When you mention recycling to most people, they instantly conjure images of aluminum cans, soda bottles, and old newspapers. For most of us, that is where recycling begins and ends. In our culture of replaceable products, the idea of reusing something, anything, is almost antithetical. Western culture and the rise of consumerism has instilled in us the idea that new is better and that old is garbage. No matter that a product may be perfectly serviceable, if a “new and improved” product is sent to market, we rush to replace what we have with the new thing. And the thing being replaced is relegated to the trash heap. This attitude not only permeates the products that we use, but also extends to the way we view natural resources and our public infrastructure.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that we end up wasting more than just the material that these products or things or created from. We also waste valuable time, space, and money by discarding that which still has use and we defile land and water resources through the creation of bigger cities and larger landfills. The end result is a cultural mentality that encourages wastefulness at every turn. All of us, due to our cultural upbringing, have fallen into this mindset, and the effects of this attitude can be seen in our landfills, in our cost of living, and in our assumption of entitlement. And while we may not be at fault for having this attitude instilled in us, we are to blame if we make no effort to change it.

Let’s start with the first “R,” which is reduction. The concept of reduction embraces the idea of eliminating wastefulness and curbing unnecessary materialism. We all need certain “things” to sustain our lives and the quality of our lives. From food and shelter to transportation and energy, our need for “things” is not, in and of itself, a negative quality. The problem occurs when we become wasteful of what we have in order to replace our things with updated versions, despite the fact that the original things still work just fine, or when we purchase duplicate items we don’t really need just to have more stuff. This problem is exacerbated when we become callous or indifferent to this wastefulness and even encourage it through the advancement of “throw away consumerism.” If you’ve ever eaten at a modern buffet restaurant and watched the amount of discarded food, you know what I mean by wastefulness. If you’ve ever driven through a deserted downtown on your way to the newest outlet mall, you’ve seen the result of mindless construction and the waste of materials. If you’ve ever left every light on in the house or ignored a leaky faucet because you couldn’t take the time to turn them off or fix the leak, you’ve contributed to the problem. If you’ve ever purchased a new cellular telephone in order to get the latest added techno-gadget, you’ve fallen into this trap too. Americans in particular have been force fed the notion that more is better and newer is necessary. Yet in a world where thousands of millions struggle to feed their children every day, the absent minded wastefulness practiced by each of us on a daily basis is nothing less than ridiculous. By reducing our consumption to more moderate levels we not only save ourselves money, we make available more of the resources required to create “things” to others who strive for a better life.

The second “R” stands for reuse. If through reduction we can eliminate (or at least significantly decrease) societal wastefulness, it is through the concept of reuse that we can extend the life of our products and infrastructure. In addition to our culture of consumerism, we have been taught, through the efforts of our business and government leaders, that everything is replaceable an, in fact, should be replaced. We have been conditioned to accept the fact that all things are created with a preplanned obsolescence. Goods are designed to either break down or become outdated in a relatively short span of time. Yet from a Common Sense point of view, this type of planned uselessness creates an unnecessary strain on both our resources and our budgets. Sure, many of us donate our old computers or televisions to organizations like Goodwill when we get a new product. But just as often, when the new stuff enters the home, the old stuff goes out to the curb for the trash man to collect. These products can be reused by others, or at the very least, disassembled so that their components can be recycled and reused in other products. This same attitude can be applied to the abandoned buildings that litter our landscape, the broken down furniture that fill our dumps, and on and on.

Our final “R” is the one that many millions are already used to hearing about, recycling. But recycling must go beyond our pop cans and newspapers. Recycling is a concept that needs to be expanded to include all produced goods that have become unwanted or unworkable. Recycling is a concept that makes a lot of sense from an economic standpoint, but it also allows us to limit our use of nonrenewable resources. Everything we make uses resources from the natural world, and in many cases, once these resources are transformed into goods they become forever unavailable for any other purpose. Unless we recycle them. Recycled products can be either refurbished and redistributed or they can be broken down to their original elements and used to create new goods. Either way, recycling lessens our need for raw materials by reusing those which have already been through the process of refinement.

So, you may ask, what is the point of reducing my consumption when no one else does? Why should I reuse or recycle when none of my neighbors do? What is the benefit to me? The answer to all of these questions is simple: We should reduce, reuse, and recycle because it makes sense, both economically and environmentally, and it shows the rest of the world that we are willing and able to share the limited resources of this planet more equitably. But it is not enough to simply apply these concepts to our own daily lives. We must also push for governmental policies that require our businesses and individuals to reduce the use of resources. We must push for an end to the culture of planned uselessness by requiring our manufacturers to create products that have a long shelf life, even as technology makes things more versatile. We must insist that our cities limit new development to building things that are needed rather than to things that are just wanted. And we must develop the processes and infrastructure that can facilitate recycling of all things.

These concepts are not new ones, by any means, but they are ideas that are often swept to the wayside in our ever-growing desire for bigger and better. Changing the way we think about resources and changing the way we use raw materials could do more to show the world that we are willing to be equal partners in the quest for a better life for all citizens than forcing our culture of consumerism on the world has done. There is nothing wrong with wanting the best things that mankind can make. But there is something inherently wrong with the proliferation of a culture that advocates, through ignorance or laziness or callousness, the wanton wastefulness for the sake of having more.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy energized the imagination and aspirations of this nation with a challenge that was, for its time, simply fantastic. At the dawn of the space age, President Kennedy made it a national goal to send a man to the moon and return him to Earth safely. No matter that such a task had never been undertaken. No matter that space travel was still the stuff of science fiction. In plain language, he laid out his hopes that American technological and industrial innovation would rise to meet his challenge. In his now famous speech, Kennedy told Americans that this goal would not be easy or cheap or even a guaranteed success, but that it was worth doing and worth doing to the best of our ability. He spoke about the need for America to lead the charge into space, not just for us, but also for the advancement of all humanity. He talked about the urgency he felt to achieve this goal by the end of that decade, not because the moon was going to disappear, but because it was there. Sure, he wanted to beat the U.S.S.R. in the space race, as well as boost American morale, but his desire to visit the moon went beyond such things. He felt that America was the most capable nation on Earth, and thus had an obligation to advance human knowledge and development. America seemed to agree, and in turn rose up to meet his challenge.

In the 21st century, space travel and exploration is old hat. From space shuttle missions to long-range probes, our knowledge of our solar system and the universe in general has expanded exponentially. So what then is the next great challenge for us? What pressing need could benefit most from the concentration of our scientific and industrial prowess? The answer, my friends, is energy. Our modern world requires an increasing amount of energy to fuel our cars, to warm our homes, to light our nights. As we grow more and more technologically oriented, our need for reliable energy grows too. And with more developing nations striving to join the industrialized world community, the need for energy will become even more acute.

