I remember a few years ago, when the GOP still controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives, a prevailing meme that was always used by Republicans when talking about their opponents was "angry liberals". Seemingly, all opponents were vicious, angry, twisted, warped liberals, and since in authoritarian circles, "liberal" is an all-purpose smear, the inclusion of that word alone would be enough to (as they see it) end the conversation.
Now, in 2009, the GOP finds itself in the minority in both national houses of representation, and the President is a Democrat. Is the GOP behaving graciously in opposition? Based on what I am reading about, it would seem that the answer is No. GOP-sympathetic radio and TV hosts are ranting about all manner of perceived indignities, elected representatives are bloviating about "tea parties" and "fascism". And, not to be outdone, the leader of the RedState website has now lowered the bar further. Describing the soon-retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter as a "goat fucking child molester" not only sets a lower standard for others to aim at (or below), it also seems to me to amply fit the definition of an "angry authoritarian".
Of course, I would be remiss if I did not also observe that it seems like the writings of a classless, moronic little shit...but I hate to have to re-state the obvious.

Link: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/21/harman/index.html

This article by Glenn Greeenwald is a masterpiece (note for the humor-impaired; the article makes extensive use of both irony and sarcasm...). It is good to see mendacious, duplicitous elected representatives being impaled on the consequences of their own contradictions and hypocrisies...like Rep. Jane Harman. It seems that her interview on NPR has not helped her either - but she apparently hasn't got a bloody clue about the law all of a sudden. See Amnesia.
On a related topic...there is a new reference frame being pushed into the public domain by frightened and embarrassed groups in and around the intelligence and surveillance divisions of government. Apparently, programs are now either "legal" or "extra-legal". If you want an excellent example of Orwellian language, here it is in 4 short syllables. It reads like some sort of advertising slogan ("New Improved Extra Legal! Buy it now!").
When are the brave media folk on radio and TV going to ask the blindingly obvious question "Er, is "extra-legal" not simply a bullshit euphemism for illegal?"
UPDATE - Glenn Greenwald goes back on the offensive against the mind-bogglingly hypocritical bloviations from Rep. Jane Harman at a recent APAIC meeting, where she vented against illegal wiretapping. It certainly appears that, as far as Rep. Harman is concerned, wiretapping is acceptable as a national security assurance tactic as long as it is The Other Guy who is being wiretapped...

As those of you who live in my home state may know, the Texas Board of Education has been under pressure from pro-Creationism members and from external organizations to water down the teaching of Evolution in the science curriculum in Texas. This attempt to completely subvert the integrity of science education in Texas has been going on for years, aided by an electorate that seems incapable of critical thinking when it comes to evaluating the merits of candidates for positions on the board (wake up people!).
This posting from Digby enumerates the extremely negligible qualifications of Don Patton, one of the opponents of the teaching of Evolution as part of the education process in Texas, who testified at recent board hearings on science teaching.
Based on my evaluation of his claimed qualifications, if he can call himself "Dr", then I ought to start claiming myself as a Professor. You see, unlike Mr. Patton, I actually have a degree in Geology, from the University of Manchester (1976).
Sadly, like many dangerous demagogues of the past, Patton does appear to be able to speak superficially plausible nonsense in a resonant, well-modulated voice. His opponents may lack in bombast, but as this posting from P.Z. Myers makes clear, opposition to his brand of unscientific religious nonsense spans most of the spectrum of academia, including (in this case) historians. The contempt of these people for the entire education process appears to know no limits.
In a related set of wackiness, the Insitute of Creation Research, whom Mr. Patton was representing in his appearance before the Texas board, has recently filed a complaint against the Texas Higher Education Co-Ordination Board in federal court for an injunction requiring the THECB to issue the Certificate of Authority and permit ICR to issue Master of Science degrees in science education. This follows the THECB rejection of their 2008 request to permit the ICR to offer a Master’s degree in science education in Texas.
This blog posting by a practising lawyer outlines the numerous ways in which this complaint is a waste of dead tree products and court system bandwidth.
The entire complaint seems to me to be another attempt to create publicity and engage in some martyrdom, with the education and the court systems ultimately being pointed to as the nasty villians.
This sort of devious, intellectually dishonest behaviour from supporters of Creationism is likely to continue until electors start to apply much more rigorous thinking and evaluation processes to education board candidates in Texas. Voting for candidates who, by a process of defective reasoning, seek to elevate the teaching of Creationism to the level of science may make people feel more virtuous (I guess), but if continued, the election of backward-looking, unthinking individuals to positions of power in the U.S. education system will undermine the system over time to the point where it ceases to have any credibility, either inside the U.S.A. or in the rest of the world. The obsession with Creationism is regarded in Europe was a weird, illogical and highly suspect behaviour pattern peculiar to the U.S.A. (Even the Roman Catholic Church, that most hierarchical and conservative of organizations, formally accepted Evolution as an explanation for the development of intelligent life on Earth years ago.)

