New politically correct terms

From an e-mail that I received yesterday:

-------------------------------------

Subj: New Politically Correct terms

Due to the climate of political correctness now pervading America, it should be noted that Kentuckians, Tennesseans and West Virginians will no longer be referred to as 'HILLBILLIES.' You must now refer to them as APPALACHIAN-AMERICANS.

And Furthermore...

HOW TO SPEAK ABOUT WOMEN AND BE POLITICALLY CORRECT:

She is not a 'BABE' or a 'CHICK' - She is a 'BREASTED AMERICAN.'

She is not 'EASY' - She is 'HORIZONTALLY ACCESSIBLE.'

She is not a 'DUMB BLONDE' - She is a 'LIGHT-HAIRED DETOUR OFF THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY.'

She has not 'BEEN AROUND' - She is a 'PREVIOUSLY-ENJOYED COMPANION.'

She does not 'NAG' you - She becomes 'VERBALLY REPETITIVE.'

She is not a 'TWO-BIT HOOKER' - She is a 'LOW COST PROVIDER.'


HOW TO SPEAK ABOUT MEN AND BE POLITICALLY CORRECT:

He does not have a 'BEER GUT' - He has developed a 'LIQUID GRAIN STORAGE FACILITY.'

He is not a 'BAD DANCER' - He is 'OVERLY CAUCASIAN.'

He does not 'GET LOST ALL THE TIME' - He 'INVESTIGATES ALTERNATIVE DESTINATIONS.'

He is not 'BALDING' - He is in 'FOLLICLE REGRESSION.'

He does not act like a 'TOTAL BUTT' - He develops a case of RECTAL-CRANIAL INVERSION.'

It's not his 'CRACK' you see hanging out of his pants -It's 'REAR CLEAVAGE.'

Clinton, Obama butt heads, Nader joins in, Araujo presses on

This primary season continues to be endlessly fascinating to this pundit. Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama traded barbs over some comments she made. Here's what Hillary said:

"I could just stand up here and say 'Let's just get everybody together, let's get unified.' The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect,"

Now that's more of what I expected from them - especially Hillary the baby boomer. Hillary, actually, is showing signs of imploding. Imagine things from her perspective, though. Here she was, expecting the candidacy to be given to her because she's a woman, and someone else is stealing her thunder. Who is this person, stomping all over her dream? I actually expected more of this reaction from her earlier on, and perhaps we are finally going to see it, because we are talking Hillary's dream here.

See, thing is, in their most recent debate, they were still too civil. Dang, people! This ain't a tea party - you're running for president! The next debate, which I believe will be before Texas' primary on March 4, I want to finally see the head-butting, the face-slapping, and the knee-groining (all in the metaphorical sense, of course) that I've been expecting all along. Will Hillary finally show some signs that she is taking this seriously and stop being so gushy of Obama? Time will tell.

In the meantime, that ol' gremlin Ralph Nader announced that he will be running again. I call him a gremlin because that's how the Dems view him and his 2000 campaign. The Dems felt that Ralphie took votes away from Al "I invented the Internet" Gore that he needed in Florida, and that's why Bush won instead of Gore (and as the Dems put it, "We were then subjected to 8 years of hell". The embellish just a tad, I think). Nader is just a convenient scapegoat, though. Nader didn't lose it for Gore - Gore did that on his own. And the Dems did it as well by picking such an inept candidate that couldn't beat a socially awkward and clumsy George Bush.

On top of that, in 2004 the Dems selected another inept candidate in John Kerry who was just as wooden as Gore. Think about the 2004 election: Bush at that time was still the same socially awkward and clumsy candidate that was in addition a wounded candidate because of his handling of the war. Kerry couldn't beat even a weakened Bush. What this shows is not some sort of Nader jinxing or Karl Rove manipulations, but that the Dems were both blind and stupid so as to pick the same type of candidate a second time around!

