Herewith are the paraphraghs that boggled my mind. [via Donations Slow for Memorial at Ground Zero - New York Times]:

The foundation is preparing an ambitious worldwide marketing campaign to raise the remaining $197.7 million to cover the costs, at a time when many groups are continuing to solicit donations to aid victims of the Asian tsunami, two Gulf Coast hurricanes, the Pakistani earthquake, the Philippine mudslide and other disasters far more recent than the 2001 terrorist attacks. "I would say this is a challenging goal, because the foundation can't now rely on the shock value of the original tragedy," said Leo P. Arnoult, a fund-raising consultant not connected with the memorial. "But given the magnitude of the event, perhaps the fund-raising could be presented as something very affirming."

First, what does it say of our government that it won't pony-up the money for a memorial? Second, what does it say of NGOs or non-profit organizations that, and I quote, "rely on the shock value of the original tragedy" to justify their existence? And let me add to that, rely on the marketing of a tragedy to pay the bills? The US government should have covered the cost of the memorial and then have a foundation manage it. What does it say about the Bush administration that they could care less about what goes on at Ground Zero? That they knew it was a necessary loss to further their dreams of Empire? That 2K Americans are dispensable in the quest of untold riches in the Middle East? That a hole in the ground in New York City is a little loss --good thing we don't have something like the war that has destroyed Iraq? Or that, what's the rush since more calamities will be coming our way anyhow? Mr. President, what does your administration's silence over the fate of Ground Zero really, truly mean?