Because Science, Stupid!

In my last blog post I presented a simple, effective, and cost-effective solution to the (non-existent) rash of school shootings. (I say “non-existent” rash, because the number of such events have been going DOWN over the years, not increasing.) In this post I want to offer yet another option: one that is backed by science. And you know, if science says it is true, you are the worst form of human being if you disagree.

One recommendation I’ve heard lately is raising the age to permit someone to purchase a firearm (there are many terms floating around as to what that type of firearm would be, but I’m going to just call them firearms) to 21 years old. Apparently, if someone is under the age of 21 they are not “mature” enough to legally own something like that.

That is only partially correct.

Let’s see: 21 years old to purchase a firearm. 21 years old to purchase alcohol. 18 years old to purchase cigarettes (someone want to ask the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms about this discrepancy?). 18 years old to vote for the most powerful position in the United States. And 16 years old to drive a two-ton vehicle at high speeds.

So what does science say? Science says that the hippo-campus, the part of the brain that makes decisions, isn’t fully formed until the age of 25. That means we allow people who are UNABLE to make decisions to drive (there are more deaths by automobile than guns) and decide who the President of the United States should be.

Does anybody else see the problem with that?

Those of us who question the validity of man-made climate change (even though the descriptor “man-made” is often dropped) are considered crackpots, conspiracy theorists, and deniers. Why? Because, according to former President Obama, the science is settled. Therefore, since science tells us that man-made climate change is real, we need to make drastic changes in the way we conduct our lives in order to comply.

But why are we okay with allowing the SETTLED science that states people are UNABLE to make good decisions before the age of 25 the ability to do any of those things I listed above, when they are clearly not capable?

Part of it is political.

I remember the whole “Rock the Vote” during the President Clinton era. Remember when he answered such tough questions on an MTV show, surrounded by teenagers, like “Boxers or briefs?” Yeah. Those are the individuals we want in voting booths.

But that is the thing: politicians do not run on facts, clearly laid out agendas, and policies. They run on emotional manipulation. You know, the area of the brain (amygdala) that is overly developed during the same below-25 period. That’s why politicians want people stupid enough to eat Tide Pods (not to be confused with Pad Thai . . . mmmmm) in the voting booth.

So, the solution is to not allow such major life decisions to individuals under the age of 25. That means no voting, drinking, purchasing firearms, and driving. This time should be used to help those individuals LEARN how to make good decisions, instead of using them to help push agendas (I’m talking to you “anti-NRA” people.)

This would be, like man-made climate change, a drastic change in the way we conduct our lives. And yes, I’m okay with this. Why? Well one: it’s science. And two: I’m over 50.

© Emittravel 2018

Do You Desire the Right to Choose?

At the end of my last blog, "Walkin' the Line", I quoted from the first verse of Johhny Cash's "I Walk the Line": "I keep a close watch on this heart of mine. I keep my eyes wide open all the time. …I walk the line." My hope was that it would have the same impact upon you as it did to me.

We all like to think that we keep our "eyes wide open all the time", but do we? It is very easy to find yourself stuck in a groove (a throwback cliché referencing vinyl records that would have a scratch, and the needle would replay the same sound bite over and over and over and … ). Watch too much FOX News and soon you'll start sounding like Bill O'Reilly. I'm no different. That is why I try to bring different things into my arena of thought that will challenge me.

A few things that have effected, or are currently affecting, my thought processes are podcasts like We Have Concerns, The Cracked Podcast, and JuRY; and books like Freakonomics, and anything written by Malcolm Gladwell. I highly recommend any of those - and if you have suggestions, let me know!

One example of challenge came from The Cracked Podcast. I'm a Second Amendment kind of guy. I fully believe in the right to "bare arms" (yes, I LIKE short-sleeved shirts. So sue me!). During one of their podcasts covering the topic of statistics, my (hardened) opinions concerning gun ownership were taken to task.

Did you know that statistically, the chances of your house being broken into is slim?
Add to that the chances of your house being robbed if you have a security system, with obligatory sign on your front lawn, are slimmer?
Add to that the chances of your house being broken into, with a security system, with you there at the time, is even slimmer?
How about the chances of your house being broken into, with a security system, with you there at the time, where you would be able to successfully deter the robbery with your gun is even slimmer?

What about the statistics that say that if a person owns a gun, they probably own more than one? An acquaintance of mine had his house robbed - no security system, and he wasn't home - where the thief got away with a large portion of his gun collection. Ever wonder where thieves get all of these "illegal" guns?!?

One of the major arguments for gun ownership is self-protection. If you look at the statistics regarding the chance of someone being injured or killed by a gun in the home, does the above idea really make sense?

Again, keeping your eyes wide open all the time.

Another challenge came while reading Freakonomics. One of the things the authors were looking at was the fall in crime, with New York City as the focus. Obvious reasons were looked at. And then, one not so obvious. One that pushed my "needle" out of its "groove".

The passing of Roe v. Wade.

According to the data, the majority of people in prison came from broken homes, unmarried women, and poor/impoverished environments. According to the data, the majority of abortions after Roe v. Wade were by single women in poor/impoverished environments. Once abortion became legal, the crime rate dropped (albeit, it took a decade or two for the impact of those abortions to affect the crime rate). You see, the people who were most-likely to commit those crimes were no longer around to commit them.

Please understand, the above has been challenged, but not refuted. Challenge is good. Eyes wide open and all.

