It’s almost Christmas, which means it’s time for our wish lists. Mine starts with what should be an easy one.

I wish people would stop trashing our country. Litter and pet feces make our neighborhoods, our countryside and our society look dirty, tacky, inconsiderate and careless.

That people refuse to do something so simple – dispose of trash appropriately – suggests that perhaps our nation deserves some of those adjectives.

I wish that the stupid things people say or do – including things from more than a decade ago – were not so often hyped into national scandals.

Because we are part of a culture focused on churning up digital anger and fear, regrettable emails, tweets and other actions are blown up into sins against humanity. Further, the blunders or offensive antics of one person are claimed to be representatives of whole categories of people.

The traffickers in exaggerated scandals are usually more destructive and intolerant than the people they target.

I wish people could distinguish between wealth and intelligence. Just because someone is rich doesn’t mean they are smart, or even savvy about business. Usually it means their family and their bankers have hired competent people to look after the money.

I also wish people were better at separating fame and expertise. An NFL quarterback, for example, may be a genius about football, but that doesn’t mean you should listen to his advice about contagious diseases.

Americans are too enamored of celebrities. We buy their useless health products, call on them to testify before Congress, solicit their advice on national policies, and admire them for their political activities.

I wish we were better at recognizing and appreciating true expertise, even when the experts tell us things we do not want to hear.

Experts aren’t always right, and they will be the first to tell you that. But they are far superior to the pretenders who promote themselves by trashing expertise, knowledge and science.

I wish people would be more considerate about using their key fobs to lock/unlock their cars. Honking your horn after 10 p.m. is not a neighborly thing to do, unless it’s a true emergency.

I wish every political debate did not have to be framed as either-or. Like Columbus Day or Indigenous People Day. Socialism or Capitalism. No gun restrictions or no guns at all. It makes us look simple-minded.

I wish we would stop trying to make heroes out of men who shoot unarmed people.

It now may be legal to shoot and kill someone because you are fearful of the situation you helped create, or because you’re afraid of the person you provoked. But it is not an act of heroism.

I wish there was more enforcement of traffic laws, such as speeding, distracted driving and aggressive driving.

Our roads are growing more dangerous, as evidenced by an 18 percent increase in traffic fatalities during the first six months of 2021. Bad drivers and bad driving have wiped out two decades of progress.

I wish the best to local newspapers, journalists and journalistic endeavors striving to succeed in the 21^st century.

Lots of different ideas are being tried, but the goal ought to be the same for the varied approaches: Not only to help good journalists make a living, but to deliver credible, reliable local news and information, which are vital to sustaining strong communities.

Now a resident of Arizona, Doll is a native of Garden City, Kansas. A former journalist, she worked at newspapers in Kansas, California, New York and Indiana.

Everything these days is political, even Thanksgiving dinner.

It’s going to be more expensive this year, Republicans complain, because of Joe Biden’s inflation.

There’s certainly reason to argue that Democratic policies have contributed to higher inflation rates. The push to increase wages among middle and low-income workers, for example, caused lots of manufacturers, restaurants, retailers and other businesses to raise prices.

But a bigger factor, most economists agree, is the pandemic, specifically COVID-related glitches and shortages – shortages of materials to make products, shortages of factory workers, shortages of truckers to bring those products to stores, of workers to service or sell the products, and so on.

Now, one could argue that President Biden – and President Donald Trump before him – could have done more to fix supply chain issues.

Also, one could argue that the refusal of so many Republicans to be vaccinated for the COVID-19 virus made the pandemic and our economic troubles much worse.

Or you could take a turn in the discussion and argue that tariffs – which drive up costs for consumers – were a culprit. Those tariffs, you might remember, were mandated by Trump and mostly maintained by Biden.

Inflation and rising consumer prices are complex issues with lots of causes and lots of effects.

Rather than sort through those issues, however, most Democrats and Republicans prefer to just blame the other guys. It’s easier, frankly.

Much of the media are eager to cooperate and already have started reporting on how inflation is ruining Thanksgiving this year. Inflation – a nonissue for so long – gives them what we call a fresh angle.

But perhaps the fresh angle isn’t the best angle to view the issue.

I’d like to suggest that Thanksgiving dinner in America is still cheap.

The annual American Farm Bureau price check put the traditional turkey dinner with sides and dessert at $53.31 for a family of 10.

True, that figure is up significantly – 14 percent — from last year.

