The internet as a factor on Democracy

As I may have mentioned before; I´ve been working on my Bachelors degree. In the paper i recently turned in, I worked on a perspective on social media as a participatory tool in new democracies, where one of the themes I came upon was the internet as concept. It turned out to be very interesting, and rather complex.

I found this video, and almost jumped because it touched upon what I thought was something very few scholars was aware of. Guess I was wrong.

I´ve been toying with the idea of publishing my paper in this blog, but my intuition of putting something of academic value on the internet told me not to.

Enjoy the vid!

Escape Artist & Gaming

I´ll admit it. I play a lot of different kinds of games. Though not so much as some might think. Normal people think of gaming as a serious default in the range of things to do in an everyday life. Although I´m not going to discuss the broader debate between gamers and non-gamers, I´ll say one thing: its better than fishing.
Thing is. The gaming community has grown in considerable size over the last 10 years, swallowing Japan whole, along with the larger portion of USA and Britain. Some have managed to capitalize on us, while some have managed to reach "famous"-status because of us. The important thing to notice though, is that gamers are in control of most of the world already. Not because we are one big blob of control-freaks, but because gaming is so enjoyable that state managers and leaders around the world are probably enjoying some kind of game when they get home from work.
I enjoy thinking of Obama coming home after a long day, yelling for a beer, telling Michelle to shut up and bring him a sandwich, sit down in a chair and fire up some Black Ops. "F*ing dawg, I´m gonna paint the wall with ur entrails!"- he´ll yell into the mic in frustration.

With that said, there are some baaaad games out there. I love to criticise different flaws of shitty games, but I enjoy it even more when other people do it. Like Zero Punctuation, the rambling Australian/British-dude, talking too fast for his own good, with a satirical or nostalgic comment every 0,14 second. He rips the games apart and puts up spotlights on the broader perspective. One example is that he talked about Nintendo stagnating within 2 games, copying them over and over. So true and so sad. But I love Zelda tho. And thats why Nintendo is still in business... because of idiotic old-timers like myself.
Thank god I don´t own a Wii.

Putting crap in perspective

The mind is obviously a complex thing, giving us the ability to think about several things at one time. I have used up my effective quota of things to think about it seems.
So here is a list of all the impossible things I have to have in mind simultaneously:

1. The time limit of exams and paper due-dates
2. My research question
3. Case studies (there is two of them)
4. Theoretical framework and its relevance
5. A discussion that should, in theory, shed light on the totality of the paper
6. News and new material
7. Other fields and other exams not related to the ones I´m working on

In addition there is a social section of the stuff I have to worry about, most of which I can´t help but think about.

1. Organizational work
2. Work
3. The usual social interaction a.k.a: drinking beer and talking sh*t with people
4. Showing up at events that somehow I came to agree to earlier, and now have forgotten about
5. The vacation coming up: what to do, what to do?
6. Certain individuals 
7. Concerts, barbeques and other parties...
8. Several young people who have decided to have their "confirmations" at the same time, thus making me inadvertably pissing off an occational aunt or uncle if I´m not showing up. 
9. Birthdays
10. The people who I pissed off by not showing up to something themselves, or me not caring enough to tell them of my absense before an event. (Social capital thus going down)
11. Food (I have to have nurishment sometimes... though this is highly unimportant to me at the time. Coffee is enough.
12. Money---> Not getting any from work related to issues with contracts

So. By deviding this by zero, we get two conclusions:

• That my brain isnt capable to think of more than 19 things at one time

and

• Getting things in perspective is good for you... Although I realize that this was probably most for my personal benefit, and I have wasted the time of whoever is reading this. 

One interesting question pops up though: Do I really care about any of all this? Only time will tell I guess.

In any case: Thank you for reading? Here is a link and a video clip to make up for the motivational-post to myself.
LINK

The filter bubble

This is both relevant to my degree and pissing me off at the same time. A kind of laaaame A.I that screws up our information-flow.

Its kind of a irritating thought that the utilities that are made to make our lives easier are actually blocking us from potential news and the like.

An interesting talk about a new... bit?

I am currently neck high in work, so I´ve decided that I don´t have much time at the moment to write on the blog. Instead I´m going to post a number of interesting lectures or other video material to your (and my own) amusement and developing understanding.

This one was linked to me by a friend of mine. Hope you enjoy!

