1. When Hagrid took Harry into the Leaky Cauldron for the first time and everyone wanted to shake his hand, a witch named Doris Crockford kept coming back to shake his hand time and time again. I think we'll see another cameo from Doris Crockford.
2. Suppose a person manages to become an Animagus before they hit puberty. Would their Animagus form be a not-yet-fully-grown animal? Does the Animagus form age along with the person?
3. I think I'm beginning to agree with the fandom theory that the place with the boat that we see on the back of the book cover is the same place as the boats that take the first-years to Hogwarts land.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
I guess I should give everyone fair warning...
I started my Pre-HBP-Release Harry Potter Reread today, so Harry Potter-related posts are going to be much more frequent between now and the time I finish reading and absorbing HBP. I'll still be blogging about other stuff, but there's going to be far more Potter than usual. So if there's anyone out there who doesn't want spoilers for the first five books, you'd do well to stop reading until at least July 18, and those of you are repulsed and repelled by the thought of a grown woman extensively theorizing about Harry Potter might want to visit less frequently for the next month or so.
Also, I think Dumbledore's watch will show up again :)
Also, I think Dumbledore's watch will show up again :)
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror by Richard A. Clarke
This book is a description of the events leading up to Sept. 11, by the former White House Counterterrorism Director.
It's quite interesting, and brought up a lot of things that I didn't know. For example, I didn't know that al-Quaeda was so new. I didn't know that the US dropped so many bombs in the 1990s (I knew about some, but not all), and I didn't know that they had very specific intelligence that led them to drop bombs where they did, as well as very specific intelligence about the 9/11 attacks, and other previous terrorist threats that were averted. I did hear some talk in the 1990s about terrorists who wanted to attack the US, but it just sounded all paranoid to me.
I don't know what's to blame for this ignorance on my part. It could be the fact that I don't read every article in the newspaper - I just skim headlines and read only what's interesting to me. It could be the particular newspapers to which my parents chose to subscribe. It could be the media's distraction with Clinton's sex life. It could be the fact that I didn't consume any American media at all during that time, except for the occasional newscast teaser while watching sitcoms on a US channel. It could be that the fact they were able to get such specific intelligence was classified at the time. I could play the "But I was just a teenager!" card, but frankly my ability to follow current events was just the same then as it is now, except that now I get to choose the newspapers to read and the newscasts to watch, and now the internet is bigger. But really, I was operating without all the facts in the 1990s, which is kind of embarrassing.
Another thing that I found kind of disturbing was the fact that apparently the US had/has a "snatch" program, where they'd send agents in to grab suspected terrorists and put them into custody (or possibly kill them, if necesssary). I feel conflicted about this. On one hand, the thought has occurred to me that sending in a special agent to kill key enemies of the state is preferable to starting a war. On the other hand, the fact that they didn't even seem to care that this is inviolation of international law disturbs me. It makes me think that if someone randomly one day decides I'm a suspect for something, agents might come in the night and abduct me and take me away, and if they aren't respecting international law they might not care for keeping me under Geneva conditions or giving me a fair trial or remanding me to Canadian custody. Yet another example of where US foreign policy operates under the assumption that they are The Good Guys and everyone sees them as such.
There were a few annoyances, such as Mr. Clarke's (and his editor's) apparent inability to differentiate between the words "insure" and "ensure", and the fact that it never seems to cross anyone's mind that dropping bombs is an act of war. But it's still worth reading just for the sake of hearing the story from an insider's perspective. Just do keep in mind that the author is likely to have certain biases because of the field which he has been working for so long.
It's quite interesting, and brought up a lot of things that I didn't know. For example, I didn't know that al-Quaeda was so new. I didn't know that the US dropped so many bombs in the 1990s (I knew about some, but not all), and I didn't know that they had very specific intelligence that led them to drop bombs where they did, as well as very specific intelligence about the 9/11 attacks, and other previous terrorist threats that were averted. I did hear some talk in the 1990s about terrorists who wanted to attack the US, but it just sounded all paranoid to me.
