Equality is not hard, just provide freedom!

I’m sort of surprised the same sex marriage conversations are not evolving more quickly.  The long and short of it (to me) is this:

1. We still (sort of) live in a free country.  Government should not be denying anyone rights; we all agree on that.
2. Marriage is a sticky word – lots of religious folks want to protect it’s definition.

To me, the solution is so obvious I’m surprised we’re still talking about it.  I would love for someone to give me some real reasons with my solution explained in detail here (link) does not work for both sides.

In summary, here’s the solution: Privitise Marriage.  Get the government out of the conversation all together (State and Federal).  This would restore freedom to marriage.  This can be done a number of ways; here are two suggestions.

• Re-write the current government marriage documents and exclude the word marriage.  Write them so that they can be used in any combination.
• Remove the current marriage documents and don’t replace them with anything – get the government away from marriage.  We really should not need the government’s permission to get married.  I understand marriage is related to property but there are other, smarter ways around that.

IT WOULD WORK, RIGHT?

For the folks in favor of same sex marriage:

• Equality is achieved.
• Federal and State documents ether don’t exist, or are identical regardless if the union is same sex, or opposite sex.  The word “marriage” does not exist in government documents.
• Religious organizations have the freedom (regardless of what state they are in) to perform same sex marriages, or not perform same sex marriages thus respecting their religious freedom.
• Same sex couples can choose to get married at the places that choose to perform the ceremony.  It can be called anything in the world.  Party, marriage, celebration, union, lemon, whatever.

For the folks who do not support same sex marriage:

• Marriage is protected, and can be defined by your specific religious organization.
• Marriage is no longer a government word, and it’s name or definition will not be changed by the government.
• Religious organizations exist that do not allow same sex marriages which are an option for membership.

BUT WHAT WOULD SCHOOLS TEACH?

Because marraige would no longer be a federal or state issue, marriage would not come up in the classroom at all.  The only thing they could really teach would be the legal documents that replace the old marriage documents (if they even need to exist) but I don’t think schools would waste valuable time teaching that.  What would they teach… where to fill in the names?  As there is no lesson on W-10’s or other government forms I’m sure the new union documents would be left out of the classroom.

OK folks, so let me have it.  How does this not resolve the issue…?

-dm

I Just Wrote My Representative

…and here is what I said.

_____________________________________

Hello Honorable Edward R. Royce,

I wanted to contact you and encourage you to support H.R. 1207: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 by by cosponsoring the bill with Rep. Ronald Paul of Texas.

Unfortunately there is a growing distrust of government amongst American/Californian citizens.  A line is being drawn and on one side there are good politicians, and on the other side there are corrupt politicians.  I believe the road to earn trust is (naturally) through telling the truth; being honest and straightforward long enough to establish a record of trust.  Unfortunately many individuals in government are not following this path of truth.

I believe, as many of my coworkers, friends, and family do in transparency.  Unfortunately the Federal Reserve is a very secretive organization that does not share this vision of transparency.  In addition, it has become far too powerful.  Democrats and Republicans alike can respect a simple request to have the truth told to them.  That is all this bill asks.  We the people want to know the truth as it relates to the Federal Reserve.

If you are not able to cosponsor this bill, or support it in any way I would like to know why.  I do not ask that in a pestering tone.  I admit it is possible that I don’t understand exactly why the Federal Reserve is so mysterious.  If that is the case, I’d like to be educated to understand why H.R. 1207 can’t be supported.  However, since the request is simple transparency, I can’t imagine a reason to oppose it.

Thank you for your time, and service.

Government Programs V.S. Private Charity – what works better? (part 1)

I’m working on a blog that compares the success of government programs as compared to private charities.  I do frequently compliment the left about having their heart in the right place as far as helping the poor and disadvantaged.  However, I believe there are plenty of folks on the right that are just as compassionate – perhaps more compassionate than the folks on the left.  I emailed a friend of mine and he said something very insightful that I wanted to share.

