Lone Lawmaker Blocks Flight 93 Monument in Pa.

[BPSCG]

For emotional wallop, there are few rivals to the windswept, grassy field outside of Shanksville, Pa., where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed on Sept. 11, 2001.

But for three years, that field has made do with a makeshift monument while one member of Congress, Rep. Charles H. Taylor (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/t000067/) (R-N.C.), has blocked a $10 million request to buy the land for a permanent memorial to the 40 passengers and crew members who overpowered hijackers bent on crashing their jet into the Capitol or the White House. For Taylor, a large landowner in the mountains of western Carolina, the issue comes down to principle: The federal government is already the largest landowner in the country, and he believes that no additional tax dollars should go to more land buying for this or any other memorial. Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401428.html)

[aerocontrols]

One Rep is blocking it.

Impressive, really. So impressive that it's hard to believe.

[BPSCG]

One Rep is blocking it.

Impressive, really. So impressive that it's hard to believe.He chairs the Interior Department subcommittee. Apparently carries a lot of weight.

Doesn't sound implausible. Senators can singlehandedly block ambassador and judicial appointments by putting a "hold" on them. Doesn't seem impossible that a congressional committee chair could block a $40 million apprpriation for a monument.

[aerocontrols]

He chairs the Interior Department subcommittee. Apparently carries a lot of weight.

Doesn't sound implausible. Senators can singlehandedly block ambassador and judicial appointments by putting a "hold" on them. Doesn't seem impossible that a congressional committee chair could block a $40 million apprpriation for a monument.

It doesn't seem implausible that he could block it, if nobody else really cared.

[Tmy]

Maybe this guy has a point. $10 mill for a chunk of land way out in the middle of nowhere?

Do the feds own the future memorial at the twin tower site?

[Manny]

The WTC site is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, an agency of the two state governments under control of the respective governors. They'll be controlling the site of the memorial, and (this just recently got negotiated) the Freedom Tower and one other building on the site. Private developers, led by leaseholder Larry Silverstein, will do the rest of the buildings and the retail center, under negotiated architectural and useage guidelines.

[Amapola]

Well, I have to say that on my list of the Ten Most Important Things The Government Could Spend My Tax Money On, this item would be around #1560 or so. I feel that this was a horrible tragedy, but $10 million seems a little excessive. I would gladly design a piece of jewelry commemorate these heroes for only $1,000.00. (:D , for those who don't know I am joking.)

[geni]

One Rep is blocking it.

Impressive, really. So impressive that it's hard to believe.

Not really. Henry Hyde is current causeing problems blocking technology transfer to the UK for the JSF.

[schplurg]

Maybe this guy has a point. $10 mill for a chunk of land way out in the middle of nowhere?I'd like to see the value of neighboring real estate and find out if someone isn't being greedy.

[punchdrunk]

Well...

On one hand, if we were really serious about controlling spending in Congress, the first thing I would look at is the money we throw at monument after monument; surely we have more pressing needs.

But since no one in Congress but McCain has paid attention to that hand in several years, then on the other, I can't think of a better reason to create a monument than for those people who gave their lives to make sure those bastards didn't succeed in their plans. Somewhere on there, it should have "Let's Roll".

[Skeptic]

I'll bet there's more to the story than this. Politicians usually don't decide to make an "unpopular", principled stand about something unless they have a good idea that it's at least *somewhat* popular, and opposing the memorial is, in fact, *really* unpopular.

[Chaos]

I'll bet there's more to the story than this. Politicians usually don't decide to make an "unpopular", principled stand about something unless they have a good idea that it's at least *somewhat* popular, and opposing the memorial is, in fact, *really* unpopular.

Plus, refusing to spend tax money is so *unlike* any politician it´s hard to believe...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Maybe this guy has a point. $10 mill for a chunk of land way out in the middle of nowhere?

$10 million?!?!? How much land do they need? I don't know where in PA this is, but in outstate Missouri, $10M would buy you at least 10,000 acres (non-farmland).


Do the feds own the future memorial at the twin tower site?

No

[Anti_Hypeman]

Why build it at the crash site where nobody will see it? Does the Vietnam wall have less meaning because its not it Vietnam? Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I predict after the movie is out America will become outraged and a $80,000,000 monument will be built. I aslo predict that the Birdman of Alcatraz will air on channel 13 and 1,500,000 Americans will write congress demanding his release.

