Bombings and Shootings? The First Thing We Should do is to Teach

   From the Brussels bombings to a cat named Miss Kiss being shot with a blow dart in Springville, I wonder what we can do as a society to curb such violence.
   I pick up the USA Today newspaper which someone gave me, and see a headline. "Feds Nab 8,000 Violent Offenders." And, I wonder, how can we discourage violence, of all kinds.
  I will tell you, the first line of defense is to teach. If you are seeing a flood of violence, of terrorism, then one of the things you should be doing is teaching.
   Against it.
   Regardless what else you do. Regardless whether you take advice from Hillary Clinton or whoever on what needs to be done, the first thing you do, is you teach. You teach in the media, and you determine where possible violent offenders might be reached in communities, and you go reach them and you teach.
   I see Pope Francis has condemned the violence. That is part of teaching. But teaching must also be in a voice that reaches and connects with the possible offenders. Reason with them. Explain why they shouldn't do these things. Consider on the reasons they are committing the crimes, and give reply to the motives being seen.
   You may think you cannot reason with an ISIS supporter. You must try. Tell them why not to support ISIS.
   My, my, with all the experience we have with ad campaigns, all the successful advertisements we've learned how to make, now is the time for an advertisement blitz. Create clever, well-crafted, persuasive, hard-hitting, attractive ads that offer up the message not to sign on with ISIS, not to support it.
   Place the ads in the markets where potential terrorist are. Place them all across America to reach typical violent offenders.
   Teach the people. Teach them with a massive ad campaign that persuades some of them to turn from violence, to seek peach and to be peaceful.

Washington's 'Warnings of a Friend' Spoke Against Political Parties

   The America of today, deeply divided by political parties, is the America George Washington warned against.
  Actually,  he warned against political parties, period, warning us "in the most solemn manner." 
   And we, collectively as a nation, left his words at the podium where he offered them, walking away from that farewell address to join into political parties. And, we've been in them ever since, often having as much loyalty to them as we do for the nation, itself.
   If Washington's words, by chance, could echo down through the years, what would they tell us? They would tell us that for governments, the spirit of political parties "is truly their worst enemy."
   He said, "worst enemy," but we didn't listen. We didn't listen then, and we're not listening now.
   In that great address, Washington warned of "the danger of parties."
   He warned "against the baneful effects of the spirit of party."
   He warned against the "alternate domination" of one party over the other, "sharpened by the spirit of revenge."
   He warned that their fights might result in "the most horrid enormities" and become, in themselves, "a frightful despotism."
   He warned against "combinations and associations," including groups championing the interests of the various regions of the country.
   He warned of "artful and enterprising" people being in such groups.
   He warned such combinations and associations could "become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men" would rise to power.
   He warned such groups could cause divisions among the people. Their "designing men may endeavor to excite" differences among the people, he said.
   He warned that parties "tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together."
    As if he could foresee the campaigns of our day, he warned such groups would "misrepresent the opinions and aims" of others.
   He warned that such groups would "put in place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party."
   He said the spirit of party, "is a spirit not to be encouraged." 
   He closed his comments on parties by saying, "A fire not to be quenched, it (the spirit of parties) demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
   Washington characterized his warnings "as the warnings of a parting friend." His farewell address is replete with these warnings against political parties. They are warnings that have gone unheeded. Instead of discouraging parties, we have embraced them.
   Perhaps there remains room to speculate whether Washington would not have had us join parties at all, nor to have had us run for office on them. We only know he spake so gravely ill of them in his farewell address, and said a wise people would "discourage and restrain" the spirit of party.
   And, we know he, himself, walked the talk. He is the only president ever elected without a party.
   

