Something for the Donuts with Democrats to consider.

That is a wonderful idea. The old United Nations discussion guides were not intended to tell people what to think. They were designed to help ordinary citizens examine an issue from several viewpoints, listen respectfully, and leave with a deeper understanding. They typically included background information, discussion questions, and suggestions for keeping the conversation balanced.

Here is a modern example in that same spirit.

---

United Nations Community Dialogue Program

Week 14: Living Together in an Age of Division

Purpose

To explore why people increasingly see one another as enemies rather than neighbors, and to discover practical ways individuals and communities can strengthen trust despite political, religious, cultural, and social differences.

Time Required

90 minutes

Ideal Group Size

8–15 participants

---

Objectives

By the end of this discussion participants should:

• Better understand why polarization develops.

• Recognize common human needs shared by people with differing viewpoints.

• Practice listening without immediately debating.

• Identify one practical action that builds trust within their own community.

---

Background

Around the world, democratic societies have become more divided. Social media, economic uncertainty, political rhetoric, and rapid technological change often encourage people to divide into opposing camps.

Yet history shows that societies remain strongest when citizens can disagree respectfully while continuing to cooperate in solving common problems.

The purpose of this discussion is not to determine who is "right." Rather, it is to examine how communities remain healthy despite disagreement.

---

Opening Question

Ask each participant to answer briefly.

Describe a time when someone changed your mind—or when you changed theirs—through respectful conversation rather than argument.

(No discussion yet. Simply listen.)

---

Discussion Questions

Part I – Understanding Division

1. Why do people naturally divide into groups?

2. What benefits come from belonging to a group?

3. When does loyalty to a group become harmful?

4. Is disagreement always bad?

5. What makes political disagreement become personal hostility?

---

Part II – Looking Beyond Ourselves

6. Why do intelligent people reach completely different conclusions from the same facts?

7. How much do our life experiences shape our beliefs?

8. Can two opposing viewpoints both contain important truths?

9. What role should humility play in public discussion?

---

Part III – Building Strong Communities

10. What qualities make someone worth listening to?

11. What causes people to stop listening?

12. How can communities encourage respectful disagreement?

13. What responsibilities accompany freedom of speech?

14. Should every disagreement be "won"?

---

Part IV – Personal Reflection

15. What belief have you modified during your lifetime?

16. What issue is hardest for you to discuss calmly?

17. What one habit could you change that would improve conversations with people who disagree with you?

---

Facilitator Notes

The facilitator should encourage exploration rather than persuasion.

Helpful responses include:

• "Tell us more."

• "What experiences led you to that conclusion?"

• "Does anyone see it differently?"

• "Can someone summarize what was just said before responding?"

• "What values do both sides share?"

Avoid:

• Declaring winners.

• Allowing one person to dominate.

• Correcting opinions unless they involve verifiable factual errors essential to the discussion.

• Turning the discussion into a debate.

---

Closing Exercise

Ask each participant to complete this sentence:

"One idea I heard tonight that I had not seriously considered before was..."

Then ask:

"What is one thing our community could do during the next year to strengthen trust among people with different viewpoints?"

---

Suggested Follow-Up Activity

Participants pair with someone they know least and spend twenty minutes over coffee discussing a topic unrelated to politics—family history, hobbies, work, or travel. At the next meeting, they report whether learning about the person changed their perception.

---

Leader's Reflection

The success of this session should not be measured by agreement. Success occurs when participants leave with greater curiosity, greater respect, and a stronger commitment to solving problems together.

---

I think a complete 52-week manual built in this style could be excellent. It could cover topics such as artificial intelligence, climate resilience, migration, aging populations, ethics of biotechnology, media literacy, democracy, public health, poverty, education, water resources, conflict resolution, and human rights—using the same balanced, question-driven approach that made the original UN discussion guides so effective. It would feel like a modern successor rather than simply a copy of the originals.

The Stooges are defeated

The Three Stooges Are Gone. Now the Real Work Begins.

Payson voters have spoken, and the political landscape has changed. With Brett Flaherty elected mayor, the town now has an opportunity to move beyond the divisions that have consumed so much time and energy.

