10 Republican candidates that were better than Trump

Republicans really dropped the ball this election.  Seriously?  Donald Trump?  Out of 14 candidates, the biggest tool with the least amount of political experience wins.  Trump makes the 2012 Mormon nominee look not-so-bad.

I remember back when I preferred asshole men, however nobody should apply my dating judgement, during my 20s, to choosing commander-in-chief.  I’ve gown up, adopting a taste for stability and practicality over irrational angry outbursts driven by pure egos.  I want my needs — rights — respected.

I examined the other Republican candidates. Eliminating religious radicals from my list, I candidates more sensible than trust. Most of the options are less extreme than Trump or Mark Rubio.  However, a few of the options actually had some decent ideas.

Biker and Lincoln Memorial

Barren, dismal and disoriented, the Republican party needs to look at their better — less vocal — options.   credit: 2012 Candice Martinez

  1. Lindsay Graham

Lindsay Graham seems most concerned about foreign relations with Iran, Syria and Russia.

The once self-righteous moralist seems to have opened his perspective in his latter years.  The man’s humbled himself.  He’s come a long way since co-sponsoring the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.  Fast forward to 2015, Graham tells a Kentucky clerk to “comply with the law or resign” after she refused marriage licenses to gay couples.

He says a popular vote should decide gay marriage instead of the judiciary system. But, since public opinion will favor gay marriage anyway, the Republicans should stop wasting time attempting to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of a popular vote, he says in a statement after Obergefell V Hodges.

He expresses mixed views on unions, banking and government assistance programs.  He strongly supports securing the border.  While he opposes citizenship birth, he wants to increase legal immigration.  He supports amnesty for undocumented workers. He believes a broken immigration system greatly contributes to illegal immigration.

While he believes in the reality of climate change, he doesn’t want to regulate according to this belief.  For better or worse, he keeps his heart and mind separated.

  1. George Pataki

He’s pro immigration, pro citizen birth and pro green energy.  While he openly advocates to increase funding for green technology, he won’t dare piss off his oil campaign donors by regulating the oil industry.  A nature lover at heart, he added 26 national parks to New York State and extended land preservation by one million acres.

He claims to oppose legalizing marijuana but wants to see how well the medical marijuana industry.  While he seems to offer a lot of lip service, he demonstrates more sense than Trump.

  1. Rand Paul

If he wasn’t so religiously blind, he would make a way better choice than Trump.

With some religious rehabilitation, he could design a better platform.  For now, trading Trump for Paul is trading the borderline personality disorder candidate for the religiously brainwashed candidate.  Unreasonable rational hardly beats irrational reason.

Maybe, one night, he’ll have a dream where God tells him to stop assuming he knows what God wants.  And then, he’ll be able to optimize his administrative talents.

7. John R. Bolton

A U.N. Ambassador who prefers to focus more on foreign relations than legislating morality.  He also advocates setting a Sunni Muslim state in the Middle East, forming a cherry pick against ISIS expansion.  It’s like he uses a nonjudgmental understanding of Islam to help stabilize an Islamic region.  Practicality with respect and trust in the Muslim faith?  While Jesus would be down to vote for him in the primaries, most Bible Belt Republican Christians would not be down.

  1. Ben Carson

The soft-spoken doctor has developed public policy plans for healthcare and national security.  Who knows whether or the not the plans are applicable?  The point is he has a plan – on paper.  He can actually prove he put thought into something.  At this point, a candidate demonstrating knowledge on any particular subject is a relief.

  1. John Kasich

Some guy with a really dull personality.  His platform is too boring for me to read.  He’s an ultra conservative – I know that much.  But, he’s quiet and doesn’t seem to bother anybody.  I’ll take that over Trump.

  1. Michael Dennis Lynch

Okay…look, I had a tough time finding 10 candidates tolerable enough to be Commander in Chief.  This guy is a spot-filler.  He’s a Trump supporter.  Although, I think he’s doing it for publicity.

  1. Mark Everson

A humble politician who sends his children to public schools and says he won’t touch public assistance programs because his children’s classmates come from families who rely on those programs.  Wow!  He actually engages with the working class enough to allow his children to attend public school.

