Santa Rita Reserve Chardonnay. This wine shattered any illusions that I might have had about having acquired any wine-tasting skills whatsoever. First of all, it didn't taste like Chardonnay to me, it tasted like a slightly acidic Sauv. Blanc. I could not taste any oak, but the label described it as oaky. I guess this is because I'm not sure what oak tastes like - in my mind I associate the taste of oak (and the taste of Chardonnay) with Henry of Pelham Chardonnay, but I don't know if this is actually a legitimate comparison. There was a certain quality to this wine that I would describe as bright, fruity, acidic, and a bit of a "tangy zip". I don't know if this is acidity, or if it's some weird fruitiness like pineapple, or what. I didn't quite like this quality, but pairing the wine with a certain food might eliminate it. Unfortunately I have no idea what food to pair it with. Being vegetarian makes it hard to explore food/wine pairing because most recommended pairings are meat, and if I want to master such a subjective skill (as I'm doing with wine tasting and, to a lesser extent, literature appreciation) I have to start with what is generally accepted as "good".
So from this experience, I've come up with two Things They Should Invent:
1. Wine-tasting Training Shots: A liqueur-like drink (possibly non-alcoholic so as not to interfere with the art of tasting) that tastes like one, and only one, of the standard aspects of wine. Perhaps it should taste like a red or white wine with that aspect. For example "Tannic Cab. Sauv." or "Oaky Chardonnay". Aspiring tasters can drink a shot of just one flavour and master that taste. This would make it much easier than trying to glean the individual tastes from a wine that has seven different aspects. (I don't even know the correct word for what I'm refering to as "aspects").
2. Vegetarian food and wine pairing system. Or a junk food food and wine pairing system, just for fun. Or a website where you type in the wine you have and it recommends foods (or vice versa), and you can set restrictions to the type of food.
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Some dreams I had last night:
1. The Creepy Dream: Mi cielito kept breaking into my apartment and vandalizing things when I wasn't home, and he wouldn't explain to me why. Then I found out he had put these things - those round sticky things with wires coming out of them that they sometimes stick to the bodies of people they're doing medical tests on (what are these things called????) - anyway he had put these things on the back of my bookshelf and somehow that was broadcasting my vital signs over the internet. I woke up really creeped out. At this point in the lunar cycle it's normal for me to dream about him, but the dreams have always been more, um, pleasurable, not creepy like this.
2. The Stupid Dream: Someone had installed a new showerhead in the basement of some building, and a great many people were very excited about this, myself among them. We were all standing in a crowd around the showerhead, waiting for our turn to shower. Everyone was showering with their clothes on because of the presence of this crowd. I was growing increasingly impatient with waiting for my turn, and then I realized that I have my very own shower at home that no one else was using. So I walked up a big hill that looked like Lawrence & Vic. Park here in Toronto and also looked like that street that runs in front of University Plaza in Dundas (I don't know that anyone reading this is familiar with both those places, but anyway), and went home to my apartment.
3. The Existential Dilemma Dream: I was in an airplane. (The reason I was in an airplane was because I had taken an elevator I wasn't supposed to and it had landed in the middle of A Very Important Event, and the airplane was airlifting me and some other people out of there so we wouldn't disturb The Event). Anyway, the airplane was going to crash. The crew told us that we would lose consciousness due to the sudden loss of altitude (yes, I know it doesn't work that way) so we should lie down on the floor in the aisles, and then we'd fall asleep and it would all be over when we wake up. The idea of sleeping through the plane crash and not noticing a thing sounded good, so I lay down in the aisle, fell asleep, and woke up in my bed.
It later occurred to me that the possibility exists that this is all a dream and I'm really still on a crashing airplane.
1. The Creepy Dream: Mi cielito kept breaking into my apartment and vandalizing things when I wasn't home, and he wouldn't explain to me why. Then I found out he had put these things - those round sticky things with wires coming out of them that they sometimes stick to the bodies of people they're doing medical tests on (what are these things called????) - anyway he had put these things on the back of my bookshelf and somehow that was broadcasting my vital signs over the internet. I woke up really creeped out. At this point in the lunar cycle it's normal for me to dream about him, but the dreams have always been more, um, pleasurable, not creepy like this.
