Superficial Politics

There are several presidential elections that are scheduled for 2012. Countries that will see a "new" (or not-so-new) head of state are the following:

• Taiwan* (Already held on January 14th - Incumbent Ma Ying-Jeou won with 51.6%)
• Finland (TODAY! and if necessary February 5th)
• Russia (March 4th)
• Hong Kong* (March 25th)
• France (April 22nd, May 6th)
• Mexico (July 1st)
• India (July)
• Venezuela (October 7th)
• United States (November 6th)
• Republic of Korea (December 19th) 

*Hong Kong and Taiwan may not be considered independent nation-states. Hong Kong will be electing the "Chief Executive of Hong Kong" since it is politically a part of the People's Republic of China.


That said, I can officially vote for only one of the above-listed elections, that of the United States. We can safely speculate that that current president, Barack Obama, will run again as the incumbent candidate. Republicans are currently holding primaries, with four candidates still standing after a handful dropped their candidacy as recently as this month (Jon Huntsman dropped out supporting Mitt Romney, Rick Perry dropped out supporting Newt Gingrich). 


Now, I was thoroughly disappointed with Barack Obama, as some of you may already know. He recently signed the new NDAA, which directly attacks the rights protected by our Constitution. Anyone, including American citizens, "suspected" of terrorism or any connections to such activities (worded VERY vaguely) can be held, without trial, at a secret location, INDEFINITELY. What ever happened to the Bill of Rights? 


My siblings and I have banded together this year in support of Ron Paul. Sure, it's a bit of a stretch/long shot since he's often ignored by the mainstream media and portrayed as a 'freak", but in reality, if you look past his physical appearance and funny-sounding voice, he actually makes sense. Of course, as with any candidate, no one is perfect, but I think Ron Paul would be the best option. Newt Gingrich would be worse than Obama and I'd much rather vote for Obama again than let Mitt Romney into office. Rick Santorum? No way... but if Ron Paul were to win the Republican nomination, as unlikely as that may seem, I would definitely support him. I chose Obama since he was the lesser of two evils (McCain-Palin I would NEVER support... ESPECIALLY because Palin was an incompetent joke) but I'm sorry to say, he really hasn't done too much to make the U.S. a better place. Change was only skin-deep. 


Which brings up a topic I've been ruminating over for the past few months. Americans really like to elect people who "look" like presidents. Come on, America, are you really that superficial? Think about it for a moment. The first presidential debates were televised in 1960 with Nixon vs. Kennedy. Kennedy, a younger, better-looking candidate won over the voters' support while those who'd only LISTENED to the debates (hence, couldn't see the candidates), were more likely to support Nixon. I'm not saying Nixon was the best president (Watergate!), but just to make a point. LBJ was after Kennedy, but only because Kennedy was assassinated and LBJ was VP. 


Then it was Nixon, who beat Humphrey. Nixon "looks" better as a president than Humphrey, right? OK, Humphrey was the VP under LBJ and since Vice Presidents are often forgotten, here's his picture. When Nixon resigned, Gerald Ford became president by default, so that doesn't count. Ford then lost to Carter anyway. Carter has a more presidential "look" doesn't he? After Carter, it was Reagan. Need I say more? Ronald Reagan was an ex-movie star! Reagan's VP, Bush Sr. ran against and defeated Dukakis, but then lost in 1992 to the younger, better-looking Clinton. 

Bush Jr. ran against and "defeated" Al Gore, but this one is iffy, since Al Gore did win the popular vote... but thanks to the Electoral College, he was unable to claim presidency. Then he won again in 2004 against John Kerry. You have to admit, John Kerry's prominent nose makes him look bird-like... and he wasn't that much better than George W. Bush anyway. He was just a tall, rich man (with dibs on the Heinz ketchup company). 


The younger, better-looking (at least, I think he's pretty good-looking for his age, though some may disagree) Barack Obama defeated the older, pasty-looking McCain (I didn't hate McCain as much as I hated his VP running mate, Palin... ugh). Now it's going to be Obama vs... ??? It could be anyone's game now! Gingrich (who looks like a pudgy, aged spoiled brat... but not only his looks but his political views/the fact that he's bought out by lobbyists/corporations puts him on my "don't vote for him" list) recently won the SC primaries. Rick Santorum (reminds me a little of Kerry, though as a conservative foil) won Iowa, and Mitt Romney (who *looks* like what Americans think a president should look like, but he's pretty much the same as Gingrich otherwise) won New Hampshire. Ron Paul is the underdog because he's the oldest and he looks the "funniest". He doesn't fit the Americans' image of what a president should look like. 


