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.

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.

Incompetent Congress Passes House Resolution 194

The most recent NBC/WSJ Congressional Job Rating poll reports an abysmal Congressional approval rate of 15%. President Bush has twice as good an approval rating from Americans at 30%. Yet, if you read the Washington Post, New York Times, or tune in to a major network's evening news broadcast regularly, you might get the feeling that those ratings are inverted and Bush is less favored. Funny how most of the blame from the media goes to someone accepted twice as much by the American people themselves.

However, today is a good example of just exactly why Americans despise our Congressional "leaders". While the average citizen is thinking about how he's going to pay for the next tank of gas, pay off a credit card bill, or keep his home, Congress members in Washington are apologizing for slavery and the Jim Crow era. APOLOGIZING FOR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO. NOT approving offshore drilling (which the majority of Americans desire), NOT approving stricter border control, NOT providing supplies to our soldiers, but making a formal apology about slavery. Here is some of the apology:

"Whereas slavery was not officially abolished until the passage of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865 after the end of the Civil War, which was fought over the slavery issue;

Whereas after emancipation from 246 years of slavery, African-Americans soon saw the fleeting political, social, and economic gains they made during Reconstruction eviscerated by virulent racism, lynchings, disenfranchisement, Black Codes, and racial segregation laws that imposed a rigid system of officially sanctioned racial segregation in virtually all areas of life;

Whereas the system of de jure racial segregation known as `Jim Crow,' which arose in certain parts of the Nation following the Civil War to create separate and unequal societies for whites and African-Americans, was a direct result of the racism against persons of African descent engendered by slavery;"

I thought that the 13-15th Amendments were an apology. I thought the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an apology. I thought we enacted Affirmative Action programs as an apology. What makes today so special as to require a new, formal apology from Congress?

Could it be that the Democrat-led Congress is putting forth this guilt-ridden subject for purely political reasons? You know, just before a historic election involving a black man? Could that possibly be the reason behind this? (Gasp!) Are they really just doing this to help their candidate get elected? I'm sorry, but there is NO other reason this issue would come up today if it were not for Barack Obama's candidacy. This Congress is a disgrace to the citizens it represents. When will something PRODUCTIVE ever come out of the National Congress again?

CNN Commentary

I read Roland Martin's commentary today about the repercussions of the Jeremiah Wright issue for Republicans. I'm not sure how much of this I agree with. Here's a clip:

For [conservatives], Wright's "hate" was a stench. Their "hate" comes up smelling like roses. But to every politician, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican: Beware. The die has been cast. The repeated denunciations of Wright will now lead each and every single one of you to have your pastors' oral and written words examined. If even one thing is said that can be construed as criticizing America or deemed hateful, then expect to see it on YouTube and replayed for millions to see. I suggest you go to your pastor now and say, "Please, watch what you say. I don't want to have to denounce you on national television."

His main point is that white pastors across the country have said things as crazy as what Jeremiah Wright has said. Thus, Republicans should be scrutinized for their affiliation with radical leaders just as Barack Obama has been over the past months. I would agree with that premise, but in practice I would probably disagree with Martin on which comments should be scrutinized. There are a lot of things publicly said by Christian pastors that get ripped apart by the media elite, like Martin, whereas I agree with many of those things being said. True, there are some instances in which pastors have made absurd comments that should be rebuked, but that is not common. In Obama's case though, Wright has been consistently un-Biblical and has spewed racist words for many years. Since Wright has a long history of the racist ideology of victimhood and refuses to change his tune, he should certainly be scrutinized. Just as importantly, Obama should be scrutinized for keeping such company for twenty years. It is a legitimate question to ask how much a man like Wright can impact a presidential candidate's ideology. Overall, I am split on this article. You can read the full article here.

GPA Inequity

I have long thought that the GPA system at Mizzou is unfair to the highest achieving students. I finally decided to do something about it, so I emailed three of my professors and the MU Chancellor. Here was my letter to the Chancellor:


Hi,

I am a sophomore Finance major here at Mizzou. I am writing to you because I believe the GPA system is an inequitable system that hurts the highest achieving university students. My problem with Mizzou's GPA system is that A- grades are given a lower than 4.0 score whereas A+ grades provide no benefit. Any student who receives a B-, C-, or D- can make up those grades with a B+, C+, or D+ because those three "plus" grades are given extra weight in the GPA system. When I was a freshman, I earned an A+ in a five credit hour Spanish course. However, I received only equal weight on my GPA as any student who earned a flat A. Yet, when I earned an A- the next semester in multiple courses, my GPA irrevocably dropped below a 4.0. That simply is not a just representation of my academic success. If I can be docked GPA points for an A-, then I should be given more than a 4.0 for an A+. However, I am sure that the university does not want to inflate scores above a four point scale, so I propose that the university change the weight of an A- to simply 4.0. Essentially, the current system promotes underachieving because students have no incentive to achieve maximum success. After all, reaching great success of an A ultimately provides the same reward as maximum success of an A+. Educational systems should provide incentives to promote academic success instead of inhibiting it. If this is ever changed, it would be great if Mizzou retroactively boosted all current students' GPAs according to the new standard.

I hope you thoughtfully consider this change,
Michael Alexander


My first two replies from professors were, "I already stated in the syllabus how I'm grading. It is not going to change." Hopefully I get a different response from the Chancellor or my other professor. I'll keep you updated on it.

Expelled

I was fortunate last night to be able to see Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It is exciting that the issue of Intelligent Design in higher education is now in the national spotlight. Granted, as Stein points out in the movie, the media is slanted toward the Darwinist side, so this probably will not get as much coverage as a Michael Moore film. I read some reviews on it already, and almost all of them said the film was poorly made, created poor arguments, and wasn't that funny. This behavior from reviewers is exactly the point that Stein made in "Expelled". There is a wall in the middle of society that is trying to keep people from seeing (just seeing, not believing) the theory of intelligent design. I thought Stein did a great, not perfect, job on this film and applaud him for taking on the establishment of the scientific community that has excommunicated anyone who even mentions that intelligent design is worth discussing.