docoflove1974

Ok, now that I've had a conversation with a very knowledgeable source...sulfites are pretty much in every modern wine worldwide--EXCEPT organic wines. Sulfites are used to kill the yeast which is in the grape; this yeast is 'weak' and doesn't produce that much alcohol. Once the sulfites are introduced, a new yeast is added to the process. This champagne yeast produces a higher alcohol from the sugars; this raises the alcohol level to anywhere from 6 or 8% to the higher levels that are sometimes common in American wines. Now, here's the important note: sulfites do not change the flavor of the wine at all. What they do is allow for higher alcohol levels...so they are perhaps more astringent, and the fruit is not as forward. They are harmless to most everybody, unless one is allergic to sulfites; in these cases, they have to be careful not only of wine, but of dried fruits, especially apricots. An added note, one of pride: the champagne yeast and the whole process of using sulfites was created by University of California Davis (GO AGGIES! *pumps fist in air repeatedly*) from a grant provided by the Gallo vineyards (BOO! HISS!...oops, sorry, personal reasons, good for a blog entry, I guess).

Oh. To be honest, I have never paid attention to sulfides.

I wasn't aware of 'additive' being put in many wines. Could you elaborate a bit more?

Another way to add to the question is this: what do the texts tell us now? Texts from any area do many things: they are snapshots of the language of a group of people at a given time; they tell us how the society represented viewed the world in which they lived; they give first-hand accounts of topics and events and sentiments which we cannot 'recreate' now; they help us to understand the person (or perhaps group of people) who wrote the document, and their personality and prejudices. When we read 'first-hand accounts' and ancient texts, various disciplines view them from various angles. Furthermore, remember that every single 'researcher' (I use the term in single quotes, so as to include the various interpretations from scholars through the ages) has their own bias and opinions, which will always influence their analysis, regardless of the area. This is true of any author, regardless of it being the first-hand account or the later interpretation. Additionally, because scholars and researchers are constantly finding new evidence, new texts, and new sources, it's necessary to re-visit topics with fresh eyes, as well as 'fresh' data, to further understand what happened in the past. So it is important to read not only a 'current' (aka 'academically accepted') interpretation of a given text, but also previous interpretations and the first-hand accounts. Think of it as a jigsaw puzzle: the various interpretations, as well as the first-hand accounts, are the individual pieces...when one puts the pieces together in the correct assemblage, only then is one able to view the whole picture. However, unlike that jigsaw puzzle, we'll never fully know what happened...there area always pieces missing, but we always find new ones.

IIRC, she got into a car with someone who wasn't her brother, father, or husband (I want to say in-law, but that doesn't count)...this is a no-no in many areas with either Sharia laws or that practice a very strict sense of Islamic law. As the rules go, if you're a woman, you must be among other women, or you can be with your husband (if married), your brother or your father. That's it...it doesn't matter who the male is, you can't be 'alone' with him if he doesn't fall under the above categories. If you do...well, whatever happens is your fault, since you broke the rules--you asked for trouble. If one holds that a society's laws are a reflection of their views, beliefs, and their sense of justice (whatever that may entail), these types of laws speak volumes. I find it fascinating.

Actually, while many French wines have been (IMO) overpriced, many Spanish and Italian wines have been reasonably priced over the years. For Americans, the best buys right now are South American and Aussie wines...great on the palate, great on the pocketbook.

Like I said, it didn't quite sit right with me...hence my asking. I goofed...I thought it was on the History channel group, but it was on PBS instead; here is the webpage for the program. Like I said earlier, I had no real problem with the program, and overall it is one I'd say is not usually 'sensationalist' or over-simplified, the way some History Channel programs have become lately. But that one blip about slaves really didn't sound right. Also...I know that eunuchs were slaves...but were all slaves eunuchs?

I was watching a program last week on History International, which 'detailed' (as only a 1 hour show can) aspects of politics and society in Athens, and focused particularly on the pre-democratic days leading up to and the early years of the democracy. By and large, the program was good for minor details about life, and was one I would recommend to most; plus, it was 'hosted' by a female Classics history professor (British lass...Bethany something? Don't quote me.). But there was one detail that caught me off-guard: the Greeks (and it was stated as such, not just Athenians) "sterilized" their slaves. I'm guessing they're talking about the eunuchs...right? If so...I still have questions about this: 1) Is this true? To what extent were slaves castrated/sterilized? 2) Why would they do this? My thought was the obvious: they didn't want the slaves to procreate...although that doesn't quite make sense to me on the onset, as I would think that the procreation of slaves, thus creating more slaves, would be a good thing. But maybe I have the perspective wrong. 3) Was this "sterilization" practiced by other cultures of the time? Or was this something unique to the Greeks? Thanks!

