18.5 minutes

Perhaps the most famous case of destruction of evidence is the 18.5 minute gap that appears on one of the Nixon White House tapes associated with the Watergate scandal. After the existence of the tapes had become known, and portions of them had been subpoenaed by special counsel Archibald Cox, White House secretary Rose Mary Woods testified that she may have "erased" upwards of five minutes of conversations accidentally. However, the Advisory Panel on White House Tapes subsequently concluded that Ms. Woods 5 minute gap was inconsequential, and that the 18.5 minutes of erasure was deliberate. To this day it is still not known if any incriminating evidence was destroyed by the erasure.

Now we have learned that the CIA has "out-Nixoned" Richard Nixon, likely by many hours, if not days! Officials at the CIA have admitted to destroying video tapes of the interrogations of several high profile Al Qaeda suspects. It has virtually been admitted that the tapes contain graphic footage of the abuse and torture of these individuals, probably including details of the administrations' interpretation of waterboarding. CIA head Michael Hayden, in a statement that would make Orwell turn over in his grave, informed us that the tapes posed a "serious security risk," and therefore had to be destroyed. This is so patently false that it barely warrants refutation. For one thing, if true, what would it say about the CIA's ability to keep National Security information under its control protected? Or does the agency fear an inevitable leak of the material by one of it's own employees? Either way it doesn't paint a very comforting picture of supposedly the nation's top intelligence outfit, does it? Of course, the only risk involved in the existence of the tapes, and the real reason for their destruction, is the very real risk of criminal prosecution to those who ordered and carried out the torture allegedly captured on the videos. Moreover, since these suspects were purportedly "big fish" operatives, it would also seem likely that in this case the chain of command went up pretty high, perhaps as high as the "torturer in chief" himself.

As usual, Congress has fiddled and done nothing. Republicans that had been informed of the existence of the tapes, and their destruction, didn't even bat an eye. This is par for the course for the "Rubberstampicans", but it also appears that the handful of Democrats so notified, including "Lieberman-wannabe," representative Jane Harmon (she of the recent "Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act"), and Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller, also turned a blind eye. Let's hope that some kind of investigation is initiated, after all, Nixon got far worse for a lousy 18.5 minutes.

Chaos

If you have kids then you know that they can be like little "Maxwell Demons," exuding massive quantities of entropy at fantastic rates. For the thermodynamically challenged, "Maxwell's Demon" was an imaginary agent introduced in a thought experiment by the famous physicist James Clerk Maxwell. Maxwell hypothesized that the actions of such a demon might lead to a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This law states that in any closed system entropy always increases. If you're also a little fuzzy on entropy, then just think disorder, or better yet, chaos. As can be seen in these photos, if you regard my house as a closed system, then my two youngest kids always see to it that entropy never decreases.

The physical quantities that seem to create the most entropy in my house are "toys" and "laundry." Here, laundry is to be considered any article of clothing that has been worn for at least 5 minutes, and or removed from a drawer and not replaced within an hour. Invariably, through a process that can only be revealed on a need-to-know basis, these articles make there way to the bottom of the basement stairs, where they accumulate until it becomes nearly impossible to pass by without twisting your ankle. Then they are moved to the hallway in front of the laundry room (as in the photo on the right), and eventually, hopefully, are laundered and put back in the correct clothes drawer, ready to begin the process anew. I shudder to think what fraction of our electric bill is due to laundry!

While laundry is a cyclical process, "toys" can be a more persistent source of chaos. They get taken out, distributed around the house, and often mixed together, so that it becomes difficult to keep pieces of a given toy in the same area, or even floor. One then has a "melting pot" of trains, cars, balls, weebles, you name it. And once the weebles get mixed in with the country bumpkins, then all bets are off! Eventually, a critical level of confusion is reached, and then it's more than likely that the whole pile of offending items will be bagged up together, and eventually removed to an undisclosed location, which I would not give up even under the most extreme torture. The most annoying items are those large things which can end up dominating a room, as in the collapsible house in the photo above. At least now it's in the basement, and not occupying half of the living room! Toys are an especially touchy subject these days, as it is only mere weeks before a whole new set of objects will be entering my life. Happy Holidays!

