English as the United States Official Language

About half of the countries in the world do not have an official language, such as America, such as Australia, to which English and its particular local dialect modifications exist as the de facto language of the country, but is not in fact by law the official language of the country, in contrast to countries such as France and Spain that do have an official language, which obviously respectively is French and Spanish.  Perhaps it is questionable as to whether the United States needs an official national language, as the country seems to operate just fine without it, but this doesn't mean that it couldn't run better, or be better off, with an official language.

In fact, 31 of our 50 States have declared English as the official language of their respective States.  The primary reason that they have done so is so that the population as a whole will more easily and more readily assimilate English as the language of choice and subsequently be able to communicate better and for all thereby to better understands each other.  Declaring English as the official language of an individual State doesn't mean that somehow other languages are outlawed; instead it means that the State apparatus may conduct its business in the language of English, as opposed to being compelled by law to furnish materials in languages other than English.  Of course, in America, it has already been adjudicated that Federal law trumps over State Law, so for Federal regulations, States would still be under Federal law language requirements.

The language used most often after English in America is Spanish.  While it is understandable that people that know only Spanish, or come from a Spanish heritage, would prefer to speak and to read, in their pleasure as well as in their work, and to conduct overall their life in Spanish, that does little or nothing to properly assimilate these residents into the very fabric of American life.  Language is the way that we communicate with each other, and it is important for a united country to be able to communicate effectively.  Additionally, there should never be two countries within a nation, or three, or even more, we should all be one country, united, under one flag and with one purpose.

In truth, we do our fellow citizens a grand disservice when we permit, aid and abet them, and encourage them to speak in a language that is not the true de facto language of choice in America.  We should instead do everything that we can to see that instead of living within a nation on self-imposed language-created crutches, as they strain to understand English, or, much worse, ignore English as a language, that they are instead given the opportunity to learn and to excel in English through tools and programs that are specifically built around accomplishing these worthy goals.

The United States is still a nation with prejudices, and with quick judgments, to which it would far better serve residents of this great country, to put forth the effort to become proficient in English so as to put a sword through the lie that they aren't "real" Americans.  This country needs more bi-lingual people, because America is the international leader in commerce, and believes itself to be first in peace and desires greatly to be the beacon of light of freedom for all peoples to aspire to in this world, no matter their creed, color, sex, or preferred language. 

While it may not be necessary to make English the official language of these United States, this country knows the virtue of literacy for all which makes for a greater nation of people knowledgeable in their own affairs, knowing English should also be part of that firm foundation that strengthens the ties that bind us into one nation, whole and indivisible.

Chemical warfare and Indiscriminate Bombing

Men have been killing other men since the advent of civilization.  Not too surprisingly, countries at war are always looking for better and more efficient ways to kill or to destroy infrastructure during times of war, especially if those means of warfare will place their soldiers and equipment less in the line of fire.  During World War I, the interminable trench warfare, led itself to the "solution" that instead of endless battles that never seemed to allow either side to gain ground, it was thought that chemical agents released into the air and placed in the direction of the enemy, would be able to "clear up" the trenches.   This modified form of warfare was essentially taking previous chemical weaponry, such as poisoned arrows, and modernizing in such a massive way that properly applied it would either incapacitate for a long period of time the enemy, or kill him.  From that perspective, chemical warfare was extremely effective; enemies suffering from the noxious gases were effectively incapacitated with blindness or severe lung damage or a painful death.   

For whatever reasons, and there are several valid ones, chemical warfare was essentially banned by all civilized nations in the aftermath of World War I.  There are plenty of valid arguments that make logical sense as to why chemical warfare was banned, such as the inhumanness of its effects, it also being an in-discriminatory weapon that kills or disables all life, whether animal, civilian, or military, and importantly since poison gases are subject to wind to which wind directions can be suddenly changed in ways not expected, chemical warfare fell quickly out of favor for warfare. 

Yet, chemical weaponry is still used by most combative nations today, typically in the form of riot control using "tear gas".  The reason why a chemical agent such as 2-Chlorobenzalmalononitrile (tear gas) is able to get a pass from the chemical weapons ban, is because it is perceived to be only an short-lived irritation which exhibits just a temporary disabling effect.    However, tear gas is banned from international conflicts and is thereby only legal to be used in domestic disputes.  This, in of itself, should be a warning flag that tear gas is not as innocuous as its name implies, which is true because tear gas incapacitates respiratory functions, can create skin lesions, severe vomiting, possible death, along with the implied tearing up and significant irritation to your eyes and consequently your vision.

While chemical warfare is banned and considered to be a crime against humanity, if used, indiscriminate bombing in which civilians and military targets are not properly segregated from the destructive force and wanton release of enemy bombing should be banned, and it is banned in most countries through Protocol I of the Geneva Convention of 1977, but this Protocol has not been ratified by the United States or Israel, along with a few other countries.  This means that countries such as the United States can claim justification for indiscriminate "carpet bombing", which essentially is a callous disregard for civilian life and property, all for the nebulous gain of controlling or clearing land without proper regard for strategicneeds or humanity. 

It makes no logical sense to on the one hand ban chemical warfare, while on the other hand allowing the indiscriminate bombing and its attendant destruction of infrastructure and population.  The main difference between the two is that chemical warfare is something that most countries can ramp up to in a very short period of time, whereas aerial bombardment necessitates a multitude of tools, monies, experience, expertise, air support, and probably the purchase of said weaponry and training from a Western Nation.

Blacks Use to Own Farms

The Emancipation Proclamation was made effective as of January 1, 1863, freeing all slaves that resided in the States that were still in a state of rebellion, while later the critical Amendments of the 13th through 15th to the Constitution were ratified upon the conclusion of the War Between the States, prohibiting slavery throughout America, granting citizenship to all those born or naturalized in the United States, and granting the right to vote to all citizens of the United States.  Of course, mere words, no matter how elegant and meaningful, have ever been enough to rectify pass practices or wrongs, nor was this the case in America, but these measures most definitely created new law, protecting and freeing citizens that until that time were often in a state of involuntary servitude or worse.

