Super Tuesday and other American Stuff: Part One

I am really interested in the US political process, which is becoming very interesting tomorrow (Super Tuesday). I have been watching the US primaries with interest and I do not know who is going to win and I can not wait for the results, even if it does not come out until august. I read two articles that dealt with the US today: How many Canadians would want to vote in the US elections http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/01/poll-cbc.html,
and the next one is about how much money the US is spending in their budget http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/080204/K020404AU.html.

As a dual citizen I have the lucky ability to choose which election I am able to vote in. Some thing 15% of Canadians would also like to part take in as well. On the other hand 8% thought that who won did not matter to Canadians at all. This may be a hopeful wish, if a terrible president gets in it will not affect us. I believe that any world leader no matter how small the country can cause major chance throughout the world. Another issue that came up in the survey that 50% of Canadians thought that the USA stood out as a negative force in the world. We as Canadians we need to look at that issue closely. We are tied to the United States in many of our policies and in Geography.
Are we going to stay closely tied to the US or are we going to branch out of North America and become more closely connected to another group of nations. There are many differences between Canada and US, but at the same time we are more and more alike. What is the other group of nations that we would be connected to??

One of the ways that we are alike, to be perfectly honest, is our multicultural policies. I know as many Canadians we think that our policies are much better. They are in name only, once you start looking at the affects and goals they are almost the same. We also have major discrimination based on colour, which we refuse to admit. There was a case in Quebec where the non-white workers had to eat in a different lunch room which did not have any heating. They also did not have access to a proper washroom facility either. This case did not happen in the 1960s or even the 1970s; it occurred after 2000. This is a fact that I found shocking. There is also the issue of reasonable accommodation; which is presently occurring in Quebec as well, I am not trying to pick on Quebec (Quebec should have special rights [another blog again]). This is happening in areas where there are not an immigrant problem, if there can ever be one....
Another issue that is close to my heart, is the environment. Both of our current governments are terrible with the environment. It is true that we are not going completely against the rest of the world when it comes to the issue of climate change. But we are also saying that we cannot go forward without the US, which means that we will have to agree to everything that they want in order to do anything productive. Why can we not be unafraid to stand up to the US, and I know that the current government does not agree with the rest of the world. So nothing is really going to happen anyways.
There are also other issues where we are different: birth rates, urban governments, government power, religious stances.

Who else would we join is a very interesting issue that I have thought about numerous times. Would we even have another group to join, I do not think there is another group that Canada could associate with. There is the EU, Latin America, Australia and New Zealand, and the Commonwealth.
The EU is the region that has the most similarities, but we would never be able to join. To Join the EU we must prove that we are European, which we are not in the slightest way. I know that we are based on a European system and were once a colony of Europe. But we are not European, if Morocco can not join we have no chance at all.
Latin America could be an option, going right over the US to their southern neighbours. But there is the issue of geography, how could a system be put into place that has a huge barrier, the US, in the way. I know that technology based world this is becoming less of an issue. There is also the issue of the common good, what would be the point of the organization. The Latin American Countries have many different pressing issues that they have to deal with. I know this sounds bad but Canada is too developed to be in a block with the Latin American countries. The Canada government would destroy it with their policies.
The next group that I though of is Australia and New Zealand. These are both former colonies with similar issues and problems that need to be dealt with. We all have indigenous peoples who have been mistreated for many years. Both have the issue with immigration and how to include them in our collective culture. This is an issue of geography, how would a block that goes all the way across the world function. We are too spread out.
The last grouping is the Commonwealth. This has many issues involved with it. We are a member of the commonwealth, which is not completely just former British Colonies. This does have the of geography and social inequalities. The Commonwealth is spread all over the world ranging from rich countries to very poor how would be create a common good that would span all of our interests.
We as Canada have no other viable alternative to the US so we have to deal with it and remain connected to them. Through the good times and the bad.

