Hollus

Mabye Im reading into the name a little to much but, Jerry Sienfeld-Jew. Coincidence? Funny how he doesnt mention anything regarding the occupation of Palestine and the grizzly campaign of Isreali terror.

''If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United Stated in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize- very publicly and very sincerely- to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and the totured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce to every corner of the world that America's global military interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Isreal the it is no longer the 51st state of the union but- oddly enough- a foreign country. Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reperations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions and sanctions. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget in the United States is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated." -William Blum

Emerson move good for BC? More likely good for transnational forestry corps. Under his governence the Forest Revitalization Act has further consolidated forest industry into the biggest companies and deregulated the democratic process of land managent to the point where communities are locked out of any consultation between local municapalites and Forest companies. Not even allowed to hear whats being planned untill the chain-saws start cutting. Moreover, Emersons botched softwood deal with the US has allowed his friends to swallow up smaller local and national companies unable to compete in the wake of the dispute. But now that all those pesky homegrown companies have been swallowed up Im sure they'll work somthing out. Emerson should go back to being the CEO for Canfor if he's going to continue working for them. Emerson not at B.C.’s service

Can't wait to see Chicken Little run against Arnold for Govenor

The Power of Nightmares - Part I The Power of Nightmares Part II The Power of Nightmares - Part III Its three hours long alltogether, so get some popcorn and relax. sub-title should read of thread should read: "TV documentary claims that the perceived threat is a politically driven fantasy - and al-Qaida a dark illusion" but I guess i didnt fit.

You just know that 3 letter word is coming up next... It’s important in the US constitutional system that the final decision as to what information during wartime should be classified or not...should be made by newspaper editors rather than elected representatives of the people? Wow. No wonder these arrogant elitists are losing reader and viewership. Hmmm... I wonder why there would be an "out of control" leaking of classified information by government officials with access to the info. Maybe people inside intelegeince community trying to draw attention to the true nature of their governments war mongering? No, couldnt be. We should allow this unlawful admin to countinue classifying anything that may expose their 'war on terror' for what it really is. On the crack again huh Hollis? You cant even spell my name right you retard.

Sombodies gotta stand up for the bush admins. propaganda arm.

You just know that 3 letter word is coming up next... It’s important in the US constitutional system that the final decision as to what information during wartime should be classified or not...should be made by newspaper editors rather than elected representatives of the people? Wow. No wonder these arrogant elitists are losing reader and viewership. Hmmm... I wonder why there would be an "out of control" leaking of classified information by government officials with access to the info. Maybe people inside intelegeince community trying to draw attention to the true nature of their governments war mongering? No, couldnt be. We should allow this unlawful admin to countinue classifying anything that may expose their 'war on terror' for what it really is.

Gerry, Media=right wing? Fox is right-wing. NOTHING ELSE IS. CBC is way left biased, as is CNN (although to be fair, at least they allow Lou Dobbs to talk about the Mexican immigration problem). If the MSM were trully leftwing, the bush admin. would have been prosectuted for war crimes by now.

Crash was just an unbelievably great movie in my opinion. Glad to hear it won

I really disagree with the term occupation anyways, as the US isn't conducting political operations, just security. But none the less, I can see why the Iraqi's would be angery, at their Mosques everyday they hear hate speech inciting violence towards the Americans. Why wouldn't they believe it after awhile? My God Geoffrey, your further gone than I thought! There are none so blind as those you will not see.