For all the money spent and all the accusations that were thrown around, the Three Stooges ultimately could not convince the people of Payson. In the end, voters looked past the rhetoric and made their own decision about the direction they wanted their community to take.

If there was one turning point, it was the attack on the library. What may have been intended as a political rallying point became a rallying cry for those who believed the library should remain a place of learning rather than a political battlefield. Jim Ferris's angry outburst and dramatic exit from the council meeting only reinforced the impression that emotion had replaced reason. Instead of strengthening their cause, it became a self-inflicted wound that many voters remembered.

Elections are about choices, but they are also about accountability. Payson has now made its choice.

The challenge ahead is not to relive old political fights or settle scores. It is to restore trust in local government, encourage respectful debate, and focus on the issues that matter most—public safety, responsible growth, fiscal stewardship, strong town services, and preserving the quality of life that makes Payson such a special place to live.

Winning an election is only the beginning. Governing well is the real test.

The Three Stooges have had their day. Now it is time for Payson to look forward instead of backward and build a future that benefits the entire community.

You can buy stupidity by the pound.

 Here's a tighter, more humorous version that keeps your Appalachian "whistledick" theme while making the punchline land a little harder.

I woke up this morning wondering about a word I first heard growing up back in the West Virginia hills: whistledick.

Curiosity got the better of me, so I looked it up. Depending on where you ask, a whistledick is someone who's simple-minded, not especially bright, or easily led around by the nose.

That got me thinking about local politics.

If you're looking for whistledicks, the local Tea Party seems to have an abundant supply. Around here, our own Three Stooges could qualify for honorary memberships.

According to the Payson Roundup, the Three Stooges have raised about 19 times more campaign money than the ordinary citizens running for town council. That's an interesting number.

It raises a fair question: Where did all that money come from?

The whistledick crowd is always eager to tell us that George Soros is secretly financing every protest, every rally, and every political opponent they don't like. They see Soros behind every bush.

Fine. If that's the standard, then it's fair to ask who's financing the local operation.

Because campaign money doesn't magically appear.

So here's my question: Who is paying for stupidity by the pound?

If your goal is sharper political satire, I can also make it funnier with more Appalachian expressions while keeping it focused on the campaign finance theme rather than the insult itself.

The Stooges , Otto, Bell and Ferris

Ferris Storms Out

Last night's Payson Town Council meeting ended with an unexpected bit of political theater.

Councilman Jim Ferris didn't just lose the vote—he lost his temper. After seeing it become clear that the council was rejecting another effort aimed at the library, Ferris stormed out of the meeting and slammed the door behind him. It was a dramatic ending to a campaign that has repeatedly failed to gain support.

The strategy has become familiar. First came claims that the library contained "pornography." That accusation went nowhere because the facts didn't support it. Rather than moving on, Ferris and his allies shifted to a new controversy, raising fears about drag queen story hours and suggesting the library should be punished financially because of positions taken by national library organizations.

The problem is that this argument attempts to solve an issue that doesn't exist in Payson. It's a political formula seen often in recent years: create a controversy, amplify public outrage, and then present yourself as the person who will fix it. When the controversy falls apart, simply move on to the next one.

Fortunately, a majority of the Town Council refused to take the bait. They voted against the proposal, choosing to focus on the actual operation of Payson's library rather than national political talking points.

Ferris frequently presents himself as a man guided by Christian values. Every voter is free to decide whether his conduct at the meeting reflected those values. Storming out of a public meeting after failing to persuade your colleagues does not strike many people as an example of patience, humility, or respectful leadership.

In the end, the loudest statement of the evening wasn't made from the council dais. It was the sound of the council chamber door slamming shut behind a frustrated councilman.

Doug

Trump's Greatest Grift?

Donald Trump may be the greatest political grifter of our time.

Reading the New York Times this morning, columnist Thomas Friedman highlighted just how profitable Trump's cryptocurrency ventures have been—not for the people who bought into them, but for Trump himself.

