I'm conflicted about this NSA spying business. On the one hand, I want every bad guy stopped. On the other hand, you've got to define "bad guy."

We've known for a long time the government is gathering huge amounts of data in the "War on Terror" in an effort to stop attacks before they happen. We now know that data includes what phone numbers we call, what phone numbers call us, when those calls happen and how long they last.

Personally, I couldn't care less. My phone records just add to the number of straws in the haystack that hide the needle the spy guys are looking for. And, a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll finds most Americans seem to agree and think vacuuming up of all that data is OK, because it will keep us safer.

But beyond the headline, there's an interesting split when you compare this poll to a similar one taken in 2006, after the first NSA spying bombshell dropped. Back then, only 37 percent of Democrats thought that program was OK. Today, that number is up to 64 percent. In 2006, 75 percent of Republicans approved of what the NSA was doing. Now, only 52 percent do.

What changed? Who's sitting in the Oval Office. Republicans trust Republicans. Democrats trust Democrats. That's very short-sighted.

There's an excellent chance our government's move into "big data" is permanent. It's almost impossible to kill government programs this big and this far-reaching. So, Democrats, you better make your peace with the fact that someday, there will be a Republican president and maybe reconsider your support for this president, at least on this issue.

Now, here's what I personally care very much about. Today's definition of "bad guy" is a terrorist. What will tomorrow's be? A Martin Luther King, Jr.? Anti-war protestors? Union members? Immigrants? African-Americans? Native Americans? They've all been government targets.

Who might fit the definition of a bad guy next? Who do you trust to make that call?

Wouldn't you love to live a simple life? I sure would. I wish my life -- life in general for that matter -- was complicated only by mundane decisions that carried only minimal consequences. What should we have for dinner this evening? What should we watch on television?

But life isn't simple at all. Even "paper or plastic" had ramifications beyond the check-out line.

There was a very tough decision made recently that got me thinking about complexity and consequences in life and also made me grateful that, on the simplicity scale, my life is a 10.

A little girl is dying, and can only be saved by a lung transplant. Sarah Murnaghan is only 10 and has cystic fibrosis. There are three other children at the same hospital in the same condition. Nationwide, there are 31.

Transplant policy is set by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Without it, there would be a free market in human organs. (There already is in some parts of the world.)

The O.P.T.N. has two waiting lists for donor lungs, one for children and one for adults. It's not an arbitrary policy. Lung transplants are the most difficult transplants to perform, and adults do better than children. So children who need a transplant have to wait for a "pediatric donor." They have to wait for another child to die.

Understandably, Sarah's parents are doing everything in their power to save their child, even convincing a Congressional committee to hold a hearing. At that hearing, the Health and Human Services Secretary refused to intervene.

So the parents went to federal court, and persuaded the judge to order the O.P.T.N. to put Sarah on both the pediatric and adult waiting lists.

I'm really glad I wasn't the one to make that decision, but I still think it was a bad one. If you were the parent of one of the other 30 children waiting for donor lungs, wouldn't you be in court the next day? If there were no nationwide policy for organ donations and transplants, would your child die because you aren't rich or influential enough, or you live in the wrong state?

Of course, this raises the broader issue of health care in general in our country. It's too expensive, too arbitrary, and too complicated. Those who can afford it, or have adequate insurance, get the best care in the world. Those who don't, in some cases, die. Many others end up bankrupt.

I am fortunate to have just two pretty simple decisions to make on health care -- which of the three plans my company offers do I enroll in and who do I vote for?

The plan I chose has a high deductible, but protects me from a catastrophic health crisis that would leave me broke. When I vote, if the candidates have a stance on the issue, my vote always goes to the candidate who agrees with me that in the richest, most powerful country in the history of the world, adequate health care is a right, not a privilege.

Pretty simple.

Yup. This is another dirty post. It just seems the evidence rehabilitating dirt keeps piling up. Of course, I mean literal dirt and all of the nasty stuff it contains.

There was lots of evidence in an earlier post to support the contention that we've just gotten too clean. Now, there's more evidence, again from Smithsonian Magazine.

