Yogi's Wonderful Life

Schipperkes are a small dog. So it is a mystery how their leaving can drive such a huge hole through your heart.

Originating in Belgium, Schipperkes (skipper-kee) were originally bred in the sixteenth century, purportedly to provide security and discourage rodents on the many prevalent canal barges. They are boisterous and loyal, fearless and devoted, energetic and playful. They love their adopted families. They like the water, and to hike and to run. A rugged, hearty 15-20 pound package of explosive life.

A friend had had one, and we were captivated, but didn’t seriously entertain the notion of dog ownership at the time. Then our long time cat companion perished, leaving us in a funk. In search of a replacement kitten, calls to several shelters were unfruitful. So we visited a pet store in East Providence and struck pay dirt – a black and white tuxedo kitty reminiscent of our departed Spencer. Only one problem – his white littermate held him in a bear hug and wouldn’t let go. A simple solution – we ended up with two kitties.

But just before leaving, we turned and noticed a puppy. About eight weeks old, adorable, pitch black – it was a Schipperke, yipping for our attention. It was love at first sight. Looking like a tiny bear cub, it was an easy conclusion to name him Yogi. Our home quickly became a beehive of feline and canine activity.

It was a neighborhood spectacle as our three charges grew up together. When taking Yogi for a walk, his two kitty brothers would often parade behind to the considerable amusement of the neighbors.

Yogi quickly excelled in our passion for sailing. Wearing his own life jacket, he soon learned to ride the rails as white foam streaked by. His balance was impeccable. The boat was his second home, and when we stayed overnight, he would curl up and nap contentedly. He was a true sailor.

Schipperkes are long lived, typically 13-15 years. It was not unexpected, then, that Yogi outlived his kitty brothers. We settled into a long routine of comfortable existence, just the three of us. Long hikes in the Locust Valley woods, sailing on the weekends, trips to family reunions in Pennsylvania. Yogi was a constant companion. Vigorous into his teens, he didn’t start to slow down even a bit till he reached fourteen.

Very affectionate, we would often find him backing in between our feet and settling in while we sat and read or watched TV. But we could always get him aroused by the offer of dog biscuits, which were somehow like canine cocaine to him.

Slowly, as he turned fifteen, the long walks became a bit shorter, somewhat slower. But the sweet personality persisted, the joy of life remained, playing with his toys and begging for “cookies.”

Then, at sixteen, he began a more pronounced decline, sleeping most of the day away. Walks were still enjoyable, sniffing the smells of other dogs (we thought of this as him reading a doggy newspaper), but we no longer ventured into the woods. He could no longer negotiate stairs, so we carried him outside to do his business. We began to mentally prepare ourselves.

His typical strong appetite declined; he became quite picky. But we experimented and found some foods that he would eat.  Finally, within six weeks of his seventeenth birthday, a rapid change. He stopped eating and drinking, had trouble walking, seemed to be in a daze.

And then the signs of pain – whimpering, tense muscles. Was it time to help ease him out of this life which was no longer pleasant for him? Were we selfish in hanging on, hoping that it was transient and that he might improve?

But finally, we knew. It was time to let him go.

Yogi was our millennial dog, born at the turn of the century, and was a wonderful part of our lives for nearly seventeen years. The house is silent without him. No tinkling of dog tags on his collar. No clicking of toenails on the tile floor. No warm greeting at the door. It is an empty feeling. But at the same time, floods of warm memories and giving of thanks for him having somehow chosen us as his parents.

After some time to grieve, and to honor his memory, it is quite likely that another Schipperke pup will take up residence with us. The huge emptiness will recede, and a new love will ignite. That’s life with these wonderful little creatures, where the pain of their passing is more than compensated by the joy of their companionship.

Thank you Yogi. Your life was a blessing.

Is Math a Myth?

There are those who are calling for scaling back mathematics education. One “public intellectual” (whatever that is), Andrew Hacker, has even written a book on the subject: “The Math Myth.”  Hacker loves to use words like “inflict” rather than “teach,” and wonders why we torture young Americans with math education in these days of computers and smart phones. (More on Hacker later).

Here is one reason. Mathematics is the science of reasoning. You might think that of little use, but you must use reasoning to weed out the arguments of political hacks and charlatans every election season. Here is an example.

On November 2, many newspapers ran a political cartoon by Jim Morin of the Miami Herald. The target of Morin’s partisan jibe was those who are concerned about the increasing expense of “Obamacare” premiums.

