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!

McCain, Clinton win Florida

The results are in, and it's John McCain by percentage points. While there are still other candidates, it's now becoming a race between two candidates for both parties. On GOP side, it's McCain and Mitt Romney, while on the Democratic side, it's Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. On the GOP side, they're trying to claim who is the true conservative candidate, while on the Dem side, each candidate is trying to have the more historical candidacy.

Hillary's win was largely an empty one, because the Democratic party didn't allow any delegates as punishment for moving up their primary date. I find this humorously ironic, as the Dems were crying foul in 2000 over the elections results between Bush and Gore. At that time, the term "disenfranchised voter" had been coined by the Dems. Well, here we are a few years later, and the Dems ended up disenfranchising the whole freakin' state!

Coming up tonight is the debate between the GOP candidates, followed by the Dems tomorrow. Since John Edwards is said to be bowing out, that will leave just Barack and Hillary, and I betcha that their debate will be worthy of professional wrestling! Given their recent contentiousness, it should shape up to be worth watching.

And last, here's an editorial cartoon by Sean Delonas:



No doubt Sean is going to get grief for this, largely because he's picking on two liberal icons. However, notice how he drew Ted Kennedy. Intoxicated, with pants down, and boxers that have hearts on them. That's a fairly common depiction of him in edtoons. When I had ol' Tedster in one of my edtoons, I drew him the same way.

The edtoon above, by the way, makes reference to Kennedy's infamous incident at Chappaquiddick.

The difference between Obama and Clinton

In discussing my previous blog entry with one of my readers, they asked me what I thought the difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was (besides race and gender), since I say that they are virtually alike when it comes to their views. Well, both can play the "victim" card - that is, Obama can cite how blacks were oppressed in the past, and Hillary can say the same about women in the past. Basically then, their "victim" cards cancel each other out.

I think Obama realizes this, but Hillary has not. What I mean is, Obama is running as a candidate for the office of president, and not as a black candidate for the office of president. That is, the voters can see that he's black, so he doesn't need to keep reminding them of it. As a result, he instead concentrates on how he presents himself. His statements discuss what he can do for America and what kind of change he can bring. His race is not part of his messages, and based on his current success, it doesn't need to be.

Hillary, meanwhile, is running as a female candidate, rather than as a candidate. Like Obama with race, we can see that she's female, so she doesn't need to keep reminding us of that. And yet, she will, as when she did her almost teary-eyed answer on the difficulties of being a candidate for office. Had any of the male candidates given such a teary response as she did, they would have their masculinity questioned. Hillary has not learned that eventually people will tune out the novelty of her being a female candidate, because being female is something that she didn't control.

For example, imagine running for office pointing out the fact that they have two feet, or ten toes. Or perhaps running because they have knees, or an elbow that people come miles to see (I forgot where that elbow statement comes from. If anyone knows, please let me know). Eventually, the voters will lose interest even in the lovely elbow, because all that is part of what you are, and not related to your message. Hillary is still stuck on describing her elbow, and it's why she's losing ground to Obama.

Plus, Hillary is a baby boomer, and generally speaking, baby boomers her age are still operating under 1960's rules of fighting the establishment. That's all she knows how to do, and I'm very certain that she is genuinely confused by the reactions that she's getting. In her eyes, she's getting the negative reactions because the world has turned conservative, but the truth is that her combative form of campaigning no longer appeals to the general population.

While Obama, in his mid-40's, is technically a baby boomer as well, he's at the tail end of that generation, and he's more Gen-X than baby boomer. In other words, he's old enough to know what appeals to older baby boomers, but young enough to know what appeals to younger generations. Like those of the younger generation, he grew up with the combative methods of baby boomers, so he can understand the younger generation's fatigue of baby boomers always fighting and never accomplishing anything.

If he manages to keep his successes up, it's very certain that he's going to get the Democratic nomination, because there's very little reason to believe that Hillary can adapt accordingly. And Hillary will go down not because of her gender or because Obama is black, but because she couldn't connect with the general population in the way Obama seems to be doing. But of course, she won't see that, and instead will be blaming the vast right wing conspiracy for her loss.

Obama wins South Carolina

In what is proving to be an interesting primary season, Barack Obama has won the race in South Carolina. Obama seems to becoming a fairy tale story in this election. And finally, it seems that news reports on Obama have stopped focusing on whether he's "black enough". I think SC proved that he's "black enough", because he got 78% of the black vote.

The Democratic side has been historic in that both a black candidate and a female candidate are running for office. For a time, there were (the best word I can think of this is:) "vibes" that the Dems were worried on whether the U.S. was ready to vote for black or female candidate. I think the primaries so far have shown that Americans are ready, because if they weren't, then John Edwards would be the leader instead of in 3rd place.

I think that Dems should stop worrying about such things, and instead concentrate on making their candidate likable enough regardless of their gender or skin color. Granted, there will be those that won't vote for Obama because he's black or Clinton because she's a woman, but such people are far, far, far in the minority as to be irrelevant when it comes to polls and votes. There's always going to be racists and sexists, but concentrating on them so much is only going to give them more influence than they actually have, much less deserve.

