Another good one
Yesterday, I finished the June 2002 Atlantic puzzle, "Layers" by Cox and Rathvon. It was one of the cleverest yet. The words are all entered conventionally into the diagram. The diagram, however, has two separate parts, an outside layer and a core, with one square in the middle. The clues are arranged so that some of the answers from the outside layer, when arranged according to the numbering scheme given, provide the clues for the core layer. Not only that, but the diagram entries from the core layer are entered in numbered squares. Then you enter each letter in a crostic-like row to give you one final clue, which tells you how to complete the final center box. So it is indeed "layered". Quite an achievement. The clues were challenging, although there was a good proportion of three and four-letter entries, which tend to be easier. This I find excusable, given the intricacy of the overall scheme. The cross-clues in the diagram were quite helpful, with the desirable balance pleasingly maintained.
As I went through this puzzle, I felt a keen sense of anticipation, thinking, "I wonder if they're really going to be able to carry it through?" They did not disappoint. This is a definite nine out of ten. That brings up an interesting point. How should puzzles be rated, for difficulty, cleverness, entertainment value? What should the standards be? I'll be pontificating on this in future posts and solicit any comments anyone may have.
Most entertaining clue: 12 Down. Yes, I know it's easy, but I found it fun anyway.
Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Maltby comes through
I've just finished Richard E. Maltby, Jr.'s effort, called "Heads or Tails, Revisited" from the June 2002 Harper's. It was much more enjoyable than I had feared. One entered the Across answers in standard fashion. Each Down column, however, had one 8-letter word and one 6-letter, plus a few threes thrown in as filler. All the fun was in the eights and sixes. The sixes were clued normally, but entering the solution in the diagram required you to find a group of three consecutive letters in the solution that matched a group of three in an eight letter word - any eight-letter Down word, not just the one in the same column. Each of the eight-letter clues gave you a word of the form "X is X", with each X representing a group of three letters. An example, not from the puzzle, would be "theistic". If a six letter word contained either of the same three letter groups (the or tic), for instance "rather", you would replace "the" with "tic" and enter the result - raticr - in the diagram. It sounds clumsy, but in practice works very well. At first glance it looks inelegant that so many of the eight-letter words project beyond the main body of the puzzle, leaving five letters in each apparently unchecked. This is not really so, however, as the matching of groups of three letters that may be unchecked directly to other groups of three in the six-letter words provides a perfectly adequate cross-checking mechanism. Good on yer, Maltby!
Star clue: 46 across, one of those that isn't too hard, but makes you feel clever when you get it. And that's the whole idea, isn't it, preening one's plumage?
I've just finished Richard E. Maltby, Jr.'s effort, called "Heads or Tails, Revisited" from the June 2002 Harper's. It was much more enjoyable than I had feared. One entered the Across answers in standard fashion. Each Down column, however, had one 8-letter word and one 6-letter, plus a few threes thrown in as filler. All the fun was in the eights and sixes. The sixes were clued normally, but entering the solution in the diagram required you to find a group of three consecutive letters in the solution that matched a group of three in an eight letter word - any eight-letter Down word, not just the one in the same column. Each of the eight-letter clues gave you a word of the form "X is X", with each X representing a group of three letters. An example, not from the puzzle, would be "theistic". If a six letter word contained either of the same three letter groups (the or tic), for instance "rather", you would replace "the" with "tic" and enter the result - raticr - in the diagram. It sounds clumsy, but in practice works very well. At first glance it looks inelegant that so many of the eight-letter words project beyond the main body of the puzzle, leaving five letters in each apparently unchecked. This is not really so, however, as the matching of groups of three letters that may be unchecked directly to other groups of three in the six-letter words provides a perfectly adequate cross-checking mechanism. Good on yer, Maltby!
Star clue: 46 across, one of those that isn't too hard, but makes you feel clever when you get it. And that's the whole idea, isn't it, preening one's plumage?
Tuesday, May 14, 2002
5/14/2002 6:42:16 AM | Robert Speirs]
Here's an email I sent to Unilateral.blogspot.com
Dear Mr. Seamans,
You say in your "Unilateral Commission" blog:
There are few indications of where the next counter-cultural movement will pop up, and that's a little frightening. So what's next? Any ideas?
Maybe I'm blinded by my objectivist ideology, but I think there's no "action" on the extreme flanks because we're going through a redefinition of the political
spectrum. Finally! This left and right bit that's been around since the French Revolution (?) is becoming more obviously inadequate every day. Putting Pim
Fortuyn and Jean Marie LePen on the same side of anything is clearly nutso.
My favorite spectrum is from individualist to collectivist, mostly because it puts the bad guys all on the same side! The Stalinists and Al Qaeda deserve each
other. The "Green" totalitarians should be classed with the Neo-Nazis. Let them fight it out. And the objectivists (or Objectivists) need to recognize that most
libertarians are pretty close to them, however "leftist" they may sound sometimes.
The effect of this realignment in thinking, I hope, will be to make it clear that a party that cannot be classed as Right or Left is not necessarily of the Center. The
only effect of cramping all political opinions into that old spectrum is to make big government seem inevitable. A lot of people don't think so.
So when a real party starts up which advocates cutting social - and corporate! - and farm! - welfare to the bone, which backs a strong, but efficient, military and
which opposes the drug war and tariffs with equal ferocity, you should see a real ferment among the hacks. It may be starting now!
Robert Speirs
Tallahassee, Florida
Here's an email I sent to Unilateral.blogspot.com
Dear Mr. Seamans,
You say in your "Unilateral Commission" blog:
There are few indications of where the next counter-cultural movement will pop up, and that's a little frightening. So what's next? Any ideas?
Maybe I'm blinded by my objectivist ideology, but I think there's no "action" on the extreme flanks because we're going through a redefinition of the political
spectrum. Finally! This left and right bit that's been around since the French Revolution (?) is becoming more obviously inadequate every day. Putting Pim
Fortuyn and Jean Marie LePen on the same side of anything is clearly nutso.