I’m not aware of any charts like you are looking for – but I will say that that is kind of the point. The government is more likely to see it as a top-down stats driven mission because they are primarily concerned with numbers. Private charity organizations, on the other hand, care less about the numbers and more about actually helping people. So their results will tend to be less quantifiable (in my opinion).

What it comes down to is you simply cannot do charity work at the point of a gun, it’s an oxymoron. Charity means love, not force.

–Brandon

I feel this way: paying taxes is not helping the poor – at least not directly.  Before that money makes it to the poor, it first has to pass through the hands of greedy politicians and I’m sure in many cases their special interest groups.  By the time it actually gets to the poor (if it ever actually does) who knows how much is left.

Would it not make more sense to simply give money directly to the poor?  Could we create incentive for private giving with more tax breaks for charitable donations?  Would the poor not get more direct help that way?  Think beyond money – would the poor and disadvantaged not be better helped if YOU actually went down and got YOUR hands dirty?

This blog was inspired because I had a public verses private sector debate with a close friend of mine.  His goal seemed to be to make me feel as though I was selfish.  I donate on a regular basis, and am part of a non-profit organization.  I’m on mailing lists for a few others.  Some friends and I are currently raising money for a water well to be built in Africa for a village whose inhabitants do not have the basics of life – clean drinking water.  I am beginning to be annoyed by folks on the other side of the isle who don’t really participate in charity at all but feel that paying taxes excuses them from that social responsibility.

Paying taxes is not charity – let’s face it.  If hearts on the left really bleed for the poor, they should stop lining the pockets of the politicians and begin their charitable work themselves.

As I’m still researching this topic, if anyone has any statistics on this topic or articles/books I should read, please post them below.  As always, I am interested in hearing from both sides.  Thanks!

-dm

Health Care – Who do you want in charge of your health… yourself… or some politicians you never met?

I came across a blog that was about a topic of endless controversy: American Health Care.  The long and short of it seems to be this:

1. Folks who want socialized health care want equal health care options for everyone (struggle for a Utopian society).
2. Folks who want privatized health care want the best health system possible for as many people as possible (short wait times, freedom to see whomever you want, etc).

To me, this boils down to the classic Churchill quote – “Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”  A Utopia (like perfection) is impossible.  People who want socialized medicine do have their heart in the right place but unfortunately their brains are not.

For me, the bottom line is this:  Only about 13% of Americans are without health care – TOPS.  Within that 13% there are people who CHOOSE not to have it, but could if they wanted to.  A friend of mine for example does not justify the $160 a month for health care, but does justify about that amount of money for their iPhone…

That means that 87% have health care.  Folks on the left think that socialized medicine is better because it will serve ‘everyone.’  They do however admit that it will be a step down from what the private sector is currently able to provide (wait times, treatments, types of medicine, etc).

In other words, the left is willing to (at least partially) destroy health care for 87% of Americans to attempt to get it for 13% of Americans – some of whom have decided not to have it in the first place (remember my old roommate).

Let’s cut it up a different way.  According to an article written by Steve Bierfeldt, after you subtract illegal aliens and people who could afford health care if they made responsible life choices, the amount of people who can’t get health care is down to 2.6%.  That means the left would want to destroy a health care system that works for 97.4% of legal Americans to try and help a 2.6% who don’t have it.

This argument boils down to responsibility.  It is irresponsible for a government to destry what works for the overwhelming majority of Americans.  The obvious answer is to find a way to help the 2.6%-13% of unisured citizens find private health care so that they can enjoy the benefits that 97.4%-87% who do have organized, working, and in fact luxurious health care.

The current proposals for reform are cloaked as big changes, but as it turns out, they are actually more of the same. They can be summed up in this way: turn more control over to the government and insurance companies while politicians and special interests jockey for credit and work behind the scenes to benefit — at the expense of individual Americans. – David McKalip, M.D.

In closing, let me put it like this.  Think of the Post Office… then FedEx Kinkos or UPS.  Now think of the DMV… then AAA.  Do you really want your health care run like the DMV or the Post office?  No thank you.

