Journalism: The End or the Beginning?

A Discussion on “Rights”

With both Iowa and Vermont, in essence, legalizing same-sex marriage in their respective states within a week, I think back to California’s Prop 8 and other recent same-sex debates and ask again the same questions: Is same-sex marriage a rights issue? Is it a moral issue? And simply put, who should be able to decide who can be married?

First of all, it’s important to remember the assumed “proper order” of things in most monotheistic cultures. God created man; man created government; government created laws. And even if you don’t believe in God, man created government and government created laws. Either way, it is an essential assumption that the creation can never be greater than the creator. Morals, laws, statutes, etc. always come from the top down in such societies, not the other way around. A government cannot have a power that is not initially held by the people it governs (or people have power that is not held by God).

For instance, I – as an individual – do not have the right, power, or authority to take (steal) your money, even if it is for a noble cause – like to give it to someone less fortunate. And because government gets their power from the people and the people do not have the authority to steal money, then the government doesn’t have authority to steal money either.

In America, there are exceptions. There are certain responsibilities and rights that we the people do not hold as individuals – we cannot declare war, make treaties, or levy tariffs. Likely, the Founding Fathers felt the general public either shouldn’t or couldn’t deal with these issues, so those responsibilities were reserved to the federal government. However, these few exceptions are explicitly defined in the Constitution; they’re not for the government to decide as they go (although there is a way to expand those federal rights within the Constitution by passing amendments). But as per the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So the people and the States are in charge of all issues not covered in the Constitution (like marriage).

So, as a Democratic Republic, we elect individuals who then represent us on the federal level – that’s the republic side of the American system. And this helps ensure democracy. In a dogmatic and usurping government, the governing body decides truth and then the people (and ultimately God) must change their minds and views in order to align with whatever nonsense has been created. This is not a good system of government.

So while it is undeniable that same-sex marriage is a moral issue for many people, to base legislation on the morality of an issue is ridiculous. For those who believe in God, morality is defined by Him (or Her–I will use the masculine throughout for simplicity). However, according to most monotheistic religions, He only defines and demands morality; He does not require everyone to follow it. He will, ultimately, punish those who don’t, but He does give them the option to choose. For those who say that morality is defined by the people, by society, by tradition, or by commonly-held beliefs, to then base laws upon that morality is to force personal convictions and arbitrary principles upon others – which could easily turn a country into a Fascist state.

So by these assumptions, whether defined by God or man, morality cannot and should not be the basis for legislation. This is not to say government should not be moral, that people should not strive to elect those who share their personal moral convictions, or that we should “divorce government from any formal recognition of God.” This is only to say that the government cannot enforce, define, or mandate morality and, therefore, cannot legislate based upon it. Government can, however, protect the natural rights and enforce the civil rights of individuals.

Without getting too deeply into the history of marriage, it began as a religious right and it wasn’t until later that government decided to get involved (so inheritance can be properly determined, so relationships can be verified and recorded, etc.) even though they had no right to do so. This is why, generally and traditionally, people accept marriages performed by any religious figure and assume there is a religious ceremony involved with any marriage. They will also assume there is some legal process involved, but that’s secondary. So if, hypothetically, someone was to get married without going through the legal process – only the religious ceremony – both parties, and outside observers, would probably all still agree on the validity of the marriage. And for an individual to say “You’re not married legally” is presumptuous at best. So for the government to do that is unconscionable.

So the question arises: Is marriage a natural right for the government to protect or a civil right for the government to enforce?

Natural rights are few, but important – life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc. And they’re preexisting, inalienable, free to all, innate – in other words, “natural” – rights. They can’t be defined or changed. They simply are. And the government should protect those rights by ensuring people aren’t killed, that their property isn’t stolen, etc.

Civil rights – at least according to what I believe the Founding Fathers intended – protect individuals, citizens, and peoples from their governments. So freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religious freedom, the right to vote, and the right to bear arms are all in place to prevent the government from becoming too powerful or oppressive. Civil rights aren’t defined by government; they’re defined by the people and enforced by the government.

