Slashdot Mirror
Iran Plans To Unplug the Internet, Launch Its Own 'Clean' Alternative
suraj.sun writes "Iran topped a recent list of repressive regimes that most aggressively restrict Internet freedom. The list, published by Reporters Without Borders, is a part of the 2012 edition of the organization's Enemies of the Internet report. One of the details addressed in that report is the Iranian government's bizarre plan to create its own 'clean' Internet. The proposed system, an insular nation-wide intranet that is isolated from the regular Internet, will be heavily regulated by the government. In addition to developing its own Intranet system, the Iranian government is also creating its own custom email service and a national search engine called Ya Haq (Oh Just One) that is intended to replace Google. In order to obtain an account on the state-approved mail service, users will have to register their identity with the government." The "clean Internet" part, at least, was also mentioned earlier this year; Iran is one of the recurring champions when it comes to such dubious honors.
the organization's http://en.rsf.org/beset-by-online-surveillance-and-12-03-2012,42061.htmlEnemies of the Internet report.
For those who can't use copy/paste - Enemies of the Internet report.
"What are you doing here, Elijah?"
You never should have built this thing with a single power plug! Redundant power sources I told you!
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
So then end up with a bunch of horny engineers that don't know anything.
Sounds OK to me.
IPv1, because there can be only one.
Oh, wait...
... taken to its logical conclusion.
And the Iranians have only themselves to blame for fostering and tolerating religious and political extremism in their midst.
America, take note.
... just cut the international trunks. What will be more interesting is if they start to use duplicated IPv4 address space, or continue the move to IPv6. The "Iranian Spring" will come, and this action is likely to speed that up. Then it will get connected back to the world, again.
Of course, someone will still set up some secret gateways.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Heck, I can't even keep my own LAN clean!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
http://vancouverdesi.com/news/iran-denies-reports-internet-to-be-cut-soon/
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
At first I thought that “Oh Just One” referred to the fact that there can be only one search engine (as in “there can be just one”), but I’m fairly sure it means “O Just One” in the sense of a person who is just, based on my limited Arabic.
Esli epei etot cumprenan, shris soa Sfaha.
I hope we'll see each other again... sometime...
Oh, Just One. It's right there in the name.
Glad to see Muslims are allowed free access to information by their religious leaders.
The leaders must know that better info is the surest way to a deep religious understanding of the Quran.
Oh... wait... what?
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
Good luck unplugging The Internet considering that it is wireless and sits atop Big Ben! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Persia OnLine.
("Anti-America OnLine" may be too obvious.)
Good, we need it. I'm glad to see Iran is taking a step to counter censorship, and create its own uncensored Internet, free of United States influence. This will be a major improvement in freedom over the regular Internet.
Am I understanding the summary correctly? /sarcasm
isolation is needed when we don't want go out of the world
Specifically, I believe "Just One" is one of the epithets of Allah.
The proposed system, an insular nation-wide intranet that is isolated from the regular Internet, will be heavily regulated by the government. In addition to developing its own Intranet system, the Iranian government is also creating its own custom email service and a national search engine
So it is the Iranian version of Facebook.
replacement for Google with just one o, is that Gogle?
This is the best possible news for freedom in the here in the US. What? You want to cut off parts of the internet, why that would make us just like Iran! We can't have that! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph!
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
As far as a "clean" internet goes it does have some merit. The real internet is 35% porn.It is defensible to want a cleaner, walled garden version of it. Maybe Iran could just use AOL.
We are all just people.
The Iranian government should just wiretap and eavesdrop on their citizens like everyone else does. This is much simpler than creating your own search engine.
Come relax, talk amongst yourselves...here I'll give you topic, "My neighbor is a dissident and here is his address"
Police states should abandon all pretenses of being anything but police states. There are too many simple people that don't know a duck even if it's quacking in front of them so long as it's wearing a little badge that says "republic". Why Iran has any credibility in the international community is owed only to greed (for the oil), ignorance, and the naive belief that psychopathic messianic dictatorships can be reformed with kind words.