My favorite spectrum is from individualist to collectivist, mostly because it puts the bad guys all on the same side! The Stalinists and Al Qaeda deserve each
other. The "Green" totalitarians should be classed with the Neo-Nazis. Let them fight it out. And the objectivists (or Objectivists) need to recognize that most
libertarians are pretty close to them, however "leftist" they may sound sometimes.
The effect of this realignment in thinking, I hope, will be to make it clear that a party that cannot be classed as Right or Left is not necessarily of the Center. The
only effect of cramping all political opinions into that old spectrum is to make big government seem inevitable. A lot of people don't think so.
So when a real party starts up which advocates cutting social - and corporate! - and farm! - welfare to the bone, which backs a strong, but efficient, military and
which opposes the drug war and tariffs with equal ferocity, you should see a real ferment among the hacks. It may be starting now!
Robert Speirs
Tallahassee, Florida
Here's an email I sent to Unilateral.blogspot.com
Dear Mr. Seamans,
You say in your "Unilateral Commission" blog:
There are few indications of where the next counter-cultural movement will pop up, and that's a little frightening. So what's next? Any ideas?
Maybe I'm blinded by my objectivist ideology, but I think there's no "action" on the extreme flanks because we're going through a redefinition of the political spectrum. Finally! This left and right bit that's been around since the French Revolution (?) is becoming more obviously inadequate every day. Putting Pim Fortuyn and Jean Marie LePen on the same side of anything is clearly nutso.
My favorite spectrum is from individualist to collectivist, mostly because it puts the bad guys all on the same side! The Stalinists and Al Qaeda deserve each other. The "Green" totalitarians should be classed with the Neo-Nazis. Let them fight it out. And the objectivists (or Objectivists) need to recognize that most libertarians are pretty close to them, however "leftist" they may sound sometimes.
The effect of this realignment in thinking, I hope, will be to make it clear that a party that cannot be classed as Right or Left is not necessarily of the Center. The only effect of cramping all political opinions into that old spectrum is to make big government seem inevitable. A lot of people don't think so.
So when a real party starts up which advocates cutting social - and corporate! - and farm! - welfare to the bone, which backs a strong, but efficient, military and which opposes the drug war and tariffs with equal ferocity, you should see a real ferment among the hacks. It may be starting now!
Robert Speirs
Tallahassee, Florida
Dear Mr. Seamans,
You say in your "Unilateral Commission" blog:
There are few indications of where the next counter-cultural movement will pop up, and that's a little frightening. So what's next? Any ideas?
Maybe I'm blinded by my objectivist ideology, but I think there's no "action" on the extreme flanks because we're going through a redefinition of the political spectrum. Finally! This left and right bit that's been around since the French Revolution (?) is becoming more obviously inadequate every day. Putting Pim Fortuyn and Jean Marie LePen on the same side of anything is clearly nutso.
My favorite spectrum is from individualist to collectivist, mostly because it puts the bad guys all on the same side! The Stalinists and Al Qaeda deserve each other. The "Green" totalitarians should be classed with the Neo-Nazis. Let them fight it out. And the objectivists (or Objectivists) need to recognize that most libertarians are pretty close to them, however "leftist" they may sound sometimes.
The effect of this realignment in thinking, I hope, will be to make it clear that a party that cannot be classed as Right or Left is not necessarily of the Center. The only effect of cramping all political opinions into that old spectrum is to make big government seem inevitable. A lot of people don't think so.
So when a real party starts up which advocates cutting social - and corporate! - and farm! - welfare to the bone, which backs a strong, but efficient, military and which opposes the drug war and tariffs with equal ferocity, you should see a real ferment among the hacks. It may be starting now!
Robert Speirs
Tallahassee, Florida
Monday, May 13, 2002
June 2002 puzzles
Just got the June puzzles from the Atlantic and Harper's. Once again, Richard Maltby's effort from Harper's appears dishearteningly difficult, but it is certainly possible it will break down. I am having difficulty even understanding how it works yet, which doesn't give me a lot of hope about my chances of getting it done in a reasonable time. My initial reaction to Cox and Rathvon's latest is about the same, unfortunately. I'll sit down after work tonight with some Bass Ale - on special at Publix - and see if I get a brain wave that allows me to surf right in to the beach of comprehensibility. Since I've had a bit too much gout medicine today, my insights tonight may not be any more comprehensible than that metaphor, or, more likely, I'll fall asleep at seven o'clock. But at least I will be challenginig my word skills. The actual articles in the magazines from which the puzzles come seem to be getting more and more obnoxious. Or am I just getting more and more curmudgeonly anti-collectivist? Yep, that must be it. And a darn good thing, too.
Just got the June puzzles from the Atlantic and Harper's. Once again, Richard Maltby's effort from Harper's appears dishearteningly difficult, but it is certainly possible it will break down. I am having difficulty even understanding how it works yet, which doesn't give me a lot of hope about my chances of getting it done in a reasonable time. My initial reaction to Cox and Rathvon's latest is about the same, unfortunately. I'll sit down after work tonight with some Bass Ale - on special at Publix - and see if I get a brain wave that allows me to surf right in to the beach of comprehensibility. Since I've had a bit too much gout medicine today, my insights tonight may not be any more comprehensible than that metaphor, or, more likely, I'll fall asleep at seven o'clock. But at least I will be challenginig my word skills. The actual articles in the magazines from which the puzzles come seem to be getting more and more obnoxious. Or am I just getting more and more curmudgeonly anti-collectivist? Yep, that must be it. And a darn good thing, too.
Sunday, May 12, 2002
An email I sent to the Jane Galt blogger (live from the WTC) follows. She's at janegalt.blogspot.com. It sums up my analysis of the Second Amendment pretty well. Comments are welcome.
Dear Jane Galt,
About the wording of the Second Amendment: The possible dependency of the second clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed" on the existence or necessity of a "well-regulated militia" seems irrelevant to what, if any, powers the Amendment is reserving to
the Federal government. That's of course one of the major stumbling blocks for interpretation. The Bill of Rights does not create or even define
rights. It, like the rest of the Constitution, only defines the legitimate powers of the Federal government. The Amendment makes it clear that the
right to keep and bear arms resides with the people, and that no state or Federal government has the power to infringe that right.