I was really hoping that the Dems would crash and burn in 2006 so that they can start over, but nope - Bush's ineptitude finally caught up to him, and the Dems ended up taking over both houses of Congress - thus making them feel emboldened again. And now we are here in 2008, with two contenders that are essentially both of the same left-wing stripe fighting over who is the bigger victim - the woman or the black man. SIGH. There's no blaming Nader this time - he's a non-factor, so if the Dems lose, it will be their own fault.

Well, it's up to me, then. Still no delegates, and with an even less of a chance to win the presidency than even Ralph Nader. However, I am determined, if nothing else, and I still think that you good folks would prefer me over Obama, Clinton, the GOP candidate John McCain, and even Ralph Nader. C'mon, folks - let's make the big dogs sweat and vote for me!

Notes: Campaign and otherwise

First, just to let you know, I will have a busy rest-of-the-week, so I won't be posting again until probably Sunday. I might be able to post Saturday, and you'll see it if I do. Otherwise, it'll be Sunday. Now on to campaign notes.

Even though Barack Obama has momentum going, I still think that Hillary Clinton will do something to gain the nomination. I can't see her giving up. At all. I think that this will go down in her favor one way or another. I say this even if Obama wins Ohio and Texas in early March. Somehow, someway, she'll pull something that swings things in her favor, whether it's calling in favors, threatening blackmail, getting superdelegates on her side, showing more cleavage, whatever it takes. I just can't see her stepping aside even for Obama. Mark my words, folks - this will come down in her favor eventually, and it may have to get ugly before it does.

As for the GOP, Mike Huckabee is hangin' in there, even though everyone and Mitt Romney's mother has endorsed John McCain. I give Huckster credit for hanging in there, because he is making the GOP a show to watch as well. The Obama/Clinton show is still by far the more interesting show, but Huck is helping to at least keep one eyeball glued to the one TV that is keeping up with the GOP campaigns.

And I still don't like any of the candidates other than myself. So far, I like what I've said, and I've agreed pretty much with the views that I have put out. I've even made myself laugh with my humor, and the Che Guevara poster was a hoot! But even with all that, my odds are pretty heavily against me. I'm just watching now to see what other candidate I'll endorse before making my decision on who to vote for.

One last, non-political note: I'm glad that the Jason Kidd trade finally went down. Now all he has to do is help us get a championship. We won't take any less.

Campaign notes - Who needs Che?

While Barack, Hillary, John, and Mike have been out stumping for their respective campaigns, I have made a new campaign poster. It's based on this well-known image of Che Guevara:





Che was a Communist, but I'm an American! What I mean is this: The nature of Communism is to believe in the state, which comes at the expense of the individual. However, I believe in the power of the individual over the state. While communists and Communism claim to be a "workers' party", it actually serves the state - the infamous "Big Brother" of George Orwell's 1984. I, however, plan to be a "man of the people" instead of a Big Brother. I will actually be helping the little guy rather than the almighty State.

I intend to be an "old school" Democrat the way the Democrats used to be, instead of the special interests and big money servant that they are now. I guess this would make me a "regressive" rather than a "progressive", because if what the Dems advocate now is progress, then leave me out of it. I'd rather regress to what they used to be.

Over the weekend, someone asked me if I was serious about running for president. I said: "It depends. Let's put it this way. William Tecumseh Sherman once said, 'If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.' However, I say this: 'If nominated, I will accept; if drafted, I will run; if elected, I will serve'".

What I mean is, if there indeed arises a groundswell of desire for me to run, then I'll see what I can do to actually run for office. What a message it would send to politicians for the American voter to give me any votes, much less enough for the pols to take notice.

So, while I was initially kidding about running, I also decided that if enough people actually want me to run, then who am I to deny the will of the people? Even so, I still don't anticipate getting any sort of following - but I'll be open to the possibility just in case. It's up to you, folks.

