Life Kills

I was just looking at the National Safety Council's oddly fascinating (in a rather macabre way) page of "odds of death." One thing I found particularly interesting, in light of some claims by pro-gun activists, was that an average American's lifetime odds of dying by "assault by firearm" are 1 in 324. That doesn't seem too bad until you consider other statistics (all odds are lifetime).

Chances of dying from:

Exposure to forces of nature (heat, cold, lightning, flood, etc.)- 1 in 3,421
Exposure to smoke, fire and flames- 1 in 1,167
Contact with venomous animals and plants- 1 in 46,539
Exposure to electric current, radiation, temperature, and pressure- 1 in 9,308
Exposure to inanimate mechanical forces- 1 in 1,366
Exposure to animate mechanical forces (bites from various animals)- 1 in 27,120
Air and space transport accidents- 1 in 5,552
Being a bus occupant- 1 in 94,242

The point of this list is that we have an odd obsession with all sorts of awful ways of dying, such as being struck by lightning, being bitten by poisonous animals, being in a plane crash, etc., but we don't really pay attention to "ordinary" causes of death, such as dying in car crashes (1 in 247), falling (1 in 200), or the aforementioned "assault by firearm."

It really doesn't matter whether you die because your plane crashed or a highly venomous reptile from some faraway land bit you, or you kick the bucket because you hit a lamppost late at night or you slipped on a bunch of marbles and broke your neck. Dead is dead. As a matter of fact, it's a lot safer to fly than it is to drive. You are more likely to die while driving to the airport than while flying on the airplane you board there. Food for thought.

The DC v. Heller Disappointment

The Supreme Court released its ruling in the "guns case," which is to say, DC v. Heller, today. And frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in their decision.

From what I have read so far (not much, as the combined opinions are 157 pages long), the majority's reasoning was, well, interesting. One might even say, creative. In the sense that Enron's fraud was "creative" accounting. Additionally, Scalia's opinion left several questions open. For instance, what standard does one apply to gun laws to judge whether they are in compliance with Heller? Scalia rejected the use of the rational basis test, but he did not say what standard would be proper. Next, does this ruling incorporate the Second Amendment to the states and local governments? Again, hard to tell, and this will probably require more court cases, more wasted taxpayer dollars, and an even more clogged court system. Thanks a million, Antonin!

I'm going to read the opinion within the next few days (I can't give you a specific date) and monitor the blogs, and get back on this. For now, check out RCP's posting of the candidates' reactions. I particularly agree with Senator Obama's response.

Why Offshore Drilling is Not the Answer

So, now that gas is $4 a gallon, President Bush is going to Do Something About It. He doesn't have to give a hoot in hell about his approval ratings- after all, he isn't running for reelection. But other Republicans are, and John McCain is aiming to succeed Bush. So Mr. President has to get in on the solution to high fuel prices.

Unfortunately, they have taken the wrong path.

The Republican solution: "Let's drill in ANWR! Let's open up the continental shelf! Say goodbye to those oil shales out west!" In other words, we're going to alleviate the effects of our addiction to oil with…more oil. That's comparable to…say, treating a hangover with more alcohol. In the short term, it might help, but in the end, you still get a massive headache.

Of course, this is supposed to be accompanied by a lot of research into alternative fuels and energies. But seriously, who believes that commitment? Who shot down Jimmy Carter's energy plan? The Republicans. Having said that, they do have some ideas for what alternative energies might be in our future. Their idea of an alternative fuel: uranium.

The Republicans (and especially John McCain) have staked their alternative energy plan on nuclear power plants. McCain himself has called for the construction of 45 new nuclear power plants. Will that do anything to help us within the next few years? Uh…nope. Not only would it take years to construct these reactors, each reactor would cost billions of dollars. The reason that no one has built any civilian nuclear reactors since 1979 isn't so much the bureaucratic red tape, and more so the fact that the things are damn expensive.

