An audacious set of guidelines for health care reform. How dead in the water are they? It seems to me that it combines the benefits of nationalized health care with the inefficiencies of a deeply regulated hierarchy of public-private partnerships, while preserving a core flaw of our current system--the idea that health care can be a profit-making enterprise. If you're a health insurance company, and you can't turn anyone down, how do you grow your profits? Simple, you add as many customers as possible by buying up smaller companies, etc. The logical outcome is Wal*Care. Still, in the long run, it may be better than what we have now. There was a nice moment with the Republicans sitting there, shi**ing brix, while Obama mocked them with the hollow promise of 'demonstration projects' for their ideas.

An audacious set of guidelines for health care reform. How dead in the water are they? The stipulation that all companies must provide health care pretty much makes it D.O.A. It seems to me that it combines the benefits of nationalized health care with the inefficiencies of a deeply regulated hierarchy of public-private partnerships, while preserving a core flaw of our current system--the idea that health care can be a profit-making enterprise. If you're a health insurance company, and you can't turn anyone down, how do you grow your profits? Simple, you add as many customers as possible by buying up smaller companies, etc. The logical outcome is Wal*Care. Still, in the long run, it may be better than what we have now. There was a nice moment with the Republicans sitting there, shi**ing brix, while Obama mocked them with the token promise of 'demonstration projects' for their ideas.

Update: the Obama plan sets a threshold of 50 employees for the health care requirement.

This story is not getting the attention it deserves. It reminds me of the infamous raid on Steve Jackson Games. But this time, federal law enforcement stupidity is harming dozens of businesses instead of just one. As a leaser of a co-lo machine myself, it's disturbing to think that it could just disappear at any moment, through no fault of my own, due to these heavy-handed tactics.

January 20th, 1981 is a day I remember with distinct clarity. Reagan's inauguration was on every channel (well, there were only 3) and every newsradio station (also 3). My Mom was taking us on errands in North Tacoma, including a long visit to the thrift store where my grandmother volunteered, where I watched the oath of office. Everywhere we went, the inauguration was the focus of interest, and I was enthralled. In storefronts, flags and solemn pomp played on every bulbous cathode tube. Capitol crowds shivered cheerfully and newscasters voices were tinged with the magnitude of the moment.

I had been too young to form an impression of Nixon, Ford or Carter as political figures, much less as personalities. Likewise with Reagan; it wasn't until his second term that I really started thinking about politics and policies. On the day of this inauguration, it did seem like there was a sense of a new era beginning. The hostages had been freed (day 444), and I recall being puzzled over how that managed to take place on inauguration day. Today, it still seems a little weird^*; I've yet to read an in-depth history of those negotiations.

So it was a day of great patriotism and hope, and I certainly felt a part of that. Today feels a little like that. Once again, I have unabashed enthusiasm for our President; this time not out of naïvité, but of genuine knowledge of Obama's history, principles, and character. It may fade away through policies I disagree with, though hopefully not through scandal.

^* If not vaguely traitorous to be negotiating with our enemies while Carter was still the commander-in-chief. But you can't argue with the end result.

It will be important for Democrats to not get over-confident in the next two years. Although the electoral college numbers show a wide margin, the popular vote is within a few percent. This was not a landslide. More to the point, although Obama was a very strong candidate, other factors basically handed this victory to the Democrats.

First, the meltdown of the financial system made people much more receptive to the message of 'change.' Back on Labor Day, electoral projections had McCain ahead, and Palin was looking like a brilliant strategic choice. If things had been just a little different, this election would have been as close or closer than 2004 or 2000.

Secondly, as they fell behind, the Republican party became a 'circular firing squad' and a campaign that was unwilling or unable to provide a clear, consistent, positive message. It should go down in history as one of the most inept campaigns. The irony is that McCain's strategy of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"--hiring the same people and using the same negative tactics that took him out of the 2000 race--backfired so completely. Even members of the media--even people from FOX News!--were speaking out against the lies and smears.

Finally, the GOP shot itself in the feet so many times over the past few years that they were hobbled from the outset. The litany of scandals is long. Senators Stevens, Craig, Delay embarrassed, convicted, or driven out. The House page scandal. The many missteps and oversteps of the Bush administration just in the final term that resulting in the lowest approval rating in modern history.

So this was not a mandate for progressive policies, though it is a clear opportunity to enact them. However, in 2009 we can't afford to make the same mistake as in 1993, when Democrats took control of both branches and tried to ram down a huge health care initiative. We'll have to start small and go slowly. It's worth remembering that in 1992 as well, it was an external factor (Ross Perot's splitting of the conservative vote) that allowed for Democratic gains. Basically, what it comes down to is that the Democratic party still has a long way to go before they are consistently as strong as the GOP over a few decades.

