First world does not mean leading the pack

After watching the documentary "Who killed the Electric Car" for IR class a while ago, I came to realize an important thing about First World countries, that they are not necessarily leading the pack.

Take the US on it's take on electric vehicles. A great potential for the future, electric cars is a viable solution to the perennial problem on gasoline, emissions, and oil crisis. California's idea of having electric vehicles (examples of this are the GM EV1, the Honda EV Plus, the Ford Th!nk, and many more) was a good way of addressing the problem. People were liking the idea of it. Launched in the late 1990's (around 1996), it was a revolutionary idea. Up until it's elimination and destruction of these electric cars in 2003 to 2005.

It was a sad and stupid idea for the US to eliminate this budding solution to environmental problems. Japan has been in the progress of further developing these electric vehicles back in the early 1990's (if I remember clearly, it was 1992 when Japan presented to the world the electric vehicle), and Japan is still in a progress of developing this technology (which is very evident with the recent popularity of Toyota's Prius hybrid vehicle). How about the US? Because of pressures from consumers, oil companies, and the government itself, the electric car was killed by the United States. So sad.

Looking this in a liberalist perspective, the US' move to eliminate these potential ideas was because of the persuasion and pressure it received from pluralist groups, such as the CARB (California Air Regulation Board), Petroleum and oil companies, some consumers, and even the Automobile industry themselves. Claims of dubious zero emissions of these vehicles, plus a low demand for these vehicles killed the electric car. Such persuasions caused by conflict forced the government to cooperate with pluralist groups by going in what they want, which bred to the upsurge of these big, gas-guzzling vehicles, such as the Hummer.

The consequence, in my opinion, is that the US dug its grave deeper. A couple of years later, the recession hit the country, prompting their citizens to sell their gas-guzzling cars because of surging oil prices, and worse, people were losing jobs, and the US started to be in deep shit, that despite President Obama's efforts to stabilize the US economy, it was a problem that will take time to solve.

In the end, I think US' decision on killing the electric car proved to us that first countries are not necessarily to be leading the pack. In fact, when it comes to such technology, Japan is doing far much better than the US, that they sell the Prius not just in Japan, but in the US and in the Philippines as well (During my trip to the US in 2007, around 10% of the cars I saw there were Priuses, and in the Philippines, there is still an experimental run on putting the Prius into market). In this aspect, the US made a significant lapse in decision-making that created a chain reaction of events to them and their citizens.

The end of rivalries? I doubt.

During Cory Aquino's wake at the Manila Cathedral, among one of the main issues there was the visitation of the Marcoses and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself. The Aquinos accepted the visitation of Bongbong and Imee Marcos, but somewhat was "cold" upon GMA's short 7 minute visit to the wake.

In my opinion, there seems to be a problem with this, epsecially with media's portrayal of it.

First, let's dwell with the Marcoses. Ok granted they have visited the wake of Cory, with the Aquino siblings confronting Imee and Bongbong, does this mean that the rivalry has ended, as how media portrays it? In my opinion, I think this is just a partial ending to the rivalry. The bigger part of the rivalry is still missing. For me, if the rivalry has truly ended, then Imelda Marcos, the first lady of the dictator, should have visited at least. Did she paid her last respects to Cory? As far as I know, she wasn't there at the wake, save for her daughter Imee and her son Bongbong. There's still some unresolved conflict behind it.

How about GMA? Well we all know that she did cut her trip short in order to visit the wake of Cory. People were cold about it. Media portrayed it in a cold way as well. Well yeah, GMA used to be an ally of Cory during People Power 2, up until the election fraud issues that GMA had in 2005, starting with the Hello Garci scandal. Not that I am Pro-GMA or Anti-GMA (I'm more of neutral when it comes to this), but at events like this, politics should step aside. GMA did have the freedom to visit or not to visit Cory's wake. She decided to do the former, and we should not politicize or be cold about it. If we are talking about sincerity issues here, well at least GMA did made a short visit amidst issues about her and the conflict she has between her and the Aquinos.

The point here? GMA did made a last-ditch effort to fix up her reputation by paying respect to the late president, and even offering a state funeral (which the Aquinos declined). Behind all the numerous issues behind her, the latest being her supposedly last SoNA, she still paid respect to a political figure that became her rival after the 2004 elections. In my opinion, GMA somewhat did something right for once as she made an effort to visit the late president. I'm not saying that the rivalries are over, but the good point here is that rivalries are set aside for this particular event.

How I wish Imelda Marcos visited and also paid her last respects to the woman behind People Power 1.