2. The Stupid Dream: Someone had installed a new showerhead in the basement of some building, and a great many people were very excited about this, myself among them. We were all standing in a crowd around the showerhead, waiting for our turn to shower. Everyone was showering with their clothes on because of the presence of this crowd. I was growing increasingly impatient with waiting for my turn, and then I realized that I have my very own shower at home that no one else was using. So I walked up a big hill that looked like Lawrence & Vic. Park here in Toronto and also looked like that street that runs in front of University Plaza in Dundas (I don't know that anyone reading this is familiar with both those places, but anyway), and went home to my apartment.
3. The Existential Dilemma Dream: I was in an airplane. (The reason I was in an airplane was because I had taken an elevator I wasn't supposed to and it had landed in the middle of A Very Important Event, and the airplane was airlifting me and some other people out of there so we wouldn't disturb The Event). Anyway, the airplane was going to crash. The crew told us that we would lose consciousness due to the sudden loss of altitude (yes, I know it doesn't work that way) so we should lie down on the floor in the aisles, and then we'd fall asleep and it would all be over when we wake up. The idea of sleeping through the plane crash and not noticing a thing sounded good, so I lay down in the aisle, fell asleep, and woke up in my bed.
It later occurred to me that the possibility exists that this is all a dream and I'm really still on a crashing airplane.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Things people who are screaming "Revoke the Khadrs' citizenship!" need to keep in mind:
1. Each individual's deeds or misdeeds must be considered, not their family members'. The individuals who have committed misdeeds should face the appropriate consequences, of course, but each family member must be evaluated on their own merits. No one's rights can be revoked because of someone else's actions, even if that someone else does happen to be a blood relative. How would you like to be held responsible for your father's actions and political convictions?
2. At least one, possibly more, of the children are underage. This means that they are obligated to live wherever their parents do. This means that it is not their fault that they lived in an Al-Qaeda facility, any more that it is your fault that you lived in Moncton or Moose Jaw or Prince Rupert when you were a kid.
3. There is nothing unlawful about dissing Canada. There is nothing unlawful about hating Canada. It only becomes unlawful if the words or thoughts are turned into actions. No matter how much a person hates Canada, and no matter how much they profess this publicly, that is still no basis for revoking citizenship.
These are basic rights to which all Canadian citizens are entitled. Even those that we find unpleasant and would rather not have in our country. Now, I'm not saying it wouldn't be prudent for someone to do a bit of investigating and make sure they have caught all the unlawful acts that these individuals might have committed. But if we run around calling for citizenships to be revoked for people who are legally innocent just because of something that their relatives did, and if we forget the basic concept of "innocent until proven guilty", then we are no better than the oppressive countries that my grandparents, and many other people and many other people's ancestors, fled to come here. Rights are for everyone, regardless of who their daddy is.
On a side note, with all this talk of revoking citizenship, I have not found any evidence that the Khadrs hold any other citizenship, but I'm pretty sure you can't leave a person with zero citizenship. Has anyone seen any mention of other citizenship in print, and care to share a link?
1. Each individual's deeds or misdeeds must be considered, not their family members'. The individuals who have committed misdeeds should face the appropriate consequences, of course, but each family member must be evaluated on their own merits. No one's rights can be revoked because of someone else's actions, even if that someone else does happen to be a blood relative. How would you like to be held responsible for your father's actions and political convictions?
2. At least one, possibly more, of the children are underage. This means that they are obligated to live wherever their parents do. This means that it is not their fault that they lived in an Al-Qaeda facility, any more that it is your fault that you lived in Moncton or Moose Jaw or Prince Rupert when you were a kid.
3. There is nothing unlawful about dissing Canada. There is nothing unlawful about hating Canada. It only becomes unlawful if the words or thoughts are turned into actions. No matter how much a person hates Canada, and no matter how much they profess this publicly, that is still no basis for revoking citizenship.