Last, I say that the Dems should work on their candidates' likability - regardless of who it is - because when it gets out of the primary stage and into the national stage, they will have to contend with the GOP candidate, who's going to be a white guy, apparently. As for myself, I won't be voting for either Obama or Clinton, because I don't like either one of them. And my dislike is based not on their race or gender, but because for one, they are both pro-choice.

For another, Hillary just comes across as a "say-anything, do-anything" total politician, who is nowhere as skilled as her husband Bill when it comes to hiding such tendencies. I liken the difference between them as that between Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd. Obama, meanwhile, is saying a lot without saying anything. The speeches I've heard so far are vague and grandiose without getting into details. This actually seems to be par for the course for Obama, because he often voted "Present" when it came to voting for important bills. Voting "present" is a way of voting without actually voting yea or nay. How can he run the Oval Office with such non-committedness?

So far, they seem to be putting all their bets on their race or gender to get them noticed, but ultimately, that's only going to get them so far, because one's race and gender is something that one has no control over, and counting on "righting the balance" votes probably won't be nearly enough to get them in the White House. Eventually, it's going to come down to issues, and neither candidate has shown enough skill to demonstrate that they can handle the pressure of actually coming down to an actual stand on an issue.

If they keep that inability up, then they make it easier for the eventual GOP candidate to walk all over them. While the Dems are worrying about race and gender, the GOP - with its all white male candidates, is concentrating on the issues, and whoever emerges from the pack is going to have that experience working in their favor once things move out of the primaries and onto the national stage. If the Dems thought things are bad now with Obama and Clinton sparring, then they ain't seen nothing yet once this goes national and the evental Dem candidate becoming fair game for the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the world.

Don't think that the conservative talk show hosts aren't also paying attention to the Dem bickering. No doubt they're taking notes as well, and they're going to be quite skilled at evading likely charges that they are criticizing Obama because of race or Hillary because of gender. If the Dems are counting on the race card or gender card to bail them out of criticism from conservative talk show hosts, then they are not playing with a full deck.

Legalized abortion pt. 3 of 3

In my previous two blog entries, I had tried to discover a starting point for when the unborn are regarded as human to the point that they are considered as being under the protection of the law. As you have read, even when a simple definition point is used to determine when life begins - that is, birth - our society still has chosen to complicate the matter. Thus we get to the crux of the matter: Society complicates the definition of when life begins not for the sake of the unborn, but rather for themselves.

Throughout human history, we have always had a group of people that we considered "disposable"; that is, worthy only of being used and mistreated, and then discarded after we're done with them. For the longest time, even some of the more advanced civilizations had slavery. Even our country (the United States, for those readers who aren't in the U.S.) had slavery right up to 1865; this despite our founding documents saying "All men are created equal".

Why have even the advanced societies needed slaves? To do the dirty work. The slaves did the heavy, sweaty drudgery that those in power didn't want to do. Those in power also needed someone to blame for when things go wrong. From the days of the Roman empire when they persecuted the Christians right up to recent times when the Nazis killed millions of Jews, there has always been a quick and convenient group of people to blame. Of course, persecution of a people came before the Roman empire - and it continues in the post-Nazi years - in our present time - with legalized abortion.

The unborn are today's persecuted, oppressed people. However, even this form of persecution and oppression is hardly unprecedented. In the New Testament is the story of King Herod ordering the execution of any child under the age of 2 so that in the process, he could be assured that his prophesied successor will be killed in the process. What is unprecedented in our day is the scale - the sheer numbers - of these unborn executions, and the heavily institutionalized processes that have been incorporated to keep legalized abortion in the lawbooks.

And the greatest ironic tragedy in all this is legalized abortion's most ardent defenders: liberals and progressives. Liberalism traditionally had been the defender of the weak and helpless, but for some reason, they have chosen to be the defenders of a practice that preys upon the most weak and helpless of all in our society. How liberals got to be this way can be best explained as being sold the idea a little at a time. Now they are so far gone that to get them to change their views is akin to trying to change the course of a river.

I find it rather macabre that a group that calls themselves "progressives" can advocate something that is actually regressive as far as helping us to grow and develop as a society. That's like trying to improve our justice system by reintroducing practices such as stocks or disembowelment.

I have been trying to find a definition of the origins of life. However, I think that we already know when that is - and it isn't birth. Life begins at conception, for that is when a new being with its own genetic code is created, and it is a genetic code that they will have with them throughout their lives, however long that it may be. That is the most logical origin of life, because all other definitions tend to instead be describing later stages of development. Some of the proposed origins are "heartbeats and brainwaves", or "viability" (that is, the ability to live outside the womb", and of course, birth.

But these are not origins of life, the are instead convenient designations to justify ending the unborn's existence. For example, we would say "If it doesn't have a heartbeat or brain activity, then it isn't human yet", or "If it can't live outside the womb, then it isn't human yet", and so forth. And as I demonstrated in my two previous blog entries, even something as basic as birth for a definition of the origin of life isn't enforced consistently.

We are aware of the origins of life, because we keep trying to hide it as I've been detailing in these 3 blog entries. In psychological terms this is called denial, and denial has never been a good course of action when it comes to dealing with difficult situations in life. Fear also plays into this, as some women with problematic pregnancies often have their fears preyed upon by those who don't have the best intentions in mind. However, just like denial, fear is also not a good way to conduct one's life.

