Shared-Vision -

July 2008

admin — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:50:33 -0500

Sub-Title

Author

Content

Thanks for Sharing

Dear Ms. Barker (“Lost That Lovin’ Feelin’?”, June, p. 27)
I read your article today, with some considerable interest. You see, it’s been something like... six months? longer? since our sex life tapered off. Circumstances for us are rather different, however. You see, we just had a baby. I am truly hoping that sheer horniness will return when the little guy starts sleeping longer at night. After all, he will be wanting a little sister one of these days. Inspired by your story, I am sending SharedVision a haiku that falls in with your theme. It’s called “Haiku for Solitary Pleasures”:

Extreme horniness
Deeply peaceful vibration
Mug falls off table

I shall think of your wonderful story every time I re-read it.

—Russell Collier, Quick, B.C.

The Right Light?

I recently heard that CFLs are a huge source of electromagnetic radiation and are a potential health hazard in this regard. There was no mention of this in the article on CFLs in your May issue (“Blinded by the Light?”). I would think this is important and warrants some investigation.

—Carl Katz, Vancouver

Ground Control to Spaceship Earth…

What would, in my opinion, add to B.C.’s green efforts (Organic Dirt, May) would be wind turbines lined up along our coastline, creating electricity from the wind’s own energy. Our government should, besides complying with the Kyoto Protocol, actually reflect the necessities and requirements of our environment—e.g. the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the electricity we consume—and not big industry’s interests. How much more will it take for us to seriously acknowledge, and take action on that acknowledgement: that spaceship Earth’s life-sustaining environment will tolerate only so much more human-based abuse? Really, all governments should consider the following pertinent question: what good is creating or preserving jobs (e.g. when developing lands, pristine or not) when people are sick, dying, or already dead because of environmental degradation?

—Frank G. Sterle, Jr., White Rock

No Problem at All

Thank you so much for the article you put out on me in your May issue (“A Fashion Grad’s Final Project,”). It was probably one of the most exciting moments of my life since my mother and father both read your magazine and they were both so proud. The article was short and sweet and embodied my line and personality. Again, thank you for this opportunity.

—Araceli Ogrinc, Vancouver

Galled? Gratified? E-mail letters@shared-vision.com.

Header Icon

ReadersLetters

April 2008

admin — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:41:05 -0500

Sub-Title

Author

Content

How Did That Sneak in There?

I read with great interest the article by Melissa Breyer on plastics (“Attack of the Killer Plastics,” March). However, I am questioning how well this information was researched. At the end of the article was a list of non-plastic alternatives, one of which was the Wrap-N-Mat machine-washable sandwich wrappers.

This seemed like a great idea, but after going to their website, I discovered the Wrap-N-Mat is lined with PVC, which is then wrapped around the food. PVC is one of the plastic items that is believed to leach the most chemicals, and according to the article, is called “the toxic plastic.” Is this really a “safe” alternative, even though it would reduce plastic waste?
—L. Vance, via e-mail

Desperately Seeking Atypical Male

I wanted to comment on the February essay by Rebecca Ephraim, “Couples’ Retreats and Root Canals”. Ms. Ephraim is to be applauded. Getting her significant other to attend a couples’ workshop is a feat in itself. It shows commitment by both individuals to a third entity: The Relationship.

As a young, fairly urban, single female, I have found the largesse of supposed male “sensitivity” in this century to be a bunch of horse crap. The stereotypical male is still alive and well even in our time of evolved consciousness. I say this without bitterness. It is primarily experiential that I am able to state that typically “male” men are making me sick! I wonder what form of nurture-ment goes into creating a guy who is looking for another mother, who is scared of commitment, who is not afraid of using the “love” word freely without any foundation in the true meaning, whose ability to make love and be sensitive to the needs of his partner seem secondary, etc.

I would like to know where Ms. Ephraim found the beacon for her partner’s “emotional spelunking.” I cannot even find a guy with fresh batteries in his flashlight!

