The newspapers were filled with stories on Friday about the World Trade Center memorial. It seems that the cost estimates for the Memorial have nearly doubled to $1 Billion; that is, Billion with a "B". Mayor Bloomberg is unhappy. According to the New York Times:
Mayor Chastises Foundation Over Memorial's Costs
During his weekly radio program, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg suggested that the cost could be cut to $500 million, in part by moving a museum and the state-built visitors center out of the memorial and into the nearby Freedom Tower.
He chastised the foundation, saying the group had become obsessed with the design and construction of the memorial. "The foundation should be focusing on fund-raising," he said. "The agreement fundamentally was that the L.M.D.C. — the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation — would do the design, somebody would build the building and it would be run by the foundation, who would be raising private money."
The foundation has raised about $130 million of a promised $300 million; the development corporation has agreed to provide $200 million and the Port Authority $100 million.
Here is a description of trhe Memorial from the web site dedicated to the Memorial:
To open on September 11, 2009, the Memorial consists of two voids that reside in the original footprints of the Twin Towers surrounded by a forest of oak trees. Each void holds a pool of water filled by waterfalls on all sides. Visitors will descend 30 feet to galleries underneath the waterfalls inscribed with the names of those who died. Designed by Michael Arad and Peter Walker, Reflecting Absence, was selected from more than 5000 entrants from 63 nations which itself was a testament to the universality of the loss.
I cannot fault anyone involved for their desire to establish a Memorial to those who lost their lives on 9/11. The victims were a cross section of America who were murdered simply because they had gone to work.
However, there are two things that trouble me about the Memorial. First of all, it is no surprise that in this most contentiously liberal of cities, the Memorial has become politicized and that the cost has spiraled out of control. But even at half a billion dollars, this seems like a lot of money to pay for a Memorial to an event which represents one of America's worst days and greatest failures. I would contrast the expense and excess of the 9/11 Memorial with the beautiful simplicity of the USS Arizona Memorial dedicated to those Americans who lost their lives during the last great sneak attack on America. The Pearl Harbor Memorial, like the 9/11 Memorial, is a monument to loss and victimhood, yet the USS Arizona was only one of many WWII Memorials.
Thus far, since 9/11, we have plans for two Memorials, one to the heroism of Americans in the Pennsylvania countryside, the Flight 93 Memorial which has already been embroiled in questionable multicultural political correctness, and the WTC Memorial which celebrates victimhood and the everyday heroism of New York City fire fighters, police, and EMS workers, who rushed into the burning buildings to try to get others out. Significantly, the Commission that chose the design and is overseeing the construction have decided to not differentiate the loss of those heroes from the loss of every other victim; the distinction is worth consideration.
Five years after 9/11, another tribute to the heroes of Flight 93 has finally made it to the theaters in "United 93", which I wrote about here. Yet something has been missing.
Dinocrat strikes a nerve in Moussaoui and United 93 show how unserious America is today:
Perhaps you have enthused about United 93. Perhaps you thought: “Isn’t it great that the movie was made at all, and it’s doing so well at the box office!” Rubbish. Again, think of how pathetic your expectations have become. One movie — in five years — and it’s a movie in which Americans, brave and wonderful as they are, lose. In World War II at least 60 notable films had been made during the comparable time span since Pearl Harbor, and this doesn’t count the ubiquitous newsreels of the period. Many of these movies showed brave Americans sacrificing and winning, and the ones showing uncertain outcomes trumpeted American confidence in ultimate vistory. And one movie like United 93 makes you feel better?
Armies don’t fight wars; the people fight wars. Right now the people, with their treacherous elites, aren’t doing so well. It is a tribute to your optimism that you think the death penalty for Moussaoui would make a difference. It is a tribute to your patriotism and spirit that you were enraged and energized by the heroes of flight 93. But right now, these are as grains of sand in a hostile ocean. American confidence and American desire have to back up American might or we surely cannot win this war.
Perhaps there is a sign of hope; maybe it will require an Army of Davids approach to more fully engage Americas support for our war efforts. It is certain that our Hollywood elites will do almost nothing to support a war that they can only understand in inanely trite terms, but a few National Guardsmen with a camera may just have to be this generations Sgt. York.
The War Tapes Won Best International Documentary Feature!
The War Tapes won the international documentary feature competition at Tribeca!!! This is such an incredible honor for the filmmakers and the soldiers with cameras, and so well deserved -- taking a beautiful, simple idea (giving the soldiers cameras) and through hundreds of thousands of hours, crafting something extraordinary.
And I have one more question: why is it that Zacharias Moussaui is a household name in America, but few Americans know who Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith was and what was so remarkable about him? The St. Petersburg Times described his actions in an article last year, Iraq hero joins hallowed group:
Lt. Col. Smith [no relation to Sgt. 1st Class Paul Smith] commanded the 11th Engineer Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division, during the American attack on Iraq, which began March 20, 2003. On the morning of April 4, the engineers found themselves manning a roadblock not far from Baghdad International Airport.
A call went out for a place to put some Iraqi prisoners.
Sgt. Smith volunteered to create a holding pen inside a walled courtyard. Soon, Iraqi soldiers, numbering perhaps 100, opened fire on Smith's position. Smith was accompanied by 16 men.
Smith called for a Bradley, a tank-like vehicle with a rapid fire cannon. It arrived and opened up on the Iraqis. The enemy could not advance so long as the Bradley was in position. But then, in a move that baffled and angered Smith's men, the Bradley left.
Smith's men, some of whom were wounded, were suddenly vulnerable.
Smith could have justifiably ordered his men to withdraw. Lt. Col. Smith believes Sgt. Smith rejected that option, thinking that abandoning the courtyard would jeopardize about 100 GIs outside - including medics at an aid station.
Sgt. Smith manned a 50-caliber machine gun atop an abandoned armored personnel carrier and fought off the Iraqis, going through several boxes of ammunition fed to him by 21-year-old Pvt. Michael Seaman. As the battle wound down, Smith was hit in the head. He died before he could be evacuated from the scene. He was 33.
Search the New York Times web site for Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith and you will receive no hits.
Recent Comments