Yeah, Sure Phil, Whatever You Say

"If you can’t reconcile some of the things Phil says with his otherwise friendly demeanor—perhaps because you are gay, or a duck—I don’t blame you. And I don’t blame Duck Dynasty for keeping the show safely apolitical, ensuring smooth digestion for a mass audience."

By now, the choicer tidbits of GQ's interview have been widely disseminated.  Here's the whole article, in case you'd also like to read the interviewer's reactions to Phil's bible-thumping.

First things first:  Phil Robertson is a goddam-fucking homophobic bigot.  When you compare a sex act between consenting adults to asshole-religious-fanatics flying planes into buildings, you're an asshole-religious-fanatic who hates gays.  When you literally tell people that allowing sodomy is the the start of allowing anything and the source of America's problems, you're a fucking homophobic bigot.  Period.  When Trent Lott told us that integration was the start of modern-day American problems, people correctly assumed that meant he favored segregation.  Trent Lott ended up resigning, because acting like you like Black people but still want them to use different drinking fountains is just no longer credible.  However, claiming that you love homosexuals while telling them their sex acts should be as criminal as blowing up a pizza joint, and that you hope that they renounce their "lifestyle" so they can be your "brothers" is somehow, still, supposed to be a rational opinion.  

Phil, what if we don't want to be your brothers and sisters in Jesus?  What if the Christian family just has no appeal for us?  Phil's greatest asshole tendency in this article is to assume that everyone wants to be saved like him.  No, we don't.  We don't want to be involved in this man's life of control freak antics over his family.  We don't want anything to do with a man who won't even apologize to people he's beaten up before becoming saved.  We don't want anything to do with a white Southerner who insists that he certainly never saw any Black people being mistreated.  

And now we get to what's been ignored:  Phil is basically saying the same thing Germans said all through the summer of 1945.  We didn't know it was happening.  We didn't see it.  No one complained to us.  That lasted until Nuremberg.  Hey Phil, does the North really have to stage a version of a war crimes trial documenting Jim Crow?  Could you not have cracked open a fucking book to learn that Black people who complained or tried to change the situation in any way got lynched, run out of town, or beaten?  Will someone please drag this asshole motherfucker to a room, tie his beard to something, and make him watch Mississippi Burning? 

I'm tired of hearing Southerners' lame ass excuses for why it never occurred to them that Black people might not have liked segregation, no voting rights, and a constant campaign of terroristic violence to completely smother anything resembling free speech. Oh, wait, that would get in the way of their own persecution complexes.  

To white Southerners (and some white Northerners, I'll admit), the abdication of power whites were never entitled to is seen as some sort of oppression.  So, I'll clarify:  Phil, you and your ilk were never entitled to keep women and non-white men from voting.  You were never entitled to keep them ignorant.  You were never entitled to keep them out of professions you wanted to preserve for your own status.  You were never entitled to outlaw consensual sex between people of the same sex.  You were never entitled to keep homosexuals from marrying.  You were never entitled to do any of these things, so taking these powers away from you is the opposite of persecution.  

Preventing you and your ilk from persecuting others is the key to everything other ethnic groups, women, the disabled, and the LGBT community have achieved.    I know you think the law shouldn't protect the freedoms they need to achieve.  I know you think the law should protect a non-existent "right" you think you have to treat others any way you want to. 

Phil's fans may think he's been unfairly silenced to keep him from preaching his faith, but what about the Dixie Chicks?  What about Helen Thomas, Martin Bashir, and Alec Baldwin?  I guess only preaching their bible is the only free speech that shouldn't have any consequences.   

Phil's fans think he is being punished unfairly for just stating what their sacred book says.  Legally, they have no leg to stand on.  So they just argue that the decision came from some sort of gay mafia that doesn't want any Christian to say anything, ever.  Last time I checked, your homophobic rants were still safe in your own churches.  Phil's fans ignore one thing that is lacking from the First Amendment:  there's no obligation, for anyone, to listen to anything Phil wants to say.  A&E doesn't have to be a megaphone for someone trying to convert people, or convince them that "love" can be found, but only if you agree that Phil is right and you must live just like him.  Phil, my advice is to find a small island just for yourself.  Preferably one that is being slowly taken away by rising sea levels.  The ocean will never tire of your preaching.

