History Recap: The Boston Massacre

I swore my next blog post was going to be a book review. I am still working on that book review, but I've also recently been hit with the Revolutionary War Era feelings, so here's another history post. Please enjoy!

***

Today we're going to start with a story. 

Once upon a time, there was a town. Not a small town, but not a huge town, either. Recent events meant that the inhabitants of this town--mostly blue-collar workers without a ton of money to their names--were, well, disgruntled with the law enforcement in their town. For the most part, this disgruntlement had resulted in some heckling of the local law enforcement officers--kids yelling things and throwing snowballs, people grumbling under their breath and glaring whenever an officer passed. 

Then, things escalated. 

There was a gathering--ostensibly a peaceful gathering, a legal gathering, but bordering on a riot in some places. People were getting violent, pressing in a couple of officers, yelling things at them, threatening to get violent. The officers called for backup. A higher-ranking officer showed up with reinforcements, but ordered his men not to get violent with the crowd, as that wouldn't end well for anybody. The crowd, though, was determined to provoke a reaction. They continued to act up until--and no one exactly knows why or how--one of the officers fired his gun. 

Some of the other officers fired, then, though none of them would later recall hearing the order to fire. The crowd scattered; when it was all over and the smoke had cleared, eleven people had been shot. (If I'm remembering this incident correctly, five died and two more died later of injuries.)

This broke the floodgates. The people of the town were enraged. Some of them held funerals and wakes and protest marches. Some of them formed violent mobs, seeking to take out their fury on any scapegoat they could find. The government sent in more law enforcement officers, which only aggravated the situation. 

Eventually, the officers involved were indicted, taken to court, for murder. Their lawyer crafted a compelling case--the situation really wasn't as cut and dry as it first appeared, and the officers weren't directly at fault. They were found not guilty; but this, too, aggravated the people, because at the end of the day, sons and father and brothers had been killed by the very people who were meant to protect them. Law enforcement fired on a crowd of citizens, and no one was going to let that go. 

The story doesn't end there, of course, but I think it's a decent stopping point. Now, thanks to the title of this post, you've probably figured out that all that up there is the story of the Boston Massacre of 1770. However, that's not all the story is. I deliberately used vague terminology to re-tell the story, because I want you to be able to look back at it and see the story of Ferguson, of Baltimore, of the all the communities that have been in turmoil recently. 

Recently, we as a country have been more aware than ever of the misdeeds and unclear decisions of our police forces. There's been a question, recently, of just what racial biases are embedded in our law enforcement system. I'm not here to answer that question; there's a lot of evidence and argument and rhetoric on either side, and I am far from the most educated person on any of that. 

But I have been thinking about history lately. And I have been thinking about parallels lately, and I've been thinking about how messy--muddy and unclear and divisive--the Boston Massacre really was. It came at a time of palpable tension--economic tension, not racial tension, but tension all the same. Both sides debated it, trying to twist it to fit with their own narrative. Loyalists said that the crowd was a mob on the verge of attacking soldiers who didn't have the option to fight back. Rebels said that armed soldiers had fired into an innocent, peaceful gathering of civilians. Neither narrative was completely correct. The truth is, the people were angry and the soldiers were scared and a horrible, irreversible mistake was made. 

I'm the last person to try to discredit the Black Lives Matter movement. I'm the last person to say that we need to tear down our police departments. But I am the person to say that we need to be better, we need to work our hardest to ensure that our neighborhoods are safe--that all neighborhoods are safe, regardless of who lives there--and that our cops are doing their jobs to the very best of their abilities. I think, in the end, the lesson of the Boston Massacre is that we need to be able to look rationally at both sides of a conflict, since it's rare that only one side is in the right. 

(We tend to empathize with the members of the crowd in the case of the Boston Massacre, yet in a modern-day rehashing of the story, the cops are often the ones who receive the most empathy. Just something to think about.)

So, yes. Does the Black Lives Matter movement have a valid point? Yes, I think they do. Nothing has ever been accomplished by people staying silent about the issues they see affecting their communities. However, I also think that we need to listen to police officers and their advocates, since it just isn't fair or right to target an entire group of people without at least hearing them out. In conclusion, I think the only way for us to resolve this issue is to impartially listen to both sides and try to come to an equally impartial conclusion. If we can't do that, I don't think we'll be coming to a solution any time soon. 

History Recap: The Alien and Sedition Acts

I've been doing some history reading recently. I've been learning about the American Revolution--the political atmosphere surrounding it, the men involved with it, and the construction of a country from the ground up that came afterward. It's all very fascinating stuff. And one of the most fascinating things that I've found is a little incident called the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

First, let me give you some background.