Link: http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2009/04/rule-of-lawor-at-least-convenient-laws.html

...explaining why the Nuremburg Defense ("I was only obeying orders") was ruled irrelevant at the time, and why it is still irrelevant as a defense to charges of illegal activity by government and military employees.
The key part of the argument is contained in this neat summary:

...people who act on behalf of the government must be assured that unless they exercise some basic moral and legal common sense reasoning, then they will be held accountable for their actions and prosecuted for violating any laws — most especially obvious laws which any half-conscious adult should have noticed they were breaking.
Government employees and independent contractors are not automatons whom we simply wind up and aim in some desired direction; they are morally responsible adults who must be held morally and legally responsible for actions they choose to take. They have a choice to not take action they suspect may be legally questionable or which appear to be morally dubious. Granted, there are grey areas where it's not always obvious what is legal and what is illegal. I'd like to think that those engaged in actively administering criminal treatments like waterboarding would have noticed that they were breaking the law, but I could accept that not every situation was quite so clear. Is that a reason to withhold prosecution? Absolutely not.

While I was on vacation in the Bahamas, it seems that Rick Perry, our Governor, hinted that Texas could always secede from the Union if it did not like the political direction out of Washington. He apparently made the comments in Austin at one of several "tea parties".
Don't get me started on the irredeemable stupidity behind the tea party concept - the Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxation without representation, while America was a disenfranchised colony of Great Britain. The current "tea parties" are nothing more than publicity stunts by a bunch of pissed voters who have taxation with representation - just not the representation that they voted for. In short, this is nothing more than childish petulance from sore losers.
It seems that Perry has since been heard trying to walk back from his original comments...oops, sorry, I meant he has been clarifying his comments, but in the meantime, his comments have ignited a predictable storm of comment. Political luminaries such as Ron Paul (ho-hum) and Tom DeLay (somebody save us from this fuckwit) have weighed in with their own comments.
I first encountered some Texas secessionists in the UseNet days, when a discussion broke out in a UseNet group about whether Texas could secede. I got myself into a vigorous, but ultimately frustrating debate with one of them, when I pointed out that the U.S. Constitution has no defined process for secession, for Texas or for any other state. It does not forbid secession, but there is no process defined anywhere for how a state can secede. The secessionist that I was arguing with waved aside this issue with a bland "it does not prohibit secession so we can secede if we want to", but totally failed to answer the obvious question "how would you do this?". He also seemed to be unwilling to address any of the practical issues of secession, such as what pro-rated percentage of the US National Debt should be assumed by Texas when it secedes. This, by the way, was one of the issues that choked off the last serious attempt by Quebec to secede from Canada in the mid-1990's, when the then-PM Brian Mulroney told the Parti Quebecois that Quebec would have to assume a pro-rata share of the Canadian national debt if it succeeded. If you want to leave the club, you have to settle your bar bills...if the other states decide to apportion the debt amount on the basis of land area, then Texas is bankrupt from day 1.
The practical reality is that Texas is not seceding from the Union any time soon, and any public figure who suggests that it is even a possibility is engaging in empty bloviation of the most facile kind, bordering on stupid.

...which tries to explain the phenomenon that simplistic, sometimes idiotic arguments made by people with limited knowledge of a subject can overwhelm more complete arguments that require both detail knowledge and time for explanation. This is what I have referred to as "the curse of the soundbite", where a glib, often stupid 30 second summary of a complex issue ends up substituting for any substantive summary of the issue.

