Ego

It's my belief that a well composed argument is free of a debater's ego. So free of their ego that you cannot tell what their position is on a topic other than what a rational, logical and realistic conclusion to an agreed upon set of premises is.

This is how I like to roll. I think it might work too well. So well that even my own family does not know what my values and opinions are from what I write.

Even though I believe that is how an argument should be conducted, it does not mean that an editorial of sorts revealing my own thoughts and opinions should be forbidden. I hope to share as thoughtfully as possible what my opinions are on a variety of subjects with this post.

Politics. Am I a Republican or Democrat? I am not registered as either. I consider myself Independent. I, like probably most youth, had liberal leanings when I was younger. Some of my ideas sounded communist to the people I talked to. The wisdom of time and experience has matured my perspectives and expectations of reality and my leanings have shifted far enough to the right that I no longer consider myself as having a leaning at all.

Taxes and Budget. I was not a fan of Clinton. I thought it a shameful disgrace that he should be elected president at all after dodging the draft and he did not fail to live up to an expectation of continued embarrassment and shame at the way he conducted his affairs (even literally) while in office. However, I have no complaints with the 'Clinton Era' budget. I use 1997 as the golden standard. The budget was close to being balanced (about .3% of GDP more was spent than we had in revenue) and I thought the spending (as a percent of GDP, about 20%) reflected a proper re-investment in America's values.

Bush, Taxes and Budget. I have a chart. I am not linking to it here, but I will in another post if anyone is interested. In this chart, it demonstrates (to my mind) that the Bush tax cuts demonstrated that tax cuts can indeed promote economic growth. However, they also show that the cuts were too deep to be offset by the increase in revenue they created. Bush did not spend a great deal more than he should have (spending stayed very close to the 20% of GDP that I endorse), but it was not always spent in a way that I think reflected general American values.

Obama, Taxes and Budget. Again, my chart demonstrates what I am going to say, ask if you want to see it in pretty lines instead of words. Spending greatly exceeds the 20% of GDP that I endorse. GDP is, at best, stagnant while spending is through the roof. Revenue is at a terrible low, thanks to a recession and... drum-roll... unsustainably low taxes. One of those, maybe not so rare, cases where both Republican outcries of excessive spending and Democratic outcries of not enough revenue generating taxation are correct. Obama promised a lot coming into office and he has appeared too weak to deliver on most any account.

Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq was a wrong war to get into from the very beginning. I have been saying so from the very beginning but my voice carries no weight with any decision maker. I feel, from an ethical perspective, that when you aggress against someone it carries a responsibility. We cannot accomplish what our responsibility dictates because our goals are not appropriate to do so. We, in my opinion, need to get out of Iraq completely. Afghanistan is no better. Our reasons for going to Afghanistan were irrational and emotional. A war there serves only to put into practice untried training and equipment at the cost of foreign lives and interests. It does not serve our foreign interests nor are we honoring an American value to help others. So, while value can be found in putting our military through practical maneuvers, the non-monetary costs exceed the value we find in continuing. Again, get out.

Homosexuals in General, Marriage and the Military. Homosexuality as an expression of sexual orientation is nobody's business. Any policy made to promote or demote an expression of sexual orientation is a violation of civil rights and should be avoided as such. Even the idea that a law might need to be passed to allow marriage between same sex partners is ludicrous. There are military people who do not want homosexuals to serve with them. There are also people who do not want blacks, women, Muslims, etc to serve with them. None of their prejudices have any merit.

Religion. I am, myself, irreligious. I believe that religion is an emergent expression of the complex human brain. It is both fictitious and real, much like centrifugal force is something fictitious, but has a measurable and calculable effect. The question of whether God exists is nonsensical while the concept of and issue related to (for example) the Catholic Church are real and meaningful to humans.

Religion and [anything else]. Religion is a human expression and therefore most humans have to deal with religious involvement. When our values are incompatible with a religious value it causes anxiety. That anxiety can express itself in a lot of ways, but we commonly see it as expressed as a rejection of a religion as a whole, or an attempt to reject the 'offending' personal value. If I were to be asked, "Kelly, my [personal value] is against religious doctrine, am I right? Is [x] religion wrong?" The first question is usually pretty easy to answer. Any self-image is ok if you are not hurting someone else, no matter how immoral another person might feel you are. I even might find my stomach turned, but that doesn't make you wrong. The second question, again, is nonsensical. The correctness and authoritive weight carried by a religious belief is fictitious. Ignoring or adhering to religious doctrines might carry real consequences, but that is a consequence of being part of a society.