Granted, there are pregnancies that are indeed problematic, but fear and denial are not how to deal with them. They need love, patience, guidance and understanding. Way back in the early 1990's, one of then-president Bill Clinton's goals was to "make abortion rare". However, he advocates actions that will do nothing of the kind. The best way to make abortion rare is to first recognize the humanity of both the unborn and the pregnant mother, and to act accordingly.

Legalized abortion continued

First, I apologize for not posting the very next day as promised, but the tasks and errands that I had planned ended up taking more of my time than I expected, and I didn't just want to post in haste. And now, onwards.

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

Last time I had attempted to define when the unborn becomes human to the extent that it is considered murder to end its existence. So far I think that most of us would say that this point is birth. Once a baby is born, then it's human. However, I also pointed out complications to this definition. I refer you to the previous blog entry for that discussion. Now, however, I wish to add a further complication to this definition.

There have been cases in which, during an abortion, a child somehow emerges out of the womb before the abortionist has a chance to - ahem - "terminate the pregnancy". That means that the now-born child is still alive, despite the abortionist's attempt to prevent this very occurance. What we have, then, is the technical definition of a birth - a child that has emerged from the womb alive. Under the "human at birth" definition, this child is now human. So now what? Some abortionists have reasoned that, since this child was an intended abortion, they'll proceed to kill it anyway.

No doubt some of you have heard the term "partial-birth abortion". I'm about to describe this procedure in some graphic language, so be warned. A partial-birth abortion is what happens when an abortionist partially removes the unborn from the mother's body until just the head remains in her womb. At this point, the abortionist inserts a tube into the base of the unborn's skull to suction out its brains so that the head will collapse, at which point the abortionist removes the unborn from the mother's body to complete the abortion procedure.

A partial-birth abortion takes full advantage of the fact that the unborn is not "fully born". This means that he (or she, as there are female abortionists) abides by the "human at birth" definition right up to the very last moment before the unborn emerges fully from the mother's body. So how does this work into "terminating a pregnancy" after a child manages to emerge alive anyway? Apparently, there's a variation of the "five second rule" involved here. And truly, for an abortionist, there is very little difference between "terminating a pregnancy" with just the head of the unborn still in the mother's body, and ending the life of the now-born in the few seconds after it accidently emerges before he or she can complete the "termination".

In 2002, a bill titled "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" was passed to protect children that were accidently born during an abortion. One current candidate for president had opposed it in his home state, and he opposed it at other times as well. His name is Barack Obama.

As Americans, we have a tradition for fairness and equal protection under the law. And yet, no other group of Americans have their humanity so arbitrarily defined as the unborn. Imagine the humanity of any other people having their humanity so arbitrarily defined, and see the outrage that would emerge.

Coming up later this week, I will conclude this discussion.

Questions about legalized abortion again

Earlier in the month, I had brought up some questions in regards to legalized abortion. Here are the questions again:

1.) If the unborn is not human (or not human yet), then what is it?

2.) If the the status of the unborn's humanity is not yet established, when will it be? What standards will determine when we know whether the unborn is human or not?

3.) If the unborn is human, then how is legalized abortion justified?

I'm now going to attempt to answer these questions.

The controversy of legalized abortion wouldn't be a controversy if we knew for sure that the unborn weren't human. Let's start by saying this: Simple logic says that if it's human after birth, then it must be human before birth. We know that an already-born baby is indeed human, and recognized as a human life by law. How do we know this? When you hear news about a baby being killed either by a murderer or in an accident, we view that death as tragic. Why? Because we know instinctively that it is not just a life, but a fragile, defenseless life, unable to provide its own defense against a murderer, or unable to run to safety in the case of a fire.

We also lament the fact that it will never get to grow up and live up to whatever potential that it had. If an already-born baby wasn't human, then news reports about its death by murder or accident wouldn't even faze us. What I'm trying to establish here is that we do indeed recognize the humanity of a baby that is already born. So next we must try to determine, if possible, at what point that a baby establishes its humanity.

One answer could be: birth. When it's born, then it's human. There. Nice and simple.

But is it? What about babies born prematurely? If one infant is born 2 months premature, then why is that infant more human than another baby that is carried to term? That is, why is that preemie, who was born during its 7th month of gestation, more human than an unborn in its 8th month of gestation, or even its 9th month? Under the "human at birth" argument, the preemie is human because it has already been born. That it was born 2 months before the usual time is largely irrelevant to the argument.

However, let's carry this "human at birth" argument further by asking: what about the unborn that are withdrawn while still embryos? Aren't they technically "born", since they have been removed from the mother's body? No? Well, why not? Isn't that "born" in the technical sense? The answer here might be "Well yeah, they are out of the mother's body, but an unborn that young doesn't look human. They don't have any eyes, feet, hands, or other characteristics that we would recognize as human."

If we were going to be consistent with the "human at birth" argument, then we wouldn't be involved in the current embryonic stem cell research debate (by the way, I say "embryonic" to separate these forms of stem cells from the other, non-controversial stem cells such as adult and placental), because we would recognize that embryos that are removed from the mother's body are indeed "born". In fact, we might even say that it is to the embryo's advantage to be extracted as early as possible so as to have their human rights conferred to them as early as possible.