I never suggested we were Geoffrey. I was referring to Jerry’s post, in which it sounded like he suggested that the problems we’ve been discussing in this thread are unimportant and that we should focus on fighting with muslims. Unless I miscomprehended his post, that’s just ludicrous. My rebuttal was intended to address what I perceive as a victim of war propaganda and fear mongering. I believe that the intention of the propaganda is to create the mindset which I took that post to represent. I also wanted to draw attention to the fact the western world- which includes Canada- has rightfully been viewed as colonial oppressors in the region. “Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years.”(you will have to scroll down to find the report for some reason.) I know that’s American foreign policy, not Canada’s, but I think it’s important to consider, being as we are in allegiance with America in a war on terrorists which arguably they created. Enough about that ridiculous interjection into our discussion about the growing problems in our relation to the earth. I hope you didn’t think I was referring to anything you and I were discussing. I did not label anything ‘war corporatism’ I was just drawing attention to its definition. Thank you for the book recommendation, I’ve already got it next on my list. I’ve checked it though its pretty damn thick; you read it in one sitting, what are you a speed reader? Can you actually comprehend reading that fast?.. If so I’m jealous. Regarding the disconnect between you and I, I don’t really know what to say. My perception of the dangerous path that we’re headed is all based on very real, very serious issues with the potential to cause irreversible damage to the planet. How else should I express my concern on this forum?

If I may borrow a line that I read one this board: “pull your head out of your ass. Get some air. Wipe off your head” You certainly seem to have taken the biscuit the ol’ war machine is hanging out: Don’t think about anything. Focus on the enemy. Its good against evil. Do you have any idea of the history of western influence in the middle east? To a large part of the world we are the terrorists, and we've been dolling out the terror around the world for most of the century. Try to take a step back and observe things as if you were completely neutral to the clash between these two societies. Do some research on the topic while trying to discern between the different groups who stand to benifit from it. Here are a few places to startThe Power of Nightmares part l You can watch the BBC three series documentary by Adam Curtis. Part ll Part lll War Corporatism-wiki to familiarize yourself the idea of war corporatism. The New Fascism A short video worth watching. Once you've done some more researh and cut through the war propaganda, it might be a good time to introduce yourself the 9/11 truth movement. [fixed power of nightmares link. dont even need to download it now, and you can watch all three parts]

I completely disagree with that. Epidemic disease began affecting human populations because of our domestication of animals and because of the interaction between people of different geographic origin. Hunter-Gatherer societies never experienced anything of the like until the first explorers from other continents arrived. Epidemic famine exists mostly because of our transition from hunter-gatherers to sedentary societies of farmers and the ability to transform land that naturally has .06% of edible bio-mass per acre into land that produces 90% edible biomass. Before this decisive event in our evolution took place, populations were limited to what was available from foraging; after the development of agriculture population densities per acre increased dramatically. When the agricultural system falters for whatever reason, the sedentary farming society has no means to support itself. Although war is often waged in the name of God, an analysis of war throughout history will yield they are the endeavors of conquest. Before sedentary societies conquested them, hunter-gatherers lived a rather egalitarian life devoid of the turf wars of expanding civilizations. Human constructs as the result of evolution.

He does not mention it in that article but he does in this one. He says: "Population growth is not sustainable; even if population growth occurs at the apparently slow rate of one percent per year the population will double every 70 years and the consequences will eventually become impossible. Growth of our already high consumption levels is not sustainable." Take a look through his articles at the lefthand side of his page. I think you'd really like him. He proposes 'quantitve growth'

Here is one Albertan munical councillor who understands the growing problem of urban sprawl.

