The Z Spot

So Obama “might” keep Gates as Secretary of Defense.  Good.   I know some people think this is a bad thing.  Let me rebuff their main arguments 1 by 1:

1)  This makes it look like Obama is acknowledging that Democrats can’t run the Pentagon.  Well, perhaps Democrats can’t run the Pentagon.  After all, recently they have been the “peace” and “anti-war” party, and in fact won this election largely based on their opposition to the Iraq War.

2)  If Obama wants the war to end, why appoint somebody who has run it for the last two years?  Because the man who has run it for the last two years knows the war inside and out.  Moreover, even people who disapprove of the war have to admit that the last two years were among the best of the war.  The troops cannot just be picked up and dropped back off stateside with the condition Iraq is in right now.  We need to continue to run the war well to reach a point where we can realistically bring our troops home.  We also need to keep the troops who are still on the ground safe, and having someone who is a) not familiar with running the military, and b) not familiar with the war will not accomplish this.

3) Obama ran on a platform of change.  How is keeping Bush’s cabinet members change?  Obama ran on a policy not of change from the last four years, or change of specific policies, but of systemic change in how the government does business.  This is a great example of that.  This will be the first Secretary of Defense kept from a previous President of the opposing Party.  Also, change or no change, Obama is young and inexperienced.  The only hope he has of being able to run this country well, or fulfill a single one of his campaign promises, is to appoint people with more expertise and experience than he has.   This is smart.  Finally, let’s talk about change for a moment.  Appointing people who have already served in high level posts under other Democratic Presidents is not change.  Appointing your law school and Chicago politician buddies is not change.  Appointing two of your former rivals for the Democratic nomination is not change.   It’s the same old political pandering we’ve seen over and over again.  Appointing the best person to do the job, regardless of their political affiliation, is something we don’t see a lot of.

In my opinion, this is a very smart move by Obama.

Alright.  So an unnamed acquaintance of mine put a post on Facebook today that I totally disagreed with.  Basically, she thought that men should not tell women to smile.  The idea was that this was actually a man’s way of asserting his dominance over a woman.  She argued that even if it is not intentional, this is a subconscious intention of a man who tells a woman to smile (or, presumably, do anything else).  Even if a man is genuinely trying to cheer someone up, this of course comes from centuries of programming that women need to be taken care of.  On the other hand, a woman can tell a man to smile and it means nothing.

This bothers me so much.  It can be expanded to other “social justice” issues as well.  This is something that we all do all the time.  We tell people to smile, because we want the people around us to be happy.  There’s all kinds of issues I have with this, but none of them involve sexism.  When women (or any other group) make something about sexism (or any other ism) that isn’t intended that way, they perpetuate sexism, and increase their own sufferings.  First of all, it is not okay to tell women to smile, but women can tell men to?  Do women want to be treated the same, or not?  Patronizing previously opressed groups is not the way to bring justice to our worlds.

Second of all, life is 10% what happens to us, and 90% how we react.  A woman can take a man’s request to smile for what it was intended as, an attempt to cheer her up, or perhaps even just a habitual quick comment.  They can smile or not smile.  Maybe they appreciate the man’s concern for their happiness.  Maybe they think it’s none of the man’s business whether or not they are smiling.  Maybe they think that instead of telling them to smile, the man should do something to actually improve their mood.  All of those are normal responses.  Or a woman can ead into it as a perpetual power struggle in which the man has for centuries come out on top.

If asking someone to smile is a part of that power struggle, what else is?  Asking your wife to pick up the kids when you have to work late?  Asking a friend to call you so you can make plans for the weekend?  Asking a woman to help you with something?  Pretty much, by this logic, any question or request made by a male to a female is sexist.  This is absurd.

There are a lot of unjust things going on in our world.  I don’t deny that, and I think we all have a responsibility to try to improve the world we live in, and improve ourselves.  I also think, however, that until women, “minorities,” and other groups stop thinking of everything that happens to them in life as a gender, racial, or whatever-else issue, their lives will revolve around being a woman, a minority, or whatever else.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Gay Adoptions

Yeah, another shocking post that may make you ask “Why is this guy a Republican?”

Here’s my view on gay adoption. This tends to upset both liberals and conservatives, so brace yourselves.

First of all, let’s get the liberals all riled up. I do think that having a mother and a father is the best situation for any child to grow up in. Done.

Now, for the part that tends to upset the conservatives. I still think gay couples, or even single gay parents, should be allowed to adopt. Here’s why.