I'm not saying we go to war with them. I'm just saying you treat them like what they are and always will be. If they want to dominate what little freedom remains in their nation by creating some hyper controlled internet, then all the better.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Start calling their representatives in the democratic Parliament? Probably not. Liberty dies when people just don't care (ref: EU states Greece, Italy and the U.S.).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I can't see how anarcho libertarian fascists like Glenn Greenwald who openly shill for the Iranian regime tolerating this outwardly. Oh they'll say it's wonderful but how they do their work and earn their pay relies on communicating with the regime.
Al-Haqq is #51 on this list on Wikipedia (though there it’s translated “The Truth, The Reality”), so that could well be it. See also this article.
Esli epei etot cumprenan, shris soa Sfaha.
Isn't using an epithet of Allah for an internet search engine a bit trivializing?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"Holy law, Highlander! Remember what Mohammed taught you!"
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
They are going to build their own Internet, with ... wait! What?
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Get "first post" on the new Iranian combination Internet/Facebook/Koran service.
So, why would anyone use this separate "internet" rather than using nothing? What value does it provide to a user?
Probably less spam then I'm getting now. And at least I'll KNOW where it's coming from...
Will forcing users to register email addresses fix the issue of spam in my inbox? I can't see too many Nigerian princes being able to get an account.
Now I have a vision in my head of Muhammad crying out, "There can be only one!!!"
After Stuxnet they don't want to get hacked again.
Finally something the United States can aspire to!
Guess the Iranian people will have to get their internet from something like 4g. Mayb3e sattelite stations or "Voice of America" stations near the border.
I dont think that what Iran is doing internely must be anybody else problem. We all saw Iraq rescue :)
We need something to point to next time some wacky internet regulating legislation comes up. And I'm sure the Iranian people will have nothing but good will towards their government for keeping them so safe from knowing what is happening in the world. Everybody wins.
some idiot hooking up a 56k modem and their whole world goes to hell.
Is in reality a US governement propaganda cover. Sourcewatch:
Robert Menard, the Secretary General of RSF, was forced to confess that RSF's budget was primarily provided by "US organizations strictly linked with US foreign policy" (Thibodeau, La Presse).
NED (US$39,900 paid 14 Jan 2005)
Center for a Free Cuba (USAID and NED funded) $50,000 per year NED grant. Contract was signed by Otto Reich
European Union (1.2m Euro) -- currently contested in EU parliament
Rights & Democracy in 2004 supported Reporters Without Borders-Canada [1]
"Grants from private foundations (Open Society Foundation, Center for a Free Cuba, Fondation de France, National Endowment for Democracy) were slightly up, due to the Africa project funded by the NED and payment by Center for a Free Cuba for a reprint of the banned magazine De Cuba."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reporters_Without_Borders
more: http://www.zcommunications.org/reporters-without-borders-and-washingtons-coups-by-diana-barahona
So.. Are they planning to roll their own nationwide operating system too? Keep it up to date?
Imagine all those windows machines, cutoff from windows updates. A few patch Tuesdays go by and anyone with access to the "clean" internet is going to have a field day. Finding an ingress accessible by the "unclean" internet should be trivial. Who need sophisticated government spook hacks. Iran will be pwnd by any script kiddy with initiative.
The security of any non-trival network, like an nation wide intranet, depends on the free flow of information. Ideas. Information about security threats. Tools. Patches. Updates. Active participation is key.
Iran will find their important infrastructure completely infiltrated. Even worse than it is now.
Why bother making thier own? Obama is already making it exactly the way Iran wants it.
At first I thought that “Oh Just One” referred to the fact that there can be only one search engine (as in “there can be just one”), but I’m fairly sure it means “O Just One” in the sense of a person who is just, based on my limited Arabic.
And here I was thinking about what you say when offered a box of chocolates.
Have some tasty Internets?
Oh, just one.
What part of `yes no` don't you understand?
Also, depending on how it's spelled, "Ya haq" (in Arabic) can also be translated as "Not truth", which is a great name for state-supplied information.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
I wish that Iran would stop giving really repressive governments like our ideas.
You've been listening to too much propaganda. Here in reality, elected conservatives have never held back from expanding the role of government when given the chance to do so. It's what politicians do. They see it as their job.
In the USA left and right both have zero tolerance for the practices of those they perceive as their cultural enemies. Conservatives lead the charge to persecute artists, flag burners and gays, liberals lead the charge to persecute gun owners and racial separatists. Both sides are willing to trample individuals at the drop of a hat - remember, we're talking about reality here, not rhetoric. Conservatives and liberals all voted for the orwellian Patriot Act.
