Be careful of what you wish for

[AtomicKitKat]

The Crusaders went to "convert the heathen moorish devils!"

Thanks to "sexual equality"(whatever exists even 10 years from now will never be "equal", since both sides are too busy trying to get the better deal), women now have equal opportunities to die burning deaths by air!

I would much rather Saddam dies a peaceful death than see an American invasion of Iraq(Hell, I'd pay REAL MONEY to see Bush lead the charge, LITERALLY, like the kings of old. What pathetic leaders we have nowadays, who hide behind their toadies and command young men to die for their(the leaders') beliefs)

Visions of the future reveal: Burning bodies, death and destruction, but not the side that experiences them.

[kandrathe]

I was challenging your assertion that "women's role in American society, opportunities for self determination, and personal sovereignty are THE model for the rest of the modern world"

Well, first to qualify (or disqualify as it may be) myself. I am not a woman, and so I can not *really* relate to what they have or do go through in terms of opportunity and discrimination. But, I hire women. I work with them every day. I'm married to one, and I am the son of one. My mother was one of those liberated American women who went against her husbands wishes and started working outside the home. My wife was a dedicated feminist until recently (i'll explain that later), and had achieved a very lofty VP position in a prestigious advertising firm.

But, there seem to be some career fields that are entrenched male havens, even though universities and companies go well out of their way to try to attract female candidates. I'm thinking of some of the many fields of engineering, and other technical fields. Perhaps some of the other persons on this board who are engineers can add their insights. Other than that, as Arethra Franklin would say, "women are doing it for themselves."

Now, back to viewing the work world from my wifes experiences on her climb to the top. It was not always easy, but it is hard to determine how much of that difficulty involved overcoming "the old boys club". Having achieved her goal, and staying there for 5 years she decided that she had had enough of the corporate dog eat dog world and so she quit, and rededicated her life to artistic pursuits and raising a family. I think she has realized that true empowerment for a women is in choosing a role that fills you with joy, even if that role flies in the face of the 60's feminist ideal. She has given herself (the feminist in her) permission to have joy in her life, pursue "womanly" things, and have kids, rather than live an empty life becoming another morally bankrupt CEO.

Now, are we a model? I dunno. Seems that US women were the first in modern history to assert their rights and get them.

[AtomicKitKat]

If memory serves, Polynesians are among the few who actually had female leaders on a consistent basis. Maybe THEY are the ones who should be applauded as models of the modern feminine status.

As for certain fields being "male-only", it's partly due to biology, and partly due to mentality. The women see men in there(and very few women), and automatically think "old boys' club"(and some may or may not be discouraged by this point) For the biology part, it is a well-known fact that male and female brains are somewhat "different" at interpreting identical situations. It is generally accepted that females are better at language-related fields in general(having about 5 "areas" in the brain devoted to it, as opposed to the male's 1) while males are generally better at analytical/mathematical subjects(which is what most of engineering is about) My experience in school bears out the theory. 95% of the population followed the status quo(that is, 95% of females and 95% of males were better in the fields that the theory above said they were better in, seldom needing much study for those fields, and cramming like crazy to get good grades in the other) The remaning 5% were split between "hopeless cases"(those who generally sucked at everything except perhaps phys. ed) and "genius"(able to grasp most things in under 5 readings) I mostly slept through my tests, and finished with only 2 failures out of 7 subjects(mother tongue and art) and a 65%++ average for the remainder, with 70%+ in English. So what does that make me? :P

Oh well, I hope that story was at least "entertaining", even if not informative. :P

[Occhidiangela]

HItler became head of a party in a multi party system, and was appointed Chancellor when his party gained enough strength, by President Hindenberg, who in Germany is the 'ceremonial head of sate' whereas the Chancellor is the real head of state.

He was not, unlike our presidents, elected via our system of suffrage. He was elected using a parliamentary model. The fact that it has been since modified is irrelveant.

