Someone's Leaving the Island

I read an article recently claiming that studies show blue eyed people to be more likely to possess above average intelligence. I have not found that to be true. In fact, the most brilliant people I know have brown eyes. What the heck, let's see if it's true. Post your answer as a comment here, and be sure to include your eye color so we can determine if there's a correlation toward intelligence.

Blue Eyes:
The Hardest Logic Puzzle in the World

A group of people with assorted eye colors live on an island. They are all perfect logicians -- if a conclusion can be logically deduced, they will do it instantly. No one knows the color of their eyes. Every night at midnight, a ferry stops at the island. If anyone has figured out the color of their own eyes, they [must] leave the island that midnight. Everyone can see everyone else at all times and keeps a count of the number of people they see with each eye color (excluding themselves), but they cannot otherwise communicate. Everyone on the island knows all the rules in this paragraph.

On this island there are 100 blue-eyed people, 100 brown-eyed people, and the Guru (she happens to have green eyes). So any given blue-eyed person can see 100 people with brown eyes and 99 people with blue eyes (and one with green), but that does not tell him his own eye color; as far as he knows the totals could be 101 brown and 99 blue. Or 100 brown, 99 blue, and he could have red eyes.

The Guru is allowed to speak once (let's say at noon), on one day in all their endless years on the island. Standing before the islanders, she says the following:

"I can see someone who has blue eyes."

Who leaves the island, and on what night?


There are no mirrors or reflecting surfaces, nothing dumb. It is not a trick question, and the answer is logical. It doesn't depend on tricky wording or anyone lying or guessing, and it doesn't involve people doing something silly like creating a sign language or doing genetics. The Guru is not making eye contact with anyone in particular; she's simply saying "I count at least one blue-eyed person on this island who isn't me."

And lastly, the answer is not "no one leaves."

My Beloved Julio

So many of you have expressed an interest in knowing, so this day I will share my memories of Julio. When I’m feeling rather sassy, I may refer to Julio. If my affection for you is great, I may even call you by his name. It is an endearment, an honor, to be called “Julio” by me. In my fiction, you’ll also find references to him when I need a name for a minor character. Not “George” or “Bob” but always “Julio.”

Julio was my first love. He was but a lowly goat-roper, and I an aspiring barrel racer. I used to watch him perform, my teenaged hormones all tingly at the sight of his rippling manly muscles as he roped and wrestled those animals to the ground and then tied them down. I wanted him to do the same to me. When I rode my horse, ever faster, racing, pushing for more speed, more agility around those turns, my thoughts were on him. I gripped my pony between my legs and experienced sensations that bewildered my young mind.

My daddy hated him. My mama loved him but wanted a better life for me than she had; she wanted me to marry the wealthy Toad instead, who lived on the other side of the tracks and never touched a goat in his life. Alas, the choices we make in life, and I often wonder what joys my life would have revealed to me if I had married my beloved Julio instead of the wicked Toad.

Actually, y’all, Julio was the name of a cook in the restaurant (Judge Bean’s) where I worked as a waitress when I was in college. He was the only cook in the kitchen who spoke any English, so when the waitresses or managers needed to speak to someone in the kitchen, to give instructions or to ask a question, they always shouted through the window, “Hey Julio!” We’d all say “Hey Julio!” even if Julio wasn’t in the kitchen that day, and the cooks would always answer to it. After a while, it became a joke, just a funny thing to say, and pretty soon we were all calling each other Julio.

This strange, quirky habit stayed with me to this day, and I often greet people with a hearty “Hey Julio!” when I’m in a goofy mood. That’s it, not as interesting as a tale of star-crossed lovers, I know. Just another idiosyncrasy of being Tess.

"I'll Call You"

What the heck is that, exactly?

Is that a promise? A fervent hope? A cruel joke? A euphemism for "Don’t Hold Your Breath"?

I think I can say with certainty that I have never uttered those words to someone without the sincere intention of actually picking up a telephone in the not-distant future and dialing that person’s number. In fact, I can’t specifically remember a time when I said "I’ll call you." and didn’t do it.

So what’s up with guys who, apparently, make a lifestyle out of the insincere "I’ll call you."?

Is it safe to assume that men make that statement with the same sincere intent...and then for some reason change their mind? Perhaps there should be an etiquette for letting the person, the callee, know that the plans have changed and that there will be no phonecall forthcoming. He’s thought it over and no longer intends to call, in spite of what he said at the end of the date.

Or maybe at least "I’ll call you" could be amended for accuracy. Maybe guys could end a date with "I’ll call you if I don’t change my mind." Or "Maybe I’ll call you." Wow, that "maybe" just changes the whole meaning of the statement, doesn’t it? Now the callee knows that he might call but he might not. She knows the score.

Why obscure the score by saying you’ll do something and then not doing it?

