this ain't livin'

The great train robbery | 23May06

We went walking out the California Western tracks today. There was no train to rob, but believe me, if it had gone by, this post would be a lot more exciting. Walking out the tracks is rather fun, actually. There are a large number of little bridges with all sorts of carvings, and tunnels and neat plants. Sometimes, rarely now, the train passes by. It used to carry lumber from the mill, but since the mill is closed now it carries tourists, who gawk at the trees and disembark in the middle of nowhere to buy cheap souvenirs and wait to reboard. The tracks run along Pudding Creek, which in the photograph below looks stagnant and a little yucky–I really just wanted you to see the water lilies blooming. In the summer I hike out to Company Ranch, where there is a very nice swimming hole.

We saw two banana slugs and a millipede. I took their pictures, but I figure you all know what banana slugs look like so I decided not to post them. There were also some birds, but they were extremely fast and far away, so none of the pictures came out. We also ran into a few people hiking along the tracks as well, which happens now and then. I suppose in a small town you get your jollies where you can.

Here’s an iris and some red columbine, both rather pretty. There’s a lot of stuff in bloom right now, including a profusion of rich, purple, awesome iris.

Further out on our hike, a tie had my name carved into it. Having an unusual name, it was a rather interesting occurrence. I certainly don’t remember carving it there, and there was no other message with it.

A mystery.

We found a railroad spike, an o-ring, and some vertebrae, as well as a flattened penny. These items were duly admired, and we took two of them home.

[California Western Railroad]

Under the old apple tree | 22May06

According to Glendale Memorial Nature Preserve, every year in the United States we bury 827,060 gallons of embalming fluid, 104,272 tons of steel, 2,700 tons of copper and bronze, 1,636,000 tons of concrete, and approximately .8% of our population.

The funeral industry needs to change. When open space is at a premium, it’s shocking that we would choose to pollute and corrupt large tracts of land with our dead, sealing this land off and declaring it unusable for any purpose.

Death is a difficult subject, especially in America, where death is feared and hated. We handle our dead in a very peculiar way, a way many people find repugnant. Often we don’t even handle our dead personally, but we farm the task out to others—and pay a fortune for it. Even Americans who want a plain, simple funeral can expect to spend at least six thousand dollars.

The mortuary and funeral home industry has invested a great deal of time and money into misleading us about the legalities of death. Should you call your local funeral director, you will be told a do it yourself funeral isn’t possible, for legal reasons, and you will be encouraged to use his services. You may also be told that bodies must be embalmed, for legal and health reasons, and fed an assortment of other lies.

I would like to take a moment to disabuse you of these wrong ideas, dear readers, even if you may not choose a do it yourself funeral for yourself. It is important to me that we make empowered choices, especially about an issue as personal as death. I encourage all of you to consider caring for your dead more directly, and the information below is intended to be a rough guideline. Numerous books which deal with caring for your dead are available and I suggest you track one or two down. (It is especially a good idea for you to familiarize yourself with the rules about caring for your dead in your own state and county.)

1. A licensed funeral director is not required by law to participate in any aspect of a funeral. Should you choose to do so, you may transport your dead yourself, and you certainly may care for them yourself. Funeral directors serve a social, rather than legal function, and although some people may wish to avail themselves of the resources and services of a funeral home, you are not required to do so.

2. Should a death be expected, a death certificate is a simple formality. It’s an excellent idea to work with a cooperative and helpful doctor who will be available to sign the death certificate as quickly as possible. If a death is unexpected or foul play is involved, it must be reported to the police. However, even if the police do take custody of the body, your wishes regarding the matter must be followed—you can specify whom you want the body to be released to after the necropsy, for example. If someone dies while in the custody of medical services, after the medical examiners office has waived rights over the body it can be released to you for transit. Only in the cases of unclaimed bodies where family members have not been identified may the medical examiner’s office take charge of the body and funeral arrangements.

3. The office of vital statistics needs a small amount of information from you for a death certificate, including the name and age of the decedent, time and place of death, and so on.

4. You will also need a transit permit, available from the office of vital statistics. The forms are short and simple. Contrary to what the funeral industry would like you to believe, anyone may transport a body, as long as they have a transport permit in hand. (Due to the processes of death, I recommend transporting the decedent in some sort of container or wrapping.)

5. On a state by state basis, legal stipulations exist about how soon after death a body must be buried, refrigerated, embalmed, or cremated. Usually you are required to do something with the decedent within 24 hours.