The bad news is that most of the world’s energy is derived from non-renewable fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. These resources are called non-renewable for a good reason- once they are gone they can’t be replenished, and if we are still dependent upon these resources for our energy when that day comes, you can plan on going back to the days of candlelight reading, walking to the store, and huddling around the fireplace for warmth. I’m not naturally an alarmist, and I can’t say with any certainty when that day will come, but common sense dictates that it will come eventually. Isn’t it better to be prepared before then?

There are other negative aspects to our use of fossil fuels like pollution or the environmental damage caused by the extraction of these resources from the Earth. Our national security and economy are tied to our need for these resources, leading us into areas of the world that are filled with strife and draining our taxes. And our need to compete with other nations for access to those resources is costing ordinary citizens more money to meet the needs of daily life. Yet there are other ways for us to obtain the energy we need in this modern world, if only our government and business interests would challenge themselves to develop them. Unfortunately, business looks primarily at profit, and the amount of money they have tied up in the current energy production and delivery cycle keeps them from leading the charge towards better energy options. Their financial entanglement blinds them, and they ensure the status quo by keeping pressure on the politicians, keeping our country tied to fossil fuels for most of our energy needs.

I say that the time has come to issue another challenge. Much as President Kennedy did in 1962, American leaders should issue a call for new energy development that precludes the use of fossil fuels in favor of cleaner, renewable energy sources. We should do this not only because it will one day be necessary, but because of the benefits to our air, our water, our land, and our people. Kennedy’s speech recognized that to achieve his goal, things that did not yet exist would have to be created and failures along the way would occur. He told the public that the task would be expensive, but it would be worth it. The drive for new energy has these same problems, but it too is worth it.

We already have alternate sources for energy that come from renewable resources. Hydroelectric energy, solar energy, biomass energy, wind energy, and nuclear energy all exist at some level of development, but the problem with their proliferation lies in the profit margin for business. True or not, the claim that these energy sources are too expensive to develop en masse or not sufficient to meet our needs goes unchallenged. I say that the business interests that control our fossil fuel dependency don’t want to lose their hold on our wallets. To them energy is not a public necessity, it is a cash cow. From development to distribution, their greed not only creates false energy scarcity, it hampers modernization and innovation. It is time for business to either join in the search for new energy sources or to be left behind altogether.

I see a future where energy is no longer considered a commodity to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. The fact of the matter is that reliable and cheap energy has become a necessity of daily life. When something becomes a necessity, it should not be out of reach for people, it should become available to everyone. I see a future where every home has its own energy production plant, supplied by clean, renewable sources of power. I see a future where transportation is powered not by fossil fuels, but by clean, non-polluting energy. I see a future where our cities are not rimmed with power lines and smokestacks. I see a future where countries don’t go to war over oil or make deals with treacherous regimes just to gain access to fuel.

The space race was paid for with public funds and the knowledge gained from the space missions belongs to us all. The advancements in technology derived from space exploration was paid for with public funds, and the proliferation of that technology now touches every aspect of our lives. In this vein, the development of new energy should be paid for with public funds, and the benefits of our research and development should be returned to the public through cheap, reliable energy. And our reliance on foreign nations for our energy could be reduced or eliminated entirely, saving us even more money by avoiding conflicts and expensive security measures.

We must move to elevate the types of renewable energy we now have from second-class status and begin to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. At the same time we must turn our scientists and industries towards developing new energy or increasing the viability of the renewable sources we do have like wind and solar and biomass. We should look towards the future of energy not from the prospective of profits for businesses, but from the prospective of prosperity for all. Energy supplies should not be fought over or suppressed. They should be clean, and plentiful, and cheap.

In 1962, America decided that going to the moon was worth the cost and the sacrifice and we met the challenge. Meeting this goal saved no lives, fed no hungry, cured no ills, but we did it just the same. Finding new and better energy sources is more important than going to the moon ever was. It’s time to meet this new challenge too.

It is a uniquely human quality to destroy that which we depend on. Whether from a lack of knowledge, a lack of foresight, or a lack of caring, human advancement has exacted a heavy toll on the resources and species of Earth. To any rational person, that fact is indisputable. From the extraction of minerals to the deforestation of wild lands to the over harvesting of various animals or plants, the growth of humanity has brought great changes to our planet and has affected its previous balance. The question is not how much we have damaged the Earth, or even if the damage can be reversed. The question is not even whether or not we have the “right” to cause these changes. The question is why are we doing it so callously?

Our planet is the lifeblood of us all. Its resources sustain our lives, both physically and mentally. Each and every part of our environment is an integral piece of the puzzle that is nature. Nature is the trees and the lakes and the mountains. Nature is the bugs and the fish and the birds. Nature is the water and the air and the dirt. And we are part of nature too. All things, from the rocks to the whales to the daisies and the wind, have their place in the natural order. The difference between most things on Earth and humans is our ability to change our environment quickly and drastically and to adapt relatively easily. Add to that ability the fantastic success we’ve had with procreation and dispersion and you can see that humans leave a large footprint when we pass through the glen. And for the most part, as a species, we don’t really seem to care. Yet, somehow, we still consider ourselves to be the most intelligent life form on the planet.

Before you start rolling your eyes into the back of your head, let me clarify that I am not a “whacko-environmental-extremist-tree hugging-spotted leopard newt saving-protect nature at all costs” kind of guy. I can’t deny the fact that I love being out in the forest or in the mountains, listening to the sounds of birds and creeks and crickets. I relish a clear night in the warm spring desert gazing at the stars. But I also have no problem extinguishing the lives of mosquito’s and ants and weeds in my yard or cutting down a Christmas tree or digging for gold. I like things made out of wood, I like to drive my car, and I like to drink clean water too. Unfortunately, instead of living in a world where all these things can be found and enjoyed and exist compatibly, we have created one that pins the longevity of our species to our own ability to destroy the conditions that make our lives possibly.

To be fair, on the other side of the coin, we must recognize that nature is a constantly evolving creature itself, as evidenced in the scientific records of historic climate changes, the extinction of species, and the geological malleability land itself. The forces of nature have altered thousands of times during the billions of years the Earth has been in existence. Humanity has only been around for a couple hundred thousand. Surely any “damage” that we cause is insignificant is the larger context, isn’t it? After all, humans are part of the natural order too, so the things we do are really just part of the natural progression of Earth, right?

