Okay, so I am going to go out on another limb with something controversial here, but I just feel that it is time to chime in as it is becoming an ethical issue. For years now I have been hearing, and understanding, how everyone has a right to their “opinion.” This is true, and freedom of speech and expression are two of the factors that make this country great. Now, let’s go a little deeper into the idea of “opinion.”

Once “opinion” crosses over into “action” it is no longer a “point of view.” I always see both sides to an argument and value people’s differing opinions, and this subject has been no different until now. With states like Maine legalizing gay marriage day by day and public figures such as Miss California joining organizations to prevent the legalization of gay marriage the debate is heating up, but it is now more than a debate. I understand that there are many people in this country that oppose gay marriage primarily on the foundation of religious reasons, and that is to be respected to a degree, but we also have laws in this country that protect a person’s civil liberties. In this case we are left arguing based on the Principle of Rights, i.e. one person’s rights versus another’s. Allowing a gay couple to marry is not infringing on the rights of those with strong religious beliefs, however, the campaign to prevent them from marrying does infringe on another group’s rights.

Our civil judicial system operates under this very principle of rights and so it is doing in this case. The courts are deciding whether or not gay couples should be allowed to marry. The courts are where cases of rights are adjudicated not by public vote. If this were not the case then there would be many things in this country that would never have changed. It is not, in any situation, appropriate or ethical for the majority to dictate to a minority on basic human rights.

It wasn’t that far back in recent history that African Americans and Caucasians were not allowed to marry. The “majority” felt it should be prevented based on religious moral convictions. Sound familiar? We look back on this today as ridiculous, but the fight for this right was long and arduous. The majority’s moral, religious conviction against the allowing of multiracial marriage was deemed unethical and a violation of rights of another.

Our system is designed to protect the rights of the minority against the whims of the majority. It is our ethical duty as Americans to address this. Not to pick on this one person, but if Miss California had stood on the Miss USA stage and ranted about taking away the rights of multicultural partners to marry we would be outraged. We would be quick to call her and others like her racists and un American. Why then is it “okay” to do the same to another group of tax paying Americans?

Okay, so credit card companies have always raised their fees on a whim, but this just seems to take the cake. I can understand that the fees need to be raised when someone misses a payment date, and I am well aware that banks make the lion’s share of their money on these fees. What I cannot understand is the audacity of banks to be doing this after accepting millions of dollars in bailout money.

Traditionally, this is one step a business can take that will help to build its capitol, but to continue to do this at this particular stage of the game is unconscionable. The mere definition of that word says it all. According to Encarta it is defined as “shocking and morally unacceptable.” The Oxford English Dictionary describes the expression as “not right or reasonable,” and Webster’s defines the term as “not guided or controlled by conscience: unscrupulous.”

So WHY is it unconscionable? Because these same lending institutions have just begged for and accepted $700 billion in bailout money, and that is billion with a capital B. While we may or may not have had to do it the fact remains that it is a done deal for better or worse, and the American taxpayer is getting the shaft.

WE, you and I, have loaned the banks our hard earned money to straighten out their self created mess through our tax dollars, and now they are asking us to further fit the bill by raising interest rates on the credit cards of people that have always payed their bills on time. Is this not double dipping in its ugliest form?

Let’s name names; Bank of America, American Express, Citigroup, and the list goes on and on and on. When is the assault on the American public going to stop? Come on Washington. You promised us “change”. We cheered for “change”. Now let’s get it done!

I am reprinting this blog of mine I did on another website Nov. 30, 2008, and I thought it was appropriate to share here with a bit of an update.

People are often confused by me; just when you think you know me, I can surprise you. The fact that I am a liberal while being more fiscally conservative may surprise many. I also like to see things from both sides of the equation, which is handy considering I teach global economics. So, let me start by telling you that I no longer watch the news on television. I do, however, read newspapers from all over the world every day, and there is a very good reason – television is for drama.

Television news is overly dramatic for a reason. Now, I am not saying there is no economic difficulty before us, but I am saying that broadcast news has a singular responsibility to get ratings and not to inform you. That, my friends, is lesson number one.
Lesson number two? Be wary of what those around you say. Remember the old adage about screaming fire in a theater? There is a good reason it is illegal to do so, and it should similarly be illegal for network news to overly dramatize the world economic situation. Again, I am not saying we don’t have a situation, because we do, but I remind everyone that this is a cycle. It is only a little scarier because we are being told to be scared.

Economics, as a whole, is a confidence game. If Warren Buffet told us things would be all better in six months, everyone would start down that road the minute he stopped talking. When the pundits, news stations and even friends cry disaster, guess what – disaster looms.

Yes, Mervyn’s (is going) went out of business. They couldn’t compete anymore. Yes, Circuit City (is going) went under. Best Buy out-advertised, out-marketed and just simply outdid them. Yes, GM, Ford and Chrysler are headed down the drain (update – Chrysler just claimed bankruptcy), but perhaps they shouldn’t have been making Hummers when Toyota was selling the Prius like hotcakes. Not that I am a fan of the Prius as I think it is more hype than reality. It truly does not give us anything better for the environment than a BMW. And, yes, many banks have gone under. We all know the golden rule of not buying what you can’t afford and, similarly, not loaning what you are pretty sure will never be paid back.

There are many businesses starting up now than there have been in many years. People are no longer complacent with bad business. They are starting to think for themselves, which is one of the principles this country was founded upon.

So, I conclude with a few important questions. When do bad management and bad business decisions become the responsibility of a nation of taxpayers? When does it become crucial to put common sense first in lieu of high television ratings? And, perhaps more importantly, when do we stop blaming the other guy for our failures, suck it up and start over, just like our forefathers?

Reprinted from my blog at a national travel magazine