle distinction, I know, but one I thought was readily apparent. Knowing the propensity of over-sensitivity here to feeling "labeled", I realize now that was a mistake. Sorry, macul, if you suffered the terrible injury of self-identifying with conservative columnists for the Wall Street Journal.

God, I love the smell of indignation in the morning. It smells like ... victory.

[Wesley Dodds]

And for those of you ranting and raving, you don't have to be a pissy neoconservative to not like this idea. I remember a time when you could put forth a differing opinion and not be labeled a pissy, fundamentalist, neoconservative who hates human rights and education.

To be fair, I thought it was directed at the editorial as well.

[Shellhead]

I oppose the idea of leaving a hole in the ground. If a mugger stabs you with a knife and you have the chance to heal without a scar, why would you prefer to pick at the wound and leave a scar? I know it's a trite expression, but I believe that if we leave a hole in the ground in Manhatten, the terrorists win. And there's no way in hell that we were going to leave a section of the Pentagon demolished as some kind of tribute to 9/11.

[macul]

Missing that the main reason for Archival's labelling the article ideological claptrap. The criticism of the museum as heaping blame on America that the Wall Street put forth Journal is unsubstantiated by fact. And part of it seems to rest on it being backed by people who have been critical of the Bush adminstration or challenged the legality of its detainment of an of American citizen while denying him his constitutional rights. So yeah, it's earned the scorn it gets.

It's also backed by people who have called for the deaths of U.S. service members. Don't forget that little fact.

[macul]

I was commenting about the author of the article, not you or anybody else commenting on the thread.

Subtle distinction, I know, but one I thought was readily apparent. Knowing the propensity of over-sensitivity here to feeling "labeled", I realize now that was a mistake. Sorry, macul, if you suffered the terrible injury of self-identifying with conservative columnists for the Wall Street Journal.

God, I love the smell of indignation in the morning. It smells like ... victory.

Sorry if you don't like being called on your comments. Honestly, if you could do so without resorting to ranting rhetoric it would be easier to tell exactly who you were addressing your comments to. I couldn't tell if it was me, samurai, or the writer of the article.

Tell me, I oppose the idea of this museum as it is currently planned. I think it is disrespectful and can send the wrong message. I also think the planners would be better off by not associating with some of the people they are involved with the project. When one of the people involved in the project has openly called for the deaths of U.S. service members do I even have to wonder about his motivations? Is it not fair to question this person's participation?

Am I a pissy neoconservative for believing in these things? Or am I not justified or deserving of having a differing opinion based upon what I believe?

[Ray R.]

Sorry if you don't like being called on your comments. Honestly, if you could do so without resorting to ranting rhetoric it would be easier to tell exactly who you were addressing your comments to. I couldn't tell if it was me, samurai, or the writer of the article.

I thought it was patently obvious who I was talking about, the right-wing whack-a-doodle who wrote it, but you seem to be the only one who has taken it personally. Par for the course with you, macul. My "rhetorical rants" say something you find you disagree with, so then it becomes a personal ad hominem attack on you. Whatever. Same dance, different music.

Tell me, I oppose the idea of this museum as it is currently planned. I think it is disrespectful and can send the wrong message. I also think the planners would be better off by not associating with some of the people they are involved with the project. When one of the people involved in the project has openly called for the deaths of U.S. service members do I even have to wonder about his motivations? Is it not fair to question this person's participation?

So, you oppose the museum as currently planned. And do you get your sum total of understanding of the project based on the "rhetorical ranting" of the Wall Street Journal "commentary"? Just curious. And you, who has added a sum total of zero into the planning, implementation, and execution of said project can make wholesale value judgments on the people and organizations associated with the project. I assume you're taking as fact that the person who allegedly "openly called for the deaths of U.S. service members" is "involved in the project." Pretty reasonable assumption, there. No reason to think that the dickwad who made the statements, if in fact they were made in the first place, was speaking on behalf of everyone mentioned in the commentary.

