Excellent article here: http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/04/07/Features/Features.46448.html
by Saul Singer about the Middle East. Odd, that I understand that Iraq is, in a way, the most modern country in the Arab world, the one with the best potential for emerging from Islamo-Fascism, as Sullivan calls it.
Saturday, April 06, 2002
Thatcher and Koizumi
Noticed a post on Instapundit about the new leader of Japan. It's here: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=06042002-024249-7777r
I really don't know how to put a link in properly. But that will come in time. I saw this post when I was listening to Neil Young unplugged. Something about North Ontario. Don't despair, Japan. You weren't actually all that good anyway. After all, who won the Second World War, anyway? You're not helpless. Kudos to the group which did Marx and Lennon and Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand me the Pliers, whoever that was. Never thought I could forget. Drinks (3 - 4 more on the way)
Noticed a post on Instapundit about the new leader of Japan. It's here: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=06042002-024249-7777r
I really don't know how to put a link in properly. But that will come in time. I saw this post when I was listening to Neil Young unplugged. Something about North Ontario. Don't despair, Japan. You weren't actually all that good anyway. After all, who won the Second World War, anyway? You're not helpless. Kudos to the group which did Marx and Lennon and Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand me the Pliers, whoever that was. Never thought I could forget. Drinks (3 - 4 more on the way)
JULIAN the APOSTATE and AKHENATON
Just finished a book on the Emperor Julian, who ruled for less than two years in 361-363. It's a Greek tragedy of the most predictable kind, but fascinating nonetheless. In fact, I just finished two books about Julian, one the old standard by Gore Vidal, one more historical and sobersided by Bowersock. They tell the same story.
I've always thought of Julian as like Akhenaton, the Egyptian Pharaoh who reigned about 1350 BC. He wanted to change the world, he was egoistic, introverted, infantile in many ways but far more human than any of his number. Tiberius and Ramses the Great seem like stick figures next to Julian and Akhenaton. Sure, Tiberius was torn by doubts and bitterness - human traits - if you believe Suetonius. And Ramses was egoistic in the good old monarchical way. But neither dared what Julian and Akhenaton did. Neither went hammer and tongs against the received wisdom of the era, fighting an established creed to install what they saw as truth. Gee, there might be some parallels to Objectivists fighting these days against received collectivism, of the "Left" or "Right", and the anarchism that disguises itself as Libertarianism. Can you imagine an Objectivist ruler, pulling down the liberal idols - affirmative action, Social Security, the war against tobacco, welfare, political correctness - and smashing the conservative icons - tax exemptions for religions, farm subsidies, corporate welfare, tariffs, the drug war? It is so easy to think that any such ruler would face the same end as Julian and Akhenaton. Conspiracies would kill him and inertia would reinstall the old regimes within weeks of his death.
But just maybe this time the forces of rebellion could get it right, could put together an ideology that would have a lasting effect and gain a significant victory that would ring down the ages as a clarion call to those who believe in the individual. We could at least try.
Just finished a book on the Emperor Julian, who ruled for less than two years in 361-363. It's a Greek tragedy of the most predictable kind, but fascinating nonetheless. In fact, I just finished two books about Julian, one the old standard by Gore Vidal, one more historical and sobersided by Bowersock. They tell the same story.
I've always thought of Julian as like Akhenaton, the Egyptian Pharaoh who reigned about 1350 BC. He wanted to change the world, he was egoistic, introverted, infantile in many ways but far more human than any of his number. Tiberius and Ramses the Great seem like stick figures next to Julian and Akhenaton. Sure, Tiberius was torn by doubts and bitterness - human traits - if you believe Suetonius. And Ramses was egoistic in the good old monarchical way. But neither dared what Julian and Akhenaton did. Neither went hammer and tongs against the received wisdom of the era, fighting an established creed to install what they saw as truth. Gee, there might be some parallels to Objectivists fighting these days against received collectivism, of the "Left" or "Right", and the anarchism that disguises itself as Libertarianism. Can you imagine an Objectivist ruler, pulling down the liberal idols - affirmative action, Social Security, the war against tobacco, welfare, political correctness - and smashing the conservative icons - tax exemptions for religions, farm subsidies, corporate welfare, tariffs, the drug war? It is so easy to think that any such ruler would face the same end as Julian and Akhenaton. Conspiracies would kill him and inertia would reinstall the old regimes within weeks of his death.