As to the title of this post, let me add this. Besides the fact that fueling (no irony intended) an addiction is not a long term answer, offshore drilling would not help us today. If the government lifted the ban on offshore drilling and opened ANWR to oil companies, it would take at least a decade to begin production. For one thing, all of the ships necessary for offshore drilling are booked solid. More are on the way, but they take time to make. And even once the wells began producing, the effect that they would have on oil prices (and thus gas prices) would be negligible. For one thing, all of the oil produced by these wells would go on the open market, subject to market prices. The idea that American-produced oil would cost less for us is rather absurd. Furthermore, there isn't enough oil in ANWR and the continental shelf to significantly decrease the price of oil.

It's a pointless and wasteful boondoggle.

An Appropriate Tribute to Our Great President

I saw this in the New York Times this morning, and I instantly thought, "What's not to love about this?" The city of San Francisco is voting on a proposal to name a sewage plant after our great 43rd President. Interestingly enough, the idea was hatched by some guys in a bar. I just love this idea. It's an entirely appropriate tribute to a president, who, quite frankly, stinks.

Stirring the Pot

Not too long ago, I delivered my opinion on a boneheaded Marine who may have passed out Christian-themed coins in Fallujah. Now I'm going to say some things that might get some of my fellow Christians just a little more pissed.

Let's talk about gay marriage and all that sort of thing.

I personally am not too concerned about this issue, and I don't think it should be a serious issue in the general election.

But I do think that there is no reason that the secular institution of marriage should be available to gays and lesbians. Who issues marriage licenses? Not churches, that's for sure. Legal marriages happen, in fact, when the couple who are marrying sign the government-issued marriage license. The only reason most weddings are in churches is tradition.

There was a story on NPR this morning that brought this to my mind. It was talking about how religious groups across the country have been losing fairly consistently to homosexual couples.

I heard that and I thought, "That's good."

[Apoplexy] That's good? Tell us why, please.

Certainly. The reason that I say that is good is that, my religious convictions aside, I want people to have equal opportunity. I don't particularly like or approve of homosexuality, but that's no reason to force people to follow my beliefs.

But doesn't Leviticus 18:22 say, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."?

Surely. But doesn't Leviticus also lay down the procedures for sacrifices and the basis of the kosher diet? Now, I don't know about you, but I can't think of the last time I saw a sacrifice of that sort in my church. Or been forbidden from eating something because Leviticus said not to. And if we're going to have a Duel of Bible Verses, try these on for size:

Acts 10:14- "'Do not call impure what God has made clean.'"

Matthew 7:1-5- "'Do not judge, or you will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.'"

But it's wrong!

[Snort] Of course you are absolutely perfect in all of your habits.

That's not what I'm saying! Why shouldn't churches be able to follow their beliefs? Why should we override millennia of tradition just to accommodate homosexuals?

Let me give you a different example of tradition. For over three centuries, it was traditional for Southern plantation owners to use African slaves to farm their land. For decades after that, it was traditional for blacks to be systematically marginalized, in the South and around the country. Just because it's traditional doesn't make it right. I'm sure the Canaanites would have said the same thing about their gods before Israel conquered them.

But what about the Free Exercise Clause? I have an unlimited right to practice my religion!

Just because the Free Exercise Clause exists, doesn't mean that you have an unlimited right to practice your religion. If you're saying that the First Amendment confers an unlimited right to practice your religious beliefs, maybe you should talk to the members of the FLDS. In the American legal system, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and acts of Congress take precedence over everything but the Constitution. If your religious beliefs conflict with the secular law, the secular law wins. And that is as it should be. Think about it. Certain extreme sects of Islam tell their followers, "Kill all infidels." If religion had an unlimited license, members of those sects could justify their murders of non-Muslims by citing the Free Exercise Clause. Or the FLDS and other assorted polygamists would be justified in having more than one wife. Just like you can't say anything you want, even though the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. All rights have limits. And that's a good thing.

This is unfair infringement of our rights!

