Solitude

In the sky
a single cloud
hides the sun
delivers rain

A puddle forms
standing out
on an expanse
of dry ground

Playful boys
step jump splash
smile laugh shout
run along
leave behind

Girls in dresses
stay clean
stay dry
avoid the rain
walk on by

Mothers watch
fathers wait
for girls and boys
out in the rain
out in harm's way

Children home
safe and sound
cloud rain puddle
gone, forgotten
nowhere to
be found

Picking up the Slack

Okay, so after nearly two months of neglecting this blog, I have decided to make a more concerted effort to post "regularly." Starting tomorrow.

In the meantime, here is a list of things I have accomplished in my absence:

- lost three pounds
- discovered Neuhaus chocolates from Belgium
- gained three pounds
- finished two books (Kiran Desai's The Inheritance of Loss and Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead)
- found out what an unspeakably stupid show "Shot of Love with Tila Tequila" really is
- watched two movies ("The Fifth Element" and "The Darjeeling Limited")
- had two new officemates at work
- rediscovered my love for Honey Nut Cheerios
- acquired six recipe books
- developed a love/hate relationship with Justin Timberlake's latest work

Yup, it's been a busy two months.

Kid Nation

CBS's latest venture into the world of reality television is set to debut in a few days, on September 19th, but there is already alot of controversy surrounding the show's premise and the somewhat-underhanded tactics the creators of the show employed to make this production possible. "Kid Nation" is a reality show featuring forty children ranging in age from eight to fifteen. The kids are left to their own devices in a deserted part of New Mexico, tasked with creating a town, complete with its own economy and town council, while also seeing to their own survival.

So where's the controversy? In order to achieve their goals, the children sometimes had to work fourteen-hour days, a fact that was anticipated (but probably not advertised) by show producers. In fact, the reason they chose New Mexico as the stage is because of the state's less stringent child labor laws. Loophole much?

It seems that people everywhere are now up in arms because of CBS's lack of moral judgment in approving a show like this in the first place. But the whole debacle really shouldn't come as a surprise, should it? The more controversy a show may invite, the more appealing it would be to producers. After all, who wouldn't want to be behind a show that has everyone talking? And the more everyone's talking about it, the more people are going to want to watch to find out what all the fuss is about. Of course, there is no excuse for CBS's blatant dismissal of any ethical qualms they might have had about the show. And this is not to say that the show's profit-generating potential justifies the dishonesty that went into the show's making. But it doesn't seem as though CBS has overstepped any legal bounds. So on what grounds can we crucify the show's producers?

The fact is that these kids were not coerced into being on the show. They might have been coaxed and cajoled (and any other "c" word that doesn't imply coercion), but when it came down to signing the contracts and taking that flight to New Mexico, where were the parents of those forty kids? Why weren't they asking more questions about what the show would entail? Why would they allow their children to live in the middle of nowhere, essentially unsupervised, with a bunch of other kids who, for all they knew, had penchants for stealing or swearing or killing rodents or playing with BB guns? CBS might have exercised bad judgment, but they are not to blame for parents' irresponsibility, and CBS's poor decision-making does not absolve parents of their mistakes or relieve them of their duties. Let's face it: CBS's backing wasn't enough to turn the show idea into a reality. The key ingredient was the willingness of the parents. No kids, no show. It's just that simple.

So what exactly was it that made it so easy for these parents to relinquish control of their children to CBS? What could possibly have compelled them to sign a contract that pretty much said, "If my kid dies, gets beat up beyond all recognition, or somehow catches gonorrhea, I'll assume full responsibility and not blame CBS"? (Nope, I'm not kidding. CBS apparently wanted to cover all its bases by throwing STDs into the "Things You Can't Sue Us For" section of the hefty 22-page contract.)

So was it the money? Is a few thousand dollars amortized over several years really worth it? Or perhaps it was the "child star" syndrome that has been pervading our fame-obsessed society since the days of the Mickey Mouse Club. Have afflicted parents learned nothing from the latest escapades of Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan? You know, I bet these are the same parents who let their eleven-year-old daughters wear low-cut shorts and visible thongs to school, and allow their eight-year-old sons to watch restricted movies and play mature video games. Isn't it convenient that CBS's abuse of New Mexico's legal loopholes can be used to keep the real culprits out of criticism's spotlight?

Oh, and the kicker? CBS is currently casting for a second season.

Nora wants to help YOU

I received this email today from someone named Nora Silva, with "Nora wants to catch up" as the subject. I don't know any Nora Silvas, much less any Noras, but out of curiosity, I opened the email. Here's what I read, in its original form (i.e., no edits):

Hello, how are you? I'm about to tell you something that you absolutely need to hear. I will not beat around the bush, I will hurry up and get straight to the point. Less than 33% of females can achieve climax by having intercourse alone. That means that most women are left unsatisfied. You may believe that you rock her bedroom world but truth be told, you probably don't! It's OK though because we have a product you will love. [And then she had a link here, which I refuse to open.]
Nora

Whatever she's selling, I'm not buying. But as a wannabe writer, I would like to take this opportunity to critique Nora's writing, sentence by sentence.

1. Nora first asks me how I am doing. Very polite, that one, but it's obvious that she's just trying to be nice. She doesn't really care how I'm doing because she doesn't even know me, so instantly, she comes off as disingenuous. Lesson to take away: Be genuine when you write and when you speak.

2. Nora then tells me that she's about to tell me something very important. This is a useless and unnecessary sentence. Lesson to takeaway: Don't tell me you're about to tell me. Just tell me.

3. Nora then goes on to say she won't "beat around the bush," assuring me that she's going to get "straight to the point." Anyone else see the irony here? Lesson to takeaway: If you're wasting time saying that you'll get to the point, then you're wasting time saying that you'll get to the point. (Profound, I know.)