Well, there are a couple of ways to look at it. For every cultural and ethnic group, there are certain aspects of life which are 'identifiers'--not only within the group but from outside as well: religion, ceremonies and festivities, manner of dress...and the big one, language, both in dialect form and in language form. It's why there are many movements, and have been for some time, to preserve and resurrect languages of a given group: Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton (which is dying out, but being held onto steadfastly)...the Catalan and Basque peoples of Iberia and southern France...the various American Indian languages from the Arctic Circle down to Tierra del Fuego...even the revival of Hebrew some generations before. Sometimes this work is done by outsiders--linguists or anthropologists who wish to preserve aspects of the group for future generations; other times it's done by the group themselves. The thought is this: if we continue our language, we continue to assert ourselves as a viable group, one which is worthy of respect and praise...it is our heritage, and therefore is important to us. I see nothing wrong with that...then again, I'm a linguist who wishes to learn the dialects of my great-grandparents, since the various Italian 'dialetti' are dying fast. Then there's the other way to look at things: the world is global, not individual. While we should respect each other's customs, religion, etc...but progress is what is important, and progress means that we all speak in such a way as to be understood (whatever language that may be in). Usually it's the 'dominant/ruling' group which has this position. Then again, they tend to control the money, the politics...so they want whatever is in their best interest. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing: think of the Romans and their language policy, which was if you want to do business and participate in government, you have to learn, speak and write in Latin. One language ensures that there is constant communication...which is so necessary for good business (which leads to good feelings in government...remember, people always go with their pocketbooks...). So, which is correct? Neither...or both. In my humble and honest opinion, I see nothing wrong with studying and maintaining languages...then again, I'm biased in this realm. However, I wish this for historical reasons...it is through some of these 'languages of the conquered' (sorry, but it's the truth) that we get alternate views of history, different view points, and different manners of looking at a culture or group of people. Off the top of my head, without the maintaining of Basque and Catal

C'mon...llamas...automatic Monty Python reference! Between the asthma inhalers and the altitude sickness pills, you should be fine. Go slow, is all I can tell you...slow and steady. And Aquatabs are ALWAYS a great idea when travelling...you never know what you're going to run into!

They dance quite a bit. And they're better than mooses...a rabid moose bit my sister once...

Well, I'll repeat what I said in the post...according to my Peruvian friends, definitely take tours, but make sure they're the 'official' kind...there are plenty of cheap 'unofficial' tours which will lead you astray. Also, make sure to bring extra asthma medicine. You will definitely need it in the mountains, and it's not always obtainable. Your doctor should be able to write you an extra prescription. Above all...ENJOY IT!!! Qu

I haven't personally, but have several Peruvian friends. Most everyone says to take tours...something that sounds a bit more official, as there are plenty of 'unofficial' tour guides who will lead you astray! Bring good walking shoes...and I'd check the weather reports, only because starting this time of year there can be weather issues in the mountains. Enjoy the trip!

I know it, PP, and I am very thankful for parents like yourself. I don't wish to imply that all parents are in need of discipline themselves. It just infuriates me when I see it, as it seems like it's becoming more the norm. Probably I'm throwing this out of proportion, I admit that. Ugh.

Seriously....and the worst part about this discussion right now is that most of my friends now have kids, and all say the same thing: let's see what happens and what you say when you are in our shoes. Look, I never wish to intimate that parenting is easy, or that there are simple solutions when you're 'in the heat of the battle', so to speak. HOWEVER...to sit there and 'accept' a horrible action (which essentially this mother did) is inexcusable. It took everything I had to not turn around and mouth off...and to finish my lunch (which, thankfully, I was almost done), calmly clean up, and walk to my car and drive off. Technically, it's none of my business. But when these kids grow up and go to college, they come into my classroom, expecting me to bow to their whims and put up with their ill behavior. They then quickly figure out that I (and most all of my colleagues) don't put up with that shyte...and they can go take a flying leap. And, yes, they go to college...and yes, they still have horrid behaviors. I can't tell you how annoying and frustrating it is when students take cell-phone calls in class. Not the emergency...not the quick 'I'll call you back' when they forget to turn off their cell phones. I mean full-on conversations...usually they go out into the hall, but that's almost as bad. I can put anti-cell-phone-use clauses in my syllabus (which I do), but I technically can't enforce them...so I end up having a very one-sided conversation with said student, telling them to not do it again, or they will be asked to leave the class for the day, and it'll be registered as an unexcused absence (which, for me, means they can't make up any work). Not much teeth in that, I know, but these are adults...they should know better! I shouldn't have to hold their hands! Ok...another glass of sauv.blanc...I need to calm down a bit...

