Talk:Patriot

How in the unpronounceable name of G'BroagFran does one commit "Language Treason"? --Gulik 02:55, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps by using British spelling?--Bob_M (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

In a country with no national language, surely language treason is impossible? αιρδισΗ^ταλκ 06:16, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Oota Goota Solo? olliegrind 06:39, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Shoot first. αιρδισΗ^ταλκ 06:53, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Caveats

"An American patriot is anti-communist (read: one who overcompensates for their poor understanding of the invisible hand by making up false arguments against communism), pro-free trade (read: sell-out who seeks to industrialize China while deindustrializing the United States),"

No offense, but there are MANY who are anti-communist because they have a REALLY GOOD understanding of the invisible hand. In fact, it can be argued that only those who do not understand the way the invisible hand really works would be willing to support a command economy. Moreover, there are many argument both for and against free trade--I'd rather it wasn't reduced to an ad hominem sound bite. Researcher 00:15, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Your point is well taken, and that section of the article (well, most of it) could be better - especially, er, updated! We are no longer anticommunist, we are antiterrorist! I did some copyediting on what was at best a clumsy article section. By the way, "the invisible hand" makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Without govt intervention. Anyway, someone was obviously trying to make some funny snark, and fell a few bytes short of the ideal mark. As far as the ad hom sound bite - look at the US from 1950 to 1990. Any sympathy towards "Communism" was worse than consorting with the debbil! And any politics that was even slightly leftwards was called "communism" - hence the parade of bloodthirsty military dictatorships the US supported in South America. OK, this was a very randomly organized (if at all) comment.... human 00:30, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I guess because I did a lot of study of anti-Communist liberalism within the US (such as, oh, the Kennedy's...didn't get any more liberal OR anti-communist!) little things like that irk me. (Agreed about the invisible hand, left alone--but attempts to do away with it entirely tend to do even worse.) Researcher 00:33, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Basically, we just need to rewrite that snarky middle section of the article from scratch. Some mention of "support the troops" should be made, at least. You know, something from the last decade or so would make it fresher. Someone might have been reacting against cp:user:RobS fervid red-hating when they wrote it... human 00:40, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Well I was trying to keep in the spirit of the pro-free trade remark for the anti-communist remark. And at any rate, some of us don't think that the invisible hand is at good at controlling the evils of capitalism as some laissez-faire big buisiness owners would have us believe. You are right about Rob. It's clear that he doesn't hate Communists and Socialists for any rational reason. CheFan 01:02, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

(undent) Yeah, more than anything else, let's try to update it. Something like: "American patriots are notable due to the yellow magnets on their SUVs and their support of whomever seems to be the most "anti-terrorist." " It needs more, of course, but it's a start. Researcher 01:27, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I think you nailed it (the yellow magnets - I had to customize one for my car). Please edit accordingly. Now! Thank you. human 01:30, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I do want to point out (and I'm sure you agree), that as wrong or failed or flawed any political philosophy might be (as communism is claimed to be), "free" citizens are still free to espouse them... hence the appropriateness of the "anticommie" snark on the page? So that section should (if still US-centric!) blow through McCarthyism, Reaganism, and modern Bush(idiot)ism - ie, of course, the new anti-Americanism (however defined by the administration) is pro-terror OMGDZ!!!! I still like your yellow ribbon magnet line. And that's why. human 02:41, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

For teh record, I have NO PROBLEM with someone being honestly pro-Communist, even if I think it's ridiculous personally. However, I don't like the idea of being considered stupid for being anti-Communist, which was how I read the original snark. Researcher 03:42, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I see we've still got "language treason" in there. HG never did explain that one.--Bob^{bing for apples} 06:20, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

HG never explained most of his psychoses... human 08:39, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

What's all this about yellow magnets?

What's all this about yellow magnets?Susan^{speak your mind} 09:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

It's a USA thing - the little ribbons one buys that are magnetic, not sticky, that are yellwo and say "support the troops". Need more info? Ask, or google... human 09:33, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Ha! Now it dawn's (geddit?) on me. Susan^{speak your mind} 09:42, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Funny that, yellow used to be the colour of cowardice. Susan^{speak your mind} 09:52, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

WP has a great article on this sort of thing. wp:Slacktivism --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 12:34, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I kinda called that wrong. It used to be a great article. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 12:36, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

During the Vietnam war, people would tie yellow ribbons around trees to note that they had a son fighting over there, and to wish them a safe return. Now, instead, we have yellow fake ribbons on SUVs. Researcher 14:27, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Did it start during 'Nam? I thought it was first a song in the 70's ("Tie a yellow ribbon 'round the old oak tree..."), and was picked up during Gulf War 1 (the video game) as a political ploy (man, that ribbon was everywhere!) along with the "anti Viet Nam and Reagan's lies" phrase "support the troops"; it blossomed again rapidly in the current Iraq War, for $3 you could "support the troops" without having to engage in any rationing, metal drives, higher taxes, etc., etc., etc. human 17:37, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures from the 70s of people tying the yellow ribbons around trees, and the only war still raging in the 70s (that the US was part of) was Vietnam. To be honest, I barely remember the first Gulf War, so I could be wrong. Researcher 17:55, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

