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.

I said that to the TV twice the other night watching "The Colbert Report." (You talk to your TV too, right?)

I said it first about the story Stephen was doing. I said it again because Stephen was doing it.

I've been thinking a lot over the past few days about the arguments on both sides of the gun issue.

Some strike me as false, like the comparison of guns to things that may be dangerous, like airplanes, or cars. Airplanes and cars weren't designed to kill, and airplanes and cars are heavily regulated to make them safer.

Other arguments strike me as weak, like the inconvenience of a background check or a waiting period or the fear of an ownership registry.

As things stand now, the regulations for buying cold medicine are stricter than for buying a gun. If you've had a cold or allergies in the past seven years, you know you have to show the pharmacist a photo ID to buy a decongestant. The pharmacy has to keep a record of your purchase for two years.

If you buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer, the federal record must be destroyed within 24 hours. If you buy a gun at a gun show, there's no record. If you just shop for a gun online, that record lives forever. Google, or whatever search engine you use, doesn't forget.

I know for some the fear of a national gun ownership registry is genuine. All I can do is, again, point out that it would be impossible to use one to seize anyone's guns. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual constitutional right, affirmed by the Supreme Court just five years ago. I can't begin to imagine how far our country would have to stray from the respect for the rule of law that is the bedrock of our democracy for any government official to think he had a snowball's chance in hell of taking anyone's guns.

On the other side, some gun control advocates thought they had a "gotcha" moment when 14-year-old Congressional testimony resurfaced. After Columbine, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre testified before the House Judiciary Committee and said he was in favor of "instant checks at gun shows just like at gun stores and pawn shops."

LaPierre was immediately painted as a hypocrite. In fact, he was a brilliant tactician.

For me, the bottom line is that both sides have to give themselves a reality check. Many gun rights advocates have to acknowledge that the Supreme Court also affirmed the government's power to regulate firearms and acknowledge that the vast majority of Americans want tougher regulations to keep guns out of the hands of maniacs.

The argument that criminals and maniacs don't obey the law doesn't hold water. The logical conclusion to that argument is that all laws are meaningless.

Many gun control advocates have to forcefully testify to their support of the rule of law, and the validity of the Second Amendment. I also sometimes detect a hint of elitism on the side of the control advocates. Looking down on someone leaves you no path to common ground.

Both sides have to acknowledge that there is no perfect solution but there has to be something that's better than what we have now.

I had a comment on an earlier post that made mention of the emotional component of the debate over guns.

All debates on important issues are emotional. You can see that as a good thing, or a bad thing, depending on what the issue is, where you stand on the issue and how important the issue is to you.

Emotion is a basic fact of life. We are emotional creatures. The Founding Fathers took note of that fact as they laid the groundwork for our nation. They did not give us a democracy because they feared the blind emotions of mob rule. We have a representative democracy that puts a layer of (supposedly) sober, thoughtful, intelligent elected representatives between us, the mob and power.

So here we are today with the overwhelming majority of Americans in favor of stricter background checks for gun sales. If we had a direct democracy, that would have been a done deal the week after Newtown.

But that's not how we do things and the process the Founding Fathers gave us is working as well as it can be expected to. Passionate people on both sides are petitioning their representatives using all the levers they can find, as petitioners always have and always will.

Some representatives will consider those petitions thoughtfully and soberly. Others will be more calculating and look toward the next election. Some will be guided by their emotions. Some will move to a decision based on a combination of considerations.

While I have my own thoughts and feelings about the issue, I believe two things: Decisions made in haste can be bad decisions and the will of the people is ultimately an irresistible force and will be done.

...say something.

As I watched and listened to the continuing coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, I thought, "Someone must have seen something."

And then I realized, maybe not.

The bombs went off two hours after the leading runners finished the race. That left far fewer people at the finish line. I'm sure most were family and friends of those who had yet to cross the line. Their attention would be focused on the runners still coming down Boylston Street.

The video of the bomb nearest to the finish line appears to show the blast origin well back from the street, next to the building. Maybe nobody did see someone put down a bag or a backpack and walk away.

Right now, we have to be patient as the investigators finish their work. I'm sure they will find whoever was responsible.

Meantime, we have learned again there are crazy, angry, dangerous people in the world and we can't all be protected from them all the time.

If I see something, I will say something. You, too?