But it’s still about $5.50 a person.

Perhaps I’m out of touch, but that doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

None of us like to see grocery prices increase, and they definitely have gone up.

The cost of eating at restaurants and prices for other food prepared outside the home have increased even more.

Yet Americans spend relatively little on food, compared to most of the world. Certainly, the income gap between rich and poor in the United States warps what this kind of statistic means, but overall, Americans spend less than 10 percent of their disposable income on food prepared at home.

I want to stress again that the numbers for families vary a lot, depending on income, food choices, eating out versus cooking at home, and so on.

And hard statistics that take into account recent price increases are hard to come by.

But the numbers are clear that food in this country is plentiful, varied and relatively affordable.

The abundance and cheapness of food is no accident. Nor is it the result of any ingenious policy championed by one political party or a special set of politicians.

Plentiful, affordable food is the work of farmers, science, business and government all working to create an integrated system that has served consumers well.

It’s also true that everyone – farmers, scientists, businesses and consumers – agrees that the system could be better, although what the improvements should look like are open to discussion and debate.

Maybe this Thanksgiving, Americans could stop arguing long enough to remember how lucky we are to think that a $5.50 Thanksgiving feast is reason to complain.

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

As the Taliban reclaimed control of Afghanistan, tens of thousands of Afghans who aided the United States and fought alongside U.S. soldiers over 20 years tried to flee the country.

They feared for their lives and the lives of their wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, parents and children.

Some Americans, including many veterans, are still trying to help our Afghan allies escape the avowed revenge of the Taliban.

Other Americans, including some Kansas politicians, are fighting those efforts.

They oppose allowing refugees into the United States, claiming they could bring disease. They also claim the refugees are a terrorism threat because the vetting process is insufficient. Put simply, they claim that the fates of those targeted by the Taliban for torture, death and prison are not our problem.

It’s an argument that should be refuted by Americans who think our national ideals are more than political slogans.

The claim that Afghan refugees can’t be trusted to become our neighbors and coworkers is especially gross. The politicians who promote this slander pretend their opposition is about U.S. security. In reality, it’s another phase of anti-immigrant bigotry that at times in our history has targeted Irish, Catholics, Jews, Hispanics, Chinese, and others.

Of course, terrorism is a concern. But the record makes clear that immigrants in Kansas are much more likely to be the target of terrorists than the perpetrators.

Take the case of Adam Purinton, a Kansan who shot two immigrants in 2017 because he didn’t think they belonged in America. One of the two, Srinivas Kuchibhotla, an employee of Garmin International in Johnson County, died. A third man was injured when he attempted to stop Purinton.

Or take the cases of Curtis Allen, Gavin Wright and Patrick Stein, three Kansans who planned in 2016 to murder scores of Somali refugees in Finney County because they weren’t U.S.-born whites like Wright, Allen and Stein.

Certainly, no one suggests that immigrants are the only targets, or that white supremacists have a monopoly on terrorism.

Kansas also produced Terry Loewen, a Wichita resident who plotted in 2013 to blow up part of the Wichita airport in support of Islamic terrorists.

Or consider John T. Booker, a Topeka man and ISIS supporter who pleaded guilty in 2016 to planning to kill soldiers at Fort Riley.

And let’s not forget Terry Nichols, the anti-government terrorist who helped plan and build the truck bomb that killed 168 people in Oklahoma City in 1995.

On Sept. 11, the 20^th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, former President George W. Bush participated in a memorial service in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. He said in part:

“…(We) have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within. There is little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard for human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit. And it is our continuing duty to confront them.”

Instead, many of today’s political leaders encourage them.

As a state and nation, we should thank and welcome refugees whose aid and work were essential to U.S. soldiers over 20 years. They deserve the opportunities America affords.

Those who exploit hate and fear to keep them out are the real threats to American greatness.

Doll, now of Tucson, Arizona, is a native Kansan and former newspaper reporter and editor.

A current TV commercial for a real estate company features a woman who enters a conference room to consult with different versions of herself.

She asks her various personalities – “negative me,” “anti-social me,” “spontaneous me” and so on – for advice on buying a house.

Not so long ago, someone who wanted to buy a house might ask their parents for advice, or consult a sibling or good friend. Perhaps they would bounce a big decision off a trusted colleague at work, or go online and research articles and data.

Now, it’s all about “me.”

