Who defends everything, defends nothing

The big international news of the day is the investigation into the crash of Germanwings flight 4U 9525 into the French Alps this Tuesday past. Current evidence from the voice recorder and the profile of the flight supports the idea that the co-pilot locked the pilot out and then deliberately plowed the plane into the mountainside.  It is a reflection of our times that there is a fair bit said about the co-pilot’s religion or lack of it, and we all know what religion it is they’re tiptoeing around.

We may never know why this guy murdered everyone on board, but that’s life sometimes.  We have a whole bunch of murderous buggers whose intent is clearly announced to us, and there should not be a lot of debate about what we need to do about that.  Certainly debate about “how”, but nobody who can be bothered to know what is going on can honestly suggest that there is any other (useful) solution to these Da’esh etc. Salafists than a bullet in the head apiece.

And yet what have we in Canada’s House of Commons? (Legislative branch of Canada’s govt’t in case you didn’t know) There we see members of the opposition parties splitting hairs about whether Canada has “UN authorization” to bomb Da’esh targets over the now-notional Iraq/Syria border.

The Prime Minister has mocked them pretty effectively (says I; and they say Harper doesn’t have a sense of humour) but the mendacious and clueless tripe being spewed by Mulcair (who’s smart enough to know better) and Trudeau (who, well, doesn’t appear to be) won’t cut much ice with the general public.  Most people see enough of what’s happening over there to know that something has to be done about it.

The idea that this seems to be moving toward is a (cursory) examination of why we would intervene here as opposed to any number of other places.  One comment I saw was about how it must be oil since people are constantly being slaughtered in Africa and we don’t get involved there.  Yes, we get some oil from the general region, but we will not roll in there and pump the place dry due to our military action.  If everything was “about oil” we wouldn’t have an embargo against Iran, and in any event we could get by without ME oil.  If we did, however, the same people bleating here would be braying that we’re extracting our “dirty” oil sands (and building pipelines for it) to replace the light, cleaner stuff our east coast refineries get from Saudi and Algeria. 

As for Africa, there is plenty of stuff we’d like from Africa, far rarer than oil.  Economic motivations are insufficient for Canada to commit armed force; that much we just won’t do.  Millions of people are slaughtered in Africa (by other Africans), but they aren’t proclaiming a world-wide empire and declaring war on us (Boko Haram’s declaration for IS aside) so no, we don’t have pressing interest in their insoluble problems.

One reason, sufficient in itself I’d say, is that we simply can’t help out everywhere, but that doesn’t mean we should sit idly by and do nothing.  Rwanda should be enough evidence to the chattering classes that having the UN’s approval for being somewhere is not equivalent with doing what needs to be done; the opposite is more likely as far as I’m concerned.

We could do much more for the Kurds et al than we are, and our troops would think it worth doing.  This won’t happen, but a Battlegroup such as we had in Kandahar would make a massive difference in stabilizing that area.  We’d lose some people, but soldiers are paid for those sorts of risks, and in this case it’s not a lost cause (as opposed to Afghanistan), at least as long as you circumscribe the mission appropriately.  More of our boots (and tracks) on the ground would make short work of any IS forces who tried to come at us (or got in our way) while the nastiest city fighting could be left to the indigenous troops; it’s their fight at the end of the day.  This provides worthwhile and much appreciated support while not putting our troops and equipment through a meat grinder like Mosul or Tikrit.

We could probably do other things too.  We could help the French (more than we already have) in the Sahel, we could sort out South Sudan (maybe) or, my own pet project; a change of regime in Zimbabwe.  Bad things are happening to one degree or another in all of these places and many more, but intervention in any of them is neither easily practical nor sufficiently critical to our National Interest (remember that, anyone?) to justify us being there. 

So, where’s the line for intervention?  What are the criteria?  This is an art, not a science, so it’s not easy to quantify these things; what’s worth fighting for, more importantly what worth dying for, is extremely subjective.  In the case of Kurdistan, there are people there who a) want our help, b) need our help, and even more importantly c) will appreciate it.  I’ve said all of this before, but it’s worth saying again.  It occurs to me to put it into a rough equation for determining where we should help out (where L=locals):

 
[(LWant + LNeed + LAttitude + Probabillity of Mission Success) x National Interest] > [Risk + Expense] = Intervention  

 An algorithm/flow chart would do this better, but you get the idea.  Weighting of factors is fraught, but if I were to apply this to our post-2002 involvement in Afghanistan, it would not have passed, mainly due to the PoMS and NI factors being essentially nil.  If anyone with more math than me wants to refine this, go for it.  It won't change anything, but I think it visualizes the thought/risk analysis process pretty well.  I'd be interested to see a representation of the thought process of people who know what I know yet still think we shouldn't be helping in Iraq/Syria, especially in light of the assembled coalition.  Doubt I could make sense of it though. 