This article focuses on the explosion in the rate of childhood diabetes in Finland. At 64 out of every 100,000 children, it's now the highest in the world. In the 1950s, the rate was only about 15 per 100,000 children.

Finland shares a 500-mile border with Russia. The people on both sides are genetically similar and so share the same "built-in" risk factors for Type 1 diabetes. Even though the people on the Russian side are 7 times poorer than the Finns, their rate of childhood diabetes is just a sixth of what it is in Finland.

Actually, maybe it's because they're 7 times poorer they're less susceptible to diabetes. A pediatrician on the Russian side who's participating in the study says the relative poverty on her side means "there's no hysterical cleaning of apartments."

The article also briefly mentions a continuing U of A study on children and asthma. It makes the important point that not all dirt is healthy. Researchers found early childhood exposure to a particular mold increases the risk of developing asthma.

Still, when Grandpa-hood arrives for me, my advice to my kids will be to lick that binky clean when it falls on the floor. Banish all anti-bacterial wipes and soaps from the house. Get those grandchildren into play groups with other dirty children as soon as possible. And definitely keep the dogs. Until the grandkids arrive, Eloise, Bella and Enzo are all I have!

But they're still here. I'm not surprised if you're surprised. Conservatives made a lot of noise about the "ban" on bulbs and that's all most of us heard. But there never was a ban, just new federal efficiency standards, and the story behind the story is a sad commentary on the toxic state of our politics.

Michigan Republican Fred Upton is Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and was chairman of the committee back when Congress passed and President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Here's what Upton said about that bill at the time: "Current incandescent bulbs on store shelves are obsolete and highly inefficient — only 10% of the energy consumed by each bulb is for light with 90% wasted on unnecessary heat. Today's incandescent bulbs employ the same technology as the bulbs Thomas Edison first created over 120 years ago.

This common sense, bipartisan approach partners with American industry to save energy as well as help foster the creation of new domestic manufacturing jobs. By upgrading to more efficient light bulbs, we will help preserve energy resources and reduce harmful emission [sic], all the while saving American families billions of dollars in their electric bills -- and the benefits will be as easy as a flip of the switch."

Fast forward to 2008 when we elect a socialist, bi-racial former community organizer with a dubious birth certificate as President. The far right is up in arms and Upton is in trouble.

Here's what RedState said about what they perceived as Upton's apostasy as he faced a primary challenge during the summer of 2012: "As late as 2007-2008 -- twenty years into Fred Upton's congressional career -- he was one of the biggest supporters of green energy social engineering and climate fascism. As Ranking Member of the Energy Committee, Upton co-authored the incandescent light bulb ban that eventually made its way into the 2007 energy bill, which turned out to be the Obamacare of the energy industry. It contained mandates and subsidies for green energy on every page."

Upton slammed on the brakes, turned hard right and attacked the law he had championed as a classic example of Big Government substituting its judgment for the free market's. He went so far as to introduce a bill to effectively kill the light bulb portion of the Energy Act of 2007.

Hypocritical? Yes. But apparently if you flip to the right after a career of (perceived) flopping with the left, all can be forgiven. Upton survived his primary challenge from the right by Jack Hoogendyk and went on to win the general election with 55 percent of the vote.

Personally, I'm more than fine saving money on my electric bill. In his heart, I'll bet Fred Upton is, too.

Oh, yeah. Those light bulbs. Check out Advanced Lighting Technologies of Ohio.

Sorry about that …

There was a technical problem with my last post on violence. If you couldn't see the chart I included along with the rest of the post, you can see it here.

The world is a scary place. Kim Jung Un has nukes and makes noises like he wants to use them. Pressure cookers are turned into bombs. People may be dying from poison gas attacks in Syria. We see and hear every sordid, gruesome, disgusting detail in the Jodi Arias trial. A Cleveland bus driver kidnaps and holds three girls hostage for a decade. And that's just in the past month or so, right off the top of my head.

As bad as it feels, in fact the world isn't nearly as scary as it used to be. Violence is at historic lows, but of course, that doesn't make for a very compelling news story.

For some reassurance, read Steven Pinker's 2011 book, "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined." Just 12 bucks for the paperback, or $9.99 for your Kindle. (In lieu of the book, here's a quick overview from a story on Huffington Post from 2011.)

