...a sort of digital three strikes law, which after the third strike, would cut people off from the Internet. It's not entirely clear how a law like this would be enforced...

Using current technology, it couldn't. But you answer your own question later:

an electronic national identity card for each citizen starting in 2009

Only one piece remaining. Legally require multi-factor authentication to obtain on-line access. Now you can enforce your three-strikes law, and as an extra-added bonus, you get the advantage of possibly banishing anonymous access to the net.

This is frightening. You conclude that Sarkozy's play could be a boon for France. I couldn't disagree more. If this is headed the way I think it is, French liberty is going the way of the freedom fry.

There is at least the hope that EU privacy laws will thwart anything truly Orwellian from happening. Using the right technology (e.g. SAML), you could in fact require multi-factor authentication, without ever disclosing any personally identifying information unless such disclosure was explicitly permitted by the individual in question. So it could in fact be possible to banish someone from the net without resorting to crude "show me your papers" gestapo like oversight. Whether the state or the electorate understands or cares about such subtleties is another question.

Speaking of privacy laws, the US has none. California has some, but as a whole, US citizens are afforded little to no protections whatsoever. Which Presidential candidate do you think might change that?

Standards should be created for either of two reasons: they are irrelevant, or they are transparently obvious. An example of irrelevance: the size of a nickle. It doesn't really matter how many millimeters a nickle is, but they do all need to be the same. An example of obvious: school buses are yellow, because it's the most visible color.

In every other instance, efforts to promote "standards" amount to nothing more than saying "do things my way". Usually to ill effect. Do you really know the _best_ way to configure voting procedures? Really? A little chaos is the price we pay to create a system where we can compare different systems in situ, jettison the worst, and repeat the process. In other words, messy diversity enables evolutionary improvement. And if you think you have a better solution than evolution, well, you may have a Nobel prize in store.

Gay marriage isn't "banned" by the state because, as you say, they are performed all of the time. They are simply not recognized.

And you are correct to note that when the state only recognizes marriage as being between a man and a women, that religious institutions have made an unwarranted and unconstitutional intrusion into the affairs of government.

But the answer is not have the state recognize gay marriage. The sanctity and meaning of marriage, of any kind, is a matter of faith. And as such, _no_ marriage should be recognized by the state. Government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Power of attorney, legal guardianship, and so on are the government's business; marriage most definitely is not.

This is really a matter of fundamental fairness. I think the road to fair treatment under the law will be much easier if the conversation shifts to being about prohibiting government from exceeding its constitutional mandate, than if we continue to embroil the country in never ending identity politics imbroglios.

Republicans are not the problem; Duverger's law (plurality voting leads to a two party system) is the problem.

The divisions within the Republican party are clear for all to see. (There are divisions within the Democratic party too, for that matter.) But the party will not split, because our system of government won't allow it. They can not possibly win elections without carrying a near plurality of the vote. So the supply siders and libertarians maintain their unholy alliance with radical evangelicals and extreme nationalists, for example. Both groups are victims of historical happenstance - there is no rational basis for their affiliation other than political expedience. This is unfortunate.

When people in the US talk about reforming government, it's always just small talk. We need big change. We need proportional representation. We need multi-party governance. We need to reform the way we vote, i.e. stop voting by plurality, and implement range voting, say. Politics should not be an all or nothing proposition.

Of course I'm just pissing in the wind. The changes I'm talking would require the politicians in power to rebel against the system that put them in power. Not likely.

That doesn't mean I'm wrong.