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?

Government and Debt. How did we ever go down this road?

Just the other day I was watching television in my bed prior to drifting off for the evening. As I recall I was watching the news, and I got to thinking about how nice it would be to get rid of my 21" CRT boob tube and replace it with a brand new 32" Plasma, LED, or LCD HD television. You know the ones, fully loaded with all the bells and whistles.

Now I will admit that there is really nothing wrong with the TV I have, but lets face it the new ones are just a lot nicer. As I lay in my bed musing about this I thought that if I were to buy a new TV I might as well get one of those PVR satellite receivers, that way I could record programs and watch them at night. After all, in for a penny in for a pound. In fact since I am upgrading.... why not a couple of sets of wireless headphones for the wife and I, that way one could watch TV into the wee hours while the other slept. Ooops, almost forgot a DVD player, a Bluray, probably 3D with some wireless features (don't want to miss out on NetFlix).

Just as I was planning my run to BestBuy the next day, reality set in (it's a bitch at times). I needed all of this equipment like a "starving dog needs a second arsehole", more to the point where was the money coming from? After all it's not like I had a couple of grand set aside for tech upgrades, or that my employer would just cut me a cheque out of the goodness of their heart (and their understanding of my hi-tech needs). The bottom line was that the money would have to be reallocated from something else ( food, education, retirement, mortgage, emergency funds, saving, etc.) or borrowed, thus incurring some debt.

So, now that I have laid out my hi-tech bedroom fantasy (almost sounds risque doesn't it?) you are probably asking yourself what this has to do with Government debt.

Well its no big secret that governments at every level (civic, provincial, and federal) are and have been overspending for years, taking on ever increasing debt loads with no end in sight or any formal plan for repayment. So what is the answer?

Canada, Justice and equal rights for all? Sort of

As Canadians we like to think that our justice system treats all individuals equally and fairly regardless of their heritage, gender, or religion. Canada is a country where the law is applied impartially to all of its people and we take pride in the fairness of our justice system. In fact the average Canadian takes great offense when we feel that an individual is being unjustly treated or harshly sentenced based on a perceived bias against the individual or a group they belong to.

After all, "Justice is Blind" right?

Well, partially anyways, it appears that recently Canada's Supreme Court has instructed our justice system to "keep one eye open"  when meting out justice to individuals of a certain heritage. How can this be in a country that prides itself on fair handed treatment for all, why would one group be singled out for specific punishment? This racist undertone is not something any of us would expect from Canadian courts.

By now your undoubtedly wondering what any particular group of people did to be treated in such a harsh manner, why would the courts unfairly base sentencing on a persons heritage, and what can be done to prevent this miscarriage of justice against these poor unfortunate individuals.

Well dear reader do I have a surprise for you.