that’s from The Daily News. The News has a history of making itself out to be some kind of guardian of city morals when it comes to the WTC site, having led a mean-spirited and ultimately successful crusade to eject the Drawing Center—a consistently engaging and provocative Wooster St. art gallery—from moving to the site as part of a planned “cultural” nexus there. The News said the fact that the Drawing Center had hung a work drawing links between Saudi business interests and the Bush family, and a work showing a hooded prisoner at Abu Ghraib, made them somehow morally unfit to show artwork on the WTC site.

I say not dud to the thread premise, in as much as relatives looking for loved ones names would stand a better chance if they know where sections are.

Especially noting that victims are classified by ‘occupation’ but not by rank is something to be admired. (We’ve spent ages looking for my wife’s (opposite of descendants) on various war memorials, and it always seems that the good old generals get their section and the foot soldiers get lumped together in theirs)

I think Arad’s idea made sense on that level, but people are at least trying to make sense of things. A random listing would have people having to read every square inch of the memorial. Maybe that’s what was wanted by some people, but to subject victims’ families to that is unfair.

Those aboard the hijacked plane that crashed into the tower also will be inscribed there.

The hijackers were on board those planes, will they be included?

What’s wrong with plain old alphabetical?

Oh wait, the victims’ names. Sorry. Verrrry stupid remark.

(xpost to self)

xpost in a sense, listing them by occupation shows what the victims were doing there at the time.

I just think it’s reductive.

Only if one thinks of the general public as being lesser.

It depends on how it’s done of course. The ‘not ranking’ seems to be a step towards it.

I know if I was looking for someone’s name, I’d like to see it in with the names of colleagues, whose names might also be familiar, and some of whom might have been friends, rather than looking for it among strangers who just happened to have a name starting with the same letter.

It makes me uncomfortable, but I can’t entirely put into words why. It’s almost like this different-tiered system of the dead. And separate is never equal.

Reminds me of a story my former housemate was telling me, about her sister going to some victim support group after she lost her husband in the WTC. And even among them, there was starting to be this ... pecking order, of “well, I’m the widow of a firefighter, and you’re just the widow of an office worker”. It smacks to me of that, and that makes me extremely uncomfortable.

if they had done a random list they could’ve put little icons next to the names to show what the person did. this might’ve helped people find them quick enough—if they were looking for a specific name.

By listing people in groups under their employer’s names, it gives a sense that they ‘belong’ somewhere, rather than just be a random list of names. I think it’s a rather comforting idea.

xpost to kate: It seems, get any group of women together anew, pecking orders get to be the first things established.

Women be establishin’ orders!

(Mark be talkin’ bollocks)

people

Ive seen it happen too often!

I don’t generalise, in the main.

xpost yeah.

We Alpha Males don’t need no pecking orders.

So how are they going to be ordering groups of service/employers, then? Are the police officers and the firefighters going before the folks from Cantor Fitz and Marsh? And are the firefighters going before the police? And what about the people not afiliated with anything at all? (There were a few children among the victims, IIRC.)

Yeah this forces a narrative on the viewer whether they like it or not. It makes the whole thing seem easily comprehensible to the mediocre joe, which it shouldn’t really be. It’s also kind of an incredible asshole move from the perspective that you wouldn’t ever even think of building a Katrina memorial that listed people by “occupation” or a Pearl Harbor memorial that listed “bosun’s mate” “airman” “engineer” etc. etc.

Really, though, the list should be in the order God loves them. Obviously.

I think it’s a rather comforting idea.

I sorta take issue with the idea that the commemoration of a mass grave should be “comforting”

Katrina: People don’t live in New Orleans by occupation

Pearl Harbour: you wouldn’t ever even think of building a Pearl Harbor memorial that listed “bosun’s mate” “airman” “engineer” etc. etc.

really not?