4. Nora then divulges a depressing statistic. That is all I will say about Nora's fourth sentence.

5. Nora's fifth sentence is absolutely useless and unnecessary as well, simply because it states what is now obvious to the reader. If fewer than 33% are left satisfied (as stated in the previous sentence), then clearly the remaining 67+% (which, by definition, constitutes "most") will be left unsatisfied. I'm offended that Nora feels the need to call my ability to do simple arithmetic into question. Lesson to take away: Nora sucks.

6. Lastly, Nora goes on to assume that I am a man attempting to rock a woman's bedroom world. Wrong on two counts, Nora! I am neither a man nor a lesbian. Lesson to take away: Shivnit is neither a man nor a lesbian.

7. Nora then goes on to assume that I am failing miserably in the sack and will find salvation by trying out her product. Lesson to take away: Don't be presumptuous like Nora. You'll never be able to sell anything and you'll make nice people cry.

Here's how I would've written it:

Hello. If you are a heterosexual and sexually-active male, then you must keep reading. Fewer than 33% of females can achieve climax through intercourse alone, so if you really want to rock her bedroom world, we have a product you will love. [Link here.] Good luck!
Nora

Ah, much better.

Say What?!

Ever been caught making a V-line for the buffet table, wishing someone a Happy Valentime's Day, cruising the waters of the Specific Ocean, or singing Christmas carols about Jeff's nuts roasting on an open fire? Then you, my friend, have been the victim of a verbal accident more formally known as a malapropism or a mondegreen.

A mondegreen is defined as a word or phrase that results from a mishearing of a similar-sounding word or phrase, often in such a way that the mishearing acquires its own meaning. The word mondegreen came into being in the 1950s, when freelance writer and lecturer Sylvia Wright wrote that as a young girl, she had heard a Scottish ballad that included the lines

They had slain the Earl of Moray
And laid 'im on the green.

But what she heard was

They had slain the Earl of Moray
And Lady Mondegreen.

Her misinterpretation gave the poem a new (and more vicious) meaning, but a meaning that made perfect sense nonetheless. Writing about her unintentional blunder, Wright coined the word mondegreen and used it to describe all such mishearings. (Incidentally, doesn't this make the word mondegreen itself a mondegreen?)

Closely related to the mondegreen is the malapropism. Whereas mondegreens are mishearings of words, malapropisms are mispronunciations of words, usually with comic effect. Books and media are rife with examples of these. Remember when Mike Tyson expressed his fear of "fading into bolivian"? Or when Tony Soprano was "miffled" by his son's manic-depressive behavior towards the end of the acclaimed TV series? Or your rude third cousin twice-removed who "requested your presents at the celebration of her wedding" last month? Sure, we all know what they meant to say, which is why what they actually said is both amusing and malapropistic.

In conclusion, I leave you with the following advice:
1. Never misunderestimate the president.
2. Take nothing for granite.
3. On second thought, go ahead and misunderestimate the president.
4. Please be careful with your near-homophones. Poor Jeff really hates having his nuts scorched every December.

Best Website Ever: Shivnit's Glowing Review

As much as I love to read, I have always made it a point to avoid joining book clubs. For quite some time, I've had this perception, however misinformed, of book clubs being cultish and exclusive, run by some dictator who chooses what to read and what themes to discuss based on personal preferences, with little regard to other club members. I'm not sure exactly what gave rise to this belief, but I have a distinct feeling that Oprah had something to do with it.

Recently, however, a good friend of mine introduced me to the ultimate book lover's website. GoodReads is every bibliophile's fantasy, a place that offers one-stop shopping for readers and writers alike. It works a little bit like Friendster and MySpace, except the focus is on sharing your literary interests rather than on finding out who's doing what to whom and then looking for photos of it. (Don't lie, you know you do it too.)

In a non-cultish, non-exclusive, non-dictatorial way, GoodReads offers a forum for bookworms to rate and review books they've read, share lists of books they intend to read, and even post some of their own writing. You can even create groups to unite members having common literary interests. On a basic level, it's just a nice, convenient way to keep track of what books you've read and what you thought of them -- a service that any avid reader can appreciate. The best part is that GoodReads is free and easy to join, which leaves me no choice but to highly recommend this website to all my fellow book-lovers. Happy reading!

Worst Book Ever: Shivnit's Scathing Review

I've read more of James Patterson's novels than I care to admit, and from what I've observed, their general pattern is a little bit of exposition followed by some drama and suspense, which is mostly boring or unbelievably contrived (or both), followed by some sappy, overly-sentimental, unimaginative, and highly predictable denouement.

Suzanne's Diary for Nicholas is a deviation from Patterson's mode of operation in the following respect: it isn't suspenseful or even remotely thrilling. Not even if you stand on your head, squint your eyes, and read it backwards. While preparing to jump out of an airplane. Flying over the Marianas Trench. It's just plain cheesy, in a vomit-inducing kind of way. And that's a bold statement, coming from a cheese-lover.

On principle, I like to finish anything I start, but I couldn't even get through this one. This book is the sappiest, corniest, lamest, most boring and unromantic piece of crap since... well, probably since the Patterson novel that immediately preceded it. Love story? Please. Do yourself a favor and watch "The Notebook" instead.

Book Review: The Perfect Mile

For quite some time now, I have adhered pretty strictly to a physical fitness routine of running and weight-lifting four or five times per week. Since I first embarked upon this regimen, I have grown to enjoy and look forward to my trips to the gym. This is quite a departure from my college days, when I was eight sizes bigger, twenty pounds heavier, and more inert than the vending machine that supplied my late-night meals. Lately, however, my running has stagnated (and may have in fact worsened) because of my waning motivation.

