The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Female Suicide Bombers Strike at Moscow Subway,” describes the impact, at least 38 killed, of two explosions set off by female suicide bombers.

Russia’s terrorism problem, centered primarily in Chechnya and other Islamic regions in the south of the country, had been relatively dormant in major population areas, and the attack poses the question of whether the country will take security measures that will limit personal freedoms. The last time Russia was confronted with a major series of terrorism attacks, in 2004, Vladimir Putin used them as an excuse to centralize government, stop the direct election of governors, and clamp down on political opposition.

Dmitri Medvedev has pursued a more liberal approach, and Russia’s reaction may give some indication of who is really in charge. One wonders how different the effect would be if bombs went off in the New York subway. Would we clamp down on freedom of movement? How about curfews and the use of identification for nearly any activity?

We kid ourselves when we think these things can only happen in Russia. As the saying goes, when the people are given a choice between liberty and security, they will choose security nearly every time.

One other issue to consider: these were female suicide bombers. Does this represent a new tactic of Islamic radical groups, or is it an exception to the rule? What does the Koran say about? Not that these people truly follow the Koran, but it may still have some effect on their actions.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “In Afghan Trip, Obama Presses Karzai on Graft,” describes the President’s surprise visit to Afghanistan yesterday. Shrouded in secrecy for security reasons, the trip included a rally with U.S. troops and a meeting with the President of Aghanistan, Hamid Karzai.

While the discussions at the meeting were not explicitly revealed, they were said to include the corruption that remains rampant in the Afghanistan government. While some progress is being made, there is also some backsliding as Mr. Karzai has now assumed the power of appointing all five members of the election commission that monitors political contests in the country.

There is also some bad geo-political news for the United States as Afghanistan is pursuing other alliances inimical to our interests. These include a recent meeting with the President of Iran and an arrangement to have China invest in the country’s copper reserves.

In my opinion, the political timing of this trip could not have been better. After his recent victory on healthcare, President Obama wants to change the subject to avoid giving the stage to his adversaries and their repeal campaign. He also wants to avoid excessive coverage of constituent meetings for Congressman who are returning to their districts. This trip to Afghanistan changes the subject in a way the Republicans cannot dispute.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Former Premier Wins Narrowly in Iraq Election,” describes the victory of Ayad Allawi,  a secular candidate, over the current prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, who is more closely aligned with Shiite religious parties and Iran.

The victory, by two seats, will make it very difficult for Mr. Allawi to form a coalition government, and Mr. Maliki has been claiming fraud and making references to his role as commander in chief of Iraq’s armed forces.

Nevertheless, the current result seems to be holding, raising the possibility of a phenomenal, non-violent transfer of power, generally reserved to much more stable countries such as the United States and Western Europe.

Mr. Maliki’s defeat was largely based on his inability to provide security, and though he won in Baghdad and its sovereign provinces, he lost in the northern regions, among Sunnis and, surprisingly, ran very weakly in Kirkuk, where oil reserves remain a major point of contention.

It would be fabulous if Mr. Allawi and Mr. Maliki could work out a transfer of power, and it would send shock waves throughout the Middle East, where people are generally dominated by much more authoritarian governments. The possible change in policy itself would be amazing as Mr. Allawi is much more anti-American and anti-Iran at the same time.

Time will tell, but there seems to be a glimmer of hope.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. and Russia Agree to Slash Nuclear Arms,” describes a new agreement between the United States and Russia on a treaty to reduce nuclear weapons. Pending a final call between President Obama and President Medvedev, it is due to be signed in Prague on April 8.

The treaty, of course, requires a vote of two-thirds approval, 67 votes, in the Senate, and it comes at a time when Democrats and Republicans have been particularly polarized regarding the healthcare debate. However, there does seem to be some cautious willingness to work together and maybe those times are behind us.

The agreement reduces various categories of weapons including missiles, heavy bombers and warheads by about one quarter, and it has been praised by arms control groups such as the Arms Control Association and Global Zero. The main sticking point seems to have been the use of defensive shields, with Russia opposed and the United States in favor. As a compromise, there was some linkage about these shields in the preamble of the agreement but not in any of the concrete limitations.

After the recent healthcare debate, this agreement represents yet another success for President Obama and should be a heartening moment for all Americans.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Health Care Overhaul Becomes the Law of the Land; In the Process, Pushing Back at Inequality,” is a news analysis on the broader themes of healthcare legislation. It looks at the bill’s attack on ecomomic inequality and compares it to the trends since Ronald Reagan took power, that is increasing inequality between the rich and the poor.

The article notes that since the 1970′s, the tax rates of the rich have plumetted while their incomes have grown significantly more than anyone else. The healthcare bill, officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, works in the opposite direction. It assists families with incomes under $88,000 to buy insurance while drawing a large part of its funding from those earning $250,000 a year or more.

In doing so, the article notes, this bill has officially signified the end of the “age of Reagan.” That is a good thing, in my opinion, because the United States is not about a class-based society, and it has always been best for our self-image when a rising tide lifts all boats, not leaving major groups of people behind.

Of course, much of the above observations are symbolic. There will be no sudden wrenching of our society, and the sky will not fall as some Republicans would have us believe. This healthcare legislation is more about hope than anything else and a vision for the future.

