I'm really upset about this. First they change "freedom fries" back to "French fries", despite the fact that those low-life Gallic hedonists cut and ran out on us in Iraq. And now some clowns up in New York have decided that "Freedom Tower" is going to be called just plain old "One World Trade Center". Not even "One World Trade Center the Second"... or "One WTC Junior"... or "1 1/2 WTC". The whole problem began, I suppose, when the federal government left "ground zero" in the hands of the Port Authority of New York, rather than nationalizing it. (But of course nationalization wasn't the "in thing" back in 2001 that it is now, let's admit.) Clearly, a national shrine on the order of "ground zero", or whatever is built on it at any time in the next thousand years, should be the property of All the People.
(I should comment at this point on the battles that have broken out concerning the property in Pennsylvania where Flight 93 crashed. Apparently the guy who owns the property (imagine!) wants to keep it pristine and undeveloped -- except for the strip mine, or junkyard, or whatever it is that was there before. But again, what are one person's selfish whims compared to the needs of All the People? At least in this case the property is owned by an incompetent government agency, so it can be seen as a fair fight.)
One -- and you can't make these things up -- reason given for the change is that it's "more practical" to market the building -- i.e. rental space -- using the more familiar name. Now, when a guy peddling rental space says "practical", it only means one thing -- "easier to rent". So... are there people renting real estate in Lower Manhattan who don't care about freedom and don't want to be associated with it? And if so, do we really want them renting space on hallowed ground, and committing all sorts of abominations there? Well, I understand the intel agencies had quite a bit of space in that area... maybe that's the reason. But here's another reason they gave: "... the 102-story Freedom Tower's name could make it more susceptible to future attacks." Right. If we just change the name the building then becomes hidden... anonymous... invisible. Surely no terrorist group would consider attacking a 102-story building in Lower Manhattan housing fat-cat international finance organizations if the name were changed back to the exact same name the building they already attacked had. Right? I can hear the conversation now:
"So what do you think, Ahmed? Shall we make jihad on the infidel and attack their brand-new tall shiny building in New York -- you know, the one that is as easy a target as the ones we attacked before?"
"No, Omar, that would be most improper, since the building is no longer called Freedom Tower. If it were still called that, we would, of course, attack it as a statement against freedom, but it would make us look like fools to seem to attack the same building we attacked before. It would look like we didn't finish the job the first time, the way the infidel George H. W. Bush failed to finish the job he started in Kuwait, thus delaying our glorious war against the Crusaders. No, Omar, we will have to, regretfully, leave this building alone. The infidels have outsmarted us again."
This is what happens when "property" and "icon" clash, and when local entities get to pursue their agendas regardless of the feelings and emotional needs of The People. Hopefully, in the rosier future -- not far off! -- when all local interests have been subordinated to federal priorities, and silly things like rentals to private firms will be a thing of the past because private firms will be a thing of past, we won't have to put up with any more of these upsetting episodes.