I have a great deal of experience in the financial industry, much more on the trading side than banking, but plenty of experience none-the-less. I don't follow the market on a regular basis however because there's simply no need to. I pay attention to the headlines and keep a lazy eye on the market, but I have confidence it will correct itself. I hadn't really looked at what happened with the BofA-Merrill Lynch merger in-depth, but an eye-catching headline on Ken Lewis stating that government regulator's forced BofA from granting full disclosure to their shareholders was enough to make me look into it a little more.
Here is the article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aO.aUfdswPrM&refer=worldwide
This sounds very troubling to me. Number one, mergers and acquisitions have to follow rules. In the finance industry, you always lean on the side of full-disclosure. To hear that Paulson...and possibly Bernanke...tried to manipulate senior management to withhold information from the shareholders who actually make the decision is deplorable. If Bernanke did so, he should be forced to resign; there's simply no excuse for this.
I understand their fear that if Merrill Lynch fell, it would cause a ripple effect throughout the industry. Merrill Lynch was absolutely HUGE amongst their peers and just like Bear Stearns, they were a driving force in the industry. However, you cannot put the responsibility on shareholders to correct a market problem with their pocketbooks. No matter how I slice this, they violated the rights of all BofA shareholders to protect their assets if the story is true.
I take special issue with the claim that they threatened BofA's 'management'...I assume executive management instituted by the board...that they would be replaced if they did not comply. What the article misses telling me is how. The government can't replace workers at a company. There are sort of roundabout ways to do so, but the power is ultimately held by the Board and the shareholders who vote for the Board. You might be able to publicly disgrace an officer, or show negligence or a failure in compliance that could lead to a removal, (e.g. a CFO violates an accounting law and loses his CPA status and would probably end his CFO career), or maybe even make it difficult to receive loans from the Fed and blame it on an officer, forcing the Board to oust them. However even with the steep regulations banks face, all companies are given autonomy to decide who is on their payroll. It normally would have been a threat without teeth, or one where the regulators were threatening an ousting by manipulating major shareholders and the Board. I know of no law that would allow the Federal Government to 'replace management'.
Regardless of what Federal regulators did, Mr. Lewis' actions don't seem like he was looking out for his shareholders best interests. I can make guesses as to what he means when he says systemic risk to the market, in particular the loss of Consultants from Merrill Lynch that give business to BofA or revenue loss from 'deals' if Merrill and BofA were partnering a lot on initial and secondary offerings, but these are merely guesses. Even still, that doesn't justify withholding vital information to shareholders so they can make a proper decision.
I am surprised to hear that Congress has not requested a more thorough investigation. This is definitely something that should be brought before the Banking and Finance committee in full public hearings. Perhaps some watchdog group can get more information using the Freedom of Information Act, although it sounds like most of what happened was never written down and so we may never know. That still doesn't mean that we shouldn't be outraged if the Federal Government overstepped its bounds.
Update - Apparently, the lawmakers agree with me. Since posting the article this morning, Congress is already looking into the matter as reported here:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200904291258DOWJONESDJONLINE000767_FORTUNE5.htm
And no, it isn't because they read my post.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Arlen Specter's Party Switch
This one actually caught me by surprise. It's all over the news, but here's a link to the USA Today article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-28-specter-party-switch_N.htm
I should note that I think their math is a little off. Even if I work under the assumption that Al Franken will win the court battle, I just can't count two independents as democrats even if they lean a little to the left. This could affect a filibuster, but there's still only 58 democrats in the Senate.
Still though, it sounds like big news to me. I have been watching the stories...okay I'll admit I laughed at Republicans at times while I was reading them...and how they've been struggling to find a solid leader and restore some of the power that's been lost to the party. Seeing the way its been splitting itself, especially over social issues, reaffirms my belief in universal karma.
That doesn't mean I'm pro-Democrat either. The Dems could certainly learn a little something regarding fiscal conservation from their friends across the aisle. The reality is I am often disenfranchised with both parties and am often cynical of politicians. It's funny, but I don't see as much of a difference between the two, just their modus operandi.
