Unfortunate, but no surprise to see so-called Canadian 'progressives' on-board with this huge and costly expansion of the national security apparatus, 'Five Eyes' and even more collaboration with the US global gestapo. The surveillance state thanks you...
"Good cache of Canadian content in the latest Intercept/Snowden doc upload. 'Did you know that about 450 Canadians visit NSA yearly to do business and advance our common objectives? - From 'CSE - Our Good Neighbor to the North' (2013)
Reading the internet is in no way comparable to a university education.
That way lies a dystopia where Jenny McCarthy is as qualified as an MD. So kindly stop with the anti-intellectualism.
I'm not talking about "reading the internet." I'm talking primarily about MOOCs, such as those offered through coursera, udemy, or edx (as just a few examples).
Want to learn calculus? There's a course for that. Website design? Got you covered. Physics? Java? Database management? Check, check and check.
Free (or almost free) higher learning, available anytime, to anyone with access to a computer and the internet, regardless of upbringing, minority status, or personal circumstances or background. How is that anti-intellectual?
These are often touted by anti-intellectual asshats as replacement for university education. As both the holder of a degree and someone who has taken a MOOC, I can tell you it's not remotely comparable to a for-credit class. So stop with the anti-intellectual bullshit, please.
The internet makes learning easier than ever, on your own schedule, for those who have the desire to do so.Very well. TIL (Today I Learned) that vaccines will make me autistic, Donald Trump is a Statesman, the world is probably flat and Kylie Jenner is turning out to be a great Mom.
Classic Magoo.
The only reason to go to university now is to buy your accreditation.That accreditation includes a plausible assurance that you were taught real things. Honestly, that should be more valuable than ever.
Sure. I did point out that you still get accreditation for going to university. But 40 years ago you could argue it might make sense to go to university without pursuing an accreditation (you can generally attend classes without paying tuition, you just won't get your work graded), if you had a non-professional interest in learning some subject, or were intending to work for yourself. That is no longer the case.
If you haven't been graded, there's no reliable metric that you have actually learned anything. And you can still audit classes with permission.
If you don't want a degree, don't get one. There's no need for you to shit on the accomplishments of those who did the work.
Sure. I did point out that you still get accreditation for going to university. But 40 years ago you could argue it might make sense to go to university without pursuing an accreditation (you can generally attend classes without paying tuition, you just won't get your work graded), if you had a non-professional interest in learning some subject, or were intending to work for yourself. That is no longer the case.
I see. You're claiming that in 1978 a person could audit University classes of their choosing, take no tests, complete no projects, write no papers, and this had some sort of meaning to employers "back then"?
Can you tell us more about this?
From Mr. Magoo:
I don't really want to undergo surgery performed by someone who swears they totally did every MOOC they could about surgery.
Which leads to a new reality show, "Celebrity Surgery". Guests can pick from various celebrities, and have them perfrom their required sugery. Of course they'd have to sign a waiver first, but just think of the joy of being the first on your block to have you appendectomy done by Kim Kardashian. You'd be famous.
Universities teach some good things but not the most important things.
Universities teach some good things but not the most important things.
I think universities provide a place for people to learn things. Many of those things are not part of the courses. Life generally is an opportunity for this. You can choose to leave university with more valuable lessons than what is in the lecture hall alone.
Sure. I did point out that you still get accreditation for going to university. But 40 years ago you could argue it might make sense to go to university without pursuing an accreditation (you can generally attend classes without paying tuition, you just won't get your work graded), if you had a non-professional interest in learning some subject, or were intending to work for yourself. That is no longer the case.I see. You're claiming that in 1978 a person could audit University classes of their choosing, take no tests, complete no projects, write no papers, and this had some sort of meaning to employers "back then"?
Can you tell us more about this?
ICYMI
if you had a non-professional interest in learning some subject, or were intending to work for yourself.
Oh. OK. But you originally said:
And yet, university education is both more expensive and less valuable than ever...
