Proposition 8: How Wording Made All the Difference

In an upsetting - but expected ruling - the CA Supreme Court voted to uphold Proposition 8, which reads:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Wording like this would have been torn to shreds by my high school debate team (which once, rather infamously, defined Huckleberry Finn, in the statement "Episcopal Academy should ban Huckleberry Finn," as the character himself.  The team then argued that to ban a character, but not the book itself, is absurd.  They nearly won.).  But I disgress...

Proposition 8 was awkwardly written, and intentionally so.  Consider some intepretations:

• Only (marriage between a man and a woman) is valid or recognized in California.  Nothing else - nothing at all - is valid.
  
• (Only marriage) between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.  Of all legal or other agreements between a man and a woman, marriage is the only one that's valid.
• [No parenthetical equivalent] Pair "only" with "a man and a woman" to imply that no other marriages are valid.  This says nothing about other, non-marriage contracts.

Proposition 8 wants you, of course, to select the third option.  But should we?  Consider an analogy: "Only boys between the ages of 10 and 15 can apply."  

Common sense suggests that we parse the sentence as "Only (boys between the ages of 10 and 15) can apply."  Thus, no girls allowed.  Proposition 8, however, would have us pair "only" with "between the ages of 10 and 15" to imply that no other boys are able to apply.  This says nothing about other, non-boy applicants.  Girls are allowed, then?

Given the awkward, ambiguous wording, why didn't Proposition 8 say what it meant?  Why wasn't it written as "ban same-sex marriage" or "marriages between same-sex couples are not valid or recognized."?  Because wording matters.

Proposition 8 almost certainly would not have passed had it said what it meant: ban same-sex marriage.

From National Organization for Marriage's talking points:

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

52% of voters voted for Proposition 8; by NOM's own admission, only 42% would have voted for it had it been clearly written.  It should have been a resounding failure, not a narrow success.

So, please, do not let anyone tell you that "the people of California have spoken."  First, the voters spoke, not the people (voters do not accurately represent the people).  Second, the voters voted to support Prop 8, not to ban same-sex marriage.  There's a big difference - a 10 percentage point difference.

Wording matters.  It made all the difference in passing Proposition 8.

Think Less, Experiment More: 5 Lessons on Entrepreneurship

A guest blog post I wrote for Women Grow Business:

Working for Microsoft, Google and Apple, I not only became a better engineer - I became a better entrepreneur. Their successes and failures, encapsulated in these five lessons, provided me with invaluable instruction in how to build a company and effectively compete.

#1. Build a large network.
The “Biggies,” as I like to call them, have an unfair advantage: they have a network of literally thousands of experts. At Apple, I worked with some of the industry’s best designers. Microsoft has people who specialize in every conceivable role. At Google, I could walk down the hall and speak with the inventors of revolutionary technologies.

To compete with the biggies, you’ll need a network of your own. Get out to those start-up happy hours. Grab business cards. Set up coffee and lunch chats. And be open - you never know who might come in handy.

Keep reading here.

New! Affiliate Program for CareerCup

Good news bloggers and website owners!  CareerCup has just launched its new affiliate program.  CareerCup's affiliate programs allows website owners to post a link / ad for CareerCup's interview guide and, in return, collect some of the revenue from any sale.  Best of all, it's super-easy to use!

We offer two designs: Horizontal (example) and Vertical (example)

Preliminary tests have shown that it far outperforms Google Adsense ads.  Want in on the action?  Great!  Follow these instructions, or just tweak this code:

<SCRIPT type="text/javascript" src="http://www.careercup.com/js/affiliate.js"></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT type="text/javascript">
var cc_width = 650;
var cc_font_size = 12;
var cc_header_font_size = 14;
var cc_background = '#FFFFFF';
var cc_header_color = '#009193';
var cc_guarantee_color = '#FF0000';
var cc_link_color = '#009193';
var cc_type = 'horizontal';
writeAffiliateCode('mydomain.com', '1');
</SCRIPT>

When you've got it up and running, email me your name, paypal account, and url.  You'll get a 20% cut of the revenue and will be paid each month.

Plan B for 17 year olds: Risky?

Mike Galanos wrote an opinion piece for the CNN asserting that Plan B is risky for 17 year olds. His argument, however, doesn't hold water. Let's take a look at it, bit by bit:

Think of a 17-year-old girl. Most of the time she's a high school senior, still living at home with Mom and Dad.

Ok, thinking, thinking... got it: A 17 year old girl, terrified to admit to her parents that she not only has sex (gasp!), but had unprotected sex. Will she take the chance at pregnancy to avoid telling her parents? Yeah, probably.

She still needs her parents in the tough times. But they will be cut out of a traumatic situation.

Wait, what's traumatic here? The sex? That's not traumatic. Unprotected sex? Not traumatic, as long as it doesn't result in pregnancy. So, actually, we're preventing a traumatic situation.

Now keep in mind birth control pills require a doctor's prescription, but a drug that is more powerful doesn't?

Ok - so maybe we should make birth control pills over the counter too? And, also, while Plan B is more powerful per pill, but birth control is a much more serious health concern because you're on it for weeks, months, years. The depression and other things that can result from birth control isn't really a risk with Plan B.

Some argue that a girl can get an abortion without parental notification in some states, so why not Plan B? But just because those states got it wrong by leaving parents out of the loop doesn't mean others should follow suit.

Let's make sure we can follow his argument here (where the ">" means "more serious than"): Abortion > Plan B > Birth control pills. States allow abortion without parental consent, but that doesn't imply allowing Plan B. But, earlier, he basically used the opposite logic: if states don't allow birth control, why would they allow a more serious drug? Inconsistent logic.

