An analysis is forthcoming.
Who are the fake terrorists? Who are the real terrorists? We may list a history of terrorism in the future for a concept that's for sure a /narrow/ concept, i.e., only /rarely/ should it ever have the theoretical possibility for appearing at all, when used correctly.
Then we have the individual terrorists...
UNA bomber - explanation
McVeigh - explanation
Breivik - explanation
Boston bombers - explanation, indeed with the typical radical muslim beard to go, very long beard there, you fans of Jon Stewart show.
With terrorists appearing "magically" with an Al-Qaida-kit for terrorism and police Photshop-ped videos, declaring oneself enemy to all of human kind "because the police's opinion of the "terrorist" isn't one to speak of. They may have had a character, but police must turn it down /this/ time. "Let the future tell, police officer says." Besides, they should have the gone the usual psychiatrists' route "down" society and starting with the torture of kids and youth because then they become "safe", police says more, "but only on the black side"."
So this is it. I can't take more "magically appearing terrorists" declarations in media, only for the illusion of people taking on smugness.
You wouldn't touch the toe of their shoes unless it's HUGE for a country like USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism - Originally, terrorism = state terrorism (logical identity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army (in lack of political attempt, see political theory), also ANC, PLO, Black Panther, RAF, individuals, the holes inside laws and regulations for allowing ordinary people's rage against something terribly wrong. Just check yourself, the truly expert political science literature. Now possibly defined as "political activism by violence".
For the IRA, please, pay close attention to the box on the end of the article, citing several aspects to the IRA, Irish_Republican_Army.
Under Breivik and others:
If now it is proven that the police (for example in Norway) has contributed to a kind of "unreasonable culture" by police work, let's say, also by "tough interrogation methods" and "much apprehension", then I'd say this speaks for a type of higher legitimacy of attacking "lower" targets, like a youth camp by the Norwegian Labour Party.
Note (for "interested"):
One is still required to read the political theory to understand the "political attempt", FR: attentat, see also political violence, and how it is intended "to operate" in society, even tacitly under laws and regulations.
The reading requirement is also demanded from the "whelps" connected to Utoya, from the Breivik attack and the close ones to these. This is expert discussion and these "little ones" are simply not up for it! That I do not intend to take part in their (long) process of mourning.
The Notion of "Advocacy of Suicide"
The command of my language. Proper use more?
People can't advocate for crime because there are no laws and regulations for crime to advocate under. Therefore, advocacy of suicide is possible to some extent given that you are wording it correctly and mind the context to the proper limitations.
Therefore, I can justifiably write "advocacy for suicide by the right to die in dignity", such as being struck with terminal cancer and wanting to die from it at a hospice. One has no, by a malice of mind or other, the rightful demand to make people suffer awfully or beyond "reasonably"/mildly. This creates extra force to this notion of "advocacy of suicide" in this rightful sense.
The other, the "criminal advocacy for suicide" is a kind of honing for teasing people to do stuff that can kill them, only because one is able to detect that they may be a bit/more off the balance than people in the right mind, the more steady people. Given that life is hard and that many people go through a depressive phase, whether silently or not, the police strikes down on these cases and given a bit of a misleading naming by "advocacy of suicide" rather than "criminal encouragement/enticing to suicide" or "criminal advocacy of suicide" or "...to suicide".
Good? Proper use message enhanced?
Showing posts with label political science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political science. Show all posts
Thursday, 18 July 2013
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
The 100% Society - A Matter of Political Science
The 100% Society - A Matter of Political Science" is this: In relation to the "100% Society", I think there are 2 major concerns. One is the justice system and how to achieve this society by what kind of regulation/laws. The other is how business is supposed to be organised everywhere in the world for people to be employed (<95, that is, maximally 5% unemployment) and for rewarding profit and utility to be made along with it. I'll deliberate more on this as the days pass by...
100% Society: the business plan... I'm coming back to this, but it should already be clear that this is about symmetry of both competence and industry between nations all over planet earth (and other potential places as well). So how to do it? I'll think about it... Symmetry in this sense is understood as competence and industry divided over the nation's citizens. You can't assume that Belgium is capable of setting up everything from complete aircraft factories to assembly lines for spacecrafts and satellites and building aircraft carriers in the same breath. Belgium has only 10,8 Mill. inhabitants and it can only do this much...
