So you're telling me that in Britain / Australia / France / Germany / -- I have no idea where you're from, but where you are from -- nobody votes party lines? I try to follow international elections a lot, and I can't think of anywhere in the world that would fit that description.
Is it common? That's hard to say... I would say yes and no.
How much has the population of the US changed from 2004-2006? Numberswise, not a lot...some youth in, some elderly died, some immigrants, some emigrants, etc. Does that change the groundswell of support for the Democrat party? No, it can't. People change their minds all the time.
I always like to give my home state of North Carolina as an example. NC is a southern "red state." At least that's what people say. I come from a VERY Democratic area of the state. We have a Democrat governor. We have two Republican senators (somewhat unusual for us). our representatives are split pretty evenly at the national level. Our state government is absolutely dominated by Democrats. In the 2004 election:
Bush: 56% Kerry: 44%
Very solid red!
For Governor:
Easley (dem): 55% Ballantine (rep): 43%
Wait a second...very solidly BLUE.
For Senate:
Burr (rep): 52% Bowles (dem): 48%
Pretty close! Purple?
From that data, I would have to say, people don't vote party lines that much.
Another example I would give is Illinois...where Obama was elected to the senate.
Obama--very popular at home--running against the laughingstock Alan Keyes. Obama: 70% Keyes: 27%
I'm a conservative and typically vote Republican. No way in hell I would have voted for Keyes. So, you can tell how many people vote party lines in Illinois--27%
IMHO, the blue state/red state/it's NEVER been this partisan before stuff is nonsense that people said to try to understand how someone like Bush--who many absolutely HATE--could possibly come to power. It's easier to believe someone you hate was picked unfairly or because of stupidity and blind partisanship than that other rational people could have actually picked him.
I spent a couple years living in Hyde Park, Chicago -- University of Chicago neighborhood where Obama lived (lives I guess), represented, etc. He's immensely popular there, and very well liked. Everyone I've ever talked to that has met him, has had good things to say about him.
Obama is a hard person not to like. Personally, I'm not wild about a lot of his vews--in his two years in the senate he has one of the very most left-wing voting records alongside Kerry, Kennedy, etc. But despite this, he's somehow managed to garb himself in the clothes of a moderate and a uniter? I'm not sure I see that... I'm not sure where in his record I should look to find this either. Despite this though, I like the guy..
Obama by all accounts HAS kept himself clean (minus some small real estate possible scandal). That's helped him out popularity-wise in Chicago--they carted away current and former politicians by the dozen while I lived there.. Back to Obama.. He's well educated and a powerful public speaker. He's got a definite charisma and he knows how to use it. Perhaps most importantly, he knows what to say--just look at the excitement that has built up around somehow who's been in national politics for two years.
Honestly, I think one could easily draw parallels between Ronald Reagan and Obama on that front--could Obama be the next Great Communicator? I don't know.. I also have no idea what Obama would actually do, beyond the party-line typical stuff that he has said in the past and/or voted for. Like the p/gp/ggp whoever else said, we don't really have a clue what his platform is.
You can call it "ignorance" or not "very highly enlightened," but I dismiss your analysis for the same reason I dismiss a non-technician's analysis of a computer problem after he begins by referring to his LCD as "the tube"; or a non-trader's analysis of a stock valuation after he begins by saying "they were rude to me at this one store one time so they are obviously a bad company overall..."; or the same reason I dismiss a non-philosopher's reasoning of whether The Bible is an accurate historical record by starting with "it says rawt here in thu bible..." Right, because you dismiss all opinions that aren't your own, and it's easier to go through life denying that you're close-minded.
oh, if you actually reply again--you said it would be easy to criticize them in a culture-neutral way. Could you give me an example?
Re: iran: you seemed to have, YET AGAIN, totally missed the point. Indecent exposure in America is not a big crime. Pay a fine, you're done. It's NOT like that in Iran, where what you call "harmless cultural taboos"--in public OR private (another big distinction between us and them)--can be punished BY DEATH. That is the difference. I can't explain it any more simply to you. You're equating the death penalty and a misdemeanor that's not even universal! I find that utterly insane.
