How to drive:

To drive in england, there are things you must be able to do.  First, you must pay for an opportunity to take the drivers test at 31 pounds per attempt. Second, you must be answer eighty six percent of the questions on a multiple choice quiz corectly. Then, you must drive with someone who will test your ability to maneuver your car.  There are people who have failed this step up to 48 times. There are many people who have failed the multiple choice test as well, but generally not as badly. But there are some that have failed quite awfully. In fact, the record has recently been set by a 26 year old woman who's identity has never been released. This record was 90 times. That makes £2790. After the first 10 times, even if you were awful at memorizing systems, you might even be able to recall the questions in your head.  But somehow, this woman seems to have acquired repeating amnesia or something. If a person can forget things this many times in a row, they would probably forget that their car could not travel through cars or other solid objects.  This would be inconvenient if you were a solid object near her. I believe that someone who has failed this test more than 20 times should not be allowed to drive. Ever. The people who failed the actual driving portion would be okay, it might just be a motor disorder of some sort, or they just have awful hand eye coordination. But if they get repeating amnesia, they should not be allowed to be on the road.


-Felix!

Some things I missed...

My last post on the likely 2012 Republican candidates was incomplete. First of all, my post came before the revelation that Tea Party stalwart Michele Bachmann was considering running for president. Though I don't think she will preform very well at the polls, it is my duty to evaluate her along with the rest of the candidates. So, here we go.

Michele Bachmann
Pros: Feisty, well-known legislator from America's heartland. Tea Party members love her.
Cons: All hail Palin 2.0- more sound bites, more gaffes, and more "Obama is a socalist" mumbo jumbo.
Chances of Winning Primary: She has a bit of a shot in Iowa. However, I would put her chances at less than one percent.

Also missing from my previous post is former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum
Pros: Popular with right wingers.
Cons: Low name recognition.
Chances of Winning Primary: He's a dark horse candidate, with a lot of appeal but very little capital.

Santorum

-Banquo

The Shifting Sands: A History of American Policy in The Middle East

The United States has had a significant presence in the middle east since the early 20th century with the event of the first world war for both economic and political purposes. The hot bed of activity and conflict that was created by colonization, constant war and the remaining influence of ancient empires is now seething with revolution and the flood of new ideas. Since those very early days of the U.S. presence and influence in the middle east countries like Egypt, Libya and Tunisia are starting to desire for freedom.  Libya is waging an all out war on Ghadafi.  Tunisia has little more than two months until its first democratic election.  Egypt has thrown off the dictatorial Mubarak. There have been radical changes in that region over the past century and it leaves us wondering what is going to happen next.
     In 1919 the League of Nations was formed at the urging of then, American President Woodrow Wilson in the wake of the first world war. Soon after its formation the League dissected the lands of the fallen Ottoman empire, who was defeated as one of the Axis powers in world war 1, into new colonial territories for the Western powers on the winning side of the war. This partition of the fallen Ottoman empire lead to the creation of States like Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and set the stage for the events and regimes that we see in our world today.
     Moving forward to the advent of the Cold War after the political map of the Middle East became much more similar to the one that we see in modern times the United States took many different military actions to influence the newly created states of the region. In 1953 the newly created Central Intelligence Agency launched the first of many operations in the middle east. This action was titled operation ajax and was meant to deter the spread of Communism to Iran and aid the Anglo-Iranian oil company in maintaining a high profit margin. The then newly elected and first ever democratic prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, wanted to nationalize the oil industry of Iran to stop foreign exploitation of Persian resources. This worried the Anglo Iranian oil company who then lobbied with both the British and American governments to stop that from happening. In response the CIA and British intelligence staged a coup that took months of preparation and propaganda production to succeed. Finally, after the coup, the CIA installed the once exiled Shah of Iran who then proceeded to lead a campaign of autocracy and terror against his own people until the 1979 Islamic revolution. 
     A decade later in Iraq the CIA planned but failed to eliminate the leader of Iraq general Abd al-Karim Qasim who five years earlier had over thrown the pro western monarch of Iraq. Luckily for the CIA the general was killed soon after the failed coup by a firing squad of the opposing Baath party. The United States then befriended the new regime of Iraq hoping to gain an anti soviet ally. The new Baath party leader of Iraq, Salam Arif died in 1966 when his brother a non Baath party member succeeded him. This new leader of Iraq was considering making oil pipeline deals with both the French and Soviet governments until the CIA gave support to the Baath party to stage a coup against the current regime, on the condition that the Baath party would give the oil in the northern part of the country to United States. This coup brought Hassan al-Bakr to power with the future Iraqi leader Sadam Hussein as a prominent lieutenant. 
     By the time the Cold War finished the United States had staged several other coups against Middle Eastern regimes that were unfavorable to the United States and installed pro western regimes who often turned out to be dictators. So where does this leave the United States? In the spur of the moment fueled by fear of falling behind in the Cold War the United States destroyed the bright hopes of many nations and in some cases started the wheels in motion for genocide. Because of U.S. interference Iran did not become a democracy, Iraq had Saddam Hussein come to power and many other countries were left bloodied and weaker than ever. These nations now left unstable and weak are unable to provide for themselves and many of them that are not under the rule of dictators live in lawless squalor and harbor the terror cells that the U.S. wants to be destroyed. Most of the ones that are controlled by dictators are now erupting in chaos and revolution with angry rebels firing off guns in the streets. Even worse, those nations still held in the iron grip of tyrants are some of the United States most valuable assets. Saudi Arabia, the oil baron of the world imposes radical Islam on its own people and has secret police, known as the Mabahith, patrol the streets and search for anyone who might think of opposing the regime. Before the Egyptian regime was over thrown and the Libyan regime jeopardized the United States rendition many of its covert prisoners over to these countries where they would be interrogated by means outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. 
     The United States has been playing a very risky game working with these nations in the middle east for the past century and attempting to manipulate every aspect of their workings for our own purposes. Now the board is coming apart and the rules of the game being rewritten. The United States needs to reevaluate its policy in the Middle East to be one that openly supports democracy and freedom of speech. We cannot hope to ever have true allies in the region if we do not extend the hand of friendship with legitimately good intentions. 