Which brings me to this blog entry's title, "Superficial Politics." Come on America, are you really that superficial to vote for a candidate based on his/her looks? Really? Pay more attention to what the candidates have to say. THE CONTENTS of what they're saying, not just the wrapping paper (superfluous styles/intonation/delivery, etc.) but the substance. If you base it solely on that, Ron Paul is definitely the best candidate. He ran in 2008 as a Libertarian, but he really is a Constitutionalist. He cares about his country and really wants what's best for the country. He's also the only person who hasn't been bought out by lobbyists or corporations. It doesn't really matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House if they're already sellouts to lobbyists/corporations. So choose someone who's really different!


Today's Random Video:

Panarin Predicts the End

Doomsday prophecies seem to be the trend these days. The world ending in 2012, global warming becoming irreversible if progress isn't made by 2025 thus melting the polar icecaps and eventually resulting in the end of the world, my sister saying that the world will end in 2060 according to some weird formula she came up with herself. In any case, of all of these outrageous claims, I found one particular doomsday prophecy particularly outrageous. A Russian professor, Professor Игорь Панарин (Igor Panarin) has been predicting the "moral and economic collapse" of the United States for the past decade or so. He predicts that the United States as we know it today will be obsolete by 2010. As if things aren't bad enough for America already, what with the recession, the financial crisis, banking crisis, housing market crash, the falling dollar, and now... this? Seriously???

Panarin, an ex-KGB analyst, is now allegedly spreading his outlandish prophecy across the Russian media, getting interviews, even giving lectures on what he claims is a hypothesis based on cold, hard facts. What ultimately leads the U.S. to disintegration? According to Panarin, a combination of economic decline, mass immigration, moral and social degradation will in turn trigger a second American civil war and the complete demise of the dollar. The end result? The break-up of the United States by mid-2010 into some 6-odd regions. Of course, Panarin couldn't stop and leave it at that. Not only would the U.S. break up, but these sub-regions would be controlled or absorbed completely by foreign powers.

Sound crazy enough? I personally think this is Panarin's own way of "getting back" at the U.S. and the West in general and their displays of schadenfreude at the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. The U.S. and the West watched the Soviet Union collapse with a sort of surprised satisfaction as communist dictatorial rule ended in ultimate failure. Is this Panarin's way of saying "it's going to happen to you too", even though it's not? What surprised me particularly was that his so-called "hypothesis" is actually somewhat popular in Russia. So maybe it's true that the Kremlin in Russia harbors some anti-American sentiments? Even though his theory is far-fetched to outright ridiculous, Mr. Panarin isn't regarded as some lunatic in his home Russia. In fact, he's the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats and he's also one of the talking heads on Russian (state-run) TV whenever US-Russian relations are the issue.

What exactly he hypothesizes can be summed up in this map:
* "The California Republic" comprised of the West Coast and states west of the Rockies would be taken over by China or fall under Chinese influence.
* "The Central North-American Republic" made up of the Midwestern/North central states would be absorbed by Canada or controlled by Canada.
* "Atlantic America", my home region, consisting of much of the Atlantic coastal states, would eventually attempt to join the European Union
* "The Texas Republic", which is the "Tex-Mex" area as well as a handful of other southern states would fall to Mexico or under Mexican influence.
* Alaska (or Аляска) would return to Russian possession
* Hawaii would be taken by Japan or China

China having control over Hollywood? Unlikely, since California is one of the richest American states and would be in the top 20 richest countries on its own. The Canadian Maple Leaf flag flying at the Gateway Arch in Missouri? Hardly imaginable. A European Union Institute residing in the heart of New York City or Washington, D.C.? Impossible. Mexico taking over the die-hard patriotic state of Texas? Not without a horrific massacre of some sort. Ok, Sarah Palin and the citizens dumb enough to elect her can go to Russia and as for Hawaii going to Japan or China? I doubt it, but maybe that's not as impossible as Canada taking over a huge chunk of the U.S.