So (again, I must make this distinction in order to be thorough) if we assume marriage is a natural right defined by God, then He is the one to decide who is and isn’t married. Some may say He has delegated that power to Pastors, Rabbis, Ministers, and other religious leaders, which is fine. But it’s likely He did not give it directly to the government. If we assume marriage is a natural right separate from God, then no one has the authority to decide who can or can’t be married – including government. So while government could protect those who were married, it could not decide if anyone – straight or gay – was or wasn’t married.

So, what if we decide that marriage is a civil right? Well, in order for marriage to be a civil right, it would first need to be something that protected us from our government; this is debatable. But even if we disregard that criterion, marriage would still need to be something that as a people, we had the right to decide. As I mentioned before, the way the United States Constitution is set up, authority flows from the people to the government. If the people don’t have the right to decide, then the government certainly doesn’t hold that right either; so for the government to allow or ban marriage in any of its forms is unconstitutional. But if the people do, in fact, have the right to decide who can and can’t be married, they have the opportunity to do so by voting on the issue in their respective States – that’s the Democratic side of the American system. And for a court or a legislator or an elected official to assume they have the right, authority, or power to decide who can or can’t be married is completely unfounded.

So the conclusion? It should be an all-or-nothing situation. Either the government should back away, stay out of the marriage debate, and let society, churches, and peoples do what they will; or it should, once again, overstep its bounds, ignore the Tenth Amendment, and become more oppressive, more controlling, and more irresponsible than ever before.  I believe that most would prefer the former.

Could Obama Be the New Bush?

Anyone who has paid any attention to anything political these past weeks and months would easily arrive at this conclusion:

President Barack Obama is the exact opposite of President George W. Bush.

The differences are obvious: party, race, age, background, and experience. The list could go on for a full paragraph. In nearly every aspect, one differs greatly from the other. But it’s the one similarity between the former President and the current President that could lead to 8 years of déjà vu for Americans.

In what now seems like a drug-induced hallucination, there was actually a time when people trusted President Bush to make decisions. It was the weeks and months immediately after September 11. Americans were united. We all turned to our newly-elected Commander in Chief, ready to follow him wherever he led. President Bush could ask for anything, especially if it was in the name of fighting terrorism, and it would be given to him on a silver platter with little to no resistance from either party.

And so it was.

A war in Afghanistan, with “fighting them over there instead of fighting them over here” as its mantra, was approved with ease. Next came Iraq. Although there was some resistance, it was a flaccid opposition at best. Over the next 5-plus years, most of those who weren’t opposed to the Iraq war in the first place changed their minds. But from 2001 to 2003, at the dawn of his presidency, Bush had struck the jackpot. Because of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, he had the nearly unanimous support of the American people. But as many politicians do, he overstepped this advantage for the sake of the opportunity for his own personal gain. Instead of doing what was best for America, he did what was best for him. Instead of asking for national sacrifice in light of the new War on Terror, he told us to go shopping and look the other way as America accepted the new Bush Doctrine of preemptive war.

Now, fast-forward 7 years. When it comes to the support of the American people, is Barack Obama much different from the 2001 President Bush? Granted, the reasons behind their followings are very different – one was a result of a terrible national tragedy and the other is a result of his eloquence, ability to inspire, and contrasting policies with the former. However, with Obama now in the White House, Americans could possibly find themselves in similar circumstances to what they faced two terms ago. It’s possible that Americans will get lulled into the same sense of security that accompanied the first years of the Bush administration.  Any potential negative consequences, like running up the deficit for little economic benefit or diminishing national security, won’t be seen until several years down the road, possible after Obama’s reelection campaign.

So between now and then, before Obama’s throngs of followers (possibly) turn against him for some unforeseen reason, what will he convince America is a good idea? Or what liberal principles will traditional conservatives agree with because the country’s fearless leader has made some good choices in the past? Or because he’s trying to save the economy? Or trying to unite the country?

The increased executive power of Bush and Cheney is something Obama has promised to do away with, but with his approval rating so high, will Americans be more willing to let him keep that authority or not question how he exercises it? Obama says he wants to reach across the aisle, but he may end up pulling more people back over to his side rather than meeting them halfway.

