I forgot to tell everyone: the new main blog is here: My Blog of Miscellany.
This blog is going to be for Russia travels only. Just have to get some free time and get the photo situation worked out. Which might be a while.
Okay, I'll try and keep this short:
1. Costa Rica was great.
2. Now I'm back in the US.
3. I'm thinking of changing the blog format, but I haven't decided what to do yet.
4. I'm much easier to find on Facebook for now.
5. Check back at the end of the month, when I will most likely be posting again.
So, it looks like the video embedding phase has passed, and now I can write about what's really on my mind, which is this:
I'm going home soon!
And also:
I'm spending a week in Costa Rica!
For some reason*, though, I'm really freaked out about botflies. Even though a botfly infestation is probably not going to be harmful (I've searched the internet, but I can't find a single example of long term healh problems caused by botflies), they still really creep me out.
The best piece of advice I have heard is to prevent mosquito bites (there are a lot of reasons why this is a good idea) and iron everything, as sometimes the flies lay eggs on wet clothes.
Speaking of travel advice, I read this article recently. I agree with most of what she says, though I also agree with the commenters that she glosses over safety issues a bit. I think there are two reasons for this:
1. It's a short article. What do you want?
2. There is so much information out there about how dangerous and weird other countries can be, especially for American women (actually, for us there is a lot of information out there about how dangerous and weird every single square foot of the planet, including your own home, can be), that she is setting herself up as the opposing voice.
I'm actually really bothered by the assumption that a short article on women travelling has to deal with safety issues. A longer, more in-depth, article about a specific location would, of course, have to address safety issues, no matter who it was aimed at. But a short interview?
Well, I've written about this before, actually.
As for her comments about not feeling comfortable in the Middle East, I think most American women would agree. I find it far more interesting that she has a friend who does feel comfortable there. I'd like to see an interview with her next.
What she was getting at, though, is that if you travel to a country where you look very different, you are going to get a lot of attention. If you can't deal with that (I couldn't, but now I can), you have to choose your destinations more carefully (I did, but now I don't).
(I also feel compelled to add that 5'2" is not really tall in Asia. I was hoping it might be, but it is not).
* I'm pretty sure the reason is that they are fly larvae that burrow into your skin, grow, and then burrow back out again.
I am home sick again today. However! I am not going to get into my views on Eurovision semifinals. If I want to be healthy, I should avoid such emotional strain.
But I am in a video-embedding phase, and I am truly sorry about that if you read this blog from work. I'm sure it'll pass soon. In the meantime, here is a literal video:
At first I thought it was a good balance to all the Eurovision stuff. I was going to say that it shows that American singers can do zany productions, too, but thanks to wikipedia I now know that it proves no such thing. Step it up, America!
And here's a literal video where the lyrics make more sense than the original version:
I bought both the dresses. Now I'm spending the first day of June being sick.
So, Eurovision was in Moscow this year. I toyed with the idea of going, but I hate crowds, it would probably be cold, being May and all, and I'd get a better view of things on TV anyway. It also ends really late and I live outside Moscow. On the other hand, it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. In the end, I decided I wanted to go, only to find that tickets were (and had been) sold out forever. Anyway, I totally made the right decision. Or, rather, I made the wrong decision too late so it defaulted to the right decision because I am Homer Simpson.
First I'd like to address the voting, which was always, to me, the most interesting aspect of the whole thing.
They CHANGED it!!! The voting, I mean. Or, rather, they changed it back. Well, halfway
(It's a little more complicated than this, but...) Before 1975, the results were determined by professional juries. In 1975, the move was made to televoting. Now (at least in Russia), you vote by text message. I don't think viewer voting will ever be dropped entirely, and for good reason.
The problem was western Europe. Voters aren't allowed to vote for their own country (if they were, you could basically just change the name to Russiavision and get on with it). The voting trends are block voting, which is geographical, and diaspora voting, which is what happens when immigrants vote for their country of origin. So, if your country is nice enough that people don't want to leave it and stable enough not to have been divided into a bunch of little countries recently, you don't get a lot of votes.
I would argue that both of these trends are a) interesting, b) more cultural than political, and c) part of Eurovision. (I also think it pays to look at the list of winners over the past ten years. No repeats).
