word games

In the process of playing one of those silly but highly enjoyable games that has about one rule, no scoring, and no point, I won some new shoes (sort of).

This got me to thinking about a variation (hey, there's another one!) on Scrabble: pick a letter (say, 'V', for instance). Every word that you put down has to include that letter at least once. To address the problem that there aren't enough of that letter to make this practical, allow people to use *any tile* as a proxy for the chosen letter; that tile then acts like a blank for the rest of the game (that is, it acts as the chosen letter and scores no points).

If you want to get really evil, don't allow a given word to be repeated. ;}

This presents some interesting challenges: first, you have to think of an appropriate word...and second, you have to get used to the idea that any of the tiles on your rack may be used as another letter.

And to generalize...let *any* tile be used as a blank. To make things more interesting, if you use a non-blank tile in this way, you get negative points for that letter rather than positive (so it's inadvisable to do this with Q, Z, J, or X unless you've got something really good lined up).

The inverse, of course, would be to restrict people from playing words that had a given letter (say, 'E'--La Disparition, anyone?), and treat that letter's tiles as blanks.

And just to round things out, an idea I had several years ago: allow people to play words in which the letters go up, or to the left, rather than down/right (which often tends to get the game cramped in the bottom right corner).

I may never play Scrabble the normal way again. :)

the other interview with Jon Stewart

This time, with Ted Koppel.

I think that this does a better job at communicating what Stewart was trying to say on the now-[in]famous appearance on Crossfire. (Those with slow connections may want to read the transcript instead.)

hubris, writ large

Joey DeVilla, aka AccordionGuy, has a link to a NYT magazine article, which includes a really disturbing passage on one Bush adviser's view on "creating reality".

Joey pretty much says it.

Update: on reflection, this article touches on another theme that is worth pointing out.

A candidate who bases his decisions on reasoned interpretation of evidence and on rational discourse, and who is willing to change his mind in the face of new evidence, is never, in our present culture and society, going to get the quality of support that Bush has. I don't mean that they can't win; fortunately, I think that Kerry's chances for doing so are looking pretty good at this point. But Kerry doesn't believe that he's divinely inspired, and he is constitutionally incapable of displaying the sort of certitude in his opinions that Bush does, and that means that he won't attract the fervent loyalty that someone like Bush--who appears to believe in his fundamental (heh) rightness in a manner that would do any pope proud--naturally engenders in those that want more than anything to see a leader who radiates that he Knows What He's Doing.

Make no mistake: this is not a Republican vs. Democrat thing, not really. This is a religious fundamentalism vs. rationalism thing. I can easily imagine a Democrat getting elected using an approach something like that which Bush has used--and it would be all the more potent for the unexpectedness of the affiliation, I suspect.

There are people that put a great deal of importance on rational decision-making. But we don't give unconditional loyalty, and there are a lot fewer of us.

gonzo physics

NYT article on what Problems physics should be trying to address (that is definitely Problems with a capital P).

You can't accuse him of being insufficiently ambitious, certainly.

And how can you not like a presentation which uses a moose to represent the universe?

methinks we're not protesting enough.

An old law turns protesters into threats against the president. (Passed along by Megan.)

Anticipated soon from a news source near you: John Cleese will get arrested for farting in GWB's general direction.