There are thousands of children waiting for adoption or growing up in orphanages and foster homes, or as wards of the state. There are thousands more being raised by single parents. There are thousands more (and plenty of overlap with foster parents and single parents) being raised by parents that don’t want them. There are thousands more (again, a lot of overlap) who don’t know how to raise a child, and don’t have the resources (family, money for classes and books, friends, etc.) to learn about child development and a parents’ role. There are thousands more whose parents don’t have the financial resources to provide the standard of living that every child deserves. There are thousands more who, because of crime and problems with our public education system, will be less likely than their peers in other families to graduate from high school or college, or escape the welfare cycle. There are thousands more who grow up with divorced parents, and often confusing family trees with multiple step parents and step siblings. There are thousands more who witness domestic abuse (either physical or emotional) and will later have guilt issues, because their parents refuse to get a divorce “for the kids’ sake.” There are thousands more who will develop eating, anxiety, or other psychological disorders because their parents apply unreasonable pressure. There are thousands more who will be bullied or hazed in school, leading to long term psychological consequences.

In an ideal world, every child would have a mother and a father. The world is not ideal. Once the politicians have solved our countries economic, social, gender, racial, and other problems, and fought a rapidly rising divorce rate, and fixed the public education system and closed the achievement gap, maybe gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt.

And in fact, all politicians, Republican and Democratic, should fight to achieve a day when gay parents are not the best option for some children.

In the meantime though, if there are children waiting to be adopted, or in abusive or otherwise harmful situations, and there are same-sex couples who love each other and their children, let them adopt. A mom and a dad may be best, but for thousands (if not millions) of children, a mom and a mom or a dad and a dad who create a loving and nurturing home are infinitely better than what they have now. So quit worrying about who’s doing who, and start fixing the real problems in this country, the ones with real effects on the children here.

Posted by Zach at 12:20 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: gay adoption, politics

Monday, January 7, 2008

Chicago Media

So, the other day I was getting some food, and the restaurant had WGN news on. WGN, as in owned by the Chicago Tribune WGN. They made a big deal out of the Sun Times trying to cut $50 million of its operating costs in 2008. They, of course, stressed the 30-something layoffs of editorial staff alone. I’ve always been more of a Trib fan than a Times reader. Because they have better journalism, from a technical standpoint, than the Times, in my humble opinion. Now, I know that television is a different medium. The main difference between TV and print news, however, is that there is less space for content in television. So why make a big fuss about a competitor’s layoff?

Now, I thought that was pretty absurd, but then, I opened Saturday’s Sun Times to the business page, and there is a paragraph (but, in true Time style, the paragraph is more like a book paragraph than a journalistic paragraph, at 19 lines) brief about the Trib CEO’s severence package. Right above a brief on potential airline hikes. Really? Is that newsworthy?

Is the trib CEO the only CEO in the country with outrageous benefits and/or severence package? I don’t think so.

In all fairness, to put my Trib bias aside for a minute, the Sun Times does have a story run on its own troubles.

This brings to mind two things for me. First, the WGN coverage of the Sun Times article (where, by the way, they failed to mention that their station was owned by the same company as the Sun Times’ only real competition) made me understand why there was ever a ban on multiple-media outlet ownership. IT was absurd.

Second, I know that newspaper is losing readers (admittedly including myself) to the internet. I also know that with the Journal and NY Times being available online, the readership loss is probably especially hard on other big-city papers. But do they really need to get this petty? Isn’t there real news to print? Or, instead of bashing their competition, couldn’t that space have been used for another ad, which would have generated more revenue?

Posted by Zach at 3:38 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: Chicago Sun Times, Chicago Tribune, media, newspaper

This post is going to be a little bit negative, so be forewarned.

I am sick of everyone complementing Obama on his choosing “new,” and “fresh” faces, and not a bunch of old Democratic lackeys for his advisors.

First of all, Axelrod and Emanuel?  Okay.  Old hacks.  But moreover, and we’ll see if I”m right on this when he gets inaugerated, I think his inner circle is going to be a combination of old political hacks who are known on the national scene, and Chicago Democratic machine insiders.

Maybe I’m just cynical, having seen Chicago politics in action.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s a city that works, and I am not concerned that Obama’s choices will be bad ones.  It’s just irritating to see everybody act as if this man is something totally new and independent, and changing.  He’s not.  He would never be where he was today if he wasn’t good at playing the Chicago Democrat game.

