…and this is a 
The simple summary:
As the video says, the country is shutting down the flow of information, clamping down on the internet — that alone would tell me that something nasty has been going down in the government there. Information should flow freely, and I've run across one set of instructions for setting up a proxy server under Windows, and one for Linux. I run neither…does anyone have similar instructions for BSD or Mac OS X Unix?
Otherwise, feel free to talk about the new source of chaos in the Middle East.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Bad Albert | June 19, 2009 2:42 PM
What to do? What to do? It would be nice to help people being screwed by dictators. On the other hand, we might just be helping some other wackjob take over with his own version of theocracy.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 19, 2009 2:42 PM
Um, PZ, I certainly hope that you're not thinking of running a proxy on your home Mac. As the page itself notes:
If you do actually want to do this, you would probably be better served by digging up an old x86 box and installing CentOS (so you could follow the instructions exactly).
Posted by: Jim Swetnam | June 19, 2009 2:57 PM
PZ
Another thing to worry about: If there is any traffic over the proxy that Homeland Security might consider even remotely linked to terrorism or terrorists (which is a high probability event,given their history), you, as the host could probably be prosecuted under the Patriot Act. I'm checking a security expert now.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
June 19, 2009 3:01 PM
Another thing that worries me about all this is... Is that other guy better than the nutjob at the head of Iran or he's just another crazy monster?
But for now the important part is that these people were screwed out of a genuine election.
Posted by: sondberg | June 19, 2009 3:01 PM
It's all because of following the wrong religion
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 19, 2009 3:01 PM
Those people haven't got a prayer considering the recorded history of islam run countries. As ever before, might makes right, and in this case the might is fanatical islam. The former shah tried to bring Iran into modern civilization, but it was fanatical islam that brought him down and returned Iran to the shit pile. Of course, much of the population was not there for the deposed shah, but I think if given the choice between modernization and their fanatical faith, they will choose the latter, as it is ingrained in them to the bone such as the islamic faith is. And I will never condone or suggest meddling in their affairs, as history is both hindsight and foresight. Let them appeal to allah; what can they lose? (sic)
Posted by: Bevans | June 19, 2009 3:03 PM
As Kennedy said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable".
Posted by: mtn_laurel | June 19, 2009 3:09 PM
If you have a university-supplied internet connection, re-read the agreements/policies you were given when you registered before setting up a proxy! It's specifically forbidden by the school I attend, and pretty obviously falls into the category of "extending service to non-affiliated personnel" for the school I'm doing summer research at.
Posted by: fofofo | June 19, 2009 3:10 PM
Do you know Tor? it's an internet traffic anonymizer. really easy to use.
you can set it so, that you just forward traffic inside the tor network, so possibly illegal information is not sent back into the normal net from your pc.
I'm new here, so i don't know if posting a link will get me entangled in the spam filter. Just search for "tor" on google.
Posted by: DaveX | June 19, 2009 3:11 PM
Man, so much info politics in one day at Pharyngula! I can't wait for the PZ/Lessig mashup...
Posted by: Chris Clarke | June 19, 2009 3:12 PM
If by "Modern Civilization" you mean a barbaric torturer's regime run with US backing, then yes.
The Shah ran the only literacy campaign I've heard of in which literacy actually decreased. Some modernization.
Posted by: mtn_laurel | June 19, 2009 3:13 PM
If you have a university-supplied internet connection, re-read the agreements/policies you were given when you registered before setting up a proxy! It's specifically forbidden by the school I attend, and pretty obviously falls into the category of "extending service to non-affiliated personnel" for the school I'm doing summer research at.
Posted by: jsclary | June 19, 2009 3:13 PM
@sondberg #5
Is there a right one?
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
June 19, 2009 3:14 PM
Religion poisons everything. Islam is the leader at doing this. Terror is its method.
Posted by: Divergence of B | June 19, 2009 3:17 PM
Anyone running a BSD should know how to setup a proxy. Under FreeBSD there is little more needed then "cd /usr/ports/www/squid && make install clean", a copy quick file edits (/etc/rc.conf and /usr/local/etc/squid/squid.conf), and an "init" command.
Posted by: Richard Brian Penn | June 19, 2009 3:17 PM
Could you guys post a clip from the Jon Stewart show where he commented on how Twitter & facebook were determining the outcome of the election in Iran? It was a hysterical clip.
Posted by: sondberg | June 19, 2009 3:18 PM
@jsclary #13
Christianity of course.
Posted by: Penquin | June 19, 2009 3:20 PM
The Islamic revolution in Iran turned it into a hardcore theocracy because the rightist fundies used force and executions to suppress all the leftist Muslim and any secular intellectual groups that helped in the revolution, and there were plenty of them. There's a large base of secular or at least non-fundamentalist protesters now, and if the theocracy survives, it's most likely going to be in a very crippled form. Nowadays the hardcore fundamentalists are the aging government officials and some poorer rural groups(Much like the US :p). Don't write off Iran because their government is corrupt and crazy, because the people there realize that are finally sick of it and fighting back.
Posted by: JohnT | June 19, 2009 3:21 PM
Uh oh, they've got the big pissed off now: Ayatollah demands end to protests
This could get pretty messy as the Ayatollah represents the big sky daddy and the protesters will be disobeying Allah not just the Iranian government.
Posted by: Lilo | June 19, 2009 3:21 PM
I find it interesting that the Republicans are identifying very strongly with the victims of this faulty election, when the last one of those in this country was the Bush Gore results in Florida. The people who thought there was something hinky in that one were immediately silenced through judicial action. I would submit that the right wingers would hardly accept judicial settlement as a reasonable outcome in Iran. Funny how it's OK when they do it and not when some right-winger in an Islamic country does it.
Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | June 19, 2009 3:23 PM
What you really want to do is look into joining the Tor network - it's a distributed proxying system that distributes traffic randomly through multiple proxies on its way to its destination. Sort of like a peer-to-peer anonymizer.
http://www.torproject.org/
Caveats - Tor is not 100% foolproof, assuming that the entity doing the analysis is smart, motivated and has access to enormous resources - a description that might apply to whatever the Iranian equivalent of the NSA is, and certainly applies to the original. Also Tor is used by people with less, uh, salutary reasons for hiding their online activity, so I sure wouldn't install it on a work PC - your local network admin is going to be seeing traffic going to a lot of weird places.
Posted by: ping? | June 19, 2009 3:27 PM
New source of chaos in the Middle East? Last time I checked, Iran was already financing HAMAS (terrorists in Israel who have usurped power in Gaza a year ago), Hezbollah (terrorists in Lebanon who de facto control the southern areas of the country and vie for governmental position), and virtually controlling Syria as a satellite state... not even mentioning the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran has been a major destabilizing factor in the Middle East for quite a while now.