In the cartoon, a large, rotund loutish fellow, labeled “Health Insurance,” holds the message  “George W. Bush Years (up) 100%.” Next to him is a small, rotund fellow with the message “Obamacare (up) 25%.” Finally, a frenzied character, apparently Republican, is shouting “OH NO, WE NEED TO REPEAL IT!”

Here is Morin’s reasoning:

• Health insurance premiums increased 100% over the Bush years,
• Obamacare premiums are projected to increase only 25%,
• Therefore those concerned about Obamacare increases are hyperpartisan, hysterical idiots.

But, in truth, Morin is either preying on your mathematical ignorance or is a mathematical ignoramus himself. Neither interpretation is flattering.

Over the eight years of the Bush presidency, health insurance premiums did indeed increase about 100%. However, Obamacare premiums are projected to increase 25% this year alone. These two numbers can’t be directly compared because they occur over two very different timeframes.

It’s like saying that Sally made 25 dollars this year and Joe made 100 dollars altogether over the past eight years and then claiming that Joe makes a lot more money than Sally. If we annualize those earnings, Sally makes $25 per year while Joe makes only $12.50 per year ($100 divided by eight).

To compare the two health insurance rates of increase, we must find a common time scale. With a few simple calculations, we find that health insurance premiums increased approximately 9% per year over the eight Bush years. In fact, the Obamacare increase is nearly three times that of Bush on an annualized basis. Morin’s thesis is bankrupt.

Back to Andrew Hacker, who believes that your children are wasting their time in mathematical training. Let’s see how that works in reality.

In late August of this year, Hacker was interviewed on the weekly NPR show “Science Friday.” A political scientist by trade, Hacker is teaching a course called “Numeracy 101” at Queens College which is intended to impart a minimal, but adequate, amount of mathematical training. As a practical exercise, working with his students, Hacker calculated the answer to this question: “What is the ratio of black people killed by police as opposed to white people?”

Hacker breathlessly announced their findings: ” We’re the only ones who’ve discovered it. It’s a public statistic. For every 100 people killed by police, white people, 270 black people are killed. OK?”

Here is mathematical dilettante Hacker crunching numbers to support his liberal belief in racist police officers who kill 2.7 black people for every white person. The NPR audience, surely, ate it up.

But the truth may be a hard master. The Washington Post has been maintaining a database of police shooting statistics for several years based on “public information, news reports, and social media.” They believe it to be not perfect, but quite representative.

In 2015, the Post reports that 494 whites were killed by police. Applying the Hacker ratio, we would expect that 1,334 blacks would have been killed. But such is not the case. The WaPo reported 257 black deaths, a regrettable number, but an order of magnitude less than Hacker’s claim.

In this day and age, it is vital that citizens and voters attain and maintain a modicum of mathematical literacy. It is required to detect and debunk the claims of those aiming to sway you. These claims will be many, and you must question them if they don’t pass the smell test.

We may yet regret our collective decision refusing to expand charter schools. Match Charter in Boston, for example, serving inner city kids, delivered the astounding result of 97% of 10^th graders proficient or advanced in math, compared to 54% of district students.

We need more of that, not less.

Classical Liberalism as a Voting Guide

Classical liberalism, as espoused by John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, was based on the concepts of individualism, liberty, and equal rights. Our Declaration of Independence was conceived upon those same values. This was heady stuff and freed uncounted millions from under the heavy boots of dukes and kings.

It wasn’t until many years later that liberalism became associated with statism, that is, using the power of the state to regulate the affairs of her citizens. A more topsy-turvy reversal could not be imagined.

The upcoming election, only five days hence, offers some befuddling choices. Let’s take a look at it through the lens of classical liberalism, the very values upon which our country was founded.

Massachusetts ballot question one, expanded slot-machine gaming, is an easy start. Who are you to tell your neighbor that she can’t start a slot-machine business? Or order her potential customers to not gamble in any case? How Stalinist, Hitlerian. You have the free choice of not gambling nor supporting such an enterprise, but what business is it of yours to order others not to do so?

Now you’re beginning to get the hang of classical liberalism.

On to question two, charter school expansion. Public charter schools are subject to long waiting lists of parents anxious to get their children into them. Are they all deluded? Do they breathe noxious fumes? Nay, they anticipate a better outcome for dear Billy Joe than if he were to attend a district school. We need not question that belief, only recognize that it exists. Who are you to tell Billy that he can’t attend the school of his choice?