But just maybe this time the forces of rebellion could get it right, could put together an ideology that would have a lasting effect and gain a significant victory that would ring down the ages as a clarion call to those who believe in the individual. We could at least try.
GCMHP
My sister, Flea, who lives in Cairo, Egypt, and is very much against the Israeli operations in Judea and Samaria, sent me an email directing me to this page: www.gcmhp.net It's a PR page for the Palestinians' mental health operation in Gaza. I sent this reply:
Dear Flea,
I went to the Gaza "Health" plan website. It would be funny if it weren't so horrific that an "Authority" that sends teenagers to their deaths to blow up innocent Jewish children, like the teenage German guards at Dachau and Auschwitz, most of whom died at the hands of the Russians and Germans, should have the gall to even talk of "mental health". Of course, that's right, I forgot, Saddam will pay their families $25,000, so the families are actually selling their children's lives, with a bunch of dead Jews - hurrah! - thrown into the bargain. And the poorer, more hopeless families of course need Saddam's money more.
And it all works out pretty well. The kid's father can get a second wife, Arafat gets more martyrs to trade for Saudi money. Oh, no doubt some money goes to fund "mental health care counseling", along the lines of "you will be OK when Saddam, Khadafy, al-Assad and bin Laden march into Jerusalem behind Arafat and work their vengeance on the Jews. Until then, just put on this explosive belt, learn to walk like a Jew, pick out a target with lots of babies in it and don't bother to call me in the morning."
What a joke!!
Robbie
By the way, anyone who wants to can reach me at "robspe@paris.com". Someday I'll figure out how to put a reply email box on this blog.
In other news, I hear the Cardinal of Los Angeles is being accused of sexual abuse but, hey, luckily it's OK - it involved a girl!
My sister, Flea, who lives in Cairo, Egypt, and is very much against the Israeli operations in Judea and Samaria, sent me an email directing me to this page: www.gcmhp.net It's a PR page for the Palestinians' mental health operation in Gaza. I sent this reply:
Dear Flea,
I went to the Gaza "Health" plan website. It would be funny if it weren't so horrific that an "Authority" that sends teenagers to their deaths to blow up innocent Jewish children, like the teenage German guards at Dachau and Auschwitz, most of whom died at the hands of the Russians and Germans, should have the gall to even talk of "mental health". Of course, that's right, I forgot, Saddam will pay their families $25,000, so the families are actually selling their children's lives, with a bunch of dead Jews - hurrah! - thrown into the bargain. And the poorer, more hopeless families of course need Saddam's money more.
And it all works out pretty well. The kid's father can get a second wife, Arafat gets more martyrs to trade for Saudi money. Oh, no doubt some money goes to fund "mental health care counseling", along the lines of "you will be OK when Saddam, Khadafy, al-Assad and bin Laden march into Jerusalem behind Arafat and work their vengeance on the Jews. Until then, just put on this explosive belt, learn to walk like a Jew, pick out a target with lots of babies in it and don't bother to call me in the morning."
What a joke!!
Robbie
By the way, anyone who wants to can reach me at "robspe@paris.com". Someday I'll figure out how to put a reply email box on this blog.
In other news, I hear the Cardinal of Los Angeles is being accused of sexual abuse but, hey, luckily it's OK - it involved a girl!
Thursday, April 04, 2002
FINALLY – a technological advance that meets real needs! http://www.msnbc.com/news/733999.asp
ANTISENSEhttp://www.isip.com/antisens.htm – OK, I don’t understand it yet, but it looks important.
HE SAID, SHE SAID
As I wrote in a letter to the New Republic years ago, there is a simple solution to the English language’s lack of a neuter pronoun. I have been puzzled for years by how writers have accepted the use of “his or hers” or “he or she” or, even worse “s/he” (I hate slashes). I won’t get into the irrationality of constructing sentences containing pronouns with unclear antecedents. I know it’s hard to avoid, although it can be done. Why do we need to change the historical use of “his” when the identity of an antecedent is not known?