For example, I see a Democrat as much more likely to accept a bribe outright, while a Republican would more likely try and work it into a framework that's legal, but morally reprehensible. They're both taking a bribe, just going about it in slightly different manner and neither one should be doing it to begin with.
Senator Specter's comments regarding his decision seem to indicate some of the challenges Republicans are facing as a party; mainly regarding right-wing social issues. They have a real problem and no easy solution. Leaving the center behind and staying to the right makes it very difficult to woo any new members, but going to the center would definitely hurt their current base. Perhaps they shouldn't have been quite so pandering to conservatives, but hindsight is always 20/20 and their base really did get them where they were.
I remember lessons given on American Political Science when I went to school. When we got to partisan politics we were given the mission statements and political ideologies of each major party and I'll never forget what my school textbook gave at the time for the Republican party. I can't remember word for word anymore and I can't find it, but the basic gist was that Republicans believed in smaller government and taxes, fiscal responsibility and individual freedom. I'll never forget it because it resonated with me much more than any other political party I was reading about.
However policy and practice are two different things, Republicans give me the impression to this day that they believe in smaller government (unless we're dealing with social issues), they believe in lower taxes (but mostly for the rich), and they believe in individual freedom (but only for themselves, it shouldn't be granted to people who don't think and act like they do). The statement I read seemed vastly different than what I actually saw growing up and even today. I know I'm not alone in expressing disappointment with the party, since a large portion of voters seem to agree with me at present. If Republicans want a moderate like me to be more supportive of them, I would highly recommend they revisit history and take a hard look at how the party has changed to disenfranchise so many voters.
Assuming that the Dems can muster enough votes to break a filibuster regularly, Republicans will lose another political outlet to ensure that their minority voice is heard properly. Perhaps this is a lesson they should learn from. Humility...often times forced humility...can make one seriously question their beliefs and their methods. I hope that Republicans can take that humility and channel it into a constructive debate in their strongest category; fiscal conservatism and responsibility. We have a President that is pushing major initiatives the like haven't been seen since FDR and the New Deal. We need the other party to take some hard looks and some better recommendations, but make sure that you have some new ideas to go along with the criticism, you can't simply become the party of 'no'.
As for Democrats...don't get cocky! Yes, you've been given a great opportunity to give voice to your political ideals and can push legislative measures through with much less resistance, but that only means you should be even more careful. If you have an issue that is completely split by party lines, make sure you let Republican Senators and Congressmen have floor time. Make sure that the committees have a real mix of political ideals and don't stifle the dissenting voice. Remember that the responsibility of the majority is to insure that you don't diminish the voice of the minority. The Republicans have their constituents and last I checked, those constituents are tax-paying American citizens too. To take away their voice is simply un-American.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-28-specter-party-switch_N.htm
I should note that I think their math is a little off. Even if I work under the assumption that Al Franken will win the court battle, I just can't count two independents as democrats even if they lean a little to the left. This could affect a filibuster, but there's still only 58 democrats in the Senate.
Still though, it sounds like big news to me. I have been watching the stories...okay I'll admit I laughed at Republicans at times while I was reading them...and how they've been struggling to find a solid leader and restore some of the power that's been lost to the party. Seeing the way its been splitting itself, especially over social issues, reaffirms my belief in universal karma.
That doesn't mean I'm pro-Democrat either. The Dems could certainly learn a little something regarding fiscal conservation from their friends across the aisle. The reality is I am often disenfranchised with both parties and am often cynical of politicians. It's funny, but I don't see as much of a difference between the two, just their modus operandi.
For example, I see a Democrat as much more likely to accept a bribe outright, while a Republican would more likely try and work it into a framework that's legal, but morally reprehensible. They're both taking a bribe, just going about it in slightly different manner and neither one should be doing it to begin with.
Senator Specter's comments regarding his decision seem to indicate some of the challenges Republicans are facing as a party; mainly regarding right-wing social issues. They have a real problem and no easy solution. Leaving the center behind and staying to the right makes it very difficult to woo any new members, but going to the center would definitely hurt their current base. Perhaps they shouldn't have been quite so pandering to conservatives, but hindsight is always 20/20 and their base really did get them where they were.
