Informant38

{I just finished one of those online traffic school classes, which was ok in that the instructor was good, funny well-spoken, and good in a moral sense. a good man, doing a good job. but there was a couple of narrative segments that were commercials for the anti-alcohol lobby that brought me to this small podium with a bone to pick. there's an invisible argument being made there that needs to be exposed for what it is.
I find it interesting that alcohol has been a human medicine/intoxicant for most of our history, while the automibile has been an essential form of transportation for less than a hundred years, and yet because they can combine in such deadly fashion( to reiterate: the leading cause of death for people under 30 is traffic fatalities) the common wisdom is that without alcohol there would be no problem. though the statistics seem to indicate more than half of all traffic deaths are non-alcohol related. and that 'related' business means essentially that bloodwork shows at least one participant, passive or active, victim or perpetrator, had a measurable blood alcohol content. which does not mean alcohol caused the wreck. those are hysteria-driven figures and as such they are lies. but that means I'm attacking women who have lost their innocent children to dissolute and irresponsible drunks. no, it does not. what I'm trying to hit here is that the car itself is 'sacred', and must never be pointed at as deadly. alcohol is a diversion. the real evil is the car itself. the damage that can be directly attributed to cars is nearly incalculable. from the death rates of children, to the poisoning of vital air and water, the invisible death corridors that highways are for local wildlife, the blood poisoning of the poor who live too close to the road, to the wars waged in service to the great god of oil.
it's as though the campaign against drunk driving, for all its moral purity, is implying the rest of the traffic mortalities are collateral damage. we must stop drunk driving. ok then what? just carry on? because we can accept 30,000 deaths in the name of quick and easy transportation? random deaths too, that's important. this is a completely non-biological weeding out of haphazardly chosen individuals. unless you want to factor in pre-cognition, access to prophecy, or the pastel puffy 'guardian angels' so many overweight cat lovers seem to have recently found at their sides. or I suppose you could make the case of a patriarchal intelligence selecting His choices for souls of the moment. but then of course you'd have to let go of Laci Petersen and all the other tragic celebrity/victims. reasonable people would say it's none of those, just a by-product of this headlong rush into technological assistance, like factory injuries of the 19th century. my personal view is, well it's none of your business what my personal view is. this is a public diatribe, and I'm speaking as a public person, a citizen. the choice is there every day, every moment, we can abdicate responsibility, or we can assume it. we take care of each other or we don't. but nothing stays the same, and it gets worse or it gets better. it's been years since things seemed like they were getting better. sacrificing randomly selected children so that we can get to the store more quickly may be one reason why.}