 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Some of the skyscrapers proposed last week for the rebuilding of the World Trade Center might be grand, but what's the point of this exercise? As a Washington Post article makes clear, there is a surplus of office space in the area. Some projects try to address this with staggered building plans, but such an approach has a major flaw: Financial firms are moving out, not in, because the lesson of September 11 is that the future is decentralized. Any gradual approach, then, will result in an incomplete project, an Antwerp Cathedral of a building, with towers that will never be finished. Much better to realize this and to turn the site into something which the city needs more of: a park, albeit above a transit hub.
If one of the plans has to be realized, I would vote as often as I can for the Foster plan, purely on esthetic grounds. Those towers are grand. They are also what the World Trade Center should have looked like the first time around. There's two of them, they are the tallest buildings ever, they restore the balance of the skyline as we knew it, yet they are better: more approachable, more lissome, more graceful. Other plans have good ideas, but most fall flat on a crucial point here or there.
Felix's favorite suffers from looking like a group of people who need to pee badly. It reminds me of the Burghers of Calais after a very long sitting for Rodin. It is also guilty of the same criticism Felix leveled against this proposal—that it cuts off downtown from the rest of New York. And one more psychologically dubious selling point: Are New Yorkers really ready to walk _under_ the equivalent of a leaning World Trade Center after this whole ordeal? I don't think so.
Other proposals suffer from delusions of grandeur. They are not designed on a human scale, an unfortunate tendency in modern architecture that the good people of Canberra and Brasilia will gladly tell you about. To a certain extent, the original World Trade Center suffered from this as well. I almost always walked through the mall to work, only rarely on the plaza above.
Finally, I'd like to argue against over-memorializing. This is not the Holocaust that happened in New York. 2,800 people lost their lives in a terrible attack, but we should not build memorials that rival those remembering the sacrifices made in WWII. Let's look at the Pearl Harbor memorial as an inspiration; it is understated, and gains power from that. It is also similar to one proposal's memorial that plays with the shadow of the WTCs over the Hudson. It is simple and powerful. There can never be enough parks in New York.
So, my plan: Turn the whole thing into a park, with a transportation hub underneath, and perhaps some cultural magnets, but enough with this obsession with office space already. In this scenario, if you must have a tall structure, play with the concept of needles, light, telecommunications towers, etc... But realize that Sept. 11 is the moment that people of the future will point to as the moment when the internet-connected world began realizing that the economic argument for decentralization was compelling.
But if this lesson is not yet learned, and we must build office buildings, then let's improve on the original, with Foster's buildings. As for memorial, I'd pick the park in the Hudson.
Continue reading "World Trade Center proposals:"David Denby's review of Scorcese's Gangs of New York in The New Yorker finds too many faults with it to even call it a flawed masterpiece, but praises Daniel Day-Lewis effusively. So I will have to see the movie but be disappointed. (In an anticipatory mood, I had already watched the relevant episode from the Ric Burns documentary again, and had gone looking for the exact location of Five Points on maps.)
Denby seems to confirm what a previous reviewer intimated: That Gangs shoehorns historical facts into a plot that revolves solely around Protestant nativists and Catholic Irish, at the expense of an exposition of the real losers of the draft riots of 1863: the blacks. The Irish, who most directly competed with blacks at the bottom rung of society, opposed the idea of being drafted into a war that aimed to emancipate blacks in the South. In the ensuing violence, about 100 blacks were maimed, drowned or lynched by the Irish. Some 85 Irish rioters did die before the riots ended; shot by troops sent back from Gettysburg to contain the uprising.
The New York Review of Books hits Stockholm a week late (but this is a lot better than The New Yorker, with an issue still on the shelf here I that read a month ago in New York). In the "current" issue of tNYRoB, then, is a sincere piece by Ian Buruma about the West Bank. It's heartbreaking what is going on in Israel.
Then, thanks to that great site Arts & Letters Daily, two notable pieces from Canada's National Post:
A Mark Steyn piece that does some worthy cutting down of apologists for Muslim extremism. Notable nut graf:
When Mr. Khalfan says that irresponsible journalists "risk provoking individuals who cannot control their spiritual emotions and cause the death of innocent people," he's being far more objectionable about Muslims than me, Frum and that Nigerian woman rolled into one; he's being more imperialist than any old-school Colonial Officer: He's saying Muslims are wogs, savages, they know no better, what do you expect? You've gotta be careful around them, the slightest thing could set 'em off. Might be a novel, might be a beauty contest.And finally, Rebecca Eckler puts a name to the newest NYC social meme: the sometime boyfriend. What an excellent concept, especially now that I no longer live in New York, but do plan to visit often. And what is it about The National Post's female columnists that allows them to puch above their weight so? You'll remember Rebecca's good friend and colleague Leah McLaren, who could not find a great British man this summer. Blogging her elicited a record number of comments for one post on this site, I believe.Sorry, it's not a good enough answer. If that Nigerian mob are really no more than "pious Muslims," then pious Muslims should be ashamed. Pious Muslims can follow the murder-inciters of Bradford, the suicide-bombers of the West Bank and the depraved killers of northern Nigeria on their descent into barbarism. Or they can wake up and save their religion. Mr. Khalfan's sophistry won't cut it.
