Pre-Bed Thought 2

The New York Times has this great article on experimental philosophy this week. It's good to hear this is going on: I always thought that ethics, especially, could benefit from some good experiment. If you think ethics is more descriptive than proscriptive, as they say, it makes sense to test your ideas when you can. And it might even make sense just to throw people into a bunch of situations and see what comes out.

But here's my take on the actual study cited. And I quote.

Suppose the chairman of a company has to decide whether to adopt a new program. It would increase profits and help the environment too. “I don’t care at all about helping the environment,” the chairman says. “I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new program.” Would you say that the chairman intended to help the environment?

O.K., same circumstance. Except this time the program would harm the environment. The chairman, who still couldn’t care less about the environment, authorizes the program in order to get those profits. As expected, the bottom line goes up, the environment goes down. Would you say the chairman harmed the environment intentionally?

I don’t know where you ended up, but in one survey, only 23 percent of people said that the chairman in the first situation had intentionally helped the environment. When they had to think about the second situation, though, fully 82 percent thought that the chairman had intentionally harmed the environment.

Then there's another similar study:

Edouard Machery, a philosopher of science at the University of Pittsburgh by way of the Sorbonne, told subjects about a man named Joe who visits the local smoothie shop and asks for the largest drink available. Joe is informed that the megasmoothies come in a special commemorative cup. He doesn’t care one way or the other about the cup. He just wants the megasmoothie. Did he get the commemorative cup intentionally? Most people said no. What if, instead, he’s informed that the megasmoothie has gone up in price and that he’ll have to pay an extra dollar for it? Joe doesn’t care about the extra dollar; he just wants the megasmoothie. Did he pay the extra dollar intentionally? Most people said yes. Machery concluded that foreseen side effects of our actions are taken to be intended when we conceive them as costs incurred for a benefit. In the case of the blameworthy company chairman, then, more pollution was taken to be a harm incurred to gain more profit.

I think, and perhaps I think this too frequently, that this is a language issue more than a substance issue. I think we actually use the word "intend" differently in positive and negative situations. When we talk about intending good things to happen, we are asking whether we purposefully brought something about. This is our usual definition of "intend." But I think when we ask "Did he intentionally harm the environment?" or "Did he intentionally pay the extra dollar?" we're asking whether or not he was hoodwinked and/or ignorant, whether he did something with or without knowing the all the negatives.

I think this distinction might also come in not just in the situations but also in the difference between the phrasing "Did he intend to...?" and "Did he intentionally...?" I think "intentionally" points to knowledge of the consequences of your actions more than it points to purpose. Whereas "intend" points to purpose. You shoot an intruder in the chest. Did you intend to kill him? Maybe not. Did you intentionally kill him? For some reason, it feels slightly more ambiguous, slightly more likely.

So yeah, first reaction: In the positive situations, as presented here, we need them to be purposeful actions to define them as "intended," and in the negatives the person need only have full awareness of the consequences and be in control of their actions to qualify as "intentional."

Pre-Bed Thought

I read something today that raised the question, "Why did we evolve consciousness?" It is, of course, a fun question: Couldn't we do exactly the same stuff if we weren't there witnessing it? I haven't given the question appropriate consideration, but here are my first thoughts:

We could have evolved consciousness because it's the most efficient way to make us unpredictable. Unpredictability has clear benefits for survival...it's harder for animals to hunt you or for other people to trick you if they don't know you'll react the same way to nearly identical stimuli. And although I'm more or less a determinist, certainly the factors that sway decisions can be extremely subtle and nigh impossible to control for. It's really hard to create a random number generator, so perhaps consciousness is the closest we can get with reasonable efficiency. Also (and similarly), consciousness may us to adapt to new situations. We can extrapolate not only rules but probabilities from our past experiences and apply them to the present. Maybe consciousness is a good tool in extrapolation and probability gaging.

Then again, maybe not. I'm just throwing the possibility out there...

Falling in Love with Love

A recent conversation prompted me to wonder: When did we start to hate love? I mean, we all want love for ourselves, but at what point did an affectionate, happy couple stop evoking "aw"s and start evoking "ugh"s? And when did the announcement of an engagement stop being cause for joy and start being cause for whispers about how long it will last. I mean, I suppose it started when we saw which people were getting engaged right out of college and noticed that a fair percentage of them were passionate but fickle people who shouldn't be putting a down payment on an apartment, much less getting hitched. Not all of them...but a fair percentage. I remember, when I was young, I used to watch romantic comedies where the woman eventually had to choose between love and career. And I always thought, "Just go for love; that's what will make you happy!" And in the end, she always did. Now I'd think, "If you have a great career opportunity, for god's sake, take it!" If the guy's good for you, he'll urge you to make the same choice.

Maybe young people have always been cynical about love. Really, it's usually little kids and old people who smile at happy couples. Maybe they have a better perspective on life and know what's really important. Or maybe it's just that most little kids I see have married parents and most old people I see found a life partner. So not only do they not have anything to be jealous of, they may have forgotten how frequently love spectacularly flops. Or not-so-spectacularly flops.

Something about Ian McEwan's On Chesil Beach rings pretty true. Twenty-somethings, to say nothing of teenagers, can be insecure and fucked up. Sure, there are some great couples out there. I'm proud to say I know a few. I'm less thrilled to say they're disproportionately religious Christians. Doesn't bode well for me and most of my friends.

But enough with the moping: All but one of the UU apps are in, and that's exciting. I had lunch with Brad and his UU school buddy Nick today. Nick was talking about a case going on somewhere he works (worked? I don't remember). Even though it was in an area of UU I'm not too into, it was pretty spectacular. The evolution of the UU has left some crazy-ass loopholes, and people in the know are far better at exploiting them than your average feller. So average fellers get screwed. With so much emphasis on companies and people who are tacitly evil, it's sometimes easy to forget how many companies and people are explicitly evil. During those times, I like to think of my old landlord. Ah, me.

Back to work post-vacation tomorrow. It was nice to spend time at Slave again.

I Like Mic

Status Que?

When Greg leaves comments on my last post cryptically hinting that I should perhaps update my blog, I figure it's time. The bad part about going two months without updating is that I have two months worth of updating. So you're getting a cumulative update rather than an event-by-event update.

So, the months. I finally finished my cryptic crossword and sent it in to he who wears short Shortz last week. It's not without its flaws, but I think there are some fun and creative clues in there. I'm battling serious odds—he may not even take unassigned cryptics—but until I hear back, I can live safely in that quantum superposition of "accepted" and "not accepted." And if the function collapses to "not accepted," you, my dear reader, can look forward to trying the puzzle...on this very blog! Unless I decide to submit it elsewhere. Gee, I hope I get some personal comments from the man himself. That would be an honor, indeed.

Our apartment has settled, and it is good. Chayes has beautified her room—it's great to be spending some quality time with her—Betsey has moved into Megan's old room and is fitting in beautifully, and Greg's the same sunny delight as ever. Greg and I saw a super-exclusive run-through of Cry Baby last weekend (yay, thanks, Mark!) This particular performance was not "up for review," so I will only review it with the most inscrutable puzzle I can think of: _T W_S _W_S_M_. G_ S__ _T WH_N _T'S _N T_WN.

Work's been crazy as ever. There's been lots of talk about the, er, inappropriate comments made by a certain, unnamed James Watson. If you haven't already read the massive press coverage, you can get the latest at the links I put in the first half of the sentence. The whole to-do prompted me not only to fashion a harness for my jaw to wear whenever reading Watson's comments on black people, women, fat people, gay people or, oh yeah, Rosalind Franklin, but also to do some reading on race and IQ.

It's apparently well-established [most of the following assertions come from that linked report] that the average IQ of black people in America is 15 points lower than the average IQ of white people in America. There are two major questions that come out of this: What are the reasons for this difference? and What the heck does IQ mean anyway? Neither one of these has yet been answered especially thoroughly. While IQ is highly heritable, this doesn't mean that the IQ variations between races is largely genetic. There are plenty of other factors, many unknown, that go into intelligence, and it seems likely that these largely account for differences that we see. Yes, racists, it's conceivable they don't. Someone, sometime will do solid research and we'll have a better idea. The other question, about what IQ actually measures, is just as hazy. It's definitely a solid predictor of academic achievement. In this sense, the test isn't biased toward white people...it's an equal predictor for black people and white people. As the APA report points out, the test is biased against black people in the plain sense that they, on average, do worse. You might say, well, that's not really bias if it still predicts the same stuff, but hey, IQ tests are designed so both sexes necessarily have the same average. It's explicitly not biased toward men or women; I don't know if it's an equal predictor for both sexes, though. This paragraph's getting long, so let me sum up my point: IQ tests are a good but imperfect predictor of academic achievement. There's no great reason to think they measure some ineffable quality of "intelligence." That concept isn't well-defined, anyway. There would probably be some correlation between IQ score and anything measuring some kind of intelligence—probably a fairly strong correlation—but who knows how strong or how consistent between tests? I don't. What I'm saying is we don't know all that much about this topic. And I think people without an agenda should research it, mostly because I'm a curious person and it's an interesting topic. So there.