I remember lessons given on American Political Science when I went to school. When we got to partisan politics we were given the mission statements and political ideologies of each major party and I'll never forget what my school textbook gave at the time for the Republican party. I can't remember word for word anymore and I can't find it, but the basic gist was that Republicans believed in smaller government and taxes, fiscal responsibility and individual freedom. I'll never forget it because it resonated with me much more than any other political party I was reading about.
However policy and practice are two different things, Republicans give me the impression to this day that they believe in smaller government (unless we're dealing with social issues), they believe in lower taxes (but mostly for the rich), and they believe in individual freedom (but only for themselves, it shouldn't be granted to people who don't think and act like they do). The statement I read seemed vastly different than what I actually saw growing up and even today. I know I'm not alone in expressing disappointment with the party, since a large portion of voters seem to agree with me at present. If Republicans want a moderate like me to be more supportive of them, I would highly recommend they revisit history and take a hard look at how the party has changed to disenfranchise so many voters.
Assuming that the Dems can muster enough votes to break a filibuster regularly, Republicans will lose another political outlet to ensure that their minority voice is heard properly. Perhaps this is a lesson they should learn from. Humility...often times forced humility...can make one seriously question their beliefs and their methods. I hope that Republicans can take that humility and channel it into a constructive debate in their strongest category; fiscal conservatism and responsibility. We have a President that is pushing major initiatives the like haven't been seen since FDR and the New Deal. We need the other party to take some hard looks and some better recommendations, but make sure that you have some new ideas to go along with the criticism, you can't simply become the party of 'no'.
As for Democrats...don't get cocky! Yes, you've been given a great opportunity to give voice to your political ideals and can push legislative measures through with much less resistance, but that only means you should be even more careful. If you have an issue that is completely split by party lines, make sure you let Republican Senators and Congressmen have floor time. Make sure that the committees have a real mix of political ideals and don't stifle the dissenting voice. Remember that the responsibility of the majority is to insure that you don't diminish the voice of the minority. The Republicans have their constituents and last I checked, those constituents are tax-paying American citizens too. To take away their voice is simply un-American.
What To Do About Global Warming
I have been following some of President Obama's energy and emissions policies with sincere interest. I honestly find it refreshing to see someone with real political power examining global warming and trying to do something about it, however it's also made me examine what my personal opinion is on the topic.
Until recently, I thought of it more as a buzzword. It's like the creationism vs. big bang debate; something that gets people riled up, but one in which I don't expect to see any real answers in my lifetime. I had read a few articles before and could find good arguments on both sides, but nothing that could immediately sway me to one side or the other.
I've spent some time researching the issue some more and have come to the conclusion that my position hasn't changed whatsoever. Is global warming such a serious threat that if we do nothing now, we will turn the planet into some unlivable, barren wasteland in the near future, or will it contribute in a much smaller way on a global scale?
When I remember my science classes in school, and my own sincere childhood interest in dinosaurs and geology, I know that the Earth has often gone through major, drastic changes in the billions of years since its creation. However, time is usually measured in eras that stretch millions of years or ages that stretch thousands. It's not like one day we had a tropical to sub-tropical climate over most of the Earth and then like something out of Day After Tomorrow, we had an ice age in a few weeks. In relation to the climate history of the Earth, I don't know if what we're going through now is natural, human-created, or merely artificially accelerated.
So my basic answer to whether or not man-made global warming exists is: I don't know. Working off that premise, the next question would be what should we do about it, if anything at all? I have to think back to the old adage, "With great power, comes great responsibility."
Humans are by far and away the most powerful species on the planet. We have the ability to not only affect our environment and our world individually, but we are able to do so with global results. Whether you look at it in its extremes such as a nuclear world war, or merely the push of civilization encroaching on the natural environment and the pollution that invariably follows, we have a lot of power to seriously mess up our planet. And it is OUR planet. Shouldn't we take care of our own things?