The other article deals with the amount of money being spent on by the US government 3 trillion dollars. This sounds like a heck of a lot, well it is, but it is only a 1/3 of their debt. Yes the US debt is 9 trillion dollars, which is massive. Like the US the Canadian government does not really seem to care about the debt that we have created over these many years. The recent tax cuts that the government put forward could have reduced our debt by 10%, which would have been impressive. Then the Conservatives could have said they are different in a positive way. The worst part of the US spending is that an idea to reduce the deficit, which is 400 billion, is to cut back spending for social programs. I think the real way to solve the issue of the US is to increase money on social programs, reduce the money going to the military and finally end the ridiculous idea that everyone can own a home of their own.

I know that this does not really have to do with Super Tuesday, but I am sure these would not have been as large of issues if Super Tuesday was not around the corner.

Chad-Darfur-Sudan

Well as many of you should know there is political issues in Chad, Sudan and Darfur, maybe even spreading into the Central African Republic (CAR). Sudan is a country whose borders are based on the political unit that the British Empire put into place a long time ago. The way it was created means there is not common nation for this country. This has caused civil wars which have occurred in the south, east and west. The current civil war is in the west of the country and is spreading to Chad and CAR.
The Chad government is currently under attack from rebel forces, which are now fighting in the capital. The Chad government says that the rebels are being funded by Sudan who does not want the EU peacekeeping force to be put into place. This brings up some issues in my mind (as usual). What is the world going to do about Darfur, what is the reaction to the fighting in Chad.

I will start off with the reaction to the current situation in Chad. France currently has forces in the Capital of Chad, N'Djamena, and they are going to stay neutral. Their job at the moment is to protect foreign nations before they can be taken away to safety in Gabon. This in my view is fairly similar to what happened in Rwanda. After the bloodshed began many western nations sent troops to protect their citizens but would not help protect the people who were being attacked. This is something that should never happen. Even if a army is trying to stay neutral, they still have the moral responsibility to protect human lives. I know involvement in a civil war could look bad for the French government, they are currently viewed as supporting the government. I feel that a government should protect human life, what are is the French army there for anyways??
I also find it upsetting that the EU forces are not moving into eastern Chad during this time of conflict to protect the refugees from Darfur. I am sure that those peoples situation is not improving, most likely becoming worse now that there is turmoil in the country that they are seeking support in. Aren't peacekeepers suppose to go into a troubled region to create peace??

On the other hand what should the world do about Darfur, if they follow the example of what we did in the south there will be no positive outcome. What we did in the south was next to nothing. I do not think that anything positive will happen in Darfur for the next year or so. But I hope that I am wrong, because that will mean the world does actually care. When was the last time that peacekeeping mission went to somewhere it really mattered. And if they were present when did it actually have the desired affect?? Well I do not know about each and ever event that the UN has been apart of, but many major conflicts have been over looked by the UN.
The UN is by far not perfect but I am sure that it is not the only reason why peacekeeping does not work properly. I would place most of the blame on Western countries that have the resources but do not act. It is really necessary for our western nations to have huge militaries which do not use their knowledge to a large extent. I believe that the western world should create a Military branch that would go on peacekeeping missions through out the world. I know this would be a hard political sell to the people in many nations.

This brings into mind the song by John Mayer, waiting for the world to change. We are waiting or the world to change so that we can make a real difference. I know waiting may not be the best thing to do but that is what I feel like we are doing at the moment

End of Inefficiency

I have found a new person who I would like to meet, the list has grown quite long (one day I will write it down for all of you to see). He's name is Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, the name makes him sound like a English Noble, but I do not think he is. He has worked in the upper rings of power in Shell, HSBC and other companies. He is also the Chair of the Foundation of the Global Compact, which is a fairly progressive idea. These are not the reasons why I decided that I would love to meet him some day in the future. He is an environmentalist, and gave an interesting idea to BBC which they reported.
Sir Moody-Stuart stated that the EU should ban all inefficient cars. His idea is that you could buy any new car but it had to meet a minimum standard, which was suggested as 60 mpg. His ban would be focused on the car makers, not the consumers. Under his suggested system old cars would not be banded from being sold again. If the ban included cars already built any positive effects would be replaced by price of destroying all of the cars that currently do not follow the standards. Most of all I am impressed because he is not the standard 'environmentalist' if he even considers himself one. This article got me thinking about a few issues: what affects would this have on the car industry and would this really affect a change.