But Britain started complaining about its bad results, and Britain is one of the four big sponsors of the contest. The others are France, Spain, and Germany, and I don't know if they were complaining or not. Anyway, without the four biggest sponsors, Eurovision apparently doesn't happen, so something had to be done.
And so, the new voting system was introduced. Now a country's results are determined half by televote and half by professional jury. This was their choice:
Cons: he can't really sing. It also sounds like he's making up the lyrics as he goes along. I don't know if that's a problem with his singing or a problem with the lyrics. I suspect both.
Pros: nice eyes.
Obviously, the pros outweigh the cons.
I've spent the past few weeks explaining to people that I don't really object to this being the 2009 Eurovision winner. You know what I object to? This being the Eurovision winner with 387 points (out of 504 possible). I don't really object to this breaking the previous record. I object to this breaking the previous record by 95 points.
Way to go, Britain. Way to go.
Now there's some speculation that the juries chose Norway because Norway is in a good enough financial position to put on a show next year. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but that is the only way this makes sense. Maybe next year they can conspire together to give Portugal a win (they've never won, and they started competing in 1964). Hopefully, they'll make it a little less obvious.
Speaking of Portugal, I kind of love this:
Also notice the little Russian lessons that appeared at the beginning of each song. It's not a bad idea, but do not try to pronounce them as transcribed, as they will make no sense.
Iceland and Denmark just reminded me of American music (the sound, not the look). Let's see if you agree or if I've just been out of the country too long:
Second place. At least check out the background at 1:47.
I like this one.
Anyway, I saw these two and thought, "wow...northern Europe must be having an American music moment right now." And then Norway came on. "Never mind." The less said about Finland (which came later), the better.
But you were probably expecting something disastrously over the top and inappropriate. Here's Ukraine:
And Germany:
Easily my favorite song of the night (oh pseudo-retro German Eurovision entries, why can't I quit you?), but I can't take the staging. The singer is American, by the way. You'd think at some point he'd be like, "this looks kinda like Cabaret. I'm just not sure that's a good idea."
So that's my Eurovision dissertation. I didn't even get started on the semifinals, mostly because I avoid them. I like to be surprised. But the semifinals impact the voting, and apparently I feel very strongly about Eurovision voting.
Stuff I wanted to post about today includes, but is not limited to:
1. Murmansk (giant statue)
2. Eurovision! (distressing results)
3. Why I feel sorry for pinnipeds (no arms)
4. Inadvertently propositioning a student (text message)
But I'm going shopping tomorrow and maybe actually buy a new dress for the first time in ages, so that overrides everything.
True or false: I need this dress.
The picture is blurry because I didn't really want people to think I was a weirdo who takes pictures in the dressing room. It's the one on the right here.
a) True.
b) So very true.
c) Not untrue.
d) While I don't think "need" is the word I would use, the gist of what you're saying is true.
e) If they had arms, they wouldn't be pinnipeds.
True or false: What I actually need is this dress.
a) True.
b) So true.
c) It would be true if you were actually going to wear it as a sleeveless dress, but we all know you're not.
d) Why not both?
e) Doesn't Eurovision always have distressing results?
Sometimes I'll read an article about Asperger's syndrome and I'll think "hey..." but then I think, no, if that were my problem I wouldn't be self-aware enough to identify it as such.
Normally I'd ask if anyone else does this, but I don't need to because I can use my serious empathy skills to guess that they do.
That actually doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand, except that it all fits into the larger theme of my lack of people skills.
I was thinking more about having a type and how it can affect one's love life, or not.
Somebody I work with has had at least two, possibly three, different girlfriends this year (it is either A-B-C or C-B-C. I am too polite to ask), but I didn't realize this until last week because I thought they were all the same person. Specifically, they all look like his ex-wife. I would think that after all the drama and breakups one would want to try something new, but apparently not. I think he just really, really has a type and can't do anything about that.
On the other side, two guys I know from high school both ended up with girls who are nothing like what their type was back then. (Thank you, internet!*) I don't know if their type changed, or if it just turned out not to be so important in the end. A lot can change in a few years, but neither of them was the type to settle, and I seriously doubt that that is the case.
I always say, with six billion people in the world, you can certainly find someone (or a lot of someones, if my student is any indication) who is your type. But six billion people is a lot. I suppose you could also find someone inexplicably attractive enough to make you not care that you have a type.
