POLITICS - Post your questions for the Presidential debates

Submit your questions here and vote for those which others have submitted:
http://dyn.politico.com/debate/

I will follow with the questions I have already posed...



Our road, rail, sea, and air transport systems are at and over capacity. How do you plan to address the looming transportation funding crises in the short-term (noting the pending expiration of SAFETEA-LU), and what long-term strategies do you propose to reduce our demand or increase our supply of transportation capabilities?



Our present development patterns tend to involve signifant suburban growth at the cost of rural and urban regions. One side calls this the will of the free market, stating that such growth is beneficial in that it utilizes a surplus of land area to provide goods and services at reduced cost. Another side deems this unsustainable "sprawl" and argues that such development increases the cost of goods and services due to the increased demand on infrastructure. What side do you believe is more akin to your own viewpoint, and how would you intend to further your cause; or, alternatively, to reconcile the two arguments?




To receive federal funding, transportation projects are generally required to examine potential ridership based on existing data which is grown to the build-out year. Now consider a transportation line which is proposed to travel through a blighted urban area where population density is presently low, but redevelopment potential is high. This potential for redevelopment cannot be easily considered in ridership estimates, which can limit the project's viability and hence leave the area blighted.

In a similar sense, what if a transit line is planned to extend into a presently undeveloped region. Developers and the transit agency are willing to coordinate development around this new line -- a modern "streetcar suburb". This could target growth onto a more sustainable system, but ridership estimates for federal funding would likely result in a declined application.

On the one hand, such refusal to accept coordination between transportation and land use may run counter to a sustainable culture: forcing us to build new lines with limited development options. On the other hand, Alaska's recent attempt to build the Gravina Island Bridge to provide access to developable land raised significant concerns about pork spending. Do you believe greater emphasis is necessary on transportation and land use coordination? If not, why not? If so, how do you propose to improve such coordination whilst ensuring that federal funds are not over-dispersed (draining available funds) or given to projects with a limited potential to succeed?




Our current transportation investments result in skewed travel relationships. I can fly from Baltimore-Washington to Boston for less than it costs me to ride AMTRAK -- a transportation with a reduced environmental footprint and a mode which is not particularly likely to be directly involved in an event on par with 9/11. It cost me twice as much to travel on a mode that takes twice the time. Our subsidies toward roadways -- particularly parking -- has similarly resulted in a mode of transportation which, while convenient in that it provides direct point-to-point travel -- is extremely demanding on the environment and our energy needs. Clearly, I do not believe the status quo is adequate. Do you concur, and if so: how would you propose to adjust the public financing of various transportation modes? If you disagree with my viewpoint, how would you propose to maintain AMTRAK's competitiveness versus alternate modes such as road and air?



This question relates to the amount of transportation modes available to commuters -- disregarding freight. Do you believe it best to provide a single mode of transportation or a multimodal system? Consider that a single mode could provide for increased funding targeted toward capacity and operation improvements, and a multimodal system would involve distributed funding -- where each mode is not as capable as it could be if it were the sole mode; but the commuter has options available to choose from. The single mode system is, in general, similar to our present state: dependent upon the personal automobile. If you choose a single mode system, what mode of transportation would you choose to emphasize?

THOUGHT - A vote for Dodd is a vote for Capt. Murphy!

Is it just me, or does presidential candidate Chris Dodd look like Captain Murphy from Sealab 2021?

 

...get that man a jumpsuit

POLITICS - The Vote on Armenian Genocide

The nuts and bolts of the vote on Armenian Genocide:

First, I’ll describe just what exactly this is for those not in the know. Armenians are a Christian ethnic group generally located in the eastern regions of Turkey, near the aptly-named nation of Armenia. The short of it is that hundreds of thousands of Armenian lives were lost, and both viewpoints agree on that. I’m not here to say whether I agree with the vote or not; whether I think the incident was genocide or it wasn’t. Rather, I am aiming to at least share my crazy ideas about what the vote really means about the future. This is not just outlining our view on history: this is directly related to everything that is going on in the Middle East today and what is yet to come.

---------------------------------------------------

OTTOMAN EMPIRE
---------------------------------------------------

Let’s start with some history to bring everybody up to speed on the goings-on in Anatolia (the Turkish peninsula) from the turn of the 19th-20th century up until today:

In the early 20th century, Turkey was undergoing revolution. The Ottoman Empire was on its way out and the Turkish Republic was on its way in. Specifically, toward the end of the 19th Century, the Ottoman monarchy was losing more and more power to the populace. In 1908 through 1909, revolution took its hold and the monarchy effectively lost its power. By 1912, power shifted about and ultimately a group (the Committee of Union and Progress) emerged, wielding the majority of influence through to 1918. The Turkish War of Independence began in 1919, and the founding of the modern Turkish Republic took place in 1923.