To overcome my inertia, I looked to Roger Bannister, John Landy and Wes Santee for some much-needed inspiration. They are the stars of Neal Bascomb's The Perfect Mile, a non-fictional book about three men on separate endeavors to run a four-minute mile. Each person's story is unique but the underlying theme of each runner's journey is his absolute devotion to the sport. The Perfect Mile describes what it takes to be an athlete, and what athleticism really is at its finest. For Bannister, Landy and Santee, it was about making every moment spent on the track worthwhile and meaningful, and making sacrifices in order to dedicate themselves to the task of becoming better, faster, stronger runners. John Landy, for example, had a virtually non-existent social life during his training months, when he would run upwards of fifty miles per week, rain or shine. And when Roger Bannister was not on the track, he was in the lab using his background in science and medicine to study the mechanics of running and to implement training tools. As someone who used to hate the very idea of running, I am deeply inspired by their passion.

The Perfect Mile is a story of endurance, of pushing the body to its outermost limits, and of achieving the unthinkable. At the outset of their quest, Landy, Santee and Bannister were not even certain that humans were physically capable of running at a speed of fifteen miles per hour. And since they've broken the barrier, human endurance has reached new heights. In fact, the current record for the fastest mile is under 3:45, a tremendous feat of athleticism by any standard.

I don't intend to win any marathons, and I definitely wouldn't call myself an athletic runner. But when I have trouble completing a short three-mile run, I remind myself of the diligence and effort it took these men to run the mile in four minutes -- to conquer the Everest of track and field -- and suddenly, my own personal goals are put into perspective and within my grasp. So I'll lace up my sneakers and work towards reaching them, one stride at a time.

Congratulations to Me

Today marks my two-year anniversary at my current job. This is an exciting day for me because I just realized that this is the longest I've ever been at one place of employment. My previous job (which was also my first real job after college) lasted just a couple of weeks shy of two years. Being Jennifer Garner's stunt double gets old pretty quick though. Besides, this programming gig is pretty cool. I think I'll stick around for a while.

Hanky-Panky at Hogwarts?

With the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows only eight days away, Rowling's fans are abuzz with speculation about what will happen in the much-anticipated final book and how the series will end. And as expected, some pranksters are throwing around some rather far-fetched (but very funny) ideas. Let me state for the record that I highly doubt Harry will meet his death when Hedwig the Owl pecks off his pecker. Nice try, though.

For what it's worth, my guess is that Harry, Hermione and Ron will all still be alive at the end of Book 7 but will come away from Hogwarts having lost many more of their classmates and friends. Where Snape's loyalty lies is the biggest mystery to me, but I'm sure that will be addressed in Deathly Hallows as well. In fact, I think it will be revealed that Snape played a bigger role in the death of Harry's parents than we've been led to believe until now, but the question is, does Snape redeem himself by helping Harry in the final book, or does he end up siding with Voldemort? What will become of Hagrid and everyone else still standing at Hogwarts, once all is said and done?

For the time being, we can only guess what will happen in the final book. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic -- maybe Harry and his friends will meet their demise in Deathly Hallows, or maybe Snape will do everything in his power to keep Harry from killing Voldemort. But whether our favorite little wizard lives or dies, one thing we can be sure of for now is this: Rowling will deliver a dark, tragic and very compelling read that'll have us glued 'til the very end. And no, there will be no threesomes in Gryffindor House.

Finding Your -Ness

When Owen Wilson's character gives his motivational spiel at the end of "You, Me and Dupree," it's difficult not to jump out of your seat and embrace your own "ness," the very quality of being you. But as a suffix in the English language, is "ness" actually giving us more flexibility and freedom of expression (as Dupree would have it), or is it creating redundancy in an already-complicated language?

For instance, what is the difference between "corruptness" and "corruptedness"? Can "corruption" be used in either one's place? What about "peace" and "peacefulness"? When they're used to describe a state of mind, are they just two different ways of saying the same thing? And if we can talk about "squareness" meaning the quality of being square or uninteresting, why can't we use "circleness" to describe the quality of being circular or roundabout? After all, it would be so much more concise to say "circleness" than "like a circle."

From a strictly literary (i.e., non-grammatical) point of view, perhaps this seeming redundancy has been introduced into the language as a matter of necessity. For masters of prose, it's a way to add color and variation to writing -- after all, who likes boring repetition? And for poets, the one-syllable difference between "corruptness" and "corruptedness" may very well make or break a potential masterpiece in iambic pentameter.

My point is that we often take liberties with language to give expression to new concepts, or simply to capture very specific ideas or emotions that are difficult to convey. But who decides where to draw the line? More importantly, where should that line be? I suppose the answers to these questions can change as language evolves through the years. Perhaps in the meantime, I'll just work on embracing my Shivnitness.

Size Matters

Incredible. Just when you thought bigger meant better, this guy comes along and paints the Taj Mahal on his freaking fingernail. (Blows that manicure right out of the water, doesn't it?)

Also on his resume are the following masterpieces: writing the word 'india' ten times on one strand of human hair, writing the Indian national anthem on a single grain of rice, drawing a map of the world on a grain of rice. Cool stuff.

If you're into micro-art, check out this British sculptor. His is a sad story, but his work is... well, it's no small feat.

Word to Your Moms

Last year when the fine folks at Merriam-Webster decided to add "google" to their dictionary, I was thrilled. The word had become so much a part of our daily conversations that English speakers everywhere had given it a life of its own. "Google" is no longer just the proper name it once was; today, it functions as both a noun naming an entity and place within the virtual world we call the Internet, and a transitive verb, complete with its own set of conjugations ("I googled it." "They're googling it right now." "You'll have to google it when you get home."). Google-users everywhere should take pride in the result of their collective efforts. The new addition to the dictionary is our small footprint in the history of this language, a fact that speaks to how well language evolves and adapts and how essential we are in helping that evolutionary process along. And think of all the possibilities that come with this territory: now we can talk about whether or not a word, phrase or name is "googleable" -- assess its "googleability," if you will. And so this boundless language continues to grow.