News Nuggets 2-15-08

Previously on my blog, I had what I called "Weekend Wrap-ups", but keeping a weekly schedule was not easy, especially since there wasn't always newsworthy stuff to report on week in and week out. So as of today, I shall be starting what I call News Nuggets, which shall be brief commentary on recent news events. That way, I can take care of such commentary while such news is still current, rather than waiting until the weekend. While I’ll be posting the News Nuggets sporadically, I’ll semi-aim for Fridays to post them. So thus, we begin!

Roger Clemens steroid controversy
One thing I noticed right away about Brian McNamee is who he resembles. Here's a pic:



Does he not look like this guy?:



That second pic is, of course, Jughead Jones from Archie Comics. Those of us who read Archie Comics knew Jughead to be a lazy loafer who preferred hamburgers to chicks. Well, maybe this is who Jughead became. He changed his name and became a trainer for the New York Yankees so that he could afford to feed his hamburger habit. Thus, I wouldn’t trust this dude if I was a member of that Senate committee!

Dolly Parton is wagging puppies!
Recently, Dolly Parton had this to say:


"I know I have been breaking my neck and bending over backwards trying to get my new Backwoods Barbie CD and world tour together, but I didn't mean to hurt myself doing it. But hey, you try wagging these puppies around a while and see if you don't have back problems!"


What I want to know is - in light of the recent news stories about Michael Vick and his abuse of dogs, how can Dolly go around wagging puppies - much less joke about it! They must be some heavy puppies if she’s straining her back wagging them, because she’s a tiny woman (well, except for a certain part of her). Anyway, there she was, wagging puppies, and the reporters don’t say anything about it? And where’s PETA in all this?

Dallas Mavericks’ Jason Kidd trade
As of now, the trade still hasn’t happened, still because of Devon George because of the “Bird” rule that allows him to nix trades. Thing is, he asked to be traded not too long ago, so I’m sure that the Mavs felt that he would be okay with it. However, they probably should have asked so as to spare them this whole embarrassing episode.

They probably didn’t expect George to be holding up a trade like this, but the lawyers should still anticipate such things. George feels that he could lose out on potential free agent money by going through with this trade, but I think that now, because of this embarrassing episode, he’s in such a bad light now that I doubt that he’d get that extra money.

According to some news articles, he probably wasn’t going to get extra money anyway, because he’s not a top-notch player – but again, the Mavs could have asked first. In any case, I think George should now cut his losses and go through with the trade, because if the deal collapses because of him, then he’s going to be getting grief for the rest of the season - and he probably won’t be signed anywhere else unless he takes a drastic cut in pay. I don’t recall a trade causing this much interest, though. It actually took our minds off of the Clinton/Obama news for a while.

Thanks, folks! Have a great weekend!

My take on some issues

The New York Times had run an article on the views of the candidates when there were still a bunch of them. The article listed each view in a capsulized form. Here's the article.

And so, keeping with this format, I too, shall give my views on those same issues in the same capsulized format. Here goes:

Health Care
Democrats want universal health care where Big Brother handles all our medical needs. The GOP wants the free market to run things - that is, Big Money and Big Pharmaceutical. I propose a halfway point. I advocate getting the feds out of health care and handing it over to the states. That way, if New York or California want socialized medicine in all its glory, then their respective taxpayers can pay for it. If Texas or Florida want to give the free market a try, then they can have a go at it. However, I will require that all states cover their citizens in some way, shape, or form - even if it's a state version of Medicare. This will allows for all forms of health care to be tried out, and hopefully from that, we can learn what works best - whether it's socialized medicine, free-market, or some combination of both.

Abortion
I'm opposed to it, as is evident in different parts of my blog. I will advocate the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and let the matter revert back to the states. If I can at least get that much done, that'd be great. I would also then work on the state level so that I could help former president Bill Clinton not only live up to his promise of "making abortion rare", I would try to make it non-existent. There needs to be more airing of the prolife side of the debate, and I'll be the president that gives the prolife side the air time it needs.