6. Making arrangements in advance, or having a good idea of what to do, is an excellent idea. Make yourself a “death to-do” list which outlines, step by step, how you want your body handled. If you wish to be buried, research cemeteries (more about this below) and pre-contract for a grave, if possible. You should be warned that many cemeteries are owned by the funeral industry and they expect you to use the services of funeral homes if you’d like to buried in them. Find a local cemetery owned by a community trust, if you can. Not only is it less expensive, but the cemetery bylaws usually allow you more control over your own dead. If you wish to be cremated, make this desire explicit as well. Perhaps you want to leave final disposition up to your survivors.

Familiarize yourself with the law and the wishes of your loved ones, as well as stipulating your own wishes. You can care for your own dead every step of the way, should you choose to, and it’s what I would choose for myself. A growing number of American cemeteries are also offering green burial, which is the only logical choice to me. There are a lot of resources available on green burial, although most are based overseas. I would love to be buried out in the wilderness and allowed to return to the earth, but that is unfortunately not an option for legal reasons. But I can choose to be buried in a green cemetery which stewards the earth and allows animals to roam grazing above. I would love to have an apple tree planted over me, so that people can come and visit in years to come and eat the sweet, tart fruits on late fall days.

The dead need to rejoin community life, instead of being exiled to hallowed ground, in my opinion. Not only is a do it yourself funeral a personally empowering choice, it’s a logical and practical choice. Caring for your dead is a final act of love–why contract it out to someone else who will charge you a small fortune for it? Let us break out of the “traditional American funeral” and build our own rituals.

[caring for your dead]

Jeux d’enfants | 21May06

I watched this film (released in the United States in 2004 under the title Love Me If You Dare) last night, and thought it was most excellent. I would highly recommend it to those of my readers who haven’t seen it (although you may not want to read this post all the way to the bottom as it gives away bits of the plot).

In essence, it’s a story about two people who fall in love as children but won’t admit it until it’s almost too late. We are introduced to the two as kids. Sophie is Polish, and teased mercilessly for it. Julien’s mother is dying, and he forges a friendship with Sophie through “the game,” a series of escalating dares. And believe me when I say escalating–even as children the two get themselves into some precarious straits and it only gets worse as they age. Indeed, for Julien especially the game starts to become the most important thing in life, with disastrous consequences later. The two live very different lives, Julien relatively well off and accepted in society, and Sophie forced to fight for everything that she gets because of her lower social status. Julien’s father is opposed to their friendship, because Sophie isn’t French, and this becomes a theme in the film. The two grow up, pursue alternate lives, and ultimately marry other people, but their infatuation with each other remains strong. Throughout the film, it’s clear that the two are in love and destined to be with one another, but they don’t admit it to each other, or when one does the other thinks it’s a joke.

This is exemplified by the scene where the two are kissing and Sophie declares that she loves Julien. His response is to treat it as part of the game, because he has become so invested in the game that he doesn’t recognize she has come to step outside of it. Later he realizes his mistake and hurries to her home to make amends, but he only makes the situation worse.

It’s a quintessentially French movie, with superb cinematography and composition. The plot is so simple and essential that you can lose yourself in the rich imagery of the film. I almost found myself hating the characters–both were stupid and rather shallow, Julian at one point throwing his love for Sophie away in the pursuit of fiscal success. Sophie, too, seems like a nitwit in much of the film. Indeed, in many ways she is the most infuriating character, because she blows her anger at Julien out of proportion and constantly throws his apologies back in his face. She is ferociously proud, and that’s something I can understand because when you are poor and marginalized, your pride is all you own. But the film still captivated me with the visual experience and the timeless love story.

The game becomes a theme in their lives as adults as well. At one point Sophie disrupts Julien’s wedding ceremony, and after their resultant argument she says she won’t speak to him for 10 years. 10 years to the day later, she contacts him again to resume the game. In a climactic series of events, they realize that although they have married other people and created lives for themselves, they are meant for each other. (Something which has of course been clear to the viewer the whole time.) Oddly enough, I don’t find myself pitying their spouses that much, though this may have been a deliberate device on the part of the director, since both were boring, nasty people whom it was hard to like.

However, they worry that the game, which has become all consuming, may ruin any life they build together, so they encase themselves together in concrete to ensure they will be together forever. (This scene is followed by scenes of the two in heaven together, much older but still up to the same tricks.) This scene is somewhat startling, because as a viewer I expected it to be part of the game, and to see the two walk away healthy and alive.

