Why do we reward Failure & Bad Behavior?

Sixty years ago our government "discovered" that over 60% of Black and minorities were living in poverty, and under-performing in schools.  "The Great Society" was formed; it gave money to those minorities that were living in poverty and under-performing in schools, and it provided financial assistance for and access to low cost housing.

That has continued, virtually unabated, to the present.  Failure was rewarded.

Consider what might be the case today should all of that money have been provided to and rewarded the over 30% that WERE achieving and succeeding.  What if those who were failing saw that the path to success and reward was to maintain a family, learn in school, work after school, and gain degrees (High School, Junior College, College and advanced degrees) that would insure the financial assets to provide their children with better housing, better education, and the opportunity to more fully enjoy the fruits of success?

Many suspect that the government's choice to reward failure was purposeful:  it attracted votes (and therefore re-election) for the politicians; it reduced the appearance of poverty; it also made those receiving government funds dependent on the continuation of those funds, as they didn't come with job training or improved education.  The result was what could reasonably be seen as a continued "plantation dependence" on the government for both direction and subsistence, supporting an almost slave like acceptance of government direction and control for supporting a subsistence level of living.

And as whole industries sprung up to distribute government funds and service agencies, there actually grew a disincentive to improve the lot of the poor, as it would eliminate the jobs and power of those agencies.  As time went by there was less and less inclination on the part of those administering these policies to suggest attacking the cause of poverty rather than ameliorate the symptoms.  Except for a few organizations working to reward achievement, there is little acknowledgment of this long term failure.

This needs to change.

And it is possible that the nation would benefit from abandoning the statistical fascination with Race and possible switch to focusing on "foot size" or even "hair color" as a means of determining who may be discriminated against.  Or...if logic ever prevails...perhaps we could focus on achievement and/or motivation?

Considering the state of the nation today, I'd even accept using "civility" as a basis for job and benefit qualification...or, in the case of reporters, "truth."

Is America being "Colonized"?

Nothing is forever.  Nations fail.  Countries disappear...not as land areas (although that has happened) but moving borders, and migration and invasions change the character.  Even where the name has remained, what currently exists bears little resemblance to that same area's character, personality and governance of even a century ago...with the exception of the United States of America.

Certainly Europe has much of the same borders, but the political existence is largely changed, with the advent of the European Union, and other changes in self-perception, Europe and the world generally has seen huge changes.

America has defied the general rule and remained generally stable during its entire existence.  A great degree of credit for this can be correctly ascribed to the Founding Fathers creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.   These documents, and the attitudes they represent, made governmental change possible without revolution and upheaval, and the success of individual efforts resulting in an economy that made possible successful defense of its borders against all invaders.  

But nothing is forever.  Just like businesses, nations are affected, and threatened, by stupidity, carelessness, non-interest, laziness and greed...any one of which is capable of leading to a nation's downfall.

Australia, the East and West Indies as well as Africa existed for years, only to fall to the colonization by Europe.  Even America started in that fashion, with European nations descending on the North American continent, driving out and subjugating the natives to a European lifestyle and values.

The United States used to be a destination for folks who were unhappy with their country of birth, either with the governance or the possibilities for advancement.  They came to America because it provided opportunity for both personal freedom and success in accordance with their efforts and abilities (not guarantees of success but the guarantee of an opportunity to succeed).  But in the last century it is now apparent that resident desire for power joined forces with immigrants (both legal and illegal) who came with the desire to change America into the kind of country they had left, with the great improvement of allowing THEM to exercise the power.  They did not come to "join" America, but to reform and subjugate it.

Even our Media (ostensibly) serving our common interests, declare the white majority to be racist, even as the non-white population break laws, harm property and people and declare that they deserve to be given whatever they define as success.  It is the media and the minority that display racist attitudes and "values."  If the White majority were truly racist, the actions of the minority would long ago have seen them executed or deported.  

Current events reveal that America is being threatened by what can only be labeled as "colonizing" forces;  BLM, the LGBT+ community, and Marxists, Socialist and Communist organization and individuals protest, riot, destroy and kill in an effort to overturn our Democratic Republic.  Many oppose it...but many native inhabitants in India, Australia, and Africa didn't like or accept the values imposed by European colonization either. 