As Friedman noted:

"Nearly 1 million people who bought President Trump's memecoin have lost money through the end of June... Their losses total $3.81 billion... Trump signed a financial disclosure revealing that the same crypto bet dealt him a $636 million payout. In all, his business ventures brought him at least $2.2 billion in 2025."

Think about that. According to those figures, nearly a million supporters collectively lost billions while Trump personally walked away with hundreds of millions.

That's quite a business model.

Then Doug stopped by the Kadizzle house yesterday.

Doug has been one of those folks who swallowed nearly every conspiracy theory and every Trump talking point, hook, line, and sinker. But yesterday something had changed.

Even Doug finally said, "Enough is enough."

Then came the real surprise.

Doug told Kadizzle he had realized that the Three Stooges running for town council are nothing more than Trump-style followers trying to imitate the same brand of politics right here in our own town.

Kadizzle nearly fell out of his chair.

If the clouds can part for Doug, maybe there's still hope for the rest of America.

If you're aiming for maximum political punch, I can also rewrite it in your sharper "Kadizzle" satirical style, with more humor and bite.

The Tea Party Brain

The Tea Party mindset seems to thrive on absurdities. A recent letter to the Payson Roundup confidently asserted that George Soros is paying protesters in Payson. As usual, this appears to be another flight of right-wing fantasy.

Let's think this through. Where exactly do people get paid? Has anyone ever cashed a George Soros check at a local bank? Is there a secret payroll office hidden behind the donut shop? Are protesters paid in cash, direct deposit, or perhaps prepaid debit cards handed out at rallies?

The questions are endless because the claim itself makes no sense. Yet these stories continue to circulate because they appeal to a certain strain of political paranoia. Every protest must be a conspiracy. Every disagreement must be orchestrated. Every citizen expressing an opinion must secretly be on someone's payroll.

The irony is especially rich because the very name "Tea Party" came from a protest movement. Apparently, protesting was patriotic when they were doing it, but now anyone protesting the current administration must be a paid operative.

One wonders how this supposed Soros payment system works. Is there an application process? Background checks? Performance reviews? Does someone monitor sign-waving technique and slogan creativity before authorizing payment?

Perhaps enterprising Tea Party members should sign up themselves. If the rumors are true, they could collect the money and then donate it directly to a Trump campaign committee. It sounds like a foolproof plan—assuming, of course, that the imaginary checks arrive from the imaginary payroll department that exists only in the fever swamps of political conspiracy theories.

The truth is much simpler. Most protesters show up for the same reason people have always shown up to protests: they care about an issue. Agree with them or disagree with them, but pretending they are all paid actors is not an argument. It's just a convenient way to avoid listening to what they have to say.

 Payson’s Central Park — Or Another RV Park?

Imagine if New York City decided to turn Central Park into an RV park. Most people would think that was a terrible idea. Yet that is essentially what Mayor Steve Otto and his allies are proposing for some of the most valuable publicly owned land in Payson.

The Town of Payson currently owns approximately 21 acres adjacent to the police department. As Payson grows, that land could become one of the community's most important assets. Ramsey Park is already constrained by limited space. In the future, Payson may need room for a recreation center, a swimming pool, expanded public safety facilities, a fire station, or other municipal services. Having multiple public facilities located together can reduce construction and operating costs while creating a true civic center for the community.

Instead, Mayor Otto appears eager to pursue a deal that would convert this strategic public property into an RV park. Why? Payson already owns other land that could potentially be used for that purpose. Once this centrally located property is gone, the opportunity to create a long-term civic campus for future generations will be lost forever.

Mayor Otto recently claimed on KMOG radio that the town paid too much for the property. Yet the developer's own presentation to the Town Council suggested that RV park land in nearby Star Valley is worth approximately $450,000 per acre. Using that figure, Payson's 21-acre parcel would have a value approaching $10 million.

If those numbers are accurate, then the town has not lost money on the purchase—it has gained substantial value. The property may already be worth millions more than the town paid for it.

The real question is simple: Should Payson preserve one of the few large parcels of centrally located public land for future community needs, or should it give up that opportunity for an RV park that could be built elsewhere?

Some opportunities come along only once. This land may be one of them.