"But then I wasn't talking about the military anyway was I? I was challenging your assertion that "women's role in American society, opportunities for self determination, and personal sovereignty are THE model for the rest of the modern world"

I only know that your position is that you cannot see the forest for the trees.
I have seen, in my own experience, how our influence has influenced our allies, the so called modern Europeans, who are as hide bound and patriarcical as anyone I have met.

You base your rebuttal on . . . what? AN impression?

[kandrathe]

Yes, I was specifically thinking of "modern women's sufferage" as female power is not a new phenomenon. The rights of women seem to flourish in cultures where all human rights are cherished. Europe's dark ages crushed many gains of civilization experienced under ancient Greek and Roman times. Even in those ancient times, women were often second class citizens. One notable exception are the Scythian, and Sauromatian women where there is some new archeological evidence being unearthed in Russia.

Also, to add to this discussion, after the Ostrogoth Theodoric the Great unified Europe(reigned from AD 493 to 526) after the death of Attila, Justinius his successor recodified Roman Law, which included the citizenship of women, and rights for women to inherit property from their husbands or fathers.

In Egypt under the reign of Queen Hatshepsut a unique female Pharoh(reigning from 1503 to 1482 BC), it is documented that women had the right to keep anything they inherited from their parents when they married, share equally with their husband any wealth both partners acquired within their marriage, conduct business on their own, own and sell property, be a witness in a court case, represent themselves in court, make a will giving their wealth to whomever they wish, adopt children, go out in public and be in mixed company with men, keep their own name after their marriage, be supported by their ex-husband after a divorce, work at jobs other than being a housewife, and seek any employment they are qualified for.

[WarBlade]

HItler became head of a party in a multi party system, and was appointed Chancellor when his party gained enough strength, by President Hindenberg, who in Germany is the 'ceremonial head of sate' whereas the Chancellor is the real head of state.

He was not, unlike our presidents, elected via our system of suffrage.  He was elected using a parliamentary model.  The fact that it has been since modified is irrelveant.

Pfft! Now you're really diving off the track.

I brought up "my system f government" (meaning MMP) as an example of something clearly not influenced by any American model that I'm aware of and you respond with how a multi-party model gave the world Hitler? Considering the various tyrants that frequently rise to power under the two-horse race that is FPP (your system I believe and the one that NZ abandoned in the 90's) I hardly think that Hitler is any yardstick to go by.

After all, any facist wanker with enough clout and the drive to succeed will find a way to rise through the ranks in any political system. Citing such despot to support your position does nothing to add impact to you POV.

I only know that your position is that you cannot see the forest for the trees. I have seen, in my own experience, how our influence has influenced our allies, the so called modern Europeans, who are as hide bound and patriarcical as anyone I have met.

You base your rebuttal on  . . . what?  AN impression?

A knowledge that you are boasting about about supposed American influences concerning things that others have had for comparable lengths of time and in some cases even longer. Just because you go offshore and observe a trend that looks like an exact replica of something you are already familiar with, does not in itself mean that you or your kind founded the idea and their model is a direct copy. It could well mean that yours is the copy or that similar fundamental ideals behind each society has lead them to identical conclusions entirely separately.

[Occhidiangela]

Is, and has always been different than our Congressional system, for its own logic. I rather suspect that your system's evolution is more akin to the British system than my own, and as I said, we will keep ours, thank you, and by all means, go ahead and enjoy yours. The vote of not confidence creates instability. Our term limits provide stability, of a sort, while requiring change. It all depends on where you want your checks and balances.

What the parliamentary system has as a weakness, in my view, is that you do not have the national leader opposed by a majority of the opposing party, as we have frequently experienced. That forces consensus, which in most domestic matters is a good thing. The safety valve of the "vote of no confidence" is a mercurial tool, IMO, as much a method of chaos as of reason. What made Kohl, whose system you mark as most similar to yours, so remarkable is that he was able to stay on top, with his party and his coalitions, for 17 years. Our term limits don't permit that, even if the leadership is good and popular. (See both Reagan and Clinton for examples of guys who would probably have gotten third terms had there not been term limits).

