Gore and Obama

Well, I haven't spoken much lately. I wanted to give a nice little overview on "why I support Obama" right before the elections, but never got around to it. All my republican friends, with their tails between their legs, said Obama was going to win for months before the election, so what would be the point.

Nevertheless, I read something today so funny I wanted to share it.

One more word or two about Obama first.

When I listened to McCain's speech on the night he lost the election, I thought to myself: wow, that was good. Why didn't he talk like that while he was running? Maybe more people would have voted for him. (Or maybe what I thought was: good thing he didn't talk like that before, or he might have won the election.) I also thought to myself, Obama is going to have a tough time giving a better speech than this.

Well, of course, like millions of other U.S. Citizens throughout the world, and probably millions of English speaking people throughout the world, I was totally blown away by Obama's acceptance speech. I think that speech rivaled any political speech I've heard in my life time.

One last note: one of the things I've liked about Obama all along is his conciliatory attitude. So, I am very impressed by his Cabinet choices so far and his ability to work with folks on both sides (all three sides? all six sides?) of the fence. I heartily approve of his choice for Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State, because among other things, this may improve her chances of being elected president in 4 or 8 years.

Anyway, today's funny. I was reading this article here, on Gore's Visit to Obama in Chicago. It is an interesting article. Who knows what they are up to? Gore as an Energy Secretary? Everyone seems to doubt that notion. Maybe: "who should be my Energy Secretary, Al?" Who knows.

I'm not sure if I've ever agreed with Al Gore about his notion that the earth is going to hell in a handbag because of everything we've done to it. Sure we are finding thawed men on icy mountain tops that died there in the snow thousands upon thousands of years ago. But what were they doing there mountain climbing in shorts anyway? Our weather flows in cycles. The mountains have thawed and frozen many times over the course of the history of this planet, and we don't really have a clue why. It is all speculation, but scientifically speaking it is more likely to do with cycles of the sun than anything else. Saying that man can affect the weather with anything other than global nuclear war is like saying that I can affect the weather by lighting up my barbecue on a snow-covered deck. But, I digress...

The article I was reading was interesting until I got to this sentence here (at which point I basically just busted up laughing, because this wasn't on the tonight show or some other comedy routine, but on regular news, apparently):

"The Gore trip is for more than just a chat," a close friend of Gore told CNN's John King. "He wouldn't burn that much carbon flying to Chicago just to talk."

Cheers!
Basil

Lipstick on a Pig?

Let me see if I get this straight. When McCain hears the phrase "Lipstick on a pig" he immediately thinks of his own vice-Presidential running mate?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign11-2008sep11,0,4703724.story

Very interesting insights into how the man's mind works.

Cheers!
~ Basil

The U.S. No Longer a Major World Power

Democracy. We love democracy. We live for democracy. We promote democracy throughout the world. And how do we promote democracy, let me ask you: Do we promote democracy by encouraging free market conditions throughout the world, or do we promote democracy by bullying other countries with our military might?

It might seem like an oxymoron. How can our country promote democracy by forcing other countries to do things a certain way? Isn't democracy all about allowing the people of any given country to express themselves freely through open-market, creativity, and a political structure in which the government is established electorally by the will of the people? How can "the will of the people" of any given land be established under coercion?

So, let me ask you: in what respect is the U.S. a major world power? Is this thought due to our military might, or our economic might? I propose that the U.S. became a major world power by economic might. But how do we continue to be a major world power today? Unfortunately, the U.S. has become in debt to every major country on the planet, and we can no longer hang onto our status as a "major world" power by economic might. Therefore we have been attempting for the past 20 years or so to hold onto this title by military might alone.

Some interesting facts on U.S. foreign debt were recently published in a Russia on-line journal: Kommersant. The bottom line is that the U.S. is in debt to Japan ($583 billion) and China ($503 billion), a whole host of other nations, and EVEN Russia to the tune of $65.3 billion dollars.

