Here is a very simple and clear description of proposition 8.

This morning I went and waited 30 minutes to cast my ballot for the president of the United States and various other federal and local offices in the 2008 general election. What an experience! Really, it’s amazing to me that our election proceeds so smoothly as compared with what I’ve seen and heard on the news about elections in other parts of the world.

For example, the drama of my experience came with a few experiences.  First, a mother wil two children came in and started toward the front of the line.  She was told to go to the back of the line but mentioned she was going to stand by her husband.  Pretty rough eh?

Okay, it did get a little worse.  After standing in line for about seven minutes someone announced that if you needed to register you had to do that first then get back in line, and a bunch of people sighed and reluctantly went to a separate table to start the registration process.

What obstacles!!!  I hope you can sense the sarcasm.  The fact of the matter is, I didn’t have anyone tell me how to vote; no one brandished a gun and threatened me if I voted one way or another.  I didn’t have to worry about corruption or violence after voting.  What a miracle our 200+ year old democracy is.  WOW.

The bad side

So there is one negative side to the elections, as I see it, but even with that negative, the overall experience is unbelievably positive.  The negative I’m talking about is the way moral issues are creeping into politics under the guise of “rights”.  Of particular note in this election is the issue in CA call proposition 8 by which the people hope to judge proof their desire to define marriage between a man and a woman.

I say judge proof because they already voted on the issue and approved it by a large margin in the 2000 general election, but some judges in supreme court of CA decided that the people weren’t right.

My biggest problem with the opposition is that they claim there are rights tied to the issue.  The fact of the matter is that any homosexuals in California that currently enjoy a civil union (or want to) don’t stand to lose any rights.  On the contrary, people whose views oppose same-sex marriage have lost rights.  For example, photographers that have been convicted of discrimination because they wouldn’t shoot same-sex weddings.  Or doctors that refused to perform fertility services to same-sex couples being forced to do so or give up their licenses.  What about their rights to desent?

The issue of the majority

One last thought came from a rant someone posted on my facebook account.  It has to do with government by the majority.  One consistent theme I’ve observed, both in the 2004 election when eleven states had constitutional ammendments on the ballot and this year with CA, AZ and FL voting on same sex marriage, is that of majority vs. minority.

The genius of America and democracy is that the “voice of the people” (read majority) decided in elections what they want government to do.  Those who want to force same-sex marriage talk about the majority as though it has no right to govern.  In 2004 a guy told me that the government shouldn’t be run by a “tyrannical majority”.  Huh?  Since when is the majority opinion tyrannical?  I guess when it conflicts with someone’s views.

Last night on my face book profile someone wrote me this

“I understand that the majority of Americans may support traditional marriage. Let that majority live as they please without forcing their beliefs on the minority.”

Wouldn’t that same argument appeal to the very vocal minority, who already have rights, who already have protections and to whom the title of marriage has never applied, since from it’s earliest definitions it has represented the capacity to create a family.  Same-sex marriage is, after all, infertile by nature.  So why don’t they just “live as they please without forcing their beliefs on the majority”?

So, just to reiterate, America is ruled by the voice of the people.  In the matters that don’t come directly to me for a vote, I elect representatives.  When I find that they don’t represent me well, I vote for someone new.  This is as prescribed by a constitution that has served to produce a truly remarkable nation, to rival any in history.  This nation was founded by God and men who believed in God.

The day we walk away from majority rule and subvert the legislative and executive branches with an oligarchy is the day that we begin a decline in what makes America great.  I genuinely hope that the voice of the people will yet choose right and preserve the sacred fire of liberty against the vocal groups that would impose their views on the majority.  I hope and pray that America will be bold enough to overlook the false cries of rights, where it isn’t a rights issue and stand tall for morality on every level.  That is, after all, our great strength.

I’ll end with a quote from George Washington:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” — George Washington

Here are some great videos about proposition 8 in CA on the ballot for the General Elections.

Protecting our liberties

Not a matter of civil rights

Preserving the definition of marriage

Already decided once

Enforcing the people’s will

An issue with broad support

Defending an institution – not spreading hate

In case you haven’t noticed there are a lot of frantic economists running around right now talking about the credit crunch.  Of course they’re also pleading with the US government to dig up another 700 billion dollars (did you know that’s nine zeros?) to give to the banks that are about to fail.  I suppose that it’s expected that we should be concerned about banks failing and the stock marketing falling and rising unemployment, and all that stuff.  But I’m really surprised at the response of the poeple.

So, is the credit crunch really the problem?  The only thing I can think about is a slight modification to the story about the emporer has no clothes.  Imagine that the little boy, you know, the only one with courage to state that the emporer had no clothes on.  Well, imagine that instead of saying that the emporer had no clothes instead decided to point out that his clothes were so fine and exposing that all of the engineers in the empire needed to undertake a weather modification project to ensure that around the emporer the humidity, temperature, etc. were just right.  Of course, the money for the project goes to the same engineers that provided him with his *new* space age outfit.

Does that sound a bit far fetched?  Well, essentially what we’re doing is taking 700 billions dollars against the deficit (they’re guaranteeing it with the US taxpayer) and giving that to the same people that started the mess in the first place.  This, they are hoping, will inspire those banks to loan money again to other people that don’t have enough operating capitol.  Those who borrow are hoping that others will also borrow to purchase their stuff and so we all go happily along our way still living on debt, except that for a while we can pretend that we don’t have a problem.  Didn’t we just make the whole 700 billions dollars deeper?  Do we really want to end the credit crunch?

Well, I’m sure that many will be quick to point out that I’m sooo old school.  “No one lives on cash any more…” They’ll tell me.  Well, I remember learning when I was young that you spend less than you make, and so I do.  One of the most surprising things I read recently was commentary about the house first rejecting the bail-out package.  In particular was the commentary by JOHN CAPIN, where he states that his entire business relies on credit.  I would be embarrassed to say that my entire business was teetering on the brink of oblivion because I didn’t operate within my revenue, but relied on credit.  How do you think his employees feel knowing that their payroll is tied into his credit?  That’s freaky

The other thing that’s so strange to me is that the discussion over the 700 billion dollar bail-out seems to be a matter of who gets the money, not whether we do it.  What I mean is that the vocal group opposing the bail-out think that the money should somehow come back to the people, not to wallstreet.  Why should there be one in the first place?  I might be wrong on this, so add your comments, but if it’s true, GIVE IT UP!  Take a minute and think to yourself, why should we borrow any more money against our current deficit, when using money that’s wasn’t on hand to begin with is responsible for this whole mess?

So, the credit crunch is hard for America because of an excess of American Entitlement and a complete lack of American Accountability.

Whoo.  After that whole rant, let me say that I’m not ignorant to the pitfalls of not doing anything.  The godfather of investing, Warren Buffet, is articulate and clear on the subject in this video.  But I wonder how he, or anyone else in the financial industry, would explain the way this can work without just putting off the collapse.  Can this somehow really prevent the recession (if that’s really what’s going on)?  If so, how can more debt save us from bad debt?

I admit that I’m far from an expert, but there are a few principles that I grew up with (and I thought were very American), that no one seems to be on board with anymore.  They are:

• Live debt free
• Don’t buy when someone is pressuring you (like congress pressuring us about this bail-out deal)
• Spend less than you make to build up savings