Posted by: ping? | June 19, 2009 3:30 PM
New source of chaos in the Middle East? Last time I checked, Iran was already financing HAMAS (terrorists in Israel who have usurped power in Gaza a year ago), Hezbollah (terrorists in Lebanon who de facto control the southern areas of the country and vie for governmental position), and virtually controlling Syria as a satellite state... not even mentioning the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran has been a major destabilizing factor in the Middle East for quite a while now.
Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | June 19, 2009 3:34 PM
P.S. - Interesting article here - Tor usage is up 500% in Iran over the past week, and apparently Iran may be blocking all use of port 443 (HTTPS, or encrypted web traffic).
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/measuring-tor-and-iran
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 19, 2009 3:36 PM
Chris Clarke @ 11
Yes, but I purposefully omitted that segment of his regime with the knowledge that it was well known, as you have bore out. But what was Iran like before the shah took over? They would still be living in sand heaps and eating camel shit. Every country has terror and onrest in its history (well, not all; Norway comes to mind if I am correct), some rise above it and proceed to civilized status, others will never get beyond their rough beginnings as history as borne out. I tried to obliquely cover this by using "hindsight and foresight" in a manner that history makes clear. Still, I do not see any hope for Iran, and even much less for Iraq.
Posted by: Mena | June 19, 2009 3:40 PM
As bad as both guys are, I think that some of this is that we can empathize with what those voters are feeling after 2000. Conservatives just like violence and don't seem to realize how the Shah got put in power so that's why they are on board.
Posted by: ennui | June 19, 2009 3:40 PM
Surprisingly decent coverage of events over at The Daily Dish, but then Sullivan puked out this:
Posted by: Marc Abian | June 19, 2009 3:41 PM
"No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran"
Amnesty International 1976
Posted by: Penquin | June 19, 2009 3:42 PM
Ping, you do realize these protests are AGAINST the government that's doing all of that, right? Even a lot of the religious leaders are coming out against the government and the Supreme Leader, and the candidate that was screwed out of the election ran on a campaign of massively scaling back the enforcement of religious laws and supporting using diplomacy with the western world. Iran is not some bastion of crazy muslims, even if most of its oppressive current government is.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 3:51 PM
Holbach, it's entirely possible to criticise a country's government and policies without resorting to ethnic slurs.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 19, 2009 3:51 PM
wtf? I wouldn't have guessed Holbach to be such and imperialist-racist... that's some serious history-fail right there.
Posted by: amphiox | June 19, 2009 3:53 PM
Holbach #25: "(well, not all; Norway comes to mind if I am correct)"
Well, at least some Vikings hailed from Norway, I think. And there was just a little bit of terror and unrest in those days.
Though granted the place wasn't yet known as the country of Norway then.
Posted by: Gilgamsh | June 19, 2009 3:55 PM
At 1:31 into the video the text says; "They [the government] paint the image of isolated pockets of young dissidents, influenced by foreign powers."
Sounds eerily similar to the words used by the right wing about the anti-war protests during the 60s & 70s in the US.
Posted by: greg | June 19, 2009 3:59 PM
@#6
it was fanatical islam that brought him down and returned Iran to the shit pile.
Actually you may need to look at the USA for responsibility for destabilising that particular democratically elected government. As almost admitted recently by Obama, which is as close as they'll get to an apology.
Posted by: Matt | June 19, 2009 3:59 PM
This seems like it's going to all have an unhappy ending...
Posted by: Chris Clarke | June 19, 2009 3:59 PM
Holbach, pulling racist prejudices out of your ass does not constitute reasoned argument.
Iran has been a center of civilization and technology, with some admitted gaps in advancement — many of them corresponding to periods of strict religious rule — since before Western democracy was invented.
Try getting your history of the Middle East from some source other than Jonny Quest reruns, please.
Posted by: Aaron | June 19, 2009 4:01 PM
I keep scanning these pictures, looking in the background of photos of the "winning party" for some glimpse of Karl Rove.
Posted by: Isaac | June 19, 2009 4:03 PM
"something nasty has been going down in the government there."
Don't be ridiculous PZ! The ayatollah himself has declared that the election was not rigged! As the holy Ayatollah points out: "how can one rig 11 million votes?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_election
How indeed.
Posted by: Ken Mareld | June 19, 2009 4:04 PM
Like anything else important that heppens in this world it an go one of three ways.
The reformers win, the government capitulates/collapses.
A la the Berlin Wall coming down and East Germany vanishes.
The government wins, a hard crackdown ensues.
A la Tiennamen Square and the theocracy continues control.
It degenerates into a bloody Civil War/Revolution.
And lots and lots of people die.
I think the odds are this could go anywhere. Twitter and Facebook are to this Iranian crisis what fax machines were to the fall of the Soviet Union.
Ken
Posted by: Michelle R
|
June 19, 2009 4:05 PM
"Posted by: Matt | June 19, 2009 3:59 PM
This seems like it's going to all have an unhappy ending..."
That's the overall feeling I'm getting too. Either that or it'll be a dud.
Now that the Ayatollah asked them to stop, if they continue it will be even more of a blood bath. If they DO stop, it will either drop forgotten or even more shit will break loose.
Owch... Good luck to the people.
Posted by: Codswallop | June 19, 2009 4:06 PM
Moussavi is no better than Ahmedina-Whack-Job. There is no such thing as a "moderate" theocracy, and if moderate Muslims exist at all, they are well-concealed.
As long as Ayatollahs are vetting these elections with empty statements like, "There is 11 million votes difference. How can one rig 11 million votes?" there will never be a real Islamic democracy.
Posted by: Thoughtful Guy | June 19, 2009 4:06 PM
That video was well made and moving. I hope that they sort it all out as peacefully as possible. You have to put yourself in the their shoes for a minute to truly understand what's going on. Imagine if government thugs beat you down and trashed your personal belongs just for your political activism. You should definitely spread this around.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
June 19, 2009 4:08 PM
"how can one rig 11 million votes?"
...No one said you rigged it, holy dude. We're just saying you didn't even look at the damn things.
Posted by: Rob | June 19, 2009 4:09 PM
Look, I understand that Mousavi (the reform guy) ain't the greatest. He's Muslim through-and-through, even a supporter the Rusdie fatwa back in the day (coincidentally it's Rushie birthday today). But he saw a hope for change. Maybe Obama gave them reason to at least attempt reform, better relations with the West, etc. Plus, they stole the vote and cracked down dicto-fascist style. I'm an atheist but I've wore green all week. You need to support these students and progressives... they have to "progress" from something, right?
Posted by: abys | June 19, 2009 4:10 PM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2009/06/iranian-author-marjane-satrapi-speaks-out-about-election.html
I believe that Marjane Satrapi has very few reasons to ever lie about stuff like this -- also, her patriotism is unquestionable, but for her country, not her government (Also: read her book Persepolis if you haven't).
I truely hope something comes of this. And I hope Satrapi, after all of this, gets to return to the land she loves.