Oh, and the UU apps are coming along swimmingly. Hopefully those will be out the door in the next couple of weeks. I'm actually feeling very good about this decision. I'm reading One U, a book about UU school, and it's scaring me, but it's also getting me very psyched for the kind of thinking I'd be doing.

All right, friends. I have an episode of Dirty Sexy Money to watch. Emily points out the show's egregiously absent commas. Normally, I would be unforgiving, but somehow Donald Sutherland and Peter Krause have won me over.

Midnight Madness X

What more could I want from life than 18 hours of sleepless, delirious puzzle solving? Well, 18 hours of well-rested, clear-headed puzzle-solving would be nice. But that's not what I got from Midnight Madness X, an alternately frustrating and exhilarating puzzle hunt that started Saturday at 8 pm and ended Sunday, just before 2 pm. Greg had participated the past two years (he's also done a few Microsoft hunts) and brought me onto Team Plaid, otherwise comprised of people who work with him at the hedge fund. I will now tell you the exhaustive and exhausting tale of Team Plaid's glorious victory (over teams who finished in eighth place or later), complete with pictures, provided by flickr users who actually took them.

After a sushi dinner with Jess and her friend Jack, Greg and I headed over to the (misleadingly) convenient starting point, Riverside Park, just west of 103rd St. I gradually met Greg's coworkers (and the one other female who came along) and we got a map of the Columbia campus (our area!) and our first two clues. One was a clear box that revealed a poem (I didn't work on this one), and the other was this (courtesy Brian of Team Red):



One guy quickly realized the abbreviations referred to places on the Columbia campus, and Greg quickly realized it was a tangram (you have to cut it up and rearrange the pieces). It took him about 10 minutes to convince everyone of this, and they never actually believed my solution of the tangram (it wasn't perfect), but we were both right. When we got to the (very general) location, there was a hangman puzzle on a whiteboard. It very clearly was going to spell out "TIME MACHINE" when it was solved, and there were some econ equations scribbled next to it. We spent a few hours trying to solve this puzzle. One problem: IT WASN'T THE REAL PUZZLE. I kept on saying to Greg, "wouldn't it be funny if this weren't the real puzzle," and he did not approve of my sense of humor. Without finding the real puzzle, we couldn't solve the other puzzle, because they relied on each other. Eventually we found out we were working on the wrong thing and found the other half of the puzzle. We solved it too late...by the time we got the next puzzle—a hilarious craigslist ad for a BBW (big-breasted woman, apparently) looking for a VGL (very good looking, that one I knew) man—we were off to Union Square, where we were all supposed to be at midnight.

We got there around 1 (we hadn't originally bought the Union Sq thing as not-a-trap) and waited for the rest of the game to start. Teams that had done better in the first half got a head start. We got two digital pictures: one of a street, one of a storefront. So part of our team went to the storefront (14th and C) and the other part went to the street (9th, just E of Bway). And we looked for the clues. And looked. And looked. And Game Control was MIA. So we looked some more. Shortly before FOUR FUCKING AM we managed to reach game control, who told us that there were no clues there and the direction of the photographs mattered. So with that we got that we had to head to the intersection of the two sightlines: 9th and C. While hunting for the clue there, I ran into a drunk coworker, which was fun. I also realized it was kind of strange that I was out at 4 am and neither drunk nor somebody else, which together would have made the situation make sense. Anyway...

That almost ended the excruciatingly frustrating portion of MMX. There was just one more. The packet at 9th and C sent us to the lower east side and contained three clues. The easiest of the evening (there was a dude in a Subaru), a tough but ultimately satisfying one (explanation TK), and this (thanks Strle):



Greg and I easily translated the wingdings by pattern. Greg then suggested that it was probably an intersection, so the middle word should be "AND." (Go, Greg.) I plugged that in and found that the Ds fell in the first word in such a way that ELDRIDGE fit perfectly. That put an R at the end of the 6-letter last word. I looked on the map they gave us. BROOME was the only 6-letter street crossing Eldridge. Alas! We had solved it incorrectly! Well, either that or their map just wasn't detailed enough to include Hester. UGH. Turns out the numbers indicate the letter in the name of the font (Times, Courier, Wingdings or Helvetica) to use there. Grr. In any case, had Hester been on that map, we would have gotten that one an hour earlier than we did.

In any case, we wound up working on "statements" (via Brian, again):



Our team figured out that it had something to do with states. Game Control eventually clued to us that an official state abbreviation is hidden in each line. We went through them, and I realized (Go, me) that the states were all kind of contiguous, and we should try tracing a line through the states in each stanza. When we did this, we came up with ESSEX + BROOME.

There we found a line of animals...each animal present twice. Here, Greg again solved the puzzle but with an execution that they didn't want (he took the difference in the animals' positions, not the number of animals between them, heaven forbid, and found that number letter in the animals' names), so the answer didn't work. Oh, the pain!

As we were working on that, around 6am, we ate breakfast, and about half of our team left. Greg was fading fast. We soon got my favorite puzzle of the day (Strle, again):



You're probably thinking what we were thinking: "What in God's name do we do with this?" Greg was apparently thinking, "Why am I sitting on concrete in a desolated area of Chinatown when I could be sleeping?" because he departed. I was left with three guys (a fourth would rejoin us). We perhaps too quickly got a hint on the clue: The spiral is the key to solving the strip. See if you have any inspiration...

We sat down at base camp and stared. And then I started folding the strip. I folded on every line indicated in the spiral. And when I was done with the segment between the outermost two black circles there was a "K" in my hands. Turns out the inside was the beginning, but we got it, and the bikers biked off to 103 Norfolk.

Much of the rest of the game was blurry for me, less because of exhaustion than because things got very fast very quickly, and the three guys on bikes got places much more quickly than myself and Jaime, the other pedestrian on the team. Other highlights included a fake crossword that gave us GPS coordinates, a video of a woman dancing in 22 dance segments that gave an intersection when we took the first letters of all the dances (Josh and I—mostly Joshmdash;managed to get enough of the dances that we could figure it out), and an awesome puzzle using the dongles that kept track of how many hints we had where the dongles responded to the angle they were placed at. Awesome.

At long last, when my legs were completely shot and I could feel the blisters forming, we got a direction to the amphitheater in East River Park. When Jaime and I arrived, our biking crew—Peter, Andrei and Josh—had come in 7th, seconds behind 5th and 6th, but an hour and a half behind the winners, who may have somehow gotten there without figuring out all of the clues. Everyone there felt good about finishing, and people from different teams were warmly congratulating each other (a girl I'd been scribbling down dance moves with clapped for me as I walked up the path).

Peter suggested going out for a drink, but it was 2 o'clock, and I was ready to treat myself to a cab and take a shower. Which I did. Thank God.

Sadly, this was the last Midnight Madness. Despite the early frustrations, I would love to do it again. It was a marathon, but the few times I figured things out were incredibly gratifying, and I got to know the LES pretty well, which was cool. And puzzle people rule. But I knew that already.

UPDATE: Kevin of Team Cerulean posted a picture of Team Plaid on flickr! You can see a little bit of me behind Greg:

Will Someone Please Think of the Children!

Maybe I haven't sufficiently honed my maternal instinct, but I can never get too worked up when people employ argumentum ad juvenis, namely, the rhetorical tactic where someone suggests that an action might just harm "the children" and therefore must be wrong. There are a couple of problems with this argument technique.

First, and less universally, the action the person's trying to stop is often...not actually bad for the children. Take this fine editorial by Institute of American Values VP Elizabeth Marquardt. Marquardt is trying to argue against giving kids three legal parents, and she does so by saying kids who grow up split between several households can be in no better shape than kids from more-or-less amicable divorces, who "must grow up traveling between two worlds, having to make sense on their own of the different values, beliefs and ways of living they find in each home." FOR SHAME. I think the world might be a better place if the only values that were reinforced by all adult figures in a kid's life were those that are universally held. If one parent thinks eating meat is fine and another parent thinks it's cruel, or if one parent thinks responsible premarital sex is beneficial and another thinks it's unhealthy, it's great that kids have to recognize these ambiguities. It will also help them pick out the really important values (don't steal people's stuff) from the less critical ones (always look your best). Or maybe it won't. Whatever. Maybe on balance, kids from three-parent families have a slightly less happy childhood than kids from two-parent families. Which brings me to my second point.