So now it's kind of unclear how it's any less valuable. You're talking about people auditing a course (or the modern online equivalent, a MOOC) but if you're just really interested in Elizabethan Poetry, and audit a course in it, or you sign up for an Elizabethan Poetry MOOC, why is it any less valuable? You're either working for yourself (so who the hell cares what you do in your spare time) or just bored. Don't they still teach you about Elizabethan Poetry, and isn't that the sole "value" of that?
Oh. OK. But you originally said:
And yet, university education is both more expensive and less valuable than ever...So now it's kind of unclear how it's any less valuable. You're talking about people auditing a course (or the modern online equivalent, a MOOC) but if you're just really interested in Elizabethan Poetry, and audit a course in it, or you sign up for an Elizabethan Poetry MOOC, why is it any less valuable? You're either working for yourself (so who the hell cares what you do in your spare time) or just bored. Don't they still teach you about Elizabethan Poetry, and isn't that the sole "value" of that?
Isn't the distinction about having formal proof that you have aquired an expected level of this knowledge and have worked under pressure, performed and lived in that experience.
I often have to prove things. I do not think having proof is something that is not valuable. I also do not think it is fair to equate a person who has committed, paid for, worked on a full program with an audited pressure-free interest based exposure.
No, I do not think formal education is everything or even the most important thing but it sure is significant.
Unfortunate, but no surprise to see so-called Canadian 'progressives' on-board with this huge and costly expansion of the national security apparatus, 'Five Eyes' and even more collaboration with the US global gestapo. The surveillance state thanks you...
"Good cache of Canadian content in the latest Intercept/Snowden doc upload. 'Did you know that about 450 Canadians visit NSA yearly to do business and advance our common objectives? - From 'CSE - Our Good Neighbor to the North' (2013)
That is a rather warped interpretation of the desire to protect a democratic process from a technology that does exist. This is not the same as support for an invasive security regime nor is it a presumption that this threat comes from a single direction.
Isn't the distinction about having formal proof that you have aquired an expected level of this knowledge and have worked under pressure, performed and lived in that experience.
I think so. But this isn't the first time I've seen "tests" and "exams" and "proof" held up as some kind of elitist scam -- look up old threads about Denis Rancourt -- but if we really believe this then we can save a bundle by just investing in the one-time cost of a "Driver's Ed MOOC", and if some 16 year old swears on a stack of pancakes that he read everything in it, we give him a driver's licence.
Why not, right? He says he read the stuff.
Agreed Sean
Well said.
Generally people have 2 prime interests: their health and their inter-personal relationships
Universities teach some good things but not the most important things.
I think universities provide a place for people to learn things. Many of those things are not part of the courses. Life generally is an opportunity for this. You can choose to leave university with more valuable lessons than what is in the lecture hall alone.
"QUANTUM attacks considered among the most powerful weapons in the NSA (and its Five Eyes alliance) toolkit."
https://twitter.com/mattbizia/status/972114255469338624
Now all are tangled in the Canadian Sandvine, Edward Snowden says...
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/972123210559971328
Five Eyes Canada: NSA's 'Good Neighbor [Suckers] to the North'
And you don't think the U.S. is the "GrandMaster" of undermining elections.
So just who would you consider the "GrandMaster" if not the U.S., based on say, the history of the past 100 years?To be a grandmaster one has to be skilled at something not just do it a lot. If there is a grandmaster we wouldn't know about it because they wouldn't get caught.
I simply continued using the language that came before. Technically I will agree with you, not the most appropriate word. How about 'Mother-of-All election underminers'. Or simply the most notorious election underminer? Would you be happy with either of those?
I am much more concerned with the U.S. (not foreign, brethren) interfering with elections.
The US is a foreign country.
Not going to argue with that one. :) Just read the articles.
Countries spying and trying to influence each other's elections and politics is nothing new.
Agreed. So why are certain entities in the U.S. government trying to make such a big deal with the Russians?
Especially when the U.S. is no angel in this department?
Agreed. So why are certain entities in the U.S. government trying to make such a big deal with the Russians?
Especially when the U.S. is no angel in this department?
Need to justify gaslighting their electorate pre-election to prevent cognitive dissonance when things didn't work out the way they were "supposed" to.
The claim isn't that Russians attempted to interfere with the election, which always happens with many countries, the claim is that the Russians successfully altered the outcome.