-David May
(for more information, please read this: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=33 and this: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=45)

Take a break from reading blogs and watch this video – one person’s take on what caused the economic crisis.

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx_VGaAf-7A

-and-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

This video breaks down the timeline of the economic crisis and indicates where things went wrong and who’s fault it was.  Do you agree with it’s analysis?

Where is all of our money?

It is true – the rich are getting rich and the poor are falling into greater poverty. This, however, is no fault of the government. Guess who is to blame.

Us.

That’s right, you and me. After all, who goes to see expensive concerts? Who continues to pay overpriced movie tickets? Who pays an arm and a leg for season tickets to athletic events? It’s not the government, it’s the consumers.

There is also a terrible misconception in this country that it’s always the government’s responsibility to fix our problems. I challenge that thinking – keep in mind the government is responsible for most of our problems. This topic however will be reserved for a future rant.

In a small survey I did with some close friends, here’s how our money usage is spent.

• A little less than a third spent in taxes
• A little more than a third spent in bills including shelter
• A little less than a third spent in “entertainment” and food.

Ok, so let’s take a closer look at the “entertainment” section. For most Americans that means
movies, compact disks of some kind (DVD/CD), concerts, comedians, restaurants, etc.

If I go and see a mainstream artist in concert (depending on my income and the quality of the seat I paid for) I just gave this already ridiculously rich person MORE of my hard earned cash. In my specific example, a good seat at a mainstream concert probably cost me %10-%15 of my disposable income (the money left over after bills/taxes/etc). Sure, I might like the artist, but do I REALLY need to give them that much of my money?

The answer is no. Anyone who complains that we don’t tax the rich enough but goes supports these rich people with their personal funds are hypocrites. How ridiculous is it to say “Ok, I’ll give you my hard earned money” and then come tax season say “Hey, give that back to us!”

Music is a classic example – see my previous blog by clicking here.  I talk about MIDI files and how mainstream musicians do not deserve our love or money.  Music is an industry where one attractive person has a good to wonderful singing voice… that’s it.  They have entire staffs of people to write their lyrics, write their songs, and technology to make these processes flawless.  The technology utilized in concerts is dishonest and contrived.  The end result is this: Consumers think they are supporting an artist.  The fact is that every dollar spent in that artist’s name is a waste.  The artist (who is already rich) didn’t do nearly the amount of work that you did for that money.  Remember how hard you worked for that $75 concert ticket?  Say the concert had 3,000 attendees.  That artist just raised $225000 and did little to no work whatsoever.  Come on folks – our money is worth more than that.  I’d rather not have to remind people about impoverished people in our country and other parts of the world; I’ll save that for another post.

The bottom line here is this:  If you feel like athletes are overpaid and more money should be spent on cancer research, then don’t go to sporting events and donate more money for cancer research.  If you think the money in the pockets of the Hollywood types would be better spent in the pockets of those in poverty, don’t go to Hollywood films.

I understand as well as anyone else the value of entertainment.  We’ve all been brainwashed into thinking we can only get entertainment from big companies.  THAT IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS.  You like sports?  How about PLAYING them with your family or friends?  You like movies?  Hit up the independent movie theater or local film festival.  Remember Memento? Pans Labyrinth? These were at one point film festival movies that were so successful they were mass produced.  Independent films are great – do not believe the stereotype fed to you by the big studios leading you to believe that anything that does not come from them is crap.  Remember Speed Racer?  Pearl Harbor?  Superman Returns?  Valentine?  These were studio pictures and they were TERRIBLE!  How about music – do you really need to go to a concert and hear music (that is probably pre-recorded) when you already have the Mp3 files and/or the radio?  How about the local coffee shop that features talented folks in your community – don’t they need your support more than the mega-artists?  The answer is obviously YES!  Again, it is propaganda that only the big guns are talented.  At least the local kid who is getting NO CORPORATE HELP probably wrote his or her own songs for goodness sake.  We should definitely be supporting them and I’m telling you the music is just as good.  I’ve been to local coffee shops and small venues and I know it can be just as good.

