Having a wonderful time reminiscing about all my past travel (and other) adventures. Hope you’ll share them with me in my blog, “All Roads Led to Russia.”
They’re incredibly beautiful, with pale fur and black faces, and described as very intelligent and social. But they’re native to Africa . . . not to Missouri.
Vervet Monkeys
Yet an unknown number of them — estimated between two and four, according to witness reports — are presently at large in St. Louis.
They have been identified by the St. Louis Zoo’s primate expert as Vervet monkeys, but no one knows where they came from or how they got loose . . . except, of course, their most recent owner, who hasn’t as yet come forward, most likely because they know it is illegal for individuals to own primates or other exotic animals in Missouri.
These little cuties are obviously smart enough to have evaded capture despite several sightings, and presumably they are finding food and shelter somewhere. I’m relieved that ICE agents haven’t managed to track them down, as they are clearly illegal immigrants — which also means they are in danger of being classified as domestic terrorists if they try to defend themselves.
I, for one, hold out hope that they will find their way to Washington (perhaps following in the footsteps of the Buddhist monks), where they — the monkeys, not the monks — will invade and take control of the White House, send its present occupant via oil tanker to Venezuela, and return a semblance of sanity to the federal government. After all, we could do worse than having a couple of monkeys running things.
It’s a matter of public record that the epicurean delight we know as the sandwich was named after one John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, in 1762. That nobleman is said to have been an inveterate gambler — so much so that he did not appreciate having his card games interrupted by anything as mundane as mealtime. So he ordered his servants to arrange some meat between two slices of bread, enabling him to hold onto his cards with one hand and his food with the other, without getting either of them greasy.
John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich
Of course, the sandwich as we know it today has evolved to the point where it wouldn’t be recognizable to the Earl — usually consisting of many layers of a variety of ingredients, often slathered in some sort of dressing, rendering it impossible to hold with one hand while doing anything else with the other except perhaps wiping one’s chin . . . thus defeating the Earl’s original purpose.
Okay, this is a little extreme
And what, you may be asking yourself, led me to this discussion of 18th-century British nobility and the equally noble gastronomic concoction we all love and consume by the truckload? Well, it was, of course, something I stumbled across while surfing the net.
As it turns out, Montagu did not originate the idea of convenience food; he merely popularized it. In fact, it had existed for centuries in one form or another, such as the Middle Eastern wrap made with flatbreads, and the highly improbable — and seemingly impossible — “Hillel sandwich” devised by the Jewish people who were not allowed to eat leavened bread during the eight days of Passover.
I say the Hillel sandwich seems impossible because what they had to use in place of the usual bread was unleavened matzo, which, as you may know, is as stiff as a board and crumbles into crunchy little shards when you touch it. So how, I wondered, would one eat a matzos sandwich? And I concluded: Very carefully.
But of course that wasn’t enough for me, so I went on a search for more information, and found actual AI instructions for a matzo wrap, described as “a versatile meal or snack made by gently softening a sheet of matzo so it becomes pliable enough to fold around various fillings like a tortilla.”
And I wondered what my grandparents would have thought of a Jewish tortilla, because I know — I am absolutely positive — that I never saw anything like that when I was growing up.
Oy!
Matzo Wrap (from toriavey.com)
But having lived nearly half their lives in 19th-century Russia (the part that is now Ukraine), they had to be clever in order to survive. So perhaps such a thing did exist there, and they simply preferred to leave it behind them when they came to the promised land of America in 1905.
Anyway, in the certainty that I have aroused the reader’s curiosity, I will share with you an abridged version of the instructions I found:
1.Dampen the matzo: Briefly run a square of matzo under cool water for about 20-30 seconds, ensuring the entire surface is wet.
2. Soften it: Immediately wrap the dampened matzo in a clean kitchen towel and let it sit for about 7-10 minutes. It should be flexible enough to fold like a tortilla or wrap around fillings.
3. Fill and fold: Add your desired fillings. [Here AI goes on to describe a “tortilla hack” fold. If you really care, you might just Google “matzo wrap” and give it a try.]
4. Cook (optional): [This contains instructions for a “warm, crispy wrap,”using an oven, air fryer, or skillet.]
So now, after you’ve gone to the considerable trouble of softening the matzo to make it pliable, they’ve just told you how to make it crispy again. Don’t ask . . . just assume it’s an old-world Jewish thing. That’s what I always do.
But wait . . . there’s more. The bots (or whatever they are) at AI go on to offer suggestions for fillings, including hot dogs (kosher, no doubt); beef brisket; eggs and cheese (hold the bacon); pizza sauce with cheese and veggie toppings; and a tuna, cheese and sliced tomato combo for those who can’t go eight days without a tuna melt.