Because blacks were primarily utilized on plantations for the raising of crops such as cotton, corn, and rice, it was no great surprise that blacks developed then great skills and knowledge of how to work and to manage land effectively across America.  Additionally, farming is an industry, that doesn't necessitate great scholastic skills, but instead favors those that are industrious, diligent, and dedicated to their craft.  In truth, farming is an occupation that just having "book smarts" may not be of any great benefit in the practical application of the tasks needed to succeed on the field level, whereas "knowing" the land, its habits, its proclivities, and its feel is a specific knowledge held in a very high regard.

According to Black Farmers in America:  "In 1920 black Americans made up 14 percent of all the farmers in the nation and worked 16 million acres of land," whereas today, " black farmers account for less than 1 percent of the nation’s farmers and cultivate fewer than 3 million acres of farmland." This is a modern-day tragedy, as farming has essentially reverted back to the province of an almost exclusively white male dominated industry, dominated not only by just whites, but dominated by massive agri-businesses on a unprecedented scale.  While we can admire the great productivity and skills of our modern day farmers, and cropland producers, to which our output is the envy of the entire world, we must also hold our heads in shame that this is done at the expense of minorities, most notably blacks, but also those of Hispanic origin.

There are a significant amount of black grandparents in the south, or great-grandparents, that are able to tell stories of the land, crops, and/or livestock that they use to have on their family farms, but unfortunately their children's children typically aren't living on that same land or even able to really identify with the stories that their forefathers are still imparting in the twilight of their years.  That would not necessarily be a tragedy if today's generation were far exceeding past generations by virtue of their income, their property ownership, and their status in their respective communities, but far too often the farm that was once in the black man's hands are owned, once again, by someone else, and the net proceeds from the sale of that land has been spent or extinguished with little or nothing to show for it.

Historically, the ownership of valuable farm and croplands has not been conducted on a level playing field.  Additionally, the subsidies, considerations, connections, and political ties for croplands all favor the privileged class often at the expense of minorities.  The lack of diversification in the ownership of our farmland translates to the reverting back to antebellum days, to which in those days the man that owned the income-producing property, owned the lion's share of the wealth, and well understood that he who owns the property is his own master.

Tickets for Everything

What does fighting in public, a dog trespassing on a neighbor's property or off of its leash outside its own property, a man standing in a particular place for too long, and the picking of flowers on public property have in common?  They are all potential crimes, misdemeanor offenses, to which the police officer will, at his discretion, ticket you for the offense.  Our city, country, and states have so many ordinances and offenses listed on their books it isn't even possible for you as a citizen to even be aware of all of them.  Additionally, many so-called misdemeanor offenses are already covered well enough under general laws, so it isn't necessary or appropriate to add additional trivial nuisance laws.

For instance, most fighting in public shouldn't be a ticket for a lot of reasons, mainly because the public isn't being hurt by it and might instead be entertained or interested in it because Americans pay good money to watch fighting on TV.  However, if the fight becomes some sort of riot, that would be a crime, or if the fight ends up causing true bodily harm, that also could be a crime, depending upon the circumstances, the fairness, and the extent of the harm.   The fact of the matter is that fights are going to happen in order to protect your reputation, over a girl or a boy, over a perceived insult, over a bad day in general, to test your courage, or your stupidity, and so forth.  While fights can be a very bad thing, they can also be a testing ground and a lesson to be learned, so ticketing the participants in a fight basically resolves nothing while annoying virtually everyone else.

The ticketing of a dog for trespassing on a neighbor's property by virtue of the fact he escaped his own backyard is ridiculous unless the damage is of some significance, or the ticketing of a female dog that is "in heat" but off of her leash outside her property is absurd ye these tickets are issued.  Receiving a ticket for walking off of a designated trail in a city park doesn't seem fair or even to make a whole lot of sense, because you shouldn't just be limited to walking within the trail to begin with, because either the park in its entirety is public property or it isn't and you are a representative of the public.  Additionally, there shouldn't be any tickets for loitering on public property, because unless you are actually committing a crime, you should be able to contemplate life at your own leisure.

Frankly, the real impetus for tickets on misdemeanor offenses is to harass and to also control the public, additionally to increase revenue by the income these tickets produce, which you are not going to be successful in overturning.   All of this breeds an us v. them mentality, to which we know for a certainty that these tickets and misdemeanors are really initiated to catch and fine certain undesirables while on the other hand ignoring discriminatory or wrongful behavior by the elite and privileged classes who are served their evening drinks and meals by undocumented aliens in the quietude of their neighborhood.

The Looking Glass

There are probably a multitude of items that Americans just takes for granted on a day-to-day basis to which if we didn't have these items, we would certainly notice them missing from our lives.  Take, for instance, your ordinary mirror, which comes in a variety of common ways, from your traditional bathroom mirror attached to the wall, to your handheld mirror usually located in your bathroom, to your full length dressing mirror found often in your bedroom, to your pocket mirror that most women wouldn't be caught dead without, and to the rearview mirror in our automobiles.  This doesn't even take into account the industrial uses of mirrors, which encompasses spotlights, flashlights, telescopes, and cameras, along with many other usages.

Humans are visual creatures to which you will spend your entire life, never once seeing yourself physically from outside your body, only through the aid of an mirror will you be able to see your face and that face will have a left/right reversal to it, and only with the aid of another mirror will you be able to get a true look at your backside.  Since humans spend an inordinate amount of time looking at others, gazing at others, to not have a mirror to see yourself on a routine basis, would be a stunning reversal of fortune.  In point of fact, the first mirrors were bodies of still water that could capture your reflection under the right lighting conditions, to which in Greek mythology we are told of the beautiful and proud Narcissus, who lead to a body of water by Nemesis was able to see his reflection for the first time, fell in love with this image, not realizing that it was his own, and unable to receive reciprocal love from this image, despaired and committed suicide.

Fortunately, today mirrors are common items, but if they weren't, most people would be shocked, appalled, or distressed upon seeing the image of their face for the first time, not so much because they would instantly notice their flaws, while ignoring their beauty, but mainly because of all the time they had previously spent staring, grooming, and examining others while making in their mind's eye a composite sketch of their own face, which would invariably be found to be in error.  There would therefore be that initial disbelief that the reflected image must be a lie before an ultimate resignation that the face they saw reflected back to them was indeed their face that the public and friends had always gazed upon.