100% Society: I've already written about the Data Storage Directory on my blog that I think should be implemented as part of this idea. There should also be sufficient possibilities to defend oneself by guns, tazers and pepperspray canisters. I would also let the Police do the necessary surveillance by video cameras either by possible harddisk review from scenery or by actual monitoring and control. The 2 options are both good. This surveillance should cover the most used places, the places by most people-traffic. One should also allow private people do their own video-surveillance of private space and property including estate-entrance. The rest of the laws can basically remain as they are. Social justice: I think it's fair to allow people who "fall through" a kind of safety net, an arrangement of benefits for the newborn/kids, unemployed, the disabled and the retired. This should secure decency and stable society (without desperation). I've yet to consider the definite divide between a kind of private arrangement and public arrangement, but there should be no doubt that the 2 can go well together, with the private option being more rewarding than the public one, especially in the scope of retirement. This should be mostly it. The other laws can remain basically the same. By guns, I mean primarily the handguns (I favour the pistols). I see absolutely NO need for automatic weapons in private hands except as part of the home-guard, possibly, but not necessarily. Today there are storage places all over the country (Norway) for the home-guard and the army and sufficiently so for preventing any Police State/Dictatorship to take place. Also by handguns, I'm thinking of the 9mms or some thereof as it provides sufficient "stopping power". Important remark: I've not implied a single, tiny intrusion on people's privacy, classically speaking, i.e., within your private space, at the loos, at the private meeting where ever, every private place and property, and also not in all public buildings. You're right, of course, potentially, I see every little inch of public space, "under the blue sky", as surveilled, but only potentially. (By response to Impenitent on the PN forum.)
100% Society: Everybody knows there are hidden and tacit business routines around the world even if OPEC remains the most open, I've already asked for the syndication of all primary industry like aquaculture, fishing, agriculture, mining and all else. This is for the betterment of workers in these kinds of industry simply. We already know that most agriculture is very organised in the "Western" world to the point where we can't anymore claim those profits are given by competition, but rather the reasonable demand from the industry itself due to expenses of making the agriculture go around and for the workers to receive decent salary. We should admit this elegance to the rest of the world, obviously for the same betterment of living and opportunities that we enjoy ourselves or those next door. 100% Society further: This is not all, however, we need to start out projects that evaluate what kind of diversion of industry over this same kind of symmetry is needed in respect to cost and opportunity for abolishing unemployment. This can easily be socialised and effectuated by import barriers to make the desired level of price of product and for giving the "right" (social) message to the exporting country that its prices for this particular product is too low for this area to be (safely) sustainable most importantly in terms of employment! This SHOULD be accepted by the WTO given that the members begin to agree on this kind of agenda that makes the symmetry formula to the world the norm/normative! I would be HARD on this issue, making a ferocious campaign if necessary! Comment as precursor to the Idea of the 100% Society: I'll also write some on the "100% Society" in some time to come, both in response to Popper's political comment and to the much hated and paranoid Welles' "1984", according to myself. Much of "1984" is deeply unfounded, I think. And to be educated is also to seek rationality in others, thus this Police State regime is probably put away for ever. More later...
(This has first been written on the open group on Facebook by the name, Thoughts from mr. Terje Lea, 16.12.2010, 18.12.2010 and 20.12.2010.)
http://blog.t-lea.net/#post119 I now find that the idea of The 100% Society now has grown so big that it needs its own text. This will continue to grow until all compilation ´has taken place and the idea itself has been completely desribed! Special thanks go to other people who, like myself (now, according to my text on descriptive science as minimum) have strong views about the political science as science in line with engineering ideas and other and not something else!
Some notes below due to Blogger services idiocy and psychopathy(!!!):
Posted by L.F.O.-L. at 03:05:00
Labels: Karl Popper's LSE, Open Society and Its Enemies, political science, response to Karl Popper, The 100% Society
2 comments:
1.
L.F.O.-L.22 May 2012 03:08
This is /the/ serious addition of mine to the (serious) contribution of Karl Popper to this field, on how society should be shaped and how it should look!
2.
L.F.O.-L.22 May 2012 03:10
The poor formatting of this text is due to the unknown mr. Editor out there on the Internet, working with Blogger or Mozilla or other (like standards work)...
Special thanks go to other people who, like myself (now, according to my text on descriptive science as minimum) have strong views about the political science as science in line with engineering ideas and other and not something else!
This is /the/ serious addition of mine to the (serious) contribution of Karl Popper to this field, on how society should be shaped and how it should look!