If you believe in the right to own military-grade weapons, but you aren't a racist; and you think abortion kills an unborn child, yet still should be safe and legal, and you think the tax code should be progressive and tax-free institutions should not be allowed to sponsor foreign nations; and you think the government should return to strictly limiting the terms of existence for corporations and intellectual property, there is no party for you.
Thanks for that link, if people have not stopped to read it.. shame on you. If you have, welcome to the real world. The only way for us to maintain some semblance of freedom is to be vocal when things are being done to stifle that freedom. Stop SOPA is a prime example of what needs to be happening. Sadly, companies like Wiki and Google can't do that crap every friggin day. It's up to us, the Netizens of the world, to educate and inform everyone around us.
I know, most of you /.ers do that anyway right?
off my soap box, carry on with your day.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I think it is silly for any government to do something like sensor "the internet" - but is what Iran does in their country my business?
I find it amusing that we (the US in my case) often feel we have a right to tell other countries how to govern themselves, how to run their industry, how to run their elections, etc. Where does any country get off thinking it can tell another country what to do? I am not defending the criminal heads of state - just saying that we wouldn't take kindly to another country deciding how things should work in the US, deciding who they would allow to serve in elected office etc.
When will people realize that we need to leave people alone. If the Iranians want a different government then it is up to them to make one. Every single time the US tries to force other countries to behave it results in piles of corpses and enormous debt and a giant dose of hate directed at the US by BOTH sides of the conflict in the foreign country.
KK4SFV
As if radio waves had borders...
Ya Haq may be the only silver lining in this dark cloud of idea. An alternative to Google.
Imagine being an Iranian open source guy and then being cut off from the rest of your community. Perhaps Apple and Microsoft will have solutions for using their operating systems in that environment, but otherwise it seems to me that cutting itself off from the Internet is a good way to take Iran back to the 1980s. In the end, however, I think there will be something for all of us to learn from this cruel experiment as well. That's why other countries that live with despotic regimes and/or severe restrictions (e.g. Saudi Arabia) will be watching with interest.
PS -- By the way, this is another good reason for the US and/or Israel not to attack Iran. They're so busy making life miserable for themselves that eventually their theocratic government is bound to fall due to another popular uprising. If they are attacked from the outside, however, it will only serve to make the theocrats stronger.
only Biggerer and run by religious whackjobs. I don't see the problem here. Except for the religious whackjobs part. And the AOL part. And the 1991 thing.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
US Conservatives and Wahabi-style Islamists have common ground: all women are sluts and must have every facet of their lives controlled by men.
In the USA left and right...
Sorry, but in the USA you don't have left and right. You have right and further-right. (On a world scale, anyway.)
But anyway, economic left/right views should be considered separately from the social authoritarian/libertarian views. Have a look at http://www.politicalcompass.org/
All white men are evil and must be controlled by women.
Let them do it.
Then, let the UN fund a communications satellite offering free internet to Iran, on a frequency that, if jammed, will interfere with Iran's own networks and possibly military frequencies...
Something like that would be nice.
Yes, Iranians are Persians (and rather proud of that). They speak Farsi (Persian) which is an arabicized version of Parsi.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Don't they speak Persian in Iran, though?
They do, but Persian has a ton of Arabic loanwords. Sort of like how knowing French (or Spanish or Italian) will let you understand many words in English. (Or for some kinds of vocabulary, knowing Greek, especially in medicine and philosophy.)
Esli epei etot cumprenan, shris soa Sfaha.
RIAA and those other guys can now lobby for something similar to protect the IP.
Wait, they already have the next best thing; laws (state sponsorship) requiring ISP's to sensor "the internet" on their behalf.
If someone points out that people who use certain words in certain ways are racist, that does not count as censorship, despite what they tell you to think on FOX News. You know what else? Pointing out that someone has said something racist is not "exactly as bad" as, say, arresting filmmakers for the crime of presenting opposing points of view.
It's called sovereignty. If they want to cut themselves off, terrific. Maybe it'll be good for them. Regardless, it's their right as a nation to do whatever they want within their borders as long as they're not sending troops across their borders. Oh wait, that makes us look bad.
