Related Articles: News, All

Top Stories: Jan. 13, 2010

Google v. China, Pt. II; The Nature of Marriage; Teamsters & Team San Jose

by Danny Wool on Jan 13, 2010
 Email  Print Share

Arriving on Time at Mineta
There's some good news for Mineta Airport. It may not be getting all the traffic it wants, but at least its flights are arriving on time. According to a recent study, 85.2 percent of all flights landing there arrived at their gates within just 15 minutes of touching ground. While Oakland still remains the best airport in the country for on-time arrivals, its rate is just 1.6 percent better than Mineta's. while Mineta is way ahead of San Francisco, with just 73 percent of flights at SFO arriving on time.

But not all news is good news at the San Jose airport. The number of passengers is still declining steadily, with November's numbers 7.1 percent lower than October's—despite the Thanksgiving Day weekend travel boom. In fact, numbers are down by 50,000 passengers since October. Could fewer traffic snarls account for the timeliness of arrivals?
Read More at KLIV.
Read More at the Mercury News.


Google vs. China, Pt. II
Google's troubles in China extend far beyond the Google Books incident that SanJose.com reported yesterday. The internet juggernaut recently reported that it was the victim of a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack" by hackers, designed to gain access to the email accounts of top Chinese dissidents and human rights activists.

Google reports that the attack failed for the most part: "Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line," Google reported on its official blog. But that's still of deep concern for a company, whose motto is "don't be evil." They do not want a repeat of the Yahoo fiasco, in which that company gave the Chinese government access to the account of journalist Shi Tao in 2005. Shi Tao was sentenced to ten years in prison as a result of the information that Yahoo released.

What can Google do? For one thing it is considering putting a stop to its policy of censoring search results that the Chinese government finds offensive from its Google.cn search portal. ""We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China," wrote Google's Chief Legal Officer David Drummond.

The possibility of this has already been called a "positive step" by Clothilde Le Coz, Director of Reporters Without Borders in Washington. But it may not have the impact that Google really wants. With 400 million internet users, over half of them with broadband connections, China is a vast territory for any internet company, and it is largely unconquered. For search engine results, 62 percent of Chinese users prefer Baidu.com, considered to be " the most proactive and restrictive online censor in the search arena." In contrast, Google handles about 29 percent of search results in China.

Considering that there are 400 million users, that is still a whopping number, but Google has stated it is willing to forego that if it is still forced to censor its results. "Over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law," Drummond wrote in Google's blog, adding an ominous, "if at all."

On the other hand, some observers suggest that Google's departure from China could play into the hands of the Chinese government. At the very least, it will force other American companies to reconsider their own position in China—at least one, Adobe, has already admitted that it too was
the victim of targeted hacking.

By remaining in China these companies could earn the reputation of being "agents of the Chinese government." On the other hand, how can they pull out of the largest potential market in the world, most of which is still open for the taking? And if they do, wouldn't China exploit the situation to strengthen its control over the Internet? In other words, Google may be making a real threat, by China still holds plenty of cards.
Read More at CNN. Read More at the Huffington Post.
Read More at CNet.


Team San Jose Nearing Agreement on McEnery Center
Dan Fenton, CEO of Team San Jose, has been making progress over the bitter labor dispute between San Jose-based Teamsters Local 287 and San Francisco's Teamsters Local 85. Yesterday Fenton delivered the City Council a letter from Rome Aloise, President of the Teamsters Joint Council No. 7. In it, Aloise writes that the Teamsters recognize the exclusivity agreement between the Convention Center and Local 287, and that the San Francisco-based Teamsters protesting the agreement will not be sanctioned to picket outside the Center.

Fenton is scheduled to submit a final status report to City Council before February 28. On that day, City Council will begin debating whether to proceed with the proposed $140 million expansion program for the McEnery Center.
Read More at the Business Journal.


Prop 8 Trial Turns to Historians
The evolution of the family—and historical perceptions regarding the role of the family—was a key issue at the Prop 8 Trial yesterday. The first witness called to the stand was Harvard professor Nancy Cott, an expert on the evolution of marriage.

Cott argued that procreation was a purpose, but no means the central purpose, of marriage, and even cited George Washington's childless marriage as an example of how a childless marriage could be considered advantageous. Without children, there was no chance that Washington could pass the presidency on to an heir, thereby, she implied, protecting the foundations of American democracy. She went on to describe how the disappearance of gender roles in the workforce, particularly in the 1970s, has further changed the role of marriage, emphasizing how love, not some business partnership, now stands at the basis of marital relationships. This differs from the past, she added, when marriage was used as a means of conferring advantage.

Cott also listed the various restrictions—racial and political—that were imposed on American marriages in the past, from miscegenation laws to post-World War I laws stripping women of their citizenship just for marrying a Bolshevik. Miscegenation laws, she pointed out, were only deemed unconstitutional in the SCOTUS's Loving v. Virginia ruling.

Next to take the stand was George Chauncey of Yale, a historian who specializes in the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians. Questioned by San Francisco Assistant Attorney Teresa Stewart, he argued that "The wave of campaigns we've seen against gay marriage rights the last decade are (part) of the cycle of anti-gay rights campaigns." He went on to trace the evolution of gay discrimination in the country from the 19th century to Anita Bryant's well-publicized Save Our Children campaign.

Both Cott and Chaucey faced fierce grilling from the proponents of Proposition 8. Cott especially was called to task over her assertion that the divorce rate in Massachusetts has dropped since it legalized gay marriage. Chaucey is scheduled to be cross-examined this morning.

But the big news today will be a Supreme Court decision over whether the trial can be broadcast on Youtube, which should come sometime this afternoon. Proposition 8 supporters claim that their witnesses could face intimidation from pro-gay marriage activists, and therefore opposes the video broadcasts. It will be interesting to see if Chaucey has anything to say about that argument as an extension of the vilification of gays.
Read More at the Mercury News.
The Sacramento Bee.

See also FireDogLake, which has Teddy Partridge blogging live from the courtroom.



by Danny Wool on Jan 13, 2010
 Email  Print Share