“Take Back” Our Schools, Government, and Teach Mythology

For the record, while I receive their emailings, I have NEVER been a part of, nor have I EVER in any way supported the Family Resource Council. The reason I receive them is because it’s always good to know what kind of shenanigans your adversaries are up to. And, I’ve marveled, and continue to do marvel, at their, and other right-wingers’ “take back” this-that-or-the-other diatribes. The only problem with that is that they never say how far back they want to take whatever it is they want to steal. Before 18-year-olds had the right to vote? Before the Civil Rights Act? Before Women’s Suffrage? Before Alabama became the 27th state to ratify the 13th Amendment which outlawed slavery? How far back? They never say.

But you see, by creating an “Us vs Them” mentality, they immediately establish a simplistic either/or “we’re the ‘good guys,’ and you’re the ‘bad guys'” mind set, which then also allows them to couch their the language of their argument as if some evil adversary stole something from them, i.e., “take back.”

How can anyone “steal” public schools? Steal from them by denying tax dollars, or funnel tax dollars to private corporations, I can see. But “steal” them? Hardly possible. Of course, that has never been the case – nor will it ever be the case – because no one stole anything.

Unfortunately, we also see that fallacious and petty mindset in politics, as in

A Libertarian Nightmare

Typically, libertarians are described as social liberals and fiscal conservatives.

That description, while simple, is fairly accurate. For example, when it comes to illicit drugs, the call for their legalization has come not from dope-smoking hippies, or those championing marijuana for medicinal purpose, but from libertarians. And they do so precisely because of the philosophy that guides libertarianism – laissez faire, which is defined as “a policy or attitude of letting things take their own course, without interfering.” In other words, hands-off, and leave things alone. In the United States, that translates into the mantra “smaller, less intrusive government,” with “less regulation.”

However, the primary problem with such an approach is that things are never “left alone.” For when they are abandoned, they are instead subjected to a torrent of change.

So, it should come as no surprise to learn that the former global haven for such trade has discovered that legalization or turning the proverbial blind eye to such issues only serves to encourage criminality.

It’s true with marijuana – the Netherlands has embarked upon changes to their formerly liberal policy to marijuana usage precisely because it has given rise to increased crime. And by the end of this year (2012), foreigners will no longer be able to purchase marijuana at the “coffee shops.”

It’s also true with prostitution.

Authorities in the Netherlands have also found that

Re-examining Global Economics, Occupy Wall Street, and National Security

Doubtless, if you’ve been paying any attention to news – either online, broadcast or print – you’ve had to at least heard something about the Occupy Wall Street movement. And no matter where you fall along the political spectrum – arch-conservative, neo-conservative, raging liberal, classical liberal, Austrian liberal, middle of the road, pragmatist, mash-up, federalist, states rights, moderate, or any conglomeration of the above, or even none at all – you certainly have some opinion – good, bad, or indifferent – about the message, the messengers, and the movement – no matter what you may hold to be true about it.

The movement has also spread to various cities throughout the United States, including Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago and other areas. None, however, have had as much action and publicity as the New York City movement.

The movement is innervated by