Soft drinks, marketing, and social restrictions

  There's a lot of angst going around right now over the NYC Board of Health enacting a restriction on soda- or sugary drink- sales.

  The current lawsuit rests on the idea that the Board of Health, being an appointed and not elected body, hasn't got the authority to enact rules that are "legislative."

  However, the campaigns to fight this decision, and previous decisions to ban smoking and require calorie counts on menus in NYC, have *not* been about the legislative process. That's just the legal avenue of approach for the companies, trade groups, and unions involved.

  two links out of many, which I will use for analysis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/nyregion/soda-industry-sues-to-stop-bloombergs-sales-limits.html?_r=0

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578052943656540564.html

Quote from Mike LaVorgna (Bloomberg spokesman):

"The Board of Health absolutely has the authority to regulate matters affecting health...."

  Which brings up the debate on whether or not this is, in fact, a public health issue.

  A passel of lawyers have already looked at this and said "aye."

  It is obvious that we have a ongoing health issue related to diet and lifestyle in "westernized" (commercialized and consumerized?) societies. There are many causal and correlative factors, but there has not yet been a reasonable method of combating them. Simply telling people to get healthy cannot compare in force with the advertising, addictions, programming, and lobbying of industry groups.

  And in this case, there isn't even a hint of fighting on nutritional grounds. The industry, trade, and union groups are *not* trying to address health consequences and nutritional data directly in this battle. We've come far enough that they no longer have the ability to pull quite that much of a propaganda campaign off.

  Noted in several articles (and the links I posted above have changed content over the last several hours, removing some of the references) are the campaigns by the industry, trade, and union organizations to put a negative spin on this in terms of freedom, individual choice, and unfair restrictions on struggling small business owners.

 These arguments can be discarded - with the exception, possibly, of the Korean American Grocer's Association, the concern for small business interest isn't really something evidenced in a realistic and consistent manner by industry groups. Individual choice is something that marketing and advertising industries have attempted to remove, limit, or control as much as possible. "freedom of choice" to them means "making people believe they can't live without it." And making- compelling- is operative.

  In terms of broader freedom, almost all consumer based industries (previous examples would include tobacco companies and fast food restaurants, among others) argue in terms of liberty and freedom. While deliberately- and often times dishonestly- slanting the available information, programming people through verifiable advertising and addiction vectors, and reducing individual liberty in favor of increased corporate liberty- these groups have attempted to defend themselves with the idea of individual enlightened self interest in making decisions.

  (So, if Joe Camel and spiked nicotine along with funded movie props get a teen addicted to smoking, it's obviously the teen's knowledgeable and educated choice!)

  So, the freedom argument by industry is a remarkably adept and long standing lie- they have no interest in freedom, and spend a lot of effort finding ways to reduce it.

**

  The lawsuit offers some interesting comparisons, stating that it will be legal to order a 20 ounce beer, but not a 20 ounce soda, or a large 800 calorie chocolate milkshake instead of a "240 calorie soda."

  Noting that a 12 ounce serving of Coca Cola is 140 calories, and the average observable medium (whatever they call it) size around here is 32 ounces at any fast food or theatre (larges are 44 ounces or MORE), the "240 calorie" statement is disingenuous if not outright dishonest. It is based on the "20 ounce soda" - with the implicit argument that the 16 ounce limit is going to cost a lot of money for a reduction of 4 ounces. Which isn't really the case.

  I'm not sure theatres actually OFFER a soda that small anymore. I recall the smallest size available for an adult at the last chain theatre I went to was 24 ounces.  And fast fooderies and convenience stores push much larger serving sizes. The argument isn't about 20 ounces sodas, it is about 32 through 64 ounce sodas.

  More specifically to the point, the comparison is of what industry has marketed as an all day, every day drink to a *beer* or a *dessert.*

  This is enlightening as is demonstrates that they don't make any sort of reasonable distinction between types of foods and drinks. It's pure consumption and profit.

**

  The Board of Health, while trying to accomplish *something*, *anything* to stem the tide, is missing the boat.

  In our current political and social environment, it's possible that there *is* no way to catch the boat. While easily verifiable in medical literature and pop-sci chemistry and nutrition, there's a huge resistance to allowing the differences between fructose and other sugars to be discussed- or even mentioned. Everyone seen the "corn syrup is just sugar from a healthy source" ads?

