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.

Karla Homolka roundup

1. Lorna Dueck asks "Can we forgive Karla?" I propose that we cannot because we are not qualified to do so. The only people who are qualified to forgive her are three dead girls and one Jane Doe. The families of the victims have a secondary claim to forgiving her, and perhaps, by some standards, the many potential victims living in terror in the golden horseshoe area have a distant tertiary claim. (I count myself among these potential victims, but I don't claim any right to forgive her). It would be terribly presumptuous for anyone else to go around forgiving her. If I were one of the victims, I would begrudge it greatly indeed if random people started forgiving her when I was not prepared to do so.

2. Karla Homolka still looks like Belinda Stronach.

3. She also looks like someone who has been to prison.

4. My professional assessment of her French, based solely on transcripts (because I don't care to hear her voice). It is certainly sufficient. She has a broad enough vocabulary (although she forgot the word for the trunk of a car (c'est generalement "coffre", mais ca peut varier)), but her structure is still blatently English. It isn't wrong, per se, but it is quite obvious that she thinks in English, and it would be obvious to any Quebecois that any text she might write was written by an anglophone. Ordinarily, this would be a hinderance in Quebec to any job that might involve writing, or that might involve diplomacy in the broadest sense of the term (customer complaints department, sales at higher-end stores, psychotherapist, hostage negotiation, etc.) However, I don't know if any language issues could me much more of a hinderance than "rapist and murderer".

Bad science of the day

I'm surprised the Toronto Star printed such a flawed study:

Some people are attracted to women; some are attracted to men. And some, if Sigmund Freud, Dr. Alfred Kinsey and millions of self-described bisexuals are to be believed, are drawn to both sexes.

But a new study casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men.

The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation.

[...]

In the new study, a team of psychologists directly measured genital arousal patterns in response to images of men and women.

The psychologists found that men who identified themselves as bisexual were in fact exclusively aroused by either one sex or the other, usually by other men

The main problem is that they're doing a study based on physical arousal from photos. As we all know, physical arousal or lack thereof is not a 100% reliable indicator of physical attraction or lack thereof, and physical attraction (which I assume they're going for since they're using photos) does not always equal sexual attraction And even if physical attraction were an accurate measure, different people are attracted to different kinds of people. Did the study take into account that some people like hairless muscley blond men and other people like big fat hairy men?

This also makes me seriously wonder what they hoped to achieve from this study. Why would you question a people's self-identification anyway instead of granting them the basic human respect of taking them at their word for who they say they are? That would be like doing a study to prove or disprove the existence of a particular phobia or food preference - especially doing a study of a small sample group and then extrapolating to the general population. Imagine:

"I like peaches."
"No you don't."
"Yes I do!"
"Studies show that people who say they like peaches really don't salivate sufficiently when they see peaches. Therefore you don't really like peaches. I think you should stop deluding yourself and get some psychiatric help."

Metamorphmagus question

Suppose a child Metamorphmagus decides to turn into a member of the opposite sex. However, being a sheltered child, our Metamorphmagus has an incorrect idea of what the genitals of the opposite sex look like. Would they end up having genitals that do not resemble anything that exists in humanity? If so, would they still be able to urinate and defecate? If so, does that mean that they can simply change how their internal organs work? If so, does that mean they can heal their own injuries? The possibilities are endless!

The real reason why we should be worried about a future oil shortage

We know that the world's supply of oil is finite.

We know that plastics are made from oil.

We know that parts of computers are made of plastic - not just cases, but insulation for cables and probably some other components whose composition I don't know anything about.

So the big, important question, the issue on which scientists should be focusing: can modern, mass-produceable computers be made without using any oil by-products whatsoever?

If not, someone should come up with a solution!

Aunt Marge for Half-Blood Prince!

I'm rereading the chapters about Aunt Marge in POA. She seems excessively disapproving of Harry for someone who's not in on the fact that he's special in any way. This makes me think that there might be more to her than meets the eye. On the other hand, she does fulfill her role as a plot device in POA by getting blown up, thus causing Harry to flee the Dursleys' and go to Diagon Alley. And she does need to be worse than the Dursleys to get Harry that angry, since he's used to the Dursleys.

But why do we need Harry to flee the Dursleys and go to Diagon Alley? Hmmm...brainstorming:

1. To introduce the Knight Bus. We've seen the Knight Bus several times, but why do we need it?
2. Because it's on the Knight Bus that Harry learns Sirius Black is a wizard. But he would have learned that soon enough in Diagon Alley.
3. So he can see, and be frightened by, Sirius' Animagus form. This is necessary, it shows that Sirius is checking up on Harry and presents the idea of the Grim. But he gets frightened by the Grim in other places. Is this one truly necessary?
4. To show that the Ministry is being more lenient with Harry this year. So how does this contribute to the overall plot?
5. To introduce various denizens of Diagon Alley. The people at the Leaky Cauldron. Florean Fortescu. To introduce the idea that the entire magical world is looking out for Harry (perhaps to contrast with OOTP?)

Is this all leading to something, or is it just an incidental subplot whose only purpose is to be interesting and make this book different from the others? Who knows? We must read on...