Why the hell do we think it's so important that things are perfect for kids? Seriously. All kids ever grow up to be is adults, and we don't care nearly as much about them. It's not like kids are such freakin' saints; they can be downright cruel and self-absorbed and irritating. They're not any less pure-hearted than adults are. Most adults aren't truly cruel; they just want to get what's best for them and are often too self-centered to realize they're hurting people along the way. As any kid (and, you'd think, any former kid) knows, that's exactly what kids are like. Childhood isn't bliss. It's a shitshow of a social scene and you get totally scared by bizarre things. I don't think it's clear what factors make kids happier eventual adults, but you never hear people arguing about what will make kids better adults, just what's better for them while they're kids.

So why do we care so much about kids, without facing specifically that they're just going to turn into adults like all other adults? I think that the answer is—and steel yourself for the short-lived cheesiness—the kids represent hope. Awwwww. Ok, end cheesiness. I think kids represent false hope, the hope that these people will be totally unlike all the other people in the world and will somehow start a new world order where everything is just Jim Dandy. I'm kind of serious here. I have this feeling that adults are constantly looking for prodigies. They really want to find the one person who changes the world. You're a pretty special group of people, people who read the blog: When you were younger, did an adult ever relate to you as if you were really, really something special? And do you find it just a bit creepy? Like they expected oddly big things from you, things no adult could ever deliver on? I think everyone wants to find that Harry Potter, that kid that with ingenuity and goodness turns everything around.

Or maybe it's just an evolved emotional response. Wish we didn't have to base so much policy on it.

Spoiler Alert: I'm Just Wild About Harry

This post has spoilers. MANY spoilers. So if you're in the middle of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or haven't read it but plan on doing so, leave! Leave now! The blog will still be here when you get back, I promise, and if it's not, that means there's something horrifically wrong with Google, and we all have bigger things to worry about.

So, um, everyone's predictions were right. Sure, some predictions contradicted each other, so they weren't ALL right, but if you took all the most common ones—Snape's on the right side and was in love with Lily, Harry's a horcrux, Neville's the one who becomes a teacher at Hogwarts—you'd more or less have all the answers.

Then again, the answers have never been the REAL draw of these books. The terrific characters and beautiful moments are as terrific and beautiful as ever here. I've always found the Weasley family to be the most emotionally stirring set of relationships in the book...the way Molly cares about her husband and children, the completely good-natured partnership of Fred and George, who are constantly joking but so emotionally close and mature. So when the Weasleys suffered in this book, I cried. I did. I also cried when Molly uttered what I believe to be the first swear word in the series: "NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!" Bloody brilliant.

When Harry dives into Snape's memories and realizes that he must sacrifice himself, those are also a great few pages. His last mile felt incredibly real...as I imagine facing death would be...as any bizarrely extreme situation is.

There were actually long stretches that were sort of slow. I mean, relative to the rest of Harry Potter, which is to say that I was reading a page a minute instead of a page every 50 seconds.

In any case, the ending was extremely satisfying, if somewhat predictable, and I'm happy. Stories about midnight madness TK.

Almost All Hallows Eve

With 100 pages left in Book 6, The Great Harry Potter Reread is about to come to a close, and The Great Deathly Hallows Read will soon begin. Who knows how we'll look back on this time? I certainly have no particular envy for the newspaper readers who received Great Expectations in installments, but then again, I hated Great Expectations.

As many have undoubtedly heard, some clever schmo uploaded gifs of the entire book on the web, and now spoilers are wildly circulating, as I try to dodge them like a seeker dodges bludgers (Quidditch reference, ho!). I've already happened upon one, which I hope was false—not that I'm so opposed to what was indicated in the spoiler, I just don't like plots spoiled. It was in an RSS feed for one of my favorite blogs, and it was in bold. So maybe there was some context in the non-bold text that made it clear the spoiler was made up, but I didn't stick around in case there were more spoilers.

Not cool, Slog poster. Not cool.

I'm not even reading comments on this very post until I finish Deathly Hallows, because I wouldn't be surprised if some eeeeevil child were technorating all HP posts and commenting with spoilers, just to stroke himself. Bad boy. Go to your room.

But really, I'm not too concerned with the things that will probably be in these spoilers. I'm less concerned with who dies than with the progress of the book itself, how the final battle is framed, what the final comment on human nature is. I'll need to actually read the book to figure all of these things out. And I'm so psyched.

Suddenly This Summer

You can almost convince yourself summer hasn't really started yet until the fourth of July. Then you know you're in the throes of the season and it's about to slip by, just as it does every year. I'd have thought this would stop after, you know, I stopped getting summer vacation. But it's still my favorite season. I'd much rather it be 85 than 45, and it's good to have all of the school-bound friends feeling a little more relaxed.

The summer has started off with Harry Pottering, which is unforseeably terrific. I've read the books already, and I know I enjoyed them, but being on a mission to read—spending a Sunday sitting in the Hungarian Pastry Shop and then Riverside Park, reading a fantasy book, and feeling accomplished afterward—is so ideal.

I got my MacBook, which is treating me awfully well. I've only played with GarageBand enough to record myself singing Wimoweh. It's, well, horrible—at once overly pretty and harsh—but I'm thrilled. I'm harmonizing! With myself! And I can send the file to people! Woo!

And I'm happy with my UUST score. If I want to go to UU school, I'm in pretty good shape...just have to get recommendations from old professors and write the world's most brilliant 250 word statement. Maybe my alma mater will take me back...who knows? They're pretty picky, though.

Oh, I met an attractive guy this weekend. I know that doesn't sound like much (no, I didn't, like, get his number...or even have a one-on-one conversation with him) but so rarely am I at all attracted to someone I just met—nay, so rarely am I attracted to anyone at all—that it was sort of a proof of concept. The dude was gorgeous and authentically charismatic. And I kinda dug him. It's more a testament to my functionality than my maturity (it would be nice to go for someone attainable), but when that's in doubt, it's something.

So, on a completely different topic, I was thinking about consciousness a bit today. I do maintain a confidence in science and philosophy...I think we'll eventually have an idea of what consciousness is, but right now I think we don't quite know what questions to ask, and that's hindering progress in finding out what exactly consciousness is and how it arises from the brain. We've apparently nicely eliminated the possibility that consciousness is located at one place in the brain. You can take out any individual part of the brain and maintain consciousness...I mean, maybe parts will make you pass out, but they won't kill your identity. So I guess that only leaves the possibility that it's emergent from some collection of processes? Some network? Which kind of makes sense. But I think before we figure out how it emerges, we have to get a better subjective idea of what 'it' is.

Therefore, I've been trying to pinpoint my own consciousness. What do I feel I directly experience? It's easier to find stuff I don't directly experience. Inspiration is one of them. When I'm doing a cryptic and think of an answer, it often just 'comes to me.' You all know this. The answer to some problem just comes into your head. So that's something that does not happen in the conscious. So the answer appears in your head...how does it appear? Is it an image? A sound? It's kind of neither, usually, and so it's hard to say what it IS. Even when you have mental images or hear things, the sounds don't need to happen linearly; the image doesn't need to be detailed. In what way are we actually active? What specific actions can you take ownership of? I guess we experience things. Sound does actually register. But certainly the processing of that sound isn't part of the conscious mind, nor is the interpreting of it. I can't think of any specific process that I really feel I—as my conscious mind—do. Although I know I'm here.

OK, I'm too tired for further pontificating. 'Night, all.

The Great Harry Potter Reread

I've exchanged one acronym for another (UUST will hopefully retire on Friday when my score comes in), and I now embark on TGHPR: The Great Harry Potter Reread. I began last Wednesday with Greg's copy of The Sorcerer's Stone, but alas he informed me that he would be taking all of his Harry Potter books to India with him. He claims he wants to "read" them, but I'm certain he's doing it just to spite me. And to make his company pay more for his checked luggage. There are many advantages. So I went to that magical place where they let you take whatever books you have and bring them back once you've read them. I finished books one and two last weekend, have taking a brief break to do some fun reading for work, and tomorrow I should be able to make a dent in book three. After I finish four, I'll have to go back to book lending land to get five and six.

I may have already mentioned how good I feel about the Harry Potter craze. In a world where so many crazes are guilty pleasures (in that you perhaps should feel guilty when you mock people or consume environment-harming luxuries), a beautifully crafted fantasy series is such a delight. It's just nice to see people getting worked up about a story. And it seems that J.K. Rowling has handled it beautifully—having started out as a mother struggling to make ends meet and been vaulted to international celebrity author, she seems to have kept a cool head, stayed true to her original vision, and effortlessly walked so many lines between making her characters and points of tensions too simple and too complicated. Go go go Jo. In any case, I'm having so much fun with the reread, and I eagerly await book seven. (Snape is SO NOT REALLY EVIL. You'll see! I swear!)