The questions come down to:

1.  whether the European DNA of our past renders us unqualified to oppose this attempt to take control and change the essence of the United States and its Constitutional foundation of over 200 years; and
2. whether the fact that weapons possession and law provide the "native" population with sufficient choice and motivation to oppose these colonization attempt(s).

Or..,will the majority seek to ignore or appease the invaders from within.  Will we. like a frog placed in warm water over a roaring fire...simply sit placidly by as we are overcome, subjugated and killed by the enemy?  Should we all start language lessons?  Arabic and/or Mandarin might be the better choices. 

COVID-19: a discussion

(Disclaimer:  I am not a medical doctor.  I have no qualifying scientific degrees.  But, at almost 78 years of age I am in the "at risk" category according to all reports, and as a retired, multiple degree holding individual who is curious and has the time, I have been reading all I can find about this virus and trying to establish a layman's understanding of just what the SARS-CoV-2 threat is all about.  That leaves me with questions as well as a lot of ideas and my intent is to share them with anyone who is also curious and wants to take the time to consider my findings and thoughts.  So...I am not TELLING anyone what to do or what to think...just musing out loud...or in print, to be accurate.  Proceed at your own risk)

My assumptions (perhaps better termed, "presumptions"):

• The "unknown" causes fear
• Sudden "unknown" causes contagious fear
• Fear eliminates logic
• Lack of logic makes for bad or flawed decisions

About the beginning of this year presented reports of a rapidly growing health threat from an unknown extremely contagious virus that held out danger of inordinately large mortality rates on a world-wide basis with no medical solution or intervention known to exist.

The fear was immediate and grew exponentially.  The "flee or flight" instinct took immediate hold, with "fight" not apparently in play so "flee" was the almost universal reaction.  Just what "flee" meant was varied but generally became what we now refer to as "lock-down" and "spacing."  "Logic" was still on holiday, albeit with some groups and individuals attempting to approach the danger looking for solutions that would bring "fight" back into contention.

One of the perils of having some folks attempting to repond logically to a threat when the majority is still in "flee" mode is that even if the logical approach presented in incomplete and/or in error, it SEEMS like the siren of truth, logic and reason and rarely is questioned or doubted.  But...almost inevitably there ARE errors and gaps.  These are to be expected.  But...what SHOULD happen is that these presumptions be examined almost daily to discover, correct or eliminate all that is wrong.  Consider the following:

• Predictions of enormous loss of life were predicated on estimates that were flawed.

One of the errors was basing projections on no effective steps taken to minimize the effect and the spread of the virus from person to person.  

• Initial presumptions were that the virus was long-lasting on various surfaces and was virtually impossible to avoid between individuals closer than 6 feet from one to another.

This has turned out to be largely untrue, as current reports by the medical community suggests that the virus does not remain dangerous on most surfaces for more than a short time.

Then there were the errors and presumptions that caused authoritative declarations to be made (and largely accepted) closing businesses, transportation, community interaction and person to person contact of all kinds.  Some of these errors:

1. Not recognizing that "lock-downs" were ineffective when the virus was already present;
2. Even while recognizing that the elderly and those with pre-existing medical challenges were primarily at risk for loss of live, Governors chose to send recovering patients to Nursing and Old Age Homes resulting in infection of others already at risk of death.
3. Reacting politically rather than logically in an election year by deciding that they (the politician office holders) had to do SOMETHING lest the voters think they didn't care.  Clearly the right action in some situations is to NOTHING until or unless PROVEN FACTS point to a specific line of action.

When one reflects on the fact that just over two years ago (2017, Fall) America went through an immensely severe flu season that resulted in as many deaths as has resulted from COVID-19 and no one lifted an eyebrow or even thought, much less suggested, that we "lock-down" for safety, a question and set of facts comes to mind.  Every bug, every virus we have experienced has an approximately two (2) year life span.  The Spanish Flu in the last century ran its course in two years.  Others have the same record.  So...I suggest the following questions are appropriate to put to the medical community for responses and answers:

• If enormous funding results in a vaccine claimed to be effective and is available in a year, will it be claimed that it is the vaccine that eradicates the occurrence of this virus?  Or will its virtual disappearance be the result of the natural two (2) year life cycle?
• Does the "lock-down" approach truly operate to lessen, minimize, or otherwise protect the public from the effects of this virus?  Doesn't such "isolation actions" lessen or even prevent a development of a "herd immunity"?  
• Has medical research adopted the proper presumptions as to optimal treatment?  Some articles have reported that the oxygen level of COVID-19 sufferers have dipped dangerously low WITHOUT fever or corresponding obstruction of lung function (these come later, suggesting to some that the lung problems result from the virus, and are not the direct cause).  And other reports are that the implementation of respirator treatment puts the lungs under pressurized oxygen with actually has been shown to decrease the ability of the lung tissue to absorb and oxygenate blood, actually acting to deprive patients of oxygen and contribute to death.  Some reports and at least one presentation on Youtube, by Dr. Zach Bush ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DqZs9tLZIU ), suggests that upon diagnosis of the low oxygen blood levels prior to any fever or lung obstruction it might be wise to consider a treatment such as used for cyanide poisoning, currently involving three (3) injections.  If that increases blood oxygen levels, then there may be no development of lung obstruction eliminating all but liquids and bed rest to recover.  Shouldn't medical authorities have to respond to this concept...and any others?

And finally...at least for now...can't we all agree that in an medical event Government, Politicians, and holders of elected office should not be allowed to "not allow an emergency to go to waste" and seize control of our lives in a way that we would never allow if not for the fear that they encouraged, fed, and enlarged in order to try to validate their power grab(s)?

What do you think? 

Why are we fat?

Those who study these things report that, as a nation, Americans are fat.

• Is that true?
• If so, why? and,
• Can or should we do something about that?

Statistics suggest that more Americans are overweight than ever before.  Moreover, general observance and anecdotes back up those statistics, so it seems that the we are fat.

"Why" is always going to be an individual answer if total accuracy is your goal.  But for the purposes of this discussion, general habits and behavior will be the focus.  Two primary reasons for obesity and being overweight suggest themselves:

1. Over-eating; and
2. lack of sufficient exercise.

And it is likely that a combination of the two would have the most impact.  Certainly there are individuals who have medical challenges that cause increased body mass, but generally it is clear that more food (or bad choices of food) and less exercise are the cause.

But...what are the root cause(s) of those factors?  Again, observation suggests three major causes:

1. Television;
2. development of the two income family; and
3. The internet.

The advent of Television in the late 1940's was the beginning of a quantum shift in children's attitude and interest in physical activities.  Oh, it didn't show up immediately; children and teenagers had developed habits over the years of playing baseball, football, basketball, hockey in the winter, and other activities such as dodge ball, hide & Seek and others that exercised their growing bodies and those habits stayed with them.  But parents with children born in the early 1950's and later found that it was easier to get housework done and get some needed "down time" if their children weren't out running around, getting hurt and into trouble in the neighborhood, but instead watching "educational" programs on the Television.  And if the kids stayed quiet and out of harms way even as the found that they could switch the channel to watch cartoons...well, how harmful could that be...it was make-believe.

Following World War II, men came home to a nation where women had gotten used to working, earning money outside the home, to a nation where new and better products were available and a general desire to own a home and live better than before.  So men got jobs too, and grandparents watched children during the day. On weekends parents "caught up" on household matters and acted as parents once again.

That wonderful new thing...Television...turned out to be a soporific tool for young children not available before.  So, little by little, parents weren't heard commanding their children to, "go out and play, it is a beautiful day!"  Instead they were content to enjoy the peace and quiet of the house, bothered only by the occasional need to tell the kids to"turn the sound down" on the television.  

Of course, there was still (and that continues today) the "gym period" at school.  But that doesn't really provide physical activity, as studies report that on perhaps 20 +/- minutes of activity occur since most of the time is spent standing around as the upcoming activity is being described and teams and/or pairings are set up.  Gym periods were and are only a light reminder of the intense sports and exercises that used to be the norm at recess (no longer much in existence), after school and on weekends.  So Gym is of little effect and/or consequence.

Those "television children" grew up be parents that did not exercise themselves and certainly were less and less likely to make their children do any different.  Meanwhile, the
"two income" family became the norm, leading to less consideration being given to meal preparation; tv dinners, take-out meals became more ubiquitous, and kids home from school found lots of high calorie snacks in the refrigerator to eat while the sat on the couch watching....wait for it....television.  They were NOT going out over the neighbor's kids house to play sandlot baseball or shoot hoops.  No...none of that was or is happening today.

For years, the only exercise some kids got was when they had a report due for school and had to...gasp...walk or travel to the library and research the subject.  