You're probably right, the song probably came after the practice. Heck, I bet people were doing it in WW2 as well. Maybe even before. Someone should google/wp it and find out! human 18:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

If I have time on my lunch break, I might do that. (Most of it will come from proposing an entire rewrite to the "neoliberalism" page.) Researcher 18:45, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm glad I'm not the only one that's irked by the misuse of the yellow ribbon. It used to mean "Welcome home!" now it means "Stay there forever!"Garble 19:36, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

(undent) According to wp, it began during the hostage crisis. Prior to that, it was actually a symbol for a released convict to know he could get off the bus and come home? Weird. Researcher 20:47, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Mine has said "Illegal war" and "Bring 'em home" for about 3 years. Yah, I had to make it myself... human 16:32, 5 November 2007 (EST)

World hunger vs global warming

I think world hunger is a more important issue than global warming. Elassint Throw things at me 16:27, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for sharing. I think they both belong on a "short list" of serious problems facing peoplekind. human 16:30, 5 November 2007 (EST)

(ec) Yup - because you can see its effects it has a more immediate emotional impact but global warming could kill all of us. Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 16:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

OH NO! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE BECAUSE AL GORE HAS SHINY CHARTS!!!!! Lets elect him as our new god so we can stop global warming!(sarcastic) 12.75.66.223 16:41, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Shhhh... can you hear that distant shouting? That's your great-grandchildren cursing your name for not doing something while there was still time. ---AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:44, 5 November 2007 (EST)

There is also the prime cause of both: overpopulation. I've been googling trying to find a figure I read years ago about the max sustainable population but can't find it. I remember (?) it was under a billion. Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 16:47, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Something like this? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:07, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Might have been. Interesting, no? Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 17:26, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Yeah, without going to the link, hunger is best solved by shrinking the population (by attrition and birth control, not murder!). Raping the earth for more food is not the answer. And, of course, GW will make it harder to make food... human 18:24, 5 November 2007 (EST)

A little too wp:Malthusian for my tastes. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:42, 5 November 2007 (EST)

What is a little to Malthusian for you? Limiting our population so we don't starve/pollute ourselves to death? human 19:02, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Yes. Having a high population is not necessarily a problem, as the Malthusian view would suggest, since in many cases in especially the third world, a high population is exactly the thing that can lead to increased prosperity, both for individual families and for society as a whole - basically, the higher the population, the more economic activity is going on, and the better the economic potential available to the country. In the vast majority of cases, the problem is rather a lack of investments in commerce and infrastructure. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:23, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Given limited resources (only one planet we know of where we can, say, grow food), what would you consider to the be the carrying capacity, given the requirement that most people live reasonably comfortable lives? 1 billion? Ten billion? 100 billion? This petri dish is only so big. Heck, I think we could "afford" over time to completely depopulate one continent, and keep it as a nature reserve. We could keep high population densities if we want, for economic efficiency, but limit their profusion, for general environmental reasons.

Well, we're not having a general lack of food right now, so we're obviously not at capacity yet. Certainly, famines happen all the time, but that's because the available food isn't always going where it needs to be, so again, this is the result of poor infrastructure. As for what the actual capacity of Earth is, that's a good question, but it's certain that technological progress has increased it considerably over the past century, and will most likely continue to do so. It's also noteworthy that increased prosperity empirically leads to reduced birth rates, so if something effective can be done about poverty, the problem might resolve itself. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:40, 5 November 2007 (EST)

<- Agreed, I think, on all points. I guess we only thought we disagreed because Malthus got dragged into it. Starving people need U-Hauls and suitcases, not food, so they can move where the climate is better. As far as carrying capacity, there is no need to operate right at it. There is no real "need" to have as many humans on the planet as possible, after all. Oh, and we don't know if we are past capacity or not - we may still have enough food, on the average, but we might have broken the planet's ecology (at least as far as supporting us) already. Not claiming we have, but we might have. human 19:48, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Actually, I'd say that starving people first of all need U-Hauls going the other way to bring them food. And then they need Caterpillars so they can build roads, and John Deere tractors to improve their agriculture, and so on and so forth. Moving people around isn't going to solve the problem in the long term - higher economic prosperity and better trade opportunities for the third world is what's needed. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:55, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Anyone besides me read Jared Diamond's book, Collapse? He makes a distinction between "harvesting" (taking an amount that will grow back) and "mining" (permanently depleting) resources, and claims we're mining some of the important, normally renewable ones--fish stocks, topsoil, and fresh water being some of the biggies. --Gulik 12:51, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Rewrite

I think this article needs to be completely rewrote. This is on what a conservative thinks a patriot is (someone who worships the president like a god and loves the flag more then his fellows). It needs to be on what a real patriot is. 75.117.235.151

I think that stuff is in the summary. human 16:26, 8 December 2007 (EST)