The purpose of the Triwizard Tournament

I just realized that the Triwizard Tournament has an important purpose in the overall narrative: because Harry is a contestant in the tournament, he learns all kinds of Defence skills that he never would have learned otherwise! This allows him to run the DA in book 5, and will doubtless help him eventually defeat Voldemort!

Hagrid for Half-Blood Prince!

I just noticed in GOF (at least according to a Rita Skeeter article, which, of course, may be way off) that Hagrid's mother's "whereabouts are unknown." That certainly leaves a nice little blank to fill in!

Brilliant Ideas that will Never Work: Ask a bad guy

Imagine if they came up with a way where you could have a civil, rational and honest conversation with a "bad guy" to find out what they are thinking. A "bad guy" could be a thief, murderer, rapist, bully, terrorist, torturer - any kind of person who does things that average people don't understand. Actually, they could have the reverse too - a "good guy" could be asked questions by a "bad guy" and they could share points of view.

I have absolutely no idea how this could be carried off logisitcally and how you would get the participants to be honest (I could make it work using the technology available in the Potterverse, but that's neither here nor there).

I can think of all kinds of questions I'd like to ask all kinds of people. Ask a bully: "What were you hoping to achieve? Did you realize that other people are human beings with thoughts and feelings? How did you pick your victims?" Ask the people I've heard of that stick their hands up girls' skirts in the subway: "How do you pick your victims? Why do you think you're entitled to do this?" Ask homophobics: "What specific negative effects do you think same-sex marriage is going to have on opposite-sex marriage, and why?" Ask religious fanatics of all stripes: "What specific aspects of my everyday behaviour do you think are harmful to you and your loved ones and why?"

The point of this is not to debate or convert, it's simply to understand what the other person is thinking. You don't have to agree with them, the goal is just to see how their mind works. I haven't the slightest idea how this could be successfully carried off, but it would be brilliant if it could.

Chuck Cadman died!

Chuck Cadman died yesterday of skin cancer.

Harry Potter recurring items

I've noticed that Harry's broomstick servicing kit (which Hermione bought him for his 13th birthday) has been mention quite a few times.

Hoya de Cadenas Reserva Tempranillo

I like this one. It's very fruity. There are bits of smokey undertones and I'm usually not that fond of smokey flavours, but I do like it as a whole. It's also quite reasonably priced considering the vintage - the 1999 costs what you'd usually pay for a 2003.

And while we're on the subject of terrorism...

Another thing I don't understand is the attitude I've seen from some corners where they don't care at all what the terrorists' motivation is. Some people are acting like even inquiring into what the motivation might be is like saying the terrorists are right. I can't understand this - not just because understanding the motive seems to be a good first step in preventing the crime from reoccurring in the future, but also because I'm always fascinated by learning the motives of people who do things that I would never do or that it would never occur to me to do. I'm interested in why terrorists choose to be terrorists for the same reason I'm interested in why people become rapists or murderers or bullies, or why a person would not want to be an organ donor, or why a person would got terribly sick and puking and miserable for days from having 17 drinks last weekend would have 17 drinks again this weekend.

"They hate our freedom"

With the recent London bombings, I'm hearing phrases like "They hate our freedom" being bandied about once again as explanations for why terrorists are bombing things.

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read extensively on terrorist motivation, but I can't help thinking that "They hate our freedom" reminds me of the useless platitudes that grownups would say about bullies when I was a kid. "They're just trying to get attention, just ignore them." "They just want you to react. Don't react and they'll go away." "They're just jealous of you." "They just have low self-esteem." Just as I cannot imagine someone thinking "I want attention. I think I will call the girl behind me names that imply that she engages in degrading sex acts that she hasn't even heard of yet" or "I am going to put spiders in the hair of the class arachnophobic because I want to see her react," I cannot imagine someone thinking "Those people are free. I hate that. I shall bomb them." (Particularly since anyone who can organize a terror campaign must have at least as much personal freedom as I do.)

Based on the limited reading I have done so far plus applying simple logic and reasoning to my knowledge of the global socio-political situation, I'd assume that this terrorism is more in response to certain elements of foreign policy that the terrorists construe as military occupation of their holy lands or attacks on their religious values and/or way of life. I've read that they're unhappy with the Israel/Palestine situation and the fact that the US (and maybe some of its allies? I don't know offhand) has a military presence in Saudi Arabia and perhaps some other Arab countries, and this makes more sense to me as a motivation for terrorism than hating the freedom in some distant country.

I wonder what the terrorist think of being told that they hate our freedom?