But even that tiny bit of exercise was about to be made elective. Because now the Internet came into existence.  Now neither child or adult had to leave the easy chair or the chair in front of the personal computer.  Exercise?  Why?  For what purpose?  Besides, life is becoming more complicated and more things have to be learned, so eliminating running in the park (or even walking) puts more stress on one's time...so that takes a back seat (and often doesn't remain in the vehicle).

The Internet and the television became more highly developed, so it then gave birth to the "smart phone" (although that confuses me, as I have had one for more that 15 years and it still hasn't made me any smarter).  Now both kids and adults don't even have to meet to talk; I caught my two grandsons texting each other across the same room!  I have a friend who, when he visits his children and grandchildren, confiscates the kids phones as he arrives and only gives them back as he is packing to leave, telling them that they are going to learn how to converse with him and each other person to person with their voices and looking each other in the eye.  After a painful day, he says the begin to enjoy it...and he has hopes that they actually may be able to negotiate their way through a job interview at some time in the future.  But I wonder if some will even be able to do that...or maintain concentration on anything for more than 45 seconds.

But...getting back to the subject...our parents AND we took the easy way out even while intending, perhaps, to do the right thing.  We failed to balance our desire that our kids learn (from educational programs) with their need to develop their bodies to carry their brains through a long life...and that inevitably led (and continues to lead) to shorter life spans and increased pain and discomfort during the latter years.  

For some time I have thought that most families (both adults and children) would benefit from shutting down all forms of electronic access for a week each month...maybe even on at least one weekend day each week...and instead schedule outdoor physical activities (games, hikes, walks) to coincide with face to face conversations.

I know many families who even now require that all phones be muted or turned off and left in another room while the family has dinner at the table and combines the dinner hour with conversation.  That should be an "always" thing...for all of us.

If we don't work to change our ways, I fear the the fictional "Matrix" as seen in the movie of the same name will become a very unpleasant and unenjoyable reality.  However, if today's parents recognize the benefit of, and the need to, reverse this process, it can be reversed.  But it means making a conscious and consistent effort to push children away from the computer, the cell phone and the couch to make them "go out and play."  It means getting other parents with children of the same age on the same page,getting together in the park and letting (perhaps, in the beginning) making them get involved in pick-up games of dodge ball, hide & seek, flag and touch football, baseball.  NOT organized, like Little League and the such...although those are great.  It is the non-athlete who needs to add physical activities to an otherwise seductive sedentary life style.  Jogging, hikes are good too.  And this all has the advantage of also refreshing the mind and actually making the time in front of a computer more productive.

I sincerely hope that just thinking about all of this will cause at least a few to take the steps to truly show a way to save (or at least better benefit) our wonderful children.

Why do businesses succeed...and fail?

Quick, simple answers pop right up.  But pause a moment and the simple answers just don't provide complete understanding.  The obvious answers are:

• make money and become rich;
• a challenge you can't refuse;
• compete and win; 
• see and meet a need.

The truth may be that there are as many reasons for starting a new business as there are people trying.  

Most businesses start with one common trait: each and every founder of a successful business was stubborn and a leader.

There is, however, one additional trait: perceptiveness. They understood and met the needs of the customer...of the marketplace.  Quality and Price always go together if there is to be success.

An study of the beginnings of any business only teach us about that...the beginning.  There have been many men who started a business and ran it successfully, only for it to fade and fail upon the death of the founder.  Why?

Many stubborn leaders don't want to delegate; it gives up control of quality and process and leaves the leader subject to mistakes and lack of drive by others and is anathema.  They don't like it; it smacks of lack of control and giving up of power.  They will make it very uncomfortable for anyone who pushes for any sort of delegation.  That stress will tend to drive all but the most subservient away...to other businesses or enterprises, leaving no one of leadership quality to continue the business upon the passing of the founder.

The businesses that survive do so because some just as stubborn subordinate refuses to be driven out and values what the business does more than a good relationship with the founder OR the founder comes to see the business not as an extension of themselves, but as having a business life and purpose of its own, and comes to appreciate nurturing it as a separate entity, welcoming others with new and different approaches.  If all at the top management level continue to respect and nurture that approach, the business will survive until that attitude fades and dies or the quality of leadership fades and dies.  Either will lead to collapse or absorption by another, successful, company.