The answer brings up all sorts of reflections about the wimping out of American and Western society, especially the idiotic perception that women were oppressed by men – as though women were ever weak and men ever THAT strong! Why, it’s an insult to every woman before 1970, like, for instance, Joan of Arc, Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth I, Victoria, Boadicea, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Nell Gwynne and on and on. To believe that the use of language was a factor in helping men oppress women, you have to see women as having been weak and helpless and dumb in the old days. Then, around 1970 or so they became much stronger and smarter because authors started using “she or he” where “he” was perfectly comprehensible. Only with that simple-minded belief would you think it necessary to butcher the language the way almost every book published these days does in order to avoid slipping back into the Middle Ages.
For it was always the economic, religious and philosophical environment that dictated what women and men did. Capitalism and its attendant technological advances made it possible for women to do things they had never done before. The use of language reflected this change. The way the change has been made so far, however, has made writing clumsy, interrupted by constant changes of referent.
Some authors have even adopted a bizarre policy of switching between “she” and “he” in successive situations, to “level the playing field”. It reminds me of the rule in college basketball that, when a “jump ball” situation comes up, the ball goes to teams in turn. I prefer the good old jump ball. A basketball game is, after all, an athletic contest, not an exercise in sharing. This switching always catches me by surprise. “Where,” I think, “did that female come from?”
The easy solution? Men use “he”, women use “she”. Think about it.
ANTISENSEhttp://www.isip.com/antisens.htm – OK, I don’t understand it yet, but it looks important.
HE SAID, SHE SAID
As I wrote in a letter to the New Republic years ago, there is a simple solution to the English language’s lack of a neuter pronoun. I have been puzzled for years by how writers have accepted the use of “his or hers” or “he or she” or, even worse “s/he” (I hate slashes). I won’t get into the irrationality of constructing sentences containing pronouns with unclear antecedents. I know it’s hard to avoid, although it can be done. Why do we need to change the historical use of “his” when the identity of an antecedent is not known?
The answer brings up all sorts of reflections about the wimping out of American and Western society, especially the idiotic perception that women were oppressed by men – as though women were ever weak and men ever THAT strong! Why, it’s an insult to every woman before 1970, like, for instance, Joan of Arc, Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth I, Victoria, Boadicea, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Nell Gwynne and on and on. To believe that the use of language was a factor in helping men oppress women, you have to see women as having been weak and helpless and dumb in the old days. Then, around 1970 or so they became much stronger and smarter because authors started using “she or he” where “he” was perfectly comprehensible. Only with that simple-minded belief would you think it necessary to butcher the language the way almost every book published these days does in order to avoid slipping back into the Middle Ages.
For it was always the economic, religious and philosophical environment that dictated what women and men did. Capitalism and its attendant technological advances made it possible for women to do things they had never done before. The use of language reflected this change. The way the change has been made so far, however, has made writing clumsy, interrupted by constant changes of referent.
Some authors have even adopted a bizarre policy of switching between “she” and “he” in successive situations, to “level the playing field”. It reminds me of the rule in college basketball that, when a “jump ball” situation comes up, the ball goes to teams in turn. I prefer the good old jump ball. A basketball game is, after all, an athletic contest, not an exercise in sharing. This switching always catches me by surprise. “Where,” I think, “did that female come from?”
The easy solution? Men use “he”, women use “she”. Think about it.
Tuesday, April 02, 2002
Paper or Plastic
Is it me or is it obvious that plastic grocery bags are superior to paper? Even in the neo-Puritan "green" weenies' calculations, they have to come out on top. How many resources does it take to produce a paper bag? To transport it? How well does it serve its intended purpose? How much room does it take in dumps - if you think that's important? On every calculus, plastic comes first. Of course, I like plastic because it's better for me. I can carry ten pounds of groceries with one finger. Try that with paper, especially in the rain! Why, the savings in broken pickle jars alone must make up for the only reason I can see even a "greenie" complaining about plastic. They're not as "biodegradable" as paper. But wait a minute, do you really want things breaking down in your landfill, releasing possibly toxic inks and plastic solvents, not to mention habanero salsa residue? I don't think so.
Of course, the weenies hate plastic with an irrational burning hatred because it's plastic, it's not produced by killing something, just by refining petroleum. It's not "renewable". The inconsistencies and baseless fears behind such emotion don't bear going into. And as for the wackos who bring their own cloth bags to the store and throw them at the bagboy, have they ever considered the resources needed to produce, transport and, of course, WASH those things? Plastic still wins.