I don't necessarily agree that we should somehow strive to completely and utterly remove human influence from the natural world. That doesn't make sense to me because we are a part of it. I see signs at National Parks telling people that they should stay on the trails, not interact with the wildlife and not touch anything and it feels so wrong to me. If some farmer has been on his land for generations and an environmental group tries to block him from planting crops because an endangered deer mouse has made a home there, he shouldn't be forced to comply. We as human beings WILL have both positive and negative impacts on our environment. We should minimize those negative consequences and recognize them, but we still have to live our lives and explore our natural world through hands-on interaction.
Like I said though, we should at least try to minimize our negative impacts and that's why I have to endorse the push by environmentalists to reduce pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and rely more on renewable energy. It doesn't matter if global warming exists, the reality is that since we have such great power we should be doing what we can to make our world better.
As for specific energy and emission policies such as the Cap and Trade program, having no constructive criticism, I can't exactly fault them. In specific to Cap and Trade, I worry that the system could be abused; especially the trading aspect. However the emissions tax solution doesn't seem to have the same kind of results. I also worry that the economy is not in the right shape to start these kinds of initiatives, however one shouldn't question when is the time to do the right thing, for that time is always...now. I am a firm believer that criticism alone has little purpose. If someone is trying something that you disagree with, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt if you don't have a better solution.
So I give the new policies my blessing despite my objections. What should we do about global warming? Without clearly knowing its impact, I say nothing really. What should we do to care for our world? Everything within reason.
Until recently, I thought of it more as a buzzword. It's like the creationism vs. big bang debate; something that gets people riled up, but one in which I don't expect to see any real answers in my lifetime. I had read a few articles before and could find good arguments on both sides, but nothing that could immediately sway me to one side or the other.
I've spent some time researching the issue some more and have come to the conclusion that my position hasn't changed whatsoever. Is global warming such a serious threat that if we do nothing now, we will turn the planet into some unlivable, barren wasteland in the near future, or will it contribute in a much smaller way on a global scale?
When I remember my science classes in school, and my own sincere childhood interest in dinosaurs and geology, I know that the Earth has often gone through major, drastic changes in the billions of years since its creation. However, time is usually measured in eras that stretch millions of years or ages that stretch thousands. It's not like one day we had a tropical to sub-tropical climate over most of the Earth and then like something out of Day After Tomorrow, we had an ice age in a few weeks. In relation to the climate history of the Earth, I don't know if what we're going through now is natural, human-created, or merely artificially accelerated.
So my basic answer to whether or not man-made global warming exists is: I don't know. Working off that premise, the next question would be what should we do about it, if anything at all? I have to think back to the old adage, "With great power, comes great responsibility."
Humans are by far and away the most powerful species on the planet. We have the ability to not only affect our environment and our world individually, but we are able to do so with global results. Whether you look at it in its extremes such as a nuclear world war, or merely the push of civilization encroaching on the natural environment and the pollution that invariably follows, we have a lot of power to seriously mess up our planet. And it is OUR planet. Shouldn't we take care of our own things?
I don't necessarily agree that we should somehow strive to completely and utterly remove human influence from the natural world. That doesn't make sense to me because we are a part of it. I see signs at National Parks telling people that they should stay on the trails, not interact with the wildlife and not touch anything and it feels so wrong to me. If some farmer has been on his land for generations and an environmental group tries to block him from planting crops because an endangered deer mouse has made a home there, he shouldn't be forced to comply. We as human beings WILL have both positive and negative impacts on our environment. We should minimize those negative consequences and recognize them, but we still have to live our lives and explore our natural world through hands-on interaction.
Like I said though, we should at least try to minimize our negative impacts and that's why I have to endorse the push by environmentalists to reduce pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and rely more on renewable energy. It doesn't matter if global warming exists, the reality is that since we have such great power we should be doing what we can to make our world better.
As for specific energy and emission policies such as the Cap and Trade program, having no constructive criticism, I can't exactly fault them. In specific to Cap and Trade, I worry that the system could be abused; especially the trading aspect. However the emissions tax solution doesn't seem to have the same kind of results. I also worry that the economy is not in the right shape to start these kinds of initiatives, however one shouldn't question when is the time to do the right thing, for that time is always...now. I am a firm believer that criticism alone has little purpose. If someone is trying something that you disagree with, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt if you don't have a better solution.