Here's what the Democrat's did right and different this time around.

• Had a charismatic and articulate candidate
• Responded quickly and vigorously to lies and smears
• Advocated centrist policies that were good for the middle class and small business
• Effectively used the Net to organize and raise funds
• Had a "50 state" strategy to build a larger base
• Picked an exceptional VP candidate

The 'blue wave' was not a tsunami, but it is refreshing after so many years of American ideals being tarnished, and let's hope that it can be sustained.

Well, I just can't help myself... I'm sitting here watching CNN and checking the live #election2008 live twitstream, hoping that projections hold and the red tide is flushed out of the system. The free 'I voted' Starbucks coffee will come in handy if it is a long night. Why don't we simplify and turn Starbucks into polling places?

Across from the University of Arizona, a group of students rallied on a busy street corner, holding up hand-made signs for Obama. At another corner, a giant billboard-sized McCain/Palin sign had a giant red circle-slash painted over it. Nearby, a Prop 102 (Arizona's equivalent of California's Prop 8--another attempt to insert bigotry into the state constitution) sign had a swastika drawn over it. The polling places looked busy this evening.

Locally, I am hoping to see that Gabrielle Giffords defeats Tim B(igot) and retains her House seat in congressional district 8, that Andrea Delessandro wins here in legislative district 30, and that Prop 102 is stopped.

In desperation, McCain is now using the same robo-call people who smeared him eight years ago in North Carolina with racist lies, giving Bush a critical win. Last week, Keith Olbermann gave an impassioned (even for him) 'special comment', calling on McCain to stop the hate-fueling demagoguery. A clip is embedded below. This was quite a moment in television history, with a prime news anchor calling on a presidential candidate to suspend his campaign only weeks before the election.

I'm glad I watched... I felt Obama's debate performance was clearly superior over McCain's. Obama's answers were clear, reasoned and (I felt) convincing. His demeanor was calm and collected. McCain by contrast, repeated many of the same old endlessly debunked attacks and his answers on the issues were not convincing. His several attempts at humor fell flat or were just bizarre. He brought up Protectionism as if anyone in the audience remembered or understood. His repeated old-timey cliché metaphor that we need a 'calm hand at the Tiller' was also strange. I think that one might have last been used in the dust bowl days. His age really showed. All in all, I felt that Obama scored a dominating win in this debate and the "Town Hall" style format did not in fact serve McCain well.

Mary also noticed something revealing at the end. While Barack and Michelle stayed around for a long time, shaking hands, posing for photos, etc, Cindy McCain kept her distance from the audience, and she and her husband got out of there in a hurry.

Thankfully, the word "maverick" was never used.

More: Another couple of telling moments were when McCain showed his peevish side, asking Tom Brokaw and the audience if Obama had answered the question, implying that he had not. One was "did he say what his fine would be?" <smirk> <smirk> But I thought that Obama had in fact answered those questions (in that case, that there wouldn't be a fine).

Also shocking was McCain's sudden proposal to have the federal government directly buy bad mortgages and re-negotiate them, later followed by a seemingly casual admission that Social Security could not ultimately be saved.

If you scored this one like a prize fight, I think McCain wins a split decision. He kept Obama on the defensive with constant mis-characterizations and other deceptive "tactics" (the foray into what is a tactic vs. what is a strategy was a weird, pointless tangent). Though Obama defended himself well, he delivered only glancing blows to McCain. The dueling dead-soldier bracelet match-up was pretty silly, I can just see them coming out next time festooned in bracelets, ribbons, and other memorabilia.

McCain was surprisingly lucid (must have been one of his good days), drawing on history and personal experience abroad, sounding stronger on foreign policy. Obama's counter that McCain's poor judgment in leading us into Iraq and away from Afghanistan was good, though delivered without requisite rhetorical punch.

But this was just round 1; I think Obama will be better served by the domestic topics, relating more of his own personal experiences, having more focused attacks, and putting McCain back on the defensive.

I noticed that McCain had a couple of grammatical slip-ups, though I'm sure nobody cares. And, BTW, why does he pronounce Washington "Warshington"? I didn't think that was an East-coast thing, and it's certainly not an Arizona thing.

McCain certainly dedicated himself to cutting government spending, while Obama seemed to claim it as an ideal, the specifics he mentioned would increase spending. Still, given the history of Republicans who pay lip service to fiscal conservatism, but making massive increases in federal spending when in office, we should be highly skeptical.

I was pleased that they both supported reviving the nuclear power industry as a component of alternative and green energies, though again, McCain seemed more committed to making it happen.

