Actually i live in 2 worlds.
1 is the world were most people work together,
most politicians are only greedy and goodwilling,
armys protect people and do national projects,
money is only a motor and not a bait,
militairy loves technical toys,
science is a mighty instrument of imagination,
police serves to find out about anything that is yet in distray,
complete freedom of expression,
information instead of confusion,
in short...
MLK's dream, or perhaps mine.
In between that sense of the commoners i do my things.
Improve on procedures and 'law'.
Try to voice interests and find semblances between partys.
It feels natural,
the planet is strong,
the sun is helping,
animals listen up,
we are a focus of universal attention
an issue for the reels.
good for plenty second rate movies.
not necessarily boredom is our intellectual future.
(for people who still wonder how an alien would think of earth:
read doris lessing: "canopus in argos",that's latin for : the dog's-watch)
a friend of mine called it "penal-colony earth".
However i don't rili "believe in UFO's". Although i have a strong conviction for the existence of MO's (moving objects) and SO's (stationairy objects). I can't pinpoint like: a technologically and psychologically more advanced civilisation would manifest at 14526.78 au + NW14.17 or so.
I am much to busy with world peace to even seriously consider much further then solar xenobiologics. (live being a function of energy, matter and time, of everything indeed , it seems eg. the sun could well harbour some).
Actually i think that by a better planetary cooperation , not only I would have gone more on the line of exploring the solar system or space.
I have interfered with sciences a few times , and i can hardly remember what was the last time to really have to do with space. (not contemporary research but bulks of students specialisation, educational content).
Climatology is rather close fortunately, so time and again we get better resolution of the interferometric spectra.
I remember pope John saying:" God is not happy with the world, he has drawn his hands off". I vaguely remember why:
In meditation or prayer, or whatever.. thinking of me?
at one point he insisted i should take care of some problem.
I could have, but i refused plainly.
You know? This planet has turned for a billion years, and now it is like at most a century before people will know if they live or die, on a universal scale,
it is about time they see and realise their own responsability's.
I did think he was overdoing with the hands stuff anyway.
A matter of scales i suppose, i am not going to help institute systems that deprive people of options, and they tend to be easier to apply. Moral matters should be considered things of a scale of their own. A great injustice may be secondary interest when solving it maintains a greater.
And really: people matter, if people don't do it it will not work. Every measure that is not a solution contributes to the prolonged slavery of the masses under harshening circumstances already.(1)
Circumstances in the (in planetary terms very near, in "civilised" terms:) near
future can easily turn awkward for the bulk of the living, wich will ofcourse provide the ethic for even ruder transgression.
Let's not keep it at this.
I'll write on (2), no matter what .. tomorrow, today or at another time.
Have a nice day.
(1) eg. be realist about the blowing up of (red) mosques, it is certainly not pretty
and was there not threat of nucleairs, and big-scale war, in wich pakistanis would easily face millions of casualties, like irak, everything would have been different. Is there harsher? (is, but this suffices.)
2) I want to do one on social action etc. etc. but my intuitive aproach makes me fear i would be severely imcomplete, depleted even.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
superficial observations.
With the many hot-items i try to cover some things keep slipping out of my consciounce and i miss chances to post them.
Most of these things are of minor importance, but the load of them, shapes my thoughts and sometimes when i wrote something i realise that it may not be all that clear for someone who does not follow any news at all, or radically different sources from me.
Well anyway: an example is "the princess" a parisean lady who lived on the streets for years, sitting on a pile of money. I am under the impression some african people even knew of her wealth, but i don't assume many white people did. She still had it after all.
Here my reasoning may be different from most peoples reasoning, but it is the reasoning of the street.
Let me tell you the story in words from the papers, newsreals:
A homeless parisean lady got evicted to a dormatory or even interment, for reasons of old age, and i would guess to give her a general "face-lift". Wash, feed, medically check, whatever.
Basically a good excuse to rid her from the street.
Or perhaps tho, she hadn't been doing well lately. News does not explicitly state so.
When she refused to dump her belongings they got into the general cleansing procedure: Spare nokia's generally getting distributed among social workers etc.
You get the picture? Noone wants to secure piles of trash for people that will probably never again have a house of their own.(definately a decent argument, do not think i am only complaining)
I just want to point out how common it is for homeless to wander about with either trash or more usefull stuf in between it.
This lady apparently collected money.
Now hear......:!
The first (ANP) newsreel i read, said the counting of coins took several people 2 days, mounted to 20000 euros and the paper money counting was still to begin..
and the total was estimated to be 40k or more.
Well i have done some work in bars, and a usual person can easily count 1000 euro in small coin an hour, actually way more i think, if they use a decent system.
(the most usual system is to make piles of whole euros of same coins, pile them into 10's and just turve the nr of 10 piles u collect into 100 piles. and leave it at that for the final check.
So it is not hard. However, these people started with the coins.
Thats unique, i never heard of people starting with coins to count a big sum of money. (Why didn't they just bring it to a bank? and say they wanted to watch for rare coins?).
So ANP went on to tell another 20000 in paper money was expected.
Counting 20000 euro in paper money doesn't take an hour.
IF they really counted the coins first it must have been because there were a similar number of notes. So i see at least two opportunitys for grosse theft in these ANP storys.
I was puzzled, how do they get away with such ridiculous story's?
Now, today, i read another instance of the issue in wich a policeman states that the paper money only mounted to at least 40000 at first.(note *first*)
Not coincedentually the 2 informations confirm in only 1 thing, a total number,
of a random something put at about 40000. .. So the rest gets stolen.
I wonder when the newsoutlets and authoritys find the courage to tell how much exactly they managed to abstract from this old lady.
They must be assuming that most people that understand what is going on, have enough money to think it is a good laugh to rip the disabled.
And in that way a funny item only gets used for the creation of a rotten atmosphere.
Means bussiness..
Likewise in politics, i publish, but i don't have an overview of what goes where, what gets where, and what is kept somewhere out of view. Straight out censory is an
item (mangling with my plaintexts eg.), and it's structural, i must assume it is also applied in eg. my private emails.
Half of my ideas get corrupted before they start to work, and so have been published only to contribute to the pre-existing criminal trend. But i can't help that.
People themselves are to check what is done with my stuf and intends.
I can feel when half of pakistan is unhappy, but i have no clue to the individual cases, and worse, the possible injustice resulting or behind it.
Likewise i have no insight into the exact measure in what a specific government or another is corrupt(1). That should also be registered better, it is quite a sufficient indication for who will and who won't contribute to development of a nation.
Sighs.. do you you already see the implications of that?
It means that in 90% percent of the cases i have no means to judge if something should be considered development and profit, or theft and loss.
I find that a very unworkable situation and advise people for their own sake to work at it. Among other things because even european governments (that i consider among the more advanced systems) suffer from this.
Something may seem a housing project, but be a huge land-fraud for starters.. etc.
who gets the money for the land?, whom did it belong?, how are the contractys distributed among possible candidates?, its details, but together they define if something good is happening or something evil.
And it is just a very simple example.
That besides the list is near endless.
Well ofcourse i have a solution to that, like i tend to have a solution to all
things that needlesly smokescreen situations.
My suggestion was to start mondially standardised digital accountancy registration.
Very soon even a fraud of 100k would proof impossible through mere statistics.
It is actually 100 percent suspect this has not yet happened.
Only the upper class profits (and largely) from that.
Also without international accounting development is essentially not possible.
(developing nations only creating collaborating classes of corrupt elitarists instead of development)
No matter if it concerns housing in europe or internet in africa.
Or anything else.
Apparently the capitalists are worried by this idea (it's their significant reaction on every constructive aproach ofcourse, capitalism being destructive for social justice), Because they simple reason: without a difference in price theirs is no profit. Now i ask you how wonderfully productive would that be?
(answer is: 0% added value, multiplied costs, but destructive it would indeed remain)
Therefore the answer is in accounting and bookkeeping. If a profit-overhead in cases proofs necessarily it can be set at a fixed productive ratio.
I don't think it is needed myself: Everyone should have an income, salary , wich should be internationally acccounted for, as long as that is not the matter the system is intrinsically corrupt. And the actual status of the problem (politic.systems) is corruption through desorganisation covered by a destructive system and hidden accounting.
The same lack of insightfull and open international accountancy had created a perfect situation for the cliques to continue their elitarist thoughts,
we have not moved up much since animal farm.
vive la revolution
(1) repression basically a capitalist feature of corruption (it's cheaper then happiness).
Most of these things are of minor importance, but the load of them, shapes my thoughts and sometimes when i wrote something i realise that it may not be all that clear for someone who does not follow any news at all, or radically different sources from me.
Well anyway: an example is "the princess" a parisean lady who lived on the streets for years, sitting on a pile of money. I am under the impression some african people even knew of her wealth, but i don't assume many white people did. She still had it after all.
Here my reasoning may be different from most peoples reasoning, but it is the reasoning of the street.
Let me tell you the story in words from the papers, newsreals:
A homeless parisean lady got evicted to a dormatory or even interment, for reasons of old age, and i would guess to give her a general "face-lift". Wash, feed, medically check, whatever.
