McCain or Obama? Post-Saddleback

Just this Saturday, my uncle and I watched the Saddleback Church forum on CNN, where Pastor Rick Warren, pastor of Saadleback Church in California, asked questions to the two presumtive Presidential nominees from the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

It was an interesting tv program as never in my life, have I seen a Church (and not a parachurch organization or a non-Church Christian organization) become so involved in politics, and on National Television (as in American National TV) as well.

It was also interesting as the questions asked weren’t those usually asked (both Obama and McCain were asked the same questions), i.e. “what’s your favourite sermon?” or “what was your favorite sunday school lesson?”, but “what is your greatest moral failure?”, “what is your position on/definition of marriage”, “what does your faith mean to you?”, or other questions about policies and other positions that they might have.

Watching this program, I was suprised as this wasn’t the usual preverted American political program where the moderator would be lobsided, completely bias, and just full of bs, but the style of questions and discussion was very close (with exception of the large audience) to how Steve Paiken hosts his show: unbiased, neutral, helpful commentary, questions and discussion.

Overall, I was very pleased how the program played out.

Now, to put the spotlight on the Candidates:

I found that Obama was here and there while he was answering questions from Rick Warren, but didn’t really connect with or focus on the audience, either in the Church auditorium or for those watching on television.

He was being his usual self: a very good orator, confident, and has good ideas.

Now, John McCain on the other hand, was being really straight forward, and the fact that he told stories, stories about his past, stories about his ordeal in Vietnam during his captivity, it help him connect with the people. As well, he focus more on and addressed the audience when the questions were being asked by Rick Warren, as opposed to Obama focusing on Warren.

In my opinion, although Obama did well and he did get his message across, McCain certainly “won” in the sense that he connected with the people and focused his attention on them.

And that was the key, in who came out of this forum as the better candidate.

(note: each candidate was asked the same set of Questions but Obama was “interviewed” first and McCain came on the stage as Obama was leaving)

on the idea of a North American Union

If someone were to ask me if Canada and the United States should become one country, my answer would be “No”.

In my opinion, the idea of a North American Union is ill advised, and will not work. As well, such a union will be at our disadvantage.

A non-profit organization called “United North America” (definitely an American organization or a bunch of “Yankee-lovin’” Canadians – no offence) is “dedicated to the democratic unification of Canada and the United States of America into one nation, under the protections, freedoms and privileges of the United States Constitution.“

In my opinion, Canadians don’t need the “protections, freedoms, and privileges of the United States Constitution” and we definitely don’t need the so called “democratic unification” with the United States.

The four points that “United North America” uses in their arguments for a union between Canada and the United States (or as they put it in their website header: uniting our continent democratically by helping Canada’s provinces join the U.S.A) are:

1. Economics
2. Defense
3. Politics
4. History and Culture

Economics

If the economies of Canada and the United States were to combined into one economy, that economy would be the largest in the world. That is one of the arguments made by “United North America“. Although that may sound good, in the long run, it will be disastrous for the Canadian economy.

The United States national debt is over 9 trillion dollars (and growing), while the Canadian national debt is only 500 million dollars (and it’s going down each year). The Americans have made little to no attempt to pay down their debt, while the Federal Governments in Ottawa have been making regular payments to pay off the debt. If Canada were to form a union with the United States, wouldn’t we be also liable for 9 trillion dollars? Of course we would be! This amount of debt is unsustainable and is completely irresponsible on the part of the US Administrations past and present. The massive amount of debt will be one of the factors in the downfall and probably collapse of the American economy.

Even if a combined economy would be the largest in the world, the current situation with the American economy is not that great. Due to decisions that resulted in short term prosperity, the long term effect of those decisions are causing problems for the American people, such as job losses, lower USD value, and the rising prices of goods and services (i.e. stagflation)

“United North America” also makes the claim that tax cuts and lowing trade restrictions would increase the revenue of the Governments both here and across the border. As a Progressive Conservative, I agree that tax cuts are a good thing and that it would encourage people to spend money, thereby increasing Government revenue. However, tax cuts and lower trade restrictions are not always the key to economic success and increased Government revenue. There always needs to be a mix of tax cuts and increases to allow for Government spending on many of our essential programs and policies.

If one closely looks at the arguments that “United North America” make, one would be able to understand that the points made by “United North America” are only half the truth.