Keep up the good work!
—Courtney Schlesinger, Chicago

Shuck Oysters, Not Cows

I have enjoyed reading SharedVISION for 20 years. I would like to offer some feedback regarding an article on vegetarianism in the February issue (“Confessions of a Meat-Eating Vegetarian,”). The article cites grass-fed beef as the best source of B12 and iron. While grass-fed beef is a good source of these nutrients, the food highest in B12 and iron is shellfish, namely clams and oysters.

Clams and oysters have up to 10 times as much iron and B12 as beef, and much less cholesterol and saturated fats. In addition, clams and oysters have a wide range of other essential nutrients and vitamins that grass-fed beef does not offer, including omega-3 fatty acids, calcium, zinc, magnesium, and iodine.

You can support the local economy, and a greener environment, by choosing shellfish rather than beef. Even if it is grass-fed, eating a cow still leaves a larger footprint than shellfish.

—Mei Leung, Burnaby

Header Icon

ReadersLetters

March 2008

admin — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:24:43 -0600

Sub-Title

Author

Content

Eating Meat Is Bull
Kathy Sinclair (Confessions of a Meat-Eating Vegetarian) was hoodwinked by people with an agenda to push the meat habit. They shamelessly exploit our deepest held fears and mythological thinking about our health. They bullied Kathy into eating meat when she didn’t even want to.

It’s sad. Any vegetarian knows there are perfectly adequate supplies of iron, vitamin B12, calcium, essential fatty acids, and everything else a healthy body needs, in a diet completely free of animal products. There are many vegetable sources of iron. “We” (but not Kathy, evidently) get our vitamin B12 from a variety of sources including vegetarian yeast, mushrooms, and—duh—daily multivitamin supplement tablets. An annual blood test confirms my B12 is good. Surely you knew that 100 per cent of B12 in meat is in fact from bacteria contaminating the meat?

My EFA intake comes from flax seed, walnuts, soy, various types of beans, topped up with a supplement from vegan-farmed algae. Am I a nut bar? No, I’m a healthy, happy, intelligent vegetarian who won’t take “you must kill and eat animals” as an answer for anything.
—John Burgess, via e-mail

And We Thought We Were Being Clever
Is there such a thing as a meat-eating vegetarian? I don’t believe so because I know of no plant which grows meat. However, everything a body requires for good health is readily available and does not require the death of any creature. Unless we practice compassion, can we expect any?
—Freda Betker, Burnaby

The Science of Climate Change
In the February issue, the Editors’ Picks recommends the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. The summary for the book maintains that global warming is a natural phenomenon and that humans play no role in it.

S. Fred Singer is a well-known climate change denier. Mr. Singer is a physicist not a climate scientist (many of whom are physicists) and has attacked scientists who are. He built his career in rocket science during the Cold War and became Ronald Reagan’s chief scientist at Transportation. Mr. Singer works with the Washington, DC think tank, the George C. Marshall Institute.

This institute was founded in 1984 by astrophysicist Robert Jastrow and joined by solid-state physicist Frederick Seitz and physicist William Nierenberg. The reason the institute was founded was to support Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, or “Star Wars,” Missile Defense program) to counter attacks by physicists because it was technically dubious. By 1986, a petition was signed by 6,500 physicists in order to boycott SDI funding. Physicists know pork when they see it.

The George C. Marshall Institute does no scientific research, does not publish in peer-reviewed journals, and does not debate scientists, but does write op-eds in magazines and newspapers. S. Fred Singer went on to challenge the science linking sulfur and nitrogen emissions to acid rain, CFCs to ozone depletion, and tobacco smoke to lung cancer.

Singer, Jastrow, Seitz, and Nierenberg are all scientists of the Cold War, are against government regulation and international treaties, and believe that free-markets and technology are all we need to solve our problems. These men disguise political debates as scientific ones by using scientific uncertainty as a political tactic. Intellectual dishonesty has no place in science.