Those of us watching the movie had different reactions to the double suicide scene. One of the people there was repulsed by it, thought it was stupid, and said it ruined the movie for her. I thought that it was an oddly right thing, the only logical ending. The two were clearly meant to be together and this was the only way to cement their love, so to speak. The two were stupid, vain, and filled with the outside world–they understood that in order to maintain the purity of their love, they had to die together. (And I certainly can’t imagine an American movie ending this way–had this been made in Hollywood, I’m sure the two would have divorced their spouses and gone off to live somewhere.)

I’m not an ascriber to the idea that everyone has a soul mate, and I’m not sure I will ever meet someone whom I love that much. But it’s a poetic idea, and I rather like it. If someday I meet someone worthy of encasing myself in concrete for, I’m sure I’ll know. (The movie also raised a question for me–what is the decay rate of organic material embedded in concrete? I’m sure Bill Bass knows.)

[Jeux d'enfants]
[Love Me If You Dare]

Respect for the dead | 20May06

A headline in the Chronicle today has me thinking about respect for the dead. Apparently as part of a promotional stunt, the Metreon theatre in San Francisco hauled a chunk of the Titanic’s hull up onto their roof, where presumably it will serve some as yet known purpose. Other artifacts “salvaged” from the ocean floor are making up an exhibit which is housed elsewhere in the Metreon building.

The photographs show a fairly mundane looking piece of steel being carefully maneuvered because it’s rather heavy.

What the article doesn’t discuss is that the piece of hull and all the artifacts on display were looted from a gravesite. Perhaps “looted” might seem too strong a word for you–RMS Titanic, Inc. holds “salvors rights” to the wreck, a monopoly secured shortly after the discovery in 1985. According to international law, the artifacts were legally retrieved. The company is the only one in the world allowed to remove artifacts from the site, and supposedly they are not allowed to sell whatever they may find. Thus, the company finances its expeditions by displaying their finds. And I’m not the only one who uses strong language when discussing the desecration of the site–the Titanic Historical Society refers to it as “plundering.” (And one will note that the plaque left at the site by the society has been removed, though others left since remain.)

Before we discuss whether or not we think its acceptable to remove things from gravesites, let us consider the way in which things are harvested from the Titanic, which lies two miles below the surface of the ocean. Very few craft are capable of going down that far, and the pressure would kill anyone attempting to dive in it (at least given current technology, though this may change). Though the company does utilize robots and other tools, most of their “salvaging” is done by dragging a giant net through the debris field. In addition to churning up the ocean floor, this method damages a number of artifacts beyond repair. It also makes the site difficult for scientists to study. It is also hardly in keeping with archaeological ethics, where every attempt is made to maintain the integrity of the site.

The company claims that the artifacts hold some sort of educational value, and therefore should be on display. I disagree violently with this premise. The Titanic sunk in 1912. If household goods from 1912 have historical value, there are much easier ways to retrieve and display them than financing multi-million dollar expeditions to the bottom of the ocean, coupled with extremely expensive preservation techniques. The White Star Line continued to sail for a number of years after the sinking–china, cutlery, and fixtures matching those found on the Titanic are readily available. Her sister ships, Olympic and Britannic, were more or less identical (although the Olympic, commandeered as a hospital ship, sunk in 1916 after being shot by a torpedo).

Items from the Titanic hold value to the observer because of where they are from, not because they have intrinsic worth as historical artifacts. In my opinion, they held worth in one place only–at the bottom of the ocean, just off the Grand Banks. Now they are simply woeful artifacts of a bygone time, wrested from the place they sat in undisturbed for 73 years. Though there are no bodies at the site anymore, because they have been eaten away by time, poignant reminders of their existence can be found–shoes perfectly spaced on the ocean floor, laces still tied, for example. These fragile remains have been compromised forever by greed.

