betsy

I googled Eric Pianka...never heard of him actually til you mentioned him. I got two link here...one from his own website...and a feedback from one of those who'd read about him. WHAT NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR, BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW Eric R. Pianka I have two grandchildren and I want them to inherit a stable Earth. But I fear for them. Humans have overpopulated the Earth and in the process have created an ideal nutritional substrate on which bacteria and viruses (microbes) will grow and prosper. We are behaving like bacteria growing on an agar plate, flourishing until natural limits are reached or until another microbe colonizes and takes over, using them as their resource. In addition to our extremely high population density, we are social and mobile, exactly the conditions that favor growth and spread of pathogenic (disease-causing) microbes. I believe it is only a matter of time until microbes once again assert control over our population, since we are unwilling to control it ourselves. This idea has been espoused by ecologists for at least four decades and is nothing new. People just don't want to hear it. http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html ------------------------------ April 2, 2006 ERIC PIANKA: THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY NEEDS TO INTERVIEW YOU I blogged yesterday about UTAustin professor Eric Pianka (aka “Dr. Doom”) and his advocacy of killing 90% of the world’s human population with airborne Ebola. Could Pianka be charged with terrorism/conspiracy to commit a terrorist act? What happens if a student actually takes his suggestion to heart and kills a bunch of people? Why shouldn’t we think that Dr. Doom himself would commit the act of human destruction he is advocating? How is what he is saying any different from somebody at an airport saying that he plans to plant a bomb there. Note: This is not a matter of saying he actually has planted a bomb but saying that he plans to plant one — that surely would be enough in the current climate to get him arrested. So what about Pianka? At what point do his remarks advocating human destruction constitute a terrorist threat that get him arrested? And if not arrested, how about committed? As soon as this is posted, I’m going to have a chat with the Department of Homeland Security. [Called them — They are aware of it; it will be interesting to see if they do anything about it.] For your information, I’ve posted an article below by a reporter who was there at Pianka’s remarks (AP refused to pick up the story, so the page is presently overloaded). http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/984

90%..... You have no good way right now, but what happens if we have a public convinced, and panicked to the point of fanaticism over this theory of Pianka...don't you think "good ways" for the "good of the world" will be found? So whom should we eliminate? Do we start with those whom we don't count as productive...those whom we find to be "liabilities" and "burdens" of mankind? The mentally/physically retarded...the handicapped, the elderlies....children with any genetic defects, etc. Then we target nations. Big, rich, powerful countires pow-wow together to decide which countires to let go adrift on their own? Or worse. I don't know, Quinton. But given the choice of supporting the stark hidden implication on what Pianka is saying (reminds me of Soylent Green or any horror-driven sci-fi)...I'd rather see the whole world die off on its own. I cannot say "let nature takes its course"...since nature has no firm grasp on this anymore. So let mankind face its own consequence....let it reap its own just reward.

Why do you doubt it? Without western intervention, they do their own cleansing. And those who survive the cleansing, or who materialize as the dominant tribe...well, diseases and AIDS...and starvation will cull the rest. Of course their wild-life will go first. Can you please explain why that is not a possibility...without any intervention whatsoever from other nations?

No need to. Looking for a quick fix without lifting a finger? Just let some nations be (like Africa)...they'd either do themselves in and with the help of various plagues and diseases, not to mention starvation...they'll be extinct. But what an awful thought.

Perhaps this is the price of progress. We've tampered with nature in more ways than one....usual natural elimination process does not do such an effective job anymore faced with the marvel of medical science.

Btw, we went on a 4 pm screening Saturday and noticed that among 50 or so people in the theatre, majority were middle-aged or older. I don't know if having that age-group as the core movie-goers say or mean anything (other than we all want an early night )....and then again, there's a game going on at the Corel.

I saw it and highly recommend it! Not only did it depict the action in the plane...but it also showed those air-traffic controller and behind-the-scenes scenarios as the morning unfolded. My God, 4,200 planes in the air that fateful day....just imagine how really catastrophic it would've been if there were not only 4 hijacked planes....but 20 or more??? And with the military unprepared for such an event??? The thing I liked about it too is that it's not politicized. And no popular actors to detract from the movie. Acting was really good!

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion....but that still does not make it definite.