geoffre said:“I personally think these goals can be reached within the capitalist system. However much I value the environment as a critical priority, I can't justify making people starve, sit in the cold or lose their job for needless environmental controls (like Kyoto).” I don’t disagree with this statement. I think where our viewpoints diverge is on what form of a capitalist system we endorse. I’m sure you have a better understanding of the intricacies of economics than I, as that is your area of study. My understanding of the topic has been shaped mostly from direct relation to pulp and paper industry, upon which my hometown of twenty years was built; as well as a healthy dose of left and right propaganda. My basic idea is this: Markets are a human construct but they are the result of human action, not human design. Markets emerge as an unintended consequence of the pursuit of self-interest. Therefore, markets are created by consumers who choose between competing alternatives. This competition drives innovation and technology as market competitors strive to be the best. All capital is initially derived from natural resources; labor adds value in the process of production; consumers facilitate the process by providing a market. This is the inevitable process by which modern human societies,(from earliest trade to space age) interact as individuals and groups within a society and as a species with their environment. The cause is the driving force of self interest; and, the effect is the unavoidable markets and institutions that result. The field of economics has grown out of the observation and management of this process to include a wide range of theories and practices, all of which have determining effects on societal structure and ecological impact. As I understand, the difference between the varying ideologies, differ to the point of how much intervention is used in managing supply and demand, and by what techniques are used in the distribution of wealth. At one extreme you have a government controlled economy at the other you have an economy controlled by those who own capital. Between these two extremes, lay the fertile ground in which a healthy democracy may be built. As democracy depends upon the art of compromise, its success is dependent on its actors’ ability to represent their best interests. It is in this ability to represent ones interest that I find the inequities that contributes to miss-management by our current democratic system. Alex Carey wrote: “The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance, the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.” In the US alone, more than a trillion dollars is spent each year in a conscious campaign, referred to as ‘marketing’. The goal is to teach you to be a docile employee and an isolated consumer, motivated by a social status based on material consumption. In a recent protest of bc government plans for a new freeway through pristine wilderness to facilitate the 2010 Olympics, the council of west Vancouver approved funds for a PR contractor to guide the community on how to garner the most public attention to their cause(a less damaging option). The freeway planners cried foul play, as if it was unfair for a protest group to be allotted the means to equal representation. Was it foul play, or is it just leveling the playing field in the arena of free speech? The corporate world as we know it depends on coerciveness. Noam Chomsky argues that: “The wealthy use free-market rhetoric to justify imposing greater economic risk upon the lower classes, while being insulated from the rigors of the market by the political and economic advantages that such wealth affords.” Is our current systems design, not socialism for the rich as Noam remarked: "Markets for the poor and state protection for the rich." Geoffrey: You don’t believe in “making people starve, sit in the cold or lose their job for needless environmental controls (like Kyoto).”, well neither do I. However, millions of people are starving and homeless as a result of our trickle down economics. The resource derived capital that we live so comfortably on in north America comes from around the world. We capitalize on the desperation of those without the means of developing their own resources. The argument that these countries are to blame for their own miss management is a fallacy when you consider the political meddling we exercise by pacifying regions for corporate interest, of which there are many examples. One such example would be the exile of President Aristide out of Haiti: By providing weapons and political support to rebel factions through the guise of the International Republican Institute, the US(with the help of Canada and France) dethroned the socialist leaders government- which had been elected by an overwhelming majority- for corporate interest(more specifically mining). I don’t believe that the transition to a more responsible egalitarian society has to be so drastic as to displace the lower and middle classes from what little they already have in comparison to those that control them. We just need to rethink our actions and developments as individuals and nations. Sure there will be concessions and compremise, but I imagine it would be much less drastic than those we will face when we collide with that brick wall Suzuki is talking about.

What a ridiculous statement. Actually I am quite the environmentalist, so you would know if you read more of my posts by jumping to such a conclusion. Determining someone's outlook based on religion is outright bigotry. I'd rather wish you would stop with type of needless dscrimination. Thanks. Changing the definition of economic growth won't save anything, sorry. If theres money to be made, people are going to make it. Work with the business people to save the environment, not against them. Geoffrey: I cant believe you consider yourself an environmentalists! I have read many of your posts:playing in the rockies and depending on industry to reform itself does not make you an environmentalist, or even environmentaly concious. If you are 'quite the environmentalist' as you say, than why dont you make a few posts to address environmental concern, rather than being one of the loudist voices on the board defending industry and economic growth based on population growth and consumption? You say: "These attitudes from so called environmentalists are from those so privledged that they don't understand that their goals would crush not only the working poor but the middle class as well." What goals are you talking about? Sustainable development? good environmental stewardship? The pursuit of a better economic system? You said:" Determining someone's outlook based on religion is outright bigotry. I'd rather wish you would stop with type of needless dscrimination. Thanks." Does that only apply to descrimination towards your religion? Or is it alright to lump a bunch of opposing views into the term "so called environmentalists" and discredit them for being privilaged and ignorant without any explanations of why they're goals would:"create a larger rich-poor divide, with the rich able to buy all the new regulated high priced equipment and fuels, and the less well off unable to function in society anymore." Isnt that the direction we're currently headed? By the way, organized religion is mind control. Spirituality is fine, but group ideology is a very dangerous path to go down.

