One sign of how good we have it in the United States is that we take things like safe drinking water for granted.

Our complacency is so great that some savvy entrepreneurs are actually turning water treatment and filtration into bad thing. They’re selling what they call “raw water” – and what the rest of us should consider an outbreak of diarrhea or worse waiting to happen.

The raw water fad has been gaining support along the coasts, with companies boasting to the New York Times that they get their water straight from the source, usually a spring of some sort, and do not use any filtering or treatment.

A snooty price, selling for $9 a gallon or more, is part of its panache. One maker even tells customers that when the water turns green, it’s reached its expiration date.

Actually, the water turning green is the least of your worries. It’s most likely algae, which is usually – but not always – harmless.

Of more concern is what you can’t see — bacteria and viruses responsible for some nasty illnesses.

Shigella, salmonella, E. coli, typhus, cholera – all are among the reasons that Americans and other developed societies started investing in water treatment.

Around the globe, cases of waterborne illnesses remain one of the leading causes of death. In Yemen, where infrastructure has been destroyed by war, more than a million have been stricken by cholera.

As Americans learned in the 1800s and even into the early 1900s, water isn’t something we should take for granted.

That’s when we began to understand the role water plays in transmitting disease. It’s was then that medical professionals and scientists began to understand the roles of bacteria and viruses in our environment. They also began to understand their roles in the spread of diseases, such as typhoid and cholera.

It’s the same scientific basis that underlies our ability to treat a myriad of ailments. It’s the same science that explains why antibiotics are useful in treating bacterial-based diseases, but not those caused by viruses.

But in science, as in politics, more and more people believe only what they want to believe, rather than what can be proved or supported through scientific research.

That’s not to say all untreated water is unsafe.

Since pioneers first arrived, many Kansans have used water from wells.

Underground water sources are typically safer than surface sources, such as springs and streams. But even underground sources can be compromised or contaminated by seepage from other water sources, such as septic systems, lakes or ponds.

Further, treatment isn’t a panacea, as residents of Flint, Michigan, sadly learned.

There, a change in chemicals used to treat municipal water caused significant leaching in the lead pipes that carried water to homes, hospitals and businesses, creating a health crisis.

So the lesson is not be that natural is bad or that manmade is worse.

It’s that science, when used reasonably, helps us make smarter decisions about our personal health and the health of our communities.

Sometimes, the difficulty is determining who has science on their side. Our world is full of celebrities, wellness gurus and advertisements that claim research shows their products work – to help you lose weight, have better sex, and so on.

Most of it is bunk, just one more way to make money by misleading people. The trick is to discern between science and spiels that exploit our biases.

A former colleague recently told me that he advised his reporters and editors to question every claim they heard – but especially those with which they agreed.

We are prone to accept claims we want to believe. It’s called confirmation bias, and it’s obvious in our politics and our science.

There is plenty of good information available, from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and a variety of other sites that cite peer-reviewed research and base recommendations on globally accepted scientific methods.

It requires a little more work, but to avoid being duped – or getting sick – we need to be as savvy as the guys who want to sell us $9 water.

 

Several days ago, I heard a commentator on public radio mention a southwest Kansas legislator who had embarrassed himself with a bigoted and inaccurate explanation of minorities’ susceptibility to drug abuse. The commentator, who lives in Wichita, said the legislator was from Garden City.

Rep. Steve Alford is from Ulysses. And after his remarks about legalized marijuana and minorities were reported, he apologized and resigned from leadership positions in the House. It was the least he could do.

If you’re from Wichita, the geographic error made by the commentator is inconsequential. But it reflects an attitude that irks western Kansans. It would be the same as mistakenly saying a Wichita legislator was from Hutchinson.

From the perspective of western Kansas, too many eastern Kansas residents don’t know and don’t care about anything west of Wichita.

But to be fair, western Kansans’ opinions of eastern Kansas are often just as dismissive or snide.

People in Kansas have a long history of insulting people in other parts of the state.

Some of the ribbing is good natured, like insults flung by fans of rival schools.

