elrhiarhodan | Entries tagged with nyt

Good job, now finish it!

I've been doing the NYT crossword puzzle since high school, so that makes it about 40 years worth of puzzle doing. I've never been a fanatic, but I've enjoyed the challenge. I took a lengthy break when the Times put up a paywall and I hadn't realized that when I started actually paying for access, my subscription included the crossword.

I've been doing it daily for about a year and a half now, and I'm not particularly great at it. Mondays - Wednesdays (the easy days) I can do it in about 10-20 minutes and I don't need help, but Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays are devilishly difficult, especially when there are rebuses involved (rebuses are those fiendish clues that require you to put more than one letter into a box, and usually there are no hints that the clue calls for a rebus in the answer). Sunday puzzles aren't terribly difficult - on par with Wednesdays - they are just long.

Bhe thing is, when you do the puzzle digitally, it keeps track of your streak of correctly completed puzzles. And I'm currently at 262 days, my longest streak ever:

A hundred or so days will bring me to one year, which probably is nothing compared to other solvers. But honestly, it's beginning to feel like a burden.

The problem is, I am a completist. Once I get started, I really need to keep going. I'm the same way with bingos (fucking bingos) - it's a blackout or it's not worth doing.

I also need to cut myself a break.

Perhaps when I get to one year. Then maybe.

I've been solving (or trying to solve) NYT crossword puzzles since I was a teenager (a very long time ago), and I'm good enough to get through most of a Saturday puzzle (the hardest puzzle of the week) in about two hours before I throw up my hands and get help. The clues in a Saturday puzzle are devilish and often rely upon specialized knowledge, and clue 1-Down is no exception. Fortunately, I am eminently qualified to solve it:

Source - New York Times, Friday, May 19, 2017, David Brooks

I particularly love the line: "Nobody is going to want to join a self-cannibalizing piranha squad whose main activity is lawyering up."

Crossposts: http://elrhiarhodan.livejournal.com/624620.html

The New York Times LOVES Magic Mike XXL.

Claudette Barius/Warner Brothers Pictures

( Seriously, I don't remember the last time I read such a glowing review )

Crossposts: http://elrhiarhodan.livejournal.com/535174.html

On Monday, I treated my flist to a bizarre 1924 New York Times article about the anarchistic qualities of cats and sincerity-deficient dogs.

Today, I bring you The Cuddly, Fluffy, Surreal World of Angora Show Bunnies, from today's edition of the New York Times.

The Times sent the often controversial avant-garde artist, Andres Serrano to a National Angora Show, (the Westminster for Angoras), held in a pole barn in Palmyra, N.Y. to take pictures of fluffy bunnies.

Apparently, Mr. Serrano, who was infamous in culture-war circles for submerging a crucifix into jar of his own urine and calling is "Immersion (Piss Christ)" also really likes taking pictures of "nice portraits of cats and dogs and children".

According to the artist/photographer, the Angoras were excellent subjects, basically "living pillows".

There is a charming slideshow of those living pillows, and if you are so inclined, you can then take a quiz to see which Andres Serrano fluffy bunny you are. Frequent readers of the NYT will get a laugh out of the questions.

I am, apparently Silvertone Sophia

Crossposts: http://elrhiarhodan.livejournal.com/522804.html

Sometimes, the stuff you find in sidebars is both interesting and amusing. This article, from 1924, popped up for me in my New York Times this morning. It's very much a product of the era – sexist and anthrocentric. And a little ridiculous, but not without some truth.

(Because it's short and the link takes you to a barely legible PDF, I've retyped the whole article.)

Psychologist Finds Cats Are Anarchists

( Dogs Lack Sincerity, Scientist says – Would Train Animals as Collaborators )

Crossposts: http://elrhiarhodan.livejournal.com/522583.html

The New York Times review of The Normal Heart is up (finally). It's not as glowing as some (okay, most), but that is - in a way - better. The review never takes its eye off history, not only of the AIDS crisis, but the history of the play, of Larry Kramer, of the history of gay life in New York in the late '70s and early '80s.

