Having just read a paper by a friend in history of science (41 pages, double spaced) I was reminded how science (generally) favors terseness and visual representation before lengthy exposition. Mostly I fall in the science category, with notable exceptions in blogging…
Places I’ve been. More undoubtedly to come.
A major demand of the environmental movement, put forward as essential to combating global warming, is the imposition of a massive rollback in global emissions of carbon dioxide accompanied by a freeze on such emissions at the sharply reduced level imposed.
In this spirit, Britain’s Stern Review, published in the fall of 2006, seeks a reduction of 25 percent by the year 2050. Going considerably further, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has urged a 60 percent reduction.
Such pronouncements can be made openly and repeatedly only because the immense majority of people do not take the trouble to understand their implications. They do not because what is required to do so is a combination of making connections between various facts and performing calculations. These are activities that are widely perceived as onerous. Nevertheless, this level of thinking is essential if people are to understand the implications of environmentalism’s demands.
In purely verbal terms, those implications are that environmentalism seeks the destruction of the energy base of the modern world, along with the elimination or radical reduction in the supply of all goods and services that depend on that energy base. It seeks this on the grounds that these goods and the energy on which they depend entail the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The goods and services in question are air conditioners, automobiles, airplane travel, housing, food, clothing, refrigerators, freezers, television sets, telephones, washers, dryers, books, computers—everything that depends on the production and use of oil, coal, or natural gas, which all release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in being burned. The destruction of the energy base and the production of goods and services is implied by the fact that in order to rollback the emission of carbon dioxide, it is necessary to rollback the production and use of energy in these forms. But rolling back the production and use of energy reduces the production of goods and services.
Turning now to the arithmetic of environmentalist destruction, I will proceed to calculate the extent of the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions per person that is entailed in the environmentalist demands. This will serve as a guide to the extent of the reduction in the production and use of energy per person and thus as a guide to the reduction in the production of goods and services per person. Proceeding in this way, it will be very easy to prove that environmentalism seeks the destruction of the energy base of the modern world, along with the elimination or radical reduction in the supply of all goods and services that depend on it.
Let me start with the 25 percent reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions urged by the Stern Review. Its application across the world would imply a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions here in the United States by 2050. Yet the population of the United States in that year is projected to be approximately 400 million people. Since the US population is currently 300 million people, this means that four-thirds of the present population of the US would be expected to generate only three-fourths of present carbon dioxide emissions. Three-fourths divided by four-thirds is nine-sixteenths, or 56.25 percent. That would be the projected per capita level of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States in 2050, i.e., a reduction of 43.75 percent from today’s level.
If the reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions is to be 60 percent rather than 25 percent, then, with the same increase in population, the reduction in per capita emissions in the United States would be to a level found by dividing 40 percent (the emissions remaining after the 60 percent reduction) by four-thirds. Since division by four-thirds is always multiplication by three-fourths, the per capita reduction would be to a level of 30 percent of today’s emissions instead of 56.25 percent. The per capital reduction in emissions in the United States would be 70 percent rather than 43.75 percent.
But there is yet a further major reduction in US per capita carbon dioxide emissions to contend with. And that is that while global emissions will be reduced by 25 percent, or by 60 percent, emissions in China, India, and the rest of the so-called third world will be allowed to go on increasing, presumably until there is equality in per capita emissions across the world.
At present, even though it has only 5 percent of the world’s population, the US consumes 25 percent of the world’s supply of energy and is responsible for approximately 25 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Assuming the US population to remain at 5 percent of the world’s population, the achievement of global equality in per capita carbon dioxide emissions would require a reduction in US energy consumption from its present 25 percent to 5 percent, corresponding to the size of its population. This implies a further reduction of 80 percent in per capita emissions in the US. This is because 5 percent divided by 25 percent is 20 percent; a fall to 20 percent of the initial percentage is a decline of 80 percent from the initial percentage.
This further decline of 80 percent in per capita carbon dioxide emissions would apply to the already very substantial percentage declines calculated above. Thus, with a rollback of 25 percent in global emissions, the decline in the US would be to 20 percent of 56.25 percent, i.e. to 11.25 percent. This, of course, would be an 88.75 percent reduction in per capita US carbon dioxide emissions. With a rollback of 60 percent in global emissions, the decline in the US would be to 20 percent of 30 percent, i.e. to 6 percent. This would be a 94 percent reduction in per capita US carbon dioxide emissions.
Whether the per capita reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is to 6 percent or to 11.25 percent, whether or not a few percentage points of reduction can be avoided by virtue of obtaining additional power from windmills and solar panels (the environmentalists will not allow atomic power, which they regard as the death ray and oppose even more than carbon dioxide emissions, nor will they allow hydro-power insofar as it interferes with the migratory patterns of fish), the clear implication is economic devastation. It is devastation in the production and use of energy and devastation in the production of everything that depends on energy.
The implications of imposing environmentalism’s demands include those that I have discussed in previous articles on the subject. In terms of the life of individuals, they are precisely of the kind described in the newspaper articles I quote in "After the Hideous Light Bulbs." They also include such paradoxes as attempting to fight global warming by means of destroying air conditioners, refrigerators, and freezers. (I presented this particular paradox in "Environmentalist Zen." That it is present in environmentalism is something that should be glaringly obvious from the present article.)
It follows that inasmuch as anything may serve as an opening wedge in getting people to accept environmentalism’s agenda of destruction and impoverishment, it needs to be opposed as strongly as possible. Such is the case with the organized campaign now underway to get people to accept the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs in place of customary, incandescent bulbs. As a prelude to their imposition by law, the sale of these bulbs is currently being highly subsidized by business firms seeking to curry favor with environmentalists, in order to mitigate the harm that they expect would otherwise be done to them. It should be obvious that it is necessary to fight acceptance of these bulbs, as I argue in "Say No to the Hideous Light Bulbs."
There is tremendous public pressure today to join the environmentalist cause. Business firms, that had long opposed it are now rushing to join it. Opposition is evaporating. Where there are still pockets of serious resistance, environmentalist smears serve to undercut their effectiveness. This has been the case, for example, with respect to the British television documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which presents the views of numerous scientific experts on climate and the causes of climate change who are opposed to the environmentalists’ claim that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide emissions.
The public embrace of a movement as dreadfully destructive as environmentalism brings to mind the rush to embrace Hitler and the Nazi Party in the Germany of 1932 and 1933, once their victory at the polls seemed to become inevitable, and then once they actually came to power. However the views of serious people, who hold their views first-hand, based on their own, independent judgment, do not change merely because the views of others have changed.
Nazism was a catastrophe. Environmentalism has the potential to be an even greater catastrophe—a far greater catastrophe than Nazism: one that will result in the deaths of billions rather than millions. This is because it is the diametric opposite of economic liberalism on a global scale. In contrast to liberalism and its doctrine of the harmony of the rightly understood self-interests of all men, environmentalism alleges the most profound conflict of interests among people. It implies that there is a major economic benefit to be obtained through the death of billions of fellow human beings, that, indeed, the well-being and prosperity of the survivors depends on the extermination of those billions.
Thus, for example, from the depraved perspective of environmentalism, if global carbon dioxide emissions equal to 25 percent of present emissions were to disappear, because those responsible for them ceased to exist, there would be no need for the global cutback in emissions urged by the Stern Review, and thus no need for any diminution in economic well-being on the part of the survivors (provided, of course, their number did not increase). If still more emissions could be eliminated by the elimination of still more people, there would be room for actual economic improvement among the survivors, according to environmentalism. Obviously, the magnitude of mass murder that is invited is the greater, the greater is the alleged need to curb carbon dioxide emissions.
Those who recognize the astoundingly evil nature of environmentalism must never cease opposing it.
This article is copyright © 2007, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.
Civilzation is so under-rated. I suppose some people seek out experiences in undeveloped areas for the sake of appreciating what they do have when they return from such places. It’s a frequent effect, in any case. But I doubt that is the motivation for all people these days. What I can’t comprehend is people championing backward ways of living because they are backward or - more likely - because they are not civilized, not rational, not Western, not 21st century.
I wonder how many people actually think that groups of "indigenous" people actually want to keep the status quo, or even "go back" to what they had "before." (Whatever exactly that means - tribal ways of life changed rapidly and often directionally long before Western culture came on the scene. Cultures have been going extinct as long as they’ve been around). Which, if you remind them, means no cars, no cellphones, no modern medicine, no health insurance, no guns, often no property rights, no literacy, no mathematical skill, the list goes on. All gifts of Western culture - the culture of reason, of productivity, of ambition, of wealth, of health, and of independence - independence from disease, poverty and ignorance as well as your family, your neighbors and the state. Freedom from people is still a totally foreign concept in many parts of the world - developed and developing - and social dependence of one form or another is the elephant no one knows how to name or describe.
Most Kenyans I met liked their country - they always encouraged me to come back. Most Kenyans I met who had ambitions and goals for themselves, who were working to make a better life for themselves, wanted to come to America, and several told me, unabashedly and factually, that America was the best country on earth. How many urban Americans, who in many ways "have the most" of all Americans, would agree, much less say it without squirming? Many Americans I know have what you might call "Western guilt" - guilt over being the most wealthy, most powerful, and most influential country ever. They accept the idea that they - personally, as an individual American - inherit the blame, fault and guilt of every wrong action (real or imagined) of past administrations, past generations, past values. Their values are a long list of nots. Not-Western, not-capitalist, not-commercial, not-logical, not-valued, not-capable, not-established, not-like-this, not-like-me. They acknowledge and submit to the tribalism that motivates families to senselessly feud for generations, countries to attack each other for hundreds of years, and cultural and ethnic groups to blindly hate each other because "they" are not "us." Except here the tribalism is reversed: instead of hating everyone who’s not like you, the sentiment is to hate, loathe, or bemoan your own tribe (and self) and elevate everything that fits the formula of not-me.
It’s a much more peaceable and self-contained method of destruction than the two-party clashes of traditional tribalism: you just attack and punish yourself, no one else gets hurt. Except that never happens - self destruction isn’t good enough. The motivation is to get as many people to agree with you as possible, so that you are not alone in with your guilt and self-hate. You join the classic tribalists in denouncing and destroying what you are and what you stand for, all while taking a morally superior tone. But there’s nothing superior about suicide.
Such people buy into tribalism on another level - that of time. One’s identity and personal responsibility extend not just to himself, but to his ancestors, be it biological, cultural, religious, or intellectual. Americans today feel responsible for actions against Native Americans that occured generations ago - starting with the arrival of the first mass of Europeans in the 1600s! Americans often feel responsible for slavery which ended 150 years ago, and that white people owe black people some sort of debt - perhaps material, but certainly moral or spiritual. But black people in America today have not been slaves! Young blacks have not even experienced legal segregation. But there’s this sense of group responsibility and group blame that permeates the whole discussion. And the thing is: it rests on the validity of race as a measure of someone’s worth - that is, racism. The tables have just been turned. As I told many Kenyans: the greatest thing you can do the eliminate racism is to stop giving a damn about race. It’s not the important thing about anybody. Not you, not your country, not your continent, not Obama. Ask instead: what ideas does he hold, what decisions does he make, what actions does he take and why - what is his character? That’s what people have control of, and what they should be judged on. Those things are the measures of a man’s worth.
A South African man I sat next to on the plane said the white people of Zimbabwe were so paralyzed, demoralized, and adrift because of "colonial guilt" that they don’t see that their country is imploding, and while all rational thought points to getting the hell out, they stay - unsure of what to think, what to say, what to do. Whatever bad things happen, they feel slightly responsible. And, accepting that guilt, the moral thing to do is to "suffer through," to accept the consequences. The moral thing to do, if the guilt is deserved, is to stay on the sinking ship. But what they fail to see is what all racists fail to see: unless a particular person has engaged in or given support to morally objectionable things like slavery, property confiscation, murder, racism, or countless other wrongdoings, he’s not culpable! He’s not guilty of those things! Yet white people the world over accept blame for the actions of generations past - sometimes very distantly past - as if guilt clung to the genes coding for skin color, and one inherited it along with a predisposition for sunburning.
I actually met a Kenyan who was a Christian creationist, and who believed that AIDS was a punishment from God: that anyone with AIDS obviously had done something wrong and deserved to die a horrible death. AIDS was a just act meted out by God. I explained how HIV was transmitted in blood, and how many many people have gotten HIV through no wrongdoing of their own - blood transfusions, pregnancy, through mishaps of others. He was unperturbed, and said that they must be paying for the mistakes of their ancestors.
