Circa 1999

8 years ago I was in high school and making plans for the weekend was done by dialing your friends on your parents house phone a few days in advance. Less than 3 years ago I got my first mobile and phone service -years after everyone else- and caught up to the "revolution" and new way of communicating. Plans were able to be made on a whim and in an instant no matter where you were! The mobile became a permanent resident of your pocket (or handbag) along with your wallet and keys. Can't leave home with out it - never minding that you left home without one until you actually got one.

When I come back to the US I keep struggling with the decision on whether or not to go back and get a new service. I've gone as long as 2 months in between not having a mobile and while sometimes it's annoying it's not all together inconvenient. Except, now that everyone has a phone, it is assumed that I am like the rest of the masses. Plans are still made on a whim, but when I am unreachable 75% of the day, I usually miss out on whatever my friends end up doing. And on some days, I've gotten calls and then have had to end up waiting by the phone for the rest of the day for a follow up call (and sometimes they don't even come)! On the one hand it's nice to not shell out 40 some bucks or more (and all those bloody start-up fees!) each month for a device that has for the most part lessened our ability to communicate as a society and also to not feel locked to yet another electronic gadget. On the other, I need to stop being a Luddite and re-enter the mobile world. It's time to cave in (again) and get mobile service. Good bye 1990s!

Bi-lingual Countries Do Not Work!

As I said in my previous post, the republican debates ought to be awfully funny. Or perhaps just awful depending on how you look at politics. Rather than watch the entire charade I went for a run and lost a few fat cells rather than brain cells. I did watch the last 30-ish minutes and here is what I thought.

Everyone: Sucks!

Not quite, but listening to Giuliani made me sick to my stomach. Same with Tancredo and Hunter. McCain is kinda turning into the bumbling idiot that Bush always has been. Ron Paul! I want to see more of him. I don't know why. But for real, Tancredo scares the shit out of me.

Democratic Debate

Because I am both lazy and have nothing better to do I watched the Democratic Presidential Debate. It was on CNN, and they are yet again transmitting to us under the assumption we are morons by reminding us that the Senators running for the Democratic nomination are indeed democrats (they put the little (D) next to their name). From the blogs that I read I only get views and positions on Obama and Edwards mostly, with a few snarks at Clinton and the rest of second tier candidates. So i wanted to see a bit more of the rest of the field and HRC too. From the moment I saw them standing straight and composed behind their podiums I couldn't help but laugh at the pony show I thought would follow. Here are a few thoughts:

Gravel: Who is this guy!? In his 4 or so chances to say something all he did was turn to the rest of the candidates and bitch, whinge and moan. He really is a generator of democratic infighting. I read a comment about Gravel on Dailykos - " Meanwhile, Gravel is eating a pizza at stage right... " So very true! He just sat there the whole debate... with 5 minutes of talk time! Just does not seem serious in his candidacy/campaign. Though every now and then he smacks someone down and keeps people in their place a bit.

Kucinich: Everybody writes this guy off as a legitimate candidate for POTUS, and he he pretty much is. But he probably got the most applause for when he did speak. Never mind he couldn't directly answer the question asked to him - and neither did most every other candidate up there. He does have a hot wife though. And his positions are superb: against Iraq war from the beginning, end NAFTA, end PATRIOT act, Universal Healthcare, is a vegan, etc. Kudos for slipping in GWB is a war criminal!

Clinton: This is pretty much the first time I heard her speak in public. I don't pay much attention to her as I've concluded that she is too much of a hawker. Really inconsistent on Iraq - she trusted Bush! Not admitting she was wrong on her vote to use force. It's hard for me to support her. I'm sure she has good ideas and positions on other things, but I've yet to hear them. I do applaud her for taking it to Wolf tonight with his ridiculous "raise your hand" bullshit along with the inane hypotheticals. THAT was refreshing!

Edwards: On the attack! Right on Iran, right on different types of democracies. Also liked him on his views of gay marriage, as they come pretty close to my own (from what I could gather). Ending public subsidies to oil companies! If I had to decide tomorrow, he is probably the person I'd vote for. But he did vote to use force in Iraq. Hrmmm... Really though, I'm in the -not a clue- category.

Richardson: Snoozefest...zzzzz. He has this stellar resume and pretty much flopped tonight, failing to live up to it. He must have used half of his talk time to explain he is a) a governor and b) from New Mexico. He makes really weird comments too, or maybe he just has a lot of brain farts? "I'm a pro growth democrat!" Or his comments about Roe v Wade and Supreme Court Justices. For now I've lost any interest in him.

Biden and Dodd: Have trouble discerning these two; they look the same and are both east coast senators. Glad to see Biden getting loud on genocide! But he is military action this, military action that. Seems hawkish like Clinton. Dodd had a good response on the English as official language question - that being "no." Also, Dodd seemed to get longest response to the "gas prices" question. He went on and on about long term goals, yada yada and never really answered the question; so I'll assume he would do nothing to ease gas prices - right answer! He also linked energy supply/dependence to national security - a plus. He definitely piqued my interest from these debates.

