Sunday, December 30, 2007


I apologize. I can't stand this guy at all. What on earth is going on with the John Edwards campaign? He is picking up momentum big time. His favorables are through the roof, and according to some limited polling, if any of Iowa voters happen to change their mind on their present choice, they are most apt to fall into his civil litagatin' lap.
His message is canned and predictable, he is almost as pre-programmed as Romney, and he has been known to run a spicy negative ad from time to time. But he strikes a chord with Iowa. And So Carolina, and a few other minor states.
Damn it, he was running a distant third in almost anywhere they polled, and he should be fading fast. But he is picking up steam, and Clinton and Obama are losing a little oil in their political machines.
I just don't get it. He strikes me as disingenuous almost all the time and condescending at least some of the times. And, good Lord forgive me, but if I see his wife being interviewed on C-Span for twenty minutes again, I am going to frickin scream. Who possibly cares what she thinks? We don't see interviews from any of the other wives (yes, except Bill, very funny). They aren't asking Mrs. Romney her views on head start, or Mrs. Huckabee her views of the homeless, so why Edwards? I see only one "2 for 1 sale" out there, and she was doing just fine, until two weeks ago...
John, just a word of advice, the GOP will eat you for lunch (bologna sandwich on white), just like last time. We need someone who can win this time, John. It ain't you. Go home and sue another insurance company, or another hospital, or just chase an ambulance back home for a while. You got rich doing it. It's easy work, just settle out everything. Why the modern day civil litigator can make a fortune and never set foot in a court of law.
Picture this.....He picks up the phone and calls the Pakistani ambassador, and then asks to speak to Musharraf himself., because they met once? What kind of bullshit is he feeding us? And then when he supposedly got him on the phone, he read him the riot act, and basically told him what he needed to do? A junior Senator from nowhere (and unemployed at that) calls a foreign head of state and gives advice? What are you kidding me? Can you imagine what Musharraf thought when he heard that he had a message from John Friggin' Edwards? I bet IF their really was a call, Edwards was kissing him up and down...riot act my foot.
If I am wrong, click on the word comments and tell me why. Dear God, if gets lucky, and squeaks one out in Iowa, everything changes.....everything.

Saturday, December 29, 2007


Living in the L.A. area frees me up to root for any football team I want without any anti-hometown guilt involved, and this is my team. I can't get enough of the New York Giants with schizophrenic quarterback Eli Manning leading the way.
If you are a football fan like myself, you will be glued to the television tonight for the big game with the Giants looking to play spoiler against the
Tom Brady led undefeated New England Patriots
(some are calling their season "perfect", which it clearly is not).
If the Pats win tonight they will go all 16 games of the regular season without a defeat, an unbelievable feat, to be sure.
The New York Post says "Yes They Can!!!", meaning the Giants can win this game and prevent the NFL's second team going undefeated (Miami is the other team to do it).
I have watched them all year, I am one of their biggest fans, and I am here to tell you....
"No They Can't."
Betting the game?
Take the points, but don't bet that NY will win the game out right.
You will lose your shirt (and your sanity).


While our politicians blather on about reducing our stranglehold on foreign oil, the San Jose manufacturing upstarts Nanosystems have developed an affordable printing process for manufacturing low cost solar panel systems. Look at the advantages to their new designs, which just shipped out from their plants to a project in Germany (the company has plants in San Jose and Germany)....
- the world’s first printed thin-film solar cell in a commercial panel product;
- the world’s first thin-film solar cell with a low-cost back-contact capability;
- the world’s lowest-cost solar panel – which we believe will make us the first solar manufacturer capable of profitably selling solar panels at as little as $.99/Watt;
- the world’s highest-current thin-film solar panel – delivering five times the current of any other thin-film panel on the market today and thus simplifying system deployment;
- an intensely systems-optimized product with the lowest balance-of-system cost of any thin-film panel – due to innovations in design we have included.
What does this mean to us, the consumers?
We just might see affordable solar panel installations for residential usage
within the next five years.
Now, that is American ingenuity, with almost all of the management having received their educations from nearby Stanford University.
Now, if we can only find a way to outsource all of these new jobs,
it will truly be an American success story.
And by the way, you can't buy Nanosolar stock on the stock exchange.


Talk about adding insult to injury. The initial reports from the San Francisco Zoo, the facility who spent $250,000 bolstering the area where tigers have gotten out before, actually had the gall to blame the "taunting" of the animals from zoo visitors for the recent tiger escape, and attack which culminated in two injuries and one death.
Yes, the tiger enclosure did contain coke cans and other debris indicating that the visitors were not following appropriate rules of behavior. But anyone who thinks the tiger got out and roamed the zoo for over twenty minutes because he was pissed at the "taunting' is out of their minds. Yes, it may have somewhat motivated the animal, there is no doubt.
But the simple fact remains that the tiger got out because it could. Subsequent reports and inspections have shown that the fencing was reportedly four feet below the established code for zoo enclosures.
Let's stop blaming the victims, and attach the blame where it truly belongs, the zoo management who are entrusted with the safety of everyone who visits it. Anything else is similar to the mountains of manure they deal with on a daily basis. Pure dung.

