Generally Recognized As True

Nothing to say, so I default to Shakin' Stevens

2009-12-23T21:40:00.000-05:00

Nothing to say, really... so I fallback to Shakin' Stevens:

...and the Flying Pickets:

...and stores about South Africans!

Olympic torch passes (quite quickly) through Georgetown

2009-12-19T12:29:00.001-05:00

The 2010 Winter Olympics torch passed through Georgetown this morning.

There are some photos below, and they are quite possibly the worst pictures I've ever taken. No excuses. It happened quickly and I'm simply not very pushy nor do I place a huge value on photos, anyway (as relates to seeing it with my own eyes), so I didn't go close enough. Strangely, I was standing way back because I didn't want to get in the way of anyone else's photos. I think I am what the Unabomber called "over-socialized".

Anyway, I made a last-minute decision to go and have a look at around 7:00am this morning. The torch route isn't far from my house, so it didn't take long to walk there. It was supposed to start at the bottom of the hill in Norval at 6:57am and reach downtown Georgetown at about 7:30am. I took mine somewhere in between. It was cold with an even colder wind this morning, so I kept walking -- to stay warm -- up Hwy. 7 until I saw some action.

There were a lot of people there of all ages, considering the time of day. Quite nice to see so many people bothered to get up to go and cheer the torch runner on. I wasn't planning to, but decided at the last minute that I would.

OK. Well, here are the photos. I am very embarrassed by these. In the first photo, you can see the torch runner who carried the torch from Mountainview & Hwy 7 down toward downtown Georgetown. In the second photo, it is almost meaningless except that you can see the flames of the two torches after the relay handover.

Hai Karate

2009-12-17T21:59:00.000-05:00

What ever happened to Hai Karate, anyway? The aftershave that came with a self-defense booklet to ward off the women that would no doubt be unable to control themselves in its presence.

A cold day in more ways than one, far too much of which was spent in front of the TV

2009-12-16T17:41:00.000-05:00

I had a day off today and it coincided with my first cold in about 4 years. Since I couldn't come up with the energy to do much else (other than walk to do my errands outside), I sat in front of the TV most of the day. I haven't sat in front of the TV for mindless TV watching for a very long time -- probably at least 5 years.

Maybe this cold came along to make me feel OK about not doing anything on my day off.

What's on TV hasn't changed much from what I remember. In fact, Maury Povich seems quite mild nowadays compared to the stories we get on the web. Maybe Maury is now going after the mild dysfunction market who haven't yet made the online jump.

I did notice, though, that I didn't get a sense of restraint or feeling that behaviour should in any way be constrained from doing anything -- on the contrary, it was all about exercising desires -- except for the show about traditional marriage I'd had recorded for some time but hadn't watched yet. It was a show on CTS, which is pretty much the only channel I now watch -- I watch three shows regularly, all non-fiction, and they are all on this very good channel.

There was a show on MuchMusic about 50 significant music moments in music history (music history being the last 10 years). I had heard of most of them, but don't listen to any of them. Of course, Michael Jackson's death was #1. But, most of the others concerned the most trivial musicians -- boy bands, ex-boy band members, Britney Spears, and rappers. All of these except the last are big-budget productions. Rappers may be, too, but there is no reason why rap acts can't be done by themselves because they are so simple and meaningless.

Oh, and at my appointment at the bank, they told me I need to have more fun and spend more money. Why should I, when you can have fun without spending much money? I was also told that I shouldn't focus so much on paying my mortgage down. It made me smile to hear the bank tell me that I shouldn't be overly-concerned about paying their money back to them.

Anyone who suspects climate change is an issue should at least look at this... but most probably won't

2009-12-14T18:41:00.001-05:00

Lord Christopher Monckton interviewing a Greenpeace activist about her climate change beliefs...

What is wrong with society: an incomplete, educated guess

2009-12-14T13:01:00.002-05:00

Here is my best effort at describing the problem with the cultural mess we have at the moment, as briefly as possible. As ever, it is a work in progress and my point-of-view will not be the same in 1 year as it is today.

We have arrived at a place where people see themselves first and foremost as individuals. Collectivism is there as a backstop and safety net in case anything goes wrong with our pilot projects of trying to take on the world alone. As a result, when things are going well, we don't have much need for collectivism. When things go bad, we ask why there isn't someone there to help us. What we have now is a weak individualism that is characterized by consumer-like whims. It came about because the forces that sought to destroy collectivism and promote the individual didn't fully appreciate that the collective is what produces strong individuals. So, our individuality is weak and a de-facto individuality that comes about because there's no other choice. Most of us need a strong culture and a strong community in order to grow into people that have the courage to follow our convictions -- to be strong individuals.

One type of person that does not need a community in order to be a strong individual is the sociopath, and they are given a leg up by the fact that their competition has vanished with the demise of community. For normal people, maybe the company you work for gives you a mission and a microcosm in which to act as a strong individual because it provides a community of characters who give you the courage to follow your convictions because they all have the same goal -- they are all pointing in the same direction.

Corporate work environments, one-sided ideologies, and other monocultures give the victims of multiculturalism -- and that is most of us -- the same sense of purpose and consolation that inner-city gangs give to youths without a family structure. And that is why you find people so expertly and confidently working within their area of specialization while being so completely clueless about the world around them. Broader society doesn't have a strong culture anymore and is fraught with doubt brought on by a relativism telling you that everything you know is wrong, so what's the point about learning about or investing in any of it? If you think you know history, you are told you're wrong. If you understand facts, you are told it's just your opinion. So, what's the point? Knowledge doesn't give you any overt social stature anymore. But, where money is at stake, it is what matters most.

Traditional conservative ideologies -- no abortion, male/female marriage, no divorce, low taxation and self-reliance -- ironically work well when there is an unspoken community present. That is, when we say people are self-reliant but take it for granted that the community is always there to help. If you have a community around you to help with the raising of a child, a lack of abortion options is not such a big problem; if you are a part of an intimate community then personal needs are more satisfied by the community and marriage is far easier -- the onus is not on the one and only person you are encouraged or permitted to be intellectually and emotionally intimate with, and the tendencies to control the marriage because of what is at stake are fewer; if you are loved by your community then perhaps you can forego a male/male marriage in the interest of keeping marriage's focus on the children. Less taxation is needed because more functions are performed for free or by friendly exchange, and the government is less important. And the community allows you to feel "self-reliant" because it is an extension of your being. If you take away the community (as we have -- as modern conservatives encouraged in favouring individuality over collective), then traditional conservative approaches to life seem less likely to continue. I say this as someone who favours traditional conservative ideologies, and who finds very little to care for in the modern version of conservatism.

In order to understand our place in the world and discover clues about how we can change for the better in future, we have a need to know where we came from and why the things underlying our current way of doings things work. This used to be done through a rigourous education involving rote exercise: massive, forced, repetitive exposure to a subject that precipitated an observation of patterns. If you force people to sift through massive amounts of information, they will begin to see patterns in the data and in that they learn how the world works in the present. They also gain an appreciation for the pursuit of knowledge. Once you understand the way the world is today -- the purpose of education up to undergraduate -- you are fit to go about changing it. But not until then.

