This owl is making what I call 'America Face.'

Now I already hear you saying ‘Damn it, Ben. Photos of animals are technically fascinating, but meant for other blogs. Why are you blurring the lines?!”

Great question. No worries, I’m not trying to be the next cheezburger anytime soon. I just wanted to start off nice before we move to something terrible and depressing.

2. I had never heard of Maude Barlow before — here’s the transcript of a speech she made at the recent G20, which I found under the headline “The World Has Divided into Rich and Poor as at No Time in History.”

And what’s the scariest part? Well, try this on for size: “The richest 2% own more than half the household wealth in the world. The richest 10% hold 85% of total global assets and the bottom half of humanity owns less than 1% of the wealth in the world. The three richest men in the world have more money than the poorest 48 countries.”

I checked it out, and as far as I can tell she’s correct. This inequality endangers democracy.

3. Speaking of inequality, here’s why Haitian farmers are boycotting Monsanto seeds.

4. Do you think we need a separation of corporation and state? Check out this proposal for a 28th amendment.

5. So you need a typeface — cool infographic.

6. Earlier I posted about world hunger — well, seeing as I’m a guy who loves solutions way more than problems — here’s a neat article on How To Feed The World.

Share on Facebook

2. Wikipedia’s list of common misconceptions. I haven’t read all of these yet, but I’m loving this page.

3. How to forecast basic weather without a gadget. These skills are easily acquired and absolutely necessary for survival in the wild.

4. Here are 18 cool inventions, like so:

Finally, Hats and Radios Together!

5. Have you heard of the Aral Sea? It used to be the world’s fourth-largest lake.

6. Apparently the Indian film audience is captivated by Adolph Hitler. Who knew?

Today’s post photo comes from here.

Share on Facebook

We Have Special Names For Everything

2. I love antiquated visions of the distant future. Paleo-future delivers! Check out this link for a 1900 CE look into the space-age year 2000! (Also imagine the sound of ‘2000′ is echoing as you travel timeward.)

3. Maybe Ray Kurzweil was right after all — it looks like we’re getting close and closer to physical immortality. So stop smoking, start working out and try your best not to die for at least another 50 years.

I am a mouse, but I want to live foreeeevvvvveeeerrr

I am a scientist and I will help you live foreeeevvvvveeeerrr or kill you.

4. Last and most importantly, here’s a video of my long-suffering girlfriend Cherry D. playing a Beatles cover with a bit of a country-western twang.

Share on Facebook

East Timor

Bonus: Here’s a running statistic on obesity, starvation and global food from StopTheHunger.

Talk about depressing. Let’s take a break and then bring it up a bit. Here’s a funny foreign commercial for cola:

2. Did you know that most fast food joints have secret menus? I’m so serious. No, Really.

Not So Secret Now, Eh?

3. How rich are you? Click here to find where you fit in the global average.

4. To end on a high note, check out the Shimizu website. This corporation is dedicated to saving the world. Example below:

Solar Power and a Lunar Strategy

Today’s post photo comes from this Flickr page.

Share on Facebook

This article is not an exploration of these differences; it proposes instead that preventative and consistent universal healthcare is a matter of national security — in short, that a healthy population and a secure country are more than simply admirable goals: They are intertwined and each is inextricable from the other. The ability to provide adequate healthcare to a nation is a crucial part of national security, and any state that ignores the health of its population endangers its long-term stability. After defining these terms and establishing a precedent for the marriage of public good and national security, this article examines four aspects of the argument and explores some differing opinions on the subject.

So what is preventative, consistent and universal health care? The essential definition is this: A system wherein all potential patients have the ability to access doctors and medical treatment on an as-needed basis in a timely manner. To the concept of ‘as-needed’ it is necessary to add the idea of preventative medicine, which is often ignored in the US health care system. In the domestic circus of US political and industrial interests, the idea of healthcare has become conflated with several other similar yet distinct concepts, such as the legislation of health insurance providers and the overall public health. We must also define national security. At the basis, national security can be seen as a state’s ability to maintain the rule of law within its borders, to provide safety and stability for its population and institutions and, in the international sphere, to maintain its sovereignity in dealings with other states. These interactions may range from treaties and economic agreements to bitter diplomatic negotiations and, unfortunately, outright conflict. This leads to an overarching question: How does a public domestic concern such as healthcare influence on the global concern of national security and stability?