I´m give you downs; America

Hold on. I have the ama-derpiderpiderpidoo

Like the amazingly reflected, god of a person, that I am, I have only one thing to say about the consideration of Donald Trump as presidential candidate to the 2012 election:

  -.-########what#######-.-

   -   -

   !------------------------------------!

Its like the republicans are both retarded and ranging on the inane at the same time. Either way, they are too much fail, compressed into too tight a space, that my fail-finder-equipment can´t even register it. Yes... its over 9000.

The irony here is the fact that the man with a wig will probably win too, if given the chance.

If he even does run for president I will have a sermony in my basement where I sacrifise a lamb to Bhal, for the progress American politics are making, because truly: its development is going backwards.

Its cool to watch from the outside, though. Its like having a time-machine on CNN and ABC, not even to mention FOX where they already are wearing dead animal skin to protect themselves from the cold.

Point is: I see a trend. It all started with Reagan, then a speedy tour where social welfare and political freedom is slowly but surely eradicated from american life and way of thought, then ending up in Wisconsin, where labor rights (considered as fundamental as air by ILO) are plucked away, effectively moving american society one step further to the middle ages. 

And now; possibly this:

Your fired! Because running a country is the same as running a business, dipshit!

... end of rant.

Terry Jones

 

Well... now we are screwed... royally. 

Before going in to the Rant of Monday I will waste a couple of sentences in explaining a couple of fundamental things you have to know... about religion. In some ways its like conflicting factions of politics... even though its really not... People tend to get personal when confronted with an opposing side because it goes deeper than simple discussion. So know that when you are arguing with a religious person (or an anti-religious person, because you know, they are people too) he or she can get ugly at some point because at the end it isn´t about writings and text, but the individual´s inner most belief... which is not easily defended and not to be tampered with.

So with that said; Today´s post is about Terry Jones. The "Pastor" who burned the holy Qur'an.

Before reading onward: My analysis of his actions comes at the end of the rant.

There is something fundamentally wrong... or right, about this picture.

Idiot.

No. Wait. That's an understatement.

I don´t even know how to begin ranting about the idiocy that is him.

I´ll make a list so its more fun and organized.

1. Christianity:

It is to be understood that there are some things in the bible that you can´t overlook and translate another way than it is written. Terry Jones has managed to do this with one of the few bits of information I until recently believed untouchable. I´m here thinking of the "golden rule": you shall do onto others what you want others to do onto you.

Out of my considerable understanding of Christianity, me myself being one of its followers, I have to say that Jones has taken one of its fundaments and scrapped it on a huge pile of crap like only a red-neck American can.

As a religion entering the modern age I can say that Christianity is a religion of peace... one who’s name has now been plowed from behind yet again by a media hungry asshole. 

Let me make this perfectly clear.

If Mr. Jones was a member of the christian belief he would not have done what he did.

I here presume that you as reader know a little about the douche and enough about Christianity to know that Jesus, the dude with the good shampoo, would not have done that.

But I´m speaking out of term. You should know, even if you consider yourself un-religious, that there are other aspects to christianity than the conservative bigots and creationists. Indeed most (if not all) of christian communities disagrees with his actions... even the Vatican. But what I´m spesifically thinking of are the liberal christians, who are more down to earth in general.

With that said, not only does Mr. Jones have a poor understanding of his own religion, but of Islam as well!

The Bible is not holy. We keep it on our night-stands and besides our used condoms because we recognize that it is a work of man- inspired by God and may be led by the great dude by an extent, but not holy.

The muslims DO on the other hand, believe that the Qur'an, is. And as I mentioned before: when you mess with that kind of belief, you attack the most personal. No wonder they are pissed.

They did what, you say? Well THAT was unexpected...

2. Politics:

Who the hell does he think he is? Here Obama, the man in black himself, comes forth and tells him that all hell is going to rain down on him if he burns the book, and Mr. Jones believes himself to be above international relations and above the president of the United States.

what. the. hell.

As diplomats around the globe tries to establish some semblance of peace with the Muslim countries, not to mention soldiers dying for that "peace" (not that I´m saying that the Afghan war is leading to peace... because its not), Mr. Jones here goes ahead and undermines them all. He, in what I believe is his hut, in Florida, thinks he has the right to do and say whatever he wish.

