is always empire with a single man at its head and, when possible, direct hereditary accession.

Those who create great empires almost always do so with the sword in one hand and the blessings of the gods in the other: Shih Huang Ti (China), Alexander (Greek), Octavius (Rome), Asoka (India), Akbar (Mughal), Genghis Khan (Mongol). The list is long.

Why should George Bush and Dick Cheney be any different in their methods and claims to authority. Theirs is just the latest version of the divine right of kings -- the belief that a ruler owes his power and authority to a god or gods and that he rules by the will of the gods, that this divinely bestowed authority overshadows any rule of law and any claims by the governed (or anyone else) that might bring into question his absolute authority.

It explains so much.

Whether conscious or not, this is what all of the heavy breathing on the parts of journalists and pundits is really about -- the desire to see one man rule over all. It explains the Coulters, the Limbaughs, the neo-cons, and even the Matthews, Goldbergs and Carlsons.

In this view, if you do not share the vision of a god-king, you are weak, feminine and not fit to lead. Even in the 21st century, with all of its technology and "progress", we have yet to put this desire to rest.

If George Bush is their Louis XIII, then Dick Cheney is the power behind the throne, their de Richelieu, and they respect and admire him for it.

That was great.

Back in 1953, Ray Bradbury had a lot to say about the value and use of a human life.

from Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury:

Well, after all, this is the age of the disposable tissue. Blow your nose on a person, wad them, flush them away, reach for another, blow, wad, flush. Everyone using everyone else’s coattails. How are you supposed to root for the home team when you don’t even have a program or know the names?

Bradbury also had something of significance to say about the role of the media in enabling government crimes. At the end of the novel, the protagonist is running for his life from government authorities and the chase is being televised as entertainment. In order to gain closure for the viewing audience, an innocent man is selected and killed on camera. All of this is done in conformance with program scheduling so as not to interrupt any other regularly scheduled programs.

From SparkNotes:

As Montag continues to run toward the river, he hears an announcement on his Seashell radio telling everyone to get up and look out their doors and windows for him on the count of ten. He reaches the river just as the announcer counts ten and all the doors in the neighborhood start to open. To keep the Hound from picking up his scent, he wades into the river and drifts away with the current. He avoids the searchlights of the police helicopters, and then sees them turn and fly away. He washes ashore in the countryside. Stepping out of the river, he is overwhelmed by the sights, sounds, and smells of nature. He finds the railroad track and follows it. As he walks, he senses strongly that Clarisse once walked there, too.

The track leads him to a fire with five men sitting around it. The leader of the men sees him in the shadows and invites him to join them, introducing himself as Granger. Granger reveals a portable TV set and tells him that they have been watching the chase and expecting him to come. The men at the fire, though homeless, are surprisingly neat and clean, and have considerable technology. Granger gives Montag a bottle of colorless fluid to drink and explains that it will change the chemical index of his perspiration so the Hound will not be able to find him. Granger tells him the search has continued in the opposite direction and that the police will be looking for a scapegoat to save themselves from the humiliation of losing their prey. The men gather around the TV to watch as the camera zooms in on a man walking down the street, smoking a cigarette. The announcer identifies this man as Montag. The Hound appears and pounces on him, and the announcer declares that Montag is dead and a crime against society has been avenged. The homeless men reflect that the police probably chose the man to be their scapegoat because of his habit of walking by himself—clearly a dangerous and antisocial habit.

Note: The "Hound" is a robot that tracks its prey and kills it by seizing it and injecting it with drugs.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/451/section9.rhtml

BTW, I espouse non-violence till the death day visits me and I do depart this beautiful blueberry pic-kin' Place.

No hate.

My lizard brain is as reptilian as the next homo sapiens', but I refuse to believe that violence has anything of good in it.

Yoda said it best:

"Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to suffering."

No fear. No hate. No war.

P.S. For those who suggest that peace is a sissy alternative to war, especially where population control is concerned, I would suggest that war is a lousy way to manage population. Highly ineffective. Birth control is better. And when you're looking for that really big change (mass extinction), asteroids are best.

But I'm glad that Civil Rights pioneers didn't, or Edison, or Columbus, or Galileo, or Churchill, or George Washington, or any of the other stubborn people that refused to admit failure in the face of popular condemnation.

Does the author have any idea of the over-the-top absurdity of placing George Bush's name in the company of these? While you're at it, you may as well add Ghandi, Solzhenitsyn and Jesus of Nazareth to the list.