But here’s the deal folks. Despite what most of us are taught, humans don’t own the Earth. We share it. Only by accepting this very basic concept can both sides of the environmental issue come down from their fences so that we can begin to have policies that make sense. Tree-huggers must accept the fact that man has as much right as any other creature on Earth to adapt his environment to his needs. Forest burners have to accept the fact that our ability to cause great and rapid change comes with great responsibility to all those with whom we share our planet. Both sides have to learn to use common sense and humanity as a whole must choose to extend the life of our species through ecological intelligence instead of shortening it for short-term gains.

The concept of man being ruler of the Earth is shared by both science and religion, one of the few areas that they agree upon. From the scientific theory of evolution and natural selection to the audacious belief that technology can control nature, science places man ahead of all other species and conveys upon him the right to rule the Earth. Religion gives man this same right through the words of gods, who offer the planet to man in exchange for his devotion. But religion and science are both constructs of mankind, so it’s only natural that we would give ourselves the rights of control. I wonder what the other species on Earth would say if they had a voice in the matter. Would the snails vote for us? How about the rivers? Of course they can’t talk though, and that makes it easy for us to forget that they are just as important as we are, from nature’s perspective.

Still, human civilization exists on a different plane than other animals and plants, and to a large degree, we are the dominant species on the planet. We are the only ones with the ability to significantly change the planet, aside from nature itself. And because of that, we have a duty to consider the consequences of our adaptations to other species and to mitigate the damaging effects through replenishment of renewable resources and good management of our industries and practices. We have this responsibility not only to the other inhabitants of Earth, but also to the future generation of our own species, the future children for whom we profess to make the world a better place for. And we owe it to ourselves.

Current environmental policy appears to be created in an effort to insulate governments and businesses from having to adopt practices that reduce or eliminate hazardous pollutants while over-regulating private individuals through impact analyses and other legal red tape. It is a sham effort to give the appearance of eco-responsibility while rewarding bad stewardship with financial profits and a blind eye. Rather than encourage and insist upon the development of cleaner technology with reduced pollutants, governments pass out waivers and suppress innovation to sustain old corporations with deep wallets. Rather than punish the largest spoilers of nature, governments nit-pick at the little guys dumping paint thinner in the dirt.

It is time to end the politics of pseudo-environmentalism that plagues our government. It is time to end the extremist attitude that would prevent all human development of the planet or its resources. It is time to start using our brains with regards to our construction and our consumption. We need a policy that recognizes that natural diversity is not only healthy; it is essential to life on Earth. We need a policy that reduces junk studies and red-tape but that insists upon extraordinary protection of things like water and soil and air. We need a policy with the teeth to go after those who pollute, whether they are big business or the local tire shop. We need a policy that rewards innovation and shares new found knowledge. We need a policy that encourages reuse of existing development before building something new. We need a policy that puts the rights of humans in line with the needs of the rest of the world’s creatures and features.

We have the capacity to both use what the planet has to offer and to ensure that we don’t abuse what others also may need. Nature makes life hard enough at times with her storms and droughts and earthquakes and temperature shifts. Why do we make things even harder? Just to put a few million bucks into the already stuffed pockets of our “leaders?” Our government must decide to be better than that. We must challenge ourselves to adopting real eco-reform measures that would make the world a cleaner and more useful place for all of us while preserving the ability to change our world when we must.

Order and prosperity in societies depend upon more than just national security and an effective legal system. While both of those are vital to the longevity of a society, they are not enough to stimulate the productivity and achievement of society alone. A vibrant, healthy society requires an infrastructure that facilitates movement of goods and ideas and resources necessary for a higher standard of living. It is an infrastructure that meets the needs of the citizenry in a cost-effective, safe, and forward thinking manner using the principals of common sense and public service. Infrastructure should, if constructed properly, be almost invisible in its ubiquity, for it encompasses all of the elements of modern culture that we use and take for granted every day. The roads we drive on, the power and water coming into our homes and businesses, the parks and schools and hospitals and communication networks are all a part of the infrastructure of our daily lives. But who is responsible for providing these necessities? Who is responsible for their maintenance? Is it the job of the government or the corporation or the citizen or a combination of the three? In our current system, the framework is getting a little shaky, and the question about who does what for whom and for how much gets murkier

One problem with infrastructure is that it is usually created to serve an immediate need without looking ahead towards future needs or improvements. Of course, no one can predict what future technologies will develop, but common sense should at least acknowledge that advancements will be forthcoming and to construct or administer infrastructure in such a way as to allow for inexpensive future conversions, additions, or replacements Unfortunately, our current system of corporate control and governmental “regulation” of most of our infrastructure tends toward increasing corporate profit through fraud during construction and delivery and shortsightedness from political leaders who craft the regulation. Indeed, the concept of citizen benefit falls a distant third when it comes to these matters.

Hand in hand with the development of infrastructure is the need for sane ecological regulations that encourage the smart use of resources and the well being of the earth itself. Politicians are constantly decrying the need to make the world a better place for our children and grandchildren yet they continue to destroy the very world in which these kids will live. To be fair, it is not only the politicians and the corporations who embrace this inanity. We are each responsible, individually and collectively, for the continued erosion of our planet and its resources. If government policy subtly encourages this practice, it is we who allow it to thrive.

The resources of this country are supposed to be held in trust for the people by our government, to be developed at the peoples expense for the people’s profit or use. Sadly, only part of that statement is followed in actual practice. The people do pay for most of the infrastructure through their tax dollars, but the benefit to the citizens does not come in the form of cheap energy and water or less congested roadways or well maintained schools and parks or cleaner water, air and land. The benefit ends up in the pockets of the businesses contracted to deliver, process, or construct these things. From fraudulent billing to faulty construction to manipulation of the resources themselves, business has managed to wrest control of our resources and our funds, leaving the average citizen with higher costs and worse service.

We’ve all had to deal with the disintegration of our infrastructure in one way or another; agonizingly long commutes, overcrowded classrooms, energy blackouts, polluted beaches- the list could go on and on. I feel the same frustration that you do as we wonder how to break the cycle of paying taxes to governments that hand them over to corporate benefactors who then provide an inferior service or product for an exorbitant fee. And though I also grant that in some areas of the country, infrastructure meltdown is affected by problems of crime and illegal immigration, I’ve made some suggestions in previous essays, which could reduce or eliminate their impact by reducing or eliminating their prevalence. So how do we change the current system into one that benefits us all, private citizen and business alike? That is a question I will explore in the next several essays.

