Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else. " - Theodore Roosevelt

What does it mean to be a patriot?
News analysis by Chuck Raasch, Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Patriotism is as old as nations, but in an age of professional armies, civic disengagement and virtual politics, it's in search of fresh meaning.

On this Fourth of July weekend, as Americans hoist flags, march in parades and watch fireworks, their headlines will be dominated by news of a country in search of self-rule half a world away.

The war in Iraq has, as all wars do, refocused Americans on what it means to be a patriot, from those who have lost loved ones to those who are several generations removed from military service.

Rarely has an election year been so infused with debates over patriotism:

• A spate of anti-Bush books and Michael Moore's red-hot film Fahrenheit 9/11 has rekindled arguments over whether it's patriotic to attack leaders while U.S. troops are dying in foreign lands.

• The outcry over U.S. companies' outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers is part of a recurring "economic patriotism" debate, such as the "buy American" movement during the auto import escalation of the 1960s and '70s.

• When Republicans accused Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of unfairly tying President Bush to Saddam Hussein by calling for "regime change" in the United States, Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, shot back that he would not "have my patriotism challenged." Since then, Kerry has accused the GOP of impugning his patriotism in debates over defense spending and his antiwar activities after Vietnam.

Rocker Jon Bon Jovi invoked the patriots' defense after he got hate mail and taunts for endorsing Kerry. "I think that they question my patriotism because I decided to stand up and have a voice."

• Ronald Reagan's funeral rekindled nostalgia for a president who reveled in patriotic imagery. "You just knew when he saw the American flag raise up, he got misty-eyed," said former Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who now works for MSNBC. But Reagan detractors said he skillfully used a patriotic veneer to cover policies that weren't always good for the country.

• An important policy debate of the 2004 campaign is over the scope and effectiveness of the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Thanks to its name, opponents of the law can sound unpatriotic.

That's not by chance. Harvard University political scientist Thomas Patterson cited the Patriot Act as an example of how Republicans have excelled at using words to their advantage.

"They have realized that you can in some degree frame the issues in the way you describe them," he said.

Patriotism is one of history's loaded words. When it creeps into blind nationalism, it has led to world wars and dark ages. Patriotism can be the "last refuge of a scoundrel," wrote 18th century English scholar Samuel Johnson.

Americans always score higher on patriotism than the citizens of most nations. One reason for that, Luntz says, is the sense of "American exceptionalism." Bush leans on that when he talks about making Iraq an example of self-rule in a region devoid of it. But such a doctrine can also be seen as imperialism.

Even before Iraq, a political campaign overlayed with memories of the 2001 terrorist attacks was prime ground for a fresh debate on patriotism.

"I think what is different about it right now is it has a salience and intensity that it doesn't always have," said Patterson, author of the book, "The Vanishing Voter." "Some of it has to do with 9/11, and some of it has to do with (the war in) Iraq."

American generations today have divergent views on the subject. For many younger Americans who don't remember the draft and aren't in the military, their patriotism is unchallenged by service to one's country or by personal sacrifice that marked the young lives of the World War II or Vietnam generations.

The chasm was freshly explored during the recent dedication of a memorial 60 years after the Allies' D-Day invasion. WWII's "greatest generation" came cloaked in memories of sacrifice, from battlefield deaths to rationing of gasoline and meat that touched virtually every community back home.

"Patriotism, in part, means sacrifice and a willingness to die for one's country," said Benjamin Ginsberg, a Johns Hopkins University political scientist and co-author of "Downsizing Democracy."

But by making the modern military voluntary, he said, the U.S. government also has eliminated a powerful patriotic framework.

"The government learned the lessons of Vietnam and has found ways to insulate the use of military force" from the rest of the culture, Ginsberg said. "Instead of a disgruntled army of citizen soldiers, the military seems to be consisted of professional soldiers and private contractors."

And in this war on terrorism, rather than ask for sacrifice, U.S. leaders have pleaded for what can best be described as defiant normalcy — living, spending and consuming to show that terrorists won't change the American way of life.

"The high point in this came not in Iraq, but right after 9/11," Ginsberg said. "President Bush made this great address to the American people when we expected him to ask us to sacrifice. And instead he asked us to go shopping."

N

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official"

I couldn't agree with that statement more. However, I don't think a copy & paste is going to impress rosco right now. If I have him correctly, his position is he doesn't think the war is or ever was about oil. He believes it was a security issue. I tend to agree. Its a complex issue with many scenario's being put forward in the media, and all one can do is try to make a informed decision as to why we went in their the first place. Everything is speculation and only the president himself knows for sure why we went.

