gged way back in October. In an impressive Nostradamus act, EA SPORTS' preseason simulation accurately tabbed Vancouver to win the Presidents' Trophy before facing off with Boston for a chance to lift the Stanley Cup. In those initial predictions, the Canucks pulled through and won their first-ever Stanley Cup championship in a taut seven-game Final. This time around, with a chance to take a mulligan, EA isn't wavering.According to its latest predictions, the EA SPORTS NHL '11 Simulation Engine is sticking with the Canucks over Boston in what it expects to be a tight series that goes the distance. And that Presidents' Trophy? It factored in handily as the home team won each game, with one of the more thrilling moments an overtime win by the Bruins in Game 6 at TD Garden to force a decisive seventh game.In the end, that momentum won't be enough for the B's however, as EA SPORTS has the Canucks holding on in front of the Rogers Arena crowd with a 3-1 win in Game 7.If Vancouver winds up bringing the Cup back to Canada for the first time in 18 years, the people at EA SPORTS may want to begin investing in lottery tickets, but duplicating a 14-for-15 record would be an awfully tall order for 2012. For gamers who can't wait to see what kind of changes EA might make for next year's version of the game, which will be released in stores on Sept. 13, NHL '12 is already available for pre-order on XBOX 360 and Playstation 3 at the EA Store.For the cu The memorial's etched phrases shine on the concrete below at different times of the day, depending on the sunlight. Early in the morning, only certain phrases are visible. They are all clearest at noontime, and as the blazing Arizona sun begins to dip westward, some phrases become fuzzy and unreadable. Joseph Manny sat there recently, running his hand along the concrete where the reflected phrases glowed in the light. Some of the statements — and facts — were so powerful that Manny sometimes got choked up while reading them. "Going across the timeline and when it gets to where the south tower and the north tower fell, it's just..."  Manny's voice trailed off. Manny doesn't think any of the phrases should be changed or removed from the memorial. "There is nothing detrimental here," he said. "This is just what was going on in America in this reality at that time." In this reality. That's the question of interpretation that can cause such dispute. But Harriet Senie, who is writing a book about public memorials, says controversial debate over memorializing the world's biggest events is normal, even welcome. "Memorials are deeply important because they do impact personal and national identity," said Senie, director of museum studies at City College in New York. "We should kind of expect it to be a conversation. I'm not so sure it's a bad thing, as long as it's a contribution and not a diatribe."  The key, she said, is that public artists or communities considering a memorial should decide whether the structure will stand the test of time.   "These are ideas held by specific individuals at a specific point in time, what kind of sense are they going to make in 50 years?"  she said.  In Arizona, even when the ideas were set in steel, they changed. "A lot of what it represents is in symbols and metaphors," says Shelley Cohn, one of 30 members of the memorial commission. "It was meant to be poetic, and for people to interpret it on their own." Before Salenger was selected, the memorial commission hired a historian, who compiled a thick binder filled with newspaper clippings of the attacks and what was happening in Arizona around that time. Salenger and his team pulled 300 statements and bits of sentences from news clippings, and incorporated them into the memorial's designs. The commission — which was comprised of Democrats and Republicans, firefighters, police, moms of soldiers and a 9/11 family member, sifted through all of the phrases "statement by statement," Cohn says. "We took this very seriously." As the commission read aloud each proposed statement, Salenger recalls, some members would chime in: "I didn't feel that way." Others would add: "I did feel that way." Eventually, they agreed on 54 statements, and the monument was built. Before it was unveiled, all the phrases were printed in the local newspaper. No one spoke up. But a few days after the memorial was dedicated on the fifth anniversary of the attacks, a man named Len Munsil, who was running for governor, held a news conference: Some phrases, he said, were inappropriate and should be removed. Munsil didn't win the election, but anger over the monument remained. "It should have been the straight facts," says John Kavanagh, a former Port Authority policeman in New York who is now an Arizona state representative. "Tell the story, which was that it was a day of infamy. A sad day. This monument goes far beyond communicating that." Kavanagh wasn't in New York at the time of the 2001 attacks, although he said that he knew many of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey officers who died at the World Trade Center. He did, however, respond to the first trade center bombing in 1993, and retired to Arizona soon after. The phrase "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles" is a "slap in the face" to the military, Kavanagh said. And he thinks another phrase — "Foreign-born Americans afraid" — had no place on the memorial. "To see it turned into a place where people came to argue instead of remembering the day of Sept. 11 was upsetting to me," he says. "This was liberal politics and political correctness run amok by well-intentioned people who were out of touch from the true sentiment of Arizona residents." In 2008, Kavanagh, a Republican from suburban Phoenix, filed a bill to remove all of the slogans and replace them with a straight timeline. It was defeated in the state Senate. Also that year, the 30-member committee reconven