In 1798, a few things were going on at once. For one thing, John Adams, a member of the Federalist party, had been elected president and was doing his best, no doubt, to iron out the wrinkles in a government that hadn't quite figured out how to work smoothly yet. For another thing, across the Atlantic Ocean, French peasants were rising up and slaughtering every member of the upper class they could get their hands on, and England was making a stand against the country that killed its own king. The fledgling United States had already made a statement of their neutrality in this conflict under Washington, but the prominent politicians of the day had still taken sides. The Federalist party (Adams's party, if you'll remember), led by Alexander Hamilton, was squarely on the side of the English. The Jeffersonian Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, supported the French.

All this was tumultuous enough for a new country with a new president. But this wasn't all that was going on. You see, because of the aforementioned slaughtering of French aristocracy, many French noblemen and Catholic priests (who were also targeted by the revolutionaries) were fleeing to America. This sudden influx of French refugees/immigrants, combined with statements by the French revolutionaries that they would spread their brand of "freedom" to the rest of the world, made the American government--particularly the Federalists--very nervous.

(Is any of this starting to sound familiar?)

This is the political climate that President John Adams found himself in. And this is the political climate that eventually motivated Mr. Adams to sign four Congressional laws collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The Alien Acts encompassed three laws. To summarize, these laws basically stated that the President had the power to deport any foreign immigrant, for any reason. They also made it much harder for foreigners to become American citizens. The Sedition Act was the fourth law, and it made it illegal to publish anything "false, scandalous, or malicious" about the government.

As the Jeffersonian Republicans were quick to point out, these Acts ran roughshod over the First Amendment. Adams & co. ignored these protests; they felt that, given what was going on with the French, these acts were the only way to keep their new country safe. Also, given the amount of muckraking, slander, and attacks the newspapers of the day published against their politicians, the Federalists felt perfectly justified in restricting what could be said about the government.

In the end, no immigrants were deported because of the Alien Acts. Only twenty-five people were arrested for Sedition, and of those people, only eleven were tried and only ten were convicted. (And those ten were pardoned by Jefferson at the start of his presidency.)

However, the fact that these acts were passed at all cast enough of a shadow on the Federalist party to eventually cause their demise. Adams wasn't re-elected after his first term. The Alien and Sedition Acts expired in 1800 and 1801, and Congress didn't try to renew them. The only man who might have rescued the Federalists--Alexander Hamilton--was killed in a duel in 1804. The Federalists faded into obscurity, the Alien and Sedition Acts being their only lasting legacy.

Now, all this makes for a very interesting and even entertaining story, but what's the moral behind it all? What are we to learn?

Well, first of all, the situation with the French revolution has, I would say, several fascinating parallels with our current problem of ISIS and the Syrian refugees. We today also have a problem: evil, bloodthirsty "revolutionaries" are tearing a country apart. Refugees are flooding from that country, trying to find safety in Europe and America. And all those refugees are making our politicians nervous, because what if some terrorists sneak in with all the innocents?

Of course, our government hasn't yet gone as far as the Federalists did in 1798. We haven't totally destroyed our credibility with immigrants and refugees. (Although it's happening. Our immigration system is pretty much shot to hell, and we do already have a strenuous system for vetting refugees.) And we haven't made it illegal to speak against the government.

But I think the Alien and Sedition Acts are something of a cautionary tale, particularly in what they have to say about refugees and immigrants. After all, we're in the midst of a presidential campaign right now, and the Republican candidates seem to enjoy nothing more than promising to deport great swathes of people, or cut off immigration altogether. (You could also argue that the Sedition Acts mirror the current railing against "PC culture", but that's a whole other blog post.) I think these candidates would do well to remember that such actions were what heavily contributed to the destruction of the Federalist party. And I think these candidates would do well to remember that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Thank you.

Thoughts From The Republican Presidential Debate

So tonight CNN hosted another debate between the many Republican Presidential candidates. I watched this debate, and these are my thoughts on the candidates and their opinions/thoughts/responses. Thoughts are organized by candidate.