Ok...just to note...it's taken me almost a week to blog this...only because every time I think about it, it infuriates me. Thesis: People don't know how to raise kids anymore. Events: I was sitting at a local fast-ish food restaurant (meaning: it's still burgers, fries, etc., just that they cook things to order), minding my own business, when this group sit behind me. 2 women, sisters or -in-law from the sound of things, with 2 kids (boy was about 4, girl about 5) who belong to one of the women. One woman was explaining that they had just literally gotten off the plane from a trip to Florida to visit family, and there was an incident on the plane. The kids were 'fighting'...and to retaliate for some act, the boy spit on the girl. Evidently he was told that he was naughty, but that's it. And in recounting the tale, the other woman asked the little boy why he did it (with that amount of emotion, too). His response, with a grin: I dunnnoooo....she was bothering me. And the mother, non-chalantly, just reacted as if 'kids will be kids'. Now, here's what pisses me off to no end: As a child, if my brothers or I even hinted that we were going to fight, we were given *the look* (we all know what look that was, too), and we all knew that if we continued, not only would we be hauled out of there toot-sweet, but we'd get our bottoms whacked. Mom meant business...and if we were really bad (which perhaps only happened once...I doubt it), she would tell Dad, who would also dispense justice. In essence, we didn't go out on errands, let alone special trips, very often, and we were to be on our very best behavior when we did. Punto...finale Furthermore, I can recall only once spitting at my brother (the one I would fight with)...only once, because when it happened my mother slapped me on the face (something she never did), washed my mouth out with soap (which I got to tollerate...me being a potty-mouth and a smart ass), and she wouldn't talk to me for the rest of the day. Then I got the lecture: spitting on people is an evil thing, extremely dirty, and only animals do that...and at that, most animals wouldn't do it. I believe I was grounded (aka no dessert) for a short time, too. I got the hint...as did my brothers, who didn't dare repeat the incident, lest they be subjected to the same treatment. It was swift, and honestly I can't say that it wasn't merited. So...granted, on a plane you might not want to smack your kid around...at least, not mid-air. But going out to lunch afterwards, which most kids see as a positive thing? And worse yet, acting as if it's no big deal? Where the hell are the manners??? See? It's been almost a week, and it still raises my hackles.

Well, it's actually pretty straightforward: gens is a feminine noun, and in these constructions the names are acting as adjectives. Therefore, they must modify the noun they are with...meaning that they carry the same gender and number categorizations as the noun. So, the 'Julia Gens' is correct!

I must say, there's quite a bit of action in your neck of the woods. Well, relatively speaking. How much does the guy charge for small gatherings? We could use another eejit 'round here.

Um...dude...you got things better than we do. I know our record says "2-8," but honest to God we should be just like the Dolfins: 0-10. We couldn't even beat the sorry ass Rams. At home. Jeeeeeeeeeez...

Sounds good to me weather-wise. My life will be upended (hopefully) with a new job and a move, so either June or July sound good, but whether I am 100% confirmed to go won't come for a bit yet. But I'll try to set those dates (and perhaps the week before...see if I can't make a whole trip out of this!) aside.

I would see where you end up going, and then taking it there as a course. It probably is a requirement once you get there, anyway. Beforehand, you probably could do self-study (there have been many suggestions here and in other threads about textbooks which are widely available) to give you an idea.

Many of us 'Yankees' know of Laurel and Hardy...for some of us, they were required 'studying' in our youths!

I can donate a farthing to the cause...will that help? Or perhaps a shilling?

G-Man, you just utterly rock...

Salve, Amici. Sorry to dissapoint you, but as Mesoamericans had neither sugar nor milk, their Xocolatl was a quite bitter beaverage, a mixture of crushed cocoa beans with water, chili, achiote and maize, extremely unpleasant for the Conqueror's taste (and presumably also for us). It was almost entirely reserved for religious and therapeutic purposes, as it was considerably expensive (after all, they were literally ingesting their currency, the equivalent of a paper-money's milkshake for our time). Even if Mesoamericans had honey (their only sweetener) there is no evidence they ever used it on the Xocolatl. I've actually had the xocolatl drink (or a decent facsimile)...and, yes, it is bitter, but...how do I describe it... Ok, I like things to be slightly sour--my lemonades are never truly sweet, nor is my ice tea--and I prefer tartness. Even in my vinagrettes I put in a little more vinegar than usual, as I like a lighter 'tang'. So with the xocolatl, I liked the bitterness...it wasn't so bitter that it couldn't be drunk, but wasn't sweet at all. I found it to be pleasant...but I could definitely see how the Spaniards (and others) didn't care for it at all. And, no, it didn't taste like chocolate...closer to the taste if you've had mole de chocolate, which doesn't taste like chocolate, either. But it's that note...that distinct note that dark/bittersweet chocolate has...that's what you get from the drink and the sauce.