Basically a good excuse to rid her from the street.
Or perhaps tho, she hadn't been doing well lately. News does not explicitly state so.
When she refused to dump her belongings they got into the general cleansing procedure: Spare nokia's generally getting distributed among social workers etc.
You get the picture? Noone wants to secure piles of trash for people that will probably never again have a house of their own.(definately a decent argument, do not think i am only complaining)
I just want to point out how common it is for homeless to wander about with either trash or more usefull stuf in between it.
This lady apparently collected money.
Now hear......:!
The first (ANP) newsreel i read, said the counting of coins took several people 2 days, mounted to 20000 euros and the paper money counting was still to begin..
and the total was estimated to be 40k or more.
Well i have done some work in bars, and a usual person can easily count 1000 euro in small coin an hour, actually way more i think, if they use a decent system.
(the most usual system is to make piles of whole euros of same coins, pile them into 10's and just turve the nr of 10 piles u collect into 100 piles. and leave it at that for the final check.
So it is not hard. However, these people started with the coins.
Thats unique, i never heard of people starting with coins to count a big sum of money. (Why didn't they just bring it to a bank? and say they wanted to watch for rare coins?).
So ANP went on to tell another 20000 in paper money was expected.
Counting 20000 euro in paper money doesn't take an hour.
IF they really counted the coins first it must have been because there were a similar number of notes. So i see at least two opportunitys for grosse theft in these ANP storys.
I was puzzled, how do they get away with such ridiculous story's?
Now, today, i read another instance of the issue in wich a policeman states that the paper money only mounted to at least 40000 at first.(note *first*)
Not coincedentually the 2 informations confirm in only 1 thing, a total number,
of a random something put at about 40000. .. So the rest gets stolen.
I wonder when the newsoutlets and authoritys find the courage to tell how much exactly they managed to abstract from this old lady.
They must be assuming that most people that understand what is going on, have enough money to think it is a good laugh to rip the disabled.
And in that way a funny item only gets used for the creation of a rotten atmosphere.
Means bussiness..
Likewise in politics, i publish, but i don't have an overview of what goes where, what gets where, and what is kept somewhere out of view. Straight out censory is an
item (mangling with my plaintexts eg.), and it's structural, i must assume it is also applied in eg. my private emails.
Half of my ideas get corrupted before they start to work, and so have been published only to contribute to the pre-existing criminal trend. But i can't help that.
People themselves are to check what is done with my stuf and intends.
I can feel when half of pakistan is unhappy, but i have no clue to the individual cases, and worse, the possible injustice resulting or behind it.
Likewise i have no insight into the exact measure in what a specific government or another is corrupt(1). That should also be registered better, it is quite a sufficient indication for who will and who won't contribute to development of a nation.
Sighs.. do you you already see the implications of that?
It means that in 90% percent of the cases i have no means to judge if something should be considered development and profit, or theft and loss.
I find that a very unworkable situation and advise people for their own sake to work at it. Among other things because even european governments (that i consider among the more advanced systems) suffer from this.
Something may seem a housing project, but be a huge land-fraud for starters.. etc.
who gets the money for the land?, whom did it belong?, how are the contractys distributed among possible candidates?, its details, but together they define if something good is happening or something evil.
And it is just a very simple example.
That besides the list is near endless.
Well ofcourse i have a solution to that, like i tend to have a solution to all
things that needlesly smokescreen situations.
My suggestion was to start mondially standardised digital accountancy registration.
Very soon even a fraud of 100k would proof impossible through mere statistics.
It is actually 100 percent suspect this has not yet happened.
Only the upper class profits (and largely) from that.
Also without international accounting development is essentially not possible.
(developing nations only creating collaborating classes of corrupt elitarists instead of development)
No matter if it concerns housing in europe or internet in africa.
Or anything else.
Apparently the capitalists are worried by this idea (it's their significant reaction on every constructive aproach ofcourse, capitalism being destructive for social justice), Because they simple reason: without a difference in price theirs is no profit. Now i ask you how wonderfully productive would that be?
(answer is: 0% added value, multiplied costs, but destructive it would indeed remain)
Therefore the answer is in accounting and bookkeeping. If a profit-overhead in cases proofs necessarily it can be set at a fixed productive ratio.
I don't think it is needed myself: Everyone should have an income, salary , wich should be internationally acccounted for, as long as that is not the matter the system is intrinsically corrupt. And the actual status of the problem (politic.systems) is corruption through desorganisation covered by a destructive system and hidden accounting.
The same lack of insightfull and open international accountancy had created a perfect situation for the cliques to continue their elitarist thoughts,
we have not moved up much since animal farm.
vive la revolution
(1) repression basically a capitalist feature of corruption (it's cheaper then happiness).
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
the uncommited suicide
Is one a martyr for being sentenced to 40 years of prison.. it seems so.
For my readers in the far future, today a mosque had been violently evicted, called: "the red mosque's" of all names. Since red is about the only word that worldwidely refers to social politics, a shocking affair indeed.
Wavering through the sub-lated rejects, i struck upon Ramzi Mohammed again.
I must say i have his name seen noticed before, and a picture of his and his best friend among the couple. Actually looking quite much as if they had just been interred after a narrow escape from some warscape, and deeply frustrated over the distrustfull nature of yurpkind respectively.
Relating the so much mentioned name to the bombings that really happened in london however, i thought the guys were dead.
Succesfull suicides so to say, and obviously deeply rooted in the ghosts worlds.
That Ramzi is a splendid thinker.. thanks, i apreciate usefull strategic thought.
I am fascinated. oh sorry i forgot to mention he is actually alive and apparently sentenced for being able to light a campfire in a suicide bomb, something different perhaps (although recently it showed he is by far not the only one in lighting campfires in suicide bombs).
I have doubts at large about the the real contexts of terror attacks,
i suppose that all varietys of involvement are well imaginable, since most explainable options remain obscure, and that does not very much neccesarily extend to
only western examples. Can't say i have not been inventive in trying to figure out de-escalating models of violence myself.
That is why it is so much in the open and with me i suppose.
What the red mosque concerned; I generally base my political opinions on civil libertys. A nation can then only have one singular authority for extraction of justice. Any other model fails, and federalist structures again and again proof that this specific tool ,the tool of justice , is generally helped by overview on the scale of internationally applied authority. And that there is procedural functionality and applicable benefit in coordination.
That every country benefits when a singularised militairy dictator leaves is another thing to keep in mind. In the de-escalating model, i fear the militairy, and then largely me, because the militairy is far more workable then private security,
sees no exact replacement for musharraf, plus he is quitte good for his job as president.
provided he remains on speaking terms internationally as well, wich definetly includes attention (or the fake of that) to human rights, and nationally, mostly by showing a constraint in violence ofcourse .
In the situations that have started through the war in afghanistan as well as showing the militairy he is respecting the value of human life. In the first place of pakistanis, M. does have a strong position now. For emancipating pakistan from the colonialist past and contribute what he can to a new and post imperialist era.
There is so much that matters, it is really so that to remain to the integrity of Islam; pakistan is a strongpoint. To remain strong, why would a good strategist want to be profiled as a weak or halfwit ruler. The only thing we really need is his integrity.
No capable governor of a country would let people without the opportunity to experiment and try, the story is they had some, and no legal ruler can allow his country to be ruled by sharia laws, since that is not internationally and presumably then ethically acceptable.
Musharraf being hardly a legal ruler as a militairy 'dictator'(4) btw.
Any emancipation of pakistani people will come through their ability to work with their selfdefinition of human rights. Since that is the universal standard to progress it must be the direction of our emancipation.(It is also the direction of our army's, any.)
You can work on the quality of human rights, perceivably improving them, so, positively adding recognised rights or aspects, but you can't work without or around them. In that we respect a slight room for experimentation as well, ofcourse, and it all to often gets abused i would say.
So it's of the table.
Are sharia acording to human rights? if yes, there is no need for controversy , Because the law covers and politics will be willing to cover the subject.
If no. It cannot be. Not sharia even or any martial law, if it is "not according to human rights".
(ofcourse i can see perceivable benefits of the sharia systems as well)
Find only sharia that is according to human rights (dignity etc. apparently still included) , and there will hardly be a problem, anyhow the concept or case will be known in legislation and certainly in international jurisprudence.
This means one can start an unlimited nr. of buro's to bring such an issue to representation in any politics, and perhaps more importantly to perfectly research and integrate that on the international level, as long as you adhere to these principles of human rights.
That is everywhere, Netherlands also knows her dogmatists that refuse this and don't do that.
Sometimes we let them, but if it gets dangerous, they have no justicial means very much, to get more out of it , then adaptive measures or a more patient then general treatment.
As long as the issue remains controversial (usually on the hobby-chicken flue level)
smaller quantitys of the issue tend to remain unsolved too, basically because there is really not much need to worry.
Painfully i must admit i am rather much at the base of a shitload of the current human rights concepts and whatever else in de-escalating models profile,
up to these wusname? These thingy's with the extra motor and the decent MG in the nose. Quitte a few rockets went on and i think the bomb layout is even slightly
nostalgic. I'm still embarrased over the slow speed but apparently it works, and it's 25 years old, so what should i think?(warthog)
These were largely designed to use against armour concentrations, and motorised armys
anyhow, but the guns were a succes. It also worked against planes and incoming missiles. It's quitte much a basic layout to incoming militairy dangers of that time,
it carries rockets originally mostly to counter the then abundant missile systems.
