The Z Spot

I am just going to post a brief post here.  I am really indifferent to the situation between Israel and Palestine.  I care that it’s happening, I think it’s very sad, and I feel very sorry for the people who live with that kind of violence every day.  But I really don’t take sides on it.

The reality of it is that both sides have commited some terrible, terrible, atrocities.  And both sides are fighting over what they consider to be a) their home, and b) the center of their religious history.  They are both right, and they are both very, very wrong.  And it’s very ironic to me that two “religious” groups could do this to each other.  When it boils down to it, the fundamental beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are similar.

What I do have a serious problem with is the serious double standard the U.S. applies in this situation, and relative to other situations.  Even our statement that Israel’s attacks are unjustified is hedged with the declaration that the attacks were still justified.  If this were any other nation, we would demand an immediate stop to the violence, no caveats attached.  This situation undermines the U.S.’s credibility in all international relations.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Cross-country drive

I would highly recommend that anyone who gets the chance take a few days (or maybe even just one, if you’re with a group of people) and drive from the Midwest to Nevada. Well, maybe fly into Colorado, then drive. Utah and Colorado were beautiful, especially after Iowa and Nebraska.

It was amazing to me to see that even in today’s age, you can go 100 miles without seeing a gas station, a motel, or any other sign of human progress in parts of Utah.

Again, highly recommended.

I’m now in Vegas, which is in itself bautiful. It reminds me of the towns in Indiana kind of. Gated communities of apartments and condos and homes, wide roads, strip malls everywhere. But then, you look out and there’s beautiful mountains. And beautiful desert depending on where you are.

Posted by Zach at 2:47 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: Colorado, Nevada, travel, Utah

Sunday, January 13, 2008

This caught my eye

This story appeared in the NY Times online. It caught my eye. It’s very catchy and alarming. But not very scientific. The reporters at least acknowledge that they haven’t proved a causal relationship.

The first thing that came to mind with this (although they do compare pre-war and war era numbers) is that perhaps the cause here is related to a different problem with our military.

The military gets large numbers of recruits from many of the same groups that are prone to crime. Mostly, the poor and minorities. With promises of educational assistance, the military lures in those who might not otherwise be able to afford to go to college. Or those who never thought about going to college, and didn’t have a career in mind upon graduating from high school. Or those whose parents think they need more discipline (even if it means putting their child’s life on the line). These are people who often have underlying problems, and grew up in situations where crime was common.

Is it possible that the military gave them the tools, not the cause, to commit their crimes?

Posted by Zach at 12:05 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: afghanistan, iraq, military, new york times, veterans

So I’ve posted this in several comments on other people’s blogs.  Those people usually get all upset, and often misunderstand what I have said.  They say that Obama and his cabinet (as Obama claimed a few weeks ago) had not discussed the Senate appointment with Blagojevich at all.  I say that this is highly unlikely, and that Obama should never have said that.  Instead, he should have come clean about what was said, because inevitably, a link between Obama and the corrupt Illinois governor.  One blogger (I forget who, but I think it might have been Len from First Door on the Left ) then challenged me to find any link between Obama and Blago or any other corrupt members of the Chicago political machine.  I did so.  He then said something along the lines of “Being associated, or having these conversations, does not mean Obama or his advisors did anything wrong.  You have not proved that they did.”

To which my response was that I never claimed that he did anything wrong.  I claimed that there was a very good chance that he was much more intimately connected to both Blago and the appointment scandal, than he made it appear.  And I was right.  The New York Times reported today that the new White House counsel released a report which stated that Emanuel had, in fact, discussed the appointment with the governor.

I don’t  believe that Obama has done anything wrong, but consider that that report was based off of the “recollections” of Obama’s advisors themselves, not off of the wiretapped conversations.  This is not the last we will hear of it.  Worst case scenario, Obama or somebody close to him will be discovered to have been more involved than they acknowledged even this time.  Best case scenario, the facts are exactly as Obama described them.  But there will still be rumors and discussions and speculations.  Obama has now changed his story three times:

1) An aide said Obama was involved in discussions regarding the appointments.

2) Obama says he and his campaign/aides have had no contact with the Governor about the issue.

