Guns, Guns, Guns, What's the answer?

Since the tragedy at Newtown the issue of gun violence in America has been first and foremost in everyone's mind, and rightfully so. This is just one more incident where innocent lives were destroyed and America's love affair with the gun appears to be the culprit.

Pro gun or anti gun, few are suggesting that the status quo is acceptable after this recent slaughter of the innocent by one unsettled individual. The public and Government both feel an immediate urgency to do something, anything to make America a safer place for its citizens and particularly its children. Unfortunately many of the suggestions on how to prevent future horrific tragedies are based more on raw emotion than they are on actual facts or common sense. Prior to making any decisions the country needs a sufficient period to bury it's dead and to mourn. After that there will be time to determine to think things through and hopefully come up with solution that has some chance of actually curtailing the problem.

In my own humble opinion if America truly wants to ensure that its children are protected from random gun violence simply passing more legislation to control guns is not a stand alone solution that will have any immediate affect. Why? I feel there are a number of reasons

One can only wonder where it will all lead....

Over the years as I have watched the world go by it has become more apparent on a daily basis that the manner in which our democracy works is at times it's own worse enemy. Although from an early age we are taught that the different levels of government exist to serve the people, unfortunately in practice it seldom works as originally intended. In reality, many basic human traits make the practical application of good government far more difficult to implement than it appears on paper. Greed, lust for power, ignorance, prejudices, and people's general inability to understand that every action has a consequence, all play a role in making perfect government only a dream that will never be achieved.

Those that "serve us" in government rely solely on the electorate process to maintain their seats of power. So our politicians have learnt well that the people's loyalty can be bought with a few baubles and trinkets. Every election brings more promises of what the electorate can expect "in payment" from each of the political candidates if they are elected. What we generally see is a bidding war for votes with every party pulling out the cheque book and removing all stops in their zeal to promise the voter more than their opponent can. The problem is compounded as the demands of the electorate and the promises of those running for office increase with each election and every generation of voters. Now on first glance, one may wonder if this is such a bad thing, after all it is taxpayers money intended to be spent for the common good and the betterment of society as a whole.

This boy is definitely a "chip off the old block"

As the Federal Liberals go through yet another leadership race in the hopes of finding someone to lead the chosen people out of the wilderness, I can't help but marvel at the desperation in their ranks.

Although one has to ask, why would we expect this race to be any different from ones of the past. In the last decade the Liberal party has certainly had some interesting potential leaders, looking back to 2006 they also produced a bumper crop of poor choices for party leadership.

Michael Ignatieff
Half the battle was teaching voters how to pronounce his last name (honestly, I never mastered it), but that was the least of the challenges facing the Liberal party with Michael. Here was a Canadian who moved to the United States, lived there for almost 30 years, crooned publicly about the wonders of living as a pseudo American, and then when he thought he could take the Liberal leadership and possibly become Prime Minister he parachuted back into Canada. Well as we all know he did become the leader of the Liberal party and went onto lead the party into a federal election that resulted in the Liberals almost being wiped of the face of the Canadian political map. Upon being soundly defeated, old Michael stepped down and now splits his time between teaching positions in Toronto and Harvard. Alas, a true Canadian patriot.

Bob Rae
Need I say more? As the former NDP Premier of Ontario, Bob was instrumental in leading that once successful province down the road of financial ruin. Bob made even America's President Obama look like a spendthrift when it came to holding the reins on the public purse. Once he had left a trail of fiscal destruction in his path he moved on and set his sights on the top job in Canada, Prime Minister. Now old Bob knows an opportunity when he sees one, and when the Liberals needed a leader he was not about to let the fact he was a card carrying member of the NDP party stand in his way, he simply jumped ship. However, what he couldn't leave behind was his record as Premier in Ontario, much to his dislike that stench clung to him and he was beat out by Michael Ignatieff. However, after Michael moved on Bob did get the job of acting party leader for the Liberals and the good news is that he could hold most of his caucus meetings in a broom closet.

Now , back to the present leadership race. The shining star in this one as far as most Liberals are concerned is Justin Trudeau, the son of former Canadian Prime Minister (and international playboy), Pierre Trudeau. Now amongst many Liberals, Pierre is held in the same reverence as say John Kennedy is with American Democrats. However most of us remember him better as the guy that flipped Canadians "the bird" from the back of the train on his way out of town or as the Prime Minister who coined the phrase "fuddle duddle". Someone who as a nation we could all be proud of, mind you I understand he did date Barbara Streisand.

