April can be a raw season in northern New England, so I'm guessing Mr. Bush's family must have spent it in Texas, not Kennebunkport. Otherwise he'd have known better than to declare yesterday "Patriot Day." The states of Maine and Massachusetts already celebrate Patriots' Day (note the plural) each third Monday in April to commemorate Paul Revere's ride and the Battle of Lexington and Concord.
I'm not sure what importance Patriots' Day has to most New Englanders these days, except for a day off work and occasionally an extra day to file taxes -- but it just seems odd to eclipse the cheerfully hallowed commemoration of what was arguably the founding moment of the United States by using nearly the same label for a grimmer memorial of a crime committed against us. It's probably good for there to be a new observance day -- I briefly cried yesterday too, there may as well be a formal way to mourn -- but couldn't it have received a new name without detracting from an older national memory that also matters?
[UPDATE: Oops, to give credit and blame where due, Wikipedia informs us that Patriot Day has been around since fall 2001 and its designation was requested by formal act of Congress. So it's not Mr. Bush's idea, sorry about that.]
Posted by Martha Bridegam at September 12, 2006 12:03 PMMan, I hope that label doesn't last.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at September 12, 2006 12:22 PMSeriously disgusting. "Patriot" is starting to sound like "martyr".
Posted by: Alan Hogue at September 13, 2006 07:58 AMI have my own problems with using "martyr" to translate shahid, but is there anything specifically patriotic about 9/11? Tragic, yes, heroic, yes. But patriotic?
Sigh. I'm preaching to the choir, I know.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at September 13, 2006 08:03 AMIncidentally, Martha, have you ever read David Hackett Fischer's Paul Revere's Ride? If not, it's worth checking out.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at September 13, 2006 08:12 AMNope, haven't. What do you recommend about it?
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at September 13, 2006 04:52 PMRegarding your update:
Harumph! It's still indicative of a government (and perhaps a society) that thinks marketing is omnipotent.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at September 13, 2006 06:09 PMHm. Why "marketing"?
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at September 13, 2006 06:24 PMI think that even propaganda attempts to make moral arguments -- admittedly often based on Big Lie "facts" -- but this sort of thing seems more like branding and jingles with its faith that assertion can overcome memory.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at September 13, 2006 06:48 PMAssertion, yes. A sense of living in an eternal present.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at September 14, 2006 10:22 AM