The  Media (Accidently?) Missed  this one!!!! 

The  troops oversees would like you to send it to everybody you know. 

Don’t  know whether you  heard about this but  Denzel  Washington and  his family visited the troops at  Brook Army Medical Center, in San  Antonio,  Texas  (BAMC) the other day. This is where soldiers who have been evacuated from Germany come to be hospitalized in the United States , especially burn  victims. There are some buildings there called Fisher Houses.  
 
The Fisher House is a Hotel where soldiers’ families can stay, for little or no charge, while their soldier is staying in the Hospital. BAMC has quite a few of these houses on base, but as you can imagine, they are almost filled most of the time.  

While Denzel Washington was visiting  BAMC, they gave him a tour of one of the Fisher Houses. He  asked how much one of them would cost to build. He took his checkbook out and wrote a check for the full  amount right there on the spot. The soldiers overseas were amazed to hear this story and want to get the word out to the American public, because it warmed their hearts  to hear it.  

The question is: why  do:
Brad  Pitt, Madonna, Tom Cruise and other Hollywood fluff make  front page news with their ridiculous antics and Denzel Washington’s patriotism doesn’t even make page 3 in the Metro section of any newspaper except the Local newspaper in San Antonio .

Technorati Tags: Denzel Washington's Patriotism

I need this for a debate so please help!

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20011002

patriotism can be defined simply as 'love and loyal support of one's country'. Yes, it's centered in feeling–and, as we've seen in past weeks, the emotion is deep and intense.

But when people take patriotism to a fanatic extreme, this is usually called nationalism. (The terms jingoism and chauvinism are near synonyms.) Nationalism is more centered in thought than in feeling; it's actually a political and social philosophy. The Columbia Encyclopedia defines it as "a collective state of mind or consciousness in which people believe their primary duty and loyalty is to the nation-state. Often nationalism implies national superiority and glorifies various national virtues. Thus love of nation may be overemphasized; concern with national self-interest to the exclusion of the rights of other nations may lead to international conflict." So, because nationalism is the belief that national interests and security are more important than international considerations, it often goes hand in hand with a militaristic foreign policy. It also tends to encourage cultural conformity and intolerance.

What do Americans get in return for their undying patriotism and flag worshipping? The poor can't afford to go to college. You have to pay for all but the most urgent healthcare, and your social security system is almost non-existant. Americans seem to think that what they get back from the state is their 'freedom', but would you be any less 'free' in any other western country?

We get the right to pay taxes!!

So which one are you – a nationalist or a patriot?

I think that definition is a little too highfalutin.
Those people who fought during the war of independence were patriots. They were fighting to be in control of their own destiny.
Nationalists have a desire to control others. Nationalism denies liberty.

That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.

That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there’s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!

That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.

That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.

That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things – one of those crazy things.

That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.

That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.

The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.

That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.