The Worst Crime (the Shoe Thing)

Every Nation-State makes the removal of the Government the Worst Crime. Even being charged meant imprisonment, conviction meant a slow tortured death. The brutal case of Damiens in 1757 being one of the best recorded. In the United States, even threatening the life of the President (or those in the Succession) can lead to a fine and a maximum imprisonment of 5 years.

This is good, a civil society can not abide having people going around issuing or proclaiming death threats to anyone.

But... But, removing a nation's Government and killing it's citizens is exactly what happens during war. Individuals under the direction of Tipsy Canoe accomplished the removal and deaths of members of the Iraqi government, including the "elected leader". Along the way, innocent individuals were killed.

Usually the venerable Just War Theory is raised, but with Iraq a strange heresy was created by Dick Cheney when he morphed the Just War Theory into his 1% Doctrine - supposedly if there is a 1% chance of a threat facing the United States, military action is called for - which according to Ron Suskind became the foundation for invasion of Iraq.

So the Smoking Gun/Mushroom Cloud Raison d'etre was invoked. And Iraq was invaded sans War being declared.

Why is the overthrow of a government, not to mention the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, acceptable when a government claims it is, but unacceptable for the individual?

But, to answer my own rhetorical question, Governments, including the vaunted US one, grant themselves an exclusive Monopoly on the Use of Force. Allowing themselves the ability to circumvent laws at their whim. Occasionally this backfires and the pawns of that government rise up, but the US has little fear of that because it has evolved the greatest System of Controlling it's citizens seen in the history of the world.

The idea the State should be the sole arbiter and controller of force is very old but was given a political-philosophical coating by Thomas Hobbes in Levithan. Hobbes describes the creation of the Sovereign to whom and from whom all rights and powers derive. Bush, Cheney clearly hold to the Hobbesian view of the Sovereign. According to Hobbes, once placed in power the Sovereign can do no wrong and can commit no crime, nor can he commit an injustice. His actions can not injure his subjects because what is good for the Sovereign is good for the people.

This is evidenced by Bob Woodward's assertion Bush told him, "I'm the commander – see, I don't need to explain – I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." ~ Bush at War

So, who cares how many American subjects died when they did have to die? Who cares if the subjects don't like the Iraq Occupation? So what if Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until the US invaded? Who cares about Illegal Wiretapping? Who cares about Signing Statements? So what if we do Torture? So what if the Sovereign lies? These actions are taken in defense of the Leviathan and as such the actions of the Sovereign are by axiom not illegal.

But, of course, real world actions have real world consequences. And while Ole Tipsy Canoe may believe his lies and is on a whirlwind tour to claim he kept America safe, including saving the largest "skyscaper" in Los Angeles. So, while excepting that whole 9/11 thing and the Amerithrax attacks others, especially those in the ravaged country of Iraq, seem to have a dimmer view, hence the Shoe-Throwing Attack. And Bush's clear ignorance is on display when he states, "I don't know what the guy's cause is..."

The bigger problem than Bush is the mess he leaves us with. Tipsy Canoe has allowed The United States to inherit the role of the Latter Roman Republic in Mesopotamia. Ahmed Chalabi used the US the way the Satraps and Deposed Princes of the fragmented Seleucid Empire called upon the military might of Rome to gain the throne. Of course, after civil war and repeated invasions by the Armenians and Parthians and Ptolemaic Egypt, Rome eventually took direct control of the Middle East. The results of the Roman entanglement in the Middle East (the creation of christianity and the unfortunate rise of islam) are the building blocks for the problems still facing the world today.

Despite all his crying Bush's actions have really only managed to "keep us safe" from prosperity, worldwide respect, and medical advances. But as the Sovereign, he views himself as absolved or rightly above and beyond punishment for crimes, which if perpetrated by an individual, would result in a sentence far worse than having two shoes thrown at them.

How does one resist their Government?

The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries t change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are. ~ H. L. Mencken.