It would not surprise me in the slightest if the editor's spelling problems, dup posts, Roland posts, inflammatory posts, etc are 100% deliberate. Kind of like the quote I can't remember about how people go to the symphony as much for the mistakes as the good things.
I still highly enjoy slashdot but I have to say, I've noticed myself at times...buying into the world view too much. That is to say, I read slashdot and I feel like everything is going wrong--big corporations getting more powerful, government getting more powerful, losing civil liberties, everywhere in the world (not just Europe, but China, Iran, etc too!) being better than the US, etc etc. A large portion of things posted here now seem to become some kind of an anti-SOMETHING. Cellphone technology becomes a fight over why America is so backward, etc etc etc. It's kinda damn depressing.
And then I read other news, and you know--talk to other people who don't just self-flagellate all day--and it's kind of eye opening. I don't know if it's me or slashdot, but it's been feeling to me lately like the slashdot editors especially are those bitter, negative, unhappy kids in highschool who blame everyone else but themselves for their unhappiness and hate the kids who AREN'T unhappy the most (all the while totally sure of their superiority).
Political journalist? Ahh yes, the case of the journalists who went to jail refusing to reveal their sources who revealed classified information. Somewhat ironic, really. Journalist goes to jail to protecg a secret, when they in turn were part of spilling someone else's secrets. That's the life of investigative reporters though, they do a lot of risky things.
Anyway, back to the situation at hand--if you recall, the arrested journalists were caught in the wake of Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. He was INVESTIGATING the current administration. I doubt the administration was putting a lot pressure on Fitzgerland to arrest journalists who could potentially incriminate their officials.
You might also have picked up on the irony that they DID manage to publish articles--they weren't censored at all!
The very fact that you know about these alleged whistleblowers, and journalists that YOU apparently think there's a problem with (care to point it out?) again shows how wrong you are about censorship.
I'm natively from North Carolina, and have lived a couple places there, then Chicago, now DC-area. Of all of them, I have to say that I'm not happy living in DC area...too built up, too many people, too crazy, too EXPENSIVE. I liked Chicago a lot, it was a great place to spend a couple years, but I'm just not that much of a city person.
-I live in Australia -I just read a story about censorship / freedom of speech -despite this, I don't _FEEL_ particularly censored -However, I have _READ_ stories about the US -They are worse than Australia
Well, FWIW, I live in the US and I don't FEEL particularly censored either. Guess what--stories are just that, stories. And if your only source of info is a site like slashdot, well, let's just say you might be getting some highly selected and biased info..
The USA has things like morality police. Women showing too much chest is a crime. Sure, in some areas. We also have stripclubs, Hooters, topless bars, naked beaches etc. You can't generalize like you do. And by "morality police" I mean a group actually called the morality police..
You've demonstrated that you can't think from a culturally-neutral point of view, so I'm just going to ignore the rest of your post. That's very... something of you. I might go with ignorant. Refusing to even read the opinions of those you disagree with doesn't seem very highly enlightened.
I'll also add that "cultural neutrality" is absolute crap. Of course all cultures are different and have different moral standards. With your statement though, you've just entered moral ambiguity land, where nothing is right and nothing is wrong. That's too post modern for me, I think it's absolute crap.
Do you know how many cases in court right now name people who never fileshared, or couldn't have? I actually don't. Do you have have any numbers--that would be interesting to see.
Then there is the mindshare that media companies get when they tell you filesharing is wrong. How many people are turned off by OSS because it relies on "file sharing?" How many times do you hear from your students who think they know law that Linux distributions are illegal because they are copyright? I know I have to correct that misconception a few times a year. I would have said absolutely 0. That's ALL that most people know about linux--it's free! Then again, I don't have any students..
