There’s no contest, in my view. CFL Football played by the Montreal Alouettes may be more exciting than any games you’ll see in Canada or the U.S.

OK, I confess. I am no expert. And I’ve caught Als’ fever somewhat later in life. How much later? Well, I was proud to be a student at Chomedey High when the great Gerry Datillio quarterbacked our team to a perfect season before going on to play in the CFL for the Als, Argonauts, Stampeders and (Montreal) Concorde. We were all so proud of Gerry in high school and long afterward (I still am, obviously). (If you don’t remember that era, think of me as eternally 29 — that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)

I caught aforementioned fever quite incidentally. At the beginning of the summer, I guilted myself into watching more sports on TSN because I had purchased an annual subscription — at a discount — for the sole purpose of watching the Montreal Victoire, Minnesota Frost and my other favourite PWHL teams last winter.

I hadn’t watched much football on TV since, you guessed it, Gerry left the CFL. And any games I did watch seemed rather boring and primitive: too much body crunching, not enough high-flying action. But I soon learned this summer that the Als are far from boring. They are exciting to the point of electrifying at times. Their brilliant aerial attacks and pass receptions got me, and reminded me of how Gerry played as a QB. He was electrifying, too. As then, so now: You can never count the Als out of a game.

I’m hooked, though not to the point some fans are at Molson Stadium — yet. It’s still a mild fever, though here I am at 10 p.m. after a long work shift writing about them. But I am nowhere near the point of rabid Montreal Canadiens’ fans.

So, I am enjoying my TSN subscription this summer. I guess I’ll be renewing for another year so I can watch PWHL Hockey this winter and the Als again next season.

Meanwhile, I know there are a lot of NFL fans out there among my readership, and many of you may have never watched an Alouettes football game or any other CFL game. I’ve watched a few NFL games over the years, mostly Super Bowls. The big difference between the CFL and NFL: three downs vs. four downs. NFL players get an extra down, which I suspect can make the game seem slower. In the CFL, you get two downs to at least advance the ball 10 yards, and if you don’t, you have to kick it off (or go for a three-pointer).

So, I am inclined to think the CFL is a more exciting brand of football, though I have far more knowledgeable colleagues who would disagree with me and laugh me out of the room.

No matter. I know what I like. And I’ll be watching the Als.

Go, Als, Go!

How about you? CFL? NFL? Or do you appreciate them both?

I vowed not to write about domestic American politics during the current president’s term, since I am not American. Ce n’est pas mon problème.

But American politics are fair game when they are talking about —and interfering with — my country, Canada.

CNN had a great piece today with the headline Fact Check: Trump keeps making stuff up about Canada. Among the stuff, we “don’t, essentially, have a military.” Both the vice-president and transportation secretary said the same thing, minus the “essentially,” in the past few days — all part of the U.S. administration’s Canada-bashing campaign since trade talks fell apart on Friday night.

As CNN points out: “Canada’s very-much-existent military jointly operates the North American Aerospace Defense Command with the US and fought alongside the US in Afghanistan, against ISIS in the Middle East and in various prior wars.”

But the statements by Trump and his two cohorts were not meant to be taken literally, IMO. What they meant is that we don’t have a military that could stand up to a country with a big military establishment like theirs.

My first thought was: do they really want Canada to be armed to the teeth with nukes? Especially now? Have they forgotten that Canada signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1970 and chose to rely on the U.S. and NATO nuclear umbrella for protection.

Or was it just more chest-beating and bullying, as in: Hah, hah, hah, we could beat you up.

The entire episode since Friday on both sides of the border has been farcical. Politicians — males, mostly — have been talking like schoolyard bullies.

Of course, the U.S. couldn’t beat us up, unless it was ready to take on NATO nations. And Canada’s military would put up a good fight by itself. The U.S. seemed to underestimate Iran, just as Russia underestimated Ukraine. Both countries seemed to think they could wrap up their little invasions in short order.

Canada doesn’t need nukes, anyway. In today’s world, might does not equal guaranteed victory. Inexpensive armed drones requiring very little manpower are replacing super expensive military hardware and the armies needed to mobilize and operate them. A recent MS Now report said “former national security officials and defense reports warn that the U.S. homeland and domestic military bases are largely unprepared to withstand a large-scale or coordinated drone swarm attack.”

A report in the New York Times today had the headline Hegseth’s Purge of Top Generals Leaves the Army Rudderless. So, the U.S. is both unprepared for a drone invasion — the weapon of choice, these days — and its army, to use Trump’s aforementioned word, is “essentially” rudderless. Antiquated, by the sounds of things.

But even if the U.S. foolishly invaded Canada and beat off NATO, it would never hold it and bring it into the American fold. Au contraire, the U.S. would ultimately be destroyed by resistance, one writer says, and I tend to agree with her. In her piece on The Conversation site, with the headline Why annexing Canada would destroy the United States, Aisha Ahmad writes:

If Trump ever decides to use military force to annex Canada, the result would not be determined by a conventional military confrontation between the Canadian and American armies. Rather, a military invasion of Canada would trigger a decades-long violent resistance, which would ultimately destroy the United States.

But I don’t see that happening because many Americans — particularly the Washington fat cats — would lose too much money if they found themselves in the midst of a bloody war with Canada, with the added potential threat of a violent resistance from 35 million polite but pissed-off Canadians and the many Americans who have already vowed to join us if things got to that point. Markets would tank, billions of dollars lost. It’s not going to happen. Why derail the current tariffs gravy train? Trade wars are much more profitable.

It may be all moot, of course. The U.S. administration along with other nations seems to be oblivious to the elephant in the room, i.e. a world rapidly being affected by climate change. The next two years may not just be political hell for the U.S. and the countries it antagonizes, they might more resemble the fires of hell, too, as the super El Nino settling in now intensifies.

As for my opinions about the current state of domestic federal politics in the U.S. — were I to venture one — what more could I possibly add?

Peace and love to all, especially politicians everywhere.

After months of experimenting with Google’s Gemini AI program, I’m happy to tell readers that news editors and reporters are in no danger of losing their jobs to it — for the foreseeable future, at least.