One turkey to another

One turkey pardons another. This is one of the Thanksgiving "traditions" that rather irks me. Are we supposed to think that Mr. Bush is as beneficent as Oz because he ostensibly pardons a single turkey on Thanksgiving? The origin of the turkey pardon is unclear. Some suggest that Truman inaugurated the practice, but solid evidence of this is lacking. I wonder what Iraqis would make of this bizarre stunt? The man with a heart big enough to spare a pair of turkeys seems to not have the same concern for them, or kids with no healh insurance, for that matter.

Have you ever wondered what fate befalls these lucky birds after their photo-ops? Actually, the birds are provided by the National Turkey Federation (NTF), and they are raised and groomed solely for their presidential appearance. Afterwards, they are given plum posts at petting zoos or farms, but the birds are often so large that they don't live to turkey old-age.

Surveilling "terrorists" 7 months before 9/11

There have been some extremely interesting disclosures about Bush's so called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" in the last week or so. However, what appear to be rather stunning revelations don't seem to be gaining much traction with our lobotomized corporate press. It now appears rather certain that this surveillance program was beginning some 7 months BEFORE 9/11. Several outlets, including the Washington Post have reported on this, citing court documents associated with several ongoing lawsuits. A number of important questions immediately come to mind. Since we know that the last thing on the Bush crowd's mind at that time was terrorism--by all credible accounts they were more or less asleep at the switch--what was the primary motivation for initiating the program at that time. Might it have been, dare I say it, politically motivated? I wonder what the real, original name for the program was? Obviously, "Terrorist Surveillance Program," would not have worked, maybe something along the lines of "Voter Fraud Surveillance Program," is closer to the mark, but then I forget, this Republican crowd would never do anything with political motives. They're much to pure for that. Indeed, I apologize for even suggesting it. Equally of interest is the subsequent, monstrously hypocritical, retroactive justification for the program as having been necessary to fight the "terrorists" and keep America safe.

There are several informative links on the subject, but Ray McGovern's is a nice summary, and Glenn Greenwald's provides substantial background.

"... you just go to an emergency room."

The "beating heart" of political conservatism was on display for all to see at the White House the other day. Its cold, callous, cynical heart that is. George W. Bush decided that it would be too much of a "budget-buster" to sign into law the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-chip) bill that had passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support. And this from the President for whom all ink is red. The program has broad support and provides the only health insurance for millions of American kids. There was a desire from legislators on both sides of the aisle to expand the program--rather modestly, if you consider it in the same light as, say, a 100 billion supplemental appropriation for the Iraq boondoggle, er, war--to cover the remaining 9-10 million low income kids who still have no health insurance. But apparently even this bipartisan bill with such obvious positive benefits to children and the future of the Nation was too much for Mr. Bush.

The President doesn't seem to see the problem, "People have access to health care in this country, after all, you just go to an emergency room." he quipped. He also seemed most disturbed that this was an attempt to "Federalize," or "socialize," health care in this country. Apparently Mr. Bush is unaware that essentially all of our historic allies, the industrialized West, currently have, and have had socialized medicine for decades, and that, the majority of citizens in those countries wouldn't want it any other way. Apparently Mr. Bush has also never heard of the Medicare or Medic-aid programs. But, for Mr. Bush our kid's futures are much less important than the profits of health insurance companies that literally make a killing off of suffering people. You see, most modern societies have long ago reached a consensus that health care is a human right, not something that should be left to the whims of the marketplace, and certainly not something that should be profited from. In fact, I'm willing to bet that most of us would probably view as obscene the notion of "for profit" health care; that is, providing care simply to those who can afford to pay for it themselves. But that is essentially what we have in this country. About 50 million Americans cannot afford health insurance, so, if they get sick, they do have to find an emergency room, and hope they will get the necessary care. We can be sure they would never find it in Bush's White House.

Of course the White House rolled out its spin-meisters (and mistresses) in an effort to try and control the damage. Dana Perino and Ed Gillespie insisted the President really was interested in seeing that kids get health insurance, it was just that the S-chip bill was too much of "federal" solution. Let's forget for a moment that government run programs actually do a better job if you consider administrative costs. Medicare is much better than the insurance industry average, for example. Why isn't profit ever considered an administrative cost? Gillespie in particular made some bizarre claims on NPR's All Things Considered. He insisted that a main reason for Bush's veto was that the bill allowed too many adults into the program or to remain in it. Host Robert Seigel remarked, correctly, that the bill in fact did not support adults and in fact removed those presently on it. This follows a standard Bush White House pattern, when the facts don't fit, start making up your own "facts."