If you think about it like ACTUALLY copying and ACTUALLY pasting--the concepts behind the commands--it makes sense that what you paste is a replica of what you copy. an exact replica.
Not saying i approve--styles etc have given me more problems in MS Word than I can say (especially copying and pasting segments with styles between documents where the styles are defined differently--the result seems somewhat random..)
Really? I remember a time nobody would tolerate the military-guarded, razor-wire-fenced places called "free speech zones." Well, I'd like to believe there was such a time. Maybe it's just that nobody had the cojones to pen up protesters before now. I've been to protests before. I've never been ANYWHERE military-guarded however, nor was there razor-wire for that matter. I do know some people who have been in penned away areas. Don't have too much of a response here.
But while we don't filter the message, we are starting to filter the meduim. What about the threat of the NSA reading your internet communication, the threat of RIAA lawsuit or campus police if you fire up Bittorrent to download Ubuntu 7.04, the threat of being brutalized by police for civil protests? NSA: I don't know if they're reading my internet communications. I would doubt it. I don't know of any evidence of civil liberties being violated by NSA wiretapping that may or may not have taken place either. But then again I also assume that ANYONE can read my internet communication.. I'm kind of paranoid that way. I guess it comes down to, ultimately, I think our govt needs some spying ability. I don't know if the NSA has done everything properly, or what not--I don't think any of us do. I'll stay on the fence for this one.
RIAA lawsuit: If you...break the law...you can expect a lawsuit, and this is bad? RIAA isn't the government. As far as I know, they haven't sued anyone for _saying_ anything, either. Not too worried.
Campus police? Funny you mention this one... as a matter of fact I DID download many, many things in my undergrad days. I didn't live in fear. In fact, my local LUG hosted a number of torrents.. The "funny you mention" it part comes from the fact that one year someone living exactly one floor above me DID get busted by police--of course he was a highup member of DrinkOrDie (wiki it). again, this is as it should be as far as I can see. I'm not worried about this.
police brutality: again... I just don't know that this is a problem...
Secret service / police chat: this is supposed to be chilling? if that's true, I think we've lost the meaning of the world "chilling." Chilling is having a a little chat with police and then having your parents disappear. Or having a little chat and having some mysteriously broken bones. Chilling is being threatened. Any of those things. I don't think having to explain yourself to some cops after posting threats against the pres--whatever--is chilling.
Iran's censorship is understandable?
In short, I feel NO hesitation to say anything I want. Well, that's not true--I don't feel like saying nonsense such as "I've got a bomb!!!" at an airport or "I've got a plan to kill the President!!!" in front of... anyone. and I don't really have any problem at all with foolish people like that having to spend a couple hours explaining themselves. The mere fact we can have this discussion shows how much of a non issue this all is.
I will back off SLIGHTLY and say things aren't perfect--but then again, the people enforcing the laws are just as imperfect as we are. There are bound to be mistakes, stupid, lazy, uninformed, whatever. It only becomes a problem when it's more than this--say, state sanctioned censorship of text msgs.
In fact isn't it amazing racist or at least culterists to claim that "Iran's youth wants western fashion therefore they are not our enemy"? Some of the bloodiests wars in histories have between countries that outsiders could not tell apart. Haha, I enjoyed this part... nicely said.
Sure, the elections may be dodgy, but it's democratic. Nobody seems to like the leaders as they don't represent the people and it's unlikely they'll be in power long. The people are pushing the boundaries in all walks of life. In fact they're far more Western than a country like Turkey. And as for the political situation, it doesn't sound unlike any other Western country - unpopular leadership, dodgy elections, etc.