Billions upon billions of dollars are spent on cosmetic products yearly, mainly because we can see ourselves through our mirrors, as contrasted to our ability to simply see others.  If mirrors or the looking glass for some reason didn't exist, our humility would probably be a lot higher, and our vanity would most likely be a lot lower.  Instead, through the looking glass, our pride has swelled up; our envy for those that are more beautiful than ourselves fills us with wrath, we lust for others or even for ourselves, we are greedy for more of everything that will boost us up, yet often we are too lazy to put forth the effort to do so, and finally when all else fails, we find solace in excessive wine and food.

Surnames that keep getting longer and longer

There were 56 signatories to our Declaration of Independence, to which none of them had names that were more than three syllables, and while last names of one-to-three syllables are still common in the United States, they aren't as common as they use to be.  Instead, you have names such as Warszawski, Mihhailov, Papadopoulos, Giordano, Kavaliauskas, Olajowon, Milosevic, Iglesais, Shevchenko, dos Santos Aveiro, and so forth.  There was a time when Eastern European immigrants or other immigrants would anglicize their name, or abbreviate it, or simplify it basically to fit in more seamlessly with the mainstream of America.  This would then make it easier for them to be identified more in a manner consistent to the American way of life, but this is far less likely to occur in the 21st century. 

Shakespeare asked the question, "what's in a name," and for the most part the answer seems to be that other countries have certain traditions or naming conventions that necessitate the lengthening of surnames.  For instance, in many countries patronyms or sometimes matronyms are the basis for the formulation of a given last name.  Basically, a patronymic naming convention takes the name of the father and combines it in such a manner as to display the lineage of their family.  So a name such as Kowalczyk means "Smith's son" and Jansons means "son of Janis".  Another naming convention is a reflection of the trade of the father, so that Lakatos means "locksmith", and Schneider means "tailor".  One's surname can also reflect the part of the country that you are from, such as Van Der Meer which means "from the lake".

Then there are countries that seem to just add on suffixes to names, such as "ski" or "owicz" which at one time might have signified that the person hailed from nobility, but today doesn't signify that at all, because surnames were often only given to nobility back in days of nobility and serfs, but as a middle class developed, the middle class gained surnames, which eventually found its way down to the common folk, and logically in order to identify ourselves, surnames were created that either displayed lineage, or a trade, or the township that the person was from.

In America, one of the naming conventions that has gained some traction over recent years is the combination of a two names into a combined or hyphenated last name, such as when two people get married, to which the last name will then become, for example, Hopkins-Wilson.  In most Latin American countries it is common to have double surnames to which they are not hyphenated and for everyday usage only the first surname is used.  The creation of a surname typically contains the father's first surname being used first and the mother's first surname being used second, so that when Pablo Sanchez Rodriguez has a child with Maria Garcia Lopez, their child's surname will be Sanchez Garcia.

Because America is such a melting pot, we have quite a variety in surnames, in their naming conventions, and in their traditions.  The fact that people today have a tendency to maintain their surnames consistent to their heritage helps us to recognize that America is far more inclusive than it has ever been.

Licenses and Permits

America is full of regulations and petty laws that seem in most cases not to be of any benefit or of a good purpose for the population at large, but simply another form of taxation and/or regulation of the citizen.  While you can make a strong argument that all people who drive automobiles should be mandated to demonstrate their competency in their understanding of traffic laws as well as in their ability to drive, mainly because vehicular accidents can involve bodily harm and even death, there are on the other hand plenty of other licenses and permits that just don't really make any good sense, and certainly aren't necessary for the population as a whole.  For instance, there isn't any good reason why you should need a tennis permit to play tennis on a public court in New York City, to which the seasonal permit costs $200 for adults age 18-61.  Additionally, there are some States that require a cosmetology license or similar to shampoo hair, or to braid hair, or to apply makeup, or to thread eyebrows, to which all this essentially accomplishes nothing more than raising the cost of entry for budding entrepreneurs.

Licenses and permits in America aren't necessary at the levels that we currently have them at and fining or punishing citizens for their lack of knowing that some obscure law applies to them isn't right.  Government bureaucrats, busy-bodies, and businesses game the system by creating barriers of entry which leads inevitably to a witch's brew of unnecessary licenses, to which it is the citizen that comes out invariably the loser.  The proponents of more licenses and permits are all too eager to point out how these laws will protect you, or are fair to the public as a whole, or necessary, but it really translates down to that they want to micro-manage you and the population as a whole.

After all, the more barriers that you put in place, the more roadblocks and signage that you insist upon, and the more "learning" that you mandate for items to which common sense and the sovereignty of the individual could decide just as well as to what is right for him, and further where and how he wants to spend his money and his time, the more you have infringed upon a man's right for his own pursuit of happiness.   In a free country, mandatory licenses and permits would be few and far between, to which if a business or individual found that it was conductive for his credibility to prove his worth in a certain area of expertise, a pathway for a certificate or similar could or would be created, of certain standards, which would be voluntary of behalf of that individual or company.

The main issue with licenses and permits is that it never seems to end, that is to say, once the process is started, it just keeps on going and growing, to which it could be argued that just about everything and everyone could be setup for a license or a permit.  For instance, why allow just anyone to be a doorman in NYC, shouldn’t he have taken training in civility and courtesy?  Perhaps also all cashiers and bank tellers should be required to have a permit that allows them to handle US currency and so on. 

In reality, licenses and permits are for the most part really just another way to monitor and to control the population, to make this a country not of innovators and free thinkers, but a country of sheep, and meek permission seekers from a godless and misguided bureaucracy.

ID and Alcohol

The United States allows each State to set their own standards in regards to alcohol sales and the identification required to demonstrate proof that individuals are of age to purchase alcohol whether in a liquor store, a grocery store, a retail store, or a restaurant.  The fact that the identification law isn't consistent from State to State, from county to county, from store to store, is part of what makes America great, because often establishments can set their own standards as to what makes the most logical sense for them and their customer service.  However, in certain States as well as in particular counties within a State, the State or county authority may designate very specific standards of identification that will or won't be acceptable for the purchase of alcohol.  Further, those States or counties may take perfectly valid forms of identification such as a military ID or a passport or a foreign driver's license or an out-of-State driver's license and stipulate by law that these forms of ID are not meeting their particular requirements.  Further to this point, and especially galling, there are some counties which make it a policy that all individuals, no matter their age, must show valid ID to purchase alcohol or the respective sale will not be made. 