In contemplating infrastructure reform and policy, it becomes important not only to differentiate between resources (water, oil, minerals), delivery (roads, transmission routes, air and sea ways), and public works (clean-up, buildings, parks) but to also evaluate how each aspect conforms to the concept of preserving our planet and its economic feasibility over the long term. We must also consider how much power we want to give to the government to regulate these matters and insist upon accountability with our tax dollars.

The good news is that we have the power to end the cycle of nonsense. As citizens of a democracy, we control our government, and by proxy, its policies. If we don’t agree with the direction that our government is taking, we can change the people who guide those policies with a simple vote.

The second amendment to the Constitution reads, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This one sentence amendment has created quite a bit of consternation in efforts to exact the meaning that our forefathers tried to impart. Unfortunately, in attempting to understand what “the right to bear arms” means, there is a tendency to interpret parts of this sentence instead of the sentence as a whole. Further, the historical context in which this idea was created and the technological advances in “arms” over the years are not always considered when interpreting this American “right.” The truth of the matter is that the second amendment is not about the right of the individual; it is about national security and the importance of citizen involvement in keeping the nation secure. Let me explain…

A quick look back at the history will reveal that this amendment was first added in the 1780’s. This was a time when America had just achieved independence from England. However, the new government was in debt and could not afford to accommodate a large, standing defense force for protection. As such, it was vital for each state to maintain a militia, or local armed force, to aid in protecting the nation. In addition to providing protection for the nation as a whole, states and citizens benefited from this arrangement because the state militias would also serve as a barrier against a federal government seeking to grow too powerful. Finally, as many citizens already owned firearms for the purpose of hunting and protection (remember that America was a wilderness nation without supermarkets or drive through windows), this amendment was a practical method of preventing thousands of people from becoming criminals overnight.

In the 1780’s, this kind of reasoning made perfect sense, both practically and financially, and the technology of firearms was still in its infancy. Single shot rifles and pistols, while potentially deadly, were simply too cumbersome and inaccurate to be a real threat to the general public. Their best use was in hunting game, when one could be patient, or when combined with many similar weapons on the battlefield, where they could repel an invading army through sheer number. The founding fathers could no more imagine multiple shot firearms with precision accuracy over thousands of yards anymore than they could envision television or genetically altered grains. They did not imagine a world filled with dangerous weapons that had the capability to kill dozens of people in the beat of a heart. They simply wanted to assure the citizenry that the common defense of the nation was a shared obligation, and as such, the permission to keep weapons for that purpose was a privilege and a right.

Fast forward a hundred years, and the advances in technology and the growth of the United States reveal a new attitude and interpretation of the second amendment. As America’s territory grew, so did its need for a more permanent defense force. As America grew, its productivity advanced its economic growth. So by the 1880’s we now had a larger national defense force of permanent standing that was supported, outfitted and regulated by the national government. State militias still existed, but their function transformed from being the first line of defense to being the back-up players, assisting state enforcement agencies in times of civil unrest or natural disaster. Modernization of the factory combined with technical advancements in design also occurred in this era, combining to create more powerful, easier to use firearms in greater numbers than ever before. Unfortunately, better firearms meant that their usefulness for criminal activities was greater than in the past, and many outlaws thrived behind the power of a six-shooter. All of a sudden, the right to bear arms had become the right to wield power and the benevolence of the second amendment ceased to exist. No longer did the right to bear arms have anything to do with maintaining national security by means of a citizen defense force. Now the right to bear arms meant that you could have your guns for any reason at all and nobody could tell you otherwise. If they did, well then they just might have a chat with Mr. Colt himself. And I’m not talking about old Samuel.

Another skip forward to today reveals how far removed we are from the time of the creation of the second amendment. Our national defense budget is one of our greatest expenditures. Firearms are more deadly, accurate, and available than ever before. Criminal use of firearms as a choice weapon has become epidemic. Accidental firearm deaths are not uncommon. And the advances in gun technology are not in the area of safety but in the area of efficiency. Efficiency, meaning more deadly. In today’s world, what do you think the writers of our Constitution would have to say about the “right to bear arms?”

I’m sure that by now you have gotten the impression that I am an anti-gun advocate. The truth is that I am nothing of the kind. I have owned guns. I have used guns. I know many people who have and use guns. At times, I really enjoy firing off some rounds at a target. Further, I support the notion that gun ownership is a protected right under our Constitution. But I do not believe that it is an absolute right unto itself. The ability to own and use deadly weapons should carry with it certain obligations. And the manufacturers of deadly weapons should be held to strict guidelines before they can offer their wares to the public or to other nations. In that spirit, I offer the following reforms regarding our national gun policy.

With regards to individual ownership of guns (I know that some of these are already part of the law, but to be as inclusive as possible, I will list them again): Sales of guns should be limited to adult individuals of military service age; all firearms should be registered with the government, including the weapon type, the name of the owner, and the state in which the owner lives; all firearms owners should be registered with a state militia and trained in the defensive uses of firearms; all gun sales, including guns sold on the secondary market, should include an individual criminal background check; no gun should be sold to any individual who has not completed a gun safety course prior to purchase; no felon who was convicted of using a gun in a crime should be allowed to purchase a gun again, and any gun used in a criminal act should be destroyed once its use as evidence has concluded.

With regards to the manufacturing end of the gun issue, advances in technology should be implemented into all firearms to prevent accidental shootings. This “smart technology” should include individual biometric identification that would prevent a gun from being fired by anyone other than its registered owner; smart technology should prevent a gun from working until its owner has registered the weapon at a government certification center and had their biometric information encoded into the gun; resold guns should be recoded upon transfer; each gun should have an individual identification number that is registered upon sale; civilian firearms should be limited to a 9 shot magazine and hunting rifles should be limited to a 3 shot magazine, because 9 shots should be ample for defense and if you can’t hit an animal in 3 shots, maybe you shouldn’t be hunting. Finally, all American gun sales to foreign agents must be regulated by the government to insure that weaponry does not fall into the hands of people who would use them against us.

The right to bear and keep arms is also a duty to be a responsible citizen. No one is forced to buy a gun, but everyone who does buy one should be required to follow some simple rules for the common safety. Those who would rail against reforms in gun laws would have you believe that they have the right to unfettered gun access, but that is not true and that concept can’t be logically inferred from the second amendment.

One of the gaping holes in America’s national security network is unchecked illegal immigration. If this were only a problem of presenting an opportunity for enemy agents to gain entry into the country, that would still be too much. But the inability of the government to eliminate illegal immigration also plays havoc on the economic stability of the states and overwhelms the social infrastructure and services to the detriment of legal citizens. The alarming number of criminal illegal immigrants is enough to start a mini-insurrection on their own, and the agencies that are supposed to protect and serve stand idly by and watch it all happen. And those otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants present a drain on the public systems of health, education, and infrastructure that are paid for and rightly expected by the legal residents of this country. This sense people have of being overrun in their own cities and states would not bode well for the masters in the Capitol should the people lose faith in the governments ability to protect the national integrity and feel the need to take matters into their own hands. The result would be nothing short of chaotic and result in the corrosion of national security.