And there are other sites with recipes that actually look delicious. But I’m getting hungry just thinking about them, so I’m going to close now, try to forget about food, and get some actual work done. If you’re interested, though, feel free to start scrolling.
Also, if you’re up for a little extra-credit research, check out the history of why we don’t eat bread during Passover. It obviously took a great deal of ingenuity to keep up with God’s requirements in biblical times.
In 1997, New Line Studios released a film titled “Wag the Dog” — a political satire in which a Hollywood producer (played by Dustin Hoffman) and a spin doctor (Robert De Niro) are hired by the U.S. government to fabricate a war with Albania in order to distract the public from a presidential sex scandal expected to break just weeks before an election.
Robert De Niro, Anne Heche and Dustin Hoffman in “Wag the Dog”
If you think the plot sounds vaguely like art imitating life, you’re not wrong. But that’s just the beginning; check out these lines from the script, as spoken by Dustin Hoffman’s character:
“It’s all, you know, thinking ahead thinking ahead. . . . Yeah, it’s like a plumber: do your job right and nobody should notice. But when you fuck it up, everything gets full of shit.”
Or this . . .
“Look at that! That is a complete fucking fraud and it looks a hundred percent real. It’s the best work I’ve ever done in my life, because it’s so honest.”
. . . and my particular favorite:
[gunshot] “Oh, god, he’s dead. Oh, my god . . . oh, my . . . oh . . .” [opens door] “Wait a minute, wait a minute, he’s not dead. He’s all right . . .” [second gunshot] “Strike that.”
*. *. *
That’s more than just art imitating life; it’s real life being played out on a screen 28 years before it actually happened, with only the names changed to protect the guilty.
I really need to watch that movie again. Care to join me?
No . . . it isn’t likely that Marco Rubio would ever inherit the presidency of the United States, as he is fourth in the line of succession. Although, if Congress were to impeach and convict Donald Trump, JD Vance, and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, that would leave only 92-year-old President Pro Temp of the Senate Chuck Grassley between Rubio and the Oval Office . . .
Order of Succession
But seriously, the odds are slim. However, there’s always Cuba.
No, wait. This is not a joke. It’s also not my idea. A little background:
In his mania to realign the entire western hemisphere, Donald Trump has threatened Cuba with a complete cutoff of oil from its main source — Venezuela — screaming in ALL CAPS on Truth Social yesterday:
“Cuba lived, for many years, on large amounts of OIL and MONEY from Venezuela. In return, Cuba provided ‘Security Services’ for the last two Venezuelan dictators, BUT NOT ANYMORE! THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA – ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.” [George Wright, BBC, January 11, 2026.]
Typically, he didn’t offer specifics of any deal he might have in mind, or the possible consequences in the event of Cuba’s refusal. (By the way, he also failed to mention the 32 Cuban nationals who were reportedly killed during his little invasion of Caracas . . . but they had most likely slipped his mind as being of no importance.)
“. . . OR ELSE!”
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez responded that his country had the right to import fuel from any exporter that would sell to them, “without interference or subordination to the unilateral coercive measures of the United States,” and that, allegedly unlike the U.S., Cuba does not lend itself to “blackmail or military coercion against other States.”[Id.]
How quickly they seem to have forgotten the Castro years, the decades of control by the Soviet Union, and that little matter of the Soviet missiles on their island aimed at the U.S. mainland in 1962. But never mind . . .
Fidel Castro and Nikita Khrushchev
Then, as tends to happen on social media, some clown who obviously finds the threat of war amusing posted a message suggesting that Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, might become president of Cuba. And Trump saw this as a great idea, re-posting that bit of idiocy with the comment:
“Sounds good to me!” [Id.]
“O.M.G.!”
*. *. *
Setting aside for the moment the complete absurdity of the idea, I have a serious question: Has Trump — or anyone else in his administration, for that matter — ever considered what his immigration policies would have meant a generation ago for people like the parents of Marco Rubio, Usha Vance, and Kash Patel . . . or, even more recently, for his own wife Melania?
It almost seems designed to distract us from something even more threatening . . . this deluge of ongoing or imminent catastrophes called Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, Colombia, Gaza, Syria, Mexico, Cuba, Minneapolis, Portland, and wherever else you might stick a pin in the world map.
Perhaps to distract from the Epstein files? Maybe.
But the one continuing cataclysm we cannot allow ourselves to overlook is the war in Ukraine, about to enter its fifth year of unrelenting death and devastation.