This short week has been one of luxuries. Last night, I took Mum to JoJo for her birthday. Had the most fabulous foie gras brulee (yeah, I know it's cruel as hell, but it's quite literally the most delicious thing I've ever put in my mouth). And the decor and atmosphere were just lovely. It was, of course, lovely to spend time with Mom. And speaking of relatives, I had a delightful post-pride Italian dinner with Natalia the night before. Great to hang out with her, of course, and it sounds like her summer's shaping up to be very cool, or at least promising. And I got my MacBook today. Oh, beauty! I can't wait to start recording stuff and taking full advantage of garageband. It's a pretty darn impressive program.

Finally, Greg has alas departed for India. He'll be spending the next four weeks in fabulous and exciting Hyderabad, which has 6.1 million people, and which I'd never heard of before he announced he was going. I feel pathetic. After working in India, he's taking a couple weeks to backpack around Nepal, which should be awesome for him. I'm now one friend shorter for the summer (alas!) but I have Harry and a MacBook to keep me company. And, you know, my other friends. They exist.

In A Post-UUST World

Well, I'm finally done with that pain in the ass...um, unspecified standardized test. I think it went fine, although I doubt it was my greatest performance. Anyway, I'll find out in two and a half weeks. I came home exhausted and with a right side of my back that can hardly move (still! damned tiny desks in Davies!) only to find that my dearest roommate had hidden sixteen signs throughout my room, bathroom, and kitchen areas with "UUST" written on them (he used the real letters). I had apologized that I wouldn't be able to help clean up after our Tony party, and he apologized that he would be talking nonstop about the test after it was done. Sixteen signs counts as nonstop. Grr.

Speaking of our party, the weekend would have been pretty much ideal had I not been a bit of a nervous wreck. Friday night I went out with work people for drinks, then I picked up a copy of the new Ian McEwan and read the novel(la) in one sitting. I was crying by the end—yes, I'm weepy—and I may have gained some painful insight into myself. Which can be a good thing. Or it can just make me mopey. To make matters worse better [SIXTEEN SIGNS! --Ed.] Greg had his wallet stolen and we turned his room upside down looking for it. The next day, the perps charged a couple of metro cards...which is exactly what the crooks who stole Natalie's wallet and my laptop did. Weird mofos.

On Saturday, I went to Jess R's smaller birthday party on Governors Island. That island is totally underrated: totally beautiful, barely developed, and perfect for picnicking and frisbee throwing. We didn't have frisbees to throw, but it was still good times. Then I met up for coffee with Brad—we did some very solid hashing out of answers to general questions—and I had a delicious Mercer Kitchen dinner with V. The idea of the dinner was to stop me from studying, but I wound up doing a section at 11:45 pm after a few glasses of wine. It actually went decently. Who knew?

Sunday was major prep for the par-tay, as I made my World Famous Guacamole (aka Guac of Ages) and deviled eggs. Greg's dad was over, and he miraculously cleaned our entire apartment...well, not my room, which needs a hell of a once-over, but a lot of the apartment. I also managed to see Mike L, who was in from Dubai because his dad was having heart surgery. Apparently, half of the city is under a certain surveillance, where you cannot access sites that are not in accordance with the values of Arab society. Greeeat. So Mike's been having a hard time getting to certain networking sites from his apartment. In any case, 'twas good to see him, and I'm glad that he (amazingly) loves Dubai.

The party was ridiculously well-attended and tons of fun, even though Spring Awakening had a bit too much of a sweep. V and Sam got into a few low-key arguments about shows and how musicals should be written. The two of them have, er, different styles of arguing, so V valiantly muscled his way to victory. They really just have VASTLY different taste. So it goes. And Mark O brought his actual Tony, which added a delightful authenticity to the festivities. The Guac of Ages was a big hit (Chayes's boyfriend Steve apparently came exclusively for the guac), as were the eggs. I must admit, however, that Greg's open-faced smoked salmon and cilantro butter sandwiches were pretty darn good. After the party, V drove me home so my mom could drive me to the Have the following day.

And now I am relaxing after watching (yet again) the fabulous Spencer Quest/Jamie Donovan scene from Michael Lucas' La Dolce Vita. Porn is such high art these days. If you know anyone who's an expert in right-side-of-back massage, please let me know.

Riddle Me This

I was reading The Yiddish Policemen's Union yesterday (highly recommended), and there's a character in the book who's really into chess but hates puzzles. Reading that, it struck me that I've never heard of Shortz doing anything with chess. Heck, I love puzzles, and I despise chess. Is there really a divide between chess people and puzzle people? I guess Reiman likes both puzzles and chess...but I don't know. There is something kind of different between doing a solitary and non-competitive activity where you have to solve something concrete and battling someone else where the point is to work a strategy around them. I dislike competition and, frankly, strategy, and I love cleverness and puns and math, so I guess my preference makes sense. But maybe this is a solid way of splitting people up in two—like Cavaliers and Roundheads—or at least a way of splitting nerds in two. Are you a proud, vindictive, autism spectrum hyper-male with a love of battle, or are you a someone who finds the purest fun in clean cleverness and the satisfaction of rushing toward a victory that won't be tempered by someone else's loss? Do I sound biased in my descriptions?

The Next Exciting Ethical Dilemma!

Get psyched, kids: Eugenics is back, and it's looking much friendlier. All of those "eu" words that were are so positive in etymology seem creepy these days, don't they? Euphoria is a little psychotic and delirious, utopia quickly leads to communism and dystopia, and Eugene's a total dweeb. But eugenics has the worst connotation of them all. Mention the word and all anyone can think of is forced sterilization by the Nazis. Which was bad. Really bad. But the new eugenics is so morally ambiguous, and it may inspire some great ethical discussion.

Here's the deal: Slowly, we're learning more about the genetic and prenatal factors that can influence traits in a fetus. And we're learning how to test for them. So the obvious question arises: How much choice should parents have? What should they select for? Right now we can test for Down's Syndrome, and over 90% of the fetuses diagnosed are aborted. There's some controversy over this, but not a whole lot. It seems like a fairly large majority of Americans wouldn't blame a mother for terminating a pregnancy if she knew her kid was going to have a reasonably serious illness or disability. Still, this kind of thing doesn't do much good for living people who have that illness or disability and their families. As fewer people have these issues, demand for treatment decreases, and it's harder for people to find support from others they can relate to. The more people abort fetuses with Down's Syndrome, the more pressure there is to abort a kid with Down's Syndrome...the fewer people there are with the disease the greater the consequences of having it are. Also, people tend to be less sympathetic to illnesses they see as preventable. And, yeah, I guess screening and selective abortion is a method of prevention. And it's eugenics. Intervening to reduce suffering, boost intelligence, whatever.

And then we get beyond disease to other traits. It is cool to select for IQ? Hair color? Sexual orientation? The last one's a doozy. If a parent wants to select for a straight kid, it's like that a gay kid would face some problems growing up with that parent. Still, it just seems really creepy to say it's OK to select for your kid's sexual orientation. But whom is this parent harming? The gay community at large? By making the world population of gay people smaller and therefore making it harder to be gay or by not forcing herself to accept gay people and contribute to a better universal attitude toward sexual diversity? And as I saw a somewhat sketchy scientist discuss (thanks to CM for the paper), if people can abort for not wildly compelling reasons (could handle another kid, but don't really want one), why can't they abort for this reason?

I'm totally conflicted on these issues, which is kind of great. I love a good dilemma...and that kind of testing for sexual orientation is a little ways away anyway, so I don't have to worry that I'm screwing anyone over by being conflicted. My instinct is to say that it's a parent's right to select the child on whatever stupid criteria they want, so I don't think parents should be legally barred from this testing. On the moral question, I think it's morally wrong to prefer many traits strongly enough that you would choose to abort a fetus—go through an unpleasant procedure and risk having issues that aren't currently present with a future pregnancy—rather than have a child with that trait. I think someone who prefers hair color that strongly is just a little pathetic, and frankly, I think someone who prefers sexual orientation that strongly is, well, kind of a bad person. But I think given those attitudes, the decision to selectively abort is not itself immoral. I don't think it's the responsibility of any individual parent to help a minority by bearing a child who's part of that minority. I'm open to changing my mind, though. That's why I think it's a cool topic.

How to Sell Your Grand Treatise on Everything

I wanted to title this post "How to Be a Convincing Crazy," but I figured that might put off my target audience. Don't go, Grand Treatise writer! Hear me out: This post is just a list of hallmarks of good, convincing, sane writing. Whether or not you're a bit nuts, you can use my advice to make your Grand Treatise on Everything (GTE) more appealing to your intended reader. In my line of work, I've received more than a few GTEs (and I'm still young!), so I'm not a horrible example of your target audience. Here I will tell you what you can do to prevent me from immediately tossing your GTE.

Disclaimer: This is not a response to any individual person or document. Any one GTE could be stricken from my data set and the advice would still hold. Here we go...