America, as everyone should know, was founded by immigrants, fueled by immigrants, and culturally formed by immigrants from all over the world. Without immigration, America would not be the country that it is today. Americans recognize these facts, even if they aren’t eager to embrace them. But talk to anyone about their family heritage, and one of the first things you’ll probably hear is some kind of statement regarding familial ancestry that originated in another part of the world. Since its origins, the United States has acted as a beacon to immigrants who sought out a new life for themselves and their families, and this beacon is still shining brightly today. Yet regardless of the individual reasons for immigrating, the American government’s immigration policies through the years have not been based on the ideas of enlarging personal prosperity for the down trodden of the world, but have instead been based on the needs of American business prosperity and expansion. We may pay lip service to the notion that America welcomes all comers with open arms, but the realities of immigration policy increasingly stem from an unhealthy disregard for the security of ordinary Americans in favor of corporate profit.

Any discussion about immigration, both legal and illegal, must first define the purpose for allowing immigration at all. Politically speaking, immigration makes sense for a government seeking to rapidly increase national or regional population growth, usually in response to the acquisition of new territory. But the United States has not expanded her borders in some time now, so this reasoning does not apply. Sociologically speaking, immigration makes sense when a nation is seeking to balance its racial populations, but as the United States has always been a diverse mixture of ethnic and nationalistic people, this has never been a rationale for immigration policy. (True, immigration quotas do reek of racial motivations, but those rules have had ever changing standards and thus can’t be construed as coming from any sort of lasting ideological policies.) From a humanitarian viewpoint, immigration becomes necessary to assist oppressed people achieve freedom, and this is one of the pillars of U.S. immigration policy today. This seems odd though, in light of our newly reinvigorated goal of taking freedom and democracy to the oppressed countries of the world. Given that objective, we should hope that fewer immigrants come to America seeking these qualities when we want them to instill them in their homelands. Surely if all those who ache for freedom abandon their countries to find it, who will be left to spread those ideals when freedom chances to come knocking? That leaves only the economic reasons for encouraging immigration. Unfortunately, money often speaks loudest and always speaks for itself. The economic benefactors of immigration are not those who come from poverty stricken lands in search of prosperity, but instead are the corporations who lure them in with wages that are much greater than they could earn at home but are still poverty wages in this country. As this rationale for immigration is based solely on corporate greed it fails to meet the test for reasoned public policy.

So I have to ask, in today’s world, what does immigration, legal or illegal, have to offer America? And at a time when fanatical enemies are seeking to destroy our way of life, what effect do our immigration policies have on the effectiveness of national security? The answer to both questions, though far from being politically correct, is nothing. Not a thing. And that means that it’s time to revisit our immigration policies and make some adjustments that better reflect realities in America and the world today.

For starters, the U.S. government should announce a temporary moratorium on all immigration. This may seem like a drastic first step, but until the government can establish policy that is cohesive and equitable, and that addresses American needs and goals abroad, America should hang the “Out to Lunch” sign on the door and lock up for a bit. In doing so, our government should make clear that our reason for such an action stems from our own security concerns as well as the necessity to protect the resources of the American taxpayers. In reality, the immigration policies of most nations are very strict in comparison to our own, so any cries of foul play will likely be coming from hypocritical mouths and should be given little attention.

Secondly, our physical borders should be secured much as I wrote about in my essay A Line In The Sand. Such actions would have the effect of reducing the entry of illegal immigrants, which is the most likely path of infiltration for foreign enemies or other people with criminal histories. In addition, any illegal immigrants that do get apprehended should face immediate deportation to their country of origin with the understanding that they will be dealt with by the law in their home country. It is not enough to defend our borders; we must also demand cooperation from any of our allies when repatriating their citizens.

Thirdly, we must work with the poorer nations of the world so that their citizens will not look at immigration to the U.S. as their only chance at freedom and prosperity. We must assist them in developing their infrastructure and upgrading their health and educational systems. We must encourage them to use their countries resources for the benefit of their people and help them to make the right choices. We have to understand that immigration is usually the last best choice for a person to make. Only when the situation at home seems hopeless do people leave all that they know and love behind forever. The best way to curb immigration, especially illegal immigration, is to help establish security abroad.

Finally, we must find all those people who are currently here illegally, ascertain their identities and their purpose for being here, and return them to their home countries or legalize them unless they are enemy agents. We must enforce the laws against companies the employ illegal immigrants and we must strengthen our citizenship identification programs. We must develop an interim plan for foreign tourism and international business travel, and we must create a separate plan to accommodate those seeking political asylum.

Americans generally have no problems with accepting legal immigrants into their communities, because we understand that immigration is a shared cultural phenomenon. Though most of today’s citizens have had the good fortune to be born in America, many millions are just a generation or three from the tales of their grandparents who walked across hostile territory or sailed an angry ocean to reach these shores. But America is also a country based on the rule of law, and when people arrive in this country by circumventing our immigration laws, we become angry, and, I think, rightly so. Unfortunately, our anger is often misplaced as we turn against the people who only want a better life for their families. More appropriately, we should direct our ire at the governmental policies that have created confusing and ideologically bankrupt immigration standards.

As the nations of the world become more and more interdependent, and as governments exchange animosity and deception for the shared principals of human freedom and self-rule, the need or desire for immigration should naturally recede. Reduced immigration has many benefits including decreased social and enforcement costs for inundated nations, the retention of human resources and national dedication for developing nations, and better security for all nations. These should be the goals of immigration policy in America, not cheaper lettuce or bigger corporate profits.

Knowledge is power. Knowledge is empowering. To the casual observer, these two statements may seem to be saying the same thing. But if you look closer, and try to understand the difference between these two thoughts, you will see that they in fact are two diametrically opposed ideas. The former implies that control is the purpose for gaining information. The latter implies that gaining information is for personal freedom. The former conceals knowledge to maintain its control. The latter seeks out knowledge to eliminate secrecy and mistrust. The former is the tool of governments. The latter is the tool of humanity. Understanding this difference is important when looking at the reasoning and methodology of national intelligence goals and their effect on national security.