2012 Republican Presidential Primaries: A Look Ahead

So far, the only serious 2012 Republican candidate to even form an exploratory committee is former Minnasota Governor Tim Pawlenty. It's time to analyze the various candidates and their shots at waiting.


Mitt Romney
Pros: Intelligent, popular, business-savvy former governor of Massachusetts.
Cons: Hate "Obamacare"? Than you'll hate "Romney Care". Additionally, the guy's a Mormon. Say goodbye to the evangelical vote.
Chances of Winning Primary: He's the front runner-for now. His reputation as a flip-flopper and a social liberal hurts him, though, in key primary states like Iowa and South Carolina.

Mike Huckabee
Pros: Charismatic former governor of a conservative state. Reaches a vast audience on Fox News. Also, Chuck Norris endorsed him.
Cons: His recent gaffes prove that he's not immune to misspeaking. Stuff about his pardoning of Maurice Clemmons is still circulating, indicating he might not be the most competent commander-in-chief.
Chances of Winning Primary: He's loved in evangelical states like Iowa. However, is influence starts to fade in a more progressive state like New Hampshire.

Sarah Palin:
Pros: Former governor of Alaska. I couldn't think of anything else to put here.
Cons: Palin is an incredibly polarizing figure, even within her own party. Besides that, she's an incompetent nincompoop with as much political experience as my own pinky finger.
Chances of Winning Primary: Some people love Sarah... most don't. 47% of Tea Party supporters believe she would not make an effective president- if she can't get the favor of her own group, than she probably can't win on 2012.

Former Minnasota Governor Tim Pawlenty:
Pros: He's the former Republican governor of a traditionally Democratic state. He appeals to a wide variety of voters, and does not make gaffes on the scale of Huckabee or Palin.
Cons: Tim Pawlenty who?
Chances of Winning Primary: Minimal. However, in a divided Republican primary like this, it would not be strange to see a dark horse gain ground. In the end, I just think he'd make a better VP candidate.