We'd never want to associate one person's statements with an entire organization, like Dobson speaking for all Christians, or Pat Robertson speaking for all Republicans, or David Duke speaking for all white persons in Louisiana. As you like to point out on numerous occasions, that's a big no-no. But you seem to accept as FACT dubious representations that smear with a big fat across-the-board brush.

Am I a pissy neoconservative for believing in these things? Or am I not justified or deserving of having a differing opinion based upon what I believe?

Well, you ARE acting pissy, in my opinion. Whether you're a neoconservative is up for debate, I guess, as if anybody really cared. You're justified in believing whatever it is you believe in, just like I'm justified in calling out propaganda as propaganda, drivel as drivel, and idiocy as idiocy, if the mood provokes me.

I think the writer of the commentary is an ideological, flag-waving, anti-intellectual, misrepresenting, socially dangerous, ass-clown, but off course, I understand if you have a differing opinion. That is your right, of course. Freedom of speech might have a wing in the new museum, so I'm sure they'll cover various historical examples of where that might not be the case.

Vive le difference.

[macul]

I thought it was patently obvious who I was talking about, the right-wing whack-a-doodle who wrote it, but you seem to be the only one who has taken it personally. Par for the course with you, macul. My "rhetorical rants" say something you find you disagree with, so then it becomes a personal ad hominem attack on you. Whatever. Same dance, different music.

And you wonder why I took it personal? Seriously, when half the posts in a threads like this are either blatant or indirect personal attacks on the few conservative posters here who bother to make their opinion known you'll have to excuse me if I misunderstand the direction of your post. I would bother apologizing, but given what you said above, I'm not sure I was entirely incorrect.


So, you oppose the museum as currently planned.

Correct.

And do you get your sum total of understanding of the project based on the "rhetorical ranting" of the Wall Street Journal "commentary"? Just curious.

No. Did you? Rhetoric aside, is the article incorrect about what is planned and who is involved?

And you, who has added a sum total of zero into the planning, implementation, and execution of said project can make wholesale value judgments on the people and organizations associated with the project.

But that isn't what you are doing, right? You've contributed how much "planning, implementation, and execution of said project"? I'm going to guess none. But you are also making value judgements on the people and organizations involved. The only difference is our opinion on some of the people involved. You assume that all of these people are just fine and dandy. I've seen evidence to the contrary. Evidence that makes me wonder about their motivations. Why is your outlook more reasonable or informed than mine?


I assume you're taking as fact that the person who allegedly "openly called for the deaths of U.S. service members" is "involved in the project." Pretty reasonable assumption, there.

The guy didn't allegedly do anything. He made his comments. They are pretty well known. He wished for "a million Mogadishus (sp)" to be visited upon U.S. service members in Iraq. Again, I ask the question, do we not have a right to wonder why a person with this outlook is involved in the project? Do we not have a right to question his motivations? Why is asking that question such a crime?


We'd never want to associate one person's statements with an entire organization, like Dobson speaking for all Christians, or Pat Robertson speaking for all Republicans, or David Duke speaking for all white persons in Louisiana. As you like to point out on numerous occasions, that's a big no-no. But you seem to accept as FACT dubious representations that smear with a big fat across-the-board brush.

Who's doing that? I asked a question and samurai made a statement. samurai didn't attack liberals/leftists/whatever. He stated that some of the people involved in this project will do more harm than good because of their past actions and quotes. I asked if questioning the motivations of people like Eric Foner is not reasonable. Neither of those two situations amounts to making broad judgements about an entire organization. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Wesley Dodds]

questioning the motivations of people like Eric Foner is not reasonable.

I know exactly what you mean. The Dunning School of Redeemer discontent is not yet dead! Bring me the head of W.E.B. DuBois!

[macul]

questioning the motivations of people like Eric Foner is not reasonable.

I know exactly what you mean. The Dunning School of Redeemer discontent is not yet dead! Bring me the head of W.E.B. DuBois!

Cutting my quotes mid-sentence to alter their meaning? Not cool.

[Wesley Dodds]

OK. Let me get this straight. You're upset because you wrote:

"I asked if questioning the motivations of people like Eric Foner is not reasonable."

And I quoted:

"if questioning the motivations of people like Eric Foner is not reasonable."