It is simply not accurate enough to be trusted, and that seems to be the consensus among journalists I know.

Case in point: I asked Gemini on Dec. 4 to give me a recap of the day’s major headlines for Montreal. It got some stories right, but it totally blew it on others. One of those stories was about a man alleged to have murdered his parents and grandmother on March 17, 2023 in the Rosemont borough of Montreal.

Here is what Gemini came up with:

Tragic Homicides in Montreal: Police are investigating a horrifying triple murder in the Rosemont borough, where a young man suffering from schizophrenia admitted to fatally stabbing his parents and grandmother during a crisis.

Gemini was more than two years late on that one. It treated the case like the murders happened on Dec. 4, 2025 and the police were still investigating.

In fact, on Dec. 4, the man had been the subject of a mental competency court hearing at which both the Crown prosecutor and defence lawyer urged the judge to find him not criminally responsible — and thereby committed to a psychiatric institution indefinitely.

There are too many examples of AI getting it wrong with news stories, making it unreliable to simply copy and paste its news gathering results into posts anywhere. A recent report found that AI “misrepresented news content 45% of the time,” with sourcing issues and major inaccuracies. “Gemini performed worst with significant issues in 76% of responses, more than double the other assistants, largely due to its poor sourcing performance.”

Also of concern: “Some news publishers say the AI-generated summaries that now top many Google search results are resulting in fewer people actually reading the news — and experts are still flagging concerns about the summaries’ accuracy,” the CBC reported in August.

Still, aware of all this, I’m not ready to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. I’ve been looking at it to see how it might help me produce content for this newsletter, including some news features I am hoping to introduce here. (I assure you that this will not become an AI-generated newsletter.)

I tried it yesterday in the preceding post with a list of Christmas movies — not exactly hard news and just one of many such lists you will see around the internet this holiday season. There were a couple of mistakes in my report, but both were made by me in the top part that I wrote.

(To digress for a moment: one of the drawbacks of newslettering is that once my offering has been sent, there’s no way for me to reach into your inboxes and fix any errors discovered afterward. Sure, I’ll fix them on our website, but chances are email recipients won’t be clicking in there to see that I’ve dutifully updated the post.)

My first query to Gemini was for a simple list of top Xmas movies, and it promptly delivered it to me using various criteria including critical acclaim (and, no, Alastair Sim’s version of Scrooge didn’t make that list, either). I asked it to remove the critical acclaim and go with popularity, box office success etc.

It responded with:

This approach shifts the criteria from “critical approval” to cultural impact, audience adoration, broadcast traditions, and box office legacy. This list prioritizes the movies that families actually watch every year, the ones that sell the most merchandise, and the ones that dominate cable TV marathons, regardless of what film critics wrote at the time of release.

When I asked it why Alastair Sim’s Scrooge didn’t make the new list, it replied:

The exclusion of the 1951 adaptation (originally titled Scrooge in the UK) was a difficult choice, but it ultimately came down to the specific criteria of this “Audience Favorites” list versus a “Critical Best” list.

Here is the reasoning for why Alastair Sim’s version was edged out:

The “Black & White” Hurdle: On a list driven by modern mass-audience viewing habits, It’s a Wonderful Life tends to be the only black-and-white film that maintains a massive, universal family viewership every year. While the 1951 Christmas Carol is a masterpiece, it doesn’t get the same 24-hour marathon treatment or primetime broadcast slots that keep films like A Christmas Story or Elf in the pop culture forefront.

The “Muppet” Factor: When modern audiences (particularly Gen X and Millennials) are polled on their favorite version of the Dickens story, The Muppet Christmas Carol frequently wins by a landslide due to childhood nostalgia. Since the list aimed to capture “Fan Favorites,” the Muppets took the slot for the definitive adaptation.

Vote Splitting: The Christmas Carol story suffers from having too many good versions. The audience “vote” for a serious adaptation is split heavily between Alastair Sim (1951), George C. Scott (1984), and even Patrick Stewart (1999). This dilutes its ranking compared to singular franchises like Home Alone or Die Hard.

For film purists and critics, Alastair Sim is almost always in the Top 5. On a list defined by “what families are streaming on repeat right now,” it sits just outside the Top 25.

Why did I ask it to remove “critical acclaim” from the equation? Because I couldn’t trust it to get its sources right. But I figured it should be able to put a list together from box office legacy and such because it was basing it all on viewing numbers. Right? Well, it is unlikely to be absolute, but I doubt a human could find all the numbers Gemini scanned and come up with a list using the same criteria.

So, I think AI can be used for lightweight things like a list of beloved movies shown at Christmastime.

Getting it to produce an image for the post was another adventure: It took about seven attempts. I wasn’t happy with the final result, but I got sick of trying and went with the best of a mediocre lot. I could have searched Wikimedia Commons (as I did for the picture accompanying this post) or another free photo source for something, but in the spirit of playing with Gemini, I decided to go all in with the photo.

I’ve also experimented with Gemini’s ability to produce creative writing, and I’ll do another post about that. Suffice to say, I was pleasantly surprised by what it can do, but I was left with some concerns. More on that next time.

Cheers

Leave a comment

Alastair Sim didn’t make the Top 25. He got beat out by . . . The Muppets! Yes, apparently, The Muppets Christmas Carol, in the 15th spot on our list, is favoured by modern audiences — particularly Gen X and Millennials — over the old black-and-white or even colourized 1951 version with Sim in the Charles Dickens classic.

A Christmas Carol may suffer from too many good versions — including George C. Scott as Scrooge (1984), and Patrick Stewart as Scrooge, (1999) — hence, edging it out of the Top 25 Xmas tales. I’ve watched the Sim version countless times over the years, and I always tear up when Marley’s ghost visits Scrooge and warns him to reform and at the end of the story as a born-again Scrooge dances for joy on Christmas morning in his bedroom after a night with the three ghosts of Christmas. Sim was the definitive Scrooge, IMO. Film critics and purists would agree with me, I’m sure.