Who ever said life was fair? What verse in the Bible promises you that life will be fair? Is it fair to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them access to some of our most universal institutions, like the army and marriage? And how far is too far in this? Should we follow the letter of the Law and stone homosexuals? Or should we (which is to say, we Christians) embrace our brothers and sisters whether or not they are "normal"? What is "normal"? Check out this Twilight Zone episode, I think it illustrates the question rather well.

I don't find this support for gay marriage incompatible with my belief in Christ. Why do you?

A Season For Every Activity

This is comparatively old news, and the news cycle has already moved on. So what.

According to the BBC, a Marine has been relieved of duty because he may have distributed coins to residents of Fallujah that asked "Where will you spend eternity?" on one side, and carried a Bible verse (John 3:16, in case you wanted to know) on the other side.

I heard this and I thought, "What a f***ing idiot!"

First, let me state that I am a Christian. I go to a Reformed Presbyterian church, and I understand that Jesus charged Christians to go out and tell other people the Good News.

But this overzealous Marine should not have been passing out the coins. Worse, he was apparently doing this on government time (while standing watch at a checkpoint).

If you look at AQ's propaganda (as well as the many other IFGs'- IFG meaning Islamic Fundamentalist Group), it would have you believe that the U.S. is only in Iraq and Afghanistan so that they can convert the good Muslims of those places into Christians. This gives them something actual to point to. "First it's coins- soon you'll be required to go to church, and Korans will be forbidden, and no one will be able to be Muslim." I tell you, AQ's propaganda director must have leapt for joy at something to use against us.

My advice to Christians deploying to the Middle East: Hold the proselytization. Be respectful of the religion of Iraqis and Afghanis. Remember King Solomon's advice in Ecclesiastes 3:1: "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven." If you really, really want to spread the word, don't spread it on the taxpayers' quid. If you feel that God is calling you to minister to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, please leave the military before you start working on that job. Again, I understand where you're coming from. But the people of Iraq and Afghanistan might not see it the same way as other Christians do. In short, heed this wise saying: "God gave you brains, now use them," and know when to proselytize and when not to.

Semi-Frequent Absurdity, D-Day Edition, or "And Now For Something Completely Different"

Today is D-Day, therefore I have decided to celebrate this momentous day in history with...something totally unrelated! It's a video with pigeons and a remote-controlled sprinkler. Enjoy!


http://view.break.com/365748 - Watch more free videos

Denouement

The Associated Press has just announced that Senator Barack Obama has enough delegates (2,118) to win the Democratic nomination. The primaries in Montana and South Dakota haven't even taken place, which makes this rather interesting. Obviously a great many supers came in for Barack, and he is now the winner! Now, it's time to get started on healing the divisions caused by this too-long nominating process. Let's focus on the general election. By the by, here's the article:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1811465,00.html

This calls for a quote! Appropriately enough, it's from an old African-American spiritual, and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. used it during a very famous speech:

"Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

End Game

It's quite easy to see that within the next week or so, an end will come to the Democratic nominating process. Sen. Obama seems likely to win in both South Dakota and Montana, where he holds double-digit leads over Hillary- and nothing has come up to indicate any sudden reason for that to change. Although those states won't put him over the top by themselves, there is pressure, from what I have seen on the blogosphere, for uncommitted supers to pick one candidate very soon. I expect that enough supers will throw in for Obama by tomorrow night that he can have a victory declaration from beautiful St. Paul, Minnesota.

And please, Hillary, don't be a bitch about the fact that you didn't win. Please. There are things bigger than you at stake here. If you really want the Democrats to win in the fall, be a good loser. Please.

Who Cares About Puerto Rico?

Seriously, does HRC's smashing victory in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico actually mean anything for the general election? According to the Constitution, whether or not she or they like it, only citizens of one of the states can vote in the general election. It's like Democrats Abroad, or Guam, or the Virgin Islands. In the scheme of the nomination, yes, it matters, but how much does this affect her case for the general election? Obama is still only about 4% away from the nod, according to the Times. He'll get at least a few of the delegates from this, so HRC can't claim total victory. I don't mean this to denigrate Puerto Ricans in any way, but insofar as November is concerned, they are useless to HRC's case.