Kissinger resigns! The wily realist realized that he'd rather continue running his own private consulting practice than return to public office in this important role. And that is just the charitable version of events. The uncharitable version, let's call it the realistic take, is that his clients are so unsavory that listing them publicly (as the ethics committee demands of all appointees at his level) would have permanently undermined his credibility. The other option, selling Kissinger Associates, was probably not feasible because—let's face it—what the clients are paying for is his access to power, not the advice of his underlings.
But you might ask, what credibility? Chris Hitchens has been at him quite successfully, first in a book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, in which he puts the realpolitiker on trial for war crimes, and more recently in articles pointing out the absolute hypocrisy of putting this man in charge of the 9/11 committee.
Why Republicans continue to consort with him is beyond me. Well, actually, I can understand that you would give an old operative your undying gratitude for having done all your dirty work during the Cold War, but please do it behind closed doors. (For example, invite him to Bob Bartley's retirement bash.) Public support of this man is not justifiable; the White House's pressure on the ethics committee to let Kissinger off the hook for the vetting process is unconscionable. But it's always about seeing what you can get away with, isn't it?
Continue reading "Bush and the Republicans, sitting in a tree, K.I.S.S.I.N.G.E.R"It was an interesting day for the law in the US. The Supreme Court hearing of a challenge to a Virginia law banning cross burning in public view made for some riveting exchanges.
A similar law—which banned the display of any symbols that were known to cause anger or resentment—was struck down in 1992 because it was found to violate freedom of speech guarantees.
But this law is aimed directly at public cross-burning rituals, because it redefines them not as protected hate speech, but as actual threatening conduct, much like somebody with a criminal past brandishing a loaded gun. Indeed, if I were black, based on past history I imagine I would feel very threatened were I to venture near a cross-burning ritual, so it is an eminently reasonable ground for banning the practice, and the Supreme Court seems to agree (we'll see).
But there are other examples one could find of such practices. A public rally of Nazi types doing the Hitler salute? Jews (and gays and gypsies) might feel threatened by such a display of hate too.
Germany bans Nazi rallies. Why not ban them in the US? White supremacists steeped in Nazi nostalgia preparing for the revolution somewhere in Oregon seem to have more sense than the KKK, and have realized that Nazi rallies are terrible PR. As far as I know, there are no public Nazi rallies in the US. Which is probably why they haven't been banned specifically. But if and when they happen, they should be.
Continue reading "The KKK and the Nazis"On to Trent Lott, who by staying on is helping the Democrats more than they can help themselves right now. Some more journalistic digging now has him defending racial discrimination back in the 80s.
But his arguments then contain an opinion I completely agree with:
Lott said if the Internal Revenue Service succeeded in revoking the tax exempt status of [Bob Jones] university [which banned inter-racial dating], it might have far reaching implications. "The IRS might next decide to deny exemptions to churches that refuse to ordain women," he argued.Yes! What a fantastic idea! I could see why the state might have tax exemptions for your non-profit organization, as long as you do not practice discriminatory policies in hiring, promotion, and conduct. If you can't do that, feel free to associate and do whatever you want (short of cross burning), but don't expect any special favors from the state. It's everybody's responsibility to contribute financially to the good functioning of society, and if you want to be an exception, your altruism better be not be at the expense of a particular group of people.
Good idea, Trent. Now, about segregation...
Continue reading "Trent's Lott is not a happy one"My inbox this morning had an email with a spelling mistake that I suspect is not a typo. It referred to someone I should meet here in Europe as an ex-patriot American.
Since we're on the topic of interesting choices of words, here is a new word I suggest we all adopt for whenever my friend John/Eurof gets too clingy.
Continue reading "Let Freudom Ring"I just found out tonight that my apartment's central heating is provided in part by a local crematorium. Surprisingly, this little nugget of weird news, first reported in Dagens Nyheter last month, has so far flown below the radar screens of the internet's weird news industry.
Perhaps its because it all makes eminent sense if you look at the details. Basically, it's an environmentally friendly gesture: The smoke produced by the crematorium's ovens needs to be cooled, from over 1,100 degrees celsius to around 150 degrees, for filters to efficiently remove mercury. Using electric fans costs a lot of money, but piping water through the smoke cools it while heating the water. So for the past 5 years the crematorium has offered to let itself be connected to the city's central heating grid, an offer Stockholm Energi, the local energy company, refused, fearing public queasiness.
Until now. Several local bishops have said they see no ethical problems with such a setup; on the contrary, both sides see environmental benefits: Stockholm Energi needs less fuel to heat Stockholm, and the crematorium spends less energy cooling its furnaces, saving 50-75% on its energy bill in the process.
