Drink More Ovaltine
"Who Was Captain Ahab's First Mate?" (Skip to next section for news)
Unlike most people participating in the Starbucks Crossword Challenge--people who picked up one of the crosswords each week for six weeks--I got all 7+ of the puzzles in the mail at once and blazed through them in a weekend. In the middle of this 48 hours of obsession, C. suggested that she would like to rent a polar bear, saddle him up, ride him down I-95, and direct him to eat Will Shortz as he smirks around his parkview penthouse giggling about the puzzling masses yearning to solve free. I thought that was a little harsh, at the time, but now I think I'd be willing to put up the safety deposit. (Not that I could afford it, but still. I'd be willing.)
Anyway, the question in bold above was what this whole thing came down to. That's right: after nearly seven weeks of complex (and, admittedly, fun) multi-stage puzzles, hard-working cruciverbalists everywhere were dismayed to find that the final answer WAS THE NAME OF THE COMPANY SPONSORING THE CONTEST. Very "Christmas Story," as more than one person has already noted in these furious hours of postgame blogalysis. I just hope that the yahoo who guessed (and it *had* to have been a guess--the tiebreaker puzzle was really awful, and there's no way you could have actually deduced the question from it in the ten minutes it took for the contest to end) didn't actually put an "S" on the end. I think I might just have a polar bear with your name on it, buddy.
Something more relevant:
So this most recent D.A. interview went pretty well, considering. I'll blog some of the hypos more specifically later, but I did want to mention the very last question. It was something that would not be unreasonable to ask would-be prosecutors in most jurisdictions, but one that should present a real surprise for any Massachusetts interviewee:
"And, finally: What do you think about the death penalty?"
Huh. Talk about a safe answer... the Commonwealth hasn't seen any need to kill off its own citizens for nearly half a century. This state is home to the nation's oldest anti-death penalty group (founded, with commendable foresight, in 1928), and the very first ruling handed down from the Massachusetts Bay Colony's nascent supreme court in 1692 was to pardon the remaining condemned from the infamous witch trials.
So I went with the truth: I'm completely, unequivocally, thoroughly and unapologetically against killing people. Killing is killing is killing. Here's my sermon:
No one could ever possibly heed all Ten Commandments in the course of a lifetime, but I'm not about to be a party to violating the only one that most of us should (fingers crossed) be able to manage not to trample on in our lives: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. (Yes, I know that might be better translated "murder," but I still have my own reasons for believing that it applies here--and besides, this is neither the time nor the place to be getting all exegetical on me. At least wait 'til I'm done preaching at you.) I think that a serious and demonstrated respect for human life--whether that life be the most innocent or the most unimaginably reprehensible--is one solid indicia (yes, the word "indicia" actually slipped out in the interview; sadly, my subconcious is just as pretentious as the rest of me) of civilization.
If it were up to me, no one--not any of the Nuremberg defendants, not Saddam, not Manson, not Bundy, not Scott Peterson, not Osama, most assuredly not Zacarias Moussai, and maybe not even Lay and Skilling--anywhere would ever be executed. I have my reasons. It's one reason that I could never be a federal prosecutor, at least until some future Supreme Court finally rules capital punishment unconstitutional. (In my lifetime? Guys? Please?)
So I told them as much, minus (I hope) the preaching. This seemed to go over pretty well, and it was only at this point that I was told that the D.A. is a strong anti-capital punishment advocate. Aaaand... we're breathing again. Admittedly, that could have been pretty bad. I mean, Our Governor already wants to bring state-sponsored killing back with a vengeance--I guess the Book of Mormon doesn't include the Sixth Commandment?--and there can't be that many American D.A.'s willing to take a strong stance against it. But it's not like I was going to lie.
That's more than enough for now. More tomorrow.
Unlike most people participating in the Starbucks Crossword Challenge--people who picked up one of the crosswords each week for six weeks--I got all 7+ of the puzzles in the mail at once and blazed through them in a weekend. In the middle of this 48 hours of obsession, C. suggested that she would like to rent a polar bear, saddle him up, ride him down I-95, and direct him to eat Will Shortz as he smirks around his parkview penthouse giggling about the puzzling masses yearning to solve free. I thought that was a little harsh, at the time, but now I think I'd be willing to put up the safety deposit. (Not that I could afford it, but still. I'd be willing.)
Anyway, the question in bold above was what this whole thing came down to. That's right: after nearly seven weeks of complex (and, admittedly, fun) multi-stage puzzles, hard-working cruciverbalists everywhere were dismayed to find that the final answer WAS THE NAME OF THE COMPANY SPONSORING THE CONTEST. Very "Christmas Story," as more than one person has already noted in these furious hours of postgame blogalysis. I just hope that the yahoo who guessed (and it *had* to have been a guess--the tiebreaker puzzle was really awful, and there's no way you could have actually deduced the question from it in the ten minutes it took for the contest to end) didn't actually put an "S" on the end. I think I might just have a polar bear with your name on it, buddy.
Something more relevant:
So this most recent D.A. interview went pretty well, considering. I'll blog some of the hypos more specifically later, but I did want to mention the very last question. It was something that would not be unreasonable to ask would-be prosecutors in most jurisdictions, but one that should present a real surprise for any Massachusetts interviewee:
"And, finally: What do you think about the death penalty?"
Huh. Talk about a safe answer... the Commonwealth hasn't seen any need to kill off its own citizens for nearly half a century. This state is home to the nation's oldest anti-death penalty group (founded, with commendable foresight, in 1928), and the very first ruling handed down from the Massachusetts Bay Colony's nascent supreme court in 1692 was to pardon the remaining condemned from the infamous witch trials.
So I went with the truth: I'm completely, unequivocally, thoroughly and unapologetically against killing people. Killing is killing is killing. Here's my sermon:
No one could ever possibly heed all Ten Commandments in the course of a lifetime, but I'm not about to be a party to violating the only one that most of us should (fingers crossed) be able to manage not to trample on in our lives: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. (Yes, I know that might be better translated "murder," but I still have my own reasons for believing that it applies here--and besides, this is neither the time nor the place to be getting all exegetical on me. At least wait 'til I'm done preaching at you.) I think that a serious and demonstrated respect for human life--whether that life be the most innocent or the most unimaginably reprehensible--is one solid indicia (yes, the word "indicia" actually slipped out in the interview; sadly, my subconcious is just as pretentious as the rest of me) of civilization.
If it were up to me, no one--not any of the Nuremberg defendants, not Saddam, not Manson, not Bundy, not Scott Peterson, not Osama, most assuredly not Zacarias Moussai, and maybe not even Lay and Skilling--anywhere would ever be executed. I have my reasons. It's one reason that I could never be a federal prosecutor, at least until some future Supreme Court finally rules capital punishment unconstitutional. (In my lifetime? Guys? Please?)
So I told them as much, minus (I hope) the preaching. This seemed to go over pretty well, and it was only at this point that I was told that the D.A. is a strong anti-capital punishment advocate. Aaaand... we're breathing again. Admittedly, that could have been pretty bad. I mean, Our Governor already wants to bring state-sponsored killing back with a vengeance--I guess the Book of Mormon doesn't include the Sixth Commandment?--and there can't be that many American D.A.'s willing to take a strong stance against it. But it's not like I was going to lie.
That's more than enough for now. More tomorrow.
posted by Anonymous at 10:33 PM
1 Comments:
It should be noted that Patrick Berry composed the puzzle, and that Will Shortz and Patrick Berry fought Starbucks tooth and nail regarding the rules of the contest. So I'm not really sure if anyone should be polar bear chow.
Post a Comment
<< Home