We don’t need to wait for government to find a way to create American jobs. The solution is in the hands of every consumer: Buy American-made products. Use your dollars to reward companies that pay Americans to work. Don't reward companies for creating jobs in other countries when its possible for the jobs to be done here.
"Buying American" is not free: you'll generally pay more for an American-made product than for an import. But the benefits are multiplicative when American workers use their money to buy American products. You use money from your American job to pay a little more to fund American workers, and they do the same. The economy grows, and the country benefits. The benefits justify the additional cost.
The money each of us have is from American jobs (our jobs!) We should use our money in a way that sustains the system that gave us a way to earn it.
The best thing about this idea is that it doesn't involve government. We can and should still argue about improving government policies, but solving the problem doesn’t have to wait. The power is already in our hands. Job creation is important. Important things are worth paying for. Pay a little more to buy American products, and help support or create American jobs. You don't have to wait for the next election in order to make a difference.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Deficit, not Gas Prices, is the problem
My senators are helping to block attempts to reduce tax breaks for oil companies. One of them was quoted today in my local paper as saying: "...it's not going to solve the problem that most Americans are complaining about today, which is high gas prices."
Here's [a slightly edited version of ]what I wrote to him:
ARE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION? Today's problem is NOT 'high gas prices'; today's problem is our HUGE DEFICIT and MASSIVE NATIONAL DEBT. You and other leaders need to use every tool at your disposal to address this overriding problem of deficits, and eliminating special interest tax breaks is one of those tools. USE IT!
On a related note, as a conservative I'm sure you understand the concept that 'high prices are the cure for high prices'. In fact, direct or indirect subsidies for gasoline contribute to many other problems. They decrease demand for fuel-efficient vehicles. They encourage urban sprawl, which has too many negative effects to list here. They increase air pollution which must be countered with onerous and costly regulations, and/or causes health problems that will burden us with higher Medicare costs down the road. (Another negative impact on future budgets.) In general, gasoline tax subsidies make it harder for American companies developing new energy-efficient technologies to compete against the status quo. We both realize that gasoline in other developed countries is much more expensive than here, so companies in THOSE countries recognize the importance of these technologies, and are working hard to develop these technologies themselves.
In summary: vote to end special tax breaks for oil companies.
They're bad for the deficit.
They're bad for the environment.
They're bad for health.
They're bad for the future.
They're bad for America.
Vote to end them.
Here's [a slightly edited version of ]what I wrote to him:
ARE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION? Today's problem is NOT 'high gas prices'; today's problem is our HUGE DEFICIT and MASSIVE NATIONAL DEBT. You and other leaders need to use every tool at your disposal to address this overriding problem of deficits, and eliminating special interest tax breaks is one of those tools. USE IT!
On a related note, as a conservative I'm sure you understand the concept that 'high prices are the cure for high prices'. In fact, direct or indirect subsidies for gasoline contribute to many other problems. They decrease demand for fuel-efficient vehicles. They encourage urban sprawl, which has too many negative effects to list here. They increase air pollution which must be countered with onerous and costly regulations, and/or causes health problems that will burden us with higher Medicare costs down the road. (Another negative impact on future budgets.) In general, gasoline tax subsidies make it harder for American companies developing new energy-efficient technologies to compete against the status quo. We both realize that gasoline in other developed countries is much more expensive than here, so companies in THOSE countries recognize the importance of these technologies, and are working hard to develop these technologies themselves.
In summary: vote to end special tax breaks for oil companies.
They're bad for the deficit.
They're bad for the environment.
They're bad for health.
They're bad for the future.
They're bad for America.
Vote to end them.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Perception vs Reality
Perception is not Reality. Reality is Reality, and Reality is too complex for mere mortals to perceive in its entirety. What we perceive is just a model of Reality. Effective models reflect what is important about Reality, and what is important depends on observer and the observer's context.