Come Visit Salt Lake City; Come Visit the Whole World

   The illuminated, interactive tunnel. I'm polishing up an invention I offered up months ago, thinking to make it even better. Now, I'll have the participants walk the tunnel with 4D glasses on, and the tunnel will have images on both sides, as well as above and beneath, with the top being rounded. It will offer the highest level of visual experience possible. If you want art that you can walk through and be a part of, nothing will equal this. We are not talking projected images that lose their focus when scattered by laser lights. No, we are talking high-definition, glowing, electronic billboard-type images.
   With the tunnel being just wide enough for you to pass through. The floor could be made of glass, so the the images could be on an wall extending downward, adding depth when scenery is cast below. Add the the 3D glasses, and you are literally there in the world's most real-like artificial environment, walking through . . .
 You shout, "The Narrows," and you are traversing through that wonder at Zions National Park.
  You shout, "Mount Timpanogos Cave," and you are right in that cave.
   You shout, "Top of Mount Olympus," and you are there, looking down on the glimmering lights of the city, the view being in some ways perhaps more up-close dramatic than it is in real life.
   You yell, "Jump," and suddenly it is as if you just jumped off the cliff and are free-falling down, till a parachute pops out above and eases you to the ground.
   All the best sites and experiences of Utah would be offered, in order to tout them. But the interactive tunnel would also offer up experiences from around the world. View Mount Kilimanjaro as if you were there. See the Pyramids. Go any place in the world you like.
    Oh, and the interaction of the walls is not limited to reacting to your voice. You see flowers and you reach out to pick them and they break from their stems and it almost seems (as far as your sight is concerned) they are, indeed, right in your grasp. Touch the sides of the tunnel, and the clouds you touch swirl away.
   The world's greatest visual experience. All the tourist experiences the world can offer, all in one place, for the taking in a single night. Tell me, this would not be a wonderful tourist attraction, one not worthy of coming to Utah to see.
   I'd like to see Utah develop a tourist zone near the airport, and this would be part of it.  I don't know of any city that utilizes land near its airport in this fashion, creating tourist attractions, but it seems the logically best location. "Location, location, location," it is said, and it is also said that convenience sells. Tourism can be increased by using the same principles. Salt Lake it fortunate, then, for much of the land out near the Salt Lake, next to the airport, remains available. Why not utilize it for its highest possible use?
   As for the interactive, illuminated, living-experience tunnels? The promos could read: "Come visit Salt Lake City. Come visit the whole world."
(Blog edited 3/23/16 and 3/26/16)

Since We Don't have Much a a Free-Market System, Let's Try One

   Once you realize how health-care system isn't operating under much of a competitive-market system -- wow! -- then you have something to be excited about.
   Come on, now, let's take a look at how competitive we are -- or aren't, that is. Say, your doctor calls you up and says it's time for an echo cardiogram. What do you do? You look at the schedule, and go in and get the echo, right?
   So, where was the competition? Did you choose from a number of offerings? Oh, you did chose a doctor in advance, but at this juncture, you had but one option. You should have a choice each time a product (in this case, the echo cardiogram) is about to be purchased. If you don't have a choice, how is it a competitive process?
    So, let's do this: let's put our health system under a free-market model.
   Now, the first thing we are going to have to do,is create a pricing system. We've got to have price tags hanging on the products. You can hardly pretend to have competition when there is not even so much as a way to price the products. Off top, I say require health-care providers to list their prices, and, in advance, when it is non-emergency.
   But, just having the price in advance will do no good, if you can't take it and compare it to  the prices of other providers. So, have a web site where all the health-care providers list not only their prices for all these procedures -- echo cardiograms and whatever -- but pitch why their product is a little better than what you'll get elsewhere.
   All of which presupposes you can do from one doctor for one thing, to another doctor for something else. And, there is no such thing as being out of network. There is no qualified provider that you are not free to choose from. Once you create this thing called out-of-network, you start driving nails into the free-market system.
   So, don't do it.
   So, there you have it, something to be excited about! We aren't exactly operating under a fully bona fide competitive-market system, so we ought to be excited wondering what will happen if we simply install it. What will happen, if we give it a try?
   The neat thing is, this ccan be done on a state-wide scale. And, it can be done whether Obamacare is repealed or not. .
 

