id first like to just respond to the article 'Life Without Chiefs.' The way the author goes about discussing the top at hand is clear and concise, without confusion, but what i found most interesting was the last section 'In the End,' here in the conclusion he turns the original idea of a big man on its head by reversing the big mans original intent from being selfless and helpful to conceded, wicked and presenting a caring side as a front to achieve his greater goal, full power. This said, i'd like to raise an idea, that the step from big man to chief was the worst of all the power transitions because it was a complete flip in the way things were conducted. Every power transition after, although allowing for greater control of the people, does not match this initial power shift. Not emperors, kings, prim-ministers, mayors or generals due to the unmatched changed of this entirely new way of group living. 

Secondly, i would also like to touch on the case of the gypsy offender. It was recently brought up in the federal courts ruling that a form a christianity which branched out of south america was allowed to drink the sap of a tree native to that region while practicing in the united states. the reason this went through the federal courts system is due to the fact that this sap has hallucinogenic powers. this case in mind, we are able to see how the courts can make rulings based on other cultural beliefs and allow things otherwise outlawed to stand.