This year, the editors at Merriam-Webster are considering "smackdown" and "ginormous," among other potential additions. I don't know about you, but I'm holding out for two other candidates on the list: "sudoku" and "Bollywood." Who knows? Pretty soon, they just might join the ranks of "bling" and "biodiesel." And "google," of course.

Book Review: The Phantom Tollbooth

Anyone who has a passion for words and wordplay will enjoy reading The Phantom Tollbooth. In this charming children's book, author Norton Juster takes us on an adventure with his main character Milo, a young boy who enters a chaotic place called the Kingdom of Wisdom and finds that to restore order in the kingdom, he must save the banished princesses Rhyme and Reason.

When the story begins, Milo gets home one afternoon expecting to go through the same humdrum after-school routine he always goes through. But on this particular day, he arrives home to find a tollbooth waiting to transport him to a faraway place. Soon, Milo is traveling through the Kingdom of Wisdom, seeking to rescue Rhyme and Reason with the help of his companions, Tock the Watchdog and the Humbug.

Along the way, Milo meets some interesting and clever characters, such as the Whether Man (not to be confused with the Weather Man, "for after all it's more important to know whether there will be weather than what the weather will be") and Kakofonous Dischord, Doctor of Dissonance, whom Milo meets on the outskirts of the Valley of Sound. Page after page, Juster's clever puns and witty plays on words make his characters memorable and his storyline entertaining.

On his journey, Milo travels to several places within the Kingdom of Wisdom, learning useful things along the way. In Dictionopolis, for instance, he discovers the abundance of words and the importance of choosing the right word for the right occasion. On his way to Digitopolis, a land ruled by numbers, Milo ends up on the Island of Conclusions. There, he decides to himself, "From now on, I'm going to have a very good reason before I make up my mind about anything," and he learns that "you can lose too much time jumping to Conclusions."

Armed with the knowledge he has gathered on his journey through the Kingdom, Milo finally reaches the Mountains of Ignorance, where he and his faithful companions dodge and outwit various demons and ultimately save the princesses Rhyme and Reason. In the end, Milo is transported back to the present with a newfound curiosity about the world and a greater appreciation for learning.

Juster's humor throughout the story is at times subtle, at times downright silly, but often clever and thought-provoking, making this book an enjoyable read for young and old alike. They say there's a child in all of us, and The Phantom Tollbooth truly is a children's book for all ages.

Amtrak, Anyone?

I was skimming some online news articles this morning when a recent headline declaring "Sewage-spewing plane disgusts passengers" caught my attention. Being a somewhat-frequent flyer, I was intrigued and had to know more. Let me tell you -- after having read that article, never again will I complain about delayed flights, middle seats, and "random" security screenings. Here's what happened...

Eight days ago, a Continental Airlines flight departed from Amsterdam, bound for New Jersey. At some point during the early part of the flight, a lavatory toilet overflowed and waste spilled into the aisles. (It was later determined that someone had flushed -- or attempted to flush -- latex gloves down the toilet, which caused the blockage and subsequent overflow.) In an unplanned stop, the plane landed in Ireland so that the problem could be fixed, but once the flight resumed and the plane was cruising somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean, the toilet started to malfunction again. Passengers were forced to minimize food consumption and hold their noses for several hours, until the plane landed in Newark, New Jersey. Needless to say, Continental has issued an apology, as well as travel vouchers, to the 168 travelers on board.

Eww. I guess what they say is true after all: Shit happens. Continental's management team is probably sitting with all their fingers and toes crossed right now, hoping that no lawsuits are sent their way. But let's take the glass-is-half-full approach. At least nobody on board had TB.

The Power of Object-Oriented Design

This morning at work, I was walking down the hall and I overheard the following conversation:

Person 1: "You have one class object for each one. It would be so easy to do."
Person 1 to Person 2, in reference to Person 3: "Look at him! He's so excited, he's got that 'I have to pee' look on his face."
Person 3: (smiling excitedly as if needing to pee, apparently)

Fan-tastic. And yet we wonder why people think we're strange.

Picking Your Brain: Third and Final Installment (At Least for Now)

I will end this mini-series with the following brain teaser. This one's my favorite, because it's one of the most clever and challenging puzzles I've ever come across. Give it a go. The solution is quite beautiful.

The Infamous Twelve Pills Problem
You are given twelve pills, eleven of which are poisonous. The non-toxic pill weighs differently than the eleven toxic ones. Determine, using a two-platform relative weighing scale and no more than three weigh-ins, which is the non-toxic pill. (Note: You do not know beforehand whether the non-toxic pill is heavier or lighter than the toxic pills.) Level of difficulty: tougher than the toughest gangsta on the streets of CPT.

One of my friends suggested feeding the pills to twelve of his enemies and seeing which one survived. Not exactly what I had in mind, but it works. Now for the not-so-murderous solution...

Separate the 12 pills into 3 groups (call them groups A, B and C), each consisting of 4 pills. Place groups A and B on the scale, one group on each platform. If the weights are equal, you have two weigh-ins left and have determined that the good pill is in group C. For the second weigh-in, take 3 pills from group C and 3 pills from group A. If the weights are equal, the good pill is the remaining pill from group C. If the weights are unequal, the good pill is one of the three from group C that are on the scale, and you now know whether the good pill is heavier or lighter than the rest. The third weigh-in will then determine conclusively which is the good pill.