The real costs of war

Our corporate owned media does little to show us the real costs of American military folly in Iraq. This extends to a near black-out of any images of those devastated by war, including American servicemen (and women). In a new book, "Never Coming Home," Andrew Lichtenstein has compiled images which convey the true costs of war. They do not show the physical damage inflicted, but the longer term, devastating emotional consequences to family and loved ones. You can view the short photo essay here.

Crude hosts

The elected President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was invited to speak and engage in a public forum at Columbia University yesterday. Considering the rudeness and out-right hostility he faced, he seemed to handle himself with commendable aplomb. The President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, provided one of the more boorish displays from an American academician in recent memory. Bollinger, seemingly bent on providing Fox News with it's course of raw meat for the day, acted the part of the "ugly American" to a tee. He came off as nasty, ill-informed, and downright arrogant. Perfect for Fox in fact.

While I do not agree with much of what Ahmadinejad stands for, and he certainly has made a number of regrettable and ill-informed statements, he has not bombed and invaded any countries under dubious circumstances (like some other president I know), and he has not threatened the United States in any serious way. Whether we like to admit it or not, he was legitimately elected in Iran, and he actually wields considerably less power in Iran than George W. Bush has appropriated for himself in this country. Why not let him speak, judge him on his statements, and perhaps try to engage and educate him to a more enlightened point of view? That's the truly American response that I was taught.

Moreover, why bar Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero, in lower Manhattan, if he had expressed a wish to do so? There is not a shred of evidence linking Iran to the 9/11 attacks, recall that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Indeed, Iranians expressed deep sympathy with Americans after the attacks, as did much of the world. Sympathies which the Bush administration has done much to undue since then. If the attempt is to further try and demonize Iran as somehow responsible for Bush's debacle in Iraq, then we must not forget that Iraq too had nothing to do with 9/11. How is it that we became such crude hosts?

The Betrayal

George W. Bush likes to fancy himself a friend of the military. Our Vietnam-evading, chicken-hawk president talks a good game, but if you examine the record it isn't very pretty, and indeed a reasonable argument can be made that Bush is about the worst friend the military could have. Since when has committing US forces under false pretenses to an illegal war and occupation been consistent with "supporting the troops?"

Further, let's consider the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. A key component of the "rationale" for war was the new security policy of "preemption" promulgated by the Bush administration. Put simply, it basically asserts the right of the United States to wage war in "self defense" against any perceived threat, including future threats which have not really fully materialized, but are merely incipient threats, in the view of the president. It also asserts this as a unilateral right, that is, it essentially argues that the United States will be bound not be international legal and treaty obligations, but by it's own determination of what constitutes a threat. In this sense it deals a severe blow to the notion of multi-lateralism, and greatly weakens the United Nations in its efforts to secure peaceful solutions to conflicts. It also represented a radical, 180-degree shift from previous US security postures, which largely promoted the notions of multi-lateralism and collective security within the context of international law.

Now, approximately 300,000 Americans lost their lives in the fight against fascism in World War II. An important legacy directly resulting from this American (and Allied) sacrifice was the establishment of an international organization (the Unite Nations), and a framework for international law, both of which essentially grew out of the Nuremberg war-crimes tribunals. Indeed, the notion that the affairs of States should be bound by a legal framework, and that leaders could and would be held accountable for their actions, held the great promise of finally ending the scourge of war, or, if not ending it, then at least seriously constraining it. The legal framework is codified in the Nuremberg Principles. A key component of the principles is the definition of crimes against peace;

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

The chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, had this to say about wars of aggression, "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Moreover, the United Nations Charter, which has the force of international law, states in article 2 that; All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. The UN charter, and other international legal agreements, also establish that the only legal justification for the use of force is self defense against attack. In this context self defense is meant to be defense against an imminent threat of attack against a nations territory. It does not, however, contemplate the preemptive use of force to defend from "perceived" threats.

