Last weekend, as I was driving up to San Francisco, I saw signs by both opponents and proponents of California's Proposition 8. The Yes camp had a sign that said Restore Marriage, while the No camp has signs that say Unfair and wrong.

Now, I'm strongly against Proposition 8, but I have to say, the No camp has a pretty crappy slogan. The point of these signs is to convince the undecided and ignorant voters. Unfair? Unfair is what whiny 4 year olds say when they're unhappy about how little candy they got*. Besides, there's some research that shows not everybody cares as much about fairness as liberals do. Wrong? Well, some people think it's not wrong, and that's why it's up for vote. On the other hand, who could say no to restoring marriage? Yes, it's misleading because the proposition isn't about restoring anything (in fact it's about taking away rights from homosexual couples), but an undecided or ignorant voter isn't going to necessarily know that.

Personally, if I were to come up with a slogan, I probably would've gone with something like Support Equality, or Stop Discrimination; anything that's easier to say "Yes, I can support that" than "unfair and wrong". On the other hand, I wonder if there was market research showing that "unfair and wrong" was effective among undecided voters.

*Just to be clear, I'm not trying to belittle the issue here. I'm just saying that without context (which campaign placards often lack, as do ignorant voters), that's what people may think of when they see the word "unfair".

Here's my current thinking on this year's California ballot propositions:

• Proposition 1A: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century

  My vote: NO
  Reason: I really like the idea of a highspeed rail line, and agree with practically all the arguments put forth by proponents. But I plan on voting against it because I don't think it's realistic. Estimates are that it could cost the tax payers up to $81 billion over the next 20+ years, and I think we'll be lucky to have any rail line, much less one that can actually transport people from SF to LA in under 3 hours. As a country, much less a state, we do not have the technical knowledge or ability to successfully take on and complete a project of this scale and scope. A failed and expensive project will only hinder future options to improve public transportation.
  What I would support: I'm for "release early, release often." I would support some initiative that breaks down the process into smaller steps, with checks along the way, as well as a clear plan to accomplish what has never been done in the US (remember, we couldn't have gone to space without the German scientists).

• Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals

  My vote: NO
  Reason: I like animals, and I think we should be nice to them. But I'm also pragmatic, and know we eat animals for fun and profit... and protein. The burden this proposition would place on consumers and food producers simply isn't worth the slight feeling of fuzziness some people might get.
  Alternative: Generally, happy animals are also healthier (themselves, and to consume), tastier, and greener. However, such livestock may be more expensive to grow, and hence more expensive to buy. I might support a proposition that would help tip the economic balance more in favor of such sustainably grown (and incidentally happier) livestock.

• Proposition 3: Children's Hospital Bond Act

  My vote: YES
  Reason: By default, I'm in favor of helping hospitals, and I haven't heard a good counter argument.
  

• Proposition 4: Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative

  My vote: NO
  Reason: This is just a thinly veiled affront to women's right to choose. Supposedly the goal is to ensure adequate care in the event of a botched abortion, and to ensure incidences of sexual abuse are reported to authorities (if medical professionals neglect their legal requirement to do so). While I agree both ends are worth striving for, I don't believe parental notification is the best answer.

• Proposition 5: Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act

  My vote: YES
  Reason: I think treatment and rehabilitation is more effective than incarceration, and I don't think we have much to gain from keeping non-violent criminals in our overtaxed prisons.

• Proposition 6: Safe Neighborhoods Act

  My vote: NO
  Reason: I don't think funding prisons by taking money away from education and health care, or sentencing harsher punishment to teenagers, really lead to safer neighborhoods.

• Proposition 7: Renewable energy

  My vote: NO
  Reason: When the Republican, Democratic, and Green parties, along with PG&E and the Sierra Club oppose something, you don't really need much else of a reason.

• Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry

  My vote: NO
  Reason: People have the right to believe what they will, and religious institutions have the right to preach what they will. But as long as we have a secular government, laws should be guided by reason, and strive towards equality and liberty for all.

• Proposition 9: Victims' Rights and Protection Act of 2008

  My vote: NO
  Reason: It seems like the "victims rights" portions overlaps with a law that already exists, and the rest seems to be about lengthening the cycle between parole hearings, ostensibly to save money. I think paroles are an important facet of our criminal justice system, and don't think we should deny prisoners the chance to have their case heard simply for the sake of saving a few bucks.

• Proposition 10: California Alternative Fuels Initiative

  My vote: NO
  Reason: It's heavily funded by corporations (including Chesapeake Energy, of which I am a shareholder) which makes me suspicious. On the other hand, the Union of Concerned Scientist and the Sierra Club are against it, so that's all the reason I need.

• Proposition 11: Voters FIRST Act,

  My vote: YES
  Reason: Apparently the current system's broken, so let's change it and see if it gets better. Things won't get better if you don't change anything.

• Proposition 12: Veterans' Bond Act of 2008

  My vote: YES
  Reason: I'm for supporting veterans, and there's basically no cost to tax payers.