Thursday, December 27, 2007


It would be human nature to think a President must take immediate action in light of the assassination of Pakistan's former Prime Minister Bhutto....condemnation in the press, sending of foreign attaches, maybe even Condi, but don't rush to judgement. You, and your administration are a walking talking foreign relations nightmare. You are to diplomacy what the Miami Dolphins are to football (o wins and 15 losses so far this year).
Obviously, your boy (Musharraf) has misbehaved (numerous claims have surfaced as to the party responsible), but what can you do? Your hand picked heir successor to Musharraf is now gone, and with her death comes the realities of diplomacy with Pakastan, at a time when anti-west sentiments run very high. Time to go to plan "B".
The question does beg the asking, how can a murderer, an assassinator get so close to Bhutto, to have shot her at point blank range (see the quote from Husain Haqqani at the end of this post)? So to the administration, I say stand down and resist all urges militarily. We have seen your "knee jerk" reactions, and they do not bode well for our nation, or the world. Gather the intel, and what and see, at least for the immediate future.
Here is the story according to today's New York Times.....
An attack on a political rally killed the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto near the capital, Islamabad, Thursday. Witnesses said Ms. Bhutto was fired upon by a gunman at close range before the blast, and an official from her party said Ms. Bhutto was further injured by the explosion, which was apparently caused by a suicide attacker. Ms. Bhutto, a former prime minister of Pakistan, was declared dead by doctors at a hospital in Rawalpindi at 6:16 p.m. after the doctors had tried to resuscitate her for thirty-five minutes. She had suffered severe shrapnel injuries, the doctors said. At least a dozen more people were killed in the attack at the rally, which was being held ahead of elections scheduled for January, at a popular park in Rawalpindi, the garrison city adjacent to the capital."
"How can somebody who can shoot her get so close to her with all the so-called security?" said a distraught Husain Haqqani, a former top aide to Bhutto, shortly after news of her death flashed around the world. Haqqani, who served as a spokesman and top aide to Bhutto for more than a decade, blamed Pakistani security, either through neglect or complicity, in her assassination. "This is the security establishment, which has always wanted her out," he said through tears.
Correction: Now that we are receiving more accurate accounts of the incident (?), it has been determined that Prime Minister Bhutto was not shot. Her unfortunate death was the result of the bomb blast knocking her backwards and suffering a life ending fractured skull, amongst massive cranial damages.

Monday, December 24, 2007


Number one: The creepy, "laughing my ass off"
Number two: The creepy "why am I so attracted to your breasts?"

And, number three: The creepy, "black magic woman"


OOPS.....our bad. Could you come out January 3rd instead?

Sunday, December 23, 2007


It seems someone in Manhattan received a free drink coupon from Starbucks. So, the gentleman asks the appropriate question: What is the most expensive drink I can order? How can I make Howard Schultz really pay for this?
And the ultimate yuppified result: A 13 shot venti soy hazelnut vanilla cinnamon white mocha with extra white mocha and caramel. It cost a total of $13.76 (with tax).
By the way, for you fellow Starbucks aficionados, check out this link. The blog is called Starbucks Gossip", and it is a collection of open threads, primarily from Starbucks employees, current, and former. At the very least, it will give you a look into generation Z.
Or you can click on this link, for a cool program where you type in your favorite drink, and it tells you all about yourself. For example, here is what the "Starbucks Oracle" says about me, and my beverage of choice, a venti hazelnut americano.
Personality type: Asshat
You carry around philosophy books you haven't read and wear trendy wire-rimmed glasses even though you have perfect vision. You've probably added an accent to your name or changed the pronunciation to seem sophisticated. You hang out in coffee shops because you don't have a job because you got your degree in French Poetry.
People who drink venti hazelnut americano are notorious for spouting off angry, liberal opinions about issues they don't understand.
(Any truth to that statement about me is purely coincidental, and just a lucky hunch by the Oracle)
Also drinks: Any drink with a foreign name
Can also be found at: The other, locally owned coffee shop you claim to like better


It wasn't long ago that Rep. Ron Paul was an anti-war asterisk in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Then his campaign raised a record $6 million in a single day. Now the libertarian-leaning Texas congressman is looking like a possible spoiler, with an eclectic, tech-savvy following and an astounding $18 million in donations raised in less than three months.
"It's sort of gotten out of control.
I don't know what to do about it,"
he told one audience recently in mock frustration.
No, he will not be elected. He panders largely to a fringe group of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. No doubt he is successfully reaching out to a block of voters who would not even participate in a primary were he not running. He is one part scholar, and one part circus side show freak. In one sense, he has appealed to that strange You tube generation who will believe the very worst about this country, a feeling that this country, and more specifically, this administration is capable of carrying out the most bizarre acts in order to push their agenda of world domination. An administration so criminal they would even stage 9/11, a horrific act of terrorism and murder.
That being said, what he has done in his own strange way, is become the first Presidential hopeful to harness the vast potential of the Internet; to spread his message, and most importantly, to raise funds. Reports today are he raised over $10 million over two days, and at a time when even the foggiest eyed romantic can see he doesn't hold a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected.
What he has done is reshaped the election process from now and going forward, into a new Generation X and Y, You tube watching, blog minded process where anyone can get noticed, and raise the capital to fund a campaign, however far fetched.
And so we award our Person of the year award for 2007 to Ron Paul, proof positive you can come out of nowhere and make a play for the highest position in the land. Ron Paul, a man who will forever be an asterisk on American political history, as the first of his generation to truly understand, and harness the power of the Internet for political (and financial) gain.
And so, we leave you with a classic quote to define this man. Classic Ron Paulism...when asked about his success raising money, he said.....
I am surprised," Paul says.
"But I'm disappointed that I am surprised.
Why shouldn't this be a popular message?
Why was I pessimistic?"
"Why do we assume that everybody wants the status quo?
Evidently they don't."