Kyiv, Ukraine – January 10, 2026
And we are in danger of doing just that. What has happened — since Donald Trump’s unforeseen invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of its president — to the flurry of negotiations that had been taking place among Ukraine’s allies? While Europe’s “Coalition of the Willing” continues to scrape together aid, Washington and Moscow are silent . . . except, of course, for the constant barrage of Russian missiles and drones on Ukraine’s cities and villages.
Aid Center for those without power, heat or water – Kyiv, Ukraine
Neither should we overlook the gift that has been handed to Vladimir Putin by Trump’s recent attempts at empire-building — besides the opportunity to delay peace talks, that is. I’m talking about the carte blanche he, and his fellow autocrats in China, North Korea and elsewhere, have been given to move forward with their own expansionist plans. Certainly, if Donald Trump can get away with grabbing Venezuela, why shouldn’t China take Taiwan, or Russia set its sights on Moldova, Poland, or the Baltics? What’s sauce for the goose . . . right?
So this is a shout-out — another one — to Congress, beseeching them to get off their collective fat ass and keep the fight for Ukraine moving in the right direction. For the sake of the rest of Europe, and indeed the rest of the world, we must not let Ukraine burn to the ground while we’re occupied with keeping Trump’s other brush fires under control.
Let’s face it: we are living in a history-making Time of Troubles, daily facing unimaginable exhibitions of stupidity and unbearable acts of evil on a monumental scale.
Author Jim Butcher, in his urban fantasy novel series “The Dresden Files,” writes of his preference — a Solomonic choice at best — between the two:
“Evil isn’t the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as Evil, maybe more so, and it’s a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against Stupid. That might actually make a difference.”
– Jim Butcher – “Vignette (The Dresden Files, #5.5)”
Jim Butcher
But what if Stupid and Evil come wrapped together in one hideous, mentally unstable, seemingly unstoppable force of nature with cankles and a really bad comb-over? And our only “choice” would be to disable that force . . . knowing that what lurks in the wings is just as bad, or worse?
Jim Butcher’s crusade against Stupid sounds good on its face. But he writes fantasy, while we are trapped in the real world. We need a third choice.
Sorry, folks; but upon analysis, today’s quote doesn’t really provide any solace or the sort of insight we need. I’ll try to do better tomorrow.
On June 10, 2025, I reported on the mysterious case of Joseph Tater, an American citizen who had been arrested in Moscow for “petty hooliganism,” or what appeared to have been disorderly conduct, in August of 2024.
Joseph Tater, in Moscow Court of General Jurisdiction
In April of 2025, when he was scheduled to stand trial, he was instead apparently moved to a psychiatric facility, and was said to be on a list of Americans whose release the U.S. government was attempting to negotiate. But on June 6, 2025, the Russian news agency TASS announced that Tater had been discharged because “the clinic had no reason to keep [him] and released him for outpatient treatment.” [RFE/RL, June 6, 2025.]
The article then added, confusingly, that “Tater was no longer in Russia but that his current whereabouts were unclear.” [Id.]
And that is where the trail goes dark. No further word was received from Russian sources as to Tater’s destination when — or if — he left Russia. Similarly, there has been no comment from U.S. sources.
So where is Joseph Tater? The early reports of his detention indicated that he was, at best, suffering from confusion and disorientation. He had apparently committed some relatively minor infractions of the law. So why was he suddenly, and without explanation, released — seemingly on his own recognizance?
Russia does not allow foreigners — particularly those who have run afoul of the law or who may be suffering from some mental disorder — to roam randomly around the country, seeking “outpatient treatment.” The most likely scenario would have been his transfer into the custody of U.S. officials. But why has there been no further word from him or from the U.S. government? And if he did indeed leave Russia, why won’t anyone say how he exited the country, or where he was headed? Is he even alive? Did he not have a friend or relative somewhere who would be looking for him?
Until these questions are answered, Joseph Tater — in my mind, at least — appears to have been disappeared by a person or persons unknown, which qualifies him for an unenviable spot on my hostage list.