 Any psych graduate can look at the data on marketing instilling preferences and amygdalal happiness responses to certain images, scents, and tastes/textures as early as 6 months. We know we can do this, but the idea that it *is* possible, let alone common, is strongly resisted by the public.

  No one *wants* to be a slave to outside programming. That part is easy to see. I could argue- do argue- that there are influences beyond a simple distaste for the idea, which come from various industry, medical, and governmental (educational) sources.

  This is tougher to tackle than the "corn syrup is sugar" or "enriched wheat flour buns with sugar are healthy grains" arguments. Much tougher.

  Got no answers there. I know it's possible and not event hat difficult to reprogram, if it's socially accepted and promoted. But I'm at a loss for how that's going to happen.

**
  And so we have the idea that there's a fundamental right for McDonald's to exist. Though much of what they sell isn't food by any reasonable definition and they have a marketing department to die for- there's no way to restrict *their* operation because it somehow reduces *my* freedom. Not sure I buy that. And I'm not sure we can continue to afford to buy into this.

  I have a strong distrust of governmental interference on a regulatory basis- I eat paleo and the current corporate/governmental ideas on the wheat/corn/soy based diet would not be good for me. Certainly don't want to be forced by regulation to endure it!

  And I dislike taxation as a fine. (that's gotten so confused nowadays that a fine is considered a tax by the Supreme Court!!)

  But, perhaps, we do need to offer up some definitions of food. Not necessarily nutrition, but... food.  

Conditioning- for weight loss

Bodyweight exercises, weight loss, and interval training come together...


This post is one I've worked on for a while, but am posting now for a friend. The bodyweight work revolves around "Convict Conditioning."

Now, there are dozens of bodyweight books and websites out there. Convict Conditioning isn't necessarily the best, but it has some major advantages for someone who has had physical difficulties, is out of shape, or especially for someone with a lot of weight to lose.

Any workable regimen will boil down to "eat better, move more." In keeping with that, any program that essentially follows those two principles will produce results.

The main reasons I like Convict Conditioning so much as a base for a training regimen are:

It's broken out into 6 uncomplicated exercise progressions. Push ups, Pull ups, Bridges, Squats, Leg raises, and Handstand puh ups. No isolated muscle complications, and with all bodyweight exercises- you work multiple muscle groups, so everything will get stronger as you go without recourse to cage machines.

The second main reason I love this book is that it starts the progressions out at beginning physical therapy levels. It's nearly impossible to hurt yourself going through the lower progressions attentively.


Of course, Convict Condition is not complete for the expressed purposes. You need some intense interval exercise to add to your regimen and you must find a dietary protocol- an eating plan- that works. I've mentioned in a previous post that nearly any of the better diet plans will work.

I would like to add here, though, that one that is a bit draconian and doesn't allow for subconscious cheating is probably better to start with.


Under my hybrid, you'll be doing your basic pushup, pullup, squat, and leg lift progressions in short sets, multiple times a day. If you *firmly* believe in the need to have rest days, work a bit hard before one. But take no more than 2 rest days per week. the 2 advanced progressions- bridges and handstand pushups, can be added after some weight loss and core strength is built.

This would start with, for example:

5 wall pushups (that's right, feet about 18 to 24 inches from the wall)- do your pushups - ONE SECOND down, ONE SECOND hold at bottom, ONE SECOND to raise.

Only 5? yeah, the first week. You will be doing the round 5 times a day. As you progress, feel free to bump the sets to 7 or 10- but watch that you don't burn yourself out in one morning set!

Same thing with wall or door jamb pullups. same thing with bent leg lifts, and shoulder stand squats.

These sets won't kick up the metabolism, though. So you need a pump. My suggestions for the pump vary depending on your condition and materials at hand. Under NO circumstances would I recommend jump roping or running if you are above 180 pounds going into this. Not a good idea.

Jumping jacks aren't a bad idea. 50 of those should finish off the workout fine - 5 times a day!   ----- start with 10, add 5 every other day.

Playing Hot potato over your head with a 15 or 20 pound dumbbell is a good starting point. 5 presses each side with a 20 or 25 pound dumbbell- or 30, whatever you can barely do, but do right.

Of course, if you have a kettlebell heavy enough, 25 swings is the best. (50 after the first 2 weeks, moving up slowly to 100 for each of the 5 workouts in a day)


If you do Jumping Jacks, don't jump high ---- jump enough to get your legs in or out, but don't jar your spine. You are wearing a full combat load or more in excess weight and don't have a strong back yet. you don't want to crush anything.

  --Why intervals? --

The intervals- 5 short workouts during the day- are there to boost your baseline metabolic rate.  This is essential to fat loss and daily energy- and doing more active things outside of workouts.

But, the intervals have to leave you a bit worked out. The bodyweight conditioning by itself can't do that in the beginning. You simply need time to develop the strength, flexibility, and body shape to do full pullups, one hand pushups, and handstand pushups.

So you need something to make you feel a bit of sweat or heart rate increase- be it kettlebell swings and snatches, jumping jacks, or whatever.


  -- The myth of days off. --

The days off myth comes from bodybuilding for show. We aren't trying to condition for a show event, we are looking for a dual functional strength increase  and weight loss/metabolic increase. This is why you need to do these daily. Once your body systems know they need to be active, they will turn active. Just like a farmboy.



  -- Weight Gain --

The same regimen is useful for weight gain. Not "muscle show" bulk, but healthy, general, weight gain. In certain cases- usually females, but my son is an example of the male effect- there's a tendency towards extreme slimness. this is generally accompanied with a low muscle tone and a generally good diet (meaning no extreme fat layering overeating or food choices)

The way to fix that is to build strength and metabolic rate! you will naturally eat a bit more, process the food differently, and add a bit of muscle mass and density.

-- but, girly push ups? --

Well, girly push ups are something you have to work up to, actually! - joint strength, neuron training, and basal metabolism.

Odds are, if you did push ups in school, you did fast, jerky, halfway push ups. It's harder to do 10 3 second, full down push ups on a table, than it is to do 15 jerky high school gym class push ups.

 This forms the underlying basis of Convict Conditioning (yeah, you need to buy the book) - and is the key element. It's only going to take you 4-8 weeks out of your life to work from level one to four in most areas, and you will gain a lot of safety and injury immunity in the process. In terms of your life, that's not a lot of time.

  --Progression-- a week to try those out, skip one of your baseline interval workouts and replace it with the progression test for each of the bodyweight exercises. If you make it, move up!

The book, Convict Conditiong, has in it a list of progression tests. Pick a day

  This article originally came into my universe by way of  google plus and generated some good - and some off the wall- discussion.

  I have a few things I feel like posting on the topic- but first, give it 5 minutes and read this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/gary-taubes.html

  I will tell you right now that I think Taubes is generalizing and simplifying a bit too much. There are.... details. But, in the general atmosphere of generalizing-

  If you look at the proponents of most dietary reginmens that are really working, whether they are no-red meat, lean meat, lotsa meat, paleo, atkins, primal, panu (archevore) - south beach, raw, mediterranean- the list is long.

  If the diet is working, almost regardless of the debate on fat, almost regardless of the elimination of grains versus the re-mapping of how and when grains are eaten- if the diet is working it will almost invariably include-

         lower carbs.

  Even a Mediterranean diet with pasta, done properly*, is going to be massively lower in carbs and sugars. Sugars, on a good Med diet, will drop from a 3 pound a week average (yeah, that's JUST sugar) to a quarter pound. Carbs, believe it or not, will drop by 30-60% (rough math, it's right within a large margin, I got 45% on the calculator)

  *properly- properly doing a diet is crucial. With very few- and exclusively market driven- exceptions, any of the diets I mentioned is going to be largely compatible with Pollan's Food Rules. (small book, go buy it) The rules essentially boil down to eating Real Food instead of packaged, manufactured, preprepared, and etc. I cannot stress strongly enough that this essential thread tying the diets together is of absolute importance. - Eating Real Food is decent proportions will cut so much sugar, refined carbs, and processed oils out of your diet that you can almost choose the diet as a "desktop theme" type of choice.