1. Don't spill the beans!
GTEs from crazies are a dime a dozen. GTEs that are accurate and provide true insight into the nature of the universe are, well, really, really rare. So the second your reader realizes you are writing a GTE, you're in trouble. Your reader knows that the chances that you're a crazy who's BSing his way through the essay are pretty darn good, and he or she will likely stop reading (or at least stop taking you seriously) right there. So don't start sounding too grand too early. Keep words and phrases like "revolution," "meaning of life," "secret of the universe," and "theory of everything" out of your opening paragraph. In fact, leave them out of the whole piece. Don't capitalize "truth." Try to be modest and specific in your impact claims. Talk about how the ideas in your paper could have an impact on a specific field or help people achieve a certain end. Instead of saying that your theory "will revolutionize physics," say it "could provide insight into outstanding problems in high-energy particle physics." Instead of saying your ideas will "let people see the true meaning of life and achieve what some would call Nirvana," say they'll "let people explore a method of thought that could help lower everyday stress." And for the love of God, don't mention Thomas Kuhn and paradigm shifts. If you keep your language modest and specific, your reader might think you're on to something. Everyone is interested in the meaning of life and a theory of everything; if you let the reader make the connection between what you're saying and these grand topics by himself, you will stand a better chance.

2. Support your claims
How did you think of your GTE? Was it a flash of inspiration? Did God personally talk to you? Was it through a lifetime of painstaking thought? I don't care. I don't want to hear it. Nothing is going to convince your reader that your ideas and theories are accurate except solid evidence and strong arguments. Your reader doesn't trust you, and unsupported claims like "everything is energy" get you no points. This step is where you should spend most of your time and energy as you write and revise your GTE. If you have no support for your claims and just feel you achieved your knowledge through revelation, think of how you can support your assertions. Build up arguments that are rational and as rigorous as possible. Don't talk down to your reader; it doesn't make you sound authoritative, it just makes you sound crazy. Yes, you can appeal to your reader's intuition, but...

3. Avoid arguments that amount to "Duh!"
Prominent advocates of creationism often use "duh!" arguments, but hey, they seem crazy. Don't use them. You know you're using a "duh!" argument if you start using phrases like "of course," "obviously," "clearly," "common sense tells us." Most really, really bad theories appeal to common sense and intuition. It's a sign of lack of rigor. If you're trying to disprove quantum physics (I wouldn't recommend it), saying, "Obviously a particle can't be spin up and spin down at the same time!" is a dead giveaway that you don't know what you're talking about. Appeals to common sense and intuition are a sign that you simply don't understand something well enough to argue it. Which brings me to...

4. Do your research
If you are challenging an established idea, you should be very familiar with all of the arguments for that idea. If you're challenging quantum mechanics (again, not recommended), you should know about Bell's Inequality and why violation of it demonstrates entanglement. Is there something you don't understand? Is there something that seems obviously wrong to you? Spend a nice, long time trying to find an explanation in the literature. It will serve you well.

5. Keep your language simple/Use English
Keep your voice active and your words short. Long, florid sentences are just annoying, and they make your thinking appear muddled. Plus, strained sentences are a great opportunity for using overblown language. Avoid the overblown language. And don't define too many new words. Sure, if you want to create your own term for the "space-time-mind-connectedness continuum" or whatever you've come up with, go ahead. Knock yourself out. But when you start defining tons of subtopics that are key to your theory, you sound awfully caught up in yourself. (Unlike this post, which isn't at all self-involved, I know. But hush.)

6. Watch you're grammer
Do you think I'm a moron? I would too, had I read this section heading. Sure, anyone can sub in a "you're" where there should be a "your" or misspell a word. These aren't actual signs of low intelligence. But when you make these sorts of simple errors, you come across really poorly. Curl up with your good friends Strunk and White and get to know their rules. A couple of little errors won't spell doom (I'm not proofreading the post, I'm sure it's got its fair share of crap), but it's better to be safe than sorry. Oh, and in these modern days you can end sentences with prepositions, start them with conjunctions, and split infinitives til the cows come home. Enjoy.

OK, GTE writer. That's all my advice for this evening. I'll update the post when I've thought of more. Oh, one last thing: A lot of people are really into GTEs. You can recognize them by their copy of The Secret or the latest Deepak Chopra. I'm not one of these people, so I haven't read any truly popular GTE books. By reading a few of these and seeing what methods they use, you can probably derive more techniques for successfully framing your theories and ideas.

Good luck, GTE writer. If you have it all figured out, I look forward to learning about life, the universe, and everything. If not, I eagerly await your best efforts. Godspeed.

Fun, personal posting will resume soon. You'll hear all about my hot dates and wild tropical adventures...if and when they ever happen.

Adapted Screenplay

Just add stage directions, (barely) change the names, edit for length, and it practically reads like noir.

We are in a small interrogation room. CHUCK is leaning against the back wall and smoking, wearing the two piece remains of a three-piece suit. The smoke billows around his face, obscuring his features, but it is clear that he is in charge and he is at ease. Sitting at the table is JIM, a man with a face that could once stop traffic, but it looks like one car didn't quite stop in time. He has just come in from the rain and drops from his hair form a small puddle on the table and make the shoulders of his white, button-down shirt translucent. Exhaling, CHUCK speaks.

CHUCK

Can you remember the date and the day?

JIM

Yes, sir, very well. It was Wednesday, March the 10th, 2004.

CHUCK

And how do you remember that date so well?

JIM

This was a very memorable period in my life; probably the most difficult time in my entire professional life. And that night was probably the most difficult night of my professional life. So it's not something I'd forget.

CHUCK

Were you present when Al visited Johnny's bedside?

JIM

Yes.

CHUCK

And am I correct that the conduct of Al and Andy on that evening troubled you greatly?

JIM

Yes.

CHUCK

OK, let me go back and take it from the top. You rushed to the hospital that evening. Why?

JIM

[JIM takes a while to answer. He slicks back his wet hair and covers his face with his soaked palms, unable to look up at CHUCK.]

I've actually thought quite a bit over the last three years about how I would answer that question if it was ever asked, because I assumed that at some point I would have to testify about it.

I -- to understand what happened that night, I, kind of, got to back up about a week.

[JIM pulls in his chair and folds his hands on the table. He begins to tell CHUCK his story.]

In the early part of 2004, the Department of Justice was engaged -- the Office of Legal Counsel, under my supervision -- in a reevaluation both factually and legally of a particular classified program. And it was a program that was renewed on a regular basis, and required signature by the attorney general certifying to its legality.

And the -- and I remember the precise date. The program had to be renewed by March the 11th, which was a Thursday, of 2004. And we were engaged in a very intensive reevaluation of the matter.

And a week before that March 11th deadline, I had a private meeting with Johnny, the attorney general, for an hour, just the two of us, and I laid out for him what we had learned and what our analysis was in this particular matter.

And at the end of that hour-long private session, he and I agreed on a course of action. And within hours he was stricken and taken very, very ill...

CHUCK

You thought something was wrong with how it was being operated or administered or overseen.

JIM

We had -- yes. We had concerns as to our ability to certify its legality, which was our obligation for the program to be renewed.

[The camera follows JIM's story, showing Johnny at the hospital, showing JIM conducting official business.]

The attorney general was taken that very afternoon to George Washington Hospital, where he went into intensive care and remained there for over a week. And I became the acting attorney general.

And over the next week -- particularly the following week, on Tuesday -- we communicated to the relevant parties at the White House and elsewhere our decision that as acting attorney general I would not certify the program as to its legality and explained our reasoning in detail, which I will not go into here. Nor am I confirming it's any particular program.

That was Tuesday that we communicated that.

The next day was Wednesday, March the 10th, the night of the hospital incident. And I was headed home at about 8 o'clock that evening, my security detail was driving me. [We are transported into JIM's limo, driving down a major avenue, shockingly empty for the hour.] And I remember exactly where I was -- on Constitution Avenue -- and got a call from Johnny's chief of staff telling me that he had gotten a call from Johnny's wife from the hospital. She had banned all visitors and all phone calls. So I hadn't seen him or talked to him because he was very ill.

And Johnny's old lady reported that a call had come through, and that as a result of that call Andy and Al were on their way to the hospital to see Johnny.

CHUCK

Do you have any idea who that call was from?

JIM

[Pauses, tentative about what he wants to say] I have some recollection that the call was from the president himself, but I don't know that for sure. It came from the White House. And it came through and the call was taken in the hospital.

So I hung up the phone, immediately called my chief of staff, told him to get as many of my people as possible to the hospital immediately. I hung up, called Bob from the FBI and -- with whom I'd been discussing this particular matter and had been a great help to me over that week -- and told him what was happening. He said, "I'll meet you at the hospital right now."

Told my security detail that I needed to get to George Washington Hospital immediately. They turned on the emergency equipment and drove very quickly to the hospital.

I got out of the car and ran up -- literally ran up the stairs with my security detail.

CHUCK

What was your concern? You were obviously in a huge hurry.

JIM

I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that.