I don't know what's to blame for this ignorance on my part. It could be the fact that I don't read every article in the newspaper - I just skim headlines and read only what's interesting to me. It could be the particular newspapers to which my parents chose to subscribe. It could be the media's distraction with Clinton's sex life. It could be the fact that I didn't consume any American media at all during that time, except for the occasional newscast teaser while watching sitcoms on a US channel. It could be that the fact they were able to get such specific intelligence was classified at the time. I could play the "But I was just a teenager!" card, but frankly my ability to follow current events was just the same then as it is now, except that now I get to choose the newspapers to read and the newscasts to watch, and now the internet is bigger. But really, I was operating without all the facts in the 1990s, which is kind of embarrassing.
Another thing that I found kind of disturbing was the fact that apparently the US had/has a "snatch" program, where they'd send agents in to grab suspected terrorists and put them into custody (or possibly kill them, if necesssary). I feel conflicted about this. On one hand, the thought has occurred to me that sending in a special agent to kill key enemies of the state is preferable to starting a war. On the other hand, the fact that they didn't even seem to care that this is inviolation of international law disturbs me. It makes me think that if someone randomly one day decides I'm a suspect for something, agents might come in the night and abduct me and take me away, and if they aren't respecting international law they might not care for keeping me under Geneva conditions or giving me a fair trial or remanding me to Canadian custody. Yet another example of where US foreign policy operates under the assumption that they are The Good Guys and everyone sees them as such.
There were a few annoyances, such as Mr. Clarke's (and his editor's) apparent inability to differentiate between the words "insure" and "ensure", and the fact that it never seems to cross anyone's mind that dropping bombs is an act of war. But it's still worth reading just for the sake of hearing the story from an insider's perspective. Just do keep in mind that the author is likely to have certain biases because of the field which he has been working for so long.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Harry Potter fandom theory pet peeves
My biggest pet peeve about Harry Potter fandom theories is that it has practically become fanon that a) Metamorphmagi cannot morph into someone of the opposite sex, and b) Polyjuice Potion cannot turn you into someone of the opposite sex.
Magic can turn a person into a rat or a cat or a dog, make a person or thing vanish into thin air, let a Phoenix die and be reborn from the ashes, and put Hogwarts letters inside eggs. Why on earth would it not be able to turn a penis into a vagina or vice versa? Even Muggle medicine can do that!
Magic can turn a person into a rat or a cat or a dog, make a person or thing vanish into thin air, let a Phoenix die and be reborn from the ashes, and put Hogwarts letters inside eggs. Why on earth would it not be able to turn a penis into a vagina or vice versa? Even Muggle medicine can do that!
St Urbans-Hof Riesling
This is the featured white at Vintages this month, and it's quite good. It's very bright and a bit minerally - reminds me of lemon-flavoured Perrier - and quite refreshing when well-chilled. The only problem is the bottle is ridiculous. It's long and skinny, making it far too tall for my fridge, so I have to wedge it into the door shelf sideweays. Luckily I have room to do that, but it could be a deal-breaker for someone with a full fridge.
New template
I got tired of the big giant space and changed my template. Let me know what you think of the font size, please. It looks a bit to big to me, but I stubbornly insist upon keeping my screen resolution at 800x600 (I know, I know, that's dirty and shameful and disgusting and scandalous and a reprehensible way to treat an LCD monitor and I should go to bed without my dinner) so it might be fine for people who have a more 21st-century resolution.
Oh no! Not a FENCE!
Just when Charles and Pauline Sammut thought their six-year war with the Islington Golf Club was over, a new battle with the private course has emerged over its proposed solution to stop a flurry of golf balls from hitting the retired couple's $1 million home.Wow, I wish my biggest problem was that someone was building a tall fence near my million-dollar home. And I wish I had had so few problems in my life that I thought a tall fence being built near my home was outrageous enough to go to the media.
Today, the exclusive club plans to begin construction of a fence nearly 7 metres high in the Sammuts' front yard. The chain-link barrier will be built on the city-owned road allowance off Fairway Rd., just 9 metres from the Sammuts' front door. It will stretch from the course boundary off the third hole to within 2 metres of the couple's driveway.