The Second Amendment grants no powers whatever to the Federal government, especially and particularly not the power to infringe the people's
right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments nail that down. The only reason for the addition of this amendment can have been to
clarify that the Federal government did not have this power. The Founding Fathers must have feared that some other section of the Constitution
might have been interpreted to give this power to the Federal government.
It is absurd, therefore, to say that the amendment's restriction of the Federal government's power to control individual keeping and bearing of arms
was conditional on the need for a militia. The Federal government had and has no such power. The contention that it does, and that with the
withering away of the need for a militia the inherent power springs into existence full-grown, reflects the mistaken view that the Federal
government has every conceivable power unless the Bill of rights tells us it doesn't have that power. It's just the other way around. In order to give
the Federal government the power to infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment would have to be repealed by
another amendment which specifically gives the Federal government that power. That ain't gonna happen.
Robert Speirs
Tallahassee, Florida
PS You might be interested to know that in a speech to the Constitutional Convention on June 8, 1789, James Madison suggested the Second
Amendment, among others, but in this speech the "militia" clause came after the "shall not infringe" clause. Here's the URL:
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/speeches/amend.htm
It's my personal opinion that the "militia" clause was thrown in as one possible justification for not meddling with the right of each individual to
keep arms. That makes it at most an explanation, not a condition. RS
Joy
Back to cryptic puzzles. I finished "Compact Disc" from the May 2002 Atlantic Monthly yesterday. What a joy! The clues made sense, yet weren't too easy. The scheme for entering solutions was comprehensible, yet tricky enough to be challenging. The diagram was round, with one set of radial clues and one set of concentric clues. Of course, it wasn't like, just solve the clue and enter the word in the diagram. The radial clues were totally scrambled. The concentric clues were grouped in five rings, with three or four words in each ring. Luckily, the solutions in each ring were entered consecutively and ordered from a set point. Cox and Rathvon played one more trick, though. The disc consisted of twenty sectors. The word lengths in each concentric group, though, added up to twenty-one letters. So one space of each ring had to contain two consecutive letters. Each radial solution also had to contain one square with two letters in it. Interestingly, the two-letter boxes were also consecutive for the radial solutions, even though they were otherwise scrambled. When put together in order, the two-letter boxes from each ring spelled out a cleverly appropriate musical instrument.
This puzzle revealed the balance between tough clues and tricky ways of entering solutions in the diagram that marks the best puzzles. Of course, I did get this one, so I would say that! Perhaps the fact that I could figure out all the letters of at least some of the solutions from cross-checking before I had even solved the clues convinced me that the diagram was an integral part of the puzzle-solving process. That's what I like, maybe because I did a lot of crostics (acrostics, whatever) on my progress to cryptics.
Full marks to Cox and Rathvon for both constructing an intriguing and challenging puzzle and for making the instructions clear and "fair" for those of us who often struggle putting words in diagrams. One of the solutions was indeed - as advertised - uncommon. Once I fully figured it out, though, I had to admit the information needed was contained in the clue. Most entertaining clue? B1(concentric).
Back to cryptic puzzles. I finished "Compact Disc" from the May 2002 Atlantic Monthly yesterday. What a joy! The clues made sense, yet weren't too easy. The scheme for entering solutions was comprehensible, yet tricky enough to be challenging. The diagram was round, with one set of radial clues and one set of concentric clues. Of course, it wasn't like, just solve the clue and enter the word in the diagram. The radial clues were totally scrambled. The concentric clues were grouped in five rings, with three or four words in each ring. Luckily, the solutions in each ring were entered consecutively and ordered from a set point. Cox and Rathvon played one more trick, though. The disc consisted of twenty sectors. The word lengths in each concentric group, though, added up to twenty-one letters. So one space of each ring had to contain two consecutive letters. Each radial solution also had to contain one square with two letters in it. Interestingly, the two-letter boxes were also consecutive for the radial solutions, even though they were otherwise scrambled. When put together in order, the two-letter boxes from each ring spelled out a cleverly appropriate musical instrument.
This puzzle revealed the balance between tough clues and tricky ways of entering solutions in the diagram that marks the best puzzles. Of course, I did get this one, so I would say that! Perhaps the fact that I could figure out all the letters of at least some of the solutions from cross-checking before I had even solved the clues convinced me that the diagram was an integral part of the puzzle-solving process. That's what I like, maybe because I did a lot of crostics (acrostics, whatever) on my progress to cryptics.
Full marks to Cox and Rathvon for both constructing an intriguing and challenging puzzle and for making the instructions clear and "fair" for those of us who often struggle putting words in diagrams. One of the solutions was indeed - as advertised - uncommon. Once I fully figured it out, though, I had to admit the information needed was contained in the clue. Most entertaining clue? B1(concentric).
Monday, May 06, 2002
Pim Fortuyn
Few bloggers seem to be speculating about the assassination of Pim Fortuyn in Holland. He's (was) gay and "right-wing" and increasingly popular. Why is his violent death important? Because it adds one more reason, before the French parliamentary elections, to see Europe as increasingly violent and crime-ridden. The same emotions now attach to walking the streets of Haarlem that used to go with taking a stroll in pre-Giuliani Harlem. It will take a long time for the political culture to change in Europe, but some sort of corner has been turned. People won't put up with that kind of insecurity along with gun control and the punishment of achievement and guilt-tripping about poverty and racism. It could get ugly. I wonder what Andrew Sullivan will have to say. He saw Fortuyn as a leader of some sort in showing that gays didn't always have to be collectivists, and that they could be successful on any part of the political spectrum. Looks like Pim misjudged the ferocity of the resistance. Or maybe he just didn't care. He was my age.
Few bloggers seem to be speculating about the assassination of Pim Fortuyn in Holland. He's (was) gay and "right-wing" and increasingly popular. Why is his violent death important? Because it adds one more reason, before the French parliamentary elections, to see Europe as increasingly violent and crime-ridden. The same emotions now attach to walking the streets of Haarlem that used to go with taking a stroll in pre-Giuliani Harlem. It will take a long time for the political culture to change in Europe, but some sort of corner has been turned. People won't put up with that kind of insecurity along with gun control and the punishment of achievement and guilt-tripping about poverty and racism. It could get ugly. I wonder what Andrew Sullivan will have to say. He saw Fortuyn as a leader of some sort in showing that gays didn't always have to be collectivists, and that they could be successful on any part of the political spectrum. Looks like Pim misjudged the ferocity of the resistance. Or maybe he just didn't care. He was my age.