Just in case anyone's interested with this: "Murtha's Views on the 2003 Iraq war Murtha voted for the October 10, 2002 resolution that authorized the use of force against Iraq. However, he later began expressing doubts about the war. On March 17, 2004, when Republicans offered a "War in Iraq Anniversary Resolution" that "affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq," Murtha called for a recorded vote and then voted against it. Still, in early 2005 Murtha argued against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. "A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance," he stated [2]. In May 2005, he said that the problems that the military had in Iraq were due to a "lack of planning" by Pentagon chiefs and "the direction has got to be changed or it is unwinnable." On November 17, 2005, he created a firestorm when he called for the immediate redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq, [3] saying, "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home." Murtha later characterized what he was calling for as "redeployment" rather than "withdrawal," noting that he supported the establishment of an "over-the-horizon" presence of Marines within the region. He has also said that terrorists want an American military presence in Iraq. "I think they’re trying to get this administration to stay. I think they want us there. Because we have united the Iraqis against us. We’re spending all this money and diverting our resources away from the war on terrorism because we’re involved in a civil war in Iraq," says Murtha. Notwithstanding Murtha's actual resolution, however, his own website's press release for November 17th, 2005, included a call "To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces." And during his press conference announcing the resolution, Rep. Murtha said: The United States will immediately redeploy — immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that’s controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target. Thus, a good argument can be made either way about the similarity of the Republican resolution and the resolution proposed by Rep. Murtha." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha

According to journalist Fife last Tursday, this is the same deal that the Liberals had gotten but decided to sit on it till after the election. According to Conservative Kenny, the Liberals had settled for $3.5 billion in their negotiation....which now the Conservative had improved with half a billion more!

So far it's been having good reviews yesterday on CTV Newsnet. Part of the proceeds will go to the Flight 93 Memorial Fund. United 93 By Kirk Honeycutt Bottom line: Unflinching account of the terror aboard the fourth hijacked plane on Sept. 11 provokes deep, disturbing emotions. "Press notes for motion pictures are usually filled with dispensable, self-congratulatory puffery, but the one for the soul-searing film "United 93" contains this trenchant comment from its English writer-director, Paul Greengrass: Speaking of the 40 individuals aboard United Airlines Flight 93, the fourth hijacked plane on that day of infamy, Sept. 11, 2001, he notes that these were the only passengers and crew members on any of those ill-fated flights who knew about the other planes having been used as weapons and realized what was happening to them. "They were the first people to inhabit the post-9/11 world," Greengrass says. These were the first to react to the worldwide conflict we find ourselves in today. Within the microcosm of that reaction, Greengrass has made an emphatic political document, a movie about defiance against tyranny and terrorism. In years to come, United 93 may enter our mythology in ways unimaginable. But for now, we have a starting point. "United 93" is a sincere attempt to pull together the known facts and guesses at the emotional truths as best anyone can. Then, in the movie's final moments, the impact of the heroism aboard United 93 becomes startlingly clear." http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/revie...t_id=1002383139 I'm planning to see it today....

Update: Mike Duffy himself stated a "veiled threat" on Harper yesterday. Believe it or not, he's really fuming over the banning of the Press Gallery from some parts of the Hill. I think he's taking it personally. He mentioned something about ..."..after 27 years of doing it..." (was he referring to himself?) He and Jane Taber and the guy from Globe and Mail were talking about Harper's attitude. MDuffy mentioned about this "arrogance"...and that if Harper keeps pushing at the media, "we'll push back." Jane Taber was surprisingly tamed as MDuffy obviously tried to stir up emotions in the hopes of eliciting echoing sentiments from both journalists. Although both agreed about the "attitude"....both also grudgingly stated that the attitude seems to be aworking well with the public. The Globe and Mail guy stated finally, "It's obviously working. He is soaring."

Oh, very clever. That question mark totally gets you off the hook. Well, it is a question I'm asking. Further more I also explained I could not think of any apt title at the moment. So it's not a question of "getting off the hook." It's a matter of being plain and simple. I'm telling you, excessive use of that Liberal tin cap have negative side-effects.

But how do you know? You're making a very stiff definite claim where there's no room to consider other possibilities. A claim such as that should be backed by endless decades of research studies! The kind of research that follows every person from childhood to adulthood...coming from all walks of life and various environment, ranging from all significant experiences and attachments, etc..., including extensively researched medical findings. Only when every research is exhausted can one make a definite claim that NO ONE can change their orientation.