So I put a challenge out there to all, including myself, who blogged on the elections while they were going on.  This is my first attempt to meet that challenge.

I still maintain what I said, way back in December, that this race consisted of several viable Republican candidates and two viable Democratic candidates.  Also, the part about the top 3 Republicans changing constantly.  I believe (though I’d have to check the NYTimes archives or some old blogs from other people to verify) that McCain was not considered to be a serious posibility at this point.  Look what happened.

And hitting on that point again, I don’t think the MSM, the blogosphere, or the polls really accounted for either McCain or Obama as serious possibilities, again, largely because of who they consider “likely voters.”

I also have to toot my own horn in what I said about Republicans not letting up the campaigning once they got the polls close/ahead.  Look at where we wound up.  I don’t think McCain gave up as much as he was just outspent, but still, Republicans who thought the election was going to be ours, or at least very close, were surely disappointed.

As far as the anti-votes, I think it was more relevant in the primaries.  I think that even though both Obama and McCain have some policies people really don’t like, they both ran talking about change and changing not just policies, but the way politics itself is conducted.  It’s hard (although I’m sure that somewhere Obama’s color made it easy enough for some) to vote AGAINST either one of these men.  One is a man with a history of serving this country throughout his whole life and fighting for change.  The other is a man who went from a nobody to a national name in one election campaign (when he got elected to the Senate).  He has inspired millions.  The anti-vote became more or less irrelevant during the general election campaign, IMO.  So I was a little off, even though I think it played a part in the primaries, and would have had any other two candidates been nominated.

“My prediction: Obama and Edwards will both do much better than the polls are showing. So will McCain and Giuliani.“

This is the money shot, in my opinion.  Both in that it was my only close to concrete prediction, and that I was at least halfway right on both parties.  In a very serious and significant way.  Then again, it is humbling that I just thought to myself, “Edwards and Giuliani ran for President?”  So I was way on on two and way off on two.  Oh well.  The impact of my correct predictions was far greater than that of my incorrect ones.

Now, the whole last paragraph of this post is something which I am very proud to say I was apperantly very wrong about.  We just elected a black President, and that renews my faith in the American people.

Monday, December 31, 2007

This election cycle

I’m really interested in this election cycle. And here’s the reason. First, you have two very viable Democratic candidate and 6 viable candidates for the Republican nomination, who are all neck in neck, and who the “top 3″ are is constantly changing.

More interesting though, is that I don’t think that the polls, the news analysis, the blogosphere, or any other traditional analysis mean shit this time around.

The reality of it is that elections are not about convincing people they would vote for a certain candidate. It’s about getting people off their asses and to the polls on election day, or in Iowa, to the caucus.

Polls, news writers, etc. typically try to account for this. They’re based on previous, registered, and likely voters. Likely voters. Who are these “likely voters”? They’re white men who aren’t really young, or old. If you’re a minority, under 25, or over 60, you can count on not ever being contacted by an election pollster. If you’re a woman, you may or may not get a call. So what?

Well, Iowa will probably go the predictable way. It’s a state full of middle aged white people. Other states, though, will be interesting. You have a very viable female candidate, and a very viable black candidate. Who do you think would really like to see a black or woman president?

Yup. Minorities, women, and younger voters. And who do you think would be most opposed to a black or woman president? Older voters.

I don’t know that during the primaries, it will make much of a difference. But in the general election, if the Republicans are ahead, they would be wise to keep up the campaigning and not get too cocky. The people that nobody thinks are likely to vote are as likely as they ever will be to vote in ‘08. And I don’t think that many older people will come out to vote just to stop them.

The other factor in this election which makes it hard for the polls (although I think bloggers and even mainstream news have at least started to think about this) to predict the outcomes is the anti-votes. There are several candidates (Hillary and Romney are the biggest, but Huckabee, Thompson, Obama and others also have this issue) who have people saying that they will vote for anyone to keep them out of office. Including members of their own parties. That throws a huge kink into the whole situation. With Hillary’s general anti-fan base and Obama’s drug use, some Republicans or Independents may vote in the Democratic primary just to make sure that one (or both) of them don’t get the nomination. And, in states where it’s allowed, Democrats might wind up voting in Republican primaries if Hillary sweeps the early states.

More liberal, and more likely to win, Republicans could get a huge boost from Dems and Independents trying to get an acceptable alternative to “Hellory” or “Hitlary” as she’s being called on the ballot.

