Like I've said previously, I've never seen so many presidential candidates so early for the upcoming election. Still, I find that there are three main Democratic candidates, the main Republican candidates, and four others (two from each party) who I'd like to make a significant contribution.
The top two democrats are clearly Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. While I support their running I haven't decided whether I'll vote for or against them. I kind of hope that they'll destroy each other enough so that the other candates have a chance.
The top of the Democratic "second tier" list is John Edwards (or, rather, the bottom of the first tier). I strongly support Edwards. And if and when Clinton and Obama stumble he'd most like benefit the most. He impresses me as being both compassionate and practical enough to lead.
I'm also supporting Bill Richardson. Again, he practical enough to be a realist.
Lastly is Al Gore - a non-candidate (yet). If Edwards and Richardson drop out and Gore drops in, I'll be supporting him. As of right now, I probably support Richardson as much as I do Gore.
On the Republican side you have the tri-archy of Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. I really like McCain previously and even considered changing my political affiliation if in Delaware it would have been a close race between McCain and someone else. Unfortunately he's taken an arch-Conservative political stance and I consider that this would be unreasonable and impractical considering he might be President in two to six or two to ten years.
On Romney versus Giuliani, its really more a question of "exactly how do you like you moderate". Personnally I favor Romney, for his religious conviction. On the other hand, he did not announce that he was running for President in Massachusetts.
Congressman Hunter just impresses me as being too conservative. I don't really have an opinion of Senator Brownback. As an add on, Governor Huckabee is an interesting choice.
And on the "not a candidate yet" category is Newt Gingrich. I don't think he has much chance; I don't think he'd be popular enough. Lastly, is Senator Hagel. He definitely presents an interesting option - of an anti-Iraq War Republican. Let's see how he does.
I think that the general result of all the candidates from the Republican point of view, the acknowledge and admit that W is a lame duck, washed up, and a has been. And from the Democrats point of view, W and the Republicans just tried to remove them from politics too much. Now if W was willing to listen to the Democrats more it might be different. But if he had listened to the Democrats more things might be done differently. So, largely, W picked his own poison.
take care,
Jay
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Presidential Candidates
Like I've said previously, I've never seen so many presidential candidates so early for the upcoming election. Still, I find that there are three main Democratic candidates, the main Republican candidates, and four others (two from each party) who I'd like to make a significant contribution.
The top two democrats are clearly Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. While I support their running I haven't decided whether I'll vote for or against them. I kind of hope that they'll destroy each other enough so that the other candates have a chance.
The top of the Democratic "second tier" list is John Edwards (or, rather, the bottom of the first tier). I strongly support Edwards. And if and when Clinton and Obama stumble he'd most like benefit the most. He impresses me as being both compassionate and practical enough to lead.
I'm also supporting Bill Richardson. Again, he practical enough to be a realist.
Lastly is Al Gore - a non-candidate (yet). If Edwards and Richardson drop out and Gore drops in, I'll be supporting him. As of right now, I probably support Richardson as much as I do Gore.
On the Republican side you have the tri-archy of Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. I really like McCain previously and even considered changing my political affiliation if in Delaware it would have been a close race between McCain and someone else. Unfortunately he's taken an arch-Conservative political stance and I consider that this would be unreasonable and impractical considering he might be President in two to six or two to ten years.
On Romney versus Giuliani, its really more a question of "exactly how do you like you moderate". Personnally I favor Romney, for his religious conviction. On the other hand, he did not announce that he was running for President in Massachusetts.
Congressman Hunter just impresses me as being too conservative. I don't really have an opinion of Senator Brownback. As an add on, Governor Huckabee is an interesting choice.
And on the "not a candidate yet" category is Newt Gingrich. I don't think he has much chance; I don't think he'd be popular enough.
I think that the general result of all the candidates from the Republican point of view, the acknowledge and admit that W is a lame duck, washed up, and a has been. And from the Democrats point of view, W and the Republicans just tried to remove them from politics too much. Now if W was willing to listen to the Democrats more it might be different. But if he had listened to the Democrats more things might be done differently. So, largely, W picked his own poison.
take care,
Jay
The top two democrats are clearly Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. While I support their running I haven't decided whether I'll vote for or against them. I kind of hope that they'll destroy each other enough so that the other candates have a chance.
The top of the Democratic "second tier" list is John Edwards (or, rather, the bottom of the first tier). I strongly support Edwards. And if and when Clinton and Obama stumble he'd most like benefit the most. He impresses me as being both compassionate and practical enough to lead.
I'm also supporting Bill Richardson. Again, he practical enough to be a realist.