How exactly did I alter the meaning of what you said? Please, explain this to me.

[macul]

I'm sure it doesn't matter to some here, but apparently the article's author is the sister of one of the pilots who died on Flight 77 on 9/11.

[Wesley Dodds]

I'm sure it doesn't matter to some here, but apparently the article's author is the sister of one of the pilots who died on Flight 77 on 9/11.

I know it sure doesn't matter to me!

[Nate C.]

You left off the "if" too, making it an assertion, not a query.

A substantial difference.

[Adam Crocker]

And you, who has added a sum total of zero into the planning, implementation, and execution of said project can make wholesale value judgments on the people and organizations associated with the project.

I'll have to disagree with you on this Archival. Even if he isn't involved in the project who can still make value judgemnets on the people and organizations involved based on what information is available about that planning and the results. (To use a parallel example, the folly of the Iraq War, or to a lesser extent the fact that this structure was originally designed without accounting for the ventilation system and machinery required for it which added an additional 40,000 sq feet onto the site.)

Tell me, I oppose the idea of this museum as it is currently planned. I think it is disrespectful and can send the wrong message.

Besides the various criticisms you mentioned about the inappropriateness of placing on the site of Ground Zero a structure only tangentially related to the acts of 9-11 (and its subsequent crowding out of a memorial structure) what part of the museum do you object to "as planned?" I'm curious.

[Ray R.]

Seriously, when half the posts in a threads like this are either blatant or indirect personal attacks on the few conservative posters here who bother to make their opinion known you'll have to excuse me if I misunderstand the direction of your post. I would bother apologizing, but given what you said above, I'm not sure I was entirely incorrect.

Hasn't slowed the conservative contingent from posting threads on every possible problem with Muslims, Democrats, etc. Methinks you doth protest WAY too much. Conservatives on this board, to their credit, give as good as they get. Stop playing the victim card. It's pathetic.

And you really and truly thought I was attacking you personally? Give me a break, macul. You and I know both know that wasn't the case, so get off your moral high horse.



Who's doing that? I asked a question and samurai made a statement. samurai didn't attack liberals/leftists/whatever. He stated that some of the people involved in this project will do more harm than good because of their past actions and quotes. I asked if questioning the motivations of people like Eric Foner is not reasonable. Neither of those two situations amounts to making broad judgements about an entire organization. Quite the opposite in fact.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The article specifically points out leftist organizations and liberal donors like George Soros who Samurai points out by NAME. Guys like George Soros, the liberal, will do more harm than good. It is not quite the opposite. The commentary was propaganda through-and-through. For you to read a COMMENTARY as factual reporting is either naive or intentionally disregarding the source. And again, you take the commentary at face value, and my response is, in your words, "rhetorical ranting."

Gotta love that sense of moral superiority, bud. I'm full of rhetoric and a commentary from a conservative in the Wall Street Journal is presumed to be factual narrative. Yeah...okay. You win.

[macul]

OK. Let me get this straight. You're upset because you wrote:



And I quoted:


How exactly did I alter the meaning of what you said? Please, explain this to me.

That's not what you did, wesley.

You didn't quote:

"if questioning the motivations of people like Eric Foner is not reasonable."

You quoted:

"questioning the motivations of people like Eric Foner is not reasonable."

The second comes across as a statement of fact rather than a question and completely changes the meaning. Instead of me asking if questioning Mr. Foner is not reasonable you made it appear as if I was making the statement that questioning Mr. Foner is not reasonable.

[macul]

Besides the various criticisms you mentioned about the inappropriateness of placing on the site of Ground Zero a structure only tangentially related to the acts of 9-11 (and its subsequent crowding out of a memorial structure) what part of the museum do you object to "as planned?" I'm curious.

I don't object at all to the idea of a museum like the one planned. I object to placing it in conjunction with the 9/11 memorial. That is really my largest complaint. I do have reservations about some of the people involved, but I'm not going to let those hold up what I otherwise think is a good idea.

[macul]

<snip>

C'mon, now. You can't pick and choose what to respond to. Why did you ignore these two paragraphs. I really would appreciate a response.

