Ever since the dust and debris had been cleared away from where once stood the
It is becoming increasingly clear that the people of New York--and the rest of the country--are not enamored over the prospect of a 9/11 memorial that depicts--as one of the original designers of the International Freedom Center, Tom A. Bernstein, proposed: "Illuminate humankind’s sometimes uneven but ultimately enduring aspiration for free and open societies."
In today's Sunday edition of the New York Times, reporter David Dunlap, who has written extensively regarding the 9/11 memorial, titles his latest article: "Freedom Center in Doubt"
What puzzles me and most people, I will say, is the constant metamorphosis of design that has taken place with regards to a 9/11 memorial. Though Mr. Dunlap tries to be even-handed in his reporting here, he falls a bit short.
Specifically, while making reference to some who disagree with the proposed
That "missing" link would be an editorial written by Debra Burlingame on
More basically though, it is Mr. Dunlap's very title of his article that is the most misleading of all. By any name, there will be some sort of Memorial/Center that will rest upon the footprints where once stood the
What troubles Mr. Dunlap and his bosses most at the New York Times--who employ words like "censor" and "misguided" to those who object to the IFC's attempt at creating a memorial that showcases "tolerance, diversity and understanding among nations," is that it will not be the proposed international and multi-cultural extravaganza that seeks to remind the world just how awful America has been and still is--in their view--as opposed to a memorial that directly deals with and depicts the actual events of 9/11, and America's response to it.