Who would win - $100,000 in Russian facebook ads, or Hillary Clinton's $1.2 billion dollar campaign?
The claim isn't that Russians attempted to interfere with the election, which always happens with many countries, the claim is that the Russians successfully altered the outcome.
Who would win - $100,000 in Russian facebook ads, or Hillary Clinton's $1.2 billion dollar campaign?
Yes, it seems we are in agreement. I don't think they succesfully altered the outcome, do you?
Yes, it seems we are in agreement. I don't think they succesfully altered the outcome, do you?
No. I think it was Panda.
The claim isn't that Russians attempted to interfere with the election, which always happens with many countries, the claim is that the Russians successfully altered the outcome.
Who would win - $100,000 in Russian facebook ads, or Hillary Clinton's $1.2 billion dollar campaign?
Yes, it seems we are in agreement. I don't think they succesfully altered the outcome, do you?
I work in communications and have all my working life. This is pure garbage on many levels.
The argument that you get what you pay for is facile and false.
In politics it is only part of the story of the effectiveness of a campaign. Most of the influencers are not about advertising. An advertising campaign in a political campaign is a bust if it does not integrate further than that. Yes, it helps but it is not the most helpful component. With current technology and voter identification, it is the systems that drive your ground campaigns that while also not enough alone, make the greatest difference. By this I do not mean just e-day but how you communicate and work with activists. Your advertising has to suppor tthat campaign not the reverse.
Anyone who knows anything about public relations understands that “earned media” is way more effective than paid advertising.
They also know that publicity campaigns that use non-traditional media have more invested in the campaign than the buy itself. If you add the value of organizing, coordinating and preparing messages for what is alleged to have been done on facebook, the cost of the entire campaign would outstrip the actual facebook bill by at least 10-1.
When it comes to a good social media campaign against traditional campaign budgets you are mixing apples and oranges (comparing a facebook campaign with a whole campaign budget -- the Republicans spent money as well and had a lot of media in their corner even if they won't admit it. Comparing one buy to an entire campaign is everything but honest.
Social media when down dishonestly (posing as real people not advertisers) has a reach that outstrips advertising. Think for a minute -- why do you think that brands spend so much effort trying to get consumers to talk about the brand and engage in social media? The reason they do it is that this is far, far, far, more effective than traditional advertising. Perhaps you might want to view the marketplace show about how business gets fake reviews. They do this because it is way more effective than paid ads.
Clinton's campaign was a bust on many levels and money would not even that out. However, the Republican campaign getting a boost easily could have made the difference when you consider how close the campaign was.
Seems like a lot of people either are accidentally naive or purposefully ignorant about how this all works in order to dismiss the potential value of interference in an election using these tactics. That is a massive mistake. Some of you may be loyal to Russia thinking of it as the cradle of socialism or some other bogus thought, but this is about the means and technology not which actor did it. You cannot have a rational conversation about politics today without including this threat. And given the relative cost, you should immediately dismiss the notion that the only threat is from countries with lots of money.
The biggest problem with this Russia story may be that their cold war power makes it harder for people to recognize that this is a cheap weapon. It could be employed by the NRA within the US for less money than they currently spend. It could be employed by any number of countries, parties not in power anywhere. It should not be presumed to be just a foreign threat that only paranoids worry about.
It is a scandal when an entity in a country does this – if they are caught. However, any entity that has an interest in an election and is not accountable to local laws or to a local market does not have to play by the rules and would have minimal risk or cost. The payoff is so high that even those with risk and cost would entertain it. Arm’s length groups with significant cash can take advantage. This is cheaper than bribing lawmakers and possibly more effective and less risky.
Don’t think Canada is not at risk. Canada is at greater risk than the US for exactly this. The reason is that Canada can provoke interests just as powerful and yet the cost to participate is significantly less than in the case of the US. As well there is a lot more money here relative to the size of the campaigns that is being kept out due to election finance rules. Be complacent if you want but this is a real threat to the somewhat democratic process we have.
In Canada, I do not think that our greatest threat to election hacking comes from Russia, although I think that is real. I think the greatest threat comes from money within the country and within the US given the value of interests our elections affect.