...They are listed in chronological order, starting at the apex on panel 1E in 1959 (although it was later discovered that the first casualties were military advisors who were killed by artillery fire in 1957), moving day by day to the end of the eastern wall at panel 70E, which ends on May 25, 1968, starting again at panel 70W at the end of the western wall which completes the list for May 25, 1968, and returning to the apex at panel 1W in 1975... Information about rank, unit, and decorations are not given.

You’re about to piss me the fuck off in a big way, grout. Oh, too late.

I think they should be grouped by gender and then by age

I sorta take issue with the idea that the commemoration of a mass grave should be “comforting”

Aren’t the victims’ families supposed to draw some comfort from it? I say “supposed” because of course how comfortable can you be with the name of a loved one etched on a piece of stone because they are dead, but still, isn’t part of the point of this to make the names easier for the families to find?

I sorta take issue with the idea that the commemoration of a mass grave should be “comforting”

Isn’t part of any commemoration supposed to have an element of comfort in it though? Something tangible which is a link to the person(s) who died? That’s how I feel when I visit my parents’ graves, anyway.

This is a commemoration of PEOPLE, not of an event. Comforting is good if you are grieving.

xxpost

um, why?

why wot?

why am I pissing off Tombot?

you’re bored?

I’m not sure the audience for this memorial is really supposed to be just the families of the victims, though — more like all Americans alive and yet to be born. At the very least.

“Americans”. Other countries were involved too, you know.

But isn’t this more than a memorial? Weren’t many of those people never recovered? Aren’t some of them still in there? So, doesn’t that make it a grave as well?

Perhaps I’m remembering wrong.

Yeah you forgot POLAND

I’m lost now.

(xpost)

Yes, that’s where the “at the very least” bit kicks in.

who are you people who love your jobs so damn much that you want your employer listed on your tombstone.

it’s fucking reductive.

Me and tombot must have been looking at the wikipedia entry for ‘The Wall’ at the same time. I was interested in how they did it there because whenever you see people looking at that you see them really having to LOOK. I don’t know if that’s because of the chronological thing or the way the reflecting surface works but (form what I’ve seen and heard) this really makes people connect with the wall in a way most memorials perhaps don’t.

xpost obv.

It’s not a fucking tombstone! It’s a memorial! A collective one! For lots of people who died in the same place which was AT THEIR WORK (and they aren’t listing the employers’ names anyway, just grouping people via them)

It’d be funny if the J. Edgar Hoover got blew up and they did this with our memorial. You’d have two columns of names of federal civil servants and then eighteen more for “KEANE” “LOCKHEED MARTIN” “NORTHRUP GRUMMAN” “BAE SYSTEMS” “GENERAL DYNAMICS” “THE MITRE CORPORATION”

Then everybody could come up and make stupid judgements about how my coworkers and I were all “greedy contractors”

Which is what this is asking for, and as the Daily News article makes clear—so people can go up and differentiate between the “heroes” and the “victims” because that’s what’s REALLY important about the 9/11 story

If I got blown up by terrists, and someone put “J0hn Ch@rc0£” next to my name on a freaking memorial, I’d come back and HAUNT THEM.

x-post, surprisingly Tombot OTM, and that’s exactly what makes me uncomfortable about it.

TOM OTM.

I agree ‘Heroes’ and ‘Victims’ is wrong as a differentiation.

All are victims.

They would be listed as a group, but without the company’s name.

But, y’know, carry on...

who are you people who love your jobs so damn much that you want your employer listed on your tombstone.

major making sense right here. any fucker puts ‘my’ company on my gravestone, or groups me with my colleagues can forget it. UGH UGH UGH.

ugh so you get to be next to fucking Roger from accounts for all eternity ARGH

That’s fine Ailsa but I suspect that the PD/FD will be QUITE clearly marked so they can get EXTRA flowers. The rest, you know, just office drones.

it seems reasonable to want to highlight the PD/FD workers somehow tho. maybe even something as relatively subtle as names in a different colour might be enough i don’t know. people will always have more regard for those who went in to get people out—the people who weren’t committed to the place in any other way e.g. work—so why try and suppress that? so i do have some sympathy for their union members and relatives in what is a v sensitive situation.