spill, baby, spill

how's that pathetic excuse for an energy policy workin' out for ya', sarah?  here's how it's workin' out for the rest of us, you betcha':

do ya' see where it says "wildlife refuge" to the left and top?  yep.  that's what's fucked.  the only thing i still want to know is what exactly god's punishing us for this time.  come on, pat robertson, i can't hardly wait.

just ignore all the tinfoil hats

conservatives have spent the last month on a global warming binge.  ever since winter came about a month late like it has for the last three years, conservatives have used the seasonal temperature drop to make you dumber "argue" that the moon landing was faked global warming is a hoax so the u.n. can create a one-world government through the hollywood elite.  in addition, the stealing liberating of emails from a british university has set afire anyone who can't thoroughly read or research anything.  this is the stupidest shit ever, especially since nasa can actually show you the data on worldwide average temperatures, sea level rises, and carbon dioxide concentrations and their rise. in a widget for the mac.  and i have yet to see sean hannity's explanation for march-like temperatures in january in new york. 

this leads to my point.  in the last few years, conservatism has become dominated by conspiracy theories.  global warming is a hoax.  evolution is a conspiracy by atheists to wipe out christianity.  obama was really born in kenya.  taxes are a plot to destroy innovation and punish the rich.  mexican illegal immigrants will return the southwestern u.s. to mexico.  there's a nafta superhighway linking mexico and the u.s. and it somehow wipes out u.s. sovereignity.   abortions cause breast cancer.  the gays want to provide safety for gay kids "recruit" your kids.  the hollywood elite wants you to hate america.  martin luther king was a communist.  joe mccarthy was right, and was crucified by liberals.    saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and syria helped hide them (or we found them).  iran is definitely developing nuclear weapons.  valerie plame was not a covert agent, and scooter libby's prosecution was political.  joe wilson was sent on a tantalizing junket to niger by his wife, valerie plame.  the clintons killed vince foster. it seems these days that whatever the conservative position, there's a conspiracy theory that supports it.

it says something about a political movement when the crap they take straight from their asses "facts" they use are not supported in peer-reviewed scientific journals, are flatly denied by investigators, have no evidence to support them, or rely on deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting others, notably scientists (see richard dawkins) and prominent liberals (see van jones).  it says this political movement has no credibility.  there comes a point where anyone in the conservative movement who still has a working brain and some desire to be an honest human being has to ask: is it us?  when your ignorant ranting "facts" have to come from a site that claims all other information is wrong, and only your site can be trusted, because the liberals have taken over everything else, then there's no reason why anyone should take your retarded scribbles "facts" seriously.  and if there's no reason to take your fucking lies "facts" seriously, then why take your opinions seriously, or listen at all?

finally, my point.  we seem, in this country, to have decided that all opinions are equal. but that's not really what freedom means.  in this country, anyone is definitely allowed to hold any opinion they please.  if you want to think nafta was a terrible treaty, that's fine.  but if you base that opinion on a superhighway that doesn't exist, that's not a real reason.  if someone dislikes nafta because it caused a loss of manufacturing jobs and can provide evidence of these job losses, that's a real reason. and that opinion is better than the opinion based on the conspiracy theory.

conservatives have complained that liberals tend to believe their opinions are "better" than conservatives' opinions.  well, our opinions are based on peer-reviewed scientific research, investigative reports with source material, non-partisan fact-checking, non-partisan government watchdogs, confirmed journalists' reports, and confirmations from the state of hawaii.  conservative opinions are based on firmly believing that the entire mass media is run by a cabal of liberals out to deny creedence to ignorant bigots "the truth", and therefore only information sources run by their fellow travelers can be trusted and are the only source of true stupidity "truth".

so excuse us if we pat ourselves on our backs for having done some fucking homework.  excuse us for paying attention during the class on the scientific method and how it prevents or detects stupid mistakes and hoaxes.  excuse us for using exhaustive investigations done by disinterested government officials or prosecutors.  excuse us for insisting that reports by journalists be confirmed before ranting about them.  if you could bother to do any of the above even for about five minutes, maybe one day i'll treat your opinions with a little respect.  but only a little.

maybe i don't want to seem nicer

some genius named nathan named his blog after a guy stupid enough to fall asleep on a window ledge and fall out to the street below. this makes nathan's blog worth reading for a reason that must occur only to christians. and nathan has decided he knows just how to make atheists seem nicer. because if there's one group of people whose opinions matter to me, it's the christians. oh wait, i meant the hell's angels.