Is it me or is it obvious that plastic grocery bags are superior to paper? Even in the neo-Puritan "green" weenies' calculations, they have to come out on top. How many resources does it take to produce a paper bag? To transport it? How well does it serve its intended purpose? How much room does it take in dumps - if you think that's important? On every calculus, plastic comes first. Of course, I like plastic because it's better for me. I can carry ten pounds of groceries with one finger. Try that with paper, especially in the rain! Why, the savings in broken pickle jars alone must make up for the only reason I can see even a "greenie" complaining about plastic. They're not as "biodegradable" as paper. But wait a minute, do you really want things breaking down in your landfill, releasing possibly toxic inks and plastic solvents, not to mention habanero salsa residue? I don't think so.
Of course, the weenies hate plastic with an irrational burning hatred because it's plastic, it's not produced by killing something, just by refining petroleum. It's not "renewable". The inconsistencies and baseless fears behind such emotion don't bear going into. And as for the wackos who bring their own cloth bags to the store and throw them at the bagboy, have they ever considered the resources needed to produce, transport and, of course, WASH those things? Plastic still wins.
Following is a letter I sent to a columnist complaining about SUV's at an auto show. I've got to figure out how to put links in!
Dear Mr. Kuntzman,
I've got great news for you. The sky is not falling. You can relax and stop worrying that the ozone "layer" is breaking down, that the earth is warming, that the rivers are getting polluted, that the trees and animals are dying off. In a hundred years our descendants will still be here, living better than we do today. They will be smarter, probably stronger and happier than we are. They will live in a more beautiful, more productive and safer world than we can even envision, thanks to individual ambition, advanced technology and educated appreciation of the pleasures of life, from cigars to wine to fast cars and, yes, mountain climbing.
In your article about SUV's you mention the "environment" about every other word. You must be terribly concerned. Relax.
Robert Speirs
Tallahassee, Florida
Dear Mr. Kuntzman,
I've got great news for you. The sky is not falling. You can relax and stop worrying that the ozone "layer" is breaking down, that the earth is warming, that the rivers are getting polluted, that the trees and animals are dying off. In a hundred years our descendants will still be here, living better than we do today. They will be smarter, probably stronger and happier than we are. They will live in a more beautiful, more productive and safer world than we can even envision, thanks to individual ambition, advanced technology and educated appreciation of the pleasures of life, from cigars to wine to fast cars and, yes, mountain climbing.
In your article about SUV's you mention the "environment" about every other word. You must be terribly concerned. Relax.
Robert Speirs
Tallahassee, Florida
Monday, April 01, 2002
APOLOGY
OK, I'm surry. I didn't get it. When is a "flower" not a flower? Sometimes one feels really stupid, but I suppose stupider if one never saw it. Mr. Maltby, you have my cringing, abject beg-pardons. That's all I'll say. One wouldn't want to give away the plot. By the way, my internet connection was down this weekend, so I couldn't comment on any new puzzling. I haven't got very far in "Loops". I still have the impression, though, that Cox and Rathvon's clues are quite well done. It's confusing not to have a ghost of a clue how to fit the words into a diagram. That will change, though, in the usual rhythm of the puzzle solver. Does solving a puzzle recapitulate one's entire educational process, ontogenitically vs. phylogenetically? Or have I been doing too many puzzles?
OK, I'm surry. I didn't get it. When is a "flower" not a flower? Sometimes one feels really stupid, but I suppose stupider if one never saw it. Mr. Maltby, you have my cringing, abject beg-pardons. That's all I'll say. One wouldn't want to give away the plot. By the way, my internet connection was down this weekend, so I couldn't comment on any new puzzling. I haven't got very far in "Loops". I still have the impression, though, that Cox and Rathvon's clues are quite well done. It's confusing not to have a ghost of a clue how to fit the words into a diagram. That will change, though, in the usual rhythm of the puzzle solver. Does solving a puzzle recapitulate one's entire educational process, ontogenitically vs. phylogenetically? Or have I been doing too many puzzles?
Saturday, March 30, 2002
My favorite clue? 19 down, with 39 across a close second.
I'm just starting Cox and Rathvon's latest, from the Atlantic, called "Loops". I love it when I look at a puzzle and say to myself, "I'll never get it, never", like Don Music on Sesame Street. Just off the top of my head, though, I'd say the challenge in this one will be fitting the words into the diagram properly, not solving the clues. That's a legitimate part of a puzzle, of course, but I can't help thinking I like deciphering better than rearranging letters to fit in boxes the right way. One can hope, though, that I'm wrong and C&R will come up with some real doozies to keep me up all night. Tally-ho!
