Try explaining to a Frenchman in French (when you don't know the language that well) how the US Constitution has several sets of checks and balances, between the different branches of federal government (administrative, legislative, and judicial) along with the federal versus state and local levels...

I had to do that today.

It ain't easy.

Fortunately, I can almost speak British English, so It is not quite so tough for me.

But I am amazed by the ignorance they have about our lives in the USA.

in some ways their Nanny State is far simpler than independent democracy. Good thing we chose the tough one.

Kudos to you for being so patient with all of their questions.

Fair is when the goblin *doesn't* try to take what you own.

That's fair.

After that, the rulez are, *different*.

Oy. Imagine if *I* had been there!

viking/amazonian woman??!! I can't wait to see you in Wagnerian attire. :)

Mmm, brass bra!

Hey, it beats burning one off!

Ah, yes - in traditional Denizen fashion, it only took 6 comments to deteriorate to the edge of the PG-17c's consciousness!! Speaking of Wagner - I should have mentioned that Neuschwanstein is decorated (to the extent that it is) with murals depicting the scenes of various Wagner operas, that being Ludwig's favorite form of entertainment.

Beth - I think you must be most diplomatic and patient. Kudos to you, indeed, for taking the time to try to educate and explain the system to them. Funny thing is how little I understand about their system as well. I agree wholeheartedly with CalTechGirl - glad we chose the way we did!

John - the thought of you explaining, in detail, your vast collection of things that go 'Boom' is quite entertaining. In fact, if you ever get to visit over there, please take a video recorder so we can all have fun!

One of them said to just give the crook what he/she wants and he/she will leave you alone

Or maybe, they just come back. (One of them, however, most certainly won't come back a 3rd time due to a swift non-jury trial).

When I told him I would happily gouge out the eyes of any man who tried to rape me - he was absolutely stunned - he said that I had to be fair and use fair force.

There ain't no such thing as a fair fight. Someone is always bigger, faster, stronger, more well armed, and most importantly meaner. When someone comes for me and/or my family I don't intend on being fair, I intend on winning, whether that means clawing their eyes out, crushing certain sensitive parts of their body with hard parts of mine, removing their head from their shoulders via 12 gauge at short range or turning your brain to mush with run-on sentences makes no difference to me.

Reminds me of the long conversation I had with a chap from Sweden (fortunately they spoke English) about gun rights and redundant government/laws/constitutional checks and balances.

Basically, he refused to believe that citizens were the final check and balance against the government and being armed was part of that system to insure that final protection. He seemed to believe since the government invariable has bigger toys than we do (ie, tanks, F16s, etc) that there was no use in arming for a potential conflict with the government and we aren't in danger of invasion.

Of course, I think he would be utterly shocked by John's collection.

My response to him was 20 million armed citizens out number our government forces, that at least a tenth of them have military experience and technology can be overcome. Not to mention that the danger of invasion is mitigated by the over all idea, anyone coming to shore here to "conquer" would have one hell of a fight on their hands and the idea of many armed citizens keeps that in the fore front of any potential invaders minds which helps to mitigat the idea of invasion along with our nukes.

Lastly, I noted that, in our 200 years, no meglomaniacal dictators here wiping out entire populations, unlike our European neighbors. I asked him who were the crazy ones then?

Of course, there is the other part - if the revolt was widespread enough, a fair number of the military would refuse the orders... and 'head south' as happened in 1861.

On a more serious note, K-MO, et alii…

Has anyone read Ortega y Gasset’s Revolt of the Masses? Though not extensively read in the U.S., Ortega y Gasset was on of the 20th Century’s greatest philosophers/political thinkers. He made the bulk of his work during the 20's & 30's, when Spain was rapidly devolving into Bolshevik Anarchy. He wrote in reaction to the destructive forces that were unleashed by the left, and were obliterating all traces of Spanish traditional values and mores. You can say that he was a Neo-Con, before Neo-Cons ever existed. Out of his body of work, Franco built the philosophical foundations for his regime, which in turn created a stable enough environment for modern Spain to bloom today.

It has been close to 20 years since I read it (in its original Spanish, of course), but a passage has always stuck with me. It went some thing like this:

“All rulers, down to the most ruthless despots rule by popular opinion. For in the end game, all governments rule by the consent of the ruled…. Even the worst tyrants cannot rely on janissaries (old term for storm troopers/secret police) alone. When the populous as a whole, rises up against its rulers, no amount of resources at the government’s disposition, can quell their dissent.”

He goes on to give historical examples validating his point, from Ancient Rome, The Ottoman Empire, through his contemporary Spain of the 30’s. His words are as fresh today, as they were 70 years ago, and would recommend everyone to read him, so as to understand the underpinnings of today’s politico-social environment.

Dang, Barb! "deteriorate..." It was a Classical allusion, dammit!

Note that the Janissaries were in fact foreign mercenaries loyal only to the people in power and with no ties to the populace.

In the Ottoman Empire, The Sultan conscripted 10 to 13 year-old males from amongst the dhimmi population. This was one of the many trubutes demanded from the non-muslim population, as a tribute and sign of fealty towards The Sultan. These boys were pressed to a lifetime of servitude, and were direct slaves of the Sultan. With intensive training, and indoctrination, these boys rose up the ranks to become Janissaries. This not to say that being a Janissare didn't have its perks. Many of them actually accumulated alot of wealth and power from their positions; as this was the way The Sultan rewarded them for their work. In that sense you are correct. Janissaries were usually foreign to the population that they controlled; Persians Janissaries occupied The Balkans, or Balkan Janissaries ruled over Egypt, etc. And much of their wealth came out of direct taxation and tributes paid by the populations that they controlled.

In any case, Janissaries were used as storm troopers and sent to quell any dissent from the any corner in the empire. In wartime they were used as light cavalry, and made a name for themselves during the campaign against the Hasburgs in Vienna.