Posted by: Newfie | June 19, 2009 4:11 PM
Freedom is always paid for in blood. The next few days will be even bloodier in Tehran. Freedom is rarely given, it has to be taken. Let's hope that Iran's bigger trading partners will put pressure on them.
Posted by: Marc Abian | June 19, 2009 4:14 PM
You're missing the point. It's not about who's in power, it's about the system.
And even if nothing happens, these demostrations will probably have altered the mindset of Iran and reclaimed power for the people. The government's hardline appraoch has been terminally undermined.
Posted by: DaveL | June 19, 2009 4:16 PM
You toss the ballot boxes down the nearest sewer and make the results up.
Posted by: Lowell
|
June 19, 2009 4:18 PM
Lilo #20:
Reasonable people can disagree about the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, but no one was "silenced" in any way remotely similar to what the Iranian government is doing.
That's some serious hyperbole, there.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 19, 2009 4:22 PM
Chris Clarke @ 36
I am not surprised that I would be branded racist because I make factual comments on a particular country. I won't even bother to defend this positon or react to the obvious reaction.
As you said, Iran has been a center of civilization and technology; why isn't it now? Are you a self-appointed marshall of ferreting out seemingly racist remarks that irk you into action for the underdog?
Who the hell is Jonny Quest? I don't know him, so I cannot emulate him as you so stupidly quoted.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 19, 2009 4:26 PM
oh i don't know... maybe because having Imperial Britain stomp on it every time it even half-way managed to dig itself out of the last round of stomping is counterproductive to progress?
And the U.S.A happily stepped into the role of head-stomper after Britain wasn't able to anymore.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 4:27 PM
'living in sand heaps and eating camel shit' is a factual statement?
Stop digging.
Posted by: Marc Abian | June 19, 2009 4:30 PM
And I, for my part, am not surprised you ignored my quote from Amnesty International, which rather contrasted with your position.
And as for those awful muslims ruining Shah's benevolent rule, Iran was a secular democracy until 1953.
Posted by: windy | June 19, 2009 4:31 PM
Holbach, that's probably the stupidest thing you have ever written here, and that's with some stiff competition. Please, just READ something. Even 2,500 years ago, it wasn't like that.
--
amphiox:
It was, or some variant thereof. And Norway has been involved in plenty of wars since the Viking age.
Posted by: Neil | June 19, 2009 4:31 PM
This untrue, except in the context of the state-run media of Iran. I've actually married into a moderate Muslim family. The extended family, for the most part, lives in Iran and the women remove their scarves as soon as they are out of sight of the authorities. At our wedding ceremony in Tehran my uncle-in-law said that it was too bad we weren't at his house because he would offer me a beer.
If one's objective is to leave Republicans with egg on their faces we should turn to Bush's support of Musharraf in late 2007 in contrast to their present claim of solidarity with the Iranian people. It is, of course, merely political posturing.
Eating camel shit is factual? I've never actually seen a camel while in the country. Your flamboyance is charming but I have a sneaking suspicion you are aware of your own inaccuracy.
Posted by: delphi_ote
|
June 19, 2009 4:31 PM
I just lost a heap of respect for Pharyngula's readers with all this spectacular ignorance about Iranian politics. Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have been a disaster for the people of Iran, the region, and the world. Students are rising up against a theocracy and fighting for secular values in the streets. They're struggling for an open, peaceful relationship with the world.
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | June 19, 2009 4:36 PM
*considers trying to teach Holbach about the legacy of colonialism, and the fact that Iran isn't actually even that backwards sci/tech-wise, and the fact that the population isn't Arabic so camel and sand slurs (which would be horrible against Arabs, too, of course) don't even make sense*
*considers likelihood message will get through*
*goes to play video games*
Posted by: Fielder | June 19, 2009 4:36 PM
@Holbach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mossadegh
Posted by: BG | June 19, 2009 4:43 PM
They are begging for proxies to use. This is the guy to private message the IP address to if you set one up: http://twitter.com/persiankiwi
or this guy:
http://twitter.com/StopAhmadi
Do not post ip addresses of proxies publicly.
Posted by: Marc Abian | June 19, 2009 4:49 PM
Aside from Holbach, who are you talking about here?
Posted by: a non | June 19, 2009 4:51 PM
"The former shah tried to bring Iran into modern civilization, but it was fanatical islam that brought him down and returned Iran to the shit pile....But what was Iran like before the shah took over? They would still be living in sand heaps and eating camel shit."
Holbach, you're such an ignorant cretin -- you're like a fundie's parody of an atheist. The thoroughly corrupt shah was installed by the CIA after they took out democratically elected Mossadegh.
Posted by: Qwerty | June 19, 2009 4:53 PM
I do find it disturbing that the right wing zealots of our USA want and/or seem itching to go to war with Iran. Especially when we are imbroiled in two middle eastern countries with no end of either involvement in sight.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 19, 2009 4:58 PM
Lilo @ # 20: ... this faulty election, when the last one of those in this country was the Bush Gore results in Florida.
Did you sleep through November in 2004?
Posted by: a non | June 19, 2009 5:00 PM
"I am not surprised that I would be branded racist because I make factual comments on a particular country."
Lots of other people making statements about Iran aren't being branded racists. That's because a) their statements are actually factual and b) their statements aren't racist. Neither is true of your statements.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 19, 2009 5:09 PM
BTW, if anyone wants to follow Iranian developments in detail, in context & in English, it's hard to beat Juan Cole.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 19, 2009 5:11 PM
@delphi_ote: You must be reading a different Pharynula than I am. Almost everyone here agrees with you
Posted by: Sebobaso | June 19, 2009 5:16 PM
I want to help the Iranians this time around, even though they'll just get another flavor of theocrazy, it's important for any people to have full and uncensored access to any and all information they want.
I just wish the Americans had shown any kind of dissident similar to Iranian's when Bush Inc took over the US twice.
Posted by: Sebobaso | June 19, 2009 5:20 PM
I want to help the Iranians this time around, even though they'll just get another flavor of theocrazy, it's important for any people to have full and uncensored access to any and all information they want.
I just wish the Americans had shown any kind of dissident similar to Iranian's when Bush Inc took over the US twice.
Posted by: kamaka | June 19, 2009 5:34 PM
I just wish the Americans had shown any kind of dissident similar to Iranian's when Bush Inc took over the US twice.
Peaceful and orderly transfer of power is very deeply ingrained here, Sebobaso.
Posted by: maddyhatter
|
June 19, 2009 5:49 PM
They're not identifying with anybody . . . it's a pretence as an excuse to invade/bomb Iran.
Posted by: greg | June 19, 2009 5:55 PM
Kamaka @#69
The greatest success of the US administration is convincing the populace that the US system is as good as it gets. The manipulation of the media by the government is the greatest feat of mind control the world has ever seen. In many regards the US is a fantastic country but amongst the most accessible forms of news media it has become anathema to criticise foreign policy. To do so is to invite allegations of betrayal. Jingoism is the guiding policy, to criticise a strategy is to "betray those noble soldiers" fighting to preserve your rights even if your priority is the protection of those soldiers. It's hard to know if even George Orwell would be amazed at what the world has come to.
