Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Should there be a comma?
I read this sub-headline from Fox News' website this evening.
"House passes, Bush signs $700B bill allowing Treasury to buy up bad debt crippling financial system."
I first read it as if there was a comma after "debt". Essentially, 'House passes, Bush signs $700B bill allowing Treasury to buy up bad debt, crippling financial system.' As in, what they just did with this bailout is crippling our financial system, not the bad debt crippling the system. We'll see in years/decades to come whether a comma belonged there or not.
"House passes, Bush signs $700B bill allowing Treasury to buy up bad debt crippling financial system."
I first read it as if there was a comma after "debt". Essentially, 'House passes, Bush signs $700B bill allowing Treasury to buy up bad debt, crippling financial system.' As in, what they just did with this bailout is crippling our financial system, not the bad debt crippling the system. We'll see in years/decades to come whether a comma belonged there or not.
How we came to a financial crisis
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I present to you exhibit A. This will show you why we are in a financial mess today. Some of our leaders tried to fix a potential problem years ago. However, many of our other "leaders" stopped any reform from happening to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two huge problems with our economy today. Interesting to see that Barney Frank, one of the most vocal congressman during the past week, was adamantly against reforming Fannie and Freddie. He claimed that there were no "safety and soundness" issues in these companies. You can clearly see today how wrong Rep. Frank was then. You should realize how wrong he just might be today as well. PLEASE don't vote these same democrat "leaders" back into office this November. If you didn't notice, the ones saying Fannie and Freddie were going to cause problems were the REPUBLICANS. The ones opposing the idea that Fannie and Freddie were bad at all were DEMOCRATS. Think about that.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
CNN Headlines Sob Story, Rejects Consequences
CNNs Headline story on its website this morning features an 8th grader who is separated from her mother and older siblings due to immigration laws. The article states around 3 million children are in the same situation as Julie Quiroz. Click here to watch the story.
Quiroz was born in Washington state years ago, after her mother and older brothers illegally came to the US. She has a younger sister who was also born here, thus they are the only two US citizens in their family. One year ago immigration officials found her mother and brothers and deported them back to Mexico. Quiroz went with her family back to Mexico, but, having grown up in Washington, felt out of place.
A man named Joe Kennard, from Texas, heard about this story and offered to have Quiroz live with his family so she could go to school in America. This, of course, would mean splitting up the family. Reluctantly, Quiroz chose to finish school in America. Kennard asks CNN why the children are punished in such a case, knowing well that the illegal parent is being lawfully and rightly punished for breaking the law. This is certainly the side that CNN seems to be taking in this article: How can the big bad United States punish a child citizen for what their parent did wrong?
Knowing that 3 million children are in this precarious situation is heartbreaking. But what the United States chooses to do in these cases is not an issue of emotion. It is a matter of law.
We have laws securing property rights. If someone steals my computer they have broken the law and nearly every American would agree that the thief should be punished. However, if you follow the logic of those (seemingly including CNN) who believe families should not be deported in the case of illegal immigrant status, then you would surely argue that this thief should not receive jail time for stealing my computer. After all, this thief just stole my computer so he could let his child use it to write essays. Without a computer to research and write with, his child might fail out of school. The man only broke the law because he was looking out for his family.
But back here in reality, if this thief is caught with my computer, he would go to jail. To follow the same pattern as Quiroz's case, let's say the thief was a single parent. Now this parent is in jail and his child neither has a computer nor a parent at home. How can the big bad US of A allow such a tragedy?
PEOPLE! Don't blame the US government for enforcing laws. The point at which tragedy begins is not when the government enforces its laws. The point at which tragedy begins is when anyone, in both my hypothetical case and Quiroz's case its the parent, breaks a law. Whether or not they know what the consequences are for their actions, they must take responsibility for those actions. Even though Ana Quiroz had good intentions of a life in a better place for her children, she broke the law and should well know that her choice will greatly impact the people around her.
The fact of life on Earth as we know it is that everything we do or do not do affects the people around us, whether the effects are visible or not. We are interconnected, get used to that and understand that our sins affect the people we love and vice versa. If this world was a perfect place, Ana Quiroz and her family wouldn't have to worry about her immigration status. But it is an imperfect world that we live in that includes too much heartbreak.
Let your heart break for the Quiroz family, but don't think for a second that the US government shouldn't have deported Mrs. Quiroz.
Quiroz was born in Washington state years ago, after her mother and older brothers illegally came to the US. She has a younger sister who was also born here, thus they are the only two US citizens in their family. One year ago immigration officials found her mother and brothers and deported them back to Mexico. Quiroz went with her family back to Mexico, but, having grown up in Washington, felt out of place.
A man named Joe Kennard, from Texas, heard about this story and offered to have Quiroz live with his family so she could go to school in America. This, of course, would mean splitting up the family. Reluctantly, Quiroz chose to finish school in America. Kennard asks CNN why the children are punished in such a case, knowing well that the illegal parent is being lawfully and rightly punished for breaking the law. This is certainly the side that CNN seems to be taking in this article: How can the big bad United States punish a child citizen for what their parent did wrong?
Knowing that 3 million children are in this precarious situation is heartbreaking. But what the United States chooses to do in these cases is not an issue of emotion. It is a matter of law.
We have laws securing property rights. If someone steals my computer they have broken the law and nearly every American would agree that the thief should be punished. However, if you follow the logic of those (seemingly including CNN) who believe families should not be deported in the case of illegal immigrant status, then you would surely argue that this thief should not receive jail time for stealing my computer. After all, this thief just stole my computer so he could let his child use it to write essays. Without a computer to research and write with, his child might fail out of school. The man only broke the law because he was looking out for his family.
But back here in reality, if this thief is caught with my computer, he would go to jail. To follow the same pattern as Quiroz's case, let's say the thief was a single parent. Now this parent is in jail and his child neither has a computer nor a parent at home. How can the big bad US of A allow such a tragedy?
PEOPLE! Don't blame the US government for enforcing laws. The point at which tragedy begins is not when the government enforces its laws. The point at which tragedy begins is when anyone, in both my hypothetical case and Quiroz's case its the parent, breaks a law. Whether or not they know what the consequences are for their actions, they must take responsibility for those actions. Even though Ana Quiroz had good intentions of a life in a better place for her children, she broke the law and should well know that her choice will greatly impact the people around her.
The fact of life on Earth as we know it is that everything we do or do not do affects the people around us, whether the effects are visible or not. We are interconnected, get used to that and understand that our sins affect the people we love and vice versa. If this world was a perfect place, Ana Quiroz and her family wouldn't have to worry about her immigration status. But it is an imperfect world that we live in that includes too much heartbreak.
Let your heart break for the Quiroz family, but don't think for a second that the US government shouldn't have deported Mrs. Quiroz.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Jack Cafferty Has No Place In News
It seems like clockwork. Every time I watch a CNN news report that involves Jack Cafferty, I immediately brace myself for a barrage of negative emails, assuming the topical question involves Bush or McCain. In the case that the question has anything to do with Barack Obama or any of his Democratic buddies or positions I know to prepare for a love-fest. It's disturbing to me that someone who asks a question to the public and publishes its email replies could do so in such an unbalanced manner. Cafferty makes absolutely no attempt to present viewers (or readers on CNNs website) with an even distribution of positive and negative emails, no matter the subject. The latest incident that got under my skin was his online file of responses to this wildly leading and unbalanced question:
"Here’s my question to you: Does John McCain undercut his own message by naming someone even younger and more inexperienced than Barack Obama to be his running mate?"
Only one of the eight emails that he highlights is a positive response to the Palin choice. AGH! Cafferty and so many of his media friends are so blatantly unbalanced that I have difficult time rationalizing turning on CNN or MSNBC (Can one be more brazenly anti-Republican than Keith Olbermann?) and telling anyone that I'm watching the "news". The state of American media is flat out depressing.
The Great Debate
For seemingly forever the Christian Church has been entangled in a great debate about the method of attaining salvation. There are two distinct sides in this debate: 1) God predestines who his followers will be and 2) We have free will to choose if we want to accept salvation from God. My question is: Why can't both be true? God is the God of impossibilities and unlikely happenings. Jesus is considered to have been fully man, yet fully God when he walked the streets of Israel. The Bible has clear scripture stating both positions, yet there is not a debate between Christians who believe he's only man and Christians who believe he's only God. Jesus walked on water. He turned water into wine. He rose from the dead. Um, none of these things are remotely possible. Yet they happened nonetheless. Jesus came to earth as a homeless baby. He claimed that the first is actually last and the last is actually first. He had to die so that when we die we actually become more alive. Um, none of that makes any sense. Yet, that's what the Bible says happened. Is it too difficult to believe that God chose his followers infinity ago yet his followers have a complete choice in the matter? if the Bible seems to clearly express both ideas, then I must come to the conclusion that both ideas are true, no matter how nonsensical that seems.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