The Bush doctrine of preemptive war seriously undermines the entire framework for international law that several hundred thousand American servicemen gave their lives to help bring into existence. I would call that a serious betrayal of the legacy of those Americans who served in World War II. Moreover, the claim of the right to now commit US troops to preemptive actions outside of the legal framework of international law is yet another betrayal, but now of those presently in uniform. I wouldn't call these the actions of a friend.

Child's Play

As a parent of two young boys, and a fledgling teenager, I've seen a lot of kids TV over the last few years, to tell you the truth, probably way too much! In fact, I consider myself somewhat of an afficionado on the subject. The state of media in general, and television in particular, in our society at the present time is so abysmal in my opinion that I find that many kids shows are actually more interesting to watch than a lot of the drivel intended for adults. While I understand that it is recommended that young kids not watch all that much TV, it's pretty tough to be overly restrictive about it, and, I also watched my fair share of TV when I was a kid, and I don't think it ruined me completely (although others might want to debate that)!

I think one of the better kids cable channels is Noggin. There are relatively few ads (almost none), and many of their shows are both entertaining, educational, and just more wholesome than your standard cartoon fare (think Power Rangers). A couple of my favorites on Noggin are "The Backyardigans," and the "Wonder Pets." The Wonder Pets features three classroom pets; a guinea pig (Linny), turtle (Tuck), and duckling (Ming-Ming), who go on adventures saving other animals in trouble. The animation style, "photo-puppetry" is really unique and engaging. There's music, humor, and good lessons for life, but it's done in such a fun and humorous way that it doesn't seem preachy at all. I highly recommend it for pre-schoolers, and be careful, you might like it as much as your kids!

Turning to more "conventional" cartoons, I have to confess to being a Spongebob Squarepants fan. It's gotten an enormous amount of media hype, and the commercialization of the Spongebob 'franchise' has been done to death. In the interests of full disclosure I will here reveal that my trash can at work features a Spongebob basketball hoop! But, the amazing animation and mad-cap nature of the characters still shines through, and for me it captures the best possibilities in cartoon humor. My favorite character in terms of the animation, and overall voice characterization is Mr. Krabs, the middle-aged, cheap-skate, capitalist-pig owner of the Krusty Krab. The eye stalks, stubby little legs, triangular carapace, huge claw/hands, it's all just genius, and the range of wild emotion swings in the voice character just cracks me up. In one particular episode, Krabs falls hard for Mrs. Puff, Songebob's driving instructor. It's a battle between his two great loves, money and Mrs. Puff. "OH Ho Ho, I couldn't help but spend every last cent of me money on her... OH ho ho." If you don't laugh out loud at least once during that episode, then you need to have your funny bone checked. A close second to Krabs is his arch nemesis, Plankton, a one-eyed, pill-shaped, well, piece of plankton, bent on world domination, and the secret Krabby Patty formula. One of his funnier schemes to acquire the formula is his attempt to use a "robot Krabs" to trick Spongebob into giving him the formula. Plankton is finally defeated by the coin-operated self destruct he built into the robot. "Not one of my better ideas." Now there's an understatement.

China

Last month I made my first visit to China. I traveled there to attend an astrophysics conference. The meeting was held in Huangshan, Anhui province, located about 200 miles west of Shanghai. It is famous for Huangshan mountain, which has been important in Chinese culture for more than a thousand years. The trip began auspiciously, as I found myself holding an economy ticket, but sitting in business class! I had simply asked if I could get an aisle seat when I checked in, and when my seat was assigned at the gate the counter agent made a cryptic remark like, "we've got a nice seat for you," which at the time did not really tip me off. But, upon boarding I realized my seat number was rather low, and quickly I was walking in business class looking for my seat. I still wasn't sure it wasn't some mistake, and kept expecting to be sent to the back, but after they buttoned up the doors I realized they must have had an extra space or two in business class, and I had gotten one. It's much roomier than coach, and one can almost recline fully and get some real sleep, which is a good thing, since my itinerary had me flying from Washington, DC to Beijing, almost a 14 hr flight. It is rather an amazing flight, the great circle between DC and Beijing goes almost over the north pole. It is one of the most remote air-routes I have ever flown, perhaps only rivaled by long hauls over the trackless Pacific Ocean, like LA to Sydney. For most of the flight you are flying over the arctic ocean, or the vast wildernesses of northern Canada and Siberia. If the plane should have some mechanical problem and be forced down, you are in deep yogurt! Take your pick, a forced ditching on the pack ice, or the frozen tundra of Siberia; either way, not a pleasant prospect. But, air travel really is remarkably safe, and my flight had no problems.