Posted by: kamaka | June 19, 2009 6:25 PM
greg @ 71,
Yah, perhaps I should have written:
Peaceful and orderly transfer of power is deeply ingrained here, even when the election is stolen.
Posted by: Sev | June 19, 2009 6:39 PM
I'm starting to think Holbach is a false flag "atheist" trying to make the rest of look hateful.
Posted by: Otto | June 19, 2009 6:42 PM
holbach @ 6,
your knowledge of Iranian history is sadly screwed up.
Iran had a democratic government under Mohammad Mossadegh
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/biography/
which was overthrown by the US on the behest of the UK.
The US then installed the hated dictatorship of the shah.
A recent book gives the history of those events:
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, by Stephen Kinzer, John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Shah%27s_Men
Posted by: Hypocee | June 19, 2009 6:47 PM
RBP@16 - All Daily Show episodes are available online? http://www.thedailyshow.com/index.jhtml
Posted by: Ragutis | June 19, 2009 6:49 PM
No they aren't. They're just grasping at straws to attack Obama with. Same as the conniption fit they're throwing about us not boarding or blasting that suspect N. Korean ship without evidence or provocation.
Anybody that's respected whatsoever in knowledge of Iran or foreign affairs in general is saying Obama's doing the right thing not giving the Supreme Leader or Imadouchebagijad an easy target to blame all this on. (And some that aren't. FFS, Kissinger and Pat Buchanan are supporting the Obama admin on this.)
This stuff is being seen all over the world and the smart thing to do is let the theocracy dig it's own hole and let the Iranian people unify themselves into a more progressive entity. Regardless, it's clear now that there won't be a second election or anything of the sort. Speeches and symbols aside, about the only thing we could do that would be really effective would be finding ways to secretly fund, support, and grow the most progressive elements in anticipation of the next elections.
Posted by: davem | June 19, 2009 6:55 PM
What has me puzzled: How did the people of Iran realise (or think?) that the election was rigged? Were there polls beforehand? (seems unlikely to me, but I could be wrong). Everyone seems to have erupted onto the streets as soon as the results were announced. Were there indications beforehand that Ahmadinejad would be beaten?
Posted by: kamaka | June 19, 2009 6:58 PM
Speeches and symbols aside, about the only thing we could do that would be really effective would be finding ways to secretly fund, support, and grow the most progressive elements in anticipation of the next elections.
Except that the theocracy is very paranoid about us doing just that.
Posted by: greg | June 19, 2009 7:00 PM
Kamaka @#71
Having read over my post I may come off as a bit of an anti US loon. Don't get me wrong I am as disgusted with my own government (I'm Irish and our supposed neutrality went out the window when the US military needed a refueling station for Gulf War II) and my adopted government (I moved to Spain when they were an "integral" part of the Coalition of the willing, in spite of tremendous public opposition). I am not an anti-US loon, I have visited the US on a number of occasions and the differences between our cultures are insignificantly minimal, even if most of our governments would be described as 'socialist', or heaven forfend 'communist'.
This is the Main stream media's(Fox, CNN, MSNBC) failing anything that is not in line with the Good ole rootin tootin pioneering spirit is tantamount to betrayal. It's News speak with flashy lights. I think the average US citizen voiced there protest in the last election and they need to continue to be heard lest the status Quo become the rule.
Posted by: dahduh | June 19, 2009 7:03 PM
ennui #27: Give him a chance, he's evolving. In 5 years Andrew Sullivan will be a liberal atheist.
Posted by: Stephenk | June 19, 2009 7:07 PM
Davem,
yes there were polls.
There are reasons to think that maybe the polls favoured the incumbents generally and the protestors in certain local areas (I am unconvinced yet by either side). However, it seems the protestors candidates were supposedly trounced in _all_ areas. Even where they were known to be in the majority, historically in elections and by more recent polls.
But there were other indications too
The election results were announced only a few hours (2?) after the polls closed. With hand counted ballots.
A list of about 630 discrepancies has been provided by the protestors. I think that was in part what caused Khameini's statement about it being a fair election at the Friday prayers.
Posted by: Penquin | June 19, 2009 7:09 PM
They noticed because according to the government it took 90 minutes from the time the polls closed to hand count 14 million votes, and I'madinnerjacket won in his opponents' home regions by extremely large margins, despite Iranians typically supporting candidates from the same ethnic groups, and polls before the election were showing Mousavi winning by large margins. Other proof includes one candidates vote counts going DOWN over time on state TV. It was hilariously incompetent rigging.
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | June 19, 2009 7:14 PM
Davem@77
The results were announced very, very quickly... kinda faster than it would take to count the ballots. The Supreme Leader also signed off on the election results in a suspiciously speedy fashion. There had indeed been polls beforehand, and the latest ones trended towards a Mousavi win.
Also, the official results showed Ahmedinajad winning by substantial margins in the areas where his support was lowest and/or his opponents' hometowns. Like, as if McCain had reportedly carried Chicago and San Fransisco. Which would be weird, and similarly eyebrow-raising.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/iran-does-have-some-fishy-numbers.html
Posted by: kamaka | June 19, 2009 7:18 PM
greg @ 79
Oh, I fully agreed with everthing you wrote. This place is so far from "The Land of the Free" I find it laughable that people insist it is so. Just quit paying taxes and see how long you're free. And you ain't all that free if you're black, gay or atheist, either. Just lately I was pulled over on a traffic violation, and the cops made a big deal out of my grocery receipt because *horrors*, it was from a middle eastern store. *O noes*, he eats babaganoush and pickled turnips!!
That said, I just lately watched the movie "The Magdalene Sisters". It had the ring of truth, and given the investigations going on these days, your government abetted theocracy in Ireland is looking really nasty right about now.
Posted by: davem | June 19, 2009 7:37 PM
Thanks for the info, Stephvenk, Penquin and Falyne.
As to the "I'madinnerjacket" reference, I always remember his name as 'Armoured Dinner Jacket'. Seems like he may need one soon...
Posted by: themadhair | June 19, 2009 8:15 PM
PZ - can you add the following weblink to your blog post? It is where people outside Iran can help get information flowing from Iran:
http://iran.whyweprotest.net/
Posted by: EJ | June 19, 2009 8:19 PM
@84
You do realize that every single other country on earth also collects taxes? It's too bad about the government oppressing atheists here though. When do you think they'll let PZ out of jail?
Posted by: kamaka | June 19, 2009 8:42 PM
I get your point, even if it is not so.
I never claimed it was government oppressing atheists or gays, but given blue laws, sodomy laws and criminal sanctions against victimless crimes, it is true.