One of the major issues that I keep on reading and being force feed to pay attention to is how hard it is for car companies to make a profit. Have you ever wondered if the age of cars is over and some of them should just go under, I think this a lot. I am not against cars, I believe that many of our basic trips could be done using other modes of transportation (that is another whole blog). I think that the car companies would be able to set up to the task of making more fuel efficient vehicles. Sure it may hurt their profits, but it would hurt even harder when the price of oil becomes so expensive that people can not drive their inefficient cars. (the end of cheap oil is also another blog).
The need of the government to bail out car companies in North America, this happens in Ontario and people generally support it. Bailing out includes low development taxes and
government loans to build new plants. I know that many people are losing their jobs and that their livelihoods are being taken away. I do not believe the future of manufacturing in North America is based on building cars. The cars being build and bought today will not be in just in around 20 years because the cost is just too much.
The government should take all of the money that they are spending on car manufacturing and spend it on public transportation. There are many areas of North America that need their public transportation systems to be rebuilt. This would create jobs, not the same as a car manufacture, that would help certain areas survive and would be a more sustainable solution. If you look at the major cities of Canada none of them really has a good public transportation system, none of the major four have their airports connected by rail to the center city (Vancouver is changing). Airlines is another issue that I will talk about at some time.

Will banning inefficiency really affect change in the people's lifestyles. I think that this would have an impact in Europe rather than in Canada and the USA. Our lifestyle here is to decentralized and dispersed to make any other option other than driving valid. We as North Americans like our world spread out and will only take public transit if we want to. I have even seen this in some of my close friends who believe that we need to change our lifestyles to help fight climate change. The belief is we can travel by car to go everywhere when ever we want, I am going to make a effort to not drive anywhere (if I can). If people offer me a ride somewhere and I except it, I am no better than the person who drives every where. If I drive when I can then I am just a person who only takes the bus when I am unable to drive. I will break this rule if I am traveling with a group of people who all want to take a car (I do not want to be rude, I may not even go).
If you look at the other items that have been banned, light bulbs and CFCs are examples, the world kept on going and the economy did not collapse. I think that government is too scared not to take action on issues that may cause their country to have negative outcomes, in the short term.
I see in planning that many people only look at short term goals and forget about long term costs. A rapid transit system will not bring change in 5 or even 10 years, the change will occur over a long time as lifestyles change. An example of looking at short term gain and long term losses is the Shepard Subway Line in Toronto. The line was build for political reasons, in the wrong place. But it is built and the people of Toronto has to deal with it. Some people want to close it down because it does not have enough people traveling on it (the subway was a bad move). But to take it away you will never be able to change the lifestyles of the people who are living in the area. In time, 20 years, there will be higher density around the route and more people will take it. On the other hand they could change it to a Light Rail Transit system that takes less people and can be moved above ground for a longer route. I know that that does not directly deal with banning things.
An urban planning issues that is similar to banning is the taxes for driving in Downtown London. Most vehicles that go into the downtown area of London are highly taxed. This has greatly affected the use of cars in the downtown core, which was the goal. It has also raised funds for the local government. It has caused an increase in public transit use but the local government has been able to spend the money on new capital project, or they have not been completed yet. Yes that is tax and not an all out ban on cars.

Well that is some of my thoughts about cars in relation to Sir Moody-Stuart's thoughts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7225451.stm