Maybe that is better, and maybe it is better that once in, the "ins" don't get bogged down by a majority opposition.

Insofar as the international leadership on progressive agenda, and my original assertion, it is very much a case of being everywhere, and getting the message out everywhere: all over the world. The feminist movement has been exported, for better or worse. It comes with being global in influence, and with sustained movement forward at home that gets intertwined into foreign policy abroad, as well as being spread via non official means of influence, including missionary movements, media, and a dozen other ways that the snipers always whine about: what America does gets to be at sometimes inescapable, unless you change the channel! :o.

Our influence is global, both the positive, such as the moving forward on a variety of human rights issues, (no, we are not alone, the whole West is involved) and the not so great, such as McDonalds everywhere. The down side to that is that propagation of social change makes enemies. Back to the top of the thread for why that matters.

You resent me asserting that plain truth that the influence of American culture is global. Why do I claim it is the model? Besides the fact that our internal policies get woven into our foreign policy, the simpler explanation is that our model is in front of the whole world's face.

If you choose to ignore that simple reality of the information age, so be it.

[Mark]

In an attempt to reply to the original question and thus bypassing (hopefully) the tangle of words in between, I offer up the following:

I think we underestimate the power of the modern era not only in its ideas but in its technology. I do not mean the technology available only to the governments and heads-of-state, but the mass-market technology that a lot of our wealth here in America is built upon.

It is difficult to determine exactly what effect, either positive or negative, the technological advances have had on our culture and it will be equally difficult to predict what influence it could have on a post-war Iraq. Now I understand that education is the root of an advanced culture, so handing out PDA’s in downtown Baghdad is not what I’m talking about.

The outcome of government in Iraq will be closely watched, if not influenced by the western world. Any direct influence, as in Afghanistan, will be met with criticism and resistance but technology and advanced infrastructure is often welcome. The influence of this technology will help shape the future.

Follow my train of thought here:
1. The western world rebuilds the infrastructure of Iraq using the technology available.
2. The operation and maintenance of such equipment requires training and education.
3. Programs are put in place to educate the local population and maintain the tech.
4. These programs are expanded into universities.
5. The populace slowly becomes more advanced and technically minded.

The government in this process depends on the technology and therefore also provides resources for its support and functioning. I do understand however that a dictatorship will not promote this kind of progression. It will be necessary to have a government in place that has a modicum of good will towards its people, the actually makeup of which may not be as critical.

To put a little direction in the responses I don’t really want a discourse on the possible influences of the Internet or computers on Iraq. My thoughts of technology are more in advanced building techniques, power distribution, water treatment, food distribution and production, etc., basically as I said, infrastructure. I would hope it is a consensus that Iraq does not have a modern infrastructure.

I know there are a wealth of assumptions inherent in this discourse, feel free to point them out so I may tackle them and hopely become better informed.

Be nice to me. ;)

[Occhidiangela]

1. Money? There is plenty of money in the Arab world, or in Asia, available for the financiers of any economic rebrith in Iraq.

2. Cultural bonds? Depends on who rises to power post Saddam, should that be the state of play. The regional players have far more motivation to be engaged than anyone else, since their own security and local trade are at stake. Considering the global petroleum imperative, why, for example, would the Japanese not be a strong presence in Iraq? No threat, lots of capital, opportunity to play honest broker, plenty of bright and well educated professionals there.

3. Some abstract U.N. goal? This may be a strawman, as the U.N. focus hardly can be counted on, given the vagaries of that process, be it General Assembly or Security Council. But no country in the UN, that I can think of, wants instability in the Arab world, or seeks it as a policy goal. Thus, any future in Iraq, should this war come to pass, would be supported by the international body in the shape of a stable social system, for what ever that is worth. Of course, UN pronouncements do not reality make, ask anyone in Mozambique.