Climate Change
I support cleaning up the environment, and I will crack down on major pollutors, charging them whopping fines so as to pay for my "a computer in every household" program. However, I am iffy on the "global warming" thing, because I'm old enough to remember when scientists were warning about global cooling. If they were wrong then, then maybe they're wrong now. Plus, if the granddaddy of environmentalism Al Gore can't clean up his own house, then that speaks volumes about the credibility of the whole global warming movement. I'd also crack down on the con artists out there selling "carbon credits" and give the fines toward actual programs for environmental clean-up.

Immigration
We are a nation of immigrants, and I won't change that. However, those here illegally will have to resolve their illegal status if they want to remain in the country. I oppose total blanket amnesty, because that is not fair to those immigrants who are here legally and have been going through the process of legalization the right way. I will give them 6 months to a year to resolve their illegal status by paying fines and starting the process of citizenship, or face deportation. Those here illegally who are criminals will be deported immediately.

Iraq
Here we have an example of the damage being done. I opposed going to war back in 2003, but that's past history now. We have gone there, upset the controlling authority, and we are now the controlling authority. To leave now would be chaos not just for Iraq but the whole Middle East. We must help the Iraqis get back on their feet so that the can self-govern, and only THEN can we leave. We owe it to them, because we caused the disruption to their country, they didn't ask us to come.

Iran
Wholly, totally opposed to going to war in Iran. After what we went through in Iraq, to go into Iran with the same boneheaded plan would make us look stupid in the eyes of the world, because we hadn't learned our lessons with our experiences in Iraq. And we aren't done in Iraq, anyway. Why stir another hornets' nest?

Economy
I would insist on a line item veto, and if I don't get it, politicians better be prepared for me to veto the hell out of bills that contain pork or other earmarks. If we are going to ask the rest of the country to tighten their belts, we should be setting the example by tightening our own belts. Our economy will improve with all of us learning better spending habits. I would also work on cutting current taxes for useless and expensive programs that contribute nothing to our country. Or if they don't get cut, I'll divert the extra taxes to my "computer in every household" program.

More to come.

Araujo '08 campaign promises

I type this again in a restaurant that has free Wi-Fi. That made me think of one campaign promise that I can make: Free Wi-fi. As your president, I will do everything within my power to give the nation free Wi-Fi.

I'd also look into getting a computer in every household. I feel that the more households with computers that we have, the better connected we can all be. Then we can all do a better job of keeping our alleged public servant politicians on their toes, so that we have just as much access to them as their big-money corporations and special interest groups that they are whoring themselves for.

I'd also insist on total transparency for politicians as to who is funding their campaigns. Those pols, corporations, and special interest groups who are abusing their power will be subjected to monstrous fines that will go towards funding the program that I will have to provide computers to all households. Understand that I'm not opposed to corporations and special interest groups donating to campaigns, but I will be mindful of abuses, and will be just as quick to pounce on violators.

For instance, last year Gov. Rick Perry of Texas had suddenly - out of the blue - required that all school-aged girls be vaccinated with Gardasil. No legislature or court order brought this about - it came just from him. Gov. Perry was so obviously whoring for Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, that Merck had to make a public statement about it. But still, this was a more obvious example of a politician whoring for a corporation or a special interest group - there are other pols out there doing the same thing, they're just better at hiding it than Governor Gardasil - er, I mean Rick Perry was.

Perry and Merck are examples of a pol and corporation that I would slap my whopping fines on. I'd make a public show of hanging their asses out to dry. That's what I'd do as your president. Vote for me so that we can get it done!

More to come. :-)

Modern day Abbott and Costello

From an e-mail that I received. Enjoy!

---------------------------------------

You have to be old enough to remember Abbott and Costello, and too old to REALLY understand computers, to fully appreciate this. For those of us who sometimes get flustered by our computers, please read on...