I'm just starting Cox and Rathvon's latest, from the Atlantic, called "Loops". I love it when I look at a puzzle and say to myself, "I'll never get it, never", like Don Music on Sesame Street. Just off the top of my head, though, I'd say the challenge in this one will be fitting the words into the diagram properly, not solving the clues. That's a legitimate part of a puzzle, of course, but I can't help thinking I like deciphering better than rearranging letters to fit in boxes the right way. One can hope, though, that I'm wrong and C&R will come up with some real doozies to keep me up all night. Tally-ho!
The last word on what is to be done in the Middle East - by Binyamin Netanyahu - is here:http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/03/29/News/News.46032.html
MINE, ALL MINE
Richard E. Maltby's latest effort, in Harper's this month, proved amusing, instructive, yet frustrating. Maltby's like that. He has great ideas, comes up with intricate clues, but too often finks out by, for instance, throwing in a French word that wasn't even in my Pocket Larousse. Now it's OK by me to use a few foreign words, but one should keep them familiar. The one he used wasn't hard to figure out, but that made it even more galling. One sympathizes with the puzzle constructor's dilemmas, but the mechanics shouldn't show through. That said, I liked the puzzle, solved it fairly quickly, once I got going, and it certainly wasn't 48 across. Is it possible someone told Maltby to "dumb down" his efforts? I have been rummaging around in old puzzles, from the early nineties. I could swear they're harder. Oh, well. I give "Mine, All Mine" three question marks on a scale of six. ???
MINE, ALL MINE
Richard E. Maltby's latest effort, in Harper's this month, proved amusing, instructive, yet frustrating. Maltby's like that. He has great ideas, comes up with intricate clues, but too often finks out by, for instance, throwing in a French word that wasn't even in my Pocket Larousse. Now it's OK by me to use a few foreign words, but one should keep them familiar. The one he used wasn't hard to figure out, but that made it even more galling. One sympathizes with the puzzle constructor's dilemmas, but the mechanics shouldn't show through. That said, I liked the puzzle, solved it fairly quickly, once I got going, and it certainly wasn't 48 across. Is it possible someone told Maltby to "dumb down" his efforts? I have been rummaging around in old puzzles, from the early nineties. I could swear they're harder. Oh, well. I give "Mine, All Mine" three question marks on a scale of six. ???
Friday, March 29, 2002
Victory vs. Peace in the Middle East
What's this got to do with puzzles? It's the greatest conundrum of all - to be or not to be. The flaw in the thinking? There's no such thing as peace. The choice for the Israelites and the Philistines is not between war and peace. It is between victory and defeat. The Israelites could have "peace" tomorrow by just giving up and letting the terrorists kill them all. But that peace would look an awful lot like defeat. That's why "peace" talks never work. If you called them "Victory talks" their true nature might become apparent.
All victories, of course, are only partial and temporary. To the winner, victory and peace look the same. To the loser, defeat is not made any easier to bear by being called "peace". When you realize there is no such thing as peace, you realize why the Israelites will never purchase "peace" by ceding land to the Philistines. Every such concession puts them closer to defeat and they know it. Both sides are stymied, not because they can't get the other side to accept "peace", but because they can't figure out what any lasting victory would consist of and how to achieve it. That's why the Philistines are thrown back on the extermination of Israel - an impossible dream. And Israel in desperation thinks fondly of an "iron wall" to keep the Muslim world at bay.
"Peace" is a terrible thing. It resembles a lot of other illusions, like the Edenic myths that inspire the so-called "environmentalists". Do any of them really think that the Earth can or should be kept in a certain ideal state forever, maintained like a terrarium at standard temperature and pressure, with two and a half species per square inch, never changing, never growing? Do any of them really think that if you cut a tree down, others will not grow to replace it? Do any of them really think that if you pave a meadow the pavement will remain forever?
No, of course they don't. They barely think at all. Just like the "peaceniks", who, if they were honest, would admit what they really want is not peace, but victory, they emote and feed off others' emotions and become hypocrites and liars to get power over others.
So there's my rant for the day.