Public education now mostly fails at this these days because the culture it is a part of does not believe life should be so hard, and the relativism that springs from multiculturalism removes the justification for understanding your own history. The system has tried to compensate by pretending that stories can take the place of knowledge, and that there is a low-fat substitute for rote education -- that we can replace the two-week detailed reading of an important book -- a process during which important cognitive formation takes place -- with the perusal of an hour-long video or, worse, a 10 minute YouTube clip. It is put forth as a solution but it is really an acknowledgement that things don't work anymore. They are trying to make the best of a bad situation but promote the situation as being better than before. It is not the case.

I see socially liberal policies the same way -- as an attempt to make the best of a bad situation. I don't see them as the ideal, but as a surrender. They are the only things that make a modicum of sense when presented with the realities of a society in decline.

Today, a lot of those in charge are happy if they see their own political views reflected in the people they are charged with educating, even if they are really looking at an empty pod. Maybe they are trying to create a community from the ground up. Who really knows? But, that is why these people like stories: they are effective ways of indoctrination. They don't care if understanding has taken place as long as hear their own views regurgitated back to them.

In many Canadian subcultures, it's now better for your social life to know nothing and regurgitate platitudes about everything being equal and nothing really mattering much at all -- this makes you look enlightened, progressive and compassionate -- than it is to know something, make judgments, think critically, and believe in your own knowledge. We imagine that people float into powerful positions simply because of their ability to move and shake. Obviously, it's partly true, but there's a whole other side to the story that people seldom talk about or consider. We sometimes ridicule these people as being stupid or lucky, but that obviously says more about us than it does about them. Knowledge is still power, and ever more people are now being told by society that this is no longer the case -- that you simply have to be in the right place at the right time. How convenient for those that seek power.

It is no good to have a so-called "multi-culture" where the superiority of things that have brought us to the present are just a matter of opinion, or where everything is riddled with the worry of "unintended consequences" to the point that it paralyzes us. This just sets up a system where the people that get ahead are those that ignore the system. You'd almost think the system was designed to deceive most people into under-achievement so that the elites could have an easier time of paddling to the top. Kids with supportive apparatus around them will do well regardless of how much the public education system tries to drag them down. But, gone are the times when kids will be plucked from meagre surroundings; because we are shy about acting imperially and suggesting to working class kids that remaining in working class culture is beneath their potential. I think a lot of middle- and upper-class people that are in a position to shape society -- people who we look to to use their education for the betterment of society -- have an affinity for the working classes because they see working class work and the hardships it brings as being far more genuine than the rent-seeking work they are most often occupied with.

And, so, middle class culture and working class culture are converging, though not in the way that would traditionally seen as desirable -- that is, that the working class is converging upwards in their aspirations toward the culture of the middle class. Instead, today, the middle class aspires downwards -- to country music, reality TV, tattoos, odd piercings, fast food, and trivial entertainment.

Rights? Do away with them. We need to restore a sense of gratitude. I now know people to whom the idea that you should feel gratitude toward the notion of public healthcare is offensive to the extent that they have a physical revulsion. It is their right, and the idea that they should feel gratitude is an attempt to deny them their due. The facial expression borrowed from a hungry rodent is becoming far too common.

I therefore fully understand why some immigrant cultures in Canada look down on the incumbent Canadian "culture" and try to protect their children from availing themselves of it. India inherited grand English culture as a result of England's past conquests over the country and is now doing well because of it. They managed to preserve many of the tenets of this culture over time while the English culture that they inherited deteriorated at home. The middle class in India is now far more civilized than large chunks of the English middle class.

Go inside Chinese communities in Canada and you will see a distaste for wishy-washy Canadian culture and for Canadians in general. Do the same in Indian culture and you might find the same. But it must be Indian and not Pakistani, of course, because you don't have to look far into the latter to see how quickly a country can devolve when it discards a superior inherited culture for an inferior one. And it is an interesting contrast, because the British underclass now has far more in common with their ideological brethren in Pakistan than it does with those in India, having been talked into a distrust of the culture that got them to a position of relative prosperity in the world by relativist forces.

Also observe that, even though poverty exists in these subcultures in Canada that have chosen to turn inward, they are not complaining that a lack of basketball courts made them shoot people they don't like in the street. It sounds like I am advocating multi-culturalism by advocating turning inward, but I am not: I am advocating focusing on one culture and ignoring the others because the others have nothing to offer besides confusion. We should do this with our own culture. We should also stop pretending that its Christian foundation has nothing to do with its success. We should be honest about our heritage and make an effort to learn about it, rather than pretending it never happened.

As a consolation, though, I can appreciate that, as far as multiculturalism goes, we limit ourselves to the food and fancy dress of places like Pakistan without extending our acceptance to things like polygamy and honour killings. The same culture that brings us reggae and jerk chicken also brings us violent gay-bashing and systemic bastardization of children. But multiculturalism, taken literally, would be more honest and coherent if it included both the good and the bad.

One of the sad facts about multiculturalism is that many of the relativist sentiments we use to speak out against our own heritage come from defending failed cultures that do not and may never have led to a prosperous, healthy society. Worse, we don't even know the truth of this because we are ignorant of what these cultures are truly made of, preferring instead to limit our inspection to the parts that satisfy our whim. Multiculturalism is about pretending that all cultures are equally acceptable, and this can only come about if you know very little at all about the cultures in question. And here we are. When cultures become consumer choices, there is no room for judgment.

So, there.

Not-really-Christmas Christmas movies: "Friday After Next"

2009-12-13T21:29:00.001-05:00

Out of all the "not really Christmas movies" I know of -- a list that includes movies such as "Die Hard" and "Gremlins" because they take place during Christmastime -- "Friday After Next" is the one I like most.

It begins with a robbery by Santa Claus on Christmas Eve:

Paul Thurrott and the rumoured Apple tablet device

2009-12-11T14:03:00.005-05:00

Paul Thurrott has an interesting analysis of the relevance of the computing tablet that Apple is rumoured to be on the verge of announcing.

He makes some very good points -- Windows is already a mature pen and touch computing platform for business users. They can buy and use one today with many popular applications and get a lot of work done. If I was going to buy a tablet today, I would buy a Windows one.

But, I think he misses an important aspect, which is that this probably will not be a device with the same goals as the Windows tablet PC. I think it will more likely be an assault on devices like the Kindle, where the goal is to extend the appeal of a device like the iPhone that is designed solely for touch-based usage to a larger screen size that can handle books and other readable content but also double as a larger screen on which to watch movies and use iPhone-like applications, all of which can be provided from a content marketplace of which Apple is the custodian.

I have no detailed knowledge of the rumours and so may be completely off-base. Maybe much of what I've said here has been disproven elsewhere. But, essentially I would expect an Apple tablet to be their answer to the netbook. Not a netbook lookalike, but something that does what most people want to do with a netbook with a completely new interface that isn't so bulky.