The expedition that finally found the Titanic was a joint French and Americans group Both sides expressed a clear desire to see the wreck left undisturbed, and in fact left a plaque at the ship commemorating their expedition and hoping to see the site left untouched. In 1986, the United States Congress passed a resolution agreeing with this, that the site should be left undisturbed as a monument. But no other nation could agree, and the site began to be looted as soon as salvors could figure out where it was. (Despite the fact that the expedition deliberately misstated the coordinates of the wreck to avoid this very event.) Because there are few currents that far down, the pieces of the ship and its contents were initially found in the same positions they came to rest in on the early hours of 15 April, 1912. The original explorers who found the wreck respected it as a grave site and as a scientific opportunity–careful study could be undertaken to determine the true cause of the sinking, and film of the site could be brought up. As anyone who has seen footage and still photos of the site knows, it’s an amazing place. Unfortunately, many of the images which have come to be icons of the site are simply images now, thanks to eager salvors who have been willing to destroy the wreck in a quest for cheap thrills. The iconic picture of the main mast toppled on the foredeck is only a memory now, thanks to the zealous of a company which destroyed the mast and crow’s nest in order to extract the telephone inside. The few remaining survivors who were around when the site began to be looted spoke out very strongly against it and the salvors, but like many survivors found their wishes disregarded.

I am a firm believer in leaving graves of all sizes as they are. Sometimes this is not an option–in the case of the World Trade Centre, for example, crews had to move in to remove the smoldering and unsafe material, not only to make that section of New York habitable, but to clear the site and surrounding area for whatever might come. Likewise with airline and other transit disasters–wreckage must be cleared and bodies identified, although one might choose to erect a memorial later for people to come and visit. Or in the instance of mass graves from Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq, and other places, where family members might wish to care for their dead. (Though one of the most powerful and disturbing memorials in Rwanda is a house filled with the bones of the dead, left as it was found.) In these cases pragmatism must rule, although the wreckage and remains are treated with respect and care, not carted all over the country so that people might marvel at chunks of staircases, pieces of chairs, silverware, and other accoutrements of human existence. In the case of the Titanic, two memorials could have been said to exist–the physical site and the hours of footage taken of the wreck and surrounding debris field, making the wreck accessible to all.

It also troubles me when I read of archaeological expeditions dismantling sacred burial sites which are thousands of years old so that visitors to the Smithsonian can see mummies. While most of these expeditions treat the sites they work in with respect and are motivated by science and an interest in lost cultures, ultimately they make a great deal of money from exploiting the dead. While the body may be an empty shell, the things that surround death and the body are (or were) sacred to the people who were present at the death. Someone who loved and cared for the dead arranged items around the body which might be useful in the afterlife, wove a shroud, carved furniture, and took care of the myriad details. Imagine archaeological expeditions in 4500 digging up your mother’s grave and dragging her all over the nation (or whatever it is then) in order to “educate” people. I imagine that you’d be somewhat annoyed to think of her sacred space being disturbed in pursuit of the almighty dollar (or whatever it is then). While I appreciate the desire and quest for information, I wish we could leave gravesite the way they were, out of respect for the past.

Imagine if they were auctioning off pieces of soil from the battlefield at Gettysburg, or dismantling the great pyramids so that they could be shown all over the world. The power and magic of these places lies in going to them and walking where the people who lived and died in them once walked, not in seeing pieces of them abstracted from the whole. For those who can’t travel, or for wreckage in extreme places (like, for example, two miles below the ocean), photographs and film footage convey a sense of place. The objects which can be found at gravesites, especially more recent ones, don’t have value because of what they are, but because of where they are–so why not leave them there? I view the dismantling and looting of gravesites as wrong, although others might disagree with me. One can also see a powerful dynamic in place, especially when looking at third world gravesites–first world nations come in, loot the site, and leave with artifacts in tow. Only recently has protest arisen over this practice, with the plundered nations demanding returns of their sacred and historical artifacts. But the collections of places like the Smithsonian and the British Museum testify that this imbalance has yet to be rectified.

Perhaps I am merely buying into the cult of the dead here. But I am a believer in treating the remains of others as I would like my own to be treated, and I know that however fantastically or historically I die, I would want my body to be dealt with in a loving and respectful matter, and I would be furious to think of people exploiting what remains of me for worldly profit. Leave the dead where they lie, I say, in peace.

The Titanic is slowly melting into the sea, giving way to the pressures of sea water, corrosion, and tiny organisms. This seems appropriate to me, that in several decades there won’t be much at the site, though we have images to remember it be. This is the natural order of things, dissolution and renewal.

[Titanic]
[gravesite]

A conceited vivid home | 19May06

So naturally after all the fuss I had to see the movie, still registering a solid “rotten” on Rotten Tomatoes.