Religion and Science. Really, this issue is so blown out of proportion. The idea that religion is (generally speaking) anti-science is mostly born of ignorance and myth propagation. If anything, I would say that religion has made science the respectable and disciplined craft that it is today (barring politically motivated shameful examples from recent news). A good example is one often sited to bash religion while actually serving to demonstrate my statement. That is the example of Galileo. It is often said that the church tried to stifle science by silencing Galileo and condemning his discoveries. Far from the truth, the Church endorsed Galileo's discoveries and the mathematical theory of heliocentrism (which was not in fact Galileo's). By the time Galileo managed to get the theory suppressed, it was about 90 years old and taught in universities. Galileo believed himself to be ordained by God to make his discoveries and reinterpret scripture with what he learned. The church insisted on scientific proof before considering the reinterpretation of scripture. It can be said that no proof was good enough for the church and that would be both reasonable to say and reasonable of the church as all proof offered by Galileo was wrong! The church finally adopted heliocentrism before even the proof it had required was available. But their demand for proof, I believe, pushed natural philosophers (now called scientists and physicists) to be more rigorous and clearly define the difference between a theory and a fact and develop the scientific method.

Immigration and Illegal Immigrants. Let them all in. Except criminals. Everyone wanting to come to America should be welcome, with the caveat that they provide complete identification (including fingerprints and DNA) and that they be deported to their country of origin should they commit a criminal offense. Anyone willing to come to America to make a better life for themselves is our kind of people. Respect and rejoice!

Crime and Overcriminalization. We are greatly overcriminalizing! At the very least, we need to observe a clear difference between what kind of laws we are creating and how we should respond when that law is violated. The first, criminal behavior with criminal intent. These are people who hurt other people on purpose. They should, as is done, be tried by government agents and through proper Judicial procedure have their rights as citizens abridged. Criminal behavior without provable criminal intent should be handled the same as with criminal intent with punishment possibly suspended or even deferred. Laws designed to curb socially harmful behavior that have monetarily detrimental effect should be tried as civil cases only, tried appropriately and punished with nothing greater than the provable cost to the harmed party. Finally, laws (if society deems them necessary) designed to curb behavior that does not directly harm other people should only be enforced by social groups whose authority is voluntarily agreed upon by members of the society they serve. The results of violating those laws should not exceed corrective action that brings the perpetrator into compliance. That means, in effect, an armed sheriff should not show up to tell you your hedges exceed local policy. You should not be fined or arrested for it either. The same should be said of smoking pot in your living room.

Citizenship and Constitutional Rights. Citizenship should not be a right, but a privilege. Children should grow up protected. All adult immigrants (everyone not a citizen should be considered an immigrant except Native Americans on tribal properties) should have universally recognized rights. You want more rights? Like owning firearms or engaging in political activity? Become a full citizen. 2 years military service and a citizenship test! There are more immigrants who know what it means to be an American citizen than there are American citizens (not fact checked, just throwing in my wild estimation). Don't get all scared-y cat on me. Not the same military service as our wonderful, all volunteer service. Basic training, drill, learning a skill useful to defending the society you value. Give it two years and then move on to enjoy the civilian side of the society you served or re-up into the full voluntary service that might get you killed.

Capitalist or Socialist. I endorse socially responsible policy. Even though it comes with some soul-searing strings attached, I support the desire for freedom, independence and self-reliance typically characterized by parties in a free market. I am a product of one of the most socialist sub groups in America, the Armed Forces. Although a high number of the membership is paid at or near poverty levels, every member enjoys housing, the utilities necessary for housing (such as electricity, gas, water and sewage), food, unobstructed access to free health care, dental care and eye care. Plenty of other services are also provided such as free training, legal assistance and security. It works really well, but it's not for everyone.

Post is long enough. If you really want to know, ask. I will tell you my real opinion on any topic. I'm not that shy. But if you try to guess from the arguments I post, you are likely to misthink you know who I am.