rereading the article, the whole thing reeks of pandering to really unpleasant, nearly jingoistic instincts, which I can’t blame people for having but I doubt would be so strong if this were being commissioned and built 20, 10 or even perhaps five years from now

the people who weren’t committed to the place in any other way e.g. work

what in the fuck do you think firefighters, EMTs and police officers are paid to do for a living?

arrgh this thread is making me so angry

I think the point is, is that this isn’t meant to be a memorial to the brave Firefighters and police who gave their lives rescuing folk, and the civilians they couldn’t save.

it had better not be, anyway.

(xpost Sorry Tom)

In which case, why not just dispense with the names altogether and make it a memorial in its own right to whatever people want it to be a memorial to?

oh god this morbid shit. why when a bunch of people die do we feel the need to display a huge stone list? did some one take a look @ the washington mall and say hmm this is an endearingly dead space we should put something like this in the middle of our otherwise vibrant city yay!

Blame the Egyptians.

^^ hah!

tom is ridiculously correct here.

which memorials DO mix military/ES workers with civilians in such a way, for the sake of the ‘they were all equal/they all had equally important jobs’ argument? it seems quite a rare thing (but there may well be many examples—i know little).

What’s the plaque at Kings Cross like?

I can’t say I care for the “big fucking green tarp” proposal.

well it’s not the best rendering but ellsworth kelly’s gently sloping grassy hill is by far my favorite.

although just building normal stuff would be the best of all.

it’s funny one of the worst places in the city get destroyed and people are trying to figure out how to make it even worse. it’s like if the queensbridge projects burned down and the city was trying to replace them with a rendering plant and a pool of toxic waste.

They could make that green tarp even worse by having the England team play cricket on it.

it’s important that we memorialize this tragic day in new york history by releasing deadly mutant wolves throughout the city!

xpost

What’s the plaque at Kings Cross like?

— ailsa_xx (ailsa.watso...), December 14th, 2006.

For the fire—very lowkey...

For the July bombings—I’m sure there is one—but I can’t find a pic of it.

Thanks, it was the fire one I was after, as firefighters died there. That’s tasteful, they should do something like that in New York (yeah, like that’ll happen). And Washington DC. And a field in Pittsburgh.

but the toooorists would be so disapointed :(

Fuck a grief tourist.

Why not separate EMT/FD/Police people and the rest alpha order?

people who ran into the buildings preventing those who were trying to escape from doing so, people who were prevented from escaping by those running in.

what?

Seriously why don’t we just list all the world’s jobs by the chance of violent death occurring per hour of actual work done, and then whenever we have to talk about human life and the relative value of it we’ll talk about those who almost get killed the most often first, and then talk about other people afterwards, if there’s time. I mean, seriously, astronauts. What you got?

let’s just erect a statue of rudy and call it a day

xpost

if they die that’s what they get for shooting themselves off into space. I mean is that really neccessary?? (j/k, obv.)

for reals, inner-city teachers!

Quick everyone make a list of public monuments for this sort of thing that hardly anyone has a problem with. UH:

1. USS Arizona

2. Vietnam Memorial

Race car drivers!

WHENEVER SOMEONE DIES THE VICTIMS FAMILY SHOULD GET TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THE PLACE WHERE THEY DIED (AND IT SHOULD BE A PIECE OF ROCK WITH THE VICTIMS NAME ON IT).

If I remember correctly, there’s a small (and pre-9/11) memorial right outside the World Financial Center (and consequently within an under five minute walk from the WTC site) for police officers who died in the line of duty. Complicates things.

Key question here: are the people on the planes going to be grouped by employer, too?

I sometimes lament that people equate “freedom of speech” with “freeedom to be a raging dick”.

Blimey!