Wednesday, May 01, 2002
Usurpation
Some fool tried to hijack my blog. Seems to have gone away now. Funny how possessive one gets of abstract things, like the Muslims getting all possessive about Jerusalem, when it has little if any real religious significance for them. Found a great game on Shockwave.com - texttwist. Should help with puzzling.
Some fool tried to hijack my blog. Seems to have gone away now. Funny how possessive one gets of abstract things, like the Muslims getting all possessive about Jerusalem, when it has little if any real religious significance for them. Found a great game on Shockwave.com - texttwist. Should help with puzzling.
[5/1/2002 6:46:21 AM | Robert Speirs]
Stock market, political campaigns
Although the market was up today considerably, the Dow Jones is still under 10,000 (9945) and the NASDAQ is still under 1700. This is a bit worrisome, since
traditionally the market looks three or more months ahead. If we were really in the midst of a strong recovery, would the indices be exactly where they were in
February?
Of course, it isn?t too many months until the political campaigns. Maybe that?s what the markets are dreading. Here in Florida Janet Reno, running for governor
against the First Brother, Jeb Bush, has been clumping around the state in her red pickup truck and clodhopper boots, waiting for someone to say, ?Hey, I?ve
been waiting for a candidate like you to come around!? As if. Maybe things will look a little different in October, but right now I?d be willing to bet a hundred bucks
the Jeb steamroller will make Janet into the longest, thinnest, ugliest patch of tarmac in the Sunshine State.
Every other day or so, I take a walk in the increasingly humid Tallahassee atmosphere past the Capitol and by Andrew?s restaurant downtown where the
politicos have lunch. I am always amazed by their ordinariness. Or is that why people vote for them? Not having voted for anyone since Carter in 1980, I can?t
tell. Yes, I?m ashamed of that vote, but at least I learned my lesson and got my head straight. I didn?t make the mistake of swinging the other way and voting for
Reagan, or Bush 41 or Dole or Bush 43. Heck, I gave the political system its chance. I wasted a vote on McGovern, then thought in 1976 Carter might really
make a difference because he promised ?zero-base budgeting?. He won, and didn?t I feel like the world was all better? Then he didn?t deliver. Surprise. I had
seen Kennedy continue Eisenhower?s policies, Lyndon Johnson ramp up Kennedy?s war, Nixon expand, then lose Johnson?s war while saying he was ending
it. Ford?s presidency was the only interval of sanity in there. ?The heck with it?, the nation said, and relaxed for a few months, got the troops back from
VietNam, took down the Tricky Dick pictures defacing government offices and played some golf. Then Carter drove up to Washington with a truckload of guilt
and self-loathing, canceled the Olympics, drove interest rates up to 20%, failed to do anything about Iran and Afghanistan and opened the door for Reagan.
During Reagan?s terms I got used to the idea that I was not a collectivist, although I certainly knew I was not a ?Reaganite?. Then Bush 41, one of my least
favorite people, stumbled through four incoherent years, opening the door for the eight year disgrace whose name will not disfigure this blog. I started to feel
good toward the Republicans for restraining the damage and putting a name and a historical mark of shame on the disgrace, but not good enough to vote for
any Republicans. Now I?m watching to see if Dubya can put together a few good years.
[edit]
[4/26/2002 8:40:17 AM | Robert Speirs]
THE DEFINITIVE TERM
A comment on Fredrik Norman's blog mentioned a new term for "suicide bombers". "Genocide bombers" conveys the
essence of the Arab threat to Israel, to wit, extermination, and takes the focus off the "suicide" part. For my part, I'm going
to use that term from now on.
[edit]
[4/26/2002 6:35:00 AM | Robert Speirs]
Stay-at-home dads
About that story saying ?stay-at-home dads have a higher rate of heart disease? that everyone?s sending to James
Lileks: isn?t it possible that a good number of ?stay-at-home dads? are staying at home because they have medical
problems? Specifically, maybe a lot of them have heart problems which make a full-time stressful job possible. So
wouldn?t these dads have a significantly higher rate of heart problems? Staying at home may not be the problem.
[edit]
[4/23/2002 8:47:59 AM | Robert Speirs]
LePen shocker
Last evening, in the middle of a gout attack, medicated to the gills, I saw on the web a story about Jean Marie LePen
coming second in the French elections. This resonated with me because in 1963-4 I lived in Paris, when DeGaulle was
having a heck of a time with the Algerian war and its aftermath, which formed a lot of LePen?s attitudes. Those were the
days when General Raoul Salan?s ?Secret Army? (OAS) threatened to parachute into Paris and overthrow le Grand
Charles? government. Salan was the head of the former French Algerians who wanted Algerie to remain Francaise.
The only way the unrest affected me directly was that, as a high school chemistry student at the Paris American High
School, I overheard the chemistry teacher grouse about the restrictions the French government had placed on the selling
of acids like sulfuric, nitric and hydrochloric. One of the terrorist tactics at the time was throwing acid into the faces of
Stock market, political campaigns
Although the market was up today considerably, the Dow Jones is still under 10,000 (9945) and the NASDAQ is still under 1700. This is a bit worrisome, since
traditionally the market looks three or more months ahead. If we were really in the midst of a strong recovery, would the indices be exactly where they were in
February?
Of course, it isn?t too many months until the political campaigns. Maybe that?s what the markets are dreading. Here in Florida Janet Reno, running for governor
against the First Brother, Jeb Bush, has been clumping around the state in her red pickup truck and clodhopper boots, waiting for someone to say, ?Hey, I?ve
been waiting for a candidate like you to come around!? As if. Maybe things will look a little different in October, but right now I?d be willing to bet a hundred bucks
the Jeb steamroller will make Janet into the longest, thinnest, ugliest patch of tarmac in the Sunshine State.