While, as an American myself, I found Panarin's claims blasphemous, he refers to political scientist Emmanuel Todd, who predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976. “People laughed at him" [too], he implies a similar vindication as he's quoted saying at an interview for this Wall Street Journal article. If you really think about it though, you can't even begin to compare the break-up of the Soviet Union with a possible break-up of the U.S. The Soviet Union wasn't really a voluntarily united country. It was transitioned into a Union from its original Imperial form (The Russian Empire conquered many foreign regions, obviously not a union with their consent). So a lot of people were discontent and there were several preexisting nationalities already within the Soviet Union. Can you really compare an Azerbaijani and Uzbek in the ex-Soviet Union and make similar comparisons to a Californian and a Wisconsinite? I don't think so, because in times of crisis, as 9/11 events showed us, Americans stand together and patriotism is rekindled. There is no way that could happen. Not only that, but his arguments are founded on untrue "facts". Economic decline and during the "Great Depression" didn't do anything to question U.S. unity. Our current "crisis" isn't nearly as bad as the media tries to scare us into thinking. Mass immigration? What mass immigration? U.S. immigration levels have been relatively stable and it is only recently that our immigration levels are matching that of the 1800s. As for moral degradation and the falling dollar, well, that's something we'll have to live with and work through, but it certainly won't cause another civil war.

Oh, I guess I should add that Panarin does try to buffer his claims with some insurance by saying that this is only 50% likely to happen. He adds that if in fact it did, it would be great - for Russia, that is. What I think he's missing out is, yeah, sure, even if Russia gets back its precious Аляска, the break-up of the U.S. would actually be more detrimental to Russia than it is beneficial, since the U.S. is one of Russia's most important trading partners, which closely ties the two countries together economically. End result: Russia would experience some serious economic turmoil of its own if the U.S. were to break up.

This case is similar to the apocalyptic prophecies of religious eschatologists and we can only wait to discuss and laugh about this next year, in November 2010. If President Obama is still the president of the U.S., I'm sure Panarin will retreat with his tail behind his legs and no longer make such rash proclamations. Of course, I'm confident to say that his prophecy is wrong. If it turns out to be true, then I guess he can put his foot in my mouth.

Today's Random Quiz:

You Are Send

You are confident, assertive, and a real go-getter. You like to take action. You know that things won't get done unless you do them, and you're always willing to take the first step. You're the type of person who applies for jobs you may not get and initiates friendships with strangers. You believe that life can be full of wasted opportunities if you're not careful. You rather do too much than do too little.

What Email Function Are You?

Out of the Loop

So I got a little distracted these past few months. Ok, I got VERY distracted these past few months. The task of filling in the gaps is much too burdensome at the moment that I'm going to leave you all out of the loop in terms of what happened this summer. I'm sure I'll eventually (someday) find the time to explain what happened and share some exciting travel stories of hitchhiking all throughout the Balkans and Eastern Europe for 2 months. Overall, it was a great experience but I won't get into any details right now.

Life in France so far as been quite... let's say... different. It's one thing to be a tourist and hitchhike around without a care in the world, it's another thing to live in a foreign country and have to find an apartment and the like. This experience I had while in Mali for about 4 months, but this time, it's for 2 years and not 4 months. I've actually been in France for less than 2 months now but I've definitely noticing some differences from living in France as opposed to living in the US. For starters, EVERYTHING is more complicated in France while everything in the US is simple as can be.

To give you all a few examples:

Opening a bank account in France: You have to go to the bank with proper identification, have to get a certificate/proof of academic registration, other valid ID (which the bank makes and keeps photocopies of), then you have to sign about 10 different pages of "contract" documents to open the account. After that, you wait for a validation letter that you have to sign, which then verifies your address and your account is "officially" open, though that might still take another week or so. After it's finally open, you have to wait for your bank debit card, which they don't send to you, but you have to wait for a letter with the pin code in it. Once you receive that, you go BACK to the bank at which you opened your account and ask for your card. You then, after about a month of waiting, finally get your debit card. Also, you have a personal bank agent, kind of like your academic counselor, which is not so in the US.

Opening a bank account in the USA: You go to the bank with one form of proper identification (passport, driver's license, etc. - American, foreign, it doesn't matter which country you're from). You ask to open a bank account (student or otherwise). Your bank account is opened immediately as soon as you deposit some money (the minimum is usually $5 to $10). They make you your debit card on the spot, which takes about 2 minutes, and you're finished!
_______________________________________________

Buying a used bicycle in France: If it's an organized bike fair, you need to wait in line for about 1 or two hours, then you finally look for a bike. If you finally find one, you go tell someone working there, ask for a ticket then pay for that bike. Oh, you also need a form of identification (passport, driver's license... which was really weird... you're buying a freaking bike for heaven's sake!). You pay, then get a receipt to pick up your bike. You pick up your bike and leave after they check your receipt.