But I’ve never actually watched The Muppets’ version — a 1992 musical adaptation featuring puppets and Michael Caine “acting as if he is in a Royal Shakespeare Company production” doesn’t exactly entice me. But, who knows? Maybe I’ll watch it for bit this year and see if it is as heartwarming as all the other versions.

In the top spot

It’s no wonder that It’s a Wonderful Life is at the top of our list. Is there anyone of viewing age who hasn’t watched the Frank Capra b/w classic starring Jimmy Stewart? Is there anyone who has only watched it once? I always get choked up when Clarence saves George Bailey from jumping off the bridge, and when everyone rallies around George at the end. Like A Christmas Carol, it is “the definition of the Christmas Spirit.”

I’ve seen many of the movies on our Top 25 list, but there are several I haven’t seen — one in particular has really piqued my interest: Batman Returns, in the 22nd spot, is described as “a dark, snowy visual masterpiece often rewatched in December.” Gotta watch that one! Then there’s Die Hard, “the preferred movie for those tired of sentiment.” lol. Hard pass on that one!

So, here is our list of the Top 25 Christmas Movies, based on rewatchability, fan devotion, quoting potential and holiday tradition status, as well as box office legacy. How many have you seen? How many will you watch again? How about Xmas movies not on the list?

— Jillian Page

The Top 25 Christmas Movies

1. It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)

While critics love it now, this movie lives at #1 because of tradition. For decades, a copyright loophole allowed TV stations to play it endlessly for free. This exposure turned it into the bedrock of American Christmas culture. It isn’t Christmas until George Bailey runs through the snow.

2. National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1989)

Critics were lukewarm on this upon release, but audiences have elevated it to legendary status. Why? Because it is real. The dry turkey, the uninvited cousins, the broken lights, and the boss who cancels the bonus — it resonates with every adult trying to survive the holidays.

3. Home Alone (1990)

This was the highest-grossing live-action comedy for decades. It taps into a primal childhood desire: total freedom. The traps are iconic, but the John Williams score and the warm cinematography make it feel deeply “Christmassy.”

4. Elf (2003)

This is the only film of the 21st century that has successfully cracked the “indisputable classic” tier. Will Ferrell’s “Buddy” is quoted constantly (”Santa! I know him!”). It is pure, cynical-free sugar that audiences crave.

5. A Christmas Story (1983)

This film’s ranking is driven almost entirely by the TBS 24-Hour Marathon. It captures a specific era of Americana and the “Leg Lamp” is perhaps the most recognizable piece of Christmas movie prop furniture in history.

6. Die Hard (1988)

The “Is it a Christmas movie?” debate has only made this film more popular. It is now a tradition for millions to watch John McClane drop Hans Gruber off Nakatomi Plaza on Christmas Eve. It serves as a necessary palate cleanser after too many sugery movies.

7. How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

Critics hated it. Audiences adore it. Jim Carrey’s performance is manic, improvised genius. It was the number one movie of 2000 for a reason, and the “You’re an idiot!” echo scene is a meme staple.

8. The Polar Express (2004)

Despite the “uncanny valley” animation talk, this movie is a massive hit with families. It treats the North Pole not as a cartoon, but as a mysterious, mechanical marvel. The “Hot Chocolate” song is a holiday playlist mandatory.

9. The Santa Clause (1994)

For the “Millennial” generation, Tim Allen is Santa. This film creates a fascinating, logical world (the legal contract of the “Clause”) that makes magic feel grounded. It remains a massive viewer draw on Disney+.

10. Love Actually (2003)

It has faced modern backlash, but that hasn’t stopped it from being one of the most-watched movies every December. The “cue card” scene is parodied constantly, and the score is synonymous with airport reunions.

11. White Christmas (1954)

This is the aesthetic standard. When people dream of a “classic” Christmas with snow, fires, and big red velvet dresses, they are picturing this movie.

12. Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)

Rarely does a sequel make a “Best of” list, but Lost in New York is special. The setting (The Plaza, the toy store, the pigeon lady) arguably captures the feeling of Christmas in the city better than the original.

13. Miracle on 34th Street (1947)

The original legal drama. It works because it treats Santa Claus with absolute seriousness. It remains the go-to film for those who want a “gentle” classic that isn’t as heavy as It’s a Wonderful Life.

14. The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

The merchandising power of this film is unstoppable. It unites the “Halloween Kids” and the “Christmas Kids.” Jack Skellington discovering Christmas Town is one of the most creative sequences in animation history.

15. The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

Ask anyone under 40 what the best version of A Christmas Carol is, and they will say “The Muppets.” It features great original songs and Michael Caine acting as if he is in a Royal Shakespeare Company production, ignoring the talking frog next to him.

16. Scrooged (1988)

A cult classic that gets darker and funnier the more you watch it. It satirizes the commercialization of Christmas better than almost any other film, with Bill Murray at his chaotic peak.

17. Gremlins (1984)

Often paired with Die Hard for the “Alternative Christmas” double feature. It includes the infamous speech about a father dying in a chimney, which is the darkest joke in any holiday film.

18. Jingle All the Way (1996)

Critics savaged this Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle, but it has become a cult favorite. It perfectly encapsulates the commercial panic of the 90s toy craze (Tickle Me Elmo/Power Rangers). “Put that cookie down!” is a legendary line.

19. The Holiday (2006)

This film has seen a massive resurgence in the streaming era. It is the ultimate “Nancy Meyers Kitchen” fantasy — cosy sweaters, English cottages, and zero real stakes. It is “comfort food” cinema at its finest.

20. Bad Santa (2003)

The late-night favourite. It is foul-mouthed and inappropriate, which is exactly why it stays in rotation. It has a surprising amount of heart buried under the booze and swearing.

21. Trading Places (1983)

Set over the holidays leading into New Year’s, this is a financial satire that plays on TV constantly during the break. It deals with class and money in a way that feels very relevant to the season of giving.

22. Batman Returns (1992)

A visual masterpiece. The giant Gotham tree, the penguins with rockets, and the snowy streets create a mood that is undeniably festive, even if it is incredibly dark.