And with good cause–the movie was terrible. Not that the book was that excellent (although mediocre books tend to lend themselves to good movies). But the movie managed to sap itself of anything good in the book, while keeping the melodrama fully intact.

To begin with, the movie played down the puzzles a great deal. After the massive ad campaign that was the Da Vinci Code Quest, the movie not only cut out several of the puzzles from the book (for example, in the book there were two cryptexes, one nestled inside the other), but also managed to avoid any elegant symbolism, clever anagrams, or other cute little mind tricks, which might have made it enjoyable. Part of what made reading the book tolerable was the puzzles–and that joy wasn’t there in the film. I waited through the credits for a puzzle which never came, and I peered in vain at the screen in the hope of a crafty easter egg. Such was not to be.

Also, the movie weakened Sophie Neveau’s character a great deal. In the book she is a fiery, powerful redhead with a formidable mind (several of the puzzles would not be solved without her help). In the movie, Robert Langdon solved every single puzzle with his God-like male brain while Neveau ran around like a chicken with her head cut off. Particularly since the themes of female empowerment and Goddess mythology figured prominently in the book (and somewhat in the film), it was rather offensive to have such a weak, useless female character, a toothless wonder with a pretty face.

They made some changes to the plot, a not unreasonable thing, but it seemed to me like they spent needless time on exposition and running scenes over again to make sure the viewer got it–time that could have been better utilized in such a long film. Things were made explicit which didn’t need to be, and took a great deal of the mystique out. (And they revealed the identity of The Teacher way earlier than they should have, spoiling the enjoyment of the film for all.)

My honest opinion of the film is that it’s not really worth seeing. It’s one of those mundane actiony sort of movies with a cute girl being saved by a brilliant man. What little air of mystery the book had was completely destroyed by the film, which rode roughshod over the whole concept of mind games and puzzles, presumably because they thought the audience might be baffled.

My these grapes are tasty.

[The Da Vinci Code Movie]

The final challenge | 19May06

(And probably my last post on this subject.)

So they posted the final challenge early, which was interesting. It was, as stated in the rules, a series of five puzzles which had to be completed sequentially. They were much more difficult than the puzzles in the first stage, and when you reloaded the puzzle you were not presented with a new puzzle–you had to solve the puzzle you were presented with.

I thought cheaters might find the final challenge very difficult, because the trivia aspect was removed. All the puzzles demanded logical ability and skill, most requiring the participant to actually do the work. Sadly, the cheaters are ever creative, and quickly realized that apparently Google is loading the same puzzles for everyone (which greatly surprises me–I thought they would be randomly generated with different solutions as they were before). Screenshots with solutions now litter the internet, and participants aren’t even trying to solve the puzzles on their own. I mean, way to take skill and intellect out of the equation there.

This is immensely sad to me because the joy of the thing is in solving the puzzles. Not only does cheating disenfranchise those who worked hard to solve the puzzles on their own, but it takes all the fun out of the endeavor. I sincerely hope that cheaters are disqualified, or that someone who is a superb puzzle solver wins with a rapidly played challenge. If I’m going to lose a contest, I’d like to lose it to people who were better to me rather than people who cheated for the answers.

So what are the final puzzles?

The first is a 9×9 Sudoku, and it is quite fun. (Of course, I adore Sudoku, so there shouldn’t be much surprise there.) The Sudoku was the puzzle that took me the longest–there was a moment there when I thought I might give up, but then the pieces started slotting together in beautiful logic and I got through it.

The second is another one of those “restoration” challenges where you move pieces of dirt around on a painting. I’ve never quite gotten these, and I had to restart twice, but I ended up managing it. I only hope actual art restorers don’t handle great works this way, dragging great clumps of dirt across the surface.

The third was a “curator” challenge, which is simply a matter of understanding spatial relations and moving things around until you get a good fit. It didn’t take me too long, placing the larger pieces first.

The fourth was a chess challenge and apparently my fiendish studying of chess problems worked because I got it quite quickly. The only problem is that the pieces are rather difficult to identify, something which makes it a bit more difficult.

Finally, there was a jigsaw puzzle, rather cleverly done. The image shifted and moved because when you finished, it turned into a full preview. It added another level of challenge to the experience which I greatly enjoyed.

All in all I think the final challenge was well done and put together. I assume that others will be playing variants of the puzzles I did. I do think it’s rather entertaining that I spent a lot of time studying up on trivia and things for this challenge, all to no end. Only time shall tell who the winners are–I’m sure I’m not one of them, due to my long hesitation with the Sudoku. Speed Sudoku has never been my forte. But I still enjoyed myself immensely.

