The silliest political debate now taking place is one in which people argue that parents should decide the curricula taught in their children’s schools.

This is not an argument about community standards or what students need to know to progress through their childhood and become productive members of society.

No, the argument is that individual parents should be able to dictate what their individual children are taught in schools.

Let’s take a couple of minutes to consider what that would mean – specifically. Here are some of the things that students will be taught if advocates of “parents rule” succeed:

Jet contrails are part of a secret program the government uses to spread chemicals through the skies.

Bigfoot is real and travels extensively, which explains accounts of Bigfoot sightings around the world.

Same for the Loch-Ness monster.

The Civil War was not about slavery.

Even if it was, blacks were better off as slaves.

George W. Bush authorized the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on his own country.

There were no terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.

Similarly, the Connecticut school shooting in 2012 in which 20 students and six adults were murdered did not happen.

Also, no American has ever stepped foot on the moon.

Climate change is not happening.

Climate change is happening, but it’s not caused by humans.

Climate change is happening and is caused largely by humans.

GMOs – genetically modified organisms — will kill you and destroy the planet.

Vaccines will kill or permanently disable you.

If it’s natural, it’s good for you.

If it’s natural, it’s good for you, except for e-coli, anthrax, salmonella, radon, arsenic, nicotine, corona viruses, and other things that will be added at the parent’s discretion.

Donald Trump lost the election.

Donald Trump won the election.

Astrology is real science.

But evolution is not.

The planet we live on is about 4.5 billion years old.

The planet we live on is about 6,000 years old.

Schools that attempt to appease parents and their communities by teaching only subjects that are not open to debate or controversy are not teaching anything to anyone.

They are merely baby-sitting kids for a society that is too fearful and too insecure to discuss ideas and perspectives that nudge them from their comfortable spot on their mental sofas.

We hear a lot today about how certain books, ideas or facts of history make certain students and their parents uncomfortable.

This is true among liberals, including those, for example, who rant about imperialism and racism and demand we erase many historical leaders from U.S. history, or turn them into demonic tyrants.

And it’s true of conservatives, who, for example, whine about being shamed by uncomfortable facts and traumatized by perspectives that differ from their own.

Here’s the deal: Schools ought to be challenging kids and their parents – on the right and the left, and on a daily basis. They should be giving students opportunities to learn more about themselves and their world. And they should be giving them the tools to think critically about what they are taught.

School boards, local and state, are elected to set the parameters and rules for how we best achieve those goals. Sadly, these boards seem easily intimidated by bullies and are sometimes overrun by political performers.

That’s why Americans who value education need to stay involved and engaged. Our education system is far from perfect, but its far superior to the alternatives being presented by political actors on the left and the right.

At a minimum, Americans should expect candidates who campaign for their votes to, in return, accept the decisions that voters make.

That used to be a given in U.S. politics.

Now former President Donald Trump and Republican officials across the country are making it clear that they do not accept the decisions made by voters.

That means Trump and his supporters do not accept the basic principles upon which the republic was built and sustained for more than 200 years.

The lies, litigation and new laws pushed by Trump and his supporters aren’t just an attack on every election official across the country; they’re also an effort to undermine the vote of every American.

And it’s an effort endorsed by all those Republicans who refuse to say plainly that Trump lost – fair and square, and not all that surprisingly.

The reasons that so many Republicans refuse to speak up are not important.

It doesn’t matter if they are county clerks, U.S. senators or state lawmakers. It doesn’t matter if they are loyal Trumpers, partisan strategists or mute cowards.

Trump and his supporters have been afforded ample opportunities to present their evidence of a corrupt election in courts across the land. They have failed repeatedly and consistently.

Their lawsuits only served to expose the claims made by Trump and his supporters as lies.

Failing to get any traction in the courts, Trump and his conspiracy-touting supporters have pressed state governments to overturn the election.

For example, after Trump’s supporters lost in court 40 or 50 times, they had Republicans in the Arizona statehouse create a hyper-partisan “audit” of the election in Arizona’s largest county – and pressured other states to do the same.

Kansas lawmakers are among those now calling for an audit of the November 2020 election.