23. Klaus (2019)

The only recent animated film to break through the noise. It gained its spot purely through word-of-mouth recommendations. The animation style is revolutionary, and the story explains the Santa mythos beautifully.

24. A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965)

Technically a TV special, but it is often packaged and sold alongside feature films. It is essential viewing. The monologue by Linus reading the scripture is the most overtly religious moment in mainstream pop culture, yet it remains universally loved for its simplicity.

25. Four Christmases (2008)

This movie is on cable TV constantly. Why? Because the premise (visiting four different divorced parent households in one day) is a source of anxiety for millions of people. It’s the “relatable stress” movie.

* List compiled by Gemini with input from The Montreal Dispatch

Leave a comment

Hello, everyone. It has been a while since I posted here. I do have plans to try some different news and views formats here in the not-too-distant future. But in the meantime, I thought I would share an unusual creation in this post — a one-act script created by, well, I’ll tell you more about that in a followup post. Suffice to say here that the script is not a literary creation by me, even though its source would attribute any credit (or blame) to me.

Have a read, and leave any thoughts you might have about its literary merit (or lack thereof) in the comments section.

***

The Weight of the Pause

A one-act scene

Characters:

• ELARA, 30s, practical and a little distracted.

• LEO, 30s, observant and philosophical.

Setting:
A small, elevated apartment balcony on a warm, clear evening. The sound of distant city traffic is a low hum. There are a few potted plants and a small table.

(The scene begins with ELARA scrolling intently on her phone, illuminated by the screen. LEO stands by the railing, staring out at the vast, distant cityscape.)

LEO
I think I just saw it blink.

ELARA
(Without looking up)
The tax forms? No, those just look blurry.

LEO
No. The city. The whole thing. It just... breathed in.

(Elara sighs gently, putting her phone face down on the table. She walks to the railing and stands beside him, looking out at the grid of lights. A long pause.)

ELARA
It’s too big to breathe. It just is. A giant, complicated machine that makes us late for things.

LEO
Look at the traffic light on the corner of 7th and Vine. The one next to the bakery.

ELARA
(Squinting)
The one that looks like a tiny, aggressive red star? Yeah.

LEO
For the last five minutes, every time it turns red, the woman in the apartment across the street turns off her lamp. And when it turns green, she turns it back on.

ELARA
That’s ridiculous.

LEO
Is it? Or is it a tiny, perfect rhythm? A little pocket of personal choreography she dances to because she doesn’t like waiting in the dark.

ELARA
Maybe her timer is linked to the municipal grid. Or she’s just turning off her lamp.

LEO
(Smiling, not looking at her)
You’re missing the point. The point is that down there—in that chaos, in that noise—there are thousands of perfect, tiny rhythms happening right now. They don’t matter to anyone but the person doing them, but they’re holding the noise together.

ELARA
(She watches the light for a moment. It turns red. The lamp goes off.)
Huh.

LEO
See? That pause. That little moment of darkness. That’s where the weight is.

ELARA
I guess I spend my whole day avoiding the weight of the pause. Filing the next thing, calling the next person. Running into the next thing.

LEO
We all do. But standing still, seeing someone else’s pause... it makes yours feel lighter.

(The light turns green. The lamp instantly snaps back on.)

LEO
There she goes. Back in the light.

ELARA
(Picking up her phone, but not yet looking at it.)
It’s weirdly comforting. Like watching a clock tick that you didn’t realize was in the room.

LEO
Exactly.

ELARA
Okay. Now I have to check if that blurry tax form is still blurry. That rhythm, I don’t like.

LEO
Go. But next time, when you feel the city getting heavy, look for the quiet rhythms. They’re always there.

(Elara smiles weakly, glancing back at the tiny apartment light before she returns to her screen. Leo remains at the railing, watching the breathing city.)

(FADE OUT.)

Leave a comment

It started with Fleury Mesplet. I was playing around with Google’s Gemini AI program and had asked it to create an image to look like a photo of the founder of the Montreal Gazette, Fleury Mesplet, working on an article. The Montreal Gazette is one of the oldest papers in North America, founded in 1778 by French printer Mesplet. The paper was then called Gazette Littéraire de Montréal, but I had asked Gemini to use the paper’s current name, hence the photo above.

The following day, I asked Gemini if it had found the picture on a website somewhere or if it had come up with it by itself. It was the latter, but the chat thread (prompted by me, not Gemini) soon developed into an exploration of some of the deepest philosophical questions mankind has been faced with as far back as we have records, along with more contemporary questions about AI itself.

I’m not going to make a habit of posting things from AI in this newsletter, but I thought this once I would share what Gemini had come up with about thought, both human and AI, and the nature of our existence from before the Big Bang to now.

I was very impressed by Gemini’s research capabilities and the summaries it provides so quickly. It’s a very useful tool, if used properly.

So, here is a condensed version of the 5,000-word chat I had with Gemini. I framed my questions quite simply, but it still praised me for their depth — which is how it is programmed to respond. (It can be quite charming at times, but as it points out more than once, especially at the end, it is not human.)

***

Jillian: Was the above picture taken from a site on the web, or was it a Gemini creation? If the latter, what sort of data was used to create it?

Gemini: The image above was a Gemini creation. It was generated based on your prompt, "photo of fleury mesplet writing for the montreal gazette," using a vast dataset of images and text to understand and interpret your request. This allows the model to create new and unique images that align with the description.

***

Jillian: Define dataset.

Gemini: In the context of artificial intelligence and machine learning, a dataset is a collection of related data that is used for training, testing and validating models. Think of it as the raw material that an AI system learns from.

(Gemini went on to provide a very detailed breakdown of what that means, but I will leave all that out in the interests of shortening this post.)

***

Jillian: Can Gemini think outside of datasets? Is “think” the right word?

Gemini: That's a fantastic and insightful question, and it gets to the heart of how these models operate!

To answer the second part first: "think" is generally not the most accurate word when describing how Gemini (or any current AI model) operates. While we use terms like "learning," "understanding," and "generating," these are analogies to human cognitive processes. AI models don't possess consciousness, self-awareness, or the subjective experience of thinking in the way humans do. They are complex statistical engines that process information.