Yes, the elections are absolutely democratic--if you are ok with the fact that anyone running for any position anywhere--city council, governors, parliament, etc--has to be vetted through non-elected government bodies. Here's an assignment for you--in the last elections (you can check either I believe december or 2005 elections that brought Ahmadi-Nejad to power) find out how many candidates were BARRED from running. It's unlikely they'll be in power long? Possibly the most radically conservative government since the Revolution was brought to power two years ago. The reformists have suffered massive losses across the country. The most recent elections saw less radical conservatives, but conservatives nonetheless make large gains. Let's be clear: when we say conservatives in the case of Iran we mean Islamists, very frequently clerics, and more and more frequently army former army officers. Nothing wrong with any of those things, but they are all groups deepy vested in the status quo, and maintaining the Islamic Republic as it stands.
They're far more Western than Turkey? ok, now this is where you absolutely lose credibility. I can only assume after this that you're basing 100% of your knowledge off the above article. Iran is "The Islamic Republic of Iran." It has an unelected body of clerics that more or less rule the country--they certaintly hold the leash on any elected officials. They have things like morality police. Women showing too much hair is a crime. Now, how exactly is Iran more "Western" than Turkey? I'll be honest, I've never been to Iran though I would love to, and many of my friends have been. I have been to Turkey though, and your comment makes no sense to me.
But no, the Western media portray Iran as a country hell bent of destroying the West, destroying Israel (the viewpoint of one politician who doesn't have that power), and evil evil evil. But in a country with 40% of people under the age of 15, you really don't want to invade badly like in Iraq, and turn them ALL against you for the rest of their lives.
It seems to me that the "Western media" doesn't have to portray Iran that way at all--its (by your reckoning FAIRLY) elected president portrays it that way just fine. Look for some Khamenei quotes (he's the Supreme Leader for life if you don't know)...the power behind it all. 40% of people under the age of 15--that statement might be the closest thing to accurate in your whole post.
Now whilst the article above is but one story that gives an idea of life within Iran, it is counter to the rhetoric and fearmongering that is so popular within our media.
Look, the rich urban elite show their hair, go to university, have parties and sex, love their pizza and hamburgers more than kabab (which I personally don't understand at all!) and probably aren't that happy with the laws and the crackdowns that have been occurring recently. But you know what? They're not the majority. There is a huge urban and rural poor population that is very religious, very devout, very nationalistic, and happy with the Islamic Republic (not so happy with economy and jobs..)
Think of it this way...hang out in downtown NYC, talk to the youth, etc. Now, go to rural Nebraska and talk to the people there. Do you think you are going to get some differences of opinion? Westerners LOVE trotting out the Iranian urban elite as proof that they can be like us too..or something like that.
I used to be hopeful that the Islamic Republic could change. I'm much less so now--the difficulties inherent in the system
I'm so sick of the moronic editor comments here. "give it a few years" ?!
Seriously, come on. Freedom of expression is worth fighting for. It's even worth carping about on slashdot. Abuses should be publicized and not tolerated.
But what good does this hysterical hyperbole do? The difference between media controls in a country like Iran or China is an order of magnitude away from just about any Western country. Apples and oranges. A whole 'nother ballpark. Whatever other trite expression you want. Does anyone REALLY think that censorship of text messages is a few years away?
This nonsense just makes being concerned with freedom of speech/expression/whatever seem like it belongs in the realm of crazy people.
Well the question is, once a liar always a liar? Being a multiple liar like she appears to be, calls into question all her other achievements. Not to mention her judgement, etc.
You may recall that little thing called enron, that had a lot of people calling for blood of ANY financial misdoings?
Personally, I think Martha serving jail time was a bit silly...on the other hand, do you know what she was convicted of? It was not insider trading, it was multiple counts of lying to investigators and obstruction of justice. Just like Scooter libby. Just like Bill Clinton. Are we seeing a pattern here? It's a bad idea to lie to police/investigators/under oath/etc!!
In addition, you misrepresent the Apple situation. This isn't just filing taxes incorrectly--which you make sound like a simple accident. Currently they are investigating minutes of boardroom meetings being fully made up--reocrds of meetings that never occurred. Falsification of documents. That seems like a pretty big deal.. But hey, we should probably go easy on big corporations right--at least the ones we like, like Apple??
