erectile dysfunction ...
To me, the idea of replacing Twin Towers with some gawdy spike, however well-built it *may* be, is a wrong statement.
A statement IS what needs made.
16 acres COULD be devoted to OPEN space.
No loss to Mr. Larry Silverstein if that 16 acres was open to all human beings from anywhere in the world; no loss to Silverstein's backers, including TIAA-CREF (just following the money - are you ?) who have all been paid handsomely for the *loss* on their investments (which they would NOT have been btw had the Towers, including Building 7, NOT come down)
What is smart, and what is right (making a right statement) is that people like Dawn and Michelle, as survivors - people who were too close to so-called "Ground Zero" (a term previously used only in relation to a nuclear event, or is that admission in itself) are dispersed to places they might not otherwise have landed, because ...
One of the ways in which the Twin Towers had become obsolete (a white elephant) is that the Information Age no longer requires such centralization of companies clustered within shouting (or courier) distance of each other.
What is smart is DEcentralization in the same way so-called terrorists cannot be attacked easily or "rooted out" because they are not *PLANTED* anywhere.
I do not see how *erecting* another tower on that site will exemplify thinking any different than the sort of thinking which made the Twin Towers a target in the first place.
If you do, I would certainly like to hear your view(s).
What COULD be done with that site is to create a place where anyone can bring their *differences* and talk with each other, learn from each other - a place from which peace begins to grow in this world.
Such a lofty goal which needs no tower for support would be a fine statement.
A statement IS what needs made.
16 acres COULD be devoted to OPEN space.
No loss to Mr. Larry Silverstein if that 16 acres was open to all human beings from anywhere in the world; no loss to Silverstein's backers, including TIAA-CREF (just following the money - are you ?) who have all been paid handsomely for the *loss* on their investments (which they would NOT have been btw had the Towers, including Building 7, NOT come down)
What is smart, and what is right (making a right statement) is that people like Dawn and Michelle, as survivors - people who were too close to so-called "Ground Zero" (a term previously used only in relation to a nuclear event, or is that admission in itself) are dispersed to places they might not otherwise have landed, because ...
One of the ways in which the Twin Towers had become obsolete (a white elephant) is that the Information Age no longer requires such centralization of companies clustered within shouting (or courier) distance of each other.
What is smart is DEcentralization in the same way so-called terrorists cannot be attacked easily or "rooted out" because they are not *PLANTED* anywhere.
I do not see how *erecting* another tower on that site will exemplify thinking any different than the sort of thinking which made the Twin Towers a target in the first place.
If you do, I would certainly like to hear your view(s).
What COULD be done with that site is to create a place where anyone can bring their *differences* and talk with each other, learn from each other - a place from which peace begins to grow in this world.
Such a lofty goal which needs no tower for support would be a fine statement.
posted by JamesB | 7:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home