If, in the first weigh-in, groups A (pills A1, A2, A3 and A4) and B (pills B1, B2, B3 and B4) were found to be of unequal weight, then in the second weigh-in, put B1, B2, B3 and A4 on one platform of the scale, and C1, C2, C3 and B4 on the other platform. Depending on the relative weights, you'll be able to determine from the second weigh-in which of the following is true, and the third weigh-in then gives you the solution:

1. The good pill is A1, A2 or A3, and you will know whether it's heavier or lighter than the bad pills based on the result of the first weigh-in. (This statement is true if B1+B2+B3+A4 = C1+C2+C3+B4 in the second weigh-in.)
2. The good pill is B1, B2 or B3, and you will know whether it's heavier or lighter than the bad pills based on the result of the first weigh-in. (This statement is true if the scale flips, i.e., the lighter side from the first weigh-in is now the heavier side in the second weigh-in, when you move B1, B2 and B3 to the other platform with A4.)
3. The good pill is either A4 or B4, and you will know whether it's heavier or lighter than the bad pills based on the result of the first weigh-in. (This statement is true if the scale doesn't flip in the second weigh-in.)

Lovely, no?

Picking Your Brain: Second Installment

Puzzle #4: You have eight marbles. One of them is defective and weighs less than the others. Given a balance to measure marbles against each other, how do you find the defective marble in two weigh-ins? Level of difficulty: easy.

Puzzle #5: You have an employee working for you for seven days. Each day, you pay the employee with a single link from a gold chain with seven links. If you are only allowed to make two cuts in the chain, how do you pay your employee at the end of each day? Level of difficulty: moderate.

Here are the solutions:

Solution #4: Let's label the marbles A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H. In the first weigh-in, we measure A, B and C against D, E and F. If they are equal, we know the lighter marble is either G or H, and we can use the second weighing to determine which one it is. If, on the other hand, A, B and C together are heavier or lighter than D, E and F, we have narrowed down which group of three contains the defective marble. Then in the second weigh-in, we measure two of those three marbles against each other. If one is lighter than the other, we know it's defective. If the two marbles are equal in weight, then the third marble in the group is defective.

Solution #5: You cut the chain with two cuts to make three pieces: one piece is a single link, the second piece is two links, and the third piece is four links. In other words, you make the first cut between the first and second links, and the second cut between the third and fourth links. Now, on the first day, you pay the employee with the single-link piece. On the second day, you take back the single-link piece and give the employee the two-link piece. On the third day, you give the employee the single-link piece, so he now has been paid three gold links. On the fourth day, you take back the single-link and two-link pieces, and give him the four-link piece. On the fifth day, you give him the single-link piece, so he now has five links. On the sixth day, you take back the single link and give him the two-link piece, so he now has six links. On the seventh day, you give him the remaining link.

Are we havin' fun yet?

Picking Your Brain

It might not be as fun as picking your nose, but since I've been on a logic-puzzle kick lately, I thought I'd post some brain teasers here. Indulge your inner geek and try your hand at some of these. More puzzles to come later this week.

Puzzle #1: You have 100 doors in a row that are all initially closed. You make 100 passes by the doors, starting with the first door. The first time through, you visit every single door and toggle the door (i.e., if the door is closed, you open it; if it's open, you close it). The second time through, you visit every second door (doors #2, 4, 6, etc.). The third time through, you visit every third door (doors #3, 6, 9, etc.). This continues until you only visit the 100th door. What state are the doors in after the last pass? Which are open and which are closed? Level of difficulty: easy.

Puzzle #2: Two ropes that burn non-uniformly each burn in one hour. Using only the two ropes and a box of matches, how do you measure fifteen minutes? (Note: All you know about the ropes is that they burn non-uniformly, so in 30 minutes, it may be the case that only 10% of the rope has burned. If that is true, it must follow that the remaining 90% will burn in 30 minutes as well, since the entire rope takes one hour to burn. Furthermore, you cannot assume that the two ropes burn in the same non-uniform way, i.e, if you light both ropes at the same time, they'll both burn in one hour, but at any point during that hour, the unburned length may be different for the two ropes.) Level of difficulty: moderately easy.

Puzzle #3: You are in front of two doors. One door leads to wealth and the other leads to nothing of value, but you don't know which door is which. There are two people standing near the doors, one who always lies and one who always speaks the truth; again, you don't know which person is which, but both of these people know what's behind each door. You are allowed to ask one yes/no question to one person to determine which door leads to the riches. What do you ask and to whom? Level of difficulty: moderate.

Warning: Solutions are below so look away now if you're still working on the puzzles!

Solution #1: The cleanest solution is to determine how many factors the number on the door has. If the number of factors is odd, then that door is toggled an odd number of times, and therefore is open by the end of the 100th pass. (Remember, all the doors start out closed.) If the number of factors is even, then by the same logic, that door is closed by the end of the 100th pass. For instance, door #8 will be opened in the first pass, then closed in the second pass, then opened in the fourth pass, and then closed in the eighth pass, never to be toggled again. Door #9 will be opened in the first pass, closed in the third pass, and then opened in the ninth pass, never to be closed again. Following this pattern, all doors numbered with a perfect square (1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, etc.) will be open at the end of the 100th pass. The rest will be closed.

Solution #2: Light one rope on both ends. At the same time, light the other rope at one end. The first rope (the one lit on both ends) will burn completely in 30 minutes. At the end of the 30 minutes, light both ends of what remains of the second rope. The remainder will then burn in 15 minutes.

Solution #3: Ask either person (since you don't know which is which) the following question: "If I ask the other person if the door on the left leads to wealth, will he/she say yes?" If the person answers "no," then the door on the left leads to wealth. If the person answers "yes," then the door on the left leads to nothing. Here's the logic: Let's assume the door on the left leads to wealth. If you ask the truth-teller the question, he'll say "no" because that's what the liar would say. If you ask the liar the question, he'll say "no" because he knows the truth-teller would say "yes." Either way, a "no" response indicates that the door on the left leads to wealth. On the other hand, if the door on the left leads to nothing of value, the truth-teller would answer "yes," because that's what the liar would say, and the liar would answer "yes" because the truth-teller would say the opposite.