My own situation, like most things in this world, had more to do with me than with other people: Andrey tells me a girl is pretty, I look at her and see that she has darker skin than me and no hips to speak of and conclude that she looks nothing like me and we should break up. But people actually have more than two features, so who knows what he looks at?
So I might be his type after all, but at the same time it might not matter if I am or not. That should be the end of it. Of course, it isn't.
* Don't judge me! My serious empathy skills tell me that you stalk people on the internet, too.
It's been a while since I've done one of these:
Arkady (arguing with someone else): F*ck you!
Me (looking suitably horrified): You can't talk to people that way.
Arkady: I'm sorry, Marin. I don't know the polite way to say this.
When Andrey and I started seeing each other, I told him that I was not going to lose weight, I was not going to get a tan, and I was planning on aging like a normal person and that if that bothered him he could find someone else who met his standards. He thought it was weird that I felt I had to make such a declaration.
Someday I might post the tale of this photo. Now I'm posting the photo because Andrey said that the blonde girl standing next to me was pretty and, while I couldn't disagree with that, I resolved to break up with him when there was a good opportunity to do so. My reasoning? If she is his type, then I couldn't possibly be. And why waste time with someone you're not attracted to?
But then later I remembered that a person can find a number of different "types" attractive.*
And, if I weren't appallingly insecure, that would be the end of it.
But now Andrey works with a girl who he thinks is really beautiful and who looks nothing like me. And they also like the same books. So, once again, and even moreso this time, I'm not sure why I should even bother sticking around. Right now I just avoid her, but it is hard to do this without being rude. If I don't avoid her, I feel uncomfortable around her, which makes me more shy and withdrawn and un-charming than usual, which makes it even more clear that, if we are competing, I will lose.
I guess I can take comfort in the fact that apparently I'm not the only one with this problem.
I'm just assuming that the problem is that she looks nothing like me. This makes Andrey the bad guy for wasting the time of a perfectly nice girl who is just not his type.
But the problem might be that I'm really insecure, in which case I'd feel bad even if the girl looked exactly like me.
The obvious solution, then, is to clone myself, send the clone to work with Andrey, and see how that makes me feel.
(Seriously, though, I feel really bad about this and I could use some advice on whether it's worth it to stick around or if I've already lost).
* You know, this doesn't prove anything other than that celebrities tend to be attractive. I just had fun making the list.
Happy Easter! I meant to post something on Easter, but I was too busy celebrating.
See, there were two things I decided to do for Lent:
1. try to understand people, especially the ones I dislike
2. go to church every Sunday
The second was easy, the first not so much. On the one hand, now I am far more likely to look at other people and try to see where they're coming from. And this makes me more forgiving. On the other hand, it doesn't work perfectly. There are some people I can forgive a little but still dislike a lot. And on the little-known third hand, I should not actually have to understand people in order to forgive them. I should just be forgiving. But I won't beat myself up over that last point because conditional forgiveness is better than nothing.
I also had to face the fact that I'm polite but not nice. I worry too much about making a good impression on people and not enough about actually improving their lives. More often than not, those two go hand-in-hand, which is why I never thought about it before.
Anyway, the problem with those first two Lent things is, they're what I'm supposed to be doing year-round anyway. I intend to keep up with the first, and I intend to do better with the second, but it takes an hour and a half to get to church, so I'd be lying if I said I planned to go every Sunday. Maybe every other Sunday.
Since the first two weren't really sacrifices, exactly, I decided that the third thing would be to read the whole Bible. In order to do this, I had to give up other books. Even at that, I did not read the whole Bible, just most of it, and I skipped around a bit. But I seriously, seriously missed just being able to read whatever. To make matters worse, I was in the middle of a novel when Lent started.
So you can probably guess what I've been doing since Easter.
Incidentally, the Bible thing might have been a bit counter-productive, since I came away from it with no understanding whatsoever of fundamentalists. It is not actually physically possible to take everything the Bible says literally.
But that, my friends, is a problem for next Lent. I'm going to go finish Middlemarch.*
* One of the characters in Middlemarch objects to dog ownership. I am not sure how I feel about that.
Having lived with my brain for the past few decades, I've grown quite accustomed to it. So there are certain things I do without thinking and without realizing that they're weird until somebody tells me that I'm being weird.
Not that that inspires me to change my ways or anything.
So, recently, it's come to my attention that my grocery shopping habits are weird. Specifically, I do not buy food with photographs of people on the package. I avoid food with drawings of people, but I can overcome that if the food is really good and/or on sale. But photos? Forget it.
