I'm so not following this

Ok, you may have heard there's a bit of a tempest in a blogspot going on right now. It's about Michelle Malkin's objections to a planned memorial to the passengers of flight 93, who died on 9/11.

Malkin is a favorite punching bag of the more Democratic-leaning blogs, a Republican columnist, one of the pack of attack dogs set out after Cindy Sheehan, and the author of a book defending the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Despite the fact that this contradicts a statement she wrote in 2000.

But anyway, in regards to the proposed memorial, Malkin's objection is to the design. This was chosen by a committee that included surviving family members of those who perished in the crash.

Some other such family members have described the winning design this way, as reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (via Liberal Avenger):

"It's powerful but understated," said Kiki Homer, whose brother, LeRoy W. Homer Jr., was co-pilot on the plane that crashed after passengers rebelled against terrorist hijackers. "It's beautifully simple.

"My breath is taken away."

Esther Heymann, whose daughter, Elizabeth Wainio, died in the crash, agreed.

"The understatement speaks to the profoundness of what occurred here," she said.

According to jurors who chose the winner, it offers "tranquility, beauty and silence. It will be a place for everyone who visits to feel the spirits of the 40 heroes in the whisper of the trees and honor their unselfish sacrifice of their lives to preserve the lives of countless many.

Ms. Malkin, on the other hand, feels that the proposed design really looks kind of, like, Muslim to her. Some of the other bloggers have been attacking Ms. Malkin's position, including Jill from Feministe, who counters Malkin's argument that--

This is no way to fight a war. Or to remember those who have died fighting it.

A proper war memorial stirs to anger and action.

--by saying,

I cry whenever I go to the Vietnam Veteran’s memorial in DC. I don’t feel “stirred to action,” although admittedly I walk away feeling angry at our government over involving us in another unnecessary war. I don’t feel like picking up a gun after visiting the WWII memorial, or the Holocaust museum, or the Korean War memorial. If I remember them correctly, all those memorials manage to focus on bravery and courage, while still allowing space for grief, contemplation and hope for peace.

And they were actually war memorials. Do I need to say it again? The innocent passengers on Flight 93 didn’t die fighting in a war. This is not a war memorial. I agree that it’s important to immortalize the heroics of the people on that flight. But it’s completely innappropriate to turn a memorial into a politicized “let’s kick some ass, yay war!” campaign

This in turn has earned Jill the scorn of a fella named Jeff Goldstein, who writes a blog called protein wisdom. Mr. Goldstein manages to be gratuitously sexist in his response, in reference to both Jill and, bizarrely, actress/model Shannon Elizabeth.

He pretends, you see, that Elizabeth replied to Jill's blog entry by saying--

“Gee. And I thought I was an uninformed bimbo."

--which comment he actually posted on the blog.

Now, I hold no brief for Ms. Elizabeth who, it's true, will probably mostly be remembered, if at all, for her breasts and her willingness to expose them to a camera. Though a quick search for recent news items about her shows that she does, at least, seem to be doing her bit for charity, both as regards victims of hurricane Katrina and breast cancer.

I'm just contemplating how quickly a member of the right "blogosphere" jumps from discussing what form a memorial should take, to making ill-tempered slurs that use offensive terms.

But I've been staying out of it, although I do feel that if the family members of those who are being honored are OK with a memorial design, who am I to disagree? Seems simple enough to me.

But like it says up top there, I'm so not following this...