In conclusion, think about this.  If you think the rich in America are too rich, you’ve got to stop supporting them.  WE are the reason they are getting richer and richer.  No matter poor we get – even if we can barley support ourselves, we STILL give these ultra rich people MORE of our money.  We’ve got to wake up.

The only thing more terrifying than being exposed to 5,000 ads a day (which we are) is realizing that IT IS WORKING.

Just think about it.

What does the U.S. Constitution tell us about Prop 8 in CA?

In brief, the question I am asking is this: If we strictly interpret the U.S. constitution, shouldn’t we allow equal rights for same sex couples? See below ->

A while ago I posted about the phrase “separation of the Church and state” basically reminding folks that specific phrase is not in the constitution itself, it’s in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. The U.S. constitution specifically reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Most of the community who support proposition 8 do so because of religious beliefs. If proposition 8 was written to respect an establishment of religion, doesn’t that make it unconstitutional? Remember “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” In other words, doesn’t Amendment I of the United States Constitution indicate that Proposition 8 cannot be passed?

If I was running for office, this would be my position:

The government’s role in all legal unions between two people should be a consistent process regardless. The process, documents, and rights obtained should be identical. There should no longer be civil unions and marriages -both should share the same name, processes, and rights (on legal documents). As we learned in the Civil Rights movement, there is no such thing as separate but equal.

As far as the religious ceremony, that decision is up to the religious organization per the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Therefore the government should not protect “marriage” as it is religiously defined and is not obligated (nor does it have the power to) preserve it’s sanctity. It should be up to the religious organization if they perform whatever ceremonies they desire – the government should not interfere with religion. Some religious organizations will decide to perform same sex marriages and that is up to them. Others will decide not to perform same sex marriages – that is also up to them. While religious organizations are not forbidden from providing same sex marriages, they should not be required to perform same sex marriages as that is a violation of their first amendment rights.

With this approach, atheists do not have to be “married” either. Legal unions become a two part process. The government protects the equal rights of it’s citizens. Not separate but equal – everything exactly the same. THEN the type of ceremony the couple wishes to have is up to them. Perhaps atheists will just want to have a party. Perhaps they will want a ceremony that is just like a traditional marriage but without a Pastor/Minister up front. This ceremony (which by the way would be optional) can be called absolutely anything (marriage, joining, grabblesnarfinny, etc).

…and this is my thinking:

I believe that the reason “gay marriage” is such a hot button issue is because the word “marriage” is so religiously charged. Typically, marriages are religious ceremonies typically performed by a spiritual authority. However, the benefits that a marriage enjoy are not religious at all – they are tied to the government. From a political prospective, there should be nothing religious about “marriage” at all. To an extent that is true today – people from all religions (as well as atheists) are welcome to engage in “marriage.”

“Marriage” is in quotes because it can mean different things to different religions/people groups. In that case, the word is too small to encompass the variety of things that marriage means. The government’s shouldn’t use religious words to define civic/legal situations – it confuses the citizens.

The opposition to gay marriage say there is a need to preserve the sanctity of marriage. From a strictly political prospective (not a religious prospective) this claim does not seem relevant. I live near Los Angeles where you can rent wedding rings and have a van drive to your house for a quick and easy divorce. From this prospective, I struggle to believe that same sex arrangements pose more of a threat than opposite sex arrangements to marriage in America today. More and more studies show that children are most successful in homes where there are two parents – many of these studies also indicate that it does not matter if it is a man and a woman, two men, or two women. (for an example, click here). The republic is not going to collapse if same sex marriages are allowed – I have yet to see anyone take that position. Again, opposition to same sex arrangements is not political – it’s religious/personal. Making decisions from those standpoints violates the freedoms that our constitution is supposed to be protecting.

I’m interested in comments on this post – please let me know what you think.

What say you?

related links:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

The Phrase “Separation of Church and State” is not in the U.S. Constitution?

