This is from the Wikipedia article...

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan (1988-90; 1993-96) and, at the time of her death, leader of the opposition Pakistan People's Party, occurred on 27 December 2007. As she was leaving a rally in the Liaquat National Bagh in Rawalpindi, Bhutto was shot in the neck and chest by an assassin who then detonated a suicide bomb. She was campaigning ahead of elections due in January 2008. She was declared dead at 18:16 local time (13:16 GMT), en route to Rawalpindi General Hospital. At least 21 people were confirmed dead in the aftermath; other conflicting reports indicate 22 bodies found at the scene. Two months earlier, shortly after her return from exile, she survived a similar attempt on her life that killed over 136 people.

=================================

To make matters worse, the Bush Administration is encouraging this kind of behavior by siding WITH Musharraf. Despite what people say, Musharraf is just taking orders from the U.S. government. It's not like he has any choice in the matter. Why else would Pakistan be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction? Who gave them the weapons?

So what's next for Pakistan? What's next for the world, for that matter? We all know Musharraf is just as big a terrorist as the Taliban (even if he's not part of them), and he'll do anything to stay in power. Every time somebody stands up to him, he or she magically gets assassinated.

If Musharraf actually postpones the election, we all know what will happen next.

Your thoughts on this?

I hope everyone likes the light bulbs that are hung all over E-Pod. You're allowed to rip them off on Friday. Remember, if you get my light bulb and give it to me on Friday you get a small monetary prize.

And yes, I'm the horrible person who rips off other people's light bulbs and then gives them to the rightful owners.

Why are they mailing interims for sophomores and Juniors? Letting parents see inaccurate grades is never a good thing.

Yeah, my dad got the mail yesterday before I had a chance to. It says I have an F in AP US History. If you know Mrs. Masty, you know that she never updates her grades on time. I tried to tell him that but this was basically his response:

"You can say whatever you want. It won't work. You destroyed yourself and I'm not about to let you destroy my other kids."

Yeah, I'm destroying them. If I recall correctly, I wasn't allowed to get B's in elementary school because they were considered "failing." If I got anything wrong on a math test, my dad would spend hours yelling at me about how stupid I was for not knowing any math. Now, my brother who's in fifth grade never got an A in his entire academic career (I got straight A's in elementary school) and consistently gets C's in math, but he gets nothing but praise for being smart and doing well in school. Worst of all is that I help him with homework. Who helped ME with homework? NO ONE! I HAD TO LEARN EVERYTHING BY MYSELF AND I STILL DID REALLY WELL!

I was thinking about getting an updated grade sheet from Mrs. Masty but there's no point. This happens every time my parents get ahold of my interim. Everyone knows that interim grades are never accurate anyway, but parents are stupid. Because parents are stupid, they assume that whatever shows up on a grade sheet indicates how smart you are or how hard you work.

My parents are ready to disown me and I don't care. This nonsense happened before and it will happen again. Every time, most of the letters on my interim go either up or down on my report card, but they're always better grades than the interim would suggest.

I can't take it anymore. They're ready to disown me and I'm ready to leave. I only have to deal with them for another year and a half and then I'll have my diploma. After that, I'll be free.

These guys are some of the "no-name candidates" so I won't spend much time talking about them. They don't have much chance of winning anyway. The link here is a table comparing where the candidates stand on issues. http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

And yes, these are my own personal opinions that sum up what I think of them because I don't have the time to do extensive research and write a biography on every candidate. You have every right to disagree with anything I say here, but defend your ideas.

Fred Thompson (R): I honestly have no idea why this guy's running. He can't memorize his lines and won't stop just to talk to his supporters. Regardless of where he stands on issues, he won't get the party nomination. He's better off going back to his acting career.

Dennis Kucinich (D): This guy has some good ideas, and he's honest. However, he's too socialistic to understand that socialism is extremely inefficient in practice. He's also for perpetuating No Child Left Behind, which was and always will be a horrible idea. He won't get the party nomination because he's too left of the spectrum and has neither adequate support nor adequate funds.

Chris Dodd (D): He's probably one of the more experienced candidates in the race. He's also bright, articulate, and a good diplomat (*). He's also a long-time senator and public servant. The reality, however, is that he doesn't stand out among his peers and doesn't really have viewpoints other than the typical liberal/Democrat. Although he may be well-prepared for the job of the presidency, I don't see him winning.

Bill Richardson (D): This guy is another stereotypical liberal/Democrat. He's a little lenient on illegal immigrants and appeals to Hispanics. Other than that, he's basically a clone of Chris Dodd.

Duncan Hunter (R): He's a moderate Republican who doesn't really stand out form his peers. He's also involved in all kinds of bribery and corruption scandals. There's not much else to say about him.


(*) I know about the parallel structure rule. I don't care unless I'm getting tested on it.