So I give the new policies my blessing despite my objections. What should we do about global warming? Without clearly knowing its impact, I say nothing really. What should we do to care for our world? Everything within reason.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Homosexuality as a Religion
Well now, there's a headline sure to raise some eyebrows. Unfortunately, if you think I will be talking about the infamous gay agenda or how gay parents are indoctrinating young children into their cult, you would be very wrong.
After the recent Iowa same-sex marriage ruling, I remember a very accurate quote in an article from a moderate expert on how this has become such a decisive issue. Her basic statement was that gays and lesbians view this issue as one of civil rights while most social conservatives view gay marriage as an attack on their religion. I wish I could give credit to this woman because I really think this hit the nail on the head. While there are plenty of non-religious opponents of same-sex marriage, the exit polls show that voters who identified themselves as religious are much opposed to the issue when it has come up in various state initiatives.
As someone who was raised Christian, I understand the line of thinking. The church I attended was affiliated with the Southern Baptist Association and when it comes to church doctrine and rules, ultra-conservative is the first word that comes to my mind. There was right and there was wrong and God's Word doesn't allow for any gray areas. I was even told by one of my pastor's that Catholicism was not a true path to salvation through Christ; so much for that John 3:16 scripture that's been burned in my brain since Sunday school.
The point I'm trying to make is that mutual respect and tolerance isn't always at the forefront of organized religion. A person's deeply embedded beliefs and faith can sometimes be at odds with social or political changes. It's important to remember that for someone who opposes abortion or same-sex marriage on religious grounds, these issues may violate their faith and would be perceived as an almost personal attack and for them, that IS their reality.
The arguments made to support a religious, anti-gay position usually involve scripture, however intelligent minds understand those scriptures are open to interpretation and thus it's not a valid argument in a logical discussion. Instead, the debate usually falls into whether or not homosexuality is a choice and if it is, it is not worthy of the legal protections afforded to categories such as race, creed or gender. Case closed.
The common rebuttal I see is that if homosexuality is a choice, so must be heterosexuality. I believe the message that people are trying to get across is that if you could make a straight person understand that they didn't have a choice in their sexual orientation, by logic gays and lesbians didn't either. While that may be a very logical position, I think it's getting lost on the recipient because they feel being straight is simply normal and therefore they didn't really have to make a choice to be straight, they merely had to decide not to be gay.
I'd like to propose a different method for handling the situation. Rather than trying to battle religious dogma with logic and science, be willing to concede that homosexuality is a choice. The truth is that although being gay isn't a choice from what I can tell, a person is always in control of their own actions and so there certainly is some choice...even if unfair...that person could just remain single and celibate their whole lives and not be considered 'gay' by religious standards.
However, once you've given up that point, rebut with the ultimate counterpoint: homosexuality is a choice, but so is their religion. Do they believe that we should be tolerant of other religions? How would they feel if they are...one of the protestant denominations for example...and Catholics want to pass a law that only Catholics can get married? After all, it's fair to everyone...blacks/whites, men/women, republic/democrat, everyone can marry, they just have to be Catholic.
No? What's that? That would be unfair because you shouldn't have to change your religion to avoid discrimination? Your religion is....as the CASC said in their opinion....an 'immutable trait' which the government has no business forcing you to change to guarantee equal protection?
Sounds an awful lot like what the GLBT community is saying about their sexual orientation. More importantly though, it challenges a gay rights opponent's position by at least making them think that if the government can discriminate based on a person's choices (their whole secular argument), their religion is no longer safe as well. If the leader's of the GBLT movement could only get the majority to understand the issue with this framing, I believe they could make even greater strides with fewer setbacks.
Of course, this is all just one man's opinion. In the context of social issues and personal interaction, my logical brain cannot come up with the perfect formula, there are simply way to many variables involved. However I want to see us get past this issue as a species.
