I’m not trying to make a point, or even score one, here. Just pondering, opening up the floor for questions.

Fair enough. I appreciate the thoughts.

And as succinct as Irish Elk is, I still don’t agree with the point. The only point I’m interested in is that some (including some my of close liberal friends) think that the crescent is ill-advised. And I weigh that against the victims’ families and their approval. It’s an incredibly difficult position to be in, especially for a self-described liberal.

But all things being equal, I wish they’d change it. Anything less would be ignoring something that seems obvious to me.

FYI, from what I read the objection to the monument is that it is “too tall, too somber and too simplistic.” That hardly seems “controversial” to me, but that’s the word the news stories are using.

Also FYI, as you’ve probably surmised, a lot of my blog friends totally agree with you on that Flight 93 business. Their reactions range from the brilliantly bombastic to the merely withering. My favorite example of the latter is Irish Elk, who writes just one sentence:

Regarding the Crescent of Embrace planned as a Flight 93 memorial in Pennsylvania: Was the Box-Cutter of Friendship idea already taken?

I appreciate your points here, and I’m not trying to discount. I too think that this will pass eventually. But we’re not talking about 20 years from now. We’re talking about a week after this design was picked, and we can actually do something to stop it.

And then there’s this:

But even the second-stage jury that selected the design recommended changing its name to steer clear of religious overtones. Rather than crescent, the jury suggested using circle or arc of embrace instead.

Now, if they recommended this to avoid controversy, they probably also felt that the symbol itself could be seen as controversial. I just can’t square those two things. Perhaps that’s a personal fault of mine, but that’s just how it is right now for me.