National Defence

“United North America” states that “North American air, space and sea are already under the aegis of NORAD, a permanent agreement binding the security of Canada and the United States together domestically“. Although that is true and that both countries do co-operate militarily on different levels and in different organizations, the Canadian military will never be integrated into any other force. Recent history shows that the Canadian Military, as well as the Canadian people, have worked hard to create a separate identity from Britain, and we would continue to maintain a separate identity from that of the United States. The actions and the policies of the Canadian Government have shown time and time again that we will not take orders from the United States. The Vietnam War and the Iraq War are both examples of where the Canadian Government has refused to send an expeditionary force and fight. The wars that Canadians have often chosen to fight in are situations where the need for liberation, peace, and/or order is required, or essential and urgent: The First and Second World Wars (Germans were the aggressors on the Western Front and Canada chose to fight to liberate those countries that were under the occupation of the German military); the Korean War (North Korea pursued an aggressive offensive against South Korea and plus it was a UN approve mission); the Persian Gulf War (Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait); and the War in Afghanistan (essential fulfilling our commitment as set out by Article 5 of the NATO Charter in response to 9/11, as well as helping the Afghan people with education, health care, and security).

A major reason why we do not need such a large military is because we haven’t pissed off anyone like the United States has. Canada has tended to straddle along the middle line in international affairs playing both the ally and the counter balance to the United States.

Politics

Westminster or Presidential-Congressional? Take your pick.

For myself, I would choose Westminster over Presidential-Congressional system any day.

When comparing the Canadian Cabinet with the American Cabinet, one can see that most of the members of the Canadian Cabinet are legislators and all, with exception of the senators (which is like one or two out of 20 to 30 cabinet members), are elected. Every member of the US Cabinet, with exception of the President and the Vice, are appointed. As a result, Canadians have more say in day-to-day affairs than the average American will ever have.

“United North America” makes the claim that Canada was “helpless” during the softwood lumber dispute. That claim is laughable as clearly Canada always came out of a fight with a deal in our favour. (i.e. the 5 billion dollars worth of tariffs was returned by the United States Government to Canadians)

“United North America” miscalculates how much the Canadian Monarchy actually plays in our politics and assumes that we would just accept republicanism just like that. The Monarchy is vital and well integrated part of our political system, as all legislation, law enforcement, diplomacy is carried out in the name of the Canada Monarchy.

In the end, we absolute don’t need a political union with the United States and we certainly don’t need to send Canadian congressmen to Washington DC.

History and Culture

Our history is not the same as the United States. We might shared some areas, but that is not the same as a “…shared history and culture…”.

Canada’s history begins with Cartier, Champlain, la Nouvelle France and our first nations. US History begins with the Puritans and the Mayflower.

The method in which each country became independent of Britain was also different. The United States gained their independence through warfare and bloodshed, while in Canada, we gain our independence through peace, negotiation, and loyalty to the Monarchy.

Canada is de jure bilingual with French and English as our official languages, while the US has no official language but English acts as one.

Our respective societies and our respective methods of dealing with the different ethnic cultures are different: The United State’s immigration attitude is often described as a “melting pot” while Canada is often described as a “mosaic”.

In my opinion, “United North America” is essentially pushing an old idea and an old ideology: Manifest Destiny. It is essentially another word for U.S. expansionism: The idea that the United States is destined to control all of North America. Well, understand this: We will never accept a union with the United States.

on Ontario’s economic [...downward...] spiraling

So, if you’re an Ontarian, you’d probably already feeling the effects of the downwards economic situation. There are two reason why Ontario is in such a hole: our reliance on the auto industries and oil products as our main form of energy.

The auto industry had once been the bread and butter of this province with the
signing of the Auto pact during the 60s. With the Auto Pact, Ontario began its dependence on building auto, parts, and other auto related products.

Like most North Americans, we believe that oil will be here forever, that we could sustain it for generations upon generations upon generations. And so, we do the most obvious thing: we focus our auto industry on pickup trucks, suvs, and those mega things we call Hummers. What we don’t or haven’t realized is that, even if we have a lot, the oil supply is strained. “Why?” someone might ask.

Well, there is only one reason: the Iraq War. Every time the big slumbering elephant to the south goes to war, materials essential to our economy begin to go to building up their armed forces to fight a costly and wasteful conflict.

If you look at it, when did oil prices go up? Right after the Americans decided to attack Iraq, and oust Saddam.

This goes the same for metals such as copper which is essential for both American ammunition/munition and the wires in homes and other buildings.

Guess who has the priority to use both materials? That’s right: The American armed forces.

Last time they had dibs on the copper was during the Vietnam War. That’s approximately the same time Government building codes to allow “aluminum wiring”. Aluminum, although is the next in line after copper as the most conductive metal, sucks when it comes to wiring and causes many problems in the long run as it oxidizes when the wires become loose (and they become loose pretty quickly)…

Anyways, back to the car/oil thing…

The problem with North America is that many North Americans cannot or don’t want to realize that the economies across the continent are showing signs of stagflation (Inflation accompanied by stagnant growth, unemployment and/or recession.). People aren’t buying pickup trucks, SUVs, and the Hummer due to rising oil prices and the fact that unemployment is going up. Even Euro and Asian car companies with their smaller vehicles (i.e. compacts) aren’t selling that well.

