New House
By the Lord's goodness and gracious blessings I took possession of my new dwelling place, yesterday, 1 November 2006. It is a small town house but has a little bit of everything. Three bedrooms upstairs, living room (with fireplace), dining room and kitchen plus powder/laundry room on first level and a basement. The house has a single garage with a small graden in the back. All in all it is a lot more than I had hoped for and for an excellent price.
The basement is not finished, however, and for you folks who live in California, you may not appreciate the value of basements. I'll give you some of the multiple uses and benefits of having a basement. 1) you can put your son, his books, his research material, reference documents, commentaries, equipment and everything else that belongs to him in a separate quarter - in the basement; 2) excercise equipment including hockey gear and skates in the basement. 3) when you receive too many young people and they get noisy whereas you want a quiet sleep, you move everybody down into the .... (that's right you got it) the basement. 4) when it gets very hot upstairs in summer and you don't have central air conditoning, the best alternative is to hit the ...... 5) If you need to stow away your suitcases, your winter coats (including fur which I don't have) the best storage room can be found in the (where else) the basement.
Now another hidden advantage of the basement is the following. The best way to keep your own personal bathroom clean and safe from all alien invasion is to put an extra bathroom with shower stand in the basement.
That's what I shall be doing this afternoon. I am meeting a plumber at 3:30. When I went downstairs I was pleasantly surprised to see that when this house was originally built in 1987 the contractor had made provision for pipes and drains for that purpose. I hope that today I can agree with the plumber on a price and date to complete the work.
Work can later begin on finishing the walls and floors etc to make a proper bedroom with bookcase and the rest of shebang. Will keep you posted.
Joe. This bit should last you a couple of days. Okay?
Anyways, here are the useless un-benefits of basements:
1) you can put your son, his books, his research material, reference documents, commentaries, equipment and everything else that belongs to him in a separate quarter
...or you can transfer all the information onto a computer drive---the equipement can go to the trash (sorry George---just trying to have fun proving a useless point)
2) excercise equipment including hockey gear and skates in the basement
....Get rid of the exercise equipment--go jog in the park or get a gym membership. The hockey gear can go to the trash (as well as the skates)---they both can be rented in times of needs. (Anyway, hockey is a boring sport (sorry to all you Canadiens))
3) when you receive too many young people and they get noisy whereas you want a quiet sleep,
.....or you can just get rid of them (tell them to go away--they shouldn't be staying up past bed time/ curfew)
4) when it gets very hot upstairs in summer and you don't have central air conditoning, the best alternative is to hit the ......
....you got it! The Beaches! (California's work best)
5) If you need to stow away your suitcases, your winter coats (including fur which I don't have) the best storage room can be found
.... at the storage site (or you can simply bury them in the ground, since you obviously do not use them all the time---when you need the suitcases, just dig 'em up) Don't feel bad about the fur. It gets stuffy in those jackets anyways (and who wants to wrap himself in a dead animals body? That's disgusting!)
---Joseph
I do not know if it is stricly a Canadian thing to have basements in houses. For one, I know I refused to look at a certain house just because it didn't have one.
I guess you get conditioned into a certain life style.
As for you, Joe, may I remind you that you were dying to see snow when you came to New York a few years ago. And pls. don't forget how badly you wanted to have your fireplace going some Christmas ago but it was too warm in December.
As for your comment on wearing animal skin, may I recommend that you not wear leather shoes or belts anymore, because guess where they come from, smarty.
As for snow....I want to see it (that is true). I don't want to hide from it in a basement. As for leather, I would disagree with you. I wear leather made from cow skin (and maybe snake skin). I do not wear the body of a cheetah.
Gotcha!
(just kidding...,...,.,..,.,..,.,)
joe anto
ni
os
se
e
y
ou
l
at
er
Thanks Hiba for our well wishes. I am now embroiled in renovations. I can't wait till this stage is over.
In other words, I can where polka dots, but I can't where plaid.
Just kidding. (Note: the above is an attempted smart-aleck post. It is not true in any way.)
-joe
Dear Greg,
(The following letter is a continuation of our discussion about George W.
Bush.) Since you are a Christian, I will conduct this starting on
Biblical terms and then move onto more political discourse.
First, it might be asked whether or not it is possible to have a
trustworthy politician who holds the precepts of Christ true to his
heart. The answer, according to the Bible, is “yes.” Mark, one of the
disciples, as well as Zechariah, were both tax-collectors, the ultimate
symbols of corruption and political “power misusers.” However, both
became followers of Christ and maintained their job. How was this
possible? They were fair and honest in their dealings.
Second, then, it might be asked whether or not George W. Bush is a
corrupt politician, or an honest Christian as he claims to be. Based on
his personal lifestyle alone (I will discuss public action later), Bush
exhibits the fruits of the Spirit that are spoken of in Ephesians and
Galatians. He has “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness….” What
is there to say that he is not Christian? He incessantly refers to his
reliance on Christ for guidance and is not ashamed of his faith in
Christ. (If he were a “pretender,” he would not defend his faith in times
of trouble.) You might say that John Rockefeller and FDR were the same.
But were they? To go down that route is to set yourself up for major
logical and factual problems.
