#humaities

I am one of those people that are obsessed with learning, but structured courses are expensive. Not these. Here are some links if you, too, are obsessed with the pursuit of knowledge and want to learn something (for FREE!)

EdX is my personal favourite. It offers loads of subjects that are usually taken from university courses, and the ones that I have done are pretty good. These can all be taken for free, or you can pay £40 to take the assignments and recieve a graded certificate. Now, the catch here is that most of the courses are archived, which means that, occasionally, some of the links won't work and you have to be creative with the readings. I have found this to be a pretty minimal issue though, and it is worth it.

I recently took this EdX course about 19th Century literature and it was excellent. Some of the links were broken so I took some creative liberties with the readings, but I read all of the books discussed and used the course materials to critically analyse them as I did so. I didn't follow the course exactly, but it was still an enriching experience and something I wouldn't have thought to do otherwise.

Another good one is OpenLearn, which is a branch of the Open University. The OpenLearn courses are usually pretty good, although some can feel a bit lackluster and basic. Don't expect super in-depth courses, but they're good for an introduction to a subject, or to top up your skills in somethign you haven't done in a while. These offer free certificates of participation, so they're great if, say, you want a career change but you haven't studied data science since college. I enjoyed the classes I took, but I wouldn't say they were as challenging as EdX.

I recently took this OpenLearn course about Hadrian's Rome. Classical history is something I'm interested in and this was a great way to guide my study of an aspect of it.

Coursera is a very popular one. Similar to OpenLearn, these courses can sometimes be a little surface-level. These also have a much larger focus on building transferrable skills than developing cultural knowledge and learning for your own enrichment. Even so, there are some wonderful gems on there if you're willing to scroll through and find them. Coursera is also great because it has project-centred courses, where you work towards a finished product under the (virtual, recorded) guidance of an expert. Think of it like a corporate skillshare.

Last summer I took this Coursera course about screenwriting. It was project based, and I came out of it with a fully realised first draft of a pilot episode of a TV show. I realised through this process that maybe screenwriting wasn't for me, but it allowed me to get out of my comfort zone with writing and explore that avenue that I would have probably always wodered about.

OpenCulture is a good database of free courses that then redirects you to other websites, but you have to be willing to sift through the sludge with this one, as some are more worth your time than others.

Another good way to find free courses is to search for them on university websites. I have found that most US universities (and loads of UK ones too, though it is less common) offer free online courses. You have to be careful here, because sometimes they will say they are free but actually the 'free' part is viewing the syllabus.

You might be thinking 'what is the point of a course that doesn't get me a qualification?' and I'd say 'I get you, because I felt the same way,' but if you're anything like me and love learning, they're a godsend. Of course, there is nothing stopping you from finding all of the course content online, and I'd actually encourage you to do that alongside the courses, but knowing where to start is the difficult part. There is so much information to learn about any given topic that it can be overwhelming. These courses provide you with a structure that you can then use within your own wider research to learn about subjects you maybe don't want to commit to in a formal setting.

I'm not paid by any of these websites, I just think the monetisation of knowledge is wrong and awful and disgusting and anyway to beat that should be celebrated and shared and used as widely as possible.

Uluki Brendan Murray - King of the Raven Tribe live at Mt Buffalo Feb 20...

Week 4, Humanities

But on the inside I'm like:

  There has been lots of speculation on the “price tag” of the US going into Syria. The first article claims that they have figured out the “price tag” of the war, however, the second article states that the cost of going into Syria cannot be estimated. Out of both of these articles, I find the second article (which states that estimating the war is not possible) more convincing not only because of the evidence it provides, but the sources seem to be significantly more reliable than the first article. The first article seems to contain a lot more bias than the second one because it contains a lot more opinion and its very one sided, as opposed to the second article which just states facts as opposed to opinion.

The first article, which is about the “Shocking Price Tag of American Intervention in Syria”, uses multiple forms of bias, whereas the second article doesn’t have any bias that I could see. The very first form of bias in the first article was in the title of the article. It uses the word “Shocking” to get a rise out of readers and to make them read the article. Right underneath the article title is another form of bias; a picture of a missile being launched in the air is a use of propaganda to influence the audience in reading the article and believing the information.