What brought this all back to mind was a recent story about violent crimes in the U.S. They're down substantially. Again, here's an overview of the story with an emphasis on the decline in gun violence from Huffington.

The drop in violent crime is a trend that started in the early ‘90's, but hasn't gotten much coverage. There's been a lot of discussion about the causes in law enforcement and academia, and a lot of competing theories.

Among them, the economy -- crime goes down when the economy is good. The crack epidemic - it burned itself out in inner cities in the '80s. Demographics - as the proportion of young men in the population increases, crime goes up. Tougher sentencing. More prisons. Increased gun control. More police on the beat.

Problem is, none of the theories holds up under real scrutiny. But there is one factor that matches perfectly with the graph of the rise and fall of violent crime:

Kelsey Raffaele was 17 when she died. Her last words were, "I'm going to crash."

While she was talking to a friend on her cell phone, she hit a snow bank, skidded into oncoming traffic and was T-boned by an SUV.

In a previous post I called "Shut Up and Drive," I did some preaching on distracted driving. There's a new study out that indicates the problem is worse -- maybe much worse -- than we think.

Crash data is collected by local police agencies and sent up the line to state governments and Washington. Agencies in some states do a much more thorough job than others.

Tennessee reported 71 fatal crashes involving cell phones in 2010 and 93 in 2011. New York's population is more than triple that of Tennessee, but New York reported only 10 fatal cell phone crashes in 2010 and just one in 2011. That can't be right.

In Kelsey's case, police attributed her crash to mistakes made by an inexperienced driver. It was only later when they found her cell phone that they discovered she'd been talking on it when she crashed. But her death isn't included cell phone statistics.

Crashes are the leading cause of death for teens. Boys are twice as likely to die in a crash as girls. And, because we were all teenagers once, we know teens are drawn to risky behavior. ("Time" magazine ran an excellent article on teens and risky behavior last year.)

I crashed my parents' car twice in 6 months as a novice driver. The first time, I was just being stupid, showing off for the friend who was with me, using the handbrake to do donuts in the snow. I hit a parked car.

The second time I was distracted by the friend sitting next to me, as he studied the speeding ticket I had just gotten. It was raining, and I looked up from the ticket too late to see that the car in front of me was slowing down to turn. I slid into him.

Both my kids made it safely into adulthood. But if I had a young one now just learning to drive, I would take away their cell phone, pay a mechanic to disable the radio (sorry boss), forbid passengers, and install every tattle-tale monitoring device I could find on the car they drove. I'd also set an example and never talk or text while driving.

My kids are old enough now so there's nothing more I can teach them. (They're teaching me.) But I still won't drive and talk because I don't want to cut short the joy and satisfaction I get from my kids, now that they're grown. And I don't want to be responsible for cutting yours short.

I've been a fan of dirt for as long as I can remember. I would splash around in Rock Creek in suburban Washington, D.C. catching tadpoles (eeew!) I ran around barefoot stepping in God knows what, and paid for it once with a rusty nail (eeew!) and a tetanus shot. One of my most vivid memories is of a little girl my age biting a (eeew!) caterpillar in half.

What got me thinking about this was a study from Sweden that indicates parents who lick their baby's pacifier clean when it lands on the floor (eeew!) are doing the kid a favor. It seems mom or dad's spit helps baby's immune system develop.

I remember a Swiss study years ago that indicated children raised on farms (eeew!) were less likely to develop asthma. That's been confirmed a number of times, most recently by a study of Amish children in northern Indiana.

Too many of our kids are not healthy. The Centers for Disease Control reports the number of kids with asthma continues to grow. The CDC also said the number of kids with food allergies is rising quickly.

But even more significant, a 2009 study from Northwestern University shows getting dirty (eeew!) as a child may protect you from heart disease as an adult.

I think it all ties together, and we're getting sick because we're too freaked out about germs. Get rid of the hand sanitizer, and the anti-microbial soap and the anti-bacterial wipes.

We didn't have that stuff when I was a kid, and I've never used any as an adult. It doesn't prove anything, but my last sick day was on Nov. 26, 2010 (I asked Human Resources to check).