If Bud Abbott and Lou Costello were alive today, their famous sketch,'Who's on First?' might have turned out something like this:

COSTELLO CALLS TO BUY A COMPUTER FROM ABBOTT

ABBOTT: Super Duper Computer Store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: Thanks. I'm setting up an office in my den and I'm thinking about buying a computer.

ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: No, the name's Lou.

ABBOTT: Your computer?
COSTELLO: I don't own a computer. I want to buy one.

ABBOTT : Mac?
COSTELLO: I told you, my name's Lou.

ABBOTT: What about Windows?
COSTELLO: Why? Will it get stuffy in here?

ABBOTT: Do you want a computer with Windows?
COSTELLO: I don't know. What will I see when I look at the windows?

ABBOTT: Wallpaper.
COSTELLO: Never mind the windows. I need a computer and software.

ABBOTT: Software for Windows?
COSTELLO: No. On the computer! I need something I can use to write proposals, track expenses and run my business. What do you have?

ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yeah, for my office. Can you recommend anything?

ABBOTT: I just did.
COSTELLO: You just did what?

ABBOTT: Recommend something.
COSTELLO: You recommended something?

ABBOTT: Yes.
COSTELLO: For my office?

ABBOTT: Yes
COSTELLO: OK, what did you recommend for my office?

ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yes, for my office!

ABBOTT: I recommend Office with Window's.
COSTELLO: I already have an office with windows! OK, let's just say I'm sitting at my computer and I want to type a proposal. What do I need?

ABBOTT: Word.
COSTELLO: What word?

ABBOTT: Word in Office.
COSTELLO: The only word in office is office.

ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.
COSTELLO: Which word in office for windows?

ABBOTT: The Word you get when you click the blue 'W'.
COSTELLO: I'm going to click your blue 'w' if you don't start with some straight answers! What about financial bookkeeping? You have anything I can track my money with?

ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: That's right What do you have?

ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: I need money to track my money?

ABBOTT: It comes bundled with your computer.
COSTELLO: What's bundled with my computer?

ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: Money comes with my computer?

ABBOTT: Yes. No extra charge.
COSTELLO: I get a bundle of money with my computer? How much?

ABBOTT: One copy.
COSTELLO: Isn't it illegal to copy money?

ABBOTT : Microsoft gave us a license to copy Money.
COSTELLO: They can give you a license to copy money?

ABBOTT: Why not? THEY OWN IT!

(A few days later)

ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: How do I turn my computer off?

ABBOTT: Click on 'START'.

Obama surges on; Araujo makes progress

Yesterday's primaries have come and gone, and Barack Obama surges on. (Hey, that rhymes!) If Hillary wasn't sweating before, she should be now. After all, this was supposed to be "her time". Obama, though, is not making things easy for her, and she doesn't help herself at times, either.

There's been statements made (usually said by Hillary supporters. I wonder why?) that we shouldn't judge them by personalities, but rather on their stands on issues. However, they are both liberal Democrats with very little differing between them, so the only thing left over IS their personalities. Given that they are both very pro-choice, neither of them are getting my vote anyway, but let me help some of the Dem supporters who are still wondering what they should do.

Voting for Hillary Clinton
Plus:
* She's had some experience as First Lady in Arkansas and in D.C., and as a Senator
* She's female, which is likely to get a lot of women voting for her based solely on that
* She's a good role model of a strong, independent woman

Minus:
* She's every bit the glory-grabbing politican as her husband was, but without the charm. She's also inept at hiding the fact that she's a glory-grabbing politican, making silly and foolish blunders that less experienced pols wouldn't make.
* She's got "baggage" from the White House years, which her opponents are likely to exploit the entire time that she is in office.
* There is a big difference experience-wise between being First Lady (both at the state and federal level), and being Governor or President.