nathan's first idea is that atheists need to stop feeling smug. i guess nathan doesn't like the condescending way we atheists roll our eyes at yet another recital of pascal's wager, or the first cause "argument". that eye-roll might have something to do with the fact that these arguments have been refuted, repeatedly and long ago. why should we pretend to care about bad re-runs?

i'll tell you what nathan- watch the south park episode where they explain what scientologists believe. and then tell me what our attitude should be with the people who actually believe it. then, make yourself, as a courtesy, sit with one of those weirdos at the times square subway station and get a stress test, and force yourself to listen to how the thetans are causing your problems, and what scientology's "evidence" is of this. do not tell me, with any expectation of being believed, that you don't feel the slightest bit smug about not having been hoodwinked into believing into some dreck l. ron hubbard dreamed up and sells in the mass market paperback section. and remember: one woman's dreck is another's "faith". try not to roll your eyes at the poor soul.

oh, and apply this to wicca, mormonism, and your smug knowledge that of course zeus and athena are false gods.

then, nathan wants us atheists to ignore christians' proselytizing, because they're not really trying to convert us anyway, just the people who haven't made up their minds. nathan, here's a fucking clue (christ, am i smug): we want to reach out to the people who haven't made up their minds too. we just do it by summarizing the "arguments" for the existence of a deity and refuting them. we also point out various contradictions in your "book", as well as the contradictions between the different things christians tend to believe about their deity. so, we have to address you whether you want us to or not. i know, your jobs are much easier when we don't . which is probably why you think it would make us seem nicer if we just let you spout gobbledy-gook with no rational, evidence-based response. it's like a football team's offensive squad demanding the other side not bother to defend their goal. i wonder what the ref would say?

nathan, dear, can intelligent and rational people believe in magic? and tolkien's elves? and tolkien's hobbits? can intelligent people there really was a cinderella, and spend their lives looking for that glass slipper? because that's all communicated by books too. your "book" is a collection of stories never meant to be taken literally as things that actually happened. it was people trying to forge a cultural heritage with a story of shared struggle and sacrifice. cute story, especially is you like killing innocent, firstborn children on behalf of the good guys. the god "communicating" through that book is a manipulative, vengeful, petty, jealous, bloodthirsty asshole who apparently has no problem planning our sins and then punishing us for them. and in order to forgive the humans whose sins he planned and plans to watch, he sent his "son" to earth to lead a blameless, sinless life. after this blameless, sinless life, this god then has the son's friends betray and abandon him, and then has the authorities of the patch of dirt the son lived and preached around force this son through the most excruciating, tortuous death humankind has ever devised (except, of course, suicide from watching general hospital). this horrific death then makes it possible for this god to forgive humans' sins. you call this intervention? here's a clue: this all-powerful god could have decided to just forgive people, but didn't. how do you rationally, intelligently explain why the tortuous death of someone who supposedly was himself perfect makes it possible for an all-powerful deity to forgive people for shoplifting? what was this god's thought process? what's rational and intelligent (not to mention ethical) about any of this crap?

i know you hear this all time, but where was this intervention during the holocaust? why does a just god let this happen, to his chosen people no less? i notice that this god lets alot of shit happen that just wipes out hundreds of thousands of people with one big wave. why intervene for the ancient hebrews leaving egypt, and not for people on the hijacked planes on 9/11? how does this god pick his interventions? i notice most of them happened in this "book", with parts dating back 4,000 years ago, with these last interventions happening about 1,900 years ago. why no interventions now?

nathan, do you read what you type before posting? do you know that a hypothesis is based on a series of observable facts? oh, i visited all these islands in the pacific ocean and found species are similar to each other and yet still different species. and i found that each one is perfectly well suited to that particular island's environment. and other people have found fossilized skeletons of animals that no one sees anymore. why would some species die out, and some survive- and does the environment have anything to do with that? i guess i could come up with a theory that explained how attributes that make a species better suited to a particular environment make it easier to survive, and pass on offspring with those attributes. and over time, attributes that are not good for an environment cause those living things to die without offspring. i guess i could test the theory by examining other environments, and observing whether species are suited to those. and i guess scientists in later generations could find even more fossils, and figure out how to date the fossils and the rocks the fossils are in, and then i guess some future scientists could also examine genes to see how closely related different species are.