Looking in the same direction, unions and their members just aren’t getting it. For instance, the recent strike due to the closure of the GM Truck plant in Oshawa. Those people want it open. So does everyone else. However the reality is that GM is doing the right thing by closing that plant as clearly the gas guzzling part of the auto industry is not only bleeding consumers’ wallets to death, but also killing the companies that made them. If GM continues to make trucks, not only will those who make trucks will lose their jobs, but also those who work on other types of vehicles.

That’s why I don’t understand why McGuinty and his Ontario Liberal government would be investing in the
auto industry when clearly it is dying.

And what’s up with the “training programs”? What, train them for jobs to work in provinces like Alberta, Nova Scotia, or even Newfoundland? Like, come on.

Seriously, we have become a have-not province, and McGuinty is letting Ontario bleed to death. If this continues, sooner or later Windsor and Oshawa are going to be the next Flint, Michigan.

This is why at the next elections in October 2011, Ontario should dump McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals and elect John Tory and the Ontario Progressive Conservatives as the next Government of Ontario.

on Tibet, the PRC, and the protests around the world

This past year, the world has been watching the People’s Republic of China as the 2008 Beijing Olympics are approaching. As this is the case, certain people around the world have attempted to “bring to light” the People’s Republic of China’s alleged “horrible” human rights record to the World. One particular issue that comes to mind is the recent uprising in Tibet and the surrounding provinces of Qinghai, Sichuan, and Gansu.

Although both the Tibet government-in-exile and the Government of the People’s Republic of China have both made claims, no one outside that particular region of China knows what exactly has taken place there. This is due to the fact that the PRC Government has decided to maintain its traditional policy of censorship and to ensure that all foreign journalists are kept out of the volatile area.

As the 2008 Beijing Olympics approach, certain people have decided to demonstrate either for or against the 2008 Beijing Olympic and/or the fact that Tibet is part of the People’s Republic of China (or as some people POVs would state, occupied by the People Liberation Army).

Over the last month or so, I’ve been watching “news reports” from different sources in the Western World (BBC, CBC, CNN, CTV, GlobalTV, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, The National Post, The Guardian (UK), etc.) and all I can really say is that their reports are extremely biased against the People’s Republic of China. Our Governments here in the West are biased. Our Media is biased. The whole damn population is biased. Lopsided. Unbalanced.

Although I usually trust the media, that I’ve mentioned above, to attempt to maintain a non-biased view and diction in their news reports, in this case, the Western Media has NOT maintain that non-biased view and has NOT maintain that non-biased diction that they are expected, to a degree, obligated to use.

The problem with the Western World is that we always believe that we are the greatest, the superior, the almighty. As a result, our views of the interaction between different cultures, different peoples, and different states is biased, lopsided, and is a POV that has been created out of ignorance and the lack of understanding of the situation in a political and historical context.

Speaking of the Western World belief that we are the most “civilized, superior” culture, look at the picture below. This is a photo of a Tibetan supporter, right, arguing with a Chinese supporter at a rally for the PRC’s Olympic torch at the Ferry Plaza in San Francisco on April 9:

Who looks more “civilized“? Who? Is it the the person of the “Western World” on the right who supports the Tibet Independence? Or is the person on the left who supports the PRC?

That is for you to decide.

A major headline or phrase that has been repeated in the Western Media is “Military Crackdowns in Tibet“. Let me ask you:

Is the People Liberation Army in Tibet?

Yes.

Is this any different than a possible United States military presence in Hawaii, in Porto Rico, or in Alaska? Is this any different than a United Kingdom military presence in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland?

No.

Is the PLA conducting any possible crackdowns in Tibet?

No.

Then who is dealing with the uprising and the rioters in Tibet? Guess?

The obvious answer is the Police. Images that had been released and that were coming from the region clearly showed that it was not the military that dealt with the rioters, and the protesters. The Government officers were clearly people who wore riot gear and marked with the words “POLICE”.

This is no different than when police in the Western World deals with riots and protests.

And what right does the people, the Governments, and the media of the Western World have to say that another culture’s and another state’s definition of what Human Rights is wrong? Or how one state or culture uses its definition to create its policies? None at all. As outsiders, we do not have that right. Unless we are citizens of that state, unless we are immersed in and have thoroughly analyzed and studied the socio-political culture of that state and unless we understand the history of that state and its predecessors, we have absolutely no right to state that they are wrong and that they have a “horrible” Human Rights record because our definition of what Human Rights are differs from those of other parts of the World.