As I have said before, I don't think you should support a president if you don't believe in his causes. The military doesn't need the public to agree with the president in order to get a job done. The support factor is merely a fuzzy feel-good sensation that makes people think they are doing the right thing. The right thing to do is to speak out if you don't agree with something and explain your reasoning why the opposing viewpoint is wrong in their beliefs. There is nothing more American than that. I voted for Bush at the time and even supported the war, but now I think its time to end this thing and focus on our own problems. I understand leaving will have repercussions, but staying has its share of them too.

A good point Tyler,with what each individual thinks this war is about..

I tend to disagree with the reasons the prez went into this war. and i don't think it was terroism, after all we still haven't caught the culprit,who did this terrible attack on America..and in a roundabout way it was concerning oil to control it, i said nothing ,I don't think of us taking the oil,but still lots of questions arise,with several different points but will touch on just a few. as what happened to the lost saddam monies..the lies on haliburton rebuilding and the millions made from that which involves cheney..yes i think Bush is guilty of crimes against Iraq and putting america more in harms way~
also the surge is not working,according to the news media.. we are still fighting, so the democracy there is not established. going on six years and still not a lot of improvement~.I agree some,hasll
I also believe that as soon as we do pull out ,the country will be just as is now war/hate and killing.,but just with out us there ,a country full of crazy people who have done this for as long as that country has been there, we can not solve that problem,..

we need to focus on China actually owning America now, and how
to get out of debt to them,china is taking over with out firing a shot, while we battle a useless war.. I think i heard/read on how China is already taking africa over?? I am just speculating on that because i heard only bits and pieces~ but think about it China has move in to running/ruining america with the outsourcing of our companies ,and the money we borrowed to finance this war..

I do agree with ur point it is time to pull out and focus on here in this country.

I don't think Rosco will be swayed by my copy paste either, but that is my way of showing different takes on patrioitsm,I also put another version/take/,meaning with the very long article..

I can't solve it, but i can as my right ,speak out.

I also agree with u not getting into the debate.. I am also pulling out of it~.I stated the other night i would not respond to two participants here~ which i didn't just posting my view, its good all have their thoughts on this..subject.

All people have a difference in opinions, this makes the world go around. As for China taking over, start with boycotting products..aka..most of Wal-marts shelves..I don't see China as a threat, I see the mid-eastern countries sending highly educated people to take over the motels , cig. shops and liquor stores and gas stations, this is your silent take over. Give a thought to the amount of money filtered thru these type of businesses.

runawayhorses wrote:Well, understand that you agreeing with me about not getting into the debate are for completely different reasons. My reasons contrary to yours are clearly becuase I'm the admin of this forum and I don't want members to be concerned about having an opposing viewpoint that conflicts with mine and consequently not posting. Not to say 'anyone' would worry about it, but rather that 'some' people might. Its something I feel is best at this time. But I am indeed listening and watching, and learning.

You are learning nothing! You are our thrall! THRALL! You will do our bidding. Your missions: (a) Continue to improve the site. (b) Continue to be fair (c) Stop giving a crap what we post. I don't. Not even my posts.

I was good up until (c) where I found myself wondering, if perhaps you're right..

gypsy wrote:Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else. " - Theodore Roosevelt