So can we expect more from junior?

No relief for democracy on the horizon.....

Well, after spending most of the evening watching the Fox News network coverage of the Presidential election, I am ready for bed. Now barring a miracle akin to parting the Red Sea it would appear that I will awake to four more years of watching the destruction of America under the hand of President Obama.

However, the reality is that as a Canadian I am by default simply a third part observer. Unfortunately, even as a third party observer it saddens me greatly to see the once shining example of democracy, liberty, and free enterprise, so readily and willingly give up the very things that their forefathers shed blood to win. Instead, as a nation it appears they prefer the embrace of an all powerful centralist government that dictates every aspect of its citizens lives, much like the one they fought to escape from over two centuries ago. The vast portion of Americas citizenry have sold their freedom for a handful of beads, much like Native Americans traded away Manhattan in the 17th century. Only the currency has changed, in today's world the beads have been replaced with government entitlement programs.

While it would be easy to simply watch our southern neighbours readily chase after socialism,  a path that for many years it appeared that Canada was all to eager to embrace ourselves, the repercussions of where Americas path is leading are frightening. Unfortunately the failure or success of America has a ripple affect on all nations to some degree, and to Canada in particular. America bears a responsibility to the rest of the world as for so many years they have intentionally entrenched themselves in the very economic fabric of the world economy. They are now to a great degree a large portion of the very foundation of world economics, think about it, is there anymore recognized or accepted currency worldwide than the American greenback? Is there any single nation with greater power to consume? America's credit rating is downgraded and world stock markets fall.

Just a mere 10 years ago if I had suggested that between our two countries that Canada had the more fiscally responsible Federal government, I suspect that someone would have had me committed. Now in the present, I would simply be stating a fact. How has so much changed in just one decade?

I suspect it lies with the fact that after a flirtation with a somewhat socialist agenda we came to the conclusion that it simply was a fantasy that could not exist in the real world if we wanted a prosperous future. A future that would provide the greatest opportunities for the most people. This is something that I imagine America too will discover with time, lets just all hope that hey don't wait too long.

In the meantime if the past four years is any indication of what the next four will hold, President Obama will likely continue to attempt to spend America into prosperity and out of debt. Who knows, maybe over the next four years the man will actually propose a budget that will garner a single vote from members of his own party in the Senate ( unlike his 2011 budget that was voted down by Senate Democrats 97-0). At least that would be a start, a weak one but a start none the less.

The NDP, Stupid is as Stupid does

It's no secret that I am not a big supporter of the Leftwing politics of the NDP, but to be fair I do realize that they have a place in the Canadian political landscape. Any political system to be truly balanced  needs to represent both sides of the political spectrum. Besides, in present Canadian Federal politics there is so little difference between the Liberal party and the NDP that even each parties supporters are confused. So if nothing else this tends to keep the Left in disarray, generally a good condition for them to be in as far as most sensible individuals are concerned.

Usually I am not the least bit surprised by any of  the socialist nonsense that the NDP generates on a regular basis, and I long ago stopped scratching my head trying to understand their logic. Having said that, recently the NDP surprised even me.

It's seems that last week the Federal Government announced that they had managed to cut their budgeted spending over the course of the fiscal year by $8 billion. Now generally anytime a government spends less than planned it is a cause for celebration, particularly due to the fact that it occurs on about the same frequency as  a pass by from Haley's Comet. Unfortunately this impudence on the part of the Feds did not sit well with the NDP who naturally felt something was amiss. After all an unspent taxpayer dollar is a wasted dollar in the mind of the NDP,  worse yet is the potential loss of an entitlement program, even one that serves no rational purpose. Never mind the fact that every dollar our Federal government spends is a borrowed dollar that adds to our ever growing Federal debt. So exactly how did the Federal NDP party view this "travesty"?

"It speaks to the lack of transparency and really the fundamental lack of accountability with Canadians," NDP finance critic Peggy Nash stated to the Globe and Mail. "People need to know what programs are being cut, what services are being undermined." 

Too funny....Let me get this straight, the programs that Peggy believes are being cut and the services that she suggests are being undermined are of such great importance that unless the government notifies us what they are, we might miss the entire event?  Really, is this the best she and her party have to offer Canadians? Peggy must be very familiar with the story of Chicken Little!

