The Tragedy of Guns

The latest in the tragedy of guns is the killing of four Oakland California policemen two days ago. After a routine traffic stop, the assailant shot and killed the two police officers and then two SWAT officers later using an assault rifle and a semi-automatic hand gun.

The assailant was a parolee who had missed several appointments with his parole officer. Some in California are viewing this as an outcome of a much larger problem in California of monitoring parole offenders.

However, I see it more as another tragedy of our liberal gun laws, the blame for which can be placed squarely at the door of the NRA and their rabid push for no restrictions of any kind on guns.

The NRA apparently believes that everyone has the right to own as many guns of any kind as they want and that this right is granted in the Constitution. And unfortunately, emboldened by a string of Supreme Court decisions, the NRA and its supporters have embarked on a journey to overturn more local and state gun control laws.

But some of the NRAs arguments are based on twisted logic. For example, the NRA says that "Guns don't kill people, people do." That's right. People kill people WITH GUNS! No one walks into a mall and kills scores of people with a baseball bat. The NRA will also say that if guns are criminalized, then only criminals will have guns. It is true that even if all guns were outlawed one could still get a gun. But the point of meaningful gun control is to make it much more difficult.

The NRA's main argument has always been that it is our right under the constitution to own guns. But at the time the 2nd amendment was ratified (in 1791) the "well regulated militia" it refers to was composed of ordinary citizens, so the authors wrote that the "right of the people . . ." was not to be infringed, the people being the militia. But today our militia is a formal standing army, so this amendment obviously needs to be interpreted in that context and not, as the gun enthusiasts believe, to allow everyone to own as many guns as possible.

Psychologist Leonard Berkowitz once stated that not only does the finger pull the trigger, but the trigger pulls the finger, implying that the presence of a gun makes its use much more likely. Road rage shootings are a perfect example. If you have a gun within arm's reach in a car when another driver offends you, you are much more likely to use that gun. Again, people kill people, but they are more likely to do so with guns.

Since it's pretty clear that human behavior isn't going to change anytime soon, our only hope to reduce the carnage caused by people with guns, is to pass stronger laws regulating guns and enforce them strictly.

I keep wondering when all the mothers of the victims of gun violence will form a Mothers Against Guns just as mothers did years ago to fight drunk driving. I also wonder how many people need to die tragically and senselessly before our legislature(s) will stand up to the gun lobby and enact real gun control or, better yet, ban the sale of any guns except those used for legal hunting, and hold parents responsible if their children use the parent's gun to kill someone.

Most law enforcement officers are in favor of stricter gun laws which is understandable as the tragedy in Oakland demonstrated all too clearly. Why, then, do legislators support the NRA instead of those who lay their lives on the line for us everyday?

The bottom line is that if we don't do something soon, we will continue to witness mass murder with guns in our streets, schools, city council chambers, hospitals, and homes. Are we okay with that?

Killer Antibiotics

A recent editorial in the L.A Times, "Resisting Antibiotics," stated that "The rise of bacteria such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, which kills more people in this country each year than AIDS, is believed to be a consequence of the overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals."

The editors argued that stricter guidelines for antibiotic use in farm animals and livestock be imposed to prevent the situation from becoming even more dire.

Frequently omitted from stories about killer antibiotic-resistant bacteria, however, is how they came to be. Simply saying that antibiotics are overused doesn't explain how antibiotic-resistant strains develop; and it isn't by divine intervention.

Such bacteria do not just happen by accident, but by a process that approximately 50% of the American population still don't accept -- evolution by natural selection. Only this time, we humans are the agents selecting the killer bacteria by overusing antibiotics.

The process is elegantly simple. Antibiotics kill most of the bacteria they are meant to, but not all. Those that are not killed are naturally resistant, which means that we must develop new antibiotics to kill them. We end up in what evolutionary biologists call an "arms race," with the bacteria currently winning. So, for all the evolution naysayers and intelligent designers out there, here is direct and immediate evidence of evolution by natural selection.

For everyone else, this story shows how an understanding of how the world really works, in this case, evolution by natural selection, may actually save us from ourselves.

Pet Peeve: Part IV: Valet Parking

I don't know if anyone else is peeved by being forced to use valet parking, but here in Los Angeles, it seems as though there are as many valet parking attendants as there are illegal immigrants.

Now I know that valet parking is useful in some instances, but in L.A. almost every restaurant has valet parking, and here's what riles me in no particular order.