Most of his platform aims to fix the tax system.  He claims to have personal convictions against abortion and gay marriage, but feels the topics have no place in public administration.  His plan was to increase the progressive tax on the rich.  Before you republicans grab your guns, allow me to explain.  He wants to redefine the concept of “rich” and move the tax bracket up a few notches.  While he plans on increasing taxes on the rich, he wants eliminate all federal taxes for anyone making $100,000 or less.  The revenue from those tax brackets will float from the filthy rich’s tax bracket.

He feels the middle and working class need financial alleviations to prosper. He has a point.  Student debt and mortgages are draining the bulk of Americans.  A chance to pay off money owed to those banks would divert a second housing crisis to happen.

  1. Jimmy McMillan

The Rent Is Too Damn High!

A private investigator, Vietnam veteran, karate expert and Gubernatorial candidate plans on reducing New York City rent to the market prices in 2001.  He feels the financial relief of New Yorkers would somehow fix the rest of the nation.  The economy would stabilize. And, everything would be alright.

memorial

A good spot for this picture.  credit: 2012 Candice Marie Martinez

He strongly advocates for his “Right of Life Law.”

“This law gives sexually active seniors the opportunity to all this natural chemical balance to reproduce the cells that keeps life revolving.  Seniors who choose to live out the remaining time of their life without a “Wife” or a “GIrlfriend” isn’t anyone business and should have the right to spend their money any way they like without any legal/ government intervention.” writes McMillan.

Still better than Trump.

  1.  Deez Nuts   Yes, Deez Nuts actually ran on the Republican ticket.

 

 

Advertisements

Why people should get over the Confederate flag already

Legally speaking, Alabama and South Carolina had no business waving the Confederate flag from their state houses.

constitution photo: Constitution constitution_1_of_4_630.jpgTo ensure cultural unity within the United States, only two flags belong on a state house: a state flag and an American flag. Strong nations achieve cultural unity — a historical fact.

Governments achieve national and international legitimacy if, and only if, the governed culturally unify.

Legally, the Confederate flag splits hairs.


Crash course on Constitutional Law

1) Preamble: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

  • The word “and” denotes a logical operator requiring the inclusion of the total domain to satisfy the criteria “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
  • “provide for the common defense” means if one state goes to war, we all go to war. As a common defense, our common symbol to defend is the American Flag.
  • “in order to form a more perfect union” implies acting like a damn union. State houses flying flags not representative of the U.S. — or the official state flag — threatens the legitimacy of the “more perfect union.”
  •  Back to “and.” If we fail to fulfill any criteria, the whole statement becomes a fallacy. For X, Y and Z we must do X, Y and Z. If we do X, Y and not Z, then we cannot execute X, Y and Z.

♦   Ifdo ordain” ∩ “establish this Constitution for the United States of Americathen “in order to form a more perfect union” ∩ “establish justice” ∩ “insure domestic tranquility” ∩ “provide for the common defense” ∩ “promote the general welfare” ∩ “secure the blessings of liberty

♦  The statement proves reciprocal because the {} domain must include all criteria.

In other words: A + B = C + D + E + F + G + H      A negation to one side would equivocally negate the other side of the equal sign.  The Confederate flag negates the criteria for “more perfect union.”

confederate flag photo: The Flag RetroRebelFlag.jpg

This is what happens when states deviate from the Preamble contract

2) Article I. Section 8: No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

  • The Confederate flag on state grounds could arguably breach “law impairing the obligation of contracts.” As a union, we make a contract with each other to pledge loyalty to the United States — a collective loyalty. A Confederate flag on state grounds deviates from that contract because we do not collectively pledge loyalty to the Confederate flag.
  •  “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation” boggles my mind. Alabama and South Carolina placed a symbol representing a breach of this law on government property.  That’s like wearing a Bacardi Rum t-shirt to a DUI hearing.

3) First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  • These rights apply to “the people,” not states. State governments — technically — do not meet the criteria necessary to claim a guarantee for civil liberties. Basically, the federal government treated southern states in the same manner Philly cops treat pot heads – yea, it’s not actually legal but we’re too overwhelmed with bigger problems.
  • You still have every right to hang the Confederate flag from your house. Your freedom of expression is guaranteed within this amendment.  The Constitution limits the state government’s freedom of speech on government property but a private citizen within South Carolina or Alabama can fly any flag they please.  The states have a legal obligation to work toward a union.

4) 10 Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  • “Reserved to the states” means federal powers end here and the state can pick up the rest.  States’ rights belong to a class of rights called implied rights because the Constitution does not specify the scope of states’ rights. Unlike the explicit rights I discussed until this point, implied points infer their fundamental authority.  The verbatim context of explicit rights allows for logical sentence deconstruction — implied rights require interpretation.