As always, when counties and States pass laws they ostensibly do so under the guise that this will protect the community and its citizens.  This would presuppose a couple of things, one being that before these laws were passed, somehow the community was in some sort of greater danger and further that asserting the arbitrary authority of the State or county against a mere individual is always a good rule of thumb.  The fact of the matter is, if a person wishing to consume alcohol is of age, the laws that mandate that only a certain particular piece of identification is acceptable, serves only the purpose of making it more difficult for particular peoples within a community to purchase alcohol.  For instance, not everyone has a car, not everyone has a valid driver's license, not everyone is a legal resident in America, not everyone carries ID with him 24/7, yet typically we know that those that lack a driver's license and consistent ID on their persons, are invariably those that are underserved by their community to begin with, so strict identification laws are really, in essence, just another way of harassing or interfering with an individual's pursuit of happiness and general freedom.

Additionally, and very important to the whole format of having to constantly display one's ID to employees of establishments is the meaningful fact that your driver's license is the very road that an indiscriminate person could easily take advantage of.  Your driver's license has your real and full name, your real and full current address, your real age, height, weight, and a unique identification number assigned just to you.  All of these are the very tools that nefarious persons would love to be able to get their hands on in order to perhaps harass you, harm you, stalk you, or to become you.  So that you can easily state, that the routine handing over of your ID to people that have no real justification for having it, is a potential and real menace to your own health and safety.

Greatest Military Power in the World Should be Able to End Poverty in its own Country

The United States, is clearly the most dominant military power in the world, to which its tentacles, its influence, its imprint, its force is felt in virtually every country and virtually every nook of every area of the world.  The problem though with being the greatest military power in the world is that while that achievement may have its merits on certain levels, it is also a given that the power to kill, the power to destroy, the power to tear down, is in essence a negative power, a destructive power.  Consequently, destroying other country's infrastructure, their foodstuffs, their fuel, and their opportunity, is not the mark of a great nation, but is most definitely the mark of a nation that lacks the imagination, the wisdom, and the vision to effect real change at a mature and caring level. 

I have never appreciated the metaphor, that we need to "wage a war on poverty", because we are not now, nor have we ever been at war with poverty.  After all, you cannot eliminate poverty by shooting at it; instead, to eliminate poverty, you must create the conditions to bring prosperity and/or opportunity for all and to achieve that takes a concerted and a dedicated group effort with foresight.  Since, President Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964, fifty years have passed, and yet poverty still exists in America.  In 1964, the trend line was clearly trending down and from a level of 19% in 1964; the poverty rate went down at an impressive rate to as low as 11.2% in 1974, whereas the poverty rate for 2013 as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau is currently at 14.5%, which means that in the last forty years, poverty has increased and not decreased in America.  Further, this translates to a total of 45.68 million Americans that live below the poverty line, this in a nation that is widely perceived to be the greatest nation the world has ever known and also the most prosperous. 

Perhaps there are those that believe that we will always have the poor amongst us, and that although our poverty rate appears to be great, that this is simply the nature of the game, or perhaps there are those that believe that America gives everyone an equal opportunity to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps and that therefore they should do so, or perhaps that the very definition of poverty is arbitrary, and simply those that we call "impoverished", really aren't lacking in much of anything that you need in order to survive, and to simply get over it, or better yet just get a job.  None of these criticisms are very fair, especially considering that America spends $840 billion dollars on military defense, whereas the last time that Congress declared war was in 1941!

The poverty rate in America is a modern day tragedy, completely unnecessary, take Taiwan (the Republic of China), for instance, this island nation of nearly 24 million peoples, has a poverty rate as estimated by the World Factbook, CIA, for 2010 of 1.16%, although it is estimated as of 2012 that their poverty rate has risen to 1.78%, as noted by bbc.com.  This is an incredible achievement for a country that as recently as 1950, had a per capita income of a mere $50 per year as reported by fee.org.  The United States would do well to study the characteristics of what makes a country prosper over such a short period of time and it would probably find that it is not from having a military that acts as if it is the world's policeman, but comes more from emphasizing and encouraging good morals, good ethics, hard work, dedication, fairness, sound education, rule of law, and a return to the grit and determination of all of the best of America.

Exploitation of Overseas Labor

America didn't become this great bastion of democratic virtue overnight, especially in regards to how labor, corporations, and government agencies conducted business with each other.  Even today, within our borders, there are illegal "sweatshops" in NYC, in LA, along with our imported and exploited migrant farm workers.  However, with a free press, publicity, legal teams, and a general concern for social justice, exploitation of labor workers within the USA is a constant battle to which labor at least has a voice and a chance for change, justice, and fairness.  Today, for much of America there are specific labor laws that are applicable which protect and enhance the working experience so that employees are compensated at an agreed upon wage, with working conditions that are civil and fair.

Fast forward to our modern-day world and the biggest corporations in the world are often multi-national conglomerates with branches and employees all over the globe.  Often these corporations have a choice as to where to conduct certain aspects of their business, whether here or overseas, to which the cost to create product, the availability and knowhow of labor, the cost of infrastructure, and tax considerations are all significant factors in the ultimate decision that is made.  It doesn't take a genius to understand that if the overall costs are significantly lower in a foreign land, that these firms will take their business and workload to those countries.  After all, they are greatly concerned with their profits, their gross margin, and often they have competitive considerations to attend to.

The fundamental question that must be asked, though, is does our duty to our fellow man, end at our borders or should our principles and our obligations be attached to our American-based corporation, so that consequently they are morally bound to uphold our standards throughout the world as representatives of this great nation.  It would seem that this question has already been answered, as the labor conditions in factories located in countries such as China are often shown to be appalling with excessive labor hours, the usage of dangerous chemicals and inhalation of chemical fumes, oppressive living conditions, under-age workers, and always an overriding demand to make things better, quicker, faster, smarter, and cheaper in order to fulfill not only the contract to the master contractor but to turn a profit for the Chinese factory and/or maintain or earn bonuses for the management and the ownership of said factory.

While big American conglomerates are quick to point out how much they have done to assure that their overseas factory conditions are fair and in compliance with their supplier responsibility programs, they often see only what they want to see, and ignore what they want or need to ignore.  After all, the bottom line for these massive multi-national companies is money, gross margin, profitability, quality, timeliness, and performance, consequently they will allow themselves to be "fooled" or hoodwinked by these factories, because it is perceived to be in their best interests to do so.

