< link rel="DCTERMS.replaces" href="http://justtakeitdown.blogspot.com/" >

Monday, September 12, 2005

What Kind of Nation Are We?

What kind of nation are we, that we take the greatest heroes of 9/11 and create a "memorial" dedicated to the very religion that lead to their deaths in the first place?

I'm disgusted. It's unthinkable that anyone would allow them to get away with this!



Anonymous Molloy said...

I know what you mean.

I feel exactly the same way about the flag of South Carolina and the logo of the Christian Coalition.

And the letter 'C'.

Keep at it, man. Seeing Islamic plots in everything is the key to a bright future as a wingnut pundit.

You're well on your way.

September 13, 2005 1:07 PM  
Blogger Daniel Christianson said...

Anyone who looks at the official artist's rendering of the proposed site plan can see that it indeed, does look just like a Muslim Crescent. And even if wasn't done intentionally, the plan should be rejected because of that resemblance.

It would not be appropriate to create a holocaust memorial at Auschwitz in the shape of a Swastika and it is not appropriate to create the Flight 93 memorial the crash site in the shape of a Star and Crescent.

Common Sense.

September 13, 2005 4:02 PM  
Anonymous Molloy said...

Uh, anyone who looks at the official logo of the Christian Coalition or the official flag of the state of South Carolina can see they they, indeed, do look just like a Muslim Crescent.

Just like I've always said, "Even if the Muslim Crescent was not incorporated into those designs intentionally, they should be rejected because of their resemblence to a symbol of the religion of the 9/11 highjackers."

You're very right, it wouldn't be appropriate to create a holocaust memorial in the shape of a swastika, and it wouldn't be appropriate to create the Flight 93 memorial in the shape of a star and crescent, either. But let me ask you, Who is doing that? Where is the star? There is no star. You write: "in the shape of a Star and Crescent." [emphasis mine] Again, there is no star. Show us the star. Show us! Or quit whining.

You know, if you want to be taken seriously, a little intellectual honesty would be nice.

Look, the architect incorporated a semi-circle into the design. Is every semi-circle a hidden reference to Islam, or something? Seriously, how paranoid are you? Pretty paranoid, I'd say.

Implicit in the accuisation that a Muslim symbol has been secretly inserted into the flight 93 memorial is that the architect and Flight 93 Memorial Committee would actually have some desire to do that. Why would you even suspect them of something like that? Unless they choose a design that it a lot more explicity Islamic than that, you really have nothing to say.

I've been following this story for about a week and have never heard anything to suggest that anyone behind the memorial did anything other than innocently choose a design that incorporates a half circle. Prove that someone behind the design is some kind of Muslim fanatic, and your case will be a little more convincing.

Common sense.

September 13, 2005 4:28 PM  
Blogger Daniel Christianson said...

In the Artist's Conception Here:


You can clearly see that there is a solitary grouping of maple trees, which would serve as the "star."

While I honestly have no idea what the planner intended, it does strike me as quite an unlikely coincidence.

Perhaps a bit more Common Sense.

September 13, 2005 7:55 PM  
Blogger Daniel Christianson said...

I alway laugh a little to myself when people stop responding after they've been proven wrong.

He probably would have written back, but I suppose he felt embarrassed by all those
"paranoia" comments.

September 16, 2005 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Molloy said...

Oh, fer cryin’ out loud…

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize I was required to get back to you before the expiration of a completely arbitrary deadline. When replying to a commenter, you might want to let him or her know that they have X amount of hours and minutes to answer before you start doing your little goose-step of victory.

You may learn this as you get older, that being a responsible adult doesn’t leave a lot of time for doing things like schooling right-wing teenagers on said teenager’s schedule. There are jobs to go to, meals to cook, dogs to walk, friends to drink beer with, etc.. I’m doing this as a free service to you, and I’ll do it on my own time. Please try not to be a total jerk about it.