I then had a 4-5 hour layover, waiting to catch my AirChina flight to Huangshan. Huangshan is not a large city by Chinese standards, so there is only one connecting flight per day, and it arrives in Huangshan rather late (almost 10pm local time). The airport at Huangshan is really an "airstrip," one runway, and interestingly, after landing, the pilot has to make a full U-turn and come back down the runway to access the taxi-way and get to the gate. At any rate, by the time I had arrived in Huangshan I was really looking forward to a good 8 hours of unconsciousness. However, lots of the conference attendees were arriving at about the same time, so there was a sizable queue to get checked in. Also, we were asked to make a deposit in cash (Yuan) for the length of the stay, and most of us had not yet gotten much local cash, but they were good about it and let us pay some of what we had, and submit the remainder the following day. The other thing that became starkly clear at check-in is the immensity of the language barrier. It's almost impossible to communicate unless you have someone who can translate at least a little bit. Fortunately, there were several colleagues from the local organizing committee, and they could help with the hotel staff, who generally did not speak any English, just as I do not speak any Chinese!

The meeting was quite enjoyable, and I had a chance to catch up with some friends and colleagues. Meals were quite interesting. All the meals were provided for, each being a sizable buffet-like affair, except the food was really authentic. It was a little difficult to get used to seeing whole chicken's feet, fish, crawdads, squid, you name it. Most everything is cooked "au natural," that is, whole; fish, chicken, all have the heads still on, for example. Probably the most difficult adjustment was breakfast; whereas in the West we have typically different foods for breakfast, the Chinese seem to eat more or less the same kind of things at every meal. So, a few mornings it was a little difficult to "choke" down more rice. I definitely was having "bagel" withdrawal symptoms on a few occasions. Also, if you are a serious coffee addict you may want to consider bringing your own stash! If not for the Nestle instant that was hastily provided to us, we would have been nursing caffeine withdrawal headaches for a few days. Tea is definitely "in."

From what I could see it's true that China is just booming from an economic standpoint. It's quite amazing, like a high speed collision between the modern and the old; rich and poor. In general I found the people to be remarkably friendly, and with quite an interest in some of us obvious westerners. For example, on a few occasions while walking in the old district in Huangshan we would be approached by families wanting to get a picture of themselves with us! Many people would pass in the streets and try out the few words in English they knew, like "hi", or "hello." While in the city almost any modern convenience could be found, once out in the countryside things are a lot different. Almost all the land is under cultivation, and one can pass farmers working alongside their water-buffaloes! The city is modern, but its streets are swept by old women using "brooms" of a kind which they have probably used for hundreds of years, they look more like tree branches than brooms.

Huangshan mountain was very interesting. It's a big tourist site, but mostly for the Chinese themselves. It's a huge national park, and access to the mountain is via trails and stone steps cut and/or built along the trails. It's really a remarkable engineering feat, because there must be hundreds of miles of trails. Several cable cars provide access to the upper trails, but one can also walk. It was rather strenuous walking, with many, many steep sections of steps (see photos above). Amazingly, everything is carried up the mountain on the backs of porters. One of the photos above captures part of the journey of a porter. A single trip up the mountain can take upwards of 5 hrs. We passed porters carrying modern construction materials, such as long strings of re-bar, up the steps! As I said, everything is carried up by hand.

There are hotels up on the mountains, and one can find rest-stops and foods-stands, serving everything from Tsing-tao beer to green tea. Beer was rather interesting, or to be frank, somewhat disappointing! It is very weak stuff indeed, 2-3 % alcohol content typically. Perhaps one can get more stout beer in the major cities?

I also visited the Hung-Cun village in the countryside about 40 miles from Huangshan. The photo here shows some of the beautiful Chinese farmlands along the way. Hung Cun is a traditional Chinese village, and has been continuously inhabitated for more than a 1,000 years! It is also famous as a location for shooting of portions of the film, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." In particular, as you enter the village there is a walkway and small, ornate bridge across the pond in front. There are lotus blossoms in the pond, one of which I photographed.