The exploitation of overseas labor will continue as long as it is the corporations themselves that police their own actions and their compliance.  Only with a truly independent, international, and/or government body or bodies interfacing with these multi-national companies will meaningful change commence as these corporations hold the upper hand by virtue of the fact that they dangle the allure of the carrot while their overseas factories wield the stick.

Are Corporations People?

The above question seems absurd, not even worthy of being considered, but when you have case law that has already decided this issue in the affirmative, indeed, at the level of our highest court; the question deserves more than a cursory dismissal.  To begin with, we must first answer the question as to what is a corporation.  While a corporation may be many different things, at its core, a corporation is a collection of individuals, or even especially in the instance of a limited liability corporation (LLC) a corporation can be just one individual.  Consequently, courts have ruled that corporations should be treated as people for certain legal issues. While the whole concept of corporations being people for certain legal purposes should be just a sideshow, virtually meaningless for most of us,  it has instead become a  highly-charged rallying pointbecause of the perceived unfairness of political financial contributions from corporations acting as individuals so as to circumvent donation limits as well as the end-around in regards to corporations complaining vehemently of being implicitly involved in terminating human life by being compelled to support and to finance a health care act that legalizes and permits such a termination.

In regards to political contributions, there has been historically a very high correlation between the amount of donations made to the success of the candidate(s) involved or to the ballot proposition proposed.  The Supreme Court Decision of 2010 essentially removed the previous limits and most of the restrictions that were imposed upon corporations for federal elections under the guise that the government may not suppress political speech at a federal level.  The problem with this type of judicial decision is that corporations have the money, strength, and resources to easily overwhelm and to dominate any one individual or virtually any conceivable group of individuals.   For instance, ExxonMobil had sales of nearly $500 billion in fiscal year 2013, a number that exceeds the GDP of all than about 25 countries in the world.  Further to this point, corporations by definition are setup to be perpetual continuing enterprises to wit that although they birth, they are never meantto die, so consequently their desires and their goals will never be satiated, making corporations not so much akin to a person, but more alike to modern-day Harpies.

As for corporations being able to have certain laws set aside that are meant to be applied equally to companies of the same size and type, such as the Affordable Care Act law, the recent decision to which corporations such as Hobby Lobby are able to deny certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds is reasoned incorrectly.  While I respect Hobby Lobby's position and believe it to be sincere, it is at the same time, no more valid than taking the position that a conscientious objector or similar should be able to set aside a certain portion of their taxes that would be paid to the U.S. Treasury, because on moral grounds that do not believe it is right o take another man's life under any circumstances and any monetary support that they would provide is unconscionable to them.

While I do recognize the validity of treating corporations as people for certain specific and limited reasons, this is a door that must be guarded diligently and effectively, because if not, this country, if it isn't already, will become a servant to the military-industrial complex as well as to other mega-conglomerates to which the typical individual will be essentially nothing more than a hired serf with some benefits.

America, a Christian Nation?

It is taken as a given by most religious Americans, that the United States of America is a Christian nation, founded by Christians, for Christians.  But is this really true?  There are plenty of secularists that believe that America is a secular nation, or if not secular, not a Christian nation and they point out that our Constitution, its' Bill of Rights, and our Declaration of Independence, mentions the words, "Jesus", "Christ", or "Christian," a grand total of zero times.  Still there are others that admit to the Christian or Judeo-Christian heritage of America while also recognizing America as being the birthplace of religious tolerance, and accommodating therefore of all religious thought and belief.

The most important document in American history is its Declaration of Independence, declaring our freedom from the political bands of Great Britain, and setting forth a new proposition, that it was self-evident that all men are created equal, a thought that was stunningly revolutionary at the time and the very basis of the foundation of this great republic.  Our Declaration of Independence, invokes the word of God, five separate times, as "Laws of Nature," "Nature's God," "Creator,"  "Supreme Judge," and "Divine Providence."   Clearly, the Declaration of Independence recognizes that we are children of God, and brothers in arms by our equal creation.

The Constitution of the United States and its attendant Bill of Rights, invokes religious imagery or thought only three times.  It is in Article VI, to which it specifically states that "…no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office…" it also is seen in the signatory part of the Constitution with "… in the Year of our Lord…" and finally as written in our First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  Clearly, the Constitution is not a religious instrument, which isn't too surprising, since the primary purpose of our Constitution was to consolidate the thirteen states into a republic, with specific delegation of powers and structure created to allow the USA to ratify treaties, conduct commerce, and to defend our new nation.

Taking a close look at these founding documents, along with our Founding Fathers, it is clear that they saw America as a nation, under the Providence of one omnipotent God.  Further, America was gracious enough to recognize and to accommodate religious tolerance, so that initially each State had their own establishment of religion, such as Anglican, Congregational, or no one established religion.  For instance, the New Jersey State Constitution in 1776 stated: "That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor, under any pretense whatever, be compelled to attend any place of worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any person, within this Colony, ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged himself to perform."

Consequently, for those that believe America was founded as a secular state, or somehow became upon the ratification of our Constitution a secular state, or would be more true to its roots if it became a secular state, they are fundamentally wrong and are clearly in error in judgment.  As for whether America is a Christian nation and/or a Godly nation, know this, from Luke 10:27, "… Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."  Further, from the Quran, Verse 9:129, "…. God is enough for me. There is no god but He…"  Also, Talmud Shabbat Folio 31A, "… What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor…"

Then remember, these great words, "… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…"  There you will find your answer.

America and its treatment of the Wretched Refuse

Has America ever lived up to its great inscription on the Statue of Liberty, to be a beacon of life and of hope to the masses of not only the world, but within its own borders?  Too often, America treats its poor, its disadvantaged, its ill-educated, its limited opportunity residents, its minorities, its people that have the wronglook, the wrong address, and the wrong family structure, as if poverty is a crime, rather than a symptom of a systemic wrong within the United States itself.  Rather than giving each American citizen a true and fair opportunity to pursue happiness and to breathe the fresh air of invigorating freedom, too often the educational institutions, the welfare structure, police and justice forces, close the door on those that are designated as undesirable, too much trouble, or considered to be worthless to the State apparatus.  It isn't right, it's indeed a disturbing disgrace to the very foundational principles of this great nation, and it isn't necessary.