Every other day or so, I take a walk in the increasingly humid Tallahassee atmosphere past the Capitol and by Andrew?s restaurant downtown where the
politicos have lunch. I am always amazed by their ordinariness. Or is that why people vote for them? Not having voted for anyone since Carter in 1980, I can?t
tell. Yes, I?m ashamed of that vote, but at least I learned my lesson and got my head straight. I didn?t make the mistake of swinging the other way and voting for
Reagan, or Bush 41 or Dole or Bush 43. Heck, I gave the political system its chance. I wasted a vote on McGovern, then thought in 1976 Carter might really
make a difference because he promised ?zero-base budgeting?. He won, and didn?t I feel like the world was all better? Then he didn?t deliver. Surprise. I had
seen Kennedy continue Eisenhower?s policies, Lyndon Johnson ramp up Kennedy?s war, Nixon expand, then lose Johnson?s war while saying he was ending
it. Ford?s presidency was the only interval of sanity in there. ?The heck with it?, the nation said, and relaxed for a few months, got the troops back from
VietNam, took down the Tricky Dick pictures defacing government offices and played some golf. Then Carter drove up to Washington with a truckload of guilt
and self-loathing, canceled the Olympics, drove interest rates up to 20%, failed to do anything about Iran and Afghanistan and opened the door for Reagan.
During Reagan?s terms I got used to the idea that I was not a collectivist, although I certainly knew I was not a ?Reaganite?. Then Bush 41, one of my least
favorite people, stumbled through four incoherent years, opening the door for the eight year disgrace whose name will not disfigure this blog. I started to feel
good toward the Republicans for restraining the damage and putting a name and a historical mark of shame on the disgrace, but not good enough to vote for
any Republicans. Now I?m watching to see if Dubya can put together a few good years.
[edit]
[4/26/2002 8:40:17 AM | Robert Speirs]
THE DEFINITIVE TERM
A comment on Fredrik Norman's blog mentioned a new term for "suicide bombers". "Genocide bombers" conveys the
essence of the Arab threat to Israel, to wit, extermination, and takes the focus off the "suicide" part. For my part, I'm going
to use that term from now on.
[edit]
[4/26/2002 6:35:00 AM | Robert Speirs]
Stay-at-home dads
About that story saying ?stay-at-home dads have a higher rate of heart disease? that everyone?s sending to James
Lileks: isn?t it possible that a good number of ?stay-at-home dads? are staying at home because they have medical
problems? Specifically, maybe a lot of them have heart problems which make a full-time stressful job possible. So
wouldn?t these dads have a significantly higher rate of heart problems? Staying at home may not be the problem.
[edit]
[4/23/2002 8:47:59 AM | Robert Speirs]
LePen shocker
Last evening, in the middle of a gout attack, medicated to the gills, I saw on the web a story about Jean Marie LePen
coming second in the French elections. This resonated with me because in 1963-4 I lived in Paris, when DeGaulle was
having a heck of a time with the Algerian war and its aftermath, which formed a lot of LePen?s attitudes. Those were the
days when General Raoul Salan?s ?Secret Army? (OAS) threatened to parachute into Paris and overthrow le Grand
Charles? government. Salan was the head of the former French Algerians who wanted Algerie to remain Francaise.
The only way the unrest affected me directly was that, as a high school chemistry student at the Paris American High
School, I overheard the chemistry teacher grouse about the restrictions the French government had placed on the selling
of acids like sulfuric, nitric and hydrochloric. One of the terrorist tactics at the time was throwing acid into the faces of
Stock market, political campaigns
Although the market was up today considerably, the Dow Jones is still under 10,000 (9945) and the NASDAQ is still under 1700. This is a bit worrisome, since traditionally the market looks three or more months ahead. If we were really in the midst of a strong recovery, would the indices be exactly where they were in February?
Of course, it isn’t too many months until the political campaigns. Maybe that’s what the markets are dreading. Here in Florida Janet Reno, running for governor against the First Brother, Jeb Bush, has been clumping around the state in her red pickup truck and clodhopper boots, waiting for someone to say, “Hey, I’ve been waiting for a candidate like you to come around!” As if. Maybe things will look a little different in October, but right now I’d be willing to bet a hundred bucks the Jeb steamroller will make Janet into the longest, thinnest, ugliest patch of tarmac in the Sunshine State.
Every other day or so, I take a walk in the increasingly humid Tallahassee atmosphere past the Capitol and by Andrew’s restaurant downtown where the politicos have lunch. I am always amazed by their ordinariness. Or is that why people vote for them? Not having voted for anyone since Carter in 1980, I can’t tell. Yes, I’m ashamed of that vote, but at least I learned my lesson and got my head straight. I didn’t make the mistake of swinging the other way and voting for Reagan, or Bush 41 or Dole or Bush 43. Heck, I gave the political system its chance. I wasted a vote on McGovern, then thought in 1976 Carter might really make a difference because he promised “zero-base budgeting”. He won, and didn’t I feel like the world was all better? Then he didn’t deliver. Surprise. I had seen Kennedy continue Eisenhower’s policies, Lyndon Johnson ramp up Kennedy’s war, Nixon expand, then lose Johnson’s war while saying he was ending it. Ford’s presidency was the only interval of sanity in there. “The heck with it”, the nation said, and relaxed for a few months, got the troops back from VietNam, took down the Tricky Dick pictures defacing government offices and played some golf. Then Carter drove up to Washington with a truckload of guilt and self-loathing, canceled the Olympics, drove interest rates up to 20%, failed to do anything about Iran and Afghanistan and opened the door for Reagan.
During Reagan’s terms I got used to the idea that I was not a collectivist, although I certainly knew I was not a “Reaganite”. Then Bush 41, one of my least favorite people, stumbled through four incoherent years, opening the door for the eight year disgrace whose name will not disfigure this blog. I started to feel good toward the Republicans for restraining the damage and putting a name and a historical mark of shame on the disgrace, but not good enough to vote for any Republicans. Now I’m watching to see if Dubya can put together a few good years.