But that isn't what you are doing, right? You've contributed how much "planning, implementation, and execution of said project"? I'm going to guess none. But you are also making value judgements on the people and organizations involved. The only difference is our opinion on some of the people involved. You assume that all of these people are just fine and dandy. I've seen evidence to the contrary. Evidence that makes me wonder about their motivations. Why is your outlook more reasonable or informed than mine?


The guy didn't allegedly do anything. He made his comments. They are pretty well known. He wished for "a million Mogadishus (sp)" to be visited upon U.S. service members in Iraq. Again, I ask the question, do we not have a right to wonder why a person with this outlook is involved in the project? Do we not have a right to question his motivations? Why is asking that question such a crime?

[Ray R.]

I'm sure it doesn't matter to some here, but apparently the article's author is the sister of one of the pilots who died on Flight 77 on 9/11.

And that gives credence to the piece, why?

I knew very well people who died at the Pentagon, in fact one was a close neighbor. Another was the wife of a lawyer I worked with.

Does that give me some sort of authority to criticize the groups and planning of the rebuilding and restructuring of the Pentagon?

No, it does not. Might build me up some sympathy value, though, which the only connection I can make here.

[Wesley Dodds]

Instead of me asking if questioning Mr. Foner is not reasonable you made it appear as if I was making the statement that questioning Mr. Foner is not reasonable.

I'm sorry, I really don't know what to make of this. How is anyone to know it's you I'm responding to unless they've read your post, in which case they know exactly what you've said?

[Samurai]

I don't object at all to the idea of a museum like the one planned. I object to placing it in conjunction with the 9/11 memorial. That is really my largest complaint. I do have reservations about some of the people involved, but I'm not going to let those hold up what I otherwise think is a good idea.
Exactly... to me, it's the equivalent of Hamas, Hezbullah, and the PLO building a 300,000 sq ft display on the evils of Israel and Israeli policies (and maybe a few token other injustices, just for comparrison and deniability) right on top of the remains of Auschwitz. Is it something that might be worthy of discussion? Elsewhere maybe, but the people involved in creating it and the site chosen for it leads one to believe the worst...

[macul]

Instead of me asking if questioning Mr. Foner is not reasonable you made it appear as if I was making the statement that questioning Mr. Foner is not reasonable.

I'm sorry, I really don't know what to make of this. How is anyone to know it's you I'm responding to unless they've read your post, in which case they know exactly what you've said?

Lamest excuse ever. You are better than this, wesley.

[Adam Crocker]

I don't object at all to the idea of a museum like the one planned. I object to placing it in conjunction with the 9/11 memorial.

Ah okay. For some reason I figured that when you said "as planned" that was besides your already stated complaints of it being on site. Thanks for clarifying.

Exactly... to me, it's the equivalent of Hamas, Hezbullah, and the PLO building a 300,000 sq ft display on the evils of Israel and Israeli policies (and maybe a few token other injustices, just for comparrison and deniability) right on top of the remains of Auschwitz.

Except that the museum is not on the evils of America and American policy, but a freedom of history in general. In addition to the Native American Genocide and the Jim Crow Laws it also features the Soviet Gulag and the atrocities of the Third Reich, outlining its gross violations as well as displays on prominent American contributors to freedom like Susan B. Anthony, Abe Lincoln*, and Thomas Jefferson. (See the New York Times editorial I linked to earlier.) Moreover, of the contributors the only one who comes close to the level of the three terrorist groups you mentioned is Foner and only for a single statement he made, whereas the above groups have actually killed civilians.

[macul]

And that gives credence to the piece, why?

I knew very well people who died at the Pentagon, in fact one was a close neighbor. Another was the wife of a lawyer I worked with.

Does that give me some sort of authority to criticize the groups and planning of the rebuilding and restructuring of the Pentagon?

No, it does not. Might build me up some sympathy value, though, which the only connection I can make here.

I think it is somewhat of a counter to your "armchair quarterback" claim. This is a woman who had a family member die in the attacks, doesn't like what is being planned, and is doing something about it.