Now I hear you all screaming and moaning about this or that genecide and how that justfiies going into some other nation. No it doesn't. We're all bloody savages, and going over and using bloody savagery to teach those other bloody savages how not to be bloody savages isn't going to change that.
What's the difference? Santorum said that he wanted to BAN all pornography. In order to do that, he's have to essentially disconnect American from the internet and build his own "clean" version.
Really now, is there ANY difference? This is a guy being seriously considered as leader of the "free" world. Sure, he's way behind Romney, but clearly, his mouth is making traction.
There's a far right element in this country, the "Christian Taliban" that wants this kind of thing, along with women having no control over their own bodies, and making less than a man because men care more about money.
The USA and Iran are not so different as you would think, as radical elements within their own governments want to strip away the rights of the people and install fear-mongering dictatorships. Remember that as your nutsack is groped by a TSA agent.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
This was run as an April Fools joke somewhere, and for some reason (well, we know for what reason: Hostility and Propaganda) got repeated in western media without double checking. The name of the search engine, `Ya Hagh` is a giveaway to any Iranian. This expression has an aura of humor in certain contexts. It literally means `Oh God`, but here, it can be best translated as `Good Luck`, presumably mocking the inefficiency of such a system, making parallels with Google's `I'm feeling lucky`, and ridiculing the laid back religious attitude of the government in regard to technology.
It has already been denied according to AFB and host of others:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h4e57x6CYbsavza1PeDuQP7Bf9Vg
They are of course trying something and are probably testing waters. But this is such an act of idiocy and national suicide that it is unlikely to ever come to pass.
Being an Iranian these days is really difficult. The fucking place is the most progressive place in the Middle East (excluding Israel), and we still get all this crap just because of oil. *sigh*
Well, OK, I have to agree with you, although it's not really the point I was addressing.
I guess it is the demo - but I believe in all those things and am indeed without a party. Maybe if there are enough of us we could
create our own slashdot party.
Only if you name a stuffed toy.
How long before the US has to unplug its citizens from the rest of the world to ensure they are protected?
They just didn't want anything to do with IPv6. Can you blame them?
I'm rather partial to a pair of shapely thighs and pert buttocks encased in fishnet!
Oh - not THAT kind of "Fish"net.....
Sowwy.....
There won't be any women, gays or Jews........
'Truth' is a more accurate translation. The 'Ya' is customary to use when speaking one of the 99 names of God, it adds superlative emphasis, for which, 'Oh' does not quite cut it. The emphasis is best done in English as I have translated it. Using "the Truth" also is not accurate because it treats it as an object, and its conveying a concept beyond subject - object duality ( which is why it could be translated as "One" - but there are other names for "One" ).
I would also question whether it is profane to use in this context. I imagine the point is that it is closer to the truth as they see it, ie not colored by western/european cultural biases.
The regime banned satellite TV more tan a decade ago, but every Iranian city-dweller from Yazd to Tabriz watches the latest MadMen and Big Bang episodes, from a dish on their roof. Yes, the CNN and BBC domestic propaganda feeds are avidly consumed, too.
Whooh! Feel the rush of democracy, flooding over the airwaves! The mullahs have little to fear from regular Internet access, either. Given the alternatives of being a US/Israel bitch, like Turkey - or going with their local brand of bastardry - Iranians will remain proud and nationalistic. Their chauvinism, vataan parasti, rivals that of the French.
Besides, why close your Internet - when the US is on the verge of forcing an International "agreement" without representation, that makes the Chinese firewall look like a Sunday's proof-of-concept exercise?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
So this will be an interesting experiment: what's the over/under on how long it will take the Iranian internet to become the worlds largest repository of Persian pr0n?
"America, take note"
WTF, Santorum ends his bid for GOP nomination.
He must have read what you wrote. Scary stuff :|
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57411949-503544/rick-santorum-ends-bid-for-gop-nomination/
These things and more. I'm stuck in the no party zone and it's very frustrating.
If you believe [list removed] there is no party for you.
Obviously if you take strong positions on several wide-ranging issues it's unlikely you're going to find a party that matches exactly, especially if you go with outliers like owning military grade weapons while advocating that the murder of an unborn child should be safe and legal.
This one is not like the others. The others protect liberty, but this one confiscates property for no other reason than you have been too successful.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Friend, I said "kill" not "murder". If you don't distinguish between murder and killing, you also don't have a party. And your choice of religions is severely limited as well.