The judgment against the poor, against children that come from impoverished circumstances, live on the wrong side of the tracks, with few of the traits and capabilities that make for good habits and good decisions, is started at a very young age.  America gives up on its youth, before they are even given a fair chance to be an integral part of society, to become responsible and good citizens, because within the bowels of the American mindset there is a consensus that it is just cheaper and more efficient to simply treat certain segments of the American population as if they were nuisances that needs to be put under lock and key, or constantly monitored, or legally drugged up to pacify them, and then removed from society at large.  The United States takes the basic position, that a certain and peculiar portion of our population must be essentially treated as if they didn't exist or were never born.

Unfortunately, for America, this wretched refuse which is cast aside, continues to teem upon our shore, year after year, generation after generation, which presupposes that America needs to take a careful and considerate look at its institution itself, in order to determine whether there is something within America that contributes to this unfortunate state of affairs.  The answer will be found, that America is a nation that quits on its troubled youth, that quits on those that have difficult and trying circumstances, and that at no point does America truly give a fair account of itself to those that only ask that they be given the same consideration as if there were the "chosen ones" rather than treated as misfits, and beneath the dignity of our compassion.

Countries can be judged on many different attributes and metrics, but in reality, there is only one standard that any country should have to give account to, and that is whether that country was a true brother and a fair steward of its resources and knowledge.  Far too often, America treats its poor, those of the wrong complexion or religion, or family circumstances, or general cleanliness, as if they were God forsaken, and consequently shuns them, when, in reality, it is America itself, haughty and full of hubris, that has turned its back on its Creator, and will find that upon its day of judgment, it will be found wanting and consequently tormented in a hell of its own making.

Why Salt Water?

Our earth is made up of nearly 71% water, which is absolutely wonderful, considering that the human body itself is approximately 65% water and that while man can live for two to three weeks and possibly even longer without food, he cannot live more than perhaps three to five days without drinkable water.  However, despite the fact that the earth is majority water, approximately 97% of all water on our planet is salt water and therefore undrinkable.  Further, the majority of our fresh water is retained in ice caps and glaciers, leaving humanity a paltry 1% of water that is readily available and drinkable, to serve all of humanity on earth.

The question that must be asked is why is the majority of our water, salty?  It isn't from our rain, which is for the most part, drinkable as is, and of immense importance for crops, animals, and agriculture.  Instead, our oceans are salty, because of the mineral salts that dissolve into the ocean from rocks and other mineral formations, as well as from gaseous substances that burst or leak through the earth's crust.  In our water cycle, the sun essentially heats water in our oceans, which basically then vaporizes or evaporates pure water from our seas, taking then these vapors up into the atmosphere, where eventually clouds are formed, and subsequently rain is released back onto our earth.   

The bottom line is that our oceans and seas are destined to remain salty, and by definition to remain undrinkable because the consumption of salt water, increases dehydration in your body, as your kidneys cannot excrete efficiently the excess salt brought into our bodies, and must have good fresh water instead in order for our bodies to function properly.  This then points to the extreme importance of drinkable water for humanity and for civilization in general.

It should come as no surprise, then, that mankind has for centuries worked diligently in trying to come up with solutions that will efficiently and effectively desalinized water.  The two main ways to accomplish desalinization is from either the distillation of the seawater or through reverse osmosis.  Distillation is the art of first boiling water to remove the impurities from the water and then condensing the steam back into what will now become purified or distilled water.  In regards to reverse osmosis, water is first forced through a semi-permeable membrane which effectively removes most of the impurities of the water, and subsequently creates drinkable water.

While a lot of progress has been made over the years in effectively desalinizing water, these processes require both time and energy to accomplish their objectives, to which the payback crossover point is not necessarily easily to determine.  That said, because of the great vitality of water to sustain life on our planet, efforts must be continued to be made to efficiently and to consistently provide good clean water to populations throughout our world.  Water is far too great of resource, to simply take for granted, because good clean water is a fundamental need to sustain life on this good earth, for one and for all.

What would our Founding Fathers Think about America Today?

America has a rich history, full of great giants of intellect, effectiveness, morality, courage, and brilliance.  This wonderful nation was forged by not only the blood, sweat, and tears of a country that rose up against its oppressor, but in doing so it stated for all posterity that we recognized the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that we have certain unalienable rights that come not from our government, but are endowed to us by our Creator, and further that it was the representatives of the good people of the American colonies, that declared to the Supreme Judge of the world that we ought to be free and independent states.  Many good people died on both sides of this conflict, so that these words would come to fruition.

Now, we are nearly 240 years removed from this Declaration of Independence, a mighty nation, with a national Constitution of long-standing respect and a prime example to other nations of our wisdom, and the masterful usage of checks and balances to augment and to protect the people of this illustrious nation.  While on the one hand our Founding Fathers if they were to magically re-appear today would be amazed at our growth, our power, our size, our diversity, and our accomplishments; they would on the other hand be appalled that this land founded on the principle that that this is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, appears to be, in fact, a country controlled by averse judicial decisions, an all-powerful military-industrial complex, and the unseen machinations of political savants.

It would be stunning for the Founding Fathers to see how America has degenerated into a State that allows the Supreme Court and judiciaries to dictate to the people what is or isn't law, that by so doing, the people have ceased to be their own rulers and have had their votes effectively negated.  Additionally, the sheer breadth and length of the tentacles of our Government, of the Government apparatus proper to monitor, control, and to bully the American populace would be shocking to our Founding Fathers.  Further, the power to tax is the power to destroy, to see how our tax code is so invasive and as pervasive as it is today, corrupt and unfairly applied, that there is very little correlation between today's tax code and true representation would be of immense disappointment and concern to our Founding Fathers.

President Washington warned us against foreign entanglements, but Thomas Jefferson took it even further by stating, "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended."  How prescient was Jefferson, how true his words, and how we suffer under the yoke of our country that literally has a foothold in all regions of the world, to which, every year the United States, is in some battle with some foreign country or peoples, ignoring the Congressional imperative that only Congress has the power to declare war, but the United States has war, nevertheless.

The moral decay of our country would sadden our Founders, that recognized that our country's very foundation rested on a moral and religious people, to which, the supreme objective of the power brokers of America today, is to sunder religion from the State, so as to bring forth a secular nation, which receives its wisdom not from our Great Benefactor, but by flawed man, himself. 