While the two concepts may not seem casually related, US domestic history shows several instances wherein the public good and international security converged for the betterment of both concerns. Perhaps the best example of this convergence is found in the construction of the US interstate system. US citizens and visitors alike hold a great appreciation for the Eisenhower Interstate System. For decades it was the largest public works project in history. Along with rail, satellite, fibre optic wire and the ‘ports the Interstate forms the backbone of economy in the US. To the average American, the Interstate system has simply come into being through the gradual accretion of state roads. Most are unaware that the Federal government commissioned a nation-wide infrastructure, and this lack of knowledge is understandable. After all, the interstate serves the private and public sectors alike: it also serves on an individual level. Yet its original intent was twofold: to connect the public, and also to provide a transportation network for the US military, especially after the lessons of World War II, when the divide between the East and West coast proved nearly insurmountable. The construction of the Interstate system propelled the postwar United States economy to the forefront of global business and forced domestic society to evolve as more and more people had access to products, locales and opportunities that would have been otherwise unavailable to all but the slim outliers on the margin of any society: The extraordinarily wealthy, the criminals and the homeless. By taking the ability to travel and do continent-wide business out of the fringes and into the mainstream the United States became a land of entrepreneurs — of travelers, adventurers and innovators. The Interstate system came to the United States at an enormous cost: it is estimated that this project cost approximately 128.9 billion in today’s dollars.

Yet who would argue that this was a poor investment?

Today a similar debate rages over universal healthcare, with a few important differences. At the time of the interstate’s construction, the average American had little say in the halls of the Federal government. Eisenhower’s decision to build the interstate was not subject to the same checks-and-balances found in contentious issues today. There are simply more voices with more sticks and carrots at their disposal, and this results in more interests having the ability to stop any large-scale project. But here’s the most important difference: The corporate interests of the United States saw a clear benefit to the construction of the interstate. Overwhelmingly, these interests see no benefit to the idea of universal healthcare. Accustomed to the current business models, large companies see the institution of universal healthcare as an exorbitant expense that will make them less competitive — or, in the case of insurance companies, irrelevant. With the exception of the insurance companies, these business interests are incorrect. The long-term benefits of national security outweigh the short-term benefit of colluding to prop up the currently unsustainable US healthcare system.

First, universally accessible healthcare leads to a more fit, more able population. Studies have consistently shown that preventative care is not only more effective than reactive care, but also cheaper. With a more fit population businesses will see the rises in workforce performance common to other industrialized states at the time of their healthcare improvements, such as higher productivity, a rise in quality or work, higher retention rates and fewer lawsuits for on-the-job injuries.

For the military and other defense-related agencies, a more fit population naturally leads to a more stable domestic situation. Physical fitness has repeatedly correlated with lower frequencies of crime, deliquency, and avoidable health risks such as obesity and smoking. Families have also been found to be more resilient and stable when parents are physically fit. In the worst-case scenario — that of an invading force on the ground in the United States — members a physically fit population have a much higher chance of survival than those of the current US populace.

Second, since preventative healthcare is, dollar-by-dollar, a superior investment for the individuals, states and businesses involved, a state with this system will find itself spending less on healthcare. This is a long-term benefit, and will not be readily apparent until two milestones are reached. First, the state must bear the high cost incurred by shifting the system from the current privatized, reactive model. Second, the state must channel the surplus of the new system to pay for the significant public debt accrued over years of paying for-profit organizations to perform the same task.

After these two goals have been met, what becomes of the continuing surplus? For the military, this translates into increased budgetary latitude for projects that would otherwise seem prohibitive, such as effective control of the US-Mexico border.

Third, a more physically fit population drastically increases the pool of potential servicemen and women in the armed forces. While the US military places great importance on the training of its fighting forces it must work with the available population, and a population that has had healthcare access up to international standards will have a lower frequency of diabetes, heart disease, mental illness and a plethora of other conditions found in populations with the current American dietary habits and healthcare.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, a move toward universal healthcare for national security will be the most important step in bridging the healthcare gap between the US and other states. While the majority of industrialized states are currently allied with the US in one sphere or another, the continuing decline in the health of the average American stands in sharp contrast with the steady rise in quality of life among other comparable populations. The healthcare gap is real, and it grows each time US domestic institutions put off the painful decisions necessary for the US to maintain its status as a world power.

Counterarguments

It would be unfair to ignore the arguments against universal healthcare, raised primarily by lobbying groups working on behalf of businesses content with the current model. The arguments against universal healthcare as follows: That providing coverage to all Americans is unsustainable; that doing so rewards Americans who refuse to pay for healthcare while penalizing those who do; that providing further state control over healthcare will produce low-quality care, corruption and expensive bureaucracy; that the individual patient will not be able to make his or her own decision about medical treatment.