I like how you make this a partisan problem too... I'm sure if a famous Republican lied to investigators about insider trading and obstructed justice, you would be absolutely as convinced that they were persecuted unfairly. It seems like according to you, Republicans are damned if they do, damned if they don't (and that's assuming that this is a political issue at all!). Don't investigate illegal corporate doings--it's just those fat cat corrupt washington republicans. But if they DO investigate illegal corporate doings--why they're just attacking their political enemies. Give me a break!
To be fair, the definition of what pizza is varies GREATLY all around the country. Having grown up in the south, lived in NYC and Chicago, and been lucky enough to have had some delicious pizza in Italy, I can safely say--it's all totally different and other than (usually) being round, and having at a minimum some dough and some cheese, you can barely compare any of the dishes.. From CPK to Chicago style to NYC style to Philly style to Missouri...to Italian restaurant style, to home made, to big chain restaurants... you get the picture.
I swear to god this article has brought out more chauvinistic snobs than any article I can remember (at least since the last article comparing cell phone usage in the US and Europe...)
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any data to back that up?
So you're telling me that in Britain / Australia / France / Germany / -- I have no idea where you're from, but where you are from -- nobody votes party lines? I try to follow international elections a lot, and I can't think of anywhere in the world that would fit that description.
Is it common? That's hard to say... I would say yes and no.
How much has the population of the US changed from 2004-2006? Numberswise, not a lot...some youth in, some elderly died, some immigrants, some emigrants, etc. Does that change the groundswell of support for the Democrat party? No, it can't. People change their minds all the time.
I always like to give my home state of North Carolina as an example. NC is a southern "red state." At least that's what people say. I come from a VERY Democratic area of the state. We have a Democrat governor. We have two Republican senators (somewhat unusual for us). our representatives are split pretty evenly at the national level. Our state government is absolutely dominated by Democrats. In the 2004 election:
Bush: 56%
Kerry: 44%
Very solid red!
For Governor:
Easley (dem): 55%
Ballantine (rep): 43%
Wait a second...very solidly BLUE.
For Senate:
Burr (rep): 52%
Bowles (dem): 48%
Pretty close! Purple?
From that data, I would have to say, people don't vote party lines that much.
Another example I would give is Illinois...where Obama was elected to the senate.
Obama--very popular at home--running against the laughingstock Alan Keyes.
Obama: 70%
Keyes: 27%
I'm a conservative and typically vote Republican. No way in hell I would have voted for Keyes. So, you can tell how many people vote party lines in Illinois--27%
IMHO, the blue state/red state/it's NEVER been this partisan before stuff is nonsense that people said to try to understand how someone like Bush--who many absolutely HATE--could possibly come to power. It's easier to believe someone you hate was picked unfairly or because of stupidity and blind partisanship than that other rational people could have actually picked him.
I spent a couple years living in Hyde Park, Chicago -- University of Chicago neighborhood where Obama lived (lives I guess), represented, etc. He's immensely popular there, and very well liked. Everyone I've ever talked to that has met him, has had good things to say about him.
Obama is a hard person not to like. Personally, I'm not wild about a lot of his vews--in his two years in the senate he has one of the very most left-wing voting records alongside Kerry, Kennedy, etc. But despite this, he's somehow managed to garb himself in the clothes of a moderate and a uniter? I'm not sure I see that... I'm not sure where in his record I should look to find this either. Despite this though, I like the guy..
Obama by all accounts HAS kept himself clean (minus some small real estate possible scandal). That's helped him out popularity-wise in Chicago--they carted away current and former politicians by the dozen while I lived there.. Back to Obama.. He's well educated and a powerful public speaker. He's got a definite charisma and he knows how to use it. Perhaps most importantly, he knows what to say--just look at the excitement that has built up around somehow who's been in national politics for two years.