Okay, now you can go back to picking your nose.

Evan Almighty

I'm thrilled to say that this year's Spelling Bee champion is Evan O'Dorney, a thirteen-year-old from the great state of California who happens not to care much for spelling. The implicit irony in his participation and victory made the Bee even more enjoyable to watch. But I think Evan's equanimity throughout the entire event, as he conquered words like "pappardelle" and "schuhplattler," is what makes him truly unique and inspiring to his audience.

Evan's performance wasn't the only exciting thing about the 2007 competition. In the fifth round, Samir Patel, the speller who was favored to win, was eliminated with the word "clevis," spelling it as "clevice." He later told an interviewer, "If I had been slow and cautious like I always am, I would have got it right. I outsmarted myself." Whatever, man. You're a disgrace to the Indian community. Can you spell "failure"?

Fortunately, Samir's arrogance and unsportsmanlike attitude were tempered by the likes of Jonathan Horton, a competitor from Arizona who insisted on giving all spellers within a seven-foot radius an enthusiastic high-five after each round, and Joseph Henares of Connecticut, whose entire face would light up with even the slightest clue about a word's orthography. These kids make the Bee so worthwhile to watch, reminding us that even when they're struggling to spell big, big words that they'll probably never use, it's the little things in life that count.

West Side, Walk it Out

According to the CDC, the prevalence of obesity in the United States has increased from 15% to 33% in the last two decades, and the situation is worsening. It's no wonder, considering the growth and convenience of fast-food restaurants. (Side note: Did you know that McDonald's delivers in India? It's true! Sorry, no beef or pork though.)

The obesity trend is perpetuated by the fact that jobs have become more sedentary, but have no fear, for two scientists have come up with a nifty solution: the "vertical workstation." The invention is essentially a desk which can be affixed to a treadmill, enabling the user to work at his or her computer while walking those extra pounds off. Experiments have shown that it is effective and comfortable to use. The desks cost about $2,700 and will fit over standard treadmills. They will not come with fries and a shake. Taxes, shipping and workers' comp may apply. Treadmill and weight-loss guarantees not included. Order yours today!

HillBilly for President

Journalist Carl Bernstein has written a biography of Hillary Clinton that will be published next month. Details that have been released by readers of advance copies indicate that the book doesn't paint Senator Clinton in the most favorable light. Furthermore, Bernstein seems to focus a great deal of his attention on the Clintons' tumultuous marriage, suggesting that Hillary toyed with the idea of divorce but decided against it, in the interest of their political careers. Readers are inferring from all of this that Hillary will divorce Bill in January 2009, if and/or when she is elected. Bernstein also suggests that Hillary considered running against her husband for Governor of Arkansas out of anger and spite. Ah, to be a scorned woman.

Personally, I think this biography is absolutely unnecessary and out of scope (what does it have to do with her campaign anyway?), and will just turn into anti-Democratic/anti-Clinton fodder for the GOP. Oh, how they conveniently forget about their Newt Gingriches and their Mark Foleys. The last people we need preaching to our country about family values are a bunch of right-wingers who need to be reminded that they are just as fallible as the rest of us. If not more so. But that's just my humble, Democratic opinion.

As upsetting as the whole premise of this biography is to me, what is more maddening is the Republican response thus far. One writer has gone so far as to say that "the train wreck that is the Clinton marriage is a nagging, perhaps insurmountable, political problem for her campaign." Umm... what? Do you sleep in their bed every night to know how problematic their relationship is for her campaign? I didn't think so. Why not let Hillary be the judge of that? And before you so quickly dismiss her politics, consider what your own party member Newt Gingrich (!) has said about her: "Any Republican who thinks she's going to be easy to beat has a total amnesia about the history of the Clintons... I have been very struck working with her." Huh. I'm speechless.

In closing, I leave you with this rather far-fetched comment left on a website by some anti-liberal loony: "Does it bother anyone that in the past twenty years, only two families have led this nation as President? Now the mainstream media and all those intellectually challenged liberals want to make it at least 24 and maybe 28 years? Democracy? Nope, we have already hit full stride into an oligarchy. If Hillary gets elected, is a monarchy not far behind? Or even worse, a dictatorship?" Okay, first of all, we had two perfectly good chances not to screw this up, first with Al Gore and then with John Kerry. So before you complain about "24 and maybe 28 years," rethink your own voting patterns. Secondly, if you're talking about oligarchy, monarchy, and worse, consider all that controversy in 2004 over the voting system in swing states like Ohio. If dictatorship is on its way in, it's because democracy was on its way out in the last election, when voting rights -- the most fundamental symbol of democracy -- were undermined. Then again, what do I know? I'm just an "intellectually challenged" liberal.

"You're irrelevant!" "Your Mom's irrelevant!"

Former president Jimmy Carter told a news reporter that our current chief executive is the "worst in history." Finally, someone other than the Dixie Chicks speaks out against this administration. And a former politician, no less. I'm so happy, I could buy a peanut farm. Bush's badass right-wing posse responded to Carter's statement by saying Carter is "irrelevant." (Bush himself was reportedly unable to offer further comment because he is still attempting to locate Baghdad on the map.)

In other news, this country is still going to shit. Happy Monday!

Ode to Paris

No, not the famous French city. The other Paris. The one who looks like she hasn't had a square meal in years. Here goes nothin'...

Gather 'round, children:

The story now begins.

Pay close attention;

You might learn a few things.

It started in February

Of nineteen-eighty-one,

When a little girl was born to

Mister Richard Hilton.

Globe-trotter that he was,

He called his newborn Paris,

And twenty-six years later,

She's a rich hotel heiress.