My claim is that the social climate in the USA is a de facto denial of freedom. I lived in a city where a line was drawn that black people dared not cross. That was the populace, not the government, denying passage. It's a bit better for black people these days, but for homosexuals it's not. Go play flaming cross-dresser at the straight clubs on a Friday night and see what happens.
"Land of the Free" indeed. Yah, "America! Love it or leave it!"
Posted by: kamaka | June 19, 2009 8:47 PM
You do realize that every single other country on earth also collects taxes?
I messed up html on post #88. This should have been the first line.
Posted by: Lotharloo | June 19, 2009 10:23 PM
As an Iranian who lives abroad, I see undeniable similarities between the religious nutjobs holding the power in Iran, and the religious nutjobs vying for power in US. Whenever I listen to political evangelics, I realize I have heard all their arguments before. Truly religion poisons everything. I hope US, actually no country, ever falls into their hands.
Posted by: P-R--O---G----R-----E------S--------S | June 20, 2009 2:21 AM
These are the fits and starts of the hive mind evolving to a more rational, equitable and just equilibrium. As long as the capacity for communication increases exponentially, there MUST be progress in science, politics, and society itself...
Posted by: Clemens | June 20, 2009 2:22 AM
I'm actually quite glad that the stupid ayatollah backed Ahmadinedschad because now people are pissed at Ahmadi and the ayatollah.
Yes, Iran would remain a theocracy, but it might move into a more liberal direction anyway. Lust like Great Britain is a monarchy, where the Queen doesn't have too much to say.
Also, Iran is one of the countries with the youngest population, a huge part of it is under 30 years old. And these folks are really pissed about the religious police and the oppression. I mean, they aren't just protesting because of the vote. It's the long term frustration that built up in this regime.
It's also really important that Obama is president now and not Bush anymore, and not McCain. Having such a considerate man as president, it becomes difficult for hardliners to rally against the Great Satan which is the US.
Posted by: P-R--O---G----R-----E------S--------S | June 20, 2009 2:23 AM
These are the fits and starts of the hive mind evolving to a more rational, equitable and just equilibrium. As long as the capacity for communication increases exponentially, there MUST be progress in science, politics, and society itself...
Posted by: P-R--O---G----R-----E------S--------S | June 20, 2009 2:31 AM
These are the fits and starts of the hive mind evolving to a more rational, equitable and just equilibrium. As long as the capacity for communication increases exponentially, there MUST be progress in science, politics, and society itself...
Posted by: kmiers | June 20, 2009 2:39 AM
A whole lotta politics here. I feel for the Iranians, and for anyone on the planet who is not free to do, learn, experience, eat, screw or live as they see fit (without trampling on the rights of others to do the same, of course), but we are missing a key point here.....
To set up a proxy server you need SQUID for Windows!!!
i am a humble Pharyngulite...Posted by: atticusfinch | June 20, 2009 6:10 AM
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=112895791213
There is a solidarity protest happening in Mpls at Hennepin and W. Lake at NOON today.
Wear green/black.
Posted by: brasidas | June 20, 2009 6:53 AM
While hoping that the Iranians see sense and dump religion altogether (corpulent probability!), I can see a little bit of holier-than-thou (sorry) from the West.
In the UK Tony Blair became Prime Minister when 65% of UK voters voted AGAINST his party (some democracy), then Gordon Brown became PM through an internal agreement in the Labour Party (no vote at all) - at least Iran seems to have had an election in which the winner might have polled more votes than the loser.
The BBC has been claiming that anti-western feelings in Iran date back to the 50s overthrow of democracy by the Uk and US (implying that they are relying on old grievances), without mention of decades of support for the Shah after that, and Western governments' support for Saddam Hussein's attack on Iran in which hundreds of thousands died, many through use of Hussein's WMDs.
The media also imply that the Iranian government should pay attention to mass protests and not use violence against them. Only a few years ago millions marched in the Uk against the attack on Iraq and the government totally ignored them (double standards?), and in living memory UK soldiers gunned down peaceful human rights protesters in Northern Ireland, and the US used quite a lot of violence on anti-Vietnam protesters I seem to remember.
Finally, the impression is given that because large numbers of people in Tehran and online are protesting, it proves that they are in the majority. But this may be the result of an unrepresentative sample, as the opposition's support comes to a great extent from middles classes in citites who can afford computers, etc, while the support for Mr ArmouredDinnerJacket comes to a great extent from the rural poor who are far more dispersed and less mobile, thus being less able to make mass protest or report online.
So massed protest represent majority opinion in Iran but can be ignored as a bunch of cranks in the West. It can be violently suppressed in the West but not in Iran. An election victory in West can be when you get 65% of the people voting against you, but not in Iran. The number of peole protesting onlne is a valid measure of popular support, because those who can't afford computers don't count.
Finally, Iran is a threat to the world because of its history of attacking no-one? The West is no threat to Iran because Western Government have only (a) overthrown democracy in Iran, (b) for decades supported a murderous dictator, (c) when the Iranians had the temerity to overthrow said dictator the West got another (Saddam Hussein) to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians (with a little help with targeting, WMDs and airliner shooting from the West, and (d) threatened to bomb Iran if it developed weapons in an attempt to stop a, b and c from happening again.
Posted by: astrounit | June 20, 2009 7:42 AM
It needs saying: if it wasn't for the recent Pres election in the US, and its outcome, the people of Iran would not have had the courage to come out in the droves they did on this one. I've read precious little about any actual NUMBERS of the turnout in this election compared to the last one. All anybody apparently seems to know is that the last one has been reported to have been substantially stifled by a largely word-of-mouth campaign to boycott the vote as a form of "protest". Obviously, that dunderheaded "strategy" didn't have the desired effect. (Some charge that it was the elitist educated contingent that was responsible for that dismal strategy, and that much sounds entirely conceivable).
This time, however, they defintely came out in far larger numbers, with a substantial proportion of the voters registering for the first time just before voting.
But nobody knows the numbers. That right there suggests cover up. So what are they covering? The fact that the putative vote was in fact won by Ahmadinejad?
BTW - You know what he reminds me of? The former governor of Illinois, Blagojevich.
The same narrow-eyed egomania.
Posted by: Ihab Hussein | June 20, 2009 7:57 AM
Divergence of B #15 has already beat me on how to setup squid on FreeBSD. As for Mac OS X, the method I prefer is to use MacPorts, which makes it easy to install UNIX software on Mac OS X in a manner not much unlike FreeBSD ports. The command you need will be: "port install squid", and the config file will be under /opt/local/etc.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 20, 2009 8:30 AM
You're a fucking ignorant scumbag, Holbach. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Start here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/3/stephen_kinzer_on_the_us_iranian
I may get killfile just so I can be spared even seeing your insane rants.
Posted by: windy | June 20, 2009 9:01 AM
Why the fuck would you assume that?