Obama's biggest points of the night came early on, during the economic discussion, skillfully laying out his tax plan and disparaging McCain's. And why, given all the flux, couldn't they have switched the topic to the economy?

Now, clearly, McCain's "suspension" of his campaign is a cynical and desperate ploy. But it's also an extremely odd thing to happen in a presidential race. Why not put Palin in charge of the campaign while he heads off to Washington? Oh right... if she can't step in to lead the campaign, obviously she couldn't step in as president.

It's one step short of using a crisis to suspend the election itself. Would the G.O.P. stoop so low to keep their hold on power?

Arsenals Of Folly by Richard Rhodes is the third in his nuclear trilogy, preceded by The Making Of The Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun: The Making Of The Hydrogen Bomb. Folly skips ahead to the 1980's and the height of the Cold War, the Reagan-Gorbachev summits, and subsequent disarmament treaties.

This is really an exceptional book, very well documented, with a lot of insight on this period of history. I found several things surprising. In order of decreasing shock value:

• Reagan was evidently a sincere believer in Armageddon theology, and that he himself was fated to play a significant, Biblical role in end times. This was perhaps the root of his stubborn attachment to SDI (Star Wars): the idea that it would be part of this prophetic scheme, providing the means to survive an apocalypse. I personally find it quite frightening that the leader of the free world for eight years was so disconnected from rationality. Bush Jr. may be of the same persuasion, though perhaps without the ego to place himself in such a direct role, and certainly without the mental capacity to really think it through. And now again, with Palin, we have another who could imagine herself in that role (not to mention McCain's new found willingness to appease evangelicals).
• Neoconservatives, including many who are responsible for our current misadventures, actively worked to scuttle negotiations with Russia. And they were successful in a number of cases. In a strategy that exactly presaged Iraq, "Team B" interpreted intelligence data with a worst-case bias, in order to fit their pre-conceived politics. Another stratagem was Richard Perle's "zero solution", designed to sound fair but be unacceptable to the Soviets, whereupon they could use this seeming intransigence to reduce the level of support for serious talks. Other "poison pills" weakened our commitment to existing treaties (ABM) or ones in progress (SALT II). Another underhanded, even treasonous, tactic was to leak certain internal memos prior to summits, basically creating P.R. obstacles for the non-hardliner faction to overcome.
• Reagan, perhaps because of a post-assassination-attempt deathbed conversion, became personally committed to the idea of eliminating all nuclear weapons. This newfound role was dramatically out of step with the hawks in his own cabinet. However, his continued attachment to SDI, skillfully manipulated by the neo-cons, led to an impasse at Reykjavik.
• The "triumphalist" view of the Cold War, that far-sighted U.S. war planners intended all along to drive the Soviet Union into economic collapse through the vehicle of astronomical weapons spending, is incorrect. Key players of the period deny it.

From the news-that-sounds-like-Monty-Python department comes a Bush administration idea to undermine birth control services, a crucial part of public health measures. It would define birth control as a form of abortion. There can be no doubt that this comes from the right-wing social conservative ideologues hired at all levels by the Bushites, showcasing their deep irrationality.

I'm pretty disappointed over Congress giving Bush & Co. a free pass on warrantless wiretapping; it's an end-run around the Bill of Rights. Obama voted for it and (in the House) so did our (AZ District 30) representative, Gabrielle Giffords. [Side note: how freaking great is it to be able to get RSS feeds on your rep's?!!]

Not that I really need to, but starting now every email I send will be signed with a digital certificate. That gives everyone I write to the option to encrypt our communication. Modern email clients and browsers such as Mozilla Firefox & Thunderbird make this really easy.

Two certificate providers make this really easy (and free). InstantSSL makes it quite simple, while Thawte gives a few more options. I've had a little trouble with Thawte in that there service never sends the verification email to some of my addresses, with no error message. So I went with the former.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Uh, yeah, it's pretty clear that was exactly their choice. I don't get where Justice Stevens is coming from on this one... left field? The D.C. gun ban was pretty blatantly unconstitutional. While I'm personally no big fan of guns, I appreciate that there is at least some recourse should it become necessary to form a new Union.

Do more guns equal less crime? Well, as a friend of mine said with devilish humor, now we shall see, as D.C. is about to "run the experiment." (Oh, snap!) I believe that the relation between gun ownership and safety is very subjective, not only dependent on what type of environment you live in, but on what type of person you are. But below are some compelling statistics showing a fairly linear trend between increased gun ownership and increased deaths due to firearms. There is some spread; for instance the Swiss do have a slightly higher percent of gun ownership and much lower percent of gun-related deaths (than the U.S.), but over the 18 countries plotted, the trend is unmistakable. This is from a report called "The Global Gun Epidemic". I don't know over what time period the stats were collected.

