« November 2006 | Main | January 2007 »
Let's try an experiment. If your business or state agency has a job opening and you want me to post it for free, let me know and I'll set up a page. I think there are a lot of folks out there who are interested in having a clearing house of employment information.
Let me know if you would be interested in EP posting some resumes as well.
On October 1st, the Republic Editorial Board finally noticed the offensive inscriptions on the 9/11 Memorial.
Likely to get a thorough scrubbing are such inscriptions as, "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles," "Congress questions why CIA & FBI didn't prevent attacks," "Erroneous US air strike kills 46 Uruzgan civilians," and "Violent acts leading U.S. to war, 05-07-1915, 12-07-41, 08-04-64 & 09-11-01."
In response to that Editorial, I wrote that the Editorial Board just doesn't get it.
What the Republic editorial board and Billy Shields don't seem to realize is that removing the offensive phrases doesn't solve the problem. The Memorial isn't a remembrance of 9/11 PLUS some offensive and some trivial phrases. The memorial is exclusively offensive and trivial phrases. There is no traditional remembrance.
The monument isn't a memorial to 9/11. It is an altar built for the worship of post modernism's twin Gods of Moral Relativism and Tolerance.
Removing the references to dead Afghan civilians won't fix that.
This morning, the Republic finally came around.
The heart of the matter is not that the memorial's inscriptions express sentiments that are especially anti-war, though some do. It is that so many of the brief inscriptions are just plain banal.
It's not that they express pacifism or defeatism - or, for that matter, fury or pro-American nationalism. Too many simply don't punch any buttons. They don't seem to express anything coherent or worthy of reflection.
The Republic is exactly right. The memorial is banal, trivial and incoherent. You can't commemorate 9/11 by writing "Gracie of Phoenix Makes kids Giggle Again."
Let me be frank...the design is not salvageable. If the current design is going to be maintained, the words either need to reflect the time line of the events, the names of the victims or both.
However, now that we have determined that the phrases don't work, we should step back and look at the design. The design itself is highly flawed. The Memorial has very little visual appeal and the designer forgot a key feature--the memorial is a concrete basin but doesn't have any drainage. Water had to be pumped out for the dedication.
Let's face it. We need to start over.
Folks have asked me if I would be satisfied if the offensive statements were removed from the 9/11 memorial. I have tried to explain that the entire memorial concept is flawed. The statements will either be left-wing rhetoric, right-wing rhetoric or pablum--none of which is appropriate for a 9/11 memorial.
The Tribune makes that point better than I've made it in today's editorial.
We are not going to engage in the principal debate that reassembled the commission after its task to design a memorial for Wesley Bolin Plaza was supposedly completed. Those arguments focus on whether it is appropriate to have inscriptions on the memorial that are favorable or unfavorable, depending on your view of the progress in our battles against terrorism or the continued necessity of the war in Iraq.
Those arguments themselves are academic because anything on the memorial that deals with the war at all should be something for another memorial. This memorial’s purpose is as clear as its name: To honor those who died in the vicious, surprise terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, in New York, Washington and in a Pennsylvania field.
The best modern example of a memorial to such an event that does not extend into the military campaigns that followed is the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Visitors note that its inscriptions do not discuss the world war that came after that vicious, surprise attack on American soil by Japan on Dec. 7, 1941. The Pearl Harbor memorial deals with the events and sacrifices of that day, and rightfully so.
Dr. Tom Patterson makes some excellent points about AIDS and our funding priorities in this column that he wrote for the Tribune.
In this context, it seems difficult to justify further increases in federal spending for AIDS research. The practical reality is that public research funds have a finite limit. Money spent on AIDS is money that will not go to other diseases. AIDS research already receives more funding than 13 other diseases that cause more American deaths.