No scientists deny that the Earth’s climate has warmed and cooled by natural forces over the billions of years of the Earth’s evolution. However, it has been known for 40 years that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities contribute to global warming. An excellent source of information is Real Climate, a blog written and maintained by climate scientists.

For information regarding S. Fred Singer, check out the YouTube presentation, “The American Denial of Global Warming” presented by Naomi Orestes, UC San Diego,

and George Monbiot’s book Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, Chapter 2, “The Denial Industry.” This book also describes how we can reduce our carbon emissions by 90 per cent in five keys areas (energy production, land transport, buildings, retail, and cement) relatively quickly, cheaply, with minimal disruption, and without becoming a poor Third World country.

And yes, this will require government regulation, international treaties, and a great deal of political courage.
—Manon Gartside, Vancouver

Not Man Enough?
I have a little beef with you and your magazine. But first I want to compliment you on putting out a nice, clean, good-looking publication. It is an improvement from two to three years ago. I like the layout, the articles, the contents page is easy to use and intelligently laid out. But one thing I noticed is that of nine articles in the February issue, there are none written by men. How about a little balance?
—Wayne Ross, via snail mail

Editor’s Note: Dear Wayne, we promise you we have nothing against men. We love men! Note that Bruce Skipper provided the art direction for the February cover story as well as laying out all the pages while bringing in new and innovative design concepts. Bruce also wrote the Sadhana CD review for our March Editors’ Picks, and Adrian Mack (if he were a girl he’d be “Adrianne”) penned our March cover story.

Header Icon

ReadersLetters

February Readers' Letters

admin — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:53:11 -0600

Sub-Title

Author

Content

Aw, Shucks. We Love You, Too
I picked up our January SV and was surprised at the letters to the editor.
I think I can offer a profile to that question posed by your reader with regards to who’s reading SharedVISION (“Cover Up, Would Ya?” p. 4). Our household is made up of three females: 47, 20, and 17. All of us read your magazine, which my 20-year-old makes sure we have at home as soon as it arrives. It’s the first place we look for sustainability-related conferences/workshops, even though we have access to additional sources. Best of all, when we want to know what new small business or non-profit community ventures are emerging, we look forward to reading the monthly profiles!
I note our Christmas gifts [last] year were influenced by suggestions from SV, including wrapping with old magazines. We used at least two of the local entrepreneurs listed with happyfrog.ca. So are you meeting our needs as a household? Absolutely!
—Lynda, by e-mail

Put the Phone Down
How stupid can you get, portraying a baby and a cellphone (“The Real Earth Mother,” December, p. 10) when there is a possibility that cellphones can harm human beings, especially not-fully-developed babies? I think this photo is totally irresponsible. Please take better care of little Aiden. Wishing you a healthy, cellphone-free new year!
—Sieglinde Stieda, Mission

Not Easy Being Green? Ha!
As a new parent trying to be environmentally conscious, I was excited to see the green parenting article in December’s issue. However, I was left feeling that the “shared vision” was a bit blurred.

Cori Howard did a great job of pointing out how difficult it is to find the time and resources to commit to greener options, but didn’t identify why it is so important that we be thinking about these alternatives. She seemed to imply that many of these “greener” choices require going “hard-core,” which is expensive and borderline fanatical.

I completely understand time pressures, the lure of convenience, and keeping up the appearance of a chic mama, but rather than shrugging and accepting the label of “brown parent,” I think we owe it to our kids to do better. If we can consider purchasing a $1,200 stroller, we can certainly consider some more expensive, but environmentally responsible, parenting options as “Earth Mamas.”
—Nicole Kilburn, Victoria

And Furthermore…
While I appreciated the moving-past-the-guilt emphasis in your green parenting article, I must confess I heaved a sigh that we’re still talking about baby steps and “it’s OK, you’re OK, I’m OK, even if we’re not doing much,” the justification being that the seduction of “yummy-mummy” marketing is just too strong.

