mtm

I'm for anything that gives me a day off work. Call it "Canadian day off work day", I don't care. haha.

yeah that was an interesting situation. The fact was that all the old tory guard were so popular in the ridings they did win (Bev Harrison and Trevor Holder with 50+% of the vote for example) and lost so many others by very narrow margins. I think it is important to note the difference though in the American system, whereby all the votes in an area are swung one way or the other (X number of electoral votes) just on the basis of one close race. The cause of the imbalance in NB (and is possible in any other FPTP provincial or federal system) is a different type than that of the USA's strange electoral college rules.

ramblings? Speak for yourself. Every point I've made has been valid. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm a raving lunatic. And I think its a valid criticism to point out that the Provincial Liberals refute Kyoto while the Federal Liberals are making Kyoto an absolute priority. There is a total and obvious hypocrisy there and its good for people to question it. Saying the reason why it happens (the pressures of office, the realities of power, etc, etc) doesn't excuse the system from being broken. The NB Liberal party is completely off-base with their Federal counterparts and that needs to be exposed for what it is. The refinery issue is for another day but since we've gone there, I will make a final comment. As you can well imagine, I am against it for many good environmental, economic, and practical reasons. Amalgamation will never happen because the communities of Rothesay, Quispam etc don't want to have to put up with Saint John's burden and I dont think anyone in any of those communities will support it in any way. Bringing in more of the same (heavy and dirty industry) is not going to fix SJ's problem. Its just a repetition of the same failed behaviour pattern. The SJ council must realize that money being made is not the be all and end all when a disproportionate amount of that money actually gets filtered back into the city and its residents. They have to stop giving tax breaks and incentives and realize the true costs of industry in their backyards in terms of the wider picture. As it is right now, SJ has become a commuter town, where all the people who work in its industrial sector are living outside of the city boundaries. As SJ encourages more industry, they are encouraging more people to leave. I would really like to see what the ratio is for every 100 jobs created in SJ how many actually choose to reside in the city. Saint John has become the American Northeast's solution to the 'not in my backyard' problem. We are a flow through economy and we suffer the residuals for products we never see. Critically, the profits are enjoyed by Irving and a few others and not flowed back into SJ's economy as you would expect to see. With all the money being made in Saint John, it is uncanny to me that the City is in deep financial trouble. It is inexcusable, and replicating past behaviour is only going to exacerbate the problem.

Ok, Mr. Semantics. CO2 aside, its still a major emitter of actual pollutants as well. You just can't call ANY oil refinery clean. It is never going to be clean. Take a nice breath of Fresh Air in Saint John and tell me there are no harmful pollutants coming out of that refinery. Its dirty enough just having one. We definitely don't need two. Speaking from an economic standpoint as well, a lot of people that work at the refinery have moved out to mispec and red head to be as close to the refinery while being far enough away as to not get hit by the pollution cloud (prevailing winds go in the other direction more often than not due to the wind coming in off the BoF). IF they build another refinery, these people are going to move out of the tax base altogether to places like KV and Hampton, and SJ will lose a huge amount of city revenue, because of the NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem. The mass exodus to the burbs will only strengthen when SJ opens another refinery. by the way, you call bs on my belleisle story do you? And what evidence do you have to call BS? I'm only telling you what we saw. In the evenings you could see the red hue and flashes in the sky and the smoke cloud pertruding from the horizon in the direction of Saint John. I'm not making this up, why would you accuse me of making it up? Its perfectly plausible, its only 50 kms....and there was a TON of burning done.

Considering that Suzuki had been doing interviews all morning on Radio Nets, and only had an "incident" on AM 640 gives me reason to believe he was ambushed. I have been on the Oakley show, and understand how it works. When you got them on the run, you are disconnected. My Buddy was a screener for the show, he did indeed butter me up, and then suckered me, with the first question, which had little to do with the comments on the show that I called into address. I got out of the ambush, and caught Oakley with a comment, and then I was disconnected. I guess I could write this as OAKLEY rudely hangs up on caller. But he does it ever day, many times a day. My buddy laughed his face off over the whole thing. He really enjoyed setting me up. Perhaps that is just the nature of the Oakley show. So does this mean I have more respect for him or for Suzuki? Oakley has a job to do. Talk radio, and you have to take it for what it is... A talk show. Yeah. Same with Andrew Krystle here. Did he do a radio show in Toronto too? The good thing about Krystle is that their meteorologist at Rogers, and often a guest on the show, Richard Zurawski is always talking about the validity of GW science, and has his own segment on Fridays. It would not be in Andrew K's best interest to ambush his fellow employee who is greatly respected in the area due to his long TV career. (Do you ever wonder why) haha. I don't doubt though that if Richard worked for another station Krystle would have a far different opinion on the matter. But he's not going to argue and try and discredit his fellow Rogers media colleague who brings in the ratings too.