More importantly, President Obama is now pushing for a huge stimulus package, which appeals to lots of Americans. Socialist and capitalist principles aside, most people appreciate having more money. However, most people probably don’t fully understand the implications, especially considering many of the included measures are, no matter how noble their merits, not initiatives that would have any immediate effect on the economy.  However, it could be argued, like  post-9/11 executive orders, this stimulus package is just an excuse to implement pet priorities, a reaction to a new circumstance, not necessarily some overarching principle. In other words, President Obama may be merely using the current economic disaster as an excuse to enact a smorgasbord of liberal policies, even if they have no relationship to helping us out of the economic crisis, in the same way that President Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to enact conservative policies that had no relationship to 9/11, such as the invasion of Iraq.

So the dominoes have more or less been set up. With Obama elected, we have another president Americans are ready to follow. Another president they’re willing to trust. Another president who they feel comfortable making decisions.

With so much power, let’s hope, unlike his predecessor, he makes the right ones.

The Inauguration and Federal Holidays

I know I’m not the first to bring up the significance of this upcoming week, with the inauguration of our first African American president falling the day after Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. On January 19, our banks and post offices will close to honor a man who truly was a martyr for his cause. On January 20, our citizens and others around the world will turn their attention to the United States Capitol Building where Barack Obama will say the 39-word phrase that will make him the elected leader of the free world.

So at this intersection of celebration, I began to wonder how Dr. King would feel about how his holiday is being celebrated.

Well, after much thought, I’ve decided that I don’t think he would be very happy.

From what I’ve studied about Dr. King, I believe that he would be disappointed at the fact that his whole life, legacy, and accomplishment has been reduced by many to four words: “I have a dream.” I’d be surprised if any child or adult could quote more than a line or two from this famous speech. To most, just like President’s Day, it’s another day off from school or work.  And while I’m sure Dr. King would be very proud that America has elected a man with African heritage, he probably wouldn’t be too pleased with the current state of affairs for many black communities in America, which are facing a violent crime epidemic.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day became a federal holiday in 1983 when it was reluctantly signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, 15 years after Dr. King was killed. But the new holiday was not accepted everywhere without opposition. Many of the early critics of this holiday, especially in certain areas south of the Mason Dixon line, were against it mainly because of Dr. King’s race; and that was the reality of the time. Racism ran rampant in many parts of the country – hate crimes, violence, and segregated schools, pools, and drinking fountains. So many opposed the holiday – and the man – based on the misguided ideals of an earlier era.

However, many legitimately felt that King shouldn’t be singled out for the accomplishments of many in the civil rights era. Arguably, there are and were equally deserving individuals, such as Cesar Chavez, who had a similar impact with the Hispanic community of the time. The only other federal holidays commemorating an individual are Columbus Day and Washington’s Birthday, and the later has evolved into Presidents Day. Many felt that while Dr. King’s life was significant and full of accomplishment, it was not quite as prestigious as the finder of the new world or the founder of the free world.

And even when the law was passed, some states chose not observe Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. In Arizona and New Hampshire, the holiday broadly includes Civil Rights Day. In Virginia, the holiday used to be called Lee-Jackson-King Day, to honor the two Confederate Civil War generals from Virginia along with King (the irony was not lost on all, and was changed in 2000). Utah called the holiday “Human Rights Day” until 2000. South Carolina became the last state to honor the holiday in 2000. Prior to this, federal employees could choose between a menu of three holidays, one honoring Dr. King, and the other two honoring legends of the Confederacy.

Arizona, New Hampshire, and Utah (Virginia and South Carolina not so much) were definitely on to something. As was the U.S. Congress when it charged the Corporation for National and Community Service  with promoting the Martin Luther King Day holiday as a de facto National Day of Service. However, unfortunately, the idea has not yet caught in the same way as Fourth of July parades or Memorial Day picnics.  Why celebrate one individual who was part of a much bigger principle? Why even focus on one movement as it relates to one race? Why not focus on everything involved with civil rights for all of humanity? Why not focus on the evils of oppression and the spirit of equality? Why not focus on service to those less fortunate?

In my opinion, it has to do with the political correctness surrounding racism and people being too quick to accuse others of being racist. And while most of the sacred cows of America have been slaughtered long ago, racism is still an issue, an excuse, and a knee-jerk reaction for a lot of people. This is especially true of many who, despite the election of an African American President, can’t seem to move beyond the obvious. They don’t seem to realize that the dedication and bravery of one African American preacher from Atlanta should be taken in context of the bigger picture of human rights for all.