Some of the ways we are able to live greener are also good for our family budget: toddlers ride free on transit and usually enjoy the people-watching; thrift stores carry loads of cool baby gear; futons make great big-kid beds and can be ordered without fire-retardant; and baking soda and vinegar cleans up so well you won’t have a heart attack if your little one starts gumming that sparkly bathtub fixture.

One of our big consumer purchases was a bike trailer, but it’s far cheaper than the gas for a minivan. So go ahead and buy the $1,200 stroller and use it to load up on groceries and run errands in your neighbourhood while modelling a healthy carbon-neutral lifestyle for your children.
—Rita Koutsodimos, by e-mail

Music to Our Ears
Thank you for your green gift ideas! I’m a huge music fan and environmentalist. It’s great to see a local band making a difference (EnVision, December, p. 7). I bought the Mojave CD [Stories] on iTunes, loved it, and gifted it to all my friends. Looking forward to seeing more music in SharedVISION!
—Sabina, by e-mail

Shock, Er, Surprise and Dismay
I’m in “shock and awe” for you to have used this rather disagreeable, egregious description (Publisher’s Note, December, p. 5), because of the Shock and Awe [military campaign] that George Bush perpetrated on Iraq… It’s been a fatal, fatal failure. I was totally dismayed at the “shock and awe” of it being hooked with “Being green has a lot of grey.” Well, I realize trying to go green is a bit grey, but the Shock and Awe in Iraq is absolutely black. Next time, don’t think in the way of George Bush.
—Shirley, by phone

“The Real Earth Mother” (December) resulted in such an outpouring of letters, we didn’t have room to print them all in the magazine. For more opinions on that story—as well as several comments sparked by readers’ previous letters—read on.

The Anti-Earth Mother
I have learned so much from your publication over the years, found strength and solace and inspiration to push myself in new ways. I am sad that you chose in your feature article to portray green parenting as a “shock” and “daunting” rather than an achievable, essential, and ultimately joyful way to love our children. Cori’s article does not express any hint that this vision—of green parenting as attainable—is a shared vision.

I’ve written a response below, more to purge this all than anything else. It’s not the balanced or informational article I would have written in Cori’s place, but just an attempt to counterbalance her negativity with some of the messages I had hoped to find:

Yes, Cori, it is possible. Green parenting, that is. Not only possible, but a truly joyful, soul-opening ride.

It doesn’t start with a decision or longing to be green. Nor does it start with guilt, fatalistic Seinfeld humour, or cynicism. It simply starts with love.

Love for our children, for the Earth, for ourselves. A deep-down awareness and acceptance that such a love cannot permit us to knowingly harm our children, our Earth, ourselves. From that core conviction comes the core strength to start making changes big and small, baby-steps and giant hurdles we never would have believed possible without first looking inward.

The steps themselves start to reveal themselves slowly, obviously. Once taken, we look back and see that they’re not as daunting as we had feared. And not as lonely either—so many people are along the same path, helping each other along. For every disparaging author saying it’s too difficult, there’s another group of parents out there doing it.

Cloth diapers, for example, aren’t such a mountain, compared to the landfill mountain of disposables. Once we make a true commitment to change, disposables simply aren’t a daily option anymore, and rinsing off poopy cloths just becomes what we do (perhaps in a state of mindful contemplation for those much further along the path…) It’s not a hardship or a burden, it’s just what we do.

Plastic toys? Yes, we give them back. We lovingly request and explain and support our relatives and friends about conscious gift-giving. We provide websites, lists of stores, and sources of good products, and lavish thanks for the beautiful, creative gifts they end up finding. It’s not a confrontation; it’s a chance to share our core values with those who matter most to us.