As for “all those ‘paranoia’ comments” why the heck would I feel embarrassed? Calling you paranoid was an act of charity. I could have just called you unbelievably stupid, but extended you the benefit of the doubt. And this is how you pay me back. Hey, you’re welcome.

Anyway, where were we? Oh yeah, being “proven wrong.” Um, I asked you to show me the star of the alleged star and crescent, not some little black dots. I want to see something that looks like a star, not something that would “serve” as a star. (Interesting choice of words there, “serve.” What does it serve? Your delusions.) Those little black dots do not look anything like a star at all, and anyone whose kindergarten teacher took the time to teach his or her students to identify basic shapes would know that.

I mean, you’d think that if they were trying to make the memorial look like the evil symbol of wicked Islam, they’d at least try to make it look a little bit more like an actual star and crescent. Or maybe that’s just how diabolical they are! They only make it look like a star and crescent just enough for the people who really know what’s going on (like you) to recognize it. Doesn’t that drive you crazy? What a heavy burden you right-wingers carry.

Oh yeah, and those little black dots, the ones you called “a solitary grouping of maple trees,” where did you get that idea? I’ve been looking at the plans for the memorial on the Flight 93 National Memorial website, and there’s no “solitary grouping of maple trees” at that spot in the memorial design. So, I ask again, where did you get the idea that there was even a “solitary grouping of maple trees” in that spot to “serve” as the star? (Answer: you totally made it up.)

It might actually help you to make a better argument about the memorial design by spending more (or any) time at the Flight 93 National Memorial website and less time at WorldNetDaily. That image you posted, I’m having a really hard time finding it anywhere on Flight 93 National Memorial website, and until I can, I’m going to have to say that it seriously in question.

Maybe it’s on there somewhere, but I sure as heck can’t find it. Granted, the site isn’t very navigable with all those .pdfs and everything, but you’d think that being as it is the most famous image of the memorial -- having acquired that status by being posted on perhaps thousands of right-wing blogs -- it would be prominently displayed. Weird that I can’t find it. Equally weird that you called it “the artsist’s conception”. Which artist would that be? The one whose design won, or some WorldNetDaily artist? Tell me which artist.

Fortunately, our analysis does not require us to use it. Instead, we can use the actual image of the winning design (.pdf) posted on the Flight 93 National Memoiral website. Look, if you can find me a star and crescent in that, it’s over. You win. But notice how those little black dots on the WorldNetDaily image you posted are not on there at all? Weird.

See, this is the problem with right-wingers: you all love to link to each other without spending one second going to the source to make sure you know what you’re talking about, like this liberal did. See how he posted the actual image of the winning design? That’s how you make an intellectually honest argument, buddy. Take a minute to learn something here

Oh yeah, and did it ever occur to you why a crescent may have been incorporated into the design of the memorial? They did it because the plane crashed into a field surrounded by a semi-circular ridge. There’s your “unlikely coincidence” right there. If they had planted trees on it or not, the crescent still would have been there. What should they do, level the hills? Would that make you happy?

Finally, this is something I really don’t think you properly addressed in your response… no, scratch that. You didn’t address it at all. In fact, you acknoweldeged that you have no reason to suspect the people behind the Flight 93 National Memorial of incorporating a star and crescent into the design, but you called it an “unlikely coincidence,” which means that they did it, anyway. Look, I think we’re both in agreement here that memorializing the heroes of Flight 93 with a huge star and crescent would be kind of inappropriate, but if you’re going to accuse somebody of doing something like that -- something so incredibly cruel and perverse -- you’d better have a lot more evidence than you do.

Do you even know who the people who selected the design are? I don’t think you do. They are the relatives of people who died on Flight 93. Why do you think they would do something so bizarre as to make the memorial into a star and crescent? I would love to hear your answer to that. Oh, and by the way, they love the design (pdf), no matter what right-wing lunatics have to say about it.