Well, you have e.g. Green and Communist parties, but they are insignificantly small on a national scale.
Well, do you think we could raise money by confiscating the property of people who don't have any, and punishing people for not being successful?
That makes no sense to me. I was talking about the Real World, remember? Not some theoretical wonderland where the rich are incorruptible heroes. That world only exists in Ayn Rand's crank dreams.
The truth is we won't be doing a lot of "protecting liberty" if you're going to insist that we finance it by oppressing the poor. Enforcing the laws that are necessary for the operation of a free market requires taxation of those who have benefited from the existence of the market. The rich have to pay for the costs of controlling corruption among the rich, because nobody but the rich can afford to do so. This is not really complicated. You can't get blood from a stone, and the poor don't have the money to oppose destruction of the market by the rich. It doesn't matter if you think it's moral or not.
www.santorum.com
This gets repeated so often and I always overlook it, but attached to a story about Iran it just seems absurd. I'm guessing that you are conveniently forgetting the 45 or so Muslim-majority countries in your "world-scale".
Completely untrue!
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/04/10/206685.html
Now, who'd want to spread false information, like this?
The FACTS are that the US is leading the effort in creating the world's most restrictive regime of control, surveillance and censorship of ALL electronic communications, worldwide - at home and abroad, including all Internet protocols.
But what do you expect from a nation that surpassed Stalin's record for incarceration? Truth?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
They speak Farsi, and some other languages.
However, Arabic would be well understood as Classical Arabic (as opposed to Modern Standard or Colloquial) is the language of the Quran. Probably better understood than Latin was in medieval Europe, and we are still using Latin today for things.
liberals lead the charge to persecute gun owners
Do liberals really "persecute" gun owners? Never hear liberals talking about it -- but there is certainly a lot of articulated paranoia from conservatives on the topic. In "liberal" Canada, there is a /higher/ gun ownership rate. In Australia, it was the conservatives that went of gun ownership (of automatic weapons) in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre. The Conservative government levied a "one-off" tax to pay for buying back peoples guns, and then left the tax in place.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
two words: islamic porn.
This will go over like a lead balloon. Filled with CO2.
The one network came out to drive out the many. I have to laugh at the thought of them even trying this.
I doubt it. Iranian pron isn't that great.
I'm suddenly getting visions of the South Park a couple weeks ago ... Oh Long Johnson!
or Sharia, or anything idealistic. This is just plain old-fashioned brute-force domination; by the few, for the few, of the many. You would think the people of Iran would be sensitive to this kind of thing, but instead it just gets worse for them.
A chance to re-invent e-mail? Where do I sign up?
Setting up the whole thing from scratch, with binary data, encryption, authentication, spam protection and a dozen other things that SMTP doesn't include, and all of that with a userbase of potentially a few million users instead of some university project that doesn't tell you a thing about real life?
Heck, what a fantastic opportunity. A great playing field to get this working properly and when most of the big issues are solved, roll it out to the rest of the world.
Seriously. Are they hiring?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Uh.. no.. he probably isn't. Just because part of the world is on the right, in no way implies that the US isn't as well. So what if there are 45 or so Muslim majority countries? There are 207 sovereign states recognized in the UN. Maybe if you do the math there, you'd note that 45 isn't even a quarter of the total? So even if every last primarily Muslim country was at the extreme right (which.. I'm not suggesting is the case; I've never been to any of them), AND you assert that no more than half of all countries can exist in either the left or right, there's still plenty of room for the US on the right..
*Fun fact, FIFA recognizes 208 national associations.
... WITHOUT blackjack and hookers?
actually it's just a mis-spelling of Yahoo.
Nullius in verba
Now if only the US would do this instead of trying to control the internet across ALL countries!
There is a significant percentage of the North American population that would also like to have access to a government-sanctioned, identity-proven national intranet.
You can see somewhat less aggressive offerings with Service Canada's account registration process and the number of federal systems that use Service Canada accounts as the identity service within the government clusters. Or the provincial Health Cards that are used as identification for far more than medical services (at your choice, of course.)
There is no email service, and the federal government's built-in search service is horrible, so it's actually easier to find government content through Google or Bing.