First, let’s be clear: There is no legitimate evidence that the November 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

Second, the Arizona audit in no way qualified as an audit – it was an expensive performance designed to fuel partisan battles and create mistrust and doubt among the public.

Still, the Republicans running the Arizona audit found that Joe Biden won Maricopa County and that Trump lost.

Upon hearing the news, Trump again lied, claiming the audit found that he had been robbed of a win.

Then he started pressuring Arizona’s second-largest county to “audit” its 2020 election.

“Either a new election should immediately take place,” Trump declared in a statement the other day about Arizona, “or the past election should be decertified and the Republican candidate declared a winner.”

These continued attacks on U.S. election officials and our electoral process undermine not just our elections, but our faith in one another.

Republicans wear their support of Trump like bridesmaids who find themselves outfitted in the world’s ugliest dress.

Trump loyalists parade their support with pique, indignantly defending the rioting mob at the Capitol, cheering on dishonest lawsuits, and changing voting and election laws to help Trump win next time.

The silent enablers disguise their distaste of the former president as partisan loyalty or even patriotism, thereby endorsing the lies Trump uses to generate contributions, controversy and confusion.

Republicans who refuse to play along – who won’t wear the world’s ugliest dress and declare it divine – are targeted for insults, demotions, campaign challenges, censorship and even death threats.

It’s way past time that reputable Republicans clearly and plainly chose the American people over party; the law over lies; and the Constitution over the antics of a losing presidential candidate.

Some experts speculate that rising numbers of murders in the United States are linked to the COVID-19 pandemic and its related stresses, such as being out of work, shut up at home and such.

Credible data are hard to come by, for a number of reasons. First, government for decades severely restricted the use of public funds to study gun violence. Second, the increase in homicides seen across the nation is relatively new and still unfolding. And, finally, it’s hard if not impossible to confidently point to causes when the science involves so many variables, including squishy psychological factors.

But it seems to me that the focus on the pandemic misses a more obvious possibility.

Gun activists – with the aid of state and federal lawmakers – have spent more than a decade encouraging everyone to buy lots of guns.

Every paranoid, frightened, angry, mentally unstable, hate-filled, aggrieved, bigoted person living in America has been urged continually to buy guns, and to use those guns when they feel it’s necessary.

That’s not to say that promoting gun use among people ill-suited to own guns is the cause for increases in U.S. murders. Just that as a nation we might want to consider the possibility.

Many conservatives argue instead that it’s a problem caused by antifa, or Democrats or Black Lives Matter, or the failure of the judicial system to get tough on crime. There’s no credible evidence that any of those are causes, because, well, remember Congress virtually banned research into gun violence for years.

Many gun activists claim research isn’t needed because the problem is simple: The country has too many criminals and not enough guns in the hands of “good guys.”

Never mind that the Maryland man who recently was charged with killing his brother and sister-in-law thought he was a good guy, protecting Americans from his brother, a pharmacist, who he claimed was poisoning people with vaccines.

Similarly, the 18-year-old who shot up a school in Texas in recent days thought he was a good guy, pushed over the brink by bullies and thieves.

Such violence happens daily across the country. And even if we agreed that the problem is that the country has too many criminals – gang members, enraged spouses, armed robbers, school shooters, drug dealers, rapists and so on – we must admit that more people with more guns hasn’t solved the problem.

As a nation, we have more people in prison than almost any other developed country. We also have more guns than just about any other place. And yet we also have more murders than most developed nations.

Arming ever-more Americans hasn’t made Americans safer.

It’s a simpleton’s solution – popular only in bad Western movies that divide the world into black hats and white hats.

As noted, lots of mentally unstable, angry, bigoted, or conspiracy-spouting shooters think they’re the ones wearing white hats.

In addition, lots of people claiming white-hat status have their weapons stolen. As state after state made it easier to carry guns everywhere, gun thefts increased significantly.

In city after city, police have begged gun owners to keep their guns safely locked up.

However, as gun activists have encouraged more people to buy guns, they also have worked against measures to ensure those guns are handled and stored safely.

Across the country, gun activists have succeeded in eliminating laws involving instruction and permits for those who carry guns, while fighting off laws dealing with gun locks, safe storage and better background checks.

