Amerika

[Cantousent]

My point, other than you went out of your way to engage in the sort of activity you despise in others, is to ask why you care? So, some folks tout American exceptionalism. So what? The Dutch don't have as strong of a claim for their significance as does the United States. Like us or not, we're at the top right now. If some folks lack the tact to treat this fact with delicacy, then there's nothing to do but grin and bear it.

 

There was a popular song in Britain at one time, "we've got the ships, we've got the men, and we've got the money too." Nations at the top generally have an understanding that they're at the top. You don't see my point? I think yours is irrelevant. It was a good point, but now it's just the same ol' point in a thread that has matured beyond the bashing level.

[metadigital]

I'm not saying that the Judiciary isn't important, just that it can take any form that doesn't directly interfere with the principle of the first two parts.  Also, I'd point out that not every political system works on the trinity system the US does.  Even look at the British system, which is basically a government entirely comprised of a legislature, with an executive branch of extremely limited to no power, and a judiciary that has very little part in actual government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I think it is very important to have a strong and independent judiciary, if ONLY to keep the political system in line (y'know, someone checking the ludicrous knee-jerk legislation with sagacious interpretation according to human rights, for example). Societies without all three parts working together and equi-powerful tend to be in a bit of a mess. Liberia, for example, HAS THE US CONSITUTION, word for word. There is no way to enforce the rule of law, with Harvard/Yale and Oxbridge-educated warlords holding the poor and disenfranchised to ransom.

It would have the same number of members as the present representative chamber of whatever state the new system was being imposed on.  So it would have the same number of members as the House of Commons, or the House of Representatives, and so on.  And no, to be honest, I don't see the difficulty.  Perhaps you could explain it to me?  As to the party allegiance system removing personal bias, that's my point exactly.  You remove personal bias from the arena, but just replace it with party bias.  What does an MP do when his constituents are clearly opposed to a piece of legislation, but the whips of the political party he is affiliated with are threatening him with expulsion from the party if he votes against it?  If he's been voted in as the Labour MP for Glasgow North, is his chief duty to Labour or to Glasgow North?  Look at the Iraq war.  It was abundantly clear that the majority of the British people were opposed to the war, and yet despite the fact that we are meant to be a democracy, the people clearly were not in power when the MPs chose to ignore the people who elected them and vote how their political parties told them.  The only solution I can see to this problem is one in which there is a legislative chamber with no political parties.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would only work if you had some hefty insta-vote technology to make the members vote totally according to the dictates of the electorate, I'd say. Then someone might suggest that there is no need for a member to make all the decisions; just put each one to a popular vote. This does tend to reduce democratic decision-making to a sound-bite farce, though. Everyone will be subject to spin doctors of un-policed third-party "grey political affiliations".

 

Better to have it out in the open, where it can be observed and countered, than hidden away making uncalculated impacts on the "informed decision making process". Additionally, it is a lot harder to police individual bias than it is for members of a party to police themselves.

 

Also, we need to get a system where a politician can be trusted to make decisions on behalf of their electorate, without making the backward-self-justifying nonsensical statements so familiar in British politics today.

[Commissar]

My point, other than you went out of your way to engage in the sort of activity you despise in others, is to ask why you care?  So, some folks tout American exceptionalism.  So what?  The Dutch don't have as strong of a claim for their significance as does the United States.  Like us or not, we're at the top right now.  If some folks lack the tact to treat this fact with delicacy, then there's nothing to do but grin and bear it.

 

There was a popular song in Britain at one time, "we've got the ships, we've got the men, and we've got the money too."  Nations at the top generally have an understanding that they're at the top.  You don't see my point?  I think yours is irrelevant.  It was a good point, but now it's just the same ol' point in a thread that has matured beyond the bashing level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do I care? That's a damn good question, Eldar, and I'd have expected a guy as smart as you to be able to figure out the answer.