But her fame didn't come from

All the cash that she bagged,

But from a raunchy little tape

Of the sex that she had.

Of course, that's all over now.

It's buried in the past,

And rumors about her love life

Surely will not last.

Besides, she's moving on,

Living the movie-star dream;

For her role in "House of Wax,"

She even won Best Scream!

But what once was a Simple Life

Is no longer fun and games.

Now young Paris spends her time

In courtrooms, filing legal claims.

The moral of this story, kids,

Is not to drink and drive.

For if you do, there are no

Guarantees that you'll survive.

Instead, work hard and get those grades,

And do make sure you stay in school,

So when you graduate, we'll all say,

"No GEDs or DUIs for you!"

If you're wondering what inspired that pseudo-poetic endeavor, check this out. I, for one, am "shocked, dismayed and appalled" that there are people in this world who believe Paris Hilton should be exonerated simply because of her celebrity status. Now if only Martha Stewart would indulge in a little bit more insider trading, perhaps she and Paris could be cellmates. Paris could finally learn how to make cute little doilies out of onion skin, while she teaches Martha how to live on only 300 calories per week. Both highly marketable skills, if you ask me.

A Sight for Sore Eyes

As a teenager, I was fortunate enough not to have to deal with the unpleasantness of acne. Skin conditions in general were a foreign concept to me because my daily routine of washing with the same kind of body soap and moisturizing with the same kind of lotion -- a routine to which I adhered religiously over the course of many years -- seemed to keep such problems at bay. So you can imagine my surprise when, a few months ago, I developed an allergic reaction to a Lancome face cream containing sunscreen.

Until that point, I had been using Lancome face products for quite some time without incident, so it didn't really occur to me that things should be any different with a product that happened to have an SPF rating of fifteen. Apparently, I was wrong. Within a few days, the skin around my eyes became very dry and red, so I stopped using the product and instead reverted to another Lancome face cream that did not contain what I suspected to be the offending agent. Unfortunately, that didn't seem to fix the problem. So then I started thinking that maybe it wasn't the sunscreen that was irritating my skin, but Lancome products in general. Had I suddenly, after months of use, developed an allergy to an entire product line? To test my new theory, I completely stopped using Lancome face products -- face wash, toner, lotion, under-eye cream, lip exfoliant, everything -- and opted instead for more generic, unscented products.

After a few weeks, I noticed that removal of Lancome products from my daily cleansing routine had actually done nothing to alleviate the skin allergy. On the contrary, the skin around my eyes had become much, much worse -- wrinkled, dry, red, flaky and swollen. My parents urged me to see a doctor, but I resisted for as long as I possibly could. I'll be the first to admit that I'm stubborn, but in all my 26 years, I'd never needed to consult a dermatologist, so why now? I thought I was smart enough to diagnose and fix the problem myself.

At that point, I began to consider other factors that may have triggered the allergic reaction. The first thing that came to mind was my diet. Around the time I started using the SPF-15 product, I made my entrance into the world of carnivorism and tried chicken for the first time in my life. Were the gods frowning upon me for being a bad Hindu? Was this skin condition their form of karmic retribution? I then started to worry that I might have other food allergies of which I was unaware. Visions of my body convulsing in pain after eating something seemingly harmless started to haunt my dreams. I realized I had no choice but to consult a professional.

Two weeks later, I finally met with a dermatologist. It turned out that I had developed a case of allergen contact dermatitis -- in a word, eczema. The good news was that the condition was very unlikely to be food-related. The bad news was that I could no longer use any Lancome products. For that matter, the dermatologist advised me to stay away from any facial products that are perfumed, as they're much too strong for the sensitive skin found on the face.

The other bad news? I was prescribed a topical steroid cream that I have been using for the last four months, at the advice of the dermatologist. Four months! That's a long time! I did see dramatic improvements soon after I started the treatment, but anyone that knows me knows that I am highly suspicious of any kind of medication, prescribed or over-the-counter. Needless to say, having to use a prescribed cream on an ongoing basis is anathema to my very being. Oh, well. At least it's not the bulging-bicep type of steroid. One tube down, one more to go. Sigh. I think I'll go eat a buffalo wing.

A Case for Change

The events that unfolded on the Virginia Tech campus fifteen days ago have sparked numerous debates about what steps could have been taken to prevent such a horrible tragedy. On the morning of April 16th, a 23-year-old student embarked on a shooting spree, killing more than 30 people before taking his own life.

It can be argued that the school didn't do enough to encourage the shooter to seek psychiatric help when it became apparent two years ago that he was mentally unstable. On the other hand, it was not in the school's power to force counseling upon an adult who was deemed not to be a risk to himself or others. It can also be argued that campus security could have prevented the second set of shootings by issuing a warning about the first. Then again, there was little evidence to suggest any danger of a second attack, and campus police were wary of raising red flags and causing panic for no reason. They also concluded that students would be safer staying inside the classroom than running across campus hysterically.

In truth, the school acted in the best way it could given limited information; systemic deficiencies were only brought to light after the fact and with the benefit of hindsight. It is now the school's responsibility to devise a more effective method of ensuring students' safety in such dangerous situations, but ultimately, this tragedy could have been prevented altogether if the shooter had not been able to obtain a gun in the first place.

In a country as developed as the United States, it is a shame that we are not equipped to offer universal health care, but are prepared to allow almost anyone of eighteen or more years to purchase a gun. NRA lobbyists might argue that the best way to face the danger of gun violence is to promote our second-amendment right to personal protection, but wouldn't the more preventive measure be to offer better access to mental health professionals? How does society benefit more from lax gun laws than from affordable medical help? The solution to gun violence is not more guns, and those who pose the greatest risks tend to be those that are most in need of more accessible, financially-viable health care.