Although the market was up today considerably, the Dow Jones is still under 10,000 (9945) and the NASDAQ is still under 1700. This is a bit worrisome, since traditionally the market looks three or more months ahead. If we were really in the midst of a strong recovery, would the indices be exactly where they were in February?
Of course, it isn’t too many months until the political campaigns. Maybe that’s what the markets are dreading. Here in Florida Janet Reno, running for governor against the First Brother, Jeb Bush, has been clumping around the state in her red pickup truck and clodhopper boots, waiting for someone to say, “Hey, I’ve been waiting for a candidate like you to come around!” As if. Maybe things will look a little different in October, but right now I’d be willing to bet a hundred bucks the Jeb steamroller will make Janet into the longest, thinnest, ugliest patch of tarmac in the Sunshine State.
Every other day or so, I take a walk in the increasingly humid Tallahassee atmosphere past the Capitol and by Andrew’s restaurant downtown where the politicos have lunch. I am always amazed by their ordinariness. Or is that why people vote for them? Not having voted for anyone since Carter in 1980, I can’t tell. Yes, I’m ashamed of that vote, but at least I learned my lesson and got my head straight. I didn’t make the mistake of swinging the other way and voting for Reagan, or Bush 41 or Dole or Bush 43. Heck, I gave the political system its chance. I wasted a vote on McGovern, then thought in 1976 Carter might really make a difference because he promised “zero-base budgeting”. He won, and didn’t I feel like the world was all better? Then he didn’t deliver. Surprise. I had seen Kennedy continue Eisenhower’s policies, Lyndon Johnson ramp up Kennedy’s war, Nixon expand, then lose Johnson’s war while saying he was ending it. Ford’s presidency was the only interval of sanity in there. “The heck with it”, the nation said, and relaxed for a few months, got the troops back from VietNam, took down the Tricky Dick pictures defacing government offices and played some golf. Then Carter drove up to Washington with a truckload of guilt and self-loathing, canceled the Olympics, drove interest rates up to 20%, failed to do anything about Iran and Afghanistan and opened the door for Reagan.
During Reagan’s terms I got used to the idea that I was not a collectivist, although I certainly knew I was not a “Reaganite”. Then Bush 41, one of my least favorite people, stumbled through four incoherent years, opening the door for the eight year disgrace whose name will not disfigure this blog. I started to feel good toward the Republicans for restraining the damage and putting a name and a historical mark of shame on the disgrace, but not good enough to vote for any Republicans. Now I’m watching to see if Dubya can put together a few good years.
Friday, April 26, 2002
Stay-at-home dads
About that story saying “stay-at-home dads have a higher rate of heart disease” that everyone’s sending to James Lileks: isn’t it possible that a good number of “stay-at-home dads” are staying at home because they have medical problems? Specifically, maybe a lot of them have heart problems which make a full-time stressful job possible. So wouldn’t these dads have a significantly higher rate of heart problems? Staying at home may not be the problem.
About that story saying “stay-at-home dads have a higher rate of heart disease” that everyone’s sending to James Lileks: isn’t it possible that a good number of “stay-at-home dads” are staying at home because they have medical problems? Specifically, maybe a lot of them have heart problems which make a full-time stressful job possible. So wouldn’t these dads have a significantly higher rate of heart problems? Staying at home may not be the problem.
Tuesday, April 23, 2002
LePen shocker
Last evening, in the middle of a gout attack, medicated to the gills, I saw on the web a story about Jean Marie LePen coming second in the French elections. This resonated with me because in 1963-4 I lived in Paris, when DeGaulle was having a heck of a time with the Algerian war and its aftermath, which formed a lot of LePen’s attitudes. Those were the days when General Raoul Salan’s “Secret Army” (OAS) threatened to parachute into Paris and overthrow le Grand Charles’ government. Salan was the head of the former French Algerians who wanted Algerie to remain Francaise.
The only way the unrest affected me directly was that, as a high school chemistry student at the Paris American High School, I overheard the chemistry teacher grouse about the restrictions the French government had placed on the selling of acids like sulfuric, nitric and hydrochloric. One of the terrorist tactics at the time was throwing acid into the faces of supposed collaborators with the Algerians. So the authorities radically restricted the availability of acids. And the next year they threw the American armed forces, including my father, out of France.
The worst hit for the French is to their prestige, their image of practical common sense. The runoff should be a great circus. All the lefties are saying they will be voting for Chirac. Why does it strike me, though, that those who opposed Chirac might just think, in their practical yet vindictive Froggish way, that a vote against Chirac, even if it’s for LePen, might send a most effective message to the Gaullist remnants. After all, everyone says there’s no chance LePen will actually win…… Stay tuned.
Last evening, in the middle of a gout attack, medicated to the gills, I saw on the web a story about Jean Marie LePen coming second in the French elections. This resonated with me because in 1963-4 I lived in Paris, when DeGaulle was having a heck of a time with the Algerian war and its aftermath, which formed a lot of LePen’s attitudes. Those were the days when General Raoul Salan’s “Secret Army” (OAS) threatened to parachute into Paris and overthrow le Grand Charles’ government. Salan was the head of the former French Algerians who wanted Algerie to remain Francaise.
The only way the unrest affected me directly was that, as a high school chemistry student at the Paris American High School, I overheard the chemistry teacher grouse about the restrictions the French government had placed on the selling of acids like sulfuric, nitric and hydrochloric. One of the terrorist tactics at the time was throwing acid into the faces of supposed collaborators with the Algerians. So the authorities radically restricted the availability of acids. And the next year they threw the American armed forces, including my father, out of France.
The worst hit for the French is to their prestige, their image of practical common sense. The runoff should be a great circus. All the lefties are saying they will be voting for Chirac. Why does it strike me, though, that those who opposed Chirac might just think, in their practical yet vindictive Froggish way, that a vote against Chirac, even if it’s for LePen, might send a most effective message to the Gaullist remnants. After all, everyone says there’s no chance LePen will actually win…… Stay tuned.
Sunday, April 21, 2002
By the way, that last post was in response to my sister sending me a copy of a survey in the Guardian lamenting how the average reader knew so little about the true state of things in the Middle East - as though the Guardian has a clue!