Decades ago, as a reporter at the Lawrence Journal-World, I covered a KU pep rally that was mostly jokes about K-State.

One example: What do they call good-looking women at K-State?

Answer: Visitors.

Being a K-State graduate, I found it funny.

But funny tilts toward harmful when jokes become the stuff of proposed public policy.

That indicates that the insults don’t play off silly stereotypes but reflect bigoted views about a state, school, country or group of people.

Such was the case when President Donald Trump reportedly stated that the United States should reduce or end immigration from “shithole countries,” including African nations such as Nigeria and Haiti in the Caribbean.

There’s ongoing dispute about what words the president used, but it’s clear he wants to dramatically reduce immigration from countries he deems unworthy.

Never mind that a higher percentage of African immigrants hold college degrees than U.S.-born Americans.

Never mind that the genius of America is that for 300 years it has attracted people who are ambitious, resourceful and daring – regardless of their economic situation in their homeland.

Kansas was settled mostly by immigrants who wanted a better life for themselves and their families. Many of those immigrants were poor.

Those already living in Kansas did not always graciously welcome newcomers different from themselves. Volga-Germans in Ellis County and Eastern Europeans in southeast Kansas faced discrimination, although it was mild compared to the threats and denigration blacks endured. Mexican immigrants, who came to Kansas to farm and build railroads, also were subjected to hate and bigotry.

Today’s insults about people who are different share a common thread. Whether they are based on geography, race, religion or university affiliation, the theme is the same: By denigrating another set of people, we seek to elevate ourselves.

This is illogical on many levels.

Not that logic and public policy are necessary partners.

It’s not that I want to rob people of their fun. A little jabbing at school rivals adds to the entertainment. And comments made about regions or communities can reflect distinctive characteristics.

Certainly, people’s views are colored by where they live. Rural Kansans have different concerns about access to health care, for example, than residents of Wichita or Johnson County.

Geography has bred differences almost everywhere I have lived. In New York, it was between New York City and the rest of the state. In California, the north-south divide was more evident than the San Andreas fault. Geographic splits were less common in Indiana, probably because it was more homogenous, economically and demographically. Or perhaps because Indiana invests most of its snark in sports rivalries.

Kansas turns 157 on January 29. It’s a good time to celebrate the achievements of immigrants who built this state with brains and sweat. And it’s a good time to marvel about what can be accomplished when we focus not on who we can tear down, but on what together we can build.

 

 

If the truth no longer matters, then neither do lies.

That’s the lesson in the storm of accusations surrounding President Donald Trump and his administration following sensational claims made in a book by Michael Wolff.

Among many other claims, Wolff claims Trump is uninformed, unwilling to learn and mentally unsound.

Trump responded by calling Wolff a liar.

I’m not sure why that’s supposed to matter.

Throughout the campaign and in his first year in office, the president has shown no obligation to be truthful.

The president’s tally of inaccurate claims and falsehoods easily surpassed 2,000 in his first year, according to a list kept by the Washington Post.

His staff have adopted his value system. For example, when press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked about a fraudulent video that Trump used to incite anti-Muslim fervor, this was her response:

“Whether it’s a real video, the threat is real.”

Translation: Truth is less important than the president’s political agenda.

That’s why the president has lied about immigration, voter fraud, tax cuts and Russia’s political meddling. Facts and reality are not factors that enter into calculations of how to advance his agenda.

Some Trump supporters think we should distinguish between the hyperbole of campaign rhetoric and government policy to rationalize the president’s penchant for lying. Others dismiss his dishonesty as a sort of juvenile bravado that doesn’t affect the real work of government.

While those explanations might include measures of truth, they don’t excuse his false claims, such as that he signed more legislation than any other president in his first year, or that millions of people voted illegally in 2016, or that he will pay more taxes under the GOP tax plan.

While most of his lies either invent accomplishments for himself or demean his foes, they also serve a larger aim: to ease acceptance of his administration’s policy in such areas as immigration, taxes and health care.