What is the difference between a terrorist, a patriot, a freedom fighter and a rebel? The McCain Camp has been pushing a connection between Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground and Obama. Why?

ZombieTime published a post highlighting, Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism a book produced by Ayers and other members of the Weather Underground. Interestingly, the post starts with the following: William Ayers is a communist. Then disclaims there is nothing illegal about being a communist but ends with the (I suppose) stinging reproach;

William Ayers is a communist. By his own description. He was a communist then, he is a communist now, and he was a communist for the entire time that Barack Obama worked with him and was associated with him.

The Weathermen conducted activities against the United States Federal and State and Local governments (across the US but also in Chicago, the Weathermen twice destroyed a statue of a police officer which stood in Haymarket Square) during the US war in Vietnam and stated they planned to "seize power". The Weathermen used bombings, demonstrations and prison breaks.

There is a loud contingent, led by such luminaries as Sean Hannity and Bill Cunningham, claiming what Bill Ayers did in the Sixties was beyond redemption and when Obama wins, have convinced themselves he will install a islamic marxist police state, which will take their property and curb their freedoms. But, what can they do to resist such an evil government? Clearly they can not physically resist because of their stance against violent resistance used by Ayers. They have placed themselves in a quandary.

The problem is these people who are touting Ayers as ultimate evil have constrained themselves into accepting the Hobbesian Ideal of Government. Once a government takes power the people have no voice and no role in government and the every action of the government is by axiom, legitimate. This is clearly the view of the two Dicks, Nixon and Cheney. As typified by the famous Nixon line ‘If the President Does It, That Means It’s Not Illegal’ and Cheney's 'So?' in response to the fact 2/3rds of Americans think the war in Iraq is not worth fighting.

So does Bill Cunningham think resisting the government is immoral or prima facie evidence of treason? No, Bill Cunningham has stated many times if Obama is elected he will fight like a Scottish Warrior Poet or like Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn.

But by what LEGITIMACY does Braveheart Cunningham have in resisting Obama's Federal Government?

The early history of the United States is founded on the Polybian belief in order to avoid revolts a simple government of one of the 3 classic types (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) is to have a balanced government combining the 3. The One, The Few, The Many. The problem is those men were the product of the Enlightenment as well versed in Ancient Greek and Roman History as with contemporary thought. Such men are in short supply today. But, to them the problems of modern America are not new, they are simply an extension of the problems faced in Ancient Greece and Revolutionary America. However, the United States was founded with the active resistance (The Revolution) to the ruling government. Which causes a problem; If violent struggle can legitimately be used once can it be used again? Or was the American Revolution a one-time aberration?

Toranaga: There is no mitigating factor for rebellion against your liege lord. Blackthorne: Unless you win. ~ from James Clavell's Shogun.

On what side would those who rage rage rage on the Obama/Ayers connection have fallen with regards to Sophie Scholl and White Rose, with the government or the radicals?

Are these they same people who cheered when the US military rolled into Iraq and deposed the ruling government of Saddam Hussein? Would they have been pro-Sadr when his father was against Saddam and anti-Sadr when the son is against the current government of Iraq?

Do these people cheer the Kurds on against the government of Turkey? Do they champion a Kurdish Free State? Or do they snicker and roll their eyes at Biden's not new idea of a tripartite Iraq?

Are these the same people who cheered Georgian military aggression against South Ossetia?

Do these people think the Irish resistance to British rule is unconscionable and the deaths and bombings in the Troubles are all the fault of Irish criminals who have no basis for resistance?

Getting back to the Weatherman bombing tactics. What is the difference between the bombing of the Haymarket Square statue and when the American Founding Fathers and Patriots destroyed a statue of King George III, which stood at the foot of Broadway on the Bowling Green in New York to make bullets?