oh, i noticed that people who get cowpox don't get small pox. why is that? i guess, maybe, the cowpox is not as strong as small pox, but getting it makes your body somehow better at resisting smallpox. maybe i could convince a few brave souls to be injected with pus from cowpox blisters, and see if they too resist small pox. but that would be a combination of induction and deduction, and the christians have decided that that can't be the scientific method. guess i won't bother.

get it, nathan? someone sees observable facts without an explanation, then makes an explanation. this explanation (called a theory) is then tested by experimenting and collecting additional observed facts. this theory is used as an explanation for facts until some new, observed facts no longer support the theory. then a new explanation is thought of, or the original theory is revised, and this new explanation is tested. see? in the scientific method, no one is required to except a theory without experimental data to support the theory. this enables human beings to understand how the world operates with the best knowledge we have at the time. which is a fuck of a lot better than trying to figure out how to make the sun stop in the sky.

however, you are correct about one thing: science is easy to abuse. just tell people that it's a belief system that atheists have "faith" in, tell people that the dinosaurs lived with people in the garden of eden, and put a saddle on a triceratops. but please note, it tends to be your fellow christians who do the abusing. i guess, to reach the undecideds.

which leads me to nathan's last pearl of wisdom. millions of people claim to be mormons, and therefore christians. can i judge christianity by these millions? what about the christians following sun myung moon? might not be in the millions, but a lot of people anyway. which millions of christians should i judge the religion by? the ones who want to go back to forced pregnancy and childbirth? which sect got it right? i just want to know- who are the real christians, who are the fakes, and who gets to decide who is what? are you the decider? am i? is the pope? how 'bout pat robertson?

and what is the christological narrative? four conflicting accounts? is the part about jesus coming back to israel to give the jews one last chance to accept him a part of the christological narrative? is jesus appearing in north america part of the christological narrative? exactly how broad is this broad narrative? and who decides how broad it is? me? you? the pope? jim wallis? mitt romney? sun myung moon?

as for quoting old testament law: i'll make a deal with you: when conservative christians stop telling me that homosexuality is considered an abomination in leviticus, and that some prophet in the old testament told us god knows us in the womb and therefore abortion is murder, i'll stop with the shit about not eating shellfish and mixing fabrics. oh, and we can see how the laws were supposed to work- the punishment is usually right there in the text, and it usually involved throwing rocks at offenders until the offenders were dead. i'm sure the christians who you consider intelligent and rational because they just happen to believe the exact form of christianity you do are cool with this.

it's time. okay, it's been time for a while

the right are not decent human beings. we on the left have been saying this privately for years. but nobody wants to blurt it out in public, except people who are never going to interview john mccain anyway. anyone who wants to get invited to speak on news and commentary tv shows have been unwilling to say this openly, because the tv talking heads all agree that to impugn someone's patriotism is wrong. except for people opposing illegal wars, or illegal torture, or unconstitutional detention. anytime you oppose something that is actually illegal or unconstitutional, well, that means you hate america. but i digress.

discussing the sad reality that basic human decency has fled america's right is currently limited to the blogosphere. this idea that right wingers want social justice and tolerance and peace, but just want to pursue those goals with unrestrained greed, theocracy, and unjust wars, is what most public, "respectable" figures must declare. but the time has come for public figures to publicly admit that the right wing of america could give a shit about social justice. america's right doesn't care if illegal aliens bleed to death right outside hospitals- in fact, america's right would enjoy the sight. america's right doesn't care about tolerance, and we know this because they never extend it to anyone but themselves. non-christian religions, non-white people, non-profit projects, receive nothing but scorn from them and will never receive anything else. and peace? has anyone listened to the right? with the exception of ron paul, the right has a long list of people they're dying to bomb, and they'll even sing the list to an old beach boys tune for ya.