These are basic rights to which all Canadian citizens are entitled. Even those that we find unpleasant and would rather not have in our country. Now, I'm not saying it wouldn't be prudent for someone to do a bit of investigating and make sure they have caught all the unlawful acts that these individuals might have committed. But if we run around calling for citizenships to be revoked for people who are legally innocent just because of something that their relatives did, and if we forget the basic concept of "innocent until proven guilty", then we are no better than the oppressive countries that my grandparents, and many other people and many other people's ancestors, fled to come here. Rights are for everyone, regardless of who their daddy is.
On a side note, with all this talk of revoking citizenship, I have not found any evidence that the Khadrs hold any other citizenship, but I'm pretty sure you can't leave a person with zero citizenship. Has anyone seen any mention of other citizenship in print, and care to share a link?
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Monday, April 12, 2004
Sunday, April 11, 2004
Tangent: my poor flowers look like they're slowly suffocating. The stems are a healthy green right up to the point where they start looking down, then it becomes a sickly yellowish. It's like the good healthy stuff isn't reaching their heads, like a person in a room without enough oxygen. Poor flowers :(
But that wasn't what I meant to blog here at all. My thesis for this blog entry is that I enjoy being an adult, being an adult is very easy.
There's none of the drama that accompanies adolescence, or the oppression that accompanies childhood. I don't have to dress cool, I don't have to look sexy. My excuse is that I work in the office, but that still gives me the opportunity to look gloriously inadvertently sexy when the mood strikes. I can wear lipstick! Lipstick works on me, lip gloss does not, and I'm finally at a point in my life where lipstick isn't weird! I can retire early and curl up in bed with a novel because I have to work in the morning, or I can stay out late anyway. I can be knowledgeable of politics and grammatical minutiae and quantum physics (although I probably made at least two spelling mistakes in this sentence) and that's perfectly acceptable and only moderately eccentric, and I can still spend my free time gaming and instant messaging.
As a student I'd always feel slightly embarrassed about anything that I do or I like that isn't cool enough. Even though my peers stopped caring about cool years and years ago, this is leftover trauma from middle school. But now, whenever I feel the need to do something staid and frumpy, it's justified because I'm an adult and I work in an office. Yes, that is Bach I'm listening to, and yes, I would like a glass of wine rather than a series of shots. This is a space I've always been comfortable in, and finally I can get away with it.
But that wasn't what I meant to blog here at all. My thesis for this blog entry is that I enjoy being an adult, being an adult is very easy.
There's none of the drama that accompanies adolescence, or the oppression that accompanies childhood. I don't have to dress cool, I don't have to look sexy. My excuse is that I work in the office, but that still gives me the opportunity to look gloriously inadvertently sexy when the mood strikes. I can wear lipstick! Lipstick works on me, lip gloss does not, and I'm finally at a point in my life where lipstick isn't weird! I can retire early and curl up in bed with a novel because I have to work in the morning, or I can stay out late anyway. I can be knowledgeable of politics and grammatical minutiae and quantum physics (although I probably made at least two spelling mistakes in this sentence) and that's perfectly acceptable and only moderately eccentric, and I can still spend my free time gaming and instant messaging.
As a student I'd always feel slightly embarrassed about anything that I do or I like that isn't cool enough. Even though my peers stopped caring about cool years and years ago, this is leftover trauma from middle school. But now, whenever I feel the need to do something staid and frumpy, it's justified because I'm an adult and I work in an office. Yes, that is Bach I'm listening to, and yes, I would like a glass of wine rather than a series of shots. This is a space I've always been comfortable in, and finally I can get away with it.
The Man in my Basement by Walter Mosely. When I started reading, my impression was that I shouldn't like the book. The protagonist is unlikeable but it seemed like he wanted my sympathy, which usually ruins a book for me, and the portrayal of sexuality was not to my taste. Really, I do not need to know every single time the protagonist masturbates when it is not important to the plot or to establishing character. And yet, for reasons I don't understand, I enjoyed this novel. It's complex and psychological, dealing with guilt issues and race issues and probably other things I didn't get out of it during my first read-through. Many reviews have said that it leaves you thinking. It didn't leave me thinking, perhaps because it is a bit far removed from my reality, but I do see how it could leave one thinking. It's probably conducive to literary analysis, but I'm not into that sort of thing.