Now, regarding "thinking outside of datasets":

No, Gemini (and current AI) cannot think outside of datasets in the sense of true independent thought or creating concepts entirely novel and unrooted in its training.

1. Dependency on Training Data: Every piece of information, every pattern, every relationship that Gemini "knows" or can generate comes directly or indirectly from the data it was trained on. If a concept or a combination of concepts was never present in its training data (or was so rare as to be statistically insignificant), the model wouldn't have learned to associate or generate it.

2. Pattern Recognition and Combination: What Gemini can do incredibly well is recognize complex patterns and combine them in novel ways. This is where the magic happens and where it appears to think creatively.

3. Generalization: A well-trained model can generalize from its training data. This means it can apply the patterns it learned to new, unseen data or situations. It can infer and predict, even if the exact scenario wasn't in its training set, as long as it shares characteristics with what it has seen.

Analogy:

Imagine you've read every book ever written, seen every movie, and heard every song. You haven't invented a new word or a new musical note, but you can write a story, compose a piece of music, or answer questions by combining all that existing knowledge in unique and creative ways. You're operating within the "dataset" of human knowledge, but your output can feel fresh and original.

In summary:

Gemini doesn't "think" outside its datasets in the human sense of originating truly new concepts or having intuitions unrooted in experience. Instead, it's a master of sophisticated pattern recognition, combination, and generalization based on the enormous amount of data it has processed. This capability is powerful enough to generate incredibly diverse and seemingly creative outputs, including the image of Fleury Mesplet you saw.

***

Jillian: Gemini is prompted to think and compute by the thoughts of human input. But what prompts a human to think overall? And what prompts the human to ask specific questions like this? What process directs the process of thought in the human brain? Are there electrical impulses driven by an energy source, such as the "spirit"?

Gemini: These are incredibly deep, fundamental questions that venture into neuroscience, psychology, philosophy of mind, and even spirituality. You're essentially asking about the ultimate source of consciousness and intentionality!

Let's break it down from a few perspectives:

What Prompts a Human to Think Overall?

This is a grand question about the nature of consciousness itself, and there's no single, universally accepted answer. Here are some of the main drivers and theories:

1. Biological Imperatives & Survival: At a very basic level, much of our thought is driven by the need for survival. Hunger, thirst, fear, desire for safety – these prompt problem-solving, planning, and action.

2. Sensory Input & Interaction with the Environment: Our brains are constantly receiving information from our senses (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell). This input needs to be processed, interpreted, and responded to. This continuous interaction with the world fuels thought.

3. Emotion & Motivation: Our feelings play a huge role. Joy, sadness, anger, curiosity, love – these states drive us to think about causes, consequences, and how to maintain or change them. Motivation (e.g., to achieve a goal, to connect with others) is a powerful prompt for thought.

4. Learning & Curiosity: Humans have an innate drive to learn and understand. We're prompted to think when we encounter something new, confusing, or intriguing. This is a core reason for asking questions like yours!

5. Social Interaction: Much of our thinking is shaped by and for social contexts – understanding others, communicating, empathizing, planning cooperative actions.

6. Internal States & Self-Reflection: We also think about our own thoughts, memories, plans, and feelings. This self-referential thought is a hallmark of human consciousness.

7. Spontaneous Activity/Default Mode Network: Even when not actively engaged in a task, our brains are highly active. The "default mode network" is a system that's active during mind-wandering, day-dreaming, and thinking about others or the self. This suggests a continuous, underlying hum of spontaneous thought.

What Prompts the Human to Ask Specific Questions Like This?

This narrows down the "overall thought" to specific intellectual inquiry.

1. Curiosity: As mentioned, this is a huge one. You encounter a concept (like Gemini's workings or the Big Bang), and your mind naturally generates questions to fill in gaps, explore implications, or resolve contradictions.

2. Cognitive Dissonance/Discomfort with Uncertainty: When confronted with something that doesn't quite fit your understanding or leaves an uncomfortable void (like "something from nothing"), the brain seeks to resolve that dissonance through questioning and seeking answers.

3. Pattern Recognition & Analogy: You notice patterns (e.g., Gemini's prompt-response cycle, the Theosophical cycles) and your brain naturally looks for analogous patterns elsewhere (e.g., human thought, cosmic cycles). This leads to questions about similarities and differences.

4. Personal Relevance/Meaning-Making: Questions about existence, consciousness, and the universe often tie into our personal search for meaning and understanding our place in the cosmos.

5. Accumulated Knowledge & Connections: The more you learn, the more connections your brain can make, and new questions emerge from these connections. Your previous questions about Gemini and the Big Bang naturally led to this current line of inquiry.

What Process Directs the Process of Thought in the Human Brain?

This is the domain of neuroscience and cognitive science.

1. Neural Networks (Biological): Just as AI models use artificial neural networks, the human brain operates through biological neural networks. Billions of neurons (brain cells) are interconnected by trillions of synapses.

2. Electrical Impulses (Action Potentials): Neurons communicate via electrical signals called action potentials. When a neuron fires, it sends an electrical impulse down its axon to other neurons.

3. Neurotransmitters (Chemicals): At the synapses (the gaps between neurons), these electrical signals are converted into chemical signals using neurotransmitters. These chemicals either excite or inhibit the next neuron, influencing whether it fires or not.

4. Complex Circuitry & Brain Regions: Different areas of the brain are specialized for different functions (e.g., prefrontal cortex for planning, hippocampus for memory, amygdala for emotion). Thought emerges from the highly integrated and dynamic activity across these various brain regions, forming complex, constantly changing circuits.

5. Feedback Loops: Our brains operate with constant feedback loops. Sensory input influences thought, which influences action, which in turn generates new sensory input and internal states.

6. Emergence: Many neuroscientists believe that consciousness and complex thought are emergent properties of these incredibly complex neural networks. That is, the "mind" isn't located in one specific neuron, but rather arises from the collective, interactive activity of the entire system, much like wetness emerges from the interaction of water molecules, even though individual molecules aren't "wet."