Obama: I've seen him speak before and his style just won't work with the minute long answers for these so called debates. Saying that he got pretty good treatment. He had the most talk time of everyone but a lot of it was umms and ahs. And he got first response to a lot of questions - the GOOD questions. Kudos to him for attacking the framing of one of his questions (question is meant to divide us). I want to see more of him...he should come to Minnesota! Because even with all that talk time he still didn't really impress me all that much.

The Republican debate is coming up... think of all the comedy and great drinking games! Chug a beer each time evolution is denied! Take a shot each time the use of torture is advocated for! I wonder how much hand raising will be done with them? Man Wolf Blitzer is an ass.... and were those questions from the people really their own? Ha! In the end it was OK, it was far better than the Kerry - Bush debates that were nothing more than prepared speeches. There was too much bias: lower tier candidates got terrible questions, ie: Gravel - What would you do with Bill Clinton? C'mon! And the Kucinich/Osama Bin Laden hypothetical.... pathetic. I was and still remain a bit worried about the Dems candidates but this has made me a bit less dissonant; any of these people running are a welcome change to Bush and are miles ahead of the Republican army of old white guys. Are there any Independents running yet?

The two or three people who I actually want to run have all declined, or most likely won't. Damn!

On Travelling Solo

Writers Block! Sometimes I have all these ideas for posts and then the moment I sit down to get going on them, nothing comes out. Usually it's when I start and finish. All that shit in the middle is pretty easy to hammer out. I want to find a good way to jump into a topic so that anyone who might actually read this blog wants to keep reading beyond the first paragraph. At the end, I like some sort of all encompassing conclusion that makes me look incredibly intelligent. Ever noticed that about my writing (at least in serious posts)?

I'll abandon this format for once, maybe twice or more and jump straight into it:95% of my travelling the last two years has been independent. Just me, a map and a guidebook. The thing is I chose to travel this way rather than find a travelmate and hit the road/seas/rails. Maybe it was all the drama during family vacations, or that longing to get away from someone other than my own self to be responsible to. I can remember being on our quick tour of Holland, Belgium and France before studying in London, 50 of us snaking through the streets of European cities with our big college sweatshirts as we half listened to our guide about when and where to meet. It was quite the scene - one I never want to participate in again! Its far too controlling. Then there is the issue of compromise. Even if you are with just one other person, every decision has to be agreed upon by both. To get to the point, all I really ever recall when I think about group travel are all the exasperated sighs and then finally a feeling of glee as I fled the group and was by myself. Certainly, there are good things to travelling with others, but I'll come back to those(that?).

What I have concluded over these last 18 months is that there is no greater level of freedom than travelling by yourself. Left to your own devices, you alone make all the decisions. I've heard some horror stories from more than a few travellers: I met this girl in Norway who used to travel around with her boyfriend at the time. He controlled the budget and handled the money. He was such a tight ass that in the 2-3 months of travelling she never once was able to buy a coke or snickers. Or go beyond the bread, meat and cheese sections of grocery stores for meals. Well, that sounds more like a bad relationship, but you get the point yeah? Because you make all the decisions, you have no one to blame but yourself if you don't have fun. That gets you pretty motivated - if you do nothing, nothing gets done.

Now and again, travelling solo gets a bit boring. You haven't said much in a while if you've had lots of travel days in a row. A bit of company looks appealing. One evening in Riga I wound up looking for dinner with a random guy who was staying in my room - my idea. I regretted this decision within 5 minutes. He wanted this, I wanted that, I wanted to stop at a bar and watch World Cup, he wasn't too keen. Eventually I told him to just go do what he wanted and I'd catch up later.

You can stop every 10 minutes for photos, you can spend a day relaxing rather than doing activities, you can eat anywhere, go anywhere, randomly change your itinerary, take naps, sleep in, get up early and so much more... all without ever having to consult/discuss/argue with someone else. That is what I am trying to get at with this post, but it is happening in a very convoluted way. You might think I just don't get on with people when I travel. Not true I say! Certainly there are people I like to travel with - I'd put the number around 5. Everyone has their own unique style, or preferred method of travelling and mine just doesn't match up with theirs.

As I said earlier there are pros and cons to solo travel. I've gone through all these experiences and only I am able to remember and retell them. Every time I was at a high point I wanted someone to be there with me. There is nothing better than reminiscing with friends about frozen night trains through Eastern Europe, about reckless driving on deserted highways on route to crazy weekends up north or trying to put into words the tumble you have just taken out of a plane above the alps.

It's good to have someone be able to understand an experience I had, perhaps because they have done the same, or even similar, thing . It is better to be able to relive an experience with someone because they were there. Now that I've had my fill of independent travel, I'd like to start doing a lot more with people (mostly people I like travelling with!).

Let the Training Begin

Yesterday was 1 June - the date I set for myself to begin marathon training! I started it out well enough with a 5 mile run. I hope to get into the habit of consistent exercise, proper hydration and healthy diet. Compare this to running when I feel like it, the occasional glass of water and smores poptarts for brekkie, chips and salsa for lunch and counting one banana as all I need for fruit each day. I hate to even mention all the alcohol and sweets I consume throughout the week. Though the former lifestyle is harder and takes a lot more commitment, it feels a whole lot better than the latter one described. Unless I wanna watch my entrance fee go down the drain, I'm committed to the run. Gotta stick with it!