All I meant was make it easier for loved ones to find names!

are the people on the planes going to be grouped by employer, too?

doesn’t sound like it

All I meant was make it easier for loved ones to find names!

That would be for the more distant family members that aren’t quite sure of their loved ones surnames, presumably?

Mark I think yr initial queries that made me a little irritated have long been surpassed by the delightful chatter emanating from totalwizard@gmail, no worries!

The more rules and exceptions you put into a classification system, the more arbitrary and inelegant it seems, frankly.

Yeah I thought it would be okay to separate them at first but you know, the more I think of it, I don’t see why anyone should have any problem with alphabetical order for all of the people who died, end of problem. It’s actually really creepy and fucked up to separate the names.

I don’t think ‘heroes’ and ‘victims’ should be classed differently as far as their ‘grief status’ goes either, but I’m surprised by how angry this is making some people (and tombot specifically). It’s almost as though you are particularly anti the police and fire departments for some reason.

It could possibly be argued that the people who died while at work in the towers when the planes hit had no choice about what happened, but the police and firefighters chose to go in to an extremely dangerous situation and try and help people. I know that’s what their job is supposed to involve, but maybe that does set them apart, I dunno.

Alphabetical—hard for me to even understand why anything else is being considered.

I shudder at the thought of having “C0urth0()se N3vvs S3rv1c3” on my memorial should I die tomorrow.

It’s almost as though you are particularly anti the police and fire departments for some reason.

No, I’m against hero worship of civil servants doing their job who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think it belittles the concepts of both duty and heroism.

but the police and firefighters

are paid to go in to an extremely dangerous situation

maybe people could learn some better way of dealing w/death and trauma than weird hero worshiping / mythologizing / never-forgetting. like you don’t have to commemorate things in stone, you can let it get less painful over the years, it’s natural.

Just because someone worked for Cantor Fitzgerald doesn’t mean they remain with the company in death, for god’s sake.

no really i like you guys and would be interested to hear what you thought was so delightful abt my chatter.

I think there may have been a few jokes you attempted that fell really badly flat in the context of the debate at the time, to me, but now rereading it I’m just like “well yeah just building normal stuff or a little stretch of green WOULD be the best option”

One issue with the Kings Cross fire plaque is that when it was erected not all of the victims had been identified.

The “big long list of names” type of memorial seems to have started as a British thing. There are ones for the Boer Wars, but they really kicked off with the First World War—places like Thiepval and the Menin Gate were built to give the “missing presumed dead” the same status as buried soldiers.

(yes, I know neither of those are in Britain, but they commemorate the Imperial dead)

well i wasn’t so much joking as trying to point out things that might be in opposition to what ever fever myth we as a country cooked up.

the thing that grosses me out the most abt this memorial and our country’s attitude toward 9/11 is: the memorial isn’t even for the dead, it’s for our own freakedoutness and subsequent embarrassment. it can’t just be something that happened, there’s got to be more. we watched it endlessly on tv, we felt vulnerable, we killed tons of people half a world away. there must be some deeper meaning here right?

I think I’d feel better about the whole thing if I could get my mother to stop saying “Nine One One” when she refers to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_Astronaut

When the moonbase is finally built, tourists can shun the names of dead astronauts who never actually made it into space.

And the astronaut firemen were the greatest heroes ever.

The End.

You’re forgetting that guy whose car explodes at the beginning of every Speed Racer episode

i went an art opening by the dudes who went on to make wondershow zen (pffr) around the time of the 9/11 memorial competition and they had tons of designs. best ones: a chain connecting ground zero and the moon with the names of the victims inscribed on the links; filling up ground zero w/thousands of memorials and statuary, one of them was a memorial to the death of doo wop with a guy in a suit and fedora on his knees crying out in grief.