As such, the entire discussion boils down to the Iraqi war. Why did he
choose to enter? And were his motives pure? Did Iraq need the “help”? I
will discuss the last question first. Coming from a Middle Eastern
family, having been to the Middle East, and having contact with people in
places all over the region, I know what situation the area is in. It
needs help, and not just religiously. The economy is terrible, countries
are falling apart, etc….you get the picture. I am sure that you know of
the situation in the Middle East and I am sure that anyone would welcome
the betterment of any of the countries there (not just for the sake of
the international community, but also for the sake of its oppressed
people). Many news networks choose to portray the factions that are
against the War. However, you forget those who are helped by the War.
Sure, one Muslim faction is at a disadvantage. But have you considered
how many have been helped? Villages have been kept from being pillaged,
unduly forced to be under the rule of dictatorship, and people have been
given personal freedoms. It is true that many have died from the War. But
what is War? Is it a dandy little thing where you fire precise guns and
hit the target without blowing anything up outside of a specific radius?
Is guerilla war a war in which you see the enemy wearing red? NO. I think
that you are wise enough to understand what I have said in the few
sentences above. It is then best to move on to purpose. Why would Bush
stay in Iraq? Either he is a fool or a thoughtful person. If I were
president and wanted to help my standing in the polls or rally support
from all American people, I certainly would not send in soldiers and
allow many of them to get killed. That is STUPID. I certainly would not
do it to avenge my father. That is also STUPID. To say George Bush would
do that is STUPID. That is out of the question. Did he go to help lower
oil prices? Obviously not. The oil here has not gotten any better and
Americans have not gained control of Iraqi oil at all. If Bush had sent
troops in their for oil, he could have easily controlled the oil industry
by now.
The third and final possible option would be to enter Iraq out of
kindness/ honor/ dignity. Once more, I will return to the Bible. You know
the story of the Good Samaritan. What happened? Do you remember? A man
was waylaid on the road, robbed, and beaten. TWO travelers passed by, a
priest and a Jew (people who were supposed to be righteous in all ways),
and did not help. They merely walked past and said, “This is not my
business.” Perhaps the priest even thought, “I will pray for him.” Did
they help the man? NO. What did the Samaritan do? He went to the man,
spent all his money on him, and helped him get better. (You might say
that this does not correlate to Iraq because in Iraq, some people are
protesting against this war. I would argue that perhaps, even the man
protested against the Samaritan’s care. Cleaning the bruises would have
hurt and the entire ordeal of riding a pony back to town would have been
terribly painful.) As a Christian, Bush has done his duty well. Is it his
duty, then, to do this act on behalf of the entire American people? Is
this dictator like? (Yes to the first and no to the second). (1) The
American people elected Bush as their representative knowing full well
about his stance politically, spiritually, and morally. (2) To call
himself Christian and not do the duties of a Christian would be wrong
(Bush knew that this would sap the country of a lot of “stuff”---but so
did the Samaritan. From a limited point of view, the Samaritan was
stupid. From a Christian point of view, the Samaritan (America) was
blessed and favored by God). You might say, “Joe, you can stop now. You
should never connect politics and national affairs to Christianity this
much!” You know my reply (so I will refrain from stating it). Bush,
without the people knowing it, has helped America in as many ways as
possible.
Lastly, you might say, “This is a democratic nation, and based on
democratic principles, it should be the people’s choice whether or not
they want to enter war. This is not a moral issue. It is a majority
issue.” (1) You may remember that only 1-2 years ago, Congress reaffirmed
its support for the war (Even though controlled by the GOP, the
Republicans WERE elected by the people and thus represented the will of
the people.) (2) Therefore, as a matter of logic, you cannot stop an
international war just because of a slight change of whim. When a
commitment is made, it must be carried through. “You make a promise, you
don’t break it.” (3) The people DID want the war when the issue was
called forth. As such, you might ask, “Why didn’t Bush enter any other
Middle Eastern country in need? Yeah, I know get it that it is right to
go help the country, but why not another one. They all have terrible
dictators and badly treated citizens.” I don’t know the answer to that
question. However, that does not mean that I will tack on George Bush the
sticker of corruption (or whatever else someone might suggest). I don’t
know many things—but that does not give me the right to say that people
who have more authority than me (which buy the way is granted only by
God’s will and knowing (as the Bible says)) are stupid, ignorant, evil,
self-centered, and downright wrong. I am not the CIA, FBI, and US
government combined. And for the sake of the people, the people should
not know all that the CIA, FBI, and US government know.
I hope that I have defended George Bush’s integrity to the point of
convincing you of it. I would like to close with the following: (1)
Rumsfield retired not because George Bush wants a scapegoat to lay the
blame of Iraq on. George Bush has never expressed regret or blamed any
mistakes on anyone else but himself. If you have never seen him admit to
mistakes, then probably you are watching CNN too much (who portray Bush
as a condescending self-righteous dictator and always seem to edit the
clips that FOX include (clips that show George Bush in an honest sense)).
(2) Rumsfield did retire because, soon, the Democratic Congress will try
to indite him (and possibly succeed—Democrats are like buffalo. They can
do nothing alone, but in a huge force, they can destroy an entire field)
and it is much more respectable for Rumsfield to leave office with a good
reputation (and Bush bearing the brunt of the situation) than Rumsfield
remain and have both president and Rumsfield bear the brunt of the
Democratic criticism. (3) Just because you do not agree with the above
reasonings, it still does not mean that Bush is a corrupt politician and
a religious liar. He has never proven himself as such and never will.
Sincerely,
Joe