Site Meter

He loves and she loves

Just Causes

Password required

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Paul Craig Roberts, We Hardly Knew Ye | Main | Sometimes a grove of maples is just a grove of maples »

September 10, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518c7969e200d83424eddd53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Let's roll!:

» When is a Crescent Just A Crescent? from Sortapundit
"This is not about religion per se," remarks Immler, "It's a spiritual space, and a sacred place, but it's open to anyone. The word swastika, in fact, means 'happy smily place' in (mumble, mumble), and the symbol is Eurasian in origin and is actually... [Read More]

» Perpetual Indignance As Political Expression from Dean's World
Many years ago, one of the (many many) things that caused me to walk away from the political left was what conservatives used to call "the perpetually indignant"--the people who perceived racial, ethnic, sexist, or racial slights... [Read More]

» Crecent of Embrace? from The Unusual Suspects
OK, I was against this (rather badly named) Crescent of Embrace - mostly because I thought it was a building that tapered off, looking just like an Islamic Cresent. Sissy Willis, as linked via Power Line, showed me a few things. First off, if they... [Read More]

» Memo to IFC: Paradigm of a Fitting Memorial from GrannyTiger's Reality Check
And here I thought I was alone in questioning all of the heavy-hitting blog outrage about the memorial's political symbolism... [Read More]

» Knee jerking tin foil hat wearing Crescent of Embrace haters from Explicitly Ambiguous
Until one of you people posts something the architect has said that shows support for the Islamists I will not be changing my mind about Crescent of Embrace. And I dont mean the theories youve all cooked up in your minds. ... [Read More]

» A demonic deconstruction of hidden menace from Cotillion
The redesign of architect Paul Murdoch's controversial Flight 93 National Memorial features most of the details of the original (middle and bottom images above are identical to drawings unveiled last September), but a round, bowl-sha... [Read More]

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I know nothing whatsoever about the backgrounds of those on the design committee nor am I particularly bothered by the things that have got Michelle and her co-believers up in arms. I would hope, however, that all of the people on the committee had had two very simple credentials:

1) they had visited Gettysburg
2) they had visited Arlington

If you've done either of those things, I suspect you know exactly what I mean.

Since it's a publicly-sponsored project, the architects need to be sensitive to a wide range of concerns (whether or not any one group thinks it's reasonable - majority rules, here). Frankly, better deal with public sensitivities NOW than after it's built.

Slightly off-topic, but (I think) appropriate considering the date: We've put our own 5 minute video memorial online. No burning buildings, no rubble, no explosions, no speeches, no screeches, no Bin Laden, no bodies. Just a remembrance of some people whose lives were cut short through no fault of their own, with poignant candid snapshots from their lives, and music.

http://mistersnitch.blogspot.com/2005/09/our-after-911-site-is-online.html

Nobody uses the term "Crescent of Embrace",common usage is "Arc of Embrace".Architectural the designers may be, literary they are not

I really don't care what you see. I see a crescent and since the architect named it "Cresent of Embrace", I believe he intended me to see a crescent. Please don't defend it by saying it is not a crescent. That is just plain silly.

Bottom line is the crescent design offends me. It has no place at the site where the victims of Flight 93 are being memorialized. For the crescent IS the holy symbol of their killers. Just plain disgusting.

I really don't care what you see. I see a crescent and since the architect named it "Cresent of Embrace", I believe he intended me to see a crescent. Please don't defend it by saying it is not a crescent. That is just plain silly.

And do you think Sissy and the rest of us who think you guys are overreacting care what YOU see?

Bottom line is the crescent design offends me. It has no place at the site where the victims of Flight 93 are being memorialized. For the crescent IS the holy symbol of their killers. Just plain disgusting.

So it offends YOU. Well, that's just gravy, isn't it? Have you heard from any family members of the Flight 93 passengers who think the design offends them also? No? I haven't. Plainly YOUR feelings should be considered over theirs. That makes a lot of sense in the face of all the rhetoric you're spewing.

I am up in arms over the freakin' crescent, because it's a clear jab at red blooded American war-mongers by a bunch of pansy French pastry chefs. I mean, who else goes into landscape architecture but croissant-eating pansies?

And to top it all off, the croissant surrounds the sacred ground, planted with a variety of wildflowers. From above it looks suspiciously like the surface of French toast, and get this, the croissant is formed by maple trees. Could he make the insult any clearer??? Does he have to make fun of Americans who died just after breakfast?