AIDS prevalence is still increasing in Africa, but there are stronger arguments for devoting any funding increases to malaria. Malaria affects 300 million people a year while about 40 million around the world have AIDS. Malaria is Africa’s leading cause of childhood death and consumes about half of all the medical care dispensed on the continent. It is a result of poverty but also an important cause. According to the World Health Organization, malaria costs African economies about $12 billion a year, even though “it could be controlled for a fraction of that sum.” It’s unlikely additional AIDS dollars would have a comparable impact.
Malaria is a topic that just drives me crazy. The west's reaction to malaria has been unconscionable. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring led to the elimination of the use of DDT but no one seemed to understand that DDT saved over one million people a year. Before widespread use of DDT, malaria killed 100,000 people (mostly children) annually in South Africa alone. DDT got those numbers down to a few thousand and now that DDT is gone, the number is back to 100,000 deaths annually.
No one argues that DDT should be used in agriculture, but trace amounts used inside residences would save millions of lives. Some will argue that DDT reduces bird populations. Well that's probably true. But how many kids is a bird worth? I know that sounds condescending, but it's a real trade off. Is it worth saving 1,000 birds if a million kids have to die? How about one for one--a million birds for a million kids? Is that worth it? Before you accuse me of setting up false choices, let me remind you that birds for kids IS the choice, and the west has made it. We want the birds. Of course, since they aren't our kids, the choice is easier.
Arizona's 9/11 Memorial was featured on National Public Radio's All Things Considered today. Here's a link to the story on the NPR website.
I may have to take back all those things I said about the "New York Times and NPR crowd."
In Phoenix, a memorial to the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has kicked up a political dust storm.
The cement and steel monument on the state's capital mall was meant to be a somber and respectful tribute to victims of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Instead, the memorial became something that is considered by many to be offensive. And some are saying it should be changed or taken down.
Wesley Bolin Plaza is a grassy lawn stretching east of Arizona's state Capitol. It's a quiet spot in otherwise busy Phoenix, and home to the state's monuments.
The newest addition is a 42-foot steel ring, tilting skyward. It looks like a giant halo. And as you walk under it, you can read several dozen inscriptions visible in the shadows of the cement base. The words touch on a number of subjects.
As Greg Patterson, a Republican former state lawmaker, says, "It's a very stark memorial. And then when I started to read it, I realized that what it is, is a criticism of the United States!"
Patterson is offended by many of the inscriptions, which he says have nothing to do with remembering the victims of 9/11. The phrases are short; some are more provocative than others. "Congress questions why CIA and FBI didn't prevent attacks" and "Middle East violence motivates attacks in the US" are two that Patterson singles out.
One of the worst, he says, is "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles."
"I'm not saying these things can't be spoken," Patterson says. "But this is the official 9/11 memorial at the Arizona state Capitol grounds, and this is not how I want my family to remember 9/11, and I don't think it's how many Arizonans want to remember 9/11."
Since I haven't listened to a new song since high school, I generally leave the music reviews to the Republic's Dan Nowicki. However, I feel compelled to make an exception.
When the Ray Charles biopic "Ray" came out a few years ago, I was intrigued by the guy in the movie who first spotted Ray Charles' real talent and seemed to be the only guy who treated Ray decently. I later learned that the man depicted in the story was Ahmet Ertegun, son of the Turkish ambassador and music genius. Ertegun had an amazing ear for music and a knack for finding obscure groups and sounds and turning them into legends. He and Jerry Wexler bought part of Atlantic Records in 1956. Ertegun's knack for spotting talent changed music history.
Ertegun started with Jazz and recorded greats such as Coltrane and Charles Mingus. He signed Ray Charles and Aretha Franklin and in the 70s signed Led Zeppelin, Cream and Crosby Stills and Nash.
I felt compelled to write about Ertegun because I've been impressed with him since I saw the movie, and because Ahmet Ertegun died last week at the age of 83.
So how does an 83 year old music genius die?
The same way that I want to go.
He died as a result of a head injury suffered at a Rolling Stones concert.
Recent Comments