"Is that a woman using that handheld TV screen? What is a woman doing on this train?"
...making the trip into town by three separate modes of transit (Light Rail/streetcar from the hotel to the train station; Amtrak between cities; Metro to work) would get real old real quick. And just the getting up early! I, for one, enjoy going to sleep secure in the knowledge that even if I miss my alarm and wake up an hour late, I can still make it to work something resembling on time. I won't have eaten breakfast or put on pants necessarily, but I'll BE THERE. Under my own steam if necessary. And that's the real crux of it. Being far out, you've really got little choice but to entrust your commute to a bunch of impersonal departure boards and vehicle operators you can't even see. Hour and a half bike commute? Sign me up. Same time on the train every day? No thanks. Don't get me wrong, I love trains. Yes, they require an incredible amount of infrastructure built through corridors inhabited by people who can't afford to use them (another issue entirely,) but I enjoy them all the same. I just couldn't bear to have my work day extended by hours of sitting/staring on either end.
Yeah, I know what you're thinking, "man, like all of America commutes in exactly the way you described. Stop complaining that you had to do it once, you have it so super great always." And to that I say "obviously you haven't read the heading about 'unsolicited judgment on life' or the bit where I declare my perspective a Valyrian steel greatsword of inscrutable truth. Yes, I realize I've no cause to complain over any commute that lasts less than an hour in the DC area, but I also pay entirely too much to live in an apartment that's entirely too small in exchange for the privilege of such a commute. Anyhow, that little jaunt should be the last of my interstate travel in the run-up to getting on a plane to Quito. Big ups to Aaron for graduating from Syracuse this month, good luck with the new job little brother. Congrats to Andy at Tulane as well.
As hectic as things have been, I'm trying to stay abreast of the goings-on down south. Now, many Latin American countries have been harshly critical of the U.S. over the last couple decades (not without reason,) and President Correa's administration is no exception. So I suppose it shouldn't have surprised me that the top story of the day was the Iranian state news agency reporting on Ecuador's avowal of support for Iran's nuclear program, and dismissal of the "lies" told by the U.S. and the rest of "the West" about the whole possibility of less-than-peaceful use thing. Like President Obama and same-sex marriage, my position on this issue has "evolved" over time. Suspicion that Iran's refusal to let us give them the technology for nuclear energy meant that they're making weapons has been replaced by the probability that it's more an issue of maintaining face and not wanting to do anything that makes them appear subservient or dependent on other countries in any way. Indeed, embedded in that offer is the tacit accusation that, if left to their own uranium enrichment devices, they'll obviously make weapons with it, which is basically a continuation of their consignment to the "Axis of Evil." I happen to think we all would have been better off if the AofE speech had never been made, and that we need to get as far away as possible from that sort of thinking. It'd be interesting to know whether Ecuador's tempestuous history with U.S.-based oil companies has any impact on the apprehensiveness with which they seem to view our policy toward other nations' energy programs. And toward other nations in general. Future research topic? All signs point to MAYBE.
OK, 2nd cup of coffee is wearing off and lunchbreak is almost over. Coming soon: medical fun, last-minute preparations, and more!
Saddle song of the week: Of Monsters and Men- "Little Talks"