On the pragmatic side, the hardcover edition is also very small and compact, conducive to being carried in a purse. It's easy to read quickly without skimming, and compelling enough to make you want to keep going (although not so compelling that you stay up past your bedtime reading). The sexuality can border on graphic and gratuitous, but quantitatively it isn't excessive and I'd say it's stilli appropriate for reading in public.
Overall, I'm sure this is a very good book, and I did appreciate it, but I also think I'm not the appropriate audience to appreciate it fully.
On the pragmatic side, the hardcover edition is also very small and compact, conducive to being carried in a purse. It's easy to read quickly without skimming, and compelling enough to make you want to keep going (although not so compelling that you stay up past your bedtime reading). The sexuality can border on graphic and gratuitous, but quantitatively it isn't excessive and I'd say it's stilli appropriate for reading in public.
Overall, I'm sure this is a very good book, and I did appreciate it, but I also think I'm not the appropriate audience to appreciate it fully.
Because of the way my feet are messed up, it is very difficult for me to stand on one foot when I don't have shoes on. When a normal person stands on one foot, they keep their balance by pressing the outer edge of their foot into the ground. However, when I stand and walk normally in bare feet, the outer edge of my foot does not touch the ground at all - only the balls of my feet, my toes, and my heels touch the ground. I can easily stand on one foot in tightly laced running shoes, because the laces sort of hold up the inside edge of my foot and force it to pronate normally, but I can't balance on one foot with no shoes on.
Shoes with straps will support my foot the same way shoes with laces do. It isn't enough to play sports in, but I just discovered that it's enough to let me stand on one foot. So it turns out I can easily balance on one foot in three inch heels as long as they have straps, but I still can't balance on one foot barefoot.
Shoes with straps will support my foot the same way shoes with laces do. It isn't enough to play sports in, but I just discovered that it's enough to let me stand on one foot. So it turns out I can easily balance on one foot in three inch heels as long as they have straps, but I still can't balance on one foot barefoot.
Saturday, April 10, 2004
If all goes well, I will be studying Polish starting next September. What will be interesting is to see how my accent turns out. You see, when I was around the key age for acquiring phonemes, my grandmother babysat me every day while my mother was at work, and my grandmother would always speak to me in Polish. When my sister was born and my grandmother was no longer babysitting me (because my mother was home with the new baby) I lost all exposure to Polish and suddenly couldn't understand it any more. So I did acquire the phonemes at one point, and I don't know if a person loses phonemes after having acquired them (as opposed to the normal process of losing phonemes that one never hears).
So the possibility exists that I might speak basic, struggling, tentative Polish with a flawless accent!
So the possibility exists that I might speak basic, struggling, tentative Polish with a flawless accent!
Usually, at 10:30pm on the second day of my weekend, I'm either lying in bed stressing that I'm not at all tired enough to fall asleep, or wide awake at the computer feeling guilty about not being in bed.
Today, I'm pouring myself a nice glass of wine and settling in to read and game for a couple of hours, after which I will watch some stupid television on Deja View, and go to bed when I get the urge to do so.
Usually, the day after the second day of my weekend, I'm waking up way too early so I can do yoga in an attempt to energize myself a bit so I can get through the day. Then I'm sleepwalking through work and coming home grumpy.
Tomorrow, I will sleep in until about 11, have a leisurely breakfast, watch some MASH, relax at home, enjoy newspapers and novels, perhaps go for a short walk if it's nice out, then stay up late to watch the Sunday Night Sex Show since I don't have to get up early Monday either.
I love Easter!
Today, I'm pouring myself a nice glass of wine and settling in to read and game for a couple of hours, after which I will watch some stupid television on Deja View, and go to bed when I get the urge to do so.
Usually, the day after the second day of my weekend, I'm waking up way too early so I can do yoga in an attempt to energize myself a bit so I can get through the day. Then I'm sleepwalking through work and coming home grumpy.
Tomorrow, I will sleep in until about 11, have a leisurely breakfast, watch some MASH, relax at home, enjoy newspapers and novels, perhaps go for a short walk if it's nice out, then stay up late to watch the Sunday Night Sex Show since I don't have to get up early Monday either.
I love Easter!
The wine: Ernest and Julio Gallo Turning Leaf Cabernet Sauvignon
My thoughts: "Hmm, this is kind of berry-ish and vanilla-ish, with a bit of spicy aftertaste."
The label says: "This complex and rich medium-bodied wine was aged in oack and is balanced with berry, raspberry and vanilla flavours, with spicy hints on the finish."
I think I'm getting better at this!
By the way, this is a non-tannic cab. sauv., so just on that basis it's a good thing.
My thoughts: "Hmm, this is kind of berry-ish and vanilla-ish, with a bit of spicy aftertaste."
The label says: "This complex and rich medium-bodied wine was aged in oack and is balanced with berry, raspberry and vanilla flavours, with spicy hints on the finish."
I think I'm getting better at this!
By the way, this is a non-tannic cab. sauv., so just on that basis it's a good thing.
My shoe dilemma:
The shoes are black closed-toe high-heeled sandals. They are intended to be work with skirts or dresses in situations where I don't want to show my toes. Their wearability with pants is not priority, although, as always, flexibility is preferable. They aren't for daily wear, they're for sitting in my closet and being worn a couple of times a year.
Pair 1: Leather (ie. preferable shoe material), more casual (could not wear it with a formal dress, but could wear it with jeans if I were inclined to do so), heels more difficult to walk in, but heel shape more attractive. $40
Pair 2: Fabric/artificial material (ie. less preferable shoe material), being fabric might make it look a bit funny against black pants (mixing too much black fabric), makes my feet a bit sweaty, dressier (ie. could not wear it with jeans, would look quite nice with a formal dress), easier to walk in, less attractive heel shape. $30.
Both are reasonably comfortable, but still need some definite breaking in. I can't walk fast in either. Both have aspects that make them likely to go out of style: Pair 1 has white stitching, peekabo detailing on the toes, and a slight platform under the toes. Pair 2 has a fabric flower on the toes (reasonable enough to wear now, but might look silly in the future) and one of those heels that looks skinny in profile and chunky from the back. In all other aspects they are virtually identical.
And yes, I hate myself for being the kind of person who has shoe dilemmas.
The shoes are black closed-toe high-heeled sandals. They are intended to be work with skirts or dresses in situations where I don't want to show my toes. Their wearability with pants is not priority, although, as always, flexibility is preferable. They aren't for daily wear, they're for sitting in my closet and being worn a couple of times a year.
Pair 1: Leather (ie. preferable shoe material), more casual (could not wear it with a formal dress, but could wear it with jeans if I were inclined to do so), heels more difficult to walk in, but heel shape more attractive. $40
Pair 2: Fabric/artificial material (ie. less preferable shoe material), being fabric might make it look a bit funny against black pants (mixing too much black fabric), makes my feet a bit sweaty, dressier (ie. could not wear it with jeans, would look quite nice with a formal dress), easier to walk in, less attractive heel shape. $30.
Both are reasonably comfortable, but still need some definite breaking in. I can't walk fast in either. Both have aspects that make them likely to go out of style: Pair 1 has white stitching, peekabo detailing on the toes, and a slight platform under the toes. Pair 2 has a fabric flower on the toes (reasonable enough to wear now, but might look silly in the future) and one of those heels that looks skinny in profile and chunky from the back. In all other aspects they are virtually identical.
And yes, I hate myself for being the kind of person who has shoe dilemmas.
Stuff that irks me:
- Not one TV channel is showing Jesus Christ Superstar this weekend. It's Easter weekend!
- People who don't think unless absolutely necessary.
- Chick on the GO bus who repeatedly used the word fuck (as a verb) in her cellphone conversation without lowering her voice or attempting to circumlocute, and then lowered her voice to a conspiratal whisper to utter the word drunk.
Also, a ponderance: as we all know, some people from places where same-sex marriage is not legal come here to get married. We can reasonably assume that their home governments currently do not recognize these marriages. But will their home government recognize these marriages when same-sex marriage is legalized there, or will they have to get re-married?