Saturday, December 22, 2007


To hear Mitt Romney tell it, Republican Mike Huckabee shares more with Democrat Bill Clinton than a hometown in Hope, Ark., and a stint as Arkansas governor. Both men, Romney suggests, have left-leaning governing philosophies, particularly on taxes and spending. "Governor Huckabee's record is more liberal than our nation needs right now," the former Massachusetts governor said in Iowa last week, seeking to link his GOP presidential rival to the former Democratic president who is loathed by many Republican loyalists, to say the least. Romney's aides argue that Huckabee's record as a governor undercuts his claim that he is the only authentic conservative in the race.
And, to be fair, many agree. Take for example, an excerpt from the conservative bible The Weekly Standard (a Bill Kristol publication) who states about Huckabee... "Huckabee's ascent leads us to the most disquieting aspect of his ascendancy. On every major issue save for abortion and gay marriage, Huckabee is dramatically out of step with the Republican party. He talks a class warfare game that would make John Edwards blush. His foreign policy prescriptions make one yearn for the comparably muscular approach favored by Jimmy Carter. His anti-business rhetoric and his past regard for tax increases have left the Club for Growth types fuming. His leniency towards criminals is rapidly becoming legend. "And this obviously is good for Romney. A major conservative publication confirming Romney's claims.
The trouble is, you can say the same thing for him, as well. If you followed only Romney's tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues.
If you followed only his campaign for president, you'd swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost. Pay attention to both, and you're left to wonder if there's anything at all at his core.
As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he boasted that he would be a stronger advocate of gay rights than his opponent, Ted Kennedy. There was a time that he said he wanted to make contraception more available - and a time that he vetoed a bill to sell it over-the-counter. The old Romney assured voters he was pro-choice on abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he said in 1994. And, there was a time that he supported stem-cell research, which he no longer supports.
So, with Romney's liberal baggage, he does the only thing he can think of to combat the Huckabee juggernaut. Accuse him of what he (Romney) is being accused of. A conservative in sheeps clothing, with underlying liberal social and economic viewpoints. So Mitt flails away, swinging jabs and hooks before Iowa. Whether or not any of those punches are landing....well, I guess we will find out soon enough.


The state is 91% white, 51% female, and 65% cold as hell. Their top five exports are hogs (yes, their number one claim to fame is the producing and exporting of friggin' hogs, folks), corn, soybeans, oats and cattle. What they do not tell you is with two of their top five products being hogs and cattle, they are no doubt, the largest supplier of animal dung as well.
Now, to be fair, I have never been to Iowa. Probably should before I die, but I am assuming that when the Iowa winds hit just right, when the summer months with their stifling heat is just so, I can only imagine the stench would be enough to knock multiple buzzards off a shit wagon (which by the way is their state bird...look it up). Makes for a great tourism ad doesn't it.
They claim on their state quarter to enjoy a "foundation in education," yet only 21% of their population hold anything more than a high school diploma. Doesn't say much for Guffey's readers, does it?
I have always believed to get a true picture of a state, you should look at their track record of greatness, and they do count many famous people amongst their citizens. Names like Herbert Hoover, George Gallup, Andy Williams and Johnny Carson, which, come to think about it, is not exactly a Mensa meeting is it? In fact, some of their most famous native born citizens are actually famous for who they slept Tom Arnold (Roseanne Barr), Ashton Kutcher (Demi Moore), William Frawley (Mrs. Murtz), and Mamie Eisenhower (duh!!). Let's face it, when you think of Iowa, you think of Radar O'Reilly, for gawd sakes.
So why on earth, should every Presidential hopeful have to come a courtin' this rural farm belt of a state? With a per capita income of $23,340.00, it just doesn't make sense to spend $85,000.00 per capita courting their damn votes, does it? Could we just give them the money, and concentrate on California and New York for now? Iowa has shown some political savvy (voted for Bill Clinton twice, and Gore once), yet did let the "Pirate party" onto their ballot the same year (2004) they voted for George Bush.
So, I ask again, WHY? Why waste the candidates time roaming all over this rural outpost of a state courting votes at a huge cost? Making them tell lies about being poor as a child, and actually supporting ethanol. Friggin' ethanol? Just how naive are they? The day we fully support the production of ethanol is the day our Secretary of Energy is Orville Redenbacher.
And give CSPAN a break, for God sakes. Their crews have been in every VFW, Elks lodge, Mini-Mart and bait & tackle shop in the state. If I see another millionaire candidate trying to act like they enjoy corn dogs I am going to be ill.
I say, stop the foolishness. I have seen all of the candidates in their buses traveling all over the state seeking votes. Wasting valuable resources on a state with no political importance. No nuance of sophistication, or culture. Hell, in Iowa, you can always tell a good restaurant because they put sausage in their biscuits and gravy. That is the test there. Oh, and pies. They probably make some mean pies there. I am sure they have pie making contests at their state fairs as well.
Right after the awarding of "best hog", or "largest ear of corn 2008."
Trouble is, this ain't no state fair; it is the start of an election process that will determine whether we continue in the Middle East, control spending, and might even replace as many as two Supreme court justices in a four year term.
So, I say to you, keep a residual force in Iraq, keep our troops in Afghanistan, but get our candidates the hell out of Iowa. All except Joe Biden, who actually looks like he belongs there.
And that is "The World According to Kimba"
Thanks for reading
Update: December 24th: At least one person in Iowa agrees with me. Here is a comment from a Starbucks barista "EE" from the blog Starbucks gossip:
"I'm a barista in Iowa and I swear, if one more candidate comes into my store and takes up the entire lobby and parking lot with their freaking entourage, I am going to hit someone. Obviously not them because the secret service would be all over me, but you catch my drift."