*****


One person in the original discussion thread contended that insulin had nothing at all to do with fat.

"There is no evidence that insulin regulates the fat in our cells. At least not as the major contributor. It is another hormone.

  Actually, there is research that show that higher levels of insulin lowers the risk of getting fat. I can produce a dozen references, like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2056116, that shows this."


  Okay, if you go to that study, it seems to me, that there is less fat formation among the subjects who are insulin resistnant. Insulin resistance is a lessening of the ability of insulin to handle gllocuse in the blood. Which means less processing into fat.

  Pointing this out, I was informed that insulin isn't involved in processing the sugar in blood.

  This is wrong- Insulin tells the cells to absorb glucose, fat and aminos. Fat cells are cells. Insulin is the main fat storage hormone.

  High levels of insulin also block the activation of catecholamines (such as adrenaline, dopamine) which control the release of energy into the body.

  Quite possibly, the single most important reason that carb controlled diets (which may or may not be called such) work is that when you reduce the insulin spikes, you increase the activation of PKA and bang, increased metabolic rate.


*****

  I mentioned the "theme" of diets. The reason a dietary plan is important is that you have to have boundaries and rules. Many of us traditionally were  provided these culturally or through our families. (Now they are provided by marketing firms, and don't work)

  This is absolutely crucial. Oh, you can change- from ketosis stage atkins to south beach, for example. But having and sticking to a set of food rules is really improtant.

  The single most important presupposition for any diet plan is this- no fakery.  No Atkins bars, No Atkins bread. No lo-carb energy shakes. Real food, on the plan. Real food.

The inns and out of eating out

Eating out paleo is rough. If you do much paleo you have already figured that out.

I have run the gamut. From tossing 3/4 of my meal out to having to get a manager involved to get pan fried unbreaded fish on a bed of romaine with mayo.

Fast food is a joke,. While it is barely possible to get something not toxic in a fast food establishment, it really isn't very compatible with the reasons to eat out. (Paleo fast food is stupid easy to pack. Fast food chains serve no need when you can carry a bag of jerky and cheese and salami around with some fresh cucumber.)

Diners, while a bit easier, fare poorly for people on paleo or real food diets. For so called "market" reasons, the ingredient lists plainly suck. Corn, wheat, and soy products are in every sauce and dressing. And don't even try to find oilive oil and vinegar. I have worked in and operated restaurants. The market and cost issues are pretty bad, but I think there might be another answer. Let's forget paleo for a moment. Anywhere honest food is served, it is possible to eat paleo with a little explanation. Let's look at honest food. To keep food honest, you have to work with variable seasons and supplies. Which means set, plastic coated, everything the same across the country menus won't work. The answer, in case you missed the post title, is the Inn. The classic romanticized public house style inn. Big pots of chili or soup- not from a menu, but whatever is being made today. Cuts of meat from a locally butchered animal, possibly quarter steer roasts. The list can go on, with local produce, regional harvests like seafood. Fast food? Well, much of the daily menu is already ready already. Menu? Daily, on a chalkboard. Food costs? If you aren't reliant on the manufactured food industry to maintain a set menu, you can work you food costs using seasonal, local/revional, food. At lower cost.

half of Americans to be obese?

according to an article in the washington post:

Based on trends, half of the adults in the United States will be obese by 2030 unless the government makes changing the food environment a policy priority, according to a report released Thursday on the international obesity crisis in the British medical journal the Lancet.

Those changes include making healthful foods cheaper and less-healthful foods more expensive largely through tax strategies, the report said. Changes in the way foods are marketed would also be called for, among many other measures.

Okay, dangerous ground- half of the US obese is a LOT of unhealth.

I won't argue in this case that paleo is the only way to go, there are several answers to the problem.

I don't believe taxing foods that the current medical prejudice thinks are unhealthful is the way to do it. That sort of top down approach won't get anywhere.

Banning advertising entirely? Yeah, I'd go for that.

Hiring Michael Pollan to write the food guide? Yeah, I'd go for that.

Once again, the problem is large corporations designing our health education, and what we get to see as food. Food isn't about health- it's about profit.

