Christiern

My temporary one is an Adolf Bush morph (courtesy of Weizen--actually I swiped it)--but the reality of it all is too unpleasant for me to keep this one long.

Thanks for the Bill Evans link, Matthew. Because I don't have a copy of it, I particularly enjoyed seeing "Gloria's Step," which is taken from a weekly show I produced and co-hosted some 35 years ago (that's me at the bar, behind Bill). Adolf Bush avatar courtesy of Weizen.

Allen, didn't Gary Giddins call Carmen Lundy the future greatest? I never agreed with that. Back on topic, there may be a taste issue here, but the basis for this story is sound--from what I have always heard (sometimes first-hand) and read.

This week's episode was interesting, but I wonder more and more how they will bring it all to a natural close. Thought Tony's Bush quote, "Heck of a job, Brownie," was a nice touch. Chris' quickie marriage to an entirely new character was surprising, but I guess it is made plausible by the pregnancy. Looks like Vito comes back into the picture next week, but they are not likely to spend another episode on him.

Well, Conrad, I thank you for giving me an excuse to post a photo of a painting that has been in my family for about 120 years. It hangs in my living room and measures ca. 4 1/4' in length. I love this picture, but I'm afraid that my photo does not do it justice.

Danny may have been banished, but he never stopped counting, IMO.

Good point, Jim, but I think the little lake pretty much remains the same--I'll snap a close-up today.

Numerous interviews with Young? Tell us about them--who conducted the interviews and what did Prez say in them?

Whew! So at least they are not undocumented turds! Tree stumps? That's what I thought, but the shape, with that rounded top, seems to belie it.

Yesterday, I took my camera across the street into Central Park. We have a very nice lake and people were sunbathing, but the oddest sight was this: What are these things? It looks like little people enjoying the lake view. At first I thought they were tree stumps, but the shape is all wrong for that--anyone have an idea?

Photo taken last year at a regular meeting of the Henry Benson Appreciation Society. (l to r: Harold Z,Deep, Christiern).

May 5, 2006 Memorial Cost at Ground Zero Nears $1 Billion By CHARLES V. BAGLI and DAVID W. DUNLAP The projected cost of building the World Trade Center memorial complex at ground zero has soared to nearly $1 billion, according to the most authoritative estimate to date. Rebuilding officials concede that the new price tag is breathtaking — "beyond reason" in the words of one member of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation board — and it is sure to set off another battle over development at the 16-acre site, with calls to cut costs, scale back the design or even start over. The foundation, which had planned to start construction in March, has already quietly broached the possibility with some victims' families of moving important parts of the memorial out of the twin towers' footprints to ground level. Only two or three years ago, the problems faced by the memorial, the spiritual centerpiece of the site, would have been unimaginable. The underground complex, with its pools, waterfalls and galleries, was the product of a worldwide design competition that drew 5,201 entries and inspired tremendous public passion. It was supposed to be immune to the controversies that had engulfed the commercial rebuilding at the site, with its completion assured by an outpouring of good will and open checkbooks. But fund-raising has lagged, with just $130 million raised from private contributions. The new estimate, $972 million, would make this the most expensive memorial ever built in the United States. And that figure does not include the $80 million for a visitors' center paid for by New York State. It is likely to draw unfavorable comparisons to the $182 million National World War II Memorial in Washington, which opened in 2004; the $29 million Oklahoma City National Memorial, which opened in 2000; or the $7 million Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, which opened in 1982. The original World Trade Center itself cost $1 billion in the 1970's, or about $3.7 billion in current dollars. Then again, everything at ground zero carries a big ticket, from the $478 million vehicle-screening center to the $2.2 billion PATH terminal. The latest figure comes from a lengthy report by Bovis Lend Lease, the construction manager hired by the foundation to come up with a rigorous analysis of the projected costs based on forecasts of labor rates and market prices for steel and concrete, which have been rapidly rising in recent months. The report includes expenses not previously enumerated, like $25 million in insurance and $22 million for museum exhibit design and construction, as well as a $22 million increase in the cost of the entry pavilion to the underground museum. The foundation has started briefing officials at City Hall, in the office of Gov. George E. Pataki and at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land. A person involved in meetings about the memorial provided The New York Times with a copy of a confidential foundation memorandum, dated May 2, that summarizes the Bovis findings. Even before the official release of the new estimate, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday that he had spoken to both Governor Pataki and Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey about the escalating costs. "Both governors and I think that $500 million is the amount of money that they're going to have to learn to figure out how to deal with," the mayor said. "We want to build the memorial, but we have to realize that there are conflicting demands in this city." John P. Cahill, Mr. Pataki's chief of staff, who is overseeing rebuilding at the trade center, issued a statement yesterday saying, "We remain committed to the creation of a prominent, powerful and moving memorial that our nation can be proud of. Generations to come will come to see this tribute. However, we must ensure that it is financially achievable, while remaining consistent" with the original vision. The report estimates the cost of just the memorial and its related museum at $672 million, up 36 percent from $494 million only four months ago. In addition, the latest projections include $71.5 million for an underground cooling plant, up from $41.5 million four months ago. Bovis also identified $300 million in site preparations and infrastructure — nearly triple the previous $110 million estimate by the foundation, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and the Port Authority — that would be necessary before construction could begin. It contends that the Port Authority must deliver a "buildable site" and should bear those costs. The authority will almost certainly contest that assertion. Last month it agreed to provide $100 million, based on the prior estimate, as part of a major realignment of the plans to build four major office towers on the site. It also took on financial responsibility for the troubled $2 billion Freedom Tower. Yesterday, some state and Port Authority officials expressed misgivings about the validity of the jump in infrastructure costs, but said that did not want to say so publicly until they had been briefed. The ensuing debate over costs and potential design changes may once again raise the possibility that the Port Authority will take over construction of the memorial. Last fall, both Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg seemed to endorse the idea. In the last week, state officials have expressed a lack of confidence in the foundation's ability to build the memorial complex. The matter is complicated by what some officials regard as the foundation's anemic effort to raise donations, more than four years after Sept. 11. In addition to the $130 million the foundation says it has raised, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation has put up $200 million, which, added to $100 million from the authority, would bring the total amount raised to $430 million. The foundation has yet to address how it will handle the annual expense of running the memorial and the museum, which could reach almost $60 million. Foundation officials attributed the earlier estimate, $494 million, to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, but Stefan Pryor, the corporation's president, said, "In both instances, the two agencies have worked together." Early this year, the foundation solicited contractors to build the footings for the complex. Peter M. Lehrer, a construction consultant working for the foundation, and Roland W. Betts, a former director of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, became alarmed when the responding bids ranged from $29 million to $61 million, two to four times higher than expected. The foundation then withdrew the contract and asked Bovis for a new cost analysis of the entire project. That analysis is summarized in the confidential memorandum, which mentions design changes that better reflect the complexity of the project and "additions to the scope of the project." Knowing that the cost of the complex was becoming politically unpalatable, the foundation's executive committee met on April 18 with representatives of some victims' family groups, including Anthony Gardner, a leader of the Coalition of 9/11 Families, which has sued to block the memorial design, as well as Edith Lutnick, Patricia Riley and Sally Regenhard. In an attempt to cut costs and appease critics, the executives suggested broad changes to the design, according to three people who attended. In the current design, the names of the victims would be inscribed 30 feet below street level, on a parapet in galleries surrounding underground pools within the footprints of the towers. Officials said that eliminating the galleries and moving the inscription of the names to plaza level would save money and resolve some security issues and perhaps assuage opponents. "We've always made it clear to the foundation and to L.M.D.C. that we do not support this memorial as it stands now," Mr. Gardner said yesterday, although he refused to discuss the April 18 meeting. But supporters of the current design objected to what they said would be a major revision to appease some critics. "I don't think it's appropriate to go back and start from scratch," said Jeff H. Galloway, a member of Community Board 1 in Lower Manhattan. "The memorial design wasn't thrown together in some haphazard way. It's the result of a thorough and amazingly inclusive process." Monica Iken, a member of the foundation board and a champion of the original design by Michael Arad and Peter Walker, expressed her dismay at what she called a "leadership failure." "Fund-raising would not have been a problem if the memorial and memorial museum was a priority in the first place, which it has never been," she said. "If the original design hadn't been treated like a Tinker Toy, we may have not have had these problems."

Being that rich is easier to undo than to accomplish.

LightScribe drives are quite inexpensive now--they burn a label onto the reverse side of the CD or DVD, so you can create your label on you computer (with images, if you wish) and include very readable small-point text. I have a LaCie LightScribe drive and it works beautifully. You do need to use LightScribe blanks, but the extra money you pay for them is well worth it. I use Verbatim and pay $19 for 30.

I agree with Aggie, it didn't strike me as an interesting trailer, not at all--boring, in fact. Perhaps I'm missing something. What is it about it that so excited you, Alexander?