***

Donald Trump:

• Way to insult a fellow candidate (Rand Paul) in your first statement, Trump. Classy. Also, if Americans thought we needed a businessman, we might've elected Mitt Romney. Just saying. Mr. Romney's business background was quite a point of contention when he ran. People were asking, "Do we really want a businessman as a President?" And, ya know, he was actually competent. Just saying. 
• Ad hominem, thy name is Donald Trump.
• CNN asks: What makes Trump qualified to be Commander-in-Chief? Wow, CNN, that's... actually a very good question. What does make him qualified? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
• To answer the question no one seems to want to answer, I for one would not be comfortable with Trump controlling anything in our government, let alone the nuclear trigger. 
• Mr. Trump [on the topic of casino gambling in Florida]: "If I'd wanted it, I would've gotten it. I know my people." Hmm. HMMM. What could this statement possibly say about Mr. Trump's business practices?  We just don't know.
• I'm starting to think Trump is allergic to giving a straight answer to a question. It's like he's physically incapable of giving an actual answer rather than, I don't know, dodging and stalling by talking about tangentially connected topics.
• Trump claims that when he commented on Fiorina's face, he was commenting on her persona; Fiorina retorts that Trump heard Jeb Bush's comment about woman's health very clearly; and she, and the other women of the US, heard his comment about her appearance very clearly. 
• Donald Trump wants to build a wall between USA and Mexico. How. Why. I mean, yes, we do need to build up border security, as other candidates have pointed out. But. Why is this such a talking point for Trump. How would you logistically even do this. We just don't know. 
• Mr. Trump, you took heat about your immigration remarks because they were pretty inflammatory and racist.
• And Trump didn't actually answer the question. (I'm gonna keep a count of this, I swear I am.) He talks big, but says absolutely nothing about how he'll do his immigration reforms and how much it'll cost. 
• CNN asks: Did Trump go too far when he suggested Bush's views on immigration are influenced by his Mexican-born wife? Yes. Yes he did. 
• And then he doesn't apologize to Mrs. Bush (who is there at the event), because he "knows he's right". Barf. 
• CNN asks: Trump has criticized Bush for speaking Spanish on the campaign trail; what's wrong with speaking Spanish? There is nothing wrong with speaking Spanish. In other news, Donald Trump is trash.
• Trump claims, among other things, that "We need assimilation to have a country." There are just. So many problems with that statement. I don't even know where to start. 
• If Trump is so against people coming to America to have "anchor babies", how does he propose we change the laws? How do we then initiate citizenship?
• CNN asks: What is Trump's response to Rubio saying his failure to know details about some US enemies is "very concerning"? Answer: Trump dodges the question, stalls, and deflects by saying that the government now knows those details and is failing. Question Dodging Counter: I don't know, 5?
• Trump Ad Hominem Counter: 6? Maybe? He jabs at Rubio's voting record while "rebutting" Rubio's statement. 
• Trump says, "I'm a very militaristic person, but you have to know when to act"; he claims he's "the only person on this dais that opposed our going into Iraq." 
• When the camera is on most of the candidates, this looks like an actual presidential debate. When it's on Trump, it instantly becomes a circus. This is terrible. 
• CNN asks: Should Trump stop saying that vaccines are linked to autism? Yes. Yes he should. As Mr. Carson says, there have been multiple studies with no link found to autism. The one study that claimed this was debunked.
• Trump claims that his Secret Service codename would be "Humble". Ha. Hahaha. 
• Conclusion: With this amount of logical fallacies, question-dodging, and general blowhard-ishness, Donald Trump yet again proves himself to be totally incapable and undeserving of this office. I don't know, guys. I'm pretty sure I could debate better than this guy. 

Ben Carson:

• Seriously guys, if you want a candidate who's not a sellout to donors, BEN CARSON. YOU WANT BEN CARSON. NOT DONALD TRUMP.
• Trump is the definition of a powerplaying billionaire political donor.
• Dr. Carson also points out that deporting all immigrants would be really hard and not too cost-effective.
• Ben Carson points out that the immigration strategy in Arizona works amazingly well, and that we shouldn't reinvent the wheel; if a strategy works, why don't we implement it nationwide?
• Carson says that we need to create a better minimum wage rate by getting people from both sides of the debate to agree on a good rate; and we need two rates:  a "starter" and a "sustainer".
• Rand Paul and Ben Carson point out that the both of them were also opposed to going into Iraq, proving Trump wrong. 
• Ben Carson: "There are smart ways to do things, and there are muscular ways to do things, and sometimes you need to look at both to come up with a solution."
• Carson does admit that we need to space out vaccines and give them in lower doses, so as not to jeopardize small children's health. 
• Carson says his secret service codename would be "One Nation".
• Conclusion: Dr. Carson's analysis and solutions are mostly spot-on. I still support this guy, and if I was old enough to vote, I would vote for him. 