What's this got to do with puzzles? It's the greatest conundrum of all - to be or not to be. The flaw in the thinking? There's no such thing as peace. The choice for the Israelites and the Philistines is not between war and peace. It is between victory and defeat. The Israelites could have "peace" tomorrow by just giving up and letting the terrorists kill them all. But that peace would look an awful lot like defeat. That's why "peace" talks never work. If you called them "Victory talks" their true nature might become apparent.
All victories, of course, are only partial and temporary. To the winner, victory and peace look the same. To the loser, defeat is not made any easier to bear by being called "peace". When you realize there is no such thing as peace, you realize why the Israelites will never purchase "peace" by ceding land to the Philistines. Every such concession puts them closer to defeat and they know it. Both sides are stymied, not because they can't get the other side to accept "peace", but because they can't figure out what any lasting victory would consist of and how to achieve it. That's why the Philistines are thrown back on the extermination of Israel - an impossible dream. And Israel in desperation thinks fondly of an "iron wall" to keep the Muslim world at bay.
"Peace" is a terrible thing. It resembles a lot of other illusions, like the Edenic myths that inspire the so-called "environmentalists". Do any of them really think that the Earth can or should be kept in a certain ideal state forever, maintained like a terrarium at standard temperature and pressure, with two and a half species per square inch, never changing, never growing? Do any of them really think that if you cut a tree down, others will not grow to replace it? Do any of them really think that if you pave a meadow the pavement will remain forever?
No, of course they don't. They barely think at all. Just like the "peaceniks", who, if they were honest, would admit what they really want is not peace, but victory, they emote and feed off others' emotions and become hypocrites and liars to get power over others.
So there's my rant for the day.
Thursday, March 28, 2002
PUZZLES IN
My favorite day of the month – the new Harper’s and Atlantic puzzles have come out.
Richard E. Maltby’s effort in Harper’s is already making me tear my hair out, but that’s what I like. Eight of the answers are deformed in some unspecified manner before being entered into the diagram. Of course, the eight deformees are not marked in any way. I guess that makes it more fun, but doesn’t it seem to you that it’s always pretty obvious, when you’ve got a good solution – one that hits with a solid “chunk!!” – whether it fits into the diagram or not. The possibilities are not endless.
Which brings up another point. How do these composers come up with these wild and wacky ways of messing with your mind? It’s hard enough just to compose a simple crossword. Is it as hard as it appears to construct cryptics? Perhaps a composer can chime in with some trade secrets (NOT!!)
My favorite day of the month – the new Harper’s and Atlantic puzzles have come out.
Richard E. Maltby’s effort in Harper’s is already making me tear my hair out, but that’s what I like. Eight of the answers are deformed in some unspecified manner before being entered into the diagram. Of course, the eight deformees are not marked in any way. I guess that makes it more fun, but doesn’t it seem to you that it’s always pretty obvious, when you’ve got a good solution – one that hits with a solid “chunk!!” – whether it fits into the diagram or not. The possibilities are not endless.
Which brings up another point. How do these composers come up with these wild and wacky ways of messing with your mind? It’s hard enough just to compose a simple crossword. Is it as hard as it appears to construct cryptics? Perhaps a composer can chime in with some trade secrets (NOT!!)
Sunday, March 24, 2002
One answer away
I got an old copy of an Atlantic puzzle and cranked away on it. Maybe it was guilt for copying it out of back issues at the library, but something didn't let me finish it quite. So here I am wondering what in the world Expanding Second-Rate Farm, in Westernmost Georgia means, having the letters _h_ng already. Making it more difficult is the scheme of the puzzle, which requires that some of the puzzle entries, including this one, must be constructed by taking the answer to the clue and taking out a word - four letters long in this case - that means some kind of food. For instance, one of the answers was "RaisingCain". But all you entered in the diagram was "gCain" because you took out the "raisin". Clever, no? The clue in that case was "I sing"California" in shower, creating a ruckus".(11) two words.
I got an old copy of an Atlantic puzzle and cranked away on it. Maybe it was guilt for copying it out of back issues at the library, but something didn't let me finish it quite. So here I am wondering what in the world Expanding Second-Rate Farm, in Westernmost Georgia means, having the letters _h_ng already. Making it more difficult is the scheme of the puzzle, which requires that some of the puzzle entries, including this one, must be constructed by taking the answer to the clue and taking out a word - four letters long in this case - that means some kind of food. For instance, one of the answers was "RaisingCain". But all you entered in the diagram was "gCain" because you took out the "raisin". Clever, no? The clue in that case was "I sing"California" in shower, creating a ruckus".(11) two words.