I like this passage from this story:

As the black cloak that had hidden the winner was removed, a collective gasp came from those gathered, who then rose to their feet to applaud.
In the front row, three family members --a woman who lost her mother, a woman who lost her husband and a woman who lost her brother -- leaned into each other, in a show of love and support.
"It's powerful but understated," said Kiki Homer, whose brother, LeRoy W. Homer Jr., was co-pilot on the plane that crashed after passengers rebelled against terrorist hijackers. "It's beautifully simple.
"My breath is taken away."
Esther Heymann, whose daughter, Elizabeth Wainio, died in the crash, agreed.
"The understatement speaks to the profoundness of what occurred here," she said.

You know what? I don’t even care what the design looks like, because it’s not my family members who died there. I think that people should be able to choose the design of their dead family members’ memorial without being condemned on the internet. Wouldn’t you agree? I think those people are probably in enough pain.

Frankly, we on the Left find it totally hillarious that you all are working yourselves into such a tizzy about this. Keeps you occupied. Like, I have this rubber ball I can fill with peanut butter that I give to my dog when I’m busy so she won’t bother me. It takes her hours to get it all out of there. This uproar over the Flight 93 memorial is kind of like your peanut butter-filled rubber ball. Normally, I would have been content just to let you go on about it, but you’re still a kid, and my deep concern for youth causes my heart to break when I see a young person embracing such an incredibly stupid and hateful ideology.

Oh, and as for your other blog, the one about the flag: the number one most effective way to broadcast to the entire world the deep shame you feel about your own sexual desires is to get all bent out of shape about things like rainbow flags. So you might want to look into that.

By the way, Mr. Right-Winger, I notice that in the “about me” section of your other blog, it doesn’t mention which branch of the armed services you’re joining. Don’t you know there’s a war on? That we’re fighting a desperate struggle for our freedom and all that? Please, if you’re going to support the war in Iraq, can you please put your money where your mouth is and do it from the battlefield instead of from your desk?


Your best friend on the whole wide Internets,


P.s.: respond to this post in 185 hours and 14 minutes… or you’re a rotten egg!

September 20, 2005 1:28 PM  
Blogger Daniel Christianson said...

I'm going to be charitable here. I'm going to assume, for sake of argument, that you really haven't understood me. Maybe you’ve had a rough day, or maybe you had a few too many of those beers you talked about. I don’t know.

So, I’ll explain my position once more just so that everything is clear.

I do NOT think the memorial commission intended the site to resemble a star and crescent, but I DO think that they should have thought about it long enough to realize that it does.

If the victim’s families support this memorial, then great! They’re the one’s I’m worried would be offended in the first place.

Regarding the image I linked to, the trees visible there are also clearly visible on the pdf file you linked to; it is simply drawn from a different orientation.

There is no sort of conspiracy to forge photos (as you insinuated) to make the plans resemble a star and crescent; besides, who would do that? If they were making the forgeries then…that’s right! They would know that the plans didn’t resemble a star and crescent in the first place and wouldn’t care! You call me paranoid…

Saying that it is an “unlikely coincidence” means just that: it’s an unlikely coincidence. Stop reading your own thoughts into my words.

As for the pathetic crack about your dog, it seems to me that you’ve devoted a fair deal more time to this than I have. Like you admit: you’ve “been following this story for about a week.” A week! My gosh! All I did was post a link on my blog!

But I do agree with your sentiments: This issue isn’t very important. I say lets get on to something actually worth debating.

September 21, 2005 5:30 PM  
Anonymous Molloy said...

Thank you for responding so quickly. I do have a few quick points to make.

If your position has been all along that the memorial commission did not intend the site to resemble a star and crescent, but merely that it unintentionally does not look sufficiently different from one – why the emotionally charged language?

If it was merely an “unlikely coincidence,” as you now maintain, why the hand wringing about “what kind of nation” we are?

What are you “disgusted” at? “Disgusted” is hardly the kind of word someone would use to describe his or her feelings about an “unlikely coincidence.” For example: “I am disgusted by that unlikely coincidence!” See? It sounds stupid.

And what are they trying to “get away with”? People trying to “get away with” something are acting with malice and deception. Again, not exactly the type of language it makes sense to use to describe someone you are supposedly accusing of, at most, not thinking about something enough.