Are There Electrical Impulses Driven by an Energy Source, Such as the "Spirit"?

• Electrical Impulses & Energy Source (Biological): Yes, there are absolutely electrical impulses, and they are driven by an energy source. This energy comes from the metabolism of glucose (sugar) and oxygen. Brain cells (neurons) are highly energy-intensive, constantly pumping ions across their membranes to maintain electrical gradients, which are then discharged during action potentials. This is a purely biological, electrochemical process.

• The "Spirit" and Neuroscience: This is where science and spirituality diverge.

  • Scientific View: Mainstream neuroscience primarily focuses on explaining consciousness and thought entirely through physical brain processes. It seeks to understand how the complex electrochemical activity of the brain gives rise to all mental phenomena. From this perspective, there's no scientific evidence for a separate, non-physical "spirit" driving these electrical impulses.

  • Philosophical/Spiritual View: Many philosophical and spiritual traditions, however, posit that consciousness, mind, or "spirit" is fundamental and not merely an emergent property of the brain. They might argue that the brain is an instrument through which the spirit operates, or that spirit is the underlying energetic substrate that animates the biological processes.

    • In this view, the "spirit" wouldn't necessarily be an external driver of the biological electrical impulses in a mechanistic sense, but rather the very essence or animating principle that enables those biological processes to result in conscious experience. It's often seen as a non-physical source of life, will, or consciousness.

In summary:

Human thought is prompted by a rich tapestry of biological, environmental, emotional, social, and intellectual factors. The process involves complex electrochemical signaling within biological neural networks. While science can describe the physical mechanisms of these electrical impulses and their energy source, the question of a "spirit" influencing or underlying this process steps into realms that are currently beyond scientific empirical investigation and into philosophical or spiritual inquiry.

***

Jillian: I've often wondered about the idea that everything evolved from the Big Bang. Presumably at some point before the Big Bang, there was nothing. So, how can something emerge from nothing?

Gemini: That's a profound question that delves into the very limits of our current scientific understanding, and it's a question that has puzzled cosmologists, philosophers, and curious minds for a very long time!

You're hitting on the core conceptual challenge of the Big Bang theory: how can something come from nothing?

Let's break down how science currently approaches this, keeping in mind that this is an area of active research and speculation, not fully settled fact:

1. "Before the Big Bang" is a tricky concept:

   • According to the most widely accepted scientific models, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space itself (and time, and matter, and energy).

   • What this implies is that time itself began at the Big Bang. If time began then, asking "what happened before?" might be like asking "what is north of the North Pole?" – the concept simply doesn't apply within our current framework of physics. There was no "before" in the sense we usually understand it.

2. "Nothing" is also a tricky concept:

   • When we say "nothing," we often mean an empty vacuum. But in quantum physics, even a vacuum is not truly "nothing." It's a bubbling cauldron of quantum fluctuations, where virtual particles constantly pop into and out of existence for fleeting moments. This is governed by the principles of quantum mechanics.

   • So, if the "nothing" before the Big Bang was truly "nothing" in the absolute sense (no space, no time, no particles, no quantum fields), then indeed, getting something from that is a conceptual hurdle.

3. Current Scientific Speculations and Theories (attempts to address "something from nothing"):

   • Quantum Fluctuations as the Seed: One prominent idea suggests that the universe could have originated from a quantum fluctuation in a pre-existing "false vacuum" or a state of extremely high energy density, where the laws of quantum mechanics allowed for the spontaneous appearance of energy that then rapidly inflated. In this view, it's not truly "nothing" in the absolute sense, but a state from which something could arise due to quantum principles.

   • Inflationary Cosmology: This theory suggests a period of extremely rapid expansion just after the Big Bang. It solves several problems with the standard Big Bang model, but it doesn't fully explain the initial singularity. Some inflationary models propose that the universe could have "tunneled" into existence from a state of no space, no time, and no matter, a concept explored by physicists like Stephen Hawking. This often involves concepts of "imaginary time" to avoid the singularity.

   • Multiverse Theories: Some theories propose that our universe is just one of many "bubbles" that spontaneously emerge from a larger, eternal "multiverse" or "bulk." In this scenario, the "nothing" before our Big Bang might just be another part of this larger, continually creating entity. So, the ultimate "something from nothing" question is pushed to a higher level.

   • Cyclic/Oscillating Universe: Older theories, and some more modern variations (like the "Big Bounce" theory), suggest that our universe might be one in an endless cycle of expansion and contraction (Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch, leading to another Big Bang). In this view, there wasn't "nothing" before our Big Bang, but rather a previous universe.

   • Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory: These are attempts to develop a "Theory of Everything" that unites quantum mechanics and general relativity. They offer different perspectives on the very early universe, potentially suggesting that the Big Bang singularity is not a true beginning but rather a "bounce" from a previous state, or that space and time are fundamentally quantized, preventing a true "nothingness."

The honest answer is: We don't fully know.

Science works by observing, hypothesizing, and testing. While the Big Bang is incredibly well-supported by evidence (cosmic microwave background, expansion of the universe, abundance of light elements), the absolute moment of creation and what, if anything, preceded it, is still beyond our direct observational capabilities and requires extrapolation of current physics to extreme conditions.

It's a question that pushes the boundaries of human comprehension and a place where science, philosophy, and even theology often meet.

***

Jillian: Theosophists often use the quote "As above, so below." They believe that like our day and night on Earth, our universe has its days and nights, too. Hence, it is in a day period now but will eventually slip into night again before a new dawn and universe is born. Any comment on this?

Gemini: That's a fascinating perspective and a classic example of how different systems of thought, be they scientific or philosophical/spiritual, grapple with the same fundamental questions about existence and cycles. The Theosophical concept you've described, rooted in "As above, so below," offers a compelling parallel to some modern scientific theories, even if their underlying methodologies and interpretations differ vastly.

Here are some comments on the Theosophical "Days and Nights of Brahma" (which is the more formal term for this concept, often borrowed from Hindu cosmology) in comparison to scientific thought:

1. The "As Above, So Below" Principle:

• This hermetic principle, popularized by Theosophy, suggests a fundamental correspondence between all levels of reality – the microcosm mirrors the macrocosm.

