4 DaveW 10-24-2002 07:02 PM ET (US) >What is surprising to me is Mark cynically equating the depiction of this technology with a depiction of people burning, choking, falling, and dying last year. To many of us, these events were not, and still are not, abstractions. So it would be OK to have a soap holder showing the pretty fire flowers over Vietnam but bad taste to include the napalmed kids. We can pretend the fire is just there to be pretty. Like Wm. Burroughs said, if you can't stand knowing what's on the end of your fork, don't put it in your mouth. 3 jleader 10-24-2002 05:25 PM ET (US) urp, I think there are two differences between the atom-bomb tchotchkes on the one hand, and corresponding Pearl Harbor or Twin Towers tchotchkes on the other. The first difference, which you mention, is that the A-bomb stuff might be seen as celebrating the technology or the devices, and not the events they were involved in. And as you say, military technology has been celebrated at least since the days of beautifully decorated bronze swords. The other, in my opinion much bigger, difference is that the A-bomb killed our "enemies"; in the other two cases, the dead are "ours", and therefore we're much more sensitive about them. All that hypothesizing aside, though, a quick google for 'pearl harbor shot glass' yielded as the first result http://www.coolpewter.com/pearl/barware/main.htm which for some reason only has images of boats being bombed on glass beer steins and tankards, not on shot glasses. Further search yielded http://www.albertsgifts.com/retail/item.as...%2D2063&rootID=9000 which is a "Ground Zero shot glass". I guess it depends what you mean by "fashionable" and "tasteful". 2 urp 10-24-2002 04:14 PM ET (US) Mark asks, "will cocktail shakers with pictures of the twin towers in flames be fashionable in 2050?" No, just as images of boats being bombed in Pearl Harbor, or of Nagasaki and Hiroshima being obliterated are not fashionable today. I imagine Mark was pointing out, "isn't it ironic that we are casually celebrating these instruments of death and destruction?" Perhaps he was especially agitated by the "test shot!" shot glass depicting a mushroom cloud. I don't think it should be surprising that these symbols of technology are acceptable and normal, even though they are associated with great suffering -- military technology has always been celebrated. What is surprising to me is Mark cynically equating the depiction of this technology with a depiction of people burning, choking, falling, and dying last year. To many of us, these events were not, and still are not, abstractions. It may be an interesting thought experiment -- what will life be like when those tragedies really are only abstractions? But I believe it is in very poor taste to imagine out loud that depicting those recent events, or sinking boats in Pearl Harbor, or real cities being leveled, would "fashionable" or "kitsch." 1 Pandaba 10-24-2002 03:55 PM ET (US) I'm thinking in 2050, Tiffany's will offer a large crystal ball in which a highly detailed hologram of the towers will stand. You could wave yr hand in one direction and see the towers engulfed in fog and snow, in another direction and see nightfall within the dome and the lights beaming from the towers and surrounding city.<br> <br> And then, the most popular option will be to shake the dome slightly and watch the planes strike, the buildings burn and eventually collapse. Your children will be delighted when they look closely at the burning buildings and see tiny little people peering out of the windows in horror and eventually jumping.<br> <br> (Idea originated with William Gibson's concept of a Battle of Britain hologram in a decorative cube, as described in one of his novels, the title of which I've forgotten.)	Upgrade to PRO Upload pictures, personalize your board, and more! About these ads