The Others:
Rick Perry: He's on the rise, and popular with Tea Party members. However, he faces a country weary of Texans after an experience with a certain former president (I won't say who).
Donald Trump: No. Way. In. Hell.
Hayley Barbour: Well-known Republican Governor. However, Americans haven't elected a President from the Deep South since Jimmy Carter.
Ron Paul: Libertarians love him- but everyone else doesn't understand his appeal or his seemingly crazy views.
Rand Paul: The tea party folks sure love him- however, centrists and independents will flee the party if he is the candidate.
Newt Gingrich: He still has the trust and adoration of his conservative stalwarts. However, his personal life is, well, complicated.
Mitch Daniels: Most people outside of the Midwest have never heard of Daniels, who is the governor of Indiana and a rising star nationally. If he does run, he would be a capable dark horse candidate.

Romney, Palin. and Huckabee

Two hotdogs. Two people.

Sharing is a good thing, not because it helps other people be happy, or anything dumb like that. The real reason for sharing, I have just discovered, is avoiding being stabbed by your friends. In Clariton Pennsylvania, on march sixth, two friends were hanging out. The guest of the two was named Charles Westbrook, and he was making hotdogs. There were two hotgdogs. There were two people. Westbrook then consumed two of the hotdogs once they were complete. There were 0 hotdogs remaining. His friend, being taught quite well in the art of retribution, then inserts a knife into his leg. This was inconvenient for Westbrook, because he had to use that leg. He was rushed to the hospital immediately, and his friend was arrested. The moral of the story: ALWAYS SHARE. THERE ARE GREAT CONSEQUENCES FOR NOT DOING SO. This was kind of rude on the part of Westbrook, who was badly brought up, and never learned the value of courtesy to ones friends.  Although it was awful to stab his leg as well, and two wrongs certainly do not make a right, the hotdogs should be shared.

Are We Stupid?

     It has been 235 years since our nation was founded by a bunch of rebels seeking freedom from a monarch who exploited the mercantilist system to bleed them dry. And as those rebels who huddled together for warmth in the bitter cold of Valley forge we are by no means the most learned members of the global society.
     Our "thriving metropolises" that were once beakons of hope to the world are now perfect examples of the same poverty and ignorance that runs rampant in countries of the third world. The city of New York, home to over eight million people and once the economic flagship of this country has only a 60% graduation rate from public school. Detroit Michigan the motor city of the nation and home of 900,000 people has a graduation rate of 67% with a highschool dropout rate of 75%. What happened? The United States used to be the most powerful and well educated nation in the world and the leader of the west and now lies decaying.
     The average ninth grade class was thirteen percent larger than the the previous year's eigth grade class on average in the year 2000 as opposed to nearly identical classes in eigth and ninth grade in the year 1950. This indicates that a higher number of freshmen are being held back in ninth grade as opposed to advancing through highschool. With increasing national population and bloated federal spending in the midst of an already crushing debt how do we plan to educate for our future?

Banquo's Thoughts: An Overview of Mike Huckabee's Recent Gaffes

Ah, Mike Huckabee. So humble. So popular. So very,very stupid. The former governor of Arkansas and professional Republican demogogue is exhibiting Palin-levels of stupidy, stating erroneously that President Obama grew up in Kenya and blasting actress Natalie Portman for her out of wedlock pregnancy. Isn't this guy supposed to be the GOP front-runner or something? Huckabee, who leads the polls in the important states of South Carolina and Iowa, accused Obama of viewing the British as "a bunch of imperialists" due to his Kenyan upbringing. Later in that same interview, Huckabee falsly stated that Obama had returned a bust of famed British leader Winston Churchill to the British. While Huckabee skillfully paints a picture of Obama as a violent, angry Kenyan rebel, he neglects several important facts. Firstly, Obama was born and raised in the sunny state of Hawaii. Later, he followed his mother and her new husband to the Philippines. Obama never visited his father in Kenya- in fact, his first visit to Kenya was as a young man.

So, Mr. Huckabee, I think my disbelief for your pure and unrelenting idiocy can be expressed in a simple three word phrase- however, this blog is for a class at school. So, I will close this entry on a different note. Right now, Huckabee is viewed as the GOP frontrunner by many in his party. I really don't get how Republicans think that an insensitive moron like that could ever be elected in this country- frankly, I'm suprised he ever was elected in Arkansas.

-Banquo