Organic food is, item for item, more expensive than standard supermarket food-like products. But nutrient for nutrient, and taste for taste, it is a better value, and in the end costs less than a standard convenience-food diet. Our recent conversion to local produce has actually further reduced our food bills. Many long hours (after work and kids’ bedtime) were needed to research and preserve food, but along the way our whole family has learned about health and farming and local economies, and come together in a shared vision of taking better care of ourselves, our community, and our environment. I just can’t think of a better way to nourish my children’s bodies or souls.

Goody bags for our son’s birthday party last week: dried organic fruit, fair trade chocolate, and homemade slime (admittedly in a zip-lock bag). Kids and parents alike were thrilled with a gift they could all enjoy.

Is it convenient? No. Living a life guided by one’s faith and convictions is hard work. My wife and I both work, watch our pennies, and drool over the occasional catalog or frozen food item. But starting from a place of love and conviction, the investment of time, resources, and even sacrifice of “green parenting” adds up to a meaningful expression of love and care for our family. It isn’t “daunting,” it’s just natural—the way we are daily learning to love our children, and to love the world they are growing up in.
— Rick Juliusson, by e-mail

Silly Us—We Can Get This Right
I have been enjoying SharedVision for 30 years, and for the first time feel distressed over an article: “The Real Earth Mother.”

Yes, we are all challenged by the changes to be made, all have the limits we haven’t yet broken through, the times of not wanting to have to do this, the daily defeats. It is so important, though, how we look at the inner and outer obstacles. A way that, to my mind, isn’t useful is the “Oh, silly me… just can’t get this right… I mean, really, who’s going to do all that?! ...but it’s expensive!... if I make it sound funny, maybe it won’t actually be so serious…”

Agreed, it’s so human to want to make light of things. At the same time, it is serious. It is so serious, it is a question of whether the baby actually has a future, whether all of our babies (our Vancouver and our Calgary babies, our Somalian and our Greek and our Orange County and our Bosnian babies) have a future.

The seriousness, I guess, is what pushes us off track here. We’re not used to allowing discouragement, knowing deep sadness, taking the hit of heavy news we don’t want to hear, looking guilt in the face long enough to let it become remorseful motivation. And?

And change is now imperative. We do it in bits and pieces, yes. Necessarily, though, we total them constantly; widen our reach, never rest on our laurels. We acknowledge ourselves, absolutely; and today, we add more pieces; tomorrow, we take them farther. We don’t avert our eyes at the seriousness of knowledge like the following:
- For the Earth to live as we in Canada are living, four planets would be required.
- Researcher/columnist George Monbiot states that two degrees centigrade of warming is the point beyond which major ecosystems would begin releasing carbon dioxide and collapsing, with drowning cities and mass starvation. In “Heat,” he demonstrates that averting this includes, necessarily, rich nations’ cutting emissions by 90 per cent by 2030.
- For the planet to survive, we are each entitled to emit 1.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. One passenger flying once NY-London return produces exactly that.

Whether we are seemingly overwhelmed with work or toddlers, financial problems, or teenagers, or loneliness, it is time to acknowledge that we got ourselves into this life-or-death mess, and to do absolutely everything in our considerable power (so much more power than most of the world has) to save the day for ourselves and our beloved children.
—Anneliese Schultz, Richmond

Go Forth and Multiply—Sustainably
I think the real issue here is completely lost on Daniel [Mirecki] (re: “Keep That Thing in Your Pants,” Readers’ Letters, January). Sorry, Daniel, it’s not the amount of people on the planet that is causing the crisis; it’s the amount of people who are consumers for things they absolutely don’t need. It’s sort of like putting the cart before the horse, and as far as the article being “glaringly oxymoronic,” I think you might want to look into that word—the “moron” section anyway—because clearly anyone that is suggesting people should not have children because we’re overpopulated—maybe they’re the morons.
—Jesse Coleman (proud father of six), by phone

No Sticks-in-the-Mud Here
I was also a little taken aback at first by your [November] cover with Little Woo in one of her mermaid costumes and blurb about “burlesque” yoga, as Heather G. was (re: “Cover Up, Would Ya?”, Readers’ Letters, January), but I eventually read the article and went to her Alchemy of the Heart sessions in December. She is amazing! She may be part of the “one-down” stereotyped groups of young, Asian, pretty, sensual, fun, and female; but her study of meditation, self-healing, and wisdom traditions is very profound and was exceptionally helpful during the Seasonal Affective Disorder part of the year for me, especially!

