Taxes

Probably the main separator between the democratic and republican parties in the United States. It's one of the most important things in our entire country. I pays for our roads, our schools, our employees, and livelihoods. This also makes it one of the most controversial.

Basically the question is, should a wealthier person pay more taxes than a poorer person?

The wealthier person has more money, and therefore would be better qualified to help out the poorer person, by paying more money themselves. It is the best way to help people on welfare who are struggling just to get food on the table. It plays back to our original idea of fairness and goodness. Take from the rich to give to the poor. Seems fair.

Or...

Everyone pays the same taxes. The ultimate idea of fair. Because a person is "lucky" enough to be successful doesn't mean they should suffer for it. These people also end up giving more money to charity than any other group of people, and therefore help just as much as they might be if they where paying more taxes. This plays back to the original idea of a pure democracy, where you don't pay more money because you just happen to have more. Seems fair.

But what is better?? This idea has had the democratic and republican parties ripping at each other's throats since the idea of parties started. They both have merit, and both seem fair, but in different ways. They both touch back to original ideas that shaped society, like the century old hero Robin Hood and the driving force of not only our country, but our whole foreign policy, democracy. And both have weak points. The more taxes seems like spreading the wealth, which some see as a mild form of communism. The equal taxes seems selfish, why wouldn't you be okay with helping people? There is no answer to this question, and basically, it will keep switching as long the political parties switch control of the white house. But just because there is no answer doesn't mean you can think of one.

Maybe there can be a compromise? Like an equal income tax. The tax is technically equal, but if you make more money you just happen to be paying more money on taxes. But neither party wants to think of a compromise because they think their way is correct. So how will this election season effect the taxes? The potential for the white house to turn blue may bring interesting results for the country. But who knows, maybe that's what we need to get us out of this hole.

The Play vs. The History Book

What is more accurate, a history book, or a play? Seems like a simple question. But then you stop and think again and realize it isn't. A history book covers concrete facts, while a play may not be factual, but is a close look into the time period. Something that makes it even harder to decide is that they both have a lot of bias. A play can be represented or written in any way the writer feels like, and history books can be changed by things like word choice or chapters. They are both, at their core, just interpretations of a time and place.

I believe that a play is more "accurate". It may not have concrete facts, with dates and times, but what a play does that a history book can't is explore the emotions of the time. Plays tend to focus on the psychological things. How people where feeling and going through and struggling with in their minds when a historical event was happening. These emotions, I believe, have a lot more importance than just a certain battle. How people are feeling at these times has bigger sway on how future events turn out, and a play gives you an amazing insight into a character, therefore into a time.

Some people believe that history books are more accurate because they provide true facts, but that wont ever give you the big picture. You could read chapters of battle descriptions and body counts but it will never make you understand the emotions of the people and how they handle the events, (which I believe is the real history) like a great play can.

Is it Really the End!?!

We have been talking a lot about the economy lately, and I think we all understand how important this really is. It is daunting when you realize that this is something that our children might be reading about in their American Studies history books. But while we are in the moment, it is really hard to get the bigger picture. My dad and I where talking about the economy and he flat out told me that this could be one of the worst times in world history. He even went as far as to say that it has the potential to be the downfall of capitalism.

I certainly hope not, and neither does he, as his career depends upon it. But it really made me realize how big this really will be. It started as just a mortgage crisis, and has turned into a world economic crisis. When we do read about downfalls of things in textbooks, for example the downfall of dynasties or the downfall of communism, it usually starts with something similar to what we have going on. Some part of their government becomes corrupt or something backfires, like our economy just did.

Something else daunting is the realization that, being a surprisingly young country, how are we sure our system actually works as well as we think it does. This about how many dynasties the Chinese went through, and the constant switch from things like imperialism, to Confucianism to Taoism. Can we be totally sure that we have it right? How much will this change the path of our country? Can we tough it out?

To end on a happier note, we have to remember what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. And we aren't dead, so we must be getting stronger.

Majority Rules

This years election brings a lot of changes to the entire government of the United States, including such places as the Supreme Court. Something that was brought to my attention recently was how the majority rule of the Supreme Court could change.
The Supreme Court is made up of nine members, and currently there are four liberal members, and four conservative members. This, therefore, means that the vote usually depends on one member (Anthony Kennedy), and one vote. Two of the other members of the supreme court are nearing retirement. Justice John Paul Stevens is 88 years old, and no member has ever served over 90.
So, during this term, Justice Stevens (a liberal) may retire. If Obama wins the white house, another liberal justice will be chosen, but if John McCain wins then a conservative justice will be picked. That will switch the majority rule to the conservatives, actually changing many regulations. There could be more gun owners, changes on the abortion debate, and changes on many other issues.
One more point thought, is that people argue that however wins will try and pick someone who will mix things up a little. They may pick someone young, or a female, because there is currently only one woman on the Supreme Court. There has also never been a Hispanic on the Supreme Court, opening that up to possibility also. So whoever wins may be looking for a young Hispanic woman.

What does this mean for our country? If McCain wins, how will the issues change? And what do you thing of a young Hispanic female as a Supreme Court leader, good idea or bad?