As with the iPhone and iPod, where a large revenue source is their cut of third-party content, I don't expect their foray into tablets to break from this strategy. You can have a very good tablet experience with Windows on a tablet or convertible notebook, and you can use it to get useful work done, but can you use it as if it was an extension of your consciousness, as you can with an iPod and iPhone? I don't think you can. The Lenovo X200 is an excellent notebook, as are most Lenovo business notebooks (I would not buy any others), but they are also very expensive. I don't think the Apple tablet would be an expensive device -- I think it would follow the iPhone and iPod model of affordability..

I probably won't be interested in an Apple tablet if it does in fact exist, but I can see a big hole in the market -- one that could potentially have mainstream appeal and mainstream affordability -- that could provide content-based revenues well into the future. They have done it with music with iTunes and the iPod and tried it for TV and movies on the same; they have done it with mobile software applications with the App Store and the iPhone. Isn't it logical that they would, at some point, try it with the publishing industry?

If it works, this could quite possibly be a potential and/or partial saviour for traditional newspapers and book publishing. A book or a newspaper in a familiar, uncluttered standardized format with inline colour images and video is something not yet offered by most e-book readers.

Apple iPhone cost breakdown -- tendentious, but an interesting display of data that could otherwise be dry

2009-12-11T13:22:00.000-05:00

I saw this rather interesting graphical breakdown of where the money goes when you buy an Apple iPhone.

The conclusion is a little bit disingenuous and so I assume they are out to make a point. The conclusion that AT&T will earn $2 billion over the next two years based on Q3 2009 sales has the following problems:

The exact revenue for parts manufacturers is specified -- $930,592,000 -- while AT&T is claimed to have $2 billion in "earnings" coming their way. The $2 billion is rounded up from $1.91 billion. In that case, why not round up $930,592,000 to $1 billion?
The $2 billion is stated as money that AT&T will "earn", while the parts manufacturers get "revenue" ("earnings" are normally considered to be profit). But, the $2 billion to AT&T is also revenue. It is the simple multiplication 5.2 million phones sold by the difference between what AT&T will get in data service revenue over 24 months minus the cost of the phone to AT&T. That is revenue, not earnings.

By this logic, Apple "earned" $2 billion as well. Because the difference between what AT&T pays Apple and what the iPhone costs Apple to have manufactured is $371.04. Over 5.2 million iPhones sold in Q3, that is $1.93 billion. Unfortunately, out of revenue must come the costs of designing, marketing, and distributing the device, just as AT&T has that small concern of actually designing, marketing, building, and maintaining a wireless data infrastructure.

Anyway, it's an interesting way of presenting the information.

Google's search suggestions and a bit more on Internet privacy

2009-12-11T12:24:00.003-05:00

"I think judgment matters," said Google CEO Eric Schmidt. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

And I whole-heartedly agree with him. Tiger Woods would probably agree with him, too. Until the heat dies down, and then it's back to acting like a rock star.

And I'm sure that what follows isn't a unique observation, nor is it particularly important. But, it's an observation.

Google has, for the past few months, been offering "suggestions" as you type a query into the search field on their website. As you start typing a query, a box automatically drops down from the search field to suggest things that you might possibly want to search for based on what you're already typed.

This is a significant change in the privacy of search queries because, for this to be possible, the page has to be sending your query to the Google systems before you have submitted it in order to offer the suggestions back to you.

There's a small but distinct difference in the privacy implications of this behaviour. Google knows what you are searching for before you search for it. It knows about things that you started to search for but didn't actually commit to searching for. With these AJAX-enabled applications, you cannot assume that whatever you type into a web page is private as long as you haven't submitted the query.

If you were to accidentally paste sensitive data from the clipboard -- perhaps a password or a credit card number, or some sensitive data related to your job at your employer -- by mistake into a search field (not so unlikely if you are in the habit of copying and pasting passwords from a secure password file), it is not necessarily safe just because you didn't yet hit the "Search" button. It has already left your system and essentially sent your keystrokes unencrypted out onto the Internet.

For most people, this doesn't matter at all because they have nothing to hide. I should be clear that it doesn't really bother me, either. But, considering that, in the past, Microsoft has raised the eyes of privacy gurus with things as simple as their Windows Update process -- a process which determines the patch level of your operating system in order to figure out what security patches need to be installed to make you current -- I'm surprised that this company gets such a free ride as related to privacy concerns.

Google's SideWiki feature, too -- a feature that lets third parties write things of unverifiable accuracy about your personal or corporate website and has this information shown as an attachment to the website itself -- has been tried many times before: Third Voice was one of the most well known (at the time -- in 1999, when most people were just getting their feet wet with the Internet, if they had started to immerse themselves at all). In fact, Third Voice may well have been killed off by concerns about opposition to it. But the criticism of SideWiki is far more shallow than it was about Third Voice, even though far more is at stake this time around.

But, then again, we are used to invasion of our privacy now, and all it took to acclimatize was 10 years. Facebook demands it, whether or not you are aware. Blogs and Twitter encourage it. My library's website now offers the feature to show you what you've recently returned as long as you approve their requirement to keep a record of the books you're borrowed.

And I say all of this, but I don't really care myself, either. The idea of Google privacy as limited to what Google does with your data is kind of silly in itself because almost anyone with a hosted website can conjure up a report of what people searched for in order to arrive at a particular page on your site, and attached to that search query is the IP address of the computer that did it. It doesn't matter whether Google keeps your data private or not because the sites that you visit know what you searched for in order to arrive at their site! This information is passed to the target website when you click on the link in Google's search results.

A lot of people seem to have addressed their privacy concerns by simply learning to stop worrying (and love the bomb).

The dividing line seems to be between the types of lies that are told about us. Facebook, Twitter, and blogs invade our privacy but we have control over the content. They are usually only a violation of privacy by accident -- when an implication exists that you didn't intend to reveal. What still makes people a bit concerned is when true privacy is violated -- when the facts of your existence are revealed, rather than the generous lies that you have selected to craft about yourself.

So, it's still an issue of public image: you might be fine to post on Facebook that you just enjoyed a lavish dinner at your favourite restaurant, with accompanying photos of the merriment. But your true privacy is violated when someone else points out that, yes, you had a good time but, as a public sector employee, you did this on the dime of your government expense account.

History doesn't usually repeat itself but, as Mark Twain said, it most definitely does often rhyme with the present!

Problem with sleep and hibernation on the Lenovo Thinkpad T60 in Windows 7

2009-12-08T13:00:00.000-05:00

I couldn't find any hints on how to fix this online, so I'm posting my findings here.

Essentially, the problem was that, after installing Windows 7 on my Thinkpad T60, when I closed the lid on the notebook to put it into Sleep mode and then connected it to the AC adapter to charge, after what seemed like 15 minutes or so, it would automatically go from Sleep mode to Hibernate mode, meaning that it would take longer to start back up when I opened the lid. In Windows Vista, it would simply stay in Sleep mode and would only go into Hibernate mode if the battery became dangerously low.

I had installed Lenovo Power Manager (a surprisingly useful tool, as with most Lenovo system tools, and unlike most other vendors' system tools) and wondered if that was the problem. I did uninstall it before fixing this, but I don't think that's what solved the problem.

The problem, I think, was solved as follows:

Go to Control Panel, then Hardware and Sound, and then Power Options.
On the active plan, click Change plan settings.
Click Change advanced power settings.
Now, in the Sleep category, under Hibernate after, for a Plugged in state, my configuration had it set to 20 minutes. By setting this to 0 minutes, this is equivalent to "Never", and my problem went away

So, after making these changes, when I put my notebook to sleep and plug it in afterwards, it no longer goes into Hibernate mode automatically, and I don't have to wait for the "Resuming Windows" stage to begin using my notebook again, which is how I prefer it and how I it was configured in default in Vista (or at least in the configuration of Vista as supplied by Lenovo on my notebook).

I am impressed by the depth of power options available on this notebook in Windows 7, though. It gives you fine control over the behaviour in different power states. Lenovo's Power Manager gives even more options, but I may be able to get by without it for what I need.

The short tale of the ancient DVD player: my Panasonic A120

2009-12-03T15:52:00.004-05:00

I don't really keep track of these things in my mind, but for some reason it occurred to me today that my DVD player is more than 10 years old.

I bought it on October 2, 1999 for $574.99. How things have changed! Although, one thing that obviously hasn't changed is my meticulous financial record-keeping.

It is a Panasonic A120, still working perfectly, and much larger than the DVD players you generally see around these days:

I was an early adopter of DVD because it made sense. It was backward compatible with CD, the picture and sound were clearly better and didn't get worse the more you watched the movie. The cases took up half the shelf space of VHS tapes. But, I bought too many DVDs and wasted a lot of money on them. Many others did the same and probably realized, as I did, that it was a mistake.

So, I'm not sure I'll ever buy into Blu-Ray at all. What is the benefit when compared to DVD? Many of the above characteristics are the same as DVD. The picture is better but only really of clear benefit on large TVs and I'm not dissatisfied with DVD because my TV-buying habits are about the same as my DVD player ones -- I am still using a 27" CRT TV that I bought one month after buying the DVD player above. As long as what's being displayed on the TV is good, I do not suffer from owning what is now considered a small TV.

Blu-Ray is a format heavily pushed by Sony, and they were one of its main developers. Remember that there have already been two formats that aspired to unseat the Compact Disc as the music delivery format of choice -- first was Super Audio CD, of which Sony was a principal; and second was DVD Audio. Neither were accepted by the market. What Blu-Ray was to DVD, these audio formats were to CDs: while the benefits of the CD over records and cassettes were clear, the benefits of the formats that sought to supercede the CD were minor in relation to what people cared about. What other formats has Sony been responsible for and tried to foist on the market? Well, there was Betamax. There was the Mini-Disc. And there's the Memory Stick. What have these done for us lately? Sony has a history of developing unwanted formats for the sake of siphoning off royalties. But, to be fair, Sony was also a principal in the Compact Disc. By accident, maybe?

But what happened to the Compact Disc? Well, it held its position and is now slowly being replaced by the MP3 music format -- lower quality than the CD and much lower than the formats that once tried to threaten the CD, but much more portable and digitally transmissable than all of them. The appeal of the physical format (or lack of it) was more important to customers than was quality.

The Dolby TrueHD sound offered by Blu-Ray is appealing to me because I appreciate sound more than picture and the highly-compressed Dolby Digital mixes on DVD can be muddy, but I'd need a new receiver to support that. And, the Blu-Ray movies themselves are expensive. Beside that, higher resolution audio and video doesn't make a bad movie any better.

Further, I'm not sure that stores really buy into it, either. I was in a large Walmart the other day and the Blu-Ray section was miniscule in comparison to the DVD section. It seemed as if they were hedging their bets. The same is true of the HMV flagship store in downtown Toronto that I have been to a number of times recently.

And there seems to be a generation coming along that is perfectly content to watch movies on their iPod, and this requires a different type of technology than the powerful processing and huge bandwidths that are required for Blu-Ray.

In a way, it reminds me of Laserdisc. Lukewarm response, picked up by enthusiasts but never really making it to the mainstream. When HD-DVD threw in the towel in its battle against Blu-Ray, I didn't think it was a victory of one format over another: I suspected that HD-DVD was simply the first of the two to throw in the towel. I know hardly anyone that actually wants Blu-Ray, yet the media tells us that there is some magic price point at which it will be welcomed into everyone's home, and it is insinuated to us that the availability of $100 Blu-Ray players will make it irresistable.

I get the feeling that, if it was going to happen, it would have happened by now.

Wild rice, tilapia, and mushroom & onion sauce... plus spinach!

2009-11-29T18:33:00.000-05:00

For some (good) reason or another, I thought these would go well together and they really, really did.

You need:

1 filet tilapia fish
1 small onion
1.5 white/Cremini mushrooms
1 tbsp. butter
1 tbsp. all-purpose flour
1/3 cup milk
1/4 cup wild rice
2/3 cup water
olive oil for rubbing tilapia
handful of spinach
salt and pepper

The steps are below. Obviously, you can (and should) organize these so that some of them run in parallel.

Wild rice
There's not much to this, it just takes a long time to cook (mostly unattended). Rinse and drain the rice, put it in a well-covered saucepan with 2.25x as much water as rice (i.e. for 1/3 cup rice, use about 3/4 cup water). Try 1/4 cup rice to begin with, since I found 1/3 cup a bit over-filling. Bring it to a boil and then reduce to a very low simmer and leave it there for 40-45 minutes. Remove from heat (keep it covered) and let stand for 10 minutes in the saucepan and then flake it with a fork.

Tilapia
Not much to this, either. Rubbed with olive oil, seasoned with salt and pepper, and then baked in the oven at 425F for about 10 minutes. I used High Liner frozen tilapia, which is better than the fresh I've tried (see the end of the post for more on this).

Mushroom & onion sauce
Heat about 1.5 tbsp butter in a saucepan on 60% heat. Meanwhile, cut about one-and-a-half white or Cremini mushrooms into thin slices, and dice a small onion. Add mushroom & onion to the butter when it's fragrant and bubbly. Sweat them for about 5 minutes, stirring to redistribute every minute or so. Add about 1 tbsp. all-purpose flour and stir to coat (it will look very dry). Cook for another minute. Add about 1/3 cup milk, stir, bring to a boil and then simmer for 1-2 minutes, stirring periodically. Season to taste with salt & pepper.

Spinach
Wash spinach and steam for 2 minutes.

Wine
I'm not very good at picking wines to go with food, so I just picked up the one I had on hand and it worked very well -- much to my surprise. I don't usually buy pricey wines, and this was no exception. It was Pelee Island Cabernet Franc VQA 2007 -- an Ontario (Canada) wine.

That's about it. I just put the rice around around the edge, the tilapia in the middle, the sauce on top of the tilapia, and the spinach on the side.

The only potential problem I can think of is that the quality of tilapia seems very variable. I've had frozen tilapia that tasted very good and was firm/flaky (High Liner) and fresh tilapia that was rather soft and tasted of chlorine. Since I see nothing at all wrong with the frozen tilapia (and since it is farmed and can presumably be frozen at the peak of freshness), I keep buying the High Liner stuff.

Once the rice is taking care of itself, it's a pretty quick meal, and it tastes really good. I think the reason is that the main flavours -- wild rice, mushroom, spinach -- are all quite musty in taste. You can hardly detect an edge between the three flavours and they integrate really well. The tilapia and onion are both sweet (as are the butter and milk in the sauce).

Pondering carbon-neutrality and the real cost of walking vs. driving

2009-11-25T18:46:00.001-05:00

I think I've just realized something about this walk-rather-than-drive thing. When I decide to do the 40-minute walk over 10-minute drive, I really need to eat a good dinner if I'm going to avoid being on death's door by the time I get home from the 40-minute walk home. 500 calories extra, maybe, considering that this is a 10km roundtrip walk.

The easiest way to get those calories is via white sugar or junk food, but that's not very good for you even if you can burn the calories off. I tried eating Doritos last night and woke up this morning feeling sick. It was most definitely the Doritos because it was a general feeling of indigestion, which I hardly ever have. My tolerance for this stuff seems low now because, 5 years ago, it would have been no problem.
So, 500 calories of extra quality food? I don't see away of avoiding meat, and apparently that is bad for the environment. Pasta and rice are cheap, so those are options. Pasta comes from energy-intensive wheat and rice usually comes from great distances away. And you have to have something with them, too.

I am wondering whether 500 calories of quality food would cost me more than the 0.8L of gasoline -- about 80 cents worth -- it'd cost me to get to my appointment.

And, it's not carbon-neutral, either. I respire far more when doing that top-speed walk than I do sitting behind the wheel of the car, and respiration equals carbon dioxide emissions, since that a major component of the air exhaled by humans is carbon dioxide. I have faith that the car produces more CO2 for my distance-walked than my own respiration does, but I don't really know.

But when you start trying to quantify these things, things are not so easy. Bikes are being sold as carbon-neutral ways of getting around, but they're not because of the extra human respiration provoked and the production of the extra food required to power your body.

Of course, I'd be healthier. But if I have to pay for healthcare, anyway, then what's the benefit?

I don't really think this way -- I am just saying... in the interest of honesty.

Mark Steyn gets it right (again) about multiculturalism

2009-11-23T11:13:00.001-05:00

Writing about the Fort Hood massacre, Mark Steyn hits the nail on the head about the fake nature of multiculturalism:

“Diversity” is one of those words designed to absolve you of the need to think. Likewise, a belief in “multiculturalism” doesn’t require you to know anything at all about other cultures, just to feel generally warm and fluffy about them. Heading out from my hotel room the other day, I caught a glimpse of that 7-Eleven video showing Major Hasan wearing “Muslim” garb to buy a coffee on the morning of his murderous rampage. And it wasn’t until I was in the taxi cab that something odd struck me: He was an American of Arab descent. But he was wearing Pakistani dress – that’s to say, a “Punjabi suit”, as they call it in Britain, or the “shalwar kameez”, to give it its South Asian name. For all the hundreds of talking heads droning on about “diversity” across the TV networks, it was only Tarek Fatah, writing in The Ottawa Citizen, who pointed out that no Arab males wear this get-up – with one exception: Those Arab men who got the jihad fever and went to Afghanistan to sign on with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In other words, Major Hasan’s outfit symbolized the embrace of an explicit political identity entirely unconnected with his ethnic heritage.

Mr Fatah would seem to be a genuine “multiculturalist”: that’s to say, he’s attuned to often very subtle “diversities” between cultures. Whereas the professional multiculturalist sees the 7-Eleven video and coos, “Aw, look. He’s wearing … well, something exotic and colorful, let’s not get hung up on details. Celebrate diversity, right? Can we get him in the front row for the group shot? We may be eligible for a grant.”

In defense of tattoos

2009-11-22T20:30:00.000-05:00

I was being a bit provocative in my spare time today, by posting this on an online forum:

Since tattoos are traditionally the decals of sailors, prostitutes, and cannibals, I am wondering if anyone else wishes these things would stay on the margins of society rather than ending up on half of the population's skin...?

To which someone replied:

imo, tattoos are largely accepted by most of society today. why do you care what people do to their own body?

I tried to be reasonable:

Because visible tattoos are an attack on the public space. It'd be like saying that it was OK to graffiti your own house or drive your car through the front window and leave it there permanently and use that as your new garage, and that the opinions of your neighbours and their right to an attractive public space didn't matter.

And got an unexpected reply:

Errrr...it IS ok to graffiti your own house, or drive your car through the front window of your house.

And no, the opinions of my neighbours DO NOT matter - it's *MY* house, *MY* car, and *MY* body.

Mind your OWN business.

Hard to argue with that mindset, but it at least makes sense of the tattoo. The vast majority of prison inmates have tattoos, after all, and they care little about the interests of others.

Is this the logical conclusion of hyper-individualism? I don't know how prevalent this attitude is, but it would suggest why we fortify our own private amenities so much and why our public spaces in North America are so vapid, dull, uninspiring, and unpleasant.

Is the Toronto Star one long advertisement? Or is it an activist tool? Either way, it is not an informative newspaper

2009-11-22T10:10:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure I needed more proof that news articles in the Wheels section of the Toronto Star are essentially third-party advertising for the automobile industry, but yet another one was on display this weekend.

The premise of a story in yesterday's Star is that, following an inquest that was successfully lobbied for by some mothers who lost their children in a New Brunswick school bus crash a couple of years ago, the inquest recommended that all school buses be equipped with winter tires during the winter. I note that the school bus collided with a transport truck, a rather perilous situation in any high-speed confrontation.

The precipice for the story, though, is that the mothers have sinced observed school mini-buses in their district not carrying a full complement of winter tires: two winter tires on the rear wheels, but only all-season tires on the front wheels. Transport Canada was asked for comment and they advised that winter tires were required on all wheels for them to be "effective", and for maximum safety -- a comment that was echoed by the Star's own "tire guy".

The independent consultant hired by the school board to decide such matters, however, said that, while all-wheel and four-wheel drive vehicles should be equipped with winter tires on all four axles, it is not necessary and may in fact be dangerous for rear-wheel drive vehicles to do the same in high-speed situations because the lack of frontal grip may keep the tires straight after a momentary loss of control and give the driver a crucial few seconds to recover.

Obviously, I am no position to say which side is true. But on one side, a simplistic comment from Transport Canada and a quote from a "tire guy" writing for what may be an advertising section are quoted. You have comment from all of the major tire companies whose job is to sell tires making confusing statements (without specific comment on the bus in question) about the necessity of a full complement of four winter tires in all cases, with no inspection of their data or methodology provided by the Star. And on the other hand, you have a relatively elaborate and qualified comment on the specific situation in question that disagrees with both of them, provided by an independent consultant. My bias should be oriented toward the latter -- to someone who not only provides detailed analysis of the specific criticism put forth by the activist mothers, but also has no interest in the sale of the product whose incremental purchase is in question.