Given that these arguments are largely designed to scare voters and sway public interest, they are easily refuted.

Providing coverage to all Americans is unsustainable.

Yes, but only given the current system. The current insurance model rewards the for-profit investment organizations known as insurance companies on the basis of accruing the maximum amount of income/premiums while dispersing the least possible amount of care. This is a clear conflict of interest, and in all known cases where a conflict of interest occurs, the situation in which the conflict arose becomes inherently unstable. Current legislation bears this out, and continuing on this course will inevitably lead to the collapse of the healthcare system in the US. The questions of sustainability apply to the current model — it must be changed to ensure national security in the long-term. While true universal healthcare may be seen as impossible over the long-term, only the current model has proven to be so.

Universal healthcare rewards Americans who refuse to pay for healthcare while penalizing those who do.

No more so than the current system. Today, uninsured Americans must resort to emergency room treatment, often at taxpayer expense. Customers of privatized healthcare also bear an additional expense: consistently higher premiums, year over year. Additionally the argument above is logically unsound; universal healthcare applies to all, and thus the ‘penalized’ group is the same as the group mentioned in the beginning of the argument. Cherry-picking works in weak rhetoric, but not in face of the facts.

Providing further state control over healthcare will produce low-quality care, corruption and expensive bureaucracy.

No. This scare-tactic is both insulting to the audience and undignifying when espoused by its advocates. The current privatized system epitomizes the concerns raised in this argument. It is, at best, an exercise in irony to argue that the currently corrupt, bureaucratic private system profiting from care of the lowest possible quality will somehow save the population from the practices it routinely employs.

The individual patient will not be able to make his or her own decision about medical treatment.

Who makes these decisions in the current system? The companies holding the policies of the insured. Even the most libertarian, pro-privatization advocates admit that numerous customers have, in effect, been allowed to die by insurance companies that refuse to honor their claims, especially in cases requiring extensive surgery, long-term treatment or ongoing medication.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article is not to debate ideology, nor to engage in manipulation when the facts alone suffice. Rather, this article attempts to build a case for the establishment of national security in an increasingly competitive environment, one in which every edge provides profound benefit. The arguments against preventative, consistent and universal healthcare are largely made on the part of corporations benefiting from the current system at the clear expense of the American public. The majority of the organizations advocating privatized healthcare are funded by international businesses. Without a sense of nationality, these business interests logically seek the largest amount of profit over the smallest amount of time. Yet private profit is far from synonomous with successful statehood. National security must be the primary interest of all states. It is not the primary interests of business, and thus the support of privatized healthcare rewards business in the short-term at the expense of national security, and leads to disaster in the long-term, for state, individual, and business interests. If allowed to continue, the current practice of privatizing healthcare at the expense of national security and individual quality of life will inevitably endanger the sovereignity of the United States.

Share on Facebook

2. My friend Adam makes awesome posters. Check this one out.

3.  A gallery of fascinating designs for machines that don’t exist. Like so:

The Flying Bike

Today’s post photo comes from here.

Share on Facebook

2. Visit The Best Condiments in the world, right now: I need help deciding which one I’ll cook with next. Suggestions?

3. Graffiti and Light:

Today’s post photo comes from here.

Share on Facebook

2. Did we already post this one? It’s a gallery of impressive Lego wallpapers.

3. Do you pay US taxes? Weird. Exxon totally doesn’t.

4. Here’s a list of historical and literary insults.

Today’s post photo comes from a gallery of photographs taken at Aokigahara forest in Japan. This place is known as a ’suicide forest’ and some may find the photographs within inappropriate or disturbing. Fair warning: It lives up to the name.

Share on Facebook

2. MIGHTY GOD KING KIM JONG-IL!!!

3. Here’s a boatload of conspiratorial documentaries.

4. This is a great little comic, and it’s quite short. Part one is below, and you should really read the rest. It’s surprisingly dark.

Today’s post photo comes from here.

Share on Facebook

2. In a world where celebrities and politicians have replaced the genuine heroes of society — by which I mean the nonpartisan humanitarians, the innovators, the artists and the inspirers — it’s easy to forget people like Dr. Pramoud Karan Sethi, who invented the $28 dollar prosthetic limb.We should not do them this disservice.

3. A nifty list of urban legends and myths. I can never get enough.

Today’s post photo comes from this online collection of photographs by Adolfo Farsari, taken as he toured Japan in the 1880s.

Share on Facebook