Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell

Ever since the issue of homosexuals in the millitary became an issue and topic of debate, the policy the military has adotped has been the idea of "don't ask don't tell." this has allowed the government and millitary to avoid having to confront the issue and make a decision on it.  now the time has come to make that long held off decision.  Everyone has their own way of looking at this debate, just like each member of Congress does, and the middle ground of all these opinions will ultimately be what determines the result of this topic.  Most people understand why the straight member of our armed forces woulod be uncomfortable with the presence, or open presence, of homosexuals of same gender in the same facilities and work.  I personally want to look at this issue from a few different angles objectively as possible to properly assess the topic.

There's the issue of discomfort jeopordizing the efficiency and brotherhood necesary for a military unit to function and be successful.  this is the arguement from those most concerned with the effect it could have upon national security.  Another angle is from the concern of civil rites, the military is forcing people to supress the expression of homosexual people who want to serve in the military.  This is direct rejection of peoples' freedome of speech.  the civil rites angle comes sharply into conjunction with that of the founding principles veiw.  One of the rites that the founding fathers wanted the United States of America to offer its citizens was the rite to free speech, which also means expression.  this meant that anyone could openly say they are of a certain belief or practice and still live out the benefits and duties of any other citizen who had not professed that belief or practice.  There is the Necesity veiw, which looks at what decesion is needed for the government, not what the average soldier wants, but what will benefit military the most.  ovewr 50% of the military's Arabic translators are homosexuals.  In my opinion I think that although there will be much discomfort if it is repealed, that will die down wiht time just like it did when African-Americans were allowed to serve next to whites in the military- its a group in society that the military is bound to have to accept at some point in time.  I feel the civil rites and founding principles angle are the strongest to the arguement, cannot push our essential foundation of principles aside jsut for the comfort of a few, we must keep true to these principles and figure out ways for all to work around the principles' demands.

Higher Taxes For The Rich- Fair?

It goes wihtout saying that the rich pay higher taxes in the United States, they have for quite some time now.  Many people wonder if this is fair and in accordance with the principles the founding fathers had in mind when establishing our government.  Yes, our government relies on the heavier taxes paid by the wealthy, but is it really fair to have a different percentage of income paid to the government from a wealthy person and an individual earning an average or below average income?  Although many would argue that making it easier for those on the bottom to climb to the top is in more conjunction with founding principles than to have same percentage paid by both, this goes against the idea of all men being treated equal by the government.  I personlally believe that by taking more from the wealthy, you are limiting the amount of money and potential that will trickle down to the less wealthy.  By limiting the amount of money the rich have for spending and reinvesting in their buisnesses and/or the market, this inhibits the entire economy and the rate at which it will grow.  I think this generally limits all classes of Americans and the economy.

While there are much more extreme and blunt ways to make our government less just, and some might argue it is not a case of just and uinjust, I do believe that in no way does this idea of higher taxes for the rich promote the founding ideal of equal treatment and duty for and by each cittizen.  In many civilizations throughout history a type of tithe has been the form of taxation by a group of people to their government, this would ensure that all people paid the same percentage of income, the rich still paid a bulkier amount than the poor, but all padi proportianately the same to their income.  In my opionmion this is much more fair to everyone, and would even simplify the tax system.  the rich would sitll give more to government than the poor, but in accordance to the differnence of incomes.  By not punishing the rich for being prosperous and fueling the economy, they would not only have more money to reinvest in the market but they would feel more encouraged to do so, that would in turn trickle down to the less wealthy and the poor.  I feel that a equal tax paid by all classes would promote equality (or at least the feeling of equality), put more money in the market as natural stimulation, and therefore, benefit all classes at the end.