Voting for Barack Obama
Plus:
* He's young, charming, and handsome, and easy to like
* Unlike Hillary with gender, he isn't using being black as a club to hit others over the head with
* He's got the endorsement of many prominent celebrities and politicians

Minus:
* He's woefully inexperienced. One criticism of George W. Bush is that he had all kinds of handlers helping him in office - with Obama, it will be even worse.
* His voting track record is very largely "Present". The Oval Office needs a decision maker, and not just a seat warmer.
* If he doesn't live up to the hype, he may become a one-term president - thus helping the GOP in the process.

And while all this is going on, the "veepstakes" have already begun. Despite the difficulties that would come with one being the VP candidate of the other, I think Barack and Hillary should do just that. If it's historical for either of them to be a presidential candidate, why not go with a "double whammy" ticket of TWO historical candidates? Granted, if either or both of them get nasty with each other from this point until one of them is officially made the candidate, then it could cause problems for the one to reach out to the other. But still, I think they should swallow their pride and run with it.

On the GOP side, one name came up, and I think that the GOP should go with it: Kay Bailey Hutchison. If Hillary becomes the nominee, then for sure the GOP should go with Hutchison. I think an even more ideal selection would be Dr. Condoleezza Rice, but Dr. Rice has said before that she is not interested in running. If the GOP goes with another white guy for the VP, then they'll end up making things more difficult for themselves, especially if the Dems go with a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket.

As for my own campaign, I was also busy this weekend. Was I out shaking hands and kissing babies? Nope. Was I out meeting and greeting with folks in various parts of the country? Not quite. Was I out schmoozing with celebrities for dough? Hah!

Nope, none of the above, amigo. Instead, I was making an official Facebook page for my campaign! (Note: You have to be on Facebook in order to see the page).

If you are on Facebook, join my campaign! Just so that you know, being a member of my Facebook campaign does not mean that you have to vote for me. BUT - if a regular Joe Schmo such as myself can get a lot of members, then just maybe the other candidates for office will take note on how willing that you all would go with a good candidate if one became available!

I share one similarity with Ron Paul in that I am a message candidate, and my message is this: The politicians don't run the country, we do. And if enough of you get me to the Oval Office, then the big shots and the big boys can't help but take notice. It's time for us to make the alleged "powers that be" lose bladder control! What say ye? Wanna make a rich guy wet his pants? :-D

Also over the weekend, I've been working on campaign slogans. Let me know what you think of the following:

* The Ultimate Grassroots Candidate (current campaign slogan)
* The Ultimate Write-In Candidate
* The Man of the People!
* Don't Tase me, Bro! ("Bro" in this instance, being "Big Brother" of George Orwell fame)

And so my campaign continues!

Vote for Araujo in '08!

Campaign notes

Super Tuesday has come and gone, and it looks like John McCain may run away with it on the GOP side. This has caused some dilemmas of the Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of the world, along with their listeners. McCain is viewed as a "de facto liberal Democrat" and they had instead been favoring Mitt Romney as the "closest to an authentic conservative" among the three GOP candidates. But Romney did not do as well as they had hoped. The question will become "Will they support McCain?" if he ends up being the GOP candidate. My guess is that they would have to, because the alternative is supporting the Democratic candidate.

And speaking of the Dems, even though Hillary Clinton won more of the states, I don't think that she expected Barack Obama to do as well as he did. The Dem races are proving to be VERY interesting, because you have two representatives of the Democrats' traditional "victims" groups going at it against each other. It's historic that we have BOTH a female candidate AND a black candidate doing this well this far into their campaigns. At their last debate, they were very civil towards each other, but I ask, how long can that last? Their campaigns are not about being buddies with each other, but instead about being the candidate for president in the Democratic Party.