Tuesday, December 18, 2007



1. She isn't attractive: I used to think the right wing media just refused to publish a decent picture of her. I apologize.
2. Her public speaking skills: she can't make us laugh, she can't motivate us, and she can't make us feel...well, much of anything. She has a very hard time laughing naturally, and she can't sing worth a damn.
3. She is about as lovable as a suicide bomber. How can I put this? Well, most of the blogs use the term bitch, when describing her. I think when the cameras aren't around, she is more than likely, the Michael Jordan of bitchery. All Pro. No wonder poor Bill slept with the occasion cheerleader. And that leads us to number 4, folks.
4. The American people never liked you. Listen Hill, let me clue you in on something. When Bill was running around on you during his Presidency, we sided with the other woman. Sorry. I think Bill's exploits treated us to two things: first, we like men who play. Especially with your husbands good looks. Second, it was kind of reassuring that if he was playing during the day, that meant that someone who we loved so much (your husband) wasn't going home and resorting to having sex with you.
5. You may be cheating on Bill with a woman. Hey, the rumor is out there. I have even seen the pictures of the woman (allegedly). Strange world, isn't it Hill? If the American people ever find out you are cheating on Bill with anybody, they will be pissed. We forgave Bill with a smile. Don't cross William Jefferson. We love that guy. We don't much care for you. We won't understand, or empathize.
But, good Lord help us, you may just be the best candidate out there, and if Bill promises to run the country in the background, we might just elect you.


I HAVE THE "right to say, as loudly as I may choose, that I will on no account vote for a smirking hick like Mike Huckabee, who is an unusually stupid primate but who does not have the elementary intelligence to recognize the fact that this is what he is. My right to say and believe that is already guaranteed to me by the First Amendment. And the right of Huckabee to win the election and fill the White House with morons like himself is unaffected by my expression of an opinion."


In a new ad set to debut tomorrow in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, Mike Huckabee puts the "Christ" back in Christmas. Wearing a red sweater and standing before a glowing Tannenbaum as "Silent Night" softly plays, the former Arkansas governor asks viewers if they're "about worn out of all the television commercials you've been seeing, mostly about politics." "I don't blame you," he says. "At this time of year, sometimes it's nice to pull aside from all of that and remember that"--pause, inhale, smile sincerely--"what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ." After which he mentions "Christmas" twice more and closes with a final "God bless." This might be the smartest ad of the cycle. For all the observers wondering how the candidates would manage the awkward holiday/caucus overlap, Huckabee delivers a master class.

Monday, December 17, 2007


"You may not agree with John McCain on every issue, but you can always count on him to be honest with you about where he stands, you can always count on him to stand for what he believes is right for our country -- regardless of pressure from politicians or vested interests. And you can count on him to be restless in pursuit of progress. In that sense, John McCain is the real change candidate in this race for the Presidency. "There are many fine people running for President. Many of them are good friends of mine. But I have concluded -- and I hope you will, as well -- that John McCain is the candidate who can best reunite our country and lead us to victory in the war against Islamist terrorism. "The nomination for President remains wide open, so on January 8th, New Hampshire's voters can -- and I hope will -- make history and send John McCain from the Granite State to victory. "
Joe Liberman

Did you hear the following lovely phrase?
"Being a Republican is important, being a Democrat is important......."
Yup Joe, the party system is so important you endorse McCain, but only when you can break free from your full time job kissing King George II's ass.....

Thursday, December 13, 2007


"Don't Mormons believe that
Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
Mike Huckabee (he has since apologized)
Oh, you knew it was going to happen. Had to. Those crazy, wacky religious Republicans are going to air out their dirty, dirty underwear at least up to the Iowa caucus. They started out trying to "out-God" each other, but now they are going to show the real candidates. Goin' to chew each others arms off before they lose (or take third) in Iowa. Stay tuned.

Sunday, December 9, 2007


Most people will think this old Red Skelton clip is corny and I suppose it is.

Red Skelton and his take on the Pledge of Allegiance.



Civil rights leader and former Carter Administration U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young says 46-year-old Barack Obama is too young to be president and lacks the network of political allies that can provide important support for a national leader. “I want Barack Obama to be president,” Young said, pausing for effect, “in 2016.”
“It’s not a matter of being inexperienced. It’s a matter of being young,” said Young, who is 75. “There’s a certain level of maturity ... you’ve got to learn to take a certain amount of(expletive).”
Young made the comments at an appearance on "Newsmakers Live," an urban media forum that interviews prominent Atlanta personalities. The comments were reported by the Associated Press based on excerpts of an undated interview that were posted on Newsmakers Journal, the Newsmakers' web site. Young added that Obama needs a political network to bolster him in office. He noted Hillary Clinton had a well-established network of allies, including her husband, to provide political protection. “There are more black people that Bill and Hillary lean on,” Young said. “You cannot be president alone. ...
To put a brother in there by himself is to set him up for crucifixion.
His time will come and the world will be ready for a visionary leadership.”
Young also quipped that “Bill is every bit as black as Barack.”
“He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack,”
Young said of former President Clinton, drawing laughs from a live television audience.
Young quickly followed the comment with the disclaimer, “I’m clowning.”