Consider the issue of election security. The United States has known for more than a year that the Russian government has been meddling in U.S. political campaigns and has worked to hack into state election systems. Rather than address this threat, Trump repeatedly denies that it exists. Instead, the president and his supporters distract the public with absurd tales of coup conspiracies, terrorism and voter fraud, as well as baseless attacks on the integrity of the FBI and intelligence professionals.

Remember, there is overwhelming evidence – from our own intelligence agencies and those of allied nations – of Russian meddling. This evidence is supported by thousands of cases documented by Facebook, Twitter and other media companies. In contrast, research into allegations of voter fraud has shown again and again and again, that it does happen, but cases are so rare that it is comparatively a tiny threat to our system of elections.

Basing government policy on misconceptions and inaccurate claims creates additional risks for a democracy that depends on sharing information and values. If we no longer even agree on what is true, then real problems grow, and as a nation we become increasingly vulnerable to manipulation and propaganda.

That’s why lies matter. They matter when they’re told by the president and by his critics.

And that’s why Wolff’s book should be viewed with skepticism.

Good journalists question many of Wolff’s’ claims in “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.”

Many of these journalists are the same ones who question the veracity of the president. Additionally, many of the people cited in anecdotes in the book deny Wolff’s account.

Wolff stands by his work, claiming Trump and his staff provided him with interviews and access that allowed him to observe the administration in action.

This is not a case of choosing who to believe. It’s a case in which neither Wolff nor Trump should be considered credible.

For Trump, that’s another win. He doesn’t need to the world to believe his lies. But he does need to sully and discredit his critics – to portray their sins as even greater than his own.

It’s a small distinction, but it’s one that has, so far, worked for the president.

 

While many liberal politicians advocate for more regulations, especially for the environment and business, conservative politicians are often equally fond of more government rules.

As voters in Kansas have seen, the difference is in the kind of regulations sought by the left and right.

For example, because of laws approved by Republican lawmakers at the insistence of Secretary of State Kris Kobach, Kansans must deal with more regulations and paperwork to vote than most Americans do.

Kobach and his supporters argue the added regulations were needed to guard against voter fraud.  Critics claim they’re intended to prevent citizens who are likely not Republicans from participating in elections.

Kansas Republicans also have used heavy-handed regulations to control the behavior of Kansans who receive welfare.

And they have used regulations to try to put health-care providers who perform abortions out of business. Their aim is to make government regulations so onerous and expensive that doctors and clinics stop providing abortions. For example, last year Kansas lawmakers passed a law that dictates the size of the print and the specific font that health-care providers must use in informational materials.

The Legislature also decided last year to punish some Kansans for their views on Israel.

Specifically, lawmakers in Topeka decided that anyone who boycotts Israel for any reason is unworthy of having a business relationship with Kansas government.

Among those affected is Esther Koontz, a teacher. She was told she could not be paid as a state-approved trainer of math teachers because she had decided for religious reasons to boycott Israel and Israeli businesses because of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

Supporters of the Kansas law claim that it is not discriminatory for the state to bar Kansans such as Koontz from getting state contracts. But they say it is discriminatory for private citizens to boycott a country because they disagree with that nation’s policies.

Kansas is one of more than 20 states that has such a law. Texas is another. There, some officials claim that anyone who boycotts Israel is banned from receiving any government-sponsored disaster relief for the floods and hurricanes that pounded the state last summer.

Not surprisingly, opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have gone to court to challenge the states’ laws on Israeli boycotts.

The ways in which politicians want to use regulations to make Americans think and act usually swing with the political party that is in power.

At the federal level, for example, President Trump’s Republican administration has forbidden staff at government agencies from using certain words. According to articles in the Washington Post, staff at the Centers for Disease Control were directed not to use such terminology as “science-based” or “diversity” when preparing budget documents.

Staff in other agencies have been banned from uttering “climate change” on official social media accounts.

Many Republicans also want to extend laws and regulations to ensure certain behavior at sporting events.