I do not know if the Liberals will do anything effective in safeguarding our elections, I do not trust that they will identify all the threats or close them competently, but I certainly agree that this is important.
I do not know if the Liberals will do anything effective in safeguarding our elections.....
This is course quite the joke, when you consider the power of all our institutions to guarantee the manipulation of public opinion...
according to Canadian law (Charter law) a legitimate election must guarantee the voter access to all political positions...
No...a political movement must be created to offer a true social based, community based alternative and challenge the system fundamentally based on Charter law...but transcending the argument for guaranteeing all political persuasion, is the fact that Canada is saturated with mythology promoted by the MSM/Corporate sectors...how would any independent political alternative ever counteract the neoliberal agenda, so successfully implanted in the minds of every voter....Nothing but total disenchantment with the system will work...soon enough to come given that the debt bubbles holding up this syetm is crumbling...finally!
I do not know if the Liberals will do anything effective in safeguarding our elections.....
This is course quite the joke, when you consider the power of all our institutions to guarantee the manipulation of public opinion...
according to Canadian law (Charter law) a legitimate election must guarantee the voter access to all political positions...
No...a political movement must be created to offer a true social based, community based alternative and challenge the system fundamentally based on Charter law...but transcending the argument for guaranteeing all political persuasion, is the fact that Canada is saturated with mythology promoted by the MSM/Corporate sectors...how would any independent political alternative ever counteract the neoliberal agenda, so successfully implanted in the minds of every voter....Nothing but total disenchantment with the system will work...soon enough to come given that the debt bubbles holding up this syetm is crumbling...finally!
Not everyone wants to buy the election boycott route. Yes there are lots of problems but this is a new threat that will only make it worse.
Sean wrote:
Clinton's campaign was a bust on many levels and money would not even that out. However, the Republican campaign getting a boost easily could have made the difference when you consider how close the campaign was.
Yes, the argument that "Russian ads couldn't have made a difference because they cost far less that what the Clinton campaign spent" ignores the long history of single ads, inexpensively and sometimes independently produced, having a decisive influence on the outcome of elections.
The infamous Willie Horton ads weren't actually produced by the Bush campaign(rather, an independent pro-Bush PAC), and couldn't have cost more than a few thousand dollars to make. Certainly, a tiny sliver of what Dukaakis was spending overall. But there's a very strong case to be made that they were what turned the election to Bush. And it's not at all hard to imagine an interested foreign party funding similar advertising to the same effect.
That said, I agree that scapegoating the alleged Russian memes for Clinton's loss is a shaky proposition, but not because they were cheap to produce. Rather, it's that the content, as far as I know, didn't introduce any pivotal themes or imagery into the campaign, the way the Horton ads did in '88. They were basically just second-rate riffs on issues that were already commonplace in the campaign, and I don't think anyone even remembers what they were.
Sean wrote:
Clinton's campaign was a bust on many levels and money would not even that out. However, the Republican campaign getting a boost easily could have made the difference when you consider how close the campaign was.
Yes, the argument that "Russian ads couldn't have made a difference because they cost far less that what the Clinton campaign spent" ignores the long history of single ads, inexpensively and sometimes independently produced, having a decisive influence on the outcome of elections.
The infamous Willie Horton ads weren't actually produced by the Bush campaign(rather, an independent pro-Bush PAC), and couldn't have cost more than a few thousand dollars to make. Certainly, a tiny sliver of what Dukaakis was spending overall. But there's a very strong case to be made that they were what turned the election to Bush. And it's not at all hard to imagine an interested foreign party funding similar advertising to the same effect.
That said, I agree that scapegoating the alleged Russian memes for Clinton's loss is a shaky proposition, but not because they were cheap to produce. Rather, it's that the content, as far as I know, didn't introduce any pivotal themes or imagery into the campaign, the way the Horton ads did in '88. They were basically just second-rate riffs on issues that were already commonplace in the campaign, and I don't think anyone even remembers what they were.
I think they were effective precisely becuase they kept going at general impressions until they infected the culture to the degree that many people knew Clinton was bad and yet could not say why or would name some faked story. Only a small number of voters probably turned on this but it was enough.