In truth, though, there is not enough information provided. On what roads do buses spend most of their time? Is there a greater risk of high-speed or low-speed collisions? And, depending on that, is it safer to collide head-on, sideways-on, go into the ditch, or to collide with someone from the rear? It is possible that one system-wide decision could prevent a fatal accident on one route while making one more likely on another route if we are to simply take it unquestioned that all wheels must have winter tires at all times.

But, the Star concludes that the policy implemented by the independent consultant is wrong, and that "it is clear" that four winter tires on any vehicle at all make a "profound difference". Based on what?

More likely, this is the use of a poorly-analyzed, complex situation presented without enough context in order to make a simple statement with the intention of helping tire companies sell winter tires as the winter season approaches. The beauty of buying snow tires in this mental environment is that you can claim that you did all that you could to prevent an accident and, except in very unusual circumstances, hardly anyone will question you.

So, is the Wheels section an advertising section (this is a rhetorical question), or is the Wheels section simply an extension of the Star's generally shoddy journalism? The latter is admittedly murky question because it is based on my unqualified assumption that the Star seeks to be a informative newspaper and not tool for activism. If it is meant to be an activist tool, it is quite effective in its mission. But activists are disingenuous, and that does not help me to understand the issues.

John Mayer : Battle Studies : album discussion

2009-11-20T22:02:00.008-05:00

I picked up John Mayer's fourth album "Battle Studies" yesterday and, after digesting it for a couple of days, am about ready to comment on it.

His previous album, "Continuum", is one of my favourite if not my favourite album of all the albums that I own, so this was going to be quite a difficult act to follow. I don't think it will be able to live up to the stature of that one over time because it was just so unexpected -- that he could have followed up two great sophisticated pop albums with something that was so completely different from what he'd done before, but also just as good if not better than the precedent.

First of all, the cover art looks a lot like an 80s pop cover to me. It's the type of thing I'd more expect of someone like George Michael (or, dare I say, Morrissey?). It's a nice cover, but difficult to extract meaning from. On the other hand, it fits the tone of the album perfectly -- subdued even when energetic.

A lot has been said about the album in reviews and on Amazon already, so I won't repeat too much of that. It seems like some people who did not like "Continuum" seem to be OK with this one. Overall, it is a less simple sound than the previous album, and the sound design seems different -- there seems to be far less space and dynamic range in the tracks than on "Continuum". It's more like a softened version of the "Heavier Things" sound.

When I first popped the CD in after getting home with the album, my first impression was that I was not impressed. It sounded like an average adult contemporary pop album and I was disappointed. But I remember that I had felt the same way about "Continuum" when I first heard it. It wasn't long before I found myself listening to it multiple times a day for about 2 months straight. I am finding the same pattern emerging with this album, and it's interesting that if you read the Amazon reviews then many people say the same thing: you have to give it time and a chance to work its magic. It's almost as if the songs all sound the same at first but then develop their own personality as you get to know them. This doesn't happen with very many other artists, but it happens with almost all of my favourite artists and it will be true with "Battle Studies". Albums that I like instantly are usually albums that I quickly tire of: easy come, easy go.

There is no grand pop song like "Belief" on this one, although "Assassins" is in the same vein. Of the reviews I've read, "Assassins" is either overlooked or criticized. Someone on Amazon derisively said that it was like "Seal meets Paul Simon". The Seal influence is definitely there with the pervasive background vocal patterns, but I don't hear the Paul Simon influence. It is quite clearly a John Mayer song, with an aggressive guitar backing and enough variety in composition that it will not wear out its welcome quickly. And, actually, this is becoming one of my favourite songs on the album. I am surprised it has been met with indifference.

The album is cohesive, as if the songs belong together. It does not overstay its welcome, and there is no filler. This is becoming a special skill these days, with quite a few of the albums I've bought recently being filled to the brim with songs that don't belong getting in the way because of an apparent lack of editorial control. The sound characteristics are also consistent between tracks.

The first track -- "Heartbreak Warfare" -- has universally been assumed to be about some fling he had with the actress Jennifer Aniston. Unless he has declared this somewhere and I've missed it, I don't know how that conclusion comes about. He has written many songs like it before, and that is praise and not criticism. It's an interesting song with quite a bit of musical variety.

The only silly thing about the album is the promotion of some non-descript country singer named Taylor Swift with a "featuring" credit on the song "Half of my Heart". This credit is so funny because she essentially sings two lines in the whole song -- the same line twice in the chorus near the end -- and the song might have been better for it had he just put a guitar swoon in place of her voice. This oddly reminded me of the gimmick of Becel producing a variety of their margarine with Bertolli Olive Oil in it. The goal is to cross-promote the products, but not contaminate either one. First of all, you would not want the taste of olive oil in your margarine so it's best that you put in as little as possible. And, second, it doesn't really matter whether it's Bertolli or any other brand of olive oil if you can't taste it. He could have left out Taylor Swift and nobody would have noticed, except that he wouldn't have been able to add her name on the album cover, which I assume was the only motivation. It was as if they were trying to ensure she had as little negative impact on the song as possible while still being able to use her name, and it is really quite obvious when you listen to the song!

I don't really "get" the cover of "Crossroads". I have never heard the original, but I can understand why it isn't very well-received. It sounds like what could be a delta blues song, but he has applied massive effects to the guitar, making it sound somewhat like a clavinet. Having also added a tight pop-like backing, it sounds like it has turned what was meant to be a soulful song into a routine pop one.

But, overall, it's a very good album and one that I look forward to listening to a whole lot more!

Today, I bought a cup of coffee. And I can't just leave it at that.

2009-11-19T12:37:00.001-05:00

I bought a cup of coffee today.

And, no, that isn't a tweet or Facebook status update shoved down the wrong hole.

But, for the past couple of years, I rarely do this. And here is why:

I find it strange that it is now considered normal to be unable to complete a work day without a cup of coffee. What is going on with our workdays that we can't complete them without an artificial stimulus?
Ever since I got my Technivorm coffee machine, and use it with the right filters, I have been making better coffee at home than I can buy from Starbucks or Second Cup.
It is quite expensive. Roughly $40/month if you buy a decent cup a day. That is more than my newspaper subscription, and maybe a quarter or a fifth of my monthly grocery bill!
My homemade cup costs maybe $0.70, and not only tastes better, but also uses Fair Trade and Organic beans from a local roaster, and sold by a local small business that both reside in the town I live in.

To be honest, #4 is just a bonus. The main reasons are #1 through #3.

But, I did buy one today. And that means I will feel less hungry this afternoon, probably because I won't mistake encroaching tiredness for hunger..I will not struggle to keep my eyes open on the train home and will be able to read my book; and I will likely be alert well into the evening when I'd otherwise be on the relaxed but functional end of the comatose spectrum.