Lest we forget the events leading up to WWII.
Here is the original speech by FDR.
What does it take to induce King George II to threaten
World War III?

Back then, FDR said "All we have to fear, is fear itself...."
Today, the Bush administration wants us to fear
everything and everybody, especially the King.


Mandatory reading for anyone even remotely considering voting for the skitzo-phrenic (sic) Mayor Guiliani in the January edition of Vanity Fair.
A Tale of Two Giulianis
"Investigating the dubious partnerships and conflicts of interest of Rudy Giuliani’s consulting firm, Michael Shnayerson follows a $100 million trail to a not very presidential conclusion.
On the back of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani refashioned himself as a national hero, a top presidential candidate—and, through his consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, became a very wealthy man. But the questionable backgrounds of some of the firm’s clients make one wonder what Rudy wouldn’t do to make a buck. As Giuliani’s former crony Bernard Kerik faces trial, the author uncovers troubling signs of greed, poor judgment, and conflict of interest. "


"We need a leader who can show us how to hope again....."
Oprah Winfrey
"These are dangerous times, you can feel it. We need a leader who shows us how to hope again in America as a force for peace," Winfrey told the enthusiastic crowd. "I believe Barack Obama will bring statesmanship to the White House," she said. "He's a man who knows who we are and knows who we can be." "I challenge you to see through those people who try to convince you that experience with politics as usual is more valuable than wisdom won from years of serving people outside the walls of Washington, D.C.," she said.
First all of all Oprah, there are NO WALLS in Washington. Secondly, political experience cannot be devalued as a plausible explanation for voting a man with almost ZERO experience into the governments top spot. Thirdly, he does know who were are, and who we can be. He knows he can bring in a large crowd, especially in Iowa, where most women are glued to their TV sets in the afternoon, if he can get you to shill for him.

Let's be honest here.
If Obama was white, would Oprah go on the road with him?
That would be a flat no. And that is OK. Perfectly free to support any candidate as they see fit.
But I do like the analogy in play here. If a poor black woman from the south with marginal talents at best, can rise up and become a billionaire in America, who is to say a Black man with minimal experience, and marginal talents cannot rise up and become President?
The highlight for me? The following exchange between Obama and a voter in the crowd....
"The crowd was wild for Oprah. Thunderous applause. Camera flashes lit up the arena. Somebody yelled, "Oprah for vice president."
Obama turned around and smiled. That would be, he said, "a demotion."


Iowa, you got your moneys worth today.
You aren't "corn fed" any were fed manure.
And, if this works, whose going to have to come behind this dog and pony show
with a big ass shovel?

Saturday, December 8, 2007



We often talk of benchmarks, and precedents in American history. But, this election period will mark a defining moment in American history. In no other election have candidates represented minority sectors of the nation in quite the same fashion as this one enfolds.

Pick a minority, they are well represented....female, African American, Mormonite, Baptist, Hispanic, the list goes on and on. Obviously, the white male dominated political "club" is about to be picked up and shaken for all it is worth. However behind the times, America is slow and apprehensive to elect anyone but a white male. But times are changing (if only at a snails pace). According to the polls, three such candidates have a real chance at the top spot (once called the "most powerful man on the face of the planet"). Hillary Clinton seems to have overcome any gender bias, and in fact, is leading in the majority of polls by double digits. Barack Obama has done very well thus far in the polls, and has somewhat been able to put race into the background (if not trivialized by a mere asterisk).

However, the most challenging situation is of one Willard "Mitt" Romney, a member of the Mormon church (or "sect" if you prefer). He is intelligent, well educated, a good communicator, and even has the Kennedyish good looks which do not belay his actual chronological age of 60.

Romney and his brain trust have been loath to discuss his individual religion, preferring to sidestep the subject with platitudes of freedom of religion, and the like.

However, seeing the inevitable obstacle which WILL prevent him from any hope of achieving the nomination, he gave a Kennedy copy cat speech on religion...except he didn't discuss his religion.

What he did discuss is the ultimate question of religious pluralism, a concept I predict the mainstream American voter will not wrap their craniums around. Thus, history will show again, that in order to be elected President in this country, the whiter, the more masculine, and yes, the most mainstream of religions is an absolute prerequisite for the position.

I do not favor him, nor would I ever vote for the gentleman, however I am hoping for some indication that this country is at least crawling away from its bigoted past, not to mention its ignorant past. In this vain, as a public service, I end with a definition from Wiki of religious pluralism. Whether you believes it applies in Governors Romney's case, well that is for you to decide...

RELIGIOUS PLURALISM is a loosely defined term concerning peaceful relations between different religions, and is also used in a number of related ways:

Religious Pluralism may describe the worldview that one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus recognizes that some level of truth and value exists in at least some other religions.

Religious pluralism often is used as a synonym for ecumenism. At a minimum, ecumenism is the promotion of unity, co-operation, or improved understanding between different religions, or denominations within the same religion

As a synonym for religious tolerance, which is a condition of harmonious co-existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.

Adherents of religious pluralism recognize that different religions make different truth claims. For example, most Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate and that he died for the salvation of humanity while Buddhists believe that enlightenment liberates the soul from the cycle of rebirth so that it may enter into Nirvana. Christians do not claim that Christ leads to Nirvana nor are Buddhists claiming that Buddha is the son of God.