Posted by: Marc Abian | June 20, 2009 9:50 AM
There isn't one any more. There are elements, but theocracy it is not.
Posted by: Nicolas Keller | June 20, 2009 9:52 AM
needless to say that the situation in iran is horrifyfing-still, consider this article :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
we must consider the possibility that the majority of the iranian ppl actually voted for this hate mongering, ignorant midget
Posted by: astrounit | June 20, 2009 10:29 AM
windy #101 says, "Why the fuck would you assume that?"
Okay windy. So even you might be able to understand it:
Why "the fuck" would I "assume" that many MORE Iranian people might have been encouraged to vote in their most recent election compared to their last one based on the fact that the voters of the United States managed to oust the Republican Party in a democratic vote AND elect a black man AND one who happens to have a distinctly Arabic name???
Do you have trouble adding 2 and 2 perhaps?
It's simple. People the world over notice things. They watch each other and they tend to appropriate other people's ways of doing things if it happens to look good to them. (Hell, research announced just this past week has suggested that even FISH are allegedly capable of adopting the behavior they see in their compatriots).
I just figured it needed saying because I haven't much seen it mentioned anywhere in oh so sophisticated political analyses that this possibility even existed.
And, it makes plenty of consistent sense in light of many articles that have been written about how the last election before this one was hijacked by a ridiculous "strategy"...which I would not be in the least surprised to learn was well-assisted by the ruling power
Okay? Does that ease your concern? Is it okay with you if I throw a hunch out there now and then? Do you "the fuck" mind?
Posted by: astrounit | June 20, 2009 11:03 AM
#103: Okay, then fine! If people voted for the ignorant midget, why doesn't the ruling elite show THEIR PEOPLE AND THE WORLD the numbers?
It's so simple. It could defuse a great deal of their "street unrest problem". So WHY can't they do that? Why DON'T they just do that?
Does anybody in their right mind actually think that a display of violent goverment measures against their own people, whom the government is already branding will be "responsible" for "chaos and bloodshed", will make them look good whatever the outcome?
History shows revolution often visits such horrible circumstances. Even if this particular episode flags, there's no way they can rid themselves completely of the problem, except, they might well imagine, by further attempts to squelch the will of the people by all manner of crackdown. At some point, inevitably, that strategy will crack itself. There are too many people in Iran for them to control.
Posted by: Falyne | June 20, 2009 12:47 PM
Astrounit@104
You have a point, but that was a rather US-narcissistic thing to say.
There's a difference between saying "Obama's election may well have encouraged the Iranian people", which is a valid point, and saying "the Iranians wouldn't have had the courage on their own", which is... quite patronizing.
People around the world pay attention to the US, of course, as we're the giant elephant blundering around their backyards, but it's not all about us. Other people can take care of their own business by themselves.
Posted by: kimberly b. | June 20, 2009 1:22 PM
These people need political support from the Obama administration and he has offered platitudes and silence. Shame on you, Mr.President, shame.
Posted by: Falyne | June 20, 2009 1:38 PM
....because outright American support wouldn't be the kiss of death to the credibility of any nascent democracy, no.
He's offering platitudes and silence because that's what's in their actual best interest. No shame needed.
Posted by: Clemens | June 20, 2009 2:00 PM
Jup, Falyne is right.
If Obama showed any form of strong support for the protesters it would severly undermine the legitimacy of the protesters. The government and the ayatollah would just call the protests some propaganda and interference from the west and not realize that it is really the Iranian people that are dissatisfied with the regime.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 20, 2009 2:02 PM
Davem@85
I forget where I first heard it, but I learned to pronounce Mamoud's last name as "I'm mad in da head."
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 20, 2009 2:27 PM
clemens@109
The government was claiming "foreign influence" when the very first post-election protests sprung up. I seriously doubt the Iranian government actually believes this, but it's a handy and time-tested scapegoat to mollify the fearful.
Posted by: Marc Abian | June 20, 2009 3:04 PM
Some woman's dead now.
Posted by: Marc Abian | June 20, 2009 4:15 PM
And many others too it seems
Posted by: SocraticGadfly | June 20, 2009 5:12 PM
There’s a good chance many Tehran Twitterers are spreading rumors and protest urban legends. Beyond that, a reporter, one with 30 years experience like the Independent’s Robert Fisk, who’s a realist but with liberal sympathies, has a MUCH more accurate picture of what’s going on than a Juan Cole, Sully, etc.
Posted by: RamziD | June 20, 2009 7:14 PM
We should support the freedom of the Iranian people. Especially when it's the citizens of the country who have taken it upon themselves to demand their own democratic rights. It's not about supporting one faith-head over another. You don't make the jump from theocracy to rational, secular democracy in one fell swoop. If we only decided to support the rights of non-theists, then what good are we? Nice show of humanity from my fellow atheist brethren...
I only wish the world could have shown as much support for the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. A country whose people are desperately trying to break free from the stranglehold of the barbaric Syrian and Iranian regimes (not to mention the terrorists known as Hezbollah).
Posted by: Mr.K | June 20, 2009 7:20 PM
Link the reporter and report, SocraticGadfly
Posted by: kamaka | June 20, 2009 9:09 PM
Marc Abian @ 102
There are elements, but theocracy it is not.
Without doing a google, I'm guessing the RCC still runs most of the schools in Ireland.
So I ran the google...92% of primary schools in Ireland are run by the catholics!!
Theocracy *not* indeed!
Posted by: astrounit | June 21, 2009 6:52 AM
Falyne #106 says, "You have a point, but that was a rather US-narcissistic thing to say."
I can understand the, uh, impression. Yes, perhaps I could have better stated what I meant. ANY statement might be improved to make it more clear.
But I don't need windy jumping down my throat nor you to tell me what I actually meant to say.
Certainly not when it is quite evident that neither of you read beyond the opening remarks on my post.
And I don't need you to completely misquote me in order to bolster your point, which never needed making:
You say, "There's a difference between saying "Obama's election may well have encouraged the Iranian people", which is a valid point, and saying "the Iranians wouldn't have had the courage on their own", which is... quite patronizing."
BUT DID I SAY THAT?
I said, "if it wasn't for the recent Pres election in the US, and its outcome, the people of Iran would not have had the courage to come out in the droves they did on this one."
Hmmm. A Walter Cronkite (a most trustworthy fellow in his time) you evidently are not.
And then you lecture me: "People around the world pay attention to the US, of course, as we're the giant elephant blundering around their backyards, but it's not all about us. Other people can take care of their own business by themselves."
Such audacity. I am certainly put in my place by that. And you call ME "quite patronizing"?
Are you kidding?
Like the dummy who chastised me awhile back for "wishing" nightmares on a cold and unfeeling monster for baking a kitten to death in an oven, when I did nothing other than to share my personal feelings about a lousy excuse of a human being. So sorry. Some thoughts just can't be evicted once they appear, and I daresay others had similar dark thoughts for that creep or much worse.