Bash some heads together or be chopped separately

This past weekend has seen an unprecedented series of public demonstrations in France as an outpouring of solidarity and “don’t-tread-on-me” in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.  World leaders (though notably no-one from the USA) lead the crowd, and the one in Paris was estimated at 2 million people, bigger than Liberation Day in WW2.  At the same time, the anti-Islamization marches in Germany continue, and may be gaining traction.  The latter is hard to be certain of, as the media is determined to tar all of these people as Nazis and supresses and distorts reports.  In these two events you see that Europe is approaching critical mass in terms of the threat of Islam to Western Civilization. 

The West has spent much time, blood and treasure of fighting amongst itself, but in the post WW2 period one could be excused (on casual reflection) of thinking that this internecine fighting is behind us.  I think that in the post-nationalism period the struggle has changed from being international to being a “civil war” in every Western country at the ideological level.  In other words, the West is wilfully destroying itself. 

Not all of it of course, but the self-loathing strain of “white guilt” progressivism is firmly entrenched in our university and media making it the default position of the latter.  The idea that anything done by white men is the worst thing ever seems to be the basis of it, and as such it encompasses everything from Marxists (the cultural variety) to radical feminists and many other sub-groups besides.  I run into this on a regular basis online, and have greatly curtailed my activities there (mostly to here) as these people are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they don’t even try to debate, just insult and belittle. 

How many of them are having second thoughts in the wake of the Paris attacks, and the ones before them in Ottawa and Sydney is anyone’s guess, but the hard core (who I estimate at c. 10% of the population) will cling to their “Écrasez l’infâme” attitude toward their own society no matter what.  They are, no matter what their actual proportion of the population, a minority and at some point, hopefully now or very soon, the majority who don’t feel like bowing down to these jihadis will accept that some heads need to be cracked to maintain what we have. 

Canada is overhauling its’ laws to deal more proactively with terrorist wannabes (we’re already arresting them) but France I’m sure already has what it needs to deal with them, including now the public and political will.  The EU overall needs to tighten up to track these guys (and girls) when they travel to Syria, etc. and either nab them before they go, or (better to my mind) let them go and revoke their passports as soon as they clear the EU.  Couple that with contributing military force to battle them wherever they went and we have most of a plan to manage this threat. 

People need to be (and are) arrested for supporting Salafist causes, and the net has to expand to Facebook etc. posts.  Post a message supporting Islamic State,  10 years in jail.  Conspire to support them, life.  Make it painful and you will weed out the lightweights, or at least muzzle them.  The intelligence services can track them (hopefully) when they go underground, and I’m sure (as much as I can be with no inside knowledge) that many a plot has been foiled already.   

Whatever laws are passed and whatever action is taken, it has to be balanced with not making life difficult for law-abiding citizens.  For routine investigation and enforcement this is very do-able, and the (let’s face it, pinprick) attacks those guys can make do not justify martial law.  That’s here; in France they have a much larger problem with extensive “no-go” areas in the banlieues of Paris and elsewhere, and  military reinforcements have been sent.  This is the tactical response required to the situation, and as long as the usual whiners shut up when the necessary “profiling” takes place and supporters are rolled up the problem is, as mentioned previously, manageable. 

Soluble?  No measures which would leave our societies recognizable as “free” could reduce the threat to zero, and even the alternatives (police/military state) aren’t 100% solutions.  “We” must decide that our way of life is worth defending and do so at all levels.  That will necessitate hating a bit less the society that allows you to publicly call for its’ downfall and (sometimes) replacement, if for no other reason than you’d rather not be lumped in with the jihadis who do the same.   You can and will be judged by the company you keep, even the virtual kind.   

It's not paranoia if they ARE out to get you

t has not escaped my notice that I am a minority viewpoint in today's society. This doesn't make me doubt myself or my views, as they are based on observation of the world as it is, not as I think it should be.