Link: http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/15243

In World Magazine online, Cal Thomas has a commentary on the Iowa Supreme Court decision. Included among the standard worried hand-waving along the lines of "if they eliminate man-woman marriages, what are the new rules?" (has nobody in the Christian sphere ever understood the concept of informed consent?) is this gem:

To those on the political and religious right who are intent on continuing the battle to preserve “traditional marriage” in a nation that is rapidly discarding its traditions, I would ask this question: What poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings? Is it two homosexuals living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?

Ding! We have a Winner! As numerous commentators have pointed out in the past, the real threat (in numerical terms) to marriage is not single-sex couples getting married, it is heterosexual couples divorcing. Anybody who does not realize this is either arguing from a position of bigotry or does not understand simple math (or both).
And Thomas then hits the nail on the head again in the next paragraph:

Most of those who are disturbed about same-sex marriage are not as exercised about preserving heterosexual marriage. That’s because it doesn’t raise money and won’t get them on TV. Some preachers would rather demonize gays than oppose heterosexuals who violate their vows by divorcing, often causing harm to their children. That’s because so many in their congregations have been divorced and preaching against divorce might cause some to leave and take their contributions with them.

Another home run! Even a cursory view of Judeo-Christian religious activity here in Dallas would confirm that it relies heavily on money (and plenty of it). You don't get to erect the sort of massive churches all over the place that are visible on even a short drive, without large piles of money. Especially when a lot of the money seems to be used to maintain elaborate corporate operations and lavish lifestyles and spending by church leaders...
Churches are big business here, they need lots of money to keep going, and therefore rely heavily on donations from wealthy church-goers. It is very cost-effective to rail from the pulpit about "heathen homosexuals" perverting the institution of marriage - there are unlikely to be any gay donors in the audience to offend, and the threat of "the gays" might actually increase donations. OTOH, reminding those in attendance of their solemn duty to remain married to their (presumably heterosexual) spouses risks offending those in attendance who just traded their last spouse in for the latest model...

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/28/714009/-I-am-a-banker.-Some-of-us-did-not-f*ck-up.

An explanation of the two different types of banking...and how/why the banking system is currently in disarray, from a banker based in Paris.
The Tax Foundation publishes a lot of interesting data on taxation in the USA. This table from its web site shows the ration of Federal taxes paid to Federal dollars obtained by the States in the Union.
Calculated Risk is an interesting blog dealing with economics and finance. Amongst its current postings is a pointer to the fact that both Chrysler and GM are coming back for yet more money (who would have guessed? No surprise to me, having watched the slow death of the UK-owned volume car industry in the 1980's for reasons that are partly similar to the issues here).
Doctor Housing Bubble discusses and reports on property market issues, both from a practical dollars-and-cents perspective, and from a wider societal perspective. The Housing Bubble Blog provides a round-up of news on the housing market from around the country by pointing to and summarizing articles and news about housing markets. As you might expect, not much of the news is good right now. Neither blog is afflicted with housing market cheerleading; the last thing I need right now is a realtor attempting to convince me that we have reached bottom in the housing market...
And back in the UK...Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's expenses claim included adult films viewed by her husband...WHHHOOOOPS...

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/27/222317/907

Mike Doogan is a Democratic State Representative in Alaska. A couple of days ago, for reasons which remain unclear, he decided to reveal the name of the author of the blog Mudflats, which deals with Alaska politics and governance. The author operates the blog under a pseudonym.
Doogan chose to "out" the blogger without permission, using a constituent newsletter presumably created using state resources.
Doogan's response to complaints about this action has been dismissive at best, and bullyingly obnoxious at worst.
Doogan has provided no cogent explanation for why he stripped away the author's privacy in this fashion. His action is similar to other such actions taken in the past, usually by authoritarian commentators and journalists, who seem to operate on the principle that one's opponents do not have any privacy rights.
This is nothing more than bullying and threatening behaviour designed to induce fear. It is beneath contempt, and for this reason I have no hesitation in making Mike Doogan my Jerk Of The Week for this action. And Mike, if you're reading this, by all means put me on your "list". I shall accept it as a badge of honor, and when the time comes for your re-election I will donate to your primary opponents. You're a mean-spirited bully, and you need to be removed from elected office before you poison the governance process any further.