I made some comment about this to a friend and she looked at me like I was insane. You could argue, though, that it's unnatural to have people on food labels. The label should show you the contents, right? When I first moved to Russia, I certainly relied more on the pictures than the words. So the simplest, clearest picture always won out. You could argue that I'm just exercising brand loyalty now.
You could argue that. Except that this isn't a new thing. And it's not just food. I'm the same way with books. Photos of things? Fine. Illustrations of people? Fine. Photos of people? No.
I was going to say that I probably get this from my mother, as it seems like something she'd do, but last summer she bought me a copy of Atonement with photos of the actors from the movie on the cover. So, not from her. Also, I'm a weirdo for remembering that.
I'm not a total weirdo, though. I'll buy DVDs and magazines with photos on the cover without giving it a second thought. So far it's just food and books. And cosmetics. And picture frames.
I can't be the only one, can I?
I'm not married and I don't have any kids, and, as such, I don't have opinions on raising children. I have OPINIONS on raising children.
Today's OPINION is about circumcision. It just seems like this topic has been coming up (so to speak) a lot lately, always in conversation with other women who aren't married and don't have children.
Except for one argument with my mother, who has children. She was shocked and disappointed that my views were so extreme.* But, as for the rest, we all have extreme views. I am strongly opposed.
I am sure that's a big surprise. The simple reason is, I don't believe that unnecessary surgery should be performed on infants. Unnecessary surgery on someone who is not only too young to make an informed decision, but who is also too young to make (or at least communicate) an uninformed one.
People either strongly agree or strongly disagree with that. I have not heard anyone say that she'd leave it up to the kid's father, who, after all, might have more insight into the situation.
Because people have such strong opinions, I never really try to change their minds. But I also think that, if "unnecessary surgery on an infant" doesn't do the trick, I don't really see the point in continuing the argument. To me, that's the only argument you need.
But today I have some time on my hands:
1. "It lowers the risk of HIV transmission/cancer/other horrible condition."
I am not trying to be funny when I say that I kind of want to have my appendix taken out just so I don't have to worry about it anymore. I have a friend who almost died because she didn't know she had appendicitis. If there were a way to have my appendix out for free with local anaesthetic, I would be all over that.
Most people look at me like I've lost my mind when I say this. Some people think I'm onto something.
But imagine I'm saying the same thing about a newborn baby: "Isn't she cute? We've scheduled her appendectomy for next week. Of course it will hurt, but it's healthier in the long run." I hope you would call child protective services.
2. "I don't like foreskins."
Speaking of calling child protective services... To be fair, I think that what they mean to say is:
2a. "Girls don't like foreskins."
Honestly, I hope this is true. I do not want my kids to be sleeping around! And I especially do not want them sleeping around before they're 18, at which point they can get whatever surgery they want in order to facilitate the sleeping around.
3. "But it will hurt later. If you get it done when they're babies, they won't remember the pain."
But it's not like it's something they'll need to get done eventually and therefore it's best to get it out of the way when they won't remember it. It's optional, and by having it done when they're babies, you're taking that option away. It's like giving your kid a bunch of tattoos because they might want them someday.
So, for the record, I am opposed. Honestly, I would want it to be illegal but for the fact that a lot of people would get it done underground.
I didn't address any religious arguments because it's not my place to do so. Also because nobody I've discussed this with is religious. Anyway, I think it's a change that needs to be made within the religious communities (Jewish, Muslim, I don't know of any others) that do it. For a not-so-good parallel, I'd find it weird if a Jewish or Muslim person questioned the practice of baptizing infants, but I'll listen to Christians who question it.
If you read the Bible (another Lent thing I'm doing), it's easier to understand why Jewish people continue this practice. It's more significant than I had realized before reading the Bible. I haven't read the Quran, so I can't really comment.**
* I didn't ask you this at the time, but what did you expect from someone who is opposed to dog ownership? I mean, I am not really known for my grasp of complexity and nuance, nor my acceptance of practices that I decide are unnatural.
** If I had a minute for every time I said this, I'd have read the Quran by now. No joke.
Because I know everything, I've concluded that, if I made movies then they'd either be about 10 minutes long or really, really boring. It would look something like this:
1. protagonists meet and fall in love
2. they arrange to be together then go on with their lives
Or this:
1. protagonists don't fall in love because it's inadvisable
2. they go on with their lives
I know this because during movies I tend to say stuff like this:
"He should just bite her and then they could be vampires together."
a few minutes later...
"Okay, he should wait four years, then bite her, so she can buy alcohol for them."
Yeah, so, I watched "Twilight" yesterday. I have to say, I liked it. I wonder if so many people hated it because it was so popular. I do kind of wish that it was either a dark and serious movie or a romantic one, and not trying to be all middle ground. What I mean is, the film is too dark and depressing for you to feel happy at the end, but at the same time I was left wondering why anyone wouldn't want to be a vampire. A less serious film would be mindless fluff, but there is a place for mindless fluff in the world.
A more serious film would have focused more on positive and negative aspects of vampirism. Do more recently-changed vampires shy away from eating people because they remember what it's like to be human? Is it that older vampires grew up during a time when there was less respect for human life? Or is it just a coincidence that the non-human-eating vampires in the movie tend to be younger? I thought it was interesting that they would kill an evil vampire but not evil humans. What's with all the self-hatred? Why hide from humans? Why not just be like "hey, we're vampires but we only eat animals. Unless you bother us. Is that going to be a problem for you?" I would like these questions answered.
So I guess my main complaint about Twilight is that it isn't X-Men.
I also wanted to say something about how you shouldn't sneak into your girlfriend's house and watch her sleep, but that sort of implies that it's ok to sneak into other people's houses and watch them sleep, or to sneak into your girlfriend's house for reasons other than sleep-watching. My actual advice is, don't sneak into ANYONE'S house.
I decided that I was going to try harder to understand other people for Lent. This mostly involves forgiving people who I know, as I have been amazingly unforgiving, but I'm also trying to be more understanding in general. So, while this post is pretty judgemental (hey, we're just ten days in), it is based on an honest question.
I'm putting this thought into writing because it's been bothering me for a really long time:
I do not understand people who need to have biological children.
Is that just me being weird again or do other people feel this way too?
I do know that it's not really my business. And I can understand wanting children.
I even understand wanting biological children because I understand loving somebody so much that you want to create a child together because you're sure that anything you create together will be awesome. But, in the land of unicorns and rainbows where I apparently live, you would also love that person enough to be like, "let's not put you through thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars worth of uncomfortable-at-best and dangerous-at-worst fertility treatments that may or may not work."
Personally, I would not want to stay married to someone who was pushing me to go through any unnecessary medical procedures.* He wouldn't want to stay married to me, either, so I guess that's win-win. It depresses me, though, that you'd marry someone who needs biological children so badly that your only options would be unnecessary medical procedure or divorce. I think that I deserve better. I think that everyone deserves better.
Incidentally, the church is opposed to both divorce and fertility treatments, so, from a religious standpoint, what are you supposed to do in that situation anyway?
But I'm being really sexist in assuming that women don't choose to go through these treatments of their own accord. Tons of women do. I can't even begin to understand them.
Adoption has financial strain and disappointment, too, but it doesn't affect your physical health. I suppose that's where I draw the line.
Other people draw the line somewhere else, and they have the right to do that. I just don't get it. Is it biological? Social? Do I have low self-esteem because I don't feel that I need to be copied?
* So it occurs to me that at some point I should discuss this with potential suitors. Third date seems reasonable. Over dinner I'll just be like "so if we get married and it turns out that I can't have children I have no intention of doing anything about that. Also, the bump on my nose is here to stay."**
** This footnote is intended to be humorous, but it is also based on an honest question. How does one bring that up? Or should I just stop trying to interact with people because they will never live up to my standards?***
*** ...which would be exactly the opposite of what I'm trying to do here. Obviously, I have got a ways to go.
Here is a test of your decision-making skills:
You wake up on Saturday morning feeling depressed. You:
a) drag yourself into the city to do something touristy
b) call your family
c) buy some shoes
d) decide you're going to sit this one out and buy enough provisions so as not to have to leave your apartment all weekend
So, about those provisions:
a) something healthy, balanced, with lots of potassium, because you have read that this is good for improving your mood
b) bread and water because there are millions of people in the world who live on less and why do you deserve any better than they do?
c) vodka, which you have also read is good for improving your mood
d) cookies 'n' cream because you are apparently five years old
Okay, FINE. But your apartment is pretty boring. Let's watch a DVD:
a) "Flight of the Conchords"
b) "Stranger than Fiction"
c) "Kung-Fu Panda"
d) "Atonement"
...I think you get the idea. Intellectually, I know that there are much, much better ways of dealing with a bad mood, though I actually do feel better now. Except my stomach hates me (but I am not alone). I have no idea why I keep thinking dairy products = comfort food.