Honestly, I think one could easily draw parallels between Ronald Reagan and Obama on that front--could Obama be the next Great Communicator? I don't know.. I also have no idea what Obama would actually do, beyond the party-line typical stuff that he has said in the past and/or voted for. Like the p/gp/ggp whoever else said, we don't really have a clue what his platform is.
oh, if you actually reply again--you said it would be easy to criticize them in a culture-neutral way. Could you give me an example?
Re: iran: you seemed to have, YET AGAIN, totally missed the point. Indecent exposure in America is not a big crime. Pay a fine, you're done. It's NOT like that in Iran, where what you call "harmless cultural taboos"--in public OR private (another big distinction between us and them)--can be punished BY DEATH. That is the difference. I can't explain it any more simply to you. You're equating the death penalty and a misdemeanor that's not even universal! I find that utterly insane.
Oh also...
It would not surprise me in the slightest if the editor's spelling problems, dup posts, Roland posts, inflammatory posts, etc are 100% deliberate. Kind of like the quote I can't remember about how people go to the symphony as much for the mistakes as the good things.
Well said..
I still highly enjoy slashdot but I have to say, I've noticed myself at times...buying into the world view too much. That is to say, I read slashdot and I feel like everything is going wrong--big corporations getting more powerful, government getting more powerful, losing civil liberties, everywhere in the world (not just Europe, but China, Iran, etc too!) being better than the US, etc etc. A large portion of things posted here now seem to become some kind of an anti-SOMETHING. Cellphone technology becomes a fight over why America is so backward, etc etc etc. It's kinda damn depressing.
And then I read other news, and you know--talk to other people who don't just self-flagellate all day--and it's kind of eye opening. I don't know if it's me or slashdot, but it's been feeling to me lately like the slashdot editors especially are those bitter, negative, unhappy kids in highschool who blame everyone else but themselves for their unhappiness and hate the kids who AREN'T unhappy the most (all the while totally sure of their superiority).
I don't know, maybe I'm just rambling..
Political journalist? Ahh yes, the case of the journalists who went to jail refusing to reveal their sources who revealed classified information. Somewhat ironic, really. Journalist goes to jail to protecg a secret, when they in turn were part of spilling someone else's secrets. That's the life of investigative reporters though, they do a lot of risky things.
Anyway, back to the situation at hand--if you recall, the arrested journalists were caught in the wake of Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. He was INVESTIGATING the current administration. I doubt the administration was putting a lot pressure on Fitzgerland to arrest journalists who could potentially incriminate their officials.
You might also have picked up on the irony that they DID manage to publish articles--they weren't censored at all!
The very fact that you know about these alleged whistleblowers, and journalists that YOU apparently think there's a problem with (care to point it out?) again shows how wrong you are about censorship.
I'm natively from North Carolina, and have lived a couple places there, then Chicago, now DC-area. Of all of them, I have to say that I'm not happy living in DC area...too built up, too many people, too crazy, too EXPENSIVE. I liked Chicago a lot, it was a great place to spend a couple years, but I'm just not that much of a city person.
Thanks for the perspective!
I'm happy with that response :-)
I don't have anything against Australia...it's one of my top non-US places I would consider moving to.
I just get tired of everyone assuming / claiming that america is a hellhole of censorship/whatever else..
*sigh*
Let me paraphrase what you just said:
-I live in Australia
-I just read a story about censorship / freedom of speech
-despite this, I don't _FEEL_ particularly censored
-However, I have _READ_ stories about the US
-They are worse than Australia
Well, FWIW, I live in the US and I don't FEEL particularly censored either. Guess what--stories are just that, stories. And if your only source of info is a site like slashdot, well, let's just say you might be getting some highly selected and biased info..
I'll also add that "cultural neutrality" is absolute crap. Of course all cultures are different and have different moral standards. With your statement though, you've just entered moral ambiguity land, where nothing is right and nothing is wrong. That's too post modern for me, I think it's absolute crap.
Depends how you think about it.
If you think about it like ACTUALLY copying and ACTUALLY pasting--the concepts behind the commands--it makes sense that what you paste is a replica of what you copy. an exact replica.
