Ban Campaign Promises and other Electoral Rants

Campaign promises. What are they good for. Absolutely nothing.

I wish we could get rid of campaign promises. If you are in government then a campaign promise is just something you think you should have done that you did not do. Maybe it is best not to remind the voters of that, especially if you have made the same promise election after election without delivering. Governing parties should run on their records.

If you are in opposition then campaign promises are wishful thinking. Once elected into government you might discover just how difficult implementing them might be, or worse yet that they really are a bad idea. Nothing politically good can come from breaking promises even when it is the right thing to do.

But the main thing about campaign promises is that they have become part of what has become elections as marketing and voting as shopping where the best candidate doesn’t win but the best marketing campaign does.

Sometimes I think would be better of without election campaigns. Just have all the candidates write essays (no ghost writing allowed) about the type of Canada they want and what they believe to be the best way to achieve that.

After all is not the idea of representative government to elect representatives we trust to take the time to study the issues and develop the best solutions to make the country a better place.

How well are we served by a process where all Members of Parliament do is vote the party line and implement predetermined polices rather than working together to develop the best policies for the country.

I actually remember a time when local all candidates debates mattered. How well served are we by election campaigns where the only people that count are the party leaders, and constitutional niceties aside, voters act is if they are voting for a President, not Members of Parliament.

How Should We Judge Historical Figures

Should historical figures be judged by the best things they have done or the worst. Should they be judged by the standards of today or of their time. Should some things like slavery or genocide be considered evil no matter when they may have occurred. These are legitimate questions to to ask and the answers likely differ according to the circumstances.

Let’s take two examples. One of someone who a few years before the American civil war publicly stated that:

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. Source

And what of someone who freed the slaves, even if it just was to “save the union”.

And what if that was the same person. Should he be vilified or celebrated. History has already made a judgment on that question.

The second example is someone whose main claim to fame was to be the first leader of a new country, coincidentally during the same decade as the previous example, but whose administration was plagued by scandals and was responsible for implementing policies of genocide aimed at that country’s indigenous peoples. Celebration or shame ? History is just making that judgment now.

Follow The Fifth Columnist on Twitter Over The Summer

For the past two years I have kept to my goal of posting at least once a month but it seems this summer outdoors activities, mostly biking, have taken me somewhat away from The Fifth Column.

I still plan to try to keep to that goal but in the meantime you can follow my thoughts on Twitter which I still seem to get to on a daily basis.

Climate Change, The Pandemic and Multi-Use Pathways (MUPs)

The greatest long term threat to humankind is undoubtedly climate change. While the planet can no doubt survive anything short of a collision with a planet sized meteorite or asteroid, climate change has the potential to be be disastrous to human habitat.

In the short term the greatest threat to humankind is the COVID-19 pandemic.

While both of these threats are said to be non-discriminatory and many claim “we are all in this together”, that clearly is not true because while the threats may not discriminate, our societies and dominant economic system certainly do. Both climate change and the pandemic have a greater impact on the developing world than the developed world, and within the developed world a greater impact on poor and marginalized communities.

But what does this all have to do with multi-use pathways (MUPs).

Climate change has created multiple freeze-thaw cycles every year, rather than one each spring, causing excessive damage to cycling infrastructure, in particular MUPs. At the same time the pandemic has created an increase in outdoor activity and in particular much greater demand for bicycles putting much greater demands on cycling infrastructure including MUPs.

This is is the impact on a typical Ottawa MUP in Kanata.

Bridlewood Small Hydro Corridor Multi-Use Pathway (MUP)

We need to improve our multi-use pathway standards so that they do not completely deteriorate after one winter and connect the MUPs together to create a city wide system for recreational and utilitarian use, commuting, shopping, etc.

While considering this we need to keep these important facts in mind. Improving cycling infrastructure increases the number of people using bicycles for utilitarian purposes like commuting and shopping, which reduces the strain on roads and automobile infrastructure and reduces road traffic congestion. At the same time improving cycling infrastructures costs considerably less improving automobile infrastructure. Leaving the only reasonable conclusion that the most cost efficient way to reduce road traffic congestion is to improve cycling infrastructure.