His view of culpability was exactly the same as other tribalists - that one’s own actions in life do not determine one’s character, worth, or load of responsibility, that one is the slave of a group to which he involuntarily belongs. Family, race, time and place in history, demographic background - we have no choice over these. Yet this is how tribalists want to pigeonhole the world, in order to know how to deal with it. What such worldviews are incapable of dealing with, or really even comprehending, is the self-made man - he who fashions his ideas, character, actions and life by the free and self-chosen action of his own mind - the most defining and enabling aspect of being human.
In any case - I’m glad to be in a place with regular electricity, reliable internet, water you make hot for a shower, and that’s clean enough to drink out of the taps (first time in 4 months for that, actually), where bugs don’t swarm my food or vie for my bed, and toilets do their job when needed, the first time around. In 3.5 weeks I look forward to leaving behind barred windows, countless keys, razor wire, cut-glass and spike-topped fences, living inside a guarded gate, and staying inside after dark. In short, I look forward to home with increased freedom and prosperity.
Commencement address given by Owen D. Young:
"The vital part of the incandescent electric lamp is the tungsten wire inside the bulb. It was well known that this metal would withstand the high heat required for incandescence over a long period without disintegration, but it was also known that tungsten was one of the most recalcitrant of the metals. Each particle was such a rugged individualist that it would have nothing to do with its neighbor. It seems to have no social sense at all. One day, courageous and daring men determined that that obstinate metal should be conquered, and it was. With high heats and extraordinarily ingenious methods, tungsten was so converted that it could be drawn into wire, and the wire became stronger than steel of equivalent size.
"You must fuse at white heat the several particles of your learning into an element so ductile and so strong that nothing can destroy it without destroying you.
"Let me be a little more specific. What is the use of studying Greek unless you can bring all the beauty of that language and literature into your thinking and your expression today? What is the use of studying Latin unless you can get through it a better understanding, a more complete feeling of the mighty activities in their heights and depths that made Rome both glorious and ignoble? What is the use of studying French unless through a wider outlook and more varied contacts that language brings to you a better understanding of the world in which you live and an appreciation of that grace which is the basis of good manners?
"What is the use of studying history without co-relating it with the economics which for the most part has been its master? What is the use of studying economics or politics without relating them both to a knowledge of the physical sciences which shape their courses?
"My point is that it is not enough for you to study economics in an insulated compartment and history and governments and the languages and science. It is not enough to gather them up as separate particles into a powder which you carry out with your diploma. They must be fused and integrated."
—
Addressed to the graduating class of Hendrix College, 1934. Young founded RCA and was its chairman for 10 years (though evidently his activities were not as admirable as his advice to young graduates). This speech is in the public domain.
On the off chance you’re headed to Kenya, especially Nairobi, any time soon, here’s the advice I’ve discovered, used or been given during my 8 weeks here:
————————-
Assuming you’ve read all the standard guide book and state department advice about Kenya and Nairobi, my two cents are:
On safety:
- Mind the dawn-to-dusk rule strictly.
- This applies to driving.
- Be very wary of stop lights, stop signs, or stopping in general at night. Great way to get car-jacked.
- Driving around town in the day, best to keep the doors locked and the windows up, especially if you’re white or Asian. People like to reach in and just steal things, broad daylight, including the necklace off your neck or earings off/out of your ears.
- Don’t wear necklaces or earrings or anything fancy.
- If you get car-jacked, for heaven’s sake keep your hands where they can see them, do what they tell you to do, don’t resist, and get out of the car as fast as possible.
- Don’t take more money/important documents with you than you’ll need for the trip/day, etc.;
- Do keep some non-petty cash on you in case you get robbed. Better to satisfy him with something then leave him grouchy with nothing. Retaliatory beatings/killings for having nothing do happen.
- The US Embassy is your friend.
- Keep your stuff hidden and locked as much as possible, even in your hotel room;
- Throttle WAY back on any display of wealth, especially out and about town, even cheapo-designer-knockoff sunglasses - people target money more than race or sex or nationality per se.
- If you’re white or Asian, you are targeted for robbery since white and Asian people 1) aren’t ever police officers and 2) are thought to have a lot of money.