If you now are thinking: "but the american constitution, blablabla, freedom of speech, blabla." you are naive. Freedom of speech is an illusion. There are simply some things that are wrong to do. The founding fathers never considered people to become so stupid as this guy, and if they had known that human idiocy could go that far, I think they would have re-written the damned act.

Fact is that he is f***ing with discussions and dealings where he has no right, no place and absolutely no understanding of. If I were Obama I would have caught his funky mustache in a revolving door and ripped it off before turning him over to one of the preliminary schools so he could learn some f***ing manners.

Can´t he see that what he did gets us NO WHERE?! If anything it puts us back 50 steps, not to mention the lives of UN officials that were lost in Afghanistan because of his burning! Blood of the people who are working to build bridges is on HIS hands. But he is probably to arrogant of a douche, to occupied with burning holy-books, to notice!

For further reading: Link

3. The good name of Terry Jones:

Terry Jones is not ever ever... ever to be confused with Terence Graham Parry Jones who is his exact opposite in every way, from awesomeness to righteousness... to shining self-irony, which is their biggest difference altogether: while Mr. "Imawfullyhandsome" makes fun of religious people (and religion) because of all their (our) gibberish and loud-mouthed problems, the other Jones A.K.A "Imitchinginmymustache" is a parody of himself and making it perfectly clear the first Mr Jones was right in his humorous parodies. 

He has the right idea. As do all the Monty-Python cast. Some people are just funny and in need of critique.

But sadly they share the same name. The difference is that while the pastor holds this:

 to his legacy, the other Terry Jones holds this:

Shut up and bring me a bucket, idiot.

Suffice to say that the second Terry is both more handsome and more mature.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair I have to see the pastors actions in an objective light for a moment. 

Obviously his actions are born out of actions taken by Muslims in the past. This makes him angry, but not right. He, and many others, may think that this makes them right, but if they do, they have to find something else to hide behind than christian belief... because you know... love thy neighbor and all.

What I´m saying is that the whole west is tired of the ongoing war against terror, the wars, the lives lost and the paranoia, but while we (the developed world) are focusing on finding a solution, some take matters into their own hands without thinking, and puts fuel on the ongoing fire of hate. 

Again: anger does not make anyone right. 

America (while acknowledging that there are more intelligent people than the idiots living there) may have another way of thinking than Europeans and Asians and Africans and Latin-Americans and Australians, but whatever they might think; government are probably more capable of handling international relations than any individual. So if you have to base whatever basis of reasoning into your religion, call it something else than Christianity... call it "bombabomb" or something, and stop pretending to be governed by righteous actions instead of the real reason, which is hurt, and anger.

To tell you the truth, I feel bad for the pastor. He is guided by instincts more than anything else. And now the whole international community can´t stand his face. Indeed, if I were him I would have caved some time ago, so at least that is to his credit. Still doesn´t make him right though.

Terry Jones is not into the peace bit of his religion... He wears a GUN for Christ's sake... which is another religion than Christianity. He is a pastor of hate with no regard to the well being of neither troops, people or international relation.

Rant and quote end.

oh, and: what

Hello there. I´m plowing social boundaries through humor. What are you doing?

The Perfect Beat

One of the ways I define myself is as a music lover. 

I´m not one of the people that says that I´m listening to everything... because I don´t and I believe that anyone who says that is a liar.

No. What I´m saying is that I love the concept of music. Its something to our cultures which is pure in many ways where words and poetry fail us. 

No matter what kind of music is playing, there will always be someone loving it and understanding it in a different way than others who are listening. That's mainly the reason why I think of it as a sore subject. 

Let me explain. 

If you are on a first date, one of the most common things to ask about when the conversation stalls is music. "What music do you listen to?" then he or she is almost bound to answer "Well... everything"- in order to save face and situation. Both you and the other person knows its a fail-bait to talk about it, even if you don´t think it, and therefore tread lightly before answering, trying to uncover the other persons taste first. 

The catch is that the chances of you going home with that person falls dramatically after he or she finds out you like something that they do not. And the other way around.

Of-course, you may get lucky, I´m not making a rule here, but I will venture out and say that music is important. God knows what happens if you find out the person in front of you is a madman and doesn´t listen to music at all!

This is interesting though. Why is music so personal and secret? A person studying musical theory might answer that question more clearly than I, so I won´t go to deep into it. 

