Tag Archives: Elections

Nicolas Sarkozy & Barack Obama’s Presidential Campaigns – Who’s Copying Who?

If you’ve been following the French presidential elections closely, you’d have noticed the Sarkozy camp has been sharing attractive-looking infographics of his achievements while in office. Here are a few examples:

Well, you get the idea.

Recently, I saw on Barack Obama’s twitter account a very similar infographic released as well:

The resemblance between Sarkozy and Obama’s posters is uncanny: the colors, the style, the font size, etc….

The first Sarkozy image of the sort was shared on April 17th. The one by Obama was released on April 28th. I would be more inclined to believe the Obama campaign is taking a few hints from the Sarkozy camp, seeing as the latter’s campaign is wrapping up with the final round of elections set for next week.

With the American elections set for November, I’m sure we’ll see much more posters like these from the campaign office of Mr. Obama.

 

 

The French Presidential Elections – Round One: How Lebanon Voted

As expected, both Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande advanced to the second round of the French presidential elections to be held on May 6th.

According to official results, Sarkozy got 26.1% of the votes while Hollande got 29%. The current polls show the Socialist Hollande leading Sakozy 54% to 46% for the second round. The shock of the night, however, was a huge score by the woman of the French “Front National” Marine Le Pen who managed to break the two-party dichotomy of France by getting 18% of the votes, according to the latest results.

Her score will come as a headache for the socialists who are deciding to round cloud nine up until May 6th. If Le Pen endorses Sarkozy, all bets are off.

But political analysis aside, here’s how the situation was in Lebanon yesterday. 15000 French people are registered to vote in Lebanon, out of which 51.5% voted. On top of the French residing in Lebanon, 1600 French residing in Syria are eligible to vote in Lebanon due to the situation in their country. Out of those, only 28% cast their ballots.

As a reminder, in 2007 Nicolas Sarkozy got 51.5% in the first round in Lebanon. This time, however, he got 54.47%, beating Hollande who only got 19.81%.

On the other hand, Marine Le Pen got 9% among French-Lebanese voters, almost double what her father managed in 2007 in Lebanon but still less than the result she got in France.

All foreign territoires put together have Sarkozy ahead of Hollande at 38% to 28.31%. Marine Le Pen came in fourth with 5.34%. The total participation in Lebanon is above the average for French expats, which settled at 40%.

Altogether, here’s yet another elections where Lebanese voters who hold a second nationality go with a right wing candidate.

The French Presidential Elections – Round One

Over 45 million eligible French people are heading to cast their ballots in the first round of their presidential elections today, of which no one is expected to take the absolute majority of votes needed to win and not head to a second round between the top 2 vote getters.

Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande are neck and neck in the most recent published polls and both are expected to qualify to the second round.

In Lebanon, the registered French people residing in Lebanon are around 13,000. Of those, more than 7000 are expected to vote, in similar numbers to 2007 where 51.7% voted for Sarkozy in the first round and 71.5% in the second round.

Many more Lebanese-French who reside in France are also eligible to vote. The 2007 numbers from those Lebanese show a drastic preference to Sarkozy as well.

A fraction of Lebanese voters also support far right candidate Le Pen.

(source)

For the French residing in Lebanon, have you voted? Or are you waiting for the more decisive second round to cast your ballot?

Kelly Clarkson Endorses Ron Paul For US Presidency – Receives Twitter Backlash

I may not be a fan of her latest album, Stronger, but I definitely appreciate the guts it took Kelly Clarkson to come out and support a conservative candidate for the US Republican ticket – and ultimately, the presidency.

Like Ron Paul or not, like Kelly Clarkson or not, everyone is entitled to an opinion and ridiculing them because of their opinion is not really the way people should behave in the 21st century where your opinion has become more public than anyone thinks. A tweet, deleted a few seconds later, can have its screenshot taken and forever be present in the digital age.

But no matter, back to the Kelly Clarkson issue. The pop singer tweeted the following a few hours ago:

The rest of the tweet goes as follows: “I love Ron Paul. I liked him a lot during the last republican nomination and no one gave him a chance. If he wins the nomination for the Republican party in 2012 he’s got my vote. Too bad he probably won’t.”

Immediately after, Clarkson started receiving hate tweets because of her views, some of which are too indecent to be posted, well, anywhere. So Clarkson tweeted again:

“I am really sorry if I have offended anyone. Obviously that was not my intent. I do not support racism. I support gay rights, straight rights, women’s rights, men’s rights, white/black/purple/orange rights. I like Ron Paul because he believes in less government and letting the people (all of us) make the decisions and mold our country. That is all. Out of all of the Republican nominees, he’s my favorite.”

