State commission to review AZ 9/11 Memorial inscriptions; Update: Video of all 54 inscriptions added

posted at 11:49 pm on September 27, 2006 by Allahpundit

Can you feel it?

A state commission that authorized placement of the Arizona 9-11 Memorial in Wesley Bolin Plaza will review controversial laser-cut inscriptions “and see if some of them could be removed,” the panel’s chairman said Wednesday.

Former state Sen. Tom Smith, chairman of the Legislative Governmental Mall Commission, also said the commission hadn’t made it a practice to review the wording of any memorials. “We sure as heck will do it in the future,” he told The Associated Press in an interview…

“The Capital Mall Commission is responsible for the placement of the memorials that go into Wesley Bolin Plaza. Therefore I think we have not only the responsibility but we have the authority to make any changes if something’s happened that’s inappropriate.”…
Smith said Wednesday it never occurred to him during the February meeting to check on details of the inscriptions’ wording.

“We never thought anything would be inappropriate,” he said. “It didn’t sound like there would be anything controversial.”

Smith also said he didn’t think his commission was misled. “No, I think we could have been naive.”

These morons commissioned a monument to September 11th and never thought to check what would actually be on it?

They’re meeting next month to talk things over. Napolitano insists she never saw the wording and that all questions should be directed to the commission. In any case, she’s bulletproof.

No matter.

mem-pwn3d.png

Update: The ‘Hawk offers some alternatives.

Update: A reader sends along this handy clip of video taken at the memorial. It claims to show all 54 inscriptions. If you saw our photo post, you’ve seen them all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I know it’s corny to use the phrase LOL, but when I saw PWN3D, that is exactly what I did.

Allahpundit rules.

wordwarp on September 28, 2006 at 12:00 AM

How can anyone call into question this perfect memorial to that great, medieval Arab invention, the zero?

Kralizec on September 28, 2006 at 12:02 AM


“You know what, guys, address those questions to the commission. The commission had hearings. The commission approved the memorial. Move on.” J. Napalitano

This is so like Napolitano, you can tell from her tuff tone that she fully knew what was going on and was more than likely personally involved in it’s planning.

She’s a thug, has always been a thug and will always be a thug.

AZPatriot on September 28, 2006 at 12:03 AM

She’s a thug, has always been a thug and will always be a thug.

Unless she faces a potential out-thugging, in which case she’s, “If you can’t out thug em, join em.”

SilverStar830 on September 28, 2006 at 12:32 AM

The memorial should contain nothing but glowing sentiment?

Matt Salenger, an artist who worked on the project, said its creators wanted the inscriptions to “capture the really wide range of reaction, sentiments and facts and events that all occurred around the events of 9-11, 2001.”

Sounds to me like he captured just that.

GregH on September 28, 2006 at 12:55 AM

Then it’s not a memorial to begin with in that case, it’s an arteests statement. Did they build an arteests statement, or a memorial? If they built a statement, then they should call it the Arizona 9/11 Arteests Sentiments Display. If they built a memorial, then they should memorialize the event and the people who gave their lives on that dreadful day, not make political statements and sling inuendo.

Here’s a definition so as you can capture the concept:

me·mo·ri·al

n.

1. Something, such as a monument or holiday, intended to celebrate or honor the memory of a person or an event.

2. A written statement of facts or a petition presented to a legislative body or an executive.

SilverStar830 on September 28, 2006 at 1:18 AM

me‧mo‧ri‧al

Here’s one definition

Here’s a bunch more – take your pick.

If you are basing your explanation on the definition of memorial, your argument lacks substance. Nowhere is there a mention of praise as a requisite. This memorial was built to capture a “wide range of reaction”. That’s what they did.

GregH on September 28, 2006 at 1:38 AM

Not so quick. Chances are that in the end they might, you know, just happen to remove those inscriptions which could be misconstrued as being too pro-Bush.

Niko on September 28, 2006 at 2:35 AM

Memorials are not built to capture a “wide range of reaction”. They are built to memorialize and honor. Building something to capture a “wide range of reaction” is making a political statement. And that is what they did.

OK, I give up, what does PWN3D mean?

bopbottle on September 28, 2006 at 2:39 AM

If you are basing your explanation on the definition of memorial, your argument lacks substance. Nowhere is there a mention of praise as a requisite. This memorial was built to capture a “wide range of reaction”. That’s what they did.

By what other possible basis is a State Memorial honoring the victims of a National Tragedy erected if not by the very definition of memorial? Did you go to school much? Noun: Person, Place, or Thing. Memorial: me·mo·ri·al – n (noun). 1. Something, such as a monument or holiday, intended to celebrate or honor the memory of a person or an event. In addition to all that, an arteests arteestic artsy fartsy personal agenda has no place on a State memorial honoring the innocent dead who are victims of a mass murder.

Shall the State of Colorado erect a similar memorial to the students and staff of the Columbine tragedy and etch in it, “We Should Have Ditched School That Day”, or “My Dog Ate My Homework” ?

Odd you would claim my charge “lacks substance”, then in the same breath you would assert “Nowhere is there a mention of praise as a requisite“. I never mentioned a requisite for “praise”, nor has anyone else. Do you prefer pot or kettle, because I think either suits you just fine. But I’d hate to infringe on your sensitivities with my lack of consideration… coupled with my lack of substance. So I’ll let you decide.

At this point, given your utter lack of understanding of the definition of “memorial” (as a noun mind you), especially a memorial/monument that is state sponsored, overseen by the state, erected on state property, and state maintained, you’ll have to troll elsewhere. To quote someone whom I am sure ranks right up there on your list of literal heroes, “I’m not your monkey.”

/end

SilverStar830 on September 28, 2006 at 3:08 AM

bopbottle, Look here.

Niko on September 28, 2006 at 3:12 AM

Well, once again GregH demonstrates why I’m glad I’m not a liberal. In the article Napolitano used the words “thoughtful and meaningful tribute” to the victims of 9-11 and “and to the strength that we have built since” to describe the memorial.

Perhaps GregH can demonstrate how personal opinions such as “You don’t win battles of terrorism with more battles” and “Erroneous US air strike kills 46 Uruzgan civilians” is in any way a thoughtful and meaningful tribute to the victims.

Perhaps GregH can explain to us how the inscription “Congress questions why CIA and FBI didn’t prevent attacks” is an appropriate tribute to the strength we have built.

.

GT on September 28, 2006 at 3:23 AM

Perhaps GregH, moonbat that he is, feels that the memorial was dedicated to honor the ISLAMIC FASCISTS who piloted those aircraft.

EEprom on September 28, 2006 at 5:35 AM

One thing I learned from Vietnam, and I tell my fellow vets now. No one gave a sht then so don’t expect people to give a sht now. We don’t need all these memorials. A memorial to what? A memorial to a defeat from Al Qaeda? The best memorial we can give our fellow Americans who died from American government incompetence is to kill as many muslim terrorists as possible, and stop being pansies. America has quit fighting and now we build memorials. This ‘memorial’ in AZ is an insult to all Americans, especially those who died at the hands of the muslim illegal immigrants on 9/11…………..bulldoze the pimple on our American soil down.

LZVandy on September 28, 2006 at 7:08 AM

PWN3D

Allah is so 1337.

GG.

Corky on September 28, 2006 at 7:46 AM

GregH,

Please select a comfortable prayer rug.

rightside on September 28, 2006 at 7:53 AM

Yeah, the PWN3D inscription is pretty awesome. Good start to the morning.

frankj on September 28, 2006 at 8:44 AM

The Walter Cronkite School of Journalism? Oh please! Talk about false advertising

Former state Sen. Tom Smith, chairman of the Legislative Governmental Mall Commission, also said the commission hadn’t made it a practice to review the wording of any memorials. “We sure as heck will do it in the future,” he told The Associated Press in an interview…

Better late than never, but I don’t see them being able to correct those laser cut inscriptions easily. I guess they can get a few bucks for it as scrap metal.

DannoJyd on September 28, 2006 at 9:00 AM

normally, a memorial honors those who died, the rescuers, etc. IMHO, memorials are not erected to make political statements. It should have been a neutral place where people could go to remember those who died. nothing more, nothing less. instead, these buffoons decided to politicize something that should have been a place of peace, prayer and remembrance. how terribly sad.

pullingmyhairout on September 28, 2006 at 9:08 AM

normally, a memorial honors those who died

Why, it certainly does great honor to the terrorists who died. And no, I don’t think that a memorial in AZ should be “neutral”. It should be explicitly pro-American, and it should make it abundantly clear that the US is a much better place than, uhm, 98% of this planet’s surface.

Niko on September 28, 2006 at 9:20 AM

If you are basing your explanation on the definition of memorial, your argument lacks substance.

How dare you try to use the definition of a memorial in an argument about the composition of a memorial! Hmph.

GregH, you’re a laugh riot! Thought it’s the “at” variety, as opposed to the “with”.

Pablo on September 28, 2006 at 9:32 AM

I meant politically neutral – devoid of any remarks that are not statements of fact. I never meant anti-american! And, I assume that readers will know I was talking about the 3000 innocents that died – certainly NOT the terrorists!

pullingmyhairout on September 28, 2006 at 9:39 AM

Chances are that in the end they might, you know, just happen to remove those inscriptions which could be misconstrued as being too pro-Bush.

I must have missed those.

hindmost on September 28, 2006 at 9:50 AM

I didn’t mean to imply that. My first sentence was rather an attempt at sarcasm. While the rest was meant to say that a memorial on American soil for murdered citizens of this country should neither be anti- or neutral in political or general terms.

Niko on September 28, 2006 at 9:55 AM

hindmost, ok, I realize I should be careful here when using sarcasm.

Niko on September 28, 2006 at 9:56 AM

Anybody who thinks this “memorial” hasn’t been politicized, please explain this inscription:

VIOLENT ACTS LEADING
US TO WAR
05 07 1915, 12 07 1941,
08 04 1964 & 09 11 2001

High Desert Wanderer on September 28, 2006 at 10:08 AM

All your biased, moonbatty memorials are belong to us.

Kid from Brooklyn on September 28, 2006 at 11:28 AM

You will have to excuse GregH as he is an Olberman worshiper and blame America first leftist.

Rick on September 28, 2006 at 11:50 AM

Not so quick. Chances are that in the end they might, you know, just happen to remove those inscriptions which could be misconstrued as being too pro-Bush.

I’d have no real problem with that. I’d prefer to simply remember what happened. In 50 years, the politics of the whole thing will have faded, but the event will still cause strong feelings.

Farmer_Joe on September 28, 2006 at 12:27 PM

No Niko… I got it; it was my way of commenting that there weren’t any political statements on that side. I agree it should be neutral and actually memorialize the event itself.

hindmost on September 28, 2006 at 12:29 PM

I apologize in advance, but this is bugging me today.

The biggest problems I see with the memorial, and the process used to create it, are: (1) no understanding of scope whatsoever and (2) attempted hijacking of the public’s collective brain, in trying to think for them.

Politics are definitely intertwined here, but even if all “political” quotes were expunged (“Are you happy now?”), the memorial would still be a travesty. That is because some of the phrases aren’t expressly political but are still inappropriate as hell for a memorial: “10 08 01 White House office of Homeland Security created”? “09 21 01 Federal Victim compensation fund created”?

Phrases like this, as with “multiple funerals in a day” (when haven’t there been multiple funerals in a day?), are banalities so unsuited to any memorial that purports to commemorate the event itself that those who dreamed this up must either have no concept of Western civilization or basic human decency, or else want to redefine the concept of a “memorial” to something else entirely. What else explains the idea behind commemorating a string of data points other than 9/11? The ratio of 9/11 to non-9/11 phrases on this so-called memorial – to the extent that we need phrases at all – is appalling.

Then the quasi-political: “Feeling of invincibility lost”? Says who (that I felt the United States was invincible to begin with, that is)? What an arrogant thing to say. It claims to speak for us, for all of us, in a matter-of-fact way when it can’t possibly. Of course those who wrote it know this, but apparently they believe that’s the way we should have felt, or feel; and the way our actions in the world should have been interpreted: “what else explains how we babykillers behaved in the years/months/days leading up to 9/11, if we didn’t feel ourselves to be invincible?”

Such people are totally at ease with telling us not only what to do but how to feel; those are noxious traits that are not supposed to find root here in the United States. Yet we’re watching a subculture try to accomplish just that before our very eyes. And they’re using 9/11 to do it.

And they have the nerve to claim George Bush “hijacked” 9/11?

The entire wordplay has a ring of naive pomposity that only a clueless and self-deluded individual can muster with a straight face, thinking they are being profound when all they’re really being is embarrassing to the adults around them. (Like me right now ;-)

IMHO part of the “root cause” – aside from BDS – is the ease and facility with which leftists try to speak and think for the public and in the name of the public: that’s “just what they do.”, their ray zone detra. What disturbs me the most is not the travesty itself, but the belief by this group that they could & should put this travesty together at all, thinking what they were doing was “normal” or even something to be respected and admired.

Did it occur to any of these genuises that such drivel, political or not, is simply not in the scope of a memorial (at least those created by societies I’m familiar with), has never been in the scope of a memorial, and will never be in the scope of a memorial, lest we forget our humanity and hurl ourselves toward insanity? That’s a question I’d like to see answered before too much more time ticks by.

RD on September 28, 2006 at 12:31 PM

RD, great post. It captured thoughtfully what happened and why; also what the consequences could be.

Take this humorously. You wrote “their ray zone detra” and I thought for a bit that they’re having an enlightening “ray zone” of some sort :) Then I realized that you meant raison d’etre, their reason or justification for being or existence. We can still hope for those rays, though…

Entelechy on September 28, 2006 at 1:32 PM

IMHO part of the “root cause” – aside from BDS – is the ease and facility with which leftists try to speak and think for the public and in the name of the public: that’s “just what they do.”, their ray zone detra. What disturbs me the most is not the travesty itself, but the belief by this group that they could & should put this travesty together at all, thinking what they were doing was “normal” or even something to be respected and admired.

That is their mind exactly. The masses are unable to think about anything but their sex, beer, and entertainment. Leftist/Liberals, as their betters, are allowed, and in fact, required to think for them and let them know what is and is not approved thinking.

You are a counterrevolutionary if you believe otherwise and increasingly are thought of as vermin to eliminate. “What’s one hundred million murdered by leftism in the last century? A good start!” That’s their thinking and they will stick to it until the crescent dagger is dragged across their throats.

ScottG on September 28, 2006 at 7:04 PM

Time for a MOONBAT MEMORIAL.

Something eloquent to commemorate their loopy, lurid and laughable leanings since 9/11 -some of which have obviously infiltrated this AZ site, but the general good would be better-served by sequestering them all on one, big Multicultural Monument.

THE WHY DO THEY HATE US? MEMORIAL

Using selected quotes from politcos (‘Turban’ Durbin, Teddy Kennedy, Howie Dean, etc.) , ‘artists’, musicians, film-makers, writers, ad absurdum, to spatter the surfaces of the soapstone site (a very soft stone material that will wear away to beneovolent blankness relatively quickly).

Things of the caliber of:

THE GUARDS AT GITMO ARE BEHAVING LIKE THE TORTURERS UNDER POL POT OR THE NAZIS

THE WTC TOWERS WERE BROUGHT DOWN BY CIA-PLANTED EXPLOSIVE ‘SQUIB’ CHARGES

OSAMA BIN LADEN AND AL-QAEDA COULD BE SEEN TO BE LIKE GEORGE WASHINGTON AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS

BUSH LIED; PEOPLE DIED

WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER

LITTLE EICHMANNS

NO BLOOD FOR OIL

Let them implode under the weight of their own venal hyperbole, puling paranoia, god-damned gullibility, simpering self-loathing, tin-hat spews and supreme sucker-dom.

tHE mONUMENT Composed entirely of aluminum BATS, glued together with clear epoxy, to form a gigantic MOON.

And a black soapstone “moon shadow” base, as the glossy surface for their shallow inscriptions.

The moron formerly-known as “Cat Stevens” could inaugurate the Site via video hook-up, since he isn’t allowed into the U.S.

And a flock of bats, painted white (for peace) could be released at dusk as everyone attending sang:

Don’t Worry, Be Happy”.

Then a high school band, from Berkeley, leading everyone away to strains from Mozart’s “Der Fleidermaus”.

profitsbeard on September 28, 2006 at 7:46 PM

Thanks Entelechy for your kind nod :-) And yes, I had an attitude today about my spelling, must be those freedom fries I had for lunch…

(And you’re absolutely correct: this particular mooonbat “ray zone” is pronounced “detra”, as in “detra-mental”… ;-)

RD on September 29, 2006 at 1:41 AM