riot no protests yes

[bruce MN]

Thanks Sam for pointing out the Tiabbi article. I read it through a couple of times last night and could have posted it here, but I was a bit self conscious about that as I've posted links to a number of Tiabbi's past articles and nobody has ever responded whihic leads me to beleive that nobody has bothered to read them.

I fully presume that you are alot higher on the credibility scale with the natives here than i would be, so thanks again.

As for protest or dissent, we are still a nation with a big, big majority of middle class people who haven't been fully affected personally and those of both parties who are in that bourgoise middle are silently expecting things to somehow "work out". They  may supsect that the some of the banks are a little shady, but where else would one do his money business? They sense that the government  is inefficient and chronically redundant and that maybe someobdy else's Senator or Congressman is in bed with not the best people, but  this is a great place to live and surely we and our finaincial resources are being looked after.

While they are being looted. Pure and simple.

[tomtoolbag]

  I have come to appreciate KD's blog only recently. As I type this, there were shots from Madison with protesters and also Bahrain with the military in the capital. I almost thought for a moment that it was referring to Madison.

  Strange times indeed, and if there wasn't a couple of things like food stamps and the like, we would be seeing "protests" like those recently in Egypt, or at least I like to think we would.

[Canuck_2]

---

@Samnospam wrote:
Does the monarch have no power, or does the monarch chose not to excersize her power. Don't all law have to be approved by the monarch? Does the monarchy have control of all of Canada's international affairs? Who is the commander in chief of your military? Can the monarch order Canada to war if she gets in a tiff with the queen of Luxemburg? Isn't the monarch the owner of your passport, meaning you come and go at her pleasure? In the usa we operate under this theory the authority of the government is derived from the people, in Canada isn't authority derived strictly from the consent of the queen? Isn't the monarch required to be of the church of England, no Jews, Muslims Catholics, or atheist need apply? Doesn't that discriminatory mix of church and state torque your shorts? In America even a muslim, atheist from Kenya can become head of state.

---

So many questions.

Perhaps this short clip from wikipedia will answer them all  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

The present concept of constitutional monarchy developed in the United Kingdom, where it was the democratically elected parliaments, and their leader, the prime minister, who had become those who exercised power, with the monarchs voluntarily ceding it and contenting themselves with the titular position.

While technicaly as head of state she could do all those things it will never happen.

While there may be a requirement for the Queen of England to be head of the church there that is not a requirement for the Queen of Canada.

You say "In America even a muslim, atheist from Kenya can become head of state"

Makes no sense to me. An atheist could not be a Muslim or vice versa and I was under the belief that your country required your president to have been born in your country.

[Canuck_2]

---

@tomtoolbag wrote:

  How many revolutions throughout history have been successful, or lasted without violence?

  I can't think of any.

---

India for one.

[Samnospam]

The portion about Obama was in jest.