Everything Starts with Teaching, so Teach the Cops not to be Racists

   Not that all police violence is the result of racism, but what of the portion that is? What should we do to curb it, to prevent it?
   The first step in anything is to teach. Nothing taught, nothing learned. So, both in the police academy and in on-going training, every police officer should be taught against racism. It might sound like a small thing, but, you start with what you teach.
   I would guess it is not taking place. Why not? It is the obvious thing you do. There might be other things, but this is basic. If you have someone doing something wrong, the first thing you do is to let them know it is wrong. You warn them against it. You teach them against it.
   Nothing taught, nothing learned. If we think we have a problem, this is the first thing we should do.

We Should Not Take Their Faults as Excuse Not to Help Them

   The rioters of Baltimore and Ferguson and other cities? Treat them not as criminals, save for the crimes they commit. Yes, do prosecute them for rioting, for looting, for burning, for throwing rocks at police.
   But, have some compassion.
   If we can find a way to make their lives better, we should. The how-to, is the hard part. The what-to-actually-do, is the hard part. Improve their educations? How? Help those of them who are on drugs get off? How? Open more treatment centers and provide free treatments? I hesitate on that, but, perhaps if that really works, then do it. Give them jobs? Yes, find a way to give them jobs.
   And, we must listen to the growing din of opinion that race is a factor in police violence. We must consider it and seek for a solution.
   I think we stumble if we dismiss these protesters as criminals. They are people, citizens of our country, having good and bad characteristics, same as all of us. They may have faults, but we should not take their faults as excuse not to help them.

This is a Law We Should Demand Until the Act is Done

   Drop a ball, and give up a touchdown. I think of what I wrote the other day, of how we need a law against charges being unlawful if they are grossly beyond the value of the product. There is no such law, but there should be. It is a law that would protect people. It is a law that could plummet our hospital bills, thus bringing about as much improvement in our society as perhaps any single law could make.
   But, if I don't push the idea, it will never catch on. If I only once suggest the law, then never blog on it or mention it again, I am like the football player who drops the ball and watches the other team scoop it up and score a touchdown. I think of the quote from John Stuart Mill: "Bad men need nothing more . . . that that good men should look on and do nothing,"
   If this law has a crying need in our society, and might save our medical system, why should we not demand it, and keep on demanding it until the act is done?

If We Would be a Christian Nation, We Must be a Loving Nation

   I am not so sure this isn't the greatest flaw in our nation, our hatred, one to another. We bicker and bite. We find fault. We accuse, We assail. We libel and slander.
   We pick a fault and poke a stick.
    If its ability to love is to be the measuring stick by which we judge how great our nation is  -- and it might be as worthy a measuring rod as any -- our picking at each other leaves us in want.
   More, consider on this: If America is to be considered a Christian nation, shouldn't it be a nation of love, not hatred. Love thy neighbor is the second great commandment. By their fruits, ye shall know them? How can this be a Christian nation without being more of a loving nation?

Anti-Nephi-Lehies? 'Anti' Might Mean 'One Who is of a Different People'

   Not long ago, shuffling through listening to my Book of Mormon CDs, it again occurred to me that those Lamanites who were converted by Ammon and his brothren were given a seemingly contradictory name.
   Anti-Nephi-Lehies? The prefix "Anti" struck me as odd, for they were not against the Nephites in any way, and anti in this day and age implies you are opposed to something, you are on the opposite side of it.
   I thought how, if we only had access to the language of those Book of Mormon people, it would probably show that the meaning was different than what we use today. I wondered, too, what if this would be a topic for Book of Mormon scholars of Hebrew to study, as there might be a commonality in that language and how it is used in the Book of Mormon.
   I don't know that a week passed before I happened on a few passages in the New Testament, I John, to be exact. Can I share a couple? I John 2:12 says an antiChrist is one who denies the Father and the Son. So, in this context, an antiChrist is not necessarily an arch enemy of the Savior, but simply someone who is not of him. I John 4:3 says the antiChrist is simply someone who "is not of God," and I am left wondering if that means not that they are wicked, but simply that they have not joined the fold.
   This is very similar to the usage of "anti" in the Book of Mormon where it speaks of Anti-Nephi-Lehies. Here is does not mean they were opponents of the Nephites, simply that they were not of the same fold, not of the same people. Yes, it is true that the antiChrist might also be opposed to Christ, but it does seem that part of the meaning of the word is simply that they are not among the believers, they are a different people.
   To me, it is interesting to see the sameness in this word in the way it is used in the epistles of John and in the way it is used in the book of Alma in the Book of Mormon.

Medical Bills are Criminally High, So Let's Level a Law Against Them

   From the "There ought to be a law against that" category, I bring you the most crying need of all. I might just catch you saying, "Duh, of course," when you hear it.
   It's the law that ought to be, that isn't. The one that could save millions of individuals thousands of dollars. The law that -- just maybe -- could save America's medical system.
   Yes, an amazing amount of good could be done with one single stroke of a pen enacting this new law. It's a simple law, and one you'd think would already be on the books, but isn't.
   Drum roll, please.
   There should be a law that you cannot charge vastly beyond value for a product, especially when the customer has no choice but to buy that product from you.
   Such a law might do as much as anything to reduce the price of medical care in the United States. A single aspirin for $20? It clearly is wrong to charge so much. Why, then, do we not outlaw it? Why do we let hospitals get away with this? If we can see something is wrong, and that people are getting hurt because they are being wronged, haven't we forever made such things against the law? You can't rob and you can't steal, because it is against the law. This new law would fit right into that category.
  The question is, why don't we already have such a statute on our books? Some would argue, it is because we should not restrain the free market system. That doesn't wash with me. It is the kind of argument I can see coming from a corporate lobbyist, not from someone who simply demands fairness. Every lobbyist needs an argument, and that would be his.
   Let's do what's right for the people, not what is best for corporations. This law makes sense. It protects the people. It makes it so that a wrong that is happening is henceforth a crime. And best of all, it stands a real chance of significantly lowering our medical bills. It isn't the only thing that needs to be done, but, all by lonesome, it well might make a significant dent in how much we pay when we visit the hospital.

You Can't Outlaw Popular

   So, marijuana is harmful. The list of harms starts with doubling the risk of car crashes. It includes cardiovascular damage and cognitive damage. Then, there are the social harms, such as doubling the chances of dropping out of school and the affect on the desire to work. Still, if people want their weed, there will only be more states that legalize it. You can't outlaw popular. Alcohol was popular, and we legalized it. Now, marijuana is popular, and we are legalizing it in more and more places..