Of course, many who would offer such a suggestion would be quickly label as bigoted or prejudiced by those who can’t seem to move beyond the ghosts of the 1960s. “If you’re against a holiday for Dr. King, you must be against all Black people.” Any rational individual knows this simply is not true, but this is an automatic reflex for many.

Let me assure you, I have no intention of diminishing the significance of the accomplishments of Dr. King or of writing some sort of strongly-worded letter to Congress to get the holiday changed. But with the inauguration at hand, should we not also turn our attention to and take inspiration from the holiday that will come about a month later?

This year on February 16, we will celebrate Presidents Day, originally established to honor George Washington, but now expanded to include all the Presidents who have held the position.  As of January 20, this collective group of Presidents will now include one Barack Hussein Obama.

We need to move beyond this tunnel vision. We need to lift up both holidays. Let’s make Presidents Day something more than a day off from work and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day more than just “I have a dream.” When Barack Obama is sworn in on January 20, yes, it will be a little bit about the day before. However, it will also be about four weeks later.

House of Cards: The Plastic Conundrum

A new batch of rules was put into place by the Office of Thrift Supervision (an agency of the U.S. Treasury) Thursday to help protect consumers from the poor practices of credit card companies. Among other changes, all credit card companies will be required to give at least 45 days notice if any policies are altered, they have to give consumers a reasonable amount of time to make payments, and they can raise interest rates on existing balances only after payments are 30 days late.

But the big story with these new rules is that they won’t take effect until July 2010 – 18 months from now.

So with the economy where it is and with the credit markets being one of the main reasons, why isn’t the Office of Thrift Supervision being tougher on these companies? Why are these rules not being implemented immediately? Because the credit card companies don’t know how to run an honest business – so it’s going to take a while.

These corrupt practices by credit companies did not start back in 2005, but they were certainly perpetuated with the passing of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA). This law made it more difficult for consumers to file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy- where all their debts were forgiven – so more would have to file for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy – where they would still have to pay back a portion of their debt. Not surprisingly, credit card companies spent more than $100 million lobbying for this law.

Make no mistake about it, despite its rosy name, the BAPCPA is not consumer-friendly; it assumes consumer abuse in more cases, provides more exceptions to discharge (forgiving all debts), and it allows credit companies to pursue collection without court permission. And if that wasn’t bad enough, what happens after a person finally does go bankrupt? The credit card companies are able to send them piles of credit card offers – all at high interest rates.

Many of these companies may claim they’re making these offers to help the consumer–to give them a chance to rebuild their credit. But more often than not, these consumers go right back into the cycle of debt – buying things they can’t afford and making token payments from time to time as their interest builds to an uncontrollable level–and the credit card companies know that. So really, the BAPCPA was just a way for credit card companies to make more money from newly-bankrupt individuals and not lose as much money from those who would have normally filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.

A key lobbyist for the BAPCPA was the Delaware-based MBNA corporation, who donated to the campaigns of 15 key Democrats—including home-state Senator and Vice President-elect Joe Biden, earning him the nickname Senator Biden (D-MBNA). After months of lobbying, those 15 Democrats finally decided to sit down with their Republican friends and get the law passed. [MBNA has since been acquired by Bank of America.]

So when the Office of Thrift Supervision came out with these new laws, credit card companies didn’t know what to do. They aren’t used these new, consumer-friendly rules. They don’t know what it’s like to have the customer be the number-one priority.

You see, most businesses have a simple business model–create a product, sell the product, and serve the customer. All of the top businesses in the world follow this model with any variations being specific to their own industry. But these credit card companies, they created a product – loaned money – and sold the product – charged interest – but they forgot about their customers. They targeted many individuals who were not good risks. They charged 29.9 percent interest rates, similar to what mafia loan sharks charge on a monthly compounded basis. They increased interest rates without informing consumers and without reason. They paid their executives an insane amount of money (Some 2007 earnings: David Nelms, Discover, $21.8 million; Ken Chenault, American Express, $53.2 million; Rich D. Fairbank, Capital One, $37.4 million; Ken Lewis, Bank of America, $99.8 million). Simply put, they were greedy, manipulative, and deceptive.

The credit card industry needs some time to get everything in order. It takes a long time to tear down decades worth of greed, replace the foundation, rebuild every aspect, and work back into the once-filled niche. The House of Cards has fallen, and those responsible will be under our protection for 18 more months. I wish the same could be said for consumers.

Car Trouble? Let’s Bail

With the struggling auto industry predicting its own demise, there has been resistance by some Republicans on Capitol Hill to bail them out. And for those of us who haven’t been comatose the past eight years, we may have a knee-jerk reaction to disagree with anything Republican. So we may think bailing them out is a good idea. But let us not be so quick to judge a policy by its opposition.

“It’s insanity,” said Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis in a newsletter released Wednesday. “It’s insane that we keep going back to the taxpayers to bailout struggling corporations who, for lack of good management and sound business practices, have become unprofitable. Who in Congress is standing up for the taxpayers?”

When talks began a month ago about bailing out the struggling auto industry, I initially felt a little better about bailing them out than, say, bailing out the financial industry. In my mind, both the financial industry and the auto industry were greedy and stupid. All they wanted was more money, and they didn’t care about any negative repercussions of getting a lot of it.  However, also in my mind was the feeling that while the financial industry was mostly greedy with a good helping of stupid, the auto industry was mostly stupid with a good helping of greedy–and for some reason, I was more sympathetic to the mostly stupid.

Like many individuals, the auto industry had the mindset–sometimes referred to as path dependency–that if it has worked in the past, why wouldn’t it keep working? So, they kept building bigger cars that got fewer miles per gallon. Then, when gas prices skyrocketed, people started buying smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. This left American automakers–who had been building half-ton trucks and wide-load Hummers–with lots full of beasts they couldn’t sell.

Production went down, sales went down, and now they’re nigh unto hopeless. Some may want to blame the American people–who wanted these gas-guzzling mammoths, especially when gas was so cheap–and say that auto makers were going where the market was. Perhaps if things had stayed where they were–with gas prices and demand and such–they would have kept doing well. But when it comes down to it, automakers were being ignorant to the reality of the situation–that people would eventually want cars that ran on alternative fuels. A lack of long-term strategic thinking left the industry too vulnerable to sudden shocks in demand.

So what Detroit needs more than billions of dollars in bailout cash is some good leadership. As has been mentioned by others, the big three automakers need a complete restructuring–not an influx of money. All of the CEOs with their private jets and their fancy suits need to be standing in the unemployment line while new, fresh, smart leaders take the reigns to save the industry.

A government bailout–the very kind these aforementioned Republicans are resisting–doesn’t allow for that to happen and undermines the principles of the American free market economy. You see, the idea of capitalism and free market-ism is that the general population should run the economy. They decide what they want to buy and whom they want to buy it from. Those organizations that make mistakes, sell bad products, or poison their customer will soon be out of business; while those individuals who make bad choices with their money–or lack of money–will soon be begging on the streets.  Every so often, in order to grow in the long run, the market must flush out its waste water. People need to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions or they’ll never learn to do it differently the next time.

But bailouts turn the government into some sort of indulgent parent: “Oh you don’t have money for that? Here let Mom and Dad pay for it. Just promise to pay us back.” And as we all know, when someone has tons of bills to pay, the last people on the list to pay back are always the parents. Just like the $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, an auto industry bailout is not letting capitalism happen. When the government steps in instead of letting the greedy go bankrupt and the stupid go further into debt, that’s not capitalism.

There’s a natural ebb and flow of the economy (this time it’s, admittedly, a large ebb and/or flow). But let people learn from others’ mistakes. Let us be able to look back on this 20 years from now and realize what went wrong and the negative consequences of those actions. Without letting these companies fail, we will create moral hazard. In other words, there will be no incentive in the future to perform better , because, no worries, the government will just bail you out!

But even if the auto bailout does pass, let’s hope that’s the first step and not the last. Money doesn’t solve everything. The only way the money will do any good is if real, radical change takes place from top to bottom. There needs to be an industry-wide shakeup, and new leadership needs to step in, step up, or step out. There needs to be accountability.