Now bear in mind what is going on over in Europe at this time. European monarchies were on their way out, too: the populace was gaining greater power and the royal families were losing power. The monarchies, looking to distract the populace, targeted scapegoats and blamed all problems on them. Hence, Jews and Gypsies – common foreigners throughout all the empires – took the brunt of the blame. The Jews were a particular target due to their perceived wealth, which added to the differentiation between them and the common lower-classes of the general populace; and confiscated loot made for a nice donation to the Imperial treasury.

World War I occurred between 1915 and 1918. All the European empires were rife with xenophobia: each nation thought they were superior to the other; and at the start of the war, everybody happily beat their war drums confident in that they would easily defeat their inferior neighbors. Racism was a fact of life during this time, and the Ottoman Empire faced the exact same issues as the European empires. The Christian Armenians tended to be a rather wealthy ethnic group, which made them prime targets for scapegoats.

The Ottoman Empire had a number of laws which basically guaranteed equality regardless of ethnicity or religion. Ethnic groups recognized by these laws were called “millet”, and sure enough the Armenians were a recognized millet. This alone put the Ottomans above most Europeans as far as tolerance is concerned. However, toward the end of the 19h century, Sultan Abdul Hamid II took the loss of monarchial powers to heart: suspending the constitution and assuming dictatorial powers. A scapegoat was needed to distract the public and solidify their unity: hence the initial confrontations against Armenians during the end of the 19th century.

The efforts of Sultan Hamid II faltered, and the secular “Young Turks” movement led a revolution in 1908 – effectively ousting the monarchy. Sultan Mehmet V took power in 1909, but while the monarchy continued to exist, it had little power. The Young Turks were initially welcomed by religious and ethnic minorities, but during the revolution, a more hard-line offshoot came to power: the Committee of Union and Progress – largely led by three powerful men whom came to be known as the Three Pashas.

---------------------------------------------------
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
---------------------------------------------------

Turkey was still highly unstable and facing significant unrest, so the Committee saw the same need to distract the populace in an effort to rally them behind a common, unifying cause. Come 1915, accusations were made that the Armenians were preparing to ally themselves with Russia (Russia being a member of the Allied Powers during World War I, and the Ottoman Empire being allied with the Central Powers). Hence, from 1915-1917, a war was waged which, at its end, resulted in hundreds of thousands of Armenian deaths – far overshadowing relatively insubstantial Turkish losses.

Here is where the touchy issues really start: some see these acts as genocide and others see these acts as unfortunate incidents arising from a period of unrest, where xenophobia was common throughout both Anatolia and Europe. Both sides agree that hundreds of thousands of Armenians died; the difference of opinion is solely in context. Personally, I think both sides are right, but view any acts as performed by the Turkish government of old rather than its reformed modern incarnation. Regardless of viewpoint, the confrontation ultimately made its way to Germany, forming the foundations of Adolf Hitler’s planning for World War II.

After World War I, the Allied forces took control of Turkey and reinstituted limited power to the monarchy. Between 1919 and 1920, a military tribunal was set up by Sultan Mehmed VI to try leaders for their involvement in World War I. The Three Pashas fled the nation and the military tribunal effectively dissolved the Committee of Union and Progress. The Three Pashas were found guilty in absentia of violating the ethnic/religious tolerance laws. They were sentenced to death, but were never officially executed. Two were assassinated in retaliation by Armenian forces, and another died of disputed circumstances: potentially by a Soviet soldier or potentially by an Armenian assassin.

The Allied victory in World War I instituted harsh penalties upon the losing nations. This led to the rise of fascism in Germany, but also brought about some relative good with the rise of the Turkish Republic. The peace treaty which the Ottoman Empire signed to formally end World War I was devastating to the independence and economy of Turkey. The treaty ceded lands in the east to form the two new nations of Georgia and Armenia. Anger over the penalties accepted by the Sultanate prompted Mustafa Kemal Atatürk to lead Turkish revolutionaries against the Ottoman Empire, the Allied occupation forces (including British, Greek, French, and Italian forces), and forces from the ceded lands of Georgia and Armenia. Per the peace treaty signed in 1923, this revolutionary’s victory formed the secular and relatively peaceful state that is the modern Turkish Republic, ensuring tasty kebabs and döner kebaps for all.