Friday, March 15, 2002
Foreign language puzzles
I was wondering how they do puzzles in Timbuktu or Baluchistan. The characteristics of the different scripts must make for some decorative efforts. Or is the good old Anglo-Saxon world the only place where word puzzles caught on? Seems unlikely. Imagine acrostics using Chinese ideographs! I know something about Arabic, have seen their daily newspapers on a trip to Cairo, but can't remember ever seeing any word puzzles. Anyone out there who knows of an interesting non-Roman script word puzzle, let me know if you can at robspe@paris.com. I won't publish any emails unless you specifically say it's OK, but I would really like to know.
Last month's Harper's puzzle, by Richard Maltby, was called "Misprints". I found it tantalizingly difficult yet interesting. The idea was to decipher clues with a misprint in them - that made up half the puzzle clues. For the other half, you had to enter the answer to a "regular" puzzle clue in the diagram with a misprint. This was a lot harder than it looked. One interesting feature was the definition of a "misprint". It was defined as a simple letter substitution, always occurring in a cross-clued light.
I have always been fascinated by how the puzzles I liked are made. I've tried my hand at it but always seem to botch it up. I have a feeling the pros have methods beyond my ken. Not that I couldn't learn.
I was wondering how they do puzzles in Timbuktu or Baluchistan. The characteristics of the different scripts must make for some decorative efforts. Or is the good old Anglo-Saxon world the only place where word puzzles caught on? Seems unlikely. Imagine acrostics using Chinese ideographs! I know something about Arabic, have seen their daily newspapers on a trip to Cairo, but can't remember ever seeing any word puzzles. Anyone out there who knows of an interesting non-Roman script word puzzle, let me know if you can at robspe@paris.com. I won't publish any emails unless you specifically say it's OK, but I would really like to know.
Last month's Harper's puzzle, by Richard Maltby, was called "Misprints". I found it tantalizingly difficult yet interesting. The idea was to decipher clues with a misprint in them - that made up half the puzzle clues. For the other half, you had to enter the answer to a "regular" puzzle clue in the diagram with a misprint. This was a lot harder than it looked. One interesting feature was the definition of a "misprint". It was defined as a simple letter substitution, always occurring in a cross-clued light.
I have always been fascinated by how the puzzles I liked are made. I've tried my hand at it but always seem to botch it up. I have a feeling the pros have methods beyond my ken. Not that I couldn't learn.
Thursday, March 14, 2002
So, no puzzle news this morning. I'll just have to get my two cents' worth in on the news of the day. The Israelis look justifiably suspicious of the Zinni initiative, which seems designed to give the Palestinians what they couldn't achieve on the battlefield or by murdering unarmed civilians by the hundreds. Of course, they could have had nearly the same deal many times in the past. Is it too cynical to think that the present generation of Palestinian leadership wouldn't be able to function if they didn't have Israel to blame all their problems on?
That said, how do the Israelis get themselves out of this situation? Is an "iron wall" the solution? Or implanted machine-readable tags that would distinguish Jews and Israeli Arabs from Palestinian possible terrorists? By the way, why is no one commenting on the fact that almost no Israeli Arabs have been killed in the eighteen months of the "Al-Aqsa intifada"? Could there be any more persuasive showing that, one, the Israelis are not "racist", even though that charge is absurd, because they're all Semites, or, two, that Israelis can live with Muslims? On a more general level, is it possible for a highly developed modern culture, with TV and the internet and some degree of individualism, like the Israelis, to exist cheek-by-jowl with a heavily hierarchical matriarchy like the Arab world?
Yes, I said matriarchy, because I believe, with Dr. Johnson, that "Nature has given women so much power that the law very wisely gives them little." And the less power women have in a society by law, the more they have by nature. Israel, despite the influence of the Orthodox clan, has given women much power by law. To pay for that, of course, the same women have lost much of their natural influence. In the Arab world, women run the family and hence the society, using men as cannon fodder and mouthpieces in their usual manipulative way.
