August 10, 2008
Master Cpl. Roberts and members of his battle group were engaged in an early morning firefight with the Taliban in a farming area south of an outpost off a main road running through the perilous Zhari district. A civilian convoy that was being escorted by the private security company passed along the road at the same time.
It is believed that the men guarding the convoy saw the Taliban, heard the shots and, not realizing it was a battle being waged between insurgents and coalition forces, fired into the fray. The Canadian troops on the ground suddenly realized they were being shot at from both directions.
In the confusion that ensued, Master Cpl. Roberts, who was riding in the turret of his armoured vehicle, was fatally wounded.
Update Monday; August 11, 2008: Nope. Compass Cowboys.
January 30, 2008
A two-week hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board ended with lawyers for the city and an activist defending a policy that protects most of the city’s larger woodlands against development. Under that policy, adopted by council in 2006, the city expects to declare as significant — and protect — about 96 per cent of woodlands that are at least four hectares. An older policy protected as little as 25 per cent of those woodlands.
But his argument and that of the city was challenged by lawyer Barry Card, who’s representing developers such as Farhi Holdings, Sifton Properties, Drewlo Holdings, Z-Group and a lobby group that represents the industry, the London Development Institute.Rather than make changes by amending the city’s official plan, a labour-intensive step that engages the public and experts, the city adopted a new policy, Card said.“It really amounts to a sell-out of the planning process,” he said.Under old rules, a woodland wasn’t significant unless it rated high in three of several categories that include size, composition, age and history. New rules require only a single high rating.“That takes 1,000 hectares (of woodlands) off the table,” Card said.
That takes 1000 hectares of trees off the protected state and allows them to be clearcut to build suburbs, driveways, roads and golf ball driving ranges. In an earlier story, Debate blooming again over London’s tree-protection policy from Wed, January 16, 2008 By PATRICK MALONEY, SUN MEDIA, Card said:
“It’s not about whether significant woodlands will be protected — but whether insignificant woodlands will be protected,” said lawyer Barry Card, who is representing a consortium of local developers at the hearing. “Developers like treed communities. What they don’t like is a change of the rules that’s arbitrary or ill-advised.”
I guess breathing is ill-advised. Developers like treed communities because the houses on the edge of the woodlot sell for more money. Funny. Seems people like trees. They like cars, and they like trees. From Trees In Trust;
An acre of trees absorb enough carbon dioxide in a year to equal the amount produced when you drive a car (41,000 km). (North Carolina State University Trees of Strength).
Now get out a calculator.
if 1000 hectares = 2471.05381 acres
then 1 acre = .40468564224 hectare
1 acre can deal with the CO2 from 1 car driving 41,000 km so
the CO2 absorption per hectare would be… 41,000 x .40468 or 16,592.085 km
Let’s do some rounding:
CO2 per hectare: 16,500 -> 16000 -> 4
year avg mileage: 12,500 -> 12000 -> 3
So, 1.33 cars per hectare. 1000 hectares support the annual CO2 emissions from 130,000 cars, and London should have about twice that many vehicles.
Ask yourself then, is 1000 hectares an insignificant woodlot?
Mr. Card and this developer consortium argue that it’s good policy to cut out your lungs. Ironically, trees support urban sprawl. The more trees you have, the more CO2 from cars you can support.
December 12, 2007
At To Live Is Christ, Angela commits some of the most outrageous fuzzy-headed illiterate thinking I can imagine. It’s people like this who make me aghast at some of the thinking that passes for comparative religion, least of all from evangelical hard-core Christians. A single post like this is enough, in my mind to warrant removal of her Thinking Blogger Award.
Yoga began in the ancient civilization of India where Buddhism is ardently practiced. To understand yoga, one must understand a bit of Buddhism and its history.
This is simply wrong. Yoga predates Buddhism as a practice. You can study Yoga very deeply and need never touch any Buddhism. There are no Yogis, or Brahman, or God in Buddhism. Brahman is a Hindu concept. The Buddha repudiated Brahman and Atman.
The central theme of Buddhism is the mantra “Atman is Brahman”
Politely, this is bullshit. This has nothing to do with Buddhism. There is no Atman, there is no Brahman. And as to the site you recommend, I really don’t think you can read. The very first line of text on the page says, “One of the key concepts of Hinduism is the belief in an ultimate reality called Brahman which is the source of all living things in this universe.”
Considering Yoga’s inseparable tie with Buddhism, it is unwise for Christians to practice yoga.
Buddhism has no “inseparable tie” with Yoga. None. Nada, zip, zilch zero. Siddhartha Gautama studied many esoteric spiritual paths. Yes, Yoga was one of them, one of the many he abandoned before realizing the Middle Path which lead to his enlightenment.
I am asserting that it is impossible to separate yoga from Buddhism and it’s pantheistic beliefs.
Buddhism holds no panthiestic beliefs. Your argument is not with Buddhism. Yes, there are realms of Gods in the Buddhist cosmology, but they are irrelevant and distractions to Liberation.
Yoga is basically a tool that is used by Buddhist to unite with the Universal Soul (Bramhan).
Buddhists do not use Yoga as a tool to unite with anything. There is no Universal Soul, there is no Brahman, there is no individual soul – Anatman – there is nothing to unite with. You already are part of it, just get out of the way.
Make some proper arguments.