wow that other paste i was afraid ur pc would run out of memory, lol, see i dont think u are telling the truth and facts as they are,, about iraq, i stilll think we got into this war right or wrong thinking by maybe bad intel they had wmd, any other reason would be asking for a long problem and i dont think bush would do that, or anyone would, there are seveal senerios, to the wmd, why was sadam so mysterious about not letting the inspectors do their job the united nations had desinated them to do.. well one senerio is he did not want Iran to think he did not have wmd. we know at some point he did because he killed so many kurds and iranians with it, and in the first war, they found some,, but he stoped the inspectors because of his fear of iran, knowing he was weak after the first war, we let some of his republican guard escape so he would have some defense if iran decided to invade, ,, another senerio is in a book that is out, that before we invaded, he had some passenger planes striped out inside and made 56 round trips to syria, moving wmd, now on that one i would think if it were so, some good journalist would have already have that on the front page, and our government would have made it known for reasons to prove they indeed had wmd. just know the war in not in iraq, sure terrorist, have suicide bombers there, and kill civilians in larger numbers than our troops, now sadam did keep all his ppl in check so the country has not always been out of control. from all i have read and hear the surge is working, but will never get a chance since osama obama will win, so this part will be interesting ,, iran will gradually out of sight try to take power in iraq, without any real control, and the power vaccum that will be there,, i would have to study on hal burton, ( spelling) but i think i did here at the start of the ocupation, that they really were the only company that had the ability to do what was done, but some specualtion on my part ,, but it was said,,,but alll these thing will be learned, osama obama will win and if he does as he claims, he will pull the rug out, unless after a briefing he changes his mind, but he had been so vocal, i dont see how he could back down right or wrong.. so events will happen when we leave, i see a total civil war, and new terrorist camps, for traiining as osama obama, will and this is what scares me about him, i dont think there is any senerio that he will enter into any conflict no mattter how it effects the united stated, maybe if its a nato problem he may, or if iraq it totally out of control as to indanger saudi arabia he might,, but we have plenty of military there even if we pulls out, we will still have the pre positioned military hardware in kuwait, the 6th fleet is stationed in our naval base in Barain, and the huge airbase in qutar(spelling)so saudi arabia is probably safe, surely osama obama will not let saudi arabia fall. of couse the fight now is in afganistan as the talaban in on the move, to fight now, before in sept, the snow blocks the passages, in the mountains, as was on tv.. well i think i have said about all i can, so we will just wait and see what happens, i will find it fasinating, no matter how it goes, of course nato will stay on top of iran, and its devlopment of nuclear material, but nato is united even france that iran cant be allowed. it has been stated, that iran has no facility deep enough that 2 of our new deep penetating bombs going in one then the next one in the same hole behind the first on that anything iran has underground could survive, but sanctions will be tryed first. and there is alway isreal that willl not let it happen either, but this war will continue even without us in iraq, terrorist will hit us around the world, as they did before, for years, 9-11 just was the last straw, there will be more USS Coles, attacked, i think the biggest fear is biological material released in a large US city,, take care,

I consider the white collar criminals mentioned below more as a threat than Iran, Iraq, Al Queda or whatever Arab





- More than 400 real estate industry players have been indicted since March — including dozens over the last two days — in a Justice Department crackdown on incidents of mortgage fraud nationwide that have contributed to the country's housing crisis.


The FBI put the losses to homeowners and other borrowers who were victims in the schemes at over $1 billion.

"Mortgage fraud and related securities fraud pose a significant threat to our economy, to the stability of our nation's housing market and to the peace of mind to millions of Americans," Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip said in a statement Thursday. The Justice Department and FBI planed to announce the cases at an afternoon news conference in Washington.

Since March 1, 406 people have been arrested in the sting dubbed "Operation Malicious Mortgage" that saw 144 cases across the country. Sixty people were arrested on Wednesday alone, including in Chicago, Miami, Houston and a dozen other regions policed by the FBI.

In a separate sweep, two former Bear Stearns managers in New York were indicted Thursday, becoming the first executives to face criminal charges related to the collapse of the subprime mortgage market.

Across the country, reports of mortgage fraud have soared over the past year as the subprime mortgage market collapsed and defaults and foreclosures soared.

Banks reported nearly 53,000 cases of suspected mortgage fraud last year, up from more than 37,000 a year earlier and about 10 times the level of reports in 2001 and 2002, according to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

The most common type of mortgage fraud was misstatement of income or assets, followed by forged documents, inflated appraisals and misrepresentation of a buyer's intent to occupy a property as a primary residence.

Over the last several months, the FBI has been investigating an estimated 1,300 mortgage fraud cases — including 19 involving subprime lending practices by U.S. financial institutions.

The Justice Department also is expected to ask Congress for more money to help combat mortgage fraud as part of a larger funding request to curb white collar crime and violent crime.

i have not heard that but not watched much news, glad to see, someone is watching, i dont have a house across the street, but i have 2 across down the road a bit and i think both were forclosed on, one has been idle since last fall, no forsale sign, some stickers on the windows that it had been winterized, i looked in the basement den windown and they took even the carpet, still had the tack strips down and took the mail box, lol,,it was a nice couple with one daughter, and the parents both worked, so dont know what happened,,,the other house has been more recent, i think that couple broke up and probably let it be forclosed on, 2 guy came by one day while i was outside asking for an address, i think it was the second house , he said it had been forclosed on and he was to go through it and fix anything that needed it, still no forsale signs, but i put those 2 guys to work pulling on the rope as i cut a big tree, lol