That's not "wishing" (although I couched my post with the word "hope" as a convenient euphemism etc. in lieu of the shortcomings of the language or, more probably, my lack of vocabulary). It's just a reaction I had in my head and I shared it. Pardon me. It certainly wasn't any kind of "threat', since the alleged "wish" is utterly beyond my personal control. It may certainly have been a disquieting scenario (I "HOPE" it would be gathered that way) but I don't have any confidence that "wishing" (or "prayer", of course) actually accomplishes anything. That might make me think that the dummy who had the big problem with my post may have had exactly the opposite sentiment (that "wishing" is bad because it really does cause real harm) but then I would have been guilty myself of presuming what the dummy "actually meant".
Between you and windy, however, yours is the (somewhat) kinder response that affords me the opportunity to better qualify myself (as if I needed to) because you actually manage to express WHY you THOUGHT I was off-base, and for that I'll thank you in advance: if the circumstances were reversed, and Iran had managed to oust its conservative religious rulers last November, and the US had its election the following June, the very same effect that I alluded to would have impinged on the US election, in that scenario, encouraging many more US citizens to come out and vote than might have otherwise been the case.
In other words, many here would just as well have asked themselves the same question: "Hey, wait a minute! If THEY could do it over there, we can do it over here." And they'd be perfectly justified in thinking so. My remark - which I naively figured to revolve self-evidently on that perspective - was no flag-waving patriotic elitist US rot. The Iranian people who bravely voted against their incumbent leaders AND those who carry on the fight against oppression are perfectly capable of standing on their own feet. I admire them immensely. They're in big trouble, and the international community ought to support them. Just how is another and very delicate question, especially since that nasty religion is so inextricably involved over there, but the people must always come before their government (OR any religion) if the ideas of "democracy" and "freedom" and "liberty" have any credibility at all).
It's just an observation: people everywhere watch each other to see what's possible or not. And they have a tendency to get encouraged if they see that somebody else has managed to secoure some success or progress.
THAT was what I meant, okay? It was a simple observation that I offered, okay? Does it make sense to you now?
Any problem with that? Or are you going to act like Mr. Editor for the "Daily Edition of Political Correctness" some more by reading your interpretation of stance and intent between the lines that just aren't there?
You haven't got what it takes.
This might also need asking: if the situation were reversed, how many US citizens who are paying for 1.5 cars and 20-year mortgages on their homes would have come out and protest against their government? Many believe that just these circumstances DID happen, TWICE, out of the last three pres elections...you may draw your own comparison of the courage and bravery exhibited amongst the citizenry of these two nations.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 21, 2009 7:15 AM
astrounit,
Well,you tell us.Because to me it sounds like a,at best,baseless assertion.
One could also say that comparing a totalitarian theocracy with a democratic system,and then assume that outcomes of voting in the latter could possibly have any influence on votes or popular uprisings in the former,is a load of BS.
Which is what I think.
And looking at how CNN and similar outlets are trying to hype up the demonstrations there,it would seem that the US media thinks that it needs to hype up non-events in order to have some influence,rather than assuming that the shining example of Americans getting rid of their "oppressor" Bush will automatically set an example for religious zealots on the other side of the globe.
Hint : If windy tells you your argument sucks,it usually sucks.
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | June 21, 2009 9:32 AM
Are... are you seriously claiming that the bolded statements aren't pretty much identical? O_o
Your statement, as written, claims that the Iranians would not have the courage they are showing without US influence. I get what you were trying to say, but I don't blame windy at all for responding negatively to what you did say. If anything, it requires an "interpretation of stance and intent" to read that statement positively.
Also, dude, calm down. It's the Internet; you're perfectly free to post whatever observations and reaction you have, and likewise everyone else is free to post their (quite possibly negative) observations and reactions to what you said. Don't let it get to you, and you'll be much happier for it.
Posted by: astrounit | June 21, 2009 10:40 AM
Man oh man oh man.
Now I have to deal with Rorschach defending Windy.
It's absolutely grotesque.
Don't you READ what anybody writes?
Rorschach. WTFLAMINGF man? WHAT "baseless assertion"??? That I happened to posit a FUCKING QUESTION (notice???) in the form of, "What the hell??? Is THAT WHAT YOU ARE THINKING???" (Did you notice the interogative??? You know, like this: "???")
Get it???
Can you see WHY I stated my response to windy's very colorful response that way now???
It's what WINDY implied that I'm referring to there in my response! Are you so fucking dense that that possibility escaped you? I don't NEED to "tell you". I don't KNOW what the fuck windy had in "mind" by supplying a marvelously gracious, "Why the fuck would you assume that?" So I CAN'T tell you what the heck windy had in mind, okay? But i DID grab the fact that windy was hostile. (Wonder why???).
As I mentioned in my last post, it is quite evident that windy did not read the rest of my post for context.
Evidently, neither had you. But that sure didn't stop you from putting your 2 cents in (like Falyne, who likewise does not bother to read) and motivated you to add another big fat fart of a stink.
Over nothing. A comment that was "interpreted" wrongly. I wonder if windy would have the decency and fortitude to withdraw the comment that started yokel yodelings like yours and Falyne's. (Oh, maybe perhaps because you felt moved to "defend" windy's comment? That's very gallant of you. I'll tell you something though: I would not have gotten so easily suckered myself into it as you have).
And you are so very cognizant of poes that you can't even figure this one out?
That you know BS when you see it?
Really?
You really know BS when you see it, huh?
Especially when you let out a real loud one like this: "One could also say that comparing a totalitarian theocracy with a democratic system,and then assume that outcomes of voting in the latter could possibly have any influence on votes or popular uprisings in the former,is a load of BS."
You must be a jerk. I'm doing NOTHING but comparing PEOPLE - JUST PEOPLE who DO exhibit common behaviors, SCREW political or religious forces - and you have the temerity to presume to tell me that I'm comparing people systems.
What the fuck is the matter with you?
You and windy and Falyne and others are falling into the same insidious trap: you find somethinbg that looks like a scab, and you pick at it, willy-nilly. And when one of our best commentors (Molly Award, June 2008) makes a mistake that casts a serious shadow over the description, "I've thought that windy deserved recognition for a level-headed discussion about the evolution-of-altruism question" (yeah, right) and I get slammed for taking exception to it, because, as YOU say, in your own "
You know what pal?
I'll just pass on your comments from now on. Why? Because you can't quote windy any better than you can quote me. That sums up what I now think of the value of your comments. Too bad, because I used to think your posts to be quite engaging and agreeable to my way of thinking. Now I have to discover that you're nothing but a prick. My bad.
As a matter of fact, I'm through. Finished. I won't waste another moment on this site (I'm very sorry PZ, but it's just gotten THAT ridiculous), and not just because it's maddening to work through the horrendous slow-down of this idiotic excuse of a code, but because one finds a precious few and declining number of respondents anymore who actually have something of worth to say BESIDES landing reflexively on every troll who shows up seeking to hijack the thread.