Competition is the natural adjudicator of such contests. If district schools demonstrate better results, then the charters will wither. Let this process play itself out.

Question three, conditions for farm animals, has many weepy supporters who seem fixated on feces. But perhaps, instead of mandating husbandry standards from folks who don’t even know what husbandry is, we take a different tack. The question, perhaps, should ask farm producers to report the conditions under which their animals were husbanded. This information would follow the animal products to the supermarkets, and shoppers could make their choices based on their family budget vs. highly held principles.

Another clear “no” for the classical liberal. You are getting the idea now.

And then there is question four, the legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana. This question is a bit more complex, and the classical liberal would vote “yes, but…”

The “yes” is clearly based on liberal principles – the freedom of the individual to choose. However the “but” is related to unintended consequences that would arise therefrom.  Human nature being what it is, once marijuana is legalized, the drug cartels will find some other way to make money. In January 2015, the Washington Post published a report entitled “Losing marijuana business, Mexican cartels push heroin and meth.” These guys aren’t stupid, and finding that marijuana was no longer profitable, they simply shifted to other drugs.

So the classical liberal would vote yes on question four, but would ask that we prepare for a flood of replacement illegal drugs. Perhaps the long term fix is to legalize them as well, a kind-of Swiss model.

And then finally to the presidential election.

What a farce. The Democratic candidate is a grifter, grown enormously wealthy through “public service.” The Republican candidate is a complete whack-a-doodle, adolescent, emotionally volatile.

What is a classical liberal to do?

First let’s recognize the growth of the regulatory state over the last fifty years. The inertia of the FRB, FDA, FCC, FDA, EPA, FTC, NLRB, OSHA, and SEC will be scarcely influenced by whomever wins the next election. It is a sad fact that the bureaucratic, unelected mass of the federal regulatory apparatus is little affected by whoever is president.

But we do need to recognize the importance of Supreme Court nominations. The court can reinterpret our constitution at will, and, as classical liberals, we would hope that that interpretation would favor individualism, liberty, and equal rights.

In the end, our choice as classical liberals must be to defend the rights of the individual citizen. Take a big gulp, cross yourselves, and vote for Mr. Trump.

God knows we have the best intentions at heart.  Fingers crossed. 

How to live longer and enjoy yourself more

Only 19 more days until we get some blessed relief from truly deep, bipartisan, political dudgeon, the worst in many years. Even friends and family are at each other’s throat. But politicians come and go, and the truth is that America is strong enough to survive a watch with either party at the helm. So let’s talk about something that really matters – your health.

All the experts agree – there are two major knobs you can turn to improve your health, sense of wellbeing, and longevity: diet and exercise. Let’s look at physical activity first.

While some of us are already physically active from choice (exercise, competition) or necessity (work), many are not. The New York Times reports a fascinating study of Finnish identical twins who differed significantly, in later life, in exercise activity. Genetics, early life and upbringing were all similar. It was only in later life that one twin exercised and the other did not.

“It turned out that these genetically identical twins looked surprisingly different beneath the skin and skull. The sedentary twins had lower endurance capacities, higher body fat percentages, and signs of insulin resistance, signaling the onset of metabolic problems. The twins’ brains also were unalike. The active twins had significantly more grey matter than the sedentary twins, especially in areas of the brain involved in motor control and coordination.”

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) offer the following benefits of a non-sedentary lifestyle:

• ·         Control weight
• ·         Reduce risk of cardiovascular disease
• ·         Reduce risk for type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome
• ·         Reduce risk of some cancers
• ·         Strengthen bones and muscles
• ·         Improve mental health and mood
• ·         Improve ability to do daily activities and prevent falls
• ·         Increase chances of living longer

Further, the amount of exercise to achieve these benefits is not extreme. The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate exercise each week (less than 25 minutes per day), and some muscle strengthening exercise at least twice per week.

Moderate exercise may include any of the following:

• ·         Walking briskly (3 miles per hour or faster, but not race-walking)
• ·         Water aerobics
• ·         Bicycling slower than 10 miles per hour
• ·         Tennis (doubles)
• ·         Ballroom dancing
• ·         General gardening

But a very easy way to incorporate more activity into your life is to embrace a more physical daily routine.

• ·         Park as far from the mall as possible and walk; eschew the closest parking space
• ·         Walk to your corner store for sundries
• ·         Shovel your driveway of moderate snowfalls
• ·         Replace your lawnmower with a non-driven walk-behind
• ·         Take the stairs whenever possible

All of this counts toward your 150 minute weekly goal.