- For the love of god, don’t go east of Tom Mboya street, not even Nairobians go there.
- Ditto for Riverlands/Wastelands in general.
- Be very wary of being even remotely flirty if you’re a woman. What Americans consider "being friendly" or "joking around" or "hanging with the guys" can be interpreted as overt signals of sexual interest, and saying ‘no’ later is much harder (if possible at all) than just being a prude from the beginning. Rape does happen. You’ll notice most women are a bit cool in the beginning. I suspect it’s related.
- Expect a beaurocratic nightmare.
On the more-positive side:
- Copious hello-how-are-you’s etc. are a staple and go a long way to getting what you want.
- Riding someone’s ass daily if not hourly to get what you want is standard, and doesn’t make you an American bitch.
- Kenya Wildlife Service is effectively a branch of the military; the rangers rock and for all intents and purposes exist to protect good people.
- Feel free to hit them up anytime you need info, help or are in a jam - what counts as standard for them is unthinkable for US parks service people.
- For the love of god, don’t take a long-distance matatu (minibus). They break down and get car-jacked and the drivers are insane.
- Sarit Center in Parklands is a great all-purpose mall if you’re having trouble finding items or sanity.
- Uhuru Park in Nairobi is fine during the day, but totally off limits after dark; it’s where the urchins and homeless stay at night.
- Big smiles and a playful/joking attitude and a firm price has gotten me a lot farther on cut rates than being grouchy.
- Ask ask ask people for how to get stuff or where to get it etc.
- The food sucks but will keep you alive - I hope you like cabbage and a lot of gristle in your meat.
- If you act like you’ve done it a thousand times before, people will believe you more than your paperwork, unless it’s really important or their job pays well.
- Watch out for the police, they’re not on the side of tourists like they are in Egypt, and will very often set you up to extract a bribe, sometimes hefty; my friend got illegally thrown in jail the night before her plane for a Ksh4000 payout (that’s about 60 bucks).
- Taxis are expensive by Kenyan standards, ’bout fair by American dollars. Haggle like hell before stepping foot in the door.
- Using the same driver repeatedly (and still haggling) gets you about half the going rate.
- Broadly speaking, the only drawback to being an American is they think you have a lot of money (and that every Kenyan is evidently an expert on American culture: "In America, you have/get/always….").
- The roads totally suck, so be prepared for an uncomfortable ride if you’re taking a bus or car anywhere long-distance. I mean really uncomfortable.
- Parks entry fees are going up to $60 per foreigner per day this summer. Be prepared.
On elephants and their byproducts:
Since I’m not into elephants, they of course seem to be a dime a dozen. I’ve seen them at Tsavo West, Aberdares, and out in Laikipia District north of Ol Pejeta Conservancy/Nanyuki. If you’re driving and along the road you see giant piles of shit that are chock-a-block with undigested grass, you’re in elephant territory. Giraffes, being ruminents, are far better at digesting cellulose, so their shit, while big, is a bit smaller, denser, blacker, and doesn’t have observable grass in it (like a cross between horse shit and deer shit, if that’s of any help at all). Giraffes and elephants tend to co-occur, and both inhabit a fairly wide range of habitats, so that can be useful.
On large mammals in the road:
Oh, and if there’s an elephant (or buffalo) in the road or nearby, best to err on the side of caution and give it a very large berth, though I’ve found that at least with buffalos you can soon gauge their state of mind and figure out whether to pass by carefully, wait them out, or get the hell out. In any case, don’t ever get out of the car except in designated area. Bushes hide all manner of things that would love to mangle you. But also, I’ve been told buffalos key in to the human form; so long as "you" look like the shape of a car, you’re ok (all else equal); replace that shape with a human shape, and things change in that buffalo’s mind - watch out. (I should say that the foregoing is something I was told by a ranger; I haven’t tested it and don’t plan to).
Elephants occasionally attack cars, a pissed elephant bull being extremely dangerous; elephants appear to have a definite sense of anger and will destroy something that pisses them off. I met one animal handler who had been (literally) skewered and tossed 20ft by one; miracle the elephant didn’t finish the job, actually.
Giraffes, while gentle, have a tendency to just appear at the side of the road and amble out in front of your car, so be watchful if you’re in giraffe territory. I haven’t seen an insurance policy cover giraffe collisions (and I came this-close to hitting one at 35mph in Namibia, no trees in sight!).