4. I think that the capacity for tech and education in Iraq is underestimated in your outline. While it could be argued that some tech, and some capability is imported, home grown, though possibly foreign educated, Iraqi scientists are the folks who U.N. inspectors are looking to work with. All it takes, just as in our country, is for leadership to prioritize the resources available for education. I do not think that Iraq is a nation that scorns education, quite the opposite, I would argue that on that score, Iraq as a whole is as forward thinking as anyone. The trick is in the old 'guns and butter' problem, which for some time now in Iraq has been tipped toward guns. That could change with a leadership change.

[kandrathe]

Was it not a MMP paliamentary system thet elected Jörg Haider in Austria. Could not the same thing happen in New Zealand? But, rather than neo-Nazi's, would perhaps be militant environmentalists? I recall the some problems with French commando's round July 10, 1985... All the same, does not your MMP system allow one party with less than a majority of popular consensus to win?

To be considered a major party here in Minnesota, one must consistently have results in a major elections of over 5%. In our last election here in Minnesota, a liberal ("Democratic") candidate's campaign worker ran under a third party ("Constitution") ticket with the express purpose of siphoning off conservative ("Republican") votes to enable the liberal to win. It didn't work, but I could see how a with some better organization and deception, a multi party system could be fractionalized to enable the party with around 25% of the vote to wrest power. Then consider that in most parts of the United States less that 40% of the people even bother to vote; you could theoretically take over with only a dedicated 10% of the population.

[Occhidiangela]

The Achilles Heel of every representative system of suffrage:

Registered voters voting and voters registering. The discussion of whether or not the votes mean anything I won't get into. If all choices are equally bad, is there really anything to vote for? That debate will never end, and least not in my countryl.

I found it interesting to see that the New Zealand law apparently requires you to register, or rather enrol, once 18. Or maybe I understood that incorrectly. That requirement raises an interesting question: is it a punishable offense to NOT register, or enrol to vote, once 18 or older?

Warblade, did I read this incorrectly?

Each electorate has a roll, or list of everyone who is enrolled to vote. By law, if you are 18 or older and eligible to enrol, you must be on the electoral roll. Click here to find out how to enrol.

That tells me that you are violating a law if you don't enrol. But perhaps I am missing a nuance.

[Occhidiangela]

What about European and Persian queens and empresses? Russian Empresses, and Queen Victoria, for goodness sakes? It was all about family ties, and the apparent decision to change the custom of primogenitur from exclusively male to 'whoever is the heir.'

I saw an interesting lecture by a Persian/Iranian recently, former Education Secretary Ganji, who described pre-Islamic Iran, or Persia, as a matriarchical society. I don't know enough about Persian governmental forms to understand if he was packaging his message to the primarily female audience in the room, or if there was a deeper substance to what he was referring to. As his subject was the current regime --its use of "temporary marriage" loopholes to allow for polygamy and more among the Iranian men but not vice versa -- the ousting of his regime (the Shah's), and the brain drain in the past 20 years or so that apparently sustains, it was a tangential reference that was not explored in any depth.

And, please advise, how the Polynesian cultural model spread and influenced the rest of the world, I would appreciate any light you can shed on that.

[Occhidiangela]

When the administration says democracy, they mean the American model, as Mr. Spectre not-sarcastically pointed out. But that model relies on assumptions that are not only false in Iraq, they're VERY false.

I wonder. Considering the discussion elsewhere in this thread, there are a variety of representative forms available to choose from, any of which can satisfy the needs of the Iraqi citizenry. Just because the constitutional monarchy of UK is not the same as American representative governmental form does not mean that such a model would be considered a non democratic form, should a suitably popular/legitimate Iraqi monarch be available. For that matter, an Islamic Republic that varied some of the forms of what Iran is currently working at might be as suitable a 'representative' governmental form as a variety of others, though the current problem of the "high cleric" might not be as warmly supported as another model.

Who drives the train? Foreigners? The diaspora whose voices are heard in disproportionate volume in the West? Or the folks who have to put it into place, those who Stayed In Iraq and tried their best to deal within their system, for better or for worse.