Of course, this is ridiculous, because it is to the embryo's advantage to be allowed to develop in its mother's womb - however, this is what the "human at birth" logic arrives at when taken to its extreme. But because of the controversy of embryonic stem cell research, we see that this is not what is accepted by the supporters of such research. In fact, the use of embryos in such research is not only not discouraged, but actively encouraged - thus flying in the face of "human at birth" standards of identifying the beginning point of the unborn's humanity.

Coming tomorrow I shall continue this discussion.

Paint like Jackson Pollack

I'm doing better, so I should be up and running tomorrow. In the meantime, enjoy this website: Jackson Pollack

Note: Click the mouse to change color. Hit the space bar to clear the screen and start over.

Match the Candidate game

Sorry I haven't posted lately, folks, but I'm feeling a bit under the weather. I should be back to posting by Thursday. In the meantime, play the

Match the Candidate Game

Maybe this will help you decide which presidential candidate is for you. :-)

I am typing this blog entry in a restaurant

As we speak, I am typing this in a restaurant that has free Wi-Fi. The two coolest things today are:

1.) Laptop computer, and
2.) Free Wi-Fi

I know that many of you out there have been doing this for years, but for me, to have a restaurant within walking distance of my workplace that offers free Wi-Fi - well, the words that best describe how I feel right now are: Nerd Nirvana.

Those of you who are regular readers know of my occasional "Notes on the Journey to Nerdville." Right now, this is the closest I've felt to my higher-tech nerd friends out there.

No, I don't have a BlackBerry phone, or an iPhone for that matter. I have a cellphone, but it's very basic. So's my digital camera and digital camcorder. I don't have an iPod - although I do have an MP3 player. I don't have a Wii or XBox or other gaming system (unless you count one of those dinky "plug and play" systems that cost about $20 and have old arcade games from the 1980's installed in them). Hell, I don't even have a Hi-Def TV yet. In other words, I still have quests to complete on my journey to Nerdville. But my friends, I'll get there.

And along the way, I hope you'll follow me as I learn new things while on this journey. In the meantime, I sit here feeling a little closer to my goal of Total Nerd Connectivity - in which I will be wired to the teeth able to access the Internet anywhere and everywhere I go. And you'll know when I've reached that lofty goal, because...

...I'll be IMing you to tell you! ;-)

But for today, come celebrate with me as I enjoy this little step on the journey to Nerdville. I think I can see the spires of Nerdville from here!

Questions to ask regarding legalized abortion

Later on this month, I'm going to answer the following questions regarding legalized abortion:

1.) If the unborn is not human (or not human yet), then what is it?

2.) If the the status of the unborn's humanity is not yet established, when will it be? What standards will determine when we know whether the unborn is human or not?

3.) If the unborn is human, then how is legalized abortion justified?

I'm going to let you all think on that a bit, and then I'll give my take on these questions later. In the meantime, feel free to e-mail me your thoughts on the above questions.

Hillary video

Check out this video of Hillary almost breaking down describing the pressures of campaigning: Hillary

Now, is it me, or do you also get a feeling that Hillary is telling us, "I could do so much if you just weren't so stupid. It's so obvious that I am the one who should be your candidate, and it hurts so much that you can't see that. And yet, I'll be a trooper and hold out hope that you will come to your senses."

I want to say this: I am perfectly willing to vote for a female candidate - just not Hillary Clinton. She goes from tough to weepy and back far too much and too easily for my taste. Hillary wants so badly to take advantage of being a female candidate, but she's going about it in wrong ways doing more harm than good. If the other Dem candidates would stop trying to be so chivalrous to her, they would have already blown her out of the water. At some point, though, they're going to have to decide how much they want to be the candidate and stop being so nice to Hillary just because she's a girl.

Someone had to be the first female candidate, and it's Hillary Clinton, but unfortunately, she is making it difficult for the next female candidate to be taken seriously. She is making quite a hill to climb for the next female candidate, and the higher that hill gets, it means that the next female candidate has to be that much better and impressive to overcome that hill. Hopefully Hillary will get the hang of being a female candidate before she makes a hill that is virtually insurmountable for the next female candidate.

Huckabee, Obama win!

Huckabee and Obama won! The election's over! Thank goodness! It was starting to wear on me!

What? What's that? My assistant is telling me that the election's not over, that Huckabee and Obama only won the first primary of 49 more still to come. Well, rats.

I think that the selection of both Huckabee and Obama signals at least somewhat of a desire for change. It was assumed that Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani were going to run away with it, but Iowa apparently felt differently. I hope this proves to be the case in the other primaries. All the more reason, folks, that you need to be out there voting. That's the only way that we can make the "powers that be" stand up and take notice.

By the way, part of me wondered if, for one brief second after hearing "The former governor of Arkansas has won the Iowa primary", Bill Clinton thought that the story was referring to him. ;-)

Words to Auld Lang Syne video

If you've ever wanted to lead the singing of "Auld Lang Syne" but didn't know the words (kind of a requirement, wouldn't ya think? You can't exactly hum your way through it if you're going to be leading the singing!), then this video's for you. Practice a few times so that you get pace and beat correctly, and then have at it! And while you're at it, have a Happy New Year!

