Here's mine!
I think people vastly under-appreciate the importance and value of information in it's purest and generic sense. The degree to which it controls our lives is beyond astounding. Many problems in almost any area can be broken down / abstracted to one of information. Cancer? That's a break-down in cell signaling communication. Idiots being bad parents who spawn grows up to be bad parents ad infinitum? Another problem of information transfer/communication. The rising and falling of civilizations? That's why we need history! And the worst is politics / the news: everyone has an agenda in framing the information they try to feed you and shape your decision making (a bit Chomskyist, I know). This is also why net neutrality is an important issue: it shifts the power of how information is spread, from an even playing field to the entity that actually owns the field itself.
Let's take the time to not only appreciate information, but the need to obtain good and accurate information that allows us to peer beyond the noisy sea of useless crap and disinformation. Whatever your beliefs or background are, take the time to contemplate the information you're imbibing: where does it come from? Is it designed to benefit you or some other entity? Are there conflicts of interest? Beware of confirmation bias, as it can only hinder you.
Veritas vos liberabit!
Don't make me go all Claude Shannon on you! I was part ranting, but I do actually think a lot of the issues in the colloquial sense can be thought of in an information theoretic framework / I don't believe I'm conflating the two. I think one can abstract a lot of problems to a source, a sink, and a channel (or some network/combination of them), although in a lot of real-world cases, it would just be really tough to come up with the analytical model.
History goes beyond known facts. In history, many times the victors either lie about historical facts (e.g. extreme example being North Korea) or frame them in a way that is positive to the victors. Sometimes, when the real truth comes to light (there was an error), this can set a system back. One could say actual history/truth (sources) communicate over some channel (teachers, history books, etc.) to people (sinks). In this case, a "transmission" error can actually have dire consequences. One recent such example is what's happening in Ireland with politician Gerry Adams (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=309713893), where stuff about Gerry Adam's past coming to light (re~murder/kidnapping) are raising a bit of a controversy as he was a major player in the peace process between Ireland and Britain.
Another example: education. You could say that how things are classically taught are suboptimal, where a teacher is relaying information to students above their channel capacity (40 straight minutes, no breaks, etc.). Systems like Coursera/Kahn Academy help to reduce the transmission rate (e.g. presenting information in bite sized chunks, allow for speed playback control), which in some sense act as an adaptive optimization for what our brains can handle/unit time.
If you really want to get all meta with information transmission, you could say that a teacher relaying information to students is information transmission not only at the level of a student hearing or seeing the facts being taught, but also information transmission through neural signaling and chemical signaling. I'm on a roll.
I would recommend that any aspiring neuroscientist read Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. It should be required reading for grad students in neuroscience. But then, it contradicts a lot of the BS that you will come to convince your of in grad school, so maybe there's a reason it's not that popular.
If you want to really abstract the fuck out of everything, the universe is basically entirely composed of information.