Pretty nifty graphic there, eh? I figured with all the talk about “isms” and their misuses and abuses in the media, government, and the blogosphere,  I would cover them here.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, they are capitalism, communism, fascism, marxism, and socialism. Please note, these are in alphabetical order - so as not to imply favoritism to any of these philosophies.  While everyone I have come across seems to understand the basic principles behind capitalism (whether they agree or disagree) the primary confusion seems to be between the other four.  There are some similarities, but they are distinct philosophies.

The “isms” will be presented in alphabetical order as well.  The way I will lay this out is to first give you the actual definition of the term and I will follow that up with a brief discussion regarding the origins and the individuals instrumental for advancing these philosophies.

I will give you fair warning - this is a fairly lengthy post.  However, it is well worth your time to read it.  I guarantee you will learn more about these “isms” than you ever thought you knew.  I guarantee you will have a clearer understanding of the “isms” and will be able to use them in a more scholarly manner and will have the tools necessary to correct those who only think they understand them.

Capitalism as defined by Merriam-Webster’s is:

An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

With all of the excitement that surrounded the first “Bailout bill” and now the furor over the new Stimulus bill I looked through our archives and saw that no one had yet discussed what a bill is and how it becomes a law. The point of this post is purely educational. There are no opinions here regarding the current stimulus package or Geithner’s announcement yesterday that he needs $TWO TRILLION MORE. I’m sorry, was I shouting? In keeping with the main premise of Inside Government – to help educate and inform the public – the following is a detailed look at bills. But, first – a blast from the past for those of you who might remember School House Rock:

Pretty cool, huh? Well, that is a very simplified presentation of how bills become law, but, it is on target and most of you probably remember seeing it. Now we move on to greater detail…

Well, on the surface this post may not really appear to be related to this blog. However, this is very much a non-partisan issue that will affect most of us regardless of what your politics are. What I’m talking about is the revision to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act that will be in effect February 10, 2009.

The CPSIA has been revised, submitted to Congress for approval, and signed off by President Bush that now states that any and all products intended for use by children under the age of 12 will now need to be tested for lead, not only by the manufacturers, but also by the retailers.  In order for any retailer to sell any products to be used by children under the age of 12 the retailers are now required to get a certificate stating the product is safe and contains no lead.  Here’s the FAQS.

This is the first part of a multi-part series on the issue of separation of church and state. With this being the holiday season, it just seemed appropriate to bring this issue up here on this blog considering this is the primary time of the year that we start hearing all the arguments for and against “separation of church and state.” Please keep in mind, while this discussion will attempt to remain as non-partisan and not promoting any single religion, the fact is the topic of this discussion is religion and it might appear there may be some encroachment on the non-partisanship promise of this blog. Please be rest assured, that is not the intent here.

The purpose of this discussion is to look at the historical context from which this idea was born and what it has meant to this country and religion over the past two centuries. The first place to start is the United States Constitution - in particular - the First Amendment as it relates to religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

This is also known as “The Establishment Clause.”  The interpretation of this particular line of the First Amendment has caused quite a problem over the last 50 years in the United States.  Secular organizations have used this language to have all forms of religion removed from any public establishment including schools, government buildings, court houses, etc. at all levels of government (local, county, state, and federal).  Their premise is that the First Amendment requires an absolute separation of church and state.  But, there is absolutely no mention of this particular phrase in the entire U.S. Constitution.  So - where did this come about?

Spirit - American Revolution

Well, I would say that her teacher oversimplified the process.  The short answer is - yes, we can change our government.  However, it is not as simple as that.  Short of another revolution to overthrow the government - there are many necessary steps in “changing the government.”

I believe what your teacher was referring to was our country’s ability to change our elected officials when we are not pleased with their performance or the direction they are taking us.

This applies to all levels of government; local, county, state, and federal.  At a local level, every city and county has laws written that gives the citizens the ability to remove elected officials.  In some cases there impeachment process, in others, there are recall processes that citizens can institute.  However, in order for impeachment and recalls to occur - there needs to be proof of wrong doing and there has to be a majority of citizens (usually by petition) to institute the recall.