patriotism

what is patriotism? there are so many views of government from socialism to the green party. and, with so few people who are courageous enough to send their persuasions onto the public-making their voice, if its still theirs to speak, heard-how can we fully understand whats behind the agendas of the powerful. to be able to agree with what is being said, and not be lead into a socialistic backroom of deceit. there can be worse things but confused and mislead patriots are destructive, and worsened to the fact that they are convicted of their duties as such.

is patriotism the dying man on a distant and foreign battle field? the ultimate sacrifice, all be it noble and dutiful for a solder, but does this man or woman see the ironic twist of defending territory so far away. in an earlier time, the invader was called an oppressor, and his deeds called malefactions. now its preventative care for the country. the only universal health care for lady liberty- and it costs so much. and who is more patriotic? republicans with their view of, little government. there is another sect of belief that says there should be little to no government-anarchist, and their only patriotism is to themselves. and democrats, with their close socialistic views on leadership that causes the words of Orwell to skip off the pages and frisk my senses with caution.

i do not wish to be negative only inquisitive; they say only the fool thinks he is right all of the time. so, where do we go from here? to the only place that is safe from extreme precepts and biased oppressions-the middle. but, never in the history of this country has a moderate became a leader of any stature. they are mocked when they flip flop on issues and their asses undoubtedly get sour from sitting on the fence day and night.

i think of how this country is realized by the rest of the world and future generations, and if we were to start from the middle where would that take us. if all minds are in sync with one another, group think begins to saturate creative energy- deprives and impairs the group and allows them to head, unknowingly, onto destructive paths. so we need opposing beliefs to debate issues and introduce separate postures on the debate floor of the world-as we do now. but to taunt and satire the apposing views with lavished hate, is an infringement on the deal made when elected to represent the people.

my point is not that we are doing it wrong. even though the real idea of government is, "for the people, by the people," we must be sensitive to the cunning grip of power for it makes fools out of the best of us. our minds eye can be fickle, in-spite of our cables ground to reality. for the idea is not power, even though it is currently, it is becoming a enlightened and civil species together; with utopian accord where no one goes hungry and blaw...blaw... is it ironic that everyone would like to live in utopia, however synonyms for utopia are: impractical, lofty and otherworldly.
so if the right is fogyish, the left is imperious and the middle leaves one addled and sore; where on the senate does the patriot sit. perhaps they are all patriots for it is only a frame of mind, but we should not blanket the idea and say, ''its all relative," then sip our wine and switch subjects-indifference is not a wealthy virtue.

i call to the floor a new generation of moderated rights and lefts. able to change views when the argument and the right thing to do allows them too- like a genuine patriot would do that draws from induction rather than exasperation. do we not, as a people, change our mind about brands, and colors as the seasons change. or we say we will never love again with convicted smirks, and yet fall once more into hopeless distresses of life. why then must one have to stand on issues that the party has decided on, and focus on tilted agendas instead of prudent matters in the spirit of changing for the better. i call to release the bonds that parties beget and let free the liberty that real patriotism gives birth to.