While other nations continue to grow stronger (producing and accumulating credit) the U.S. continues to grow weaker year by year.

All my friends don't understand why I support Obama in the upcoming election. They are worried government spending will blossom out of control with some of the crazy ideas that guy has. But my major concern in this upcoming election is not with domestic issues, but with foreign policy. The U.S. foreign policy decision of the past years is untenable. We have set ourselves up as a great world bully, bullying other nations into submission to OUR own unique definitions of what constitutes a valid electorate and a valid election (rather than allowing countries to pursue their own local unique versions of democracy). We have set ourselves up to have military presence and military conflict all over the globe (far worse than Brittan of the colonial era) and EXTREME cost.

It pretty much doesn't matter what Obama may do state-side. It won't cost as much money as our constant stream of billions of dollars a day into the U.S. Military presence in foreign lands. And if there is one thing that is clean in my mind about McCain, it is the fact that he intends to continue the U.S.-as-bully mentality of "Might Makes Right".

My friends are concerned that Obama will do things that are costly. But as for me, I'd rather our tax dollars were poured into healthcare for everyone than tanks and guns in Iraq, Afganistan, Georgia, and some hundreds of other places on the globe where the U.S. has a military presence in a foreign land.

The U.S. has lost any credibility that it ever had to claim itself a Major Political Power by years and years of out of control military spending and debt. We may soon reach a point where foreign powers refuse to lend us money, and then what are we going to do? Invade someplace that has plenty of resources claiming that there were irregularities in their last election?

~ Basil

Why are Russian troops left behind as 'Peace Keepers' in Poti?

This story doesn't really surprise me. And only time will tell what the purpose of this activity is:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/23/europe/24georgia.php

but, why have the Russians left behind a small peace-keeping force in Poti?

I think, clearly they expect some sort of NATO trechery. They are expecting the U.S., France, and UK ships that are in the area to unload not just food and water, but troops and arms. They want to be sure they have someone on scene to observe this.

If there is one thing we've taught Russia about democracy, it's: "don't trust us."

* Basil

The Bush War in Georgia?

Did George Bush start the war in Georgia in order to help Mc Cain become elected as president?

I know it sounds crazy. I didn't think of this myself (and, actually, I'm sorry I didn't think of it, because it makes perfect sense.)

Apparently this is the most popular version in Russia of what's going on in Georgia. It is being debated in the news all over Russia, and by the elected leaders of Russia (their congress and senate, etc), and the idea was apparently proposed by one Russian news media outlet, and then later it was confirmed that they are considering the idea by "sources close to Medvedev".

But, the more I think about it. The more it makes sense.

What are the facts:

* well, we already know George Bush is an excellent liar, and deciever of the people.

* we know that U.S. has had high level military personnel, training personnel and CIA working to help the Georgian Government for quite some time now.

* we know that Russia couldn't possibly have had anything to gain politically by taking up a military conflict down there. Russia knows well that it walks a thin line with all of it's neighbors, and went into this whole situation with great reluctance to stop the crushing destruction that the Georgians launched on the S. Osettians in the middle of the night.

(So, what motive could Russia have possibly had? Their hand was pushed in the matter. The Bush administration knew full well that Russia would not stand by and ignore things if the Georgians invaded S. Osettia in the middle of the night, leveling nearly every building in the city, and specifically targeting thousands of civilians after they took out the tiny Russian peace-keeping force that was stationed there.)

And, I think it is clear to everyone that Georgia is a U.S. puppet in the matter (although the U.S. administration pretends that this idea surprises them...) the "cat is out of the bag" as it were, when the Georgian president says so confidently to his people: "Everything is going to be alright now. The U.S. has taken control of our ports and air fileds."

Of course, the U.S. had not. But the guy is such a psycho that to him it seems like that's exactly what the U.S. was doing by landing a cargo transport plane there.

Anyway, I when I heard this "popular opinion" of the Russian people the other day, I just laughed. But inside it has been simmering. The idea actually makes more and more sense the more I think about it.

Then I read this news story here (U.S. news about Obama -v- McCain):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080817/pl_politico/12592_1

There is a clear motive for this crime: get McCain elected, because when people are worried about war, they want a strong military-like leader.

How did the U.S. fall so far from what is morally correct in this world, that we've progressed from liberating Iraquies to helping out Hitlers?

~Basil

More Lies from the U.S. News Media

The constant stream of lies from the U.S. Goverment on the situation in Georgia has gotten frustrating for me, so I'm going to speak out against the nonsense.

Take for instance this statement here (quoted by the news story here)

"This is a dangerous escalation in the crisis," the (U.S.) official said. Russia's military response "marks a severe escalation and is being conducted in areas far, far from the South Ossetia zone of conflict, which is where the Russian side has said it needed to protect its citizens and peacekeepers. So the response has been far disproportionate to whatever threat Russia had been citing."

What a pile of smoldering hogwash! This whole incident started when Georgia invaded one of their own provinces. First they bombed the hell out of a city (Tskhinvali, the capital of South Osetta) and then they sent in their troops (over a border, yes, they actually had a border into S. Osetta they had to cross killing the Russian Peace keeping troops who have been gaurding that border for nearly 10 years). The Russian government is well within their right to completely destroy any Georgian airforce bases being used in these attacks, even if they are well inside Georgia.

These people in Tskhinvali were Russian people, they and their families have lived there since long before the country became Georgia. They were sleeping peacefully in their beds when the Georgian government came and bombed them to splinters then rolled in their troops to supposedly "restore order" to a land that has been peaceful for many years. Then, according to reports out of Russia, they are actually rounding up enthic Russians and killing them by the time the Russian army comes and takes Tskhinvali back. (It is difficult to tell from the reports, but it does sound like they've taken back Tskhinvali at this point. But clearly the Georgians are still fighting them off at various places.)

When this whole thing started a few days ago, I read up on the history so I could understand what the situation is all about. The U.S. still stuck in it's cold-war mentatlity can't ever seem to get past the "Russia as an enemy" syndrome. Look at this crazy phrase here from the same news story:

"Georgia, which borders the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia, was ruled by Moscow for most of the two centuries preceding the breakup of the Soviet Union. "

They have toned it down a little bit. Earlier when I read the story (which they keep updating) it said "Georgia... was under Russian control for most of the two centuries..." etc. They made it sound like Russia is a constant agressor in the region. Well, I guess they were "agressors" in a sense: the same way that the U.S. was agressor with the native Americans. Russia took this land away from the nomadic sheep herders in the late 1600s the way the U.S. (well, then the British and French) took away North America from the Native Americans. It wasn't really so much like "invading a country" way back then, until the British came down there and fought the Russians over the caucauses, because they decided that they wanted it too.

So, much to say... the history is varied prior to the Caucauses being a part of Russian. But the history of this current event:

At the end of the Soviet Union, Georgia all the former Soviet Republics were proclaiming their indepencence as new countries. Well, the people in South Osetta and the people in Abkazia were primarily Russian and did not want to belong to some other country (Georgia). So Russia fought Georgia for many years for these territories. In the end the Russians finally signed a truce with the Georgians: You could claim these territories as part of Georgia so long as you let us keep Russian peacekeeping troops here, and so long as you give these territories some sort of autonomy.

Well, the people of S. Osetta and Abkazia didn't really like this agreement, they wanted to live in Russia, but it was better than constant war, so they agreed to it.

They have been living peacefully all this time until the current president of Georgia started making proclamations that he was going to "take back all the Georgian territories." Everybody wondered what he had in mind, and nobody thought he could be stupid enough to invade these territories, but last Thursday night (Friday in Russia) that's exactly what he did. Since Thursday there have been thousands of people killed, and I think it is likely that he has started a full-scale war with Russia over his ambitions.


The questions I have are: how much is the U.S. involved in this? Was the U.S. an instigator in this invasion? After all, it seems to be a constant concept of the current U.S. administration to make Russia appear to be an agressor. It is well known that we have U.S. troops stationed in Georgia and have provided training and assistance to the Georgian military. I'm sorry, but I just cannot help thinking that the CIA has been involved in assisting the Georgians.

Will our leaders never tire of their blasphemous hypocracy? Bush should know by now that he has a nice warm-and-cozy bed prepared for him in Hell by God and all his angels. Surely he doesn't think he can keep playing the same game and somehow save his soul?

I am thoroughly disgusted with the U.S. government.

Regards,
Basil

Solzhenitsyn

I won't attempt to jump on to any band-wagon discussing Solzhenitsyn. But I shouldn't let his passing go by without a word.

Solzhenitsyn was a great man. He was a great thinker and a great author. Perhaps he will even become a Saint in our Church.

Now only was he a great thinker and a great man, but he took risks and actually stood up for what he believed in. After being called a "traitor to Russia" by the Soviets he went back to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union and kept up his work for positive change. That took a lot of guts. He could have just kept himself comfortable in some form of retirement like pretty much ALL of the other Soviet dissidents did.

Here's Solzhenitsyn with Fr. Schmeman at St. Vlad's:


There's some good articles on Solzhenitsyn right now at http://www.russiablog.org/

Regards!
Basil

It's the Little Things that Count
(against you...)

Folks wonder why I refer to McCain as a fascist, and sometimes a Nazi. Of course he isn't a Nazi by profession, explicitly, or by proclamation. Nor is he as fascist by proclamation or profession.

But it's the things he says that give you clues as for what is in the man's heart:

Take this latest little news story, for example:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0832180920080709

We can all pull together and wipe out the Iranians by sending them cigarettes.

Or his previous joke about a beach boy's song: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"

These sorts of things underscore his biggest flaw. He's one of those "old school" fascists (that's what I call them) who still has the mindset that it is the PEOPLE of various foreign countries that are our natural-born enemies, and not simply governments that we disagree with. It is the same thing with his approach to Russia, where he carries the typical Republican-Administration approach that Russia is still our enemy, even though we all know that the truth of the matter is that the Government and People of Russia overthrew our old enemy the Soviet Union.

We should have no enemy in Russia, if we have any sense.

It is one of America's (and to some degree Europe's) greatest disgraces that will go down in history marking us as bigots, the fact that our governments did not step up to the plate and help Russia rebuild itself after overthrowing the Soviet Union. But, setting that asside for a moment, these ideologies reveal something about the intellect of our potential future leaders.

The mentality that various groups of people, citizens of foreign lands, are our natural-born enemies is a very stupid, ulgy, and bigoted way of thinking. It is really a ghastly primative way of thinking, revealing the mentality of cavemen with clubs, when one would hope our society was more educated by now. And it is a complete contradiction to our pretentious chant that "everyone should have a democracy."

What we see in McCain's inadvertent comments shows us that deep down inside this man who wants to be president has his own ideas of how the world should be, and as much as he likes to claim he will not be carrying on the tradition of the last 3 Bush adminstrations, you should know that he will. I think he would not only continue it, but make things even worse than they are in terms of U.S. creating as many new enemies as possible around the globe for no sensible reason at all.

Regards,
Basil

Water on Mars

Everyone is so excited today that they've discovered fairly reasonable evidence (I won't call it "conclusive proof" until I'm drinking a glass of it) that there is water on mars. Hurrah! How wonderful! How exciting!

Do you really think it makes the slightest bit of difference?

We humans already happen to have 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water at our disposal on earth. We've managed to muck up this planet pretty good even with all that water, and so now we are all excited that we've found a couple thousand gallons maybe on mars? Do you really think we can managed to do a better job taking proper care of a desolate wasteland where the average daily temperature is ~ -81 degrees Fahrenheit (-63 degrees Celsius)?

Best of luck!

Basil

British Reflections on American Advertising

I happened to be perusing news stories on BBC, and ran across this very funny commentary on American Advertising:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7453357.stm


Take the following example, where he's talking about the little disclaimer at the end of pharmaceutical advertisements:


Sometimes these are spelled out in a warm tone implying this is all a bit of a formality imposed by our fuss-budget of a government.

On other occasions they are rattled out at speeds normally only reached by horse racing commentators in the closing stages of a big race.

All-in-all a very funny article. I hope you check it out.

Cheers!
Basil

Vista Hell, or XP Hell?

The lesser of two evils

As far as I'm concerned, using computers has one purpose in life: to get things done. Now, "things" is a very broad category, and "done" is a highly relative expression. But there are things you can do on your computer that you just can't do out there in real life. What's more, I think, are the things you can LEARN.

Anyway, for someone who sees his computer as a means to an end, rather than the end itself, I think I spend far too much of my time maintaining and fixing my computers.

At this present moment the issue is: which Hell do I want to go swim around in: Vista or XP?

It all started when I got my new computer. I spent 6 months installing and configuring everything exactly the way I wanted to get things done on XP. I had bought both operating systems with the idea of being dual-boot eventually. I wanted 64 bit Vista, becasue it should be faster, and I wanted to try out Halo2 for the PC.

Everything was going fine until I made my Vista dual boot. And, even THAT was going fine for a while.

Vista never did install correctly: the boot loader didn't get written right to my hard drives, and the only way I coudl boot to Vista was with a bootable DVD in the DVD drive (but not actually booting to the DVD.)

Well, along came one of MS illustrious patches, and suddenly every time I booted my computer, Vista wanted to run checkdisk on my XP drives, and XP wanted to run checkdisk on my Vista drives.

I carefully avoided this for weeks, but one day when I wasn't actually sitting at my computer when it started up, I came back to find Vista was running check disk on my XP drive. I crossed my fingers, prayed, crossed myself, and sat down to watch the fireworks. A few minutes later it said that Vista was changing file permissions on all the files on my XP boot drive. There was really nothing I could to about it until it was over.

I waited, rebooted, and sure enough: no longer possible to boot into XP.

Okay, I though, if Vista can do that to my XP drive, perhaps I can get XP to run checkdisk on it's own drive and it will convert everything back. So, I made that happen, and WHEW! I could boot into XP again.

Well, sort of.

XP never really "came back" - I could boot into it, log into my account, but half the operating system wasn't running. The only way I could get an explorer windows was to ctl-alt-del and bring up the task manager and launch one manually. I could launch programs if I typed them in at the run menu (knew the whole path) but not if I double clicked on them. And I had no taskbar at the bottom of my screen, so I couldn't get to any of the memory resident programs. Only bits and pieces of control panel worked, and one important one that didn't was the Services cpl!

So, I growled, and went back to using Vista for a while. I figured out what the bare minimum was I needed to use my computer, and installed those things on Vista. (I'm still not done, actually...) Meanwhile I contemplated two problems:
a) getting vista to boot without a DVD in the DVD drive, and
b) somehow fixing my XP install


Well, after spending about a week working on "b" I think I've given up. At this point, I even attempted a re-install of XP to the same drive, but decided against it. It is too risky. I will either rip that drive out and put it in some other computer, and THEN reinstall, and use remote desktop to manage that machine, OR I will install XP in a virtual machine. I only need XP for a limited number of programs that just don't work on 64bit Vista yet.

Meanwhile, there was problem "a" - well I finally fixed that, thanks to this web page here:
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/49ded4da-b66f-4b42-9563-04c218a1a6ac1033.mspx?mfr=true


I'll let you all know when I'm back to happy computing once again. Meanwhile, if you've tried to email me in the past 2 weeks, you've been sadly out of luck.