The models we use organize and simplify what we perceive about Reality, and we use these models to make decisions. Good models (can) lead to good decisions. A model is a lens through which we view Reality. When Reality changes in a significant way, the view we see through this lens changes, and this allows us to respond in an appropriate way.
Note the use of the word 'significant'. Reality is constantly changing in ways we can't hope to comprehend. Your are slightly older now than you were when you started reading this. That is an example of how swiftly and constantly Reality changes. But is your increased age significant? No! So your model of Reality doesn't take this slight aging into account. Reality changed, but your view of Reality did not.
Someone walking into the room while you are reading this may or may not be significant. If you are currently alone, the entrance of someone else probably warrants your attention. But if you're in a crowded public space (say, a library) where people are constantly coming and going, the arrival of another person makes no significant difference; it doesn't affect your view of Reality. Unless...
Unless there's something 'different' about that person. We know, in reality, EVERY person is unique, and thus every person is different. But not every difference is important in your view of the current state of the world around you. And what is 'important' is contextual and subjective.
Contextual means it depends on other things. If you're in a public library, a stranger entering the room is no big deal. If you are at home 'alone' at night, a stranger entering the room unannounced is a VERY big deal.
Even in the library example, context matters. In the segregated southern U.S. of generations past, or in the apartheid South Africa, the arrival of a black person in a public library would have been very significant, whereas today it would probably be not. The context has changed.
Importance is also subjective. Is the 'sexual preference' of the people around you (or the people around your family members) important? Some would say yes, it's very important. Others would say it's not important at all. So people of varying opinions co-exist simultaneously. It's not the context that that causes too models to assign different importance to the same fact; the difference is subjective.
So we base our judgements on models of reality, and these models reflect that we feel is important about Reality. The key thing to remember is that the models are subjective, and are NOT Reality itself. Most of the time we behave as if the model IS Reality, because that's what the model is for: the model is the view of reality on which we base our behavior. If the model is a good one, the judgments we make based on it result in appropriate responses to Reality, and we benefit.
The models we use organize and simplify what we perceive about Reality, and we use these models to make decisions. Good models (can) lead to good decisions. A model is a lens through which we view Reality. When Reality changes in a significant way, the view we see through this lens changes, and this allows us to respond in an appropriate way.
Note the use of the word 'significant'. Reality is constantly changing in ways we can't hope to comprehend. Your are slightly older now than you were when you started reading this. That is an example of how swiftly and constantly Reality changes. But is your increased age significant? No! So your model of Reality doesn't take this slight aging into account. Reality changed, but your view of Reality did not.
Someone walking into the room while you are reading this may or may not be significant. If you are currently alone, the entrance of someone else probably warrants your attention. But if you're in a crowded public space (say, a library) where people are constantly coming and going, the arrival of another person makes no significant difference; it doesn't affect your view of Reality. Unless...
Unless there's something 'different' about that person. We know, in reality, EVERY person is unique, and thus every person is different. But not every difference is important in your view of the current state of the world around you. And what is 'important' is contextual and subjective.
Contextual means it depends on other things. If you're in a public library, a stranger entering the room is no big deal. If you are at home 'alone' at night, a stranger entering the room unannounced is a VERY big deal.
Even in the library example, context matters. In the segregated southern U.S. of generations past, or in the apartheid South Africa, the arrival of a black person in a public library would have been very significant, whereas today it would probably be not. The context has changed.
Importance is also subjective. Is the 'sexual preference' of the people around you (or the people around your family members) important? Some would say yes, it's very important. Others would say it's not important at all. So people of varying opinions co-exist simultaneously. It's not the context that that causes too models to assign different importance to the same fact; the difference is subjective.
So we base our judgements on models of reality, and these models reflect that we feel is important about Reality. The key thing to remember is that the models are subjective, and are NOT Reality itself. Most of the time we behave as if the model IS Reality, because that's what the model is for: the model is the view of reality on which we base our behavior. If the model is a good one, the judgments we make based on it result in appropriate responses to Reality, and we benefit.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
