Michael Hardner

You admit you're a warrior. You think you are at war with me. I just think that you're a curious fellow. That is all.

Only a warrior would say that.

Once again, posting an opinion doesn't constitute "pushing" it. Posting an opinion isn't tantamount to joining your boring little war.

I made a point and you came back at me with an insult. Do you have anything to say on this or just insults? I'll repeat: having a position on any issue does not make you part of the culture war. You are in the culture war so you see only partisans and enemies. Shady is not my enemy.

Isn't NATO ready now? How much hardware do they have left anyway?

Thank you for the thoughtful post. It made me consider things I had and thought of before.

Yeah.. answering that question doesn't mean that part of the culture war. I already explained to you that having a position doesn't mean you're part of the culture of war. And you haven't responded to that particular point either, to explain why it's wrong..

Exactly right. The political response is straight out of the playbook that appeals to people who believe that Hollywood crime scenes happen frequently, to the point that we need to have a conversation about it. We need to talk about boring things like the economy, unity and the environment. Except for the economic nationalism, none of that should raise anybody's blood. If it bores you then good, stay out of it.

No, because people wouldn't care.

I'm actually exploring how people on here think about it. Too often when you ask for reasons, or go deeper, people will just come on and state their opinion.

You answer your own question. Trump is postmodern and The Economist is modern, maybe positivist.

It's horrible.

Maybe we can't.

You can ask someone else that one. I can't say how they think. Maybe they think we're fools.

I guess I don't like using the term neutral because it sounds like someone doesn't have any opinion whatsoever.

This speaks to your subjective values, which I share. But the purpose Here is to find objective measures that could convince others.

Don't fret about that. Basically, I try, for the most part, to focus on a healthy public sphere which means good discussion. At the core, the problem is that various sides on important issues talk past each other. So on here I try to get people to mostly focus on whether something is happening, and whether mitigating human activity is in the realm of reality. That means when people say it's a conspiracy, that there are gross errors or incompetence on the science side... I try to find out where this came from. And indeed most of the time the problem is not with the science but how it's reported and or discussed. Let's continue on that other thread.

I started another thread about how to assess various mitigation approaches. The rest of your post is about things we talked about before.

What does neutral mean? I can say I'm glad that the allies won WW2 while decrying the bombing of Dresden.

Yes I fell victim to rant. Of course there are areas where things work well in public and nonprofit sectors and vice versa for the private sector. The media start looking at how to examine this culture more intelligently so that people know the difference.

If we have to, then we have to approach the skeptics on a political landscape. This is what I am discussing.

This is a major risk, maybe the major risk. That's why it would be key to tie contract renewal to financial performance while pointing Canadians to monitor what is going on. If course, this is what Canada Post is and nobody cares...

Sure but "jobs" isn't really a reason. The value provided is, but many aren't convinced of this value.

1. No, your model makes sense. I'm not sure what they're doing. It might be jobs that can't be contracted, like police or some such. 2. It would get rid of the cronies. You would have to convince Canadians to care about costs.

1. Please quote where I overestimated or estimated risk.