The ironic thing is that the Feds actually released Public Accounts' documentation last week that clearly indicated where the bulk of the savings were achieved. 

- $6.3 billion was originally budgeted for infrastructure and. $4.5 billion was actually spent.

- Ottawa spent almost $2 billion less than expected on Employment Insurance benefits.

-  The B.C. Provincial government returned $1.6 billion to the Feds after opting out of the HST.

As the official opposition the role of the NDP is to keep tabs on the government, but use some common sense please, there are plenty of places to find fault with our current government, you don't need to create issues where they don't exist. Speaking strictly from the viewpoint of a taxpayer, anytime the government shaves 25% off of a projected annual deficit of  $32 Billion, I am a happy camper. Too bad for the NDP that they don't see this as a good thing as well.

On a last note for my American friends who are reading this,  yes the dollar amounts cited above are correct. I can only imagine knowing this makes you feel even worse about your own Federal governments fiscal irresponsibility that is leading you over a fiscal cliff. You have my sympathy and I hope that Tuesday brings you a positive change in the Oval Office.

Stoking the fires of resentment

With the first snow on the ground I suspect I will be a bit more housebound and spending more time "putting my thoughts to paper", as they say. So here I go, for those of you who have any interest read on.

With the race for the Oval Office in its last days we can expect to see the candidates talking themselves up and talking their opponents down. Now to be very honest I have no problem with a political candidate preying on the weaknesses and and character flaws of their opponents. After all, as Harry S Truman would say, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

However where I have a problem is when candidates intentionally stretch the truth, creatively edit the facts, or simply assume that a false message delivered in the right tone will fool us simpletons into believing what they want us to believe. Yes, I know that it is common practice, but the reality is that at times it is taken to the point that it creates undeserved animosity amongst the electorate toward a particular candidate. Animosity to the point where a candidate's character or personal integrity are called into question based on nothing more than "political spin".

You tell them Harry

One case in point is the efforts that have been made by Democrat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid to besmirch Mitt Romney's character, above and beyond the point of common decency.

Really Harry is this the best you can do? " I heard Mitt Romney has not paid tax in the last ten years". The follow up from Harry was even better "It falls upon Governor Romney to prove otherwise by releasing his tax returns"

Frankly if I was a resident of Nevada I would be ashamed to admit that Mr Reid represented my state. This is the same guy that a quick search on the Internet will find hundreds of articles detailing how Harry has somehow managed to increase his net worth from a "paltry" $1.2 Million to the tune of about $11 million during the time he has been a public servant (public servants must be paid very well in Nevada). Interesting as well is the fact that while  Harry was claiming that Mr Romney could  disprove the allegations of tax evasion simply by making his tax returns public, good old Harry has refused all requests to make his own tax records open to the public. I guess Harry doesn't buy into the old adage, "what's good for the goose, is what's good for the gander".

What's really troubling about this is that it is the lowest form of mud slinging and was allowed under the watchful eyes of the President. All Mr Obama had to do to put an end to it was make one phone call. It speaks volumes about the man that he allowed this (and many would say "encouraged "it ) under his watch. I imagine what we have witnessed here is some of the tricks that Mr Obama learned during his tenure in Chicago style politics, not very Presidential to say the least. But on the other hand , pretty much what one would expect from a man who refers to his opponent as a "bulls^^^ter" in a televised interview. Just the kind of guy a nation wants on the world stage.

Renovating the den, while he kitchen is on fire. Part 2

In Part One I discussed how our governments in both Canada and the United

States for all intents and purposes are simply ignoring the massive debts they are incurring. Sure, once in a while they pay lip service to the debt, but generally it is placed on the back burner. I detailed my thoughts on this in Part One, and since that time I have seen some classic examples of our elected officials focusing on minor issues and treating them as if they had the potential to change civilization.

Here is a real doozie!

It appears that both the American Congress and Senate are up in arms over the fact that the uniforms of the U.S. Olympic Team were manufactured in China. In fact a bill was introduced in the Senate that if passed, would require the US Olympic Committee (USOC) to outfit Olympic athletes in ceremonial uniforms "sewn or assembled in the United States."