National security exists for one simple reason: governments, even stated allies, do not trust each other. This lack of trust stems directly from a lack of knowledge. In order to gain information about other nations, governments have created “intelligence” agencies to gain knowledge surreptitiously. At the same time, government uses their agencies to conceal their own actions from other nations, thus limiting their knowledge. Sadly, this circular effort is self-defeating and only serves to deepen the mistrust between governments rather than minimize it. Human nature is such that we are suspicious of what we don’t know, and governments amplify that element of humanity exponentially.

There is another reason that governments mistrust each other. At face value, there are two types of governments. Although they appear is slightly different forms, you have governments that support individual freedom and governments that rule by oppression. These doctrines are incompatible. Free societies assume that oppressed societies are not oppressed by choice and take as their mission the expansion of freedom. Rivalry is natural. Conflict is inevitable. In this instance, lack of knowledge can have devastating consequences for the citizens of both nations, regular people who value freedom. So in order to reduce harm, the gaining of knowledge becomes very important to national security.

The goal then becomes reforming our current intelligence apparatus from one made up of competing agencies with conflicting missions to one that increases our knowledge of our foes and decreases mistrust among our allies. It should be forthright with the public and diligent in its accuracy. It should always seek to increase our national security by decreasing our need for it.

The practical mechanics then would require a scrapping of the current cadre of intelligence agencies in favor of a three-tiered system: an “enemy intelligence” agency, an “alliance intelligence” agency, and a “public information” agency. They would not operate independently of each other, but would work in concert to reduce threats and increase alliances through a variety of methods.

Let’s begin with the “enemy intelligence agency.” The definition of an enemy would obviously include any nation or group that has attacked our country directly or targeted our people indiscriminately. But just as it would be a mistake to include every country that disagreed with us, so too would it be a mistake to exclude all countries that use oppression and belligerence to sustain power, for these could be enemies in the wings. But instead of relying on our own individual efforts, the gathering of this type of intelligence benefits all nations based on free principals. As such, we should coordinate our efforts and share our resources in acquiring this information. All gained knowledge could go to a central clearinghouse for verification and dissemination. To do so would reduce conflicting information between allied nations resulting in cohesive strategies for confronting adversity. It would also have the effect of significantly decreasing the overall cost of acquiring the knowledge itself. Nations could share the tools, the training, the costs, and the knowledge together, building not only a stronger alliance, but demolishing the secrecy that breeds distrust. America should spearhead the creation of such an agency with candor and with urgency.

The “alliance intelligence agency,” in addition to agreeing to coordinate information on foes, would primarily be used as a tool for information sharing between friendly nations, but it could also be used to lure new nations to the table. Such an agency would serve as a forum for nations to share advances in technology and medicine, helping to end the disparity between richer and poorer countries. This embraces the concept of knowledge being empowering. Alliances would be based not only on the need for resources and protection, but by a common desire to better the lives of people through the expansion of knowledge. By openly exchanging concepts and knowledge, societies could improve productivity and health standards, as well as gaining understanding of different cultural beliefs. And by seeing the benefits of belonging to such an alliance, some less than friendly nations may be pressured by their citizens to change their ways so that they could enjoy the advances of humanity. This agency would seek to impart the benefits of free society without imposing a specific morality beyond that which embraces personal freedom and societal security. This ensures that cultural traditions would continue to grow with the new knowledge, not be discarded because of it. More trust building through validation, which is never a bad thing.

Finally, the “public information agency” would be that part of the intelligence apparatus that reports to the public those goals it seeks to achieve, and the progress it is making. This is perhaps the most important element of a successful intelligence network. Since governments in free societies derive their power from the citizenry, it is imperative that those citizens trust their government. To achieve this trust, government must strive to become more transparent in their goals and the means they use to get there. Such openness would reduce the element of intrigue and end unnecessary speculation among average people. It would have the effect of combating misinformation by laying the details out in the open. It would free government from having to decide what people “need to know,” by telling them what is known, and allowing them to make informed conclusions of their own. With all citizens getting the same accurate and unembellished information, unnecessary nationalistic rivalries would melt away.

The current “intelligence reform” in the US Government does nothing to increase the quality or level of intelligence in our country, and as such does little to increase our security in the long term. While we may be succeeding in reducing the number of attacks against us at the time, our practices of using information for power, rather that to empower, will only succeed in elongating this period of international strife. With the battle between freedom and oppression currently being waged, it is in our best interest, and the best interest of people everywhere, to cultivate real and lasting alliances in order to ensure that more societies become free. Achieving that would be a real sign of intelligence.

War, as has been said before, is hell. It is that realization that prevents most sane leaders from engaging in war activities unless they have been left no other option. But when war does become unavoidable, it is the duty of every leader to make sure that war is as short as possible, as precise as practical, and as forthright as it can be. The people in leadership positions must be made to realize that war is not an opportunity to reward their contributors with lucrative contracts, nor is war a game played on a playground. War is brutal. People die. Cities get destroyed. Nations get ravaged.

American’s understand that the use of military power is an awesome choice to make. As such, the public hesitates to get behind any military action that is not necessary for the defense of the homeland. Unfortunately, the politicians recognize this reluctance all too well, and, along with their corporate conglomerate contributors, connect all military actions to our own national security and paint a picture of imminent doom without the use of force. Sadly, most of the time, these representations are not accurate. Occasionally, these representations are downright dishonest.

American’s can discern the difference between a war for security, a war for freedom, and a war for profit. We will all fight to protect ourselves. Many will fight for the freedom of others. Few will fight merely for profit. History will show us that the wars America has fought to preserve her own freedom have been more successful than the wars that we’ve fought to supposedly assist others in gaining theirs. World War II, and to a lesser degree, World War I were successful for the U.S. because American’s understood that their very way of life was in danger if they failed to act. America was in full support of those efforts, and the policies of the government and the actions of the people expressed that support. Korea, Vietnam, and many of the other skirmishes from the 60’s to the 90’s were unsuccessful (or at best, less successful) because the American public was not in direct danger, the administrations of the time could not realistically defend their positions to the public, and the public did not rally around their stated cause.

There is little dispute that the United States has the most comprehensive and powerful military in the world. We have the capability to deploy our forces anywhere in the world pretty quickly and we have the might to destroy almost any enemy on the battlefield. We also have an arsenal that guarantees destruction to any organized country that would try to attack us. Our technology is incredibly sophisticated, so much so that other nations are clamoring to get some of it for themselves. And our troops are educated both in running that technology effectively and winning military victories. In short, we carry a very big stick and everybody knows it.