the environmentalists have been very outspoken about Harbour Cleanup for a long time now. In fact its been one of the major issues in the last 2 Paul Zed federal campaigns. It is something that many people in the SJ community have been talking about for a long time. I'd suggest you check your facts before you make a statement such as this. Also, just because the Irving refinery is the "cleanest" in North America doesn't mean it is not the provinces single largest emitter of carbon, and it is not a huge burden on the health of Saint Johners, most notably those who live on its doorstep in Champlain Heights. Calling any oil refinery, no less one of the largest in the country, "clean" is just a total misnomer. I would like to also add that this claim is only true when the refinery is running at normal capacity and production. During the expansion two or three years ago, there were all kinds of teething problems and malfunctions, that resulted in huge flares and burn offs. I remember one day in the summer I was out in Belleisle at dusk overlooking the Kingston Peninsula (over 50-60km and several mountains away) and I could see the red flicker in the sky and a huge black cloud. Granted, thats an extraneous condition, but keep in mind, they want to build ANOTHER refinery, and those kinds of start up procedures on a new plant, new equipment and the like WILL be inevitable, and quite persistent for the first months and even up to a year of operation...and it will be SJ'ers bearing the costs of those. Also, I would just like to add in closing that while you did try and make some points, you completely missed what I was trying to get at here. When you buy a membership, you are a member of the provincial and federal party. If you are a Liberal supporter, especially an involved one, how would it be possible to reconcile the views of a Federal party that supports Kyoto at all costs in its efforts against Harper, while simultaneously supporting Graham, who like Harper, supports independent initiatives. I am not talking here of whether Kyoto is good/bad. I clearly have an opinion, but its not about MY opinion. What I want to know, is how could a Liberal support the contradictory views of their Provincial and Federal bodies, REGARDLESS of which side of the issue they support. I'm talking both sides here. @ Geoffrey, I do see an Alberta/NB strategic partnership here. Its inevitable. The funny thing though is that Graham is always talking about NB self-sufficiency but it cannot and wont happen as long as we have this mass exodus of people (ironically to Alberta).

ha, our liberal party here in NB is more conservative than you can imagine. Its not actually a blue party its a red, white and blue party (the corporate colours of Irving Oil) Bernie isn't any better though. I think the reason they hate each other so much is because they are english and french clones of each other. Their beliefs, policies and actions are exactly the same and a Lib gov is arguably even more pro-business (and by business I mean Irving) than bernies was. although its a very close call.

I'm just so confused by this, and the NDP is the only party to pick up on it. Today the Federal Libs passed a law that sees the Feds have to re-implement a Kyoto plan. Yet on the same day the Provincial Libs stated that they will not be meeting Kyoto targets and will be making what is essentially a "Made in NB" (sound familiar) strategy for environmental (in)action. Consequently, Irving is proposing a new oil refinery in Saint John and their existing refinery is the biggest CO2 emitter in the province by far. So I guess my thoughts on this is, when you join the lib party you get a membership to both the Prov and Fed parties. So if you're a Liberal, you support a strict priority on Kyoto and a leader who has made the environment his number one issue. But you also support a Premier who is proposing we burn Pet coke in our power plants, one of the dirtiest and carcinogenic fossil fuels, the bottom of the barrell bi-product of oil refining (gee wonder where that will come from), and is supporting a second oil refinery in the most populous city in the province that already has the worst air quality and highest asthma and carcinogenic particulate rates in the province and one of the worst in the country? How can you really be a NB Liberal and not be contradicting yourself. I don't get it at all. The ironic thing is that the NB Conservatives are saying that Graham should at least try to meet Kyoto (its about trying at this point because even notable environmentalists acknowledge that it cant be done by 2010 given the province's finances)... Its just mind boggling. What is a liberal but a hypocrite in this instance. "Kyoto for Canada, but NB is special we dont have to" From Fundy Royal NDP website.