I'm not sure what the answer is to that- but I have children with no TV who haven't even eaten half the really nasty foods out there- and somehow, the advertising still gets them.

going hot turkey

My wife and I were discussing a conversation on a forum about the best way to approach a paleo diet- gradually or cold turkey.


My initial response ins "cold turkey, of course!"

Talking to my wife, I realized that from her point of view, we've spent 6 years developing a paleo diet. (My point of view is a bit different, as by the time we met I had deprogrammed on a lot of diet issues through various diets, living in other countries, and adequate experience with MREs.)

When we moved to Davis in 2005, my first attempt at a family healthy diet was to get to "no processed foods" - including no bread. For a while, this was pretty rough. Even a 1600 calorie chef's salad with everything wasn't a meal to my wife because there wasn't one or more of the following:

pasta
rice
bread
dessert

So, there was a huge deprogramming stage for that. And we did, with fits and starts- well before looking at paleo specifically- go through several progressive iterations of ever more natural, less canned/bagged/processed, and raw diet changes.

So, okay, gradual.

But.

If you aren't eating paleo yet, you are going to have to go through these adjustments. Is it easier to do it quickly? I think so, with some caveats.

One of the most often quoted passages in paleo literature for a step by step process is from Dr. Kurt Harris' Archevore (formerly paleonu) blog. The list is as follows:

Here is a 12- step list of what to do. Go as far down the list as you can in whatever time frame you can manage. The further along the list you stop, the healthier you are likely to be. There is no counting, measuring, or weighing. You are not required to purchase anything specific from me or anyone else. There are no special supplements, drugs or testing required.*

1. Eliminate sugar (including fruit juices and sports drinks that contain HFCS) and all foods that contain flour.

2. Start eating proper fats - Use healthy animal fats to substitute fat calories for calories that formerly came from sugar and flour.

3. Eliminate gluten grains. Limit grains like corn and rice, which are nutritionally poor.

4. Eliminate grain and seed derived oils (cooking oils) Cook with Ghee, butter, animal fats, or coconut oil. Use no temperate plant oils like corn, soy, canola, flax, walnut, etc.

5. Favor ruminants like beef, lamb and bison for your red meat. Eat eggs and fish.

6. Make sure you are Vitamin D replete. Get daily midday sun or consider supplementation.

7. 2 or 3 meals a day is best. Don't graze like a herbivore.

8. Attend to your 6s and 3s. Pastured (grass fed) dairy and grass fed beef or bison has a more optimal 6:3 ratio, more vitamins and CLA. If you can't eat enough pastured products, eat plenty of fish.

9. Get proper exercise - emphasizing resistance and interval training over long aerobic sessions.

10. Most modern fruit is just a candy bar from a tree. Go easy on bags of sugar like apples. Stick with berries and avoid watermelon which is pure fructose. Eat in moderation. If you are not trying to lose fat, a few pieces of fruit a day are fine.

11. Eliminate legumes

12. If you are allergic to milk protein or concerned about theoretical risks of casein, you can stick to butter and cream and avoid milk and soft cheeses.

Many of the individual items on the list are fairly easy- for example, 4, 5 and 11 are going to be fairly easy for many people.

But I do believe the list has a useful graduation. 1 through 6 form a unit that's really life changing. And while the biggest single difficulty is likely to be "eliminate sugar"- it's also the single biggest immediate benefit.

And it has a cascading effect on the rest of your diet and lifestyle. Industry sneaks sugar into EVERYTHING, and eliminating just that will make profound changes.

The reason I lump the rest into the group is that it pretty much eliminates most of the worst of the processed foods- since animal fats replacing vegetable fats means less shelf life and more need for actual- well- food.

And this bring up the last point my wife brought up to me. Can you cook?

Being able to cook is pretty essential! Let's assume you aren't a grillmaster, aren't too inventive, and basically can't cook that much. You're idea of cooking is adding chili to macaroni and cheese. or making a grilled cheese sandwich. Maybe even adding some fried onion and chicken to a canned soup and serving over rice.

And thus we get to:

Paleo Hot Turkey.

See Kurt's list up there? grab it, live it, love it. Empty the fridge and the cabinets. Go go go!