Not to mention, you said the memorial was “dedicated” to [Islam]. How is something accidentally dedicated to [Islam]?

C’mon, man. It’s OK to change your mind about something, but please don’t act like your position has been consistent all along.

And, no, I did not insinuate that there was a conspiracy to forge photos. For the purposes of our discussion, I merely wanted us to use the best image available -- one that actually comes from the Flight 93 National Memorial people, not some right-wing website. In your 1:02 p.m. response, you called that image from WorldNetDaily the “official artist's rendering,” which it simply is not.

You’re right: the crack about my dog was lame, and I have been spending more time on this than you have. Touché. I would like to mention, though, that if you hadn’t taken the sucker route with the “Oh, he didn’t get back to me soon enough so I won and he’s embarrassed” nonsense, I wouldn’t even have. When you talk trash like that, expect a beat-down. And when that beat down comes, don’t be all, “What? I just put something on my blog about it. It’s not like I care or anything.” That’s some lame Glenn Reynolds crap. If you take time to blog about something, you’re saying that it’s worth talking about, and you should stand by that.

Oh, and when I say that I have been “following this story for about a week,” I mean that this story first appeared on the blogs about a week or so ago, that I read blogs, and that I read a few different bloggers’ takes on it. It’s not like I get up in the middle of the night to find out what the breaking news on the Flight 93 National Memorial is.

I don’t really care what the heck they do with it, but I do care about what’s going on in that adolescent mind of yours. Why are you a right-winger? Actually, wait. Never mind. Answer if you want, but I don’t really think you are a right-winger. I don’t think you know what you are, and I’m hoping you’ve just adopted this as some kind of temporary identity because you’re not sufficiently experienced to know enough about life or who you are. It’s OK. I was there, too. For about six months in 1986, I was a teenage Republican. It was weird.

There’s something about your blogs that when I read them I think to myself “Now here’s a kid who has no idea what the heck he’s talking about” but at the same time it causes me to feel a lot of compassion for you. I know this attitude seems kind of inconsistent with the tone of my previous posts, but, you know, it kind of pisses me off when I see you write bigoted things about Islam like that it was Islam that “led to their deaths in the first place.” If you don’t understand what’s bigoted about that, I think you need to spend some time talking to a Muslim about it. And this obsession with the rainbow flag. Absolutely terrible. You have no idea what kinds of things gay teenagers – heck, gay adults -- go through because of their God-given sexual orientation, yet you attack them. It makes me want to cry.

We’ll work it out, man. So what do you want to debate now? Can I pick the topic? Because I want to talk about people who support the war in Iraq, are capable of fighting it, but think that others should do all the requisite killing and dying for them. What do you think about that? Or I’m down to talk about the rainbow flag. Or anything you want.



September 21, 2005 9:32 PM  
Blogger Daniel Christianson said...

Man, you STILL don’t get it!

I’m “disgusted” that the memorial commission could “get away with” being so insensitive. “What kind of a nation are we” that this foolish designer is whom we’ve chosen to honor perhaps the greatest citizen heroes of American history? He ought to have had the discretion to, at the very least, name it something other than the “ crescent of embrace.”

Consider the impact of the language the designer chose. It’s a red “crescent.” Not a circle, not an arc, not a sweep. A crescent.

And by the way, a local Philadelphia newspaper (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05253/569055.stm) uses the same picture I did and it attributes it to Paul Murdock and Associates, the designers. So, yeah, that would be the “official artist’s rendering.”

But this is all an entirely moot point, now. The families don’t seem care, and so neither do I.

Look, I’m just trying to help you understand. You are assuming I mean something I’ve never said. This is the last time I am going to debate the syntax of my post.


For the next topic, I nominate: Glenn Reynolds. Post coming Monday or Tuesday.

I’m ignoring the other issues until later, but for why I call myself a right-winger, please see:


I also think it’s hilarious that Hillary Rodham Clinton claimed, there “is a vast right-wing conspiracy who have been conspiring against [her] husband since he first ran for office” and that’s partly why I chose my name. That, and I couldn’t think of anything particularly clever.

