Spring break 2014

Son and I are in British Columbia for a week of skiing, snowboarding, and snowshoeing.

I had never attempted skiing, but after a lesson I was able to go down the baby hill. Not the bunny hill: I am pretty sure it is a fraction of the size of the bunny hill. Don't think "ski hill", think "driveway with an incline".

The instructors had a group of five-year-olds -- and me. I ended up one-on-one with an instructor (NOBODY ELSE WAS AS BAD AT SKIING) and I can confidently say that in two hours I improved more than I will ever improve again. I started the lesson afraid to stand on the skis and I ended it by going down a hill, so that's not bad.

No, I can't go skiing with you. I'm not any good. I snowshoed nine miles today instead of attempting another lesson. I did manage to completely wear my snowshoeing partner out, so there's that. His wife texted me when I brought him home to tell me they have a new expression: "being Meganed". I hope it is a compliment.

Son is sore from a couple of days of snowboarding lessons that taught him many things, including that he needs to keep taking lessons. He is quite an athlete and I think he expected to be able to pick it up naturally and hit the slopes. (The first year he went to camp, he went from being unable to swim to slalom skiing in three weeks.) Lessons are good for him. He needs to work at things.

π Day

Yesterday, March 14, was my birthday.

It was also the day I consider our anniversary.

Truth be told, I'm not sure how a person dates these things, especially in a relationship like ours that started before we realised it. But I like March 14 for a number of reasons, so March 14 it is. 

Two years and a few days ago, I was in Florida with my son and then-husband, packing for my return trip. I was coming home a week earlier; they had a two-week spring break and I had less vacation time. That was fine. As it happened, by the end of the trip I wasn't sure what was going on with my marriage, so it was good to get home.

My birthday, 3.14, is Pi Day. I like to have pie instead of cake on my birthday. 

It was a few days before my birthday; because of my early return we would be in different time zones on March 14, so I told Husband I'd like to celebrate just before I left. I wanted pie, of course. Pie and salad. 

I don't know why I wanted salad, but I am guessing that I wanted to fully indulge in pie without going too far over my daily calorie allotment. That is the sort of thing I would do. 

He drove to a restaurant he'd chosen. We got as far as the door, where the menu was posted and I realized there was no salad. I can't remember if there was pie. I do remember that the prices were too high. I said I didn't want to eat there. We were in a big city; there was sure to be a nearby restaurant with salad and pie.

That was pretty much the end of the evening. He drove back to the hotel in silence. He did not want to go anywhere else. He went into the bedroom and that was that. I sat on the couch, ate the ice cream I'd put in the freezer a few days earlier, and asked the man who is now my partner to take me for dinner and pie on my birthday the next week. 

As I look back now, this seems like an entirely disproportionate reaction to not getting the birthday dinner of my choice. He didn't take me for salad -- so I went on a date with another man? (Who, by the way, sent me flowers and a thoughtful gift, then picked me up at work and took me to dinner. He'd called all over town to find out which restaurants served pie.) 

I'm quite sure that Husband had no idea that his decision to cancel dinner would have such a profound effect on our marriage, which unravelled in a matter of weeks. By the time he came home the next weekend, I knew that things would never be the same.

And at the time, I wouldn't have called our March 14 dinner a date. I wasn't sure what we had together. I only knew that I didn't want it to stop. 

So much for not dissing the other parent

Me: "...and I'd like to spend time with you..."

Son: "I spend AT LEAST as much time with you as I do with Dad!"

Me: "As DAD‽ I think I set my parenting standards a bit higher than that! I didn't move my boyfriend in with us! You still have a bedroom at our house! I don't ditch you and run off to Florida to--"

At this point I realise there's no good way to end that sentence.

Son (thoughtfully): "Yes, that's true."

This is what happens when I do not pay enough attention to my mother.

With friends like these...actually, this made me laugh

A friend who knows the Caffeinated Wonk: "It's a miracle you two found each other in a town this size! NOBODY ELSE is nerdy enough to fall in love with EITHER of you!"

A great relief

Bang, bang

Well, it's happened again; another shooting, another trial.

There are, of course, far too many shootings to document them all, but I am particularly interested in the "stand your ground"-style killings because the underlying premise seems to have little logic.

Don't get me wrong. I first heard about "stand your ground" about 20 years ago, in a sad case near my hometown. You'll have to forgive me if I have a couple of details wrong. 

A politician's brother was arrested for shooting a man. I can't find a reference in my cursory Wikipedia search, but as I recall, this particular politician was a relatively famous and powerful national Republican leader, a member of the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate, a Secretary of Defense for many years, and still holding office at the time.

I mention this only by way of explanation: the story was BIG NEWS because of the shooter's famous and powerful relative. 

The shooting took place inside the brother's house; the victim had broken in, likely with intent to commit some crime. 

I cannot say I am a fan of shooting anyone, anywhere, at any time, but I am at least highly sympathetic to anyone who awakens to find a criminal in his house and takes steps to protect his family. 

These shootings on the street seem to be completely different, though.

I don't watch TV, so I was mercifully spared the bulk of the George Zimmerman coverage, but I always thought the "stand your ground" argument was being used by the wrong people. A teenager, walking alone, notices he is being followed by a man who gets out of his vehicle and approaches him in what he perceives to be a threatening manner. (I gather this part of the story is uncontested.) Zimmerman's supporters claim the teenager jumped him, making it okay to pull a gun. This is the part that seems backwards to me. In this situation, the person "standing his ground" is undoubtably the teenager who is being approached. If it is OK to use deadly force when threatened, it must be OK to jump a threat using something less than deadly force. 

I'm even more confused about how anyone could claim that thinking a gun is present could justify shooting multiple rounds into a vehicle (this is the latest case). If anything, the NRA should be fighting this idea tooth and claw (but not with firearms, please). This would mean that anyone carrying a firearm, concealed or not, is a legitimate target. We will ignore the part where the shooter was mistaken; no gun was ever found, but I gather that the shooter's honest belief is the important part here.

At what point does it become OK for me to shoot you? Is it when I see your gun? I'd better keep my own gun hidden, then; otherwise you might see it first and then you'd be able to shoot me, right? Is it when I think you might have a gun? What do I then do with my own gun -- obviously I am going to need a permit to conceal it from those who might shoot me, and clearly I cannot ever let on that I even MIGHT have one; otherwise you can shoot me first, correct? But then how do I exercise my Second Amendment rights if it is unsafe for me to do anything that even implies I am exercising them? 

If you're the NRA or its supporters, I just don't see how you can justify shooting people simply because they are or appear to be carrying firearms. If anything, that seems to be a pretty efficient way to discourage people from owning guns.