She is probably about half my age, may have half my education (which includes a minor in Religious Studies from a prestigious college) and work experience in teaching, esoteric and natural health fields; but I found her very skillful in managing a group, offering information clearly, and leading experiential visualization with a very diverse population of very interesting and creative people.

I don’t know whether she was the “right person” or it was just the “right time” and the “right group” vibe, but those three weeks and four sessions were a watershed and changed the direction of my self-image and self-care. I don’t know what she’s got, exactly, but she’s sure got some generous, flowing and beautiful, focused, transformational energy going on there that seems right in sync with the abandonment of isolation, sin, self-hate, and condemnation of others that we need to get through and move on from techno-fascism to the next set of world values.

I think you are “attracting” just the right readership with your openmindedness, beautiful, colourful design, and positive attitude. And waking up the stick-in-the-muds with some fresh, fantastic people and ideas, too!
— Wyndy Knox Carr, by e-mail

Cut the Negativity
It’s obvious that the writers of the three negative letters in your January issue are really in need of some comic relief in their lives. Putting down having children, being offended about West Vancouver jokes, and worrying about a performance artist’s gorgeous costume and body are so ridiculous. I can hardly believe that Daniel Mirecki, Vanessa, and Heather G. live in the same province as me, never mind being regular readers of SharedVision. I advise you to ignore their sour, puritan outlooks, and I hope I never have to cross their paths when I’m feeling happy.
—B.J. Sherman, Vancouver

Delighted? Disgruntled? E-mail letters@shared-vision.com.

Header Icon

ReadersLetters

January 2008

admin — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:00:56 -0600

Sub-Title

Author

Content

Keep That Thing in Your Pants
It’s certain that there has never been a more glaringly oxymoronic title in any of your cover stories before last month’s “Green Parenting.” Clearly the irony has been lost on you as it appears that you are unaware of the solitary reason for the environmental crisis facing the planet: there are too many humans.

No parent can ever claim to be an environmentalist if they bring another human to an already overpopulated planet without being completely hypocritical. It’s like an oil company advertising their environmental initiatives to improve their self-image while continuing to deplete limited natural resources.

As a self-professed enlightened publication with a “dialogue for change” mandate, the irony of the article should not have been lost on you. Perhaps you will entertain the concept addressed above and encourage your readers to become more conscious and make a real difference by choosing to rise above the need to breed.
—Daniel Mirecki, Vancouver

West Van Rocks!
I just picked up your December issue and in your gift guide, there’s a great spot promoting the Hope in Shadows calendar. Unfortunately… I’m unbelievably insulted by the headline (“For the snooty trust-fund baby from West Van,” pg. 7).

I was born and raised in West Vancouver. Both of my parents would be considered blue-collar working class individuals who work their asses off every day, and it just so happened they moved their family to a neighbourhood that’s safe and beautiful.

I went to Collingwood School, one of the most prestigious private schools in Western Canada, and on less than one hand I can name the number of kids that I met who came from “snooty trust-fund baby” West Vanners. If the North Shore News ran an article with a headline making fun of grubby Eastsiders or lesbian-dyke environmentalists, imagine the outpour of outrage that would come through. Given this one small article, I’m never picking up another issue of SharedVISION again. Way to alienate a lot of readers.
—Vanessa, by phone

Cover Up, Would Ya?
I’ve been a keen reader of SharedVISION for many years. Despite being taken aback by your off-putting cover, I picked up my November copy [featuring performance artist Little Woo] and enjoyed reading it, as usual. However, I have a nagging question for you. What type of readership are you aiming for or hoping to attract by featuring a woman wearing multicoloured false hair and appearing semi-clothed? To make matters worse, you then went one step further by spotlighting her on your cover? Signed: Puzzled.
—Heather G.

