Has Layton sacrified the NDP chances in Alberta for Quebec?

[Rovik]

Pretty much everybody agrees that there's no need for subsidies right now. But only the NDP seem to be in favor of a moratorium on development. That's the real danger that people seem to be missing.

-k

This is not something the NDP dreamed up out of thin air. There are legitimate concerns here that need to be addressed and by blindly believing that there isn't will cause troubles down the road.

In this article, Stop oilsands projects until monitoring is improved: Panel , it mentions this

"Project approval and licensing have been carried out on an individual project basis, with little or no attention paid to cumulative environmental effects," the authors said. "There are serious questions about the efficacy of provincial environmental management. The scientific input is poor and the process flawed."

So obviously, these issues should be actioned upon; to do otherwise would be negligent.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Rovik

[Rovik]

Well that's an easy one to explain...they're idiots.

Yes, quite the logical reason that. Too bad you couldn't explain your reason in a rational, factual way instead of just "calling names."

[bloodyminded]

Yes, quite the logical reason that. Too bad you couldn't explain your reason in a rational, factual way instead of just "calling names."

The people who most hate the NDP don't generally know why. That's why call them "radical leftists" (they aren't) and "poor money managers" (which places them squarely in line with the other two parties).

[Smallc]

Yes, quite the logical reason that. Too bad you couldn't explain your reason in a rational, factual way instead of just "calling names."

I'm sorry, but if you need an explanation as to why one of the largest signe economic drivers in this country needs to continue, and why the NDP is wrong to call for a moratorium, then you're just as clueless economically. Yes, the environment is in trouble, yes global warming is real, and yes, we do need to do something about. Significantly impacting the country's economy in a negative way though, while most other countries continue polluting, isn't the way to go about things.

The NDP is my second choice, but on issues like this, they're simply ideological idiots.

[Smallc]

The people who most hate the NDP don't generally know why.

Since it was me that he was directing his post at, that doesn't fit at all. I don't hate the NDP, and in October I'll (probably) vote for them.

[Jack Weber]

Since it was me that he was directing his post at, that doesn't fit at all. I don't hate the NDP, and in October I'll (probably) vote for them.

As I've said before,provincial NDP governments USUALLY are fairly reponsible governments...

I've never understood the goofiness of their Federal bretheren??

I have theory that they've become beholden to to "tree hugger" moral/cultural/social relativists and seemingly have lost the Tommy Douglas/Ed Broadbent social democracy populism that used to help them...

It's just a theory...

Edited April 9, 2011 by Jack Weber

[bloodyminded]

Since it was me that he was directing his post at, that doesn't fit at all. I don't hate the NDP, and in October I'll (probably) vote for them.

Sorry about that, Smallc, I personally wasn't directing my remarks at you, though I see what you mean.

I'd add that of course I don't object to criticism of the NDP. I'm no die-hard, and only a sometimes voter for them.

I only find it odd when they're deemed "far left." (By what standards? Never mind, it's a rhetorical question: by American standards. A lot of people oddly consider that to be the rational measure. I don't know why.) Or when they're deemed to be poor money managers; I imagine there's truth to this, but I don't see how it distinguishes them from the other parties, both of whom are continually criticized for their monumental spending sprees.

[Rovik]

Yet that radiation barely exceeds the background levels as soon as it travels a few kms beyond the site. You picked a bad example. You could have made better arguments using the river systems and tailing ponds, however, new technology has been developed that can recycle the tailings ponds for a profit - technology that would have never been developed if environmentalists were allowed to block the development of the oil sands because they did not have a good way to deal with those tailings ponds at the time.

IMO, there needs to be oversight to ensure the river systems are not getting polluted because the river systems can carry waste a long way. But I have no problems with them ripping up mile upon mile of sub-artic tundra to get at the oil.

What I am saying is there is only one type of job which is useful: a job which increases the wealth of the country. Windmill jobs are nothing but wealth destroyers and serve no purpose other than fooling a misinformed public.

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't trying to emphasize the impact of the radiation, instead it was to say how one incident in a far away part of the world can effect other parts of the world (like a domino effect). Though the radiation was negligable, the radiation was still linked to the incident in japan. I disagree with saying that new technology would not be developed. In fact, if a project can't procede (with current technology) without unacceptable environment impact, then that project should not proceed until new technology is developed. In this way, high emphasis is placed on new technology to proceed.

The wealth of this country or the impact on the planet; which is more important. And if the projects procede with less impact on the environment because of better processes and oversight then the oil worker jobs would continue as per usual. And with new technology perhaps the windmill worker in the not to distant future would contribute to the wealth of the country.

[Rovik]

Every reactor needs to have its earthquake and tsunami resistence reviewed. There are lessons to be learned here. But the message that we should be taking away is that it is possible to build reactors that can handle the worst case disaster and survive. That should give us confidence in nuclear moving forward.

Considering how dangerous a nuclear incident has the potential to be, there should be a proactive approach not a reactive approach which seems to be the case now. Having an incident, making some changes, having another incident, making more changes and so on is not good enough.