When you take a job that can be performed equally well by either sexes and give it (or not give it) to a person based solely on their sex, that's sexism. McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate is sexist, pure and simple. She wasn't chosen because of her qualifications. She wasn't chosen because she has knowledge or experiences that complement McCain's. She was chosen because she's a woman.

Several days ago a "powerful bomb" demolished a Shiite shrine in Iraq, and I couldn't stop myself from coming up with a conspiracy theory. I'm no expert, but pictures show thick cables sticking out, which, to me, means reinforced concrete. If that's the case, we're not talking about a stick of dynamite, or even a couple of artillery shells duct taped together; we're talking hundreds of pounds of explosives. Also, the dome seems to have been levelled completely flat at the top, which seems to imply equally distributed forces, caused by a centrally located explosive device.

If my assessment is correct (likely not, but stick with me here), this raises some questions. Who would be able to carry out such an attack? And who gains from such an attack? Unfortunately, the answer to both questions would be: the US.

The former case is obvious; we have the most capable military in the world, there's not much we couldn't destroy (well, fixed targets, at least). The second case requires a bit more of a stretch. The last few days have proven the incident to possess sufficient volatility to incite significant sectarian conflict. If the US is unable (or unwilling) to quelch such conflict, it is likely to lead to a messy, bloody, full blown civil war. This would definitely be a loss to US intentions, yet it would give us an exit strategy. If the administration were to say "We tried to bring them democracy, instead, they decided to fight themselves" the US public (and I'm talking about the same public that voted this current administration into office), would likely accept that as reasonable grounds for withdrawal (besides, Vietnam was a civil war --I think people still remember that). Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, a civil war in Iraq would compel the UN and the rest of the world to become involved in Iraq, allowing the US to relinquish control and responsibility. With sufficient international cooperation, there is also some chance of peace in Iraq, thus fulfilling a US objective that is clearly currently unattainable. Either way, the US gets an out.

This past week, Yahoo! caught some flak for cooperating with the DoJ's request for search data, while Google got some good press. From what I've read, the story's been given quite a spin, so here are some thoughts (disclaimer: I work for Yahoo! but not in Search and I don't know any more than what's been reported in the media. I do, however, have not-yet-vested interest in YHOO stock prices):

• Spin 1: Yahoo! (and others) simply rolled on their backs and cooperated with Big Bro. If the official statements from Yahoo! and others are to be believed (and I think they can be believed), this was not the case. They did cooperate, yes, but only to a limited degree, and no personally identifiable data was released. I think that's an important distinction to make.
• Spin 2: It's a slippery slope from here... Um, no. In between giving the government data with no personally identifiable information, and giving them data with identifiable information lies not so much a slope, but a big cliff. If we're at the point where companies like Yahoo! and Google hand over personally identifiable data on millions of private citizens to the government, we've gone over the edge and it's time to stop talking and start packing. But unlike slipping down a slope, you know when you've fallen off a cliff.
• Spin 3: Giving the government data sets a dangerous precedence Perhaps so. But Google went all adolescent on us, and they got themselves sued by the DoJ. What happens if, on the off chance, the DoJ wins? It sets a legal precedence, which is far far more dangerous than this "Oh, but Yahoo! gave us this data once..." type precedence.
• Spin 4: Google resisted the government's request out of ideological righteousness, because Google can't do evil Granted, that was a brilliant PR move, but anyone who thinks they're doing this to be "good" might be under the influence of the Google Reality Distortion Field. Their decision was likely based on technical and business reasons (1. they have tons of data, 2. they're very secretive), at least as much as on moral reasons.

In principle, I support Yahoo's decision. By giving the DoJ limited data with no personal information, Yahoo! (and MS and AOL) managed to balance the need for government compliance with customer privacy. Seeing how Yahoo! got hammered by Wall Street partially for high operating costs early last week, a fight with the government on this one wouldn't have benefitted anyone.

Having said that, this turned out to be a huge PR loss for Yahoo! and others. I've seen a number of people comment on how they are less likely to use Yahoo! over Google now (if they ever did use Yahoo!, of course). Yes, such people are misguided in their reasoning, but ignorance happens, and Yahoo! may suffer for it in terms of decreased search traffic -> decreased ad revenues and market share -> lower stock prices.

Then again, this may not have been a clear victory for Google either. After being heroically defiant, they got sued by the DoJ, which may have caused the sharp drop in GOOG prices. And depending on how the court case ends up, they may ultimately end up giving up data after all, or possibly set a worse legal precedence. So the jury, quite literally, is still out on this one. I guess we'll be hearing more. [Tagged: yahoo search doj google ]

As has been widely reported on the interweb, the Fench Department of Culture is apparently trying to ban the publication of Free/Open Source (and presumably, open source) software source code, and I'm rather baffled. If they had decided to ban all foreign books, for example, I'd at least understand the rationale; I wouldn't agree with it, but I can atleast comprehend how foreign books can affect culture. But source code? Programming languages are a highly constrained form of expression, barely capable of conveying complex ideas, muich less ones of any cultural significance. Hell, I'd say software (in executable form) has much more impact on culture than code, but they don't seem to take issue with that... Baffling. Absolutely baffling. [Tagged: open+source french+department+of+culture ]