Jeb Bush:

• Jeb Bush mentions the multiple non-Planned Parenthood organizations that work in woman's health, and maintains that these are the organizations we need to fund, not Planned Parenthood. 
• Jeb Bush retorts: On the topic of Trump's judgement, he claimed Ms. Clinton was the best person to negotiate Iraq, and that this level of naivete is dangerous in today's world. 
• Jeb Bush: "We don't have to be the world's policeman; but we do need to be the world's leader."
• Bush says that we need Supreme Court Justices who have an extensive record and reputation of willingness to uphold the Constitution. "We can't do this [appoint Supreme Court Justices] in a politically expedient way anymore."
• Conclusion: Eh... I'm pretty ambivalent, to be honest. 

Carly Fiorina

• You go, Carly Fiorina. I didn't know much about you before today, but I'm liking you more and more as this debate goes on. 
• If I wasn't such a supporter of Ben Carson, I'd probably vote for Ms. Fiorina. 
• Ms. Fiorina makes an excellent point about politicians having been in a corrupt system. "You know what a leader does? They challenge the status quo.... This is about changing the system." 
• Carly Fiorina lays down some truth on the subject of Vladimir Putin and how he won't listen to anything other than a show of strength. Not only is she completely right about what we should do, but she's incredibly decisive and smart about her hypothetical solutions. Take note, Mr. Trump. 
• Fiorina has a very decisive, very definitive plan for dealing with Iran. (1. Reaffirm that we are on Netanyahu's side; 2. Inform Iran leadership that if they don't open their nuclear facilities to any and all inspection by American forces, we will make it as hard as possible to them to function economically.)
• You go, Ms. Fiorina. Take Trump down. 
• Fiorina correctly points out that immigration didn't magically become an issue because Trump made inflammatory remarks about it. 
• Fiorina points out that it will take an enormous amount of effort to repeal the 14th Amendment, and in the meantime, "anchor babies" will continue to happen.
• Fiorina points out that Trump filed for bankruptcy four times; why would we put a person with that record in charge of an already-catastrophic national debt?
• Fiorina points out that she has many more achievements than Hilary Clinton, and that she doesn't have the track record of dishonesty. 
• Why does everyone keep trying to interrupt/cut off Ms. Fiorina? I mean, she's certainly not the only one--everyone's talking over their time, I think--but Trump in particular seems to keep trying to interrupt her, moreso than any of his male opponents. 
• On putting a woman on the $10 bill, Ms. Fiorina says that ultimately it's an empty gesture, and that the country will be better off when we recognize the potential and freedoms of women in the US. 
• Conclusion: As stated, I didn't know hardly anything about Ms. Fiorina before tonight; but in the span of about three hours, she greatly impressed me. I am completely willing to support Ms. Fiorina, and I really hope she'll continue past primaries. 

Marco Rubio:

• Mr. Rubio points out that a president needs to be able to lead the country on their very first day in office. 
• Conclusion: ???

Ted Cruz:

• Cruz dodges the question about the government shutdown by talking about the Planned Parenthood videos. Which everyone knows about. 
• Cruz sticks up for Spanish-speaking immigrants and talks about his grandfather, who was an immigrant, and who spoke Spanish. Good for you, Mr. Cruz.
• Cruz claims that the answer to the minimum wage program is to help people get the education they need for a better job. But where does the money for that education come from?
• Conclusion: ???

Scott Walker:

• Good for you, Scott Walker. You call Trump out on his crap. I'm probably not gonna vote for you, but I like the points you're making. 
• I feel like that was an ad hominem that Trump just used against Scott Walker. It probably was.
• Conclusion: ???

Rand Paul:

• Rand Paul: "I don't think we need to be rash; I don't think we need to be reckless; and I think we need to leave the lines of communication open." Good thought. 
• Rand Paul points out that toppling dictators often destabilizes countries, and our actions against dictators in the Middle East have been catastrophic. I probably won't vote for him, but I like the points he's making. 
• Rand Paul and Ben Carson point out that the both of them were also opposed to going into Iraq, proving Trump wrong.
• Rand Paul says that the "boots on the ground" in Iraq need to be Iraqi boots. He says that we need to defend American interests rather than fight an never-ending war. If the conflict goes on, we need to equip people native to the area to carry it on.
• Rand Paul points out that the poor people are going to jail for marijauna use, and that people in prison are often African-American or Hispanic, while rich teenagers are getting away with drug use. Mr. Paul thinks that the federal government should not override the states' rights to legalize marijuana; however, he is in favor of not incarcerating drug users and treating it as an illness rather than a crime. 
• Rand Paul says that it is hypocritical to put poor people in jail for marijuana, while letting rich kids off for more or less the same. 
• Conclusion: Rand Paul has some good points, but in my opinion he doesn't have quite enough merit or momentum to do amazingly. (Although he really doesn't deserve to be dissed by Donald Trump.)