As a Christian, I have, for years, followed in the mantra of Pro-Life. All life is sacred. ("Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great." - Monty Python) Who knows, that one abortion might have eliminated the one person who would cure cancer.  Now? I have to ask my Christian Pro-Life spouting cohorts: If you are pro-life, are you pro-crime? Notice that I didn't mention the level of crime. I really don't think it matters.

Okay, as a reminder, the name of this blog is My Humble But Accurate Opinion. I am now going to give some of that opinion to you. Remember, the Humble But Accurate part is tongue-in-cheek.

According to the data, if you are pro-life, you have to be pro-crime. If you are anti-crime, why are you so against the most-capable of deterrents?

Why are the pro-lifers so anti-choice? We look at the Christmas story and see the angel coming to Mary. Did Mary have a choice? Of course she did. That's what made her decision so valuable (WHY she is called "blessed")! Let me ask you, do you think Mary was the first person the angel came to? Maybe the first person said, "No." What if SHE had said "yes"? "Hail Gertrude, full of grace, the Lord is with thee …" I'm not mocking. As the saying goes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Just because the bible didn't say it, doesn't mean it didn't happen!

If you are anti-abortion, do you believe it is okay to use contraceptives? If so, YOU are a hypocrite! What is the difference between eliminating the joining of sperm and egg, versus preventing the joining of sperm and egg? Aren't both the elimination of life? Isn't it possible that that condom prevented the possibility of the person who would cure cancer? At least the Catholics are consistent: they not only do not believe in abortion, they don't believe in contraceptives either!

For one thing, do you think that only ONE person would be able to come up with the cure to cancer? Hardly. Most cures today come from research TEAMS, not any one individual. And for another, if God is ultimately in control, and contraceptives are not 100% effective, don't you think that if a certain joining of sperm and egg "needed" to take place, God couldn't use the 1% ineffectiveness of that condom to allow it to happen?

And finally, let me ask you: Is God pro-choice? Okay, I'll clarify: Does God want you to have the freewill to make choices, or does He want to control everything you do? Be careful. Think about that before you answer. If you want help, read my blog "I Grasp It, But It Keeps Slippin' Outta My Hands!" for some assistance.

(Assuming you stopped to read that blog … )

If it takes freewill for us to openly love God, and anything less would make us, in a sense, robots, why do we feel it is okay for us to want to legislate the ability of others to make choices?

Why is it okay for Christians to want legislation that would make it illegal for a woman to MAKE THE CHOICE whether or not to have an abortion, but not okay for followers of Islam to want Sharia Law forced upon people? What makes one limitation of ability to choose anymore right than the other?

Everyone should have the right to the consequences of his or her decisions.

Don't be mad at me, if you are. I only want you to stop being so hypocritical.

And for those of you wanting to bring up the death penalty, perhaps we should save that for another blog.

Keep your eyes wide open ALL the time!

© Emittravel 2015

Dear Sigmund

With the recent tragedy at an elementary school in Connecticut, the conversation has seemed to focus on gun control for the most part. Events such as these make us want to do SOMETHING - even if it has very little effect. Politicians trumpet stricter gun laws - banning so-called "assault weapons", to make it look as if they are doing SOMETHING of value. Understand, that is what politicians do: they legislate away problems. In Connecticut, however, they already have strict gun laws; a ban on "assault weapons" and elementary schools are already what are called "gun-free zones". Yet, this still happened. Are more gun laws really going to fix it? I think we have the focus on the wrong issue.

We sit and wonder, "what kind of mentally deranged individual would do such a heinous thing as this?" And that is the heart of it: people who do these things ARE mentally deranged. But what can we do about that?

We need, not just easier access to even better mental health provisions but, the PERMISSION to suggest it. When Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army Major opened fire in the Fort Hood military base in 2009, nobody thought to question his behavior prior to the incident. After all, he was a psychiatrist. Surely he of all people was mentally healthy.  Rumors floated around about his state of mind AFTER the incident. Really?

Terms like "dark", "loner", and "quiet" describe the last few school "terrorists". Such are ascribed AFTER the tragedies. People come forward AFTER the tragedies to make these statements. Why not before?

(Here is where I may upset my readers.)

The enemy, as Pogo once said, is us. The fault? Is ours. We are too afraid to say something BEFORE. Maybe it's "politically incorrect" to point out that someone may need care or observation. Maybe we are afraid of being sued. Maybe we have pushed our moral code so far down within us that we won't take the risk of being accused of being "judgmental". Who are we? The whacko religious-right? Absolutely not.

Do we need better healthcare laws that promote mental health services? Maybe. But what we need more is the loss of the stigma that the need for mental care has attached to it. Look at Alcoholics Anonymous. There is nothing shameful about admitting you are an alcoholic and need help. We have gotten over, for the most part, that stigma. What about in the areas of depression? There has to be more than prescription-medicine-commercials-for-depression to reach people. And not just for those needing the help, but for us - those having to live with the aftermath of ignoring it.

It's time for us to realize that our society is full of hurting people. Reach out to them. Help them. If you are in a church it is your duty to reach out to them. Don't wait for the government to handle this. We all know how beneficial another law can be . . .

Note: the title of this blog comes from an episode of the television show "M*A*S*H". In it, Dr. Sidney Freedman is coping with his own depression; writing a letter to Sigmund Freud.

© Emittravel 2012