My final time? Thirty two minutes.

[Da Vinci Code Quest]

Tart | 18May06

I have been accused of being tart at times (not to be confused with being a tart, which is something else entirely). It’s true, I do have a sharp and cutting tongue which can be unpleasant for those unaccustomed to it. “Tart” is another one of those slippery words in English which refers to many things, and the listener is expected to understand which from context. I’m not certain how a bottom crusted pastry with shallow sides became associated with prostitution (leave it to the British), but what I do know is that tarts are delicious. Pastry in general is of course excellent, but within the pastry club there are more well heeled representatives than others, and the tart is one of them. It embodies the fine points of pastry for me when made well–flaky rich buttery crust, fresh fruit lightly seasoned and preferably not sweetened, heaven.

Tart also refers to a flavor family, a pungent, biting, or sour taste. Some of the best tarts are made with tart fruits such as lemons and limes. Something about the tart makes it an ideal summer food, especially cold dessert tarts. I had a strawberry rhubarb a few weeks ago that was divine, perfectly flaky dough and elegantly seasoned filling on a warm summer day (only ice cream could have improved the situation, to be truthful). While I adore pie, sometimes the tart is simply more fitting, especially when presented in tartlet form. And in warm weather, for me, it’s all about the tart. Especially lemon tarts.

Pie is a winter and fall dish, hearty, filling, and delightfully satisfying. Pie is what you make from fall apples, with solid pastry and a rich array of spices. Tarts are dainty, gracious, sometimes presented in individual servings on elegant platters. Pie can be homely and comforting, whereas the tart is a somewhat more aloof member of the pastry family, one which can be gussied (or tarted, if you will) up for fancy occasions or left more rustic for casual dining. For the inbetween times, you may choose to make a lattice top pie, thus bridging the pastry gap, so to speak.

In addition to dessert tarts, one can also have savory tarts, and I recently consumed a fine example of the species at the Bistro. It was an onion tart, one of my favourites in the savory category. The onions had been slightly carmelized and the sweet onion-ness blended with the creamy cheeses in the tart and the flaky, delicately layered crust to perfection. The tart was presented with asparagus spears in a red wine reduction sauce, which complemented the tart most excellently. It inspired me to do more baking, as I had forgotten the joys of a savory tart and was determined to rectify that omission.

The tart also caused me to muse about etymology–in short, which meaning of the word “tart” came into use first? I can imagine one using tart to describe the flavour and turning that description to the personality, as one describes someone as “looking as though they are sucking on a lemon.” In turn, I can also readily imagine referring to a family of pastries as “tarts” because they are frequently made from tart fruits and vegetables. But who made the leap from flavour/attitude/food to prostitution, when, and why?

Mysterious. Will wonders never cease?

[tart]

Scrabble funtime | 17May06

Tonight we played scrabble. Laurel and I tied in the first game, but only because I went out first and she had to eat a point. “Quacked” was my work, and I am immensely proud of it. I also missed a scrabble for “anointed,” because someone stole the spot I was going to put it in. Alas.

My stealthy scrabble partner assisted in my scrabble domination.

Then we got bored and played sex themed scrabble. Peter destroyed us, but the naughtiest word on the board was still mine. Interestingly, naughty scrabble was completed in about half the time it took us to play a game of regular scrabble. Now, granted, we had a wider range of choices because slang was allowed, but we were limited to sex-related words, so it should have balanced out.

But it didn’t.

Mysterious.

[scrabble]

Sour grapes | 16May06

I’ve been reading a great number of complaints about the way in which the Da Vinci Code Quest was administered, particularly in regards to the timing of the final challenge, and most of those complaints seem to be directed at Google. It makes me sort of sad, I must say. For the record, I’ve always been a big fan of Google, although their recent business practices in China sadden me. It disappoints me to see angry puzzlers leaping upon Google…especially since any timing issues which may have occurred in the final challenge aren’t Google’s fault. Read the rules, and find therein the following: “Sony Pictures Digital, Inc.’s computer is the official clock for purposes of determining all timing issues in connection with Phase 1 of this Contest.”

