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.