Look, Ma. Our first animated GIF! Inspired by the one by Zombie at Michelle Malkin's, where the Flight 93 memorial's curved grove of red maples and sugar maples becomes an Islamic crescent, we created our own version, where the curve becomes the edge of an All-American apple pie. As Mom said, patting out the dough onto her floured board, Let's roll! (Detail of Flight 93 memorial site plan showing the Bowl or Crescent of Embrace in red. Pie photo from "Put the pie together.")
Where some see crescents, others see apple pie. Michelle Malkin and other A-list bloggers we usually see eye to eye with are seeing red and whipping their readers into a primal frenzy over things they see that others don't. She's impugning the motives of Los Angeles architect Paul Murdoch, one of the designers of the Flight 93 memorial -- blogged here yesterday -- and even dissing relatives of Flight 93 victims who speak well of the project. If only the designers had followed the advice of the second-stage jury, who "recommended changing the project's name to steer clear of religious overtones. Rather than crescent, the jury suggested using circle or arc of embrace instead," reports the Johnstown, Pennsylvania Tribune-Democrat. Besides, "Arc of Embrace" sounds classical and timeless, unlike the treacly, trendy sounding "Crescent of Embrace."
One of the jury members, a titan in our own field of landscape architecture, University of Pennsylvania Professor Laurie Olin of the Olin Partnership, was apparently unaware of the evil he was about to let loose on the world:
"This has been the calmest, most thoughtful jury I've been on," said Olin, who's served on dozens. "I think their experience has made them very reflective."
Robert Campbell, an architecture critic for The Boston Globe and jury member, said jurors' opinions were swayed simply by listening to one another, not by force of personality.
You want force of personality? Welcome to the blogosphere. We visited the National Park Service's website -- they have final say in approval of the design -- and tried to e-mail a message alerting them to the onslaught of hysterical outrage headed their way, but the site was already inoperable, presumably because the much-loved Michelle had advised her multitudinous readers to go there and speak their mind. So we rang the NPS up. The gal at the other end of the line welcomed our call, reporting that we were the first person -- presumably among many callers -- who had registered a positive response to their plans.
Technorati tags: crescent of embrace, flight 93 memorial.
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.
Posted by: Dave Schuler | September 10, 2005 at 06:50 PM
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
Posted by: Mr. Snitch! | September 10, 2005 at 09:39 PM
Nobody uses the term "Crescent of Embrace",common usage is "Arc of Embrace".Architectural the designers may be, literary they are not
Posted by: PeterUK | September 11, 2005 at 03:18 PM
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.
Posted by: mmpost99 | September 11, 2005 at 09:07 PM
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.
Posted by: RheGirl | September 11, 2005 at 11:11 PM
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.
Posted by: George Turner | September 11, 2005 at 11:23 PM
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?
Posted by: carentan44 | September 12, 2005 at 12:59 AM
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.
Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2005 at 02:59 AM
Stop all that frowning, you crescent-haters! You're making your little mouths into crescents!
Posted by: john_m_burt | September 12, 2005 at 04:58 AM
"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.
Posted by: RheGirl | September 12, 2005 at 10:18 AM
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
Posted by: Scott Harris | September 12, 2005 at 05:11 PM
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
Posted by: Scott Harris | September 12, 2005 at 05:20 PM
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?
Posted by: Scott Harris | September 12, 2005 at 05:30 PM
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.
Posted by: Rhesa | September 13, 2005 at 01:26 AM
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.
Posted by: Scott Harris | September 13, 2005 at 03:23 AM
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.
Posted by: RheGirl | September 13, 2005 at 10:07 AM
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.
Posted by: Brett | September 13, 2005 at 01:44 PM
And don't hide behind the victim's families. That's just tacky.
Posted by: Brett | September 13, 2005 at 01:49 PM
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.
Posted by: Sissy Willis | September 13, 2005 at 02:47 PM
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.
Posted by: Brett | September 13, 2005 at 04:20 PM
"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.
Posted by: Brainster | September 13, 2005 at 06:22 PM
That WAS my point: The name is the problem.
Posted by: Sissy Willis | September 13, 2005 at 06:32 PM
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.
Posted by: Reiryc | September 14, 2005 at 12:08 AM