On the road 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.

Maybe Norweigans just can't write lyrics. That's right. All five million of 'em.

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:

Take on Me: Literal Video Version - watch more funny videos

Controversial post!

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.