But unless the intranet is the only 'net in Iran, I think there is a good chance they're giving a lot of their citizens something they actually want. Think IOL - Iran On Line. :P
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It's ok to be a selfish twat, just make sure you don't access our internet after you unplug yourself.
All it takes is determining where you place China and/or India. You either get squeezed way left, way right, or dead center, depending on how you categorize those two.
Sorry, but in the USA you don't have left and right. You have right and further-right. (On a world scale, anyway.)
Americans are often derided for their perceived or actual ignorance about the world, but this time it looks like the shoe is on the other foot. The United States does indeed have a genuine left, including hard core dedicated Communist movements. The difference is that in the United States most people tend towards the center to center right. They tend to shy away from the extremes so popular in Europe and other places.
Internationalist Socialists - AKA: Communists
Nationalist Socialists - AKA Nazis - far weaker than they were 60-70 years ago.
Fusion: American Nazi Party Endorses Occupy Wall Street‘s ’Courage,‘
Naked protests
Shying away from Communism is the smart and right thing to do . . . if you value your life.
Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I'm currently heavily developing an iphone app to live-stream public hangings and stone-ings Our engineers are also hard at work developing a de-cloaking app for hajibs.
I think Yahoo should sue them for trademark infringement.
And I said murder because you made it a point to say "unborn child", with a contradictory "yet still should be safe and legal". I'm just making clear what your position really means. Isn't that what we usually call the premeditated killing of an innocent human being?
Sorry, I got distracted and couldn't finish my post.
The left (the real left, as seen in Europe, Australia, etc) includes people who tolerate "cultural enemies", and are against big-brother laws.
Your "if you believe" is quite American, culturally (guns, abortion, tax), so I don't know of a party with those aims. The combination would be quite unusual here.
It's UK-centric, but try this site: http://www.votematch.org.uk/2010/ (no need for a postcode, just click "England"). The people who made the site asked for questions to ask politicians, then asked the politicians, and (possibly?) checked voting records, and match this against the same questions asked of website users. It's from 2010.
Presumably it will be built out of bits from the unclean Internet.
But how are they going to download patches? I guess everyone there will massively mirror every conceivable repository until the switch get flipped?
Something tells me there is a room where there will be a DMZ and both clean and unclean Internet exist in this room without an airgap.
Perhaps if you are clean enough you will be able to get advanced Internet which lets you email outside and conduct foreign trade?
The difference is that in the United States most people tend towards the center to center right.
My point is that most people in the US (or at least, the parties that get elected) are right to far-right -- certainly when compared to other western countries, and probably also when compared to the whole world (depends how you want to count).
They tend to shy away from the extremes so popular in Europe and other places.
Your examples would be less extreme in Europe (certainly the economic one, I'm less aware of racism/anti-immigration in the USA) but they are still extreme. [And the Republicans would be an extreme far-right party in Europe.]
What you seem to be missing is a moderate left party. Where is the American party that isn't aiming for communism, but would increase taxes on the rich, using the money to pay for improved infrastructure and social services (e.g. public transport, more money/help for the unemployed or low income people, single-parent families, investment in bad bits of cities, etc)?
Americans are often derided for their perceived or actual ignorance about the world, but this time it looks like the shoe is on the other foot.
Do communists or fascists (the latter are neither left nor right, economically) have any elected representatives in the USA? (Even if it's a mayor of a small town in California, or something).
I can see there are a few Green Party members in office in various positions, but I've never seen the American Green Party mentioned in coverage of your elections (in my local media, or in American media).
I think you should stick to putting words in your own mouth, instead of trying to ram them into mine. I'm not required to use your emotionally loaded mimetic trigger phrases.
I believe that forcing a woman to bear unwanted children is evil. If a woman decides to kill her unborn child that is a terrible thing - but it is not your place to stop her. There are many terrible things in this world that you and I have no right to interfere with, as much as we might want to.
I find that many so-called "pro-lifers" aren't actually interested in helping other people or doing anything kind or generous. Let's face it; if they were, they would be too busy caring for unwanted children to have time to picket abortion clinics or spout hateful rhetoric. The truth is that most pro-lifers are angry, contentious people who are looking for a crusade, a holy war, a way to strike a blow for righteousness. They aren't about helping children, born or unborn, they are all about fighting - which means hurting, not helping. They've chosen abortionists and desperate women as their victims and they want to visit harm on these people.