Let me get this straight, in the midst of what could possibly be considered the second worst financial crisis in American history (a close second right after the Great Depression) and at a time when government spending is spiraling out of control, it appears that the biggest concern of these elected officials is who did the sewing for Team USA! One can only imagine what this is costing the American taxpayer to have these individuals sit around and discuss the rag trade. I'm not making this up, trust me I am not that creative to imagine such stupidity. Sure, I realize that the uniforms are just a symptom of the bigger problem, the outsourcing of American jobs. However, that horse has left the barn!

Renovating the den, while the kitchen is on fire....

With summer upon us I find that I am not devoting much time to writing on this blog, it could be that not much in the news catches my attention, or just that I would rather spend my time outside. I think it is a safe bet to go with the latter.

However, while watching the late evening news last night something did catch my eye and get me to thinking.  To be honest I don't even remember what the actual issue was, however the train of thought it put me on is important.

Lately I have noticed that more than ever both in Canada and the United States that politicians as a group are focused on a myriad of issues, yet ignore the single biggest threat to the future of both our countries. The threat?

The massive crushing debt that has been taken on by all levels of government.

While there is some 'lip service" paid to addressing the debt, little if any serious action is undertaken to tackle it. I mean really, for example neither federal government has any form of repayment planned. Each year simply slips by and the debt grows, and a myriad of excuses are given, poor economy, unexpected expenses, lower revenues, etc, etc, etc. We all know the drill

Now, part of the problem is that the average citizen is oblivious to all of this, for the vast majority they are aware to some degree that there is government debt, but simply don't see it as something that affects their life or that they need to be concerned about. There lies the sad part and the reason that there is no urgency to tackle the problem. Unfortunately politicians, better than anyone understand the adage of  "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". So if no one is complaining, why tackle the issue, after all there are only two possible ways to solve the problem, cut spending or raise more revenue (taxes). Obviously neither method garners a lots of support from the average voter who is looking to the government for all the entitlement programs they have come to view as their birthright. The sad reality of our self entitled society is that spending garners votes, not austerity. I personally believe that politicians understand the severity of the issue better than many of us give them credit for, they also understand that no one government in a single term will resolve the issue, and that more than likely the government that has the fortitude to tackle the issue will only serve one term. So their response is simple, leave it for "the next guy", and in the meantime divert the peoples focus from the real problem  by throwing them shiny baubles and trinkets.

So where will all of this lead, the answer is already playing out in Europe, in countries such as Greece and Spain. Unfortunately it is only a matter of time before North America suffers the same fate.

War on Women? I do believe we have found the culprits...

If you follow politics south of our border (the good Old USA) you have almost certainly heard the phrase "War on Women" used by candidates, elected officials, political pundits, and the news media. Trust me, it is not exclusive to one side, Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, both sides to some degree accuse the other of participating in some form of gender bias. Having said that, the accusations appear to come from the Left far more often than the Right. In fact the the term is used frequently by the more Left leaning, who carry it like a shield against the Right.

The heat on this issue has recently been turned up a few notches because several major events are taking place concurrently, how so?

No need for a red carpet this time around

So, it appears that today we Albertans will be graced with a visit from the leader of the Federal NDP party, Thomas Mulcair. Tom will start his visit in Edmonton where he will meet with Alberta Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk,  Alberta Premier Alison Redford is in Virginia to attend the Bilderberg conference. Now there has been some criticism that Premier Redford herself should have been here to meet Tom, however my thoughts on this are simple. Why?

After all, Mr Mulcair is not the leader of our country, he is the leader of the official opposition, a position he was granted by his party (not the electorate) after another individual had done all the work to get the party to official opposition status. Sorry to bring it up Tom, but so far you are simply riding on Jack Layton's coat tails. My belief is that Mr. Mulcair is fully aware of his precarious status within the party (and amongst it's supporters) and as such understands better than anyone how important it is that he make his presence known amongst voters before another federal election. Where Jack Layton took the NDP in federal politics was nothing short of a miracle, unfortunately Jack has passed on, and lightning rarely strikes in the same place twice. It would appear that Tom has his work cut out for him. So whats his plan?

Those of us on the right simply have to communicate better

I have never made any bones about the fact that I lean to the right in my political beliefs. Does that mean I believe that all things right are "right" (no pun intended, but it is an ironic use of words)?

