This is a terrific article from the Times which reveals some very unsettling truths about how little we know about how we digest food and the tremendous leaps the government is willing to make without any real evidence when it comes to telling us what we should consume.

After reading, the main point I got is that carbs are worse than fat. Both should probably be consumed in moderation, but fats are actually useful while carbs really are not. Considering the environment of evolutionary adaptation which our bodies are based on, that makes perfect sense. Then again, I won’t be going paleo diet any time soon.

This is a highly informative article in the NY Times written by Bruce Bartlett, who held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. Despite these republican credentials, much of the article refutes common conservative claims, such as the notion that government healthcare is universally more expensive than private.

In fact, if we created a nationalized system similar to France’s or Israel’s, we could potentially save so much money that it would be the equivalent of adding 8% to our incomes; to put it in other terms, it’d be like paying no income tax whatsoever.

The article also does a good job explaining why European tax rates seem so much higher than ours - in addition to the extra services their governments provide, their equivalent to the Earned Income Tax Credit, which helps low income families in the US pay less taxes, is actually counted as part of government spending. This makes the tax burden and government costs seem very high, but many Europeans pay less taxes than Americans because of it.

Desertion has been a major problem for the US armed forces since they were first formed. It reached its peak in Vietnam, but continues to this day.

But is someone a deserter for refusing to follow an order that was almost certainly illegal? For refusing to be stop-lossed, dragged into another tour of duty which they did not sign up for - after they received their discharge papers?

Regardless of whether he is a deserter or not, Phil McDowell was forced to leave the country, hiding out in Canada along with thousands of other deserters fearing court martial and imprisonment by the US Government. Is this how we treat those brave enough to serve, and brave enough to stand up for what they believe is right?

**note: Not all deserters are honorable, I am sure. Still, Phil and many others do not come across as bad people, but thoughtful individuals caught in bad situations.

Our right to privacy is simultaneously one of the most important and tenuous rights we have. The government, ostensibly the steward of our rights, has incentive to encroach on several of the liberties we are granted in the Constitution, but this one in particular is an object they covet. They will say it is in the interest of security, that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear, but this is not true.

It doesn’t matter if you have anything shameful to hide or not. The right to disclose information about yourself, unless there is a clear, demonstrable reason this information must be disclosed to protect others, is yours alone. “Terrorism” as a nebulous concept is not a justification to invade the lives of millions of Americans. And what too many of us don’t realize is that the ones who suffer most aren’t the ones who have “something to hide” but the ones who don’t - they are the ones with everything to lose, whose good names could be tarnished by details which others had no business knowing because they’re not dangerous, only personal.

Your financial records. Your past relationships. Your sex life. Your political leanings. Your hopes and dreams. For most of us, there is something in one of these categories which we wouldn’t want broadcast to the world, yet none of them really fall under the “something to hide” umbrella - we might simply want to share them only with a limited number of people we trust and are close to. No outside power should feel they have the right to take this information from us, especially without our knowledge. We may give it if we so choose, but it should not be taken.

The right to privacy is profoundly American, and distinctly patriotic. We have a rich history of preserving individual freedoms, of resisting the police state mentality. We have not always prevailed immediately, but in the end we return to the sentiments of our founding fathers, who understood that when it comes to a choice between liberty and security, there is no “choice” at all. We must stand for our rights, because to pursue security at the expense of liberty is to give up everything worth protecting in the first place.

Far from a simple joke, this test of the EBS in Hungary was actually a thought-out attempt to test the effectiveness of the communications system, particularly its ability to reach youth, without causing panic. By announcing flooding in Rivendell and terrible storms in Gondor, the authorities were able to pick up unique tags trending on social networks and the like in order to gauge their effectiveness.

It is quite frightening the powers the federal government wields today, particularly in the field of domestic espionage. Though the National Security Agency, which is three times the size of the CIA, was intended to protect the country from external threats, much of its resources are now focused within, spying on US citizens without warrant or probable cause through an array of advanced tools. Much of this spying is done automatically through computer algorithms which analyze all forms of electronic and telecommunications data.

This article from the New Yorker examines the controversial and often conflicted testimony of several individuals formerly and currently in the intelligence community. What they say is often muddled, with some of them denying events took place at all, or recasting them in a different light. That itself is telling.

Regardless of your stance on national security and the right to privacy, accurate knowledge on just what our government is doing is vital to your civic status. You need to know what the government feels it has the right to do to you, in your name, and voice your opinion.

I’ll end with one of my favorite quotes, which is becoming all the more pertinent over time:

“He who would give up liberty for security deserves neither and shall lose both.”
-Benjamin Franklin

This sort of thing bothers me beyond words. In fact, the only thing I have to say to this are the words of someone far wiser than I:

“He who would give up liberty for security deserves neither and shall lose both”
-Benjamin Franklin

As a note, this is from 2002 and thus pretty old by today’s news standards, but the truth remains that we, as a people allowed this to happen and continue to do so.

I believe police play a very important role in our society. In fact, hiring more police is demonstrably the single most effective way to reduce pretty much any crime. However, criminal investigations aren’t all worthwhile, and can at times be based on political agenda rather than true need. The FBI is notable for its predilection toward biased investigations, as this article investigates.

For years, an undercover agent bought expensive dinners, had SWAT teams on call and played poker with… well not criminal masterminds - just vaguely dissatisfied liberals with sympathies towards animal rights and environmentalist movements, along with personal drug habits. Hours upon hours of manpower, hundreds of thousands of dollars… for very little effect. It is very much a waste, and obviously so, as part of a habitual desire for unnecessary investigation which pervades the FBI, despite their being lambasted by the Department of Justice for their waste. Still, the article at least makes a pretty good read. Check it out.