[ImaginalDisc]

How much of land is being purchased, and is all of $10,000,000 going to the purchase of the land? It seems like a large sum. Are the Feds planning on buying a huge (wide hand gesture) tract of land to encompass the site? Is some of the money earmarked towards fencing off?

[Elind]

He chairs the Interior Department subcommittee. Apparently carries a lot of weight.

Doesn't sound implausible. Senators can singlehandedly block ambassador and judicial appointments by putting a "hold" on them. Doesn't seem impossible that a congressional committee chair could block a $40 million apprpriation for a monument.

Just curious, but how much farmland does one get for $10m out there, and how much does one need for this?

[Manny]

Actually, the land was mostly donated or purchased by private entities which in turn donated it. The money is for the memorial and for infrastructure. A lot of the infrastructure is roadways and parking lots to get people into and out of the area -- it's pretty much the geographic center of nowhere.

[Elind]

Thanks

[ImaginalDisc]

Actually, the land was mostly donated or purchased by private entities which in turn donated it. The money is for the memorial and for infrastructure. A lot of the infrastructure is roadways and parking lots to get people into and out of the area -- it's pretty much the geographic center of nowhere.

Oh, that makes sense. $10,000,000 not that much at all, for that sort of thing.

[schplurg]

Actually, the land was mostly donated or purchased by private entities which in turn donated it. The money is for the memorial and for infrastructure. A lot of the infrastructure is roadways and parking lots to get people into and out of the area -- it's pretty much the geographic center of nowhere.I'm sliding further toward the "I'm against it" side.

Cost + location = waste of money.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm sliding further toward the "I'm against it" side.

Cost + location = waste of money.


You know, we have many memorials to our war dead. As anti-war as I am, I fully support building monuments to commemorate their sarifice. $10,000,000 is a pittance for the government, and the people of flight 93 are every bit as entitled to a memorial as those who have died in the service of our country.

Whether you feel the events of September the 11th justified the wars we find ourselves in or not, these people were amoung the first casualties, and were the first to fight back.

[BPSCG]

You know, we have many memmorials to our war dead. As anti-war as I am, I fully support building monuments to commemorate their sarifice. $10,000,000 is a pittance for the government taxpayers, and the people of flight 93 are every bit as entitled to a memmorial as those who have died in the service of our country.

Whether you feel the events of September the 11th justified the wars we find ourselves in or not, these people were amoung the first casualties, and were the first to fight back.One tiny little correction. Otherwise, you get an "A."

[ImaginalDisc]

One tiny little correction. Otherwise, you get an "A."


That correction was completely superfluous. I'm sure no one here is under the delusion that the money our government spends falls out of the sky.

[Manny]

the people of flight 93 are every bit as entitled to a memmorial as those who have died in the service of our country. Indeed, when I said it was the geographic center of nowhere I wasn't kidding, but it's a more accessible site to most Americans than, say, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

[brodski]

That correction was completely superfluous. I'm sure no one here is under the delusion that the money our government spends falls out of the sky.
an unfortunate turn of phrase, given the subject.

[BPSCG]

That correction was completely superfluous. I'm sure no one here is under the delusion that the money our government spends falls out of the sky.Sorry, but when I hear someone talk about the government's money, I react badly every time; a lot of people do labor under that misconception, and I make it a habit to correct it every time I notice it.

Glad to hear it was superfluous in your case.

[pgwenthold]

I'm sliding further toward the "I'm against it" side.

Cost + location = waste of money.

In principle, I have nothing against this type of position.

However, for a modern republican congressman to oppose something like this as a "waste of money" is hubris of the highest order.

These guys have established an unprecedented level of pork spending. I didn't hear him objecting to all the spending amendments being added over the last 5 years.

Now, if this guy has been voting against all the wasteful spending bills of the last 5 years, I'll cut him some slack. For some reason, I don't think he has, though...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Actually, the land was mostly donated or purchased by private entities which in turn donated it. The money is for the memorial and for infrastructure. A lot of the infrastructure is roadways and parking lots to get people into and out of the area -- it's pretty much the geographic center of nowhere.

What a waste.