My best friend Sissy has a boyfriend, Bill, who says there is an implied "B.I.D." after each "I’ll call you." Any time he says "I’ll call you." you can assume that he means "Before I Die." Lest Sissy get the wrong idea about the time frame associated with the expected phone call.

Still, B.I.D. implies that he does indeed plan on calling, eventually, right? What about when a guy intends never to call? How about "I’ll call you--I.Y.D." (In Your Dreams).

Remember that Friends episode when Chandler kept having to go out with Rachel’s boss even though he didn’t like her, because he couldn’t stop himself from saying "I’ll call you." at the end of each date? Is that what this is about? You can’t think of a polite way of ending a mediocre date with someone you don’t want to see again?

How about this--if you feel compelled to say "I’ll call you" to be polite, how about go ahead and call for the same reason, to be polite. Say thanks for the date, take care, hang up. You don’t have to ask her out again just because you called.

Or better yet, end the date with a polite "Good luck" or "Take care" instead. How about "Have a great weekend, hope all that works out for you with your boss." How about just "Good night."

We can take the kiss-off phrases a lot better than a false promise.

Really, if you’re ending your mediocre or bad dates with "I’ll call you," what do you say at the end of a really fantastic date?

Don’t tell me."How do you want your eggs?"

Hi Fidelity

Of all the human behaviors that fascinate me, I’d like to understand this one most of all. It’s not so much that I don’t understand infidelity, it’s more that I don’t understand why we, as a society and as individuals, create an institution (marriage) that is so blatantly false as to be ignored at some point by one or both partners throughout their lives. Why do we pretend to believe that we, against all odds, will never experience adultery in our marriages? I’m obviously jaded, having been hit on by so many married men, but I have seen it happen even in the strongest, most loving relationships. Much more often than not.

In general, movies are kinder to unfaithful women than to unfaithful men. Male characters typically require no good reason to fool around and the results are often disastrous. As an adulterer in Fatal Attraction Michael Douglas pays a high price for his indiscretion. Again, as a near adulterer in Disclosure he faces serious consequences. The message is the same in both cases: bad things happen to a man who lets his willy wander.

But women in movies are often given good reason when they cheat. Often their husband is abusive or non-attentive. Even when they cheat for no good reason, they get off with little or no consequences. In Unfaithful, Diane Lane cheats, but the disastrous results are due to her husband's actions, not her own. Meryl Streep in Bridges of Madison County experiences no consequence for her infidelity and is in fact portrayed as an extremely sympathetic character. In The Notebook, Rachel McAdams spends a weekend orgasmic and sweaty in the arms of her old boyfriend before breaking off her engagement with current boyfriend. She gets to live happily ever after. Why are women given license to cheat? Do audiences dislike seeing a woman brought to ruin by her disloyalty? Does it reflect an actual cultural double standard in the way that we regard cheating?

I have seen statistics that show that women cheat more than men do. If this is true, and if film portrayal of it can be believed, then we can imagine that women cheat more because they are more unhappy in marriage than men are. Men, having less reason to be unhappy in marriage, cheat only for selfish reasons.

However, I don't believe this is the case. I believe that in real life, women face far harsher judgment in the community when they cheat. So the treatment of unfaithful women in movies is quite interesting.

I've never understood why cheating is so common. And the thing is, it’s so common that I don’t know why we pretend to be shocked by it anymore.
On one hand, I recognize our ridiculous cultural prescription that clings to the notion of mating for life. I know how unromantic I sound. Believe me, I can succumb to the thunderbolt of love as easily as anyone. I can relate to the desire to commit, to declare one's eternal devotion to another. I have done it twice. But when I look back on twenty years of adulthood, I'm in awe of the changes I've gone through as a person. How silly to assume that two people going through such massive change and maturity will always be happier together than apart. Not that they can't possibly do that, but it's pretty silly to assume they will! So yeah, I guess I understand that cheating is one way of handling that.

What confuses me is cheating as a more desirable option than ending the relationship. If your marriage is not meeting your needs, how is it improved by compromising your character and cuckolding your spouse? Stay together for the kids? The kids can handle a mature divorce much better than a family ripped apart by betrayal.

My analytical mind has come up with a few answers. For one thing, some of us crave drama. Nothing more dramatic than having an affair. Or sometimes the person you’re married to makes you happy and meets most of your needs, but not quite all of them. In an effort to get all your needs met at the same time, you keep the spouse and shag the neighbor on the side. And sometimes, as with my ex, cheating is a means of one partner holding power over the other.

And I guess for men, having more than one woman at a time is a strong fantasy that never really goes away. It’s the classic rock-star success symbol: scoring with multitudes of gorgeous babes. For the average man, two semi-gorgeous women is a close enough approximation to the ideal. Leaving one woman for another simply misses the mark—they have to be simultaneous.

But I believe in commitment, I do. I have to. It’s meaningful and true. I refuse to be so jaded that I don’t value honesty in my relationships. It doesn’t have to be forever, but it must be true while it lasts.