The architect can shove his French Croissant of embrace and his sanctimonious syrupy breakfast jabs where the sun don't shine.

Dave Schuler: I've done both. Gettysburg, where my maternal great-gramp got his at Culp's Hill and Arlington, where the only reason my brother is not there is that there was nothing left of him but dogtags and a helmet. I wish I knew what you're hinting at. Am I insensitive or what?

Listen, just imagine for a moment if the roles were reversed. I know it's a very hard thing. But, if the Hiroshima bomb memorial were shaped and colored like the stars and stripes, I would imagine that there would be quite a few justifiably angry Japanese. This is no different. Regardless of what your political stripe, what your national affiliation, you have to agree that this is all a pretty boneheaded move on the part of those creating this display all around. To be honest, defending obvious stupidity is far worse than the original defense.

Stop all that frowning, you crescent-haters! You're making your little mouths into crescents!

"Regardless of what your political stripe, what your national affiliation, you have to agree that this is all a pretty boneheaded move on the part of those creating this display all around."

So you're saying that some of the family members of Flight 93 passengers who actually approve of the design are boneheaded? How big of you.

"To be honest, defending obvious stupidity is far worse than the original defense."

And scoring political and biased points is far worse than your first overly emotional outburst about a big arc of maples. That makes a lot of sense.

I tell you what. Why don't we erect memorials to those slain by Stalin which include groves of trees designed to look like a hammer and sickle from the air. Surely, that would "honor" those killed.

Let's erect a memorial in Oklahoma City - a statue of Timothy McVeigh.

Anyone for a Samurai Museum at Pearl Harbor?

I say all Jewish synagogues must henceforth plant trees on their property in the shape of a swastika. To heck with the Star of David

And the fact that the orientation of the crescent/arc is such that it directly faces Mecca is just another one of those odd coincidences, eh?

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/117149.php

And the fact that maples trees turn brilliant red in the fall is just another of those odd coincidences.

This was entirely innocent. Any symbolism that right-wing nut jobs read into this just illustrates their wacky outlook on life, no?

See, that's your problem, Scott: you're focusing too much on the religion of Flight 93's killers instead of what the memorial is actually for. Try breathing once in a while and maybe those conspiracy theories you keep imagining will go away.

Conspiracy?? You do injustice to real conspirators. This is a patently obvious and ridiculous attempt by the "artist" to show his "sensitivity" by including symbols of Islam in the memorial. There is no need for a grand conspiracy. Just a dishonest artist who got caught.

Oh PLEASE, Scott - there you go again insinuating something that isn't there. Not only that, you're putting words into the architect's mouth because of his political beliefs instead of what he intended for the memorial design.

The only patently obvious and ridiculous thing about this whole "conspiracy" is that you and other conservative bloggers who keep harping about this is that you see some sort Musmlim plot behind an arc of red maple trees. THAT is your grand conspiracy.

And I find it ridiculous that you and the other conservative bloggers going on about this ignore the support and approval of the Flight 93's surviving family members regarding the design. Apparently your political desires are more important than their desires to find peace in a memorial for their slain loved ones.

Do you really wish to defend a design by an architect with a tin eye?

Of course, the real responsibility goes to those who selected this design as the winner.

And don't hide behind the victim's families. That's just tacky.

Hey, Brett. I'm a blogger, and bloggers don't hide. As for tin eyes, never heard of 'em. It's the tin ear of whoever's responsible for the name "Crescent of Embrace" that I have issue with.

My apologies for the poor choice of words. Don't USE the victim's families (I don't you'd find unanimous approval of the design among them anyway). It remains tacky.

As for tin eye, that was a jest, which you obviously got, as you caught the reference to tin ear. Tinny it is, and the design should be rejected on those grounds alone.

"Where some see crescents, others see apple pie."

And if they'd called it "The Apple Pie of Embrace", you'd almost have a point.

That WAS my point: The name is the problem.

I don't understand why you have a belief that the name is the problem as opposed to the symbol itself.

Do you think they called it a crescent accidentally when they were intending to draw an arc? Or do you think they were drawing a crescent and named it what it was?

What's more, clearly there are many people upset by the potential symbolism of this memorial. While I respect the 3 families decisions that were in the voting committee, I also respect other opinions as well. This is going to be a memorial for all of us to pay tribute at, should it not be designed in a way that offends as few as possible?

Memorials should not be the firing point of controversy which clearly this one is.

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Cold Turkey Cookbook

Kudos

Blog powered by Typepad