What I find fascinating though, is the fact that as people, we love putting other people in boxes... Sum them up out of what little information we get from them. And music? Thats a huge and important box in most cases. "Oh, lord. She listens to Aqua. That shit was popular in 1985 so shes clearly crazy! RUNAWAY!"... or at least that would have been my response. Some people like that crap. And I don´t blame them. We all know what its like to put our list of favorite songs on the speakers in front of friends. The gentle tugging of uncertainty. The thought of what will be said about you if the majority in the room hates your choices. 

I recon most people think they don´t care much. Or at least I think they think they don´t care much, when really; they do. Its easy to glips the sudden defensive posture put up when you start to comment a song, and the person you are talking to happens to be the one who vouched for it. 

Like the guy that wanted me to play Macarena the other day. He´s still pissed at me for rejecting him. WHY is that? I wasn´t impolite to the douche... I just said "No" slowly and with care to make sure it got through his drunken skull... then I may have turned away and resumed whatever it was that I was doing, trying to ignore the fact that he just asked me for Macarena.

Weird reaction of me, though. It was like I was taken offense at his request. But he didn´t do anything really. He just asked me for a crappy song he could jerk of to. So why the stern rejection and cool attitude?

But that´s beside the point. The point I´m trying to make here is that music is important to us on many different, and rather intimate, levels. Much like religion and politics... and values...?

Its interesting to observe though. How music can draw people together. How it can make them sing and dance and become close even though they met a few seconds before. Ah, no, you don´t have to be drunk to achieve this. All you need is the ecstasy of the moment.

People who can´t dance dance like hell. People who can´t sing, sing like they were kings and queens of the opera. People who don´t have a shred of impulse get inspired to rap... the list goes on.

I like to think its because music is a way of communicating that goes beyond language. As I think of it, language in itself is a hindrance, a barrier where we force our mouth to translate whatever we are thinking. It´s both our greatest tool and our greatest catalyst for confusion. But music in itself rids us of that and lets the individual draw his or her own picture. It allows us to draw different meanings out of it and makes us use other senses in order to draw meaning.

Thats why I´m always looking for the perfect beat. And I think thats why I like music without vocals the best. Its like a painting being made in front of you, but you are the only one who can see it... which makes us vulnerable when we tell of our perspective to others.

The picture may look like a blob of poo to the other person you know.

Khan Academy

The Khan Academy. Fast growing educational program, all based on the web and videos.

And to think I didn´t know about this! I´m late to the game once again...
Watch the TED video to get the introduction of the concept. Its brilliant. I can´t get the video to function properly so if you want full-screen visit the TED homepage HERE.

I have a few problems (as always with anything) with the notion of video taking over for regular teachers. The problem with this does not lie with the method itself, but rather the person developing the video. Notice that Mr. Khan is from America... most people there talk english, right? Most people in the world does not however. This leaves a small hole, but one that should be easily overcome. All there is to it is for one teacher from each country to translate the lectures. A lot of work, but easily done... not to mention cheap.

So my problem comes here: the teaching method is heavily dependent on the guy making the lectures, being able to communicate with a broad spectrum of audience. Khan himself is such a guy, but lets all agree that all teachers are absolutely not as easygoing and understandable as him. That puts a pressure on the others translating the lectures, a pressure so high that I recommend only the best teachers for the job... but that may make it into an elite concept. Something to be highly expensive should only the best of the best be hired to teach the lectures. And not everyone has a big heart such as Khan... so they probably would ask a lot (given that only a few teachers are fitted for the job of translating the lectures so the competition is low).

That makes the concept profitable, something that as a fundament should be avoided if it is ment to reach the porest of us.
But thats not really a critique of this system as it could be a critique of all education systems everywhere and their teachers. As you probably have guessed until now; I´m not a fan of privately owned schools... Something about making education into a profit just doesn´t sit well with me. Thats primarely why I think this is such a great, radically awesome, idea!

Then there is the debate of which education-system is best... Which I´m avoiding deliberately here.

Other than that, and the fact that people in underdeveloped countries have to have an agreeable level of technology, I see no problem with this. Its awesome.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a student of almost everything I´m easily fascinated by different things. Physics is one of them. Sadly I have never been good at it, and stopped trying after I got a C on a test where I was meant to find out my own weight on the moon. I failed terribly and gave up on physics after that... I now focus on social science since its much more understandable and fundamentally bereft of logic and answers. Fits me perfectly... Though I´ve always had an interest in other things more technical.