The very nature of elections forbids such camaraderie lasting very long. The last I heard, both agreed to more debates before the Texas primary comes up, and maybe in one of those debates, I'll finally get to see the knock-down, drag-out smackdown that I was expecting to see in the last debate. I wanted to see hair pulling, head-butting, knee-to-the-groining, and other dirty handed tactics to be used - in a metaphorical sense, I mean. ;-)

At some point, they're going to have to stop being nice to each other if they really want to win. I can imagine the ethical boondoggle for the Dems on who to support. The question they are desperately trying to answer is: Which victim's group is in the most need of this win, women or blacks? They would actually prefer not to have to make this choice, but circumstances have developed to the contrary - so this will be a true test for the Dems to see where their loyalties lie. One group will walk away with their representative, while the other may likely harbor resentment for a long time to come.

Of course, it's very likely that one will become the VP candidate for the other, and theoretically this should resolve this dilemma - except one of them will have to step aside for the other. So - who's it going to be? Will the black man step aside for the white woman? Of course, we know of the history of blacks being oppressed by whites, but there is also the particular notoriety of the white woman taking advantage of the black man, and then saying that he raped her. There's even a Pulitzer Prize winning novel about such a story. It would seem that Hillary should step aside because of that. Otherwise, Hillary is going to be the reason that Dr. King's dream will be delayed a little longer.

But - women have long been oppressed by men. It wasn't even 100 years ago that women got the right to vote, even though some states - some of them southern states! - allowed blacks to vote way before the 1920's (Granted, those states didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts - they just wanted their vote. In some instances, blacks didn't have citizenship or full citizenship yet - but doggonit, they were going to get their vote!). And of course, there was all that other ugliness that went with living in a "patriarchal society". After all that, can we honestly ask such a prominent female leader as Hillary Clinton to step aside and allow a MAN to be - ahem - on top of the woman again? When will this gender oppression end?

Of course, as a political observer and amateur historian, I am fascinated by all this. I am very curious as to how all this will play out without bitterness and resentment from the one who does not get the nomination. Who's victim card has the higher value? Stay tuned, true believers! The best is no doubt yet to come!

As for myself, I have also been busy this week. No, I haven't been fundraising, or making phone calls, or scheduling media appearances or otherwise stumping. So what HAVE I been doing, you ask? I've been making a campaign button! It's below! Check it out!



See folks? Now you can have your very own button to show your support for my ultimate grassroots campaign! Wear it proudly!

*** SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT ***

Welcome. I’m pleased to have you all here today. As stated yesterday, I have an important announcement to make at this time.

In recent years including most of the past two decades, we have had an abundance of political candidates not just from the two major parties – the Democrats and the Republicans – but also the smaller parties that few know about. And yet, despite this abundance of candidates, not one has been able to inspire the nation to come together and work as one people.

Instead, we are left with options of voting for “the lesser evil”, or “I’m voting for X because I dislike Y even more”, or simply not voting at all. My fellow Americans, I’m here to tell you that it’s time to stop voting while holding your nose. It’s time to stop voting for either Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum. It’s time to stop feeling guilty for voting for those who you know to be whores for big money corporations and special interest groups.

It’s time to stop all that and instead vote for a candidate that won’t sell you out. It’s time to vote for a candidate that will fight for you against a government and politicians that have forgotten just who it is that they serve. It’s time to vote for a candidate that won’t be swayed by big money or popular causes, and who instead will do what’s right for America. It’s time to vote for a candidate that you can feel good about for a change.

Thus, it is with the utmost humility that I announce my candidacy for the office of President of the United States of America.

Because the Democrats and Republicans aren’t about to let what they regard as “some yahoo off of the street” to participate in their debates, I will instead rely on the wonderful modern technology of the Internet to get the word out of my candidacy. I will use my blog to state my positions on issues so that you know exactly what I stand for. In other words, you won’t be getting pretty words and flowery phrases that you hear from the other candidates.

Now understand that I am on a shoestring budget – and I had to get a loan for the string. However, this should not be seen as a minus, but a plus. How so? It is through such financial struggles that I am able to understand your financial struggles. When I say that I know what you’re going through, it’s because I am going through it as well. Do you think that Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton truly know what you’re going through? Do you think that Barack Obama or John McCain understand what it means to just scrape by? They don’t but I do, because I’m one of you.