We can Hardly Pretend to have Competition, if We don't have This

   I read through Trump's proposals on health care, and there are a couple points I really like. Here is one:
   "Require price transparency from all heathcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure."
   You can hardly pretend to have competition when there is not even a way to price the product. One of the important things we must do, if we are to rein in the high cost of medicine, is to bring price tags to the market place. Tell us the total cost, and tell us the cost that will not be covered by insurance.
  I believe this kind of transparency, at least to some extent, is something already required by Obamacare. But, much remains to be done. I think of my most recent event with a doctor. They wanted me to come in for an echo cardiogram. But, I did not receive a price quote. I should have.
   But, as important as it is to post price tags, it will not do any good if we do not take a partner step. These price quotes will only do us good if we can take our business to another provider. Not only should I have received a quote on how much the echo cardiogram would cost, but I should have had the option of going to another cardiologist for the procedure. That isn't the case. When we have doctors, we have doctors. We're locked in. We don't float from one doctor for one visit and on to another doctor for the next visit.
   We should be able to.
   As I think further on this, it is not only us, but the insurance companies that should be able to shop and choose. The person paying the bill has got to be provided the choice. If it is just us, we won't care to go to a less-expensive provider if it is all covered by insurance anyway and there is no cost to us either way.
   How we work that out, we might should consider. Do we just give the insurance company the choice, and force us to go to a doctor we aren't choosing ourselves? Or, do we just let the insurance company make a recommendation for us, and leave us with the actual choice?
   However we do it, restoring this principle of choice to our health-care system is vital. It is perhaps the crux of converting our system to the free market.

Average Americans are Among those Who Oppose Donald Trump

I went to the Salt Lake City protest against the Donald and it seemed dominated by those who were Bernie Sanders followers. That's great. They are fine people. But, I felt grateful to be there representing a different group, the non-bernie-ites. Obviously, many in average America do not want Trump, and I am among them. I wish more people from this group had attended, so that it not come across that just Bernie-ites oppose Trump.
   Trump might end up making a great president. We won't know until and if he is elected But, there is so much about him that fires off warning signs. His intolerance of other people has left me weary, so much so that I oppose him about as much as you can oppose a candidate. Bless him, though, as he has already reined in his emotions somewhat during the campaign, and who knows but what he will be fine. Still, I seek a different demeanor. As well, I oppose him on policies such as Muslims in America, and migrants.

The Ability to Give Admonition, not Condemnation, is What is Needed

   Somehow, I don't think the Flint water crisis was Susan Hedman's fault. I became a little uncomfortable the other night listening to a sound bite of Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz laying so much guilt on her.
   Some fault might have been hers, but she did not deserve the grilling, the withering criticism Chaffetz dealt the Environmental Protection Agency official.
   No, it was not kind.
   I could not help but think of another national figure who deals out such biting, zinging criticism: the Donald. Trump's tendency to find so much fault is a large reason I oppose him in his run for the presidency.
   But, as I listened to Chaffetz, I realized Trump is not alone. Unfortunately, we, as Americans are much inflicted with this malady. And, it is reflected in politicians as diverse as Trump and Chaffetz. Maybe as much as anything, deciding who to vote for should be a matter of picking a candidate who does not display this tendency. America has some big problems  -- the economy, the national debt, our health care system, immigration, etc.  -- but polarization ranks as high as anything, to me.
   So, why not make this a defining reason for not voting for someone?
   I suppose it was only a couple weeks ago, the thought of looking for the ability to love in candidates occurred to me. I laughed inside myself at the thought. Now, how do you go about determining which candidate has the greater capacity to love? And, does that really matter as much as their stands on abortion and green house emissions?
   I see now, it does.
   I think on this Susan Hedman, and how she was vilified by Chaffetz, perhaps brought to tears. I felt sorry for her, I do not think her the villain she was given to be. I would guess she is a wonderful person. I do not know why we, as Americans, feel the need to tear each other apart so much.
   Pick a fault, and poke a stick. Get that stick inside the other person and twist it around, and do some real damage. We, as Americans, seem to see the necessity of this.
   One way to turn this around, would be to start looking for it in our politicians, and resolving not to elect them. Those we elect become our leaders, obviously. And, there is a circular effect. Who we elect, will lead us. They will influence us in what we become. Let's not elect those who have mastered the art of scorn, who fire off zingers at each other. Don't get me wrong, There is a place for criticism. Faults should be discussed. Hedman's failures should be discussed.
   But, civility is never so important as it is when we are finding faults in others. The ability to give admonition, not condemnation, that is what we should look for in our leaders.