Not saying i approve--styles etc have given me more problems in MS Word than I can say (especially copying and pasting segments with styles between documents where the styles are defined differently--the result seems somewhat random..)
RIAA lawsuit: If you...break the law...you can expect a lawsuit, and this is bad? RIAA isn't the government. As far as I know, they haven't sued anyone for _saying_ anything, either. Not too worried.
Campus police? Funny you mention this one... as a matter of fact I DID download many, many things in my undergrad days. I didn't live in fear. In fact, my local LUG hosted a number of torrents.. The "funny you mention" it part comes from the fact that one year someone living exactly one floor above me DID get busted by police--of course he was a highup member of DrinkOrDie (wiki it). again, this is as it should be as far as I can see. I'm not worried about this.
police brutality: again... I just don't know that this is a problem...
Secret service / police chat: this is supposed to be chilling? if that's true, I think we've lost the meaning of the world "chilling." Chilling is having a a little chat with police and then having your parents disappear. Or having a little chat and having some mysteriously broken bones. Chilling is being threatened. Any of those things. I don't think having to explain yourself to some cops after posting threats against the pres--whatever--is chilling.
Iran's censorship is understandable?
In short, I feel NO hesitation to say anything I want. Well, that's not true--I don't feel like saying nonsense such as "I've got a bomb!!!" at an airport or "I've got a plan to kill the President!!!" in front of
I will back off SLIGHTLY and say things aren't perfect--but then again, the people enforcing the laws are just as imperfect as we are. There are bound to be mistakes, stupid, lazy, uninformed, whatever. It only becomes a problem when it's more than this--say, state sanctioned censorship of text msgs.
Sure, the elections may be dodgy, but it's democratic. Nobody seems to like the leaders as they don't represent the people and it's unlikely they'll be in power long. The people are pushing the boundaries in all walks of life. In fact they're far more Western than a country like Turkey. And as for the political situation, it doesn't sound unlike any other Western country - unpopular leadership, dodgy elections, etc.
Yes, the elections are absolutely democratic--if you are ok with the fact that anyone running for any position anywhere--city council, governors, parliament, etc--has to be vetted through non-elected government bodies. Here's an assignment for you--in the last elections (you can check either I believe december or 2005 elections that brought Ahmadi-Nejad to power) find out how many candidates were BARRED from running. It's unlikely they'll be in power long? Possibly the most radically conservative government since the Revolution was brought to power two years ago. The reformists have suffered massive losses across the country. The most recent elections saw less radical conservatives, but conservatives nonetheless make large gains. Let's be clear: when we say conservatives in the case of Iran we mean Islamists, very frequently clerics, and more and more frequently army former army officers. Nothing wrong with any of those things, but they are all groups deepy vested in the status quo, and maintaining the Islamic Republic as it stands.
They're far more Western than Turkey? ok, now this is where you absolutely lose credibility. I can only assume after this that you're basing 100% of your knowledge off the above article. Iran is "The Islamic Republic of Iran." It has an unelected body of clerics that more or less rule the country--they certaintly hold the leash on any elected officials. They have things like morality police. Women showing too much hair is a crime. Now, how exactly is Iran more "Western" than Turkey? I'll be honest, I've never been to Iran though I would love to, and many of my friends have been. I have been to Turkey though, and your comment makes no sense to me.
But no, the Western media portray Iran as a country hell bent of destroying the West, destroying Israel (the viewpoint of one politician who doesn't have that power), and evil evil evil. But in a country with 40% of people under the age of 15, you really don't want to invade badly like in Iraq, and turn them ALL against you for the rest of their lives.
It seems to me that the "Western media" doesn't have to portray Iran that way at all--its (by your reckoning FAIRLY) elected president portrays it that way just fine. Look for some Khamenei quotes (he's the Supreme Leader for life if you don't know)...the power behind it all. 40% of people under the age of 15--that statement might be the closest thing to accurate in your whole post.