Lastly is Al Gore - a non-candidate (yet). If Edwards and Richardson drop out and Gore drops in, I'll be supporting him. As of right now, I probably support Richardson as much as I do Gore.
On the Republican side you have the tri-archy of Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. I really like McCain previously and even considered changing my political affiliation if in Delaware it would have been a close race between McCain and someone else. Unfortunately he's taken an arch-Conservative political stance and I consider that this would be unreasonable and impractical considering he might be President in two to six or two to ten years.
On Romney versus Giuliani, its really more a question of "exactly how do you like you moderate". Personnally I favor Romney, for his religious conviction. On the other hand, he did not announce that he was running for President in Massachusetts.
Congressman Hunter just impresses me as being too conservative. I don't really have an opinion of Senator Brownback. As an add on, Governor Huckabee is an interesting choice.
And on the "not a candidate yet" category is Newt Gingrich. I don't think he has much chance; I don't think he'd be popular enough.
I think that the general result of all the candidates from the Republican point of view, the acknowledge and admit that W is a lame duck, washed up, and a has been. And from the Democrats point of view, W and the Republicans just tried to remove them from politics too much. Now if W was willing to listen to the Democrats more it might be different. But if he had listened to the Democrats more things might be done differently. So, largely, W picked his own poison.
take care,
Jay
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Death Penalty
In the February 19 issue of America Magazine, page 5 includes an article on the death penalty. While I know the Catholic Church is adamantly opposed to the death penalty, in some cases a political state, or rather, a society of humanity has the need to defend itself from those who would want or choose to destroy that society.
On the other hand the death penalty ends a human life. Whether or not human life is sacred (it is), this ends the potential time that a person may "correct" their behavior; most prisons are under the codename "Department of Corrections". And if the person is guilty, as I'm sure the vast majority are, then I have a hard time thinking of a better penalty than letting the prisoner sit in prison and "think" about why they are there, what they have done, and to come to the resolution that they can't get out, get free, and perform a second crime.
I'd much rather have the prisoner come to the resolution that they are a bad person and that they are dangerous to society rather than just kill them. Yes, it is cheaper and faster, but its not having the Department of Corrections try to correct the individual.
Jay
On the other hand the death penalty ends a human life. Whether or not human life is sacred (it is), this ends the potential time that a person may "correct" their behavior; most prisons are under the codename "Department of Corrections". And if the person is guilty, as I'm sure the vast majority are, then I have a hard time thinking of a better penalty than letting the prisoner sit in prison and "think" about why they are there, what they have done, and to come to the resolution that they can't get out, get free, and perform a second crime.
I'd much rather have the prisoner come to the resolution that they are a bad person and that they are dangerous to society rather than just kill them. Yes, it is cheaper and faster, but its not having the Department of Corrections try to correct the individual.
Jay
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Political news
Hillary Clinton is taking a fairly moderate and a potentially risky adventure of not saying that she was sorry for her Iraq vote. I think that its well worth-while though - and although Hillary is number three out three potential candidates to vote for President, last week I had just two potential candidates.
Its a fairly classic Moderate versus Liberal stand. The last one that was seen was Liebermann versus Lamont - where Liebermann lost the primary but won the final election. Then again, New England and the entire North Atlantic is known for being decidedly Liberal. She's willing to bet that there are more moderate and conservative democrats throughout the rest of the nation.
Jack Murtha has also proposed that no Guardsman or Reservist is sent to Iraq for more than a year, that no Guardman or Reservist serves longer than one year, and that every Guardsman and Reservist is properly trained. I agree, I applaud, and I'm well happy with that resolution. Its a nice common sense approach to the "over-extended army" problem. Unfortunately neither the Congress nor the President have been well known for having common sense.
Jay
Its a fairly classic Moderate versus Liberal stand. The last one that was seen was Liebermann versus Lamont - where Liebermann lost the primary but won the final election. Then again, New England and the entire North Atlantic is known for being decidedly Liberal. She's willing to bet that there are more moderate and conservative democrats throughout the rest of the nation.
Jack Murtha has also proposed that no Guardsman or Reservist is sent to Iraq for more than a year, that no Guardman or Reservist serves longer than one year, and that every Guardsman and Reservist is properly trained. I agree, I applaud, and I'm well happy with that resolution. Its a nice common sense approach to the "over-extended army" problem. Unfortunately neither the Congress nor the President have been well known for having common sense.
Jay
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
general politics and Republican Presidential Candidates
I think its commical that there are so many people who have announced candidacy or announced intentions for running for President. When the first primary / caucas is nearly a year away and W has nearly two years left to serve. It really just shows how much of a lame duck W is and it show how soon the other candidates (both Republican and Democratic) want him to be / become irrelevent.
Making a long story short - for six years Congress, controlled by his party, approved everything he proposed and he, likewise, signed nearly everything passed by the Congress. Now, with the Democrats controlling Congress, they won't and he won't. Its going to require some compromise and negociation on both their parts. Something W hasn't been willing to do and something the Democrats in Congress haven't had the ability to do.
Taken for granted, I'm not taking that much offense to Speaker Pelosi despite her Liberal / Arch-Liberal resume. When it comes to the House of Democrats she just one votes. Yes, because she's Speaker she'll automatically be able to pull thirty or fifty more votes with her. But still, she's just one vote. And as long as she gets differing opinions heard on the floor there won't be a problem.
I'm more encouraged by Steny Hoyer - he seems much more moderate. I'm likewise glad that Congressman Murtha did not get the House Majority Leader / Whip. He's a good man, he only has one big issue. A Congressman of twenty-odd years should not have just one issue.
So recently, mostly last month, a vast number of people came out either announcing that they were forming Presidential explorator committees or announcing that they were running for President. In all honesty, I do not remember Presidential campaigns getting started this early previously.
Last November I was fairly militantly in favor of John McCain; I was likewise convinced he was a moderate. Since then he's come out in favor of the Iraq war and in favor of the Fourth Iraqi War Surge - which puts him out of touch with many Americans.
But the other two big name candidates are Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney - both of whom are moderate (or liberal). Personnally I like Huckabee - let see what happen in the next year and a half.
On the Democratic side, I like John Edwards most of all. Then second place is either for Bill Richardson or Hillary Clinton.
Making a long story short - for six years Congress, controlled by his party, approved everything he proposed and he, likewise, signed nearly everything passed by the Congress. Now, with the Democrats controlling Congress, they won't and he won't. Its going to require some compromise and negociation on both their parts. Something W hasn't been willing to do and something the Democrats in Congress haven't had the ability to do.
Taken for granted, I'm not taking that much offense to Speaker Pelosi despite her Liberal / Arch-Liberal resume. When it comes to the House of Democrats she just one votes. Yes, because she's Speaker she'll automatically be able to pull thirty or fifty more votes with her. But still, she's just one vote. And as long as she gets differing opinions heard on the floor there won't be a problem.
I'm more encouraged by Steny Hoyer - he seems much more moderate. I'm likewise glad that Congressman Murtha did not get the House Majority Leader / Whip. He's a good man, he only has one big issue. A Congressman of twenty-odd years should not have just one issue.
So recently, mostly last month, a vast number of people came out either announcing that they were forming Presidential explorator committees or announcing that they were running for President. In all honesty, I do not remember Presidential campaigns getting started this early previously.
Last November I was fairly militantly in favor of John McCain; I was likewise convinced he was a moderate. Since then he's come out in favor of the Iraq war and in favor of the Fourth Iraqi War Surge - which puts him out of touch with many Americans.
But the other two big name candidates are Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney - both of whom are moderate (or liberal). Personnally I like Huckabee - let see what happen in the next year and a half.
On the Democratic side, I like John Edwards most of all. Then second place is either for Bill Richardson or Hillary Clinton.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Confession - National Catholic Review
On the February 9 issue of National Catholic Review their Cover Story Article was entitled "Confession: The Disappearing Sacrament". First, part of me comes from a Hindu / Eastern teaching (part of my pre-Catholic days) and there are some things that are just better at describing some things like this.
So, to a certain extent, I believe that this is the Kali-Yuga - the age of Kali. "Yuga" means "age". Some call this the age of Kali (a goddess of the destruction of the universe). Some call this the "Iron Age". And according to some Hindu theory the Kali-Yuga, the Iron Age, last 1.2 million years. That's preceeded by the Bronze Age that lasted 2.4 million years. That's preceeded by the Silver Age that lasted 4.8 million years. And that's preceeded by the Golden Age (when everything "was" good) that lasted for 9.6 million years.
And the are several theories as to when the Kali-Yuga started. Some say it started six-odd-thousand years ago with the death of Krishna (that's around 4000 BC/BCE). Some say it started a few hundred years BC/BCE. Some say it started a few hundred years AD/CE. So whether we think that the Kali-Yuga started a few thousand years ago or whether it started a few hundred years ago, it doesn't really matter because the Kali-Yuga is, supposedly, 1.2 million years long.
Then there is the issue of Hindu astrology / astronomy. They are the astronomy who coined the phrase "Age of Aquarius" - which starts around 2600 AD/CE. Each Astrological Age lasts 2200 years. That means that the Age of Pisces started around 400 AD/CE (around the time that the Western Roman Empire fell). And that the Age of Aries started around 1800 BC/BCE (that shortly after the time of Abraham). And the Age of Taurus started around 4000 BC/BCE (Around the time of Adam). Now the big different between Hindu anceint history and Christian anceint history is the Hindus record history as early as ten-thousand years ago - and that the world existed many thousands of years before it, the history just wasn't recorded or that the records have been lost. Whereas the Christians say the world was created around six-thousand years ago.
Now, originally, Astrology and Astronomy were the same science. Charlemagne had court astrologers in 800 AD/CE. Then around a thousand years ago the two disciplines diverged - which probably can be "celebrated" as starting with Galileo and Copernicus.
So we are in the Kali-Yuga - big deal, wheee. Which is generally typified by the lowering and decaying of the natural enegy that the universe has which holds the universe together. Remember, the universe is destroyed in either 1.199994 million years or the universe will be destoryed in 1.199999 million years.
I believe that the fall of the Helenic Civilization was because of the Kali-Yuga. I believe that the rise and fall of the (Western) Roman Empire was because of the Kali-Yuga and the astrological Age of Aries. And I believe that Christianity and Catholicism may be the result of the Kali-Yuga, the astroligcal Ages of Aries and Pisces.
In the same way the former strength of the Catholic Church was because of the Kali-Yuga. Or rather, the decline of the Catholic Church was because of the Kali-Yuga. And Vatican 2 Conference, the sexual abuse by the priesthood, and the lack of confession was because of the Kali-Yuga.
What we are seeing, all that we are seeing, are the results of the universe falling apart. People stop being focused on long-term goals and stop being as spiritual and start being more focused on short-term goals (sexual gratification) and being more embraced to the material world. Both Hinduism and Christianty do not believe that the material world is all that we have, that it is only a "facade" for the spiritual world.
People start to focused more on their own pride and arrogance versus the humility that comes around through confession. People get tired of confessing the "same ol' thing" time and time again and start to think "why bother" and fail to show that they believe in God and fail to believe that He / It is Supreme. People start to be focused more on drugs and less on figuring out the spiritual world (or even caring that there is a spiritual world).
So, to a certain extent, I believe that this is the Kali-Yuga - the age of Kali. "Yuga" means "age". Some call this the age of Kali (a goddess of the destruction of the universe). Some call this the "Iron Age". And according to some Hindu theory the Kali-Yuga, the Iron Age, last 1.2 million years. That's preceeded by the Bronze Age that lasted 2.4 million years. That's preceeded by the Silver Age that lasted 4.8 million years. And that's preceeded by the Golden Age (when everything "was" good) that lasted for 9.6 million years.
And the are several theories as to when the Kali-Yuga started. Some say it started six-odd-thousand years ago with the death of Krishna (that's around 4000 BC/BCE). Some say it started a few hundred years BC/BCE. Some say it started a few hundred years AD/CE. So whether we think that the Kali-Yuga started a few thousand years ago or whether it started a few hundred years ago, it doesn't really matter because the Kali-Yuga is, supposedly, 1.2 million years long.
Then there is the issue of Hindu astrology / astronomy. They are the astronomy who coined the phrase "Age of Aquarius" - which starts around 2600 AD/CE. Each Astrological Age lasts 2200 years. That means that the Age of Pisces started around 400 AD/CE (around the time that the Western Roman Empire fell). And that the Age of Aries started around 1800 BC/BCE (that shortly after the time of Abraham). And the Age of Taurus started around 4000 BC/BCE (Around the time of Adam). Now the big different between Hindu anceint history and Christian anceint history is the Hindus record history as early as ten-thousand years ago - and that the world existed many thousands of years before it, the history just wasn't recorded or that the records have been lost. Whereas the Christians say the world was created around six-thousand years ago.
Now, originally, Astrology and Astronomy were the same science. Charlemagne had court astrologers in 800 AD/CE. Then around a thousand years ago the two disciplines diverged - which probably can be "celebrated" as starting with Galileo and Copernicus.
So we are in the Kali-Yuga - big deal, wheee. Which is generally typified by the lowering and decaying of the natural enegy that the universe has which holds the universe together. Remember, the universe is destroyed in either 1.199994 million years or the universe will be destoryed in 1.199999 million years.
I believe that the fall of the Helenic Civilization was because of the Kali-Yuga. I believe that the rise and fall of the (Western) Roman Empire was because of the Kali-Yuga and the astrological Age of Aries. And I believe that Christianity and Catholicism may be the result of the Kali-Yuga, the astroligcal Ages of Aries and Pisces.
In the same way the former strength of the Catholic Church was because of the Kali-Yuga. Or rather, the decline of the Catholic Church was because of the Kali-Yuga. And Vatican 2 Conference, the sexual abuse by the priesthood, and the lack of confession was because of the Kali-Yuga.
What we are seeing, all that we are seeing, are the results of the universe falling apart. People stop being focused on long-term goals and stop being as spiritual and start being more focused on short-term goals (sexual gratification) and being more embraced to the material world. Both Hinduism and Christianty do not believe that the material world is all that we have, that it is only a "facade" for the spiritual world.
People start to focused more on their own pride and arrogance versus the humility that comes around through confession. People get tired of confessing the "same ol' thing" time and time again and start to think "why bother" and fail to show that they believe in God and fail to believe that He / It is Supreme. People start to be focused more on drugs and less on figuring out the spiritual world (or even caring that there is a spiritual world).
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
America Magazine
Hi,
Its been a while since I've written. One of my publications is the Jesuit America Magazine. I really liked the February 5 issue.
First, on page 4, is "Hispanics, Immigration and the War". It brings up the point that while minorities (Blacks and Hispanics) are such a small portion of the population (15% and 10%, respectively) that nearly half the military is Black. So that only half is White, Hispanic, and Asian. And that although only 10% of America is Hispanic (and legal) while a much large percentage of the military is Hispanic.
So that, largely, White Americans are probably not part of the military. Me, I registered for the draft during high school, when I turn eighteen. And I tried to enlist - but in 1993 they were looking for a reason to kick people out and, with myself, the found a reason to not let me in.
But while nearly 70% of voting Hispanics supported Republicans in the past, last year nearly 70% supported Democrats.
The second article is on the same page: "Santorum Returns". I don't have anything against Rick Santorum that I don't have against most Republicans. He's ethical, he's moral - which are two big plusses. But while he was senator, and probably still, he's views it as his right to force Americans to adopt Christian ethics and morality.
The third article was on page 6 - "Pope asks Turkey to Recognize Church". On this the issue is manyfold.
The article started with Benedict's visit to Turkey last year. How Turkey recognizes the Church, partially, but doesn't recognize the Church entirely (seminaries). And then there is the issue of recognizing Vatican City as a foreign country versus recognizing Catholicism as part of Christianity - a foreign religion. On the upside, at least the Byzantine Catholics are Catholic and not Orthodox; so that part is clean.
In the U.S. some illegal immigrats have claimed political assylum, from the United States, within Churches. I don't know if the police have persued them, but this was several months ago, so I'm certain that they left the Church since that time.
take care,
Jay
Its been a while since I've written. One of my publications is the Jesuit America Magazine. I really liked the February 5 issue.
First, on page 4, is "Hispanics, Immigration and the War". It brings up the point that while minorities (Blacks and Hispanics) are such a small portion of the population (15% and 10%, respectively) that nearly half the military is Black. So that only half is White, Hispanic, and Asian. And that although only 10% of America is Hispanic (and legal) while a much large percentage of the military is Hispanic.
So that, largely, White Americans are probably not part of the military. Me, I registered for the draft during high school, when I turn eighteen. And I tried to enlist - but in 1993 they were looking for a reason to kick people out and, with myself, the found a reason to not let me in.
But while nearly 70% of voting Hispanics supported Republicans in the past, last year nearly 70% supported Democrats.
The second article is on the same page: "Santorum Returns". I don't have anything against Rick Santorum that I don't have against most Republicans. He's ethical, he's moral - which are two big plusses. But while he was senator, and probably still, he's views it as his right to force Americans to adopt Christian ethics and morality.
The third article was on page 6 - "Pope asks Turkey to Recognize Church". On this the issue is manyfold.
The article started with Benedict's visit to Turkey last year. How Turkey recognizes the Church, partially, but doesn't recognize the Church entirely (seminaries). And then there is the issue of recognizing Vatican City as a foreign country versus recognizing Catholicism as part of Christianity - a foreign religion. On the upside, at least the Byzantine Catholics are Catholic and not Orthodox; so that part is clean.
In the U.S. some illegal immigrats have claimed political assylum, from the United States, within Churches. I don't know if the police have persued them, but this was several months ago, so I'm certain that they left the Church since that time.
take care,
Jay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)