And so I raced to the hospital room, entered. And Johnny's wife was standing by the hospital bed, Johnny was lying down in the bed, the room was darkened. And I immediately began speaking to him, trying to orient him as to time and place, and try to see if he could focus on what was happening, and it wasn't clear to me that he could. He seemed pretty bad off.

CHUCK

At that point it was you, the old lady and the attorney general and maybe medical personnel in the room. No other Justice Department or government officials.

JIM

Just the three of us at that point.

I tried to see if I could help him get oriented. As I said, it wasn't clear that I had succeeded.

I went out in the hallway. Spoke to Bob by phone. He was on his way. I handed the phone to the head of the security detail and Bob instructed the FBI agents present not to allow me to be removed from the room under any circumstances. And I went back in the room.

I was shortly joined by the head of the Office of Legal Counsel assistant attorney general and a senior staffer of mine who had worked on this matter, an associate deputy attorney general.

So the three of us Justice Department people went in the room.

[We see the hospital room. On a simple bed is Johnny, a frail man with hollowed cheeks and small but sparkly eyes.]

I sat down in an armchair by the head of the attorney general's bed. The two other Justice Department people stood behind me. And Johnny's old lady stood by the bed holding her husband's arm. And we waited.

And it was only a matter of minutes that the door opened and in walked Al, carrying an envelope, and Andy. [Al and Andy enter in trenchcoats and fedoras that cast their eyes in shadow.] They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly. And then Al began to discuss why they were there -- to seek his approval for a matter, and explained what the matter was -- which I will not do.

And Johnny then stunned me. He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me -- drawn from the hour-long meeting we'd had a week earlier -- and in very strong terms expressed himself, and then laid his head back down on the pillow, seemed spent. And as he laid back down, he said, "But that doesn't matter, because I'm not the attorney general. There is the attorney general," and he pointed to me, and I was just to his left.

The two men did not acknowledge me. They turned and walked from the room. And within just a few moments after that, Bob arrived. I told him quickly what had happened. He had a brief -- a memorable brief exchange with the attorney general and then we went outside in the hallway.

Dramatic, no? Here's the source material.

A Weill Henchman: Must You Be On The Right Track?

Last week, thanks to Greg's commitment to affordable ticket-buying, the two of us saw LoveMusik, the new musical based on the letters between Kurt Weill and Lotte Lenya. I want to have at it before the critics do, lest I be accused of just rehashing their points.

Amazingly, Greg, our former theater prof Sam, and I all had the exact same criticism of the show: It was, like, half-assedly Brechtian. Now, this is a specific enough criticism that when it comes from three sources, you know it's got to be accurate. The production had some trademark Brechtian elements—a second proscenium, time and place captions before each scene—but it had absolutely no Brechtian message. And the whole point of doing it Brecht-style is to get some point across and effect change (sorry, old theater professors, if I'm totally butchering this). There was no call to action here...in fact, there was more or less no dramatic tension here. It was just the story of Weill's life, focusing on his relationship with his wife. Which made it slow as hell.

I love Weill's music, really I do. And I love Michael Cerveris and Donna Murphy. But the music didn't come across that well in very forced contexts...although I liked the amusing "Schickelgruber," a song about Hitler rising to power from shameful origins (Schickelgruber was Hitler's last name at birth, apparently). I also sometimes find translations of his German songs a little unwieldy. That much female angst doesn't play especially well in English. And I was really bothered by the crappy humor. It seems to be a common problem that characters with accents (ugh, the accents) will make a very unclever joke and the director will expect a laugh. Is there someone writing or directing this that thinks they're just touching on such timeless comic themes the jokes will, of course, be funny? (Such timeless comic themes might include "my husband is such a slob!" "He eats so much!" That sort of crap.) If someone's speaking in an accent, you have to work harder to make it funny enough to get a laugh. This show gave up on humor somewhere in the middle of the first scene.

So yeah, I was disappointed. I'm still waiting for a show with great Weill music. Maybe one day they'll revive One Touch of Venus. That one seems like it might have promise.

Let's Go Out to the Lobby

My God, is this movie bad. After doing my UUST class homework and all but three squares of the Saturday puzzle (curse you, three squares!), I decided to relax by watching the telly. IFC had a movie starting at 5:10, so I flipped on Roman Polanski's "The Ninth Gate." Wow. The movie stars Johnny Depp and Frank Langella in what have to be their least believable, most overaffected/underworked performances ever. Johnny trades in rare books, and he's hopping around Europe looking to authenticate a particular copy of "The Nine Gates"—one of three possibly in existence, estimated value: $1M. I can't get over the fact that he regularly just flips through this book with his bare hands, hands it to other people to flip through, carries it through the rain in his messenger bag, and, yes, smokes while he reads it. WTF!?, as the kids say. At Beinecke, I couldn't read a Jonathan Swift ripoff from 1726 (The Sixpenny miscellany, or, A Dissertation upon pissing...a great read, to be sure) without getting out the foam bookstands and page turners and blah di blah di blah. And this guy's schlepping around a million dollar edition? Christ a'mighty.

I did much better with this week's double feature of movies where Will Smith plays a ridiculously smart, motivated, and charming poor guy who has to fit in with rich, white people as part of getting what he wants. Name the movies and win...nothing. Ah, well.

Obscure and Cryptic Old Cube: A Cryptic Crossword Primer

It's actually a square, not a cube. But today, with a whoosh of satisfaction, I completed this weekend's cryptic crossword. I swear, I could build a frickin' bridge, and I wouldn't feel half the sense of accomplishment that comes with every answer in this beautiful, beautiful puzzle. Woo!

If you're one of the many people whose faces drop as soon as they turn to the back of the magazine section and see barely parsable clues, this post's for you. If you DO like, say, the regular Saturday puzzle, and you treasure great puzzle themes, you'll probably love the cryptic, once you get the hang of it.

The first thing to know about the cryptic is that almost every clue has both a physical clue and a definitional clue. The definitional clue is exactly what it sounds like: the meaning of the answer. The physical clue is a little bit trickier—it somehow describes the word either through its syllables or through an anagram...somehow it lays out the letters of the word for you. A classic cryptic clue that's purely physical is "senselessness (1)." The answer has one letter (that's the number in the parentheses). Give up? The answer is "e." If you take the word "sense" less (i.e., minus) "ness," you get "e." It's the only letter remaining when you take the letters n-e-s-s away from the letters s-e-n-s-e. Get it? Good. If not, I'll go through a few examples soon. Occasionally clues are doubly definitional—"Plain hot dog (5)" points to "frank"—but that's not too common and usually fairly easy to spot.

Now it's time to learn a few conventions. Woo! These may seem superfluous, but it can be a huge pain in the ass if you don't realize, say, a proper noun often just points to its first letter. So here are a few. If any (of my legions of) commenters suggest more, I'll put them in:

Fuck punctuation. It means nothing to you. OK, that's not true, occasionally punctuation is meaningful in cryptics, but know that it really, really doesn't have to be. If there's a comma between two words, they may still be a phrase. Perhaps more importantly, your definitional clue and your physical clue can break without any indication in the punctuation. They'll just flow right into each other. When you assume you make "an ass out of you and me" an appropriate clue. (Ok, that's not true: "An ass out of you and me" would probably put "ass" or a synonym around "we" or something. Anyway...)

Anagrams are everywhere. Something like a quarter of your answers in a given puzzle will be straight-up anagrams of something in the clue. Look for three things if you want to anagram:1) Words or phrases with the same number of letters as are in the answer. Anagrams are always directly from the clue, so you'll never have to find definitions of words and then anagram those. If you don't have any words or phrases with the right number of letters, it's not an anagram. 2) A word that gives you an excuse to anagram. These words can vary from the relatively obvious ("mixed up," "stirred," "disorganized") to the bizarre ("sad," "broken," "fixed," "hurt"). If you get a clue like "windy east central Manhattan thoroughfare (11)," you can look at "windy" as an excuse to anagram "east central" and get "Canal Street," a Manhattan thoroughfare. 3) A hella-awkward phrase. If two adjacent words just make absolutely no sense together, they might be an anagram.

Sometimes, instead of anagramming, you need to actually find the answer within two words that run together. I'm pulling this off the top of my (dirty) head, but "Shorten the hard organ to create passion (5)" might be a clue for "ardor," which you can find when you shorten the phrase "hard organ." And it means "passion." Look out for those in awkward phrases as well.

More often then not, your physical clue will just spell out syllables for you. More from the top of my head: "Pleasant odor for each stew (7)" could be "perfume." Pleasant odor would be "perfume" itself, and "for each" would be "per" and "stew" would be "fume." Like, in the anger way. So there you go. Per. Fume. Perfume. I don't think the syllables you decipher have to be pronounced or spelled in the same way as they'll appear in the ultimate answer. One of the two, always, but not necessarily both.