---------------------------------------------------
MODERN TURKISH REPUBLIC
---------------------------------------------------

The peace treaties which defined the Turkish Republic set in motion issues such as that regarding Cyprus, but that’s generally irrelevant to this whole article. What is important is that it was during the turmoil of the revolutionary war that the Kurdish ethnic group in the southeast made repeated attempts at autonomy. These attempts would continue to be made until 1937, when the government placed the Kurdish areas under martial law. Prompted by the polarization of the world during the Cold War (Turkey was a very important Western ally), Kurdish nationalism rekindled in the 1970’s and continues to this day. The more notorious of nationalist movements is that of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a group which aims to create an independent Marxist nation out of southeast Turkey and northern Iraq. The PKK is designated a terrorist organization by the USA, NATO, and the EU, among others.

And so now we come to 2003, when Operation Iraqi Freedom began its incursion into Iraq. Turkey was an important ally during the Cold War, and remained so during this war. After much negotiation, American forces were permitted to use Turkish territory to for supply movement and as a base of operations for the war in Iraq. Critical to these negotiations was a commitment from the USA that it would not support an independent Kurdistan. Access to Turkish soil and airspace was absolutely critical to the USA, as it provide access to the northern portions of Iraq.

Today, the Kurdish regions of northern Iraq are comparatively peaceful. The border passes to the north provide billions of dollars in revenue to the Turkish government; and are all that keep the US forces in the north supplied. Supplies must arrive from Turkey, as it would be too risky to ship supplies from the south (via Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or the Persian Gulf). Syria and Iran are not particularly friendly toward the US (well, personally, I think it’s more the other way around), so we cannot bring in supplies through those borders. The only remaining country is Jordan (which is cordial toward the US), but has generally declined military involvement as it aims to maintain peace with all of its neighbors.

---------------------------------------------------
THE U.S. VOTE ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
---------------------------------------------------

So now, after all that history, we finally come to the vote pending before Congress which would, if approved, formally recognize that what occurred in 1915-1917 was an act of genocide. That would make Turkey (or, specifically, the Ottoman Empire) responsible for what is widely considered to be the first act of modern, systematic extermination of a Human population.

Why now? It’s been 80 years and we’re only now, at a federal level, in a position where it looks likely that we’ll formally recognize the occurrence as genocide? Lo and behold, this is where modern politics comes to play with history.

As we all know, we are fighting an unpopular war in Iraq. “The time to stop the war was before we invaded!” Yes, we all know that, thank you Democratic rhetoric. I blame Republicans for leading us into war just as much as anybody else, but the Democrats are only pointing fingers; not offering solutions. Republicans are generally leaning toward troop increases, which – while not necessarily a good solution – is at least the best (read: “only”) real solution I’m hearing from anybody. OK I’m going to stop before I go off on a rant here, but basically the Democrats want us out of Iraq and they’re failing in Congress at any measures to do it.

The vote on Armenian Genocide may be the best indirect way the Democrats seek to end the war in Iraq. Already, Turkey has ordered that the ambassador to the US return to Turkey for consultations. This is among the strongest messages that a nation can send short of taking less-peaceful actions such as economic penalties or severing diplomatic ties entirely. Severing diplomatic ties is one step short of declaring war, sans the outright hostilities, and Turkey certainly does not wish to go to that extreme with a long-time ally.

Should the vote fail (meaning the USA continues to not recognize the incident as genocide), the Armenian population in America will be dissatisfied; but the world in general will continue on pretty much as it is right now. The war in Iraq will not be directly impacted.

There is a high possibility that the vote will pass and the USA formally recognize the incident as an act of genocide. Now the ball is in Turkey’s court as to how to react. They will react, but by how much is where the delicate politics of the Middle East comes in. The two most potent tools at Turkey’s disposal are the issue on Kurds and the use of Turkish airspace and border crossings.

Turkey has made numerous incursions into northern Kurdish Iraq under the premise of national security, seeking suspects accused of being aligned with the PKK. This generally fits in with the War on Terror and Turkey is a critical ally, so the US has turned a blind eye so long as incursions remain few and infrequent. The US needs to maintain peace with its ally, Turkey; but also with the Kurdish-Iraqi forces which maintain relative peace in the north – freeing manpower and resources to concentrate on the more chaotic southern regions of Iraq.

