He's right, I like it too

This weekend the WWII Memorial will be dedicated. The streets near the Capitol will be closed off and there will be much ballyhoo. Amidst all this clamor, however, one cannot forget what a long bumpy road it's been traveling to this point.

Was is it political in-fighting typical of any major memorial that created the stir or were the critics right, the memorial's design is "banal and timid, overly concerned with being well mannered"?

Well, for a person who happened past it on a Saturday bike ride, I must admit I like it. And would recommend it to anyone who cares to listen. (enter cricket noises)

Although I'll leave the descriptions to Slate, NYT, and the Post, my two cents is that the addition of the WWII Memorial was much needed. The grand fountain brings a pleasant and calming presence to a sometimes too somber, sterile, and tragic D.C. memorial setting. The memorial is a nice break from the tear-jerking, almost eerie experiences that you may have at the Holocaust Museum, Vietnam Memorial, and Korean Memorial.

Not to say that WWII isn't emotional enough to truly commemorate the fallen soldiers of the second World War (because it does my eyes welled), but WWII is a memorial that I'd visit over and over. It reminds me a little of when I visited Versailles in France. There, I chilled by the fountain for hours reading and taking in the environment. I can't say that about the Korean Memorial with it's life-sized stone soldiers or the wall of fallen men from Vietnam. Those I just want to flee either in fright or in some sense, shame.

But seriously, each monument should evoke a different emotion. Not all wars are the same. WWI wasn't Vietnam just as the Iraq War isn't WWII. If all were honored the same, it would be senseless to visit more than one. It would be a lot like visiting castles in Scotland, once you seen one, you've seen them all.

WWII is different and if you hear anything this weekend about how bad it is, don't believe them. Experience it for yourself.