This post has not been approved by the Board, and has therefore been deemed "chilling" in its efect.

You can tell it's really us, because we misspelled "efect."

You can tell it's really us, because we misspelled "efect."

lol!

NYT has been anti-American for 80 years. So what's new?

"Chilling free speech"?
Bull. Shit.

If you want to debate the symbolism of 9-11, you have essentially the whole rest of America on any piece of land George Soros can buy (or convince a local city council to declare 'blighted') to erect your own private monument--you have liberal editorial space in every paper in the country, you have the internet, those catbox-sized lefty dailies, over the fence talking to your neighbor, your own private printing press, books, sandwich boards, God knows what else and no one will stop you.

But a monument to a national tragedy, if it is erected in a democratic country, will represent the national consensus on the meaning of that tragedy--not the views of one group in particular. We don't go to the mall in DC looking for a 'nuanced' view of American power; we don't expect to find controversial screeds covering the graves of the dead men in Arlington, debating the 'meaning' of their deaths. If this monument erected at 9-11 becomes a monument only to what the so-called 'intelligentsia', the narrow elite, of this country believe, then it WILL be the physical form of a lie and profoundly, essentially, undemocratic.

And if you are a lefty and believe that the view of the majority of Americans on the war is wrong, the thing to do is to convince them of the correctness of your views through private speech--not to impose a view upon them using public funds.

It will be useless to try to use a monument to change people's minds, anyway--in Germany, innumerable 'sophisticated' lefty artists have monumentalized the Holocaust (or rather, effectively embalmed it) and the country continues to be a hotbed of anti-Semitism and Neo-Naziism: the high-minded monuments are regularly defaced by Swastikas.

Monuments are meaningful and powerful not when they represent offically sanctioned views descending from on high, but when they speak to the views of the people for whom they are intended. If Soros wants a 'Why do they Hate Us' retread of everything every school child has already learned in high school about his country's checkered past--his monument will simply have no visitors--it will mean nothing.

And certainly, democratic debate on a NATIONAL monument is not 'chilling freedom of speech'--this applies much more aptly to the small clique of elite consultants' outrage that their official 'master narrative' being stamped on the populace's memory from above is being rejected.

Debating Leftism = "Chilling of free speech"

This isn't rocket science...

Enough of saying it's wrong wrong wrong. How do we stop this?

It is going to happen, it is going to be an outrage, and I say, 'good.'

If this thing goes on as planned, they will have to change it later when thousands of people who visit get angry and call them out on the nonsensical non-memorial aspects.

The tourists that some New Yorkers hate are going to make them shove this thing up their ass.

And there are plenty of New Yorkers, who personally knew people who died in those Towers, and just as many who know "it could've been me", who also hate this idea. (I can think of several I could hit with my stapler from where I sit.)

Tourists come and go, but I =live= here. I'm tired of this crap. I want to know which people vetted this, which people actively worked to fund this, and I want their heads on a platter. Now.

I hope you're right, Laura.

My memorial is upstairs on a shelf in a blue plastic box. It's full of newspapers and magazines, plus a piece of burned office paper that fluttered down from the towers on that morning, a glass jar full of skyscraper dust I collected from the deep marble window sill of Federal Hall on Wall Street, two weeks later, and a glob of molten metal that I collected from beneath a piece of ironsteel debris that recovery workers had stored near some construction equipment.

Those who weren't there that day deserve something equivalent: the facts of that day, the artifacts of that day, not some pedantic, facile representation of the views of a disaffected "intelligentsia.".

My disgust with those who view 9/11 as a "teaching moment" for their views is beyond easy words...

Ian, I can't even imagine that artifacts with such wrenching immediacy won't be in the exhibit; or that any unrelated materials wouldn't seem wholly inappropriate.

I wonder how many pictures of the people jumping to their deaths in order to not be incinerated that will be included in the Centre of Teaching's exhibits?

If the answer is "None", then we'll have our (unnecessary) proof that they're not really all that interested in what actually happened on 9/11.

Oh, God. Every poor school kid is going to be dragged down there on field trips. I would hope any parent would refuse to allow their kids to go.

Maybe the NY Times can showcase the Pulitzer "won" by Walter Duranty for his reporting on the non-famine in the 1930s as long as left-wing propaganda will likely dominate.

It is a strange day, indeed, when a bunch of pissed off New Yorkers can't kick the butts of a bunch of effite libby geldings... Just sayin'.