The golf club calls it a reasonable solution. The Sammuts call it a farce.
"I'm peeved and mad," said Charles Sammut, 75, upon hearing of the proposed solution. "I do not want a 22-foot fence in front of my house. It's going to make us feel encaged. I don't even think it's going to stop the balls."
[...]
The golf club was given permission by the City of Toronto to build the fence, DeSaverio said. That decision upset Charles Sammut, who moved into the home with his wife, Pauline, in 1999.
"I can't understand how anybody could get a permit to build this kind of a fence in front of a house," he said. The department responsible for issuing building permits in Toronto could not be reached for comment.
The lawyer representing the Sammuts called the golf club's proposition "unreasonable" and said he plans to ask Justice Stewart whether or not the fence complies with her court order.
"It doesn't sound like a very common-sense solution," said John Ritchie. "We put a man on the moon. We should be able to resolve a problem with some golf balls."
[...]
Picturesque Islington Golf Club was incorporated in 1923 at a time when homes near the course were scarce.
Since 1999, there has been increased residential development on the land just east of the course.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Blog template and the Giant Space
For the record, this blog template is called Split Pea. I tried reinstalling the template, and it still gapped. I tried comparing my template line-by-line with the sample provided, and the best I can tell is that it's the same except for font size changes I made months ago (although I don't have software to do a line-by-line comparison for me).
I emailed the blogger people so I'll give them a couple of days to see if they can respond. If not, I'm going to have to change the template. This just doesn't make any sense...
I emailed the blogger people so I'll give them a couple of days to see if they can respond. If not, I'm going to have to change the template. This just doesn't make any sense...
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Inclusive and neutral language
My earlier post about racial slurs got me thinking:
What constitutes inclusive and neutral language is always changing, as we make a conscious and deliberate effort to eliminate inadvertent negative connotations from our daily discourse. So sometimes people don't know that if they use a particular word in a particular context, it could be interpreted as offensive, exclusionary, or otherwise give the impression that their intent is not benign.
What I don't understand is people who, upon learning that a certain word is not or is no longer appropriate and being told an acceptable alternative, stubbornly insist upon their right to continue using it. I'm not talking about using it in contexts where they intend to give offence or other contexts where they wish to include or allude to the negative connotations for a specific semantic reason - I'm talking about neutral contexts, where the strict denotation of the word is all that is intended to be communicated. But instead of using the word that they now know to be neutral, some people insist upon continuing to use the old word and insist that other people should simply not read into it the negative connotations that it bears.
Why, upon learning that a particular word could cause offence and that using it could give the impression that the speaker's intent is to cause offence, would a person beligerently insist upon continuing to use it? Do they know that this makes them look like assholes? Do they know that this gives the impression that they are deliberately and passive-aggressively attempting to cause offence? Why would a person who does not want to cause offence not immediately alter their linguistic choices to the words that are the most neutral and benign possible? What are they hoping to achieve?
What constitutes inclusive and neutral language is always changing, as we make a conscious and deliberate effort to eliminate inadvertent negative connotations from our daily discourse. So sometimes people don't know that if they use a particular word in a particular context, it could be interpreted as offensive, exclusionary, or otherwise give the impression that their intent is not benign.
What I don't understand is people who, upon learning that a certain word is not or is no longer appropriate and being told an acceptable alternative, stubbornly insist upon their right to continue using it. I'm not talking about using it in contexts where they intend to give offence or other contexts where they wish to include or allude to the negative connotations for a specific semantic reason - I'm talking about neutral contexts, where the strict denotation of the word is all that is intended to be communicated. But instead of using the word that they now know to be neutral, some people insist upon continuing to use the old word and insist that other people should simply not read into it the negative connotations that it bears.