So do us a favour and stop bitching about Google, ok? The engineers there did an awesome job of generating over 12,000 puzzles in varying degrees of difficulty, and that’s quite excellent. Let’s give Google some credit for the extensive amount of coding (over 6 months worth!) that was involved in the puzzles. Let’s give Google some credit for the challenge and fun of the puzzles, and set aside who made it into the finals and who didn’t for a moment. I would love to go through and work the puzzles again, but I guess they aren’t available online anymore. It would be nice to see them left up, along with the final challenge, because it would be fun to go through them again. (Especially without the added stress of trying to finish as soon as possible.)

Would I like to win the challenge? Most assuredly! But I’ve tried not to let myself get too wrapped up in and obsessed by it, because there are more important things in life. I really enjoyed doing the 24 puzzles in the first phase, and I look forward to doing the final phase. (Which I intend to do as early as possible, so as not to be corrupted by spurious facts which will be flying around the internet within the first hour of the final phase, I’m sure.) I’m not going to pretend that winning isn’t important to me–I am a highly competitive person and I wouldn’t mind the first class flight to Paris either. But the thrill of the hunt is what makes it enjoyable. And I have a shiny cryptex to show for my earlier efforts, which means I’m one cryptex richer than I was last week.

Yes, I most assuredly am practicing similarly styled puzzles and studying up on errata in order to give myself the best chance possible. But I am attempting to keep things in perspective. It’s important to remember that if I don’t “win,” I haven’t “lost.” Since I never had four first class tickets to London and all the other prizes to begin with, how could I “lose” them? So why not relax and do the final challenge with an air of appreciation for all the work that went into it, and for the challenge it presents?

Undoubtedly someone will be able to finish more quickly than I will..probably several someones, and some of them will probably cheat. But I can’t spend all my time minding other people. And perhaps those who are a little over enthusiastic about this competition might do well to remember that.

I’m going to go eat some grapes now. How do you like them apples, toots?

[Da Vinci Code Quest]
[Google]

Barbara Lee is my homegirl | 16May06

Barbara Lee never ceases to amaze me. She’s a congresswoman with balls, and if she ever runs for President, I will vote for her. She was my representative when I lived in Oakland, and she was always accessible and helpful to her constituency–and she stood up for us and our positions on politics. Perhaps I just like her because I like her politics, but I also respect a representative who truly represents the people who voted for her. She cares about what her constituents think and she advocates for them in Washington. She works hard for them because she understands that they are her base.

Barbara Lee was the only representative bold enough to vote against a measure giving Mr Bush unlimited war powers. She’s consistently held her ground, and will not give way. She’s opposed to the war in Iraq, and has sponsored and supported strong legislation dealing with the war, as well as other important issues. I’m glad that she’s on the House International Relations Committee, because I know she’s a voice of reason in the forest of warmongers. She is concerned about environmental issues on a national and global scale, and seems to understand the interconnected nature of a great number of issues better than most members of the House.

But she doesn’t just deal with international issues–she sponsored a living wage bill, she’s committed to affordable and safe housing, she believes in building a healthy economy and in making healthcare accessible. She’s certainly my kind of girl–I’m almost sad I don’t live in Oakland anymore because Mike Thompson, my current representative, is a complete and utter weinie who allows Napa to lead him around by the testicles. Barbara Lee is the sort of representative that someone can be proud of. Perhaps I’m so attached to her because I see clear evidence that she cares in every measure she introduces in the House, and ever effort she makes on behalf of her constituents. She’s in politics because she wants to make a difference, not for fame or power or money. And I like that.

Today she was arrested in Washington along with six other representatives. All members of the Black Caucus, they were protesting in front of the Sudanese Embassy. The group is urging stronger sanctions and divestment from Sudan, as well as direct action to end the genocide which is occurring in Darfur. The members of the group were arrested for blocking the entrance to the embassy and will be fined.

I was pleased when I read the article to see that some members of the House feel strongly enough about an issue to get arrested over it. It gives me hope for direct action in general when elected representatives participate in protests with the explicit purpose of getting arrested. (And what a great way to generate headlines over an issue.) It also made me a little ashamed that my representative is unlikely to take such a strong position on an issue. I wonder if districts are allowed to steal representatives from other districts?

I hope that Barbara Lee keeps on going, because I know that people all over the country are immensely proud of her, and are thinking the best thoughts for her. She’s a strong and powerful woman–a great role model, a wonderful representative, and a fighter for justice. Keep fighting, Barbara, and don’t let the man get you down.

[Barbara Lee]