They were talking alot about him on the radio station later on in the day after he stormed out. He's been an NDP voter his whole life and a member and only voted for the Green Party once. That's what I heard on the radio. you were in the ballot box with him were you? And as for that "Source" you posted, looks like somebody else's (likely sensationalist and factless) blog post to me. Obama went to a muslim terrorist school when he was 9 you know.

when the tsunami, the flood, drought, hurricane, or whatever it is that is doing us in comes along, I will be more at peace if I could at least turn around and point at this guy claiming Suzuki is an "NDP'er with an agenda" and say, ha ha told you so, as we all get obliterated. seriously though. He's a passionate person who has a steadfast belief in what he feels is right, and this media hack is acting contrary just to make better radio and Suzuki's not going to take it from someone who is clearly uneducated of/incapable of understanding the debate so that he can get ratings. We have radio guys like him here on the east coast. Andrew Krystle for one although he came from Toronto. It doesnt matter who comes on he just counter-argues and tries to belittle the guest. He butters people up and tells them what he's going to talk about, says heres the questions, then they are prepared for that, but when they get on the air he attacks them about stuff they arent expecting. I know for a fact Krystle did that to Ignatieff during the leadership race. I suspect thats what happened here and Suzuki's standoffishness is due to the fact that the interviewer ambushed the interview.

once again you completely miss my point. I said you arent a GW scientist, and NEITHER am I. Which makes your opinion no more valid, and which studies you believe no more convincing unless you've done research yourself. Its only what youve read and what others tell you that is formulating your opinion. I tend to believe the body of information saying GW is real is much more credible and in higher volume. I'm not saying I'm an expert, that was exactly my point, neither of us are. But if you want to insist on putting words in my mouth so you can continue to be blind, thats fine. I have my opinion.

exactly. You decide where the truth lies. Some papers have a left slant, some have a right, and some do a little of both. But its you that makes the decision. Posting an article from some newspaper to prove your point, either way, is so laughable. Where I come from, the paper is owned by Irving Oil. Grains of salt are taken far more seriously.

no image posting allowed i take it.

hahahahah yeah the edmonton sun is the bastion of all that is truthiness! Oh, the edmonton sun said it! EDMONTON.... SUN.... I cant think of two words that would be more likely to set off impartiality alarm bells. Do you even realize that the papers only report what their readers want to hear because it makes them sell more papers? Or did that just go right over your head?

edit, you know what, im not responding. the ignorance of that comment doesnt warrant what i had written.

doing "something" will create a global example. If we can do it, it puts pressure on other industrialized nations to do the same. Rome wasn't built in a day, but all it takes is the will.

Ah, but it isn't. Have you ever questioned why it's not unanimous? Wouldn't your common sense wonder why it isn't? Have you even read what the arguements from leading scientists are from making it unanimous? What are your arguements against those scientists who question this report? With all the pollution you're talking about why wouldn't you support a Clean Air Act to get things moving? the Clean Air act is a step backwards. It is Orwellian speak along the lines of the "Patriot Act" or the "Cleaner Skies Act" south of the border. And while you may contend its not unanimous, the consensus view is overwhelmingly in support of the fact that global warming is real and it is man made. There will never be pure unanimity on anything. But I can tell you that a vast, vast, vast majority are not refuting it. If equal time was given to every single dissenting view in a democratic society, nothing would ever get done. Imagine if we needed electoral unanimity for an election to stand? wow. That would be an effective system. Everyone in the country had to vote for the PM. That would be productive. The accredited academic literature for and against global warming simply do not stack up. There are so many more academic studies and journals out supporting that GW is real, and so few that claim it is not, yet to see the mainstream media, and the political debate on this page and elsewhere, you would think it were the proponents that were in the minority. Its simply not the case. Anyway, go suck on a school bus tailpipe for a while and tell me how you are feeling. The CO2 and CO are good for you, I swear. It will never hurt anyone. You can't get something for nothing, when it leaves that tailpipe it goes somewhere, it does not just disappear. It is accumulating in our atmosphere. Where else can it go? I think you can debate me to the ends of the earth (and you probably will), but the bottom line is that you arent a GW scientist, and you probably have not seen any more studies on it than I have, and I have seen quite a few. You are going off a media-created whirlwind of information, and so am I. So you aren't going to change my view, and I certainly am not going to change yours. I do happen to believe that the source of most proof for GW is more valid than the criticisms and as a result, I want a world that we as a race will all be able to exist and prosper in in 25 to 100 years. I'm not going to say that there won't be any short term pain, but the long term benefits are clear for all to see. I happen to be an optimist and believe change is possible. I know change seems daunting and scary to a lot of people, not least of which the oil corporations and other profit-generating polluters, their employees and their shareholders, and it is this underlying fear which makes people WANT to believe that GW is not happening, that its not real and their 'dubious' science behind it. I can respect that people have that fear. Its a scary thought to fathom. But, I don't think people are just making doomsday prophecies to scare everyone. I think there is a serious problem with our behaviour and our treatment of the environment and I think it has to change. If you think otherwise, then I really do sympathize, and I understand that there is a lot of "information" out there that tells you what you want to hear, but I'm afraid the revolution will just leave you behind.

