Thoughts from Independence Day Weekend

"Learn from the mistakes of others -- you can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself." (ascribed to Eleanor Roosevelt)

One of the fundamental characteristics of intelligence is the ability to learn from experience. And a characteristic of higher intelligence is learning from the experience of others. We can learn a lot from recent major events in other countries. Strength is important in extracting one's self from difficult situations. But intelligence can help keep us from getting into such situations in the first place.

Object lesson 1: Iran:
Apparently the election was stolen. Outraged citizens took to the streets. How did the government respond? They expelled all foreign journalists; limited and controlled domestic news coverage; and worked to disrupt personal communications (cell phones, texting, internet connections) between people sharing information about what was going on. The government recognized that if no record exists of a massive demonstration, then it's almost as if the demonstration didn't take place.
What we can learn from Iran: freedom of the press, freedom of information, freedom of speech, and freedom of communication in general are not just arbitrary rights or privileges; they are critical conduits for channeling forces that maintain freedom in general. Moreover, we should recognize a robust infrastructure for exercising these rights is important, too. The more diverse and distributed information channels are, the harder they are to control.

Object lesson 2: Honduras:
Apparently President Zelaya was working to change the country's constitution in a way that would have allowed him to stay in office longer than currently allowed. He seemed to be following this example of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who first loosened presidential term limits in and then managed to get them eliminated entirely, setting himself up to be president forever. Apparently Zelaya had also established close ties with Chavez and Venezuela.
According to news reports, on the morning that the referendum on whether to amend the constitution was to take place, soldiers paid an early-morning visit to President Zelaya's residence and took him, unwilling, to a plane that flew him out of the country. That same afternoon the man who led the legislature was voted in as the interim president by that same legislature. I have not read of any widespread public protests.
What we can learn from Honduras: Constitutions need to be defended, even when (or especially when) the fate of the country is at risk. In fact, the U.S. President (and all military personnel) swear an oath the defend the Constitution of the United States, rather than the country itself. Of course, defending the country is an important part of defending the constitution, but too many people seem to reverse the priorities. A useful analogy: the country is an ocean liner, the constitution represents the passengers, and the president is the captain. The captain has a responsibility for the safety of the passengers, and also a responsibility for the safety of the ship. Normally the best way to take care of the passengers is to take care of the ship. But in an extreme cases this may not be true. Sacrificing the ship to ensure the survival of the passengers would be a defendable decision. But sacrificing the passengers to ensure the survival of the ship is not.
Citizens have a similar, though unstated, obligation to the Constitution. When a constitutional process produces a result, citizens are obligated to abide by it, even if they don't agree. But when government bodies take actions that violate the constitution, citizens are obligated to take restorative action, even if the agree with the motivation of the violators. I'm not seeing this in Honduras. If Zelaya was subverting, or attempting to subvert, the Honduran constitution (it sounds like he was doing this) he should be impeached. But allowing the military to storm his home and immediately send him out of the country is clearly not a constitutional process. No Honduran should tolerate that. Of course, Honduras is one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere. We in the United States don't have that excuse.

Object lesson 3: China: China recently postponed (but did not abandon) implementation of a law that required all personal computers sold in their country to have special 'Green Dam' software to filter out pornographic material available on the internet. Of course, filters for pornography might easily be used to filter any content deemed inappropriate. I'm confident that the deadline for implementation was set long ago, but it caught my attention due to recent events in Iran (see object lesson 1, above.) and the recent 20th anniversary of events in Tianamen Square. It appears that China is setting up an infrastructure to suppress communication between its citizens in case people feel a need to organize an opposition to government policy.
What we can learn from China: As noted in object lesson 1, above, citizens shouldn't take for granted the infrastructure that facilitates our current free exchange of information. It is often noted that the internet system arose from a Defence Department need for a decentralized communications network that would operate even in the extreme case of a nuclear attack on our country. Yes, the network is 'self-healing' in the sense that people in Los Angeles would still be able to communicate with Seattle even if San Francisco were completely destroyed in an earthquake. But, especially since the 'tech-bubble collapse' of the late 1990s, fewer and fewer companies control more and more of the communications channels. And in the aftermath of 9/11 most of these companies bowed to government pressure to allow apparently unfettered government access to communications traffic. I would hope that these companies would resist if the government tried to interfere with communications among people. The smaller the number of companies controlling communication infrastructure, the more likely that all will succumb to such pressure.
　
So ends my Independence Day weekend musing on freedom.
　
　
　

USDA Grades of Beef: Time to retire them

Here's an message I just sent to the Secretary of Agriculture ( SecAg@usda.gov ）：

President Obama is trying to reduce healthcare costs, but the USDA actively encourages people to eat higher-calorie, higher-fat cuts of meat by continuing to support use of categories such as 'Prime' and 'Choice', which Americans have been conditioned to equate with high-quality. Stop it!

Please shift to terms that reflect the NEGATIVE consequences of high-fat meat. Feedlots are bad for health, bad for the environment, and bad for the nation's well-being. It's time to put discontinue use of these outdated categories.

C-units: a proposal to reduce healthcare costs

Here's an idea I submitted to www.healthreform.gov a few minutes ago...

Reduce healthcare costs significantly by attacking a major cause of illness: over-eating! Make it patriotic to lose weight and get fit. Make it UN-patriotic for businesses to push big portions and unhealthy foods.

Here's an idea: create a new unit equal to 100 calories. Call it a 'C-number', or something. Require restaurant menus and fast-food receipts to show the 'C-number' for each individual item. An order of french-fries might be 2.5 C-units. Pasta with cream sauce might be 11 C-units. Then have a big campaign to constantly ask people "what was your C-count today?" and push the fact that generally C-counts shouldn't be more than 20 per day. This would raise awareness that too many of us eat far too many calories, and (hopefully) raise the demand for more reasonable portions and healthier foods.

Of course, you don't need 'C-units' to count calories; but the advantage to 'C-units' have is that they would allow people to deal with smaller numbers. It's much easier to count to 20 than to 2000.

Reducing the need for healthcare

I'm sending the following letter to the President:

Dear President Obama -
Want to reduce healthcare costs? Make healthcare less necessary! A vast part of our health problems are avoidable. But the healthcare industry focuses on fixing problems because that's where the money is. To reduce costs, avoid problems before they must be fixed.

To do this, connect improving one's health and fitness with patriotism, just as you did with education. I loved your line regarding dropping out: "you're not just giving up on yourself, you're giving up on your country." How about "A stronger America requires stronger Americans!"

Not everyone can be a superb athlete, but everyone can improve their level of fitness. Overweight? Lose ten pounds. Sedentary? Start walking or running. Even elderly people can benefit from simple weight training or other exercises done in their own homes. And the typical American meal could be vastly improved in terms of promoting health. Best of all, if people are properly motivated, this doesn't have to cost the government much, if anything.

During World War II, people sacrificed 'for the war effort' and felt good about doing it. Almost every facet of society had to make significant adjustments. Reducing our huge, non-sustainable healthcare costs requires a similar effort, and it can't be limited to just the healthcare and insurance industries.

Citizens want to know how they can help. They want to be active participants in solving our nation's problems, rather than just victims of forces beyond their control. Tell them "Here's what you can do for your country: Eat properly, lose weight, be physically active." If you hammer this message home, you'll see the demand for healthcare significantly decline.

Keep up the good work,
- Ned