I read somewhere that about the same number of Americans (in the 40% range, shockingly) would not want a Mormon president as would not want a woman president. This means that if Romney looks like he’s going to get the nomination, shit could hit the fan in the Republican primaries too. And the whole rape and pardon situation is going to haunt Huckabee. With the number of voters that haven’t yet made up their mind, and the number of candidates with skeletons in (or out of) their closets, don’t put too much trust in the polls.

My prediction: Obama and Edwards will both do much better than the polls are showing. So will McCain and Giuliani.

And if you think 40-something percent of Americans (most of whom probably don’t vote) aren’t enough to stop someone from getting elected, think about this. In today’s uber-PC world, if 40% are willing to admit to not wanting a black, woman, or mormon president, how many are going to vote against one in the privacy of a voting booth who are too ashamed to admit it anywhere else?

Posted by Zach at 6:19 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: 08, caucus, elections, politics, polls, primaries

<i>So, I think if you are going to read a political blog, you have the right to have at least a basic idea of where your author is coming from.  Here’s mine, taken from the World’s Shortest Political quiz, which can be found at <a href=”http://theadvocates.org/quizp”>theadvocates.org</a>.</i>

The RED DOT on the Chart shows where you fit on the political map.

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 90%.

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is…

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and

economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one

that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose

government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate

diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

So now, apparently, we are looking for new ways to socialize the U.S. economy.  According to The New York Times  we are now considering shifting that toward consumers.

So first of all, let me say 100% that I am opposed to injecting more government and taxpayer money into the economy.  It is my unequivocal belief that even if regulations are a necessary evil, subsidies, bailouts, government monopolized industries, etc. cannot create sustainable long term economic results (at least not positive ones).  So my first preference is for the Treasury, the Fed, and Congress to sit back, watch and wait, and quit a) destroying what America stands for, and b) contributing to the panic which causes major financial crises to begin with.

That being said, that is an extremely unlikely scenario.  Given this reality, I am glad that somebody is considering giving this money to consumers, and not to automakers.  I understand the idea that desperate times call for desperate measures, but should those desperate measures target specific industries, or should they target consumers, who have the ability to spend money, and thus contribute to all industries?

Over the summer it was housing, then it was banking and insurance, now it’s autos, what next?  Will the Vegas gaming industry, airlines, restaurants, etc. all be next in line?  We are all feeling the hit pretty badly.  And the gaming industry in Nevada right now is key to the construction industry, the airline industry, the laundry companies, the state’s infrastructure, the education system, tourism for neighboring states, wholesalers of food, wine, and liquor.  Casinos are laying off employees left and right, cutting back hours, etc.  One major project on the Las Vegas strip was put on hold “indefinitely.”  Yes, a partially built building is now just chilling on one of the most valuable pieces of land in the world.  Construction companies are laying people off as construction slows or stops on these projects.

This may seem like a long shot example, but it’s a point I’m trying to make.  We can either continue to move down the line of what legislators think is the “next most important” industry in America, and talk about the “widespread affects” all we want.  The reality of it is that, particuarly with the Democratic victories, we can extend this to just about any industry.

We can continue to socialize our country and prop up one industry after another with the stupid, unfounded hope that this time it will work, that this $100 billion is pushing us over some imaginary line in the sand.  Or we can focus on the financial, banking and credit industries.  In addition to the obvious benefit of confining our socialism to one industry, this makes sense for another reason.

If we can find a way to successfully and cost effectively give consumers both the money and the confidence they need to go shopping (especially in this holiday season), we really are just giving the market a little boost.  We are not propping up industries that have such serious inefficiencies that they should not be operating.  We are allowing consumers and the market to determine which industries and companies succeed and which fail.

So, in the process of moving posts over, I have some (that I haven’t moved yet) that I wonder what I’m going to think of reading back.  Especially as related to my views of candidates, my predictions for outcomes, etc., etc.  I have every intention of reviewing those thoughts in follow ups and taking responsibility (and in some cases, maybe even credit) for those posts.

I would challenge other bloggers to do the same.  Look back at your commentary and predictions every once in a while, and hold yourself accountable.  What better time to do that than a time when we all had plenty of both (commentary and predictions).

The questions I’m going to ask myself, and that I would challenge others out there to ask themselves, are:

1) Was I right?

2)  Do I still believe what I did then?

3) If not either of the above, with 20/20 hindsight, are my previous posts, at the very least, defensible?