Why, upon learning that a particular word could cause offence and that using it could give the impression that the speaker's intent is to cause offence, would a person beligerently insist upon continuing to use it? Do they know that this makes them look like assholes? Do they know that this gives the impression that they are deliberately and passive-aggressively attempting to cause offence? Why would a person who does not want to cause offence not immediately alter their linguistic choices to the words that are the most neutral and benign possible? What are they hoping to achieve?
Everything is soooo gay today
Is it Pride everywhere today, or just in Toronto? I'm wondering because non-local entertainment media seems to be focusing on its various queer plots. For example, tonight's Simpsons is supposed to be the same-sex marriage one, and 9 Chickweed Lane chose today to come the closest it ever has to making Seth's sexuality an "issue" (before it has been either just there, or a convenient plot device). Is this a coincidence, or is today as Pride Day more global than I thought?
Disingenuity
I know very few racial slurs, and I don't know the meaning of the majority of the racial slurs that I do know. (I picked most of them up from Monty Python's "Never be Rude to an Arab" song. (Warning: this song contains racial slurs, obviously)) I rarely hear racial slurs in my day-to-day life, of course, but they do come up once in a while in certain irregular social contexts.
Therefore, I have decided to take it a step further, and pretend to be completely ignorant of any and all racial slurs that I might hear or read in a social context. I will give the impression that I've never heard the word before (which in most cases I haven't), ask what it means (because in most cases I don't know), if it's rather far removed from the proper term I will ask about its origins or if it's perhaps in another language, and then I will politely inquire as to in which contexts or situations one might choose to use this word rather than the proper term. If someone explicitly says it's a racial slur, I'll say, "Oh really? I've never heard one before!" (I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've heard them in an actual conversation.)
This approach is extremely close to reality, and is consistent with what reality should be in the 21st century, and it should work with every racial slur, with the possible exception of one that people would expect me to have encountered in literature.
Therefore, I have decided to take it a step further, and pretend to be completely ignorant of any and all racial slurs that I might hear or read in a social context. I will give the impression that I've never heard the word before (which in most cases I haven't), ask what it means (because in most cases I don't know), if it's rather far removed from the proper term I will ask about its origins or if it's perhaps in another language, and then I will politely inquire as to in which contexts or situations one might choose to use this word rather than the proper term. If someone explicitly says it's a racial slur, I'll say, "Oh really? I've never heard one before!" (I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've heard them in an actual conversation.)
This approach is extremely close to reality, and is consistent with what reality should be in the 21st century, and it should work with every racial slur, with the possible exception of one that people would expect me to have encountered in literature.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Why does everything have to be so superlative?
Why does life have to be beautiful and wonderful and a precious gift? Why can't it just be a biological fluke that we happen to be experiencing?
Why does Canada have to be world-renouned with a sterling reputation abroad? Why can't we just be a quiet, decent place to live?
Why do food and drink and sex and movies and art and books and theatre and yoga have to be amazing? Why can't they just be nice, pleasurable, enjoyable?
Why does Toronto have to be a world-class city? Why can't we just be a nice city with decent amenities for its residents?
Why do we have to work hard and play hard? Why can't we just work when necessary and play when it strikes our fancy to do so?
Why do we have to be passionate about our favourite hobbies? Why can't we just like them, enjoy them, find them relaxing?
Why do we have to be passionate about our charitable causes? Why can't we just think they're worthy?
Why do we have to live life to its fullest, making the most of each moment? Why can't we just live life?
Why does Canada have to be world-renouned with a sterling reputation abroad? Why can't we just be a quiet, decent place to live?
Why do food and drink and sex and movies and art and books and theatre and yoga have to be amazing? Why can't they just be nice, pleasurable, enjoyable?
Why does Toronto have to be a world-class city? Why can't we just be a nice city with decent amenities for its residents?
Why do we have to work hard and play hard? Why can't we just work when necessary and play when it strikes our fancy to do so?
Why do we have to be passionate about our favourite hobbies? Why can't we just like them, enjoy them, find them relaxing?
Why do we have to be passionate about our charitable causes? Why can't we just think they're worthy?
Why do we have to live life to its fullest, making the most of each moment? Why can't we just live life?