~Daniel Isaiah Christianson

September 22, 2005 6:19 PM  
Anonymous Molloy said...

No, my friend. You don't get it.

The families of the heroes of Flight 93 chose the design. They didn't choose an architect who then went about being all insensitive by incorporating this shape that offends you so much. The architect submitted his design, and they picked it. And for some reason that makes you angry.

This is the funny thing about you right-wingers. All we ever hear from your side is "remember 9/11" and "honor the familes" and all that, but you won't hesitate for a second before attacking them, calling them "insenstive" (to themselves?), even being being "disgusted" at them. All because you don't like their aesthetic choice. Geeze.

What does honoring those people mean if you're so quick to attack them for something so meaningless?

Interesting that the image of the design I'm disputing doesn't appear on the Paul Murdock and Associates website. Oh, and I guess I was really just saying that the image that doesn't show anything that looks like a star is a better one to use because it shows the entire design, not just a section of it.

Yeah, I read your "This I believe" piece a while ago. What does any of that have to do with hating gays and Muslims? It all sounds pretty liberal to me.

You seriously want to talk about Glenn Reynolds? Um, OK. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. You might want to make heavy use of the words "heh" and "indeed" in your post, just out of respect to the Instacracker. Oh, but whatever you do, do not call him a conservative. He hates that.

Take it easy,


September 22, 2005 8:15 PM  
Anonymous GQ said...

To quote Daniel:

"But this is all an entirely moot point, now. The families don’t seem care, and so neither do I."

Indeed. ;)

September 22, 2005 9:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does it really matter anymore? Malloy, you've both stated your opinions and it's quite obvious neither of you is going to change the other's mind. What is the point of arguing about something when it's not going to get you anywhere? It seems you have nothing better to do and simply want to pick on Daniel because he's younger. Are you going to go off on me because I have an opinon too? It's not fair to stereotype teenagers as not being sure of what they believe because there are some of us out there that do. The two of you may not agree on the issues, but at least he believes in something. Frankly, I think you should respect that and leave him alone.

September 23, 2005 6:55 AM  
Anonymous Molloy said...


Whoa, settle down there, buddy. Nobody's going to "go off" on you, and nobody's stereotyping anyone. Or, at least, I'm not.

Notice: I did not say that "all teenagers are not sure of what they believe" or anything like it. That would be stereotyping. I, on the other hand, am talking very specifically about our host, and I have good reason to believe what I believe. I've read everything on all his blogs, and I can see that he's very intelligent, that he's a great writer, and that he's very patriotic. On the other hand, he is suffering from a false notion that the American ideals he holds so dearly, as do I, are best represented by the extremely un-American -- and quite frankly fascist -- right wing. I am here to disabuse him of that.

I am done talking about this particular issue (the memorial). It has run its course, and I really don't have anything else to say about it. Maybe I should have been more explicit about that in my previous posts, instead of just trying to imply it. I would personally like to talk about something a little bit more engaging, but don't know if I'll have anything to say about Glenn Reynolds other than that he says "heh" and "indeed" a lot. Well, except that he's a total racist.

What is this about me having “nothing better to do”? I actually have lots to do and listed some of those things above, but have decided to donate some of my time to posting on this blog. I don’t know if you noticed, but when I was doing the other things that I have to do (last week), our host took that as some sort of admission of defeat, going so far as to pronounce me “embarrassed.” Then when I do post on this blog, I get told to do the other things. It's tough to be me sometimes.

As for "picking on him," uh, no. I'm disagreeing with him, and it's a fallacious argument that disagreeing with someone is picking on them, but it's one you hear from the Right pretty often. This always cracks me up because it seems that when conservatives aren't busy accusing us liberals of being namby-pamby mama's boys who want to surrender to terrorists or offer them therapy or whatever, they're talking about how mean we are. (It's either one or the other, and I wish the Right would make up its mind.) What are you going to do, Anonymous, follow him around for the rest of his life protecting him from disagreement? This is somebody who wants to be a lawyer. If he loses a case, are you going to tell the judge to stop picking on him? Doing what I'm doing can only help somebody like that. If he doesn't appreciate it now, he will someday.