Buying a used bicycle in the USA: You go to a bike fair, buy the bike from the vendor and you leave.
_______________________________________________

Renting an apartment in France: You MUST have a cosigner if you're not employed. The cosigner should also be French and you need to sign a few documents, must provide copies of student status, passport, student ID cards, etc. Also, the cosigner must copy down a huge paragraph (takes at least 10 minutes to copy) certifying his or her position as guarantor/creditor in case of tardy rental payments.

Renting an apartment in the USA: If the rent is below a certain amount, even if you're not working and you're a student, you don't need a cosigner, especially if it's a shared apartment. You don't need copies of ID, but you do need a form of ID and you need merely to copy down your ID number onto the lease. If a cosigner is required, s/he needs to merely sign an agreement and isn't required to copy down any large chunks of text.

I guess there are other peculiarities I won't get into for the moment. I'm not saying the French system is worse or bad... it's just more complicated. Overall, I suppose that the complications make things more secure in some ways... though, as an American, I find things like opening a bank account ridiculously complicated in France. I mean, I'm transferring thousands of euros from the US to France to spend in France! Isn't that sort of good for France? Why should it be so complicated? In any case, I guess the French would think our system is to informal/carefree and possibly a contributing factor to the world banking crisis. I can't blame them... it's sort of true, though I don't think opening a bank account easily has anything to do with it... still, maybe the overall looseness of the system allowed for so many subprime mortgages and... yeah, I won't get into that right now.

Oh, and I think it's colder in Strasbourg in October than it was in Madison. This morning, it was 26°F (-3°C). Pretty cold weather considering it's only mid-October. Ok, I have to get ready to go to class now. I'll try to keep you all posted!!!

Today's Random Quiz:

You Would Win Best Documentary Feature

You are very curious about and engaged with the world. Everyone is interesting to you. You have a variety of interests, and you delve into them quite deeply. People are impressed by the sheer quantity of stuff you know, and you're learning more every day. However, you're not just informed. You also are very informative. You share what you know in an engaging and interesting way.

What Would You Win an Oscar For?

Fattest of the Fat

Americans are stereotyped as being:

* stupid
* painfully monolingual
* fat
* materialistic
* lazy

... among a number of other negative characteristics. If I look back at my life, I think much of it was spent on defying each stereotype that came in my way, but I won't get into that.

One thing that is kind of true... well, all the above stereotypes have some truth to them, though not all Americans possess all the aforementioned traits... obesity in America is a growing problem (no pun intended).

Of all the "fat" Americans out there, apparently the fattest state in the U.S. is, with 31.6% of its population being obese (and even more being overweight), Mississippi according to this 2008 map:
The leanest state of the United States is Colorado. I'm not exactly sure why that is, but I'm not surprised why so many of the southern states have huge populations of obese people. Most of the food traditional to the South is greasy and fried... which I don't understand. If it's hot down there, wouldn't you want to eat things like fresh cold fruits or something more refreshing instead of fried chicken? That's just my logic, but I guess Southerners disagree.

Education in America

I guess, despite hating the state as a whole, the education system in New Jersey isn't too shabby. Although "evolution" is a theory, it's the most accepted theory as to the origins of mankind and everything on Earth. I don't believe in a God at the moment, but I can't say I buy into the evolution thing 100% either. I mean, there are too many unanswered questions. We all came from an atom that exploded that created the whole universe, right? The whole "big bang" theory... but where did the atom come from? Honestly, no one knows and thus the question of our purpose here on Earth. Either way, I'm going off an a tangent there.

Coming back to where I was going with this initially, the teaching of evolution can be correlated with the quality of education a child receives in each state in the U.S. While this cannot be deemed as a "perfect" example, I think it's pretty accurate when compared with national standardized test scores and distributions.
Most of the South and some of the Midwestern states receive poor grades in terms of their treatment of evolution in public schools. Iowa, apparently, has no state standard at all. I guess I should be glad that I received most of my primary/secondary school education in Pennsylvania/New Jersey respectively.

Good teachers are actually hard to come by in the states. Even teachers that molest children have found loopholes to teach again in the mass network of teachers unions that almost prohibit schools from firing ineffective teachers. This probably contributes to the lack of quality education one can get through public schools here... though some teachers are genuinely interested and informed.
Maybe it's not our fault that the stereotype of "dumb American" came about.

Comparing Global Economies

Back in 2000, when our economy wasn't about to hit rock bottom, someone published this map:
(Here's a darker version of the same map since the first is a little light and hard to read)
Just thought it would be interesting to observe.

There's another similar comparison of global economies and the states of Brazil: