Saturday, May 13, 2006
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Will this just blow over too?
This is the kind of thing that I always think will definitely change everything. Surely this time the Bush administration can't get away with this! Now that almost every ordinary American, including Red-state bible-thumpers, is probably affected, they too will care. We'll see.
So USA Today breaks a story today that the Bush Administration has been amassing a huge database of all domestic phone calls in the U.S. From what I can tell, the info collected is essentially a cross-tabulation of phone numbers, incoming and outgoing. (By the way, the guy in charge? Michael Hayden. The nominee for CIA head. Nice.) The three largest carriers--Bell South, Verizon (ours!!), and AT&T--all complied. The only holdout in the country was Qwest. If we only still lived in Boulder, we wouldn't have been spied on! And why? Qwest's legal team, and its CEO, actually scrutinized the NSA's request and found it to be of dubious legality. They were willing to endure the high-pressure tactics (including questioning of patriotism) by the government, and stood firm. I wish I could drop Verizon and use Qwest. I'd do it in a second.
My first thought was to remember Alberto Gonzales's testimony to the Senate about the NSA international wiretapping. He would not deny the existence of other spying programs (the example I'm clipping came up over and over, with different specific questions asked by Senators--including about domestic phone calls).
In fact, he was so cagey that, in February this year, the Washington Post's coverage included the following quote:
Technorati led me to an interesting blog entry looking at the laws affecting this case. In short, the Administration will be able to marshal its usual team of right-wing blowhards and government flaks to go out and blanket the talk shows with Bush's defense of the program. But if anyone could actually DO anything, there are laws that appear to make the program illegal. And in case it wasn't already clear, once again we are in a situation in which the government obtained NO WARRANTS for the data it sought.
This just seems so appalling, but I can't imagine any scandal actually sticking to these guys. Still, I'll be making whatever calls I can, to let some folks in Congress and the phone companies know that some of the American public is awake, has a pulse, and is steamed about this violation of our civil liberties. Hope I won't be the only one.
So USA Today breaks a story today that the Bush Administration has been amassing a huge database of all domestic phone calls in the U.S. From what I can tell, the info collected is essentially a cross-tabulation of phone numbers, incoming and outgoing. (By the way, the guy in charge? Michael Hayden. The nominee for CIA head. Nice.) The three largest carriers--Bell South, Verizon (ours!!), and AT&T--all complied. The only holdout in the country was Qwest. If we only still lived in Boulder, we wouldn't have been spied on! And why? Qwest's legal team, and its CEO, actually scrutinized the NSA's request and found it to be of dubious legality. They were willing to endure the high-pressure tactics (including questioning of patriotism) by the government, and stood firm. I wish I could drop Verizon and use Qwest. I'd do it in a second.
My first thought was to remember Alberto Gonzales's testimony to the Senate about the NSA international wiretapping. He would not deny the existence of other spying programs (the example I'm clipping came up over and over, with different specific questions asked by Senators--including about domestic phone calls).
SPECTER: Well, then, let me ask you this.
Under your interpretation of this, can you go in and do mail searches? Can you go into e-mails? Can you open mail? Can you do black-bag jobs?
And under the idea that you don't have much time to go through what you described as a cumbersome procedure, what most people think is a pretty easy procedure, to get a FISA warrant, can you go and do that of Americans?
GONZALES: Sir, I've tried to outline for you and the committee what the president has authorized, and that is all that he has authorized.
LEAHY: Did it authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens? That you can answer yes or no.
GONZALES: There is all kinds of wild speculation about...
LEAHY: Did it authorize it?
SPECTER: Let him finish.
GONZALES: There is all kinds of wild speculation out there about what the president has authorized and what we're actually doing. And I'm not going to get into a discussion, Senator, about...
LEAHY: Mr. Attorney General, you're not answering my question. I'm not asking you what the president authorized.
Does this law -- you're the chief law enforcement officer of the country -- does this law authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens, yes or no, under your interpretation?
GONZALES: Senator, I think that, again, that is not what is going on here.
We're only focused on international communications where one part of the communication is Al Qaida. That's what this program is all about.
LEAHY: You haven't answered my question .
In fact, he was so cagey that, in February this year, the Washington Post's coverage included the following quote:
"It seems to me he is conceding that there are other NSA surveillance programs ongoing that the president hasn't told anyone about,"said Bruce Fein, a government lawyer in the Nixon, Carter and Reagan administrations.
Technorati led me to an interesting blog entry looking at the laws affecting this case. In short, the Administration will be able to marshal its usual team of right-wing blowhards and government flaks to go out and blanket the talk shows with Bush's defense of the program. But if anyone could actually DO anything, there are laws that appear to make the program illegal. And in case it wasn't already clear, once again we are in a situation in which the government obtained NO WARRANTS for the data it sought.
This just seems so appalling, but I can't imagine any scandal actually sticking to these guys. Still, I'll be making whatever calls I can, to let some folks in Congress and the phone companies know that some of the American public is awake, has a pulse, and is steamed about this violation of our civil liberties. Hope I won't be the only one.
Monday, May 01, 2006
From the Dalai Lama
As quoted in The Week:
It is fascinating. In the West, you have bigger homes, yet smaller families; you have endless conveniences, yet you never seem to have any time. You can travel anywhere in the world, yet you don't cross the road to meet your neighbors; you have more food than you can eat, yet that makes [overweight people] miserable. I don't think people have become more selfish, but their lives have become easier and that has spoiled them. They expect more, they constantly compare themselves to others, and they have too much choice--which brings no real freedom.Word.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Right about McKinney
Last week's Newsweek contained a piece written by a young, black, female doctor who lamented the regularity with which patients asked her when the real doctor would be arriving.
The essay nicely makes my first point about Cynthia McKinney--that when you have earned your way to one form of high status, but your very appearance shouts that you have several forms of low status, people who encounter you will have trouble giving you the deference due your high-status position.
But it gets better.
In the current issue, Newsweek readers respond to Dr. Lumumba-Kasongo. One writes,
My point exactly. People are not supposed to claim their status. If it is not granted automatically, then to clamor for it is to be unforgivably grasping. What a dilemma for the woman, or black woman, or young black woman, who has fought and worked and earned her way to the top just as we are all supposed to do, only to be treated as if she's still on the bottom--and if she points it out, to be kicked down yet again.
How can it be that with all the years of experience I have, all the procedures I've performed and all the people I've interacted with in emergency situations, I still get what I call "the look"? It's too predictable. I walk in the room and introduce myself, then wait for the patient—whether he or she is black, white or Asian—to steal glances at the ID card that is attached to my scrubs or white coat. (I've thought of having it changed to read something like: It's true. I'm a real doctor. Perhaps you've seen a black one on TV?)
The essay nicely makes my first point about Cynthia McKinney--that when you have earned your way to one form of high status, but your very appearance shouts that you have several forms of low status, people who encounter you will have trouble giving you the deference due your high-status position.
But it gets better.
In the current issue, Newsweek readers respond to Dr. Lumumba-Kasongo. One writes,
I find it difficult to sympathize with Mana Lumumba-Kasongo, who bemoans the fact that many of her patients don't immediately acknowledge her status as a physician. She has received an expensive and quality education. She is currently a senior resident, working in one of the world's busiest emergency rooms. She is practicing in a profession that will afford her a life of affluence, satisfaction and respect. In short, she will continue to achieve what only a small proportion of young adults can even aspire to, irrespective of race or gender. Rather than complain, Dr. Kasongo should count her blessings and strive to gain the recognition she seeks by becoming the best physician that she possibly can.
-Allen J. Berlin, Albuquerque, N.M.
My point exactly. People are not supposed to claim their status. If it is not granted automatically, then to clamor for it is to be unforgivably grasping. What a dilemma for the woman, or black woman, or young black woman, who has fought and worked and earned her way to the top just as we are all supposed to do, only to be treated as if she's still on the bottom--and if she points it out, to be kicked down yet again.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Cynthia McKinney
Let's see if I can explain this clearly.
I agree that Cynthia McKinney screwed up. She should have worn her lapel pin, she should have at least mentioned that she was a member of Congress. Failing that, she should have shrieked and shrilled, but held back the punch (or slap, or poke, or whatever it is that the news media have not identified for us). OK. Stipulated.
But for a power-and-status researcher like me, McKinney's response is also wholly reasonable and natural. She is a member of Congress. She has campaigned and won her way to a very high status role in our society. Like most high-status people, I am sure she expects a certain amount of deference from others and an ongoing degree of privilege, freedom, autonomy in her actions and choices. High-status people expect others to grovel, to kowtow, to (frankly) kiss their asses. And although a Capitol police officer is also associated with the hallowed halls of privilege, although s/he has a good deal of power (to strike, to arrest, or to detain), s/he is pretty low on the status totem pole. It must go without saying--probably without thinking--for members of Congress that the police will defer to them, will make nice to them, will obey their commands and acquiesce to them. After all, the members are the raison d'etre for the police. The police are the ones who will take the bullet, and the members are those for whom it's taken. This is the status order. This is how it is supposed to work.
On the other hand, Cynthia McKinney is a black woman. A relatively young black woman. And now, a relatively young black woman with a wild hairstyle. She does not look like a member of Congress, according to our automatic associations. Several years ago, to my great shame, I organized a speaking panel (on race, no less!) and invited several faculty members from the University of Colorado to speak. It was all done over e-mail and I had met only one of them beforehand. The day of the talk, I went to the auditorium early, and a few people had already gathered. One was a young (20s-ish) black man wearing a traditional African cap and a black leather jacket. I nodded to him, friendly, and went to greet the one faculty member I knew. While I told him that he appeared to be the first one there, the young black man approached and introduced himself as another of the panel members. I had immediately processed him as not a faculty member. Sure, there was the leather jacket--but I am also certain that my judgment was influenced by his being a young black man.
And so, Cynthia McKinney. She walks past the police and they do not see a Representative. She walks past them and they see a young black woman walking past. She may be well dressed; she may not be a criminal. But she is not supposed to do that, and they stop her. She may have the status role, but she does not have the status markers. She has earned the status, but it's not automatically given to her every day. Instead, she has to claim it, and claim it again, and wake up the next day and remind people that she has it, and claim it yet again.
In America, we are supposed to pretend that status differences don't exist. Although Donald Trump, or Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates may be ridiculously wealthy and have the opportunity to order and abuse just about anyone, they are supposed to joke about it, distance themselves from it; we are all supposed to proclaim that it doesn't happen. The "good" staff of a hotel serving celebrities is one in which the celebrities don't have to compel attentiveness; the staff is just there, ready to volunteer and anticipate, to satisfy the smallest whim before it must be crassly spoken aloud. Anyone who does demand the benefits of their privilege is privately scorned, seen as declasse.
And there is the bind in which Cynthia McKinney finds herself. She has one form of status, but another form of stigma. Because of the stigma, the privileges of status are denied to her. She can assert and claim them, but to do so is itself a violation of the social order. And so she must choose: be quiet and forego privilege? Be loud, claim the privilege, and get slapped down?
Again, I agree that she could have side-stepped the whole thing. But I also think the discussion has not been accurate. It wasn't about race, and it wasn't about her being "batshit crazy" (that's from Drudge--I won't give him the courtesy of a link). It was about all the undergrounded notions of power and status that permeate--but are kept under wraps in--our society.
I agree that Cynthia McKinney screwed up. She should have worn her lapel pin, she should have at least mentioned that she was a member of Congress. Failing that, she should have shrieked and shrilled, but held back the punch (or slap, or poke, or whatever it is that the news media have not identified for us). OK. Stipulated.
But for a power-and-status researcher like me, McKinney's response is also wholly reasonable and natural. She is a member of Congress. She has campaigned and won her way to a very high status role in our society. Like most high-status people, I am sure she expects a certain amount of deference from others and an ongoing degree of privilege, freedom, autonomy in her actions and choices. High-status people expect others to grovel, to kowtow, to (frankly) kiss their asses. And although a Capitol police officer is also associated with the hallowed halls of privilege, although s/he has a good deal of power (to strike, to arrest, or to detain), s/he is pretty low on the status totem pole. It must go without saying--probably without thinking--for members of Congress that the police will defer to them, will make nice to them, will obey their commands and acquiesce to them. After all, the members are the raison d'etre for the police. The police are the ones who will take the bullet, and the members are those for whom it's taken. This is the status order. This is how it is supposed to work.
On the other hand, Cynthia McKinney is a black woman. A relatively young black woman. And now, a relatively young black woman with a wild hairstyle. She does not look like a member of Congress, according to our automatic associations. Several years ago, to my great shame, I organized a speaking panel (on race, no less!) and invited several faculty members from the University of Colorado to speak. It was all done over e-mail and I had met only one of them beforehand. The day of the talk, I went to the auditorium early, and a few people had already gathered. One was a young (20s-ish) black man wearing a traditional African cap and a black leather jacket. I nodded to him, friendly, and went to greet the one faculty member I knew. While I told him that he appeared to be the first one there, the young black man approached and introduced himself as another of the panel members. I had immediately processed him as not a faculty member. Sure, there was the leather jacket--but I am also certain that my judgment was influenced by his being a young black man.
And so, Cynthia McKinney. She walks past the police and they do not see a Representative. She walks past them and they see a young black woman walking past. She may be well dressed; she may not be a criminal. But she is not supposed to do that, and they stop her. She may have the status role, but she does not have the status markers. She has earned the status, but it's not automatically given to her every day. Instead, she has to claim it, and claim it again, and wake up the next day and remind people that she has it, and claim it yet again.
In America, we are supposed to pretend that status differences don't exist. Although Donald Trump, or Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates may be ridiculously wealthy and have the opportunity to order and abuse just about anyone, they are supposed to joke about it, distance themselves from it; we are all supposed to proclaim that it doesn't happen. The "good" staff of a hotel serving celebrities is one in which the celebrities don't have to compel attentiveness; the staff is just there, ready to volunteer and anticipate, to satisfy the smallest whim before it must be crassly spoken aloud. Anyone who does demand the benefits of their privilege is privately scorned, seen as declasse.
And there is the bind in which Cynthia McKinney finds herself. She has one form of status, but another form of stigma. Because of the stigma, the privileges of status are denied to her. She can assert and claim them, but to do so is itself a violation of the social order. And so she must choose: be quiet and forego privilege? Be loud, claim the privilege, and get slapped down?
Again, I agree that she could have side-stepped the whole thing. But I also think the discussion has not been accurate. It wasn't about race, and it wasn't about her being "batshit crazy" (that's from Drudge--I won't give him the courtesy of a link). It was about all the undergrounded notions of power and status that permeate--but are kept under wraps in--our society.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Moral codes
I started this post on March 3 and got--well, a little interrupted since then. So the links may be a little old, but check 'em out anyway. It's still important. It's all still out there.
So--you know the people who talk about the "blame America first crowd," or the "America-haters," or the "guilt-ridden liberal navel-gazers"? I wonder what they think when they hear coverage of our little torture habit. Seems like they probably dismiss it as America-hating propaganda. But this same crowd claims to have--heck, let me be nice--has a very strong moral code. They're the first to condemn immoral behavior, especially if it involves sex.
In the last few days, I've been reading a few things about torture. A harrowing op-ed in the LA Times describes the situation faced by several Guantanamo Bay prisoners from Kuwait. Now, I would be the last to argue that the 9/11 hijackers, or those who want to do more of the same, don't deserve some pretty--shall we say firm?--treatment. But it's so, so easy to imagine that--as the author argues--some warlords in Afghanistan see our terrorist-hunting program as the perfect opportunity to get rid of inconvenient competitors (or just to sell out a few poor schlubs for some reward money). And then the schlubs end up being beaten, shocked, force-fed, and left tied to chairs, forced to crap themselves.
What bothers me, really, is that we are the ones doing this. It is in our name. This is what it means to be an American now. I am American, and my country is doing this, and it's supposed to be what's necessary to protect me, and it's OK to treat a human being this way even though you don't have an ironclad way to affirm that he is evil.
If you talk to most of my fellow citizens, I believe, they will protest that there is no reason to be concerned about Guantanamo Bay because anyone there must deserve what they get. And besides, whatever it takes to prevent another attack, we should do.
Really? So it's not more important to be able to wake up in 10 years and be proud of how we conducted ourselves. It's not more important to have another "good war" like WWII, and not another My Lai. It's not more important to be Caesar than Caligula. (That one's debatable, I know, but take it.)
***
The other thing I read was a piece about the genocide in Darfur. (Link is still not available as of 4/3.) The article was about a student at San Diego State. He grew up in Sudan and watched his family die around him as the genocide developed. He spoke at a high school in Manhattan Beach, telling stories of his simple childhood (well--if you call "having all the kids called inside because lions were roaming around" simple) and its abrupt end. The stories were, of course, chilling. Shortly thereafter, the TV show ER aired an episode in which characters volunteered to give medical care in Darfur. Equally chilling scenes were depicted.
I'm not trying to tell the story here--I couldn't do it justice. But just as I'm disgusted that my nation can commit evil, I am disgusted that we so willingly and obliviously allow others' horrendous evil to continue. Our nation has so much power. We could save human beings in Darfur. Instead, we torture human beings in Cuba.
Sigh.
So--you know the people who talk about the "blame America first crowd," or the "America-haters," or the "guilt-ridden liberal navel-gazers"? I wonder what they think when they hear coverage of our little torture habit. Seems like they probably dismiss it as America-hating propaganda. But this same crowd claims to have--heck, let me be nice--has a very strong moral code. They're the first to condemn immoral behavior, especially if it involves sex.
In the last few days, I've been reading a few things about torture. A harrowing op-ed in the LA Times describes the situation faced by several Guantanamo Bay prisoners from Kuwait. Now, I would be the last to argue that the 9/11 hijackers, or those who want to do more of the same, don't deserve some pretty--shall we say firm?--treatment. But it's so, so easy to imagine that--as the author argues--some warlords in Afghanistan see our terrorist-hunting program as the perfect opportunity to get rid of inconvenient competitors (or just to sell out a few poor schlubs for some reward money). And then the schlubs end up being beaten, shocked, force-fed, and left tied to chairs, forced to crap themselves.
What bothers me, really, is that we are the ones doing this. It is in our name. This is what it means to be an American now. I am American, and my country is doing this, and it's supposed to be what's necessary to protect me, and it's OK to treat a human being this way even though you don't have an ironclad way to affirm that he is evil.
If you talk to most of my fellow citizens, I believe, they will protest that there is no reason to be concerned about Guantanamo Bay because anyone there must deserve what they get. And besides, whatever it takes to prevent another attack, we should do.
Really? So it's not more important to be able to wake up in 10 years and be proud of how we conducted ourselves. It's not more important to have another "good war" like WWII, and not another My Lai. It's not more important to be Caesar than Caligula. (That one's debatable, I know, but take it.)
***
The other thing I read was a piece about the genocide in Darfur. (Link is still not available as of 4/3.) The article was about a student at San Diego State. He grew up in Sudan and watched his family die around him as the genocide developed. He spoke at a high school in Manhattan Beach, telling stories of his simple childhood (well--if you call "having all the kids called inside because lions were roaming around" simple) and its abrupt end. The stories were, of course, chilling. Shortly thereafter, the TV show ER aired an episode in which characters volunteered to give medical care in Darfur. Equally chilling scenes were depicted.
I'm not trying to tell the story here--I couldn't do it justice. But just as I'm disgusted that my nation can commit evil, I am disgusted that we so willingly and obliviously allow others' horrendous evil to continue. Our nation has so much power. We could save human beings in Darfur. Instead, we torture human beings in Cuba.
Sigh.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
More to say today
The LA Times carries an op-ed today about the Winter Olympics, complaining (as echoed by Stephen Colbert--note: that link may not stay current) that the US team isn't serious about winning. My first impulse was to dismiss this as more of the "we deserve to be number one no matter what" tripe that I first heard in the "Japan is beating us" 80s.