 

Let's see; why would I care how the American attitude affects foreign disposition towards us? Why could I possibly care what people outside this country think of the average American? What reason would I have to worry about how my country and its foreign policy is perceived by the rest of the world?

 

Nope, can't think of a single reason. I can vouch for the fact that everybody loves catching bullets in the sandbox.

[Cantousent]

So your beef is with foreign policy, not rabid American patriotism. Because we didn't invade Iraq because we wanted to add a star to the flag. The president decided it was the best course of action. ...Or is it the "attitude" that you dislike. Invading Iraq was okay, but don't wave too many flags while we're about it? So the problem is perception of our policy based on flag waving. If we quietly invaded Iraq, things would be much better.

[Commissar]

So your beef is with foreign policy, not rabid American patriotism.  Because we didn't invade Iraq because we wanted to add a star to the flag.  The president decided it was the best course of action.  ...Or is it the "attitude" that you dislike.  Invading Iraq was okay, but don't wave too many flags while we're about it?  So the problem is perception of our policy based on flag waving.  If we quietly invaded Iraq, things would be much better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you can't see how the general attitude towards a country can affect the reception of its foreign policy decisions, than I can't help you.

 

I certainly think the general perception of Americans as arrogant and ignorant has had its effect on how things have gone in Iraq.

[Carnage]

I have a question: Does any other country than USA call the president of United States of America the leader of free world?

 

It annoys me greatly every time I hear it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's put it in sharp contrast. If Russia decided to walk into Finland tomorrow, who would you most want to be there to fight alongside the Finnish military; fighting for your freedom? And who is the most likely to be there?

 

'Nuff said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The British

[Reveilled]

That would only work if you had some hefty insta-vote technology to make the members vote totally according to the dictates of the electorate, I'd say. Then someone might suggest that there is no need for a member to make all the decisions; just put each one to a popular vote. This does tend to reduce democratic decision-making to a sound-bite farce, though. Everyone will be subject to spin doctors of un-policed third-party "grey political affiliations".

 

Better to have it out in the open, where it can be observed and countered, than hidden away making uncalculated impacts on the "informed decision making process". Additionally, it is a lot harder to police individual bias than it is for members of a party to police themselves.

 

Also, we need to get a system where a politician can be trusted to make decisions on behalf of their electorate, without making the backward-self-justifying nonsensical statements so familiar in British politics today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't understand, I'm afraid. Why would you need an insta-vote technology for it to work? I don't believe any current independent MPs use such a system to vote for their constituencies' best interests.

 

I don't think it's that hard to judge whether a piece of legislation is in a constituency's best interests. If the lower chamber passes legislation that would lead to the closing of a hospital in an MP's constituency, then he or she votes against it. If it would mean building a new school there, then he or she votes for it. If the lower chamber wants a war, the MP looks at whether there are a lot of demonstrations against it. the MP can also read the letters he gets, and meet with his constituents to discuss issues and such.

 

Anyways, on that note, I'm off to bed.

[metadigital]

I don't understand, I'm afraid.  Why would you need an insta-vote technology for it to work?  I don't believe any current independent MPs use such a system to vote for their constituencies' best interests.

 

I don't think it's that hard to judge whether a piece of legislation is in a constituency's best interests.  If the lower chamber passes legislation that would lead to the closing of a hospital in an MP's constituency, then he or she votes against it.  If it would mean building a new school there, then he or she votes for it.  If the lower chamber wants a war, the MP looks at whether there are a lot of demonstrations against it.  the MP can also read the letters he gets, and meet with his constituents to discuss issues and such.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay. On big headline issues it is a little easier to monitor.

 

I'm mainly discussing policing of the MPs, so let's stick with that for a while.

 

What about the more subtle issues. What about making a decision that the electorate doesn't want, but is in the best interests of th electorate? How does that happen?

[Cantousent]

...But there were a good number of folks claiming that we were ignorant before Bush took office. I'm sure the numbers have increased, but the perception that we were swaggering bafoons too full of ourselves already existed. So, was that because some of us swagger or because our policy is faulty.