First, the valets take up parking spaces where I would normally park myself, for example, in the street. Sometimes the valets even get permission to park your car in parking lots in strip malls where the restaurant you are going to is located. What's worse, however, is that you are prevented from parking in those lots yourself. Is that legal? If so, who's getting the kickback from that arrangement?

Second, valets charge an arm and a leg and then expect a tip. Well, here's a tip: let me park my car myself and don't take up parking spots that I want to use. While recently in San Francisco, we paid $10 for the valet to park our car directly across the street from the restaurant, where, if there weren't any valets, we could have parked it ourselves. Of course, we didn't notice that until we came out of the restaurant and watched in utter disbelief as the valet walked across the street, got in our car, and made a U-turn to deliver our car to us. Needless to say, we didn't tip him.

Third, have you ever seen how valets drive your car when you're not looking? Believe me, you don't want to.

Lastly, perhaps there wouldn't be as many valets if people weren't so willing to pay someone exorbitant fees to park their cars. But many people seem to have the disposable income to afford such luxuries.

So I say, unless you're old or infirmed or are out for a very special occasion, why not park your own car and walk the short distance to the restaurant? Many people I see these days could use the exercise. And at least then we'd be competing with each other instead of valet attendants for parking spaces.

Obviously parking is in short supply in L.A and other cities, but that doesn't mean that every restaurant needs to have valet parking.

Give us our parking spaces back and the choice to park our own cars.

Pet Peeves: Part III: Stinky Food

At the risk of disclosing my identity, my office is in a hallway in which the inhabitants of other offices represent a diversity of individuals from different ethnic backgrounds.

At various times throughout the day, but especially at lunch time, when I walk down the hallway, the odors emanating from ethnic food assault my olfactory receptors. Sometimes the odors even find their way into my office forcing me to close my door.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love Mexican, Thai, and Indian food and I love how they they smell WHEN I'M HUNGRY AND OUT AT A RESTAURANT. But during the day at my place of work, the last thing I want to smell is Chinese or Indian food.

This is yet another example of how people's behaviors intrude on others. It's like smoking, though less dangerous to one's health.

So, if you like to dine on stinky ethnic foods at your place of work, remember that others may not find the odor as pleasing as you do.

A New Survey on Christianity

I have good news and bad news.

The good news is that there are fewer Christians in the U. S. today than there were 20 years ago, according to a new survey of 54, 461 people taken between February and November of last year. I know it doesn't seem like it but only 75% of respondents identified themselves as Christian as opposed to 86% in 1990.

The bad news is that of those who identified themselves as Christian, there are more evangelicals than mainstream Christians. In other words, evangelicals make up a majority of those who consider themselves to be Christian. And more bad news is that there has been a huge rise in the number of those who attend megachurches.

On the other hand, more people now express no religious affiliation, and that is some good news.

Now, if I were to have my own country, there would be no religion at all. A lot of very bad things have been done to our fellow humans, either directly or indirectly, in the name of religion. And what ever good comes from religion (e.g., values, etc.), can be taught just as well, if not better, without religion.

I've always imagined that if extraterrestrials (ETs) ever really did visit Earth, they would look down on our primitive, silly religious rituals with people dressed in robes and shawls and elaborate head attire bowing and swaying, and kneeling and praying, watching while we kill and maim each other, and these ETs would just keep on going without giving us the time of day.

But, let's face it, we will probably never be without religion. But I can still dream, can't I?

Pet peeves: Part II: Feeding Animals

No, this is not about animals feeding, but about people who feed "wild" animals.

We used to have a neighbor who fed the local wild life. She would leave her screen door open while she was at work so the squirrels could come inside and eat from her cat's food bowl. Often, before she left for work, she would take a bowl of potato chips and pretzels and throw them out for the crows who, after a few days of this, would congregate and fly around her squawking and generally making a nuisance.

She apparently believed that she was doing these animals a favor.

Another neighbor used to take cat food across the street to feed wild cats. At one time, a neighbor of my mother's was feeding an entire herd of wild cats.

At the park where I used to run, people would go with peanuts just to feed the squirrels. In no time, these squirrels became as obese as their human feeders.

Now I'm sure that these human feeders have good intentions, or at least they think they do. Actually, their behavior is pretty selfish; it makes them feel good to feed these poor little animals who, without their human enablers, would have to fend for themselves. It is probably not coincidental that the two neighbors I mentioned who fed the squirrels, crows, and cats, lived alone with few friends. Sadly, by feeding the animals, they ensured that someone one (or something) depended on them.