The other major knob within your control is diet. Here are the key recommendations from the American Heart Association. Your diet should emphasize:

• ·         a variety of fruits and vegetables,
• ·         whole grains,
• ·         low-fat dairy products,
• ·         skinless poultry and fish
• ·         nuts and legumes
• ·         non-tropical vegetable oils

Ensuring that you are getting adequate dietary fiber is extremely important. One very easy rule of thumb comes from Harvard Health. When purchasing food items, quickly check the nutrition label. Locate two numbers: total carbohydrates and dietary fiber. Select the food only if dietary fiber is at least 10% of total carbohydrates. They offer this simple method: Divide the grams of carbohydrates by 10. If the grams of fiber is at least as large as the answer, the food meets the 10% standard.

Here are some examples of food you would or would not purchase based on this approach:

• ·         Whole Wheat Spaghetti – Yes
• ·         Standard (white) pasta – No

• ·         Fiber One Chewy Bars – Yes
• ·         Typical granola bar – No

• ·         Shredded wheat cereal – Yes
• ·         Any sugary cereal – No

• ·         Smartfood popcorn – Yes
• ·         Most potato chips – No

Further, you can look up the nutrition information of home-prepared foods using the web. Here is another choice that might surprise you:

• ·         Baked potato with skin on (dressed like a salad with olive oil and vinegar) - Yes
• ·         Mashed potatoes prepared with milk and butter - No

In all the foregoing is the implicit message that we must eat less meat. The healthiest peoples of the world eat meat occasionally as a treat, not a daily staple.

In conclusion, a crash diet isn’t going to help you. An unused gym membership is worthless. To be effective, you must mold for yourself a healthy lifestyle.

Exercise takes time. That is your investment, but the payoff is huge. If woven into your daily routine, it is not so difficult nor noticeable.

Here is to you and a long, healthy life. After all, we will need to last at least one more election cycle in hopes of getting better choices. 

Go vote. Think first.

In thirty three days, we will collectively make a momentous decision.

There are two major party candidates and two third party candidates. Ardent as their supporters may be, let us posit that neither of the third party candidates will prevail.

That leaves us two candidates, one on the left, one on the right, both less than perfect. Which way do we tack? Continue on to port, or heave to starboard? It will depend on what the majority of American voters think is most important, and how they assess the ability of each candidate to improve their lives.

Let’s take a broad look at a few topics of concern without prescribing solutions or ascribing relative advantage to either candidate.

1.       Globalization and trade

Globalization has caused wrenching changes in all Western economies, not the least here at home. First, manufacturing jobs moved from New England to the South, then to Mexico, and Asia, and India, constantly searching out lower costs of production. The result was directly observed as job losses. It made criticism of trade agreements, such as NAFTA, easy and popular.

But here is the rub. While certain manufacturing jobs, largely low skill, were lost, the cost of purchasing goods was lowered. The American consumer was able to purchase far more with her dollar. Clothing, dishwares, appliances, bedding, furniture – all could be had at Walmart or Costco or Sears at much lower prices.

The loss of low-skill manufacturing jobs is directly experienced and widely observed. But the benefits accrued from international trade, while enormous, are diffuse and not obviously seen. That a family can purchase new school clothes at a significant saving is not seen nor deemed noteworthy. But when multiplied by 100 million households, this one minor example could rack up billions of dollars in savings. Now multiply this by many other examples of savings gleaned from various daily purchases.

American households, given numerous billions of dollars, will now allocate that money in other ways. Savings. Restaurant meals. Vacations. House renovations. All of which generate additional economic activity and new jobs.

Directly observable costs and diffuse benefits – something to be careful of when arguing positions.

2.       Middle class wage stagnation

Globalization, cheered above, has also contributed to middle class wage stagnation. A displaced manufacturing worker who ends up serving french fries is not advancing up the wage scale. It is an absolute requirement that trade deals include benefits and re-training of displaced workers so that they become qualified for higher skill jobs.

But another more pernicious effect is the lack of economic growth. Growth is the engine that creates jobs, increases demand and competition for workers, and drives higher wages. The past eight years since the financial meltdown have achieved very disappointing growth. The President’s administration projected growth in 2010 for the following five years at 3.9%. GDP actually grew by only 2.2% a year during that time. (Wall Street Journal, 10/4/2016, “Judging President Obama on His Own Terms).