 

I liked your point about the two office workers, but at some point, the hostility goes beyond what we actually do and what folks want to perceive. It's kind of the same thing as the widespread perception in America that the French are rude. There's nothing I can do to change world impressions other than try to show a more reasonable side of my country. Most of my fellow Americans are decent, hard-working folks. ...At least the ones I know.

[thepixiesrock]

I hate to spoil your fun, but America is spelled wrong on the topic title.

[metadigital]

And there are a whole bunch of other countries that share the conjoined continents with the USA.

[Commissar]

...But there were a good number of folks claiming that we were ignorant before Bush took office.  I'm sure the numbers have increased, but the perception that we were swaggering bafoons too full of ourselves already existed.  So, was that because some of us swagger or because our policy is faulty.

 

I liked your point about the two office workers, but at some point, the hostility goes beyond what we actually do and what folks want to perceive.  It's kind of the same thing as the widespread perception in America that the French are rude.  There's nothing I can do to change world impressions other than try to show a more reasonable side of my country.  Most of my fellow Americans are decent, hard-working folks.  ...At least the ones I know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never said American swagger started with the Bush administration. It certainly didn't. I heard people suggesting that we single-handedly won World War II with a little British help, long before Jesus told Bush to get sober enough to think about screwing us all over, believe me.

 

I know plenty of decent, hard-working folks who couldn't find China or Germany or France on a map. You would not believe the number of people who don't know the difference between the White House and the Capitol building - high-ranking military officers included. We're losing academic ground every year, in every subject, to countries all over the world that half our populace couldn't locate.

 

Is there anything you can do beyond being an ambassador at large and voting to improve education here? No, probably not. But there's nothing wrong with correcting your mistaken countrymen when they suggest that the Russians are still communist, either.

[Cantousent]

That's true. ...But It's not just Americans who call America America. ...And some of them call us Amerika. ...Or is it just Volourn? ...Because he also calls Canada Kanada.

[Cantousent]

Hell, my understanding is that Britain was the country to suffer under the war agains the nazis for the longest length of time. ...And the USSR actually did most of the heavy lifting. Hey, China was fighting Japan before the war broke out in Europe.

[Craigboy2]

What the hell is Amerika?

[Gorth]

What the hell is Amerika?

A social experiment with an expected lifespan of about 300 years. That would give a "Best before" date of about 2096 or such (give or take a few decades), if you want to take note of the results

[kumquatq3]

What the hell is Amerika?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A social experiment with an expected lifespan of about 300 years. That would give a "Best before" date of about 2096 or such (give or take a few decades)

 

but we're taking all of you with us

[Walsingham]

I think we are missing something wrt Amerika and that is that we all love to bash some dirty foreigner, and right now we are only allowed to get up on chairs and bash Americans. I've said it before. We'd go purple at the gills if we sat about debating how ignorant and arrogant Nigerians are. But yankees... sure go right ahead.

 

If Commisar is concerned that ignorant flag waving yahoos give a bad impression of his country he may wnat to looka round and realise we've all got 'em. in fact in the Uk they've almost been adopted as the uniform of the twit. I personally object to this, and think all use of the flag should have to be sanctioned by the queen since people are essentially claiming the endorsement of the state when they have no right to.

 

Anyway, on the more interesting topic of democracy, I fear your direct involvement may be missing something, Reveilled. Namely that large systems have interconnecting parts. You can't run a country using pick-and-mix strategies with anything like the effectiveness of joined up policies. This is how manifestoes are supposed to work. It is also why we vote in a government, because how things get implemented is as important as what is on the table. In any event, are any of us really qualified to vote in detail on every policy the government enacts? I certainly am not. I know very little about agriculture, for example, or economics.

 

 

~

 

calax said:

"I think one has to be either a bush cronie or a Iraqi power player to actually suggest things."

 

You mean like having a +10 sword of partisan smiting?