- Not one TV channel is showing Jesus Christ Superstar this weekend. It's Easter weekend!
- People who don't think unless absolutely necessary.
- Chick on the GO bus who repeatedly used the word fuck (as a verb) in her cellphone conversation without lowering her voice or attempting to circumlocute, and then lowered her voice to a conspiratal whisper to utter the word drunk.
Also, a ponderance: as we all know, some people from places where same-sex marriage is not legal come here to get married. We can reasonably assume that their home governments currently do not recognize these marriages. But will their home government recognize these marriages when same-sex marriage is legalized there, or will they have to get re-married?
Thursday, April 08, 2004
One of my many deep, dark secrets is that I sing in the elevator when I'm alone therein. Today on the way home I was alone in the elevator, and I got the idea of singing Belleville Rendezvous. I did so, stopping singing at the 10th floor as I always do so my neighbours on my floor won't know that I'm the girl who sings in the elevator. When I got off on my floor, one of my neighbours gets off the next elevator over and gives me this look. Then I realize: the people in the other elevators can probably hear me, not just the people on the floors! GAH!
Ce que j'ai fait:
- I bought some shoes. Two very similar pairs actually, but I'm going to return the pair I like least. Black, closed-toe sandal things with higher-than-I-usually-wear heels. I can't walk fast in at least one pair, I'm about to try the other. Poor downstairs, I'm going to be walking around in heels on my hardwood floor all weekend.
- Spontaneously bought some tulips. Red ones and yellow ones. Now they're all looking pretty in my blue vase.
- Bought a lotto super 7 ticket. I bought two sets of numbers and they gave me six, for reasons that I do not understand. I'm going to give it to my grandmother for her birthday, (we don't really do big presents) because she always wins something, and the jackpot is $20 million.
Big plans for tonight: unwind playing Sorry on games.com, steam some vegetables and eat them with the rest of the lemon dill sauce, test out my shoes, do a hardcore vacuum (in heels, just like June Cleaver), fill out my U of T application, do some Harmony, read a bit, play Sims, and watch MASH. Yummy.
- I bought some shoes. Two very similar pairs actually, but I'm going to return the pair I like least. Black, closed-toe sandal things with higher-than-I-usually-wear heels. I can't walk fast in at least one pair, I'm about to try the other. Poor downstairs, I'm going to be walking around in heels on my hardwood floor all weekend.
- Spontaneously bought some tulips. Red ones and yellow ones. Now they're all looking pretty in my blue vase.
- Bought a lotto super 7 ticket. I bought two sets of numbers and they gave me six, for reasons that I do not understand. I'm going to give it to my grandmother for her birthday, (we don't really do big presents) because she always wins something, and the jackpot is $20 million.
Big plans for tonight: unwind playing Sorry on games.com, steam some vegetables and eat them with the rest of the lemon dill sauce, test out my shoes, do a hardcore vacuum (in heels, just like June Cleaver), fill out my U of T application, do some Harmony, read a bit, play Sims, and watch MASH. Yummy.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Suppose a person performs a selfish act - purely selfish, not one thought for its effects on others - but as an unintended consequence this act has a positive effect on others. Is it still considered selfish act?
Does it make a difference if the act had foreseeable positive consequences (like calling the fire department solely to get your own ass saved from a burning building, but as an unintended consequence other people got rescued too?) or if the act had forseeable negative consequences but serendipitiously had positive consequences instead (like rudely pushing someone because they were in your way, and you happen to push them out of the path of a falling safe*)?
*As an aside, I wonder if a safe has actually fallen ever in human history, or if that's just a cartoon construct?
Does it make a difference if the act had foreseeable positive consequences (like calling the fire department solely to get your own ass saved from a burning building, but as an unintended consequence other people got rescued too?) or if the act had forseeable negative consequences but serendipitiously had positive consequences instead (like rudely pushing someone because they were in your way, and you happen to push them out of the path of a falling safe*)?
*As an aside, I wonder if a safe has actually fallen ever in human history, or if that's just a cartoon construct?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)