Anyway, "Atonement" is seriously depressing, but it is a good movie, and I almost regret reading the book first just because it was so much better. Well, the book didn't have James McAvoy. So there's that.
So I was in a wikipedia trance (that's what I'm calling it now) prompted by my friend's blog. As I was reading about Saint Hippolytus, I noticed a sidebar which gives information about feast days. "Neat!" I thought, "I wonder whose feast day it is today..."
Then I felt kind of stupid.
Then I looked it up anyway and it turns out that today is ALSO the feast day of Saints Cyril and Methodius, which doesn't seem quite fair. They have a bunch of different feast days, though, so I won't get too upset.
Here is what Dinosaur Comics has to say on the subject of Valentine's Day.
If you read this comic a lot, then it is not really surprising if I tell you that I often remind myself of T-Rex.
Anyway, a couple weeks ago I was cleaning the kitchen and thinking about racism. As in, racist people now are obviously bad, but what about old-timey racists? They didn't have exposure to other belief systems, so what happened to them after they died? It's all well and good for us to ignore these things and judge people by the standards of their time, but I don't really think the afterlife works that way. I got distracted by something shiny.
So, the next day, I'm on the internet reading the comics, and I get to this. See, it's not creepy that there was a comic about something I was thinking about before. That happens all the time with this comic. It's that it happened at the same time. I have concluded that maybe I need to get out more.
Which I will totally do once people are speaking to me again (February always brings the drama) and I don't have a 101-degree fever (February also always brings the illness).
I am still alive, just had a really busy week last week and a really unpleasant cold the week before that. Since then I have:
1. Conducted a teaching seminar for the first time. It was about grammar. Two of the teachers travelled four hours to attend. I certainly hope they found it useful.
2. Recieved some Christmas presents, including two sweater dresses.
3. Stopped speaking to someone who I thought was a friend. It turns out that she is mean and backstabby and unreasonable.*
4. Been really cold.
5. Had everyone and their mother tell me that I am either too fat or too thin, to the point that I figure they balance each other out.
6. Watched the second season of 30 Rock.
I'll get back to Egypt soon. For now, horrifying student conversations: divorce edition!
Misha: We didn't get divorced. The court denied the appeal of my wife.
I would think that would be grounds for divorce. But I didn't say that because I am kind and sensitive.
The next is more of a horrifying teacher conversation. We will call this teacher "Teacher A."
Fyodor Pavlovich: I think one problem was that our ages are too different.
Teacher A: How old is she?
FP: Twenty-five.
A: Oh, that's ok. She's so young I'm sure she'll remarry very soon.
FP: ...
A: Sooo, have you got any questions about the homework?
I also had a creepy experience involving Dinosaur Comics, but it is late and I want to sleep, so I will write about it later.
* You know me. It's the unreasonable that really gets to me, but I'll be over it within a couple weeks.
One problem that I have is that I tend not to do anything if I can't do it perfectly. That's how my room is generally a mess because I spent the day I set aside to clean it doing something totally insignificant. I don't care how clean the room appears; if your sweater dresses are not organized by hex code, it is all a lie.
It is also the reason that most of the trips I've taken remain un-blogged.
A big part of the problem is that I would really like to make a map of the whole trip, as well as each leg of the trip. But I need a map that:
- shows the places I visited
- shows the paths between places
- doesn't give so much information as to be unreadable (basically, I want all the major cities and famous places, and any non-main places I visited, and nothing else).
What I really want is a webpage that can generate that based on my itinerary. But, since I don't have that, take out an atlas and follow along:
20/12 - fly from Moscow to Hurghada
21/12 - leave really early in the morning, tourist van to Luxor, board boat
22/12 - boat to Edfu, Kom Ombo
23/12 - boat to Aswan, side trip to Abu Simbel
24/12 - Aswan, catch night train to Cairo
25/12 - Cairo
26/12 - was supposed to be Alexandria, but I got sick
27/12 - 03/01 - Hurghada
So, in the interest of getting over my stupid perfectionism, I'm going to do this in chronological order and just write and post pictures until I have to stop for the day.
