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