Pickin' the blues

Another of my favorite avocations is playing the guitar. I first started playing when I was in high school, but didn't keep at it much past college. A bit more than a year ago I got the urge again, and after getting a new guitar, I've been fully hooked ever since. I try to play some almost every day, and have definitely been improving over the last year, although I've still got a long way to go!

My favorite style of guitar playing is acoustic country blues finger picking. I always had a soft spot for blues, and the great thing about the style is that you can almost get a fully "orchestrated" sound. You pick out a bass line and rhythm with your thumb on the bass strings, while simultaneously playing a melody line with your other fingers on the top strings. When done well it produces a really full and complex sound, and the possibilities are endless. I pick with four fingers on my right hand; thumb, index, middle and ring fingers. Amazingly, most of the true masters only used their thumb and index fingers! Of course, while your right hand is working, your left hand has to simultaneously get the right chord positions and changes. It takes a lot of coordination between your two hands, but like anything, if you have patience and just keep at it you slowly become more proficient. It's also a great style for vocal accompaniment, but combining singing with the guitar playing I find to be quite a challenge. It's hard enough doing one at a time, combining them takes A LOT of practice.

Some of the great blues masters of the genre include Mississippi John Hurt; Big Bill Broonzy; Reverend Gary Davis; Lightning Hopkins; Doc Watson; Furry Lewis; etc. In my opinion, one of the most amazing players of more recent times is Stefan Grossman. Check out his guitarvideos.com website if your curious about finger-picking guitar styles. It's also a great site to get guitar music and even dvd/video lessons.

A few months ago I acquired some simple recording gear; basically just a decent microphone and pre-amp. With that and a lap-top one can start recording with any number of free-ware packages. I've used Audacity with some success, and it's very simple to use, can let you lay down multiple tracks, and even has some basic signal processing tools. At some point I'll try to put in some links to a few sample tracks, and you can critique my playing, or not!

Numero Uno

Well, this is my first post. As you might be able to tell from my profile, I'm an ice hockey fan, specifically of the New York Rangers. Cut me and I bleed Ranger blue. Why the Rangers, when I grew up on Long Island (perhaps you've heard of the NY Islanders)? Well, when I first got excited about hockey, the New York Islanders franchise did not yet exist, so the Rangers were my hometown team. I'm not sure exactly why I was drawn to hockey, but I think it was a combination of the speed of the game, and the fact that in addition to learning how to control puck with stick one also must learn to skate, and to be an accomplished player, skating must be second nature. You must be as comfortable on ice skates as when walking around the block. It's two sports in one. I started playing street hockey as a youngster, and learned how to stick-handle and shoot before learning to skate. Slowly, over time I taught myself to skate simply by going to public skating sessions, almost daily, and imitating those I saw who seemed to know what they were doing. Finally at about age 12 I started playing organized ice hockey. I played in some kind of organized or recreational league almost every winter until a few years ago. My favorite aspect of the game is the speed and creativity with which it is possible to control and move the puck, and of course, score goals. Hockey still doesn't quite get the respect that I think it deserves, perhaps it's the presence of fighting within the game. I'll do a post on hockey and fighting some other time perhaps.

The last time I played in an organized game was during the summer 2005 American Astronomical Society (AAS) meeting in Minneapolis, MN. Hockey is big in Minnesota and the local organizers have twice hosted an AAS game. I missed the first one, but didn't want to miss the second. I packed my skates, shin and elbow pads, helmet, and gloves in a small sports bag, and put my stick in with the checked baggage. I was worried that I might have trouble with the stick, but they just wrapped it in a special cargo bag and it was one of the first pieces off the luggage belt. My flight was a little late, so I had to go right from the airport to the ice rink. I made it, but a little late, and missed about 10 minutes of the first period. We only had about 8-9 skaters on each team, so there was plenty of ice time, and by the end of the game I was completely exhausted. I've played several demanding sports, including track and field and soccer, but nothing is as physically demanding as hockey played at an advanced level. Anyway, it was loads of fun, and our side won the game, and I had a hand in two of our goals, getting assists on each. There were some pictures taken during the game, and here is one of me (red 13) bearing down on the goalie (Alas, I didn't score, but probably should have!).