100% Society: the business plan... I'm coming back to this, but it should already be clear that this is about symmetry of both competence and industry between nations all over planet earth (and other potential places as well). So how to do it? I'll think about it... Symmetry in this sense is understood as competence and industry divided over the nation's citizens. You can't assume that Belgium is capable of setting up everything from complete aircraft factories to assembly lines for spacecrafts and satellites and building aircraft carriers in the same breath. Belgium has only 10,8 Mill. inhabitants and it can only do this much...
100% Society: I've already written about the Data Storage Directory on my blog that I think should be implemented as part of this idea. There should also be sufficient possibilities to defend oneself by guns, tazers and pepperspray canisters. I would also let the Police do the necessary surveillance by video cameras either by possible harddisk review from scenery or by actual monitoring and control. The 2 options are both good. This surveillance should cover the most used places, the places by most people-traffic. One should also allow private people do their own video-surveillance of private space and property including estate-entrance. The rest of the laws can basically remain as they are. Social justice: I think it's fair to allow people who "fall through" a kind of safety net, an arrangement of benefits for the newborn/kids, unemployed, the disabled and the retired. This should secure decency and stable society (without desperation). I've yet to consider the definite divide between a kind of private arrangement and public arrangement, but there should be no doubt that the 2 can go well together, with the private option being more rewarding than the public one, especially in the scope of retirement. This should be mostly it. The other laws can remain basically the same. By guns, I mean primarily the handguns (I favour the pistols). I see absolutely NO need for automatic weapons in private hands except as part of the home-guard, possibly, but not necessarily. Today there are storage places all over the country (Norway) for the home-guard and the army and sufficiently so for preventing any Police State/Dictatorship to take place. Also by handguns, I'm thinking of the 9mms or some thereof as it provides sufficient "stopping power". Important remark: I've not implied a single, tiny intrusion on people's privacy, classically speaking, i.e., within your private space, at the loos, at the private meeting where ever, every private place and property, and also not in all public buildings. You're right, of course, potentially, I see every little inch of public space, "under the blue sky", as surveilled, but only potentially. (By response to Impenitent on the PN forum.)
100% Society: Everybody knows there are hidden and tacit business routines around the world even if OPEC remains the most open, I've already asked for the syndication of all primary industry like aquaculture, fishing, agriculture, mining and all else. This is for the betterment of workers in these kinds of industry simply. We already know that most agriculture is very organised in the "Western" world to the point where we can't anymore claim those profits are given by competition, but rather the reasonable demand from the industry itself due to expenses of making the agriculture go around and for the workers to receive decent salary. We should admit this elegance to the rest of the world, obviously for the same betterment of living and opportunities that we enjoy ourselves or those next door. 100% Society further: This is not all, however, we need to start out projects that evaluate what kind of diversion of industry over this same kind of symmetry is needed in respect to cost and opportunity for abolishing unemployment. This can easily be socialised and effectuated by import barriers to make the desired level of price of product and for giving the "right" (social) message to the exporting country that its prices for this particular product is too low for this area to be (safely) sustainable most importantly in terms of employment! This SHOULD be accepted by the WTO given that the members begin to agree on this kind of agenda that makes the symmetry formula to the world the norm/normative! I would be HARD on this issue, making a ferocious campaign if necessary! Comment as precursor to the Idea of the 100% Society: I'll also write some on the "100% Society" in some time to come, both in response to Popper's political comment and to the much hated and paranoid Welles' "1984", according to myself. Much of "1984" is deeply unfounded, I think. And to be educated is also to seek rationality in others, thus this Police State regime is probably put away for ever. More later...
(This has first been written on the open group on Facebook by the name, Thoughts from mr. Terje Lea, 16.12.2010, 18.12.2010 and 20.12.2010.)
http://blog.t-lea.net/#post119 I now find that the idea of The 100% Society now has grown so big that it needs its own text. This will continue to grow until all compilation ´has taken place and the idea itself has been completely desribed! Special thanks go to other people who, like myself (now, according to my text on descriptive science as minimum) have strong views about the political science as science in line with engineering ideas and other and not something else!
Some notes below due to Blogger services idiocy and psychopathy(!!!):
Posted by L.F.O.-L. at 03:05:00
Labels: Karl Popper's LSE, Open Society and Its Enemies, political science, response to Karl Popper, The 100% Society
2 comments:
1.
L.F.O.-L.22 May 2012 03:08
This is /the/ serious addition of mine to the (serious) contribution of Karl Popper to this field, on how society should be shaped and how it should look!