So, nevertheless, while I personally could not imagine feeling safer having guns around (in the circles I currently travel in), I don't want to take away that right from anyone else, and am pleased to see a reasonable ruling on the issue from the Supreme Court.

Not terribly interesting, but I was curious since the presidential contenders are both U.S. Senators, what will happen to their senate seats if they win. If Obama wins, the Illinois gover-nator will fill the vacancy with a Democrat. Here in Arizona, the governor is also a Democrat, but if McCain wins, the state constitution requires her to fill the vacancy with a Republicrat (since McCain is a Republicrat).

Clinton has a couple of years left in her Senate term. The governor of New York is still a Democrat, after the recent scandal. Under New York law, a Democrat could be appointed, if she was the veep nominee, and the Obama-Clinton ticket won. Interestingly, there has been speculation about appointing Bill to her seat, if she needed to vacate it. I wonder if that would keep him busy enough to avoid interfering with an Obama administration. Nah... I still don't see her on the ticket anyway.

So, ultimately, whatever happens, the balance of the Senate will not be effected by the outcome of the presidential election. Shucks.

That's neo-con pack dog Bill Kristol saying, "if it's a contest of speeches, Obama's gonna win." Hey, guess what, it is a contest of speeches!

Well, I thought it would never happen in America, but I guess I was wrong.

Under an executive order expected to be announced today, [Washington D.C.] police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate “Neighborhood Safety Zones.” At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest....

Welcome to D.C. township. Because having to prove your residency to get in and out to work or find a job would do wonders for their economy....

Now that the primaries are finally over, I feel it's time for another political brain-dump.

First, to paraphrase: someone set us up Obama. All her base are belong to us!

Next, does anyone else feel that Hillary is basically trying to extort a place on the ticket? Here's four words why that will never happen: "Give. Me. A. Break." Yes, that's right, Bill Clinton's looming presence short-circuits any chance of that happen. On an ironic side note, her decision ten years ago to "stand by her man" was politically shrewd, given public perception (right or wrong), but ultimately may be the limiting factor to her further political advancement.

One of the most amazing facts about this race has been the amount of money spent: somewhere short of 100 million dollars by both Barack and Hillary. The Clintons dumped in eleven million of their own money. So in sheer economic terms, it sort of makes sense that she would work to get the best return on those dollars by continuing the race and building up political capital in state after state.

And hence her continued emphasis on the "popular vote", which she claims to have won (depending on how Michigan, Florida and caucus states are counted). This was certainly an argument meant to sway superdelegates looking forward to the fall, because otherwise it makes no sense in a contest that is decided entirely by delegate count. Why repeat it now that she's lost? Ultimately, I think it's evidence that the Clintons are driven by an absolute lust for power, and are willing to risk fracturing the Party in their continued quest for it.

The most disturbing development to my mind, is the non-trivial fraction of Hillary supporters who claim that they will never support Obama [according to one figure I heard, something like 20%]. Why? WTF? It makes no sense to me. I've very happy that Obama has won the nomination, but if it were Hillary instead, I cannot imagine not supporting her. The differences in their policy positions and their experience are just not that great. What is the reason that so many of her supporters are fixated on her, so far beyond mere preference? Like the Clintons themselves, do they assume that the mantle is theirs to take, and how dare anyone challenge that right?

I'd love to see Gen. Wesley Clark instead, as Barack Obama's running mate.

Finally, one constant criticism of Obama has been that he's a great orator, but short on actual ideas. A dig around his campaign website will disprove that notion. But consider if being a great orator is actually a useful metric in determining who would be a good president? Historically that seems to have been the case, and of course there's the anti-pattern: President Bush can barely string together two words even with a teleprompter and directions from his puppet masters, and he's the worst president in history. Besides, as chief executive, the president is not the source of new ideas and legislation, but is the implementor of them. Obama's speeches have shown his inspirational vision, clear judgement and keen insight. All of which will be indispendible in restoring America's prominence, after the the years of unfettered Republican dominance frakked it up so far beyond what even we said it would.

Merlin German was a marine who survived for three years with horrific injuries after an IED attack in Iraq, becoming an inspirational figure for his continued bravery through more 100 surgeries. The so-called "Miracle Man" died in April after yet another reconstructive surgical operation.

My fondest wish this Memorial Day is that his face haunts Bush & Cheney for the rest of their days, that the terrible spectre of thousands and thousands of dead and wounded soldiers weighs heavily on their hollow hearts and empty minds. It's the least of what they deserve. What we and our soldiers deserve is a president who doesn't rely on prayer, pollsters, pundits or propaganda when putting lives at risk.