Censorship

There's a newspaper ad for Blue Cross that depicts a little baby on the beach, being held up in a standing position by his hand by an adult, so that he can play at walking. I can't tell you numerically how old the baby would be, but he's too young to walk by himself, but old enough to walk in a walker or when held up by a grownup. He's just a bit taller than up to his parent's knees. The photo is taken from the back, so we see the back of the baby framed by his parent's legs, and the slogan says "Protection doesn't get any better than this," with a blurb on the side about Blue Cross. The ad is on the bottom of page A22 of today's Toronto Star, if you want to see it.

I've seen this ad before. When I saw it before, the baby was naked. Today, the baby has a blue bathing suit rather obviously edited on. It's rather funny, because if the bathing suit were real it wouldn't leave any room for a diaper, and I seriously doubt anyone would take a baby that age out in clothing without a diaper.

I'm kind of surprised that people would complain. In retrospect I can see their point, because the nudity was completely gratuitous and I'd assume this would be the sort of thing that would titillate a pedophile, but it would never have occurred to me upon seeing the original ad that someone might complain.

So...yeah...London

I haven't written about London yet because I'm not feeling anything about it. I realize this sounds cold and callous and reflects poorly on me. I certainly realize it's a tragedy and sympathy is called for etc. But my strong emotional reactions to tragedies tend to come from empathy with the victims and their families. I imagine "OMG! What if that was me?" and then I picture myself in that situation and fret about whatever would I do.

The thing about London though, is between Sept. 11 and the blackout in 2003, I've already fretted about everything that the London bombings would normally cause me to fret about. I've already played over dozens of worst-case scenarios in my head and subconsciously come up with action plans for each of them. I've already been through the drastic emotional reaction, and it just doesn't seem to be happening again. I've left appropriate wishes and condoleances in appropriate places, read the newspaper coverage thoroughly, checked to see if they could use donations of anything, nodded solemnly at the half-mast flag and given a grateful smile to the transit cops who are suddenly showing up everywhere. But I just don't think the tears are going to happen.

It is possible that I've lost all fear of terrorism. When I think about the possibility of my getting caught in a bombing, I'm surprisingly zen about it. If I die, I die. My death is inevitable anyway, it's just a question of when. If I am maimed, I am maimed. I have disability insurance, a particularly good computer that would certainly be willing to take on any necessary adaptations to accommodate disabilities, and a job that I could do from home. If someone important to me dies, that would upset me more, but, given my genetics and my strange habit of befriending people who happen to have health issues, in the back of my mind I've always assumed I'll outlive everyone I know anyway. Que sera sera.

Potterverse science

If a Parselmouth becomes an Animagus, but their Animagus form is not a snake, can they still speak Parseltongue?

On rereading Goblet of Fire

My first few times through, I thought the plot of Goblet of Fire was a bit silly. Why not just solve every task with Accio? Why didn't Crouch!Moody just make something into a portkey and hand it to Harry? But upon a close rereading I find I'm really enjoying it. The first hundred or so pages have nothing to do with the rest of the plot (just chez Weasley and Quidditch Cup) but I'm immensely enjoying reading through them because I get to see joyous daily life in the wizarding world, which is really one of my favourite things about the books. Plus there's all these tiny little clues that you can see when you know how it's going to turn out. Perhaps clues isn't the correct word because the reader (or Harry) could never have put them together to figure out the entire nefarious plot (that's why the last few chapters are always essentially a debriefing). But as I reread, I see that Winky the House Elf is struggling as though an invisible person is holding onto her, which he is, but we don't know this yet! And I see how Crouch Sr. is reacting, and it all makes sense given what we know at the end! It really makes me appreciate the craft, and perhaps it will give me a better idea of how to derive clues from HBP.

Doggies in elevators

Sometimes people in my apartment building are taking a doggie in or out of the building, and sometimes the doggie gets to ride in the elevator.

One thing I've noticed with all the doggies I've ever seen is the moment the elevator doors start to open, the doggie enthusiastically charges through, ending up on the other side before the doors have even finished opening. They're all waggy and SO EXCITED that they get to get on or off the elevator!

I love doggies.

Sheep!

If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?

Thoughts from the first chapter of GOF

1. Who's the rich absentee owner of the Riddle House? Might it be Malfoy or his ilk?
2. What's up with Nagini? Where did she come from, and why is she with Voldemort? Did he just ask her to come along, or is there something in it for her? Is the a Fantastic Beast? Did Voldie name her or is that her own name?
3. Voldemort says that Wormtail can do him a favour that most of his followers would give their right hands for. Nice! I never noticed this line before!
4. How did Wormtail know where to look for Voldemort?
5. A skilled wizard can undo a memory charm. I expect this to turn up again later.
6. What on earth does a "high, cold voice" sound like?

