Most of us don’t really know the power of the chip – as in computers and the internet and all that. For instance, already 62% of all traffic on the internet traffic is driven by machines. Robots. The term used to describe this phenomena is M2M (machine to machine). It is a smidge frightening to consider how much of our lives are already machine-determined.
But that is NOT news.
The growth of that new ‘power’ is news, however. It is, of course, exponential and the growth is already uncheckable. Unhindered. They can’t stop it. Like Moore’s Law that prophesied the doubling of computer power every two years, so is that machine power being more and more distributed among non-sentient watchers and actors. Put another way: the internet today is the size – relatively speaking – of a golf ball. By 2025 it will be the size of the sun.
Apparently we make more transistors today than we grow grains of rice!
“So, what has that to do with politics?”
Everything.
Michael Soma was convicted of ‘interfering’ with the 2011 Federal election. He was the one ‘tapped’ to take the fall for the robo-call scam that deceived voters during the last federal election to favour the Conservatives. Back when the internet was not even the size of the alluded-to golf ball, our politicians were employing ‘dirty tricks’ (like Nixon) updated to suit the times. Soma was the then-wunderkind who applied the robo-calling plan. There are other plans. There are other strategies. There are other wunderkinds. And they all change with the times.
And the times they have been a-changing. Quickly.
There are numerous proven incidents of electronic voting tampering and many more suspected (who can forget Bush vs Gore?) for the longest time. I doubt very much that that kind of skullduggery will change. So why wouldn’t a party that is already proven to employ such tactics NOT do it again? Especially since the tactics have been improved so much in the last few years?
Put another way: I do not know of one person who voted Conservative in the last election. I do know some who admit to having voted that way two elections back but I no longer know (with one possible exception) of anyone who would vote Conservative today.
My statement: If they win again, they cheated. Whether we ever find out the truth, whether they are ever caught, whether or not the people ever suspect it, I am sure they already cheat (Soma) and, with improved computer power, they are going to cheat better and more effectively than before. At the very least, they have a few more Michael Somas to throw under the bus – that is for sure.
Bottom line: voting may already be totally shanghaied.
Our Off the Grid Home 
Recently during a discussion on the format of television debates to be held during the run up to the next federal election Kory Teneycke … “who used to run the now-defunct, Conservative-leaning Sun News Network, accused the three major television networks of having a “sense of entitlement” that was self-serving and excluded other organizations.”
LikeLike
Ironic in the extreme coming from him! In fact, it would be ironic in the extreme coming from any Conservative politician.
LikeLike
Two comments.
I held my nose and voted Conservative the last election because I couldnt bring myself to vote for the liberals or the NDP.
This time I’ll probably sit this one out.
Same old partisan BS.
Second comment/question.
What do people in Shanghai call being “ripped off”?
I was realtor’ed? lawyer’ed? Auditted?
LikeLike
It must be Shanghaied!
LikeLike
Shanghaied means to be conscripted into service. Against your will, you are forced to work on a sailing ship. Why? Because you were drunk in port and when you passed out, the crew took you aboard and the ship set sail for points exotic while you slept it off. Upon awakening, you found yourself automatically an able seaman and, with nowhere to go, went to work onboard.
So, people ‘ripped off’ would use another term altogether. Shanghainese, on the other hand, finding themselves unexpectedly in transit to London with a cargo of tea and opium might say, “Wa ho chow mein Londonee, no tickee”. Meaning: I am being Shanghaied to London!
LikeLike
I can understand that. The Liberals do not represent change (How can they with yet another Trudeau at the helm – this one still wet behind the ears?). I am not convinced the NDP do either. Maybe. But sitting this one out isn’t really an option (or shouldn’t be). “Well, I tried and failed so I’ll just sit?” I really think it is incumbent on all of us to re assess our position on all such things all the time. A party that represents change from something bad should be given a chance. If they fail, then try another. Open-mindedness means self-awareness and the ability to re-think positions.
Ethics, for instance, are always ‘situational’. We try to do the right thing. Then, if that seems to work for awhile, we put the right thing into a rule or law or ‘protocol’ and then, later discover that the rule does not fit a new situation. And so (after way too long trying to make the shoe fit anyway) we change it all and the process continues. Re assessment.
Giving Harper and the Cons a chance was NOT a mistake. Staying with them one extra term despite misgivings is NOT a mistake. That part is normal, healthy and even loyal. But to continue with a group that has a boatload of mistakes in their wake IS an error in thinking. At a certain point, one has to re assess. AND VOTE DIFFERENTLY.
It’s all a crapshoot anyway.
Was Lester Pearson good? If so, should we all vote Liberal despite the fact that he has passed and the next five Liberal leaders were idiots?
No. Of course not. We re assess. We try something new.
LikeLike
The refrence to exponential growth of the internet scared me. It is true that we are still in the infancy, but who can control that kind of rapid growth? Ten years from now, things will of so changed that i believe we will have bigger things than the government to worry about. Government will be the computer.
LikeLike
If you can muster the courage, read Marc Goodman’s FUTURE CRIMES. Absolutely terrifying. And, as bad as government is, apparently the ‘criminal net’ is bigger and worse. The book basically suggests we have already gone past the point of any return.
LikeLike