And now for some love…
I like SharedVISION’s drive to keep improving itself. Connecting with others of like mind and promoting in a green way—it’s a very positive, upbeat, clean-looking, caring magazine. And it’s easy on the Earth; when our family is finished and I have cut out what I want to keep for reference, I shred and compost!
—Lori Snyder, Vancouver

Correction: Megan Cole took the image of the model holding a peacock feather (SVCalendar, December, pg. 36) for nixxi.ca .

Elated? Enraged? E-mail letters@shared-vision.com.

Header Icon

ReadersLetters

In the Name of Equal Opportunity...

admin — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:47:55 -0500

Sub-Title

Author

Content

Writer/cover model Stephanie MacDonald’s story on thermography, “Breast Practices” (October) certainly caused a stir—and even inspired a re-take. Vancouver reader Jeff Mottershead demonstrated his good sense of humour and paid homage with this photo. Stephanie’s response? “I don’t like it that he has more cleavage than I do.” Photo: Iva Cheung

Dr. Desaulniers echoes the many positive comments we’ve received about the story:

What a great article! I am a chiropractor in Atlanta and have been offering thermography in my office for about two years. Great to see educational articles promoting the use of this amazing technology. Thanks for spreading the word!

—Dr. Veronique Desaulniers, Fayetteville, GA

More Comments From Our Reader Survey

I appreciate the balanced focus on mind, body, and spirit. Thank you for bringing us this knowledge.
—Lorraine, via Internet

I have really enjoyed SharedVISION’s new incarnation… It is a magazine with integrity and interesting articles that are relevant to my own life, and it’s fantastic that it’s free.
—Angela, East Vancouver

After I have spent my two or more hours reading and rereading SharedVISION I always find myself enriched with new information. Most times I have found a new health product or a new event that I didn’t know about. Great magazine!
—Colleen, North Vancouver

I really appreciate SharedVISION. I make an effort to read it as soon as it comes out. It helps me to counteract some of my despair about many things going on in the world today. Thank you.
—Melody, via Internet

Great info on what is happening in community and health. I read it all the time, love this magazine.
—L. MacInnis, via Internet

I’ve just moved here and you are a great ear to the ground on what’s going on.
—Shannon, Vancouver

SharedVISION is about issues that conscious people care about. I love this magazine!
—Jean, Vancouver

Header Icon

ReadersLetters

Survey Results

admin — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:50:02 -0500

Sub-Title

Author

Content

Overpopulation, or Over-consumerism?
Alicia Priest’s facts in “Too Much of a Good Thing” [SVHealth, August] are seemingly correct about our richest fifth consuming 86 per cent of all goods, services, and natural resources (while the poorest fifth consume less than 2 per cent!). But she then promotes all the wrong solutions. She fervently pushes for yet another family-planning crusade as the only realistic solution.

Yet only a return to a sustainable agrarian-based culture in real harmony with God’s natural technology can possibly reverse the disastrous course we are now stuck on. So there’s actually not enough of this good thing. We need not just population reduction, but rather a drastic change in humankind’s destructive urbanization… Perhaps our children’s children will enact this sea-change towards a new beginning.
—Guy Paquette, Burnaby

You Really Love Us!
The response to our reader survey has been overwhelming. We’d like to share just a few of the comments that have come in so far.

