"Guys: it's a curved grove of maple trees for God's sake. Get over it," writes Dean Esmay of Dean's World in the first sensible thing we've read -- other than our own brilliant posts here and here -- re the recent hysteria being fomented by a handful of leading lights of the right side of the blogosphere over perceived hidden messages in the plan for the Flight 93 memorial:
So, while I like and respect Michelle Malkin and many of the blogs she links to, I have to say, this entire kerfuffle over a 9/11 memorial that has a red semi-circle in it strikes me as over-the-top, and it seems to me to point to a growing trend of the right to be as shrill and perpetually indignant as the PC mavens most of us grew to hate so much in the 1990s.
Exactly. Whether of the left or or the right, conspiracy theories and evocations of evil forces lurking in the shadows -- reminiscent of medieval witchhunting -- have no place in measured political discourse. It isn't just Hillary anymore.
Technorati tags: crescent of embrace, flight 93 memorial.
As you said yesterday everything is in the name: "Arc of Embrace," and the visions are of glory rather than of hate.
Posted by: goomp | September 11, 2005 at 09:32 AM
It is a crescent as is the Islamic symbol. Was it intended to be one and the same? I think so but maybe not. Does it matter? No. It is a legit argument. A cross could be an "x" on it's side but I guarantee that it would never be allowed in that field. The possible designs are only limited by the human imagination which has no limit. It is a poorly chosen design. Get your head out of the sand.
Posted by: Rob | September 12, 2005 at 09:07 PM
The red crescent points towards Mecca. How much more obvious does the design have to be? Does Bin Laden have to put his name on the thing before you recognize that it is a monument to islamist murderers?
Posted by: JHC | September 13, 2005 at 12:53 PM
How does a crescent of trees point towards the mecca?
Malkin is a wack job, no doubt.
Posted by: JELIEL | September 14, 2005 at 02:50 PM