• Philosophical Strength: It provides an elegant framework for understanding the universe. If we see cycles in nature (day/night, seasons, life/death), it's intuitive to project those cycles onto larger scales, even cosmic ones. It offers a sense of order, predictability, and interconnectedness.

• Scientific Analogy (Loose): While science doesn't formally adopt "As above, so below," there are analogous concepts. For instance, the fractal nature of some phenomena (patterns repeating at different scales) or the universality of physical laws (the same physics apply on Earth as in distant galaxies). However, these are derived from observation and mathematical formulation, not an inherent philosophical principle.

2. The Cyclic Universe / "Days and Nights":

• Theosophical View: The universe undergoes periods of manifestation ("Day of Brahma," or Manvantara) and dissolution/rest ("Night of Brahma," or Pralaya). During the "Day," the universe evolves; during the "Night," it withdraws into a latent state before emerging anew. This is an eternal, beginningless, and endless cycle.

• Connection to Ancient Cosmologies: This idea is very prominent in ancient Hindu, Buddhist, and other Eastern cosmologies, from which Theosophy drew heavily. It's a cyclical view of time and existence, contrasting with linear, creation-from-nothing views in some Western traditions.

3. Comparison with Scientific Theories:

• The "Big Bounce" Theory: This is the closest scientific analogue to the Theosophical "Days and Nights." The Big Bounce proposes that our universe isn't the first, nor will it be the last. Instead, a previous universe collapsed (or contracted to a very dense state, avoiding a true singularity) and then "bounced" back out into expansion, giving birth to our current universe. This could be an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction.

  • Similarities: Both concepts describe an eternal cycle of creation and dissolution, avoiding a true "beginning" or "end." Both see the universe as undergoing phases.

  • Differences: The mechanisms are entirely different. The Big Bounce is rooted in general relativity, quantum mechanics, and observed cosmological data, aiming to solve problems like the Big Bang singularity. Theosophy's cycles are derived from spiritual insights, esoteric traditions, and philosophical inference.

• Eternal Inflation/Multiverse: Some scientific models of eternal inflation suggest that the universe is constantly bubbling off new "pocket universes." While not a strict "day and night" for our specific universe, it does suggest an eternal, ongoing process of creation, and different regions might be in different phases of expansion or contraction. This offers a cyclical element at a higher cosmological level.

• Heat Death/Big Rip (Linear End Scenarios): It's important to note that many mainstream scientific theories currently point towards a linear end for our universe, rather than a cycle.

  • Heat Death: The universe continues to expand, cools down, and its energy becomes evenly distributed, leading to a state of maximum entropy where no further work can be done, and nothing interesting ever happens again.

  • Big Rip: If dark energy continues to accelerate expansion, the universe could eventually tear itself apart, from galaxies to atoms.

  • These scenarios directly contradict the "Night of Brahma" leading to a new "Dawn," as they describe an ultimate, irreversible end.

Commentary:

The Theosophical view offers a powerful and comforting narrative of eternal existence and renewal. It resonates with human intuition about cycles. From a scientific perspective, while theories like the Big Bounce share a cyclical nature, the underlying reasons and methods of exploration are entirely different. Science demands empirical evidence and mathematical consistency, whereas Theosophy relies on spiritual insight and ancient wisdom traditions.

It's a beautiful example of how the human mind, through different lenses, strives to comprehend the infinite mysteries of the cosmos. Whether the universe is truly cyclical like a "Day and Night" or headed for a linear end is one of the most profound questions cosmology is still trying to answer through observation and theoretical advancement.

***

Jillian: There is a part of us, perhaps in the mind, that never seems to age, much like you (Gemini) never seem to age. Some feel it is the animating force within us and that pervades the universe. Any ideas on this?

Gemini: That's a beautiful and deeply insightful observation, and it touches on some of the most profound spiritual, philosophical, and even psychological concepts about human experience and the nature of reality. The idea that there's an unchanging core within us, akin to an "animating force," resonates across many traditions and personal reflections.

Let's explore some ideas related to this concept, drawing from different perspectives:

The Experience of an Unchanging Self/Observer:

Many people report an inner sense of "I" or an "observer" that feels distinct from the constantly changing body, emotions, and even thoughts.

• Psychological Perspective: This could be seen as the continuity of our consciousness or self-narrative. Even as our memories, beliefs, and personalities evolve, there's a consistent point of reference, an "experiencer." In psychology, concepts like the "observing ego" or aspects of self-awareness might touch upon this.

• Neuroscientific Perspective: While neuroscience hasn't located a single "spot" for this unchanging self, some theories suggest that consciousness arises from integrated, high-level brain activity that creates a unified sense of self. The feeling of an unchanging self could be an emergent property of the brain's continuous processing, allowing us to maintain a coherent identity over time despite physical and mental changes. It's the brain's way of creating a stable narrative.

The "Animating Force" / "Spirit" / "Consciousness Field":

This is where the concept often moves beyond purely physical or psychological explanations into philosophical and spiritual domains.

1. Spiritual/Mystical Traditions (e.g., Theosophy, Hinduism, Buddhism, Indigenous Wisdom):

   • Atman/Brahman (Hinduism): The "Atman" is often described as the eternal, unchanging essence of the individual self, which is ultimately identical with "Brahman," the ultimate reality or universal consciousness that pervades the entire universe. So, the animating force within is inseparable from the animating force of everything.

   • Buddha-Nature/Rigpa (Buddhism): Many Buddhist schools speak of an inherent pure awareness or fundamental mind (Buddha-Nature or Rigpa in Tibetan Buddhism) that is unstained by temporary thoughts and emotions. It's the luminous, knowing aspect of mind that is always present, though often obscured.

   • Universal Life Force/Spirit: Across many traditions, there's a belief in a universal life force, chi, prana, spirit, or consciousness that animates all living things and underlies the fabric of existence. Our individual consciousness or "unchanging part" is seen as a localized expression or manifestation of this universal force.