Responsible gun ownership does require a bit of time and effort.

For example, it takes time and effort – albeit minimal – to remove guns from your carry-on luggage before boarding a plane. Just ask Rep. Madison Cawthorn, a North Carolina Republican who was at least the third congressman caught trying to take a handgun onto a plane illegally.

Not one of the congressmen – who are among thousands of Americans who break this law each year – faced serious penalties.

On one hand, gun activists say we need get tougher on criminals. On the other hand, when they break the law, they think they should skate.

Tougher penalties for those who break laws – including congressmen – is one way to try to encourage gun owners to be more responsible.

Just as useful – and perhaps more politically feasible – would be to stop promoting guns as a cure-all for what ails American society.

The rising death toll makes clear that guns in the wrong hands don’t preclude trouble; they create it.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat, was recently in the spotlight after the Chicago Sun-Times – and then Fox News – reported that she does not pay property taxes on her Illinois home.

According to the Sun-Times, Duckworth is among thousands of military veterans with disabilities that the state has exempted from paying property taxes on their homes. In 2004, she lost both her legs and partial use of an arm after the helicopter she was piloting in Iraq was hit by enemy fire.

That Duckworth’s case is being used to make a point about taxes and tax policy could be a good thing – if the discussion focuses on policy, not politics.

Sadly, that’s hardly ever the case anymore.

Taxes ought to be viewed as a necessary part of our lives. They pay for our schools and colleges. They pay for the roads and airports that allow us to move ourselves, our food and all kinds of consumer goods from place to place. They pay for the military that protects our nation and its citizens.

Tax-funded government also works to ensure that the water we drink and food we eat won’t poison us, that the planes we board and cars we drive are safe, that people and communities receive help after tornados, floods or other disasters.

Health care for the elderly, police and fire protection, Social Security, national parks, local ballfields, and on and on: The list of services and benefits funded through taxes is long.

Too long, say some, who argue government does too much and costs too much.

Toward the other end of the spectrum, others argue that government should do a lot more, especially for those Americans who weren’t smart enough to be born into wealthy families.

The discussions about how big government should be is as old as the country. Similarly, the debate over government spending and government debt also date back to the founding of our nation.

Taxes are part of that discussion.

Despite all the disagreements, most Americans think taxes should be fair, whether the bill comes from a local entity or from the state or federal government.

But tax policy has grown less fair at every level over the years, as special interests and politicians joined forces to distort the system.

Exemptions and loopholes abound. That means fewer and fewer people are paying for the services and benefits that go to more and more people.

Duckworth benefited from a tax break designed to reward military veterans, regardless of those veterans’ ability to pay. Other tax breaks at local and state levels typically benefit business expansions, senior citizens, families that pay for childcare, and on and on.

One of the most egregious abuses of the tax system involves nonprofit groups. What started as a decision to exempt charities, schools and churches from most taxes produced a huge, money-hungry sector that includes political groups, self-serving foundations and too many bad actors to count.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t use tax policy to encourage certain behaviors – including true charitable works, education, raising children, buying a home, or starting a business.

To do that, we need something more than a “flat tax,” as appealing as such simplicity seems.

The current system, however, shows that complexity doesn’t ensure fairness either.

Today, some of the richest companies in America pay no federal income taxes. Many middle-income families pay more in taxes than wealthy Americans.

Meanwhile, the IRS admits that rich people are less likely to be audited.

Many so-called conservatives applaud this unfair and inefficient use of government; they vow to fight any effort to improve enforcement of tax laws.

All this is happening as the nation’s annual budget deficits have grown substantially, under Republican and Democratic presidents. And the national debt has ballooned.

Partisans whine that deficits are the other party’s fault. But Republicans and Democrats alike have eagerly driven up the nation’s debt in order to gain popularity, win re-election and get more money from special interests in the form of campaign contributions.

They don’t have the courage to be honest with voters about the costs of the benefits and services Americans expect. And too many voters choose to believe misleading, partisan rants.

Which is why U.S. tax policies keep growing more complex, more unfair and more inefficient.

Sound tax policy loses out to partisan politics