The clinton should be in jail meme was spread both by the Trump campaign and by bots. What the bots did was amplyfy the Trump campaign and the campaign amplified the bots. It is in some cases difficult to tell whether a story started in one or the other. Collusion is a certainty depending on the definition you accept: "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others." Cooperation seems to be certain given that they publicly riffed off each other. Was it with knowledge of the identity of the parties -- perhaps not. So Trump Campaign colluded with the Russians, I think that is a given. But did they know that what they were colluding with was the Russians? This is the part that has not been proven publicly.
The other problem is that it is not clear to me that it was just the Russians. The technology was not invented by Russia and the motivations were not exclusively on their side. So while I can believe that the Russians were involved, and it may even be proven that Trump knew they were, it is also possible that other forces, possibly domestic also participated.
As I have been sayign the danger of the Russia focus may be less that an innocent party gets accused ( I suspect they did do it) but that another guilty party gets away.
When you leave your front door open and your house gets cleaned out -- can you really be sure there was only one thief?
It is a joke to presume that there are not domestic forces with motive and opportunity to warp US elections at least as much as the Russians. Same is true in Canada. If we think the Russians are the only threat worth debating we are well and truly screwed. As I said Canada's threat comes from a lot closer in my opinion.
re: 1#, #4
Approval and support for a massive and hugely expensive expansion of intelligence institutions that are clearly part of the western military warmachine, not to mention the police state implications domestically, is an appalling and wrong-headed position for any progressive to take. But, as previously stated, unfortunately not inconsistent with other positions on Libya, Ukraine or Syria, taken by Canada's increasingly pro-imperialist liberal/left.
re: 1#, #4
Approval and support for a massive and hugely expensive expansion of intelligence institutions that are clearly part of the western military warmachine, not to mention the police state implications domestically, is an appalling and wrong-headed position for any progressive to take. But, as previously stated, unfortunately not inconsistent with other positions on Libya, Ukraine or Syria, taken by Canada's increasingly pro-imperialist liberal/left.
well no. You don't get to play both ends against the middle here and imagine the other side of the conversation.
What you are getting here is a recognition that that there is a real threat that should be answered - that threat is identified here as a vulnerability rather than a specific enemy as has been pointed out often here. You are not getting support for particular policies.
Your tarring as not politically correct any disagreement with your point of view is a form of bullying. Stop it.
Protection of the election process and information during elections is not a partisan issue. Your position against participation in elections is leading you to bully people here about their position with respect to safeguarding a process that some people on the left DO want to participate it.
So cut the crap here -- it is not a "Russia" story for people here and those on the left and this has been pointed out. And it is not appalling for people who are progressive and want to participate in the electoral process to be concerned about it.
You have a conflict of interest here and a very clear one -- you want votes to be discredited as you are against them. That's your business but you should step back from calling everyone here who wants this process protected as being disloyal to the left in general.
The "real" Left: "it's silly to pretend that Russia somehow sabotaged the U.S. election, and besides, this is normal practice for any country. How is $100,000 worth of Facebook ads supposed to change the committed hearts and minds of the entire U.S. electorate???"
Also the "real" left: "it should be abundantly clear to any but the stupidest that the turmoil in Venezuela is solely the result of an attempt at regime change by violent coup! Joe Biden stocked up on toitie paper, and that was the thin edge of the wedge!! No other country would ever interfere with another country like this (i.e. buying up all the toitie paper)"
Funny what the "real" progressives think is thin soup, and what they think is rich, hearty, meaty soup.
Yes, yes, all about 'protection of the election process' and of course it's expensive, but worth every penny. And not about Russia. Got it thanks.
Yes, yes, all about 'protection of the election process' and of course it's expensive, but worth every penny. And not about Russia. Got it thanks.
No your binary arguement clearly does not get it -- or you don't want it to.
There is a Russian component for many people but there is also a security component independent of which country is fairly or unfairly accused in the story.
There is also a good argument that the greatest threat to elections through manipulation is not Russian at all.
You ignore all that to get to the narrative you prefer. That's okay but when you insult people suggesting they are not really progressive, that is another story.
