Rainbow trout, probably a little over five pounds
Life at the Lake is an escape, in a way, but it is as "real" as anything, anything else. It is truly an escape from city life and a certain kind of stress—the kind that comes from too many people in too close a juxtaposition. Office buildings, car traffic, fumes of a particular nature. But still we have the inevitable conflict between individuals of greatly differing temperament and inclination. City or country, people still suffer from mutually shared derision (MSD). And most people like a lot of separation from one another. We are no exception, here at the lake.
We are governed by the same laws of human conduct and mutual respect, or the absence thereof. But we have more trees, wind, water, to offer us solace.
And yet life is changing here. In our nearly eight years on the lake we have seen at least a dozen houses added to what edges on the water. Some are nice, expensive, and some are not-so-mobile homes, new or used single-wides. Gradually the treed vacant lots are disappearing. In my dark moods I tell myself there will soon not be any left and our sweet lake will begin to resemble those small lowland lakes near Seattle that have stacked occupancies, that is, houses back to back, going up the gentle slopes behind them, and shared accesses.
For this is the inevitable fate of small lakes near cities, as more and more people realize that these are highly desirable places to live. And of course soon them will not be.
But for now we have no serious weed problem on the lake, no weeds of a "noxious" sort, and we have the occasional large holdover trout to remind us of what is possible.
Why, we used to travel hundreds of miles, spend hundreds of dollars, just for the slim opportunity to try to catch and release one of these fish. And here we can do it almost daily. . . .
Have the opportunity, I mean.
- - Comments ()
Change of heart?
Never underestimate the power of a blog, especially one from Blog Studio!
A couple of days ago, Life at the Lake strongly suggested to Condoleessa Rice that she testify before the select committee under oath and in public about 9/11 and say what she has been saying on TV, such as on 60 Minutes last Sunday.
For a day she ignored our message, then (after consultation with the President and The Presidental Attorney) agreed to change her policy of refusal. She will testify. Not only that but Bush and Cheney will testify before the whole committee, and not limit their testimont to a few minutes and a couple of questions from the top two members.
Life at the Lake would not have DARED to suggest such a thing. Normally we only deal with underlings and are careful to keep our role in national and international affairs minor. But—embolden by success—we now may choose to deal with larger matters of public policy and state.
- - Comments ()
TO TESTIFY OR NOT TO TESTIFY?
Condoleessa Rice: some dish!
When I first heard the name, I thought of an exotic Asian delicacy from an a la carte menu. But, no, it is the given name of the presidential national security adviser.
She ranks below cabinet level and must defer to Rumstad, Powell, and Cheney, and knows it. Still, she gets a morning audience with The Man, whenever he wants one.
She has already once testified before the special panel investigating the 9/11 disaster. Now she is being asked to testify again--but with a huge stipulation:
She will testify "privately" before a reduced number of panelist, probably just two, and will not be under oath.
What, not under oath? What does this portend? It cannot be . . . .
"Permission to lie?"
Isn't everything she says in public—including all those meet-the-press interviews—also under implied oath? Are we not being told the truth before all those TV news analyst/commentators? Is it only "some version of the truth?" And what, exactly, is some "version of the truth?"
Doesn't that translate, "More lies?"
- - Comments ()