This it could be said is the difference between a conservative and other people, and indeed, this article makes that point:

Traditional conservatism, or what’s better called Toryism, is not about hiding from the scary outside world. It’s a worldview that, as A. J. P. Taylor described it, “rests on doubt in human nature; it distrusts improvement, clings to traditional institutions, prefers the past to the future.” Conservatism isn’t defined by gun-nuttery or rabid fundamentalism. It’s about prudence in the face of progressive utopianism and revolutionary fervor. When the conservative looks into the mirror, he sees a broken, fallible man capable of good, but never perfect, things. Liberals and government apparatchiks in the media don’t see him that way. Progressivism seeks to crush human nature and the idea that man isn’t meant for greatness. A progressive’s reflection never shows humility, only a hubristic belief in fixing all the world’s wrongs. For the left, right-wingers, including social conservatives, are ignorant troglodytes in need of forced enlightenment.

It continues to draw disturbing parallels between past purges of "undesirable" elements of society by various "progressive" regimes of the past and the thought-crime policing which is going on today, but you can read it there.

I'd like to say that I think the author is off his rocker/meds but I really can't. We're not at Reign of Terror level yet, but having unfashionable (but harmless) ideas can cost you your job, no small thing in today's economy. Of course this is a small price to pay for a better world, right?

The word utopia means literally "no place" since perfection cannot exist in human affairs. Make things better? Certainly better, but perfect? No. That is my troglodyteist conservativeness speaking of course, because after a certain point the quest for "equality" becomes a zero-sum game. More women in the workplace equals less men in it; not a misogynist rant, simple math. Should we hobble the potential of 50% of the population to maintain someone's advantage? I'd say no, take all the best and brightest. Well, then that disadvantages the dim and useless.

It's easy to see how equality of outcome is completely separate from equality of opportunity, as with true equality of opportunity the cream will rise to the top of whatever you're looking at. If you game the opportunity, making it "more equal" for some, it descends into farce with manifold unintended consequences. Quotas and "affirmative action" undermine any confidence in the products of a system, as you can never be sure of the quality of any member of the preferred groups. Were I a black neurosurgeon I would really resent this. Meritocracy is problematic for those who don't make the cut, but I bloody well want my doctors and engineers selected by that process.

Freedom of speech is if not dead at least gravely wounded, mainly because if you don't toe the line you'll be shouted down. Nobody debates any more as they are either too certain that they know everything or afraid to state their real views in public. None of this is new under the sun, and Voltaire would likely recognize the constraints of the current regime, having had his run-ins with l'ancien. That's progress for you.

Red is Red and Blue is Blue, and Never the Twain Shall Meet

News of the day-or-so is the Malaysian Airlines plane being shot down over Ukraine, but I'll wait for that to settle out a bit before I comment on it. For now, something completely different, certainly off my beaten path here.

The general scenario is Sarah Palin getting a job on "The View" television show. I despise The View as a coven (no offence to actual witches) of shrieking harpies; although that is a personal opinion, it is relevant to the situation.

To say that Sarah would be a minority viewpoint on that program is to understate things significantly, but the "minority report" is important to the credibility of any undertaking. The writer for The Daily Beast to whose article I have linked doesn't see it that way however.

1. Co-hosts Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg would crush her.

The View isn’t Fox News, where hosts fawn over Palin like she is dropping pearls of wisdom instead of inane comments.

It’s not going to work out that way on The View, because in past years, Rosie and Whoopi would frequently slam the conservative co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck’s right-wing politics. For example, there was the time Whoopi schooled Hasselbeck on the reason why women need to be the ultimate decision makers when it comes to their reproductive rights. The audience clearly sided with Whoopi, breaking out into thunderous applause as she finished her comment. Expect more of the same with Palin on the panel.

2. Palin’s daily dose of idiotic comments. Currently, we are stuck waiting for periodic appearances by Palin to make unintentionally hilarious remarks, like when she said Paul Revere “warned the British,” not the colonists. Or when she insisted that “We’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies.”

Listening to Sarah Palin talk about history is like watching an episode of the new Comedy Central show Drunk History. That show, based on a hit web series, features horribly inebriated people telling their versions of history. With Palin on The View, it will be like Drunk Historyfive days a week.

3. Sarah Palin’s views will be tempered or she’ll be fired. Here’s the most serious issue for Palin: She can’t play to both mainstream and probably not very political American housewives (The View audience) and the Tea Party wingnuts.

ABC’s parent company, Disney, is not going to let Palin be the Palin that most of us hate (or love.) Sure, Disney wants ratings because they equal profits. But I very much doubt that Disney will allow Palin—or any one person—to cause damage to its corporate image.