[Jack Weber]

Sorry about that, Smallc, I personally wasn't directing my remarks at you, though I see what you mean.

I'd add that of course I don't object to criticism of the NDP. I'm no die-hard, and only a sometimes voter for them.

I only find it odd when they're deemed "far left." (By what standards? Never mind, it's a rhetorical question: by American standards. A lot of people oddly consider that to be the rational measure. I don't know why.) Or when they're deemed to be poor money managers; I imagine there's truth to this, but I don't see how it distinguishes them from the other parties, both of whom are continually criticized for their monumental spending sprees.

Well,to be fair...

Their are more than few people that support that party that are right off the left cliff!!!

One only has to go to Bedwetter.ca (rabble.ca) and see the Hammer and Sickle crowd in action.There's more than a few of them upset with the NDP's actions on military matters and claim the Marxist/Lenninist Party as their 2nd choice...

I suppose that's not alot different than the "gimme freedom or gimme death!" crowd that sits on the fringes of the Conservative Party....

[TimG]

Considering how dangerous a nuclear incident has the potential to be, there should be a proactive approach not a reactive approach which seems to be the case now. Having an incident, making some changes, having another incident, making more changes and so on is not good enough.

I would have to say the nuclear industry is being procative when you consider the fact that this is only the 3 major incident at any nuclear station anywhere in 40 years of nuclear power.

One of the bigger lessons is this idea that we can store nuclear waste in cooling pools is nonsense. It is time to punch through the NIMBY and find a way to store the stuff that does not require constant babysitting.

[bloodyminded]

As I've said before,provincial NDP governments USUALLY are fairly reponsible governments...

I've never understood the goofiness of their Federal bretheren??

I have theory that they've become beholden to to "tree hugger" moral/cultural/social relativists and seemingly have lost the Tommy Douglas/Ed Broadbent social democracy populism that used to help them...

It's just a theory...

I'd disagree with the "moral/cultural/social relativists" bit...I don't think that's true at all. In fact, I think, on the whole, that conservatives and even mainstream liberals are far more morally relativist and logically boneheaded than is the brighter portion of the North American Left.

However, your point isn't without merit, as the Left has become a strangely self-defeating and fractured entity, laregly because of its own weaknesses.

So while I consider the Left to be, on the whole, smarter and more honest about the state of the world than are the centrists, I also find a lot of awful tendencies.

For one thing, ill-considered matters of "social justice," as well a kind of heady outsider status of "sticking it to the man, man!", attracts a lot of foolish people, especially when young, into lefty politics.

But they're the same ones who abandon it later, claining inevitably that they've "grown up," and citing the very bad left tendencies that they alone tend to initiate. They quickly join forces with professional, career lefty-haters like Mark Steyn in uttering all sorts of preposterous nonsense.

They are, basically, these cats which you corrctly point out:

One only has to go to Bedwetter.ca (rabble.ca) and see the Hammer and Sickle crowd in action.There's more than a few of them upset with the NDP's actions on military matters and claim the Marxist/Lenninist Party as their 2nd choice...

In ten years, I'd predict that three quarters of these poeple have changed their politics completely, though their foolishness may or may not remain intact.

If you listen to the more principled lefties, it's difficult not to respect them, even if you disagree with their views. Howard Zinn has always said that regular, working class folk, socially conservative and otherwise, are the natural allies of the Left...and the Left simply lost them. Maybe only temporarily. Or Noam Chomsky, arguing with a pretty shrill leftist student in a video I watched, as they discussed Lenin--Chomsky despises Lenin, as everyone should. Or Glenn Greenwald, trying not to laugh at the orgy of Obama-love back in 2008. (Not all the left was "disillusioned" by Obama...a lot of them had no illusions in the first place).

The moderate liberals, on the other hand, have embraced almost every single thing Obama has done, including his continuation of the very Bush policies these centrists once claimed to hate.

Now that's moral relativism. The self-styled moderates are in fact riddled with it.

At any rate, the left/middle/right debates are pretty confused anyway. Ignatieff is part of "the left"? Which left? How left? what does this mean?

Harper's been ruling as a "radical right-winger"? Really? I have no love for Harper, but I'm simply not seeing it.

It would appear that ensconcing oneself as a "moderate" is a pretty easy way to appear somehow above rthe fray of ideological politics. But I think they're fooling themselves. They're as ideologically-bound as anyone else. (With, thankfully, some exceptions, I hasten to add...like my man Jack Weber, for instance!)

Edited April 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[ToadBrother]

I would have to say the nuclear industry is being procative when you consider the fact that this is only the 3 major incident at any nuclear station anywhere in 40 years of nuclear power.

One of the bigger lessons is this idea that we can store nuclear waste in cooling pools is nonsense. It is time to punch through the NIMBY and find a way to store the stuff that does not require constant babysitting.

The problem with that being you actually have to the waste to that final resting place. Not saying you're not right, but I'm wondering if the railroad ran past your backyard or past your kids' school and it was a route for nuclear waste that you wouldn't ponder moving towards NIMBYism.

The problem with the Japan incident is that it basically gets everybody spooked about nuclear energy all over again, despite the fact that even at its worst, it was nowhere near Chernobyl. Largely I blame the media, and in particular networks like CNN, with their breathless reporting, which seemed designed specifically to freak as many people out as possible.

The reality is that, when you look at lives lost, the nuclear incident is a sidestory. The earthquake and the bloody tsunami did all the killing.

[Rovik]

The problem with that being you actually have to the waste to that final resting place. Not saying you're not right, but I'm wondering if the railroad ran past your backyard or past your kids' school and it was a route for nuclear waste that you wouldn't ponder moving towards NIMBYism.

The problem with the Japan incident is that it basically gets everybody spooked about nuclear energy all over again, despite the fact that even at its worst, it was nowhere near Chernobyl. Largely I blame the media, and in particular networks like CNN, with their breathless reporting, which seemed designed specifically to freak as many people out as possible.

The reality is that, when you look at lives lost, the nuclear incident is a sidestory. The earthquake and the bloody tsunami did all the killing.

Well, well.. news out that the incident is at par with Chernobyl.

Japan nuclear disaster tops scale

Guess the media wasn't so offbase after all. Unless this is some CNN devised conspiracy, and for them to get Japan's primt minister to play along, I didn't realize CNN had that much power.

[wyly]

I'd disagree with the "moral/cultural/social relativists" bit...I don't think that's true at all. In fact, I think, on the whole, that conservatives and even mainstream liberals are far more morally relativist and logically boneheaded than is the brighter portion of the North American Left.

However, your point isn't without merit, as the Left has become a strangely self-defeating and fractured entity, laregly because of its own weaknesses.

So while I consider the Left to be, on the whole, smarter and more honest about the state of the world than are the centrists, I also find a lot of awful tendencies.

For one thing, ill-considered matters of "social justice," as well a kind of heady outsider status of "sticking it to the man, man!", attracts a lot of foolish people, especially when young, into lefty politics.

But they're the same ones who abandon it later, claining inevitably that they've "grown up," and citing the very bad left tendencies that they alone tend to initiate. They quickly join forces with professional, career lefty-haters like Mark Steyn in uttering all sorts of preposterous nonsense.

They are, basically, these cats which you corrctly point out:

In ten years, I'd predict that three quarters of these poeple have changed their politics completely, though their foolishness may or may not remain intact.

If you listen to the more principled lefties, it's difficult not to respect them, even if you disagree with their views. Howard Zinn has always said that regular, working class folk, socially conservative and otherwise, are the natural allies of the Left...and the Left simply lost them. Maybe only temporarily. Or Noam Chomsky, arguing with a pretty shrill leftist student in a video I watched, as they discussed Lenin--Chomsky despises Lenin, as everyone should. Or Glenn Greenwald, trying not to laugh at the orgy of Obama-love back in 2008. (Not all the left was "disillusioned" by Obama...a lot of them had no illusions in the first place).

The moderate liberals, on the other hand, have embraced almost every single thing Obama has done, including his continuation of the very Bush policies these centrists once claimed to hate.

Now that's moral relativism. The self-styled moderates are in fact riddled with it.

At any rate, the left/middle/right debates are pretty confused anyway. Ignatieff is part of "the left"? Which left? How left? what does this mean?

Harper's been ruling as a "radical right-winger"? Really? I have no love for Harper, but I'm simply not seeing it.

It would appear that ensconcing oneself as a "moderate" is a pretty easy way to appear somehow above rthe fray of ideological politics. But I think they're fooling themselves. They're as ideologically-bound as anyone else. (With, thankfully, some exceptions, I hasten to add...like my man Jack Weber, for instance!)

I've gotta disagre with most of that, you're not seeing the forest for all the trees...society continually shifts left, each new generation of radical lefties end up mainstream as their once extreme agenda becomes accepted reality 20-30 yrs later...today's left are more extreme than they were in my day but they too will be considered centerist by the next generation...it's the educated left that drives society forward dragging the rest with them...

[Wild Bill]

The people who most hate the NDP don't generally know why. That's why call them "radical leftists" (they aren't) and "poor money managers" (which places them squarely in line with the other two parties).

Not quite true, BM! First off, you have to make a distinction between some of the provincial NDP governments and the federal NDP party. Bob Rae's term in Ontario was NOTHING like we would have seen from the Manitoba NDP! Rae's party WAS full of "radical leftists"! They WERE "poor money managers", especially "Pink Floyd", his finance minister!

Second, the NDP has moderated a bit from its start but there are still a very large number of older citizens who remember. It may not be true today but back in the late 60's and early 70's the NDP was an official member of the International Worker's Brotherhood, a known communist organization. They didn't talk about it much but they didn't hide it either.

As I said, they have moderated somewhat but people tend to carry impressions for years without revisiting them. The federal NDP is still far more like it was in 1965 than the British Labour Party of today!

Replace Jack Layton with a Gary Doer and you would have a very different federal NDP party! Give it some time and it might even have a shot at winning power!

Edited April 12, 2011 by Wild Bill