You know, I'm glad that we can wish each other Happy New Year without someone getting their underwear in knots like saying "Merry Christmas" upsets some people. ;-)

With this video, this completes "Post a Video Every Day" month. I missed one day, but I still posted more than 31 videos when you count out the final total. And with that, I'm taking a break for a few days, but I shall be back to posting on Friday. By then, you should have shaken off the effects of celebrating tonight, anyway!

Thanks for your interest and readership in my humble little corner of cyberspace. I wish you all the best in the coming year, and I look forward to what the new year brings. See you on the other side of midnight!

Call of Duty game video

I had actually purchased the Call of Duty game way back in the summer, but I forgot about it, and it sat in my trunk until Christmas day this year! Fortunately, it still worked.

This game was not meant to be set up in such a way that you got "x" points for shooting "X" amount of enemy soldiers. No, this game is meant to give the player a feel for what it was like to be in battle. In some respects, it does just that. For one, there's certain lessons learned from what weapons work best in a given situation. For instance, a rifle that shoots one bullet at a time and which you have to discharge the empty shell each time puts that soldier in a distinct disadvantage when the other guy has a machine gun.

I learned right away to rip off one of the German guns and use that instead. Also, sometimes a well placed hand grenade works better than a head-on assault. And just yesterday, I fired off an anti-aircraft gun and shot down Stukas. That was pretty cool.

But the lesson I came away with is that war is not glamorous. Rather, it's a lot of killing. I wish I could remember a quote from someone who fought in the war who said something along the lines that war is just butchery. You're just going out and killing to keep from being killed. Also, death for you can come from anywhere. There were times during the game that I was crawling along, and then I heard a bullet whizzing by. Even when I looked around, I couldn't see where it was coming from.

The one thing that Call to Duty didn't provide is what happens when you're injured. In a real battle, all it takes is one bullet to shatter your arm or leg bone, and you're severely handicapped in a battle that's still going on. But in the game, you aren't even slowed down - even with a lot of injuries - and you just grab a first aid kit to get your "life meter" back up. There is one instance in which you can experience "shell shock" in which your vision gets blurry and your movements are slowed down, but it's temporary. It's such costs that survivors of war experience, and for which the game lacks.

Of course, there's limits on what a game such as this can provide. And it's not like we would WANT to actually feel a bullet wound or the ongoing effects of "shell shock" - nowadays referred to as "post traumatic stress disorder" - but even so, in this game you come away with at least a taste of what combat in WWII was like.

The game did intrigue me enough that I might seek out the later editions of this game just to see what kinds of adjustments they made since the first one (it was from 2004). If I get the later editions, I'll let you know what kinds of adjustments they made.

Series of "news" clips from The Onion

Below are a series of clips from the site known as "The Onion". I check this out from time to time, because many times their "news" reports crack me up. You'll see what I mean.

Queen Elizabeth II to stop waving? Say it ain't so!

Queen Elizabeth II Will Leave Behind Long Legacy Of Waving

I wouldn't put it past some health care "professionals" to advise doing some of the "suggestions" below!

In The Know: Is The Government Spying On Paranoid Schizophrenics Enough?

It's tough being rich at Christmastime...

Report: Nation's Wealthy Cruelly Deprived Of True Meaning Of Christmas

This one's funny because of the statement it makes that the women that are portrayed in the entertainment industry can be as mean, tough, and independent as men - so long as they're sexy doing it. In some ways, women have come a long way; in some ways, things haven't changed. Oh, well - at least there's less of them tripping over something when a bad guy (or critter or alien) takes pursuit. ;-)

Evangeline Lilly Wins 'Best Wet T-Shirt Fight Scene' At Strong Women In TV Awards

By the way, folks, this entry puts me ahead of the pace of trying to post a video every day this month. Fear not, however. I shall still try to post a video every day for the rest of this month.

Ron Paul exposed?

This video is of Tim Russert interviewing Ron Paul. So what do you think? Did Russert catch Paul in a conflict of views vs. actions, or did Paul explain his side well enough? I'll comment more on this later.

What Child Is This? video

This video is of the nativity scene that has been in my family for a long time. It was from my great-grandfather, and by the best guess of some family members it's at least 4o years old, but probably older. I've also noticed while shopping that, despite the "push" to get the religious element out of the Christmas season, I still saw quite a few nativity scenes for sell, and in various sizes, from the very small to the very large for outdoor displays. It's good to see that we can still express such forms of worship.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

Sorry for the lack of a video yesterday, but I was still working on the video that appears today. I was gone most of the day yesterday shopping, followed by a visit to family, and by the time I got home, it was late and I was exhausted. And besides, Santa hadn't come to my house yet, so I needed to go to sleep anyway! ;-)

This video is of my own Christmas tree, shot with a simple Flip! camcorder and put together using Windows Movie Maker, plus "We Wish You a Merry Christmas" added in the background. It came out pretty nice, I think.

I'll try to make up for the video that I'm now behind on, but it won't be today. I have family coming over, and you probably should get yourself going somewhere else as well. Go out and enjoy yourself, and I'll see you here again tomorrow!

Two videos of 12 Days of Christmas

Two versions of "12 Days of Christmas"

And now my own video!

This footage was shot last month at TCU's Sadler Hall. This is the first year for their light show.



Next year when I go shoot this again, I'll try to remember to bring my camera stand, which should help prevent the shaky image of this year.