[Ellester]

Just quit telling people what's right and what's wrong dude, as long as they don't step on your toes. it's the same holier-than-thou attitude, just with different colors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I read through the first page, and that

[Reveilled]

Anyway, on the more interesting topic of democracy, I fear your direct involvement may be missing something, Reveilled. Namely that large systems have interconnecting parts. You can't run a country using pick-and-mix strategies with anything like the effectiveness of joined up policies. This is how manifestoes are supposed to work. It is also why we vote in a government, because how things get implemented is as important as what is on the table. In any event, are any of us really qualified to vote in detail on every policy the government enacts? I certainly am not. I know very little about agriculture, for example, or economics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So? How the government runs the economy will affect everyone, no matter how much they know about economics, so the people should always be the ones who decide how the economy is run. In any case, one would hope that one would elect an Economist to be the Finance Minister, or at least someone who could learn about economics in a hurry. As to Manifestos, well, that may be how they are supposed to work, but it isn't how they really work. You're always left voting for something you are vehemently opposed to. Yes, a pick 'n' mix government wouldn't run as efficiently, but helping the government to run more smoothly would be the job of the Chief Execitive of the Government, who would report back to the people just what is causing problems in the government.

 

And an inefficient goverment might not be such a bad thing, anyway. If the government just stopped doing anything every once in a while, we might be a bit better off. I mean, things never seem to get worse when parliament isn't in session, do they?

 

I don't think that things are really as interconnected as people like to think, anyway. Obviously, if the executive is full of right-wing privatisers while the lower legislature is a socialist dominated-one, then obviously that government is going to collapse, but I don't think that's very likely to happen. What I see this is being is a lower chamber that effectively runs the government, an upper chamber acting as a check against it on behalf of the individual voters, with the Executive presenting variations on a theme. If the electorate elects a social democratic lower chamber, then the chances are that they are going to elect primarily social democrats to the executive positions. But what the electorate can then do is fine tune the lower chamber's party manifesto to suit their needs. So if the social democratic party promises to increase funding to education while keeping funding for the NHS about the same, the electorate could elect someone in favour of increasing NHS funding to the position of Health Minister, telling the lower chamber that they want to increase health funding, and that they should structure the budget accordingly.

 

Manifestos won't go away under this system, they'll just have their individual parts subject to small changes by the electorate.

[Walsingham]

Sorry, Reveilled, I guess I misunderstood your post slightly. I thought you were advocating total direct referendum on issues. I apologise for being sloppy.

 

Your proposal is better, agreed, but I'll have to think about it before recommending it to the secret Cabal.

[Lucius]

Just quit telling people what's right and what's wrong dude, as long as they don't step on your toes. it's the same holier-than-thou attitude, just with different colors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I read through the first page, and that

[Volourn]

Amerika is ana wesome country. it has its faults; but I'd take it as a neighbour to my home country than *any* European country. Anything bad about Amerika is a gift from its European founders. Anything good is a gift from those who realized that Europe is the cause of many of the world's sins.

 

LONG LIVE AMERIKA!

[Lucius]

Amerika is ana wesome country. it has its faults; but I'd take it as a neighbour to my home country than *any* European country. Anything bad about Amerika is a gift from its European founders. Anything good is a gift from those who realized that Europe is the cause of many of the world's sins.

 

LONG LIVE AMERIKA!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know this has probably been said to you before Volo, but please increase your medication, or at least distribute it to the rest of us.

[Volourn]

Why? I'm only typing the truth. Let's look at Amerika's sins:

 

Slavery - a gift from Europe.

 

Attacking & conquering other countries - a giftf rom Europe, and even then nowhere near as horribly unmericful as European warmongers.

 

Racial Hatred - a gift from Europe. Afterall, it was the Europeans who decided to slaughter the Natives wholesale. Amerikans (and Kanadians) have gone a long ways to work with the Natives for a better live for everyone.

 

The list goes on.