2.
L.F.O.-L.22 May 2012 03:10
The poor formatting of this text is due to the unknown mr. Editor out there on the Internet, working with Blogger or Mozilla or other (like standards work)...
Special thanks go to other people who, like myself (now, according to my text on descriptive science as minimum) have strong views about the political science as science in line with engineering ideas and other and not something else!
This is /the/ serious addition of mine to the (serious) contribution of Karl Popper to this field, on how society should be shaped and how it should look!
Thursday, 20 October 2011
Breaking Down the Divide of Idealism, Realism and Practicalism in the Science of Politics
Regarding Political Science, I'd like to write that I hold the line of being realistic to the actual political conditions, i.e., some "political realist" (if such exists). But I also hold these lines, the way to the ideals, that is, I like to suggest possible solutions to the ideals out of the realist "swamp" of politics today AND I also like to write on what can represent possible ideals in an ideal world, i.e., Utopia. Therefore, my approach to Political Science is three-fold as herein explained. I also like to make you aware of Maajid Nawaz, MSc in Political Science (by his TedTalks lecture, a man to follow).
I've formerly written about the D. Democracy of Norway, i.e., d for deficient, and also, prior to this, laid down a judgment of "Fundamental Defeat" for trying to wage a minimal or ascending standards of the Norwegian legal domain. This has failed "catastrophically", yielding no chance for such a thing to happen. Quite the opposite, Norwegian "powers" or people of legal practice actually insist on corruption to happen, a shock that I haven't yet recovered from! This is the Realist affirmation of the legal system (of Norway)! The way forward is the practical approach and the end, our target, is the Idealism, the work for a better World, but one rather that has the status of Utopia. I am pessimistic about Utopia to occur in my life-time, but I refuse to hold anything but the best views of everything! Anything else is a professional flaw and shouldn't really take place in any-ones life! Therefore, description is of course key because it provides an analysis for removing "the corrupt, the unprofessional"! Good?
Additionally then, even though the laws of Norway ("Norges Lover", www.lovdata.no) are interpreted more loosely than before, officially, they still represent power, but on a slightly different note. Now the laws may be interpreted in manners of "behaviour, character, shame, retribution (by Police or not) and various other ways"! So despite the "D. Democracy", laws are still fairly "powerful" (even in Norway)! To disregard them is to be blind in the legal sense, but there is obviously a "play" going on in the Norwegian society where the laws are just a part of the expression of all the power combined "wherever the people end up" (naively or not, by black comedy/tragedy or not), an incredible (and stupid) test of character of kind, at least in their deluded heads as if the mere test of life wouldn't be enough for those who are without the expressed blood-lust! Good further?
From my former Facebook writings some time ago, just for keeping a line of recorded judgments alive.
I've formerly written about the D. Democracy of Norway, i.e., d for deficient, and also, prior to this, laid down a judgment of "Fundamental Defeat" for trying to wage a minimal or ascending standards of the Norwegian legal domain. This has failed "catastrophically", yielding no chance for such a thing to happen. Quite the opposite, Norwegian "powers" or people of legal practice actually insist on corruption to happen, a shock that I haven't yet recovered from! This is the Realist affirmation of the legal system (of Norway)! The way forward is the practical approach and the end, our target, is the Idealism, the work for a better World, but one rather that has the status of Utopia. I am pessimistic about Utopia to occur in my life-time, but I refuse to hold anything but the best views of everything! Anything else is a professional flaw and shouldn't really take place in any-ones life! Therefore, description is of course key because it provides an analysis for removing "the corrupt, the unprofessional"! Good?
Additionally then, even though the laws of Norway ("Norges Lover", www.lovdata.no) are interpreted more loosely than before, officially, they still represent power, but on a slightly different note. Now the laws may be interpreted in manners of "behaviour, character, shame, retribution (by Police or not) and various other ways"! So despite the "D. Democracy", laws are still fairly "powerful" (even in Norway)! To disregard them is to be blind in the legal sense, but there is obviously a "play" going on in the Norwegian society where the laws are just a part of the expression of all the power combined "wherever the people end up" (naively or not, by black comedy/tragedy or not), an incredible (and stupid) test of character of kind, at least in their deluded heads as if the mere test of life wouldn't be enough for those who are without the expressed blood-lust! Good further?
From my former Facebook writings some time ago, just for keeping a line of recorded judgments alive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)