and then there is the biggest delusion of all. the idea of republicans actually knowing what the fuck they're spewing about. spare me. these are people who shrugged, if even that, at the cost of our invasions of aghganistan and iraq. these are people who still wanted george bush's welfare to the rich in the form of tax cuts at a time when we "had" to fight those wars. these are people who supported the creation of a whole new department of the federal government and accompanying cabinet position (homeland insecurity, i think). these are people who supported the nsa listening to our phone calls, reading our emails, finding out what library books we've borrowed, and demanded that anyone who participated in this rape of our privacy be pardoned in advance. these are people who supported treating foreigners, many of who were innocent, worse than michael vick treated his dogs. these are people who thought locking someone up indefinitely (read: for life) on the president's say-so alone was a great way to preserve freedom. these are people who thought shocking and awing middle easterners into accepting foreign military occupation was requested by god. these are people who's idea of christian charity means that there is no amount of kicking someone when they're already down they won't tolerate. and they have the nerve to act like they care about the deficit now. and freedom. and government interference in people's private lives. and the religious beliefs of the president. and anything except their own pathetic, paranoid delusions.


because that is what the right in america has become. one big delusional cult. a cult that believes that obama is a muslim. and muslims are taking over (that's why obama's the president, so he can hand the country over to them). and obama is a racist, and so is jeremiah wright. and black people are racist. and obama is a communist, socialist and a fascist (you have to ignore the wars they fought against each other in spain and germany and russia, but oh well). and a bailout that we are supposed to get paid back to us, with interest, from the banks is going to bankrupt us. and that open season has been declared on gun owners, taylor swift, and white kids who ride the bus. and that the country is going to fail unless obama does. and that government bureaucrats will decide if anyone over 65 gets to live or not, based on whether or not they've read karl marx. and that global warming is a hoax to destroy the SUV market, and turn us into soviet russia (where i guess people lived in trees and were strict vegetarians). delusion after delusion after delusion. no matter how many times these delusions are argued against with facts and reason and some logical induction and deduction, the delusions continue.

there is a solution to this. we, as a nation, must start calling the right what they are. in public, on tv, on the internet, on op-ed pages, at family reunions, and at birthday parties. the right are lying, scheming, delusional, greedy, bigotted, sexist, theocratic douchebags. and they have been for a while. and we must freeze them out of the public realm. because there is only so much political discourse that anyone can have with a dining room table.

shut the fuck up about your fucking bonuses

disclosure: i got laid off on february 27, 2009. i was shocked. the operations manager was very sad, and the partner in charge of my department was sad, and the department director was very sad. i was a good employee, founded our company's sustainability team, trained employees in sustainability, was promoted, was working towards something. everyone was very clear that i had done nothing wrong, didn't deserve to be laid off, but "salaries had to brought in-line with billing". and someone making $75k when it's not all billable hours is going to be pushed out of the lifeboat eventually.

but the horsefuckers who brought AIG down? they're supposed to get bonuses. that means they got to keep their jobs. these people literally brought down the world's largest insurance company and the world's financial systems with it, AND THEY'RE STILL EMPLOYED. and getting bonuses. because their contracts say so.

the UAW had a contract with the car companies, but i seem to remember that being recently renegotiated for the sake of people keeping their jobs. people who built the cars they were told to, and did their jobs. THEY had to renegotiate their contracts to keep their jobs. but the mother-pimpers at AIG? well, renegotiating a contract is out of the question. in fact, to hear larry (you think CHICKS can't do math?) summers tell it, actually forcing these fuckers to renegotiate these contracts that award these asscracks bonuses for failing might bring down the rule of law.

so let me explain this to these fucking pathetic excuses for human scum. the only reason you're still employed is so you can clean up the mess you made. that's it. that's your only use. and when you're done cleaning up the catastrofuck you helped created, your ass is going to be canned. either AIG will say so long, fuckers, or people will show up at your office with pitchforks and torches. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR FUCKING BONUSES. you should be working for free right now, and constantly begging the rest of us (you know, the little people whose 401ks and IRAs you destroyed) for our forgiveness. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR FUCKING BONUSES. the only thing you've earned is a one-way ticket to the Sahara Desert. you didn't even care about the welfare of the company you worked for. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR BONUSES. other people are worried about keeping a roof above their heads since they don't have jobs. other people are moving in with their parents. other people can no longer see a doctor since they don't have jobs and can't afford COBRA. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR BONUSES. going without millions of dollars you didn't earn isn't socialism. it's just desserts.