In contrast, people who are truly "pro-life" (and not just using that as a code phrase for "anti-abortion") have adopted children into their families. Some of them are waiting patiently in lines at adoption centers right now. Because there are tens of thousands of children who need our help, who will suffer if we ignore them. People who bend their wills towards conflict instead of helping those who need our help are prioritizing their need to hurt others well above the needs of children. There's only so much time in the day, and you can spend it ranting about abortion or you can spend it helping a child. Your choices demonstrate your priorities for the world to see.
Well, I was speaking of the USA. Our liberal/conservative praxis is probably not representative of the world at large.
In the USA conservatives are usually fanatically opposed to conservation, and liberals are often strongly in favor of increasing state limitations on liberty. The names have little or nothing to do with the beliefs or methods of either group, and the major political parties function for no purpose other than to perpetuate their hold on power. They use labels like "liberal" and "conservative" solely for their propaganda value.
Germans tend to enjoy the bluntness and friendly informality of Americans. Right up until we say something like "well of course you should shoot anyone who breaks into your house, and there's no reason to feel bad about killing a thief - you did your community a favor. Be proud." Then they sort of edge away nervously.
Very interesting site. Here's what I got:
Green Party: 63%
Liberal Democrats: 61%
Labour Party: 52%
British National Party: 34%
Conservative Party: 32%
UK Independence Party: 31%
Here's the problem with that kind of software: in the USA, all the politicians say whatever they feel they need to say in order to get elected. This is called their "platform" and if has anything to do with their beliefs or intentions that's purely coincidence. Once they are elected, they do whatever they feel they need to do in order to stay rich, famous and powerful. Generally that means catering to large corporate power blocs whose interests are diametrically opposed to those of the voting public.
So when you build such a software quiz, how can you possibly make any meaningful matchups? Do you match the views of the voter with the pandering lies a politician mouths? Obama hasn't closed gitmo, stopped extraordinary rendition, repealed the PATRIOT act, or held the telcos responsible for warrantless wiretapping, but he repeatedly promised to do all those things. George Bush Sr. said "read my lips - no new taxes!" and then went on to enact much-needed and meaningful tax reforms that included new taxes. Do you match the views of the voter with the political record of a candidate or party, despite these records being diametrically opposite the platforms? That won't work either, because not every candidate has a record, and anyway nearly all US politicians flip-flop and reverse themselves at the slightest hint that their wealthy donors want them too. There's a reason Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich get no traction, and it's not because they are nutty - we've got plenty of successful nuts in office - it's because they aren't corrupt enough to draw major corporate dollars.
So while I don't know enough about British politics to speak to the accuracy of that quiz, I know you can't make a meaningful one for the USA.
You could still make the quiz (there's one for the Republican primaries, which I didn't notice before -- there may well be one in a few month's time for the US election).
Politicians not doing what they say they will do is a different problem, and I'm not sure how you could solve that one. Possibly if a new, small party can really concentrate on one area and actually win, do good things on a local level (and show a decent voting record nationally), it could later win other areas. That's not easy with the winner-takes-all voting system, but unless on of your two main parties splits, I don't see how you'll get any more diversity of opinion, leading to pressure to actually implement a "platform". Perhaps direct action and a general strike -- but that could be difficult, when things only gradually get worse it's difficult to motivate lots of people. Better, non-corporate media?
A group of geeks in the UK have made a series of websites, one of which is TheyWorkForYou. It parses the official record of proceedings in Parliament (called Hansard, no idea why) and present the voting record, list of speeches etc for each member. The Prime Minister is here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/david_cameron/witney . I get updates about every week or so when my MP speaks in Parliament -- since I signed up for them, she's not said much that's interesting, but I intend to write to her if she does.
The charity behind that website has other projects too: http://www.mysociety.org/projects/
I don't just talk the talk, as it so happens.
My immediate family includes black, white, puerto rican, and asian children. I'm white. My spouse is white. Neither of us has ever been divorced. We're both fertile but only one of our children is biologically ours. We have not participated in any international adoptions. My wife and I both work so we can afford to send all our children to whatever college they want, but my wife stayed at home until they were all old enough for school, so that they wouldn't be raised in day care centers.
Any questions? I think you can connect the dots.
