As described in this New York Times editorial, a “sneaky Republican initiative” in California is really a wolf wearing sheep’s clothing. It essentially says that California’s electoral votes for President should be split among candidates based on the percentage of votes each candidate gets. It claims to be seeking a more equitable arrangement than the current system of all votes going to one candidate — even if that candidate, for example, gets only one more vote than his or her opponent.

I agree with the Republican’s sentiment. But I also agree with the Times’ position. I would very much like to see a shift in how the electoral college works — a shift very similar to what is being proposed. However, I would want it only if it were done nationwide, not just in California. By being selective, it allows for Republican’s to get more electoral votes in a state usually won by Democrats while taking no such risks in reverse in states usually won by Republicans.

Let’s be clear. If this sort of system was in play nationwide back in 2000, or if the Electoral College was abandoned altogether in favor of a direct popular vote, Bush never would have become president. I doubt this is what the proponents of this California initiative have in mind. Don’t be fooled by the phony rhetoric. There is nothing fair about this proposal.

Regional primaries: another good idea. Speaking of revising how presidential elections work: I’d also welcome a change in the primary election format. Currently, every state seems to be racing to be among the first in the nation to hold their primary, so that the state will be “important” in determining who gets the nomination. The result is a front-loaded system which forces candidates to bounce around the country like a pinball in an arcade game — and which awards the nomination to a candidate before the voters have really had a chance to see how the candidate stands up to the rigors of a primary season. A far better solution would be to divide the country into five groups of ten states each, with each group containing states that are geographically near each other while maintaining an approximately equal number of combined electoral votes. We would then hold 5 regional primaries, one for each of the 5 groups, each held a month apart. The order of the primaries would vary with every election, so that over 5 elections, each group would get one shot at being the first primary of the season.

At last! In an apparent final attempt to clean house before Labor Day, President Bush has accepted the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It’s the matching bookend for the resignation of Karl Rove a few weeks ago. Both have done severe damage to the idea that the executive branch of the government and the Justice Department should have a higher calling than simply keeping Republicans in power and rewarding their friends. The resignations should not mean that the investigations into their potentially illegal activities should come to an end. Unfortunately, they may ultimately have this effect. Even so, this is far better than if they did not resign at all.

Rove and Gonzales just don’t get it. I am reminded of a quote from an interview with Rove, covered in the New York Times. In responding to criticism of his “single-minded pursuit of his goal of a ‘durable’ Republican majority,” he replied: “With all due respect, don’t you think they would like to have a durable Democratic majority and put us as an un-durable minority?”

Yes. I am certain Democrats would like that very much. But there is a difference between what you would like and the lengths to which you are willing to go to achieve what you would like. The ends don’t always justify the means.

To me, a permanent majority of either party sounds dangerously close to a dictatorship. Both parties should always feel that any majority is in danger of collapsing if the majority fails to perform to the public’s satisfaction.

But even a semi-permanent majority, of the sort Rove might have welcomed, should depend on laudatory accomplishments of the prevailing party—not a series of political manipulations and power grabs and barely concealed attempts to subvert the intent of the Constitution itself. I am referring to manipulations and power grabs such as the federal prosecutor firings scandal that has now forced Gonzales from office.

Even if these resignations do nothing more than put at least a temporary stop to these excesses, they will have had a huge positive effect on the political climate in this country.

Regardless of your preconceived notions about Michael Moore and his movies, go see Sicko. Especially if you believe that Moore is wrong about the main contention in his new movie, namely that our health care system is broken and that universal free health care is the only alternative that makes sense, see this movie. If your mind is not at least partially changed by the time you exit the theater, have some one put their hand on your chest to see if you still have a heartbeat!

Even if you already support “single-payer” universal health care, you are still likely to be at least a bit surprised at the degree of contrast between our system, which operates on denial of coverage to the maximum extent so as to maximize the profits of the insurance companies, and the situations in countries such as Canada and France, where care is virtually free to 100% of the population.

As to protests of “socialized medicine,” Moore correctly points out that we already have “socialized” services in this country, and they work quite well for the most part: Fire departments, police departments, public libraries, and public schools. Why not assume that public health could be added to this list and do at least as well? It’s already working in the other countries Moore covers in the film. And the life expectancy in those countries exceeds our own!

As to protests that the picture Moore paints of the systems in Canada and France etc. is far rosier than reality, there is some truth to that. Still, Moore succeeds in dispelling the more common largely false stereotypes, such as that you have to wait hours and hours to be seen by a doctor and even then you may not qualify for the care you need.

Look, suppose I told you that you won a million dollars in the lottery. The only hitch is that it is not a million dollars if you choose to get the money in a single payment (rather than spread it out over 20 years). For a single payment, you only get $600,000. Even worse, about a third of that goes to taxes, leaving you with just $400,000. OK. So it’s not really as good as truly getting a million dollars. But it’s a lot better than the alternative of turning down the money altogether.

The same is true of universal health care. It may not be as good as its most ardent supporters suggest. But it is a lot better than the alternative of what we have now.

Yes, there are some valid criticisms of the movie. It attacks some non-profit insurance companies (together with for-profit ones) while claiming that a profit motive is the main reason that the companies deliver such poor health care. It claims at the start of the movie that it is about people who have insurance, yet some of the examples later in the film focus on people with no coverage.

Still, these criticisms do not dent the overall impact of what the film gets right. When we see a video of a sick woman getting dumped from a taxi at a “skid row” location, still in her hospital gown, because the hospital did not want to care for her any longer — and contrast that to the care available to anyone and everyone in our neighbor to the north — it is truly hard to understand how we have tolerated our system for so long.

As pointed out by a French person in the film, democracy gives the poor and underprivileged power via their votes. Corporate lobbyists have tried to undermine this power through their contributions to Congress. And by discouraging us from voting. They have largely succeeded — which is why Congress will not pass a bill for true universal health care any time soon.

Even in my home state of California, the truly universal health care bill (SB 840, sponsored by Shiela Kuehl) is getting lost in the shuffle of the far weaker bills (which still leave the insurance companies in place) put forward by our Governor and the Democratic Party.

If there is any hope for major change any time soon, it will only come if enough of us use the power of the ballot box to force the change. It’s up to you to take action.

A recent article in the New York Times states “The top commanders in Iraq and the American ambassador to Baghdad…[are appealing] for more time, both to allow for success on the ground and to more fully assess if the new strategy is making gains.”

Sure. Just what we need. More time for Iraq to sink even lower as a disaster than it already is.

As far as I can tell, what President Bush really wants is enough extra time so that he can leave office before any hard decisions about troop withdrawals are implemented, thereby hopefully transferring the “blame” for the consequences of any such withdrawal to his successor. It’s a cynical plan that ignores the needless deaths and injuries that will occur while Bush attempts to figure out a safe exit strategy for himself.

It also shows that, even at this late date, Bush refuses to consider the idea that some sort of troop withdrawal may actually be the right decision. Nope. Once Bush starts down a road, changing directions means admitting error. And Bush the Infallible can make no errors.

Even ignoring all this, the larger question is: When do we stop playing this “give us more time” game? What if (as I believe is likely) staying the course for another year means that the Iraq situation gets worse, not better? And what if the generals continue to ask for more time to “turn it around”? Do we still give it to them?

At some point we need the courage to say: “No, you’ve had more than enough time. You’ve had years. If you haven’t shown sufficient progress by now, an extra few months isn’t going to change things. It’s time to take a new direction.”

I believe that time is now.