The Zillow commercial is emblematic of a society that has elevated self-interest and self-importance to new heights.

Our obsession with ourselves explains why we think we have a right to refuse to wear masks, even if it kills people.

It also explains why we think our personal fears of the COVID-19 virus are sufficient reason to close schools and refuse to go to work, even if health authorities disagree.

How did we get to this point?

First, humans seem designed to put their own interests above others. You can call it survival instinct or a naturally occurring kind of selfishness.

Interestingly, though, we claim to admire people who overcome those tendencies in order to serve their country, or to act for the benefit of their community, or to help complete strangers.

Well, we used to admire such people. A good chunk of America now considers them suckers, or think the only reason to help someone is so you can brag about it on social media.

Companies such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter don’t just tolerate self-obsession, they encourage it, disseminate it worldwide and monetize it.

Let me make clear, these companies have greatly enhanced our ability to communicate with one another and to deliver information. On the upside-downside scale, I’d argue they provide more up than down.

But there’s no doubt that they also encourage and facilitate the “glorification of self.”

Professional achievements, personal grievances, family successes, recipes, athletic competitions, birthdays, opinions – every bit of our lives is worthy of worldwide distribution.

See, it’s not enough to be fascinated with our own lives; we think others should be fascinated as well. And social media companies agree.

But this glorification of self is evident in legacy media as well.

In the newspaper companies for which I worked, the focus on “self” started in the early 2000s. That’s when many newspapers strayed from their mission of focusing on news about their readers, their community and their local institutions – and instead started marketing “content.”

Good journalism didn’t end, but newspaper reporters and editors were instructed to promote their individual “brands” on social media. In the new media environment, we were advised, success would be determined by how successfully individuals marketed themselves and their work on social media.

TV has long operated along similar lines. News shows and TV personalities, for example, are typically judged by their ratings, rather than by the accuracy of what they report, or the value of the information they provide.

I would argue that journalism is better when reporters and editors – and the corporate executives who too often control policy – operate under the premise that the people and entities that journalists cover are more interesting and important than the journalists themselves.

Increasingly, however, newspaper reporters and others who once mostly stayed out of the picture are making sure they are in it.

Those efforts have served the careers of journalists who are savvy about media and marketing. But they haven’t benefited journalism as a profession, nor have they produced a better informed generation of Americans.

Instead, the happy embrace of “me” across all kinds of media prioritizes feelings over fact. It’s about how news makes us feel, not what is true.

This era of “me” welcomes information that jibes with our world view and rejects that which does not.

This era celebrates the notion that each of us is, somehow, one of the most important people on the planet.

Why would we consult others or allow experts to tell us what to do or think? We value our own opinions and desires over expertise, knowledge or the good of society.

It’s worth asking, though, whether this quest to appear smart, popular and important doesn’t instead expose us as small, shallow and unduly smug.

A couple of months ago, I was giving away some garden pots and tools as I prepared to sell my house and move.

One of the men who took a few of the pots happened to stop by as I was cleaning my gutters.

As he loaded his freebies into his car, the man, who said he was retired military, lectured me about the dangers of climbing ladders. It was a friendly scolding, focusing on how I could seriously injure or kill myself using ladders, and I should buy some of those leaf guards.

Then our chat turned to the COVID-19 virus, and the man proudly stated that he had not been vaccinated and would not get vaccinated because the dangers of COVID-19 were so tiny.

“Why are people so scared of something that 99 percent of people survive,” he asked.

I noted my disagreement regarding the disease, and we both kept the chat friendly.

But I admit it took effort on my part. I had to hide my amusement – and frustration – at his rickety assessment of the dangers of ladders compared to the dangers of COVID-19.

I don’t have precise statistics, but I will bet big money that people who use ladders have a survival rate that is much higher than 99 percent. Put another way, your chances of dying this past year from using a ladder were much, much lower than your chances of dying from COVID-19.

There aren’t a lot of statistics available on ladder injuries and deaths, but one I found from a home inspectors group, which relied on the World Health Organization for an estimate, said about 300 people in the United States die each year in ladder accidents.

More than 2,000 times that many Americans died from COVID-19.

Most of us aren’t skilled at assessing the risks we take in our daily lives, from how we drive to what we choose to eat and drink.

And many of us don’t bother to doubt the scare-mongering ads we see on TV. That’s why commercials selling leaf guards work: They sell a product by successfully scaring people. And it doesn’t hurt that it’s a chore most of us hate.