I evolved a habit of not mentioning any possible improvements for militairy gear aloud, i tend to immediatly forget them, but i bet they have quitte a huge stock of anti-armour bombs for the thing by now.
Eg. like twice what u need to whipe out any mechanised part of an army in the world.
Anyhow. I don't know what is up to that, although these bombs are useless.
Otoh. the apache i didn't like it, although it featured the same gun.
Helicopters facilitate shooting on infantry (or civilians), or maybe only that i had had helicopters hoovering over me by then, it is very intimidating. For me it is easy to realise what chance a human stands against an apache helicopter(3), there is so abouts 0% chance to even accidentally survive if it happens to aim for personel.
Such is my most particular kind of reason's to confront the attack on the mosque this way. Doing much about it, is 30-40 years late.
That's why i often consider writing science fiction storys.
Lift the imagination to another more practical level of applicated science.
Although now again my mind spins over improving the firerate of machinegunned devices. Accuracy is mostly a composite of the material in the util, it's efficiency is in updating the machinery concepts. The rest is only data. Some servomotor stuf.
I consider these goalkeeperlike concepts really succesfull since they stand a decent chance against air to surface missiles (never heard it failed) , and thus also are able to shoot down every other missiles within efficient reach of a similar weaponplatform. Unfortunately that is so encouraging i have a hard time not improving on the concept.
actually i wonder if similar things that would effectively range 15 miles exist yet, not to bad... although it is not really easy to target into the stratosphere.
I wonder if they know how to make barrels for that though. spose 7 miles would be barrel-limit now.
nah, guns, are not nice stuf.
Musharraf, being a militairy person, probably knows even better how utterly futile militairy resistance against the courses of this planet remains.
He doesn't seem to have very agressive intentions. Although the general show of arms is quitte solid, and then moreless defensively, the material is somewhat obsolete even in 1995(its over 30-35 years design) for european standards. Well right is he, in any case armour would be a sitting duck.
Armour are considered viable targets, viable victims. (for warthogs and other gear(1))
That besides, like i said before, Pakistan's is the only attitude that guarantees the arab world their own atomic bomb. Showing not to lack any dignity to cope with that internationally unfortunate situation. And still hold your head high.
Pakistan may feel the most embarrased nation on the planet, but it shows they have been holding their heads up, in strange ways.
Anyhow to know the arab world has an atomic bomb if needed and won't use it with egoist or greedy intend is the better guarantee for safety i see in that.
I have been watching tv rather deliberately yesterday, and i must say the atmosphere is weary to say the least.
I think it is relevant to see how very deeply pakistani this affair is, and partly has become, there is absolutely no relevance to lay any links to the international situation.
Ofcourse everything is interrelated, but this has really little to do with international threats, and very much with pakistan coping with a harsh and unasked for situation. In wich many sides face blame but from the international perspective only the future can bring a great relief, while it is not very hard to make things worse.
I don't know how correct my insight into that situation is, i must say it is nice to have been inspired by looking at the living faces of muktar and ramzi.
I think i honour ghazi as much as i can without loosing my own, in that.
(pause in the writing cus i slept)
And that is a fearsome thought. Ah the newest outlet confirms these guys had been making duds.I beg your pardon, but things that don't explode make me thinking.
mh, using h2o2 and flour, must be an internet receipt.
Didn't know 'al quade' inspired "and controlled" actions needed these.
Anyhow the whole name al quaida is thoroughly subjective, it is very hard to imagine
that a "radical" muslim group called al quada would have much to do with burkas
for example. It could be local resistance or post-modernists judging from the word.
a fundamentalist moslim group calling herself al quada is in the light of asimovs books about "the foundation" hardly plausible. But that is me. I also manage to "misunderstand" taliban for populace.
gl for now. i'll write again soon. I have an evergrowing list of subjects as long as i keep paying attention to what happens. Sorry if i am chaotically.
I'm still staring at the draft and a revision of the procedure is announces, what to think of that? I love this planet.
(1)Went like: yes, it needs double controls, yes, it needs mechanical controls, yes, it needs that armour, yes i want it to have 2 motors, it should have a small silhouet, etc.
The plane also basicly implements sovjet material structural strength together with advanced armour technology that was more western and thoroughly protects the pilot. (I was quite impressed how they did that one, i had never expected it to turn up in 1 piece, the thing is anyhow a miracle, since it is capable to cope with a build up of armour even the sovjet union could not achieve it basically beats evrything else by miles..) I must assume some slip of my tongues resulted in the firecontrol oriented 4 wheeled (i surprised) firing platforms(2) as well, but they are hardly as succesfull since the applications for deadly quick artillery are rare in de-escalating models.
They are also small benefit against thinly spread infanteristish forces in heavily accented terrain (like afghanistan resistance areas must be).
However if someone would decide to set up an attacking or defending army column they may still be usefull.
(2) Mh, must be why NL wants to dump these howitzers perhaps. These vehicles have a similar range , and you might mount them inside compounds.
Personally i think for sustained fire from fixed or defensive positions motorised howitsers are cheaper and more effective as long as you have aircontrol, but we would not need quite as many. The new thing (another one of the weaponplatform model)
would also take care of some airdefence, and howitsers would be a sitting duck, ofcourse.
(3) not much more then a 7 person warthog under rotors. With armour very much geared to operational crew, wich is elegant. But i haven't been paying much attention.
I would still think it is possible to gain a tactical advantage through exploiting the assymetrical layout, or basically involve it with more (2 times eg) guided missiles then it numerically carries. Provided a 50% succes rate on such singled out apaches (..) , it would easily pay after an attack or 2.
Still you loose 20-50 firecrews. Although beating a group of them would coordinately promise somewhat better odds. you would have to attack them in a lineair aproach formation though, i assume they go with 3 only when it gets serious,
dunno quite what to do about 3 in a triangle with say only 70 missile launchers, unless they are the very most advanced wich would up the chance of a hit from at most like 5% to perhaps 10-30%, (i can think of cheap systems that would score better in single assaults though, i must assume the western missiles recognise the apache, a rather easy feat..)
(4) I think it is very, very, hard to define who actually is or is not a dictator(i) so i maintain a theoretical concept of the concept, in wich roulation of legislative functions prevents the existence.
(i) I do actually consider every prolonged individualised presidency, dictatorship,
4-5 years(ii) and done. If your country cannot live up to that ceremony something is wrong, from wich follows the state is to authorical to be completely healthy.
(ii) I also like 1-term presidents way more usually. Most people serve best in their last period. Ban ki moon is brave there by trying to serve early.
For my readers in the far future, today a mosque had been violently evicted, called: "the red mosque's" of all names. Since red is about the only word that worldwidely refers to social politics, a shocking affair indeed.
Wavering through the sub-lated rejects, i struck upon Ramzi Mohammed again.
I must say i have his name seen noticed before, and a picture of his and his best friend among the couple. Actually looking quite much as if they had just been interred after a narrow escape from some warscape, and deeply frustrated over the distrustfull nature of yurpkind respectively.
Relating the so much mentioned name to the bombings that really happened in london however, i thought the guys were dead.
Succesfull suicides so to say, and obviously deeply rooted in the ghosts worlds.
That Ramzi is a splendid thinker.. thanks, i apreciate usefull strategic thought.
I am fascinated. oh sorry i forgot to mention he is actually alive and apparently sentenced for being able to light a campfire in a suicide bomb, something different perhaps (although recently it showed he is by far not the only one in lighting campfires in suicide bombs).
I have doubts at large about the the real contexts of terror attacks,
i suppose that all varietys of involvement are well imaginable, since most explainable options remain obscure, and that does not very much neccesarily extend to
only western examples. Can't say i have not been inventive in trying to figure out de-escalating models of violence myself.
That is why it is so much in the open and with me i suppose.
What the red mosque concerned; I generally base my political opinions on civil libertys. A nation can then only have one singular authority for extraction of justice. Any other model fails, and federalist structures again and again proof that this specific tool ,the tool of justice , is generally helped by overview on the scale of internationally applied authority. And that there is procedural functionality and applicable benefit in coordination.
That every country benefits when a singularised militairy dictator leaves is another thing to keep in mind. In the de-escalating model, i fear the militairy, and then largely me, because the militairy is far more workable then private security,
sees no exact replacement for musharraf, plus he is quitte good for his job as president.
provided he remains on speaking terms internationally as well, wich definetly includes attention (or the fake of that) to human rights, and nationally, mostly by showing a constraint in violence ofcourse .
In the situations that have started through the war in afghanistan as well as showing the militairy he is respecting the value of human life. In the first place of pakistanis, M. does have a strong position now. For emancipating pakistan from the colonialist past and contribute what he can to a new and post imperialist era.
There is so much that matters, it is really so that to remain to the integrity of Islam; pakistan is a strongpoint. To remain strong, why would a good strategist want to be profiled as a weak or halfwit ruler. The only thing we really need is his integrity.