Regards!
Basil

Help! Microsoft Navigator is Driving me Mad!

Imagine, if you will, hearing a little electronic-robotic voice repeat that above statement over and over again. Then add to that the fact that it is Microsoft Navigator itself reading this sentence to you in it's annoying little robotic voice!

I have had many windows problems in recent weeks (mostly VISTA problems, but some XP problems - nevertheless ALL of the problems caused by VISTA.)

Well, this problem was by far the most amusing!

Several weeks ago I accidentally hit some key combination that turns on Microsoft Navagator in VISTA. What happens is suddenly your computer starts reading to you everything aloud. Emails, web pages, key combinations, you name it. A nice thing to have if you are blind, but otherwise very annoying.

I turned it off right away, but soon thereafter discovered that it comes back on every time I reboot. So, today I got fed up with that and went out and found out how to turn it off once and for all (at least until next time I accidentally hit that magic keystroke combination.)

I landed upon this page here to help me figure out what to do:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080223072941AABOlLV

Then I busted up laughing, because my Microsoft Navigator kept reading to me over and over again: "Help! Microsoft Navigator is Driving me Mad"

Anyway, so much to say the instructions on that page are incomplete, at least with respect to VISTA business edition. You have to go to that page, as in start >control panel>ease of access>turn off - but when you do there is only a "turn on" option and no "turn off" option. I had to dig a little deeper by clicking on "make computer easier to use"- where I finally found a check box that lets me turn on and off individual features.

Have fun with VISTA, and don't let the Navigator drive you mad!

~ Basil

An Open Letter to the Ralston Purina Company

Dear Mr. and Ms. Purina,

You need to make your dog food taste better than cat poo.

Signed Sincerely,
Self-Contained Pet Management Systems, Inc.

Happy April Fool's Day

In the news, Zipcommfly has come out with a great new computer cooling fan!

Qualcomm launches HandSolo - http://www.handsolomobile.com

And there's the Clinton Bowling challenge!

The latest edition of national geographic?

http://harvardlampoon.com/node/308

Cheers! And have a great day!

And, wait, this just in: Hackers Hack into International Space Station!


~ Bad Basil

More Thoughts on Kosovo


There is a really good, and accurate, article by Pat Buchanan. I'm no big fan of him, but that doesn't prevent him writing an article that is right on:

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=951

As one friend of mine puts it:

What is most interesting about the Serbs taking over the part of
Kosovo where they are a majority is that if Kosovo was allowed to
declare independence from Serbia, aren't portions of Kosovo allowed to
declare independence from Kosovo?

Amen.

As Buchanan says:

The U.S. war on Serbia was unconstitutional, unjust and unwise. Congress never authorized it. Serbia, an ally in two world wars, had never attacked us. We made an enemy of the Serbs, and alienated Russia, to create a second Muslim state in the Balkans.

By intervening in a civil war where no vital interest was at risk, the United States, which is being denounced as loudly in Belgrade today as we are being cheered in Pristina, has acquired another dependency. And our new allies, the KLA, have been credibly charged with human trafficking, drug dealing, atrocities and terrorism.

(I won't quote the whole thing, read it yourself.)

Our Unmitigated Hypocrisy


I find the blatant hypocrisy of NATO and US a very annoying thing. Take our example of how we take sides in Kosovo as opposed to Tibet.

In Kosovo, you have a portion of Serbia that has slowly become overcome by a non-native ethnic minority to the point where the Serbs are now the minority (rather like California and Mexicans, by the way). And at last the local Kosovo government declares what western media calls "unilateral" (suggesting that the government was unanimous in it's decision) separation from Serbia. I am quite certain that it is either a lie of western news media to call the decision to separate "unilateral" or else apparently their government does not give representation to the large ethnic Serbian population of Kosovo.