I'm not overly paranoid about caffeine or coffee, but can it be healthy to be dependent on a drug like this that prevents your natural impulses, day in, day out? It seems to me that the business day could not do without this drug anymore. We talk about "everything in moderation", but does moderation mean one-a-day or a-few-a-week? We can justify anything.

Here is something I wonder about from time to time: did Britain's decadence accelerate when they began to switch from tea to coffee as the national drink? Probably not. But, in my mind, it is not so strange for a skinhead to go out for a cup of coffee, while the image of a skinhead needing his cup of tea to feel that all was OK in the world (as was typical in the 1980s) always seemed a bit funny to me.

Heater: the only Canadian movie I couldn't instantly forget

2009-11-18T08:57:00.001-05:00

A few years ago, I accidentally saw a Canadian movie on TV called "Heater", about a couple of homeless guys -- one of them aboriginal -- who find a space heater still in its packaging and conspire to make their way over to Sears to "return" it for a cash refund.

For some reason, I can't seem to forget about it. And there is no explanation.

The Ontario school system proposes to teach financial literacy to children

2009-11-16T11:53:00.002-05:00

The Government of Ontario proposes to teach "financial literacy" skills to public school students, starting in grade 4 and going through to grade 12.

First of all, I wonder which education they will deem disposable in order to replace it with this new course.

But there is also a deeper question. Financial literacy is, at its very core, extremely simple: you earn X amount of money and may save some amount of money Y. If you spend more than X, you will erode Y. And if you spend more than X+Y then you become indebted and, the longer you take to settle your debts, the more difficult it is to bring yourself out of a state of indebtedness. Finance is more complicated than that and can get very complex, but if you don't have the faculties for that then you can always fall back on these very simple principles and they will serve you well in managing day-to-day and month-to-month financial obligations.

So, I struggle to understand how they will fill 9 years worth of financial literacy courses with this information.

It seems to me that financial literacy is the job of parents. It is learned by having real money to spend -- maybe earned, borrowed, or given, and likely a combination of all three -- choosing how you will spend that money against an array of competing wants and needs, and experiencing real consequences if you find yourself without things that you need, or oweing money without the ability to pay it back. A hand guiding you along the way provides a feedback mechanism by which you can test and evaluate your own behaviour. I don't think I am cynical to expect that the public school approach will not deliver the "curriculum" in this spirit.

How else could they fill the 9 years? They will undoubtedly include lessons on the "responsible use of credit", and will probably explore the different types of investments available to you, in order to help you understand how you can increase the value of your savings. The Disney film "Mary Poppins" did this for a lot of kids in the space of about 10 minutes, but I am sure the public school system can find a way to stretch it out to a year.

To truly understand finance at a level of detail that is not cartoonish -- things like compound interest, amortization, the effects of taxation, the cost of a real estate transaction, etc. -- you need a good grasp of mathematics, and the school system has of late been unable to instill this in children on a broad scale. The kids destined for University programs requiring numerical literacy get it, while the others get it until the exam is taken, and it slowly atrophies thereafter. And a lot of the kids in University still end up with financial troubles, anyway. Not because they don't understand finances, but because they buy a lot of pizza and drink a lot of beer and find it strangely impressive to rack up large debts that they can complain about in the company of sympathizers -- just as people jokingly complain about the seven-patty hamburger they're about to finish off, or the housing bidding war they had to "endure". Debt is a conversation piece and a subject of sardonic humour in this weird community. When I was in University, I heard many of them talk about their debts as if they were a runaway train that they had no control over. New computers and nice clothing trickled in at the window and that pesky debt just wouldn't go away!

And let's not forget that the government is behind the Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation, a Crown corporation that actively encourages people to overindulge in their house-buying impulses by securing loans that banks consider to be too risky for their taste.

In the article, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is quoted as saying that the "[recent] financial turmoil was fuelled by a lack of financial literacy". Really? So, some people did not understand that they could not afford to adequately pay back a $400,000 mortgage on a $30,000 salary and that such an aspiration was a very risky endeavour? Or, is he saying that the banks -- the most financially-literate organizations in our society -- did not understand this? Neither are true. The assumption was that it was acceptable to lend money to people that could not afford to pay it back because, done indefinitely, housing would never go down in value and any foreclosed properties would be accidental and could be sold for a profit regardless, thereby eliminating the risk. It is essentially a belief in magic, and we might do a far better job of tacking this pathology by discouraging the consumption of books like "Harry Potter", where the impossible is not justified but simply explained away with the trump card of living within a magical world.

Given that financial literacy is very simple at its core, I think that the problem with the population's poor financial condition may be more essential than one that can be addressed with a rote 9-year exercise in explaining how the pieces fit together. I don't think the underlying problem is that people don't understand the basic arithmetic that comprises financial literacy: they know that, when their bank balance goes to zero, it predicts trouble. Rather, the problem is that too many people are unwilling to be honest in their evaluation of their means. They are all too willing to concoct false justifications for behaviour that might not be sensible but is simply wanted. They have desires that exceed their ability to digest, and they have not cultivated the willpower that allows them to resist their urges.

This will not be solved by an education scheme developed by a government that requires these urges to be unleashed for the good of the economy.

On Christmas charitable donations

2009-11-15T10:28:00.006-05:00

I usually make at least one charitable donation at Christmas. I say this not to give myself a pat on the back, but because I don't want anyone to think that I am about to criticize the notion of charitable giving as a whole as a justification for not giving -- that I am making an argument against the idea simply because I don't want the crisp cloth to escape my cold grip of rigor mortis.

But, I do have a minor struggle deciding where to send it. The reason is that I think there are very few genuinely helpless people in society in relation to the number of people we're told are in need of help. And I think that, because of this, the genuinely needy go unserved or under-served while those that could easily do for themselves are given an undeserved leg-up.

Habitat for Humanity, for example, is a very admirable charity. They screen their clients and require the people who will receive a home to have a hand in building it. They do not simply dole out cash but rather build an affordable house using volunteer labour and donated materials and provide assistance in carrying a mortgage to people who, through having fallen on hard times not of their own doing, would otherwise not be able to afford one. The new homeowners must pay back the mortgage over time, though the loans are interest-free. This is my idea of a near-perfect charity.

Last year, I sent money to the Salvation Army. I am unclear about the benefit of doing this. But the gesture of giving out a warm meal at Christmas to anyone at all who wants one seems to me to be a good one, though it is a bit too generic for my taste. "The poor people" that they serve are a broad and diverse clientele and may include the widows of World War II veterans just as much as it may include alcoholics who abandoned their families and made life miserable for everyone around them. But I have faith in this organization's ability to put money to better use than most other charities. And I mustn't fall into that trap that befalls many in my generation, where they will not do anything unless it has an optimized, highly-targeted benefit that allows them to change the world in one fell swoop.