Japan and Korea are apparently in a dispute (again) over a tiny island somewhere in the Sea of Japan/East Sea. According to the Wikipedia entry, Japan had claims to the islands and effectively occupied it until the end of WW2. After the war, the allies didn't quite make the status of the islands clear, and it was left out of the 1952 Treaty of San Francisco (which settled most other disputed islands) as well. In January 1953, the South Korean government ordered the army to enforce their claim over the island. The Japanese coast guard responded, an armed skirmish followed, a Japanese ship was sunk, Japan offered to take it to International Court, the Koreans rejected, and South Koreans have occupied it since. In fact, the official South Korean position says they have "effective domination" over the island, which as far as I can tell, is another way of saying "we took it over by force, deal with it."

Being (technically) Japanese, I'm constantly afraid of sounding fascist, but in this case, I gotta give it to the Japanese. You can't criticize another country for invading and colonizing your own country, then try and do the same (that is, critcizing is justified, doing the same is not). Having said that, the South Korean government apparently "considers sovereignty over the islands as more important than good relations with Japan" (from BBC article). In that case, I say give it to the South Koreans. Having good relations with your neighbors, especially neighbors you've been bad to in the past, is much more important than a tiny island (although I guess it's more about the rich fishing grounds around the island, than the island itself --and the island may also have some strategic significance, since it was used as a naval base during the war).

Just saw this on Slashdot, and it seems like it could be a huge step towards fixing our electoral system if it's passed (big if, if you ask me).

It includes all kinds of sensible things like,

• required paper trails
• designating election day as a federal holiday
• making deceptive behavior (like telling people in poor neighborhoods the wrong voting date or polling place) a federal crime
• restricting political activities of managers and executives at voting machine manufacturers
• and my favorite:

  Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code, object code, and executable representation of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code, object code, and executable representation available for inspection upon request to any citizen.

I just added Policy Forum to my list of links (see right sidebar). Policy Forum has a laudable goal of "brining moderation back to politics" and unlike most political blogs, include contributions from liberal, moderate and conservative students.

And, Ryan McCarl ("managing editor") lives in Hitchcock.

According to reports in the Japanese media (one here, another here), Colin Powell testified at a senate hearing that "no WMD stockpiles have been found, and it is unlikely that such stockpiles will ever be found" in Iraq (my translation).

Oh, apparently it's also being reported (in English) by Reuters.

I'm greatly annoyed by the latest hubbub surrounding notes that Bush's superior from the National Guard may or may not have written. In fact, I've been annoyed every time anyone gave much attention to either candidates' history circa 1965-1975.

(Caution: political rant ahead. Turn on head lights next 10 miles.)
Show Rest of Post

The Memory Hole's obtained 361 "secret" pictures of flag draped caskets from the Air Force, and posted them on the web. In response, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said: "We must pay attention to the privacy and to the sensitivity of the families of the fallen".

Like most other things spouted forth from the Da House these days, that made me go "Wah?!". Since when was ignoring, marginalizing, and hiding someone's death considered a way to honor them? If that's true, why do we have obitraries, funerals, and marked graves? I don't know about in the White House, but in most other places in our society, we honor the dead by remembering them.

So, in honor and memory of those soldiers who perished in Iraq at the whim of an incompetent regime, I present to you the photos:

So the Pentagon apparently took a quick break from all the death and destruction, and decided to take a look at this whole global warming thing despite Bush's assertion that it's all a hoax. The result? Why, more death and destruction in a hellish world of nuclear proliferation, mass starvation, sinking nations, and wars fought for survival of entire countries. Coming soon, to your country in the next 20 years.

I hope they were just trying to scare Bush into accepting the unfortunate fact that getting rich off of oil and fossil-fuel-burning is somewhat outdated. Because if they're serious, we've got one helluva life ahead of us.

See article and key points from Pentagon report.

After seeing the Why War list of Diebold memo mirrors, I thought of putting one up on my uchicago account, but it seems like a couple of people beat me to it. But I figured I'd set up a mirror anyway: http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~ryochiji/. I haven't reported it back to the Why War folks, partially because the site's down, but also because I figured if I wait until they send the first round of C&Ds to U of C (if they do) and then put up my mirror, it'd be more work for them (they'd have to send another C&D).

Also, there's an anti-NRA petition going around that seems to have gathered quite a momentum. To sign, go to http://www.nrablacklist.com. I think it's legit, but ya never know...

Wesley Clark, has officially entered the race for presidency. I blogged about him before, but to me, he seems like the only decent candidate. He went to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, which makes him one smart cookie (and probably also means he speaks English), and he's a retired four-star general, which means he understands and knows how to control the beast of a military we have. He was against the war in Iraq, and he seems like an intelligent yet humble sort of guy. In short, he's the complete opposite of Bush (a dumb, inarticulate, belligerent, ignorant and arrogant cowboy wannabe and Christian fundamentalist) who could probably at least partially reverse the damages the Bush regime has caused, and hopefully lead this country out of the miles of shit it's dug itself into.