Bad Marketing and Pharmaceuticals

Ok, really what I'm talking about is clever marketing, but I also consider it somewhat evil.  What I'm referring to is cholesterol lowering drug makers.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I was recently diagnosed with high cholesterol (very surprising since I'm vegetarian, but that's a different story).  I start searching around for how to lower cholesterol and I mention it to a few friends.  And you know what I hear over and over again?  "High cholesterol is in my genes."  "You might not be able to do anything about it if it's genetic."  I understand that this may be true in some cases, but what the marketing departments
 at these big drug companies have done is instill a belief that cholesterol isn't your fault.  You are probably pre-disposed to having high cholesterol so you'll probably need medication.  I think this also has the effect of dissuading some people from trying too hard to lower their cholesterol through eating right and exercising.  Overall this is brilliant advertising and these drug companies are probably making $Billions as a result, but I think they're doing us a disservice and are being somewhat evil.  Pay attention to what you believe, it could be marketers giving you your opinion.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lower Your Cholesterol Diet - On SlideShare (slideshare.net)

Good Quotes

I've always wanted a site where I could find great quotes that are well organized. I've also wanted a way for me

Image via Wikipedia

 to submit my own quotes that other people could rate and use and that I would get credit for.  Someday I'll build that site.  Until then, here's my quote of the day:

"All those not in favor of world peace please raise your hand so the rest of us can beat the crap out of you!"
-  Ben Gomez  1/26/2010

Democracy fails us

So, I generally like democracy and I love living in the US, but there are some things that Democracy is very slow to fix or do right.

One good example is the way the US deals with the global warming problem.  Because of the self serving nature of Democracy, it is really slow going in fixing any problems we might be causing.  People are generally concerned and want to fix things, but it seems like nothing is really happening.  I believe that if we really wanted to do something, we could.

If we were to add a $2 or $3 tax to each gallon of gas in the US, I would wager that our emissions as a country would plummet to the levels we need very quickly.  However, politicians are not going to support this because they care about being re-elected (self-serving) and the people that vote all care about not having to pay too much (again, self-serving).

I know we would need support from the rest of the world to really solve the problem, but at least we could do our part and be a leader in the world.

Advanced Space Travel

In thinking about the heat that we have in the center of the Earth, it seems as though we have a huge supply of energy that isn't going away any time soon.  The gravity from the Earth causes all the matter in the world to compress towards the center creating large amounts of heat. 

Eventually this is going to be useful as we figure out how to use it.  One way that may be especially interesting is for space travel.  I know, there's no way to take the energy with you.  But really, what we could do is actually make the entire Earth a space ship and use the energy that it creates by it's own gravity to drive the ship.  Some day this may become a reality, and while taking Earth to distant galaxies may not work out or be advisable, it might be a good idea for a nearby planet. 

Sexuality in the United States

This is probably my most uncomfortable post so far, but I have an idea and I want to put it out there for people to help me with it.

So, I find it interesting that we have Gyms in the US where people are okay being naked in front of other people.    And if you think about it, many of those people could very well be homosexual, but I don't know many people that are bothered by that.  There probably are, but I haven't met them.  My theory is that everyone is comfortable with the fact that checking out other people in the locker room is completely inappropriate, so it's just not done.  Same thing with underage sexuality.  Men, or at least decent men, have a built in switch that just doesn't allow for the chance of checking out underage women because it's accepted as inappropriate.

The thought is that if we can trust some segments of the population to not be inappropriate, then it seems like co-ed locker rooms would be an extension of this thought.  In addition, it would go against, rather than support, the idea that it's okay for Men to check out or look at women inappropriately whenever they get a chance.  Right now it's assumed that a heterosexual male will stare, if not closely examine, and enjoy seeing women naked.  What if our society could get beyond that?  What if we got to the point where it was never acceptable to "check out" a woman?  Imagine the implications for social interactions, fashion, advertising (media generally exploits the fact that men will drool over any half naked woman they see), and any other aspects of public sexuality.

Maybe it's not possible, but it's an issue that I think a modern society should think about and possibly address.  Not that I think locker rooms should go co-ed tomorrow, but just thinking about it brings up some interesting ideas.

What's Wrong with America

I just got done reading a length article on the "decline" of America.  Very interesting but quite long.  I'll try to summarize here and then provide some analysis.

The article's main points:

• America has been thought to be in decline at many times throughout it's history and America continues to respond with resilience, flexibility and rebirth to drive it forward into growth and vitality while people continue to lament the impending doom of the country.
• America has specific and significant advantages over other countries around the world:  Attracting talent, our University system, and resources.
• Our infrastructure is getting older and is hardly sufficient for the needs of today, much less the needs of future generations.
• Our government system is old, inflexible, and cannot accomplish significant projects.  He also mentions specific problems with the system such as the fact that California has 69 times more representatives in the House than Wyoming yet they both have the same power in the Senate.
• Everything can be fixed if all decisions are made by thinking about that decision as if you would wake up tomorrow and it would be 75 years later.

The sections on the constant doom and gloom and how America responds to it is interesting.  One thing I noticed from my own life is that people in my company seem to have this same view of how the company is doing.  Yet the company keeps getting stronger.  Maybe my company, and possibly many others out there are microcosms of the entire American culture.

On declining infrastructure:  It may be true that our current systems need maintenance, but I believe in some cases, a collapsing infrastructure might give us a good opportunity or possibly motivation to invent something better, more efficient, less expensive, or easier to maintain.

He never really makes a good point about how the House and Senate are setup.  I believe they were setup with the balance as it is for a reason, and it still seems to make sense to me.  You want higher populations to get more say, but not to be able to dictate the course of this country.  It seems like a good setup.  In addition, he talks about states containing 12 percent of the population having enough votes in the Senate to block a bill.  However, the states are mostly irrelevant since the important affiliation is whether those Senators are Democrats or Republicans.  I'm not sure I've ever hear anyone discuss the possibility of Wyoming and Montana gathering a few more states together to block a specific bill.  It seems to always be a party vote.

My Solution:  I think technology is opening up some new avenues for Democracy that could be interesting.  One example is the idea that we could involve far more people in the process using the internet without increasing the costs a lot.  This would be a good step toward a real Democracy instead of a Representative Democracy.  Even if getting everyone to perform all the functions of legislators is too big a task to start with, it could be fun to build a system where many people could collaborate to write better bills to be presented to the legislature that come from the people.  Imagine a bill authored and edited by 1000 people scattered across the country making it into the House for a vote.  To extend that idea, what if we created a new pseudo branch of government made up of all the people in this country who had the ability to vote on a bill and send it to the White House, or to amend, or block a bill.  I know, there are lots of details to work out there, but I think the details could be worked out.  If I get much response on that I may expand on it in future postings.