I also want to point out that I believe both sexual orientation and religion should be on equal footing when it comes to laws of discrimination and the right of one to believe how they see fit. Organized religion should not be penalized for their stance on abortion or homosexuality. As long as they are not promoting or acting out physical violence it's a free country, they have a God-given right to their beliefs. What I would like to see, is organized religions showing the same level of tolerance to gays and lesbians as what they have learned to give other religions.
After the recent Iowa same-sex marriage ruling, I remember a very accurate quote in an article from a moderate expert on how this has become such a decisive issue. Her basic statement was that gays and lesbians view this issue as one of civil rights while most social conservatives view gay marriage as an attack on their religion. I wish I could give credit to this woman because I really think this hit the nail on the head. While there are plenty of non-religious opponents of same-sex marriage, the exit polls show that voters who identified themselves as religious are much opposed to the issue when it has come up in various state initiatives.
As someone who was raised Christian, I understand the line of thinking. The church I attended was affiliated with the Southern Baptist Association and when it comes to church doctrine and rules, ultra-conservative is the first word that comes to my mind. There was right and there was wrong and God's Word doesn't allow for any gray areas. I was even told by one of my pastor's that Catholicism was not a true path to salvation through Christ; so much for that John 3:16 scripture that's been burned in my brain since Sunday school.
The point I'm trying to make is that mutual respect and tolerance isn't always at the forefront of organized religion. A person's deeply embedded beliefs and faith can sometimes be at odds with social or political changes. It's important to remember that for someone who opposes abortion or same-sex marriage on religious grounds, these issues may violate their faith and would be perceived as an almost personal attack and for them, that IS their reality.
The arguments made to support a religious, anti-gay position usually involve scripture, however intelligent minds understand those scriptures are open to interpretation and thus it's not a valid argument in a logical discussion. Instead, the debate usually falls into whether or not homosexuality is a choice and if it is, it is not worthy of the legal protections afforded to categories such as race, creed or gender. Case closed.
The common rebuttal I see is that if homosexuality is a choice, so must be heterosexuality. I believe the message that people are trying to get across is that if you could make a straight person understand that they didn't have a choice in their sexual orientation, by logic gays and lesbians didn't either. While that may be a very logical position, I think it's getting lost on the recipient because they feel being straight is simply normal and therefore they didn't really have to make a choice to be straight, they merely had to decide not to be gay.
I'd like to propose a different method for handling the situation. Rather than trying to battle religious dogma with logic and science, be willing to concede that homosexuality is a choice. The truth is that although being gay isn't a choice from what I can tell, a person is always in control of their own actions and so there certainly is some choice...even if unfair...that person could just remain single and celibate their whole lives and not be considered 'gay' by religious standards.
However, once you've given up that point, rebut with the ultimate counterpoint: homosexuality is a choice, but so is their religion. Do they believe that we should be tolerant of other religions? How would they feel if they are...one of the protestant denominations for example...and Catholics want to pass a law that only Catholics can get married? After all, it's fair to everyone...blacks/whites, men/women, republic/democrat, everyone can marry, they just have to be Catholic.
No? What's that? That would be unfair because you shouldn't have to change your religion to avoid discrimination? Your religion is....as the CASC said in their opinion....an 'immutable trait' which the government has no business forcing you to change to guarantee equal protection?
Sounds an awful lot like what the GLBT community is saying about their sexual orientation. More importantly though, it challenges a gay rights opponent's position by at least making them think that if the government can discriminate based on a person's choices (their whole secular argument), their religion is no longer safe as well. If the leader's of the GBLT movement could only get the majority to understand the issue with this framing, I believe they could make even greater strides with fewer setbacks.
Of course, this is all just one man's opinion. In the context of social issues and personal interaction, my logical brain cannot come up with the perfect formula, there are simply way to many variables involved. However I want to see us get past this issue as a species.