Does our lack of understanding regarding the effects human activity have on the planet justify continued growth and increased resource exploitation? In a related thread Thomas Malthus was used as an example why dissident views on population are miss-concerted. I would expect views such as Malthus’ to draw criticism in the early 19th century, when our resource exploitation was limited to what our relatively simple technology would allow. But here in the 21rst century, what used to take a workforce months to accomplish, can now be achieved by one person and one machine in a matter of days. Industry technology has been developed for the sole purpose of increasing production and efficiency(1). Coupled with an ever-growing population, our ability to transform landscapes and habitat continues to grow at an unprecedented rate. I think its quite obvious human activity is having a dramatic effect on the planets natural course of evolution. Pollutants are being produced at a higher rate than the earths ability to disperse them. Dioxins and furans are stock pilling in the artic. Leachate in our soil and ground water etc. The problems we face as a species are fast-paced and complex. Given that our scientific observation of the environment is still in its relative infancy, it is difficult to negate through all the causes of our changing environment. However, I believe we have enough indicators for common sense to suggest that we are the cause of these changes and that out continuance will lead to irreversible changes, culminating in the decline of civilization as we know it. 1: With exception to those made to appease profit damaging public relations.

I have worked in oil and gas also. The policies towards direct effects on the environment may be relatively effective; but the indirect effects from the roads, right of ways, leases and over-all development of an area are substantial. Development in pristine areas like Alaskan Wildlife Refuge mark the begining of decline of the areas biodiversity, which has a chain reaction effect on related ecosystems. I dont know if youve ever flown over large oil fields, or seen satilite pics of them, but the expanse of the operations are nothing to scoff at.

"Power today, resides in control of the means of production, exchange, publicity, transportation and communication. Whoever owns them rules the life of the country, even if democratic forms remain. Business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda, that is the system of actual power, the source of coercion and control, and until it's unravelled we can't talk seriously about democracy and freedom."-John Dewey

Why? Does it require police to warn public if a gun owner is moving into the nieghborhood?

Hollus........ Please explain the theory behind the above. How does the registry get you closer to the murderer? Remember the registry of handguns has been around since 1934 and has NEVER in its entire history been used to solve a crime. Here is an idea....... REGISTER CRIMINALS!! Do you realize that as a gun owner if I do not tell the police I have moved within 30 days.............I GET CHARGED!! Meanwhile a convicted rapist........is free to move about the country with abandon!! That is just not right! I must admit I’m not too familiar with the specifics proposed. That does sound unjust. My theory behind the idea stems from American justice show or one of those: The detectives had a body with some bullets in it, and they eventually came across a gun that matched the bullets. Then the detectives searched the country for pawn shops to see if this gun had ever been bought and by whom. The search led them to a man who remembered buying the gun from the pawn shop but had lost it. The detectives worked with the man on remembering where he;d last seen it, and that led them to the man that committed the crime. Why couldn’t a registered list of gun owners serve the same purpose?

Ya, Im not against responsible gun ownership, but why does it have to be so much trouble to manage a list of registered gun owners? I can’t see how it could suck that much money up. Do you really think it’s useless? Detectives have solved murders from using pawn shop records; the registry would be another avenue to lead them closer to the perpetrator of a murder weapon.

What I have heard is that the registry was undermined by opposition who deliberately sabotaged progress as a political tactic to cause it to go over budget and kill it. I don’t think the registry is the one solution we need, but if we could have implemented it without all the costly resistance it would have been a useful tool.