Umm, I feel like a lot of you are doing the exact same over-metaphorical work of the average monument debate when you assume there’s necessarily some sort of symbolism or value involved in the order of name-listing, or some sort of moral perspective involved in the grouping plan. There’s a fairly simple, non-symbolic, mechanical reason people would push for grouping: so that if you happened to work for a particular firm in the building, or you happened to be a fireman, you could go to one particular section of the thing and see everyone of special interest to you. That’s much more of a user-friendliness issue than any kind of value heirarchy.

That said, it does kinda create a moral/mechanical problem, which is that you might end up with sections of memorial that are, like, more memorialized than others, which is bad in a value sense and in a plain old foot-traffic sense. But something like that could be easily rectified by (for instance) spacing out the firemen by company — you know, one fire station, a couple corporate firms, another fire station — so that there’s no one area random tourists will be particularly drawn to.

Anyway point being this is probably less about moral value and more about “where will people stand” and “hey, fifteen of my coworkers died, but I have a meeting at 3:00, so is there any way I could check out all of those names in one swoop?” (There’s a sense in which that’s interesting, actually, because it allows people to relate to the monument in a personal way — not strictly as a monument of an event, but rather an event they have some specific organizational link to.)

(E.g., if you’re the widow of a worker there, organizational grouping makes it more likely that you’ll run into your late husband’s co-workers next to the monument, and such.)

9/11 wtc memorial—BROUGHT TO YOU BY BANK OF AMERICA

Which is sort of what CJ and others said ages ago, isn’t it? About personalising it and providing comfort. Except everyone’s being dicks about it and choosing to ignore that it’s not going to be “Joe Bloggs, mail clerk, BigFat RichMan plc” on the memorial, it’ll be Joe Bloggs.

xpost

and you’re all missing the point that putting the draftees on one side of the vietnam wall with the volunteers on the other is a hideous, fucked up idea

i want some sort of tasteful monument to futility, something like this:

or maybe this:

something like this:

is too triumphant, not to mention that was a war that meant something.

nabisco that’s an interesting take, but I doubt the months of intense lobbying by firefighters etc. have much to do with the logistics of where people will stand.

the grouping then just seems really pointless i.e. if there’s no indication of why the groups are as they are one would still have to scan each group looking for a particular name. assuming this is the only real reason to feature names in the first place it just seems odd.

if i had to guess the initial impetus actually came from wanting to make a special spot for the firefighters/police. of course i have no intimate knowledge of this.

well it came down to two pretty shortsighted, horrible ideas, and the one with the shoutiest people supporting it won—democracy in the 21st century.

Anyway point being this is probably less about moral value and more about “where will people stand” and “hey, fifteen of my coworkers died, but I have a meeting at 3:00, so is there any way I could check out all of those names in one swoop?”

that is ridiculous. anybody hoping for a “casual scan of the memorial on their lunchbreak” probably is at the wrong place.

ps have any of you actually been to the vietnam memorial in d.c.? i don’t know if they still do this but back in the day they actually used to have real, living people working as guides to help people find loved ones, friends, etc. it wouldn’t be that hard to do.

pps for perspective, the vietnam memorial is 50k+ names, not 2k+.

funny thing is in nyc people do actually seem to want to move on—ie no on ever talks abt 9/11

I like the police memorial in London also.

I guess they turn the pages in book on a regular basis like the books of remembrance you see in cathedrals and town halls. I think this is quite a good way to combine a memorial and acknowleding the names behind the memorial.

Credit where credits due but it’s shocking anything linked to Michael Winner would be so tasteful.

They do still have guides, last I was in that area.

Anyone on this thread who honestly believes that this is being done to help people find their Cantor Fitzgerald and Windows on the World loved ones more easily and not because certain extremely vocal police/firefighters widows and survivors groups have made a BIG FUCKING DEAL about wanting to be separated is really, really naive, like beneath a 4 year old thinking Santa will bring her a pony this year.

pony dont fit down chimney boooyah

Santa ain’t real either!

in meorandum estban buttaez 2006 rip

Yeah, so call me stupid (oh, right, you did), but why not just have police/firefighters/other non-heroic plebs as three separate categories?

xpost to Ally

QFT: I sorta take issue with the idea that the commemoration of a mass grave should be “comforting”

I think the question comes down to this: do we want this to be an all-encompassing, comforting and “user-friendly” way of gaining closure? Or do we want it to be a reminder of the sickening horror of plane-assisted mass murder?

do not want

but why not just have police/firefighters/other non-heroic plebs as three separate categories?

just because it goes against the ‘unity/equality’ aspect originally intended.