Now whilst the article above is but one story that gives an idea of life within Iran, it is counter to the rhetoric and fearmongering that is so popular within our media.
Look, the rich urban elite show their hair, go to university, have parties and sex, love their pizza and hamburgers more than kabab (which I personally don't understand at all!) and probably aren't that happy with the laws and the crackdowns that have been occurring recently. But you know what? They're not the majority. There is a huge urban and rural poor population that is very religious, very devout, very nationalistic, and happy with the Islamic Republic (not so happy with economy and jobs..)
Think of it this way...hang out in downtown NYC, talk to the youth, etc. Now, go to rural Nebraska and talk to the people there. Do you think you are going to get some differences of opinion? Westerners LOVE trotting out the Iranian urban elite as proof that they can be like us too..or something like that.
I used to be hopeful that the Islamic Republic could change. I'm much less so now--the difficulties inherent in the system
I'm so sick of the moronic editor comments here. "give it a few years" ?!
Seriously, come on. Freedom of expression is worth fighting for. It's even worth carping about on slashdot. Abuses should be publicized and not tolerated.
But what good does this hysterical hyperbole do? The difference between media controls in a country like Iran or China is an order of magnitude away from just about any Western country. Apples and oranges. A whole 'nother ballpark. Whatever other trite expression you want. Does anyone REALLY think that censorship of text messages is a few years away?
This nonsense just makes being concerned with freedom of speech/expression/whatever seem like it belongs in the realm of crazy people.
there have been paste special buttons as long as i can remember.. not at all a new thing
Wow, uninformed AND classist. Very nice sir.
Well the question is, once a liar always a liar? Being a multiple liar like she appears to be, calls into question all her other achievements. Not to mention her judgement, etc.
I think you meant "gall"
:-P
given that the topic of conversation is Nazis and germans though, you might just have made a REALLY funny pun with the word gaul
Ok, I will except that amendment to my statement--Bill Clinton GOT IN TROUBLE for doing the exact same kind of things.
Rather pedantic though, everyone knows he was acquitted, and everyone knows that perjury was what brought about the whole impeachment thing...
You may recall that little thing called enron, that had a lot of people calling for blood of ANY financial misdoings?
Personally, I think Martha serving jail time was a bit silly...on the other hand, do you know what she was convicted of? It was not insider trading, it was multiple counts of lying to investigators and obstruction of justice. Just like Scooter libby. Just like Bill Clinton. Are we seeing a pattern here? It's a bad idea to lie to police/investigators/under oath/etc!!
In addition, you misrepresent the Apple situation. This isn't just filing taxes incorrectly--which you make sound like a simple accident. Currently they are investigating minutes of boardroom meetings being fully made up--reocrds of meetings that never occurred. Falsification of documents. That seems like a pretty big deal.. But hey, we should probably go easy on big corporations right--at least the ones we like, like Apple??
I like how you make this a partisan problem too... I'm sure if a famous Republican lied to investigators about insider trading and obstructed justice, you would be absolutely as convinced that they were persecuted unfairly. It seems like according to you, Republicans are damned if they do, damned if they don't (and that's assuming that this is a political issue at all!). Don't investigate illegal corporate doings--it's just those fat cat corrupt washington republicans. But if they DO investigate illegal corporate doings--why they're just attacking their political enemies. Give me a break!
Hahaha, nice try. maybe you should actually go read some of my posts in this thread.
To be fair, the definition of what pizza is varies GREATLY all around the country. Having grown up in the south, lived in NYC and Chicago, and been lucky enough to have had some delicious pizza in Italy, I can safely say--it's all totally different and other than (usually) being round, and having at a minimum some dough and some cheese, you can barely compare any of the dishes.. From CPK to Chicago style to NYC style to Philly style to Missouri...to Italian restaurant style, to home made, to big chain restaurants... you get the picture.
I swear to god this article has brought out more chauvinistic snobs than any article I can remember (at least since the last article comparing cell phone usage in the US and Europe...)