The author, Kevin Drum, makes two interesting points, though. First, he mentions that snowboarding outfits, with their baggy pants and hanging clothing, aren't exactly engineered to increase speed for what are ostensibly racing events. Second, he points out that one snowboarder is competing with her iPod in her ears, and another lost the gold when she decided, instead of gunning for the win, to make a cute, bad-ass pose at the end of her race.
It occurred to me that this is the generation raised on Little League games in which no one was declared a winner and everyone got a trophy. It's the generation put through the rat-maze of the "self esteem" movement, in which if you couldn't understand basic math, you got promoted to algebra and beyond anyway. (I know--I taught the kids 10 years older than these when I worked at a residential treatment center in the early 90s. They were in Algebra II and couldn't do basic multiplication. But it would have made them feel bad to be flunked, right? Let's not think of how bad they felt once they got to me.)
As a culture, we teach our kids that there is no reason to work or try. Why should the Olympics be any different? In the end, I thought that Drum was probably right to complain. Only it's not the athletes he should be scolding. It's the rest of us.
The author, Kevin Drum, makes two interesting points, though. First, he mentions that snowboarding outfits, with their baggy pants and hanging clothing, aren't exactly engineered to increase speed for what are ostensibly racing events. Second, he points out that one snowboarder is competing with her iPod in her ears, and another lost the gold when she decided, instead of gunning for the win, to make a cute, bad-ass pose at the end of her race.
It occurred to me that this is the generation raised on Little League games in which no one was declared a winner and everyone got a trophy. It's the generation put through the rat-maze of the "self esteem" movement, in which if you couldn't understand basic math, you got promoted to algebra and beyond anyway. (I know--I taught the kids 10 years older than these when I worked at a residential treatment center in the early 90s. They were in Algebra II and couldn't do basic multiplication. But it would have made them feel bad to be flunked, right? Let's not think of how bad they felt once they got to me.)
As a culture, we teach our kids that there is no reason to work or try. Why should the Olympics be any different? In the end, I thought that Drum was probably right to complain. Only it's not the athletes he should be scolding. It's the rest of us.
In case you thought I was paranoid...
The Nation gives me fodder again today. In an article about Princeton University's conservative beachhead, Max Blumenthal writes:
So--yes--and let's see, we're just 6 years away from the end goal. I'm happy to report that the overthrow seems much farther away than that, at least.
For decades conservatives have viewed America's university system as a dangerous cradle of radicalism. Frank Chodorov, founder of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), was among the first to propose a campaign to assert right-wing influence over universities as a central tactic in the conservative movement's grand strategy.
"What the socialists have done can be undone, if there is a will for it," Chodorov wrote in his 1962 autobiography, Out of Step. "Individualism can be revived by implanting the ideas in the minds of the coming generations.... It is, in short, a fifty-year project."
Under the guidance of former Nixon Treasury Secretary William Simon, who once compared universities to insane asylums, industrial chieftains like John Olin, Harry and Lynde Bradley, and Richard Mellon Scaife bankrolled the fifty-year project, funneling whopping grants to outfits like Accuracy in Academia and ISI. While Accuracy in Academia hyped and, on occasion, manufactured supposed "campus political correctness atrocities," ISI provided a support structure for right-wing academics while grooming a cadre of student activists to, in the group's own words, "battle the radicals and PC types on campuses."
So--yes--and let's see, we're just 6 years away from the end goal. I'm happy to report that the overthrow seems much farther away than that, at least.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Some folks left their brains in San Francisco
Well, I'm back already. Didn't expect this, but I checked SF Gate.com right after I published the last post, and discovered this gem.
Apparently a city near San Bernardino has passed a resolution withholding payment for travel to, or attending workshops held by, San Francisco. The City by the Bay has offended their delicate sensibilities in its government's anti-war stance, and many in Highland (the SB city) see SF as a bunch of freaks that should just be wiped off the face of the earth. Nice.
There's one quote I particularly like:
Apparently a city near San Bernardino has passed a resolution withholding payment for travel to, or attending workshops held by, San Francisco. The City by the Bay has offended their delicate sensibilities in its government's anti-war stance, and many in Highland (the SB city) see SF as a bunch of freaks that should just be wiped off the face of the earth. Nice.