Two entirely different directions take by
people often with the best of intentions

Of course not, I am not so naive as to believe the Conservative mindset can do no wrong, nor am I so ignorant to imagine that the Liberal train of thought is never right (that almost seems like an oxymoron). Although, what I do find of interest is that at times the personal commitment to a course of action by some on the Left is almost fanatical, (does the term "Occupy" come to mind?). If you have ever had the painful experience of attempting to have a rational discussion on a topic such as Health Care or Old Age Security with a committed "die-hard" Liberal or NDP voter you will know exactly what I am referring to. Unless you are willing to discuss increased public funding your opinions are generally met with disdain and any hope of your using a well thought out logical platform in an effort to get your viewpoint across is pointless. Any attempt on your part to suggest the merits of increased efficiency or private sector involvement in the health care system will almost certainly get you labeled as a heartless right wing fanatic that places profits before people.

Why? Well, what I have noticed over the years is that the Right and the Left approach political debates and discussion in completely different manners and from starting points that tend to be light years apart. The foundations that each side relies on when debating are simply put, like night and day.

The Right generally comes armed with facts, figures, statistics, examples, you name it they have done their home work and are are ready to prove their point in the harsh light of the day. Often they will turn to terms such as increased efficiency, user fees, or private sector involvement as avenues to explore with the goal of delivering a more affordable solution. No brainer, right? One would think so, but that is generally not the case.(again no pun intended, but the word "right" just makes so much sense so often, doesn't it)

The Left, in many cases will simply set the facts aside in favor of a formula that leads right (oops, did it again) to the support of the majority. So what is this magic formula?

Now, if Ottawa really wants to get serious about this

So according to a story in the Globe and Mail, Ottawa is apparently going to start having telemarketers underwrite the cost of enforcing the national Do Not Call List. It seems that our  federal government plans to consult with the telemarketing industry in the coming months and implement a permanent funding mechanism to take effect April 1 of next year.

Junk Calls, an endless stream

Great concept, making the offender responsible for the cost of policing themselves. After all, why should the taxpayer continuously be expected to foot the bill to police industry. I understand the reasoning behind society having to cover the cost to police criminals, plain and simple they are criminals and its not like we can expect them to fund efforts to arrest, convict, and imprison themselves ( try collecting those dues.....). However, legitimate industry and business is another matter. When there is talk of impending government regulation for a specific sector of business we often hear from that particular group that they would much prefer self regulation over the government imposed version. Typically the argument will be made that the vast majority of the group is not the problem, that generally members respect and abide by the rules and common sense, and that excessive regulations will add to the costs of doing business. All good arguments, and for the most case very true. However, on occasion the government has no choice but to step in when an industry proves incapable of regulating itself  (yes, I said it, more government regulation), however why should the taxpayer be expected to shoulder the financial burden. After all, the industry itself is responsible for the problem and even if it were to effectively self regulate there would be an associated cost to its members.

So, maybe, just maybe this latest tact will help eliminate some of the dozens, if not hundreds of junk calls the average Canadian is subjected to.

Now while it is a good start, it simply does not go far enough. The current Do Not Call legislation effectively exempts a number of groups from the rules, charities, newspapers, pollsters and survey companies, and you guessed it, politicians and political parties. All of these groups will tell you that these calls are absolutely essential to fund raising, information gathering for their group or organization, or simply staying in business. Again probably true, however the same argument could be made for virtually any operation performing outgoing calls, yet none of them are blessed with exemption from the rules. It appears from the exempt list that the government covered itself (politicians and pollsters) and any allies that they felt might cause a backlash if not exempted (charities and newspapers), but does that really surprise anyone, its par for the course.

So if our government really wants to get serious about providing Canadians some relief from constant phone ring during their personal time at home, the regulations should blanket ALL call, no exceptions.

A short walk, but an unforgivable betrayal

If you read this blog regularly it's no secret that Frustrated Joe's political philosophies tend to differ a great from those of the left, like say the NDP. However, once in while an issue arises that I find myself agreeing (at least partially) with someone I would normally be opposed to. Wow, that was a mouthful.

The issue at hand today are the shackles that are placed upon our Members of Parliament when they are expected to vote with their party on issues before Parliament. The particular case in question is that of Bruce Hyer, one of the NDP's northern Ontario MP's. Hyer was one of two NDP MP's that voted in November 2011 with the Conservative government on Bill C-19 to put an end to the long gun registry. Unfortunately for Hyer, that decision conflicted with his parties stance on the issue. The result, both MP's were disciplined by their party.

