The best part of the article was that Lawrence Lessig was mentioned! He was quoted as saying that “For most of the history of money, people were against paper money because it wasn’t real,” he said. “But now we accept money is money, even if it isn’t real.” The distinction between real substantial money, and money online is all gone. People accept that the money they have in the online bank is what they really have. Today, some many transactions are done without actual paper money transferring. Its just documents that stand in for money–loan documents, transfer payments, etc. Its interesting to think about how we rely so heavily on non paper transactions. Just interesting to think about—and an intresting Lessig quote.

The other intersting thing he explained was computational design. The interaction of the computer and the users. The computer makes intelligent desicions, but it does not have total control. Users have control as well. Users and computers interact to create an experiance, they are reliant on one another for the proces to work. Users must stimulate the computers to create the producct.

As with the voodoo dolls movie, computers and users interact. By treating the dolls a specific way, different things happen in the movie. This stimlating interaction with the movie is much more interseting than the passive interaction we normally enocunter. One gets to intearact with the media.

I definitely think that database narratives will continue to gain prominence. They provide a unique experience, one totally different from the normal viewing experience. By forcing the user to interact, they users become more invested in the story and ultimately more entertained. It is almost like mixing video games with movies–a kind of gray area in between. It appeals to a wider range of audiances then video games though, you have to have fewer skills to be successful.

What struck me the most is the discussion of how we cannot go in and save people, it just does not work that way. They do not want us to save them, they want to save themselves. The US used human rights as a reason to back invasion, but we did not give them better rights. We have not greatly changed society. I watched many interviews of women saying that they do not want to be saved, and that the governments and liberal US feminist groups are not really helping at all. They are just contributing to the viewpoint that it is ok to invade a country. I really struggle with the decision of going into a country to establish more equality and better rights. When are human rights being violated enough that intervention is necessary? What has to happen? When is invasion just a hindrance not a help? When are we just pushing our Western/Orientalist views on other nations? Sometimes the choice should be easy—as in Rwanda or Bosnia. Blatant genocide should never be allowed, but more often the choice is more difficult. Most times it is not so easy. There are many countries in which women are treated as badly as in Afghanistan, for example Saudi Arabia, and yet we do not invade them. We let North Korea almost starve their population. China has a terrible human rights record—-their limit of free speech is terrifying. If we do not have the same standards for every country, can we ever hope for equality? The US should not use human rights abuses as a one supportive reason to have invaded Afghanistan, as we do not invade other countries with the same human rights abuses. When we do use HR abuse as cause, it looks like a crutch, it does not legitimize our actions to the citizens in Afghanistan or to the world as a whole. As the women in the BNF repeatedly stated, we have not helped the women’s rights movement, if anything we may have pushed back progress.

This project really made solidified my view that the US must changes how it operates in the world. We are powerful, but we have the responsibility to use that power in a way that helps citizens. We need to support the pro-human rights grassroots movements in Afghanistan. We must work from the ground up to help the citizens do what they believe is right for Afghanistan. We cannot continue to enforce our viewpoints, we have to let them make their own decisions regardless if those decisions are to our benefit.

While I believe we must change, I do not know how this change should come about. I do not know if our troops leaving will really help Afghanistan–I know in the long run it is absolutely necessary, but short-term security is a problem.

My inability to decide how I feel is why I was uncomfortable making  persuasive piece for our project. If I cannot persuade myself, I surely cannot argue a strong viewpoint to other people—nor do I think I should as it would be irresponsible. I like that people will be able to learn from our project, and hopefully if we all learn for each others work, in the long run we will be able to make a better decision about how we feel. I know I am ambiguous, but I also know that ambiguity lends itself to more ambiguity. If I never have to take a stance then I am never wrong about the outcome. I think this is why Obama is having such a difficult time deciding what to do. There is no clear-cut answer, yet he has to decide and be persuasive when telling his decision to the American public. This takes more courage then I think I can muster at this point. He will have to be persuasive, and if his idea fails he will have to take responsibility. He will also be  responsible for more troops and civilians killed.  So maybe that is why I did not want to do a persuasive piece, I did not want that responsibility of being wrong. I do not want to support something, whether withdrawal or troop increase, that leads to more people being dead. But the issue here is that no matter what decision is made, more people will die. And that is hard to tackle, that no matter what you do it is likely to get worse before it gets better. There will still be violence, poverty and abuse….and that is just the world that we live in. I think it is easy to belive that if we pull out everything will just get so much better, that we caused all the pain that is in Afghanistan. The pain and poverty was there already. If we pull out it will still be there, if we stay it will still be there. So I guess that I conclude that it is more important to rethink how we conduct ourselves and how we can limit the destruction and death in Afghanistan, then the mere numbers of troops we employ. We must have a strategy for limiting adverse side effects of whatever plan Obama decides to go with. This is what I care more to see then an arbitrary number of troops.

I also like that we were able to find a lot of outside sources from the media, YouTube, etc. I like the Rethink Afghanistan footage, but it is difficult not knowing where it came from ( both source and what region) or what time period. I will update again with our final project.

Foursquare will keep track of how often you ferquent locations, and provide advice about new places to try that fit your profile. To keep people interacting they give you “badges” for trying new places and things, and if you are the top frequenter to a location you are deemed the “mayor.”  Mayors often gain freebies, so people are quite competitive for them.

I think this sounds like a really cool idea, and if I got a Blackberry or iPhone I would likely add it.  I like that it is more intimate, you really only want your good friends to see you and vice versa.  I also think that trying to get a mayorship or collect badges could be an entertaining way to go out and see the city.

When thinking of media and terrorism, I first thought of the use of video. Once terrorist groups were able make videos, they could capture hostages and show video of them. While before one could have pictures of the hostages–sometimes pictures were hard to verify. Videos still are somewhat difficult to verify—but they provide a more powerful image to the world, which increases the likelihood that governments will be forced to get involved, and possibly give into some of terrorists demands. Videos also allowed groups to execute hostages and show the rest of the world their power, and what they were capable of doing. Inspiring fear in some, and acting as a recruiting tool for others.

We know that terrorists groups have used the internet to expand their following across the world. I would guess that the internet has proved crucial in expanding thier ability to carry out complex international attacks. Cell phones have also increased the communication of groups, especially since phones have become cheap, and can be difficult to track.  Not only does the internet help with communication, but it definitly helps with recruitment. There are many websites devoted to fundamentalism, and I would guess there are many terrorism groups operating websites. I think this would be an interesting issue to continue to research—I’m thinking of it as a possibilty for my final project.