3) Obama’s counsel releases a statement saying that Obama and aides were involved in discussions regarding the appointments.

And all of this before any real evidence comes to light.  And before Obama has taken office.  If what was said in the report is true, Obama should have said, flat out, from the get go, “My chief of staff and I have been involved in discussions, but were not involved in any improper or inappropriate discussions.  No proposals were considered by myself or my aides which would have resulted in exchanging the seats for benefits to the Governor.”  Period.  The truth can’t hurt if somebody has done no wrong.  Obama is making himself look like another Bill Clinton (”I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”) before he even gets elected.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Why every Republican should vote for John McCain

Yes. That may seem like a rather bold statement. Shouldn’t the election be about expressing your views on who the best candidate is? Yes. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works here.

Several newspapers reported on this over the last two days. But in case you haven’t heard, McCain is the only candidate even close to being able to beat Hillary or Obama in the general election. Yeah. Romney is especially dangerous. In fact, more people said they would not consider voting for him if he gets the nomination than would vote or consider voting for him.

Electability is usually a crock. The numbers don’t really back the dramatic claims usually made by candidates. This cycle is an exception.

What this country needs to regain its legitimacy, both domestically and abroad, is to distance itself from anybody, particularly neocons and evangelicals, with whom Bush can be associated. If Republicans want to see a Republican in office in 2009, they need to vote for candidates who can successfully distance themselves from the Republican Party of the Bush administration, and the bad taste it has left in swing (and other) voters’ mouths. McCain and Paul are the only candidates that can do that. They are the only candidates who appeal to moderate or Democratic voters. And Ross Perot has a better chance of winding up on the ballot in the general election than Ron Paul. And he’s not even running.

So, if you don’t want to see the White House go to the Dems, or, for that matter, if you don’t want it to go to Hillary or Obama, vote McCain.

Eli Blake said…

To be honest, McCain does scare me as a candidate though. The other day in his N.H. victory speech, McCain sounded like the honest cowboy who isn’t afraid to walk into a bar and order a milkshake (straight out of 1950’s westerns). If you closed your eyes and listened to the voice, it reminded me of Reagan.

Which really does scare me. Because if listening to him reminded me of Reagan (and I totally disagreed with 99% of what Reagan stood for) then I’m sure I’m not the only one who heard the Gipper in that speech. And some of the others who did are probably Republicans.

But let’s be honest about something: McCain (who the other day said he’d be fine with keeping U.S. troops in Iraq ‘for a hundred years,’) is a continuation of Bush. He is every bit as stubborn as Bush, and he is well connected to a lot of Bush cronies (by which I mean Bush I cronies like Brent Scowcroft and Frank Fahrenkopf, both of whom are on the board of directors for the International Republican Institute (IRI) a neo-con ‘foreign policy’ organization originally established to provide an ‘alternate reality’ to Jimmy Carter and the U.N. in terms of election monitoring, if necessary. McCain is an improvement on the specific matter of torture of prisoners, but I’m not willing to hand the GOP another four or eight years of running things the way they are just to get the U.S. back into compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

January 12, 2008 11:30 PM

Zach said…

Hey Eli,
Thanks for taking a minute to check my blog out. And actually comment.

I guess that in response, I would make two points. First of all, to you as a Democrat, McCain seems like an extension of Bush, and is scary. To Republicans, that’s not necessarily true. The other area (other than keeping troops in Iraq) in which he mirrors Bush’s policies are immigration. Which ironicall, both he and Bush have the most moderate, and (in my mind at least) sensible, views in the Republican party.

The second point is this: is McCain scarier than an evangelist like Huckabee, or than Romney? Appearantly, according to huge portions of the population, he’s not.

Although McCain’s policies (particularly in IR issues) tend to be pretty conservative, he is known for working in a bipartisan way.

Similar to my views on Feingold, I hope that at the very least, Democrats can recognize that although his policies may not be what they like to see, McCain is the type of guy that we should all hope to see in office. That is, he is honest, stands by his principals, and is willing to cross party lines to work for the people of this country.