Now, maybe it is old school but as a voter I  personally feel that the first duty of elected officials is to those that elected them. Myself, I have always taken into account the candidates personal opinions and political philosophy (how close they are to mine) and given both almost the same weight in my voting decision as I give to their political parties views. After all this individual serves as your representative in government. You need to know "they have your back".

It appears Alison was right about one thing.....

Well folks, here in Alberta its the morning after. Yesterday was our provincial election and like a drunk sobering up the next day after a bender many of us are wondering what really happened the night before.

During the last few weeks, virtually every opinion poll agreed on one thing, after the election we would have a new party in power. After 40 some odd years of Progressive Conservative (PC) rule in our province the Wildrose Party of Alberta was set to usurp the reining government. Pollsters and political pundits alike pointed to poll results and history to claim that Alberta was due for a change. After all, four decades ago a little known Peter Lougheed and his PC party sent the then ruling Social Credit government packing, coincidentally after the So-Creds had ruled the province for about four decades themselves.

Political pollsters claimed that this election would result in a Wildrose majority, or possibly a PC or Wildrose  minority government, but no one was willing to give odds on a PC majority. There was even talk at times that the NDP or Liberals might swing the balance of power in a minority government ( I can just imagine Brian and Raj salivating over this thought).

So lets get back to reality.......
This morning when we woke up (or last night if you chose to stay up for the results) we found ourselves with another PC majority government, down 5 seats from last time but a strong majority none the less. Yes, the Wildrose gained some ground they now hold 19 seats to the PC's 61, so they will become the official opposition. But that's a long shot from the sweeping majority some predicted right up to election eve for Danielle Smith and her candidates.

So how could the pollsters be so wrong?

That's something I am sure that they are asking themselves, after all a pollster is only as reliable as his last call. I expect they will keep themselves busy for quite some time trying to figure this one our and prove to all that this was an anomaly of sorts. The excuses for their poor performance will be flying left, right, and center (no relation to political philosophies intended). However, their predictions on this one remind me of a stockbroker I had years ago, needless to say we parted company while I still had a roof over my head.

So what was Premier Alison Redford so right about?

Well leading up to the election as one poll after another stated that the PC's would go down in flames and the Wildrose party was slated to be the new kid in town, she held her composure and responded by simply stating;

"The only poll that counts is the one taken on election day"

Needless to say she called that one right on the money. I wonder if she would be willing to provide some stock investment advice?

Now this is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black......

"Sydney, what happened to you? You've become obese!"

Recently, Jim Flaherty Canada's Finance Minister has taken to publicly criticizing the spending habits of the provincial government of Ontario.

Now while I can't argue with the criticism nor would I in my wildest dreams ever consider defending Premier Dalton McGuinty and his merry band of free spending caucus members, I do have a problem with this.
Where do I start, well it seems Jimmy has suggested that the McGuinty Liberals should "look in the mirror" to see who is responsible for Ontario's current economic woes. A fine suggestion, but tell me Jimmy-Boy, do you own a mirror?

Rather than having me take off on a rant (something I tend to do occasionally), let's keep this short and use a couple of old but well proven adages that accurately describe this soap opera.......
"cast the first stone" or  "Those that live in glass houses....."

I am personally amazed that Jimmy feels he can tell anyone how to be fiscally responsible. It certainly is not based on his setting such a fine example to follow,  another old adage says it best  "Don't do as I do, do as I say"

On the other hand, maybe there is a simpler motivation at play here, like the fact that Jimmy's wife Christine Elliot is the deputy leader of Ontario's Conservative party. You know, the same Conservative party that would like to form the next government of Ontario and currently sits in opposition to McGuinty's Liberals.

So Jimmy, how about doing us taxpayers a couple of favors?
First, balance your own governments budget and address it's debt before you worry about the other guys, and secondly when your working on our nickel let your wife do her own campaigning.

See you in the funny pages....

Alberta Politics - Busting with Enthusiasm

If your looking for a little humor be sure to check out the latest addition to our "Just Plain Funny" page. It's sure to "bust" you up ....lol
In fact it is the talk of the town here in the great white north, here's a hint......

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round, all day long.