December 20 - Hurghada
I'll come back to this later, because at this point Hurghada was just a place to stay before going to Luxor. But, in short, Hurghada is on the Red Sea and 80% of its tourists are Russian. It's sort of a less-rich man's Sharm el-Sheikh.
Hurghada has an international airport that doesn't really handle its tourists well at all. First, you buy a visa. This is no big deal. But then you wait in not-line for about an hour to get your passport stamped. I think I'm claustrophobic about people because waiting in not-line does bad things to my heart rate.* In the future, I need to make sure to:
1. warn people I'm travelling with about this.
2. stand in the line that's next to the wall, no matter how much longer it is.
3. bring more suitcases so as to make a little fortress around myself.
Anyway, once that was done, we were shuttled to the resort and told that we'd be leaving for Luxor at 5:30 am the next day. I didn't really have time to get an impression of the resort, except that the buffet was really good and there seemed to be mosquitoes.
December 21 - Luxor
Luxor day was a very, very tiring day. First off, we were picked up at 6 am. It turns out that they adjust times for Russian tourists, which is probably a good idea. It takes about four hours to drive from Hurghada to Luxor. Most of this is through the desert. We stopped briefly at a cafeteria where it seemed like all the tour buses stopped. Lots of people were standing around wearing old-fashioned clothes and tending goats and camels and charging tourists for pictures:
Andrey bought a hat from a vendor. He negotiated the price down from 400 Egyptian pounds (about $80) to 50 ($10). I really hate negotiating, so I was impressed. The vendor congratulated me on my new president. 
It's immediately obvious when you are approaching the Nile because everything turns green and habitable. I'd like to say that the desert has its own beauty, and I'm sure that I will say that in a later entry, but I really wasn't feeling that on Luxor day.
As for the city of Luxor, I can't say much because we just drove through there on our way to different tourist attractions. What I could see looked very agricultural, with no offices or shops, but it's entirely possible that we just never drove through the commercial district. I saw a lot of apartment buildings being built up while people had already moved into the lower floors. I am guessing it's due to a housing shortage, stopped construction projects, or both. I wish I had asked the tour guide about it. I didn't because I thought it was a rude question, and it probably is. It took me a couple days to realize that answering tourists' rude questions is the tour guide's job. 
All the women I saw walking around were mostly dressed in black, totally covered up except for their faces. This blog tells me that this is either a Khimar or a Chador. I was surprised and a little bit worried. I wasn't prepared for it to be quite that conservative.
[Marin takes a couple hours getting lost reading someone else's blog].
So, as I was saying, I didn't get much of an impression of the city because I didn't spend any time there. The tourist attractions were more than enough for one day. But they will have to wait for the next blog entry, because I have work tomorrow.
* It depends on how tall the people around are. If they're around my height, I'm fine. If they're taller (or I'm sitting down), it really bothers me. In this case, a flight from Switzerland got in at the same time as ours.
New president! Hooray!
Apparently people all over the world are celebrating, which I find...distressing. As in, I like Obama and I think he'll do a good job, but I feel like a lot of the enthusiasm from other countries isn't because they think he'll do a good job, but because they think he can't possibly be worse than the last president. I agree with that, but it makes me sad about how the last eight years have been spent.
Well, I think that's true of Europe, anyway. People I met in Egypt didn't talk about politics but were excited that America was going to have a Black president, or they didn't mention it at all (I suspect that there are some serious racial issues going on in Egypt, and I won't pretend to understand them, but it was pretty easy to predict who was going to talk about Obama and who wasn't).
Russians mostly know not to talk about politics with me because a) from a professional standpoint, I can't, and b) they have no room to talk, and, to be fair, I'm not sure they discuss politics with each other. I think they are mostly happy that George W. Bush is gone but also worried about the economy.
But occasionally you come across nutjobby Russians who think that Nostradamus predicted that the last president of the US would be Black and that therefore the US will collapse soon. Do you have these people in America too? The best way to deal with this is to just accept the prophecy and point out that there could be Black presidents after Obama. This really bothers them because a) they were all prepared for you to argue with them about the validity of Nostradamus' prophecies, b) they are most likely racist, whether they know it or not, and c) they really can't argue with that. I have been having fun with this.