Chris Christie:

• Chris Christie points out the infighting in this debate: the candidates' real issues aren't with each other, but with Democratic candidates and their values. 
• Chris Christie says that we need to secure the border and up surveillance of the visa system. But he does point out that deporting all illegal immigrants is an extreme, unrealistic, unattainable goal.
• Chris Christie promises to prosecute Ms. Clinton, both at the R vs. D debates and if he becomes President. 
• Christie says that he is for rehabilitation rather than incarceration, but he disagrees with Paul's statement that "the only victim of drug use is the user". 
• Conclusion: He's... okay? I guess? He made some good points? But there's really not that much distinguishing him from the other candidates?

John R. Kasich:

• In the words of my mom, Kasich doesn't seem like a politician; Cruz does. 
• Kasich is in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood, but isn't for shutting down the government  to force a solution (good for him). 
• Kasich points out that he worked on an economic plan that left the US with billions in surplus and a booming economy.
• Kasich points out the ideological battle with ISIS, and our need of a public condemning of the ISIS mentality. 
• Conclusion: See the conclusion for Chris Christie.

Mike Huckabee:

• I'm getting some slippery slope vibes from Mike Huckabee's argument on the Iran deal. Threatening the fabric of Western civilization? Really? Really? I know this is an ineffective deal and its outcome may be dangerous, but the very fabric of Western civilization? That seems hyperbolic.
• Mr. Huckabee points out that in the case of Kim Davis, she swore to uphold the law under the Constitution of Kentucky, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman. And furthermore, the Supreme Court isn't allowed to make up a redefinition of law like gay marriage out of thin air. 
• Huckabee says that a president needs to declare war on heart disease, cancer, alzheimer's, and diabetes, as these are taking the most lives in America. 
• Conclusion: ?? ????

And a general thought:

• Not that this necessarily means anything, but the candidate lineup seems really tokenistic. We have one white woman... one black man... two (white-passing) Cuban-American men... and a bunch of white guys. Hmm. 

***

...And that concludes my thoughts on this presidential debate. (I honestly didn't know this would end up so long. Sorry about that.) Feel free to weigh in with your opinions in the comments! And remember: Donald Trump sucks. Vote Carson for President 2016.

Interview with Dr. Ben Carson (Everyone Should Watch This)

Dr. Ben Carson

Dr. Carson might just be one of the only people I've ever seriously fangirled about. I LOVE him and his opinions.

This recent interview, which I just watched, is amazing. I seriously think that Dr. Carson should run for president. He would be a candidate I could really get behind. And even if he doesn't run, his ideas are amazing and we should be thinking about these issues seriously and logically.

Okay, I'll stop raving now. Really all I have to say is: watch the interview. Please. Even if you don't agree with anything said, it will make you think. And that's not something that can be said about everything on the Internet, or even on television.

Good day.

My Sister Disapproves of the New Activia Packaging

OLD Activia yogurt packaging

NEW Activia yogurt packaging

As you may or may not be able to tell from the above pictures, Activia has apparently changed the font on its packaging label. I, personally, can only just barely tell the difference between the old font and the new font. My sister, on the other hand, is incensed that Activia has dared to alter THEIR packaging with a font that is almost literally no different from the previous font. 

As you almost may or may not be able to tell, I could not possibly care less that this has happened. I don't even eat Activia yogurt. Usually. 

I partly think it's funny that my sister cares so much about the font on a yogurt package. But I also think it's something of a comment on American society. I mean, a lot of people to day feel validated, or try to feel validated, by the purchases they make. And, a lot of people today are perfectly comfortable with starting fights over inconsequential things, or so it would seem. My question is, when there are plenty of serious, life-or-death issues to talk about, why do we start discussions about yogurt packaging (being facetious here, but not that facetious). 

This is called a report button, boys and girls.
This is generally the thing you try to avoid
when navigating the internet. 

It's true that I've had really only a cursory experience of the Internet, but even that has shown me that people are perfectly capable of starting trivial and/or nasty discussions here. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if a discussion on the Internet isn't trivial, it's almost always disproportionately nasty. There are exceptions, of course, but I don't think there are actually that many. 

(And then there are the rarer, but still existant, Internet discussions that are trivial AND nasty. There are certain forum threads I could link to to prove this, but I will restrain myself.)

So, all this having been said, what do YOU think? Is the new font on the Activia package good? Bad? Horrendously offensive? Does the Internet encourage nasty and/or trivial discussions, or are those just side effects? And finally, did I or did I not use way too many all-caps words in this post? 

(Please, do try to keep these discussions from turning nasty.) 

Thank you and goodbye!