Why o why don't I go skiing more often? It's fantastic! Granted, getting such a gorgeous day like today was, with excellent snow, temperatures in the forties and sun! sun! sun!, makes it all the sweeter. But still. Even when the weather isn't as perfect, it's still fun.
Friends of ours basically dragged us out of bed this morning, pointing out that we couldn't let this day escape. We haven't skied in almost a month, and were just fine with spending the day lounging around doing nothing. But when I stepped of the elevator at the top of the mountain, I had to admit that spending this day doing anything else wounld have been committing a sin. A cardinal sin.
My wife wasn't planning on skiing at all. She thought she wouldn't feel safe and the pregnancy has changed her point of gravity. But at the last moment we took her skis with us. And just as well. She tried going on the bunny slopes, but eventually decided the 'real' slopes. And she had a blast! At the end of the day she even took the lift to the top with the rest of us.
She skis so gracefully. Why can't I glide down the slopes like that? It's not fair.
Thursday, March 6, 2003
Wednesday, March 5, 2003
Just got some pictures developed from our trip to NY on Feb 15. You can click on them to view a larger version.
Only six of them, but they do give a glimpse of what I saw.
Only six of them, but they do give a glimpse of what I saw.
Monday, March 3, 2003
After a few days of temperatures in the thirties, it's back to sub-zero. And wind. Which is quite uncommon here. But - and i do hesitate to say this - I like it more like this.
These last few days may have been warmer, but instead we've had the slush. The infernal watery almost-snow material. Plus the much higher humidity, making for a more biting cold. A friend of mine wrote to me yesterday from Denmark, complaining about exactly that damp, gnawing cold. And it's still in the thirties over there.
That's when it hit me. I like it cold. That is, I like it cold or hot. Not bland. All or nothing.
But then again, that really shouldn't have come as any surprise to me.
These last few days may have been warmer, but instead we've had the slush. The infernal watery almost-snow material. Plus the much higher humidity, making for a more biting cold. A friend of mine wrote to me yesterday from Denmark, complaining about exactly that damp, gnawing cold. And it's still in the thirties over there.
That's when it hit me. I like it cold. That is, I like it cold or hot. Not bland. All or nothing.
But then again, that really shouldn't have come as any surprise to me.
Sunday, March 2, 2003
Thursday, February 27, 2003
It is fascinating to see the media circus here in the United States regarding the proposed invasion into Iraq. I only see the press, radio and web side of it, but I guess the TV coverage is at least as one-sided.
Day after day, the various so-called 'news' media will pump out stories about how strange France and Germany are, not to want this invasion to take place. These two countries are portrayed as weird and isolated. Their motives are questioned. The French are even called ungrateful, because they 'owe' it to the US to look the other way since the US rescued them during WWII! No mentioning that the US acted like WWII was none of their concern until the attack on Pearl Harbour took place... But, I digress.
Not once have I read or heard anybody in this 'news' media circus refute this nonesense. The fact of the matter is that during the discussion in the UN's Security Council, a pitiful minority of nations supported the invasion. Currently, the US does not have the required 9 out of 15 votes needed in the council. Not by a long shot. More importantly though, the discussions in the council have revealed that a vast majority of those that spoke there is against the invasion. The only place I could find any reference to this fundamental fact, was in the online version of The Washington Post. There, buried in a piece called US, Britain Push UN Resolution Despite Opposition you could find this snub recount of the real news: "Of the 27 envoys who spoke on Tuesday, only four supported the U.S. position -- Australia, Japan, South Korea and Peru."
The piece goes on to make the very dubious claim that "[a]mong the 36 delegates who spoke on Wednesday, Washington received varying degrees of support from about half, including Macedonia, Albania, Uzbekistan, Iceland, Serbia and Montenegro, Latvia, Nicaragua, South Korea, the Marshall Islands and Georgia". This is slanted journalism, at best. Take for example Iceland, and the speech made by that country's ambassador at this session. In it, the representative states that although Iraq must disarm in accordance with UN resolution 1441 and "firm pressure must be maintained", still "the inspectors should be given more time". The ambassador also states that "UNMOVIC and IAEA have our full support, and we commend the able leadership of Drs. Blix and El Baradei". Finally, the representative stated that the "use of force must always be the last resort for the Security Council" and only pursued if other measures have failed.
Now, in all fairness, which position does this appear to be closer to, the US - or the French? Would you describe this as a declaration of Iceland's "support for Washington" in this matter?
Hardly.
Day after day, the various so-called 'news' media will pump out stories about how strange France and Germany are, not to want this invasion to take place. These two countries are portrayed as weird and isolated. Their motives are questioned. The French are even called ungrateful, because they 'owe' it to the US to look the other way since the US rescued them during WWII! No mentioning that the US acted like WWII was none of their concern until the attack on Pearl Harbour took place... But, I digress.
Not once have I read or heard anybody in this 'news' media circus refute this nonesense. The fact of the matter is that during the discussion in the UN's Security Council, a pitiful minority of nations supported the invasion. Currently, the US does not have the required 9 out of 15 votes needed in the council. Not by a long shot. More importantly though, the discussions in the council have revealed that a vast majority of those that spoke there is against the invasion. The only place I could find any reference to this fundamental fact, was in the online version of The Washington Post. There, buried in a piece called US, Britain Push UN Resolution Despite Opposition you could find this snub recount of the real news: "Of the 27 envoys who spoke on Tuesday, only four supported the U.S. position -- Australia, Japan, South Korea and Peru."
The piece goes on to make the very dubious claim that "[a]mong the 36 delegates who spoke on Wednesday, Washington received varying degrees of support from about half, including Macedonia, Albania, Uzbekistan, Iceland, Serbia and Montenegro, Latvia, Nicaragua, South Korea, the Marshall Islands and Georgia". This is slanted journalism, at best. Take for example Iceland, and the speech made by that country's ambassador at this session. In it, the representative states that although Iraq must disarm in accordance with UN resolution 1441 and "firm pressure must be maintained", still "the inspectors should be given more time". The ambassador also states that "UNMOVIC and IAEA have our full support, and we commend the able leadership of Drs. Blix and El Baradei". Finally, the representative stated that the "use of force must always be the last resort for the Security Council" and only pursued if other measures have failed.
Now, in all fairness, which position does this appear to be closer to, the US - or the French? Would you describe this as a declaration of Iceland's "support for Washington" in this matter?
Hardly.
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Q: What is more pathetic than being a geek?
A: A geek-wanna-be.
They are the ones that want to be able to do all the geeky stuff that geeks are always doing, but just do not have what it takes. I guess I have always been one of them.
Imagine using a computer scanner to scan old LP's and then writing software, a kind of a 'digital needle', to actually read it and produce sound. Just coming up with the idea fascinates me. Making it actually work, however, is just magic in my book. Pure magic.
A: A geek-wanna-be.
They are the ones that want to be able to do all the geeky stuff that geeks are always doing, but just do not have what it takes. I guess I have always been one of them.
Imagine using a computer scanner to scan old LP's and then writing software, a kind of a 'digital needle', to actually read it and produce sound. Just coming up with the idea fascinates me. Making it actually work, however, is just magic in my book. Pure magic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
