"Google Will Surprise You"

I heard about Google Wave a while back, but didn't give it nearly enough attention. After seeing the the ten-minute version of the presentation, I think it really could be a game-changer. Here are the key bits:

1. Wave unifies email, IM, and collaborative document editing. Arguably, it attempts (in a way that might possibly succeed!) to make the previous forms of all of those obsolete.

2. Wave adds a threaded comment system to everything (and a really powerful one; in particular, you can control permissions/visibility at any level of the tree). That's a feature many (all?) collaborative document editing systems currently lack. True threading of replies could also cut a lot of redundancy and confusion out of email, especially when one or more of the following are true: The subject matter is confusing, multiple people are involved in the discussion, messages contain more than one question, messages refer to eachother.

3. Wave is an open protocol. This pretty much fits with Google's "do then monetize" business model. Google doesn't really care who ends up doing cool things with Wave, they'll figure out how to use that to make money either way. Historical precedent says they shouldn't count on making money from controlling the protocol itself.

The Healthcare Battle Escalates

The latest in the healthcare debate:

Democrats: Gee, being old and sick and possibly having to make difficult decisions about longevity vs. quality of life is stressful.¹ But Medicare doesn't currently cover routine psychological consults for old people dealing with such issues. And there are a lot of old people nowadays, and they vote. Let's make sure that the new healthcare plan covers that.

Republicans: OMG, did they mention that old people are going to die eventually?!² The Democrats are going to save money³ by killing grandma and turning her into Soylent Green, for the environment!

Well, that's bold. After the Republican pose of a principled stance against "socialized" medicine was destroyed by Rep. Anthony Weiner, their "no socialized medicine, and don't touch my Medicare" stance wasn't looking very coherent. And the only move modern Republicans ever make in such a scenario is to double-down on the crazy.

The Obama Administration's response includes a new web site, Health Insurance Reform Reality Check.⁴ If the format of the site seems familiar, that may be because you remember an analogous site from the election campaign. The Democrats at least seem to have remembered the lesson from Kerry: It's not wise to ignore your political opponent's lies, no matter how crazy.⁵


PSA: If you're in favor of healthcare reform, showing up to those town hall meetings and minimizing the disruptiveness of the crazies is important. Also, while you're there, you can communicate to Democratic politicians that clear message of "no, seriously, not voting for you again if you screw up".

On a slight tangent: I'd like to link to this essay by bradhicks, in which he urges participants in the healthcare debate to not forget the supply side of healthcare. Read it, and remember it when communicating with your representatives on the issue.

Also related: I contacted my representatives on this issue and received replies from all. Rep. Michael Capuano responded with a lengthy document noting that he was in favor of a single-payer system, but willing to compromise if necessary. Senator Ted Kennedy sent me a response saying little more than "we're on it", so brief I wondered if it had been penned by the man himself between meetings. Senator Kerry had a long message along the moderate party line (incremental improvement, "keep what works", "public option"), but managed to annoy me by using "Dear Friend" as a salutation (too informal for that context, plus his office doesn't even go to the trouble of having personalized form letters?).

¹ To be fair, that's probably less true in situations where "how will I pay for my healthcare" and "will my insurer deny or delay my coverage in the hope of taking home a bit more loot when I die" are non-issues.

² Evidently, "Culture of Life" means being in denial about that fact? Come to think of it, the Republican stance on healthcare is really strange given their position on the aforementioned bioethics issue, it's "keep people alive at any cost... to them."

³ Geez, guys, you can't have it both ways: Are liberals too willing to "tax and spend" for the sake of the elderly, or are they cutthroats willing to throw grandma under the bus to reduce costs? The only way this makes sense (not the way it's usually presented) is in the context of a "you won't be able to afford it" lie (i.e. liberals start at the first position but then will switch to the latter when faced with the hard financial facts). There are two problems with this: First, it conveniently neglects the gigantic sacks of money being dragged home by the deny-you-healthcare industry, more than enough to cover all that actual healthcare. And second, it's coming from the Republicans, who recently presided over an administration so spendy that mathematicians were kept up late inventing new numbers just to describe how much in the hole we were.

⁴ Wish they were saying "healthcare reform" instead of "health insurance reform".

⁵ This does not imply that you should not strictly limit the attention given to the ineffective crazies who merely make their own side look bad. Just put out a bold and compelling-to-the-sane presentation of the facts and move on.