*. *. *
And for those known hostages remaining in limbo, here they are again, with no reported changes since last week:
Victims of Greed:
The President, First Lady, and citizens of Venezuela
Europeans Under Threat:
The people of NATO and EU member states
Prisoners of War:
The 19,500 Kidnapped Ukrainian Children The People of Ukraine
Immigrant Detainees in Russia:
Migrants from the Central Asian nations of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan
Endangered Exiles:
Mikita Losik Yulia Navalnaya Countless Journalists and Other Dissidents
Andrei Chapiuk Uladzimir Labkovich Andrzej Poczobut Marfa Rabkova Valiantsin Stafanovic Yuras Zyankovich
In Georgia:
Mzia Amaglobeli
In China:
Chenyue Mao (American)
In Russia:
The “Crimea 8”: — Oleg Antipov — Artyom Azatyan — Georgy Azatyan — Aleksandr Bylin — Roman Solomko — Artur Terchanyan — Dmitry Tyazhelykh — Vladimir Zloba
James Scott Rhys Anderson (British) David Barnes (American) Gordon Black (American) Hayden Davies (British) Antonina Favorskaya Konstantin Gabov Robert Gilman (American) Stephen James Hubbard (American) Sergey Karelin Timur Kishukov Vadim Kobzev Darya Kozyreva Artyom Kriger Michael Travis Leake (American) Aleksei Liptser Grigory Melkonyants Nika Novak Leonid Pshenychnov (in Russian-occupied Crimea) Nadezhda Rossinskaya (a.k.a. Nadin Geisler) Sofiane Sehili (French) Igor Sergunin Dmitry Shatresov Robert Shonov Grigory Skvortsov Eugene Spector (American) Joseph Tater (American, disappeared) Laurent Vinatier Robert Romanov Woodland (American)
Those who take their religious beliefs seriously will tell you that killing another human being, other than in self-defense, is a sin. And even those who do not adhere to a particular religion are more likely than not to accept the premise that the survival of civilization depends upon a code of ethics designed for the overall benefit of mankind: a sense of morality, if you will . . . of simply treating one another as we would wish to be treated.
As a result, in virtually every nation, there are laws aimed at the protection of the innocent and the deterrence and punishment of those who would do harm to others — murder being considered one of the most heinous of crimes. And those laws allegedly apply to all persons equally.
But, human nature being what it is (i.e., imperfect), it always turns out that some are more equal than others. And those at the pinnacle of command will inevitably find a way to justify their illegal and immoral actions.
War, it seems, is always a good excuse for a little homicide.
And the 18th-century philosopher known as Voltaire understood this, and summed up the phenomenon with this ironic comment:
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”
Thus are the trumpets sounding today in such far-reaching lands as Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, and Venezuela; on the waters of the Caribbean, the eastern Pacific, and the Atlantic; and — to a lesser degree though for an equally nefarious reason — on the streets of Portland, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis.
The perpetrators of these atrocities would have us believe that they are being committed in self-defense, or defense of country. But in not one single recent instance has this been proven to be true. In reality, it is the work of those who consider themselves “first among equals” staking their claims to the position of leader, much as a lion fights to become “king” of his pride.
The irony, the hypocrisy, and the level of sheer chutzpah are indescribable.
In an interview with the New York Times, Donald Trump has said that the only constraint to his authority as President of the United States is:
“. . . my own morality, my own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me . . . I don’t need international law.” [Maya Yang, The Guardian, January 8, 2026.]
(Had I been the interviewer, I’m not sure I would have been able to keep a straight face at this point. But that’s probably why I don’t work for the Times, or any other respectable publication.)
On the subject of whether he believes his administration is subject to international law, Trump said “I do” . . . and then qualified it with:
“It depends on what your definition of international law is.” [Id.]
(I didn’t realize that definition was in question, but again, what do I know?)
And on the importance of the U.S. taking control of Greenland:
“Ownership is very important. Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do with, you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.” [Id.]
(Not very articulate, as usual, but spoken like a true real estate salesman. It’s not about national security; it’s all about his personal success. And being able to do things like tear down the East Wing of the White House.)
Then there was his justification of the attacks on Venezuela, in which he reiterated that Maduro had allegedly been sending hordes of gang members to the United States:
“This was a real threat . . . You didn’t have people pouring into China. You didn’t have drugs pouring into China. You didn’t have all of the bad things that we’ve had. You didn’t have the jails of Taiwan opened up and the people pouring into China.” And he added that no criminals were “pouring into Russia.” [Id.]
(Well, that should dispel any doubts we may have had about his admiration of the world’s most evil authoritarian strongmen, and his obsession with becoming one of them.)
*. *. *
I find it difficult to express the level of my appreciation at having been privy to this lecture on morality from the world’s leading expert on moral turpitude. My day is now complete.
When we ask ourselves what has happened to the United States, how the Republican party allowed itself to be hijacked by a right-wing malignant narcissist and his fanatic, lunatic-fringe followers, and how we the people failed to see it coming, we need only look to the late George Orwell for a complete understanding of all of it.
George Orwell (1903-50)
As long ago as 1949, Orwell’s preeminent, dystopian novel “1984” foretold of a country called Oceania, ruled by a single Party whose omnipotent leader was known as Big Brother. And in one long paragraph from that book, everything we are witnessing and experiencing today becomes blindingly clear:
“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
The Blog About Everything … and Sometimes Nothing 