Why do they hate our troops?  Are they terrorist agents or sympathizers?

Or are they appeasers and enablers?  Let the voters decide.  Then and only then use extra special rendition to the Arctic, let native arctainians feed them to the polar bears.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

...it means absolute jack shitze.  The only people who use it are people who can justify their goals by no other means than mass hysteria and bandwagoning.

For example: Hitler states that people who don't report on the whereabouts of Jews in hidin' aren't patriotic.

And we wanna be patriotic, now don't we? ^rolls eyes^

Catch-22.  History assignes negative conotation to the word "traitor", when, at the same time, history applies negative conotations to the actions of most people who use "patriotic" scare tactics.

As Samuel Johnson (Mark Twain) famously said, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.  Anyone who uses it, just like anyone who uses "terrorist" or "terrorism," should be highly suspect and probably dismissed as being nothing but a propagandist who cannot support his or her positions with legitimate arguments.

the other 99.9% of Americans who don't read sites like this are quite fond of the notion of patriotism, and quite patriotic to boot. They are, further, highly suspicious of rootless cosmopolitans with no attachment to place or country.

So reject patriotism as "propaganda" if you like, but understand that you are thereby going to alienate the vast bulk of the American populace and render yourself and your movement (even more) impotent. Is that worth it for the thrill of intellectual superiority?

grist.org

A person could appease the patriotic and still be intellectually superior. Even if that person understand that "patriotism" is irrelevant. It may be necessary for a leader to manipulate the people in order to gain power and election and then put his power to use for the greater good. All this while appeasing the ignorant masses and, unknowingly to them, save them from themselves. And loving anything unconditionally isn't something any intelligent person should do. Love and respect are earned. But then again, you may love America, but hate the corporations and corrupt government that controls it. Patriotism is a personal notion and therefore is susceptible to personal interpretation.

One could argue that most republicans or deniers aren't patriotic but that really isn't the point. Whether they are patriotic or not has no legitimate bearing on reality except to invoke unjustifiable emotion. In truth, the repubs and deniers are hurting all of humanity, not just America, by putting profit before people.

I think the accusation of crimes against humanity is a fairer one since their efforts to obstruct and destroy are enabling the possibility of mass death and displacement by Climate Change. But our corrupt government wouldn't be capable of making that claim while the corrupt corporations still keep them fat and happy. What needs to happen is the retraction that corporations can be considered a legal "person."

It's unfortunate, but unless the American people can rally together, in mass, to initiate a full out revolution, I feel our corrupt government will always have one hand in the corporate cookie jar and the other in their own dirty pockets.

Is that clear enough?  Or "global warming will destroy economic growth", a little easier to argue, particularly since Blankely's definition of "patriotism" seems to be "American advancement", judging from the quote above.  So if patriotism is associated in the American mind with expansion or growth, then you argue that deniers are anti-growth because they're leading us to a no-growth economy, while "environmentalists" are leading us to an economy that can experience growth, onaccounta Florida won't be wiped out, the Plains won't turn into the Mojave desert, etc.

American advancement vs. the environmental principle?  Rubbish.  How could environmentalism and patriotism be mutually exclusive?  Because I highly value environmental quality and ecological diversity does not mean I do not love my country.  But it does mean that my environmental and ecological values can be used to measure the sanity of our leadership in  balancing those values with other values they hold in high regard, like economic expansion. And my love of earth within and beyond any artificial political border does not mean that I cannot also share an affinity with our national legacy.  And that our care for the earth will have much more long range impacts on our security as a nation than will any sense of identity with a concept as alien and inimical to life on earth as GDP. As a patriot and an environmentalist, I call for a saner measure of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Because of myopically impaired, economic extremists, we are in the process of wiping out all three.    

Blankley and his crew are driving the country into a ditch to serve large corporate donors. They are standing in the way of America taking its place as a leader in the 21st century world economy.

If we want to be effective, we've got to quit ceding patriotism and economics to the other side. Like it or not, that's the battleground that makes sense to the American public. And the other side is wrong on the merits, on both counts. It's crazy not to say so.

grist.org

 .
Have you noticed that in the last few weeks the fossil fuel worshipers have been hammering away at a single message,  saying that the reason why gas prices are so high is because the Congress (read Democratic members)  refuse to allow drilling on certain environmentally protected areas in the US.   Against all reason, this message is taking on a life of its own, with repetition from many sources.  Explanations about how this is just ridiculous fall on deaf ears. Their message is simple, and repeatable.

It takes less time to say `Drill!'  than to explain why it's a bad idea.

So what is our simple, repeatable, undeniably true message?

NEW POWER for the 21st Century. We need a federal program to GET SOLAR, WIND OR GEOTHERMAL POWER FOR EVERY HOUSEHOLD!.
With modest support, less than we are borrowing for the war to protect US oil industry in Iraq, alternatives will provide all our electricity including more than enough to run electric vehicles WITHIN A COUPLE YEARS.  

BURNING FOSSIL FUEL IS so OLD SCHOOL, SO LAST CENTURY!
We will need to use oil for making plastics, for lubrication, for a gazillion things vital to our civilization.  It's UNBELIEVABLY WASTEFUL to burn it.  

The countries that realize this, and invest in NEW POWER  will become the economic leaders.   They will have free sunlight, free wind, free earth heat.  They will not have to buy fuel from anyone. Maybe that's what makes the fossilites so irritated; they won't be able to sell what their product, and other people will make more money.  

With American ingenuity and industry at the forefront, making the switch to alternatives, we will gain tons of great new jobs, stimulate the economy, improve our international security, and, of course, we will be doing what we have to do to stop the extreme weather from trashing our coastlines, riverbanks, forests,  and oceans.  So it's not a matter of moneyists versus environmentalists. Whether you worship the dollar or nature, we need the same thing, NEW POWER.