One charity I will never donate to is Sick Kids Foundation. For them to come to the door and ask for donations and then refuse to take my money at all unless I sign up to a monthly subscription plan exceeds my tolerance for greedy organizations. With the amount that they spend on paying people for the act of fundraising itself, it is no wonder that they are so hostile to small donations. A friend of mine once refused a young man at the door, only to have them regroup at the driveway and try again with a pretty blonde to see if they could get a better result. Though I could never do it myself in my highly-socialized state, I admire him for telling them -- without ambiguity and with an unfiltered vocabulary -- where to go, and that he would be sending his money to kids in other countries that actually need it.

Also, I can't help but be aware of the difference in feeling of handing over a credit card donation online against putting cold, hard cash in a collection box. The former feels, to me, like an obligation while the latter is a donation, even though the end result is the same. Even so, the thought that someone actually has to handle that cash and spend time in its presence rather than just see it as a fraction of a number on their computer screen has an aesthetic difference in my mind. Somehow, I imagine that it will be treated more seriously in these times of electronic money movement; but I know the truth of it underneath.

And what about food banks? The appeal here is that the donation of food can go to no other purpose than to feed people that need it. So, I will always donate food to them but will not give them cash. As an aside, it is very impressive to watch the operations of a modestly-funded volunteer operation like a small-town food bank, such as the Georgetown Bread Basket. Witnessing the lengths that they will often go to to make good use of limited resources -- when volunteer time is more plentiful than money -- is an impressive mind-bending experience. It exists in stark contrast to the typical corporation, where labour is the expensive resource and material resources are freely wasted and discarded rather than re-used in an effort to reduce the amount of human labour tied up in hassle.

So, I am still undecided. But it's not good enough to simply throw money out the door to ease a caffeinated conscience. Part of the donation itself is in deciding where it will go, and how it will most benefit the society you live in.

Ontario autumn porridge: what to do with the apples coming out of our ears

2009-11-11T09:57:00.000-05:00

In this part of Ontario at this time of year, we have apples coming out of our ears. Pick--your-own apple farms are in abundance for the month of October, and apples appear everywhere in supermarkets in the month that follows -- 50 cents per pound at my local supermarket for the local varieties.

Apple pie is one of the obvious uses for this extravagance, but there is only so much you can take.

Over the past few days, I've been trying to use apples and their byproducts to come up with a good porridge. Today's was just about right. You could reasonably make this with all-local ingredients, except for the cinnamon.

Here is what you need for 1 serving:

half of an Empire apple: Empire apples are good because they fall apart when cooked. You could also use a Mac apple, but it would be more tart.
1/4 cup sweet apple cider: I am talking about the pressed apple cider and not the alcoholic cider
1 cup water
1/3 cup uncooked grain cereal: over the past few days, I have used a ground 10-grain cereal made by Bob's Red Mill. Today, I was at the bottom of the bag and mixed 10-grain cereal with Quaker rolled oats (not the quick variety). Essentially, anything that has about a 10-minute cooking time will be OK with this recipe. Something I have not yet tried in this recipe but would probably be great are Oak Manor Farms's Toasted Porridge Oats. They are a farm in SW Ontario but available in the GTA.
1 cinnamon stick: only if you like cinnamon with your apple
maple syrup: readily-available local maple syrup is available all over Ontario

First of all, dice half of an Empire apple. You don't need to peel the apple unless peels really bother you. They will soften during cooking and add a nice texture and flavour, I think.

Put the apple cider into a saucepan, bring it to a boil and then add the apple pieces. Simmer (covered) the apple pieces in the cider for 2-3 minutes.

Then, add the water and bring it to a boil. Add the cereal grains and stir briefly to prevent clumping and then reduce to a simmer. Reduce heat and simmer covered for 10 minutes. Stir periodically (every few minutes).

[ Optional (cinnamon): Depending on how cinnamon-y you like your apple to taste (if at all), add the cinnamon stick to the saucepan earlier or later in the cooking process. If you like a strong cinnamon flavour, add the cinnamon stick when you add the oats. If you like a mild flavour, add it about 8 minutes into the 10 minutes simmer time. ]

Once the grains have simmered for 10 minutes, remove from the heat and uncover. Add the maple syrup to taste (for me, this is about 1 tbsp.).

Put it into a bowl, let it cool down a bit and then serve.

I was pretty impressed with this. I think cider is to apples what tomato paste is to tomatoes -- it amplifies the essential flavour.

Nice one, Toronto Star: video game usurps possible trouble with the Palestinian Authority

2009-11-10T13:15:00.000-05:00

The Toronto Star outdid itself today.

On the front page was a story about a video game release.

On page 18? A story about the possible resignation of Mahmoud Abbas as head of the Palestinian Authority and the unlikelihood of finding anyone good to replace him, seeing as others would likely go with him. This has the potential to lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, according to the story. Apparently, Abbas sees the peace process as going nowhere and the effort has been particularly discouraged now that Obama has backpedaled on his promise to stop the encroachment of Israel settlements into Palestinian territory. Essentially, the view is that progress has stalled. Abbas is one of the main negotiating partners in diplomacy with Israel.

Maybe the insinuation about the collapse of the PA is hyperbole. But, the Star has never shied away from running hyperbole on its front page in the past.

I don't know about you, but I think the latter story is perhaps more important than the former. We know for sure it'll be on the front page if the rockets start flying again. Until they stop. And then it'll go away.

On conspiracy theories, Alex Jones, and alternative media in general

2009-11-10T08:24:00.001-05:00

I'll admit it: I listen to Alex Jones once in awhile.

I don't normally buy into conspiracy theories, but I think that they are worth listening to, briefly and in small doses. They often stem from the existence of questions that go unanswered, though just as often stem from answers being sought about things that are unknowable. But, I think that if you maintain a healthy, discerning mind then they can be of value. Once in awhile, they will be right and they force your mind into another dimension. But you have to be sensible.

The reason I don't buy into conspiracy theories is that I have little faith in the concerted effort of so many people playing by so many uncertain rules going so completely right in such total secrecy. It does not happen in any other avenue of life. In any group, you have some that can't keep secrets. I think that government collusion with big business does happen -- look at what happened between Paulson, Bernanke, and Bank of America during its acquisition of Merrill Lynch, for example -- but it is nowhere near as planned in a top-down manner as conspiracy theorists would have you believe. If there are any mass conspiracies out there, they come about because of groupthink and insinuation and not because of deliberate conspiracy.

But here's an example of how they can help: as regards the Fort Hood shooting in Texas, on Alex Jones's show the question was raised about whether or not the shooter was on any psychotropic medication. I have not done a full survey of the media coverage on this story, but in the brief survey I have done I have not seen or heard this raised as a question. The man who carried out the shooting was a psychiatrist. He has access to such drugs and may believe in their benefit and application.

We know that such drugs have been involved in cases like the Columbine shooting. Why is it out of the question here?

There is a gap in the middle between traditional journalism and conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists sometimes raise questions that demand an answer, but they are often marginalized and ignored because so much of what they say seems to be in the realm of self-delusion -- their affinity for UFOs does not help, either. Their occasional questions of significance remain unanswered, however.