There's one quote I particularly like:
The outspoken McCallon was not willing to cut San Francisco any slack, especially after Sandoval's statement.
"It's a beautiful city," he acknowledged, "but I subscribe that to God, not to anyone up in San Francisco.
Hmmmm. Interesting perspective. The fact that SF is beautiful isn't credited to the foresight of its citizens (and zoning boards), and the fact that much of Red-state Middle America is gross and ugly is totally not its own fault. So if Highland isn't beautiful (I've never been there--but that seems a safe bet), then that's 'cause God decided it should just suck?
And we won't even go into the use of "subscribe"...
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Rocky Mountain highs and lows
What a couple of weeks. We were in Colorado from Feb 9 through 15. A great trip. A little work thrown in, but primarily a real winter getaway. We stayed in Frisco, up in Summit County, just a 15-minute drive from Copper Mountain, where we skiied for 4 days. At first, I thought we were just extra wimpy after getting LA-spoiled by temperate weather; but in fact, our local friends (Sudie, and her boyfriend Tony) were shivering just as much. It was 3 degrees the first day we skiied. Seriously! And the next morning, when we all got up, the car thermometers read -19. It was insanely cold.
Of course, while skiing, the cold was not so noticeable--only going up the lifts did my fingers turn numb inside my heavy-duty, Gore-Tex mittens (with liners and disposable heat-packs tucked in the open space). As long as my hat covered my hair and forehead, goggles covered my eyes, and neck gaiter covered the rest of my face...I was OK! Noah cursed his clothing the first day (yes, literally), and it was understandable. Winter really does encumber.
The 3rd and 4th days were much better. Temps were in the 30s and 40s, which felt downright balmy when we had to walk around the mountain's base. It helped me to remember how I could have felt that Colorado winters were so tolerable, even comfortable. That seems ludicrous every time we complain about 60-degree days. On campus yesterday, for example, every time an exterior door opened, I heard loud laments about how "freezing" it was. I think the high was 58.
We had a terrific time visiting with my Dad and Mark, who came up for most of the time to share the condo and enjoy their own winter getaway. They went snowshoeing, (dog) sledding, skiing, and shopping--the 4 Ss--and it seemed like a lot of fun. I think next time I'll take one day off from skiing (oh, the sore quads!!) and try some of those alternatives. Sudie and Tony snowshoed one day, too, and then skiied with us for two days. Actually, not with me--I was sticking to the easier slopes, as my legs complained loudly every time I tried to carve a turn. But Noah divided his time between them and me, and I think he got more skiing in than any of us. Mark turns out to be quite a good skiier for not having hit the slopes in 15 years. And Dad gave it a try for the first time ever, at 65. Impressive. He looked pretty comfortable during the brief time I watched. Hopefully he'll go again before too long.
Though we all went out to dinner the first night, it was a bit exhausting, and I think none of us was really excited about the noise and crowds of the apres-ski scene in Breckenridge. So we tended to have quieter meals after that--spaghetti and meatballs (fake & real) one night, a sort of scrounge-for-yourself the next. We got to bed at around 8 or 9pm and slept about 12 hours a night. Even so, on our way home, I got the cold that Sudie was battling during the whole trip. She was a trooper; I, less so.
We spent some time in Boulder on both ends (including my time meeting up with folks from CU). On the 14th, Noah and I celebrated our 10th "dating" anniversary. On that date 10 years ago, I showed up at his apartment ready to declare my feelings, and instead stammered in a corner to get him to declare his. It worked out. And how nice that we were back in the same place, 10 years later, for one night only. We had Valentine's Day dinner at Chautauqua Dining Hall, just the two of us--the same place where we had our wedding reception. It was a very nice symmetry and, despite our fatigue, a romantic dinner.
Of course, right afterward, we high-tailed it to Denver, to check into our airport hotel for about 4 hours of sleep before getting on a 6am flight the next morning. I had to teach that next day at 3:30, and we planned our flights to allow for any mishaps. Good thing, as we missed our connection in Phoenix (well, actually we didn't--the airline just said we did--that's a whole 'nother story) and had to spend some stressful hours waiting to catch up with the planning. In the end, I made it to class, delivered two lectures (sore throat and all), and we settled back into our lives very smoothly. I taught my other class on Thursday, taught one makeup class on Friday, and today we have been relaxing.