No capable governor of a country would let people without the opportunity to experiment and try, the story is they had some, and no legal ruler can allow his country to be ruled by sharia laws, since that is not internationally and presumably then ethically acceptable.
Musharraf being hardly a legal ruler as a militairy 'dictator'(4) btw.
Any emancipation of pakistani people will come through their ability to work with their selfdefinition of human rights. Since that is the universal standard to progress it must be the direction of our emancipation.(It is also the direction of our army's, any.)
You can work on the quality of human rights, perceivably improving them, so, positively adding recognised rights or aspects, but you can't work without or around them. In that we respect a slight room for experimentation as well, ofcourse, and it all to often gets abused i would say.
So it's of the table.
Are sharia acording to human rights? if yes, there is no need for controversy , Because the law covers and politics will be willing to cover the subject.
If no. It cannot be. Not sharia even or any martial law, if it is "not according to human rights".
(ofcourse i can see perceivable benefits of the sharia systems as well)
Find only sharia that is according to human rights (dignity etc. apparently still included) , and there will hardly be a problem, anyhow the concept or case will be known in legislation and certainly in international jurisprudence.
This means one can start an unlimited nr. of buro's to bring such an issue to representation in any politics, and perhaps more importantly to perfectly research and integrate that on the international level, as long as you adhere to these principles of human rights.
That is everywhere, Netherlands also knows her dogmatists that refuse this and don't do that.
Sometimes we let them, but if it gets dangerous, they have no justicial means very much, to get more out of it , then adaptive measures or a more patient then general treatment.
As long as the issue remains controversial (usually on the hobby-chicken flue level)
smaller quantitys of the issue tend to remain unsolved too, basically because there is really not much need to worry.
Painfully i must admit i am rather much at the base of a shitload of the current human rights concepts and whatever else in de-escalating models profile,
up to these wusname? These thingy's with the extra motor and the decent MG in the nose. Quitte a few rockets went on and i think the bomb layout is even slightly
nostalgic. I'm still embarrased over the slow speed but apparently it works, and it's 25 years old, so what should i think?(warthog)
These were largely designed to use against armour concentrations, and motorised armys
anyhow, but the guns were a succes. It also worked against planes and incoming missiles. It's quitte much a basic layout to incoming militairy dangers of that time,
it carries rockets originally mostly to counter the then abundant missile systems.
I evolved a habit of not mentioning any possible improvements for militairy gear aloud, i tend to immediatly forget them, but i bet they have quitte a huge stock of anti-armour bombs for the thing by now.
Eg. like twice what u need to whipe out any mechanised part of an army in the world.
Anyhow. I don't know what is up to that, although these bombs are useless.
Otoh. the apache i didn't like it, although it featured the same gun.
Helicopters facilitate shooting on infantry (or civilians), or maybe only that i had had helicopters hoovering over me by then, it is very intimidating. For me it is easy to realise what chance a human stands against an apache helicopter(3), there is so abouts 0% chance to even accidentally survive if it happens to aim for personel.
Such is my most particular kind of reason's to confront the attack on the mosque this way. Doing much about it, is 30-40 years late.
That's why i often consider writing science fiction storys.
Lift the imagination to another more practical level of applicated science.
Although now again my mind spins over improving the firerate of machinegunned devices. Accuracy is mostly a composite of the material in the util, it's efficiency is in updating the machinery concepts. The rest is only data. Some servomotor stuf.
I consider these goalkeeperlike concepts really succesfull since they stand a decent chance against air to surface missiles (never heard it failed) , and thus also are able to shoot down every other missiles within efficient reach of a similar weaponplatform. Unfortunately that is so encouraging i have a hard time not improving on the concept.
actually i wonder if similar things that would effectively range 15 miles exist yet, not to bad... although it is not really easy to target into the stratosphere.
I wonder if they know how to make barrels for that though. spose 7 miles would be barrel-limit now.
nah, guns, are not nice stuf.
Musharraf, being a militairy person, probably knows even better how utterly futile militairy resistance against the courses of this planet remains.
He doesn't seem to have very agressive intentions. Although the general show of arms is quitte solid, and then moreless defensively, the material is somewhat obsolete even in 1995(its over 30-35 years design) for european standards. Well right is he, in any case armour would be a sitting duck.
Armour are considered viable targets, viable victims. (for warthogs and other gear(1))
That besides, like i said before, Pakistan's is the only attitude that guarantees the arab world their own atomic bomb. Showing not to lack any dignity to cope with that internationally unfortunate situation. And still hold your head high.
Pakistan may feel the most embarrased nation on the planet, but it shows they have been holding their heads up, in strange ways.
Anyhow to know the arab world has an atomic bomb if needed and won't use it with egoist or greedy intend is the better guarantee for safety i see in that.
I have been watching tv rather deliberately yesterday, and i must say the atmosphere is weary to say the least.
I think it is relevant to see how very deeply pakistani this affair is, and partly has become, there is absolutely no relevance to lay any links to the international situation.
Ofcourse everything is interrelated, but this has really little to do with international threats, and very much with pakistan coping with a harsh and unasked for situation. In wich many sides face blame but from the international perspective only the future can bring a great relief, while it is not very hard to make things worse.
I don't know how correct my insight into that situation is, i must say it is nice to have been inspired by looking at the living faces of muktar and ramzi.
I think i honour ghazi as much as i can without loosing my own, in that.
(pause in the writing cus i slept)
And that is a fearsome thought. Ah the newest outlet confirms these guys had been making duds.I beg your pardon, but things that don't explode make me thinking.
mh, using h2o2 and flour, must be an internet receipt.
Didn't know 'al quade' inspired "and controlled" actions needed these.
Anyhow the whole name al quaida is thoroughly subjective, it is very hard to imagine
that a "radical" muslim group called al quada would have much to do with burkas
for example. It could be local resistance or post-modernists judging from the word.
a fundamentalist moslim group calling herself al quada is in the light of asimovs books about "the foundation" hardly plausible. But that is me. I also manage to "misunderstand" taliban for populace.
gl for now. i'll write again soon. I have an evergrowing list of subjects as long as i keep paying attention to what happens. Sorry if i am chaotically.
I'm still staring at the draft and a revision of the procedure is announces, what to think of that? I love this planet.
(1)Went like: yes, it needs double controls, yes, it needs mechanical controls, yes, it needs that armour, yes i want it to have 2 motors, it should have a small silhouet, etc.
The plane also basicly implements sovjet material structural strength together with advanced armour technology that was more western and thoroughly protects the pilot. (I was quite impressed how they did that one, i had never expected it to turn up in 1 piece, the thing is anyhow a miracle, since it is capable to cope with a build up of armour even the sovjet union could not achieve it basically beats evrything else by miles..) I must assume some slip of my tongues resulted in the firecontrol oriented 4 wheeled (i surprised) firing platforms(2) as well, but they are hardly as succesfull since the applications for deadly quick artillery are rare in de-escalating models.
They are also small benefit against thinly spread infanteristish forces in heavily accented terrain (like afghanistan resistance areas must be).
However if someone would decide to set up an attacking or defending army column they may still be usefull.
(2) Mh, must be why NL wants to dump these howitzers perhaps. These vehicles have a similar range , and you might mount them inside compounds.
Personally i think for sustained fire from fixed or defensive positions motorised howitsers are cheaper and more effective as long as you have aircontrol, but we would not need quite as many. The new thing (another one of the weaponplatform model)
would also take care of some airdefence, and howitsers would be a sitting duck, ofcourse.
(3) not much more then a 7 person warthog under rotors. With armour very much geared to operational crew, wich is elegant. But i haven't been paying much attention.
I would still think it is possible to gain a tactical advantage through exploiting the assymetrical layout, or basically involve it with more (2 times eg) guided missiles then it numerically carries. Provided a 50% succes rate on such singled out apaches (..) , it would easily pay after an attack or 2.
Still you loose 20-50 firecrews. Although beating a group of them would coordinately promise somewhat better odds. you would have to attack them in a lineair aproach formation though, i assume they go with 3 only when it gets serious,
dunno quite what to do about 3 in a triangle with say only 70 missile launchers, unless they are the very most advanced wich would up the chance of a hit from at most like 5% to perhaps 10-30%, (i can think of cheap systems that would score better in single assaults though, i must assume the western missiles recognise the apache, a rather easy feat..)
(4) I think it is very, very, hard to define who actually is or is not a dictator(i) so i maintain a theoretical concept of the concept, in wich roulation of legislative functions prevents the existence.
(i) I do actually consider every prolonged individualised presidency, dictatorship,
4-5 years(ii) and done. If your country cannot live up to that ceremony something is wrong, from wich follows the state is to authorical to be completely healthy.
(ii) I also like 1-term presidents way more usually. Most people serve best in their last period. Ban ki moon is brave there by trying to serve early.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
more blogosphere, some media
Using the next blog button.
The past 3 days i have been trying out the blog world behind the next button.
Not much good eh?
Basicly i decided that blogspot and authoritys could not allow to much porn to keep popping up, and that the resource for political propaganda (and often insult to some extend) would be more limited then the nr. of real personal blogs.