If her views are to be "tempered" (read: supressed, mocked, censored) why the hell would they bring her on? The answer is of course to use her as a punching bag for cheap points and laughs with the show's base just like Liz Hasselbeck before her, the token Christian conservative. The real mystery is why would Palin want to put herself in that position? Sarah is, bless her, not the sharpest knife in the block, but should have drawn to her some smart people as advisors by now. Her coming out with this idea calls that assumption into question, but whatever.

My point here is more on the ideological divide in public discourse shown very starkly by choice of language and personal vilification/mockery of those who don't conform. The linked article is relatively mild as these things go, but is still about as clever and subtle as a sledge hammer, 'though I'm certain the author would differ. Most likely he'd call me a bunch of names and tell me how ignorant I am while feeling smugly superior. I don't know this for a fact, but past experience with the broad "type" (determined by his treatment of his subject here) places a high level of confidence on that prediction.

Too much exposure to this sort of zealotry has soured me on online discussions, as it is impossible to keep things to the facts of a situation. Recently I called someone on a flippant remark completely at odds with reality, and the response was a constant barrage of assumptions about where I get my info from, words put in my mouth and complete dismissal of the possibility that I had any idea whatsoever what I was talking about. I consider myself sharper than Mrs. Palin. (she does have other redeeming qualities however) and the way I really displayed it there was that I walked away from a fight I could never win.

Here in my obscure corner of the internet I can say what I want, and I like it that way. I am happy to debate things with people who see things differently than I do, but the old concept of "agree to disagree" seems to be lost, so it's not worth it.  I know that I don’t know everything; it’d be nice for a whole lot of other people to realize the same thing but I’m not holding my breath.  Or ever watching “The View”, Sarah Palin or no Sarah Palin.

Working for the Clampdown

Being of a generally libertarian bent, I'm never keen on anything that gets in the way of people minding their own business. The corollary to that is of course that I am VERY much in favour of things which put a stick in the spokes of people who make life harder (or shorter) for people like me. This can mean anything from sclerotic bureaucracies and over-reaching police to professional victims who will grind things to a halt because they're not happy.

Enter the Great Mask Debate of 2012. Montreal, indeed much of Quebec, has been regularly disrupted by mobs of "students" bitching about their entitlements. There has also (finally!) been a lot of talk and maybe even some action about the masked idiots participating in these marches. There is still a lot of hand-wringing about what if anything to do about this, but as usual I have some ideas.

Concern #1: Civil liberties. No ban on hiding your face is an imposition on your right to free assembly for peaceable purposes. Things vary country to country, but in Canada we have rules for things that happen in public and there never was carte blanche to disturb the peace. There are laws (finally being enforced) that prevent you from camping in city parks etc. A whole lot of people have been breaking these laws, all of which are there to ensure that business and public life can carry on without undue imposition from mobs.

Concern #2: Enforcement. "You can't arrest everyone if they're all wearing a mask!" No, and it was impractical for a Roman Centurion to slaughter his entire command for cowardice, etc. too. The solution then, as now is Decimation. Taken literally it means "to take one in ten", e.g. kill every tenth man. There is no reason a less-lethal application couldn't set the example. I would apply this with a bit of "profiling" i.e. take preferentially the people who most looked like they were up to no good, but a smattering of "harmless" looking types should be collared as well so that people don't figure that bright colours or hippy, etc. clothes will give them a free pass.

Concern # 3: Violent reactions to #2 above. If you are concerned about the reactions of criminals to the enforcement of the law, you might as well disband the police and give the country over to violent anarchy. "Criminals?" you say? "Isn't that presumptive? These start as peaceful protests!" Well,  ignorance of the law is no excuse as they say, so here is some education for all those participating in a public assembly. This is from the Criminal Code of Canada, but wherever you live I pretty much guarantee you have something similar.

63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Marginal note: Lawful assembly becoming unlawful
(2) Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.

64. A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peacetumultuously.

Pretty neat eh? Check this next bit, this is the part you really need
to know.

65. Every one who takes part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 66.

Marginal note: Punishment for unlawful assembly 
66. Every one who is a member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Consequences, people, consequences; these students are supposedly bright types and may in fact know the above already. Likely they (or at least some of them) do, hence the desire to avoid said consequences by say, hiding their identity? Anyway in for a penny, in for a pound; I like these parts too so I'll keep rolling with the CCOC.