[ImaginalDisc]

an unfortunate turn of phrase, given the subject.

Oh, indeed.

Sorry, but when I hear someone talk about the government's money, I react badly every time; a lot of people do labor under that misconception, and I make it a habit to correct it every time I notice it.

Glad to hear it was superfluous in your case.

You're punching a stawman. The government spends the money, not the tax payers. We pay the government first, but we don't make the expeinditures directly.

You're not honestly suggesting that a memorial to commemorate the victims of a senseless attack, who willingly died to save others from harm is money poorly spent, are you? $10,000,000 is a miniscule fraction of the buget.

[Manny]

However, for a modern republican congressman to oppose something like this as a "waste of money" is hubris of the highest order.
He's not opposing it because of the money; he's opposing it because of the land. Under the proposal the land would be transferred to the Parks Department and he has a philosophical objection to the government owning more land than it already does. It's a stupid objection; land voluntarily contributed for a memorial is different from land taken by eminent domain or land which has "always" been owned by the government, whether it is leased or remains undisturbed. But let's at least focus on the correct stupid objection.

[BryanLower]

Actually, the land was mostly donated or purchased by private entities which in turn donated it. The money is for the memorial and for infrastructure. A lot of the infrastructure is roadways and parking lots to get people into and out of the area -- it's pretty much the geographic center of nowhere.

Thank you for at least looking at the details before reaching a conclusion. That seems to be a rarity. Bravo.

PS. I am for it.

[BPSCG]

My apology above was sincere - no sarcasm intended.

You're not honestly suggesting that a memmorial to commemorate the victims of a senseless attack, who willingly died to save others from harm is money poorly spent, are you? $10,000,000 is a miniscule fraction of the buget.No, not at all. Even if it were pork barrel spending, it would be a small amount compared to a lot of other projects.

And as far as I'm concerned, it isn't pork barrel spending. If these people don't deserve a monument (please, not a "memorial"), then nobody does. They didn't lose their lives to terrorists; they gave them, in defense of their country.

I wouldn't object to seeing another ten million spent on a monument to Rick Rescorla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rescorla).

[ImaginalDisc]

My apology above was sincere - no sarcasm intended.

No, not at all. Even if it were pork barrel spending, it would be a small amount compared to a lot of other projects.

And as far as I'm concerned, it isn't pork barrel spending. If these people don't deserve a monument (please, not a "memorial"), then nobody does. They didn't lose their lives to terrorists; they gave them, in defense of their country.

I wouldn't object to seeing another ten million spent on a monument to Rick Rescorla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rescorla).

Oh, pardon me. My sarcasm detector read a false positive.

Hmm, while Rick Rescorla is certainly a hero, I'd hesitate to build a memorial which places any of the people who died in the attacks, individually, above any others. I'm kind of partial to memmorials like the black granite bluff . I think the events speak for themselves.

[Manny]

I'm not normally a stickler for spelling but because of the repetition of the word in this thread I'm compelled to point out that "memorial" has one "m." Well, OK, two, but only one in a row.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm not normally a stickler for spelling but because of the repetition of the word in this thread I'm compelled to point out that "memorial" has one "m." Well, OK, two, but only one in a row.

Dang it.

It's your language, I'm just trying to speak it.

[Mark]

Dang it.

It's your language, I'm just trying to speak it.

Was that a Victor Borge reference? I hope so! :)

[ImaginalDisc]

Was that a Victor Borge reference? I hope so! :)

Yep.

[BPSCG]

Hmm, while Rick Rescorla is certainly a hero, I'd hesitate to build a memorial which places any of the people who died in the attacks, individually, above any others. I'm kind of partial to memmorials like the black granite bluff . I think the events speak for themselves.I put Rescorla on a plateau above the others.

The New York City firemen and policemen who died were heroic, no question, but they were doing their jobs, jobs which they knew might require them to die so others might live.

The flight 93 people died fighting, not because they were doing their jobs, but because they knew they were fighting for their lives; they literally had no choice in the matter.

Rescorla singlehandedly saved almost as many people as died in all the attacks combined. Okay, that was his job.

But then after he'd made sure his Morgan Stanley people had been evacuated, he went back to continue trying to rescue others, when he could have saved himself.