The lead article in the New York Times today, “Google Closes Search Service Based in China,” describes the company’s decision to move its offices from China to Hong Kong as a protest against Chinese censorship. The search engine Google.cn will now be available in an uncensored format to Chinese users from the new location.

Google and China have been feuding for several months over the search engine’s policy, and Chinese authorities may have hacked into the Google source code to view the email accounts of Chinese dissidents.

This action appears to have had a major impact on Google, and today’s decision represents a continuation of their unhappiness with Chinese authorities. When Google first entered the Chinese market, it had hoped that the censorship would be gradually reduced. Instead, the government has tightened restrictions.

Google.cn has been losing market share to the Chinese search engine, Baidu, and was only drawing about 30 percent of the market. Some Google watchers have suggested that this was the main reason for the departure, not censorship.

According to the article, many multinational corporations have entered the Chinese market, only to find the competition stacked against them. Instead of Chiense society becoming more open as a result, it seems to have been pushed in the opposite direction.

It is unknown whether mainland China will block Google’s new Hong Kong headquarters from access by Chinese users.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Congress Sends White House Landmark Health Overhaul,” describes, with banner headlines, the victory for the Democrats in the House of Representatives last night.

The riveting proceedings, and the final vote, fell into place after Bart Stupak, and his newly empowered pro-life wing of the Democratic Party, agreed to support the legislation thanks to a promise by President Obama to issue an executive order reaffirming the Hyde Amendment, that no taxpayer funds would be used for abortions.

Though this blog has adopted a somewhat neutral stance since its inception, I must applaud the Democrats, and especially Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, for their perseverance and determination to see through this fight to its conclusion.

The Republicans, though understandably differing on the role of government, have not conducted themselves in an honorable mannner, and their continuing threats reflect poorly on their Party. Their alliance with the Tea Party and some of its tactics are even worse.

Nancy Pelosi, though not a sparkling speaker, is a superb Speaker. Her handling of the House Democratic Caucus showed finesse, understanding and an ability to work with people to address their heart-felt concerns.

Her march with fellow Democrats to the Capitol yesterday afternoon went beyond political theater to show a common purpose and defiance of the thuggery of the demonstrators attempting to stand in her way.

Kudos to Pelosi Power and God Bless America.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Democrats Woo Foes of Abortion for Health Vote,” describes the continuing wrangling to secure 216 votes in the House of Representatives to finally pass President Obama’s national healthcare legislation.

And if they suceed, it will be exactly that, President Obama’s victory. For even though he only gave guidance to the House and Senate during the legislative drafting process, it has only been through his perseverance that we have reached this stage.

Our representatives were giving up healthcare for dead after the election of Scott Brown as Senator in Massachusetts, and the loss of the Democratic supermajority in the Senate.

But through a clever series of events and timing, the President nursed the healthcare debate back to life, cleverly playing off Republican intransigeance during his summit at the White House, and then using that summit as a springboard to the current final push.

The article in the Times lists additional “yes” votes and even notes the possible placation of Bart Stupak and other conservative Democrats to go over the top. But for those who doubt the final result, you must remember that Nancy Pelosi, one of the strongest and most talented Speakers of the House in recent memory, almost always succeeds.

We can only pray she does so on Sunday, too.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Democrats Gain with a Promise on Health Costs,” describes the continuing momentum in favor of national healthcare passage. With 72 hours to go before a crucial House vote, the Congressional Budget Office offered its non-partisan analysis of the bill — it will reduce the deficit by $138 billion over the next decade.

Another development described in the article was President Obama’s decision to postpone a trip to Asia in order to shepherd the healthcare legislation through to completion. This, too, represented a wise decision given the importance of the bill to the future of his Presidency.

Republicans, of course, are continuing their obstructionist ways, and, at this point, noone really cares about them any more. They had a chance to participate constructively in this historic legislation and chose not to do so for political reasons.

And, in my opinion, the fact that they made the choice for politics, instead of what’s right and wrong for 30 million uninsured Americans, will catch up to them, sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile, with a vote planned for Sunday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is working furiously to lock up the needed votes. She will get them because of her perseverance and very talented handling of the Democratic caucus. And the American people will benefit as a result.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Showdown Near, Health Overhaul Gains Two Votes,” describes new progress by Democratic leaders in obtaining support for national healthcare legislation.

Dennis Kucinich, a longtime liberal holdout, is now supporting the bill despite prior reservations that it didn’t go far enough. Mr. Kucinich, who favors a single payer government plan, will give cover to any liberals in the House with similar reservations.

Even more encouraging, Dale Kildee of Michigan, part of the former Stupak bloc with concerns about abortion language in the bill, now supports the legislation after careful review of the wording. He believes the legislation upholds the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal taxpayer funds to support abortion.

In addition, a new major group of nuns also announced support for the legislation for similar reasons.

This is all very encouraging. Following the twists and turns of the healthcare debate over the past year has been an anxiety-producing exercise, especially for a proponent rooting for its progress. The ability of Democrats to put aside their differences and work together for a common cause has been in doubt almost since the start.

Now, however, with the final denouement approaching, there is reason for hope. Still hope, not a certainty, but it’s better than the day after Scott Brown’s election when the enterprise was given up for dead.