In Indiana, a state lawmaker has proposed a law to force sports teams to refund ticket prices to fans who are upset by protests by athletes. He claims such protests reduce the entertainment value of the event.

If that’s the case, then let’s include refunds for those whose experience at games is sullied by drunks throwing up on them or chuckleheads yelling nonstop obscenities.

Or, we could refrain from the urge to pass laws every time we want to coerce people to act, talk and behave the way we want them to.

That would require Americans to understand that government should not be telling us what it means to be patriotic. Or creating unnecessary barriers for voters. Or financially punishing people because they refuse to support Israel over Palestinians.

Some new regulations may be needed, but our support shouldn’t be based on whether they are foisted on us by the right or the left. It would be better to consider whether proposed rules would make the country a better place while enhancing the freedoms of all Americans.

The new year is looking brighter in Kansas.

More Kansans are working, and the state has addressed, but not completely resolved, its fiscal crisis.

Continued improvement in 2018, an election year, and beyond depends on a number of factors. Here are five areas to watch:

Jobs

Nearly 20,000 more Kansans had jobs in November 2017, compared to November 2016. And the labor force – the number of people employed or looking for work – also grew, by about 9,000.

Data from the federal Department of Labor are promising and more important than unemployment figures.

Since the recession, drops in the Kansas jobless rate were partially caused by workers leaving the state or giving up on finding jobs. But for about six months, the drops in the unemployment rate have reflected more people getting jobs – while the labor force was growing.

Gains over the past year look big, but they aren’t impressive when compared to pre-recession figures.

In November 2007, 1,425,536 Kansans were employed, compared to 1,435,125 in November 2017. That’s not even 1,000 new jobs a year. And the labor force today is smaller than it was in 2008.

Workforce Development

That’s why it’s crucial that the state put a higher priority on workforce development, primarily through investing in education, from kindergarten through college.

Programs that help adults transition to new jobs also need to be part of the mix as technology continues to be a barrier for many who would like to get better jobs or need to change jobs after a layoff.

Kansas needs to find the means to fund education sufficiently.

Schools

That doesn’t mean schools should get a blank check.

Those who want a half-billion more for public K-12 education need to be specific about what the money would be used for and how they would raise it from taxpayers.

It’s not that the anti-public-education crowd is right that vouchers, charters and private schools would be better and cheaper. They’re not. But that doesn’t mean public education is beyond improvement, especially when it comes to being frugal.

Given all the school building projects going on in Kansas, you can’t help but doubt the necessity of some. That’s especially true with new athletic facilities that are bigger, fancier versions of what districts already have.

Then comes the cost of operating and maintaining all the old and the new facilities.

Spending at the K-12 level on other non-academic pursuits – such as public relations – also deserve review. Some funding of non-classroom programs aids the mission of schools and benefits the communities of which they are part.

But spending on non-classroom programs and activities has grown out of proportion in too many districts. The same is true at many community colleges and public universities.

The state needs good schools that offer top-notch educations and opportunity for Kansas students. We should be willing to invest the money needed to give every Kansan – child or adult – the education he or she needs to succeed.

But we also need to understand that resources are limited. That we need to choose how, why and where are priorities are going to be.

Health care

One of the biggest drains on our money, both as individuals and a state, is health care.

Action in Washington, D.C., has ensured it will get even more expensive.

Instability in federal policy already has pushed private insurance premiums higher. And it remains uncertain whether protections regarding access, coverage requirements, discrimination and pre-existing conditions will be maintained.

There also are plans in Washington to cut Medicare and Medicaid, although it’s unclear whether the U.S. Senate will support the House’s plans.

Leadership

Certainty about health care and steps to hold down costs will require leadership from Washington, D.C.

On other fronts, such as state taxes, education and the environment, Kansans will need to assess the dozen or more candidates who want to be governor.

In making their choice, Kansans ought to reject those who traffic in anger and hate. Look instead for leaders who offer solutions, leaders who focus on reality, facts and ideas. Let’s choose leaders who aim to build on our potential, rather than play to our pettiness and angst.