in praise of partisanship

jack, i love you. i really do. but why the fuck do you want our nation's two parties to work together? exactly what have democrats gotten for cooperating with republicans? remember the almost fucking unaminous vote to invade afghanistan? remember no child left behind? remember fucking invading iraq? remember medicare prescription benefits? remember the goddamned patriot act? remember its reauthorization? remember giving amnesty to telecoms that helped bush break the motherfucking fourth amendment? remember yanking habeus corpus with the military commissions act? remember allowing torture with the same goddamned bill? remember continually reauthorizing money to fund the occupation of iraq? remember when pelosi said impeachment was off the table? what HAVEN'T the democrats not handed to republicans on a fucking platter in the desperate, self-loathing quest to get republicans' respect? the only thing the democrats really managed to kill during the last eight years was privatizing social security. oh, and some really fucked up rightwing nutjobs didn't get federal judgeships (didn't bother republicans when they did it to clinton's nominees, i might add). can you name anything else? can you name ANYTHING else that democrats howled and screamed NO! to, and republicans backed down? well?!?!?!?!?

yes, i voted for obama. yes, i hope he can really "reach across" that aisle. but what are republicans going to offer him? what do republicans ever give in return? they don't fully fund education deform, they could give a fuck about congressional oversight of the powers in the patriot act. they give nothing in return but false promises and their repeated contempt. everything democrats gave into during bush's term has turned to shit. so fuck working with republicans. it's time for them to shut up- we tried their ideas, and their ideas are shit. so democrats don't want to deal them anymore. boo fucking hoo. cry me a goddamned river.

real patriotism

wow, has it been a month? i'll confess, i've been lazy. L-A-Z-Y. but now i think i'll sit down and get something off my chest (36C, if you must know).

flyover country needs to stop acting like they're the real americans, and everybody else is just a poser. i'm sick and tired of some asshat waving a poster of obama in a turban acting like he's standing up for america. if conservatives and the regions they dominate want to be relevant to the 21st century, it would certainly help if they joined it.

why do these fuckers think they're more patriotic? because they display flags, recite "under god" in the pledge, and put their hands on their hearts when they sing the national anthem. seriously. and they stick yellow ribbon magnets on the backs of their suv's. it's about being white, christian, male or subservient to males, and straight. meanwhile, red states all over the country literally feed off of blue states' federal income taxes. cities hold about 20% of americans; cities are usually the hosts of protest rallies, not rural areas. while rural, small-town america has been holding onto their illusions about what an american is, the rest of the country has moved on. while small-town america held on to patriotism being how many songs you can sing, pledges you can recite, and flags you can fly, the rest of us realized something.

patriotism is when you care enough about your fellow americans to make a fucking sacrifice for them. patriotism is when you care enough about your fellow americans to help them in bad times. patriotism is when you put off a cellphone upgrade so the kids in your country can have school lunches. patriotism is when you tell your government when it's wrong, and you hold your ground. patriotism is when you say "so what if he is a muslim? this is america." patriotism is when you pay for a highway project. it's when you pay back your student loans. it's when you observe elections and help people use their right to vote.

fuck these outward symbols that small-town america clings to. the flag is not a woobie. osama bin laden could put the flag on his cave entrance, stick a yellow ribbon on his machine gun, and sing "god bless america" till he's blue in the face, doesn't mean he loves america. it's window-dressing.

you see, for conservative, small-town america, window-dressing patriotism is all they've got left. they hate paying taxes, hate public schools, hate courts (or judges), hate equal protection, hate government in general. the only segment of government they seem to like is the idea of the military (since they hate paying the taxes the military and vets need, i think this is accurate). flags and songs and magnets are all they have left. they hate the institutions that we share, and which urban americans have come to value as we diversify and densify.

our institutions keep the peace; they are open to us all, and help us hold together. in an age when it's just not feasible (or constitutional) to force social cohesion through conformity in religion, language, sexuality and lifestyle, these institutions are vital. it's vital that we have schools everyone is entitled to send their kids to, and which any adult can get involved in. it's vital that we have parks, where people can come together to relax and people watch. it's vital that we have transit affordable to all that links metropolitan areas together. it's vital that we take pride in our firefighters, paramedics, police officers, and teachers. patriotism is when you support these things, not just with lip service but with money and effort. when you pay taxes, you put your money where your patriotic mouth is. something that small-town america calls "socialism". if it's socialist to actually support your country instead of just saying you do, then call me comrade.