Yes, I sure did set you up for that. Completely. But only because you keep trying to demonize me. Guess what - I'm not actually a demon, or a saint either.
You want me to fit your cookie-cutter idea of your evil opposition, and you keep distorting my views so you can feel righteous about hounding me. I don't advocate the killing of unborn children and I'm sure you know that. But I also don't advocate using force to restrict the choices of women who are so desperate they are willing to kill their own unborn children, and that doesn't fit your narrative. So you keep pushing and poking at me, hoping I'll say something that will make you feel righteous. And that's why I set you up, so you can know what it feels like to be manipulated that way.
Meister Eckhart said "You may call God love, you may call God goodness. But the best name for God is compassion". You seem to believe that compassion for an unborn child means you don't need to have any compassion for that child's mother, and you have no compassion to spare for those children whose mothers followed your precepts and gave birth to children they could not raise. I am advocating compassion for all these - not just for the unborn - but that does not fit the catholic world view of sinful fallen woman .vs. innocent child. I'm sorry if it irks you, but I won't limit my compassion to suit other people's need for a fight.
If you haven't given up on me in disgust by now, if you have the ability to accept some criticism and seriously ponder what I've said, please take this advice: try not to be a person who tears down, be a person who builds up. Instead of looking for people to fight, look for people to help. It's the same amount of work either way. But building a better world is a greater accomplishment than tearing down what you don't like. The anti-choice movement is a group solely dedicated to tearing down.
Leave the abortionists alone and help the people trying to find parents for parentless children, and you can do more to drop the abortion rate than you can accomplish any other way. Be a positive force instead of trying to interfere with women seeking abortions.
Hey, Captain Straw Man: I propose that we tax fairly and equitably, and if that's not enough to finance what the government want to do, then THE GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING TOO MUCH. The pockets of the rich are not a cornucopia of plenty from which one can pluck forever. 10% of a rich person's take is a lot, 10% of a poor one's is very little.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
was done by Bush you fucking idiot.
You haven't got a single political or economic idea in your head which hasn't been more clearly and cleverly articulated by Ron Paul or Steve Forbes.
But our most liberal major party is not to the left of anybody (on a world scale)? That was the claim ("You have right and further-right. (On a world scale, anyway.)").
What you seem to be missing is a moderate left party. Where is the American party that isn't aiming for communism, but would increase taxes on the rich, using the money to pay for improved infrastructure and social services (e.g. public transport, more money/help for the unemployed or low income people, single-parent families, investment in bad bits of cities, etc)?
That sort of thing is pretty much the platform of the Democratic party in the US. However, in fairness, there is very little legislation that passes in the United States at the national level, or in most states, that doesn't have at least some degree of support from both parties. The Republican party is also for improving infrastructure, and social services - when necessary. There are disagreements as to how to pay for things, how long they last, etc. One thing that many Europeans have a hard time with is that American political parties, at least the Democrats and Republicans, tend to be "big tent" parties that have a fairly wide range of political views - the parties both have their conservative and liberal wings. This is somewhat less true than in the past, say 30 years ago.
The Republicans aren't far right, they are center-center right. I don't think even in a European context they would be truly far right. There is one notable difference between the American and European right. The American right rejected the far right in the 50s and 60s, so it has withered. The Left in America hasn't done that fully.
The Republicans reject authoritarianism, racism (despite the nonsense you read on Slashdot), and are not anti-immigrant. They do want all immigration to be legal, however. As things stand now, approximately 10% of the population of Mexico has crossed into the United States, almost all illegally. That really can't be a good thing for all the things it implies.
As to your other questions -
I don't believe that the National Socialists have won any elections ever, although they do run for office from time to time. The various Communist parties put people on the ballot, but I doubt they've won much unless it was unopposed. Communists have been appointed to high government positions, however - Van Jones, for example. The Socialists have won office here and there. There is a US Senator who is a socialist, and the city of Milwaukee (a major city) has elected a socialist party mayor in years past. The state of Minnesota also elected a Reform Party governor several years ago - Jesse Ventura, the actor and former wrestler. I believe Green Party members have won local office as well.
So the United States truly does have the full range of political parties in it, but the American electorate is drawn more towards the center. The national election system helps reinforce that tendency. I don't think that is a bad thing.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell