The New York Times is criticizing the "Take Back The Memorial" folks in an editorial published today. They claim these folks are ignoring or twisting the facts in order to make their argument to preserve the WTC site as a simple memorial to those who were killed there. They also say the group's position that "ground zero must contain no facilities 'that house controversial debate, dialogue, artistic impressions, or exhibits referring to extraneous historical events' is un-American. Un-American? What on Earth do they mean?

During the most recent presidential election there was an undercurrent of the philosophical differences which exist between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe in the Bush doctrine of hitting back hard against those who did harm you, those who might harm you, and those who aid the ones who did or might harm you. The conservative view is pragmatic and action oriented. Liberals prefer a more "thoughtful" discourse which, of course, must include analyzing historical events in a scholarly fashion to place things in their proper perspective. The liberal view is filled with idealism and inaction. But just as the muggee should not analyze the mugger's motivation while the gun is pointed squarely at his back, the United States not engage in introspection and self-critique at this particular moment in history.

The conservative element in the media has shown that liberals would like us to feel guilty about our international policies leading up to September 11 and see these as contributing to the proliferation of international terrorism. They replay speeches of Democratic Senators, Representatives and others, like Michael Moore, blaming the US for the hate which apparently dominates the Muslim world. Conservatives do not have to work particularly hard to demonstrate the liberal view since much of this is readily available. They use liberals own words in speeches and writings on the subject.

Liberals would like us to believe that their thoughts and opinions are complex, nuanced, thoughtful ones. Their's is a world of near constant introspection, of thinking things through before taking action - the right action. This sounds great but is seldom practical in application.

Human intellect has been analyzed to a tremendous degree as scientists attempt to fashion artificial intelligence. The element of the human intellect which baffles science is the ability to make decisions and take action based on incomplete information. Human beings run the full spectrum between those who act on too little information and those who never act because they are too busy analyzing. I think it is fair for each of us to introspect a little. When I do, I fully acknowledge that I often make mistakes but the biggest mistakes in my life have been those moments when I analyzed too long to take any action. Liberals tend to err on the side of excessive, even obsessive, analysis.

What does it mean to be "American" in the Times view? In order to be American, we must constantly question everything we do by asking how it impacts everyone else on the planet. What has characterized the United States of America has, historically speaking, always been pragmatism. Americans do spend some time thinking but they always take action. They never allow excessive introspection to get in the way of doing something. We have our political and philosophical institutions precisely because those who founded our country were not afraid to undertake the grand experiment of representative democracy. They were not afraid to fashion a constitution where none had ever been tried and true before. They used their intellects to develop a master plan but they did not have the luxury of time in which to compulsively analyze every possible situation and outcome. Had they done this, the nation would have failed. Instead they debated briefly and took action.

The memorial at the WTC site is a memorial to those who were murdered there. It does not have to be "the perfect memorial" to world events. I'm sorry anyone ever spoke of a "freedom center." I suppose when that sounded like a good idea, we were all still grieving. It's a stupid idea. The place needs to be a "plain" memorial. To endlessly debate the inclusion of information which is not directly related to the reason we are building something there - somebody knocked it down - is uniquely un-American, in fact it is downright uncivilized. Let's get on with building a memorial to those who were murdered. You all can build a history library/museum on another day, in another place.