Also, compared to the amount of publicity that the major candidates can get, I am limited to this one source of my blog. However, this should not be seen as a minus, but a plus. How so? It is through such voicelessness that I am able to understand your voicelessness when you cry out in anger and frustration when the big shots and big boys raise your taxes or impose the will of the big money corporations and special interest groups on you. I feel your frustration, because I go through it as well. They don’t hear you, and they don’t hear me. We are voices crying out in the wilderness. They don’t hear you, but I do, because I’m one of you.

I don’t have fancy clothes. I have only one car, and I bought it used. I have one house, and it’s an older one. My total assets are nowhere near six digits. However, that should not be seen as a minus, but a plus. How so? This means that I can relate to you when it comes to being grateful for what I have instead of lamenting what I don’t have. The big boys and fat cats that make up most politicians have much, much more than you or I will ever have, but still they want even more. So how can such people relate to you or me? They can’t, but I can, because I’m one of you.

When it comes to big social gatherings or parties, I feel as out of place as one of the Three Stooges at a high-society function. I wouldn’t know which fork to use or what glass is for what. I’d rather have a soda instead of wine, and I’d rather have chicken fried steak with green beans than veal and pâté. However, this should not be seen as a minus, but a plus. How so? Because it means that I can relate to you when it comes to these large social functions that most of us wouldn’t get invited to. If we tried to go anyway, we’d most likely be kicked out at best, or arrested at worst. How can the big boy politicians relate to us and how we feel in such gatherings? But I know how it feels to be left out, because I’m one of you.

I don’t have a fancy suit. I bought my dress shoes at a department store, and on sale. Most of my wardrobe is t-shirts and jeans. The big boys go to faraway places to “recharge”; I take 15 minute “power naps” during my lunch hour. The big boys go to high-dollar doctors for their treatments; I go to doctors that are on my HMO. They can raise millions of dollars by calling their high-dollar connections; I’ll be surprised if my fund-raising reaches 4 digits. I’m in this fight with about the same as you have. Working apart, we might as well be fleas to the big boys, but working together, we can wag the dog.

You can vote for Mitt, Barack, John, or Hillary, but none of them are going to relate to you as well as I do, because they are not one of you. But I am. I don’t have a lot to help my campaign – in fact; all I basically have is you. But if enough of us work together, you will be all that I need. Vote for me in ’08, and you’ll be voting for one of your own. And if, by some miracle, I am elected, I will never forget who got me there. I promise you that.

Over the course of this month, I will give you my take on the issues, and during the rest of the campaign season, I will follow what the other candidates are saying, so that I can give you my side as well. Or rather, OUR side.

Thank you, and God bless.

John P. Araujo

WATCH THIS SPACE! SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT COMING TOMORROW!

WATCH THIS SPACE! SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT COMING TOMORROW!

Videos of intelligent animals and such

Since "No Goofy Stuff" month is over, it's time to get back to goofy stuff! First, some videos:





Now on to other news: I watched the Democratic debates between the last two candidates of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, hoping that there would be kicking, screaming, slapping, hair-pulling, and fisticuffs - all metaphorically speaking, of course. But nope, it didn't happen. Instead, they were downright civil with each other. Man, what a letdown. Not only that, I don't think the questioners pressed them enough. I hope the next debate between them does better than this one. What a letdown!

In the meantime, the Super Bowl is coming tomorrow. Yawn. Let's see: the Patriots will win - pretty much that's it. Like most of the country, I'll be tuning in mainly for the commercials.

Of more interest is Tuesday, or as it is known in the politcial world, Super Tuesday, because a lot of primaries are going on at the same time on that day, and we'll have a better feel for which candidate is going to be nominated for their respective parties.

More goofy stuff to come later in the month, folks!