This is Amendment I of the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Most Americans would be surprised to see that the phrase “separation of Church and State” is not in the United States Constitution. So where then does that phrase come from? It’s taken from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802:

Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

-Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802

More and more, we are becoming aware of situations like this:

• Judge Orders San Diego Cross Removed – v.s. – (RELATED ARTICLE)
  
• Should the phrase “Under God” be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance? (This post is for) v.s. (This post is against).

• The ACLU Declares Jihad on Abstinence Education – and – (RELATED ARTICLE)
  
• Christian literature Ordered to be removed from prisons.
• Jackie Mason did a video blog that juxtaposes the social acceptance of pornography and immorality but increasingly condemns teachings of religion.
• This is a post from csadispatch.blogspot.com who feels the Bible is under attack in North Carolina.

This list could go on and on.

After a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is it right for people to attack religion (including Christianity)? The question I pose is this: “What is less constitutional: having a Cross or other religious symbol on public land or denying prisoners access to Judeo-Christian literature?”

Would your response be the same if the question was: “What is less constitutional: forbidding Crosses or other religious symbols on public land or allowing prisoners optional Judeo-Christian reading material?”

Is it possible, like Jackie Mason suggests, that the Constitution was designed to PROTECT individuals from the majority (Christians) but it has somehow been turned upside down in that now the Constitution is used to attack Christianity?

What say you?

The Hollywood Strike V.S. Politics

Many analysts are calling this election the most paid attention to election in American history, and are predicting that we’ll have the largest voter turnout in history. I believe there are two reasons for this.

1. Regardless of weather you like Bush or not, it’s a matter of fact where his approval rating sits right now. Just click here. At the time I’m writing this blog… it’s at about 35%. I think this engages the country and encourages people to be more involved in politics. It engages the Bush supporters also, because it puts that population on the defensive. In any situation, I think it’s a good thing that more people seem to be paying attention to politics.
2. I truly believe that another reason is that… well… there’s simply nothing else to pay attention to! 24 is not on, Lost is down to 8 episodes now, and the awards shows are being canceled. Politics has gotten to the point that it really IS A SPORT! I think that lots of folks are starting to turn to politics for entertainment as well as civic duty… perhaps even more for entertainment than civic duty in some cases!

THE PREDICTION:
I think that the lack of Television programming will lead to a flux in reality shows (congrats American Idol, you’re about to have your BEST YEAR EVER) and a flux in the railings for the presidential debates, and other election related programming. I predict that the CNNs and FOX news’ of the world will experience big ratings all election season, and so will Talk Radio.

I’m also glad to hear that (particularly after the New Hampshire votes were cast) that the elite media has been so off on predicting this election! The reason I think that’s a good thing, is I believe that means the American people are doing more of their own research and not relying so much on pre-digested opinions.

On his Radio Show on the 8th, Townhall.com’s Hugh Hewitt said this:

“I think, in fact, that the electorate is looking at these people without [pundits] help for perhaps for the first time in the history of American Politics.”

I’m really excited by this – I’d love to see an America that has time to research the issues and the candidates for themselves. It also says that candidates who are relying on media slingshots to boost their campaign might be in trouble (Giuliani). After all, Obama was expecting a victory in New Hampshire after his win in Iowa, but that didn’t happen. The republicans were also expecting Romney to drop after his rough night in Iowa, but he really didn’t drop in New Hampshire. All of this is evidence that the media’s power over the voter is starting to disinigrate.

I feel like one more notable example is (while his success is still minimal) Ron Paul has managed to stay above predictions. If the Ron Paul supporters are right about a media conspiracy’s against Ron Paul, the good news for them is that might not weigh as much as it seems like it would. The internet is definitely becoming the best source for information and I think that’s a good thing. Let’s make sure they don’t start controlling the internet… eh?

LINKS:
RealClearPolitics – Debate Raitings

New York Times – Debate Raitings

NH voter turnout breaks records

NH voter turnout – ABC

Voter Turnout Overwhelms Iowa Caucuses