even if that were a fact (which its not, because it doesnt take into account the increased revenue and investment generated from the industries created by environmental action - alternative energies, R&D, etc), it would be a small price to pay. Sure beats choking to death, drying up, getting deathly ill or drowning. In all seriousness, though, if we want to have a world worth living in for the next generation, something has to be done now. Its sad that people are so reluctant to change their old ways.

and yet it doesnt matter how many times science proves its point, its always detracted by powerful interests. Climate change is no myth. There is almost unanimous agreement in the scientific community of this. Unfortunately no matter what is said, the positions of those on the big money side of the fence will never change. And, like I said, common sense would tell us that putting black carcinogenic garbage into the atmosphere is bad for our health. The fact that my grandmother couldn't even breathe the Saint John air had nothing to do with the refinery and two pulp mills at all. While were at it, cutting down rainforests is not proven to be damaging to water systems or wildlife ecosystems either. And New Brunswick Irving clearcutting has no effect on the river and brook fish. Call me a tree-hugger (I'm not by the way) if you want to, but being an environmentally aware person only takes the ability to open your eyes.

the liberal budget, the so called "NDP budget", the Cadman one. Layton was instrumental in getting that changed and passed. and hopefully the "clean air plan" can be helped by the NDP. Come on, see this kind of partisan stuff bugs me. You think those 29 people just sit there in Ottawa and don't do anything? They work hard and do a lot, usually for the causes that none of the big two want to take on. I know its in some people's best interests if the NDP weren't there but to completely marginalize them like what you just did is unfair and wrong. It really bothers me when people discredit a party's relevance just because they don't agree with their policy or political orientation. If you ask me who I'd rather have on my side, Alexa McDonough or Paul Zed, I can tell you who I would want, regardless of if their party was in power. I looked on howdtheyvote.ca, and zed spoke one of the least of any MP's in all his time in the Martin government. I think that there is no party in Parliament that shouldn't be there, and that if Canadians elected them they have a purpose and mandate to be there. They do work hard for us, some harder than others, but there are your go-getters and your slackers in all parties. The NDP tend to be more hard-working because they have lesser numbers so each has to take more duties on. I don't care if you disagree with my vote or my point of view, but don't resort to cheap shots of an entire party that you can't back up. Tell Libby Davies, Olivia Chow or Bill Blakie that they arent working hard enough and they just sit around and do nothing for anyone. The NDP are the only ones who have at least tried to make the minority work. In the position they have, that is their role anyway. But I support that role, instead of the liberal 'we oppose everything you do' and the conservative 'we oppose everything we think you may stand for in advance' stance.

yeah but i think he means getting a permit to grow it for the medical industry. I would think that would be a very difficult thing. I dont think mj is very widely prescribed by any doctors anyway. as for the driving thing, I can tell you that is a big problem around here for sure, but it doesnt matter if its legal or not, its doesnt impact the problem at all. The people who want to do it will do it regardless.

in a word. no. it is most definitely not legal to possess or grow. As for medicinal, I have no idea but imagine its extremely difficult.

hey, don't blame him, it works. They win elections on it. Maybe one day John Q. Public will get wise to it. We can hope.

I don't think the NDP do things in parliament based on the support they get based on it. If that were the case they would get a few more votes. They have taken some unpopular but principled stands (Afghanistan) that did not win them any favours in popular opinion. They may not be everyone's favorite in terms of their beliefs but they tend to be the only ones that stick to them. And as an example in NS where they are the official opposition, they don't act as OTAE (Opposition to Absolutely Everything), they do actually praise Rodney McDonald when he (rarely) avoids corruption and does a good thing. I think that when you vote NDP you know you will get someone who will do what they say they are going to do, except stealing diamonds, and will work with anyone in the other parties to try and get it done. That is their unique advantage. The other parties can't and won't do that. Of all the parties they tend to take a stand on things they believe in, and do tend to at least ostensibly try to get things done. Nobody is perfect, but lets not totally discredit their role. Do we really want a two-party system with the Bloc dictating our fate? (Well maybe you do, but I dont). Democratic choice is a wonderful thing. I sometimes wish our system could just drop the strict party lines and work together for uh....ideas that work...er...where have I heard that slogan before?

I'll throw it back to you. do you have any proof that they weren't on TV? Assume they werent. So the media is lying to us, then? Rogers saying the ads were effective was a fabricated story? Well, quite the conspiracy theory there. The ads are on the net though, and they were produced and released by the conservative party. So whether or not they aired (which they more likely than not did air), they are still out there in the public domain for anyone to see. That stuff should be saved for election time.