Look for Roman numerals. They'll show up. And as I mentioned briefly, sometimes proper names just turn into their first initial. Sometimes other words go by their first initial, but there will be some indication that you're looking at the start of that word.

Look for other physical clues. Often (very often in this week's puzzle), one word will go inside another: "Woods around California make predictions (9)" would be "Forecasts." "Forests" goes around "CA" (for California) to make a synonym for "predictions." Other times you might be clued to read a word backwards. Be flexible about this stuff.

Did I mention, "be flexible?" It's really the most important thing and the whole reason these puzzles are so much fun.

OK, enough tips. Now to go through the ENTIRE puzzle. Answers and explanations are in black. Highlight them to read:

1A. Guide the woman in spring (6)
Sherpa
Meaning = guide. "The woman" points to "her," which is inside "spa," a synonym for spring.
4A. Roof application to set in spring (8)
Housetop
Meaning = roof application. I believe "set" here points to "use to," which is inside "hop," another synonym for spring.
10A. Say, Harry Potter's pal in spring (8)
Pronounce
Meaning = say. Harry Potter's pal is "Ron," and he's in "pounce," yet another...synonym for spring.
11A. Discourage Democratic relative (5)
Daunt
Meaning = discourage. Just take the D from Democrat (that proper noun). Your aunt's a relative. Send her flowers.
12A. "Superman" actor taking part in free verse (5)
Reeve
Christopher Reeve played Superman. If you take part of free verse, you get Reeve.
13A. Grabber of winks – or a lynx? (9)
Catnapper
This one's just cute and plays on the double meaning of "nap," sleeping or stealing.
14A. Wastes what you've got coming (7)
Deserts
This is just a double definition, I believe. Wastelands are deserts. And what you deserve are your deserts.
15A. Broadcast medium misrepresented diorama (2,5)
AM Radio
Finally, an anagram! AM Radio is a broadcast medium. "Misrepresented" should clue you into the anagram. Play around with diorama, it should come quickly.
17A. Song about villain in an idyllic spot (7)
Arcadia
Meaning = an ideallic spot. "Song" points to "aria," and "villain" is "cad." About means one's outside the other.
20A. Soldier talk – it gives you a lot of info (7)
Gigabit
This one took me a while. A gigabit is a lot of info. "GI" is a soldier (no trouble there), "gab" is talk (right-o), and in true cryptic fashion, the next word after "soldier talk" is "it." Just stick in on.
22A. Old Greek restored a lost rite (9)
Aristotle
He was an old Greek! And you have to "restore" (i.e., anagram) "lost rite" to get his name.
24A. Neckwear for a companion of Burns (5)
Ascot
Really, how many five letter neckwears are there? And good ol' Rabbie Burns was a Scot. His friends were, too.
26A. Private meal not starting (5)
Inner
"Inner" and "private" can be synonyms. The meal is "dinner." It's without it's start. Womp womp.
27A. Former medicine for John Jacob in spring (6,3)
Castor Oil
That was a medicine at one point, right? A spring is a coil. Barring Mr. Jingleheimerschmidt, Astor's the only John Jacob around.
28A. Superficial need changed in spring (4-4)
Skin-Deep
Meaning = superficial. The spring here is "skip" and you stick a "changed" (again, anagrammed) need in there.
29A. Approach of the French in spring (4-2)
Lead-Up
Meaning = approach. Leap is clearly spring. I don't know why "du" is the French. "Le," is "the" in French, right? If you know, tell me.

Downs!
1D. Great new purse (5)
Super
Meaning = great. Make "purse" new by anagramming it.
2D. Runaway lovers break up or sleep (7)
Elopers
Meaning = runaway lovers. You break up (anagram) "or sleep."
3D. Started with π + 1 before 500 (9)
Pioneered
This may be my favorite clue in the puzzle. Meaning = started. π = pi, 1 = one, before = ere, 500 = D (Roman). String 'em together.
5D. Orioles trainer somewhat fat? – not really (7)
Olestra
Great exercise in how to kill punctuation. The physical clue is "Orioles trainer somewhat." Take part of Orioles trainer to get something that's not really fat.
6D. Singer's first thought for 45-r.p.m. feature (4,1)
Side A
Meaning is "45-rpm feature." Singer's first (letter) is S. Thought is idea. Ta-da!
7D. Beat time like Quasimodo? (7)
Thumped
Meaning = beat. Time just turns into "t" here; it's one of those things. Quasimodo was humped.
8D. Sadly, our septet loses pep (6,3)
Peters Out
Meaning = loses pep. "Sadly" is one of those anagram cues. Do it to "our septet."
9D. N.B.A. team said no (6)
Knicks
They're an NBA team. "Said" clues you in to a homophone. Say "nix," a synonym for "no."
14D. Shot a jerk's overtheatrical behavior (9)
Dramatics
Meaning = overtheatrical behavior. "Shot" is "dram." "Jerk's" = "tics." And, love those cryptics, "a" = "a."
16D. Arrange mom part in confusing procedure (9)
Rigmarole
This took me a while, too. Meaning = confusing procedure. Arrange = rig, mom = ma, part = role. There ya' go.
18D. Greek character opposed to Italian wine (7)
Chianti
So elegant! Chianti is an Italian wine (a delicious one, no less). One Greek character (letter) is chi. "Opposed to" is "anti."
19D. For example, a botched recital (7)
Article
Meaning = example. Botch (anagram) "recital."
20D. Oil country, from the sound of it (6)
Grease
I'm not sure if you can REALLY know this is "Grease" and not "Greece" from the clue, but the acrosses tell you. You've got the "sound of it" homophone clue. "Oil country" is pretty clear.
21D. Obscure and cryptic old cube (7)
Becloud
It's the title of the post! Meaning = obscure. Both the word "cryptic" and the weirdness of the phrase "old cube" should clue you into the anagram.
23D. Shot, like a car's wheels? (5)
Tired
I hope you got this one :) It's a double definition, woo!
25D. Oddly lit up item in a bed (5)
Tulip
Meaning = "item in a bed," because, you know, there are beds of flowers. "Oddly" tells you to anagram "lit up."

And that's the puzzle. I've spent way too much time on this. I hope some poeple actually use the examples to learn how to do cryptics. They're the puzzler's puzzle. They're Will Shortz's puzzle. Spread the endless joy!

There's No Such Thing

Occasionally nights are so good they're actually depressing.

Yesterday was extravagant dinner number three: Bouley. V and I got seated on the same side of the table...for most it's canoodling position. For us, it was the ideal people-watching setup. The people, alas, were not especially hilarious, although V did catch one adorable waiter's eye. And I tactlessly called him on it. Heh heh. The meal began with (what else?) foie gras. Next to my inability to write thank-you notes, my love for foie gras is perhaps my worst trait. It really is crazy delicious. V got the egg (yup, an egg), which he aptly described as "eggs Benedict on crack...in a good way." The main course was perfectly-cooked lamb with Jerusalem artichoke, a green that was new to both of us and totally salty and wonderful. There was one especially good cheese from the cheese course—practically a butter substitute. And the dessert. Oh. The dessert. The chocolate frivolous (who cares what part of speech it is, just stare deep into the chocolate and all will be well) consisted of an incredibly dense and sweet souffle, a chocolate brulee with a sugar crust, ice cream, a small chocolate layer cake with some fruity/liquor-ish filling and this Platonic ideal of a kit kat. Astounding.

But of course the evening couldn't end with so few great loves. We walked from TriBeCa to SoHo, where we tore through the Saturday puzzle at a wine bar (I got a glass of port, V got the Riesling flight; no surprises there). It's amazing how quickly the crosswords go with a second person. It's an exponential improvement. The point is we rule.

It seemed like the evening was winding down. We headed up Varick toward the Christopher Street 1 stop, and when we got into the area, V mentioned the Duplex was his old watering hole back in high school (precocious children, those Catholic schoolboys). I still had never been there, so we decided to stop in for a drink. The place was, well, wonderful in every way. The schticky-but-not-schmaltzy piano player bangs out and sings a totally sing-alongable collection from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and (less) 90s. The whole place has this great high-fun, low-key vibe. According to V, the lines have stayed more or less the same since 1990. Like, the piano player would say, "And now it's time for a little Mama Cass," and the entire crowd would shout, "There's no such thing as a little Mama Cass!" Amazing. He played a few Redhot songs, reminding me of the reunion I was missing but also allowing me to impress V with my vast knowledge of "Sweet Blindness." Aw, yeah. The whole thing was a blast.

We parted ways at midnight. My stomach kind of went crazy after I got home...after the full meal, one glass of port and two bottle of Corona, it wasn't entirely surprising. Too much for one small organ (everyone knows the kidneys are just there for show). And now it is all done and I am back to UUSTing and watching Beaches. I've never seen the whole thing and will have to miss the (supposedly wildly sad) ending for UUST class. Shame.