A democracy imposed at the end of a bayonet wont last long once the bayonets leave, that much I will predict.

[WarBlade]

What the parliamentary system has as a weakness, in my view, is that you do not have the national leader opposed by a majority of the opposing party, as we have frequently experienced.

I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at there. NZ does have a national leader and there is vocal opposition. I don't know if you mean party or person or coalition of parties or what . . .

Further derailing my train of thought trying to work out what you're driving at is the National Party leader is often referred to as "national leader so-and-so" although I'm certain that's not what you mean.

Insofar as the international leadership on progressive agenda, and my original assertion, it is very much a case of being everywhere, and getting the message out everywhere: all over the world.  The feminist movement has been exported, for better or worse.

I believe you're right in saying "the feminist movement has been exported" however I also see examples of feminism that have flourished outside of direct American influence also. I envisage many cases where transmission of ideas and ideals in both directions encourage a mutually supportive environment for evolution.

You resent me asserting that plain truth that the influence of American culture is global.

No. You asserted this for the first time in the above post post IIRC and I do not resent a simple statement of fact. What I responded to was an entirely specific situation that I believe is untrue.

[AtomicKitKat]

I never said the Polynesian model was "exported" Just that it developed independently of the American model. And not just Polynesia either(as you said, the British and Russian monarchies had female leaders, so even arguing that "the Western World does not include Polynesia" is not enough to counter the fact that your statement that "The American model is the standard for much of the Western World", inaccurate quote, but it's the gist of it)

[Occhidiangela]

"I do understand however that a dictatorship will not promote this kind of progression."

Stalin and his cohorts promoted the sort of progression that you outline, in that advances in technology and education were important priorities, if not THE priority. His was, if not running a dictatorship pure, certainly driving an autocratic model, to put it mildly. One of the key objectives of the Soviet System was universal education, and a high quality education at that. Given the Soviet successes in space, I'd say they achieved that goal pretty well, dictatorship/tyrrany or not.

In any case, I would suggest that education is more important than "introducing" technology. Developing the mind as a tool is more important than creating new gadgets, though the well developed minds will do that anyway. :) The folks in Japan have been showing us that for quite a while.

[Jarulf]

I will risk jumping into the middle of a discussion here. I have read several back posts in this thread though :)

>What the parliamentary system has as a weakness, in
>my view, is that you do not have the national leader
>opposed by a majority of the opposing party, as we
>have frequently experienced.

Not sure if you discuss a particular parlimentary system but I don't think most of them has a built in requirement that the "national leader" must be part of some majority party. Minority governments are not as common as majority ones but happen.

In addition. the american system does not automatically create the situation you describe. You CAN get it, but you can also get a situation were the national leader is from the same party as the majority in the congress, no? If it was such a good system, would it not require the national leader and the majority to be different and not just "happen" at times.

Still, the situation can happen in both systems.

Also, I don't think it is really a requirement but the two party system is hardly a "fact" (no idea of correct word) in US, is it? There can be other parties to or? Most other countries (parlimentary or not) have several parties which sort of complicate matters some :)


> That forces consensus, which in most domestic
>matters is a good thing.

It might also make it very hard to do anything at all since you may end up with many things being very hard or impossible to reach a concensus on. Typically most gernments that are of a minority (party or coalitions) are somewhat "weak" since they can't do much and what one do might not all end up to be working well with other decisions. One may of course have both advantages and drawbacks to such a situation. I usually feel the drawbacks are far greater than the advantages.

Ultimately it is all a question of opinion of course with no real "right" or "wrong". One may even question if the current system of "majority" vote is a good system or not (especially when there are more than two choices/people but even in a 2 option situation it may be). Does it nessecarilly give the "best" end result? What IS the goal for end result? To maximise the satisfaction of as many people as possible? The overall people? Just because more people had one option as first choise is it the best? Why not go, for example, for the option least people opose? I guess this is not really what you were discussing though but never the less an intersting issue.