Because we carry such a big stick, we rely on the benefits of that power to further our national security policies. American military policy is an offensive policy, and has been since the end of World War II. In recognizing that our security at home depended on a stable geopolitical atmosphere, the United States placed our military forces in strategic locations across the globe to rebuff any nation from becoming too aggressive and developed terrible weapons to ensure devastation to anyone who would consider attacking the homeland. That America has gone 60 years without being attacked by a foreign aggressor nation is a testament to that policy, and if it had stopped there, we might have been okay. Instead, through the years, successive administrations of both political parties have squandered the reputation of the Benevolent American Military and have given it the reputation of Imperialist American Military. Rather than just sticking to the mission of promoting peace through strength and preventing discord through presence, our leaders also embarked on a course of active intervention to achieve their goals.

The decision of when to use military force can be a complicated issue. Without question, any attack on our homeland can be retaliated against with our military. In this one instance, the choice is pretty clear. We get attacked, we find who attacked us and we attack them back. This is a basic “law of the jungle” situation that is pretty much accepted by most people. The goal of this kind of action may be simple retaliation, or it may go much deeper to include the destruction of an aggressive government to prevent future attacks. Once we move beyond this kind of situation though, the use of the military to achieve foreign relations or national security objectives becomes a bit trickier. Do we attack a country because we just don’t like their government? Do we attack a country because we want easier access to their resources? Do we attack a country in order to establish a democracy for their people? Who we attack, when we attack, and how we attack are vital questions for any military action. Perhaps most vital though, is why we attack.

The U.S. military machine is a formidable part of our national security apparatus. However, it is imperative that we adhere to some set of standard operating procedure whenever we call out the fighting forces. Because we carry the biggest stick, we are always going to be scrutinized and judged when we wield our might. Different people, depending upon which side of the stick the see, will interpret our conduct on the battlefield in different ways, and for that reason, we must be extra cautious in our objectives and our planning. We must have clearly defined reasons for using our power, we must have clearly defined goals for our forces, and we must have clearly established plans for ending any conflict. We must be prepared to be decisive and use all of our means to achieve a quick, clear victory to reduce the costs (both human and financial) of war, and we must attempt to avoid the devastation of civilian infrastructure to reduce the costs of reconstruction. Without these elements, any military action taken by the U.S. will always create argument in the world body and at home.

Our government must also learn to recognize the difference between fighting a war for our own protection and fighting a war on behalf of others. Fighting to support the freedom of others requires a different mindset than fighting a war of self-preservation. I’m not talking so much about the mechanics of the war, but rather the attitudes of the warriors. If we send our military to support a popular uprising against a brutal government, or even if we initiate the uprising for some reason, we must recognize our place as secondary in the conflict, and not demand to drive the battles towards our own goals. We must recognize that other cultures may strive to get out from under the thumbs of despots, but need only our military might to support them. If we decide to help them, we should be upfront regarding what we expect in return for our assistance, namely the establishment of a more secure and democratic government. But we must also remember that any resolution resulting in a freer society leaves us victorious and safer anyhow. Sometimes, it is enough to just be the tool of freedom that another wields, for in the end, we gain an ally and lose a foe in one fell swoop.

The average American citizen has little or no interest in foreign affairs. Aside from what they read in the newspaper or see on TV, the comings and goings of other countries and their governments go unnoticed in the lives of most of us. And why not? After all, the federal government handles all of our international relations, as prescribed by the Constitution. Unless America gets attacked (again) or our economy starts to tank, we assume that the government is presenting and protecting America’s interests abroad. We’ve been brought up to believe that as the worlds leader of democracy, other nations will bend to our will and seek to emulate us because we are righteous and pure in our desire to spread freedom.

But what we are told and what really happens are often two different things. A brief look at this nations foreign policy illustrates a constantly changing attitude regarding the proper role of America among the world’s countries. Running the gamut from isolationism to pro-active aggression, American foreign policy has had as many facelifts as an aging beauty queen. In some aspects, this is probably as it should be, especially when comparing the goals of a fledgling country to that of a world superpower. But at the heart of American foreign policy has always been the belief that America’s interests were best reflected and represented by the promotion of personal freedom, democratic government, and economic growth.

The trick then becomes how to promote those ideals around the world. America has experimented with many ways to achieve these means, from the Monroe Doctrine and its protectionist attitude towards the western hemisphere to Teddy Roosevelt’s policy of direct intervention as a regional policeman to Wilson’s 14 Points of Light which led eventually to the United Nations. Each of these, and many other policies, sought to impress American ideals onto other cultures for our benefit, without looking at the cost or benefit for the nations we purported to help. In many cases, our might became our right, and once our objectives were achieved, we either picked up and went home or sucked the land and the people dry. In either case, our stated ideals of promoting personal freedom, democratic government, and economic growth fell short of the mark and the people took notice.

World War II solidified America’s place in the world order and our foreign policies reflected our newfound status. Having saved the world from the Nazi’s and the Japanese, we figured that the world owed us and it was time to get our due. Sure, we would still advance our concept of freedom in our rhetoric, but from a practical standpoint, it was time for the world to pay up or be put out. Communist expansion allowed for a new common threat to freedom, and in our fight to stem its tide, we began to apply new methods to our foreign policy. Adopting a “containment” theory allowed the U.S. to install military bases around the world, and our “roll-back” actions provided support for any would-be government that opposed the code of communism, regardless of their commitment to the ideals of freedom.

Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have stood up to the Soviet Union and it’s perverted adaptation of a communistic idea. Communism, as it has been practiced, is the exact opposite of our system of government and our core of ideals. But our single-minded goal of stopping Communist expansion blinded us to all other aspects of what a good foreign relations policy should entail. And instead of making real friends in the world community, we ended up creating relationships that were based on the weakest of bonds and the basest of values. We adopted the theory of “the lesser of two evils” and so turned a blind eye to what our “allies” were doing at home while we publicly denounced these same actions by the “enemy.” This hypocrisy was not lost on the citizens of the world and has led us to the point where we are today.

So then how do we go forward from the mess we are in? As the worlds last remaining military superpower, we have the might to force our way on many issues. But this attitude only further increases enmity from the people we would hope to embrace. America is not always looked at as a bringer of hope. To many, we are viewed as a pillager of prosperity and a culture of greed. If we ever hope to increase our security through the promotion of freedom, we have to find ways to advance these ideals through means beyond the bomb. We can’t continue to do one thing while saying the other and we have to recognize that to have good friends, one needs to be a good friend.