---------------------------------------------------
IMPACTS ON THE WAR IN IRAQ
---------------------------------------------------

In response to the vote on Armenian Genocide, Turkey has indicated that they may potentially wage a full-scale occupation of Kurdish Iraq. Such a move would completely alienate the Kurdish population against Turkey and destabilize the peaceful northern region. This puts the US in a real bind: support our Turkish allies in cracking down on PKK terrorists under the premise of our War on Terror, alienating our Kurdish allies; or support the Kurds.

We won’t go with the latter. Why? Turkey has a bigger stick. If we supported the Kurds, Turkey would play its ace: use of airspace and border crossings. This is somewhat unlikely in itself as Turkey gains billions of Dollars in revenue from these agreements, but if we supported the Kurds… I’d wager that Turkey would shut these down in a heartbeat. If Turkey restricts either (or both), that is the end of the war in Iraq as we know it. That’d end any support of the Kurds, too. That’s it, right there. There would only be two options:

The first option is to keep fighting the war from the south northwards, using Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf to import supplies. The southern and central regions of Iraq would remain about as they are, but the north would be shot straight to Hell. Public sentiment would go from little to none as even supporters of the Iraq War question what the point is if we can only win two thirds of the country. It’d be an incomplete victory, assuming we could actually win. Nevermind the diplomatic fallout in Turkey itself which would like give rise to anti-American and less-secular movements. We’d then come to option #2:

Option #2 is what we’d either be forced to go with pretty much right away, or it’d take a few months before everything worked itself out such that this becomes the only option. That is: a complete withdrawal from Iraq.

As for the future of Iraq, there are three sections to look at: Iraq generally consists of the Kurdish-aligned north, the Syrian-aligned west, and the Iran-aligned east. Let’s look at the north first:

Turkey would be very likely to continue the occupation of northern Iraq. This could continue indefinitely: the world may either turn a blind eye to it, causing northern Iraq to potentially become annexed to Turkey proper; or the world may begin negotiations to return the land to Iraq. The latter may be likely, as tensions over the Armenian Genocide vote would cool down after a couple years.

During that time, Syria and Iran will likely strengthen their respective influences over Iraq. If the northern region remains occupied or if Turkey succeeds in formally annexing the land, it may inspire Syria and Iran to potentially occupy and/or annex the remaining portions of Iraq. It is possible, given Turkey’s history as an ally of the politically-dominant US, that annexation could be a possibility. If this occurs, the US would face a difficult diplomatic effort in rationalizing the support of a Turkish annexation but not Syrian and/or Iranian annexations. The obvious objection is that the US just doesn’t like Iran or Syria; but that wouldn’t be appropriate grounds, internationally, to block such moves whilst permitting another. So begins the next stage of the great debacle that is the Middle East: the next showdown with Syria and/or Iran.

Now let’s backtrack a bit… what if we support Turkey in cracking down on the PKK? The war in Iraq will continue, but resources and manpower will be drained to nil. This effectively opens a third war in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq: now we’ll be fighting against Kurdistan. Manpower in the south is already short even with the troop surge: our forces address one fire whilst another one burns; they address that second fire while the first one rekindles. If they leave to go north, both of those flames will flare up and the war will be lost.

Unfortunately, we won’t formally end the war for several months at the least – likely not until January 2009, when the Democratic victor wins Presidential election. Not to sound all confident in the liberal party and what-not: frankly I despise all the candidates; but let’s face it: the Democrats are going to win. Until then, with the third front opened up, hundreds of Allied, American, Turkish, Iraqi, and Kurdish lives will be lost unnecessarily. It’s particularly unfortunate in that this is the most likely path that will play out, unless Turkey backs down from its threats and ultimately takes a minor reaction to the vote.

---------------------------------------------------
MY BEST GUESS
---------------------------------------------------

If I were a betting man, I’d say that the vote will pass, Turkey will press into northern Iraq, we will support Turkey and open a third front, there will be twice as many casualty reports hitting the news, and we’ll leave Iraq behind by the end of 2009.

We’ll negotiate with Turkey to leave Iraq, we’ll succeed with those negotiations, and Iraq will be left decimated. Iran and Syria will increase their influence indirectly, but they won’t make a formal attempt at occupation and/or annexation. Anti-American extremists will take hold in Kurdistan and the general Kurdish populace will strengthen their demand for an independent Kurdistan formed from land in Turkey in Iraq.

