Do you support him? He's got some valid points.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12454358/

"We need to build a memorial for these people," said Rep. William Shuster (R-Pa.), whose district includes Shanksville. "These 40 people were the first counterattack of the war on terror, and they were victorious. We owe them a great debt of gratitude."

They were victorious? Oh, I guess he means the plane didn't go the whitehouse where he and all his buddies hang out. The 40 people on the plane lost their lives and in that sense they were not victorious.

My only guess is that they could not kick in the door to the cockpit. They make sure you don't have anything to work with when you get on an airplane--except box cutters.

Personally I think memorials are stupid. In a hundred years who is going to care? These people individually either went to be with Jesus or they are going to spend eternity in a place of torment. That is all that matters. What are the positive things about a memorial?

It's like having to hear about the Marshall plane crash every year. What good does that do the people who died on the plane or their families? I just would like to know.

DrTorch Wrote:Do you support him? He's got some valid points.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12454358/

Well, I imagine that in politics that you have to choose your battles, and I don't think this is a wise choice. Personally, I don't agree with his principle as an absolute - I do support govt. ownership of land. I don't think this crusade will help him gain converts, either - I'd expect it will alienate people who'd otherwise support him. In the end, I think he'd have been better off judiciously scheduling vacation time or a junket when this came to a vote.

I am not against a memorial BUT the $60 million and I believe 1600 acres seems a bit much. Can't there be a smaller, cheaper memorial? Have a small building close to the nearest road and maybe give a tour to the site(buy a right of way plus part of the crash site)?

RobertN Wrote:I am not against a memorial BUT the $60 million and I believe 1600 acres seems a bit much. Can't there be a smaller, cheaper memorial? Have a small building close to the nearest road and maybe give a tour to the site(buy a right of way plus part of the crash site)?

That seems like a fair compromise. I wonder if he's angling for something like that. $60M is pretty big dollars.

It sounds like a waste of money to me. Think about it. So the govt will buy some land, then the govt will have to pay someone for upkeep on said land (govt employee of course) forever. How many people a year will visit the land?

GrayBeard Wrote:It sounds like a waste of money to me. Think about it. So the govt will buy some land, then the govt will have to pay someone for upkeep on said land (govt employee of course) forever. How many people a year will visit the land?

They will make it back with the souvenier/refreshments shop.

I think a small monument would be fitting...something with their names and a brief description of what they managed to do in the face of terrorism.

Much beyond that is overkill, IMO.