Video month update

Just a note that I'm surprised that I've made it this far, even if I'm largely just posting videos this month. Even so, it's not easy finding videos worthy of posting here. YouTube may have thousands of videos, but many of them are of poor quality, and I know that you all expect me to post something at least worth watching, thus the challenge for me in looking for them. 10 days to go!

Bruce Springsteen "Santa Claus is coming to town" video

The Boss singing "Santa Claus is Coming to Town".

Christmas lights

For the next 5 days: Christmas videos!

Imagine if you were drunk or high, and came upon the display below:

We Are the World video

One good mullet video deserves another. (Hmm. Is there such a thing as a good mullet?)

How many of the stars can you name this time around?

Do they know it's Christmas video

When was the last time you saw so many mullet haircuts at once? So how many of the stars in the video can you name?

Making movies

Today, instead of posting a video, I'm including a link to an article about making movies: Suburban Spielbergs.

I advise printing out that article right away if you want to keep it, because that site only keeps such links active for a week, and then later you'll have to pay if you want to print it from the archives. Also, here's a link to their slide show of the products discussed in the article.

I recently purchased a small camcorder called a Flip Video Camcorder, and I find its convenience very handy. (image of camera is shown below) It's easy to use, and it doesn't use a tape or disc to record its images. You just plug it directly into your computer and save your image files that way. I would recommend it as a good starter for a camcorder.

As for movies, right now I'm using Microsoft's Windows Movie Maker, which is basic and easy to use. When I feel ready to move up to those other programs listed in that article, I'll go with them.

Once I have some mini movies made, I'll post them here. I'll get back to posting videos tomorrow. Now go make some movies!

Godzilla trailer from the 1950's video

Back when I was a kid, I thought that Godzilla was totally cool. Now my nephews think Godzilla is cool. It's good to see that some things never change. They even have a video game of ol' Godzy.

Wingsuit video

Humans can't fly, but wingsuits is as close as it gets. Check it out!



It looks like it works by the same principle as flying squirrels, who don't truly fly, but glide.

First appearance of T-rex in Jurassic Park

The first Jurassic Park movie is so cool. I haven't seen the sequels, but I don't think that they did as well at the box office as the first one. By that time anyway, it's hard to match the originality of the first movie. Below is the scene in which the T-Rex first appears. He's not as big as Godzilla, but he doesn't need to be. He's plenty scary enough!

Video 4-fer

As some of you may have noticed, I didn't post a video yesterday. I'm going to make up for that today by posting two, plus two more! This will square me up through Thursday, and I'll get back to posting on Friday.

These 4 videos are in a style called "Matrix" after the movie (If you've never seen the movie, then you won't get the style displayed in the videos below until you watch the movie). Anyway, these videos had me rolling. Enjoy!

Las Vegas to have mob museum

For those of you planning to visit Las Vegas in about 2-3 years, you might pop by the mob museum that's going to go up there.

Yep, Vegas is officially acknowledging that it has a mob problem, in other words. ;-)

"Getting to know your Friends" Christmas edition

Below is from an e-mail that I got. Attached are my responses, followed by the same questions but left blank for you to cut-and-paste and forward it to other people you know.

If you wish, send me your responses and I'll post them later in a separate entry (don't worry - I won't put your name unless you want me to).

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

Welcome to the Christmas edition of "Getting to know your Friends". Here's what you do, and try not to be a SCROOGE!!! Just copy (OR forward) this entire email and paste into a new e-mail that you can send. Change all the answers so that they apply to you. Then send this to a whole bunch of people you know, including the person that sent it to you... 'Tis the season to be NICE!

1. Wrapping paper or gift bags? Both

2. Real tree or artificial? Artificial

3. When do you put up the tree? The tree goes up late November, the decorations in early December

4. When do you take the tree down? After January 6th (Feast of the Epiphany)

5. Do you like eggnog? Sometimes

6. Favorite gift received as a child? I don't think that I can pick just one. I got lots of nice stuff as a kid.

7. Do you have a nativity scene? Absolutely. Both at home and work.

8. Hardest person to buy for? My mother. She never wants me to get her anything, so I always have to guess.

9. Easiest person to buy for? My brother. He can always use a Best Buy gift card.

10. Worst Christmas gift you ever received? The Christmas that I didn't get that 60 inch HD TV, which so far has been every Christmas! Seriously, just as I don't recall a "best gift", I don't recall a "worst gift" either. As corny as this sounds, to me Christmas is more than getting gifts.

11. Mail or email Christmas cards? Both

12. Favorite Christmas Movie It's a Wonderful Life (picking one wasn't easy, by the way).

13. When do you start shopping for Christmas? Mostly in December, but sometimes in November if I find a good gift at a good price.

14. Have you ever recycled a Christmas present? Not that I'm aware of. (however, no one's ever given me fruitcake)

15. Favorite thing to eat at Christmas? As a Hispanic, it can't be anything other than tamales.

16. Clear lights or colored on the tree? Both! Seriously!

17. Favorite Christmas song? O Holy Night (not easy to pick just one)

18. Travel for Christmas or stay at home? Stay at home

19. Can you name all of Santa's reindeer? Slasher, Smasher, Masher and Nixon, Comet and Stupid, Dumbass and Blitzkrieg. Oh, and the one with the red nose: Dumbkopf (Santa has some strange names for his reindeer).