[Ray R.]

C'mon, now. You can't pick and choose what to respond to. Why did you ignore these two paragraphs. I really would appreciate a response.

Well, come on, now. You didn't respond to all of the content of my posts, either, did you. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. I really would appreciate a response, specifically where I stated that you were not deserving of an opinion on the subject. You can play poster cop with Wesley and I, but you don't follow the same rules.

Now, since you asked so nicely....

But that isn't what you are doing, right? You've contributed how much "planning, implementation, and execution of said project"? I'm going to guess none. But you are also making value judgements on the people and organizations involved. The only difference is our opinion on some of the people involved. You assume that all of these people are just fine and dandy. I've seen evidence to the contrary. Evidence that makes me wonder about their motivations. Why is your outlook more reasonable or informed than mine?

What value judgments am I making of the people and organizations involved? Specifically, name one value judgment I made about anyone but the commentary author. I don't know the people on the project, but I certainly can't speak to their motivations. I wish I knew the "motivation" of the woman who wrote the piece. Is she being compensated for it? Does she belong to a particular group or groups that have ideological differences with the people building the museum? Does she have an axe to grind? Does she hate liberals? Did she skin her knee on a museum floor when she was a kid? Provide the evidence of the planners' "motivations," for me, if you will.

And I'm not saying my outlook is more reasonable or informed than yours. I just don't use propaganda as factual narrative. Again, macul, stop making this about YOU. It's not about YOU, at all, no matter how much you want it to be about YOU.


The guy didn't allegedly do anything. He made his comments. They are pretty well known. He wished for "a million Mogadishus (sp)" to be visited upon U.S. service members in Iraq. Again, I ask the question, do we not have a right to wonder why a person with this outlook is involved in the project? Do we not have a right to question his motivations? Why is asking that question such a crime? [/QUOTE]

Noone's calling it a crime. Show me the "million Mogadishus" quote from some source besides a Freeper site, Drudge or Fox News, and that he spoke on behalf of his entire organization, and I'll be happy to question his "involvement in the project" such that it is. Substantiate the propaganda as a favor for me, will you?

Nothing wrong with questioning a "motivation." Really hard to pin down a motivation unless you've got a lie detector, though. I wonder about a lot of people's motivations, doesn't mean I'll ever figure 'em out, though. Motivation can be a pretty complex, ambiguous concept when you think about it. In this case, question the motivation of building a museum based on the statement of someone regarding an unjust war..... kinda hard to connect the dots, in my opinion.

[Ray R.]

Except that the museum is not on the evils of America and American policy, but a freedom of history in general. In addition to the Native American Genocide and the Jim Crow Laws it also features the Soviet Gulag and the atrocities of the Third Reich, outlining its gross violations as well as displays on prominent American contributors to freedom like Susan B. Anthony, Abe Lincoln*, and Thomas Jefferson. (See the New York Times editorial I linked to earlier.) Moreover, of the contributors the only one who comes close to the level of the three terrorist groups you mentioned is Foner and only for a single statement he made, whereas the above groups have actually killed civilians.

But Adam, comparing human rights organizations and George Soros to Nazis and terrorists is okay.

It's really about questioning their "motivations". They're evil, so any museum they build will be "evil" too, by extension.

When you don't look at the world in black and white, then you let things like facts and history get in the way.

[macul]

Gonna put this on hold for a moment. That article might be completely wrong about something.

[macul]

ok, samurai. It seems the author of the article is just completely incorrect and it took me reading several articles to discover this. Eric Foner did not make those comments. It was Nicholas De Genova. Eric Foner was one of people who criticized Nicholas De Genova. I'll look a bit more, but the article appears to be factually wrong.

In light of that I think my only criticism of the museum is its location.

[macul]

But Adam, comparing human rights organizations and George Soros to Nazis and terrorists is okay.

It's really about questioning their "motivations". They're evil, so any museum they build will be "evil" too, by extension.

When you don't look at the world in black and white, then you let things like facts and history get in the way.