♦  The rights of the state include regulating taxes, commerce, police units, infrastructure and public health.

5) Article IV Section 3: The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

  •  “dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States”   suggests the United States can regulate government property in territories or state government properties.
  • nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state” means a one-to-many relationship.

♦    Notice the comma before the “or.”  A comma before a conjunction signifies the second cause adds to the sentence but does not present the main subject matter.  The comma signifies the following clause relates the word preceding the comma.

♦    The “or” denotes the operator for exclusion.  United States  any particular state

United States = [Alabama, Alaska, California, …]   {United States {Alabama, South Carolina, …}

Mexicans hanging flagsReasonably speaking:

    • The South lost. Get over it.
    • Southern states should not fly the Confederate flag for the same reasons California and New Mexico do not fly the Mexican flag. Both states belonged to Mexico a couple decades before the Civil War.
  • The Confederate flags stayed on state government property because the federal government most likely did not even want to deal with the argument.  They turned their heads. I applaud the Alabama and South Carolina state legislatures for taking it upon themselves to make the right decisions.

The TedTalks video provides a great history lesson showing the dangers of a divided nation.

The erosion of the Right to Privacy

Mine Your Data

The government mines data.  No surprise.  The data mining program PRISM may have been a secret, however the government has been chipping away at the right to privacy for a while.  The recipe for government intrusion has been slowly boiling, while the electorate argues over blue and red yard signs.  The road to tyranny is paved with national security.

data mining

Bureaucrat mining data

Think of the NSA and CIA as the Cookie Monster.  A person’s computer leaves behind cookies upon visiting a website, which the server collects:

previous webpage, geographic location, internet speed, keywords, page content, time spent on page, operating system, local time and even screen resolution.

Compiling data produces eerily accurate profiles of individuals.  FaceBook, Gmail, Yahoo! and the like cost nothing because advertisers mine, or collect, the aforementioned data.  Advertisers have been the driving force behind mass media since colonial newspapers.

Cue the PATRIOT ACT.  The government managed to obtain this advertising gold mine by pushing boundaries that former president George W. Bush already stretched.

Rewind back to the propaganda Iraqi War, the piss poor excuse for the PATRIOT ACT, when Americans decided to trade in freedom for heightened national security.  If the Bush administration had been stopped from implementing the PATRIOT ACT, then the Obama administration would have no foundation allowing the intrusion upon America’s online and phone information.

English: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releas...

former president Bush signs PATRIOT ACT in 2001 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The PATRIOT ACT narrows the Fourth Amendment passage “supported by Oath or affirmation.”  The restriction of this highly regarded civil liberty allows the government to eavesdrop upon a person, or social network, without the person’s “Oath or affirmation” if the person portrays probable cause of terrorist activities or ties to a terrorist organization, abroad or domestic.  The kicker: the CIA and FBI do not have to specify the probable cause.

Fourth Amendment

Fourth Amendment

Rewind further – back to former president Reagan’s War on Drugs.  The policy expanded out of control.  Many people have the all-too-common scenario of being searched because a police officer claimed to “smell pot.”  Police officers have long exhausted excuses to search vehicles.  Some officers even demand the license, registration and insurance without even providing reasons for stopping a vehicle.  This abuse of power has cultivated an unhealthy mistrust for real police officers with the true intentions of serving their public.

Despite this violation of civil liberties, people turned a blind eye with the “drugs are bad” rationalization.  The electorate tolerated (sometimes welcomed) the search without “Oath or affirmation” practice for the sake of protecting America against evil scheming potheads.  I hope this was worth it.

Mean blunt

Blunts are bad

Do not forget immigration reform.  The PATRIOT ACT sought to deliver us from terrorists sneaking across the border disguised as Mexicans.  That sombrero performs incognito magic!  Americans thought draping Rosaries over Qur’ans would conceal those brown people who all look alike.  Once again, people turned a blind eye to the civil liberty violating PATRIOT ACT for the sake of protecting America against either terrorists or Mexicans taking jobs nobody wants.

While people lost sleep over crackheads, illegal landscapers and Muslims eating burritos, the government slowly corroded more and more of the Fourth Amendment.  One president sets up the next president to push the boundaries slightly further.  The government slices freedom away over time.  It is like the wife who tolerates her clearly unfaithful husband and becomes devastated when he impregnates his secretary.  America got played.