In 2013, the administration reduced their four-year growth projection to 3.3%. The actual growth rate stubbornly remained low at 2.3% during that period. While these differences may seem insignificant, consider this: “Compounding growth at 3.6% annually means a 28% larger economy after seven years. Compounding at only 2.1% means 15.7% growth. If the administration’s growth projections were accurate, the GDP would be about $1.8 trillion larger. That’s roughly $6,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.”

What would a family of four do with their additional $24,000? First and foremost, it would move them more solidly into the middle class. And, as mentioned above, they would spend it. Savings. Restaurant meals. Vacations. House renovations. All of which generate additional economic activity and more new jobs.

What is standing in the way of higher economic growth? Why have the administration’s projections gone afoul, stranding innumerable erstwhile wage earners in the doldrums?

Many economists, such as John Cochrane of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, believe it is in great part due to the growth of the bureaucratic state. Cochrane characterizes overly burdensome business regulation as “sand in the gears” of our economy.

At recent count, there are 81,611 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations costing $2.028 trillion per year in compliance costs. (That’s about $25 million per page). Can we intelligently reduce this burden, so that smog doesn’t return to Los Angles and Lake Erie remains swimmable and banks remain solvent?

One would certainly hope so. It is our choice of president and legislators which will determine our course.

Good luck, dear voter. Think deeply.

Why not a Roundabout?

The most direct route from Dublin, in the east, to Sligo in the northwest of Ireland begins with the M4, a fast, modern motorway much like Interstate 95 (except for the terrors of entering and exiting and driving on the left).  Then to state highway N4, much like Massachusetts Route 140, sometimes four lanes, but mostly two. In less than three hours, one can transit from the shores of the Irish Sea to the North Atlantic, traversing verdant farm fields, rolling hills, and charming villages in between. This is Ireland.

There are a few traffic signals (red lights), in the larger towns, but mostly you will encounter roundabouts at intersections.

To the typical New Englander, this reference to circular intersections raises horrific specters of Neponset Circle and the Sagamore Rotary. But rotaries and traffic circles are not roundabouts.

Traffic circles and rotaries (we will say rotary from here on) tend to be very large – several hundred feet in diameter. And because of their relatively large size, the speed of traffic into and through the rotary tends to be fairly high. Couple this with drivers unfamiliar with rotary etiquette and you have a recipe for disaster. No wonder that we hate things circular.

But roundabouts are different. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) likes roundabouts.  According to them, “A roundabout is a type of circular intersection, but is quite unlike a neighborhood traffic circle or large rotary.  Roundabouts have been proven safer and more efficient than other types of circular intersections.”

Roundabouts are safer because they are smaller. A roundabout can fit in the space of many existing intersections, requiring little if any additional land. Very importantly, the speed through the roundabout is low, 15-20 miles per hour.  The FHA, again, says that “roundabouts REDUCE the types of crashes where people are seriously hurt or killed by 78-82% when compared to conventional stop-controlled and signalized intersections.”

According to the experts, roundabouts are safer and more esthetically pleasing than signalized intersections. What else might they offer?

In addition to safety, roundabouts improve traffic flow and reduce delays . According to Wikipedia, “Under many traffic conditions, a roundabout operates with less delay than signalised or all-way stop approaches. Roundabouts do not stop all entering vehicles, reducing both individual and queuing delays. Throughput further improves because drivers proceed when traffic is clear without waiting for a signal to change.”

Now we can add ecological benefits – roundabouts reduce delays and wasted emissions significantly. When considering all of these benefits, (by the way including increased pedestrian safety), why aren’t roundabouts more widely used?  In New England, certainly, part of the problem is that we have been traumatized by horrific rotaries and traffic circles, tainting the reputation of any circular traffic control approach.

And in addition, there is simply a great amount of ignorance regarding how to negotiate a roundabout. The FHA, again: “Still, because they may be unfamiliar to most people, successful implementation of a roundabout requires extra outreach and education.” This is a problem that can be solved.

With all of this in mind, it makes one wonder why the Southeast Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SPREDD) is recommending adding traffic signals to the intersection of Route 123 and North and South Worcester streets in Norton (Attleboro Sun Chronicle, September 9). Traffic is heavy enough, and dangerous enough, that some improvement is required. But let’s compare, for a moment, the relative merits of a traffic signal versus a roundabout.