The fact that alternative energy is growing at leaps and bounds with tiny amounts of government support is testimony to their HUGE POTENTIAL and American intelligence. The strength of the fossil fuel industry's obstructionism is criminal, but so is the passivity of the informed American public.

Thanks for reading this.

...the problem is that transportation is an oil-based system, whereas the rest of the economy is an electricity-based system, and hardly ever do the twain meet.  And what people are freaking out about is oil, ergo, the transportation system.  So it's more difficult to deal with, so the oil-based economy screams "drill!".

So, short-term, or actually medium-term, I guess you scream "plug-ins!", and try "transit!", which is probably the long-term solution.  The problem is that it isn't particularly short-term.

However, speaking of patriotism, you could argue that, no matter what we do, oil will keep going up (thus countering the "drill" cheer), so if we want an economy that keeps growing, and competes in the world, we need, "plug-ins!" and "transit!"

Puleez, Samuel Johnson was an Englishman, sir! Sam Clemens is rolling in his grave at the mere mention of that old twiddle-fart.  

There are many definitions of "patriot" or "compatriot" but I think we really mean nationalism. That means taking care of things in your country, being proud of it, wanting to defend it, et cetera and as Sam Clemens made so much fun.  

My take is that global warming is, well, global. I do however have an intense desire that action start here in the USA, since we're such a consumer of world goods and energy.

But even nationalism is another religion ... I do think it is contrary to the future security of our country if we don't take immediate measures. Even Big Oil and all kinds of industry leaders will tell you that.

The difference is whether we can wait ten years, as some of these same experts might agree, or take more draconian measures now. Pay no mind to the "deniers," as even large energy concerns know that something has to be done. But to the business world, which is composed of many conservative and want a smooth transition to the economy - and plus, they've poured a trillion dollars into existing oil, coal, and all kinds of "dirty" projects that take time and may not even be online until ten years.

I hope this makes sense. If we started today drilling the ANWR, it would be ten years before appreciable amounts of oil flows to the Lower 48 States. We all know ANWR isn't the answer but same logic for investments in the Gulf of Mexico, Iraq, Brazil, and elsewhere. When the resources play out, time for clean power. Plus, ten years would allow a modest ramp-up to new clean energy economy.

Seen that way, the "10 year delayer boys" versus the "doing it right now folks," makes a little sense. Neither has a hooey do to with patriotism. The conservatives are just guarding their pockets for a a ten-year horizon.  -sam

Onward through the fog

This is not an intellectual issue at all, dear DR, when Blankley easily equates "patriotism" with the desire for "American advancement," which means "our economic expansion."

Whatever the American mind may be doing in reaction to such a concept, the American heart most certainly turns in anger against such an effort to co-opt and manipulate us.

Are we to believe that when the flag was raised on Iwo Jima, that was a victory for American business?  When the increasingly feckless Barack Obama (predictably so, some might add) is bullied into wearing a flag pin in his lapel, is this too a victory for American business?

God forbid!

To be clear: May God NOT damn America, or American business.  But there are (at least) two different strains in how Americans interpret what this republic is about, and according to which "American economic expansion" has decidedly different functions:

America is different from every other place, and separate, and in competition with everyone else; and the true patriot gleefully chants, "USA!  USA!  USA!  USA!," while the competitors fall behind in the dust.

America is not at all separate; it is a full participatory member of the community of nations; it is the moral leader, and the ideal, of the whole world; injustice, poverty, woes of all kinds afflict the hearts of all truly patriotic Americans, wherever those woes occur; the true American patriot desires happiness for fellow Americans and for others beyond our borders ALIKE.

And it is a source of depression that American politicians must pretend that only the first of these definitions of patriotism matters, no matter what they may feel in their (perhaps) more enlightened hearts.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

What I'm mad about ... is that many countries are on the way towards the goal of energy independence, yet we're not doing boogie in the USA. I mean we suck. Where's all the electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles, methanol vehicles, and other alternative fuels? Brazil is looking much better than we are, as they used to import 80% of their transportation energy and are working on importing none. Meanwhile, over three decades we went from importing 30% of our crude in the Oil Crisis to about 60% today.

Yeah, some freaking leaders we are ...

Onward through the fog

Dave,

I never advocated that the public position of enviros, or anyone else trying to change things for the better, should be rejection of patriotism.  But when I read a column in Grist that advocates questioning someone's patriotism, albeit turning the idiotic concept on its head, my reaction is the same as if someone calling for the elimination of pesticides because they're harming Nazi Germany.  This might sound like a good tactic, but it is clearly accepting that the ends justify the means, which, in this case at least, they don't.

When I rented sailboats on an island for a year, my partner was a psycho right wing Vietnam vet.  He once asked me if I was patriotic, to which I gave him an honest yet very nuanced answer, so that he didn't get upset.  (We both recognized that our politics were pretty much opposite.)  I basically said that I'm patriotic to the Earth and to places where I live, but that I have major disagreements with not only U.S. policies, but with the founding principles of killing the natives, slavery, etc.  We agreed to disagree, but my answer didn't make him angry.  The point is that one can still recognize patriotism for the B.S. that it is while not alienating those who are attracted to the concept when trying to get them to support a cause.

This has nothing to do with intellectual superiority.  It has to do with recognizing B.S. and acting on that recognition, regardless of what one's tactics might be regarding public statements or policies.

Gotta love it

True Believers talk about "sustainable", but not "affordable".

True Believers are not interested in expanding the comforts we enjoy.

Advancement means "live simply" to the True Believer.

True Believers don't want growth and loathe "consumption".

No credibility.

Often misunderestimated