Listen up and learn fast.  Read the Bill of Rights before you vote.  Do not vote based on red or blue.  Check to ensure the candidate’s policy aligns with constitutional values.  Tyranny thrives upon ignorance.

The government has gotten to the point of openly collecting personal private information without providing definitive reasons.  The government is supposed to derive its just power from the consent of the governed.  If the people give no consent to the storage of their personal information, then that government should be held accountable in the most traditional sense according to American custom.

If you want your freedom back, think before you vote.  This has been a long time coming.  There is no difference between political policy and political propaganda.

ACTA lives, SOPA and PIPA choke, but OPEN has good intentions

The structure of the SOPA and PIPA bills stifles free speech, a right that guarantees journalism as a societal necessity. The unofficial Fourth Branch is the check for transparency on government officials for faulty administration, especially Legislation that deviates from Civil Liberties.

SOPA and PIPA aim to search and destroy digital scallywags who roam the online world to loot copyrighted booty. Actually, the bills call for search engine censorship to filter out links to sites with infringement material. Congruently, the bills hold domain hosts, i.e. FaceBook and Flickr, responsible if they are linked to infringement or counterfeit sites. They are to be immediately shut down by order of the Attorney General. This is in conflict with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which protects intermediaries from prosecution, as described in a statement by Christine Montgomery, President of Online News Association.

The result is intense monitoring. These expensive babysitter fees would stunt the number of online start-up sites with limited funds. In the event of law suit, a small business is almost doomed to flat line.

Aside from costly drawbacks, heavy monitoring would reduce the interactive flow in open forum discussions and commenting. The uncanny Democratic exchange and evaluation of ideas is the hallmark of new media communication.

Black Out Protest

My Blacked Out WordPress profile

Nonviolent protests were held on January 18, 2012, as MLK’s philosophy digitally shined. Black Outs broke out. The next day, Anonymous took out the websites of the Department of Justice and RIAA. According to a politico.com article by Jennifer Martinez, Senators and Representatives instantly folded to the opposition bandwagon.

PIPA did not receive the motion for cloture from the Senate and SOPA was put on hold by the House of Representatives. The battle is won, but the war still rages on with other bill manifestations. They are all worded with an ambiguous syntax that obscures the exact purpose to any congressman who does not know the difference between a browser and an IP address. The video by Kirby Ferguson mentions similar laws that are currently being structured, such as Innovation Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act and Six Strikes Plan. He also described the arbitrary language patent protection in contrast to intellectual property protection, which is almost melted together by new media standards.

Everything is a Remix Part 4 from Kirby Ferguson on Vimeo.

The OPEN Act is democratically being structured online. Unlike SOPA and PIPA, the OPEN Act does not punish the intermediary for having links to sites suspected of infringement or counterfeiting. It also focuses on foreign sites over domestic sites; therefore the International Trade Commission polices the issue instead of the DOJ. This bill is loathed by special interest groups that capitalized from traditional mass media economics. The MPAA released a scour statement for the bill.

Media Model

Mass Media Model vs. New Media Model. New media is not vertical integration friendly.

ACTA is a strict anti-pirating treaty that was signed into law in 2011. Since it is a treaty, no consent was required from the American people.

These bills are a panic response to the evolution of industry. The music industry provides example of a mass media market with vertical and horizontal integrations controlled by a rigid oligopoly. Sites such as YouTube, Vimeo, and soundcloud.com are taking pieces of talent and money from the conglomerates by allowing independent artists and record labels to side-step expensive fees involved in production and distribution. The result is a larger selection of music for the audience. This growing market is described in a Huffington Post article “Economics of SOPA from Indie Rap Artists MC Lars” posted by blogger Davekusek. The following video uses hip hop as an example.

Censorship is a strange bolt to hammer into the infrastructure of the internet. Everything is connected. Software engineer and blogger Ricky Ho provides insight to online structure.
He describes nodes, specific objects that have a unique ID, sometimes known as a tag. The name of a blogger is an object with assigned types that contain a set of values. Twitter uses hashtags to convey nodes or tags. Imagine the nodes “John” and “Smith”. If John Smith’s activities make headlines, a journalist will tweet his or her story with #JohnSmith. John Smith’s type on FaceBook is a friend. If he goes to Rowan, then Rowan’s type is a university. On Blogspot, John Smith’s type is a blogger. The arc is the relationship or link between two nodes. John Smith is friends with Jane Doe on FaceBook; therefore the friend link is an arc between the nodes “John”-“Smith” and “Jane”-“Doe”.