That said, how do the Israelis get themselves out of this situation? Is an "iron wall" the solution? Or implanted machine-readable tags that would distinguish Jews and Israeli Arabs from Palestinian possible terrorists? By the way, why is no one commenting on the fact that almost no Israeli Arabs have been killed in the eighteen months of the "Al-Aqsa intifada"? Could there be any more persuasive showing that, one, the Israelis are not "racist", even though that charge is absurd, because they're all Semites, or, two, that Israelis can live with Muslims? On a more general level, is it possible for a highly developed modern culture, with TV and the internet and some degree of individualism, like the Israelis, to exist cheek-by-jowl with a heavily hierarchical matriarchy like the Arab world?
Yes, I said matriarchy, because I believe, with Dr. Johnson, that "Nature has given women so much power that the law very wisely gives them little." And the less power women have in a society by law, the more they have by nature. Israel, despite the influence of the Orthodox clan, has given women much power by law. To pay for that, of course, the same women have lost much of their natural influence. In the Arab world, women run the family and hence the society, using men as cannon fodder and mouthpieces in their usual manipulative way.
Wednesday, March 13, 2002
CONUNDRUM - the advanced puzzle solver's forum
Ever since I found I could do the New York Times daily crossword puzzle in ink in less than fifteen minutes, I've been searching for new puzzles to conquer. The "cryptic" puzzles in the Atlantic Monthly and Harper's magazine have challenged me for years. It's about time I shared my enthusiasm for this puzzle type - and any others readers might suggest. I'm looking forward to discussing your opinions and circulating my own. As each puzzle comes out, I will solve it - or not! Then I'll analyze it. I hope this will be fun.
PUZZLE ODYSSEY
So I looked at a lot of puzzles. "Word finds" were my first introduction to the world of moron puzzles. They give you all the words and ask you to find them in a block of letters, cleverly disguised by running them backwards, forwards, upside down and diagonally upside down backwards. They didn't hold my interest for too long. That must have been because of my lifelong habit of reading dictionaries upside down and diagonally backwards.
On a slightly higher intellectual level, I had a long-term relationship with crostics. They give you a block containing a quotation and definitions with the letters of the answers to the definitions keyed by number to the spaces in the quotation block. If that description has given you a headache, you will understand why crostics gave me headaches. After a while, though, like crosswords, they became merely a stenographic task, my fingers racing to keep up with my mind. As I got older, the headaches were accompanied by arthritis.
By the way, doesn't this blog-writing thing remind you of Sam'l Johnson sitting at a table in a coffeehouse in late eighteenth-century London scribbling copy for his periodical Tattler or Rattler or Rambler or whatever it was? Only he always got it right the first time.
As soon as I can figure out how, I'm going to separate a section of this blog for daily political and philosophical rants. Then I will figure out how to set up an email block so anyone who may be reading can join in. Mojo Man may be joining us.
Ever since I found I could do the New York Times daily crossword puzzle in ink in less than fifteen minutes, I've been searching for new puzzles to conquer. The "cryptic" puzzles in the Atlantic Monthly and Harper's magazine have challenged me for years. It's about time I shared my enthusiasm for this puzzle type - and any others readers might suggest. I'm looking forward to discussing your opinions and circulating my own. As each puzzle comes out, I will solve it - or not! Then I'll analyze it. I hope this will be fun.
PUZZLE ODYSSEY
So I looked at a lot of puzzles. "Word finds" were my first introduction to the world of moron puzzles. They give you all the words and ask you to find them in a block of letters, cleverly disguised by running them backwards, forwards, upside down and diagonally upside down backwards. They didn't hold my interest for too long. That must have been because of my lifelong habit of reading dictionaries upside down and diagonally backwards.
On a slightly higher intellectual level, I had a long-term relationship with crostics. They give you a block containing a quotation and definitions with the letters of the answers to the definitions keyed by number to the spaces in the quotation block. If that description has given you a headache, you will understand why crostics gave me headaches. After a while, though, like crosswords, they became merely a stenographic task, my fingers racing to keep up with my mind. As I got older, the headaches were accompanied by arthritis.
By the way, doesn't this blog-writing thing remind you of Sam'l Johnson sitting at a table in a coffeehouse in late eighteenth-century London scribbling copy for his periodical Tattler or Rattler or Rambler or whatever it was? Only he always got it right the first time.
As soon as I can figure out how, I'm going to separate a section of this blog for daily political and philosophical rants. Then I will figure out how to set up an email block so anyone who may be reading can join in. Mojo Man may be joining us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)