Mechanism of mere distraction, (femalised blogs, blogs with the happy baby, religious
load, IT advertisement, get-rich-scheme based rubbish, and a huge generally commercial trend) are not hard to aprehend.
Its tough going though. I think the pool is very censored. That is not in the least proven by the regular occuring hate-islam very "actuality" based blog, u see passing by.
However , there is a limit to the nr of blogs censors can create while still censoring the ones others make, and therefore now and then you find a really (probably) personal blog. Ofcourse! there must be millions.
I have some general observations on all of these beautifull, relaxing, funny, openminded, hopefull blogs.
1> To many have to much lay-out to stay attractive. every element of layout distracts the attention of the fact something might be said on the blog.
example of that are eg. filmclip links. (although they can be weird, nice or funny)
A few (one or two), is actually okay. That makes the attention go towards the item.
and if its rewarding, my impression of the blog only rises.
So every thing has its exception and these are general remarks.
I dislike text that is not black on white, or something clear on white, light yellow, whatever , very light. All the blogs that feature dark backgrounds for text are unreadable. I hardly ever immediatly catch a subtitle for something on such a blog.
As i am blogging to read, or otherways collect, information and perhaps impressions
i definetly want! to get a quick impression and understanding of a blog and its themes, so that it does not work well with text on black is empiric.
Hardrock blogs also suffer from this effect badly.(rather a waste of art that:()
A pure picturesque or photographical blog is somewhat of an exception , but it is a bit out of the focus of my current research on content.
Standard headers that pretend "creativity".
The most boring thing you can have. Really decent scientific blogs can get utterly ravaged by a standard blog layout.
Advise: keep it simple, or make something up yourself and keep that small!
introduce people to your art and creativity widely only later .
Art oriented blogs do, like most art, benefit when they achieve a thematic impression. similarly book reviews etc., are only appaling when they come in long lists.
Banners and adds. Almost each of these suffices to destroy your blog.
An exception are strongly organised thematical blogs. Usually political and actuality related. Such blogs tend to be archives of their own and some related banners and links don't need to misfit in the lay out of the page.
For the rest banners may be used like photos or filmlets, only a few , here and there in the blog in a thematical context is quitte workable, although it will not perform much advertising. In general i think people should limit banners to a very few. If the first page of a blog is full of adds, chances are i dont look on.
The first page effect.
Blogs are finely tuned to actuality in many ways.
The first page, the first few articles, define if the interesse will and can be caught. The unworkable thing would be to always have an excellent article on top.
Strong archival type blogs sometimes manage to maintain such strong standards,
An easier aproach is when a blog links to blogs and articles mostly. As a function.
Such is hardly work for an individual, as the relevance of such blogs is related to actuality.
The above is not even about the content of the blog, it is only about its accesibility. After one has made an accessible blog one can start adding content with some hopes of catching the attention.
For that i think i have a few tips to.
Don't get carried away.(I bet i am to blame badly myself but anyhow).
Some things can be exciting for other people because they are yours, and some can't.
Things that easily enchant your public tend to be things they understand intuitively,
things they recognise, you can only enchant another person with an idea by respecting that.
It means you have to aproach a subject sometimes, or remain consistent in aspects.
You cannot easily enchant people with an idea by merely stressing the point.
Either we understand, and then you are overdoing, or we don't , and then you should try to explain it in another way.
Literally in a populist construct (provided positive intends) , the transplant of the new idea, the enlightening of your world, stemms only from a bases were the values are defaulted. When there is the need to weigh old values, the idea doesn't anymore proof.
It is not only when you want to implement a new phylosophical concept or political idea. When you just want to tell other people how you think or what you feel,
it still helps a lot to also radiate some neutrality, show that you are aware at least that also your position has limitations.
Not take all of yourself for granted.
It depends what and who you are writing for, but my premise is we all are writing for all of us for all history.
All of the above are individual assumptions on possible improvements of blogs.
On with general improvements of the blogosphere.
I want a categoristaion fo blogs, not a pretentious feed listing, but an objective,
i'd even prefer to be outrightly discriminated for my themes then to accord or conform to any pretention of a feed, or any other exclusive mechanism.
So neutral and objective classification of blogs.
It should be kept simple.
For example 5 main categorys.
It should also be effective.
Listing and unlisting of one of the 5 categorys should both exclude what the user wants excluded and include anything the user might forget to include.
A real random browse function would be very usefull.
A better statistical tool then real random personal impressions hardly exists, but the tool need to be near perfect to correlate to function.
I think there could be a separate categorisation possible, based on voting systems.
The problem with that is people tend to stick names on things, places and people.
A sheer content based categorisation would prevent that. I would also apreciate a system in wich a few symbols would be added to every blog.
I cannot exactly see a right shape for it, perhaps a votometric construct, but something taht would tell you in a glimpse wether something is controversial,
commercial, policied, etc. I suppose that is somewhat utopic, but also i think it is a somewhat usefull item in pressfreedom and freedom of expression.
One problem for such a system would be the huge international biases, since we will partly be dependend of technique not evrywhere available in working at these issues.
Another problem is the individual may not want to be identified in symbols.
This however is psychologically aprehendable and with research involving all partys
acceptable status may be achieved.
The symbols or labels should themselves be a link of neutral character.
It should not be made that every idea gets bombarded with anti-propaganda, but yet that it gets revealed in it's contexts, pro, contra and as actuality and assemblance of facts).
General media.
To a certain extend above also is very utopic, especially the assesment of facts does already suffer from degenerate resources.
For reason that certain facts have to high alarm value on populaces. In an objective assesment and focussing on problem solving, public opinion will function most actively in an abundance of information, on the longer term we may cause great damage and harm by not living with the facts now.
in practice you can only remove the causes for violence by acknowledging them.
often in shame.
Strangely the islam is quite right in saying media can put people on the wrong way.
Since commerce uses your vulnerabilitys the focus is soon shifted towards contrast.
More often then not it is your limit or norm that gets trashed.
So it is very hard to show respect , for media in a commercial situation.
The net effect untill now is of highly doubtfull quality.
Not strange, the general trashing of one limit (heh, an artistic one in my perception) invites the stampede of yet another while people still long for the entertainment.
Only a radically different aproach of these media-matters would facilitate positive changes in the lives of very many people. Plainly make them more happy in fact.
browsing some blogs:) next hint: don't use meaningless lables.
oh well , again one of these that makes you close all tabs...
sigh, you get punished for freedom of expression, didn't i tell you?
The past 3 days i have been trying out the blog world behind the next button.
Not much good eh?
Basicly i decided that blogspot and authoritys could not allow to much porn to keep popping up, and that the resource for political propaganda (and often insult to some extend) would be more limited then the nr. of real personal blogs.
Mechanism of mere distraction, (femalised blogs, blogs with the happy baby, religious
load, IT advertisement, get-rich-scheme based rubbish, and a huge generally commercial trend) are not hard to aprehend.
Its tough going though. I think the pool is very censored. That is not in the least proven by the regular occuring hate-islam very "actuality" based blog, u see passing by.
However , there is a limit to the nr of blogs censors can create while still censoring the ones others make, and therefore now and then you find a really (probably) personal blog. Ofcourse! there must be millions.
I have some general observations on all of these beautifull, relaxing, funny, openminded, hopefull blogs.
1> To many have to much lay-out to stay attractive. every element of layout distracts the attention of the fact something might be said on the blog.
example of that are eg. filmclip links. (although they can be weird, nice or funny)
A few (one or two), is actually okay. That makes the attention go towards the item.
and if its rewarding, my impression of the blog only rises.
So every thing has its exception and these are general remarks.
I dislike text that is not black on white, or something clear on white, light yellow, whatever , very light. All the blogs that feature dark backgrounds for text are unreadable. I hardly ever immediatly catch a subtitle for something on such a blog.
As i am blogging to read, or otherways collect, information and perhaps impressions
i definetly want! to get a quick impression and understanding of a blog and its themes, so that it does not work well with text on black is empiric.
Hardrock blogs also suffer from this effect badly.(rather a waste of art that:()
A pure picturesque or photographical blog is somewhat of an exception , but it is a bit out of the focus of my current research on content.
Standard headers that pretend "creativity".
The most boring thing you can have. Really decent scientific blogs can get utterly ravaged by a standard blog layout.
Advise: keep it simple, or make something up yourself and keep that small!
introduce people to your art and creativity widely only later .
Art oriented blogs do, like most art, benefit when they achieve a thematic impression. similarly book reviews etc., are only appaling when they come in long lists.
Banners and adds. Almost each of these suffices to destroy your blog.
An exception are strongly organised thematical blogs. Usually political and actuality related. Such blogs tend to be archives of their own and some related banners and links don't need to misfit in the lay out of the page.
For the rest banners may be used like photos or filmlets, only a few , here and there in the blog in a thematical context is quitte workable, although it will not perform much advertising. In general i think people should limit banners to a very few. If the first page of a blog is full of adds, chances are i dont look on.
The first page effect.
Blogs are finely tuned to actuality in many ways.