And then subsequently, when people who were bashing her did not relax:

 “Man my eyes have been opened to so much hate tonight. If y’all ever disagree with something I say please don’t feel the need to attack me. I will listen to what you say and any articles or viewpoints you have when you say it with respect. Being hateful is not a healthy way to get people to see or hear you. I was raised to respect people and their decisions and beliefs and I hope you will grant me the same decency. If you don’t agree with me simply unfollow me. It’s really that easy. I hope you don’t because I would love the chance to hear what you have to say but if you’re so blinded by hate you can’t seek peace and progress then that is your unfortunate prerogative.”
But enough with the introduction. The whole point of this post is not to be pro-Ron Paul or against Ron Paul. It’s simply a defense of free speech, one that I frankly expected people of the country that calls for this type of freedom the most to at least know what it means.
Freedom of speech does not entitle you to bash or harass another person just because they have an opinion that differs from yours. Freedom of speech allows you to respectfully disagree and voice your concern or idea to that person in a respectful debate.
And the ironic thing is, I’m a Lebanese preaching this.
The other point behind this post is to say that Kelly Clarkson, though admittedly republican, voted for Obama in the last elections. And yet, this particular point doesn’t seem to be addressed by many. I wonder why is that so? Is it maybe because being a Republican artist in the US is frowned upon as uncool while being a Democrat is revered? There is definitely a double standard here. If Clarkson had endorsed Obama, I’m more than certain this whole debacle and this subsequent post that I’m writing wouldn’t have existed in the first place.
Third, many reply tweets to Kelly Clarkson mentioned that Ron Paul was anti-gay and a racist person, mostly basing their ideas on the following “quotes” attributed to Paul:
“The rate of AIDS infection is on the increase again. From the gay point of view, the reasons seem quite sensible. First, these men don’t really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners… because sex is the center of their lives, they want it to be as pleasurable as possible, which means unprotected sex. Third, they enjoy the attention & pity that comes with being sick.””If you live in a major city, you’ve probably already heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking. It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos.”

 These quotes are misleading because 1. They were never written by Ron Paul and 2. They are part of an infamous newsletter that he absolutely denies writing.
Ron Paul is obviously anti-gay, as are many US politicians, but there are definitely more important issues, such as the economy, that are in the forefront for many Americans, including many homosexual men and women. Call me old-fashioned or conservative but I think having a home to raise your family and a job to sustain them, as well as a secure environment for their proper upbringing, are more important than which gender gets to marry which other gender. I’m not advocating for or against gay marriage. I’m simply saying there are more important things that a person can base a vote upon.
Finally, kudos to Kelly Clarkson for speaking her mind and stating her opinion. Back in 2008, when people were “baracking” the vote, somehow when all celebrities endorsed Obama, no one was taken aback. But when you stray away from the “media-approved” political path, you get bashed.
At the end of the day, celebrities all have an opinion and a right to state it. Whether you like their opinion or not, whether you approve of them voicing it or not is a different matter altogether.

Egypt’s Parliamentary Elections: The Delusion of the Islamists, Salafists and their Sharia

No, I’m not following up with anything Egypt-related. Partly because it’s not my cause to be part of but mainly because I’m disgusted by what’s happening to the Copts there. It sort of puts a damper on what could have been had the Egyptians saw their revolution to the end and didn’t slack off the moment Mubarak was overthrown.

No, this post is not my own analysis on an election I have no idea of nor will it attempt to be one. This is simply me ridiculing any person who thinks the way of ruling any country in the world today, especially a country like Egypt, is by way of Islamic Sharia.

No, I’m not berating Islam. And no, I’m not being anti-semitic. I’m just being realistic. Whoever thinks the ways of 600AD still apply in 2011 is not only delusional but should probably get their brains checked. Whoever thinks a theocracy where one religion’s rule is enforced on everyone else is still living in the Dark Ages of their corresponding religion, be it Islam or Christianity or Judaism.

Israel, the country these Islamists perceive (along with the United States and possibly Iran) as the ultimate devil, has a neo-theocratic ruling system. And look where that’s leading us.

But no matter, this is not a post for overanalysis. This is a post to present this picture that a friend was outraged enough to share on Facebook with me.

In order to showcase their point about the validity of their view of Islamic Sharia, this picture was made out to show people who would be damaged by applying the Sharia. You have, starting from right to left: the homosexuals, the alcoholics, the prostitutes, the corrupt politicians and killers: what they consider as the scumbags of society. The picture serves to paint a picture where these people would be eradicated from Egyptian society if the Muslim Brotherhood (and those with whom they have an alliance) win the elections.

But naturally I beg to differ. Not only is this picture non-sensical, it’s also demeaning, ridiculous and unfounded. I wouldn’t be addressing it hadn’t it had tons of Facebook likes and an immense amount of shares. This picture has basically gone viral. But I digress. To suggest that the existence of these people would cease upon applying the Islamic Sharia is, simply put, stupid. Or aren’t those Islamists the same people who are horny enough to pursue the prostitutes or the closeted homosexuals who are afraid to come out? Being a staunch religious person with an infested three-foot long beard does not mean that person is holy.