Why be concerned with such considerations?  One major reason is as a potential investor.  You can be certain that the attitudes and quality of management, whether of a start-up or an ongoing business, are of paramount reason to a Warren Buffet and others who make their living as investors.  Whether buying stock, or investing in ownership/profits of start-ups, success depends on evaluating the motivation and talents of those at the top (or, in the case of a new business...the bottom).  As a person looking for a job, the same evaluation would be a benefit, if only to work at getting a job that would last.

Why are Journalists an endangered species?

When at Syracuse University more than half a century ago, I wanted to be in Radio as a broadcaster.  One of the prerequisites for such a profession was the ability to write good news stories.  Syracuse at that time had, and perhaps still has, a Journalism School that was considered one of the best in the country...as well as a reputation for turning out folks ready to perform well in both Radio and Television.

At that time, "reporters" were looked up to by most (as long as they were not targeting you); they worked at being objective, thorough and factual.  At that time opinions and judgement was confined to the "Editorial" pages of a newspaper.  Even Radio and Television stations clearly announced and labeled "editorial commentary" as such before and often even upon the completion of that.  News anchors such as Walter Cronkite would finish the news portion of the broadcast, pause, and then offer some version of, "We'd like to offer this editorial (or opinion) about ...." indicating what the subject of the comment would be about, and closing with the clear statement that what you had just heard was an editorial offered by the news department (of whatever station or network the program appeared on).

You could pick up competing newspapers with different political or social agendas and get the same news with the only difference being if you read a morning or an afternoon paper, and that was just because there were more details in the afternoon papers on the morning "breaking" news.

Those professional journalist reporters would give you all the facts of a given story but leave it to each reader to decide for themselves whether the story was about "good" or "bad."  It was both the readers' right AND their obligation to decide on the worth, value and labeling about each and every story on the "news" pages.

I spent two semesters being shown and learning how to write a story about anything and everything by supplying the "5 'W's & the 'H' " ( Who, What, Where, Why, When, and How).  I've been asked why it would take two semesters, a whole year of classes and assignments, to learn to do that.  The answer is that you had to do this quickly and accurately without the use of adjectives.  Thank about doing that in your own life!  Most things we see happen around us we automatically "adjectivise" (my own made up word).  We see things as "funny" or "sad," or "good" or "bad."  Rarely do we say to another, "something happened to me today"...usually we say, a funny thing happened to me today."  And we rarely tell anyone anything with ALL the facts as I listed above.  So the time is spent developing the discipline to get the entire litiney of an event, and getting them accurately so the person hearing or reading your recital ends up with a Full, Accurate, and Complete understanding and stands ready to make their own individual judgment about what happened.

In the 1950's and 1960's a reporter who did not keep his or her stories objective and accurate became known as unreliable, and disrespected by his or her peers and, for as long as they remained employed, his or her editors...and usually assigned to unimportant stories where mistakes or missing information didn't hurt the newspaper very much.

Today I challenge anyone to pick up a newspaper, listen to a radio news program, or watch a television hard news program and not notice: 1. missing facts; 2. inaccurate assertions; 3. adjectives; and 4. even judgments thrown at you as a done deal.  You have been told in advance by the person providing the "story" what to think about it and what to feel and do as a response.  You are being indoctrinated; the value(s) have already been assigned and communicated to you.  If you are a busy person just checking in on what is going on, you may not even be aware of this "directive as to what to think and how to value" what you have just heard.

Aside from the natural annoyance and, perhaps, anger arising from this discovery of how you are being "talked down to," you may start to ask yourselves..."how did things change from what used to be...and why?"

May I suggest that there are two major (and I am certain there are other contributing elements) factors:

1. The Educational System as it exists today in America; and
2. The ubiquitous presence of the Internet.

Mass education in the United States has always been based on the Prussian model which taught basic arithmetic, reading and writing as well as teaching them group discipline so as to make children useful and governable employees and citizens when they reached their majority. Until the 1960's, this tendency toward indoctrination was offset and even defeated by the moderating effect of parents who would discuss what their children learned in school, adding the element of questioning what was taught and solving problems in a manner once described as "thinking outside the box,"  that is...looking at what was taught not for itself, but asking oneself, if not the teacher, why is this being taught.