Ultimately I feel one need to look at the COMPLETE solution for how a country works. One can get problems looking just at one seperate function of the government and how it works.

[WarBlade]

Was it not a MMP paliamentary system thet elected Jörg Haider in Austria.  Could not the same thing happen in New Zealand?  But, rather than neo-Nazi's, would perhaps be militant environmentalists?  I recall the some problems with French commando's round July 10, 1985...  All the same, does not your MMP system allow one party with less than a majority of popular consensus to win?

To Austria and Jörg Haider, I have no idea.

Neo nazis? Militant environmentalists? In NZ? err . . .

Well technically it's possible for anyone to win, but first one must garner the vote and your examples are the kinds of people who would not get over the 5% threshold necessary to get into parliament. Environmentalists, sure. Militant anything, highly improbable.

The Green Party actually became a coalition partner in the last government, but they're a bunch of tree-hugging pacifists. :lol: Actually it was kind of cool there for a while having a member of parliament with knee length dreadlocks who got around on a skateboard! :lol: Intelligent guy though, even if I do disagree with him a lot.

As for neo-nazis, well they're not a problem here. I've heard of it happening, but when you get maybe a dozen zit-squeezing teens together trying to look menacing against a significant countrywide percentage of islanders backed up by most of the rest of us, well . . . it's a bit one-sided.

I see your point though. Someone with a bizarre agenda might get a voice. In reality that doesn't happen because they simply don't get the vote. The Christian Heritage party for example, who are interested in promoting Christian values and banning Marilyn Manson performances, can't get over the 5% threshold to get in. The Green Party by contrast have enough support that they did get in during the most recent election (they got in the time before because they won an electorate seat).

To recap a specific question . . .
"All the same, does not your MMP system allow one party with less than a majority of popular consensus to win?"

In a sense, yes, but to clarify: The Labour Party gained the most votes in the last election. Their traditional opposition, National, came in second as per usual. But in order to govern one still needs more than half of the seats available so a coalition must be formed if that hasn't happened already.

Currently Labour (a left-of-center party) leads with United Futures (a right wing family values proponent) and Labour's historical, yet small, ally Jim Anderton's (left idealist) giving them a further two seats. That's enough to govern and the coalition also have pledged support from the Greens on most issues.

Results Graph: http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/

The system only fell flat on its first application, where a third party became the swing vote against the two major players and actually went against popular consensus leading to a feeling of betrayal in many voters (We wound up with a right wing government when the votes indicated left). It was understandable though considering how people were still voing along traditional lines and had yet to get used to the new system.

[WarBlade]

I found it interesting to see that the New Zealand law apparently requires you to register, or rather enrol, once 18.  Or maybe I understood that incorrectly.  That requirement raises an interesting question: is it a punishable offense to NOT register, or enrol to vote, once 18 or older?

Warblade, did I read this incorrectly?

That tells me that you are violating a law if you don't enrol.  But perhaps I am missing a nuance.

Correct. I think.

Really this is hardly a problem. I want to vote and to vote I have to get enroled so my name can be checked off the list when I cast my vote. After having enroled I recieve an info packet leading up to election time and something else to do with detail confirmation that I can basically ignore.

The info packet contains a little tear off card personalized to me that I hand in when I go to cast my vote (the card's not compulsory - it's just to aid the volunteer vote collectors).

I don't know what happens if people don't get on the role. There's no obligation to actually vote and getting on the role is as easy as filling in a name, address and occupation (first two have to be accurate - occupation is whatever you feel fits the bill).

[Occhidiangela]

voter in this country $50 for their failure to register, my, what a tidy sum we could raise. :) Of course, collecting that 50$ per head would probably cost about $52 per head, minimum . . .

In any cawse, using such a stick would probably create more fraud than voter registration, and so would not likely do a single thing to change the habits of the non registering citizen, while at the same time creating even more hate and discontent from the "keep the government out of my life and my wallet" faction.

It is easy to register here as well, I just wondered if there is some fine or penalty for not following one's legal responsibility to enrol.