The first page, the first few articles, define if the interesse will and can be caught. The unworkable thing would be to always have an excellent article on top.
Strong archival type blogs sometimes manage to maintain such strong standards,
An easier aproach is when a blog links to blogs and articles mostly. As a function.
Such is hardly work for an individual, as the relevance of such blogs is related to actuality.
The above is not even about the content of the blog, it is only about its accesibility. After one has made an accessible blog one can start adding content with some hopes of catching the attention.
For that i think i have a few tips to.
Don't get carried away.(I bet i am to blame badly myself but anyhow).
Some things can be exciting for other people because they are yours, and some can't.
Things that easily enchant your public tend to be things they understand intuitively,
things they recognise, you can only enchant another person with an idea by respecting that.
It means you have to aproach a subject sometimes, or remain consistent in aspects.
You cannot easily enchant people with an idea by merely stressing the point.
Either we understand, and then you are overdoing, or we don't , and then you should try to explain it in another way.
Literally in a populist construct (provided positive intends) , the transplant of the new idea, the enlightening of your world, stemms only from a bases were the values are defaulted. When there is the need to weigh old values, the idea doesn't anymore proof.
It is not only when you want to implement a new phylosophical concept or political idea. When you just want to tell other people how you think or what you feel,
it still helps a lot to also radiate some neutrality, show that you are aware at least that also your position has limitations.
Not take all of yourself for granted.
It depends what and who you are writing for, but my premise is we all are writing for all of us for all history.
All of the above are individual assumptions on possible improvements of blogs.
On with general improvements of the blogosphere.
I want a categoristaion fo blogs, not a pretentious feed listing, but an objective,
i'd even prefer to be outrightly discriminated for my themes then to accord or conform to any pretention of a feed, or any other exclusive mechanism.
So neutral and objective classification of blogs.
It should be kept simple.
For example 5 main categorys.
It should also be effective.
Listing and unlisting of one of the 5 categorys should both exclude what the user wants excluded and include anything the user might forget to include.
A real random browse function would be very usefull.
A better statistical tool then real random personal impressions hardly exists, but the tool need to be near perfect to correlate to function.
I think there could be a separate categorisation possible, based on voting systems.
The problem with that is people tend to stick names on things, places and people.
A sheer content based categorisation would prevent that. I would also apreciate a system in wich a few symbols would be added to every blog.
I cannot exactly see a right shape for it, perhaps a votometric construct, but something taht would tell you in a glimpse wether something is controversial,
commercial, policied, etc. I suppose that is somewhat utopic, but also i think it is a somewhat usefull item in pressfreedom and freedom of expression.
One problem for such a system would be the huge international biases, since we will partly be dependend of technique not evrywhere available in working at these issues.
Another problem is the individual may not want to be identified in symbols.
This however is psychologically aprehendable and with research involving all partys
acceptable status may be achieved.
The symbols or labels should themselves be a link of neutral character.
It should not be made that every idea gets bombarded with anti-propaganda, but yet that it gets revealed in it's contexts, pro, contra and as actuality and assemblance of facts).
General media.
To a certain extend above also is very utopic, especially the assesment of facts does already suffer from degenerate resources.
For reason that certain facts have to high alarm value on populaces. In an objective assesment and focussing on problem solving, public opinion will function most actively in an abundance of information, on the longer term we may cause great damage and harm by not living with the facts now.
in practice you can only remove the causes for violence by acknowledging them.
often in shame.
Strangely the islam is quite right in saying media can put people on the wrong way.
Since commerce uses your vulnerabilitys the focus is soon shifted towards contrast.
More often then not it is your limit or norm that gets trashed.
So it is very hard to show respect , for media in a commercial situation.
The net effect untill now is of highly doubtfull quality.
Not strange, the general trashing of one limit (heh, an artistic one in my perception) invites the stampede of yet another while people still long for the entertainment.
Only a radically different aproach of these media-matters would facilitate positive changes in the lives of very many people. Plainly make them more happy in fact.
browsing some blogs:) next hint: don't use meaningless lables.
oh well , again one of these that makes you close all tabs...
sigh, you get punished for freedom of expression, didn't i tell you?
Monday, July 2, 2007
Missing Wayne Madsons Report
Blogosphere..
Apparently superdudes bush and putin's dinner methods have revolted puritan veteran america so much acute censoring took place, I'd be obliged for any information.
I am more in the mood for a light hearted story about the blogosphere, much like what i yesterday(sortta i spose) wanted to write and didn't.
About the precise information missing above i can do a good guess, it must have something to do with the yearly CIA meeting on the subject "is USA hated enuf to start ww3".
Anyhow we yurpeans don't come of well in the analyses, we misunderstand the usian noble intention for plain robbery and murder, and although we have been lieing about wether we like usian people, it clearly shows we misunderstand everything happening around the globe. Including in the states, were a relative huge population is utterly happy to be so settled.
Ivory coast and the maldives do better in the comparison, some statistics leave out certain countrys, apparently the dutch are such a desolate culture they could not be asked for an opinion over usian foreign policy.
However as long as the maldives agree justly and rightly with the whole concept of usian politics evrything must be ok.
I actually suspect a full 100% of the dutch actually disagreed with that US is ok in foreign policy concept because it uses such great words . And that it is the reason we don't count. Or perhaps we got left out because living our humble life in our hobbitland we actually don't even like the usian public.
I think that could be true. The dutch are the only ones sufficiently naive to admit to not liking the usian public. Very silly of us, i' ll show we are wrong.
We do like usian people, only we like their manners less, less then say , almost anyone else. Although maybe some cultures actually sometimes behave more silly.
Strange that eh? We don't like their manners, and we don't trust their doings.
Fortunately we are the only people in the world so stupid to admit that.
Probably because our manners are nearly as bad as theirs.
We have quit a few bad manners they might learn of perhaps. So i don't understand why Cia wants to underline this animosity.
Anyhow tomorrows problem tomorrows care, this is the story about the live of your children, perhaps they won't blame you if you fail to notice.
Other options i think are plausible.. WM uncovered the new london bombings beforehand, WM knows who delivered the plans to the brilliant arabs, or even he uncovered involvment of the famous asian weapon smuggle bussiness in the recent attacks.
The latter i think is not the case, but you don't ever know with nowadays security corporations.
Lastly perhaps he was in ibiza fotographing US service personal working for the spanish. But i fear it is mainly the fly in bush's lobstersoup,
or perhaps it was the carrots.
mh.
I think i write some more later.
ah ok.. mh, I found something, apparently he went commercial? I think it is still a bit strange, who would want to limit his views like that. He obviously wants to make a living through journalism and his blog, apparenltly enough usians are so rich they can pay to read a blog that trys to cover peaceactions:S This world is full off surprises.
Apparently superdudes bush and putin's dinner methods have revolted puritan veteran america so much acute censoring took place, I'd be obliged for any information.
I am more in the mood for a light hearted story about the blogosphere, much like what i yesterday(sortta i spose) wanted to write and didn't.
About the precise information missing above i can do a good guess, it must have something to do with the yearly CIA meeting on the subject "is USA hated enuf to start ww3".
Anyhow we yurpeans don't come of well in the analyses, we misunderstand the usian noble intention for plain robbery and murder, and although we have been lieing about wether we like usian people, it clearly shows we misunderstand everything happening around the globe. Including in the states, were a relative huge population is utterly happy to be so settled.
Ivory coast and the maldives do better in the comparison, some statistics leave out certain countrys, apparently the dutch are such a desolate culture they could not be asked for an opinion over usian foreign policy.
However as long as the maldives agree justly and rightly with the whole concept of usian politics evrything must be ok.
I actually suspect a full 100% of the dutch actually disagreed with that US is ok in foreign policy concept because it uses such great words . And that it is the reason we don't count. Or perhaps we got left out because living our humble life in our hobbitland we actually don't even like the usian public.
I think that could be true. The dutch are the only ones sufficiently naive to admit to not liking the usian public. Very silly of us, i' ll show we are wrong.
We do like usian people, only we like their manners less, less then say , almost anyone else. Although maybe some cultures actually sometimes behave more silly.
Strange that eh? We don't like their manners, and we don't trust their doings.
Fortunately we are the only people in the world so stupid to admit that.
Probably because our manners are nearly as bad as theirs.
We have quit a few bad manners they might learn of perhaps. So i don't understand why Cia wants to underline this animosity.
Anyhow tomorrows problem tomorrows care, this is the story about the live of your children, perhaps they won't blame you if you fail to notice.
Other options i think are plausible.. WM uncovered the new london bombings beforehand, WM knows who delivered the plans to the brilliant arabs, or even he uncovered involvment of the famous asian weapon smuggle bussiness in the recent attacks.
The latter i think is not the case, but you don't ever know with nowadays security corporations.
Lastly perhaps he was in ibiza fotographing US service personal working for the spanish. But i fear it is mainly the fly in bush's lobstersoup,
or perhaps it was the carrots.
mh.
I think i write some more later.
ah ok.. mh, I found something, apparently he went commercial? I think it is still a bit strange, who would want to limit his views like that. He obviously wants to make a living through journalism and his blog, apparenltly enough usians are so rich they can pay to read a blog that trys to cover peaceactions:S This world is full off surprises.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
blogosphere (iraks distracts)
I have discovered a new feature on the internet : the blogosphere.