No one said that, so don't even pretend that is what I meant. I never said the museum was evil. In fact, I said I thought it was good idea, I just didn't like the location and at that time had reservations about some of the people involved (which are now satisfied). Don't put words in my mouth.

Again, you wonder why I thought you were attacking me and samurai? You just can't help but twist around what we say.

[Ray R.]

No one said that, so don't even pretend that is what I meant. I never said the museum was evil. In fact, I said I thought it was good idea, I just didn't like the location and at that time had reservations about some of the people involved (which are now satisfied). Don't put words in my mouth.

Again, you wonder why I thought you were attacking me and samurai? You just can't help but twist around what we say.

macul - I WAS NOT ADDRESSING THIS TO YOU. Clear enough? Samurai compared the groups involved to the Nazis and Hezbollah. You made no such assertion, whatsoever. I don't think you agree in this comparison, period, so take no offense by my response.

You've been the voice of reason, and I am sincerely impressed that you took the time to research the quote, make the correction and restate your issue, and to bring this ALL THE WAY full circle, I have no real disagreement with you, on the location of the museum.

If you'll remember my original point, I didn't see a need for a memorial or museum at all. But as I said, 20 people might have 20 different ideas as to the memorial (and by extension, the location).

I willfully lay down my arms in this fight, and agree to disagree as to our views, at least in a political context, and vow to be more careful as to how my comments are addressed, whether generally or specifically.

We cool?

[Adam Crocker]

ok, samurai. It seems the author of the article is just completely incorrect and it took me reading several articles to discover this. Eric Foner did not make those comments. It was Nicholas De Genova. Eric Foner was one of people who criticized Nicholas De Genova. I'll look a bit more, but the article appears to be factually wrong.

Hm, it seems you are right. (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/28/sprj.irq.professor.somalia/)

[macul]

macul - I WAS NOT ADDRESSING THIS TO YOU. Clear enough? Samurai compared the groups involved to the Nazis and Hezbollah. You made no such assertion, whatsoever. I don't think you agree in this comparison, period, so take no offense by my response.

Sorry. When you said the thing about questioning motivations (which is something I did several times) I naturally took that to be me. Apologies for any confusion.


We cool?

No. It's damn hot here. Other than that, we're good.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Cutting my quotes mid-sentence to alter their meaning? Not cool.

I agree with macul on this count. This sort of cutting away parts of statements or otherwise editing them in a manner which either changes meaning or divorces them from context is very, very uncool. At best, it can result in unintentional misrepresentation of a person's POV, and at worse it is overtly dishonest.

One should be careful in quoting edited statements, and one should definitely avoid creative editing of others' statements. If one wants to emphasize part of a larger statement while maintaining the context, the right thing to do is to bold or italicize the relevant portion.

[Samurai]

ok, samurai. It seems the author of the article is just completely incorrect and it took me reading several articles to discover this. Eric Foner did not make those comments. It was Nicholas De Genova. Eric Foner was one of people who criticized Nicholas De Genova. I'll look a bit more, but the article appears to be factually wrong.

In light of that I think my only criticism of the museum is its location.
I think you misread the article... here is what is says on Foner:

• Eric Foner, radical-left history professor at Columbia University who, even as the bodies were being pulled out of a smoldering Ground Zero, wrote, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." This is the same man who participated in a "teach-in" at Columbia to protest the Iraq war, during which a colleague exhorted students with, "The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military," and called for "a million Mogadishus." The IFC website has posted Mr. Foner's statement warning that future discussions should not be "overwhelmed" by the IFC's location at the World Trade Center site itself.
Foner was the organizer of the "teach in" where de Genova called for the "million Mogadishus". He distanced himself from that statement after the firestorm of outrage, but he is still a far-left radical who said he wasn't sure if 9/11 or George Bush was more frightening, and is the one who organized the whole "teach in" and invited many like-minded collegues to speak and participate...

[sirgod]

I'm surprised Churchill hasn't had his Tribesmen "The Cherokees" join in on this Project. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Stephen the Evil conservative.

[Ray R.]