On Fox News yesterday, Bill O’Reilly let loose on “far-left websites” like DailyKos, stating,
“If you read these far-left websites, you’re a devil worshipper. You are.”
O’Reilly’s ombudsman responded, “As a journalist, you know better than that.” O’Reilly shot back: “Satan is running the DailyKos. Yes, he is!”... At the end of the segment, O’Reilly said, “That was a little satire there…don’t get too upset about it.” But he then added, “I still think they are satanists.”

Friday, December 7, 2007


Yes, he sometimes goes to far with his references to his / our President (this time "Chicken Little"), but where you get journalistic perspectives like this, in any media?

Thursday, December 6, 2007


IT WAS a fine and patriotic speech, full of ennobling rhetoric about liberty and tolerance. But it was not a speech about Mitt Romney's particular religion, and so it may not help his cause. Mr Romney, a Republican presidential candidate and former governor of Massachusetts, is a Mormon. Because many Americans regard Mormonism with suspicion, his religion has always been considered a political liability. For months Mr Romney has publicly wrestled with whether to address this situation. On Thursday December 6th he did so, but without going into the detail of his personal faith.

Polls (such as a September survey from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life) suggest that perhaps a quarter of Americans have reservations about voting for a Mormon. The number is higher among evangelicals, a particularly important constituency in Republican primaries. The Florida televangelist Bill Keller, for example, once e-mailed his followers to give warning that “a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan.” Few would go so far, but many evangelists do consider Mormonism pernicious, an imposter religion that keeps people from proper Christianity.
For many months the Romney campaign had calculated that it was better not to confront the religion question. But in the past few weeks the race for the Republican nomination has changed because of a sudden surge from Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas. He has displaced Mr Romney as the leading candidate in Iowa. Mr Huckabee is a Southern Baptist and faith is a central selling point of his campaign. Iowa's caucuses will be held on January 3rd. Religion could determine the fate of Mr Romney's candidacy.
The historical model for Mr Romney's speech was John Kennedy. In 1960, faced with questions about whether a Catholic president would inevitably be wrapped up with the Vatican, Mr Kennedy went to Houston and gave a landmark speech defending religious pluralism. Mr Romney also took his case to Texas. He spoke at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station and was warmly received. As with Kennedy, Mr Romney rejected the idea that his candidacy should be defined by his faith. But in contrast to Kennedy, Mr Romney did not tackle specific questions about his religion.
He might object to people rummaging around in his beliefs, but presidential candidates must expect to endure a certain amount of prodding. Sincere questions about religious belief should not be considered an impertinence. Mr Romney's speech acknowledged as much; he praised America for “the diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue.” But he might have done better to add his own voice to that dialogue, and he should not be surprised that people have questions about his faith. Mormonism is, after all, not particularly well understood. As Mr Romney noted, it is not a candidate’s job to be spokesman for a religion. But it is a candidate’s job to be a spokesman for himself.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007


Mike Huckabee panders for votes in New Hampshire.
Relax Mike, its been done.
Recent polls in Iowa do tend to indicate that Mike Huckabee has been playing the right tune as of late for a potential first primary victory.
However, as a devout Baptist, he does refuse to be seen in public playing with any G-strings.


When was the last time you saw ANY media outlet go out of their way to show a picture of Hillary Clinton in a flattering light? Have you EVER seen any media outlet publish a photo of any other candidate in a less than flattering light?

Have you ever heard any candidate consistently referred to by his first name, as they do in order to subtly marginalize Senator Clinton?

Check the pictures above. Obama looks like a studious and deep thinker, while Hillary looks like the queen bitch. The cartoon at the top is less subtle entirely.

Coincidence? Really? This is played out over and over and over, regardless of the media outlet.


There's no other reasonable take on the latest National Intelligence Estimate that concludes Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. But there is also no doubt that the Bush White House was behind this NIE. While the 16 intelligence agencies that make up the "intelligence community" contribute to each National Intelligence Estimate, you can bet that an explosive, 180-degree turn on Iran like this one was greenlighted by the President.
And explode is what the hawks in and outside the Administration are about to do. They were counting on Bush being the one President prepared to take on Iran. As recently as last month, Bush warned of World War III if Iran so much as thought about building a bomb. Bush's betrayal is not going to go down well. The neocons, clinging to a sliver of hope, will accuse the intelligence community of incompetence, pointing out that as late as 2005 it estimated "with high confidence" that Iran was building a bomb.
Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, put the best face on the new report, claiming that it was our diplomacy and saber rattling that forced the Iranians to back down. As for the intelligence community, it explained its reversal by hinting that new intelligence had surfaced.

Neither explanation is entirely accurate.
The real story behind this NIE is that the Bush Administration has finally concluded Iran is a bridge too far.
With Iranian-backed Shi'a groups behaving themselves, things are looking up in Iraq.
In Lebanon, the anti-Syrian coalition and pro-Syrian coalition, which includes Iran's surrogate Hizballah, reportedly have settled on a compromise candidate, the army commander General Michel Suleiman.
Bombing Iran now would upset the fragile balance in these two countries.
Not to mention that Hizballah has threatened to shell Israel if we as much as touch a hair on Iran's head.

Sunday, December 2, 2007


Statement from Kevin Madden, Romney for President campaign spokesman:
“Governor Romney has made a decision to deliver a speech titled
“Faith in America.”