Here is Khans video of fundamental physics. I understood it again after years away from it. What about you?

Enjoy!

And here is the link to his site if you are interested.

A letter about the UN

Today´s monday post will be a mail I sent to a journalist regarding the UN and Libya. I have translated the text since it was originally in Norwegian and therefore hard to read for most of the people reading this blog.
It should be said however that I don´t see it as realistic that anything should come out of it. I just felt that I had to write it.
Anyway. This is the third serious post in a row, and I will try not to get to engaged to critical writing. People don´t want news from blogs obviously, yet there are too few blogs who does it seriously to begin with.... and somethings are left out of the mainstream media. Enter the internet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi.

I´m a student at ***. Today I woke up with “todays paper” outside my door, branded with large head liners about the controversial theme: Libya.

After having read your article I´m left with a couple of questions I feel are essential because they are left out of the general media.

Not to make the impression to be a “know-it-all” student; This is not critique of your article. If anything it was good enough to inspire me to write this e-mail.

I´m especially interested in the part of the article where you site **** ***** with the line “We can get a westernization of what has been until now, a genuine people uprising”.

This is about the first time I have heard a politician from any of the western countries, ask a question concerning the legitimacy of the recent bombing. The issue that get the hair on my arms to rise up is that the bombing itself is fronted by the UN. After what American (and Norwegian) media calls a “historic moment” in the UN, when they gave a go ahead to the No-fly-zone over Libya, there was immediately underlined that this was strictly for civilian protection. But does this not put the UN in an extremely poor position as a peace-keeping/building organization?

You have to consider the fact that the UN does not have juridical power, even though it wants us to believe it does, as a transnational sovereignty. They do not have the right to “go in” as a police force, especially when their only legitimate motive is “defend from violence with violence”. This puts them out from being a peace-keeping organization to become an organization that is used as a cover that the superpowers use to “cover” their real motives.

I mean; what happened in the security-council was like a poorly-made re-run of the iraq war. The same actors who pushed for a war for democracy that time, are the same now and we all know that there was alternate motives than “building democracy and defend civilian lives” that drove them that time. As a bonus this became an economic black-hole for the US in later times, where soldiers die because the local people don´t want them there... you obviously don´t need a reminder.

Last time the UN left with its integrity intact by saying NO to the warmongers, something they have failed to do this time. This was their only basis as a transnational organization even close to being legitimate! They have let themselves be manipulated and made it to look like a “humanitarian operation”. Ironically enough... no matter how you look at it, it will come back as “to bomb for humanitarian reason”.

POINT being that the focus has deliberately been shifted from the stabilizing of oil-prices (America), bad election (France), and a budget hole (England), and over on “protection of civilians” for a reason.

It isn´t that I think of Gaddafi as anything else than a despot and a menace for his people and region, but I think the UN made a big, fundamental and eye-opening mistake when they approved the war-hungry countries, and gave them an incentive with ethical backing, to go on the offensive. This is what the media has forgotten to mention. Maybe because they are too afraid to make any other assumption, from fear of losing viewers, but I think they are making a mistake in not putting a light on the long term effect of what happened in the UN.

This paper ********* has an advantage there.

This is naturally a social scientific goldmine, and I can already see many a professor rub their hands eagerly together. Definitions are despite all what they are good at, and an opportunity to write new books and make students buy them for a bloody price, where they shift the term “peace-keeping” as a word thought of in a good sense to become something more like “war-incentive”, they applaud in their dark corners of their libraries. 

That Norway is going to partake in the coming battle/war (whatever) does not come as a shock. We are despite all Europa´s naive half-brother.

 

The repercussions of this remains to be seen. Everything depends on who wins down there. If Gaddafi wins, the west will have to crawl to the furnace (because of the oil involved) and lick his back for the next 30-40 years, and if the rebells wins there will still be 30-40 years before they get any resemblance of a agreeable democracy that functions, and this might not even be in the wests best interest. The ONLY thing we can be sure about is that civilian people won´t win. They will die be it bombs, persecution or torture anyway.

So here you have a case: the UN´s future legitimacy as a peace-keeping organization.

Have a good day and good luck with your article-writing

- Beornegard (www.thehavenforwords.blogspot.com)

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------