Human Sacrifice in America

By | November 21, 2011 | 0 Comments

This is not a description of a primitive tribe living in some remote jungle (excuse me, rain forest). It is not an account of people clad in animal skins, cutting the throats of captives in front of crude stone idols. No, it is a description of “educated” people living in America and Western Europe. It is an account of people in modern clothes, but still causing other people to die in order to placate their gods.
The false gods are environmentalism and liberalism.
They deny that such noble ideas could possibly cause harmful effects. But they hedge their bets. They rarely risk their own lives for their causes. They prefer to risk the lives of others. It’s much safer that way.
Banning large cars and SUVs.
Environmentalists insist that we must “save the earth” from global warming. To do so, we must drive smaller cars − if we are allowed to drive any cars. But insurance data show that those in smaller cars are more likely to be seriously injured in a crash.
Yet these data are rarely mentioned in “consumer” magazines or the media. They report only laboratory crash data, which seem to show that small cars are as safe as large ones. As one expert explained, when you crash a car into a barrier, you in effect crash it into itself. So a small car may seem to do as well as a large one.
But in real life, the average vehicle weighs over 4000 pounds, not counting large trucks.  One does not need a Ph.D. in physics to visualize what happens when a 4000-pound vehicle collides with a 2500-pound vehicle.
To further confuse consumers, large cars were renamed “very large,” intermediate cars were renamed “large,” compacts were renamed “midsize,” and subcompacts were renamed “small.”
Thousands of deaths could have been prevented if people had been in larger vehicles. But you will never see these figures in “consumer” magazines. If the truth-in-labeling law applied to magazines, they would be renamed “environmental” magazines. Fuel economy trumps human lives every time.
Banning DDT.
DDT was banned in the 1970s because it probably caused the shells of birds’ eggs to weaken. Obviously, we would not want our national emblem, the bald eagle, to become extinct. Obviously, we want to “save the planet.”
But DDT was an effective insecticide, especially for malarial mosquitoes. Now every year, 1 to 2 million people − many of them African children − die unnecessarily of malaria. That is, tens of millions of people died needlessly since DDT was banned.
DDT substitutes are more expensive and must be sprayed more often. If lobbyists for chemical companies had pushed for banning DDT, the media would have screamed that they were putting profits above the lives of black children. But because environmentalists did the lobbying, the media are silent. If putting an agenda above human life is wrong in one case, why is it right in the other? Doesn’t the “planet” we want to save include black children?
At the same time, swamps were renamed “wetlands,” and draining them was forbidden. The most effective agent against mosquitoes was banned, while destroying their breeding places was hampered.
But there’s more. The West Nile virus causes an untreatable infection of the brain. It is also transmitted by mosquitoes. Since 1999 it has been spreading across America. So far this year there have been 627 cases and 36 deaths in the U.S.
We couldn’t allow the use of DDT to save 36 of our lives, after we opposed its use to save millions of African lives. That really wouldn’t look good. Yet if we don’t allow DDT, and if we don’t drain “wetlands,” who will take the blame for our dead? Surely not the activists.
When the “earth gods” were satisfied with African sacrifices, we were glad to oblige. But when they demand that we sacrifice our own, we hesitate. Perhaps our “faith” just isn’t strong enough.
Ironically, West Nile virus kills millions of birds. Are more birds dying of West Nile than were saved by banning DDT? Who knows? Asking that question isn’t “green.”
Banning guns.
Prof. Gary Kleck showed that guns are used much more often to thwart crimes than to commit them. Yet you’d never know it from the media. When a student went on a shooting spree at a law school, he was stopped by two armed students. But Dr. John Lott found that of 280 news stories, only four mentioned that those who stopped the attack were armed. One leading newspaper said that they “tackled” the killer, and another that they “helped subdue” him.
Lott also showed that in states where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry guns, violent crimes decreased. That is, overly restrictive gun laws cost lives. But the activists learned nothing from these experiments. Gun-ban activists in Britain now claim they never thought that crime would fall − they only wanted to end the “gun culture.” In other words, if your experiment failed, change the objective.
Instead of reducing the violent crime rate, which is easily measured, activists now assert that their real objective was reducing the “gun culture,” which can’t be defined, much less measured. Therefore, gun control laws can’t be shown to have failed.
An idea that can’t be disproved by any available evidence is an irrational belief, not a logical conclusion.
Recall the struggle to arm pilots after 9/11. We trust pilots to fly planes loaded with passengers, but not to carry guns, though many pilots are retired or reserve military officers. We babble about the risk of a stray bullet injuring a passenger or damaging the plane. But then, in a colossal contradiction, we scramble jet fighters to shoot the plane down if necessary.
When it suits their agenda, environmentalists and liberals are extremely solicitous of human life. They oppose capital punishment of convicted murderers, because of the minute chance that an innocent person may be executed. They oppose the war on terrorism, because − as in any war − civilians may be killed.
If it will “save just one life,” they are for reducing pesticide residues in food below the already minute levels. If it will “save just one child,” they are for banning guns completely.
Yet when it comes to safer cars, preventing malaria and West Nile disease, or defense of self and family, suddenly this concern for human life goes out the window. The activists never say that larger cars should be built, that DDT should be reintroduced, or that gun ownership should be encouraged − “if it will save just one life.” Another glaring contradiction goes unnoticed.
We tried to make airliners peanut-free zones to avoid allergy, and gun-free zones to avoid anxiety. We neglected to make them terrorist-free zones, and almost 3000 died horribly on 9/11. But on the bright side, they died free of peanut allergy, and free of anxiety over armed pilots.
In an effort to “save just one life,” we lost 3000 lives.
Is this an exaggeration? How many murder victims − especially women and minorities − die each year because of overly restrictive gun laws? How many people − especially Africans − die each year of malaria or encephalitis because of overly restrictive environmental laws? How many people die each year because they were persuaded to drive small cars?
How many thousands die each year to “save just one life”? In an effort to avoid all risks, we ignored the worst risks. With guns, large vehicles, pesticides, and many other agendas, the process has all the characteristics of fanaticism:
● Overstate the possible good effects of your agenda.
● Omit the foreseeable harmful effects.
● When the good effects don’t materialize, never admit failure − redouble your efforts.
● When harmful effects appear, ignore them.
● Never answer criticism.
● Instead attack critics for wanting to “destroy the earth,” “pollute the planet,” “cause Wild West shootouts,” or whatever.
So why are we surprised when ObamaCare includes rationing health care for the elderly and the disabled? Why are we shocked when government officials plan to harvest organs for transplantation from patients who are not dead? We tolerate a million abortions a year, most done for reasons other than health of the mother. What did we expect? Did we think that cheapening human life and making it less important than some agenda would never affect us?
We rightly condemn religious fanatics, who murdered thousands in this country and perhaps millions in the Middle East and Africa. But we should also beware of secular fanatics, who believe that human lives must be sacrificed to appease their gods of environmentalism and liberalism.
Gods that demand human sacrifice are false and deserve contempt, not worship.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

Social Widgets powered by