After World War II this changed for two basic reasons: First, the "keep up with the Jones-es" attitude led to more mothers entering the work force for a second salary to pay for more and better "stuff" and also to pay for higher education for the children, eliminating much of the time and directing parents away from questioning their children about what they were learning.  Falsely, parents turned to presuming that the schools were teaching their children rather than indoctrinating them to accept commands, suggestions and governance instead of questioning and delving in the purposes of those commands, suggestions and governance; second, Progressives in the era of Teddy Roosevelt continuing from that period had slowly but inexorably taken virtual control of our entire educational system(s).

Formulated in Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," they had taken advantage of parental concern for earnings rather that their children's education to first shade their teaching and then to bring in texts that emphasized a preference for governmental and authoritarian direction as being in the interest of the entire country.  The largely unstated trade-off was individual freedom and thinking not aligned with what was taught (alternative label: indoctrinated).  This is now evident not only in grades 1 through 12, but in University and College settings, as non-progressive thinking, speaking and attitudes are virtually silenced if not expelled from campuses.

The second major factor for the disappearance of professional journalism is the Internet.  Combined with the laziness of the general public and their willingness to accept and not question what is presented, the competition for readership, ratings and/or viewership has resulted in speed at the expense of accuracy, and shear volume of noise over truth.

The editors who once looked at accuracy, depth, absence of adjectives and completeness as the qualifiers, and never considered putting out anything else are no more...replaced with those who hold the same title but value profit, speed and their own personal and business agenda(s) of political and societal nature, and see no fault in turning what we once looked upon as organizations that informed us to organizations dedicated to Public Relations and Propaganda.

We get the government that we deserve.  It doesn't matter is we knew what we were doing or choosing; consequences aren't voided because of stupidity, carelessness, or even saying, "I'm sorry."  That same reasoning applies to the media that still (falsely) claim to serve us; that we, like a drunk at a bar, demand more and more simply insure that the consequences are certain.

National Borders:why?

Do you have your own "space?"  Maybe, if you're homeless, it is a tent, a bench, a grate or a grocery cart...but do you consider it "yours."  Do you have a home?  Do you rent a house or an apartment?  Maybe you rent a "room."  These all have one thing in common: most consider the area involved as THEIRS.

If someone comes into that area, that room, that apartment, or that house without your permission or an invitation, you feel disrespected, annoyed and perhaps even at risk.  In the case of the homeless, they react to an trespass of what they consider to be the borders of their space as if they have been invaded.  Those of us who rent a room, an apartment or a house consider the space inside those walls as OURS.  We have locks on the doors to secure OUR space.

Those who own houses consider even the property around their homes as theirs and often put up fencing around the yard or property that they own and on which their house sits, so they have the fencing AND locks on the doors to their homes; these all establish the borders of what is THEIRS and the law provides that they can protect that property, that house, apartment or room from the unauthorized, uninvited presence of others.

Groups of people create Towns, Cities  Counties and states that also have borders to publicly declare and define the public areas for which the group is responsible, and for which the group will pay maintenance and protection.  And for centuries, groups of people have formed countries, establishing borders and also establishing the requirements necessary for people living elsewhere to meet to a) visit, b) work, and./or c) become a member ( a citizen) of that country.  Borders around a country are clearly an extension of the same universal human practice of defining, controlling, maintaining, enforcing laws and protecting property against all not members of the defining group.

In recent years we have heard so many comments, and read opinion pieces in the media, regarding the existence of borders.  State borders, County borders, the borders of countries are all commented on, and the conversation or discussion always starts with those who think that they are an anachronism and even where they exist, they should not be "guarded" or "controlled."  The United Nations "Agenda 21" program targets changing the world-wide perception of borders of countries as "dividing" to one of simple "address" concerns with the emphasis being on World Wide Unified governing.

Is this natural?  Is it logical?  Does it sound..."right"?  The  policy of enforcing borders of a country creates strong emotions...both for and against.

Those having these disparate viewpoints rarely communicate (they both talk, but rarely does either "listen"). It seems appropriate to look at and evaluate both viewpoints, their goals, and the effect on every man, women, and/or child that lives with what is now and what may be to come.