Besides, who says it’s up to the Islamists to judge these people for what they do? What will their punishments be in case Sharia is applied? Whiplashes and cutting hands? How is that humane? Some might say there’s a process to follow when it comes to these types of punishment, that it’s not a haphazard process. But simply put: this is year 2011. Corporal punishment enforced by the State should not exist. What gives the state the right to cut off a thief’s hands or whip a person’s back until they can’t walk anymore? There’s a reason the charter of Human Rights was adopted by almost all countries around the world: it’s because basic human rights, even when people mess up, should be respected. Some even say such punishment would teach others. Then why is prostitution the world’s oldest profession? And why are thieves a part of every society? Why would I get punished for drinking alcohol? Who has the right to dictate what food and drinks I want to consume?

And how does a Sharia-run society work for those who do not want sharia to govern them in the first place?

So let me paint a picture of Egypt with Islamists ruling:

1) Increasing persuction of religious minorities in Egypt, only this time the state would turn an even blinder eye to them. If whatever type of ruling Egypt has today were to change to Islamic Sharia, who’s to say the Coptic minorities in Egypt won’t be decimated worse than they are being persecuted today? I understand Islam does not preach this. But there’s a drastic difference between Islam as a religion and what people understand of Islam. After all, the Islamic Sharia is some man’s interpretation of Islam, whether you like it or not. And it is these men that will believe that these Copts (and other minorities) are not suited for living under their ruling. The mentality that it’s okay to dispose of these Copts will grow. One only needs to remember how many Egyptians, including Egypt’s National TV, commented on the Maspero murdering of Copts to know that fertile ground for hate is there. Moreover, according to a Pew Poll, half of the Egyptian population has negative views of Christians in their country. Couple all of that with Islamic sharia and you get the picture.

2) Increasing censorship and decreasing free speech: I cannot begin to fathom Islamists allowing liberals to express their opinions now, would they? It’s the way things are with most parties that get to power in countries that are struggling to achieve democracy. Even in countries that we consider democratic models, media has never been unbiased. Fox News is pro-Republicans in the United States, ABC and CBS are pro-Democrats. So it will only be rational for many Egyptian TV Stations, newspapers and other media outlets to be coerced into diffusing one type of news only: the one approved by the political majority, run by Islamic Sharia.

3) Worse oppression than the one SCAF is now implementing: Many may want Islamic Sharia to be applied. But if it is applied, how would the atheists be treated? How would the Muslims who want a civil non-theocratic state to rule them be handled? The premise is not religious; it’s humanitarian. Islamic Sharia is being applied in many countries around the world, most notably Saudi Arabia. And if you look at Saudi Arabia from a non-economical point of view, the idea of living there is dismally depressing. Women cannot drive, they need to be veiled all the time. No movie theaters for you to spend time at, punishment laws that date back to the dark ages, patriarchal supremacy, very high disregard to basic human rights of free speech and freedom of religion, etc…. So to those who champion the idea of Islamic Sharia being the solution for all, this is definitely not the case. And there will come a time when drastic compromises in the basic foundation in that Sharia have to be given in order to accomodate the views of those who are different. Odds are those compromises will not happen and this is where oppression starts.

4) Worse economic situation as many of the world’s countries lose their faith in dealing with Egypt. It’s not very hard to imagine this really. Tourists will start coming less and less to Egypt. If the Mubarak regime had them fooled into thinking Egypt was somewhat liberal and understanding, I’m sure any delusion will be washed away by Islamists winning. Investments by major businesses will start decreasing as investment laws dictated by the Sharia will start getting implemented. And the ball gets rolling until the poor get poorer and with Egypt that’s a lot of people getting poorer.

5) Finally, all of the aforementioned points coupled together would mean Egypt back to pre-Mubarak days. The revolution dead.

No, the picture I’m painting is not grim. It’s one that can be easily evaded. And no, it’s not delusional like that picture being circulated among Facebook’s Islamist Egyptian populace. It might as well happen (with a higher probability that is than Islamists eradicating the people portrayed in that picture). Perhaps the youth who actually care about being who they are in Egypt should stop caring more about their country’s political situation and vote?

You know what they say: if you don’t vote, you can’t nag.

And sometimes the choice is so obvious that you can’t even begin to fathom another choice. Just look at this electoral poster from Egypt:

These people are calling for a modern Egypt. What’s modern about having the eyes of the only woman on their list hidden from everyone? The woman even looks like she was drawn there, not given the decency of having a proper photograph taken of her (even if that photograph won’t show anything). Who’s to say under Salafi and Islamists ruling such a thing won’t be forced on all women of Egypt? Who’s to say whatever rights women in Egypt have today won’t be taken away by these men who see themselves as superior?

And at the end of the day, as a Lebanese, an Islamist Egypt has the least effect on my political system. The only country getting the bad side of the deal will be Egypt itself. Good luck with that, I guess.

In the meantime, my heart goes out to the Copts. Again.