We’ll be set up for the next round of wars in the Middle East, likely to come around full-circle by 2012.

That’s my guess. Let’s see how it pans out.

CH - Luzern / Zürich

This post has not yet been written / updated. It is to span 29 July, 30 July, and 1 August 2007.

CH - Luzern

Luzern is beautiful: flowers and greenery are always within sight, the city is compact and easily walkable, people seem friendlier than in other cities, I can see a plethora of stars despite being in one of the country’s largest cities, and the nightlife almost seems more energetic than the daylife.

I toured about the city all day. The Verkehrshaus (Transport Museum) was not quite what I hoped: less museumy stuff than I had anticipated. It is very hands on, which would have made this almost as great as Orlando if only I were 15 years younger. This may appeal to railfans… I did my best to snap photos of its rail hardware for my roommate.

The train section had a neat little computer program showing rail access in 1910, 1970, 1997, and a forecast to 2010. Basically you choose a city in Europe (or a few nearby Asian cities) and it shows a color-coded map indicating the distance, in hours, reachable by train. I was confounded when I chose London to find it had apparent access to mainland Europe in pre-Chunnel days, and even more bewildered to find that Ireland has apparently been running trains to the mainland since 1910. I guess the program includes some other transportation modes.

The rest of the museum really felt lacking (good thing it was free with my Swiss Pass). The cars are had a vintage Lamborghini and Ferrari, as well as a lovely NAZI-crafted BMW motorcycle. Seriously, that is one amazing piece of engineering. The planes section had a bunch of engines and some suspended planes, but the helicopters area let me down by its lack of info on the Pedaliante. The sea transport was rather dull, but then again I’m just not as interested in boats unless I’m on one and preferably piloting it. The Swiss Arena was kind of fun: it consists of aerial imagery of the whole country, basically recreating it at a scale of 1:20,000. This may not be too impressive to the Google Earth users of the world, but from the upper catwalk, bend over and peer through the telescopes: it looks 3D.

It occurred to me a week or two ago that the low benches between church pews are not footrests. Of course, I continue to use them as such. I also dab the holy water on my forehead and cheeks to help cool off. My theory is that God wants us to be comfortable and to not put water to waste. …I’ll never fit in as a Catholic. Well, if I’m on the Highway to Hell then, as an engineer, I can at least help it get built.

CH - Meiringen & Trift

My first task for Friday was to travel to Trift, the location of a glacier, a lake, a stream, and – more importantly – a really high pedestrian suspension bridge. Now first, note that transportation to and fro is not the best. Buses from Meiringen to the Triftbahn run infrequently, so check the schedule. Buses departing from Triftbahn are generally hourly, except that my one bus was running 30 minutes late: arriving at the same time as the next bus, running at about 17:00 to pick up the peak hiker traffic. Mind you, it is only a 20 minute trip in total … and the first station of the route is 3 minutes away… how the 16:40 bus was 30 minutes late is beyond me. I’d expect that in Italy, but in the country that practically invented time? Inconceivable!

Then there is the capacity of the cable car itself: 8 people per car, 2 cars, at a 20-minute roundtrip. Fortunately, as I was a solo traveler, I fit in on an ascending car after only waiting about an hour. The descent took a mere 30-minute wait, but that resulted in me just barely missing the 15:40 bus (assuming it arrived) and thus I had to sit around an hour and a half for the next bus. The hike from the base is only about an hour and a half, according to my guidebook, so it may be worth bypassing the lift entirely. Now, all this said, if you take the lift then respect that it is open for use at all: it serves the power station and was not originally intended for tourism.

All the above ranting and I still say that Trift was worth it. So very worth it. The hike itself was lovely: a lot of small bits of rock climbing and on some occasions, the path disappeared entirely. To put it simply: I love sauntering about on rocks. The way between the lift station and the bridge overlook can be done by any able-bodied person, but wear shoes with excellent grip and travel light. From the bridge overlooked down to the bridge and beyond, however, the difficulty changes considerably. To and beyond the bridge, the path is marked with blue and white, indicating intermediate difficulty and some climbing skills required (red/yellow indicates novice trails). The blue/white trail was a blast – I loved it, for as far as I got on it before opting to turn back so-as to ensure I caught the last bus back to Meiringen. If only there were more blue/white trails around.

The bridge itself was very snazzy. Now I should say that I am afraid of heights… not in the sense that I’m paralyzed with fear, but rather that I get this overwhelming urge to jump. It’s pretty much the only part of my own psychology which I just cannot figure out. So basically, just being high up gives me a sweet dose of adrenaline, which is my straight-edge version of cocaine. Now you know why I love climbing trees and why, when on an airplane, my head is pretty much glued to the window. Sometimes I lean over the person in the window seat, if I’m beside them; or I squirm about for a good view if I’m in the aisle seat – setting those in between at unease as I stare intently across their laps with a childish look of excitement blended with ecstasy. So… yeah… the bridge was neat. I ran across it, jumped on it, and tried to swing it back and forth; whereas everyone else just kind of slowly shuffled across one step at a time.

Upon my return, I attempted to get a better view of the Reichenbachfall, which overlooks Meiringen. Alas, I soon discovered that the hiking paths are not very convenient nor do they offer any good views. I thought such anti-hiker setups were unheard of in Switzerland! As best I am aware, the only way to really see the falls is to ride the funicular, which was closed by this point. Just as well: I refuse to pay for something which I can just as easily do myself. This is why I don’t pay to use the bathroom: I can easily pee outside or even on the door to the bathroom, making sure to give the coin-operated lock a good wash of irony. After coming to the harsh realization that the funicular was necessary to see the waterfalls, I decided that I was going to bycott such an arrangement and skip the whole thing. Just as well: I live near enough to Niagara Falls that pretty much the only waterfalls which are going to impress me are Angel and Victoria.

The Aareschlucht (Aare Gorge) was lit tonight and was neat to see. I snapped a couple photos and made my way out. It was quiet cold in there: among my emergence from the gorge it felt that much hotter. Alas, I could only see half the gorge: a gate blocked my way to the Innertkirchen side; why, I do not know. Perhaps that side just doesn’t open for the Wednesday/Friday night openings?

CH - Meiringen

My next stop was only about 15 minutes away, by rail, so I decided to stick around Brienz a bit longer and ride up to the top of the Rothorn. En route, I juggled about with my camera cards to get an inventory of remaining photo space. Result: not much. It was just enough, though, capturing the beautiful view from the trek to, from, and upon the Rothorn.

In Meiringen, my first thought was of how much the downtown reminded me of the downtown of a classic Pennsylvania town, except more vibrant. Makes sense: where I grew up, there is a lot of influence from Swiss Germans. Cars and pedestrians coinhabit this city, which is forced to be compact by the cliffs towering above only hundreds of meters to the north and south.

My hotel, the Parkhotel du Sauvage, is posh: the classiest place I’ll be at this whole trip. It’s where Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once stayed and also where his Sherlock Holmes stayed shortly before the character’s “death” at the nearby Reichenbachfall – which I hope to see tomorrow. Sherlock Holmes’ legacy is very much alive in this tiny community.

The church located on the northern side of town has a pretty clocktower and garden, not to mention the ruins beneath the church which were eerily empty. An sign helps to identify which ruins belong to which time period, and from that it is pretty easy to visualize what the grounds looked like centuries ago.

As part of my hostel stay, I get free access to a local fitness club. I am not one to pass up a whirlpool tub, if offered, and it was too late for any significant excursions, anyway. Upon my arrival, whilst in the men’s locked room, I inspect the prominent warning signs and come up with one conclusion: this is a nude bath. I head back out to the lobby wearing a towel and confirm this, not wanting to emerge naked only to find I’m supposed to have a swimsuit on.

Sure enough, yep I’m supposed to be in the buff. Alright… I’m comfortable enough with my body. I drop the towel and I’m roaming free. Not just that, but I soon confirmed that these baths were co-ed. For the males that must know: nothing spectacular. It was a quiet night and the clientele was a la the mid-day traffic at the Ephrata Rec Center, though the facility attendant was cute in a sort of Uma Thurman-ish way… she seemed to walk through the men’s lockers a bit often, though, not that I am necessarily complaining. I had the whirlpool all to myself for an hour and it was the perfect cure for legs weary after three weeks of hiking about. My two-block walk back to the hotel was as if I was drunk: my legs were like rubber and my mind was as if overdosed on soma.

In my room, I happened upon Les Triplettes de Belleville on TV, partially dubbed into German for the few speaking parts. I had always wanted to see this and am now glad to have had the chance: it is certainly a different movie, and I respect that. It was not at all a kid’s movie, but wasn’t particularly risqué, either. It was just sort of… uniquely French. The animation style is great and the humor is sometimes subtle, sometimes dark, and sometimes slapstick. Definitely worth seeing if you haven’t already.