Similarly, the Facebook posts and cable TV shows that spread misinformation and misleading claims about COVID-19 and the vaccines that could prevent the virus also are effective. We typically don’t verify the spurious claims we read on Facebook and other social media if we tend to want to believe them.

These kinds of efforts to sell us products and propaganda succeed when we fail to effectively evaluate information we get from our favored media.

We ought to be somewhat skeptical of what we hear and what we read, and we should be especially skeptical if the information comes from sources whose credentials are questionable or whose identity is unclear.

Critical thinking means analyzing information we get from all media – and that includes the personalities and platforms we like. We also should understand that not every claim can be proven. Sometimes, our best option is to follow the preponderance of evidence and the opinions of experts in the relevant field of study.

It’s easy to embrace information that reinforces what we already believe or jibes with our political views. We make better decisions, however, when we’re willing to dispute not only others’ biases and beliefs, but our own as well.

Some Kansas politicians are calling for more civics education – and tests – for high school students.

We all should aim to be better informed citizens.

If nothing else, the last few months proved that many Americans have little knowledge of American history, a poor understanding of the U.S. Constitution and no appreciation for the political dynamics that have shaped the nation.

I mean, when the president of the United States, Kansas senators and congressmen, state lawmakers and even the state’s top legal authority participate in or condone an attempted coup, we have a problem.

But I don’t know why we should be blaming teenagers.

Before passing yet another mandate for schools and children, let’s make sure our elected officials in Topeka and Washington know their stuff. Let’s make them pass a civics test.

Admittedly, I don’t have much experience in developing tests, but the civics exam I’d write would look something like this.

1. When your political party loses an election, you as an American are expected to:

A. Grouse, cuss and then accept the results.

B. Make up stories that your opponents cheated.

C.  Storm government offices and demand the government overturn voters’ decision.

The correct answer is A, despite what you hear from many conservatives, including some who think the rest of us require more instruction in civics.

2. The First Amendment protects:

A. The president’s right to a Twitter account.

B. Americans’ right to free speech and a free press — as well as the right to peacefully assemble, to petition the government, and freedom of religion.

C. The government’s right to control media companies.

The correct answer is B, even though many claiming to hold “originalist” and “conservative” views of the Constitution argue otherwise.

3. When the president of the United States urges supporters and elected officials to reject certified election results from across the nation, it’s called:

A. Typical of all presidents

B. Sedition

C. The will of the people.

The correct answer is B, as every president from George Washington to Barack Obama understood.

4. When dozens of courts and scores of judges across numerous states reject a candidate’s unsupported claims of voter fraud, it’s evidence of:

A. Voter fraud.

B. Frivolous litigation filed by unethical lawyers.

C. Judicial overreach.

The correct answer is B.

5. If you are lucky enough to be elected to public office, your priority should be:

A. To protect the interests of your political party and its leaders.

B. To protect your own chances of getting re-elected.

C. To uphold the Constitution and represent the interests of all your constituents.

The correct answer is C, although usually in theory only these days.

6. When you disagree with an elected official, you should:

A. Threaten to kill them.

B. Accuse them of pedophilia and treason.

C. Research the topic, argue on the merits of the issue, and work to elect a different person.

The correct answer is C.

7. To raise the quality of our civic discourse, we should:

A. Rationalize bad behavior among the politicians we support by claiming their opponents are even worse.

B. Call critics of our point of view losers, criminals and enemies of the people.

C. Reacquaint ourselves with the Golden Rule.

The correct answer is C, although Josef Stalin was a big fan of B.

8. The people who make the best elected officials usually:

A. Listen only to those with whom they are likely to agree.

B. Seek out a wide range of information and points of view.

C. Raise the most money.

The correct answer is B. We are all unaware of how much we don’t know – until we further explore an issue.

9. An example of a fair and democratic election is:

A. One that affords all eligible Americans ample and equal access in obtaining, filling out and submitting a ballot.

B. One that is timed and designed to give your political party an advantage.

C. One that aims to intimidate and discourage certain voters by making it inconvenient, time-consuming or dangerous to vote.

The correct answer is A.

10. The nation’s first president, George Washington, used his farewell address to:

A. Demand more time in office.

B. List all of his achievements and sacrifices.

C. Warn the nation about the dangers of partisan factions and political parties.

The correct answer is C. Washington said in part:

“There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.