20. Angel on the tree or a Star? Star

21. Open the presents Christmas Eve or morning? Eve

22. Most annoying thing about this time of year? The insistance of news media and retail outlets to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", and the use of "Xmas" as a way to not say "Christmas". Their justification is that they don't want to offend those that don't celebrate Christmas, but they ignore those that DO celebrate Christmas.

23. What I love most about Christmas? The fact that a babe in a manger had such an effect on world thought and history.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(below is for you to cut and paste and forward to others)

Welcome to the Christmas edition of "Getting to know your Friends". Here's what you do, and try not to be a SCROOGE!!! Just copy (OR forward) this entire email and paste into a new e-mail that you can send. Change all the answers so that they apply to you. Then send this to a whole bunch of people you know, including the person that sent it to you... 'Tis the season to be NICE!

1. Wrapping paper or gift bags?

2. Real tree or artificial?

3. When do you put up the tree?

4. When do you take the tree down?

5. Do you like eggnog?

6. Favorite gift received as a child?

7. Do you have a nativity scene?

8. Hardest person to buy for?

9. Easiest person to buy for?

10. Worst Christmas gift you ever received?

11. Mail or email Christmas cards?

12. Favorite Christmas Movie

13. When do you start shopping for Christmas?

14. Have you ever recycled a Christmas present?

15. Favorite thing to eat at Christmas?

16. Clear lights or colored on the tree?

17. Favorite Christmas song?

18. Travel for Christmas or stay at home?

19. Can you name all of Santa's reindeer?

20. Angel on the tree or a Star?

21. Open the presents Christmas Eve or morning?

22. Most annoying thing about this time of year?

23. What I love most about Christmas?

Friars and Gregorian Chant

This article is about some local friars. It's good to see that our secularized world hasn't dulled those who seek another, better way (Note: this news site often deletes these articles after a week, so the link may be dead by this time next Sunday).

In our day and age, with all that we have to get our attention, I admire those that are able to turn all that away and look for "the meaning of life" elsewhere. It takes a strong person to be able to pull themselves away from all that life today offers. I'm not sure that I could do that.

Today's video is of some Gregorian Chant. I have about 3 Gregorian Chant CDs that I purchased, and about another 4 that were sent to me free from various abbeys and monasteries. Done right, GC can be very moving. The best way I can put it is that it lifts you out of this world and puts your mind in another place and time.

Video of cool Japanese robot

Check out this video of a Japanese robot!



Note that this is NOT a guy in a robot suit, but an actual, living breathing robot! Okay, it's not alive and it doesn't breathe, but it IS an authetic robot - and a very sophisticated one at that. The engineering involved to make such a device is beyond most of technology today, but no doubt in the not too distant future, we'll have such robots helping us around the house.

The one in the video is taller than I thought - it looks to be about 3 feet tall. However, if I ever become famous, I'd like a robot goon as protection. Maybe 3 or 4 robot goons, with nicknames like "Muscles" and "No-neck" and "Knuckles", so that people know that they're not to be messed with.

Yeah, that'd be cool.

Links to what Global Warming causes

Check this out! This page is a link to all that is caused by global warming, according to news articles from around the world. Dang!

I'm old enough to remember when global cooling was the big threat. How did we turn things around so badly in a mere 20 years that we've gone from cooling to warming? From a geological perspective, 20 years is not even a blink of an eye, so how could we have such a devastating effect on the planet in so short a span of time?

What I don't understand is how global warming doomsayers think they know how the weather is going to be in the coming years when even today's weather reporters, with all their knowledge and technology, don't even know how the weather's going to be 2 weeks from now?

Methinks me smells a scam afoot, and its name is carbon credits. Purchasing carbon credits is supposed to be a way of reducing greenhouse emissions, but its practical application is fraught with potential for abuse. For instance, a power plant that is a major polluter can purchase enough "carbon credits" to "offset" the damage done by their polluting while doing virtually nothing to reduce their polluting.

Someone out there is raking in bucks on a scam, and others are protecting him. And of course, we're left to foot the bill. I'm going to pay attention to the candidates for president to see what they say about what they'll do about global warming.

Oh yeah, and I've said this before, but it's worth saying again: If Al Gore isn't concerned enough to make his own house energy efficient, then why should the rest of us be concerned?

Twas the Dark Knight before Christmas video

This video is rather interesting. Batman sure has taken on a more dour personality since the days of Adam West.

Rock and Roll McDonald's!!

A video titled "Rock and Roll McDonald's!!!

So get down, already!



(I wonder how many people have sung that song in a McDonald's? I wonder how many of them got kicked out?)

1984 video

This MacIntosh commercial ran in 1984, and it introduced its line of computers.



This version using Hillary Clinton appeared earlier this year:



So what happened to the actress in the commercial? She went to work as a waitress at Hooters, of course! ;-)

"Linus and Lucy", aka "Peanuts Theme"

While most of you know this piece as the theme from Peanuts, it's actually titled "Linus and Lucy". It took me a while to find a piano player on YouTube that didn't torture the piece. Not being a piano player myself, I imagine that learning how to play this takes more skills than something like "Chopsticks"



Uhh... Playing Chopsticks is harder than I thought! I'll just sit and watch someone else play the piano and stick to writing!