Strength vs. weakness, courage vs. cowardice
I've blogged before about how recently the word "cowardly" tends to be overused and extended to mean "something I disapprove of" or "generic negative adjective". I've noticed this extension is happening more and more often with the words courageous and cowardly, and the words strong and weak, and all the adjectives thereof. These words are growing connotations of "moral and immoral" respectively, or "morally superior and morally inferior" respectively.
This is terribly inaccurate. Being courageous or cowardly, being brave or scared, being strong or weak, is morally neutral. This notion of giving moral value to degrees of strength or bravery probably, the fact that our culture tends to celebrate situations in which the moral or morally superior choice requires exceptional courage/bravery/strength, but the fact remains that it isn't the courage/bravery/strength that makes that particular choice moral or morally superior.
If, god forbid, there is a you-know-what, and I muster up every ounce of my courage (plus some that I don't have) and go charging into the room to dispose of it myself, that is courageous. If instead I run screaming from the room and make someone else dispose of it, that is cowardly. But the actions are morally equal - just like taking out the garbage myself vs. asking someone else to do it.
If, in the midst of a great personal crisis, I manage to go through my day-to-day life with a stiff upper lip and total sangfroid, not letting the crisis affect me at all, that is being strong. If, instead, I only just manage to fulfil my duties and spend every spare minute crying into my pillow, that is being weak. But there is no moral difference between these two situations, just a difference in emotional reaction.
I think this all arises from the fact that courage, strength and bravery are quite convenient, whereas cowardice and weakness are quite inconvenient. If I am the epitome of courage and strength at all times, that is useful for those around me. They can count on me to do anything, and know that I will always be low-maintenance. But if I am weak and frightened, that requires a lot of work and attention from others - and not simple problem-solving and throwing money at things, but slow, painstaking, handholding emotional support. Combine that with the fact that situations in which courage and moral superiority co-occur tend to be loudly celebrated, and we have this whole over-celebration of courage and strength and over-demonization of cowardice and weakness.
The fact of the matter is that courage, strength, cowardice and weakness cannot have moral value because they are not choices. They are states of being, or personality traits. They can no more have moral value than can our eye colour or our phobias or our like or dislike of bitter foods. I cannot make a conscious choice to be more courageous or less cowardly. I can, in some situations, make a conscious choice to take the course of action that happens to be more courageous, but, like everyone, I do possess a finite amount of courage, and I cannot just make a decision to use more courage than I possess.
This is terribly inaccurate. Being courageous or cowardly, being brave or scared, being strong or weak, is morally neutral. This notion of giving moral value to degrees of strength or bravery probably, the fact that our culture tends to celebrate situations in which the moral or morally superior choice requires exceptional courage/bravery/strength, but the fact remains that it isn't the courage/bravery/strength that makes that particular choice moral or morally superior.
If, god forbid, there is a you-know-what, and I muster up every ounce of my courage (plus some that I don't have) and go charging into the room to dispose of it myself, that is courageous. If instead I run screaming from the room and make someone else dispose of it, that is cowardly. But the actions are morally equal - just like taking out the garbage myself vs. asking someone else to do it.
If, in the midst of a great personal crisis, I manage to go through my day-to-day life with a stiff upper lip and total sangfroid, not letting the crisis affect me at all, that is being strong. If, instead, I only just manage to fulfil my duties and spend every spare minute crying into my pillow, that is being weak. But there is no moral difference between these two situations, just a difference in emotional reaction.
I think this all arises from the fact that courage, strength and bravery are quite convenient, whereas cowardice and weakness are quite inconvenient. If I am the epitome of courage and strength at all times, that is useful for those around me. They can count on me to do anything, and know that I will always be low-maintenance. But if I am weak and frightened, that requires a lot of work and attention from others - and not simple problem-solving and throwing money at things, but slow, painstaking, handholding emotional support. Combine that with the fact that situations in which courage and moral superiority co-occur tend to be loudly celebrated, and we have this whole over-celebration of courage and strength and over-demonization of cowardice and weakness.