And while I'm on this rant, why is it that an eighteen-year-old can purchase a gun but can't consume alcohol? The rationale behind enforcing a minimum drinking age of 21 is that, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the benefits are "life-saving." Hmm. Wouldn't tighter gun control have "life-saving" benefits too? Just a thought.

Sadly, Democrats in recent elections have, in the interest of winning more votes, become less dogmatic about the need for stricter gun laws. Many have even softened their stances, arguing more in favor of "gun safety" than "gun control." In fact, last year a pro-gun Democrat won the seat of junior Senator in a campaign against an incumbent pro-gun Republican in a state that is historically pro-gun. Now I'm not pointing any fingers, but that state starts with "V" and ends with "irginia." Go figure.

Where will YOU be on May 30th?

Ever since I discovered the Scripps National Spelling Bee on television a decade ago, I have become obsessed with the event and its participants. I am fascinated by the sheer amount of time and energy devoted to preparing for the Bee, on the part of both the spellers and the organizers. As a linguaphile and a perpetual student of the English language, I am drawn each May to what I believe is the ultimate celebration of orthographic precision. As this year's competition draws closer, I look forward to seeing the fine crop of talent that the 2007 Bee will showcase.

Of course, the National Spelling Bee has its fair share of opponents, not least of which is the Simplified Spelling Society. Founded in 1908, the Society has since been on a mission to reform the system of English spelling by eliminating its inconsistencies. Visit the SSS’s website and you will see some good examples of their chief complaint. (Why don’t “comb,” “tomb” and “bomb” rhyme? Why do “they,” “say” and “weigh” rhyme?) Sure, the Society makes a good case for change, but the practice of reforming a language that draws from so many others only serves to introduce a new set of problems. The fact is that English spelling is phonetic to some degree, but has a great deal more to do with where a word comes from and what it means. To dismantle the association between orthography and origin is to ignore the fact that each word tells a story -- a fact that gives the English language its charm.

In spite of the continuing debate, spelling has remained a popular pastime since the Bee’s founding in 1925. Over the past eight decades, the event has become more than just a spelling competition; for many participants, today's Bee is a forum for meeting new people and forging lifelong friendships. Moreover, it is a symbol of hard work, dedication and unwavering discipline. But most importantly (at least for me), the Bee is a proud display of the English language and all its contradictions: its beauty and its inelegance, its exactness and its imprecision, its countless rules and its equally countless exceptions.

The English language is the consummate double-edged sword, at once steadfast and unpredictable. It is this very quality of the language, and the challenges that its study presents, that draw me to the Bee each year -- and 2007 will be no exception.

Details, Details

As someone with a sincere interest in the technical aspects of language, I am always eager to find esoteric rules of English grammar and usage that tend to be glossed over in grade-school classrooms. For instance, what's the difference between "further" and "farther"? If you've participated in a marathon, would you say you "have run" or "have ran"? Do you "lie down" when you're sleepy and "lay down" when you're super-duper sleepy? In my quest for knowledge, I was able to find answers to these questions and have decided to document them here for future reference.

1. "Farther" refers to additional physical distance, while "further" refers to additional time, amount, or other abstract extent or degree. Though some sources insist on using them interchangeably, you can be sure not to offend any sticklers by making the distinction.
   Examples:
   a.) Ann lives farther from Beth's house than Charlie does.
   b.) This statement couldn't be further from the truth.
   (Digression: The liar paradox is cool. Click here to share my fascination.)
   
   
2. One Saturday afternoon when I was about eight years old, my grandmother sent me down the street to my aunt's house to deliver some food. In a hurry to return home, I ran as fast as I could, not noticing our neighbor's highly energetic (read: psychotic) dog running around in the front yard. The dog must have taken my running past him as an invitation to chase me, because that is what he proceeded to do. Needless to say, I was scared out of my mind. All I wanted to do was drop off the food and get home, but instead I was running in circles in the middle of the road, trying not to be eaten alive by this rabid creature. Eventually, the neighbor saw what was happening and called out his dog's name, at which point the dog lost interest in chasing me and ran back to his owner. Once I regained my composure and a healthy heart rate, I proceeded to my aunt's house at a very slow, deliberate walking pace. For years after the incident, I was terrified of dogs but I've since managed to overcome my fear. I realize now that had I not run past the dog on that fateful day, I would never have been chased to begin with. Moral of the story: I once ran past a dog (scary), I have run on treadmills (tiring), I will run for president (sheer folly).
   
   
3. You lay something down (like a book, a child or the law), but you lie down when you yourself are going to bed. In the simple past tense, you laid down the law and then you were tired, so you lay down for a nap. In the perfect past tense, you had laid down the law and then you had been tired, so you had lain down for a nap. So in conclusion, just say "I was tired so I went to bed." It's simple, it's grammatically correct, and it doesn't make you sound like a pedantic jackass. Three for three.

Toning Your Rhetoric

Yesterday I was in the locker room at the gym, changing into my work-out clothes, when a woman came up behind me and started pulling her belongings out of the locker directly above mine. Hovering over my locker door and rummaging in my gym bag for my running shoes, I realized I was in the woman's way so I hastily glanced over my shoulder in her direction and apologized. She responded with, "Don't worry about it. These are cramped quarters." As I pulled my running shoes out of my bag, I assured her, "I'll be out of your hair in a second." I then shut my locker door and turned around, and there it was: a triangle of short, brown curlies staring me right in the face. Not cool.

As I left the locker room, I mulled over my poor choice of words and chided myself. Lesson learned? Step 1: Open mouth. Step 2: Insert foot. Step 3: Find new gym.

And God said, "Let there be blogs..."

So here it is: my foray into the world of blogging. I intend to post entries regularly, so make sure you come back and visit. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll ask for more. I guarantee it.