But there are a lot of very narrow minded people who refuse to get it. They would rather go to hateful radical leftist blogs, where idiot-bloggers argue like "Why don't f*cking republican just shut the f*ck up?"
I'm just curious -- how many of those belong to this group and participate in this particular conversation?
Also, again, regardless of this particular discussion: people who get it, but do not agree with it -- are they idiots/narrow minded too?

OK, read the article... brings some interesting points. But the overall tone is so inflammatory....why does it have to be? Wouldn't we get it if just those points being stated? I don't mean "get" as "agree", simply as "understand".
well, if this is the case,
let me post another article then, with semi-inflammatory tone, but also brings good points:
***********.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/opinion/19jacoby.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

this is what I don't understand - first, those two articles are on two completely different subjects. Then, do you think parents in TX don't want their kids to get a good education and only people in NY do?? All those changes have nothing to do with math and science, it was social studies...all those changes have been debated for years, still not implemented waiting for public input, if we disagree how we see American form of government, role of the US, isn't it the beauty of our democratic system that we all get to choose where we live and vote for our own board?? I want you to educate your kids the way you feel is right, why can't people on the left afford me the same??

Interesting paper in the National Review.
So, we are exceptional because we are driven by greed? :-) Sounds true if you consider that all engineering progress came from human laziness :-) (it's a semi-joke).
On a more serious note, they compare US to European countries, but do not really mention Australia, New Zealand, etc. that were built on similar principles...

Actually, I think that section IV has nothing to do with the rest of the article. And I believe that in many instances the authors mix up the notions of exceptionalism and patriotism. Maybe intentionally.

wasn't your and others' argument that we we teach the kids about exceptionalism is like instilling into them pseudo-patriotism?? like if we tell the kids that our country has a unique origin, history, background, we are encouraging them to be proud of their country...?? (ch)
Australia does have lots of similarities with the US, only over 100 yrs latter...(ch)

"I want you to educate your kids the way you feel is right, why can't people on the left afford me the same??"
- completely different prospective:
I want ALL kids, mine, yours, and next door Joe's educated according to the best available WORLD standards. I want ALL kids to have access and opportunity to learn math, sciences, literature to an extent theat will make them competent and cometitive in the WORLD. That is why educational standards should not be set by local boards that might have people on them with absolutely no pedagogical or science background and who might be driven by their own ideological agendas ,but by professional educators and scientists. I think Galina resonated the same a few days back...

I was arguing that we should teach our kinds patriotism, not pseudo-patriotism. Why do you say that?

if we are not happy with the local boards and dept.s of education, why we assume people in the federal government would do a better job and won't be ideological, etc.?? and I am not even talking about the constitutionality of it..

I was arguing that we should teach our kinds patriotism, not pseudo-patriotism. Why do you say that?
because you said the author was mixing up exceptionalism and patriotism, but I think the author was poiting out that those who don't believe in American exceptionalism don't like patriotism as well...
and what's "our kinds of patriotism"??