The dictionary defines patriotism as "Love of and devotion to one's country." There is a few words missing here that could easily be assumed, "as is." So for argument sake let's say patriotism is "Love of and devotion to one's country as is."

So if you try to change your country, then it could be considered unpatriotic. The patriot act is, in fact, unpatriotic.

Now let's not assume the "as is" part. It makes sense, to liberals especially, that if something is wrong with the country, you try to change it. The first step in changing it is admitting that there is a problem. We call that criticism. So it's not fair to accuse liberals of being unpatriotic for criticizing their country.

So the word is interchangeable. Either side can accuse either side of being unpatriotic unless they are advocating the status quo. Advocating the status quo is conservatism in a nutshell.

Why aren't conservatives either outraged over the patriot act, or more understanding of why liberals are?

IMHO, it's the highest form of patriotism. To want to correct the country that has been led down the wrong course. In essence, the 'Be All That You Can Be' idea. This country was founded on great ideals and principles -- to insist that we live up to them is true patriotism.

The Project for a New American Century
certainly believes it is patriotic to set out to change one's country. What is good for the goose must then be good for the gander...

QUOTE

Why aren't conservatives either outraged over the patriot act, or more understanding of why liberals are?

Good question. Since I am not a conservative, I am bewildered by this.
Speaking in general terms, the conservatives claim to want to protect the Consitution. Go figure.
A complete disconnect.

On a dire note: I do not think enough Americans are paying attention.
They are too busy trying to put food on the table or whatever they are doing, to pay attention to something that takes more than a 30 second sound bite to understand. And that, imho, is at the heart of all that is wrong in our 'democracy' right now. We have uninformed voters.

If 30 seconds is all we have, then let's do the best we can working within the 30 seconds. The Advertisment industry has been doing it for half a century.

If you can get their interest in 30 seconds, they might give you another minute on talk radio or the web. We created the culture of short attention spans. Now we have to deal with it.

Really good basic education and average or better parenting skills--in a moderately cohesive and mutually supportive community develops Self-Management Skill including Attending and Monitoring one's own attending.

So where is Madison Avenue ? Making the big bucks from the big corps.
They are in the loop. We need to find some rogue ad experts, I guess.

30 seconds is a very short time. But I agree it can spark interest for more time/exposure.
However, I tend not to be a sound bite person- not clever enough. But surely we have some here
on this forum who are....

Really good basic education - as promised through the No Child Left Behind Act, right?

Patriotism is, "Love of and devotion to one's country--including its ability to change, grow and improve." I think the rest of the analysis just muddies the water.

So you don't assume the "as is" part. That leaves very few cases in which a person could be considered unpatriotic short of the legal definition of treason. You could even separate (overthrow) the form of government from the country and still love the country. I think they call that tough love.

I agree that correcting and improving the country (or government) would be a patriotic thing to do, as long as there is not a more important alternate agenda (like monetary profit) attached to the act.

I don't think my definition muddies the water any more than it's already muddied. If anything, contrasting the difference between loving the country "as is" and wanting to change the country, acts as a mud filter, separating the dirt of accusing people of being unpatriotic, from the cleansing water of government constructive criticism. It's a form of disambiguation for either context of the word.

Apparently, I'm missing something.

Sound bites come from microanalysis of a detailed message. It starts with a good and complete original message that addresses the concerns of the average short-attention-spanned listener. Then it takes hours and days of trimming the repetitive and wordy parts from the message. Eventually you arrive at a message that isn't as clear as the original message, but will most-likely have the vagueness interpreted in favor of the messenger. Most listeners will assume the best context of the message. That's how Madison Avenue comes up with slogans.

It's often deceptive, but it doesn't have to be. The more wise and honest the original message is, the more-likely the listener will get the same message from the sound bite.

The trick is not to make the sound bite so simple that it just sounds like an empty promise. The sound bite has to present a new attitude or at least a better expression of an older yet more favorable attitude. It also has to imply that there is some sort of plan for execution attached to that attitude.

Republicans didn't win by proving that they were the better party. They knew they couldn't if they tried. Instead they one by implying that they were the better party with Madison Avenue tactics, including focus groups, public-relations firms, and advertising agencies.

The Democrats do this too, in a slightly more democratic and multicultural way, with more grass-roots money and support, and special big-money sponsors--often working through community-based networks of Human Service Providers,
Chairitable Organizations, the Chamber of Commerse and other for profit
providers of goods and services.Democrats should develop the concept of
Competence in 2006 and 2008. Not just the lack of competence of the
current administration--but substantive proposals and eager volunteers ready
to demonstrate their effectiveness.

I like the word Competence. It takes away the overemphasis of Character, which is what the Republicans have been running on. It also reminds the everyone of how incompetent the current administration has been throught the term.

In 2000 Republican promised to "restore Decency" to the Whitehouse. In 2008 Democrats can promise to "restore Competence" to the Whitehouse. It would emply the end of chronism, no-bid contracts and unilateralism.

Yes and it would reduce Paternalism and Authoritarianism and increase bottoms-up
management of the Social System to shift to a Competency-based goverment
operation and to Competency-based Education and Training supported by the various levels of Goverment.

From Alternet

Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State