Reading proclamation
67. A person who is
(a) a justice, mayor or sheriff, or the lawful deputy of a mayor
or sheriff,
(b) a warden or deputy warden of a prison, or
(c) the institutional head of a penitentiary, as those
expressions are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or that person's deputy,who receives notice that, at any place within the jurisdiction of the person, twelve or more persons are unlawfully and riotously assembled together shall go to that place and, after approaching as near as is safe, if the person is satisfied that a riot is in progress, shall command silence and thereupon make or cause to be made in a loud voice a proclamation in the following words or to the like effect:
Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled
immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or
to their lawful business on the pain of being guilty of an offence for
which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

[This would be lots of fun in this exact form in Quebec right now...]

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 67;
1994, c. 44, s. 5.
Marginal note: Offences related to proclamation
68. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for life who
(a) opposes, hinders or assaults, wilfully and with force, a person who begins to make or is about to begin to make or is making the proclamation referred to in section 67 so that it is not made;
(b) does not peaceably disperse and depart from a place where the proclamation referred to in section 67 is made within thirty minutes after it is made; or
(c) does not depart from a place within thirty minutes when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the proclamation referred to in section 67 would have been made in that place if some person had not
opposed, hindered or assaulted, wilfully and with force, a person who would have made it.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 69.

"...liable for imprisonment for life..."! I don't see that happening but if you want to go out and "smash the state", capitalism, globalization, what-have-you, be very aware of the ice you're walking on. One final bit of the section worth noting for the authorities:

Neglect by peace officer
69. A peace officer who receives notice that there is a riot within his jurisdiction and, without reasonable excuse, fails to take all reasonable steps to suppress the riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Peace, Order and Good Government. That's what Canada is all about. We make no pretense in our Constitution of any "pursuit of happiness"; keeping the wheels on is what this country is all about from its' founding to present. This means that our public officials have a DUTY to do their jobs and keep the yobs off the streets even if that means making them (the yobs) unhappy. I suspect that once you slap fines on your average protestor for wearing a mask, only the hard core (who were going to be a problem anyway) will keep at it. Then comes the richly deserved head-cracking and  tear-gassing.

Making this work is in two parts: enforcement and moderation. The students in Quebec are losing what public support they may have had, so the time is ripe for a crackdown. I've used the phrase "pour encourager les autres" before, and taking enough of these protesters into custody (to be punished as appropriate) will gut the movement and restore order sooner rather than later.

It's possible to go too far (the "kettling" etc. in Toronto two years ago ) but despite the propaganda, another Tiananmen Square is simply not going to happen if a few dozen idiots get picked up and fined for wearing a mask. Random civilians will not be swept up for minding their own business, and that's one of my tests for a tolerable restriction on our behaviour.

Come see the stablity inherent to the system!

Yes, a Monty Python mis-quote, but this fool's deluded bit of political theatre will not accomplish her stated aim.

Though she was immediately fired from the sought-after position, Marcelle said she doesn't regret upstaging the government on its coming out day in Ottawa.

In fact, Marcelle, who is also a theatre performer, called on people across the country to stage Canada's own version of the "Arab Spring" and stand up to the recently-elected Conservative majority government.

"This is the only way we're going to see real change," Marcelle told CTV News Channel, as she conceded that Harper's majority government will hold parliamentary sway for the next four years.

I could in fact make a case for sedition and according criminal charges, but she got off lightly with being fired from her job. "Stand up" to the elected government? That was what the ELECTION was for you stupid bint. I am being particularly insulting to this person because of what she represents, which is the school of "the election gave the 'wrong' result, so it's invalid".

It's not quite anarchism or nihilism, but what it is is dangerous to civil society and the rule of law. There are plenty of people who don't like our "first past the post" election system, but there are two solutions for them:

1. go somewhere that has a system you like better, I won't get in your way, or;


2. elect a government that will do away with the system that got them elected (bon chance).

Promoting popular uprisings to bring down the government is the definition of sedition (OCD) and shilling these "Arab Spring" things to do so is both disloyal to the people who were paying her and shows a lack of any kind of sense. I have met these people in university and beyond, and it doesn't surprise me that they know nothing of the laws of the land and our principles of government. As a refresher, the Canadian government is founded on Peace, Order and Good Government.

Again that word "change". Beware idealists throwing that around. I want to know what exactly it is that you want to see, and if you won't tell me then you can't possibly be better than the status quo. Oh, here it is:

"I think that Harper's agenda is so damaging that it called for something that is different," she said. "I think we really need to take action."

A bit overblown at the very least. I don't see any internment camps, conscription, repealing of the Charter of Rights or anything that isn't merely reinforcing something we're already doing or removing something that the Liberals have decided we needed ((non-restricted gun registry, pour example). Keeping the economy at the top of the G8 is not "damaging" in my books, neither is paring back the bloated Public Service. Government must give good value for tax money, and live within those means. The more of that Stephen Harper's government accomplishes, the more it does what those of us (minority or not) who voted for them wanted them to do.