The most compelling observations on this subject involve observing and evaluating human behavior at all ages; consider the following:

• As soon as children begin to socialize, they experiment with sharing and establishing the idea of and promotion of "mine!"  That is an ongoing concept every child honors naturally.  They need parents or other adults to teach and then enforce the concept of sharing.
• As children reach the age of schooling, they do learn to share and cooperate for a purpose.  The sharing or giving is arguably never self-less; it is to gain something (this can be money, return gifts at a later time or even an emotional reward of feeling good about giving someone something.  But always there is a purpose that is seen as desirable by the one "giving" something with the parallel judgement that nothing bad can result from the giving.
• As we grow, the natural establishment of borders and boundaries continues.  Notice how quickly children(s)' rooms become theirs; there is a cry of "can't you knock" from kids as their parents open the door to their bedrooms,  and the whining only increases if a parent goes into that room without permission or searches through the possessions in that room.  Again...borders.
• Leaving the family home and establishing other quarters exhibit the desire to establish and defend borders even more intensely.  NOW there are locks, and violation of the borders results in societal enforcement (the Police and Courts get involved and they enforce the borders by fining or imprisoning the offender(s).
• Purchasing property further extends creating borders.  And those borders are enforced by society by laws against trespassing, burglary and robbery, even as many home and property owners erect fences to delineate and prevent trespassing and other prohibited forms of invasion.
• Even in business the human race establishes borders: desk space, cubical space and formal offices with doors and locks.  Violating the established boundaries can result in losing one's job.

Group behavior mimics the desire for boundaries.  Villages, Towns, Cities, Counties, states and countries all have boundaries and borders.  People living within the various boundaries share the common costs of the given area: police for protection, road creation and maintenance that benefits all, utility maintenance and rate control oversight, building codes, school costs and other needs and agreed upon desires; by renting or owning property you agree to the rules of these "boundaries."  And it benefits all who qualify.

The United States of America is just such a group.  We fought to remove the "boundaries" or borders of England in order to create out own "group" with our own set of rules for living together.  In our case this was the Constitution and the ideals presented so succinctly in the Declaration of Independence.  Today's United States of America was created by wars, by purchase and by treaties.  Once acquired, we established "boundaries" and "borders" that reflected "ours" and an implicit warning that "outsiders" would only be allowed if they abided by our rules and requirements for entering, visiting and immigrating to our country.  Our government was and remains in charge of defining and enforcing those rules, which have changed over the years.

Respect for law and a desire to abide by laws is only natural to about 30% of us; and lack of respect or desire to abide by any laws rules another 20%.  The remaining 50% will govern their lives by whatever the laws and rules governing behavior declare to be acceptable.  But it is only the laws that are written, but the enforcement of them that makes them real and governing.  It is arguably the failure to enforce laws that has reduced the general respect for all laws in today's America that has resulted in so many crimes and so much disrespectful behavior.  To many in positions of authority had refused to enforce laws because they believe them to be wrong;  they have never worked to get our legislature(s) to change the laws or write new ones with which the disagree.  Yet the voters have continued to return to office the people who have abdicated their oath's of office to enforce our laws and protect the citizens.

Would those who argue for no border enforcement allow strangers onto their property and/or into their homes?  Would those same people give up their security services, fences and locks to allow anyone at all to come onto their property, into their homes, take possession of rooms in their houses as living and entertainment quarters without objection?

Would you?

What the "no borders" supporters want is identical to the goal of the United Nations "Agenda 21."  The goal is a world government where a country's borders are equal to State, or county, or Town boundaries: for maintenance and policing only with no legal prohibitions of free movement from one to the other of any sort.

The Laws of the United States as of this moment require formal permission to enter our country if you are not a citizen of the United States.  And if not a citizen, you have no right to vote in our national elections upon punishment of law.  If you want to change that, it is our Federal Government that must vote changes in border enforcement and immigration law.  In the meantime (until and unless the law is changed) our Congress and President must:

1. Secure our borders
2. prevent as well as remove any and all persons who cross our borders illegally.

Can any government or society survive without borders?

My opinion (and I could be wrong) is...yes, but not for long. All of us want freedom for ourselves and, as long as it doesn't cause us harm or discomfort, for others.  But if the freedoms granted (or appear to be granted to) others becomes a violation of our own freedom, that attitude not only vanishes, but reverses; if there is going to be some loss of freedoms, then let it be by "others," not us.  Over time, the resentment builds to the point where the governmental entity that eliminated the concept of "borders" loses general public support and respect.  Revolution or "Coups Detat" cannot be far behind and will be led by those advocating the re-imposition of enforceable borders and immigration rules that protect the present "citizens" of the area withing those borders, provided we preserve our Second Amendment Rights to Own Firearms.

What do you think?  And why?