To begin with, we should have a real heart to heart talk with our “allies.” We need to make clear, in no uncertain terms, that our goal is to help create a world that guarantees people the rights of freedom, the rights to have a representative government of their making, and a chance at prosperity as they define it. We, along with our other allies, should offer them all the technical, practical, educational, and financial assistance to help bring them up to developed standards. We should listen to their methods and ideas regarding “social growth” and incorporate them when practical. We need to be willing to share life-changing advances with other governments and ensure that they use this knowledge for their people. In exchange, we need to make clear what we expect from them in return: a quick transition towards a stable, elected representative government that provides for its people’s needs as defined by the people and an atmosphere of personal freedom and responsibility. And then, perhaps most importantly, we must lead by example. We must show our sincerity by including these countries and their people in the changes rather than just throwing money to American companies with a mandate to “fix the place.” We must clean up our act here at home and we must embrace actions that show the world that we are committed to world peace above capitalist profit.

By changing the way we deal with our friends, our foes would have less political ammunition to use against us and their people would see the advantages of being our friend had actual results. And instead of creating temporary alliances for only our benefit, we would forge friendships that improved the lives of our fellow man and increased our own security by reducing the economic disparities that breed resentment.

Our world today is unstable and our military will still play a great role in foreign relations for some time. But military actions should be options of last resort. Diplomacy with a willingness to give, honoring our agreements, and demanding that our allies honor theirs should always get the first crack. But strength has its place too, and my next essay will talk about that. As with any relationship, consistency is the key. I know not every nation has raw materials we need or sits at an advantageous geographical position for us, but in creating world stability, these things should not be the primary litmus test for determining whom we reach out to. Our ideals of personal freedom are not conditional for us; they belong to all people of the world. This is what we believe. This is what we profess. This is what we should offer. The question to ask isn’t “Why should we?” The question is, “Why aren’t we?”

There are two kinds of borders that nations erect. One kind is to keep people in. The other kind is to keep people out. This may sound silly, since a border can and does do both of those things at the same time. But the function of a physical border has little to do with the reason for its being. It exists either to entrap or to protect. Deciding which is the case is the tricky part, because your interpretation will depend upon which side of the wall you sit. Walls are built when trust has vanished and the result is the creation of enmity where little may have been before. Walls destroy the spirit of freedom and the chance at prosperity. Walls may provide temporary comfort, but at what price? When you build a wall, you can’t see what is happening on the other side. You can’t hear what’s being said on the other side. The lack of trust grows. And in its wake, it breeds envy, and loathing, and bigotry, and greed.

And yet for a variety of reasons, but primarily for safety and peace of mind, America needs to seriously reform our own border security. It is easy, when talking about border security, to involve the matter of immigration, both legal and illegal. In reality, while the two do have obvious connections with each other, lumping them together as a single issue serves no purpose but to dilute the importance of both. Immigration is really a fiscal and social security matter, so I am not going to do that. In fact, I will go so far as to say that without a precise and practical border policy in place, the issue of immigration becomes a moot point. Border security, as I see it, must focus on creating barriers that it can defend, not on preventing the attacks themselves. It is from this standpoint that I submit this essay.

When we talk about our national border, many of us see an overhead map projection of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. We imagine the lines on the page to be like lines in the sand we used to draw on the beach. In fact, in many cases, a line would be better than what is there now, which is nothing. This begs the question, “What border?” Except for the ports of entry, established along major and minor highways, our land borders to the north and south are mostly non-existent, save for some latitude and longitude readings on some very old treaties. In effect, our borders existence is based mostly on arbitrarily agreed upon lines in the sand. This system has worked over the years because of the mutual trust between our neighboring countries to preserve the social and political sovereignty of each other. Due to the military advantage of America, security was never a real concern, at least not security of the life and death variety.

All that has changed. Since the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers in New York, America has a new enemy to deal with. This is not an enemy who will muster their forces and meet you on the battlefield. This is not an enemy with a single geographical base. This is not a foreign government with expansionist or resource driven policies. This enemy is an idea borne from anger turned into a weapon whose aim is to destroy. And while it is easily arguable that we not only created this weapon, but we helped feed its anger and continue to do so, we must still seek protection from its wrath where we can’t meet it head on. So, America must build its walls for protection.

In a society based on personal freedom such as ours, when does the publics right to safety outweigh the inconvenience to individuals? Because our newest enemy operates outside the boundaries of so-called “civilized warfare,” border security becomes increasingly complex. Defendable land borders still have relevance, but become just a small piece of the pie. You now have to consider coastal port security, airport and airspace security, and possible biological or radiological attacks coming from overseas in packages or suitcases or letters. You have to consider all of these “ports of entry” and devise effective security methods for them all or you are not protected at all. Our current security regime consists mostly of some land border checkpoints (mostly to interdict drug trafficking), airport security screening (yeah, right!), and unenforceable agreements with other nations. How does this protect the public? I’m not sure, but I’ve heard that it costs a whole lot of money. And I’ve heard that people can still pretty much slip in and out undetected at will, if they really have the desire.

Protecting our nation in the age of technology should be easier than we make it out to be. Surely our scientists could be better employed creating practical defense barriers instead of studying things like condom elasticity or pheromone production of the mole rat. We should have as a goal the creation of a land border barrier that utilizes sound frequency technology or a similar non-lethal incapacitating agent that would render all trespassers incapable of crossing. Of course, it would have to affect only humans and not birds or other animals whose natural migration knows no borders, but we’ve got some pretty sharp scientists. They’ve managed to exponentially increase our computing power in such a short time; they ought to be able to handle this too. For our ocean ports, which are vulnerable due to the amount of goods shipped into the country each day, we should utilize our satellite technology and create a system that could scan a ship for radiological material while still at sea and a decontamination/sterilization station just out of harbor. Further x-ray scans could be made as cargo is offloaded and all passengers could funnel through an inspection process to verify luggage, identity, and general health. Airport security should also utilize more non-invasive scanning technology. We have the capability to detect most metals, chemicals, nuclear, and explosive materials. We just don’t use them. We could end the cries of racial profiling and improper screening just by implementing the technology we have and creating better systems.

Some of these ideas might be expensive to get going, but others could probably begin at once. As a matter of national necessity, we should all chip in where we can, with business supplying the material, and education supplying the scientists, and government supplying the flexibility, and the rest of us supplying the support and the taxes. The drawback for most of us would be a decrease in the pace of travel and shipping, but is that really such a terrible thing compared to another terrible attack? Our society is moving so fast now anyway, slowing things down a little might just be good for us.

Border security really has nothing to do with racial attitudes or personal peculiarities. Border security is about protecting the integrity of the border. Period. If the system is to work, it has to be comprehensive, it has to be evenly applied every time, and it must be invisible yet strong. Without real border security, all conversations about immigration, terrorist invasions, and foreign relations become simply academic.