A traffic signal would have the following characteristics:

-          More dangerous than a roundabout (additional and more serious accidents)

-          Higher risk to pedestrians

-          Poorer traffic flow; greater delays

-          Worse ecological impact; greater emissions

Why in the world would we intentionally choose such a solution? Building a roundabout instead would offer the opposite of each of the above ills. Safer to all, improved traffic flow, reduced delays, and more friendly to the environment. Global warmists would rejoice. Roundabouts should be at the top of the list for all of our intersection improvement projects.

But perhaps, at root, Massachusetts progressives are not so progressive after all.

Human lives, intersected

On Sunday, a jogger running on Route 44 was struck and seriously injured by an Attleboro woman. Here is a pertinent passage in the Sun Chronicle’s story:  “…the jogger was running westbound when he was struck. The vehicle that struck him was also traveling west.”

The accident occurred in the late afternoon. Perhaps the sun was in the driver’s eyes. She was allegedly drunk, so maybe she just strayed out of her lane. And, unfortunately, all this occurred behind the jogger’s back. He was blissfully unaware until struck, when he “was thrown through the air and then struck a utility pole.” Ouch.

Like the great majority of accidents, two human live intersected, and both made mistakes. The driver clearly shouldn’t have left her lane of travel, whatever the reason. And the jogger was wrong in blindly turning his back to a source of danger.

It is not a trivial problem. While our Attorney General obsesses over “assault rifles,” the odds of a pedestrian dying  in an accident are 20 times greater than those of anyone being killed by any sort of rifle, “assault” or otherwise. Twenty times.

The statistics are gripping: nearly 5,000 pedestrians killed and 65,000 injured every year. With school now back in session, it behooves us to review what we can do to keep our kids, and us, safer.

There is a lot that government can do to promote pedestrian safety.  Investing in sidewalks, crosswalks, signal lights. Even more important, rigorous enforcement of traffic codes, keeping drivers in line with the intent of safety legislation. Too often, citations for rolling through a stop sign or not yielding to a pedestrian waiting to cross are issued only after an accident, not preemptively, regularly, and often enough to actually change and maintain safer driver behavior.

Here are some things that pedestrians can do to help themselves.

1. Pay attention to your surroundings. Don’t text and walk. Wait to play Pokemon until you are in the park or somewhere safely away from traffic.
2. Always prefer to walk facing traffic, even on a sidewalk. If you see a distracted or impaired driver about to leave his lane, you have a chance to do something about it. (But see number 1 – only if you are paying attention).
3. Don’t trust crosswalks. Carefully watch that traffic is clear in all directions. Once a driver has stopped for you, watch out for another cutting around her from behind.
4. Before stepping in front of a stopped car, make eye contact with the driver. A driver will often slow down for a stop sign, but only glance quickly left for oncoming traffic. Without pausing to look right, he will bang the right turn. If you, trusting or texting, distracted or dancing, step from the curb, you are now a statistic.

Now as a driver, you must realize that striking a pedestrian is a life changing event for both you and the victim. There are a few tactics you can engage to minimize the odds of such a terrible outcome.

1. Don’t be in a hurry. Often, accidents are caused by the unrelenting pressure of making up lost time. Risks are taken. Mistakes are made. But whose fault is it, really, that you are late? Show some discipline and make it a habit to leave early.
2. Pay attention. Your car, travelling at 60 miles per hour, has over 1,000 times the energy of a .357 Magnum bullet. Be a careful steward of that awesome energy.
3. When approaching a controlled intersection, come to a complete stop behind the stop line. Then creep out and look both ways before continuing. Many drivers roll right through the crosswalk and, never stopping, bang their turn if oncoming traffic permits. But here is the logical fallacy. Oncoming traffic is an independent event. It doesn’t care if you rolled or stopped or aren’t even there at all. So stopping short, looking both ways, and then proceeding when safe has no effect whatsoever on when oncoming traffic will allow you to merge. So cool your jets and take pity on those poor mothers just trying to safely cross with their baby strollers.
4. When stopping prior to turning right, ALWAYS LOOK BOTH WAYS. This cannot be overemphasized. Many a pedestrian or (wrong-way) bicyclist have been mowed down by a driver who glanced left, then banged his right turn. It is extremely dangerous to human and companion animal life forms.  

We see here a national tragedy, thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries, all avoidable. We see here a nexus of government investment and enforcement, pedestrian care, and driver caution that could reduce this awful carnage.

But perhaps we prefer to obsess about “assault rifles.”

The numbers argue, strongly, otherwise.