The circles are considered nodes with designated types. The lines are the arcs, which convey a link or relationship. Illustration by Marko A. Rodriguez and Peter Neubauer

Jake Thompson finds an interesting site that features an underground clothing line. He links it to the comments on John Smith’s blog about logo design with the new Adobe Illustrator CS.6. John Smith is impressed with the intricately detailed logo, so he shows Jane Doe by posting the URL to her FaceBook wall. The site sells music, as well as clothes. It is discovered that Kesha’s song “Tik Tok” is illegally available for download on the site. The owners of the clothing line domain host are prosecuted for having the song, under SOPA and PIPA laws. The site’s node ID is branded as an infringer. Since the site has links to blogger types under the node IDs “John Smith” and “Jake Thompson”, those objects are subject to prosecution as well. Blogspot is liable and shut down by order of the Attorney General. John Smith shared the infringing node ID on Jane Does wall. The node ID “Jane Doe”’s type is friend on the domain host FaceBook. That sharing created a link that makes Jane Doe and FaceBook responsible for possessing pirated material. The Attorney General orders the shutdown of FaceBook.

If one of the objects is censored, the whole network is disrupted due to the complexity of the connections. Illustration by Marko A. Rodriguez and Peter Neubaue

It is doubtful that many Congressmen understood the language of the bills. The money trails reveal the pricey incentive for the Legislators who supported these to become laws. However, Senator Harry Reid [D, NV] does understand the $34,250 from the recorded music and music production interests groups.

Freedom of expression modulates easier than regulation.

Digital revolution condemns SOPA to limbo

Fluid discussion on current events is the holy grail of Democracy. A creative market place of ideas fertilizes education. Restricted access to information fatally fosters ignorance.

The Constitution

Preservation is vital.

First Amendment Rights, the most unalienable rights, were recently threatened.

The PROTECT IP Act of 2011 (PIPA) cloture for motion was postponed by the Senate on January 24, 2012; while the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) was placed on hold in The House of Representatives.

In light of these holds, the OPEN Act was introduced to Congress on January 18, 2012. This more Democratic-friendly version found stronger support from digital leadership, such as Google and Twitter. Although, media special interest groups still prefer PIPA and SOPA.

The conglomerate-backed bills were promoted as laws to save the world from digital pirating. Not quite reality. The bills hold domain hosts responsible for stolen material that is posted by users who utilize the hosts’ web sites, however, a web site is merely a tool that is at the disposal of users.

This affects search engine sites. Media companies would’ve been able to sue these sites for users linking keywords from other sites that are deemed unauthorized by organizations, such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Search engines are relatively unrestricted in their keyword content, hence their efficiency. However, PIPA and SOPA laws would allow the search engine algorithm to be censored and dictated by media conglomerates and government regulation, therefore yielding limited search results. Sound familiar? Think China Google.

Google, WordPress, Wikipedia, and other high-traffic sites Blacked Out in protest on these bills on January 18, 2012.

Black Out Protest

My Blacked Out WordPress profile

Free speech is threatened on further levels, of particular concern is the monitoring of user-generated content. The bills request sites to play probation officer to users, an act with disturbingly counterproductive side effects to public conversation. A domain host breathing down a blogger’s neck is bound to thicken interactive viscosity.

Sites would be responsible for their bloggers’ links to unauthorized sites. That means lawsuit. Online start-up businesses can not finance this expensive monitoring; nor would they have the funds for defense lawyers in case of lawsuit. It restricts good old American entrepreneurialism, a crucial element to the online community. Self-starting small businesses were the foundations for Twitter, FaceBook, YouTube, and several other popular sites.

Why was Congress considering these bills?

As Bob Dylan sings, “Times They Are A Changin.” (Oh look, I shared a song).

Media Model

Mass Media Model vs. New Media Model. New media is not vertical integration friendly.

The big corporations in the media industries cannot keep up, so they are trying to restrict the natural market by lobbying for government regulation. The top-down business model is dying, “the people formerly known as the audience” are becoming the publishers, which includes generating ad revenue.

