jdobbin

What twist? These are questions that environmentalists both Native and non-Native have been asking a lot, especially this month with what is happening in B.C. Who decides what an Native traditionalist is? Are they sort of like the Amish in regards to development? Are they anti-urbanization? Seriously. I'm curious to know.

Does this mean Christian Aboriginals with their different belief system are frowned on? Or Aboriginal scientists?

Does a Native ever lose his connection to the land?

It was your claim that Natives should govern land based on their connection to the land that raised my eyebrows. I couldn't help wondering how a Native company cutting down the forest is different than than a non-Native one.

http://ncseonline.org/nae/docs/rethinking.html Why are native Canadians any different from other human beings when it comes to the land and its stewardship? Wouldn't abolute power corrupt absolutely? And when does someone become Native? Are they born with it? Can they lose it through inter-marriage, by moving to the city, by speaking English or French instead of their historical language? You have natives to the north fighting to get a pipeline through, natives to the west looking to cut down old growth forest, natives to the east who want a commercial fishery despite a moratorium to replenish fish stocks, natives to the west who kill eagles for ceremonial usage and hide the remains and so on and so on. There was once a dream to make everyone egalitarian, to send them back to the land and to be one with nature. That dream was in Cambodia and millions of people died in the killing fields. I think it is best to try to avoid mythologizing certain aspects of the past and remember that humans are humans and while they might be capable of great things, they are also capable of terrible things.

New offensive begins. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14258758/

That's the question that Bush should be asked every day. Are we safer than September 11? If not, why not? Wasn't the mission to apprehend Osama bin Laden?

The Conservatives are the law when it comes to gun crimes. What are they doing about it?

More on the Pakistan connections to the terrorists. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14292854/

Another NATO soldier killed today by a suicide bomber. http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...han-attack.html

I wonder if the the terror threat will push those numbers up. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14301521/

Are you in New Brunswick? Who are your local candidates? Any good?

If it's close, she could be a spoiler. I just don't know how people are feeling in New Brunswick.

How about two men's problem? Robin Williams just went into rehab as well.

Cracks appearing in Israel on the war. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14290933/

I hadn't heard the recent connections to Saudi Arabia.

Here's the full paper: The Six Nations: A Neglected Aspect of Canadian Legal History I can stand in my neighbour's yard and declare it my sovereign territory...doesn't make it so... FTA Very interesting stuff. No wonder why negotiations take so long.

Many of the terrorist attacks are now being traced back to Pakistan. Afghanistan's security itself is threatened insurgents going back and forth across the border. Today's planned attack seems to have been orchestrated from Pakistan. What should be done about Pakistan's radicalism that hasn't been done already?

I don't know that it would that simple but you do make a point. Whatever President or Congress that got rid of those would be shot on sight.

If I recall, CSIS was the agency that was being looked to for the "terrorist" classification. Hezbollah existed under Mulroney as well. The multi-party security committee could have classfied the group as a terrorist organization. I have no idea why they didn't or why CSIS didnt press the case years ago.

I am particularly sensitive to how language is used. I apologize for that. I read and hear things literally, particularly if I don't know the person. We all have our sensitivities to things. The demeaning use of language or misuse of language is hard for me to get used to. Intolerant language seems to be all around us. I'm trying not to personalize things or to make them personal. I don't always succeed in either but I am trying.

Many Republicans have attacked these two Republicans this year for being admanantly against deficit spending. As far as Leiberman getting all of the Republican vote, it is just not likely. It will pick up again. All the publicity has been on the two Democrats.

I read what you said and do take it is an insult. I was making a point that freedom of expression is not the same thing as etiquette in writing. Exclamation points are useless if they punctuate every sentence. I have no idea why you even involved in this...at all. I have no problem listening to what someone says but I read it literally as I see it on the page. Exclamations sounds like screaming to me.

Actually, they want to kill other Muslims too. Bad Muslims.

Thanks FTA. Nice to have a lawyer about. Negotiation is where things are going to get done and threats, intimidation and standing around in a muddy field are just provocative.