Finally, while our Founding Fathers would have mixed feelings about America, today, they would, if alive today, never give in, never give up, and never yield to a country that wrongs itself by wronging its people and dishonors its divine destiny.

Victims' Rights

Because America incarcerates such a high percentage of its citizens for all sorts of crimes, somewhere lost in all that noise, is the ultimate consideration which is the victims' rights.  While one can make an argument, that justice is about following the legal code and the legal requirements of a given situation, the victim of said crime must also be taken into serious consideration.  You can make a very valid argument that it is the victim of a crime that should be of primary concern when it comes to real justice and an effort should be made to make this person whole again, and to lose track of the victim and his rights, is a fundamental mistake of legal justice.  Consequently, restorative justice is an area of law that should be studied extensively, and implemented in as many cases as practical.

For instance, if somebody robs your house of your material goods and the perpetrator is later caught, convicted, and sentenced to serve time in prison, what have you as a victim recovered from this?  The only real gain is perhaps a gain for society to which a robber has been put in jail, so as to not give him the opportunity to rob someone else.  But he hasn't paid back anyone for the goods that were stolen, further to incarcerate this man costs the taxpayer's money, and there are typically no conditions set forth to rehabilitate the man or even to understand what circumstances brought forth the crime in the first place.  None of this makes any real good sense, to have it as a policy that incarceration resolves issues is fundamentally flawed, as a far better resolution is something that helps to compensate the victim of the crime itself.

When the State makes a case against an alleged criminal, the victim and his rights must be taken into account, to which the victim should be afforded the opportunity to be an integral part of the prosecution's mindset and the construction of the case at hand.  Upon a conviction, or mediation, or plea bargain, the structure of the punishment, imprisonment, penalty, or whatever, should be looked at in such a manner that would best present the possibility of coming up with a resolution that would, in particular, satisfy the victim, while simultaneously being acceptable to the State, as well as a fair resolution for the convicted person, himself.  To accomplish these tasks in such a way as to give satisfaction and a sense of justice to all, would not be easy, but it is a necessary step in understanding that crimes that are committed by people against other people, should be resolved with those people in mind, and that the State should be facilitators of this action, rather than the State mandating this or that particular action based on its traditional treatment of this particular crime.

Having the attitude that the goal of our legal system is to "put the bad guys in jail" misses the entire point of justice to begin with.  Justice should seldom be about punishment or banishment, but should instead involve restitution, opportunity, testimony, and understanding.  The victim should not be subsumed by the State, as it is the collective victims that make up the State to begin with.  Instead, victims should be seen as to what they really are, individuals that have been denied their pursuit of happiness or worse, and consequently it is to the victim that some sort of collaborative justice should be made.

The largest Creditor Nation Controls the World

At the end of World War I, the power shift of the world was clearly in the United State's favor, to which the United States was the most powerful economic force in the world, destined to become also the world's largest creditor nation, which simple stated meant that in aggregate the financial assets held by the United States were substantially greater than its liabilities to debtor nations.  However, in the 1980s the United States crossed over from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation, and is currently the largest debtor nation in the world in aggregate and on a yearly continuing basis.  This means that foreign investments in the United States exceed the American investments abroad.  While in the short term this allows Americans to maintain their current standard of living, because we are being subsidized by foreign countries, in particular Japan and China, and their investment in us, over the long term, the debtor nation, no matter the size, must make good on their debts through greater productivity, frugality, or if they are unable to service their debt, than through outright default or the devaluation of its currency.

Despite its status as the world's largest debtor nation, the United States is able to currently have its cake and eat it too, because it remains the largest economic and the greatest strategic power in the world.  However, this power is very slowly and inexorably beginning to erode and while today there is essentially no nation, or series of nations, that can dictate the terms of our debt, make no mistake about it, creditors are serious about collecting their debt, on their terms, not on ours.  The debtor is always in thrall to the creditor, and any thinking to the degree, that the United States is too big to fail, too big to be dictated to, that the dollar is the de facto currency of the world by default and will forever remain that way, forgets that things change, and those that are not prepared to pony up to the table, will then find out sadly that the hand that they show down, is the losing hand, with all the attendant miseries of being a loser.

While America blithely goes about its business, as if nothing fundamental has changed, America's economic house has definitely changed and not for the better.  In essence, foreign creditors to America have claim to assets that they control or own and if America is unable to make good on their debts, Americans cede control of these various resources to the creditor nations.  Additionally, if America is unable to service its debts, than the dollar itself must become devalued, and America may also be put under financial restraints as dictated by creditor nations and the like. 

None of this is even necessary if America simply righted its ship, but it seems not to have the moral makeup or suasion to do so.  America wants to consume and purchase goods with perpetual IOUs to the world at large, without putting forth the labor to honestly earn its keep.  The history of the world demonstrates that no nation has survived without struggle, America clearly has lost its way, and if Americans truly believe that they can continue to live this way, which is essentially off of the backs of Japanese and Chinese labor, dark days are coming.

The Endless Battle between Church and State

In this world, there are some countries that are irreligious in totality, some that mandate a specific religion to the exclusion of all else, and some that have little or no religious restrictions.  Additionally, there are some countries that are run exclusively as a secular nation, to which the laws as given by the secular government rule all, there are other countries that are run as a theocracy to which religious law trumps all, and there are some countries that utilize common law as the moral and the foundational basis for their State law.

The United States was a country founded by peoples wishing to express their religious beliefs without interference by secular States or Government agencies.  That is why there is no establishment of religion in our 1st Amendment to our Constitution, thereby prohibiting the National Government from mandating one State religion to the exclusion of all else.  Additionally, our Declaration of Independence, made it clear that our rights came from our Creator, not by our Government or by our former King of England, but were embedded within us as human beings, and that consequently Governments are elected amongst us in order to protect and to secure these rights.

Unfortunately, today rather than the State working hand-in-glove with religious organizations, they are often on opposing sides.  This is contrary to the very foundational documents that rule this great nation and a great disservice to our citizens.  As time has marched on within America, people and the individual states, have ceded power and control or have had power and control wrested from them, so that the National Government as a whole "holds over" the people in general.  A country to which you are no longer able to have public displays of religious symbols on public property that no longer permits government-endorsed voluntary prayer at public schools and a government that negates our Constitution and Declaration of Independence by asserting that there should be a separation of

Church and State is a government that has overstepped its boundaries.