Many people in that building turned into heroes that day. There were loads of rescuers—secretaries rescuing fireman, firemen rescuing cops. Putting the emphasis on what organizations people worked for doesn’t close off everything else in their lives as vectors of memory and reflection—nothing could—but it de-emphasizes those other vectors and devalorizes them. And puts them into a box. “You = helpless patsy. You = heroic saver of lives.” It was a lot more complicated and interesting than that.

In fact, the organizations people worked for should be last on the list of significant organizing principles for memorializing—all those organizations still exist. The departments still exist. The contracts still exist. The people don’t. The sons, mothers, ad-hoc piano teachers, science experts, pranksters, shoulders to lean on, encouragers, one-night stands, and a million other things.

yeah not to mention commemorating the spectacular departmental failures of the nypd and nyfd isn’t really what i’d like to see—WHOOPS DID I SAY THAT? well too fuckin’ bad. there was no reason other than incompetence from the giuliani administration on down for as many people to have died that day, though it is true that it could’ve been much worse.

Which is why organisation is as “good” a way as any (i.e. not that good) of divvying it up. xpost to Tracer

I still say no names. Just “for those who lost their lives on September 11 2001*”.

(“*except the bombers” an optional add-on)

stencil otm

i think the families don’t get that the public conceives of this as a memorial to collective-freakedout-ness and ‘the american spirit’ or whatever, and not a memorial for actual people, but if i was ever comfortable with a memorial to collective-freakedout-ness, i’m not sure i am anymore. where is our triangle shirtwaist memorial? our general slocum memorial? our House of Morgan bombing memorial? this is different due to the number of people, so the families have a serious claim here to some sort of memorial. but otherwise I say this is New York City public space and should be put to the highest and best use for New York City.

http://brooklyn.about.com/od/walkingtour1/ss/evergreens_6.htm

hahahaha pwned

lolz

http://www.general-slocum.com/0photogallerych10.htm

house of morgan bombing was like 35 people, no memorial i don’t think. wall street already is a memorial to itself anyway.

So where’s the numerical cut-off for how many must die before you get a memorial then?

exactly—the triangle shirtwaist memorial is a couple of miles away in a cemetery in Brooklyn, not on the site (though there’s a plaque on the building)

i am all for putting this thing in evergreens cemetery

my friend who died is memorialized in the Public Garden

So where’s the numerical cut-off for how many must die before you get a memorial then?

— ailsa_xx (ailsa.watso...), December 14th, 2006. (later)

at least 67! no wait, is that a serious question?

i think they should put the great white memorial at ground zero.

or at the fresh kills reclamation site

oh wait, the triangle shirtwaist and slocum weren’t collective-freakout events, were they?

oh wait the 19th century was a completely different century, wasn’t it?

yeah, they didn’t have televised memorials

or maybe they were early 20th? i don’t even know. i’m a bad citizen. but hey at least i understand—even if i don’t love the idea—that in the age of the internets and cable television, things might be a tad bit more of a big deal.

they should just make a 24 hour 9/11 memorial digital cable channel and leave it at that. we can broadcast it into enemy countries to make them feel sorry for us.

Of course it wasn’t a serious question! It was just because “only” 35 seemed not worthy of a memorial, and wondered what actually *was* memorial-worthy?

nabisco that’s an interesting take, but I doubt the months of intense lobbying by firefighters etc. have much to do with the logistics of where people will stand.

They have to do with firefighters wanting to be listed as a community, which — as much pride-of-place bullshit as it may contain — is still also a basic mechanical thing of bringing together folks who have the same connections to the monument and one another. Beyond which the fact that some people have lame motives for pushing an idea does not make the idea inherently bad, especially when there are a million ways of executing the idea that have nothing to do with the lame motives. Like I said, scattering by company / firm / etc. would offer all the benefits of keeping social groups together without any one of them being offered any particular pride of place.

I’d be equally fine with arguing for alphabetical as a form of saying “hey firemen cool yr shit for a second,” but I’m not gonna pretend a form of really even-handed value-free grouping wouldn’t make a certain amount of logistical sense.

(I.e. you’re taking the fire department motive strictly as self-aggrandizement, when in fact it seems to me that the whole structure there has a totally gut-level boyish “we’re all bros here” mentality, even at the most official level. This is a bit like asking to be able to sit together in the lunchroom — so yeah, maybe it’s the popular kids making noise about it, but so long as they’re not getting the best tables or anything, it might not actually be the worst idea.)

if i was a nyfd widow, i would sure be proud to have my loved one grouped with an organization that couldn’t get it together to have radios that worked in the wtc, for sure.

seriously nabisco you’re defending this?

and you don’t see the inherent dipshittedness of this statement:

bringing together folks who have the same connections to the monument and one another?

UH

UM

RIGHT.

I’m not gonna pretend a form of really even-handed value-free grouping wouldn’t make a certain amount of logistical sense.

unfortunately that’s made rather fucking clear by the article that that isn’t what is under discussion. And Daddino already shot the entire idea of “even-handed value-free” segregation full of holes better than I could.

and bringing “logistical sense” into an argument about a completely ceremonial structure is a pretty gigantic non sequitur, coming from anybody.

I think Nabisco’s main point here is, “Seriously guys, you are being total dickfaces about this.”

(Nabisco, please correct me if I’m wrong.)

Tombot you realize it’s possible for me to have an opinion on how this might be done that’s distinct from other proposals, right?

i don’t understand what’s so terrible about a random distribution (or by location of death) with some kind of icon or parenthetical denoting ultra heroic extra status, but then i’m not one of the professional grievers ann coulter has been telling us all about.

glibness aside: the logic (or at least the politics) of seperating the cops and firemen out is one thing, but applying that same logic to everyone else is bullshit (“prep cook—windows on the world” indeed) (or “undocumented ‘contractor’—sodexho” amirite)

THE TROUBLE that arises, then, is that grouping/seperating the NYPD and FDNY guys out immediately groups everyone else into an “everyone else” pile. i think i’ve just repeated this whole thread in miniature but whatever

yeah and if you’re just debating gratuitously even though you support plain old alphabetical order or something similarly flat as opposed to the grouping by employer nonsense then that’s cool, we’re in agreement.

I just don’t see the grouping by employer thing as really remotely defensible, personally, and I don’t think “ease of use” or form/function arguments re foot traffic hold any water when applied to this kind of thing.

guides or no guides, there are weatherproof directories of the entire Vietnam memorial at the site that have all the names alphabetically.

we have printed phonebooks, as a nation. we have the technology. we can do this.

there could be a really nice laptop terminal under a very classy and somber bus shelter with Excel running a spreadsheet and you could do the data sort yourself.

xpost

Besides which I think you’re drastically overstating what that Daily News article contains (unless you’re talking about a link to some other article I haven’t noticed yet): the most specific it gets about the actual logistics of the arrangement is “north pool = people in north tower and plane that hit it” / “south pool = everyone else, including FD/PD.”

xpost

Also silly to imagine “prep cook” distinctions here, as the article would suggest they’ve split people into maybe 10 or so overarching groups? Anyway I think Dan gets where I’m coming here from a lot more than Tom does, as I’m not so much defending a proposal as just saying I think some of you are being a little weird about this.

I think maybe Eli, Ally and I are just thinking of the kind of people who would so vocally insist upon this arrangement and imagining that they might just possibly be totally fucking lame bastards

which you’ve addressed, but I don’t think it’s necessarily weird or even a little weird to be aggravated with a decision that seems designed to pander to, well, a bunch of people who are acting like assholes, even if they don’t realize it.

such as the 658 employees of Cantor Fitzgerald who lost their lives. They would be listed as a group, but without the company’s name.

this is weird and points to the general weirdness of the whole scenario.

no one i’m close to has every known or cared a fig about anyone i’ve worked with. is that not normal?

ever

i think it’s normal to care about people your spouse worked with when 600 of the your spouse’s co-workers’ spouses lose their spouses on the same day and in the same incomprehensible way that you did

now imagine a whole building full of people who lost their spouses on the same day and in the same incomprehensible way.

Yeah, the “listing by employer” thing is way too “you are defined by your job.” Why don’t they list it by floor, or something, and basically accomplish the same thing w/out the weird corporatist overtones?

well it’s not weird that the victims family’s wouldn’t want them to be listed with their companies (which, i assume is why the company name isn’t being listed), but then that they’re gonna do it anyway and just not name the companies so that the firefighters can be with their coworkers, is what is weird.

now imagine a whole building full of people who lost their spouses on the same day and in the same incomprehensible wa

do you see the other people in the building at company memorials, meetings related to company benefits, etc? (also, iirc, they had a big company ‘culture’ pre-9/11 anyway)

most people likely want their loved ones to be remembered as individuals rather than employees—except for the firefighters, but they’re more heros than employees.

I think maybe the problem is that listing ppl by company makes it too easy to think “Look at all these companies that lost their laborers” instead of “Look at all these people who died.”

the problem with america is its “show only most recent 50 messages” culture

“a bunch of people who are acting like assholes”

hahaha

:)

If they’re so hell-bent on adding in company names, then at least do something like the Newseum memorial with the affiliation listed below the name in a smaller font.

Otherwise, just skip the whole memorial anyway because in 90 years it’ll look like all those moldy Lusitania memorials that no one cares about.

The moldy garden looks atmospheric and like the most interesting part!

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST PEOPLE THEY ARE NOT ENTERING IN THE COMPANY NAMES STOP MAKING UP SHIT SO THAT YOU CAN FEEL JUSTIFIED IN ACTING LIKE COCKS ABOUT DEAD PEOPLE

lollers. don’t interupt their haughty funtime, Dan.

Should’ve extended No List November and this argument would never have happened.

The change—long sought by many 9/11 family members and the police and firefighter unions—was approved by the executive committee of the WTC Memorial Foundation.

If this is how the relatives of the deceased would like it done, then shouldn’t their wishes be respected?

C J, the Daily News also said that “many” 9/11 family members were outraged by the idea of the Drawing Center opening a gallery and education center at the WTC site. The Daily News says a lot of things.

There’s a war memorial in london that has no names, occupations, etc, only the town and countries they came from.

Just adding that for thought.

I’ve come to this rather late I know (I was flying back to Mpls) but feel the names of the dead should just be listed alphabetically because, basically, death renders these people equal to one another and anything else smacks of survivors having a Victim’s Olympics where the NYFD are gold medal winners or summat. There is also a lot more value to having the name of the prep cook next to the cop next to the stockbroker so when people come to remember their relatives they realise that all human life/death was there together.

King’s Cross fire victims included two or three homeless who have NEVER been identified, to this day.

I thought the last King’s Cross victim was identified a couple of years ago.

*looks on the Internet*

Wikipedia says he was identified in January 2004.

i was thinking, wouldn’t adding the ranks of firemen and policemen to their names reduce any need to group them?

for the daily news “many families” might just be “two guys who we paid to say what we want”

Also any serving officer killed in duty would be more appropriately memorialised plaquewise at their relevant precincts, as with others who have lost their lives in service.

roffles as always @ M Loi