I started getting my sudoku fix this past Christmas in England. Apparently, in November 2004, The Times of London began printing sudoku puzzles. (Sudoku has been popular in Japan for decades.) One cold December morning, bored out of my skull, I decided to try The Times’ crossword. In general, I despise crossword puzzles. Frankly, I don’t believe that my vocabulary is sufficiently developed, and the clues are always incredibly arcane. I usually manage to get halfway through a crossword puzzle before giving up, getting distracted, or realizing that I should be doing laundry.

Then I saw the sudoku puzzle. It was incredible – a puzzle that I actually enjoyed! I actually bought a copy of The Times the next day just so that I can have another puzzle. It certainly wasn’t for its journalism.

And apparently, I wasn’t the only one hooked. The New York Times reports that since Sudoku has invaded the colonies in April 2005, a new puzzle craze has hit America.

What’s the big deal about a stupid numbers game? What inspired the big craze? Is sudoku simply the hula-hoop or the yo-yo of 2005?

There are a few theories on offer. In my case, I consider myself more numerate than literate. So I suppose that a numbers puzzle would be naturally more appealing that a words game. I guess that’s why that I like games like Othello compared to Scrabble. And I guess that sudoku appeals to individuals of a more logical bent.

Which is fine -- but frankly, of the people whom I know, most individuals “of a more logical bent” are pretty dull, and don’t usually get into puzzles at all. So what’s the other appeal? The Times offers another suggestion about why puzzles are innately intriguing:

People do puzzles for many reasons. Chief among them is that puzzles give the solver a feeling of being in control. Most of life's challenges don't have black-and-white solutions, and many have no resolution at all. We jump into the middle of problems and muddle through as best we can. With sudoku - or any other human-made puzzle - carrying it through from start to finish, and finding the perfect solution in the end, can produce a feeling of great pride.

And the craze continues. Wayne Gould, who introduced the puzzle to the UK, is on his way to becoming a millionaire. The Times has recently introduced Killer Sudoku, a more difficult variant of the old game. Cool. Its creator, Tetsuya Nishio, comments,

This new variation will be a dreadful challenge to you. Do not get too addicted. We can make these puzzles so difficult that it would take a champion six hours to complete one.

Whoa.

This isn’t a perfect game. Usually, in a crossword, if I goof up, I can erase the word, or just complete a different part of the puzzle. In a sudoku puzzle, one mistake usually means that I have to erase all my previous entries. That really ticks me off, and is the most frustrating aspect of these puzzles.

Even so, if sudoku is the latest fad, consider me a sell-out. Now if I can only find my eraser...

The sudoku image is from a video game from Success Corp Japan.

No one expected the Conservatives to like gay marriage. Even Conservative supporters who are pro gay marriage were willing to let them slide on it.

But it was another thing entirely for them to make it their issue - the most important thing around. That told those same supporters that their issues weren't important, that denying gays rights was the most important thing around. It told them that their issues would always give to social conservative issues, when push came to shove.

Welsh is a bit hung up on the same-sex marriage issue: this analysis doesn't quite explain why opponents of same-sex marriage such as myself have abandoned him. But the answer to that is a simple extension: same-sex marriage, while something we don't support, isn't something that we see as the downfall of society. Same-sex relationships (which should be allowed) don't hurt anybody in a significant way. And even if they did, they aren't going to magically disappear if we hold back the same-sex marriage. Besides, same-sex marriage is a settled question in 7 of 10 provinces and at least one territory (it might be two) so this didn't affect that many people. And most importantly, the courts have ruled that same-sex couples must have some sort of official union recognized by law. The Conservatives were going to legislate same-sex marriage in all but name because they had to. For them to die on this issue made little sense.

For those of us who opposed same-sex marriage, we wanted token opposition because that's all that is legally allowable. And then to move on to address real issues such as poverty, health care, the economy, national defense, and the like.

But what did that great policy guy Stephen Harper do? He didn't talk about policy. And with the Grewal mini-scandal and silly emphasis over same-sex marriage, all we got was a party that stood for nothing that mattered.

And that's the heart of what Welsh gets at. Neither the Canadian Conservatives nor the US Democrats stand for anything that matters. If we elected them, what would they do?

The Conservatives would rename "marriage" as "social union" in the case of same-sex couples. Hardly all that important. But that's all it seems.

The Democrats wouldn't change social security (i.e. do nothing). And? I don't know …

Elections are about choosing the direction for the country. And neither the Canadian Conservatives nor the US Democrats represent a positive direction for the country. They don't stand for any direction. If Canadians wanted no direction, they already have a much better choice for that in the Liberals: they're experts at doing nothing and we can trust they'll do nothing, especially, not touch same-sex marriage which many Canadians support.

The course of action here is simple: both the Conservatives and Democrats need to find direction.

The Conservatives have to put forward policy and tie it into a broader vision for the country. If the Liberals steal their policy, who cares? As Stephen Harper used to say in the late 1990s during the United Alternative debates, if the Liberals stole Reform policies (e.g. Clarity Act, deficit cutting, tax cuts), that meant that Reform was changing government policy just as it always had intended. So what if Reform wasn't the one doing the actual changing. (This used to be why I really liked Harper: that attitude was of someone who didn't care about power but rather of making sure the right thing happened to the country. My how things have changed. …).

Most importantly, the Conservatives should quit thinking that this summer tour and image problems are what is keeping the Conservatives from power. The image problem is that no one sees policy and vision in the Conservatives. Canadians don't vote for the guy who looks the friendliest; they vote for the guy who can best run the country. The friendly-factor matters little unless there's nothing else to differentiate the candidates.

As for the Democrats, they need to find an agenda, but one that isn't a reflex to everything that's a change. Social security isn't going to remain solvent. If they want to oppose Bush's plan to restore solvency (probably a good idea since Bush's plan seems weak), then they need a plan of their own and reasons why it is a better plan. If they want to fight Bush on the national security front, they need a plan of their own and reasons why it is a better plan. Reflexive opposition shows no vision or now policy agenda. At best it shows a complete lack of vision and policy. At worst, in the case of social security for example, it shows an unwillingness to face the issues and show leadership in fixing them. No one wants to vote for someone who'll run from every problem.

In short, if the Conservatives think we should stand up for Canada, then they should tell us what that means so we know how whether we're actually going to stand up for Canada.

And if the Democrats want to stand up to Bush, they need some policies to stand up on top of.