Yes, this kind of heroism deserves a monument of its own, and it does no dishonor to all the other brave people who gave their lives that day, to say that this man stood out on a day full of heroes.

When they build the new WTC, they should name the ground it sits on Rescorla Plaza.

[Hagrok]

Personally, I would think a simple memorial with a plaque and a small parking area would be fine (with a small budget set aside to repair the inevitable weather damage and vandalization). Kind of a "lest we forget" sort of thing.

I'm not sure why this would cost $10 million. With $10 million you could make something on the scale of a small national monument...

[ImaginalDisc]

I put Rescorla on a plateau above the others.

[snip]
Yes, this kind of heroism deserves a monument of its own, and it does no dishonor to all the other brave people who gave their lives that day, to say that this man stood out on a day full of heroes.

When they build the new WTC, they should name the ground it sits on Rescorla Plaza.

I agree with your assessment of him as a hero. As to your proposal, I don't know if I agree. I think part of the tragedy involved is that so many of the people who died did not have the chance to be heroes, in a way we would remember. How many of the people in the tower died trying to save others, whose efforts we will never know about? I hesitate to categorize those who died against a rubric of heroism.

[Manny]

I'm not sure why this would cost $10 million. With $10 million you could make something on the scale of a small national monument...Oh, it's gonna cost a lot more than $10 MM. That's the feds' piece. And it'll build something like this (http://www.flight93memorialproject.org/).

[BPSCG]

How many of the people in the tower died trying to save others, whose efforts we will never know about? Then they didn't save nearly as many people as Rescorla did, else we would know their names. But again, it does not dishonor them to pay special honor to the gold standard.

Why not build a "Rescorla Hall" at the new WTC, dedicated to those, known and unknown, who died saving others? Plaques for the known, with their stories, like the Baseball Hall of Fame, and a monument like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery, for the unknowns.

[ImaginalDisc]

Double post

[ImaginalDisc]

Then they didn't save nearly as many people as Rescorla did, else we would know their names. But again, it does not dishonor them to pay special honor to the gold standard.

Why not build a "Rescorla Hall" at the new WTC, dedicated to those, known and unknown, who died saving others? Plaques for the known, with their stories, like the Baseball Hall of Fame, and a monument like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery, for the unknowns.

I think we just have a small aesthetic disagreement. Its is the unknown sacrifices of the unknown people affects me. Thinking about everything we'll never understand about the people who died makes me consider how wasteful, callous and cruel the attacks were. There's a certain kind of grim democracy and equality, to me, amoung the victims. They were all killed. Heroes are important to people, too. I'm sure there's room for a range of monuments.

[Art Vandelay]

And as far as I'm concerned, it isn't pork barrel spending. If these people don't deserve a monument (please, not a "memorial"), then nobody does. They didn't lose their lives to terrorists; they gave them, in defense of their country.Not to be critical of them, but they attacked only after they realized that they would die if they didn't.

[BPSCG]

Not to be critical of them, but they attacked only after they realized that they would die if they didn't.I'll bet a lot of soldiers, when they shoot back at the other guy, are doing so more to save their own lives than for duty, honor, and country.

I'm not a big fan of Forrest Gump, but I sometimes think about that scene where he's in Vietnam and he keeps running back into the wood to get his buddy out while an airstrike is going on. But he keeps running into other wounded guys in his platoon first, so he keeps pulling them out, and gets practically his whole platoon out before finding his buddy. Of course he gets the medal of honor for saving so many lives, and he probably wouldn't have if he'd found his buddy first instead of last. But is his motive important?

[ImaginalDisc]

I'll bet a lot of soldiers, when they shoot back at the other guy, are doing so more to save their own lives than for duty, honor, and country.

I'm not a big fan of Forrest Gump, but I sometimes think about that scene where he's in Vietnam and he keeps running back into the wood to get his buddy out while an airstrike is going on. But he keeps running into other wounded guys in his platoon first, so he keeps pulling them out, and gets practically his whole platoon out before finding his buddy. Of course he gets the medal of honor for saving so many lives, and he probably wouldn't have if he'd found his buddy first instead of last. But is his motive important?

Ah.....gee, technically, yes. If motive were irrelevant, it wouldn't be part of the judical process. Not that it invalidates the life saving itself.