SharedVISION’s commitment to and coverage of environmentally and ethically beneficial products, services, and events is the best of its sort in Vancouver. I appreciate the easy-to-follow layout and condensed writing—I can get the major points of each article within a short time, which is a plus since time is something I never have enough of!
—Jocelyn C., North Vancouver

I like SharedVISION’s viewpoints on life, health, and community living. The articles are very positive and inspiring and often quite funny as well. Reading this magazine makes me feel like a greener, healthier, and more connected way of living is indeed possible.
—Lucy M., White Rock

I love reading about other people or different ways we can reduce our ecological footprint. It makes you realize you are not the only one trying to make a change. It makes you feel optimistic. There are always so many amazing people/opinions published.
—Angela K., via Internet

SharedVISION is actually useful for my everyday life. It’s such an easy and fun way to stay in touch with what’s happening in the green scene. And I can always count on it for at least one new cool website or place to shop.
—Jasslynn H., Burnaby

The appeal is to both “newbies” and to knowledgeable and articulate people of the socially and environmentally conscious consumer [audience]. I’ve been reading the magazine for years and it’s still fresh and current. It keeps me striving to keep improving myself and do even more for myself, my family, the community, and the Earth.
—Kersten G., New Westminster

Keep up the excellent work!! I love this magazine, and can’t think of anything that I would change!
—Janice P., Burnaby

Header Icon

ReadersLetters

June Readers' Letters

admin — Wed, 30 May 2007 17:35:48 -0500

Sub-Title

Author

Content

And We Thought It Was Just a Yoga Pose

In a recent letter that you headlined “Stop Being So Sexy,” Joan Lungle criticized SV with respect to “cheesecake” poses on the cover. I do believe Ms. Lungle is rather strident; having said so, I must seriously criticize the cover of your May 2007 issue. The pose of a smiling woman on her back with her legs up in the air is every healthy male heterosexual’s fantasy. The model is clothed, the pose possibly yogic, and it certainly highlights the logo of the garment. Good marketing, certainly, and entirely irrelevant.

SV subtitles itself as Dialogue for Change. What does this tagline really mean? It’s a great tagline. I am very impressed by the highly professional publication SV has become over time. Your marketing sense is excellent. Public image is the “Fifth P” of marketing. Does your tagline convey public image or is it about promotional public relations? If you want to maintain a serious public image as a media resource for change you need, I think, seriously consider my criticism and that of Ms. Lungle.

—Rabbi Arie Chark, Metivta of Snowdon, via email

Law of Attraction: Is Wealth So Bad?
The backlash [“Beyond The Secret Backlash,” May] I feel wasn’t thoroughly warranted. I have the book and the DVD of The Secret and there most certainly are tips and practical exercises on visualization throughout the movie, but you must be aware that’s what they’re telling you. The website (thesecret.tv) has pages you can print out for that and many other things… One must be willing to put in the work.

I never felt an overemphasis on materialism. We are all going to want different things. Having more abundance isn’t JUST about money. It’s having abundancy in relationships and having money too and having all the other things you desire.

What’s wrong with being more abundant, in ALL of life’s areas (love, money, business, etc.)? Mr. Losier was suggesting that having money or material goods is a bad thing… Enjoying life by having a nicer car or nicer home or nicer anything, is that so bad? Having the money to have a more healthy lifestyle and be able to travel and relax and enjoy the good things, is that so bad? I honestly don’t think so, but to each his own.

—Kimberley J., via email

Who Killed the Electric Car?
You are probably not aware [of] 100 per cent electric cars [“Cool the Planet with Eco-friendly Cars,” April]. See teslamotors.com. You should get in contact with the manufacturer and write about the benefits/practicalities of electric. There is every reason why GM, Japanese manufacturers, and others are able to deliver 100 per cent electric (as GM did not too long ago...before they scrapped it). The industry is unfortunately delaying the inevitable with introductions of hybrids. Build the awareness. Help our planet.

—Ryan, via email

Have something to say? Email letters@shared-vision.com.

Header Icon

ReadersLetters