January 12, 2008 11:37 PM

  So, I received the “Lemonade Award” from News Today and now I’m finally getting around to passing it on.  So here’s the rules of the award:

1. Put the logo on your blog or post.
2. Nominate at least 10 blogs which show great Attitude and/or Gratitude!
3. Be sure to link to your nominees within your post
4. Let them know that they have received this award by commenting on their blog.
5. Share the love and link to this post and to the person from whom you received your award.

And here’s my 10:

1.  Letters in Bottles

2.  Waxing Poetically

3.  Caffeinated Politics

4.  Conservative Politics Today

5. Man in the Moon

6.  First Door on the Left

7.  Matt-Speak

8.  The Latin Americanist

9.  The Relevant Rhino

10.  Opinionated News

Just wanted to take an opportunity to make one more quick observation.

Has anybody heard a Chicago or Illinois politician actually criticize Blago for his actions?  Think long and hard.  And yes, I’m including Obama.

Nobody has said flat out that what Blago did was wrong.  Their comments, it’s my opinion, have been very carefully worded, so that people would assume that they thought Blagojevich was wrong.  On the other hand, they could be (and I think are) talking about the whole situation as much as his actions.  Let’s look at a couple of quick examples:

“This is a crisis of confidence.” Lietuenant Governor Pat Quinn

“This is a sad day for Illinois.” Barrack Obama.

These two comments (one from somebody who hates Blagojevich) could be as much about him getting caught as him being corrupt in the first place.

Two theories on why these comments are being made this way.  First, the individuals don’t want to be seen as criticizing other Chicago politicians for this.  Not only should they be sticking by the Democratic side, but if they criticize Blago for corruption, what does it say about every other less-than-straight Chicago Democrat?

Second, and more sinister, they know that they have less than clean pasts themselves.  Whether in this particular investigation or in separate issues, they know that their own misdeeds could eventually come to light.  And they don’t want to look too hypocritical if they get caught.

I know that sounds perhaps too negative, BUT, one of the candidates under consideration was already identified as Valerie Jarrett, a key Obama aide, and another (the most controversial) as Jesse Jackson, a major figure in Chicago politics.  So who knows who else will be implicated in this or other scandals in Illinois politics.

Okay.  So let me preface this by saying that I understand that political corruption should not just be accepted as “business as usual,” and that this involves Obama, and that people that didn’t grow up with Chicago politics, or study the Chicago mafia maybe aren’t as jaded about politics as I am.  Perhaps jaded isn’t the right word.  Jaded implies negativity.  Forgiving might be a better word for my views on political corruption.  Or complacent.  Or a mix of the three.

Am I saying that Blagojevich should stay in office after getting caught?  Absolutely not.

I am saying, though, that the media circus surrounding this is unjustified.  We Illinoisans (okay, so those Illinoisans.  I couldn’t vote when he came into office and haven’t lived in Illinois for over 5 years) elected a Chicago Democrat to be our governor.  Given that even the Republican incumbent had just been caught in a corruption scandal, I don’t know what we were thinking, if we were looking for a lack of any kind of political corruption.

Chicago is the “City that Works,” not the “City With Clean Books.”  The first Mayor Daley is largely credited with eliminating the Chicago outfit of the Italian Mafia.  This is a mistake.  Daley relocated large segments of the outfit to the suburbs, and he kept the outfit under control.  He sent a clear message that random acts of public violence were not to be tolerated.  At the same time, there were and probably still are labor unions, contractors, developers, etc. that work very closely with the City of Chicago who are controlled by the remnants of the outfit.

We’re talking about a city where Mayor Daley appoints neighborhood “Associations” and their officers.  That’s right.  The mayor, not the residents, pick the members and officers of several “Neighborhood Associations.”  The one where I grew up was nicknamed “The Mayor of XXXXX” (being the neighborhood I grew up in).

We’re talking about a city where Obama (our next President) lost an election to the State Senate by huge margins, and then went and kissed some butts, sat down with the right people, and low and behold, had an overwhelming victory in his next bid.

We’re talking about a city where Italian and Irish neighborhoods get plowed before snowstorms are even over, and other parts of the city literally wait days to have their streets cleared.

We’re talking about a city which every few years has a new major “ghost payroll” scandal.