That's a good point, Alexander. We will, of course never know what any of the passengers were thinking. The phone conversations (and only 3 or 4 passengers had them, as I understand it) were mostly about saying goodbye and letting people on the ground know that a hijacking had occurred and the chances of survival were slim. Is there any recorded phone conversation that indicates a need/desire to circumvent disaster, other than the immediate one? It seems reasonable to assume that, given the tension aboard and the high prospect of the aircraft not making it safely to the ground, people had very real, immediate problems to deal and did not give much thought to saving someone on the ground. Remember, too, that we are probably only talking about a few people--there has been no indication (that I know of) that all 40 passengers were told of the WTC attacks. The human instinct is to save one's own skin, whether it be for the sake of loved ones or just an urge to live. I also agree that we cannot assume that everyone aboard had the same thoughts, the same motivation for at least attempting survival--of course they didn't. Does anyone know if the pilot and copilot were killed? If not, there was at least a chance of survival if the hijackers could be overpowered. And, if they were killed, did the passengers in the cabin know? In other words, I don't think we can say that they must have had a patriotic motive, because none knew how to operate a large aircraft and, ergo, there was no hope of landing the plane. As I read some of the above posts, that is the basis for one of the "heroes" conjectures. I am just being realistic in my surmising--apparently too realistic for some. So I let my guard down and continued--sorry, I really should bow out before I am crown king of the pathetic posters.

Is self defense heroism? Just wondering, because I think this thread needs a definition before any further assumptions are made. The way I understand it, a person who rushes into a burning building and and rescues someone is a hero; a person who runs out of a burning building is not. If I am wrong, I hope someone will set me straight.

I think this is it--the final season. However, there has been talk of a feature film.

These "Masters of Jazz" releases came in the mail today ...

I think Vito's Brokeback Mountain moment with Mr. "Johnny Cakes" was very poorly handled--it was a strenuous attempt at bringing to fruition (as it were) a predictable development. I didn't like the way they crammed this episode with scenes that were as boring as they were superfluous. Did we really need that add-on session with Bodanovich?

It is human nature. People whose kids perform a crime always insist that they didn't do it--similarly, people need to find something that--in their minds--can justify such a horrible event and the premature loss of a loved one. It is something that happens all the time, not something I am making up because I harbor some kind of deep hatred for people who need heroes. I love the way you can twist things around to suit your own purpose, Dan. The facts are: I don't believe that the passengers acted out of a patriotic need to save a building or government officials. You believe that they did. Neither one of us will ever know who is right. Now let it rest.

Skeith, we all would like to think that the passengers who charged the cockpit were doing so for a noble cause and not just to save their own lives, but the operative word here is think--you say: "I think that they were motivated by the idea that they were saving other american lives or american buidings, institutions, whatever. That would make them heroes in my book." And in many other people's book, including my own, but let's be real here--This is the Jessica Lynching of Flight 93. Remember Jessica Lynch? Remember how the Pentagon made up stories to portray her as a hero? Well, America needed a hero, so there she was, packaged neatly for public consumption by the Bush regime. I have lot of respect for Jessica Lynch, because she exposed the little PR trick--good for her, so perhaps she was a hero after all. There are many real heroes in this world--we do not need to make them up. It is enough that the passengers and crew of Flight 93 died as a result of an unspeakable terrorist act--we can remember and honor them for that, because it is the reality. As for your little comment on name-calling, no one asked you. Dan is a grown man, if he thinks this was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, let him say so--keep your 2¢. Unless this thread gets back on track, I'll be found elsewhere.

"flat-out hatred"? So now I'm not just a fool, but a hateful one. Don't you think that is a bit overboard? To me, that assumption (character attack) demonstrates your tendency to see only your own side of things, and then twist the facts to suit or justify (to yourself) a jump to ludicrous conclusions. IMHO, if there is any hatred to be found in this matter, it ought to be aimed at the perpetrators of this tragedy and those who prompted them to carry it out, not at people who simply do not see things the way Gould does. You are right, as long as your mind remains closed to contrasting viewpoint, carrying any further this dialog with you can not accomplish anything.

I think that says it all, Dan--you have no argument, so you cop out--with the obligatory name-calling, I might add. Oh, well.

Dan, I think my conjecture is as valid as yours--neither one of us knows with any kind of certainty what was going through the minds of the passengers (or, for that matter, the hijackers). Ergo, it is you assumption against mine, and the fact that you are ending our dialog because you disagree with my reasoning is a copout, IMO. Why not, instead, explain your belief beyond making general unsubstantiated statement like: "It was undoubtedly a patriotic attempt to prevent a fourth terrorist act - they may not have known the target but they knew the outcome. That's why they acted, and it wasn't a purely self-centered act to save their own lives but also to save lives they knew were at stake somewhere on the ground. Yes, they probably had some blind hope they could land the plane but the odds of that were a 1 million to 1. The odds of overpowering the hijackers were about 40 to 4, a damn sight better." "undoubtedly"? Based on what, other than wishful thinking? So you think their chances of overpowering the hijackers were good but their chance of landing the aircraft was super slim. What about the pilot and/or copilot? Were they still alive? If so, would that not have seriously increased the odds in favor of landing? You have a history here of stating wishful thinking as fact, and this looks to me like another case of that, but only because you have failed to substantiate any of your theories.