What was probably more the case was that they finally found an environment where they could let their own "inner divas" come out. *LOL I can assure you, no dance teacher can suddenly make otherwise straight-acting men into a bunch of nellies. Now don't laugh about this, okay? I saw a segment of People's Court where-in the defendant was accused....and he admitted to pretending to be gay! The reason? Women feels more comfy around gays...so he can get close to them. The plaintiff (woman) was completely fooled by him. It's also possible about what you said them finding an environment to have them inner nellies come marching out. But who knows....a lot of reasons can be cited. Those two confused fellas I mentioned also belonged to this troupe...where I've met them. The marriage and the switching back (and forth) happened after we've all graduated and moved on. I do also believe that young boys/girls growing up can be exploited as to make them so confused of their sexualities....that they carry through to adulthood.

I agree. The automatic quick-reflex response is through emotions. Which is being expertly manipulated and played with. The way the media and the spokespeople for the opposition parties sensationalize and deliberately twist it around to make it sounding bad and "un-feeling" of the government to ignore the pleas of a parent who had given up and lost a son surely strikes a cord. But if one really sits down and reflect on the facts...it's blatant who's the "un-feeling" and irresponsible cad bent on exploitation!

I don't understand the sick fetish you have for sweeping generalizations about "the Left." NDP + Liberal + their supporting media + their avid supporting public = the left! Btw, you'd be happy to know that according to polls, family-privacy-and -dignified-grief-be-damned, 66% supports the media should've been allowed to besiege and exploit the home-coming of the slain soldiers in Trenton. That figure must comprise the combined figures of NDP and Liberals who did not belong to Harper's 41% popularity figure.

Isn't that why you want to see United 93? Please go back to that topic again, and read...carefully. Obviously you've missed my point about United 93. And this time, don't forget to remove that Liberal tin cap when you read....and please, switch off that Liberal selective-hearing/reading/understanding device....or you'll never get the point.

I do believe though that there are also those who are not really gays. It can be acquired through association...and for people who falls under this category, I assume that you can as easily drop it too. The gays that you've encountered were most probably not really gays.... In that university I belonged to a dance troupe. Our choreographer/teacher was openly gay...and majority of the main male cast in this troupe were gays. New dancers regularly joined the troupe for it was a way of avoiding a not so popular project imposed by the government. We've noticed that men who joined and regularly hanged around with the choreographer and other gay dancers eventually ended up developing feminine traits and gay mannerisms after a few months or so....and that includes going through the motion of swooning over a male that got their attention! We even openly joked about it: the dance troupe is a gay-maker! They come in straight...they walk out gay. I should add that during that time, it was "cool" to hang out with gays....and more "cool" to learn and use their lingo.

I've got two friends in university who were gay. One was really blatantly and flamboyantly gay (he loved getting attention too)...while the other was open about it, feminine in his mannerismsbut more reserved compared to the other. The reserved one surprised us all when he suddenly got married to a woman (whom we also know). He dropped all gay mannerisms and acted and sounded like a real man. However, after a few years, I heard that he went back to being gay again. The flamboyant one (the last time I heard) was suddenly macho. I don't know if REAL gays can really change. I think with these two, they seem confused....and fighting it, or tried to.

I would like to stress that I do understand and also agree that some cases, people do need counselling. It's just that it seems that everyone is given this now. It makes me wonder if this is a created "need" so as to make the business of counselling lucrative.

This topic is not meant to lecture you. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if everyone end up relying on counselling for just about every traumas they face...aren't we rendering our own natural mechanism obsolete? The comparison I could think of would be as that of a child who cries everytime he falls down. If someone keeps running to him to pick him up and"soothe" him, he ends up expecting and relying on these soothings each and everytime he falls. Whereas he learns to pick himself up and resumes play if no one comes running to him.

But what do you think about the need for counselling for someone not even related to whoever dies? Shouldn't we let the natural skills that nature had provided us to kick in naturally?

The sort of character that would call people suffering from grief and post-traumatic stress "weaklings?" I did not call anyone weaklings. If you'll notice, there's a question mark after my title.

I cannot think of any apt title for this topic, but I have an idea what I wish to say. It is how we, as a society, handle the realities of life. And passing it on to our future generation. One big thing for me is how we handle death. I had always thought that we have this built-in defense mechanism that kicks in automatically when we're faced with death of a loved one. I've always thought that grief and obstacles help build character. I thought counselling is for those who have a hard time dealing and getting over the death of a loved one. Those who find it hard to cope. Those caught trapped in the web of despair. But now, just about everyone who comes anywhere near any death...be it that of a neighbor...or a schoolmate...need to be given "counselling." I wouldn't be surprised to know that soldiers undergo this "counselling" too, given that this sudden need seemed to be the brainchild of a liberal thinking. What is this counselling for? Aren't we going overboard with this?