(assuming you need to shop and can't do this all yuppie farmer's market organic whoopdedoo)
Buy a mess of eggs, and a bulk bag of bacon. Grab a few stacks of meat in whatever portions you can deal with, and several bags of frozen fish. Go ahead and get some frozen berries.

You need cheese? it's optional and contested, but go ahead, get the extra sharp cheddar, a pound or so.

coconut milk (for your coffee and those frozen berries.)

Now, you are going to go totally retro early 20th century and hit the store every day or every other day, and visit the produce aisle and meat counter. All your frozen meat is for when there's nothing good at the meat or fish counter, okay?

lettuce. Any assorted fun thing you can handle in your salad- a small pear, cucumber, bell pepper, whatever.

Okay. Cook the meat, chill the salad. Done! Hot turkey semi raw paleo.

Assuming you can handle frying an egg and bacon, you are pretty much set from here on out and can happily visit the paleo recipe sites and work your way up to my wife's status of master chef.

She could cook- from a cookbook- when we met, while I had never used a cookbook for more than ideas. In some sense, I definitely helped her leanr to cook in the sense of recognizing food synergies and interactions without a cookbook. She's much more creative than I am with paleo recipes- I'm a grill and salad guy- she can make paleo ZUCCHINI FRAPUCCINOS that taste like ... frappucinos!

At some point, you really will do better if you learn to cook- not just to follow a recipe.


There's really not much more to it than that- the easiest way to go paleo is to get stuff you don't have to cook much, right?

(And, in the end, the faster you do it, the faster you will feel the effects. doing 5% a week for 20 weeks you may not notice ANYTHING)

WARNING, action ahead. (and it's political, ew)

First, this post is particularly for Americans. nothing against any of
y'all, but this is particular to American politics. And I have a firm
belief that our internal politics should remain internal.

that being said:


The timing of this post may seem odd to you- we have a huge amount of
time before the next set of elections (except for district 2
Nevadans!) - yet the races are starting and this is the most important
time for the individual citizen to get involved.

I'd like to recommend a book. It is, I believe, out of print in paper,
but Baen publishing has an ebook version available- without DRM as is
the policy of Baen publishing.

The book was originally written in 1946, and re issued in 1992. It was
re issued specifically to generate more impetus to a particular third
party candidate- but the book itself isn't written along any party
lines. Just about the only American political stance you will see it
stand *against* is classic political communism- which was and is
dictatorial and repressive.

I would like urge everyone to get, to read, and to enact in some small
way, this book. It's an easy read, written by someone who managed to
make a nearly obscene living off of writing well. So it's easy to get
through. It's also thought provoking- it demonstrates in many ways how
the culture and mechanisms of politics have changed over the decades
since WW2, and offers some pictures of what reforms could look like.


Quoted from the book, the author has 7 beliefs he has listed that are
a result of his working in politics on local through national levels:

"(1) Most people are basically honest, kind, and decent"

I'd like to point out that if you do NOT believe this, if you firmly
believe that people MUST be controlled to force them into decency
(what my childhood religion calls the Luciferian Error)- I will
probably stand against you in every poll. But don't let that stop you,
get this book!

"(2) The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs.
They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver
Shirts, Theocrats, or any form of dictator."


For reference, a Silver Shirt is a member of the defunct Silver Legion
of America, an openly fascist group founded by William Dudley Pelley,
who hoped to install himself as dictator in the 1930s.

A dictator in reference to the time period when this was written was
anyone who had anything approaching an absolute, or overly
influential, amount of power - "One who dictates". If a president
tries to assume congressional powers, he is attempting to be a
dictator. (I could point to several on both sides of aisle, I'm not
targeting a specific individual here)

The main point of this belief is that American citizens are wise
enough to run their own affairs. There are two aspects to that. One,
which I believe may be key in this election cycle- is that Americans
are wise enough to vote how they vote. We have had far too many
managed elections- and managed ballot lists- over the past several
cycles. Maybe we oughtta take that back.

The other aspect to this is a classically liberal belief that the
individual is wise enough to run his own affairs and governmental
intrusion into such should be limited. In fact, the structure of the
Bill of Rights to the Constitution is a prime example of Classic
Liberal thought.