GRAMMATICAL MAN
I've been reading Jeremy Campbell's "Grammatical Man" from the early '80s. It's about entropy, information, DNA, languages. Reminds me of James Burke's "Connections" series, except it's more focused and a bit more technical. I was especially intrigued by Campbell's exploration of the role of information science in explicating the function of DNA and what that means for evolution. I didn't know, for instance, that some DNA does not code for particular proteins, but "choreographs" the sequence of protein-creation. It's easy to see that mutations to that kind of DNA would have more far-reaching effects than mutations in the DNA that only codes for specific proteins. Campbell compares the complexity available through evolutionary change to the complexity of language available because of the "mutation" of Chomsky's generative grammar structure. His suggestion that some universal "grammar of life" allows, even requires complexity opens up a lot of ground for speculation. I'm rereading it. Only after I finish and think a bit will I start speculating wildly. Good mind-calisthenics.
GRAMMATICAL MAN
I've been reading Jeremy Campbell's "Grammatical Man" from the early '80s. It's about entropy, information, DNA, languages. Reminds me of James Burke's "Connections" series, except it's more focused and a bit more technical. I was especially intrigued by Campbell's exploration of the role of information science in explicating the function of DNA and what that means for evolution. I didn't know, for instance, that some DNA does not code for particular proteins, but "choreographs" the sequence of protein-creation. It's easy to see that mutations to that kind of DNA would have more far-reaching effects than mutations in the DNA that only codes for specific proteins. Campbell compares the complexity available through evolutionary change to the complexity of language available because of the "mutation" of Chomsky's generative grammar structure. His suggestion that some universal "grammar of life" allows, even requires complexity opens up a lot of ground for speculation. I'm rereading it. Only after I finish and think a bit will I start speculating wildly. Good mind-calisthenics.
Saturday, April 20, 2002
Another email to my sister in Egypt:
Interesting you choose the Guardian. I hope you didn't spend any money on searching that archive of lies and willful ignorance. How about the "Independent" (methinks my lady doth protest too much!)? They were both reporting a "massacre" in Jenin which anyone has yet to substantiate. Hard to do, since Jenin has been destroyed by booby-trapped bombs as well as Israeli tank shells. Oh, yes, the refugees. The ones who were told to leave by the Arab armies, and that they would soon be able to return after all the Jews were dead. The ones who were expelled from Jordan in 1970, who took over Lebanon until Sharon attacked in the '80s, the ones expelled from Kuwait in 1991 - need I go on? The Arab world needs its "Palestinian refugees" just like Hitler needed his Sudeten Germans.
Oh, and is the average reader aware that there was no such thing as a "Palestinian nation" until 1967? Is he aware that terrorist attacks went on well before Israel, in self-defense, expanded the 1967 borders, by the simple expedient of crushing the armies of Arab nations with several hundreds of millions of inhabitants? Is the average reader aware that a return to the 1967 borders would not be the end of Palestinian terrorism, but merely a return to the pre-1967 terrorism? Is the average reader aware that Arafat at Oslo promised not to engage in terror or let armaments into the "West Bank"? And, on the strength of that promise, and under pressure from the ignorant and vicious Clinton admnistration, the Israelis let that snake reestablish himself in Judea and Samaria? Why do you think Sharon's in power? Oh, and does that average reader know that the "Al-Aqsa intifada" was planned and implemented long before Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount? Oh, the Israelis use three times as much water as a Palestinian? Maybe that's because they live modern lives, not the poverty Arafat is content to let "his people" languish in, while he disposes of the hundreds of millions the Saudis send every year, not to mention the 75-85 million of US taxpayers money that goes from the UN right to Mr. Ringo-without-a-shave. Did you ever notice how much Arafat looks like Ringo? What a joke, if people weren't dying.
Interesting you choose the Guardian. I hope you didn't spend any money on searching that archive of lies and willful ignorance. How about the "Independent" (methinks my lady doth protest too much!)? They were both reporting a "massacre" in Jenin which anyone has yet to substantiate. Hard to do, since Jenin has been destroyed by booby-trapped bombs as well as Israeli tank shells. Oh, yes, the refugees. The ones who were told to leave by the Arab armies, and that they would soon be able to return after all the Jews were dead. The ones who were expelled from Jordan in 1970, who took over Lebanon until Sharon attacked in the '80s, the ones expelled from Kuwait in 1991 - need I go on? The Arab world needs its "Palestinian refugees" just like Hitler needed his Sudeten Germans.
Oh, and is the average reader aware that there was no such thing as a "Palestinian nation" until 1967? Is he aware that terrorist attacks went on well before Israel, in self-defense, expanded the 1967 borders, by the simple expedient of crushing the armies of Arab nations with several hundreds of millions of inhabitants? Is the average reader aware that a return to the 1967 borders would not be the end of Palestinian terrorism, but merely a return to the pre-1967 terrorism? Is the average reader aware that Arafat at Oslo promised not to engage in terror or let armaments into the "West Bank"? And, on the strength of that promise, and under pressure from the ignorant and vicious Clinton admnistration, the Israelis let that snake reestablish himself in Judea and Samaria? Why do you think Sharon's in power? Oh, and does that average reader know that the "Al-Aqsa intifada" was planned and implemented long before Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount? Oh, the Israelis use three times as much water as a Palestinian? Maybe that's because they live modern lives, not the poverty Arafat is content to let "his people" languish in, while he disposes of the hundreds of millions the Saudis send every year, not to mention the 75-85 million of US taxpayers money that goes from the UN right to Mr. Ringo-without-a-shave. Did you ever notice how much Arafat looks like Ringo? What a joke, if people weren't dying.
Wednesday, April 17, 2002
NEW PUZZLES
OK, I’ve been trying to hide my shame and depression at not being able to make much headway on Cox and Rathvon’s “Loops” puzzle. I will give myself one more try. I am having much better success with Richard Maltby’s latest in Harper’s, entitled “Perfect Puzzle”, since the imperfect but always entertaining Mr. Maltby made a few booboos in his last effort.