But these human feeders are not doing the animals any favors. As the Humane Society of the United States (as well as many other organizations) point out, "the long-term consequences of [feeding wild life] are often disastrous." But the Humane Society doesn't oppose all feeding of animals. For example, they don't oppose placing bird feeders in your back yard, but they do offer some guidelines for feeding wild life.

For example, they state:

The HSUS opposes the feeding of wildlife when the reasonable assumption can be made that animals may come to harm. While feeding birds and squirrels in your backyard is generally not an activity that fits into this category, some conditions may warrant curtailing the provision of such food sources. For example, during the warmer months, when natural food sources are more readily available, it's usually best to reduce the amount of feed you put out each day or suspend feeding altogether.

If you do provide feed for backyard wildlife—at any time of the year—remember that it's also important to maintain safe, clean feeding stations in order to prevent the spread of disease.

But the best advice: don't feed the wild life.

Terms of Abortion

President Obama's decision to revisit and possibly reverse the Bush policy on stem cell research has reignited the explosive debate about abortion in which the anti-abortion movement has literally dictated the terms of the debate. For example, anti-abortionists have succeeded in getting the emotionally charged, but incorrect, term, partial-birth abortion, accepted into the public discourse and the law. The correct term is intact dilation and extraction (ID&X), which is a medical procedure used only in rare instances where continued pregnancy would place the woman’s life at risk. The media, often unschooled in the correct scientific terminology, unwittingly adopt the language of anti-abortionists in their reporting. Unfortunately, that language is then adopted by the public, and, ironically, even by some scientists and pro-choice advocates.

Perhaps if we were more concerned with the accuracy of our terminology, the abortion debate might be rendered less emotionally laden and the public might actually become objectively informed about the complex issues involved.

For starters, the term abort is often used incorrectly as a synonym for to kill. Such connotations are reinforced by media descriptions of fetuses or babies being aborted. But the verb, to abort, means to terminate prematurely. Thus, it is not a fetus (or even an embryo) that is aborted but rather a pregnancy before the fetus is viable. It is incorrect to use the term abortion to mean anything other than ending a pregnancy.

Many people are unaware that two out of three fertilized eggs naturally don't make it through prenatal development to result in the birth of a baby and, thus, most pregnancies are aborted due to biological causes. At different stages, and for different reasons, including chromosomal abnormalities, the individual stops developing. When this happens after implantation, a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion occurs and the pregnancy ends. We don’t say that an embryo or a fetus is aborted, however.

With the recent debate over stem-cell research, it has become commonplace to refer to the cells as embryos. Although scientists themselves can’t even agree exactly how the term embryo should be used, it is clear that the developing individual is different before it becomes implanted on the uterine wall than after. Before implantation the pre-embryo (as embryologist Clifford Grobstein calls it), or zygote, moves down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. Only when it becomes implanted in the uterus and the placenta and umbilical cord form is it proper to refer to it as an embryo. Thus, embryonic stem-cell research is misnamed, since the stem cells come not from already implanted embryos, but from unattached pre-embryos or, more correctly, blastocysts. The difference is not insignificant because the way the term embryo has recently been used, we are made to actually feel empathy for a small clump of cells.

It is egregiously incorrect to refer to either the pre-embryo or embryo as an unborn child, or baby or infant. A child is a young person between infancy and youth and most people distinguish between an infant or a baby and a child that is usually walking and talking. Thus, to refer to a group of cells as a child or infant or baby goes completely against common usage, and it is designed solely to elicit strong emotions as part of an irrational argument.

Another mistake, which surprisingly many women make, is to assume that pregnancy occurs at conception. Pregnancy, however, is a physical state that only occurs when the fertilized egg becomes implanted on the uterine wall approximately two weeks after conception. A pregnancy test detects the hormones that are then released, which is why such tests will not yield a positive result before then. This also means that if the drug RU-486 is used as it was originally intended, as a morning-after (conception) pill (i.e., as a contragestive), it may prevent implantation; it does not cause an abortion because the woman is not yet pregnant.

In a dissent in the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision to uphold the ban on ID&X, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged the misuse of language by her colleagues when she said, “Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label 'abortion doctor.' A fetus is described as an 'unborn child,' and as a 'baby,' previability abortions are referred to as 'late-term,' and the reasoned medical judgments of highly trained doctors are dismissed as 'preferences' motivated by 'mere convenience.'”

Because of its enormous impact on the public debate, scientists and the media and, yes, even Supreme Court justices, regardless of their personal beliefs, have a responsibility to inject precision and facts into a discussion that too easily lends itself to subjectivity and emotion.