Link: http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2006/07/two_types_of_patriotism.php

While contemplating a lot of things following a spat with a friend online this morning (outcome uncertain), I went off to see if I could find some cogent discussions or elaborations on the nature of patriotism.
Growing up in the UK, I personally observed a positive correlation between claimed patriotism and authoritarianism, often accompanied by a militaristic component. The British National Party, a motley collection of authoritarian and racist scumbags, usually claimed to be patriots, railed against other politicians for conniving in the decay of the UK, and wrapped themselves in the Union Jack. They were not a pleasant or positively convincing collection of people. I also noticed the positive correlation between mob violence (often originating with soccer supporters) and the frequency with which those violent people wore flag grab such as t-shirts and hats. I saw those types of people attempting to demolish bars in my home town as an adolescent.
I thus have a background that has left me extremely wary of any overt claims of "patriotism", and especially wary of any group of people who wave a nation's flag as they seek to assert their patriotism. By extension, I am also wary of people who denigrate other people for being "unpatriotic" either because they refuse to uncritically support their country, or because they do not respect the flag. In the 1970's I saw numerous street demonstrations in the UK where angry demonstrators would burn the Union Jack as a way of demonstrating their dislike for the UK or its policies. Aside from a small community of mostly retired military people, there were few people who were incensed with these displays, and there was no attempt made to ban flag-burning.
I was dismayed by the atmosphere that descended in the USA after 9/11. It seemed that many people were unable or unwilling to understand the difference between dissent and disloyalty. I was personally invited to leave the country during a discussion by a work colleague (he seemed to have temporarily forgotten the irony that he was married to a German) because I disagreed with his worldview. I also had at least 2 other people stop speaking to me because I disagreed with their ideas about how to respond to 9/11. Included in this population was a work colleague who asserted that the Constitution only applied to citizens, and when I produced my copy of the Constitution and asked him to find the exclusion, responded by saying "well it should exclude non-citizens", which essentially terminated the discussion.
All of those incidents, plus the more recent incident, left me wondering "what is patriotism, what types of patriotism are there, and what does research tell us about the worldviews and pathologies underlining patriotism?"
One interesting facet of patriotism as a concept is that there is very little useful empirical research on it. You can't find much in the way of interesting reading on patriotism as a concept. Views of patriotism tend to occupy a dichotomy between the worldview that Patriotism is a good thing (and there should be a lot more of it) and the worldview that (to recycle an old quote) Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
I did find this blog posting, that examined research and posits that there are two basic types of patriotism:

...divide patriotism into two main types: blind and constructive patriotism, and these two types seem to line up almost perfectly with the situation described in the opening paragraph. In this paragraph, they describe the two types:
[B]lind patriotism [is] a rigid and inflexible attachment to country, characterized by unquestioning postitive evaluation, staunch allegiance, and intolerance of criticsm. These factors comprise core elements of Kelman's "sentimental attachment" to country. In contrast, constructive patriotism refers to an an attachment to country characterized by "critical loyalty, questioning and criticism of current group practices that are driven by a desire for positive change". Both orientations are "patriotic" in the core sense of positive identficiation with feelings of affective attachment to country. However, the blind patriot views national criticism and dissent as inherently disloyal, whereas the constructive patriot does not. Instead, the constructive patriot may criticize and even actively oppose the nation's actions because he or she believes they violate fundamental percepts or are contrary to long-term national interests.

Having read the blog posting, I think I am now able to distinguish the pathologies that I have encountered. It seems that some of my post-9/11 encounters were with blind patriots, or at least, people who were behaving in that fashion at the time.
What the articles fail to make clear is how situational the two types of patriotism might be, and the extent to which people can morph their views between the two types. For example, is it possible that a lot of constructive patriots were converted to blind patriots by the shock and horror of 9/11? And if so, have some (or most) of them now reverted to constructive patriotism?
As an adolescent victim of bullying, I find that a lot of the time, blind patriots appear to me as intolerant bullies, which sensitizes me to their presence and arguments. Quite simply, I will not tolerate any behaviour that I construe as bullying. Remarks like "if you don't agree you need to leave the country" are not worthwhile arguments, they are merely the verbal outputs of a bullying pathology that is going to get short shrift from me. When I heard a variant of this argument from my work colleague in 2001, I ended the conversation and did not spend any more time talking to him. Bullies deserve nothing more than contempt from those that they attempt to bully.