I also want to point out that I believe both sexual orientation and religion should be on equal footing when it comes to laws of discrimination and the right of one to believe how they see fit. Organized religion should not be penalized for their stance on abortion or homosexuality. As long as they are not promoting or acting out physical violence it's a free country, they have a God-given right to their beliefs. What I would like to see, is organized religions showing the same level of tolerance to gays and lesbians as what they have learned to give other religions.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Why I Take a Moderate Position
I was recently on a blog discussing one of the hottest social topics in the U.S. today...gay marriage...and I was given a little flack for being unwilling to use the words homophobe and bigot. At the time I chose not to get into my reasons, although there were plenty of comments made that would have justified such a response.
Admittedly, I have started this blog for purely personal reasons. I like blogging and writing. I enjoy putting my thoughts down on paper (or a web page) so that I can look at them later...sometimes much later...and see how my thinking has progressed, how my positions might have changed, and whether or not my frame of reference wasn't large enough at the time. For me it's exciting to challenge the illusions, misconceptions and outright lies that we tell ourselves as human beings. I knew I'd have to put something down for my first article and having the name-calling issue fresh in my mind gave me some great fodder to segue into... Why do I take a moderate position?
Popularity. Well in all honesty, one of the reasons to take a moderate approach is simply popularity. I'm the kind of person that likes to get a along with everyone. There are some higher ideals that come along with this but as I said, one should always look at the whole truth and denying that a part of me enjoys sitting on the fence because it enables me to interact and become friends with everyone would be a lie. I accept the desire for validation from my peers as an aspect of my humanity.
Respect. That said, it is hardly my sole reason for playing peacekeeper. Going along for the ride on the moderate bus is a greater respect for your opinions. My reasoning probably stems from my many years working in various service roles. The worst thing you can do to a customer having a problem is disregard their feelings; even if it's trivial, even if it isn't your fault and has nothing to do with you. Perhaps it's human nature, but when someone dismisses our concerns and fears, we tend to stop listening to anything they have to say.
Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King Jr. I was raised in a good ol' fashioned Christian household by parents who constantly drilled in my head that I should be respectful of individual freedoms and that gender, racial or religious discrimination are not values worthy of holding on to. Among my top role models are Jesus, MLK Jr. and my two dads (my biological parents are still married though and I was never adopted, but that's another story.) Jesus' example is one of inclusion and not condemning others, and MLK's message of non-violence and freedom for all is simply timeless. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I am adulated. Being a moderate allows me to emulate their message.
Clarity. With only one eye, our depth perception is severely limited. That's the reason why God gave us two eyes. When you start aligning yourself with only the left or the right, you often start looking at your world through only one eye. You can't see the whole picture clearly and that can lead to misconceptions and half-truths. The truth can be scary and often it is very ugly, but we're not ostriches and hiding your head in the sand usually won't make a problem go away. I prefer to look at the unseen and face the truth, sometimes courageously and other times sheepishly. Moderation allows me to look at both sides of the issue to come up with a clearer picture, even if my opinions themselves haven't changed.
Progress. I'd like to believe, I want to believe, that my biggest goal in taking a moderate approach is so that we can actually move forward. We have so many issues that polarize us as a race; religious dogma, gay rights, global warming, creationism versus evolution, the list just goes on and on. Moderate approaches often lead to more progress on these fronts. However don't let that fool you into thinking that I believe we do not need strongly passionate, vocal supporters who cannot tolerate the middle. If moderation is the grey area, it's only there because there is a black and a white. We need people like Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Kucinich. They provide the much needed contrast to these issues and allow us to better formulate our own opinions, even if they sometimes abuse a platform for their own agendas.
As a moderate, I don't think I've ever used the words homophobe or bigot and don't ever plan on it. My moderate side says that they are polarizing words not condusive of reasoned debate or forward progress. To take it even further, my logical side says it's wasted typing. If someone really is a bigot, they are not going to listen to reasoned counter-points by the very definition of the word. If one could make an argument that sways their opinion...well, you've just broken the definition of the word.
To close, I can't say what this blog will really look like. I have a strong interest in political issues, but moderation doesn't mean that's what I have to focus on. For now, I intend to take on a 'build it, and they will come' mentality. Here's hoping this does not become very popular blog of one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