"(3) Americans have a compatible community of ambitions. Most of them
don't want to be rich but do want enough economic security to permit
them to raise families in decent comfort without fear of the future.
They want the least government necessary to this purpose and don't
greatly mind what the other fellow does as long as it does not
interfere with them living their own lives. As a people we are neither
money mad nor prying; we are easy-going and anarchistic. we may want
to keep up with the Joneses -- but not with the Vanderbilts. We don't
like cops."

Greed is something that appears to me to be attempted to be instilled
in our children and selves by marketing campaigns- both commercial and
scholastic. I could not state absolutely that I agree with the author
at this point, but I can let it slide because most of the people I
know who are honest and decent do not want wealth for the purpose of
removing power from others. Good enough for me.

"The least government necessary to this purpose." - I know that a fair
percentage of the people I'm trying to reach will at this point
disagree with that phrase. The belief that we need government to
ensure fairness, elevate the oppressed, mandate rules and regulations
to prevent people from doing what another believes is harmful- Well,
I'll admit I don't *totally* disagree with that view. But, to me, the
least government necessary to the purpose of guaranteeing my children
access to healthy food is still the "least government necessary to the
purpose". Think on it.

Cops. It is almost a requirement in my line of work to idolize
policemen on a level equivalent to military veterans. (Since I hold
close to my heart a separation of civilian government and the
military, I have to disagree with this on some levels.) While I
appreciate the risks and service of the job, the point here is that
Americans don't want cops sniffing around everything they do. It has
become institutionalized to the point where I know a LOT of Americans
who won't allow their children to have a conversation with a uniformed
police officer or badged government representative because the
possibility of fishing for a crime is too great- and it is almost
impossible to be guilty of nothing in our current legal landscape. You
can end up being investigated for deprivation if your kid complains
about not ever getting candy, or investigated for neglect f he says he
eats candy all the time! What the author meant, I believe, is that
Americans don't like authoritarian busybodies.


"(4) Democracy is not an automatic condition resulting from laws and
constitutions. It is a living, dynamic process which must be worked at
by you yourself -- or it ceases to be democracy, even if the shell and
form remains."

Any of us, on any side of debate, could point to infringements of the
first, second, fourth, fifth, eighth, and fifteenth amendments in the
past decade once the amendments were pointed out to us. I won't go
talking about vigilant defence- but involvement. Your cell phone
camera may be the democratic sunshine tool of choice for youtube- but
voting and being involved in your party(ies) is much more effective in
the long term. just a letter, a phone call, 4 hours of volunteer work
make a difference.

"(5) One way or another, any government which remains in power is a
representative government. If your city is a crooked machine, then it
is because you and your neighbors prefer it that way -- prefer it to
the effort of running your own affairs...."

(the ellipsis refers to some notes on Hitler which were timely then
but I can safely leave out for the moment.)

I hear an argument from many persons- right and left and center- that
it's pointless to get involved because it doesn't matter. As long as
enough people believe that, it is to some extent true. If you abdicate
your franchise because "all politicians are bad"- you still abdicate
your franchise. Don't do it.

"(6) Democracy is the most efficient form of government ever invented
by the human race. One the record, it has worked better in peace and
war than fascism, communism, or any other form of dictatorship. As for
the mythical yardstick of "benevolent" monarchy or dictatorship --
there ain't no such animal"

Well, look. If you really don't believe this and think that there's
some justification for taking over the government on a NON
representative basis, then elections aren't your game anyway.

"(7) A single citizen, with no political connections and no money, can
be extremely effective in politics."

And that last point is where the book takes off. It's a manual of how
to apply number 7.

Here's what I want you to do, here's why I'm writing this. I want you
to get involved. I don't care if your politics agree with mine- I have
several major disagreements with the platforms of the Republicans, the
Democrats, and at least half the amazing hodge-podge of contradictions
that is the Tea Party (Bachman and Ron Paul in the same bed?!?!?!? how
on Earth?)

Disagree with me. or agree with me. Just do it in a more personal,
more active, more individual political manner.

Please.

The book: Take Back Your Government, 1946, 1992 by Robert A Heinlein

Published currently as an e-book by Baen, available here:

http://www.webscription.net/p-1154-take-back-your-government.aspx

No, I have nothing to do with Baen except for some friendships with a
few authors who have published through them.