I think you misread the article... here is what is says on Foner:


Foner was the organizer of the "teach in" where de Genova called for the "million Mogadishus". He distanced himself from that statement after the firestorm of outrage, but he is still a far-left radical who said he wasn't sure if 9/11 or George Bush was more frightening, and is the one who organized the whole "teach in" and invited many like-minded collegues to speak and participate...

Guess that puts him in the same league as Nazis, Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO, huh.

To quote you: "Exactly... to me, it's the equivalent of Hamas, Hezbullah, and the PLO building a 300,000 sq ft display on the evils of Israel and Israeli policies (and maybe a few token other injustices, just for comparrison and deniability) right on top of the remains of Auschwitz."

He's a far-left radical who called de Genova's statement "reprehensible" and that it did not represent the "teach-in" or the organization. Not good enough for you, though. He apparently only distanced himself because of the firestorm of outrage, though can't see any sign of that in the article.

You compare Foner, Soros and others to Nazis and terrorists because they were against the invasion of Iraq. I find your statement "reprehensible" as well. Maybe you should distance yourself from it as well.

[macul]

I think you misread the article... here is what is says on Foner:


Foner was the organizer of the "teach in" where de Genova called for the "million Mogadishus". He distanced himself from that statement after the firestorm of outrage, but he is still a far-left radical who said he wasn't sure if 9/11 or George Bush was more frightening, and is the one who organized the whole "teach in" and invited many like-minded collegues to speak and participate...

Yeah. I did misread the article. However, Foner wasn't the guy who made the comments and made it known he did not agree with them. We should give him the benefit of the doubt. It is the respectful thing to do.

[Charles RB]

to me, it's the equivalent of Hamas, Hezbullah, and the PLO building a 300,000 sq ft display on the evils of Israel and Israeli policies (and maybe a few token other injustices, just for comparrison and deniability) right on top of the remains of Auschwitz.

Whaaaa? That doesn't even make sense! The bulk of the exhibits mentioned were about things happening outside of America and focusing on both attacks on freedom & freedom movements, including men & groups thatn furthered freedom that were American. Hence why it calls itself "International Freedom Center" instead of "American Atrocities Center". And how do the people involved compare to Hamas et al? When did any of them kill Americans? One person who isn't IN the group wished attacks on the United States army, but that's different to him actually killing people or the entire group being on the level of indiscriminate civilian killers.

What the article is implying about what's going on with the IFC doesn't appear to be related in any way to what it actually is, and the article itself shows that when it talks about the actual exhibits over the personal politics of some of the people involved in some way.

[Samurai]

Guess that puts him in the same league as Nazis, Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO, huh.

To quote you: "Exactly... to me, it's the equivalent of Hamas, Hezbullah, and the PLO building a 300,000 sq ft display on the evils of Israel and Israeli policies (and maybe a few token other injustices, just for comparrison and deniability) right on top of the remains of Auschwitz."

He's a far-left radical who called de Genova's statement "reprehensible" and that it did not represent the "teach-in" or the organization. Not good enough for you, though. He apparently only distanced himself because of the firestorm of outrage, though can't see any sign of that in the article.

You compare Foner, Soros and others to Nazis and terrorists because they were against the invasion of Iraq. I find your statement "reprehensible" as well. Maybe you should distance yourself from it as well.
Why do you keep including Nazis? I never mentioned them. If you are infering it because they were behind Auschwitz, then the Nazi equivalent in this scenario is Al Queda, not the left-wing radicals...

And yeah, they haven't actually murdered people like Hamas... I wasn't referring to that, though. I was referring to their bias... what would a museum on a Jewish Holocaust site look like if it were built by Hamas, considering their feelings on Jews? Similarly, what would a museum on the site of the mass-murder of Americans look like by people who seem to hate and fear all that has resulted from that attack? Will they celebrate the unity that bound Americans together in a time of tragedy, or harp on how Bush has supposedly squandered the world's good will? Will they show the flags and symbols of patriotism and pride that were evidence of that unity, or decry them as evil Nationalistic symbols akin to the swastika, used to rally and brainwash a population of dupes? The place hasn't been built yet, so no one can say for sure, but considering the people involved, my hopes aren't high.