Bias in the form of word choice appeared again in the first paragraph of the article. The article was describing Obama and how he is handling the Syria situation “While President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry meagerly fumble with rhetoric about "red lines" and "boots on the ground," the American people are answering with a litany of reasons not to become militarily involved in the Syrian conflict.” the article describes Obama and the secretary as “meager” and that they are “fumbling” with the situation in Syria. Clearly, the author is trying to put down the president and the author is clearly stating her opinion and very evidently shows her opposition to Obamas strategies and opinions. The word choice speaks for itself.

In addition, the sources that the article uses are very shady and probably not reliable. Most of the facts in the article are from the same website which is apparently information from a Navy admiral who was giving out information. I clicked on the link to the source that the article and the source claimed It was the first time a senior U.S. military officer had openly spoke about the military weapons and their prices but it all seems very dodgy and unreliable. It doesn’t make sense why a current military officer would just give out information without having a valid reason. The source website didn’t have any other sources or a link to a video or official statement to prove that a military office announced this.

Also, the website included story framing, they claimed that “on the first day of the Libya air strike over 100 Tomahawk missiles were fired” and they used this statistic from a previous war to determine the approximate cost of the Syria war (should it happen). The article is using past prices from previous wars to determine the price of the war that might happen. However, it is close to impossible to count the cost of the missiles before they have even been fired. No one knows how the extent of this war is going to be or how many missiles will be needed. 

On the last paragraph, after discussing how expensive the war would be (should it happen) the website claims that the price of the war actually would not be “extraordinary”, because the estimated price is nothing compared to the actual trillions of dollars that were used previously in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. This opinion completely contradicts the rest of the article and the article title. It then changes the whole opinion and point of the article by also claiming that there is no point on going to war with Syria and its a mistake just like when the “this administration made the same mistake in Libya and, some would argue, resulted in the tragedy at Benghazi.” The author of this article is trying to discreetly put the blame on the US government saying that their decisions are not always the best by limiting debate. The person is trying to say that the US government goes to war for no reason at all and that they don’t think their actions through and that is highly opinionated. The article takes an even more twisted turn by stating “The American people are tired of footing the bill for needless U.S. interventions that ultimately cost the lives of the brave men and women who fight to defend this great nation.” This statement was completely out of the blue and had nothing to do with what the article in general was about. Maybe this person was trying to get a rise out of the American citizens who have relatives who are in the war and who are also suffering because of the high taxes by claiming this war (should it happen) is going to have a high price. This automatically makes people believe that their taxes are going to rise and their loved ones will have to go into battle if the war gets bad.

The second article on the other hand, had no bias at all, instead, it contained reliable information. This article provided evidence and fact, which developed to the conclusion that “We Can’t Estimate the Cost of Intervening in Syria” The Official Budget office cost estimate of the war (should it happen) was included in the article and it stated that the president is required “to submit to the Congress a strategy for negotiating a political settlement to the Syrian conflict” and the president “has not detailed how it would use the authority that would be provided by this resolution” so there is “no basis for estimation the costs of implementing S. J. Res. 21. (A joint resolution for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons)”. This basically means that the president has not specified on his attacking strategies or the weapons that will be required, which means that there cannot be an estimate of the cost of the war since the types of weapons and the amount haven’t been agreed and decided. This article only presents fact and states where all the sources came from. There are no speculations being presented. These two articles are at polar opposites.

I find the article with the most biased information interesting because the whole article is filled up with untrustworthy information and I can’t imagine writing anything with no basis of fact. The author should have at least tried to get reliable sources to back up the information because it would make it more believable. But, because this article used a website which supposedly had information about a military official (which didn’t have a source) for most of their information makes the whole article silly.

Its very clear that the first article is very conservative and strongly believes that Obamas decision aren’t right and he had made “Mistakes” which have resulted in more consequences and that he is “fumbling” with the situation in Syria, so the author isn’t too fond of Obamas decisions.

The second article doesn’t favor any political party or leader seems to be neutral because it doesn’t display any opinions whatsoever, just fact. There is a lot more quotes and facts than there are discussions of the subject. Its brief provides all the information and then its finished. There’s no additional drama.

   Braun, Aurelian. "The Shocking Price Tag Of American Intervention in Syria."PolicyMic. N.p., 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 15 Sept. 2013. <http://www.policymic.com/articles/63137/the-shocking-price-tag-of-american-intervention-in-syria>.

*Bell rings*

Us: *Begin to pack up*.

Mr. Jay: What are you doing?

Mr. Jay: Don't pack up.

Us: *stops*