“The governor has been invited to The George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas to deliver this address on Thursday, December 6. “This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected. “Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation.”
“While identifying a venue for this address, the campaign consulted with President George H.W. Bush’s office last week about Governor Romney’s decision. President Bush was gracious enough to extend an invitation to deliver the speech at the presidential library. “The invitation to speak at the presidential library is not an endorsement of Governor Romney’s campaign.

-Kevin Madden, Romney for President campaign spokesman


The news media outlets and Sunday political pundit television shows are all reporting the "surprising" leap Mike Huckabee has taken in the Iowa polls (up 17 points in one month). Only one source saw the upsurge coming in the Huckabee camp, and has called it right for the last few months...."The World According to Kimba.". Here are the Des Moines Iowa Register findings....
"Mike Huckabee has leaped ahead of Republican presidential rival Mitt Romney in Iowa, seizing first place in a new Des Moines Register poll of likely Republican caucus participants. Huckabee wins the support of 29 percent of Iowans who say they definitely or probably will attend the Republican Party's caucuses on Jan. 3. That's a gain of 17 percentage points since the last Iowa Poll was taken in early October, when Huckabee trailed both Romney and Fred Thompson.
Other poll findings indicate that the former Arkansas governor is making the most of a low-budget campaign ($300,000 spent in Iowa this month) by tapping into the support of Iowa's social conservatives. Romney, who has invested more time and money ($3 million this month alone) campaigning in the state than any other GOP candidate, remains in the thick of the Iowa race with the backing of 24 percent of likely caucus goers. But that's a drop of 5 points since October for the former Massachusetts governor."
Des Moines Register December 3, 2008
You might ask yourselves why.....why Mike Huckabee, a virtual unknown months ago (7% in previous Iowa polls as late a July) has taken the Republican party by storm, and is threatening to take the Iowa primary by storm?
The answer....he is real. He is not a pre-packaged product. He is not a religious person out of convenience (a still devout former Southern baptist minister). He is conservative, but still maintains a sense of the individual person, and seems to capture the conservative values with true compassion for all of Gods creatures put here on this earth.
Take for example, his attempt to make children of illegal aliens eligible for financial college aid. All of the GOP nominees jumped at the chance to slam him for these views. But Huckabee turned the tables on them saying, "I do not want to punish the children of illegal aliens for the crimes and sins committed by their only makes sense that these children, who attended Arkansas schools, and remained drug free, be given the opportunity to be tax payers, as opposed to tax takers." "It only makes sense for the state to educate these children and help them to succeed and put them on the road to becoming productive members of this nation."
This is the kind of viewpoint that may pull from the liberal bases. Yes, he is pro life, he is pro death penalty, and stands with the conservatives on all of the most important concerns. But he appears to be the strong, every mans leader figure the country may be looking for. Obviously, this is what Iowans are looking for, and the polls prove it.
If Huckabee does, in fact win Iowa, will he gain the momentum to rise from his second place stature in New Hampshire and South Carolina to take those as well? Time will tell of course, but America is desperately looking for something, or more correctly, someone to lead them. Obviously many political insiders thought (incorrectly) that this void would be filled by Fred Thompson, whose campaign is sputtering to say the least.
Why Huckabee? It is simple. Guiliani is too slick, too wishy washy, and too liberal. Romney? Too slick, too pre-packaged, and yes, lets get over it...too Mormon. Anyone else for the conservatives is unelectable, and would be a waste of a vote.
Could this change? Of course. But Iowa is desperate for someone fresh on the scene. Just look at who leads Iowa for the Democrats...Barack Obama, who is wet behind the ears inexperienced. But he has a freshness to him, a humanity to him. And, now he has Oprah on his side.
And that is the "World According to Kimba" Thanks for reading.

Saturday, December 1, 2007


Here are a few excerpts from a very interesting cover story from the National Review ... "The Coming Cataclysm: Why the GOP Faces One and How to Avoid It, written by Ramesh Ponnuru and Richard Lowry.
The plain truth is that the party faces a cataclysm, a rout that would give Democrats control of the White House and enhanced majorities in the House and the Senate. That defeat would, in turn, guarantee the confirmation of a couple of young, liberal Supreme Court nominees, putting the goal of moving the Court in a more constitutionalist direction out of reach for another generation.
It would probably also mean a national health-insurance program that would irrevocably expand government involvement in the economy and American life, and itself make voters less likely to turn toward conservatism in the future.
The issue terrain isn't any better. The great Republican triad of welfare, crime and taxes is worn out. Welfare reform and the dramatic decline of crime in the 1990s ended the first two as Republican "wedge issues" [reader wonders if the authors believe the former is responsible for the latter ... ], and there is little demand for more tax cuts after Bush repeatedly cut them.
It's almost impossible to exaggerate the Democratic advantage on domestic issues: If it's an issue, they lead. According to Rasmussen, they lead as the party that people trust more to handle health care by 32 points, Social Security by 16 points, education by 13 points, and government ethics by 8 points. The Democratic lead extends even into traditional Republican territory. In a July Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, Democrats had a 25-point advantage over the GOP on cutting deficits, 16 points on controlling spending, 15 points on dealing with the economy, and 9 points on taxes. [cognitive dissonance afflicts the reader: these things are "traditional Republican territory"? Even after Clinton gave us a surplus and spending discipline? ... But I digress ...
Republicans hope that progress in Iraq will bring about a dramatic improvement in the national political environment. [hmmm .. for whom?] We share that hope. But even if events in Iraq go well, we will have plenty of days of bad news. The public will continue to be impatient about our engagement there, and unhappy about how we got there in the first place. If Republicans are lucky, their national-security advantage will reassert itself. But it is unlikely to recover to its past size. [translation: the American people have wised up to us, alas.]
The Congress has even lower ratings than President Bush, which offers Republicans further hope. But that hope, too, is illusory. Some of the decline in congressional approval ratings since Pelosi's crew took over surely stems from the Left's discovery that Congress cannot stop the war (or end the Bush administration). That disillusionment will not generate any new votes for Republicans, or even keep Democrats from turning out to vote for president. ... It isn't as though hostility to the Democratic Congress has led to any public demand that Republicans retake control of it.
The most plausible path toward a renewed center-right majority involves consolidating and deepening the trend of the decades before 2006: holding on to as much of the existing conservative coalition as possible while adding more downscale voters who lean right on social issues.