You can read about the history of Kosovo and the ongoing struggle of Serbs who have been persecuted there at http://www.kosovo.net/ These people do not want to become part of another country, because they already live in fear from an ethnic minority that does not give them fair representation, or any rights whatsoever.

I suppose the U.S. / NATA / European support of these Kosovans as they supposedly call for their independence rather parallels a long tradition that the U.S. / NATO / EU, etc. have of supporting Godless regimes that do not give their people representation and rights that goes all the way back to our support of the Godless nation of Israel, who in her own hypocrisy gives no rights or representation to the Palestinians. But, I digress.

Meanwhile, you have Tibet. I can look on Tibet with much less bias since I am not a Buddhist. When I talk about Kosovo or Israel, I am of course, biased since I am a Christian and more closely identify with the persecuted populations in both of those countries. (One may beg the question why do American's not identify more with the suffering Palestinians (who are about 40% Christian) and suffering Kosovo Christians, when we claim we are a "Christian" nation who In-God-We-Trusts. But again, I digress.)

In Tibet, I will take the side of the underdog again. You have the persecuted native peoples who have been under the thumb-screws of the Chinese regime of fascism for many years now. One can only hope that the things that are happening in Tibet will spread to the REST of China where so many people for so long as struggled in slave-labor for the profit of the state. These people are not allowed to have more than one child - it's against the law. These people are not allowed to belong to any religion: Marxism insists on atheism. So, China may have let a tiny minority of Buddhism exist, but merely as a pretense of allowing some minor level of cultural diversity. As the Dalai Lama says: the Chinese have tried to bring about a cultural genocide.

I can't wait to see what awful things unfold in China with the Olympics coming soon. China has gotten away with global approval for long enough. It is time they realize their uncivilized fascist state has not place in a peace-loving world. They've been walking around with their pants down for quite some time. I'm hoping to see them soon trip, as the trousers get tangled up around the ankles.

And if only Americans would take to the streets burning all their Chinese garbage in piles and sending a message to China that "enough is enough."

But, alas, we would rather sit back and sip our espresso watching our giant made-in-China flat-screen TVs. All those wars and chaos are entertaining from here.

~ Basil

Meat Fair

Orthodox Christians this week are enjoying a week full of eating meat. This is a special week in which, traditionally, you eat up all the last of the meat in the house so that you won't have any left to tempt you during Lent. Technically speaking.

Of course, this concept was invented before there were refrigerators and freezers, etc. But Orthodox Christians still celebrate today a full week of eating meat.

My dinner tonight:
* a steak and a half (medium rare)
* 3/4 of a roasted sweet red pepper (bell-type pepper)
* 3/4 of a roasted green pepper (bell-type pepper)
* six cloves of garlic (5 of them roasted after being dipped in olive oil, and the 6th crushed and spread on my steak)
* 3/4 a bottle of Merlot (the other 4th went into the marinade -- does that count as drinking a whole bottle?)

Ahhhhh...

I enjoy these times when we aren't fasting.

No only do I enjoy it, I'm downright good at "feasting" as it were.

Well, if only I can be so devoted during the fasts.

Regards,
Basil

Nobody to vote for...


I haven't looked too much at the candidates yet. I really don't have a strong liking of any of them, so why should I? I was all for Hillary until I heard her on one talk show saying how she was going to close down all those nasty institutions that lend money to kids for college. What a nut! Is she serious?

I was dead set against voting for any sort of republican in order to counter the last 8 years of evil.

But all that is left is Obama:

So, I've started reading a little bit just to see what he's saying:

"We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control," Obama said in excerpts of a speech at a General Motors plant in Janesville, Wis. "The fallout from the housing crisis that's cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington."

Why does he have to outright lie? I mean, he's got a Harvard law degree, so he can't be a complete idiot. If he's not a complete idiot, then one has to ask oneself: why is he outright lying then?

Yes, let's just use our imagination. The government has billions of dollars so the government ought to be able to help billions of Americans have enough money to keep them in their toys.

Grrr....

Basil