Don't call it "Patriot" day

Well, here we are. September 11, 2006. Five years later.

On December 18, 2001, President Bush signed into law a measure calling for an annual day of remembrance and prayer, to be called "Patriot Day".

But what is a patriot? Dictionary.com defines it as such: a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

Sounds pretty benign, hmm?

But here in the Commonwealth of Massachussets, and the State of Maine, we already have a Patriot's Day, and we're pretty pissed that the name has been hijacked by the Bush 'administration' in the name of propaganda and demagoguerey. Here in the Commonwealth, we know the truth of Patriot's Day.

On April 18, 1775...Paul Revere made his ride from Charlestown to Lexington, followed the next morning by a column of British Regulars, intent on capturing Sam Adams, John Hancock, and the small patriot arsenal at Concord. At dawn on April 19, this column was met on Lexington Green by Captain Parker and a small band of Minutemen, and the rest is history.

"Patriot's Day" is meant to commemorate the birth of our nation, the start of the revolution, and to honor the true patriots that fought and died to be free.

While the victims of the attacks on September 11 may have been patriots in name (and in the case of Flight 93, in deed) the name is already being used for a nobler day, and in my opinion, the taking of the name to play on the base emotions of the country is wrong, and dishonors all those who died today.

So, while the 'president' and his loyalists fly from photo op to photo op, I'll not be doing anything different or unusual today. Instead, I'll go to work and do what I always do, and pause for just a minute to ponder what my friends in the North Tower must have been thinking as this all happened. (Fortunately, they survived...but are different men today than they were on September 10, 2001)

And I'll leave you a research project, if you're so inclined. Before September 11, the worst attack on American soil came at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. What was the United States doing on December 7, 1946?

Tarnishing Scouting's highest award

I was just leafing through the latest issue of Scouting Magazine.

I was rather saddened to learn that the Silver Buffalo award, the highest award in all of Scouting, was recently awarded to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Donald himself is an Eagle Scout BSA. In my eyes, that honour remains untrammeled, as I know how hard it is for a young man to show the commitment and dedication to become an Eagle...and he was probably only 17 at the time and hadn't yet decided what course his life would take.

What I do have an issue with is the Silver Buffalo. Two beloved icons of my Scouting life have been so honoured...my Scoutmaster James Virnelli of Boy Scout Troop 61, who held the position for some 30 years and inspired hundreds of rudderless boys (myself included) on to greater heights. (some 25 of which became Eagle Scouts under his guidance)...and my own father, who was my Cubmaster and Webelos Leader, and spent two decades with North Bay Council (MA) in various local leadership positions...making sure our community had a strong scouting presence.

Mr. Rumsfeld 'earned' the award by simply being the Secretary of Defense, and did nothing for Scouting, the community, or for the youth of our country, except to set up a meat grinder to kill them. For as you know, many Eagle Scouts choose a military career...and many enter the service academies.

Thanks, Mr. Rumsfeld! You've tarnished a cherished award with your stink, and have sent thousands of former scouts and scouters to face their deaths overseas! A true candidate for the Silver Buffalo if there ever was one!

Romney and Orwell

Governor empty suit is at it again. Apparently, using our knowledge to manipulate stem cells in order to cure cancer, diabetes, Parkinsons, etc....is Orwellian.

Funny, I though the government lying, manipulating the press, controlling the masses....isn't that Orwellian?

Anyway....I digress.


Romney calls stem-cell research "Orwellian"

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, said on Thursday his administration's new restrictions on stem cell research are aimed at heading off an "Orwellian" future.

The state's Department of Public Health this week issued regulations banning the creation of embryos for research purposes.

Scientists say stem cell research could lead to breakthroughs in treatments for diseases including cancer. But the issue has become ethically and politically volatile because extracting the cells entails destruction of an embryo.

"I believe it crosses a very bright moral line to take sperm and eggs in the laboratory and start creating human life," Romney told reporters. "It is Orwellian in its scope. In laboratories you could have trays of new embryos being created."

Romney spoke a week after a Massachusetts company, Advanced Cell Technology, said it had developed a way to make human embryonic stem cells without harming the original embryo, a finding it said could dispel ethical objections.

Stem cells are the body's master cells, capable of turning into any other type of cell. They are available from many sources, but experts believe the most powerful and versatile cells may be those taken from days-old embryos.

President Bush last month vetoed a bill that would have raised federal funding for research using embryonic stem cells, which he views as the destruction of life.

Romney appears to be positioning himself for the 2008 Republican primaries, when he will need to win over conservative voters to get the party's nomination, said Julian Zelizer, a Boston University history professor who follows Romney closely.

"Stem cells are like the new abortion, in that it's become a litmus test for conservatives nationally," Zelizer said.

Massachusetts legislators opposed Romney's move, noting that in May 2005 they enacted a law over Romney's veto allowing stem cell research to take place in the state.

At that time Romney offered an amendment that would have banned the creation of embryos for research purpose.

"The legislature debated, and soundly defeated, the exact language the Department (of Public Health) has adopted as a regulation," wrote State Rep. Daniel Bosley, a Democrat, a memo to fellow legislators. "Consequently, we should oppose this language."