In most states, minors can't get a tattoo, body piercings or go to a tanning salon without a parent's permission, but we are going to leave them alone to take Plan B.

Well, yes, this makes sense because of the consequences of not providing access to Plan B: pregnancy. What's the consequence of not providing access to tattoos?

Timing is essential to the drug's effectiveness, Plan B supporters say, so getting parents and doctors involved would unnecessarily delay the teen's ability to pop the pill the "morning after." Does it really take that long to get a prescription?

First, it can take a while if it's on a weekend (and teens do have this tendency to have sex on weekends). Second, it would unnecessarily prevent the teen from telling her parents. Do you not know teenage girls? They don't really like getting grounded or barred from seeing their boyfriends.

The New York Times reports that since 18-year-olds were allowed to get Plan B without a prescription in 2006, there has been no evidence of it having an effect on the country's teen pregnancy or abortion rates.

True, but they also showed no increase in risky behaviors. So, 1 point for each side here.

We're enabling teenagers to act carelessly with an easy way out.

Yeah! Let's punish them with unplanned pregnancy! Brilliant!

"Teenagers are known for thinking they're untouchable and here we are saying that they can continue to do that and that there aren't any consequences."

Ah, so you admit that teens tend to think that nothing bad could happen to them? So, given that attitude, if they have unprotected sex, will they tell their parents so that they can get Plan B? I didn't think so.

The boyfriend will talk his girlfriend into unprotected sex with the promise of buying the "morning after pill" the next day.

Please, show me some data stating that this is a concern. Last I checked, boys were also scared of pregnancy - especially since, as you stated, Plan B is only 89% effective. (In fact, boys might be more scared of pregnancy, since they don't get any say in abortion.)

Yes, this could encourage unprotected sex and that means a greater risk for sexually transmitted diseases.

(A) Studies have shown that it doesn't increase promiscuity. (B) Isn't Plan B like $40 a pop? I don't think people are going to really rely on this as their sole method of birth control.

What about the 17-year-old girl who may get Plan B for her 15-year-old sophomore friend?

What about it? I'm ok with that, since it's certainly better than the 15 year old not taking it at all.

Yes, teens have sex and difficult situations will arise, but should we open the door for our girls to go through this alone? That is not what is best for our daughters.

See, here's the thing: Plan B supporters are trying to make sure your daughters don't have to go through "this" at all (where "this" is an unplanned pregnancy).

And, allow me to make a few additional points:

1. The average age in the US for people to lose their virginity is about 17. So to say that parents need to be informed that their 17 year old is having sex is a little extreme. If you have a 17 year old, they're probably having sex. This is not a crisis that needs to be averted. It's normal.
2. When a 17 year old girl has to chose between taking Plan B and informing her parents, and not taking it at all, she just wouldn't take Plan B. So, the parents won't be informed that their teen is having sex anyway.
3. It's not that I want parents to be uninformed. It's that I don't want unplanned pregnancies. Given that, I'll take uninformed parents and fewer unplanned pregnancies.
4. In an entire article about why 17 year olds should need a prescription to get Plan B, Galanos never even responds to the core reason why many people disagree. That's a rather glaring omission.

In Defense of Outsourcing

As I've mentioned before, I've started outsourcing. A lot. Most of the outsourcing goes to an (awesome) assistant in the Philippines, who does everything from online research to document editing. She's great, and she's quite literally changed my approach to working.

Although most people are merely intrigued by my hiring a remote assistant, a surprising number tell me that it's unethical, supplying one of these reasons:

Exploitation: "You're only hiring someone from because they're cheap. You're not even paying them minimum wage!"

While it's true that some people I hire are paid well below US minimum wage (you can find assistants for as little as $1.50 per hour, though mine are paid considerably more), it's hardly exploiting them. I do believe that employees should be paid a livable wage, but that means a livable wage for their country, not for the US.

It's surprising to me that so many people would complain about this, when we're all perfectly accustomed to salary adjustments based on cost of living. For example, Microsoft pays California employees 15% more for the same work than they do the Seattle employees. Likewise, they no doubt pay their India employees considerably less. Exploitative? Of course not.

Now, I'm not an expert in economics, but I would guess that, far from being exploitative, outsourcing is quite good for the target areas. You're providing the people with work. Doesn't that boost their economy? Isn't that good?

Protectionism: "What about the US? You should be hiring US workers!"

Most outsourcing-supporting respond with the following:
1) "By outsourcing to India / Philippines / another country, we can expand our company and eventually hire more Americans." I don't know in which cases this argument is true, but I can certainly say that it's been true in my case. The outsourced workers I've hired have been the reason that I've been able to generate revenue for CareerCup. It simply would not have been possible without them. This revenue, in turn, enables me to hire Americans for things that do need to be done in the US.
2) "Welcome to a global world. If you don't operate efficiently, your competitors - who may not be American - will simply out perform you." This is possibly the most compelling argument. A business has an obligation to its shareholders to operate efficiently. If it doesn't operate efficiently, another company will. And then, if that happens, how have we helped the US?

In addition to those two points, however, I'd like to make a third:
3) Why are Americans so important? Why is hiring an American inherently "better" (ethically speaking) than a hiring someone from India? Are we not all people? In fact, I could very well argue the opposite: supporting a person in a poorer country, whose children may struggle to eat or to get an education, is more ethical than hiring a comparatively wealthy American. (I'm not saying that that's true; I'm merely arguing that the reverse isn't necessarily true either.)

Suffice to say... I feel perfectly at easy with my decision to outsource. I've employed some extraordinarily talented people and rewarded them well for their work. I understand that there's an awful lot I don't understand about globalization, so perhaps someone will open my eyes to some horrible truths. Until that day, though, I will continue to use outsourced workers to build and expand new projects.