The market centralized to a handful of powerful corporations, however small media businesses are now manifesting in the form of underground music artists, online magazines, how-to bloggers, comedians on YouTube, and social network engineers. Underground artists can now compete with corporate funded artists for the first time in an open market.

It is industry evolution. Hard-working new media folk simply want to make a name by utilizing this innovative model of sharing content and open forum discussion. Most serve their audiences well in pursuit of their most romanticized dreams, made possible by digital innovation.

Did I pirate a pirate? Is this stealing? Or sharing? Or adding to a shared photo of a common image to prove a point?

The conglomerate bills will not stop pirating. Everybody knows that pirates don’t follow laws, hence why they’re fun to glamorize. Pirates are outlaws. Duh. Only a lousy pirate would stop stealing to obey some new law. It is not possible to legislate a perfect world. The price of freedom is too high. By the way, thank you for the Captain Hook photo to the good people at schoolofdisney.com.

The OPEN Act is available for public discussion online. The internet tool resurrects that timeless American value: “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” To take part of the Democratic process, put your own two cents into the H.R. 3287 bill.

Team effort ruins economy

President Obama is not the best president, but when is the last time we had a president remotely close to good?

People blame him for the disastrous state of the economy, yet this economy is not his fault alone. Don’t forget the former president Bush expanding costly government and printing money into inflation hell. Not to mention, the expensive Iraqi War based on forged documents ; and those gluttonous bailouts that shot taxes up like a stockholder’s blood pressure.

Don’t forget former president Clinton’s China Trade Act of 2000; that sealed the nail into the coffin for American manufacturing. Clinton also ended the Glass-Steagall Act, therein allowing investment banks and consumer banks to merge. He also signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that caused the accelerated merging of conglomerate media companies, thus ending many jobs at local newspapers and TV stations.

Furthermore, there are 535 members of Congress who pass laws concerning transparency of corporations. Until the STOCK Act of 2011, members of Congress were not subject to insider trading laws. Think about it. When is the last time antitrust laws did what they’re designed to do?

Granted President’s Obama’s policies did not help, but the blame belongs to numerous leaders from BOTH sides of the political spectrum. The old axiom is true: There’s no “I” in teamwork. Think of that before you vote.

Thanksgiving Day meaning: Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? Or my enemy?

How would Sun Tzu have handled the First Thanksgiving?

Courtesy of Native American Project Trails to the Past Wampanoag Tribes

The Mayflower landed into mayhem upon November 11, 1620. The Native Americans were not all that peaceful. Instead of feuding with each other, they should’ve taken out the British when they had the chance.

The Wampanoag had serious issues for about a decade before the arrival of the Pilgrims. They had been fighting a two-front war with the Pequot tribe in Connecticut and the invading Micmac tribes from the north, who had been annexing coastal land from the defeated Penobscot in the Tarrateen War (1607-1615). The emerging victor from this North American Dark Ages was the Narragansett tribe, who gave frequent shake-downs to the neighboring Wampanoag.

The Wampanoag sachem (chief), Massasoit, began to wonder the age-old question: Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? Or still my enemy? His tribe had been aware of the Pilgrim settlement, but chose to ignore them. However, next to the bullying Narragansett, third-world starving frail white people hardly seemed threatening. He made them an offer they couldn’t refuse: food in exchange for protection and utilization of their advanced weapons. In March of 1621, Massasoit and Samoset began diplomacy with the near-dead Pilgrims who had already lost half of their population from the New England winter. Squanto served as ambassador.

No evidence suggests that anyone ate turkey on the first Thanksgiving.

The Wampanoag signed over 12,000 acres of land in what history would remember as Plymouth Plantation. They taught the Pilgrim basic survival skills. The alliance was celebrated with the first Thanksgiving that lasted three days, which may have been anywhere between September and November.

The Narragansett sachem Canonicus noticed this suspicious mingling, so he sent a message. In a tribal version of the Godfather, they sent arrows wrapped in snakeskin. Anyone who has ever seen a mob movie can easily interpret this message. As with the subtle rules of turf war (which stretch back long before urban US cities), the Pilgrims and Wampanoag sent a message back. William Bradford replaced the arrows with gun powder, and then rewrapped it the same snakeskin. The Narragansett were confused by this substance. They rendered the English as strange and decided to not even bother.