But it sure looks like the science says, "Don't be afraid to let the kids get dirty! Lick that binky clean when it falls on the floor! Get a dog and save some paper towels! Let it clean the kid's face!"

If you're a germaphobe and this is all too much for you, stop reading now.

Still reading? OK.

Here's the thing about "germs." We are mostly microbes. The human body contains about 110 trillion cells and 100 trillion of those aren't human. Take a deep breath, wash your hands, and read this fascinating article from Smithsonian Magazine.

Eeew!

Got your attention, right?

I'm writing about numbers and how they are manipulated to fool you.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say the miracle food is blueberries, and a study from a prestigious university found eating a pound of them a week did in fact, cut the risk of getting stomach cancer.

The American Cancer Society said one out of every 116 Americans will get stomach cancer, so your lifetime risk is 0.8 percent. Cut that by just 0.4 percent and you can legitimately boast that blueberries cut the risk of getting stomach cancer by 50 percent. But would you give the headline a second glance if it said, "Miracle food cuts cancer risk from 0.8 to 0.4 percent?"

Here's the point: I had a comment on an earlier post about prosecutions under the National Instant Criminal Background Check system and how sharply they've fallen under the Obama administration. The comment said prosecutions were down 70 percent.

Really? I'm a professional skeptic. That's a big part of my job. I also know, whatever you may think of the president, he's not stupid, and allowing such prosecutions to drop so dramatically would be politically stupid. So I looked into it.

The number I found was 40 percent, cited by Virginia Republican Representative Bob Goodlatte April 14 on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." (By the way, if you are ever inspired to comment, I really appreciate citations for any numbers you use.)

Politifact looked into it and found Goodlatte was as right as my headline is.

The Justice Department said there are about 70,000 denials for gun purchases a year. Under President Bush, 0.015 percent of the cases of lying on the application were prosecuted. Under Obama, 0.08 percent of the cases were prosecuted.

My calculator says that's a 53 percent drop, but the number of cases prosecuted under both administrations is still almost zero.

The comment also accused the president of not acting on grants to the states to improve reporting of those unfit to own firearms. Again, sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do to me.

Without a citation, I can't be sure I'm responding directly to the point, but the Bureau of Justice Statistics said 18 states have received $50,659,449 since 2009. Arizona has received $1,595,098 since 2011.

Here's another point: The health of our democracy depends on us. If we are ill-informed or misinformed, we're apt to make bad decisions in the voting booth.

Be skeptical! If someone tells you a pound of blueberries every week will cut your risk of stomach cancer by 50 percent, take that information with a big grain of salt.

A final point: I love what I do, but I take it very seriously. I have a deeply-felt obligation to you to do my best to make sure the information I give you here, and on the air, is accurate.

Because I can't be sure letting a comment stand without a response might be interpreted as endorsing the information in the comment, I will always do my best to check that information, and respond if I think it's necessary or helpful.

A guy I know was rear-ended by someone yakking on their cell phone.

He's OK, but his car is not. It's 7-years-old but has only 50,000 miles on it, which means he won't get what it's worth to him from the insurance company.

Years ago, I got Detour Dan to start calling them "crashes" instead of "accidents." To me, an accident is something unintentional, and at least in the mind of the person who had one, unavoidable. I wish I had a nickel for every time I broke or spilled something as a kid and said, "But, Mom! It was an accident!"

I'm convinced there are virtually no traffic "accidents." They all have causes that could have been avoided. I'm also convinced that the number one cause is distracted driving.

If you're on a long, lonely stretch of deserted highway, you have the right to be as self-centered and stupid as you want to be. Go 120 mph and text at the same time. I don't care. It's your life.

But if you're sharing that highway with me, you better understand that you are now responsible for my life as well. If you take me out while you're texting, or talking on your cell, or messing with the radio or GPS, or talking to your friend in the passenger seat, I will figure out a way to come back from the other side and make your life miserable.

Please. For yourself, for your family, for all of us on the road with you, put down the phone and pay attention. Be aware of all the vehicles around you. I guarantee you, maybe within just a few feet, someone is yakking on their cell phone and may decide to change lanes right into you.

I don't want you to be there to meet me on the other side and show me how to come back to make to make someone's life miserable.