Sometimes, in the beginning of an insane shabby political upheaval he is strongly moved to revolt, but he doesn't do it - he knows better. He knows his maker would find out - the maker of his patriotism, the windy and incoherent six-dollar subbeditior of the village newspaper - and would bray out in print and call him a traitor. ~ Mark Twain, As regards Patriotism.

Funny how Twain knew what tactics would be used against those who stand against their government.

The Inevitability of Control

Unable to hide anymore Old Tipse Canoe emerged and has asked Congress to provide 700,000,000,000 in bailout monies.

It's time we started counting in Astronomical numbers. We could use Astronomical Units (1AU=93,000,000) for the Bailout. Bush asks for 7500AU would no doubt cause little consternation amongst the people and Bush wouldn't need to induce confidence in the economy with such pabulum; "People are beginning to doubt our system, people were losing confidence and I understand it's important to have confidence in our financial system."

With this being an election cycle The Two Parties have both sent forth minions to convince the people the problems were caused by the other side of the Coin. The problems stem from the US system itself and when a Government becomes the monstrous behemoth, which the US system has devolved into, it eventually finds itself in the position of taking over all functions of life.

The US was originally set up as a thinly veiled attempt to re-create Feudalism with the the Lords (Congress) having significantly more power than the King (President). The original Articles of Confederation failed because of the lack of fast means of communication and travel and thus the difficulties which arise in controlling individual Feudal Republics (States).

Over the existence of the Federal Government, as with all such creations, individuals in positions of authority and power expanded and enlarged their spheres of influence and control. So immediately after the Federal Government was born in 1789, Alexander Hamilton in his position as Secretary of the Treasury, convinced enough of his fellow Lords to impose a new tax. And in order to collect the revenue the military sent forth with the added bonus of imprinting upon it's subjects the Power which must now be accorded a strong Federal Government.

Of course, like all nations in the Industrial Age, the Landed Nobility faced the problem of the new rising influence of the Noueve Riche, the Captains of Industry. These men in the 1800's did not consider themselves inferior and as the powerful Merchants and Bankers had done in Europe during the late Middle ages and Renaissance they began to exert and accord to themselves powers and privileges normally reserved for the Old Aristocracy.

Government and Industry have struggled for control of the Apparatus of Control. Fortunately in America, the Military has allowed itself to not slide into the easy stance of Kingmaker. This is the problem which beset and destroyed the Old Roman Republic and then the Western Roman Empire. The Military of the Byzantine Empire often determined the Basileus.

The Byzantine Empire history was well known to the Founding Fathers who sought to emulate it's greatness in many respects commerce and learning whilst curbing the negatives, interence warfare and religious strife. And with an eye to the future;

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

they sought to stave off the eventual decline and fall of their new Feudal Republic.

Of course, not possessing the Asimov Discipline of PsychoHistory, the Founding Fathers could not totally foresee the rise of the peasantry. However, those who have inherited the mantle of Government have easily subsumed and controlled the rising lower classes by absorbing them into the false two party Dichotomy, through unions, use of religion and the hobgoblins of fake issues (gay marriage) designed to convince the great majority of the people in the US that the Two Parties (one coin) are all that stands between them and oblivion.

Vice President Cheney's use of Power and the Strong Unitary Executive Arm of Government is actually not unprecedented. In fact it's a fairly well established position in political philosophy. Cheney and Bush both hold to the idea of Sovereign as espoused by Hobbes. In Leviathan the powers ascribed to the Sovereign are unlimited and extend to all spheres and represent Total Power. In Hobbes' system unlike the later ideas of Locke and Rousseau, once the citizens have chosen their Sovereign the have no more political power. And the Sovereign can act in any way he desires including tyrannical behavior. I can think of no more clear example from Cheney to illustrate this than his "So?"

We the People are pawns for the controlling interests of the Nation. Members of Industry and Government have profited for centuries upon the backs of Americans, passing laws, creating rules of education, diverting the attention of the people with bread and circuses, undermining basic understanding and starting wars at home and abroad in order to ensure the power and wealth of this land will be in the hands of the few.