Before there was this massive State apparatus in America, there was the Church, people, and communities working together to better themselves.  For instance, education was led not by our National government, there was no free public education in early America, but was often led by the religious institutions in the community, or by the parents, with the recognition that education was important for the continuing progress of any great nation.  Today, it is the National Government for the most part that dictates to the individual States, school boards, and to the people, the roadway and rules of how our youth will be educated.

While the National Government ostensibly is in charge of our public education for the greater good, their purpose is also to propagandize today's youth to believe that the greatest good that any citizen of this country can produce is to serve their country willingly and without question.  This is a bastardization of the meaning of life, a rebuke to the Founding Fathers of this great land, and a grand disservice to all. Our National Government is quite clear that they recognize that a human soul cannot successfully serve both God and mammon, so their objective is to marginalize the Church and to make the State the quasi-church of America.

Consequently, in America today, the Church and the State are battling for the hearts and souls of Americans.  Should the Church, as we know it, become compromised or to lose this battle, America will fall, because a foundation built on human ego, greed, and deception, is a foundation built on sand, which will not stand through the tides of time.

No Kings or Queens in America

Our Declaration of Independence made it clear that it was the American desire to form a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, that we are thereby endowed with certain inalienable rights, to which the just powers of our government derived from the consent of the governed.  Our Declaration stated that King George had usurped and tyrannized the peoples of America, to which a list of facts were enumerated and submitted to the Supreme Judge of the world.

Today, it must be asked, has the Presidency of the United States become the very thing that we rebelled against?  Take, for instance, Franklin D. Roosevelt, our only 4-term President, who except for ill health, may have continued to run and win elections even beyond the fourth term that he won in 1944.  Under FDR, far more power was centralized to the Federal Government and in particular, the Executive office, effectively taking sovereignty away from the States and the people as a whole, and instead introducing intrusive and massive bureaucracies to "help" wrest Americans from the Great Depression.  The FDR legacy is a National Government that has far more power, far more control and mandates far more rules than were even conceived of in generations pass.

Our executive branch, in particular the Presidency, since the time of FDR, has seen its power concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, for instance, we have the two-term President Eisenhower, to which his Vice-President eventually became the elected two-term President Richard Nixon.  President Kennedy was our youngest elected President before his life was cut short by an assassin's bullet; his younger brother had an excellent chance of becoming President before his life was too ended by an assassin in 1968, and later Ted Kennedy would try also to become President before falling short.  George H.W. Bush became President, later his son George W. Bush would be elected twice as President, and his younger brother Jeb Bush is considered a possible candidate for 2016.  Finally, William Clinton was a two-term President, and while his wife was unsuccessful in becoming the Democratic nominee in 2008, Hillary Clinton will probably run again for the Presidency in 2016.

At the time of our Declaration of Independence, there were numerous grievances listed against King George III, many of them sound quite familiar to us today such as:

                "He has erected a multitude of New Offices"

                "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the civil power"

                "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent"

                "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"

Long gone are the days that we were honored to have men such as George Washington, a man that refused to take the Executive office for life that refused to be king and that voluntarily resigned from both military power as well as Presidential power.  Washington made it clear that the Union of the States was necessary to provide us "greater security from external danger" and warned us to "avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."

Unfortunately, these warnings have been ignored; the President easily gets around congressional restraints or congressional oversight, by simply enacting executive orders which are often inimical to the very principles of our Republic.  Additionally, the power and strength of our military has grown greater and greater to which the military-industrial complex has a vested interest in the President being all-powerful, which allows the military-industrial complex to concentrate all of their efforts, all of their guile, all of their nefarious influence, upon just one individual, who is effectively the Kingpin of their design.

Maturity, School, Gender, and Grades

Science has confirmed the obvious, that females mature quicker and at a much earlier age than males.  Females mature more rapidly than males not only biologically, but emotionally, as well as in their brain, to which the publication Cerebral Cortex published a study stating: “Previous studies have shown that the brain does a lot of re-organising during puberty, there is greater activity during this time…  Around 10 to 12 you start to see a lot of activity in the brains of girls as this pruning takes place, but it was between 15 to 20 for boys."  Female's superiority over males in school is demonstrated by their higher grades than males, to which the American Psychological Study states: "From elementary school through graduate school, females have a distinct advantage in grades."

While there isn't much that males can do to biologically mature faster than females, there are many things that can be evaluated and tried so as to give a better opportunity for males to mature earlier and more successfully at a younger age emotionally, which would probably be then reflected in more successful brain cortex development.   It is of critical importance, that efforts and studies be made to achieve this, because the fact that males mature emotionally more slowly and are graded lower in school than females, has serious repercussions for society in regards to male's future success in life or lack thereof, to which ultimately it is society as a whole that must pay up.

First off, there is absolutely no reason to take a fatalistic outlook in regards to this male maturity issue, because the objective is not necessarily that males should become equals to females in emotional maturity, but that instead that there should be an improvement from the current mindset and a better understanding of the development of males in our society.  It is important to recognize, that the efforts that we put forth today will pay dividends later, as by so doing we should see a decrease in violence, delinquency, drug dependency and the like.  All of these aforementioned behaviors are behaviors that demonstrate a lack of vision, a lack of control, a lack of caring, a lack of opportunity, and a lack of good character.

Males are not the same as females, and consequently to encourage right behavior from males, will often and logically take a different toolset than one used for females.  Probably the best way to develop maturity in males is to help them recognize that their decisions matter and to hold them therefore accountable for the decisions that they make, rightly or wrongly.  That is to say, it is important, that males are afforded the opportunity to be independent, to challenge themselves, to explore, to test, but at the end of the day, they must also be able to take responsibility for their actions and for their consequences, without equivocation or excuses.

The modern world has changed how children are developed and brought up in society.  In agrarian times, children had responsibilities and chores on behalf of their family at a very young age, and for those in the cities children were often apprenticed or indentured to others.  No doubt, children of those times matured at a very young age, or found themselves wards of the State or worse.  Times are better now, because the good and sound education of a child's mind is the foundation that society needs in order to better itself and to create good citizens.  It is therefore our responsibility to do our part to help develop our children's minds and maturity so that in this acquired wisdom they will not depart from it.