The fact of the matter is that courage, strength, cowardice and weakness cannot have moral value because they are not choices. They are states of being, or personality traits. They can no more have moral value than can our eye colour or our phobias or our like or dislike of bitter foods. I cannot make a conscious choice to be more courageous or less cowardly. I can, in some situations, make a conscious choice to take the course of action that happens to be more courageous, but, like everyone, I do possess a finite amount of courage, and I cannot just make a decision to use more courage than I possess.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Sims 2 question
One of my characters has the main ambition of marrying a rich sim. How do you tell if a sim is rich? I picked a character I thought was rich, but it turns out she only had $200 to her name!
Giving Up the Ghost by Hilary Mantel
This book didn't do anything for me, but I don't think it's the fault of the book. I think it's just because I don't like memoirs. Perhaps a memoir would be an enjoyable read for me if it were about someone I knew or a vaguely famous person whose career I'd been following, but memoirs in general, even when they are well-reviewed, don't do it for me. I simply am not emotionally attached to the same things to which the author is emotionally attached, and I don't necessarily see the same significance in events that she does. She is doubtless sparing us certain details to preserve some modicum of her own privacy, but those are the very details that would have made the story interesting to me. Similarly, the things that she appears to feel are bold, dramatic exposures of her innermost self are rather ho-hum to me, because in most cases I know someone or another who has been through a similar experience.
I think authors write memoirs more for themselves and perhaps those who know them, and so far in my life (not just with this book but with others) it has been a waste of my time to read them.
This is why I'm not going to bother to blog about the book itself at all. My dislike for memoirs should not in any way be construed as any sort of review of the literary merit of this book. If you want more well-thought-out reviews, feel free to do some googling or go to amazon.
I think authors write memoirs more for themselves and perhaps those who know them, and so far in my life (not just with this book but with others) it has been a waste of my time to read them.
This is why I'm not going to bother to blog about the book itself at all. My dislike for memoirs should not in any way be construed as any sort of review of the literary merit of this book. If you want more well-thought-out reviews, feel free to do some googling or go to amazon.
Quick thoughts on being childfree
Some quick thoughts arising from this article.
1. I find it rather odd that "I don't want to have children" is not generally considered "enough" of a reason for not having children. Why would you want children being raised by parents who are anything less than completely thrilled with the idea of children?
2. A slightly flawed metaphor: For me, having children is like swallowing a live goldfish. People have done it, and I'm sure I could do it, but I really don't see the point. The flaw, of course, is that having children will affect every single day of the rest of your life, while any residual effects from swallowing a live golfish will likely be over in a week.
Actually, the live goldfish is a good metaphor for any number of things that I am not at all interested in doing.
1. I find it rather odd that "I don't want to have children" is not generally considered "enough" of a reason for not having children. Why would you want children being raised by parents who are anything less than completely thrilled with the idea of children?
2. A slightly flawed metaphor: For me, having children is like swallowing a live goldfish. People have done it, and I'm sure I could do it, but I really don't see the point. The flaw, of course, is that having children will affect every single day of the rest of your life, while any residual effects from swallowing a live golfish will likely be over in a week.
Actually, the live goldfish is a good metaphor for any number of things that I am not at all interested in doing.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Things that annoy me
On the CBC radio new this morning, an politician made a remark that seemed generally innoccuos, but I found it particularly ill-advised for reasons that required about 100-200 words of linguistic analysis. But since this was the morning and I was in the process of getting ready for work, I didn't have time to type it all out. So I left myself a little note to look up the story when I got home, and write out my reaction, complete with links.
However, when I got home this evening and started looking for the story in question, it turned out the particular remark never made it to any of the online print versions of the story. It was just played on the radio. And in the mess of my day, I forgot who made that remark and what the exact wording was, so I can't exactly comment on it any more. Bleah.
However, when I got home this evening and started looking for the story in question, it turned out the particular remark never made it to any of the online print versions of the story. It was just played on the radio. And in the mess of my day, I forgot who made that remark and what the exact wording was, so I can't exactly comment on it any more. Bleah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)