We’re talking about a city where the Mayor pushed a huge “blue bag recycling program,” and residents paid extra money for blue bags, only to have  garbage companies driving the blue bags across state lines and dumping them in landfills to cut costs.

We’re talking about a city where the Mayor’s budget proposals are rarely questioned by the majority of alders, much less rejected or ammended.  We’re talking about a city where those alders who go against the Mayor generally don’t get reelected.  We’re also, before I come across as too negative, talking about a City where even Republicans keep electing Democratic mayors.  They get things done.  But sometimes, it’s best to enjoy the tree-lined streets and improved public school system without asking too many questions.

So should we really be all that surprised that after giving a Chicago Democrat the sole power to (uncensored) appoint a Senator, he would try to make a little money, a few new friends, or a career for him or his wife off of the deal?  I’m sure whoever he appointed would be qualified, regardless of whether that was the main factor in their selection or not.   Even more so, should we be surprised that one of the career paths he was digging for was with the Unions?

Instead of acting like this is new, surprising, and shocking, maybe we should be thankful that this former Assistant State’s Attorney became a politican and not a judge.

So, I got frustrated with one of the blogs on my blogroll, and took it off.  I thought I’d take a moment to explain why.  I’m not going to name the blog, but I think the author may read my blog.

To me, the very beauty of blogging is the interactive, community feel.  Commenting is what creates that effect.  Blogs without comments are basically self-righteous, unpopular, and biased attempts at publishing an online newspaper.

I will never add a blog to my blogroll which does not allow comments.  I will also never overly censor my commentors.  If you spam me, or your comment consists of “you suck” and nothing but, yes, I will moderate it.  But, if you disagree with me, I will always publish the comment.

This particular blog blocked a comment I left.  Yes, it got a little bit personal.  BUT, if you choose to post on happenings in your own life, and your personal thoughts, you should expect that comments will be appropriate to that topic, positive or negative.

My blogroll here is fairly similar to that at my other blog.  I put an in depth (not really, but more than just the name) summary of my blogroll up, so if that’s what you want, check it out .   The rest of you, remember, the internet is a forum for open discussion.  If you don’t want to take criticism on your views, your actions, or the choices you make, don’t post them on the internet.  Leave censorship to the MSM.

So I have mixed feelings about the UAW’s concessions to the Big Three.

First, let me applaud the UAW and other unions, who, realizing the times we are going through right now,  have been less militant and demanding than usual.  Without going into too much detail, I’ll just say that in Nevada, we see a bit of this with our unions too.

It’s good to see that the Unions are willing to work with companies to keep them afloat, since, no automakers means no autoworkers.  Which means no UAW.

On the other hand, these concessions just highlight a point which I would argue is of grave concern.  Where was the UAW when it was pushing the Big Three into these conditions?  American automakers are not competitive with their foreign counterparts largely because the labor expenses are so much higher.

And now, who is the UAW really representing by giving up retiree benefits and job stability?  As much as on a larger scale, we can look at this and say that this is what needs to happen, what if you were an autoworker about to retire, or at risk of getting laid off?  Would you not wonder what the Union has done for you?

Have Unions outlived their usefulness?  In the days of no-strike (and certainly no sympathy strike) clauses in contracts, and when people have to go to work to make a living, what power do Unions really hold?  When was the last time a U.S. Union went on strike and accomplished something?  For that matter, what was the last major change to the status quo brought about by a Union in this country?

I would argue that the Unions served their purpose at one time.  There were once casino workers, auto workers, construction workers, and skilled tradesmen who were not making a living wage, and would not be able to retire.  The standard wages in these fields, however, are now well above a “living” wage.  Most companies offer 401ks (often matching).  In fact, Union job stability provisions often frustrate younger, more able, and more motivated employees who feel their work is not being recognized because they don’t have the “seniority.”

At some point, I think Unions stopped being for the workers and started being for the Unions.  For example, many tradesmen join Unions not because the wages are better or they need the benefits, but because in some parts of the country, it is difficult if not impossible to find non-Union work in Unionized trades.

Although I applaud the UAW for its pragmatism, realism, and cooperation in this situation, I wonder if they realize the message behind their actions.  It seems they are admitting that perhaps the Union in America is at or nearing the end of its days.