commentary on the presidential candiates

Dealing with the issue of race and gender in the democratic primaries, there has been no direct commentary that I have heard regarding race or gender coming from the candidates directly. The issues of race and gender have, but others regardless of whether they were part of the campaigns or not have had commentary on both. Early on it was general commentary about gender and whether a woman was electable, not it has gone from general commentary about gender to more specific commentary that normally goes on in other public forums in regards to race and an individual’s personal actions.

Obama has consistently tried to take race out of the equation, which is a good thing since he is actually mixed regardless of who says what about his race. At the same time there are elements out there in this country that purposely inject race into what ever they can even if an opponent is going with the actions of the individual. The problem is that the people who inject race tend to equate an attack on an individual as an attack on the race itself, which causes a tit-for-tat situation which works against both sides.

If either Obama or Clinton gets the nomination for the party, race or gender will definitely play a role in the general election due to the nature of our society and the nature of campaigning. All of the candidates have to actually take a stand and show everyone that there is no room for gender or racial bias in their campaigns otherwise it will only get worse as the campaigning goes on whether or not the candidates really want that stuff injected.

All of the candidates in both parities have all been campaigning to some degree for change, the thing is that change happens with each new administration sometimes it’s for the better sometimes for worse. The thing is that going from experience a campaign just touting change is far different then providing proof that you are going to make changes if elected.

The candidates have been saying we need to change this or change that but I have not heard one iota about the specifics of how they plan to change each issue that they have been stating that needs to be changed which for them is a good thing for them but a bad thing for the voters and the electorate. It is a good thing for the candidates not to go into specifics since it can come back to haunt them if they do but at the same time it is very bad for the voters and the electorate due to a lack of information to make an informed decision on who to vote for which opens up the opportunity for here say on what the candidates mean when the talk about change.

Beyond the race and gender issues, there is a definite feel that the candidates are already acting as if this is the general election instead of the primary due to the fact that the front runners for both parties are consistently attacking each other on stuff that pertains to their own actions. The general response has been to these attacks have been the same coming from both parties with the responses being “that’s not what I said or did” or “that’s not what I meant” even with evidence in hand to show that is what was said or done.

That shows me that the candidates who are using those general lines are trying to run or hide their record especially if it goes against what they are currently stating they stand for in their campaign for president. Those candidates more than anyone else have to show what they actually stand for due to the fact that they don’t want their own past used against them and if they don’t want their past involved in the current campaign season, then they have to have the same hands off approach for the past for the other candidates that they expect the other candidates to have with them.

The one real way to show that they intend on making real changes if they get elected is to actually show that their intent to change is real and by actually showing how they intend on changing things while in office. They have to make an honest attempt to show that they are more than willing to work with both democrats and republicans in the attempt to make the changes by allowing the proposed changes to be reworked by both parties as long as the way you wish it to work remains relatively the same and can actually produce positive changes for the issues.

Change for the sake of change isn’t at all a good thing, change to make a positive change is regardless of who actually comes up with the change. Real change in relation to issues that the government has to take up, comes when we actually take the time to work out how to do things in a way that promotes positive results for as many people as possible not for a select demographics.

tax rebates

Everyone understands the economics of businesses using tax savings to produce jobs which has to some degree worked in the past. the economic climate has changed to the point that those same businesses that would have produced jobs here in the United States 20 years ago are now the companies sending jobs over seas to reduce costs while maximizing profits.

regardless of how it is worked our economy and society is based on the supply and demand aspect of the free market economy. my understanding of supply and demand is if no one can afford to buy the products then there is no demand for the product which translates into no demand for workers to produce the products.

my idea on a way to help the economy

In my opinion the best way to help avoid or limit a recession here in the U.S. is to no follow the rules of "trickle down economics" that the republican party likes to use when it comes to tax cuts due to the fact that the large U.S. companies have shown a willingness to make cuts to try to pad their wallets even more.

Where the economy is based on supply and demand, the best way to stimulate the needed growth to avoid a recession is to put the tax cuts into the largest section of the economy which is the low and middle income levels.

How would giving a tax cut to the income levels that account for the fewest amount of people in the nation who are looking to line their pockets be a viable option to stimulate the economy especially since those same people are cutting jobs here in favor of cheaper workers over seas?

a thought before the New Hampshire primary

I am writing this before the New Hampshire Primary.

I feel that McCain will end up winning the republican winner of the New Hampshire Primary. Nothing against the other candidates but I think that McCain is the better choice on the Republican side.

On the democratic side I am not sure who is going to win, but do think it will be either obama or clinton.

Can God and Darwin Co-exist?

Can God and Darwin Co-exist?

Everyone by nature takes sides on the subject of God and Darwin based on what they have grown to believe. Everyone regardless of whether they believe in religion or not feels that there is some type of higher power that keeps everything together.

Religion by nature is the belief in a higher power for which we call God. Those who believe in one of the various religions feel that they have to have faith in him or her and some to the point that the faith is so strong that they do not want to hear that God had to adhere to the laws of the universe when creating the Earth. The one problem with that type of faith is that no one actually has a real understanding of Gods power so we have no real understanding of what God is capable of.

Darwin, a scientist when on his voyages showed that there are plants and animals that were essentially the same plants and animals that he was use to seeing but with sometimes unique variations based on where he found them, this prompted him to create a theory called creationism. This theory is basically shows that over time plants and animals change based on their surroundings creating new and unique versions of existing plants and animals.

We show creationism with objects we make we do this through creating an object of some sort and then try to recreate it in ways that may make it work better for the job or jobs we want that object for. Each time we recreate the objects we provide a version of creationism that we can see and trace back to a source.

In my own opinion, there is a God who created everything we understand for which he may have had powers that work outside of the laws of physics to create us or could have created everything we understand through the laws of physics and taking the time to perfect us over time. The Bible has allotted for either due to the fact that it states that God created the heavens and the Earth in six days and that our concept of time is far shorter than Gods concept of time.

Given that we have no understanding of God’s power or knowledge, who, is to say that he created the heavens and the Earth outside the laws of physics or has knowledge of physics that is far beyond our current comprehension of physics that would have permitted him to create us.

Even though I call myself a religious person, I am not about to blindly accept what the Bible states given what we know about science and math. I feel that we can learn more about God if we forego blind acceptance of him as being all powerful and learn from what he created. This would mean accepting Darwinism and other forms of creationism as a way of learning about the material aspect of the universe.

I think that given the fact we are capable of creating things of our own and re-engineering living organisms to some degree we should not be so quick to say that science is good or bad but rather another way of backing up the claims of religion. Unfortunately those who take religion solely on the written word don’t open their minds up to learning how God could have made what we understand, which is a sorry state of being in my opinion.

If God didn’t want us to find out how he created us he would not have give us the ability to learn how to understand how the math and science work to the degree we have or the ability to see that even with slight variations that would permit us to show that things re-engineer themselves over generations no matter where you go and in many cases these changes are based on the local environment.

Although I believe in religion, I will not close my mind to what is out there to learn just because I am told to do so by people who feel that we cannot meet God until we die. I believe that over the next handful of generations we will gain the ability to meet God while still alive, it may not be in the bodies that we are accustomed to seeing ourselves in. For all we know the God may have given us the ability to understand math and science and the ability for our minds to adapt and grow beyond each generations comprehension of the natural world which would provide a natural leap in how we perceive the teachings of the bible.