And what does the age difference between Daniel and myself have anything to do with it? Is there some kind of age cut-off for arguing with people? I'm 33; if I debate someone who is 50, are they picking on me because I'm younger? Granted, if Daniel was, say, 10, I would use a gentler tone, but I'm guessing he's about 17, which is plenty old enough to enter the harsh world of politcal discourse. Besides, he has a blog that can be read by anyone, and comments enabled, allowing anyone to make one (this fact alone supports my belief that he is not really a right-winger). If he didn't want me here, he'd probably ban me (if that's possible, I don't know) or delete my comments or something. He didn't do that, which makes me think he's pretty cool.

Why am I here, anyway? I am here because I care. You know, there aren't exactly a lot of adults willing to spend their free time deabting politics with teenagers. I'm one of them, and you should be a little more thankful for that. Maybe I do sound kind of like, well, a total jerk sometimes, but I believe that strong rhetoric is perfectly justified when arguing with people who do things like compare Islam to Nazism, the star and crescent to the [Nazi] swastika, and talk about how marriage needs to be "defended" from gays. People who say things like that need a smack upside the head, but I'm in Chicago, and my arms are only about three feet long. This is the best I can do. I do not mean, however, that he needs a violent smack upside the head. Violence is for people who have issues with their masculinity, like President Bunnypants. Daniel needs a rhetorical smack, and I am here to deliver it. (I actually kind of need to be smacked in the head sometimes, too, you know. Just ask my girlfriend.)

Look, I first found out about Daniel a little while ago while searching for something unrelated on GOPUSA.com, the Internet home of the absolutely stupidest people on Earth* (not to mention the site that sent gay prostitute "Jeff Gannon" to cover the White House). I don't want him to turn into one of those people, but I see him treading down that path with all this nonsense about how Christians are persecuted by rainbow flags and the linking approvingly to Ann Coulter columns. He's still young, so it's not too late.

You want me to do something "better." Well, I'll tell ya', I don't think there is a much higher calling than having political discussions with youth. What should I be doing, trading stocks or something?


I'll be back Monday or Tuesday,


* I do not mean to imply that because Daniel was once at GOPUSA.com, he is among the stupidest people on Earth

September 23, 2005 4:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will admit I may have jumped the gun by saying you are stereotyping teenagers, but as another conservative teenager, I took offense when I read “I don’t think you know what you are, and I’m hoping you’ve just adopted this as some kind of temporary identity because you’re not sufficiently experienced to know enough about life or who you are.” It really bothers me when adults say things like this. Teenagers, especially those who actually care about what is going on in the world around them, have had some life experience and it’s irritating when adults treat us like we’ve had no life experience and are not capable of making educated decisions and forming our own beliefs.
And you said you have a good reason to believe what you believe- that Daniel doesn’t know what he believes, is that what you’re referring to? When has he ever given you any indication that he doesn’t know what he believes? It’s not his fault you think “he is suffering from a false notion that the American ideals he holds so dearly... are best represented by the extremely un-American -- and quite frankly fascist -- right wing.” As far as I’m concerned, the fact that you disagree with him is no sign that he hasn’t figured out what to believe, it just means you disagree with him. Maybe I have misunderstood you in this. If I have, disregard everything I have written.
It is not my intention to protect him, he definitely doesn’t need that. The main reason I responded because I took offense to what you said.

September 24, 2005 7:10 PM  
Anonymous joshua said...

"I believe that strong rhetoric is perfectly justified when arguing with people who do things like compare Islam to Nazism"


Try telling that to the Jews, you son of a *****!

September 30, 2005 11:51 PM  
Blogger Daniel Christianson said...


December 17, 2005 8:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Alliance Blog Roll