Things that will not happen in HBP (but tend to happen in fanfiction)

1. Harry will not find religion of any sort
2. Harry will not become a superhero over the summer (although I can't rule out the idea that he might become a superhero by the end of book 7).
3. Harry will not decide "I need a girlfriend" and then proceed methodically to acquire a girlfriend.
4. None of the grownups will find romance.
5. None of the students we know will be in a steady longterm relationship by September.
6. Harry will not get over the death of Sirius and become bright and cheerful and optimistic over the summer.
7. Harry will not be treated excessively differently from other students. He may have one or two extra lessons in the evenings, but he won't be a TA or a specially-appointed prefect or DADA instructor.
8. Harry will not see eye-to-eye with Snape or Malfoy or anyone else who might have previously been interpreted as an enemy before June.

Tai Chi

The exercise ladies on TV had me doing Tai Chi this morning. Apparently along with all the movements, you are also manipulating energy. As with most spiritual things, I can go through the motions, but I can't actually feel the energy. This makes me wonder if you can manipulate energy inadvertently by moving your body certain ways. Like if I flail my arms to avoid slipping and falling or to shoo away a fly, might I accidentally disturb my Chi or throw a load of negative energy at some innocent passer-by?

Prisoner of Azkaban thoughts

This is without a doubt my favourite Harry Potter book! It has the best Quidditch, and the last hundred pages or so are so action-packed that I was on the edge of my seat, reading them all in one go the first time I read it. Even upon numerous re-readings, knowing full well what happens, I still don't want to put the book down. (I just noticed, it's the best book, and it's also the only one with no Voldemort. Coincidence?)

Thoughts:

- Penelope Clearwater is mentioned quite frequently, and always described as "Percy's girlfriend". That's probably because that's how Harry perceives her, but still she's mentioned a lot. Penelope Clearwater for Half-Blood Prince!

- I wonder if it's important that Pigwidgeon is a ridiculously tiny owl?

- I wonder why J.K. Rowling chose to tell us Sirius's vault number?

- I predict another prophesy from Trelawney by the end of the series.

OMG! Canadians can't remember politics from their early childhood or before they were born! Whatever shall we do?

Since last weekend was Canada Day, it was time for the annual "OMG! Canadains don't know ANYTHING about Canadian history! Whatever shall we do?" quiz. (The quiz itself starts on page 10.)

The problem with some of these questions is that they cover events that they expect the quiz-taker to have memory of. The questions are about things that people would remember but might not make it into history class (or might only be mentioned in passing). The problem is that while the quiz is for people age 18 and up, questions requiring memory focus more on the boomer era. The average 18-year-old was born in 1987, so they wouldn't really remember political or historical events from before the mid-90s. (Aside: have you ever noticed that some grownups seem to have the implicit attitude that "Young people are stupid because they don't remember stuff we remember!")

So, for general amusement, here are the questions I could and could not answer:

1. I would have said "Gold Rush" because it wouldn't have occurred to me to specify which gold rush in a Canadian quiz. So if the word Klondike was necessary I would have gotten it wrong.

2. AGEIST: Requires memory of the 1970s.

3. **cough cough** product placement.

4. I knew this one.

5. I didn't know this one.

6. I knew this one.

7. I knew this one.

8. I knew this one.

9. I knew this one.

10. I could not have given the correct answer, but if they had asked me "What was the Pacific Scandal," I could have described it reasonably well.

11. AGEIST: Requires memory of the 1970s.

12. I would have guess this one correctly.

13. AGEIST: I knew this one, but it requires memory of 1987.

14. AGEIST: Requires memory of the Trudeau era.

15. I know I was taught this in grade 10 history, but I don't know whether I would have answered correctly or not. I do have the word "reciprocity" mentally linked to "Laurier", but I don't know whether I would have remembered what it is.

16. I knew this one.

17. I knew this one.

18. I knew this one.

19. I knew this one.

20. I would have guessed this one correctly.

Total for all questions: 13/20 = 65%
Number where I knew the fact in question but could not have answered the question as posed: 15/20=75%
Total for all non-ageist questions: 12/16 = 75%
Total for all non-ageist questions where I knew the fact in question but could not have answered the question as posed: 14/16 = 87.5%

So we're left with the following facts:

- I don't know details of politics that occurred shortly before I was born and hadn't made it to the history books by the time I was in school.

- I don't know what percentage of Canadian goods were exported to the US in 1900, which is normal for me because I suck at remember percentages in general.

- Sometimes I can't recall every detail of what I was taught in history class ten years ago, but if presented with the full facts can remember being taught it.

- I can sometimes make good guesses using logic and conventional wisdom.

- I suck at recognizing product placement opportunities.