On climbing Mt. Kenya:
As for climbing Mt Kenya, I didn’t try, but I hear it’s a significant haul - the highest peak being a technical climb, and budgeting 4 days at minimum, 7 days ideally, is recommended because of altitude change, guides required. Beyond that, I don’t have much more to suggest than what the travel guides say. I didn’t go to that park myself, just Aberdares next door (beautiful!!). It’s damn high, even in Nanyuki and Nyeri on the west side - probably in the 7000-9000ft range from Meru to Nanyuki and Nakuru, so keep that in mind. Kenya has a tremendous variety of environments, and they change rapidly. (In Nanyuki, the Ibis hotel was tolerable in the fairly-cheap range).
Fun stuff to do:
If you’re in the area and have a couple hours to spare, I *highly* recommend going to see Morani the Rhino at Old Pejeta Conservancy in Nanyuki (the chimp sanctuary there is, I’m told, not worth the extra money; chimps aren’t from Kenya anyway). On the other hand, they have all manner of other critters at Ol Pejeta - it’s an absolutely huge place - and they keep pretty close tabs on the wildlife. Hopefully you can see Morani when there’s not a tour bus full of senior citizens with the same idea. He’s the only tame (black) rhino, I believe, and he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about people, unless of course you have something for him to eat, in which case he’s mildly interested. He even knows his name, but he forgets things easily - things like your presence. And he doesn’t like loud noises, like yelps or shouts. That makes him leave. Otherwise, you can pet him, lean on him, lay on him, whatever, and he’s fine with it. (Don’t lean over his horns though, no need to get gored in slow motion by the one peaceful rhino in the world). So totally cool.
I also had a total blast at the Mt. Kenya Safari Club Animal Orphanage. It’s a class act, and most of the critters you can touch and feed (ever ridden a 100 year old tortoise? Speedy was a total blast!). It’s a beautiful establishment, the grounds are impeccable, the critters are healthy and happy, and the staff is wonderfully helpful and knowledgable. Both these places are just outside Nanyuki, with cool green tropical montane vegetation, very close to Mt. Kenya.
Before visiting parks:
I’d recommend calling KWS prior to your trip(s). If you don’t have the number of the main office in Nairobi, just dial the directory (if you’ve got a cellphone) and get the number (my cell phone’s dead or I’d give it to you myself - dial 020 for landlines in Nairobi; calling cellphones doesn’t require an area code, just all 10 digits of the phone number, starting with 07). With KWS you can ask about admission costs (watch out for SmartCard-only parks - you have to "load up" this park pass, and not all parks let you do it at the gate), lodging/camping options, costs and availablity, and also get the numberS for the specific park. Call the warden’s office and double-check the info (KWS is pretty consistent, thankfully), and also inquire about weather, road conditions, where to see particular critters, and options for hiring a ranger and/or guide. Then, when you arrive at the park, get all this info again. Generally it’s easier in person, but for some stuff (not always specified) you have to do it or know it ahead of time.
I’ve gotten massively mixed messages about student discounts. Up until the last park I visited (Saiwa Swamp by Kitale), I was given the distinct impression that ’student rates’ only applied if you were part of some school group visiting the park; foreign students on holiday paid full rate. So I paid full rate a lot, which totally sucks. Saiwa Swamp gave me the student rate when I showed my Cal ID and my research permit (bafflingly). Flashing my Kenya Research Permit and museum affiliation letter got me jack at all parks I tried, though it apparently worked for another American student at the museum visiting Hell’s Gate. Go figure.
…are mostly up from my Egyptian extravaganza with Karen. Yeah, I’m a picture-takin’ foo’, but so is she. We had a good time. Don’t let the absense of bad pictures imply the absense of less-than-wonderful things in Egypt. I don’t plan on going back any time soon, save perhaps the super-awesome town of Dahab, although I do wish I could transplant it closer to home and farther away from crazy jihadists.
Two more weeks in Nairobi… er, a little over one, now. Then off to Pretoria and just maybe Kruger Nat’l Park or KwaZulu-Natal to see some Nyala.
Homestretch!
li>
Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome
Theme designed by Hadley Wickham