And as such, it doesn't quite forgive The Normal Heart for being a polemic instead of a drama. But that's okay. Because it has this to say about Matt Bomer's performance:

The film also underscores the manipulative parts of the piece, especially when characters we barely know die. Characters die all the time on television, of course, but these days, it’s generally to jolting effect, because we have come to know them over multiple episodes. This “Normal Heart” can feel a bit dehumanizing, as if it’s introducing characters only to kill them in hopes of wringing some tears out of us. Television viewers today are not likely to cry on command like this; they’re used to fuller portrayals.

There is one amazing exception: the character of Felix, Ned’s lover, a reporter at The New York Times. We do come to know Felix, and Matt Bomer, who portrays him, makes sure we understand just what AIDS meant to this character and, by extension, to thousands of gay men who suffered and died in this period. Shooting on the film reportedly stopped for some time while Mr. Bomer lost 40 pounds to portray Felix after he has come down with the disease. It’s a frightening thing to see, and an example of how Mr. Kramer and Mr. Murphy take one of the play’s strong points and, through the flexibility afforded by film, make it even more powerful.

The Normal Heart, New York Times, May 22, 2014

Crossposts: http://elrhiarhodan.livejournal.com/449509.html

I usually don't like to copy entire New York Times articles into a journal entry, but with the paywall and so many friends on my flist who might not be able to access the editorial pages and the importance of the subject matter, I've elected to copy Frank Bruni's Op-Ed piece about Larry Kramer - The Angel in America.

( I LEARNED long ago to open my inbox with trepidation. A journalist is a magnet for complaints. )

Thank you, Frank Bruni.

Crossposts: http://elrhiarhodan.livejournal.com/438764.html

These days, reading the front page of the New York Times is an exercise in agony. From the inhuman horrors occurring in Syria and Central Africa to the unending political stalemates at home, there's little there that makes me feel anything more than informed.

This morning was an exception. Front and center on the New York Times homepage was this story: Secret Bids Guide Hopi Indian Spirits Home (sorry - registration required, but you can download a PDF here).

I'd been following this story for a while. A number of sacred Hopi artifacts, long held by collectors in France (probably looted by tourists a hundred years ago), was going up for auction. The Hopi had sued in France, trying to prevent the sale and have the objects returned to the tribe. The tribe believes that these artifacts not simply religious, but living entities with divine spirits. They are meant to be used in spiritual ceremonies or are retired and left to disintegrate naturally.

The French courts ruled against them and the auction went forward. It was expected that these sacred items - including Katsinam, vibrantly decorated headdresses - would be sold to other collectors or museums.

However, there are good and true people in this world.

Gregory Annenberg Weingarten, vice-president of the Annenberg Foundation, who had been following the case, decided to step in. He had the foundation approve a fund of up $1 million to buy the Hopi artifacts, plus three Apache artifacts, and return them to their rightful place.

With great secrecy, the Annenberg foundation bid on all of the items and was able to purchase all but three. One of the three - a sacred Hopi headdress featuring antelope antlers, had been bought on behalf of other philanthropists who had instructed their buyer obtain what he could as a gift to the Hopis.

Yes, it is a bitter thing when anyone spiritual patrimony become highly sought, expensive commodities. But knowing that there are still people in this world who care enough to help those without power to prevent such a miscarriage offsets the bitterness.

Crossposts: http://elrhiarhodan.livejournal.com/411108.html

No, this isn't another excuse to show this picture:

I was just reading this op-ed piece, A Novel Scorned, and I finally made the connection.

( Am I the only one who needed a week to figure this out? )

Crossposts: http://elrhiarhodan.livejournal.com/404677.html

Very interesting article in the New York Times today: AP Impact: Some Ankle Bracelets Go Unchecked (or you can download the PDF here).

Apparently, law enforcement is so overwhelmed that they can't keep up with checking on all monitoring unit alerts.

I don't mean to make light of the tragedies noted in the article, but just pointing out that maybe Neal treats his radius as a joke because he's learned that no one ever checks up on him,

Crossposts: http://elrhiarhodan.livejournal.com/374213.html

Some mornings I have the luxury of spending a few minutes with the Internet in the morning, I hit LJ and see what's new, then the New York Times for the daily does of what's wrong with the world, i.e., the editorials and Op-Ed pieces.