This was a comment placed in response to my previous blog on my thoughts on where to go from here in regards to the Iraq war / occupation......
"Yes, Kim. This is a great piece and I fully agree with it. However, there must be much more going on that we don't see or know. Otherwise, why the large embassy, and talk of at least 50,000 soldiers staying in that country indefinitely. I don't think the neocons will be giving up any time soon, or even after B #2 is gone... They are quietly working now to set things in motion that will not be easy to undo".. Dave
Yes, Dave. As the title of this posting states, we aren't leaving.....ever. No matter who wins the election next year, we aren't, and probably shouldn't ever leave. The future of our country directly relates to the region, and, yes, the oil. Can we still drop our troop level to 50,000, set up a puppet government and use this country as our oil reserve? Many American petroleum firms lobbied, and entered into long-term contracts for their oil reserves, which is a great thing. If we could pull this off, we would have troops there to stabilize, and by running the government (are we really there to set up a "democracy ?") we could be a de facto member of OPEC.
Here is our publicly stated Iraq mission statement...."To support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis; support the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight against terrorism by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former regime; and to provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq’s territory." Sound like a temporary mission? Of course not.
Here is John Edwards rebuttal to President Bush's statement, that we may never leave Iraq.....

Anyone who actually thinks we are EVER going to leave Iraq in total should examine the following facts, then ask themselves if ANY politician actually wants to leave, and leave all of this on the table for the ungrateful Iraqi's to suck up...
Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today’s prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion. Who will get Iraq’s oil?
One of the Bush administration’s ‘benchmarks’ for the Iraqi government is the passage of a law to distribute oil revenues (this has since been reached). The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq’s 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest – including all yet to be discovered oil – under foreign corporate control for 30 years. The costs – a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) – are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters.
In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success.
On April 20, 2003, The New York Times ran a story citing unnamed sources indicating the U.S. military was planning as many as four permanent military bases in Iraq. The next day, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed the story as "inaccurate and unfortunate." But what did Rumsfeld mean by "inaccurate"? Perhaps it was "unfortunate" for the administration when the basing plan was leaked to the press. Perhaps the plan was deliberately leaked by the Pentagon or White House. The national media dropped the story after Rumsfeld's disclaimer.
Was the story "inaccurate" because instead of four military installations, the government has plans for six bases, as reported on November 19, 2003, by the Jordanian daily al-Arab al-Yawm:

The sources revealed the names of these bases and the planned positions for permanent deployment. They are:
Al-Habbaniyah Airbase [already an RAF airbase for much of the last century] near the city of al-Fallujah, 65km west of Baghdad;
Ash-Sha'biyah Airbase in Basra, 600km south of Baghdad;
'Ali ibn Abi Taleb Airbase on the outskirts of the city of an-Nasiriyah, 400km south of Baghdad;
al-Walid Airbase about 330km north west of Baghdad;
al-Ghazlani Camp in the city of Mosul, 400km north of Baghdad;

A permanent deployment of forces in the east of Iraq in what is known as the Hamrin mountain range that extends from Diyala Provice, 60km east of Baghdad, and borders on Iran and extends to the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, 260km north of Baghdad.
The sources explained the choice of these locations for permanent Anglo-American deployment by saying that they cover most of the territory of Iraq, and are linked to the Iraqi borders in all four directions, giving them strategic importance in defining the future course of the "new" Iraq. The choice of these locations is also linked to the aim of deterring neighbors of Iraq who might attempt to threaten Iraqi territory in the future.
Given the present administration's abysmal track record for truth-telling, we may never know substantive information about this crucial issue until the bases are operational.
Had enough? Convinced? Now Dave, here is the truth and bloody statistics involved in our new embassy....The message is clear. Indeed, it's gigantic for all Iraqis, for the entire world to see. A 100 acre compound – ten times the size of the typical U.S. embassy, the size of 80 football fields, six times larger than the UN, the size of Vatican City. The US Embassy Compound, in the middle of Baghdad – the center for US domination of the Middle East and its resources. The compound towers above the Tigris River like a modern fortress. It will have its own sources of power and water and sit in the heart of Baghdad.
The fact remains that the infrastructure is being put in place for a long-term military presence in Iraq. Unless Americans get tired of footing the growing and expensive bill for occupying Iraq – now at nearly $10 Billion per month – or the Iraqis are able to force the United States to leave it looks like Baghdad will be the center of operations for the US presence in the Middle East. The US will be sitting on top of the Earth's vast, but shrinking, oil resources.