Kibble had his first stay at a kennel. He came back a bit shell-shocked, but intact. He has also settled back into his life, and has remembered our family relationships and our affection for him with no trouble. Once Noah gave him a bath and made him bearable to smell (kennels do lead to stench, don't they?), he's been a joy to cuddle.
That's it for now. No politics or philosophy today, just the update. More soon, I hope.
Of course, while skiing, the cold was not so noticeable--only going up the lifts did my fingers turn numb inside my heavy-duty, Gore-Tex mittens (with liners and disposable heat-packs tucked in the open space). As long as my hat covered my hair and forehead, goggles covered my eyes, and neck gaiter covered the rest of my face...I was OK! Noah cursed his clothing the first day (yes, literally), and it was understandable. Winter really does encumber.
The 3rd and 4th days were much better. Temps were in the 30s and 40s, which felt downright balmy when we had to walk around the mountain's base. It helped me to remember how I could have felt that Colorado winters were so tolerable, even comfortable. That seems ludicrous every time we complain about 60-degree days. On campus yesterday, for example, every time an exterior door opened, I heard loud laments about how "freezing" it was. I think the high was 58.
We had a terrific time visiting with my Dad and Mark, who came up for most of the time to share the condo and enjoy their own winter getaway. They went snowshoeing, (dog) sledding, skiing, and shopping--the 4 Ss--and it seemed like a lot of fun. I think next time I'll take one day off from skiing (oh, the sore quads!!) and try some of those alternatives. Sudie and Tony snowshoed one day, too, and then skiied with us for two days. Actually, not with me--I was sticking to the easier slopes, as my legs complained loudly every time I tried to carve a turn. But Noah divided his time between them and me, and I think he got more skiing in than any of us. Mark turns out to be quite a good skiier for not having hit the slopes in 15 years. And Dad gave it a try for the first time ever, at 65. Impressive. He looked pretty comfortable during the brief time I watched. Hopefully he'll go again before too long.
Though we all went out to dinner the first night, it was a bit exhausting, and I think none of us was really excited about the noise and crowds of the apres-ski scene in Breckenridge. So we tended to have quieter meals after that--spaghetti and meatballs (fake & real) one night, a sort of scrounge-for-yourself the next. We got to bed at around 8 or 9pm and slept about 12 hours a night. Even so, on our way home, I got the cold that Sudie was battling during the whole trip. She was a trooper; I, less so.
We spent some time in Boulder on both ends (including my time meeting up with folks from CU). On the 14th, Noah and I celebrated our 10th "dating" anniversary. On that date 10 years ago, I showed up at his apartment ready to declare my feelings, and instead stammered in a corner to get him to declare his. It worked out. And how nice that we were back in the same place, 10 years later, for one night only. We had Valentine's Day dinner at Chautauqua Dining Hall, just the two of us--the same place where we had our wedding reception. It was a very nice symmetry and, despite our fatigue, a romantic dinner.
Of course, right afterward, we high-tailed it to Denver, to check into our airport hotel for about 4 hours of sleep before getting on a 6am flight the next morning. I had to teach that next day at 3:30, and we planned our flights to allow for any mishaps. Good thing, as we missed our connection in Phoenix (well, actually we didn't--the airline just said we did--that's a whole 'nother story) and had to spend some stressful hours waiting to catch up with the planning. In the end, I made it to class, delivered two lectures (sore throat and all), and we settled back into our lives very smoothly. I taught my other class on Thursday, taught one makeup class on Friday, and today we have been relaxing.
Kibble had his first stay at a kennel. He came back a bit shell-shocked, but intact. He has also settled back into his life, and has remembered our family relationships and our affection for him with no trouble. Once Noah gave him a bath and made him bearable to smell (kennels do lead to stench, don't they?), he's been a joy to cuddle.
That's it for now. No politics or philosophy today, just the update. More soon, I hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)