That reflex has now backfired. The imbeciles have been firing on their own. You know, "friendly fire". One takes the consequences, I guess. I'm shot out. Thank you for putting me out of my misery. So long.
Oh yes. That's right. Puff it up big time. Sayonara it to me. It will look great and ensure some kind of imagined community cohesiveness.
Such as there ONCE HAD BEEN, just a few short years ago.
I'm literally too sick and tired to continue this. I don't need to defend myself against false presumptions. It's a waste of precious time.
For the initial regulars I've known since PZ's original site, and who've graced this site from the that time (many of them gone for similar reasons, I suppose), I humbly thank you for your wonderful insights and having taught me things I did not previously know or understand. You guys were all great! My thanks!
PZ, you are the very best. Always will be, in my humble estimation. The FINEST. You've taught me more than I ever thought possible without a textbook and a college course in biology. That knowledge is precious to me. (I'll likely link in to Pharyngula now and then to see what amazing new things you've got, but I'm not going to bother commenting anymore. I don't havbe the energy anymore. That should well satisfy a few). Take care, and stay high above the dopes here and elsewhere. I don't need to tell you at all, but I'll mention it just the same for the edification of anybody who doesn't get it: honesty is what best supports integrity, and integrity is more important than ANY belief...including those held by so-called atheists.
Bon voyage. ;)
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | June 21, 2009 11:05 AM
*reads the above flouncing screed*
*scratches head perplexedly*
*shrugs*
Whatever, dude.
Posted by: Marc Abian | June 21, 2009 11:45 AM
"92% of primary schools in Ireland are run by the catholics!!"
On it's own, not enough to make a theocracy. It is complete exaggeration to call Ireland a theocracy.
Posted by: kamaka | June 21, 2009 8:38 PM
On it's own, not enough to make a theocracy. It is complete exaggeration to call Ireland a theocracy.
OK, perhaps it's an exaggeration to call this Theocracy.
What term would you use for "we get to indoctrinate all the children under threat of punishment"?
Posted by: windy | June 21, 2009 8:44 PM
Argh! What did I do?
Falyne:
thanks, that was my point as well, but I didn't articulate it
as wellat all. :)--
astrounit:
Obama didn't oust anyone, Bush's term limit was up. Obama's campaign may have inspired the Iranian opposition but I'm not sure how those last two things have bearing on the Iranian situation. They were not voting for someone from a traditionally disenfranchised group, and why should they be inspired to vote more because Obama has an Arabic name?
That's exactly what I did, I asked you a question, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to "withdraw"?
As if you don't enjoy a bit of troll-stomping yourself?
Posted by: SC, OM | June 21, 2009 9:06 PM
astrounit. Dude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl5gBJGnaXs
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 21, 2009 9:15 PM
Astrounit said:
windy's interpretation?:
I would add that the voters ousted the Republicans over the coarse of two elections.
As to the Iran election crisis, I believe that the U.S. government (currently)should have a hands-off stance on the matter.
However, We the People, (regardless of nationality) as equal citizens of the world shouldn't be forbidden from peaceably assisting our fellow citizens in Iran to assert their rights to have a working democracy as promised by their government and to exercise their rights to free expression.
A few commenters have mentioned that there were no protest after the contested 2000 U.S. elections. There we're protests, but the main difference is that Gore conceded the election, as did Kerry four years later.
If the Bush administration had cut Internet and cell phone access, as the Iranian government has, I have little doubt we would have seen mass protest and riots equal to or greater the the Iran protests.
Any of you who have teenagers know what I mean.
Posted by: windy | June 21, 2009 9:47 PM
Thank you for that amazingly relevant nitpick. OK, I'll put it this way: nobody got ousted in that election.
But nobody's saying that the Iranians were inspired by those elections, are they? And how is that working out so far? Why are your politicians falling over themselves to create 'bipartisan' policies to satisfy the supposedly 'ousted' party?
Posted by: windy | June 21, 2009 10:27 PM
OK, that last post was not as clear as it should have been... by "those elections" I meant the 2006 elections and the non-presidential part of the 2008 elections (I forgot you have them on the same day!). Here the talk of 'ousting' Republicans is more warranted but at the same time it's hard to see these as a major inspiration for voter activism in Iran.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 21, 2009 10:32 PM
windy, I wasn't trying to pick of fight,just to establish what was actually stated rather than spin in the debate.I suspect that you and Astrounit agree on the bones of the matter.
Would you care to respond to the substance of my post?
I would like to revise my post to reflect that if any U.S. incumbent attempted to cut of Internet and cell phone access the results would likely be the same.
I agree with Astrounit that the Iranians were encouraged by the election of President Obama, (as well as his Cairo speech. My understanding is that you objected to the perceived disparagement of the "courage" of the Iranians. If I mis-read your platform, I would welcome clarification.
Posted by: windy | June 22, 2009 1:51 AM
Would you care to respond to the substance of my post?
I don't really have any objections to your comments on the likelihood of mass protests in the US.
My understanding is that you objected to the perceived disparagement of the "courage" of the Iranians.
Yes, and also to some of the overblown rhetoric about "ousting" Republicans. This is not necessarily directed at you, but I'd still be interested in an answer to my #128: If the Republicans have truly been ousted (which I understand means something like 'removed from power'), why is it necessary to constantly placate them with 'bipartisanship'?
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 22, 2009 11:12 AM
Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the 2008 elections constituted the public's refutation of Republican tactics and, to a great degree, ideology. After all, McCain didn't win and several other firmly ensconsed Republicans lost Congressional seats to give the Democrats a solid majority. But it's pointless to quibble over related terminology.
I share your concern about the placatory behavior of the Democrats and am disheartened by it. In my opinion, it's not "necessary." The reasons why Congressional democrats do this no doubt varies from Congressperson to Congressperson and district to district (one factor may be if an elected official's constituency is composed mainly of the opposite party).
However another major factor is that I think constituency has taken a back seat to lobbyists and corporate donations. It's far too expensive to run a campaign, even at the local level. As Ann Richards used to say (as related by Molly Ivins) "you got to dance with them that brought you."
Personally, I would prefer policy trumping party (either party). Before the Republican party was highjacked by the "moral majority" and then the K Street gang, they had a comprehensible platform of streamlined government, balanced budgets, and personal responsibility. I believe the hypocricy exhibited during the last 12 years with respect to these firmly held policies have also been the undoing of the party and contributed to the mass defection of voters.
However, as to the last WTF election cycle, it would almost seem that the Republicans lost on purpose.
With respect to my vote, I will continue to watch and evaluate my elected officials and vote for the person I believe serves American ideals the best....or for the lesser evil.
Thanks for the query. I hope the Iranians will be able to progress to the point to where they have a working democracy.