But the crematorium insists it's about saving energy, not money. Furthermore, the technical director of the local church administration assures us that the heat generated by the ovens does not come from bodies—bodies are not good fuel, he says, because they are mainly just bags of water. The heat is generated in part from the coffins, but mainly from the gas that is burned to cremate the bodies.
He also assures us that the steam from the cremated bodies does not end up flowing through my heater here; the processes are kept separate. In that case I'm all for it. In fact, wouldn't it be even more efficient to have Stockholm Energi burn the bodies in their own powerplants, obviating the need for crematoria altogether? And also, I would feel a bit better if the local old people's homes get a deep discount on their next heating bill.
(Matthew, what do you think, could you pitch this as an A-head and get a free trip to Stockholm out of it?)
Continue reading "Dead heat"There are two kinds of Swedes in the winter. One kind is moody, depressed, melancholic, alcoholic, and as a result not too productive. But most people here are the opposite—aggressively positive—and it amounts to a victory over adversity, in any case over adverse weather.
[Insert jibe here about how if you really want a taste of winter you should move to New York, which is observing arctic temperatures this week while Sweden coasts along in solid positive single digit temperatures.]
But back to these Swedes and their mood-altering society. Aggressive optimism is the state religion here. Every single FM station has a playlist that rotates the same 30 impossibly boppy songs—the Ketchup song is still number one, a whole six months after taxing everybody's sanity by being anointed Europe's summer song; and the Russian lesbian teen duo Tatu has a popular ditty that everybody no doubt listens to for its complex rhythmic qualities.
And there are gobs of holidays. Besides Christmas and New Years, there is Santa Lucia, where a lucky child gets to put candles in her hair and light them. I've only recently heard the story behind it: Apparently, Saint Lucia used to bring food to fellow Christians hiding underground in Roman times. She had her hands full so she wore candles on her head to light the way in the dark catacombs. Eventually, she was caught so they tried to drown her, but couldn't, so they tried to burn her at the stake but she wouldn't, and this was the miracle that made her a saint. Eventually they just killed her with a sword. Some miracle.
Swedish—the language—also betrays a different approach to sexual mores (maw-rez). Whereas the sentence "Magnus loved his wife" is not normally considered ambiguous in English, a Swede knows better and will demand more information. If you say "Magnus älskade sin fru" you are indeed saying he loves his own wife; but if you say "Magnus älskade hans fru" you are talking about somebody else's wife, perhaps his best friend's, Petter.
But back to why anybody lives here at all. One reason I found out all by myself. Another I read about. First, I'd like to say what a wonderful world a world without rot is. Things here don't rot, they don't fall apart, they don't get eaten by bugs or maggots or taken over by the jungle or disappear into a swamp or dissolve into rust. It does wonders to one's quality of life. (The one notable exception is their fish, but that's done on purpose. It must be a fetish—yearning for something you don't have).
Second, it turns out that in the days before modern transportation, Swedes enjoyed a 6-month competitive advantage versus the rest of Europe in that their transportation was much, much more efficient during winter. Whereas the rest of us had to wade through muddy roads on uncomfortable carts, the Swedes simply sledded everywhere, getting to places with much less friction and effort.
Woops, it just got dark again.
I came across this quote on a Baghdad blog and it got me thinking:
"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."Before we all start dissing this as anti-Western propaganda, it's worth noting the author of that truism is Samuel P. Huntington.
It is of course entirely possible that the West won through superior use of organized violence AND that it had superior values over the "non-West", but I think this unlikely. The claim of moral superiority, although made by the West for centuries now, is conceivably true only recently.
When was it that the west acquired these superior moral ideas? Not in 1900, when colonialism by the Europeans and a policy of hemispheric domination by the US made such a notion laughable from a modern perspective. And if elections were held then, women and minorities and the poor were disenfranchised.
Only over the past 50 years could a case be constructed for moral superiority, primarily vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. And even then ends justified the means, in Vietnam, in Grenada, in Chile... Jeane Kirkpatrick famously explained why. If you don't agree with her, then the West became virtuous only in the last 12 years, in part also because it is opening up its markets to imports from developing countries.
It seems to me that the things we celebrate about the West are a result of a successful completion of a two-stage process. The Greeks first invented democracy, but kept the definition of citizen conveniently narrow. So which is more monumental: The notion of democracy, or the notion of democracy for everyone? The democratic credentials of the US constitution, or the humanist Declaration of Human Rights? The latter, obviously. The former, while a clever bit of thinking, was never intended to give the vote to blacks or women.
So, granted, now we have a virtuous West, but one which reached its epiphany largely at the expense of others. The unfortunate result is that a portion of the globe has decided to reject the fruits of the West's philosophical evolution because it cannot bring itself to separate the means used to reach this achievement from the achievement itself.
And I'm not just talking about the Taliban. Talk to any French activist student or half-arsed Marxist and you get the same suspicion. They still believe that democracy and free markets are shells used by the US and Europe to achieve world domination.
Continue reading "Mean to me"