| Poland Latvia Argentina Britain Liberia Austria Brazil South Korea Finland Nepal Mauritius Namibia Norway Grenada South Africa The Bahamas |
Germany China Bolivia San Marino Guinea-Bissau Philippines Haiti East Germany Nicaragua Ireland Burundi Sri Lanka Ecuador Guyana Croatia Namibia Malta |
Bangladesh Chile Panama Indonesia Georgia Pakistan Liberia Chile Gabon Israel Lithuania Kyrgyzstan Costa Rica Kosovo Serbia Central African Republic |
Don't you even want to think about it before getting the answer?
I'll check the comments. I suspect lots of folks will find this easy to figure out.
[UPDATE June 10, 2016: They all have or have had a woman as head of state. For more details see:
http://www.theglobalist.com/women-on-top-of-the-political-world/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_and_appointed_female_heads_of_state
http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Current-Women-Leaders.htm ]
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteuniversal health care? subsidized childcare? paid maternity leave? female head of state?
ReplyDeletewhatever it is, it's outdated -- no more East Germany
You got it - Female heads of state. East Germany is on the list because it had a female head of state.
DeleteBorder conflicts? (The Bahamas?)
ReplyDeleteSteve, head of state in parliamentary governments isn't the political leader of government. It's many times a ceremonial position, sometimes elected and sometimes appointed. I translated your query from US to UK and couldn't reach this answer...
ReplyDeleteEven with a common language, there can and are differences in speech.
And even this differs from country to country as to those with monarchs or not.
ReplyDeleteJacob, yes. Hereditary monarchs were left off the table and the sources seemed to be focused on elected officials who led the country. As I went through the lists it seemed that these were legitimate leaders like Margaret Thatcher, though some were temporary place fillers when the position was suddenly vacated.
DeleteHey, Steve. On another subject altogether, why do you have 'The Immoral Minority' on your blog roll. The commentator writing this is every bit as vile as the people he attacks daily. And he attracts like.
DeleteIt is fascinating to read as evidence that the 'left' has noggin' heads as well as the right, but beyond that?
It's tiresome. The Palin harangue is beyond scratched vinyl. I'd just like to hear why you value it. It's not your style, or is that it? He writes what you wish you could?
I hope not.
Good question. Even before Palin became the Republican nominee for vice president, there were a few Alaskan bloggers figuring out what we were doing as we covered, at least in part, politics in the state. We got together now and then as we tried to define our roles and whether we could help each other do a job that was much bigger than any of us.
DeleteWhen Palin was nominated, we all got immediate national attention as bloggers who covered Alaska politics. Immoral Minority, What Do I Know?, and Mudflats are the three blogs who are still around and posting regularly from those times. Immoral Minority and What Do I Know? linked to each other in our blogrolls when we were just starting out. Mudflats already had way more readers and I didn’t think it necessary to push it in my blogroll.
Immoral Minority was always edgy, but was able to pull it off with a sense of humor and panache that others couldn’t achieve. And Immoral Minority had a lot of important information. Sarah Palin has been Immoral Minority’s bread and butter, as you suggest, probably well past her shelf life. But she’s still out there involved in politics, and while I don’t generally approve of the blatant snarkiness of Immoral Minority, it’s probably a dominant style of bloggers, and no one knows the Palin story better than Immoral Minority. And, he covers religion/atheism, gun violence, and lgbt issues as well. Immoral Minority is my easiest link to lots of good video clips I would otherwise miss.
And, finally, I get a lot of hits from the Immoral Minority blogroll - particularly for posts that closely overlap its major themes. I do find his unquestioning loyalty to Clinton cloying and his nastiness to Sanders disturbing. He’s often no different in his approach to those he chastises. But he and his readers never let me forget that liberals can be as short sighted and angry as conservatives.