So have your protests within the law if you'd like to, but your chance to change the government was lost when everyone who wanted to "stop Harper" failed to unite on that principle. In standard bell curve fashion Left, Centre and Right each take up roughly 1/3 of the population; if 2/3 of the left-centre couldn't get together then, tough Twinkies until the next election. I only hope that this Marcelle is banned from Government employment for life; that would give her lots of time to plot the overthrow of the state, but at least I wouldn't be paying her for it.

On civilized debate

As an obviously opinionated guy I am no stranger to controversy. This does NOT however automatically mean that I am experienced/talented in debate; I'm not bad at it as it turns out, but having an opinion and being willing to debate it is not as common as a lot of people would like. You can count me in with those people. I will go old-school here and take the Oxford definition from an actual paper dictionary:

debate: discuss or dispute about (an issue, proposal, etc.) esp. formally in a legislative assembly, public meeting, etc.

Coming back to the 21ieme siecle, the Internet can be considered a "public meeting" for purposes of this definition, as this is as public as it gets. At least it would be if more than a handful of people (thank you, btw) actually read it. I have over the years continued to put a lot of shaky propositions up on this site in the nearly vain hope that people would take the bait and call me on it. I need the mental exercise which only comes from challenging what I believe to a death match with the wits of others, but that doesn't mean that I'm kidding about what I write.

Even more old fashioned, I was raised to back up what I say. This was always rare in the opinionated, but is vanishingly so these days and the schools don't help. I find this ironic due to the ready access to reams of information which (admittedly with many grains of salt and a lot of fact checking) puts debating gold at your fingertips. We are in fact overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information, and a valuable skill is the ability to limit your intake of it.

Boundaries need to be pushed to test them, something I do for fun as often as I can. As I get older I'm slowing down on this (been there, done that), but here's one rule I adhere to: I will always admit if I'm wrong. That sounds easy, and sometimes it it, but you will need to convince me that I am incorrect. There's another problem with many topics; convincing me to care enough to argue about it. People who take contrary positions to EVERYTHING are very annoying, so I try to be discriminating.

People have a lot invested in their view of the world, and you undermine that at your peril. Religious zealots are simply the most obvious; they have in many cases an entire lifetime of indoctrination in whatever it is and it's faith-based so there is really no point in debating religion. It can be dangerous too...

Secular beliefs are often structurally identical to religious ones and often as difficult to debunk. In theory there is no faith involved, but in practice there is a willing suspension of disbelief which is identical. I was going to get into a whole Left-Right thing, but I found that I don't have much interesting to say about that.

Last post's topic of getting along flows more naturally into this. There are times and places (and people) when you can "agree to disagree", and that is the key to civilized debate. This post at WUWT was the catalyst for my ramblings today and it hits that most critical of ingredients for civilized debate: self-selection of participants.

Just building "it" doesn't mean that "they" will come, (faith-based example) and in fact generally the worst reactionaries (of any stripe) will avoid an honest balanced debate like the plague. We like people who agree with us, but you don't learn and grow by preaching to the converted. People who want to convince, not bully, will engage in debate. Bullies will YELL and call you unpleasant things to distract from their inability to support their position on its' merits. In many cases that's their default position, even when they have an easy rhetorical target.

Much like what I proposed for the G8/20 meetings, if you want to keep out the great unwashed masses (e.g. the rabble described above) you need to control the venue, real or virtual. This will allow you to invite people, and if you're honest about it you'll invite your glibbest intellectual opponents. Stacking the deck in your favour only cheats you and your cause of legitimacy. So, the keys to civilized debate seem to be:

• Transparency, which equals a good reputation for those who display it;



• tread carefully on faith based beliefs;



• be enough of a threat to what "they" believe that "they" feel compelled to counter your argument (but not so compelled that they want you dead; see point above), and;



• control of the debating venue.

Again I welcome discussion of this, like everything else you'll find here. Lots of it can be better researched and presented, but as always this is what you get for free. I promise that if challenged I will always give back as good as I get, which will involve more than my usual cursory web searches and pulling things from the dusty corners of my brain. The latter is more fun and sufficient for the "jaw-jaw" part; if it starts getting serious references will start to appear as appropriate before it turns to "war-war". Look for that from any serious pundits, as well as how they talk about their opponents. Civility requires restraint, but doesn't need to be boring...