In The Height

We are currently living in some really bad times, artistically. (Apparently, we're actually living in good times, geopolitically. Who knew?) Popular music has been in a nosedive since the 70s, with only a few groups (U2, REM on a good day) producing brilliant stuff. Television is producing some of the worst shows ever; the reality TV craze just won't die. Broadway can't fill up its houses. And, well, I don't follow the visual art scene much, but we seem to have relatively few superstars around. But I'd like to take a few lines to recognize some of the genres that are at their peak.

Puzzles
Will Shortz is editing the New York Times crossword. 'Nuff said. But I'll say more. We shouldn't underestimate the value of having an editor with Shortz's enthusiasm and his commitment to the "puzzle" aspect of the crossword puzzle. We could so easily have an editor who prides himself only on hitting the right level of obscurity. But Shortz hits the perfect balance of wordplay and trivia, namely one heavily weighed toward the former. There's no great satisfaction in solving a trivia puzzle. There's smugness, but you never want to run off and share your favorite trivia clue. I often want to share some of my favorite puzzle clues: "X-ray for Rex, say" 8 letters. Guess in the comments.

And we have some super-clever puzzle writers that contribute. When the writers submit and Shortz edits, every puzzle is a work of art.

We're also living through a huge Sudoku craze, and a bunch of other puzzles are migrating from Japan (or from Canada, via Japan). The puzzle section is growing at Barnes & Noble, and I'm optimistic that people will slowly come around to the cryptic (best puzzle everrrr) and we'll see an American renaissance there. We're living in the Golden Age of Puzzling, and I couldn't be happier.

Television
I know I knocked it in the intro to this post, but in addition to the worst TV of all time, we're also getting some of the best TV of all time. I feel privileged to be able to watch new episodes of "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" nearly every night (even if they do take a lot of vacation time). Two of the greatest and most likable comic personalities are churning out brilliant and timely original content almost instantaneously. Of course, they're helped by stellar, fast-working writers, graphic designers and techies. These guys are the closest thing we have to Johnny Carson or Ed Sullivan; they're much more endearing than Letterman or Leno (maybe not Conan, I'm not sure). I know someday I'll look at an evening comedy talk show that's popular with the younger generation and thing, "My God, this is total crap compared with Stewart and Colbert."

There are also some great dramas on the tube. I haven't watched "Lost" or "24," but I hear amazing things, and I do watch "Heroes," which is finely crafted—or at least leads you to believe it is...the ending could be vastly disappointing. I was also never a big "West Wing" person, but people think it's truly brilliant, and I buy it. They had some ridiculously politically qualified writers. If it was entertaining, and it appears to have been, it must have been awfully worthwhile.

Harry Fucking Potter
The genre could be "literature" or "children's fantasy," but why try to make this what it's not? Harry Potter is the best international craze to come along since...well, maybe ever. Maybe since the Beatles. I don't know. But how often do you get the entire world excited about reading? How often do you get us all excited about a story where we root for a good guy, and harmless fun is praised, and harmful actions are condemned, and violence is only used where it's needed. It's a great series from a creative and meticulous mind, and I can't think of anything I'd rather share with 10-year-olds in India and grandmothers in Australia. The world's largest book group meets this July to experience the final chapter of the novel. I'm thrilled to take part in the conversation.

That's all for now; I'm sure there's more. If you'd like to add something, throw it in the comments.

V Cast Advertising Exclusively To Gay Men?

So, unless you've been living under a rock that doesn't have a cable hookup, you've probably seen the ubiquitous commercials for V Cast, Verizon's phone-based video/music network. I've only seen two commercials, but they both involve someone putting his headphones on you so you can hear the music he digs. Which raises the question: Who are you? Check out the first ad:

OK, so you're pretty clearly a guy. The dude takes a call from his "lady," so you're not a girl he's trying to woo. Plus, he calls you "bud." So you're male. And about his age. That's all we can REALLY conclude from this ad, but it's worth noting that the dude is a bit of an idealized jock stereotype. He's cute and jacked and a little dumb and sure, he's straight, but he shows fun-loving camaraderie and respect for the girl. I'd think he'd be, well, a little bit intimidating to straight guys, but he shows up in nifty stories all the time.

The second ad is more blatant:

He is clearly supposed to be gay, right? And doesn't he look like he's sort of trying to pick you up? I mean, sure, he's doing the over-the-top seduction faces that are appropriate for the Timberlake song, but still. He wants you.

Anyway, if this is on purpose, it's kind of cool...if you're competing against Apple, it's probably better to take an ax and try to carve out a niche instead of trying to clean up the whole market. Or maybe I just look everywhere and see gay men.

McCain't Say No

As part of my more regular blogging schedule, I'd like to highlight this stunning piece of asshattery:

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

...

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Bloody brilliant, McCain. I'm kind of glad this guy's image as the totally honest, level-headed, non-partisan candidate is being slowly crushed. Because I think a year ago, a lot of swing voters and even Democrats would have voted for him over Hills, Barry O, or J.E. purely on that reputation. Perhaps by year's end he will be so powerless he will no longer warrant his #1 ranking on The Beast's 50 Most Loathsome list.

Oh, and for the record: Yes, condoms unquestionably prevent the spread of HIV. If McCain wanted to pander, he could have said something like, "Yes, of course they do, but I think we should prioritize other methods, like abstinence, which is the only method with a 100% blah-di-blah-di-blah." And even that would have been silly; people aren't going to stop having sex. For centuries, individuals and institutions have worked long and hard at stopping people from having sex. They've all failed. You can make fewer people have sex, but if our concern is protecting people (and I hope it is) we need to work on systems that will reach a larger percentage. Condoms do this. Right-o.

The Rock of the Dome

I've become mildly obsessed with the idea of shaving my head. No, don't worry, I probably won't do it. People have been reminding me that my hair's my best feature for about ten years, now, and I'm not that self defeating. A little self-defeating, sure. But not that self-defeating.

In any case, I'm not sure whether it's my undiagnosed (but unquestionably existent) trichotillomania, whether it's a symptom of a general disgust with the body, or whether it's just a cry for sensation—I'm sure those three are all related anyway. But still, every time I feel the weight of my hair, or the itch of my dandruffy scalp or the faint presence of the buildup of oils and junk from conditioners galore...I just think of how glorious it would be to be free. To turn this bizarre stretch of skin into normal skin. To expose it to all of the elements: sun, wind, water, a rough towel.

Of course then I'd be stuck with a bald head, which isn't so bad in itself—I'd enjoy the freedom from hair for a good long while—but it does mean I'd either have to keep it bald or wait for it to grow in. And then I'd have short hair. Blech. I'd have over a year of hair that doesn't even hang down from my head. I really don't think that's my look.

Maybe I could invest in some ultra-exclusive scalp treatment, where they could make my hair stick out and just go over every inch with some tool that treats my scalp with heat and rubbing and a little UV. That could be really good.

Everything New Is Old Again

I've been bad. I've been very, very bad about updating the blog. I could make excuses, but I'll just try to be better this time around.

So I moved last month. It went relatively smoothly, save some unfathomably dickish security deposit withholding from the old landlord. I still don't have the (too large) deposit back, and he legally has 60 days after the lease ends to get it to me. Then I pounce. He has never before met an enemy of my strength, intelligence, determination, and intolerance for douchebaggery. Soon he will fall, and perhaps he will be punished, and then he won't be so damned quick to try to get out of anything he owes anyone.

The new place is awfully cool. The roomies rule, as I suspected, and my box in the wall is coming along nicely. I still have a rug on its way that won't arrive until the middle of April, but the hotness builds. I dig the environment of the 4-bed; I wasn't sure I would. It's lively and puts less responsibility on me to interact when I don't feel like interacting. Rock on.

Also, I've decided to try my hand at an, um, unspecified standardized test. Which isn't to say I necessarily want to go where the UUST leads, but I'm considering. (If that statement wasn't full of ambiguity, it was edited after I made a decision. Shh!) I seriously rocked out on the first UUST I took, but I didn't do nearly as well on the second. My pacing was off. Garr. In any case, it's an extremely concrete goal, which I'm interested in having right now. You can do a few very good things with a degree from UU school...in any case, we'll see.

I went last week to see Spring Awakening with Greg and V, cool dudes both. I had very mixed feelings about the show, and I'm almost ashamed to admit that some of it stems from an instant disgust with diva-ish teenage girls, even if they're talented and don't seem all that caught up with themselves. I also liked the individual phrases of the music a lot, but I don't think they came together to make fully coherent, performable songs. It was a cool play to adapt, though, and the rocking style of the music connected nicely with the 19th Century German style of the script. And it was totally sexy.

All right, I'd better get crackin' on this whole tax return thing. I have more time tonight than I've had in a while, and I plan on using it wisely. Namely by watching SVU and American Idol and Comedy Central. Excellent.