In the winter of 1622, another ship with 40 more white people arrived. This time, they took welfare handouts from the Nauset tribe. Meanwhile, the Narragansett were engaged in the Pequot War and battling with the Mohawk, emerging victorious once again. By the time the Narragansett were ready to deal with the British, it was too late because they had established themselves while the tribes were busy having turf wars. In 1632, they instead decided to attack the Wampanoag village of Sowam for more shake-downs. The British quickly came to their rescue and drove off the Narragansett. For the time being, they held to their alliance. They even nursed Massasoit back to health in 1623, when he became seriously ill.

This alliance held for maybe a decade or so, and then the Puritans came, then more crazy Christians who needed the land. They forgot the whole Jesus teaching of “Love thy neighbor” and decided to handle their neighbors with “Peace Treaties”.

What can be learned from this historic period?

Courtesy of amishairforce.blogspot.com

Basically, the enemy of the enemy is still the enemy. No matter many battles you have, never turn your back on your enemy. Never let the amount of battles grow large enough distract you from the strange; quiet ones (the British). What would Sun Tzu do?

“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.”

The Art of War

Society’s ignorance on drugs: get wasted legally

Every society needs to have a healthy exchange of information. Any topic that is taboo or swept under-the-rug tends to marinate and swell, despite common unwillingness to recognize it.

Upon researching my blog about pill and heroin addiction, I found that several professionals in the field of medicine and pharmaceutical were unwilling to provide expert information. Four pharmacists at three different stores and a doctor turned me down for an interview. The pharmacists actually had a look of fear and irritation in their faces, with much hesitation in their voices. My utmost gratitude goes out to the few experts who did provide commentary. It seems that opiate narcotics are more of a taboo subject in the legal industry than in the underground users and dealers.

Corporate pharmaceutical companies manufacture and patent prescription opiates at an accelerating rate, however the industry’s distribution aspect seems generally reluctant to discuss their observations. Meanwhile, the government and mainstream media launch a propaganda war against street dealers who simply utilize the natural supply-and-demand model to survive. The status quo points-the-finger at underground dealers for providing the same narcotics that are legal produced by PHDs in white collars. It is disgusting that one group should be prosecuted while another is allowed to flourish due to an appeal to the conservative mindset.

It is no secret that people are becoming hooked on Percocet and Oxycotin at an unprecedented rate. Yet, mainstream America cringes at the thought of cocaine and heroin dealers running the streets: “Not in my backyard.” Truth be told, you have a better chance of overcoming cocaine addiction than you do of Percocet addiction. Ask anyone who has had both habits. However, because society tends to focus more on the illegal hard drugs, prescriptions pills lack the attention they deserve. Could it be because those involved in the legal drug industry tend not to discuss it? Those involved in the illegal drug industry have to discuss it because they get dragged in front of a jury.

The lack of transparency is detrimental to a growing situation. Our hypocritical status quo reinforces the idea that doing drugs is bad and abusing medicine is dangerous; quite a misleading concept. This “medicine” is not a favorite topic to discuss by those who manufacture, produce, and distribute it. A society that constricts its information flow stunts its growth. Without adequate education, consumers cannot be expected to make the best decisions. People will always experiment, but they should at least know the nature of their experiments. Right now, they are basing this from the War on Drug’s propaganda.

People pissed about other people

The cities protest at an unprecedented degree. Several homogenous groups with conflicting ideologies have coalited on the streets with the common underlying feeling of being screwed. To vote Republican or Democrat almost seems pointless because both parties have failed miserably to achieve economic or military stability.

There is nothing else left to do, but feel hopeless at a string of administrations who allow more jobs to be outsourced, more businesses to go offshore, more favors to unions for work on unnecessary public roads, the resurgence of taxes, increased inflation, increased cost of living, more political favors, more laws, the lack of bank transparency, and the increase of world disorder with the occupation of more nations. That is just to name a small few. All people can do at this point is scream their heads off at once and hope to be heard. The people voted in these politicians in good faith that they would govern as expected. They have every right to yell at these politicians for their incompetence.

Bob Dylan’s Like a Rolling Stone, “When you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose.”

This is a decentralized nationwide protest with several demographics that sprang up in sequence of one another, to shout “This does not work!” These are not crowds of political science majors, law makers, or ideological philosophers. You do not need a degree to know the government and Wall Street are both disasters. The crowds are as diverse as America itself. Obviously, the government fucked up bad for this many people to be pissed off.

“Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Your First Amendment Right, courtesy of Thomas Jefferson.