Perhaps he bent a little too far over in the direction of making the puzzle easy, spending too much time checking and cross-checking each entry. Or do those ever-fallible computers do that nowadays? I don’t want to give away too many clues, in consideration of those of you who haven’t solved the puzzles yet, but I was particularly proud of my practically instantaneous brainstorm on number 28 across. The only thing that bothered me was that the solution was, while not exactly “uncommon” as Maltby signaled, was more of a traditional “crossword puzzle word” than one is used to seeing in these delightful cryptics.
You know the usual words, the ones that justify elderlies in spending Social Security money on crossword puzzle dictionaries instead of using their brains. Yep, I’m talking about words like “ai” for two-toed sloth, “ana” for a collection, “olla” or “ewer” for a jar, “etui” for a briefcase. Who ever would learn that sort of word if not for crosswords? They do make the composer’s job an awful lot easier. But they degrade the solver’s art to the memorization of useless jargon. So once again I’m picking on Mr. Maltby. Who knows, though? I haven’t finished the puzzle yet. Maybe he’ll stump me with his unclued lights. Stay tuned. And oh, yes, my email address is "robspe@paris.com" and I love to get thoughtful, acute emails.
OK, I’ve been trying to hide my shame and depression at not being able to make much headway on Cox and Rathvon’s “Loops” puzzle. I will give myself one more try. I am having much better success with Richard Maltby’s latest in Harper’s, entitled “Perfect Puzzle”, since the imperfect but always entertaining Mr. Maltby made a few booboos in his last effort.
Perhaps he bent a little too far over in the direction of making the puzzle easy, spending too much time checking and cross-checking each entry. Or do those ever-fallible computers do that nowadays? I don’t want to give away too many clues, in consideration of those of you who haven’t solved the puzzles yet, but I was particularly proud of my practically instantaneous brainstorm on number 28 across. The only thing that bothered me was that the solution was, while not exactly “uncommon” as Maltby signaled, was more of a traditional “crossword puzzle word” than one is used to seeing in these delightful cryptics.
You know the usual words, the ones that justify elderlies in spending Social Security money on crossword puzzle dictionaries instead of using their brains. Yep, I’m talking about words like “ai” for two-toed sloth, “ana” for a collection, “olla” or “ewer” for a jar, “etui” for a briefcase. Who ever would learn that sort of word if not for crosswords? They do make the composer’s job an awful lot easier. But they degrade the solver’s art to the memorization of useless jargon. So once again I’m picking on Mr. Maltby. Who knows, though? I haven’t finished the puzzle yet. Maybe he’ll stump me with his unclued lights. Stay tuned. And oh, yes, my email address is "robspe@paris.com" and I love to get thoughtful, acute emails.
Monday, April 15, 2002
Dummies and Idiots
Have you noticed the proliferation in the last few years of books titled "Linux for Dummies" or "Politics for Idiots" (that last a bit redundant!). Who buys these? Oh, OK, I will have to admit, I did buy one, called something like the Internet for Dummies. But really, what kind of self-image do you have to have to buy a book that says it's for dummies? Why would you think a book would help, if you're so far gone? Americans are really into other people telling them what to do, how to live, like "Relationships for Schmoes" that I saw the other day. Another good one was "Raising your Self-Esteem for Idiots". At least whoever would buy that book really needs it.
What does it say about us that we would buy books that clearly say to anyone who sees the book that this guy really doesn't know what he's doing, so he has to have everything explained really simply and slowly, like in the other book I saw, "The Alphabet for Morons" where you pay $26.95 for a book made of really heavy, brightly painted cardboard consisting of a hundred pages each with the letter A in a slightly different color? You have to buy twenty-five more books to get the whole alphabet. Hey, why not? We're dealing with morons here! Go for it!!
Maybe someday I'll figure out how to put my email address and links and stuff on my blog. Hey, what happened to that book I just bought, called "Blogging for Cretins"? I had it around here somewhere. Oh, god, don't tell me I flushed it down the toilet again!
Have you noticed the proliferation in the last few years of books titled "Linux for Dummies" or "Politics for Idiots" (that last a bit redundant!). Who buys these? Oh, OK, I will have to admit, I did buy one, called something like the Internet for Dummies. But really, what kind of self-image do you have to have to buy a book that says it's for dummies? Why would you think a book would help, if you're so far gone? Americans are really into other people telling them what to do, how to live, like "Relationships for Schmoes" that I saw the other day. Another good one was "Raising your Self-Esteem for Idiots". At least whoever would buy that book really needs it.
What does it say about us that we would buy books that clearly say to anyone who sees the book that this guy really doesn't know what he's doing, so he has to have everything explained really simply and slowly, like in the other book I saw, "The Alphabet for Morons" where you pay $26.95 for a book made of really heavy, brightly painted cardboard consisting of a hundred pages each with the letter A in a slightly different color? You have to buy twenty-five more books to get the whole alphabet. Hey, why not? We're dealing with morons here! Go for it!!
Maybe someday I'll figure out how to put my email address and links and stuff on my blog. Hey, what happened to that book I just bought, called "Blogging for Cretins"? I had it around here somewhere. Oh, god, don't tell me I flushed it down the toilet again!
Friday, April 12, 2002
MCKINNEY
A so-called political leaderette has made some idiotic and contemptible comments asserting that Bush may have known about September 11 before it happened. It is amazing how much people will put up with from elected representatives. Look at the Arab and even Communist members of the Knesset and what they're allowed to say and do in the middle of a terrible war for the survival of Israel. I suppose, though, that it's just as well Cynthia McKinney's comments are spread around as widely as possible. She is convicted out of her own mouth of breathtaking stupidity. But will she suffer any political injury? If she doesn't, the so-called party she's associated with certainly will.
A so-called political leaderette has made some idiotic and contemptible comments asserting that Bush may have known about September 11 before it happened. It is amazing how much people will put up with from elected representatives. Look at the Arab and even Communist members of the Knesset and what they're allowed to say and do in the middle of a terrible war for the survival of Israel. I suppose, though, that it's just as well Cynthia McKinney's comments are spread around as widely as possible. She is convicted out of her own mouth of breathtaking stupidity. But will she suffer any political injury? If she doesn't, the so-called party she's associated with certainly will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)