Blogs used to be for me what my blog is, lowtech(hardly use html), (semi-)personal, basically directed at information.
As such i have had great advantage of blogs in my "researches".
A vivid and representative political blog is very easily identified.
How to find out remote peoples opinions through blogs:
There are about 3 factors, (my blog is neither vivid nor representative, since it is mostly a radical personal outlet, and not something collective.)
that identifie an "important" or "significant" blog, for a political situation.
1st. the topic should be diverse.. generally when the genre of the posting is the old cow type, (10 years ago so and so blew up X, for the communist Y, when in fact not much is clear about that, such blogs are prejudiced.
They can be relevant as a ending point in researching one specific idea, or party, but they are not much use for informing on the actual situation.
2nd. Commenting should be unmoderated. Blogs (not commercial newsoutlets etc.) that moderate every comment can be ok, but they will mostly represent a party.
On such blogs you usually find a somewhat limited nr of opinions, of slightly more then rewarded animosity. Typically against the same targets, and when the blog is chiefly directed at westerners not necessarily the same targets over time.
3rd. The blogger must provide some handheld or debatable input of their own.
Without that there is not an actualist and evolving discussion often.
Ofcourse blogs that forfill these 3 prerequisites tend to get into the eye, firstly of the blogosphere perhaps, but not uncommonly only from the infosphere.
The general linkage through inet.
As a result of that blogs have an uncommon element of censoring and influentiation of their own. Superficially it shapes into 2 forms.
Selfcensoring: where the maker of the blog censors certain opinions or aproaches things onesidedly (as long as the comments are not masked it does not matter, it is only a statistical negative implication for its relevance. It will seem to represent an opinion that is in fact less general then it looks on the blog.
Contributional censoring. Certain contributors will be strongly in denial,
usually decibelling loudly over obstrusive subjects of spelling and "official" reports. They tend to hold untenable opinions over the local situation and they end up chatting among another.
Certain nations (US, Israel) have a great number of people using this aproach,
a good third??? not easy. Hongkong or so? Probably a european country, at least on the national fora this trend is available in the netherlands. It is not as common or pronounced.
Such people may or may not pose as other people. Lebanese blogs eg. are a bit dilluted by this phenomenon. They may for example pose as radical elements of something. Or as plain dumb stubborn supporters of the other cause.
They may also pretend to be a neutral third party, or just a random element of the (western) public. Sometimes such people say they have lost familymembers in wtc, afghan and whereever else pitty might silence us. That is more chattish then bloggish, however it is in the taste.(perhaps it is the same as the Shoa collective 'fears'.)
My favourite example for this development is "healing Irak"
an integer (albeit rather conformative) blog. One where 1? time i got censored.
Still i don't think it was that smart, but at least i was convinced the blog, may have thought my post was to "hot", i think it was not, wich then proved the next day, but it does not matter that much. Only i post not there anymore when it is important.
In the healing irak blog, the very direct emphasis of the writer on the iraki and baghdad situation helps the public to stay awake. To realise what untenable situation irak is in. In terms of blogs irak is the one most organised example i know. It plays a role that the situation rewards study perhaps, still iraki slogger is also an unequalled source.
However some years ago the iraki blogosphere got under the attention of the Usian and to a lesser extend GB-european scrutiny. Several bloggers skyrocketed into fame,
and several blogs got checked with surprising regularity by surprising numbers.
It must have changed everything, when i entered the iraki blogosphere 2 years ago,
the atmosphere was scary. Several bloggers where disappearing, had disappeared, or otherways gave up hope? anyway a lot of bad news there, all major blogs had their
wurms and moles, blogs get spamned by endless contributions of us housewives with fort Hope opinions. etc. etc.
All the major blogs had been usurped by the secret services. They preserved only a dormant neutrality. It could be dangerous for others to post, and I was not sure about wich party would actually react more violently in most any case.
(i'm rarely very into cases when i reply for that reason, it gets rather hard to say everyone is okay and you ahouldn't blame the antagonists, when you have to be precise over a certain bloodbath eg.)
So i found 'healing irak's precautions superfluous, as i was already very cautious.
Anyhow. I don't blame him, it was obviously a point of discussion and i do trust the person of healing irak to have a decent sense of "irakiness".
That besides he is hardly pretending to be impartial. He is obviously on the hand of security and against militia in any shape, but it doesnt much help him to define his position i think. He tends to be against sadr's movement a little on the propagandistic side though. That is btw. a rather common emotion in irak. Real neutral opinions are hard to find.
People in irak are forced into having an opinion, also on something that would otherways be marginal or even merely institutional like a mahdist movement. That exagerated through the Usian stress on diversity of the shia south,(for probably mostly militairy reasons for starters) turned into a huge factor.(GB did her thing but only in the big scheme).
Sadr has not been playing the game badly. He has not been a major factor of escalation(afaik), Except the apparent availability of his troops. He stuck to the social aspect of his movement, and he has been voicing a few usefull opinions.
Not in the least pointing out that a mahdist movement has the greater interest in getting foreigners out.
Overall i think he has tried to treat the situation fairly under a rather great bias.
(not that he would admit the exact content of his foreign relations if any)
Nevertheless he scares us to death.
The nature of the situation , with every piece of baghdad divided into bits, shortages, ethnically based outrage, mediocre contact, and administration as a result.Seperative feelings of every involved group, and the idea to be thrown in the arena of the world powers, before the lions. That is an idea that is close to the exact definition of mahdism. For someone just sympathising with sadr indeed their own militia are selfdefence.
I cannot judge the exact proportions of violence, do the sadr more damage then the regular shia? It didn't start like that what i know. Personally my guess is the tables are not weighing heavy on sadr. He has been showing some constraint, and such an attitude is not always fake.
Also the non militia mahdist are the really dangerous one. They have the prototype for suicide attack, since they are motivated through 'injustice out of control',
the struggle of an individual against a repressive context, through years, severe circumstances and also generations, typically. A mahdist does not expect to live through the fight because they well know all the firepower is on the other side.
It's only : do something and die, instead of , just die.
No wonder we are scared to death. And they have death squads of their own, though honestly i think the coalition forces routed out the worst ones by now.
Irakis are really scared for sadr now... he has got everything the other politicians have not. Anyhow one good thing is there is a consensus that Sadr can't be president..
i'm wondering why exactly exactly, for 2 days now, and i have some thoughts
Thirstly the concept of secularism is known in irak, but it is not really the point.
Many religious types may have been in politics in irak, and many partys have a religious base.
The point is exactly also why iran cannot come to an arrangement with him, although the perspective , be it anarchist or iraki, is completely different.
Sadr might play a role in iraki politics when the situation gets stabilised. Only...
How should that situation look for Sadr to play the right role, noone knows.
Not even Sadr.
Saddams last words were, don't take sadr..
Maybe even himself he doesn't want to be president.
Sadr is the kind of person with the kind of movement that at the right moment should say... No we represent the people, this natures reserve must stay!
He doesn't need to be a president to manage most affairs where his influence is usefull. Sadr is slightly less dangerous then politics, and we 'd like to keep it that way.
Ofcourse in certain areas (the nature reserve eg.) these arguments hardly count,
however that is the discussion about splitting up irak.
How do i think of splitting up irak?
Actually i think it would not hurt, it was never needed, but now it is made to be that way, it won't hurt. It would be nice when the sunni have quiet in middle irak,
the shia in the south and the israelis in jerusalem (since what will they do about baghdad then). The precedent of sharing remaining oil wealth, or preferably that of regaining control of the resources, can be as unifying for this world as anything.
The only problem i have with it is the confirming of the prejudice, that a united irak would not be possible because of "muslim barbarism".
Me nor Sadr perceives recent iraki times that way, wich is why Sadr is so heavily under fire from the western media. That he is also under fire of the more moderate forces in the chorus is because of the fear.
We fear the moment he gets the idea to indeed seperate, to start fighting the government before the occupation in revenge of attacks and deaths.
When the mahdi army as a whole would start behaving as the regular deathsquads in irak do, all hell would break loose. Sadr would never accept that though.
I ( an anarchist) oppose that to, social chaos and anarchy are completely different things.
Not surprisingly this translates into a defensive strategical option. Sadr's interests are basicly Iraki, so he needs to clear some ground to hide.
Still it actually happens naturally as a result of people securing their own safety.
I mentioned before, i think i am in no position to have an overview of proportions, although i think i might do ok at scales.
I can not judge wether the US army, the US allied Irak army, The us allied Irak police, The irak police, The government militias, The non us allied irak army, the non us allied irak police, what that matter even the kurdish security corps, or any other security corps preventing loss of job, any splinter or opponent of the aforementioned, eg. The government allied shia police pro-militia deathsquads mahdi engagement group with the peshmerga link , or perhaps the nongovernment allied army anti police pro-militia and mahdi engagement anticoalition group with a direct mossad contact, is responsible for the most violence(neither of the 2 last i thought). In short.....
who did it?
A picture like this makes you wonder if anyone is really in a position to care.