We Like to Party video

Another video with a catchy tune. If you don't catch yourself at least tapping your foot, then you ain't got a musical bone in your body! ;-)

Snow and Heat Miser

Post a video a day month continues! This is a catchy tune from an old Christmas special. See if you don't catch yourself singing it later! :-D

Barbie vs. Hayley

Playing out at my local university is what I can only call Barbie vs. Hayley (Smith of the TV show, American Dad).

To understand what I'm talking about, read the two following links:

Nothing wrong with racing to the altar, Image Magazine Winter 2007, page 32

(scroll down to page 32 to see the column)

Column pushes outdated generalizations of women, TCU Daily Skiff, Letters to the Editor, Nov. 29, 2007

That a young woman today such as the author of "Altar" could still hold such stereotypical views of her gender is rather surprising. I suppose it shouldn’t be, but it certainly was surprising to the campus community that had discussed her column at length.

But let’s go ahead and ask the painful question of “Are there still women who go to college just to find a husband?" While I doubt any of them would admit it publicly, I think that there might be more out there than we think. Why do I say that? Well, answer the following question as honestly as you can: Are there women out there so lazy that they’d rather get married so that their husband can be the one working so that they wouldn’t have to? Surely you know of a few.

I also know of women who’d rather be on welfare than work for a living. However, let’s be fair: There are men out there who’d rather marry a rich woman than work for a living. There are also men out there who’d rather be on welfare than work for a living. Laziness is not restricted to just one gender – it’s equal opportunity. Before any of you start thinking that I'm implying that those on welfare are all lazy, let me quickly add that there are also lazy rich people.

As laziness is not restricted to one gender, neither is laziness restricted to only those on the lower income scales of society. Lazy rich people are different (besides income level, that is) from lazy poor people in that they can hide their laziness better. In fact, rich people can hide a lot of their sins better. That's why you don't find rich people on death row. Before I start getting into one of my gripes about the unfair distribution of the death penalty, let's move on.

So by now, I think most of you can agree that there can be such a thing as a rich lazy person. So - what does a rich lazy person do, then, to look like they're doing something with their life? Some go to college, because that's a respectable thing to do (or maybe their parents made them go). But as lazy people quickly find out, being in college is work, even if they aren't employed while in college like many college students are. So what does a rich lazy college student to do?

For rich lazy women, one strategy is called "pursuing a MRS degree". For rich lazy men - well, there's trust funds (such lazy folks are often called "trust fund babies" - the wealthy equivalent of a lazy poor person living on welfare). In either case, they are able to continue their pursuit of avoiding work. You would think that it would eventually occur to such people that avoiding work can be so much work that it might actually be easier to just get a job! But figuring out something like that takes work, and since they're lazy....

So now we see that a woman pursuing a "MRS degree" can exist, even in our day and age, because laziness - like death and taxes - is eternal. We'll always have lazy people just like we'll always have tax collectors and lawyers. Kinda depressing, ain't it? Let's move on.

Getting back to the issue at hand of the altar-pursuing columnist, things didn't end there, of course. Such a controversial topic isn't just going to roll over and die - and indeed it didn't. Rather, things got interesting! On Friday (Nov 30 2007), the columist who wrote "Racing to the altar" had written a clarification column, and it appeared in the student newspaper: Image Column Intended to be Satire, not Serious Commentary

Also, the editors of Image Magazine (where the "Altar" column first appeared) commented on the issue as well, and their comments likewise ran in the paper on the same day: Magazine Content Contains more than opinion columns

But even so, there was one more column on this issue, and the writer apparently wasn't aware that the "Altar" column was satire: Finding Spouse not sole purpose of getting college education

If you're not a lazy person and have read the original column that I linked above (If you've read this far, then you must not be lazy!), then you're probably like me and most of the rest of the campus in that the "Altar" column didn't come across as satire. It sounded like someone who was stating their genuine view. There's ways to write in which the satire of the piece is obvious, but the satire wasn't obvious in the original "Altar" column

For the writer, here's something to consider: If one person didn't see the column as satire, then maybe that one person just doesn't know satire. If 2 or 3 people didn't see the column as satire, then that might be other people who don't know satire. But if nearly an entire campus of over 9,000 people didn't see it as satire, then maybe it didn't come across as satire. There's only so far that claims of the lack of sophistication of the audience will take ya.

I hope that this whole experience is taken by the author as a lesson in life about how one presents one's self - that is, there's good ways and bad ways to do it. It's cool when you find good ways to present yourself, but you can really learn from the bad ways of presenting yourself. In fact, it's from the lessons learned from the bad ways that you learn what the good ways are. But one has to be willing to learn them. Therein is where a writer is made or broken.

Another lesson can be learned from this experience by the writer of the Letter to the Editor, but that's going to be an entry for another time. It's not because I'm lazy, but that my fingers are tired now. According to MS Word, I've written over 1,000 words!

December is "Post a video every day" month!

Yep, you read that right! This month, I will try to post a video every day! Cool, eh? Let's hit the ground running, shall we?



Imagine living across the street or next door to this guy! It'd make anyone a Grinch! Although it is fun to watch...