Be very wary of the, "choices," that you are, "given."


As someone that has herded a fair bit of livestock, I can honestly say:  Be very wary of the, "choices," that you are, "given."

Down here in East Texas, there is an old rivalry between the Dallas Cowboys and New Orleans Saints.  I have been in the home of Saints fans that have furnishings with the Saints NFL logo and gold and black carpeting.  The lady of the house screams and yells at the television on game day.  They actually pray for God to intervene in the game on their team's behalf.  They absolutely hate the Dallas Cowboys.

I know more than a few Cowboys fans that never even played football, yet have painted their vehicle blue and silver, decorated it with the Dallas Cowboy's NFL logo, Cowboys license plate bracket, and vanity plates.  Riding in their vehicles, I have witnessed them as they listen to sports talk radio, screaming profanities, absolutely elated when their team wins, and emotionally depressed when they lose.

I have had the opportunity on more than a dozen occasions to spend significant time with both Jerry Jones, the owner of the Cowboys, and Tom Benson, the owner of the Saints.  Both men obviously have a high degree of business acumen and each have had incredible success.  I find both men hard working, intelligent, and likable. On two occasions, I have personally witnessed these two men together, and they seem to be on very good terms, if not even very good friends. 

As NFL owners, they accept that with each game there must be a winner and a loser on the field, to the point that they openly promote the concept of parity, the state where all teams are equal in terms of talent.  The best teams get the lower draft picks for new talent, etc.  But the League's owners also understand that regardless of who wins the game on the field, what really matters is that they are all financial winners every year, and that they protect The League monopoly at all costs.

The owners don't really care if we cheer for the black and gold team, or the blue and silver team, as long as you do cheer, do watch the games on TV, and do purchase their League's tickets and paraphernalia. 

The Benson and Jones family enjoying each other's company.

I have also had the opportunity to personally spend more than a week with Donald Trump at his home and have twice had brief conversations with Bill and Hillary Clinton in person.  I have spent even more time talking with past leadership of both the DNC and RNC.  It would seem obvious, but these are all very intelligent, hard working, and charismatic people. Yes. Even Hillary. 

At this point, it is important to remind readers that we have not had television in our home for more than a decade.  This means that I have never seen Trump's Apprentice program.  Neither have I watched any of the debates, or television "news" programs.

What may not be obvious to readers that do watch television, as both the DNC and RNC attack Trump, and Trump attacks Hillary, is that they all seem to me to be on very good terms, if not even very good friends. 

Now, I shall plagiarize from wikipedia.  Please read carefully the following:

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (or divide and conquer) is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up.

Traiano Boccalini cites "divide et impera" in La bilancia politica, 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule. Machiavelli identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of The Art of War[1] (Dell'arte della guerra),[2] that a Captain should endeavor with every art to divide the forces of the enemy, either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker.

The maxim divide et impera has been attributed to Philip II of Macedon, and together with the maxim divide ut regnes was utilised by the Roman ruler Caesar and the French emperor Napoleon.

The strategy, but not the phrase, applies in many ancient cases: the example of Gabinius exists, parting the Jewish nation into five conventions, reported by Flavius Josephus in Book I, 169-170 of The Wars of the Jews (De bello Judaico).[3] Strabo also reports in Geography, 8.7.3[4] that the Achaean League was gradually dissolved under the Roman possession of the whole of Macedonia, owing to them not dealing with the several states in the same way, but wishing to preserve some and to destroy others.

The strategy of division and rule has been attributed to sovereigns ranging from Louis XI to the Habsburgs. Edward Coke denounces it in Chapter I of the Fourth Part of the Institutes, reporting that when it was demanded by the Lords and Commons what might be a principal motive for them to have good success in Parliament, it was answered: "Eritis insuperabiles, si fueritis inseparabiles. Explosum est illud diverbium: Divide, & impera, cum radix & vertex imperii in obedientium consensus rata sunt." [You would be insuperable if you were inseparable. This proverb, Divide and rule, has been rejected, since the root and the summit of authority are confirmed by the consent of the subjects.] On the other hand, in a minor variation, Sir Francis Bacon wrote the phrase "separa et impera" in a letter to James I of 15 February 1615. James Madison made this recommendation in a letter to Thomas Jefferson of 24 October 1787,[5] which summarized the thesis of The Federalist #10:[6] "Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain (some) qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles." In Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch by Immanuel Kant (1795), Appendix one, Divide et impera is the third of three political maxims, the others being Fac et excusa (Act now, and make excuses later) and Si fecisti, nega (when you commit a crime, deny it).[7]

Elements of this technique involve:

  • creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects to prevent alliances that could challenge the sovereign
  • aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign
  • fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers
  • encouraging meaningless expenditures that reduce the capability for political and military spending

Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories.

The concept is also mentioned as a strategy for market action in economics to get the most out of the players in a competitive market.

Finally, I will once again post my favorite quote of Boss Tweed, the politician who, "bribed the state legislature, fixed elections, skimmed money from city contractors, and diverted public funds on a massive scale. During his reign at Tammany Hall and then in a variety of elected posts, including as U.S. senator, Tweed wielded almost total control over New York State and City politics."


"I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating."



- Boss Tweed


Sometimes we do not have any good choices, only responses.

One such response starts here: hedgeless_horseman's Revolutionary Call to Arms.

Or you can always just sit back and enjoy the panem et circenses!!!!

"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace, as an offered "palliative." Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.