Blogs used to be for me what my blog is, lowtech(hardly use html), (semi-)personal, basically directed at information.
As such i have had great advantage of blogs in my "researches".
A vivid and representative political blog is very easily identified.
How to find out remote peoples opinions through blogs:
There are about 3 factors, (my blog is neither vivid nor representative, since it is mostly a radical personal outlet, and not something collective.)
that identifie an "important" or "significant" blog, for a political situation.
1st. the topic should be diverse.. generally when the genre of the posting is the old cow type, (10 years ago so and so blew up X, for the communist Y, when in fact not much is clear about that, such blogs are prejudiced.
They can be relevant as a ending point in researching one specific idea, or party, but they are not much use for informing on the actual situation.
2nd. Commenting should be unmoderated. Blogs (not commercial newsoutlets etc.) that moderate every comment can be ok, but they will mostly represent a party.
On such blogs you usually find a somewhat limited nr of opinions, of slightly more then rewarded animosity. Typically against the same targets, and when the blog is chiefly directed at westerners not necessarily the same targets over time.
3rd. The blogger must provide some handheld or debatable input of their own.
Without that there is not an actualist and evolving discussion often.
Ofcourse blogs that forfill these 3 prerequisites tend to get into the eye, firstly of the blogosphere perhaps, but not uncommonly only from the infosphere.
The general linkage through inet.
As a result of that blogs have an uncommon element of censoring and influentiation of their own. Superficially it shapes into 2 forms.
Selfcensoring: where the maker of the blog censors certain opinions or aproaches things onesidedly (as long as the comments are not masked it does not matter, it is only a statistical negative implication for its relevance. It will seem to represent an opinion that is in fact less general then it looks on the blog.
Contributional censoring. Certain contributors will be strongly in denial,
usually decibelling loudly over obstrusive subjects of spelling and "official" reports. They tend to hold untenable opinions over the local situation and they end up chatting among another.
Certain nations (US, Israel) have a great number of people using this aproach,
a good third??? not easy. Hongkong or so? Probably a european country, at least on the national fora this trend is available in the netherlands. It is not as common or pronounced.
Such people may or may not pose as other people. Lebanese blogs eg. are a bit dilluted by this phenomenon. They may for example pose as radical elements of something. Or as plain dumb stubborn supporters of the other cause.
They may also pretend to be a neutral third party, or just a random element of the (western) public. Sometimes such people say they have lost familymembers in wtc, afghan and whereever else pitty might silence us. That is more chattish then bloggish, however it is in the taste.(perhaps it is the same as the Shoa collective 'fears'.)
My favourite example for this development is "healing Irak"
an integer (albeit rather conformative) blog. One where 1? time i got censored.
Still i don't think it was that smart, but at least i was convinced the blog, may have thought my post was to "hot", i think it was not, wich then proved the next day, but it does not matter that much. Only i post not there anymore when it is important.
In the healing irak blog, the very direct emphasis of the writer on the iraki and baghdad situation helps the public to stay awake. To realise what untenable situation irak is in. In terms of blogs irak is the one most organised example i know. It plays a role that the situation rewards study perhaps, still iraki slogger is also an unequalled source.
However some years ago the iraki blogosphere got under the attention of the Usian and to a lesser extend GB-european scrutiny. Several bloggers skyrocketed into fame,
and several blogs got checked with surprising regularity by surprising numbers.
It must have changed everything, when i entered the iraki blogosphere 2 years ago,
the atmosphere was scary. Several bloggers where disappearing, had disappeared, or otherways gave up hope? anyway a lot of bad news there, all major blogs had their
wurms and moles, blogs get spamned by endless contributions of us housewives with fort Hope opinions. etc. etc.
All the major blogs had been usurped by the secret services. They preserved only a dormant neutrality. It could be dangerous for others to post, and I was not sure about wich party would actually react more violently in most any case.
(i'm rarely very into cases when i reply for that reason, it gets rather hard to say everyone is okay and you ahouldn't blame the antagonists, when you have to be precise over a certain bloodbath eg.)
So i found 'healing irak's precautions superfluous, as i was already very cautious.
Anyhow. I don't blame him, it was obviously a point of discussion and i do trust the person of healing irak to have a decent sense of "irakiness".
That besides he is hardly pretending to be impartial. He is obviously on the hand of security and against militia in any shape, but it doesnt much help him to define his position i think. He tends to be against sadr's movement a little on the propagandistic side though. That is btw. a rather common emotion in irak. Real neutral opinions are hard to find.
People in irak are forced into having an opinion, also on something that would otherways be marginal or even merely institutional like a mahdist movement. That exagerated through the Usian stress on diversity of the shia south,(for probably mostly militairy reasons for starters) turned into a huge factor.(GB did her thing but only in the big scheme).
Sadr has not been playing the game badly. He has not been a major factor of escalation(afaik), Except the apparent availability of his troops. He stuck to the social aspect of his movement, and he has been voicing a few usefull opinions.
Not in the least pointing out that a mahdist movement has the greater interest in getting foreigners out.
Overall i think he has tried to treat the situation fairly under a rather great bias.
(not that he would admit the exact content of his foreign relations if any)
Nevertheless he scares us to death.
The nature of the situation , with every piece of baghdad divided into bits, shortages, ethnically based outrage, mediocre contact, and administration as a result.Seperative feelings of every involved group, and the idea to be thrown in the arena of the world powers, before the lions. That is an idea that is close to the exact definition of mahdism. For someone just sympathising with sadr indeed their own militia are selfdefence.
I cannot judge the exact proportions of violence, do the sadr more damage then the regular shia? It didn't start like that what i know. Personally my guess is the tables are not weighing heavy on sadr. He has been showing some constraint, and such an attitude is not always fake.
Also the non militia mahdist are the really dangerous one. They have the prototype for suicide attack, since they are motivated through 'injustice out of control',
the struggle of an individual against a repressive context, through years, severe circumstances and also generations, typically. A mahdist does not expect to live through the fight because they well know all the firepower is on the other side.
It's only : do something and die, instead of , just die.
No wonder we are scared to death. And they have death squads of their own, though honestly i think the coalition forces routed out the worst ones by now.
Irakis are really scared for sadr now... he has got everything the other politicians have not. Anyhow one good thing is there is a consensus that Sadr can't be president..
i'm wondering why exactly exactly, for 2 days now, and i have some thoughts
Thirstly the concept of secularism is known in irak, but it is not really the point.
Many religious types may have been in politics in irak, and many partys have a religious base.
The point is exactly also why iran cannot come to an arrangement with him, although the perspective , be it anarchist or iraki, is completely different.
Sadr might play a role in iraki politics when the situation gets stabilised. Only...
How should that situation look for Sadr to play the right role, noone knows.
Not even Sadr.
Saddams last words were, don't take sadr..
Maybe even himself he doesn't want to be president.
Sadr is the kind of person with the kind of movement that at the right moment should say... No we represent the people, this natures reserve must stay!
He doesn't need to be a president to manage most affairs where his influence is usefull. Sadr is slightly less dangerous then politics, and we 'd like to keep it that way.
Ofcourse in certain areas (the nature reserve eg.) these arguments hardly count,
however that is the discussion about splitting up irak.
How do i think of splitting up irak?
Actually i think it would not hurt, it was never needed, but now it is made to be that way, it won't hurt. It would be nice when the sunni have quiet in middle irak,
the shia in the south and the israelis in jerusalem (since what will they do about baghdad then). The precedent of sharing remaining oil wealth, or preferably that of regaining control of the resources, can be as unifying for this world as anything.
The only problem i have with it is the confirming of the prejudice, that a united irak would not be possible because of "muslim barbarism".
Me nor Sadr perceives recent iraki times that way, wich is why Sadr is so heavily under fire from the western media. That he is also under fire of the more moderate forces in the chorus is because of the fear.
We fear the moment he gets the idea to indeed seperate, to start fighting the government before the occupation in revenge of attacks and deaths.
When the mahdi army as a whole would start behaving as the regular deathsquads in irak do, all hell would break loose. Sadr would never accept that though.
I ( an anarchist) oppose that to, social chaos and anarchy are completely different things.
Not surprisingly this translates into a defensive strategical option. Sadr's interests are basicly Iraki, so he needs to clear some ground to hide.
Still it actually happens naturally as a result of people securing their own safety.
I mentioned before, i think i am in no position to have an overview of proportions, although i think i might do ok at scales.
I can not judge wether the US army, the US allied Irak army, The us allied Irak police, The irak police, The government militias, The non us allied irak army, the non us allied irak police, what that matter even the kurdish security corps, or any other security corps preventing loss of job, any splinter or opponent of the aforementioned, eg. The government allied shia police pro-militia deathsquads mahdi engagement group with the peshmerga link , or perhaps the nongovernment allied army anti police pro-militia and mahdi engagement anticoalition group with a direct mossad contact, is responsible for the most violence(neither of the 2 last i thought). In short.....
who did it?
A picture like this makes you wonder if anyone is really in a position to care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
wanted terrorist: name silencer aka stealotron
Through lies and fraud this one is managed to rob 1000000s of the fruits of their work and their voice