Moonage Political Webdream

This design is the subject of a lot of debate right now:

It even made Michelle Malkin’s site where people are outraged.

I also see what could be an amphitheatre.  I see what could be an eyeball.  I see what could be a cog.  I see what could be a spectacle.  And, if you change the design by smoothing the edges, sure, I see what could be a crescent.  "Hillbilly Geek" takes animating it one step farther, by adding a star:

However, he does point out that as if changing the design of what it looks like in such a way that it becomes a religious symbol isn’t bad enough, it points TO MECCA!

OK, ready for the flip-side?  The name of this monstrosity that has caused all this outrage is ( drum roll please, "Crescent of Embrace".  Yes, that is right.  The folks decided to honor the deceased of Flight 93, with a named "crescent".  Now, Paul Murdoch goes on to say there are lunar crescents.  I have two problems with the sincerity of that statement:

1. He’s not planting White Maples, he’s planting Red Maples, per his illustration.  The Moon is not usually red.  You’ll just have to trust me on that.  For a month every year, the "Crescent of Embrace" is going to be flaming red.
2. His own words belie his Moon theory:  "The design features a tower marking the gateway to the memorial site. The tower holds 40 wind chimes whose sounds evoke the memories of those who are honored. The design embraces the place and memory of Flight 93 with a curving arc of maple trees along a walkway through the Bowl, with a focus on the Sacred Ground. At the western end of the curving landform is a Portal, defined by walls that frame the axis of the Flight Path to the crash site. Adjacent to the Flight Path is planned the Visitor Center that will serve as the interpretive center for the memorial and park. A sloped stone wall forms the edge to The Sacred Ground. The fields of the Sacred Ground will be planted with flowers to bloom from Spring through Fall. A white stone slab and gate, on axis with the flight path, provides entry to the Sacred Ground for family members."  He repeatedly refers to this as "Sacred Ground".  It is therefore a religious symbol whether he likes it or not.  He can’t have it both ways.

I don’t like this design.  I don’t trust the concept of this design due to Murdoch’s conflicting statements about it.  It would be very simple to close the arch and make it a solitary circle.  It would be too easy to change the name to "The Sacred Ground of Flight 93" and eliminate all this hullabaloo.  But, what I have the hardest time buying is that Paul Murdoch was that insensitive and stupid in the first place.  I never buy the fact that very successful people are that stupid in the first place.  So, there must be some other reason why all these "coincidences" have occurred.  In lieu of all the contradictions and "unintended" insults to the victims of Flight 93, I think this design should be tossed out and another chosen.

When I started this post I was honestly looking to criticize the over-reaction of the right.  There are warning signs out there that the right is becoming as shrill as the left they criticize.  Seeing Islamic symbolism in trees would be the perfect example of that.  However, there’s just too much to this and the rebuttal is too weak.  People have a right to be offended here.  Not so much because they are seeing symbolism in trees, but because the architect seems to be an asshole with an agenda outside of the concerns of the victims of Flight 93.

Oh well, maybe next time.

---

After posting this, I stumbled on yet another Scott Ott classic:

"The people who died in Pennsylvania fighting for control of United Flight 93 on September 11, 2001, don’t need a new memorial," said Mr. Bush. "In very real sense, they already have two memorials: We call them The White House and the Capitol Building."

He’s making that up, but man is it perfect.

Technorati Tags: National Politics

Tags: National Politics

1 Comment »

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed