Thanks to Anthony Bradley for posting this on his blog at http://bradley.chattablogs.com/.
Zo makes some pretty good points here. Think a little bit before you vote for Obama. Actually follow the trail to see where his politically correct socialist policies will take America. That would be down.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Quest for the Truth
Absolute truths are eluding me.
I don't mean the truth that Yahweh created the universe or that Jesus of Nazareth died and rose again. I trust that those are truths. The truths that elude me are petty facts. Many times they are things that are construed in diametrically opposed directions by different people. Maybe some of the truths that I seek are simply unavailable to be found. Yet I continue the search; it's making me weary.
This political season brings out the worst in the truth-searching sport. McCain and Obama sit on stage at a debate. McCain claims Obama supported "Proposed Fact A". Obama responds by saying "That's just not true." McCain then responds, "It is true." And this happens in the opposite direction as well. How do we know who's telling the truth??? Most of us, I assume, believe the candidate that we are currently supporting. It's a he-said/he-said game. Some issues are verifiable. Did the candidate vote for or against an issue? That can be looked up in the voting records of the Senate.
Sometimes the candidates say the same thing...with completely opposite words and connotations. Obama says that our corporations pay relatively low taxes compared to other countries' corporations. McCain says our corporations are charged higher tax rates than almost any other country's corporations. At first look this looks like someone is lying. Look a bit deeper and they can both be true. The US REVENUE from corporate taxes is relatively low, yet the tax RATE is relatively high. This is an instance where the candidates frustrate us with seemingly different facts, but are both telling the truth.
Many of the claims both of the candidates make are difficult to verify. How is the common citizen supposed to check the validity of a claim that "My tax plan will be able to pay for all of these programs"? Even the candidates are using estimates. The common person is generally not interested in the specifics, but even if they are, it's nearly impossible to follow all of the numbers to a firm conclusion.
In this scenario voters are simply left to trusting candidates, campaign managers, or the media, all three of which have given us little reason to trust them. What we need are candidates, campaigns, and media members that are truly aspiring to tell the truth. Possibly most importantly we need media members who vigilantly report facts with disregard to the good or bad implications of those facts. Our society is over-saturated with "opinion-news" and editorials. Meanwhile we are left with a dearth of simple news reporting.
Until these three demographics (politicians, campaigns, media) show legitimate integrity, the American people will continue in their cynicism toward politics.
I don't mean the truth that Yahweh created the universe or that Jesus of Nazareth died and rose again. I trust that those are truths. The truths that elude me are petty facts. Many times they are things that are construed in diametrically opposed directions by different people. Maybe some of the truths that I seek are simply unavailable to be found. Yet I continue the search; it's making me weary.
This political season brings out the worst in the truth-searching sport. McCain and Obama sit on stage at a debate. McCain claims Obama supported "Proposed Fact A". Obama responds by saying "That's just not true." McCain then responds, "It is true." And this happens in the opposite direction as well. How do we know who's telling the truth??? Most of us, I assume, believe the candidate that we are currently supporting. It's a he-said/he-said game. Some issues are verifiable. Did the candidate vote for or against an issue? That can be looked up in the voting records of the Senate.
Sometimes the candidates say the same thing...with completely opposite words and connotations. Obama says that our corporations pay relatively low taxes compared to other countries' corporations. McCain says our corporations are charged higher tax rates than almost any other country's corporations. At first look this looks like someone is lying. Look a bit deeper and they can both be true. The US REVENUE from corporate taxes is relatively low, yet the tax RATE is relatively high. This is an instance where the candidates frustrate us with seemingly different facts, but are both telling the truth.
Many of the claims both of the candidates make are difficult to verify. How is the common citizen supposed to check the validity of a claim that "My tax plan will be able to pay for all of these programs"? Even the candidates are using estimates. The common person is generally not interested in the specifics, but even if they are, it's nearly impossible to follow all of the numbers to a firm conclusion.
In this scenario voters are simply left to trusting candidates, campaign managers, or the media, all three of which have given us little reason to trust them. What we need are candidates, campaigns, and media members that are truly aspiring to tell the truth. Possibly most importantly we need media members who vigilantly report facts with disregard to the good or bad implications of those facts. Our society is over-saturated with "opinion-news" and editorials. Meanwhile we are left with a dearth of simple news reporting.
Until these three demographics (politicians, campaigns, media) show legitimate integrity, the American people will continue in their cynicism toward politics.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