Of late, the NYT has been running a lot of very fine personal essays about medical choices. There's been an excellent series about surviving cancer, and since I've been there twice, I always am interested. So I clicked on the article My Medical Choice and started to read. It was a frank essay about a mother's decision to have a prophylactic double mastectomy. The author has the BRAC1 gene, which increases her likelihood of getting breast cancer by 85%, and since her own mother died of the disease when she was 56, the difficult choice was made easier.

There was a curious lack of sentiment in her description of the surgical process of having her breasts removed, which I found refreshing. I was also slightly squicked by the minor graphic details (but that's me - I have no problem with undergoing any procedure, but please don't describe it in detail).

About halfway through the essay, I read this line:

I am fortunate to have a partner, Brad Pitt, who is so loving and supportive.

And I blinked. Huh? The author's partner's name is Brad Pitt...how cute. Then I'm like, WTF? I scroll back to the top, and realize that there's no by-line. I read the rest of the essay and at the bottom, the author is identified. "Angelina Jolie is an actress and director."

Yeah - Angelina Jolie.

Had a double mastectomy.

I know that there will be a small, vocal contingent who will find negative and nasty things to say about her. But you know what? I think her decision - to have this surgery and then to inform the world - is incredibly brave. We are a culture that worships physical perfection and Angelina Jolie has been a symbol of that for a long time. To tell the world that it's more important to reduce your chance to get a fatal disease from 85% to 5% than maintain the image of physical perfection is pretty fucking courageous.

Full stop.

I have no doubt that her plastic surgeons were the best in the world and that her hospitalization was atypical for anyone having this surgery, and she will be just as beautiful. But now, when you look at her, you will always have the knowledge that there's something different. Not less, not more, just not the same.

Brava, Ms. Jolie. Brava.

I should note that at some point, the NYT changed the front page entry for the article, promoting it to the upper right hand quandrant and adding the author's name to the by-line. When I saw it at 6:30 am, it was "below the fold", on the rotating carosel of articles.

Crossposts: http://elrhiarhodan.livejournal.com/357012.html

I'm not one to (wo)man the barricades and I probably wouldn't have burned my bra, and try as I might, I can't seem to stop using the epithet, "bitch" (even when not referring to a female dog). But I do have my breaking point.

For those of you who don't regularly read the New York Times, Gail Collins is a regular columnist on the Op-Ed pages, both with the newspaper's resident conservative, David Brooks, and on her own. Her viewpoint coverage of the presidental campaign and election was intelligent and refreshing. And it didn't hurt that she never let an opportunity pass to talk about the infamous Romney Family Trip with the Dog Strapped to the Roof of the Car.

She's been following the attempted rehabilitation of former SC Governor Mark Sanford (who has given new meaning to the phrase, "Walking the Appalacian Trail"), and wrote a mostly amusing and informative Op-Ed piece about his recent win in the Republican primary vote for an open seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. (For those who don't know/don't remember, four years ago, then-Governor Sanford disappeared from the State House. His aides were instructed to say that he was walking the Appalacian Trail. In fact, he was out of the country, involved in an extra-marital affair with an Argentian woman. His subsequent tear-filled confession and resignation was both pathetic and infinitely humorous).

There was something, however, that bothered me about the piece. It was the way she referred to Sanford's former mistress and now fiancee. She never referred to her by her name (Maria Belen Chapur), and at one point called her "the Argentinian squeeze."

I took the opportunity to comment on-line that I found this surprisingly declasse.

Before comments were closed, someone replied that I should "not be too critical of Gail, methinks you poke too quickly." After all, "For the Argentine lady to carry on such an extended affair with a married man, did she not lower herself to derision?"

My answer to that is, regardless of Senora Chapur's life choices (and having a relationship with a married man without his wife's knowledge or consent is a pretty poor life choice), she still shouldn't be reduced to a misogynistic slur.

Or maybe I am over-reacting.

You can read the whole editorial here: Remembering the Affair to Remember

( Screen cap of my letter and the reply under the cut. I've whited out my name and replaced it with )