Peter, Thank you for wasting my Friday evening right along with my tax dollars

Being a Friday night I had planned a quiet evening, nothing too serious, no blogging, maybe a little television for the evening. I did however have a blog article in mind for posting on Saturday, one that I have been researching over the last week or so. Like every night, when I arrived home I checked my mailbox to see what had been delivered and what I found threw my plans for a peaceful Friday night right out the window and put me on a different writing path than my intended Saturday blog.

As anyone who is a regular reader of this blog is aware I have had little if anything positive to say about the "Occupy" movement since its inception. The Occupy movement which originally sprouted from "Occupy Wallstreet" in New York's financial district had lost all sense of purpose by the time it moved to other locales and cities. What was essentially in the beginning a protest against massive government bailouts of poorly managed financial institutes and the corruption of sub-prime mortgages (funny enough, both are issues that I could have supported protesting against) quickly evolved to protesting  "the flavor of the week" depending on the particular group of Occupy Drones that formed in any specific city. Every perceived woe that faced society came under attack by Occupy Drones and allowed them to self justify criminal acts such as illegally trespassing on private property or the destruction of public property. After all it was all in the name of a greater cause. Soon they were demanding forgiveness of personal student loan and credit card debt, withdrawal of troops, closing down the oilsands, a reduction of CO2, you name it they wanted it. The bottom line is that the Occupy movement became a gathering place for the disenchanted and anarchists, at times the "camps" even became havens of refuge for the homeless. So whats this got to do with what I discovered in my mailbox?

Our Government, So right one day, so wrong the next

If you are like me last week was one for celebration. The Conservative government finally made good on their promise to scrap the Long Gun Registry by the passing of Bill C-19, and to say this was long overdue would be an understatement. This legislation when first enacted by the previous Liberal government was promised to make the streets safer and be self-funding, unfortunately like so many promises made by those in power this was a hollow one. Not only were the safety benefits of the program questioned by everyone ( including many in law enforcement) but in short order the program ran up a cost to the Canadian  government of over $1 Billion.... Surprise

Well fortunately after 'only" a billion or so of taxpayer money wasted this program is close to being history. Public Safety Minister Toews stated
“It criminalizes hard-working and law-abiding citizens such as farmers and sport shooters, and it has been a billion-dollar boondoggle left to us by the previous Liberal government.”
(You have that right Vic, good for you)

According to Bill C-19, all data pertaining to non-restricted firearms will be deleted as a measure to protect individual privacy. Unfortunately, once the bill is finally passed into law, Quebec has indicated it will immediately seek an injunction from the courts to halt the destruction of the registry data. Gotta luv Quebec...

Congratulations to Mr Harper and his party for doing the right thing, now hopefully the Liberals in the Senate don't hold up the passing of the bill.

Now, lets look at another effort on the part of the Harper government, one that is not so "right".

You can lead a horse to water, but that doesn't get you a foundation built...

As some of you may recall, in December of 2010 I posted an article about the housing situation on the Attawapiskat First Nation reserve in Ontario and the ongoing political and public outrage calling for the government to fix the problem. My solution was simple, or at least I thought so. Unfortunately, as usual the Canadian government decided against listening to my sage council on the issue and took their own course of action. A course of action that I suspect had far more to do with public relations than actually providing a long term solution to the issue.

The governments solution at the time was the announcement that they would commit to sending 22 modular homes up to the reserve as quickly as they could be built and road conditions would allow. The band committed itself to the responsibility of preparing the lots so that when the homes arrived they could be dropped in place and residents could move in as quickly as possible. A joint effort that would ensure that results were achieved as quickly as possible.

Well the good news as of this week is that the homes building is progressing at a rapid pace, with a good portion of them completed and ready for transport. The bad news is .......

I hope this doesn't get around, but I agree with the NDP

On Tuesday, January 10 2012, backbencher NDP MP Lise St-Denis announced she's was crossing the floor to the Liberals. The MP for Saint-Maurice-Champlain, Quebec said she broke with the New Democrats over a number of policies, and stated she felt the Liberals had the experience and policies to better represent the interests of the people in her riding.

"I didn't imagine I could stay there for three years just listening to options I didn't believe in," she said.

Now while I can fully understand anyone having a hard time listening to the opinions voiced  by the NDP, I fail to see how crossing the floor to sit with the Liberals provides the lady with much of a change. On top of that was she not aware of NDP policies before she ran for the party? If not the NDP better take a serious look at how they qualify potential candidates.