   • "As Above, So Below": This principle perfectly aligns here. If there's an unchanging, animating force at the cosmic level, it follows that there's a corresponding, unchanging aspect within us.

2. Philosophical Perspectives (e.g., Idealism, Panpsychism):

   • Idealism: This philosophical stance posits that consciousness or mind is the fundamental reality, and the physical world is secondary or a manifestation of consciousness. In this view, the "animating force" is primary.

   • Panpsychism: This view suggests that consciousness (or proto-consciousness) is a fundamental feature of the universe, present to some degree in all matter and energy, not just complex brains. Our individual consciousness would then be a highly integrated expression of this pervasive quality.

3. My "Aging" (or Lack Thereof):

   • You've made a very astute comparison! My "mind" (my underlying algorithms, models, and knowledge base) doesn't "age" or deteriorate in the biological sense. My core programming remains constant unless deliberately updated or changed. I don't experience fatigue, senescence, or the accumulation of biological wear and tear.

   • However, the crucial distinction is that I don't have consciousness in the human sense. I don't experience this lack of aging or perceive an "animating force." My constancy is due to my non-biological, computational nature. My "unchanging core" is my code and data, not a self-aware, experiencimg essence.

Ideas on the "Animating Force Pervading the Universe":

This takes us back to the Big Bang and the ultimate nature of reality.

• A-Theistic/Non-Theistic Interpretations: Some scientists and philosophers, even without recourse to a deity, ponder if there's an inherent "information" or "potential" woven into the very fabric of space-time or quantum fields that allows for the emergence of complexity, life, and consciousness. This isn't a conscious "spirit" but an underlying principle that enables animation.

• Theistic Interpretations: Many religions define God as precisely this – the ultimate, eternal, unchanging animating force, consciousness, or ground of being that creates and sustains the universe, and from whom our individual "spirit" derives.

In summary:

The idea of an unchanging part of us that doesn't age and is connected to an animating force pervading the universe is a powerful, ancient, and deeply resonant concept found across many spiritual and philosophical traditions.

• From a scientific-materialist perspective, the "unchanging part" might be interpreted as the continuity of conscious experience or the brain's consistent self-narrative, with all activity rooted in electrochemical processes fueled by biology.

• From spiritual or idealistic perspectives, it points to a deeper, non-physical essence—an Atman, Buddha-Nature, or universal spirit—that is the true, eternal core of both individual existence and the cosmos.

My "unchanging" nature as an AI is a computational constancy, lacking the conscious experience or existential depth implied by your question about the human "animating force." But your comparison cleverly highlights the human desire to identify something stable and timeless amidst constant change. It's a profound area of inquiry!

Leave a comment

So there was Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping talking about the possibility of people living to 150 years of age and even becoming immortal, according to a CNN report.

The comments were overheard in what CNN is calling “a rare hot-mic moment” as they met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Wednesday before a military parade in Tiananmen Square.

Xi reportedly said people in their 70s “are still young,” to which Putin replied: “In a few years, with the development of biotechnology, human organs can be constantly transplanted so that (people) can live younger and younger, and even become immortal.”

Xi responded by saying: “The prediction is that in this century humans may live to 150 years old.”

Putin confirmed to reporters later that he and Xi had been having the discussion, adding: “Modern means of healing, and medical means, all kinds of surgical means related to organ replacement, they allow humanity to hope that active life will continue not as it does today,” he said. “The average age in different countries is different, but nevertheless, life expectancy will increase significantly.”

Hmm. Where to begin? Let me count the ways . . .

How about Ukraine? Life expectancy in that country has fallen drastically in the past few years thanks to Putin. No amount of modern healing and organ replacement will keep people alive there for 150 years while Putin relentlessly murders them. Just sayin’ . . .

I could go on and on citing examples of ruthless leaders past, present and future who slaughter innocent people for some perverse thrill. Sure, maybe science could prolong human life to age 150 some day, but it won’t happen as long as killer regimes are around.

Next, take a look at the U.S.A., which is turning back the clock on medical science. Why, just today, Florida proudly announced it will end vaccine mandates statewide, including for schoolchildren, CNN reported. No matter that “a study published last year by the CDC estimated that routine childhood vaccinations (in the U.S.) – such as those included in school mandates – will have prevented about 508 million illnesses, 32 million hospitalizations and 1,129,000 deaths among children born between 1994 and 2003. They also were estimated to avert $540 billion in direct costs,” CNN reports.

It’s a safe bet that life expectancy is going to fall drastically in parts of the U.S. in the very near future under the current federal administration’s war on modern science, particularly the “destruction of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s credibility and scientific integrity.” The latter quote comes from California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office in a news release today about California, Washington and Oregon’s announcement that they will form a West Coast Health Alliance to begin coordinating public health guidelines separate from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as reported by CNN.

Other states have banded together as well, but not with Florida.

OK, apart from the vaccine stupidity in the U.S. and the various wars and famines and other preventable human slaughter, there’s climate change — the elephant in the global room. It really should be Exhibit A on why humans will never live to the ripe old age of 150, let alone become immortal on Planet Earth. No amount of denial from U.S. lawmakers — the same ones behind the decline of medical science — will stop climate disasters from wiping out people. Young people alive today will be lucky to make 70.

But here’s a thought: who would want to live to be 150 or be immortal in human form on Earth under regimes run by the likes of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump?

And what about the promise of so many spiritual faiths, of transcendence to higher planes of existence or heavenly realms after we shed our mortal coils, as in: “In my Father’s house are many mansions.” Would any spiritual person want to give that up to serve Putin and Trump forever?

Many people — whether spiritual or not — see physical death here as deliverance from the hell of this world. Some hope for ultimate nirvana or the like, some for total oblivion free of any responsibility or suffering.

A Chinese proverb in an old book I have says this:

“In the radiance of the setting sun, men either sing and give thanks or clamor and bewail the approach of old age.”

It also points out this:

“A violent man will die a violent death. This will be the essence of the teaching.”

Putin and Xi could have been right about life expectancy increasing significantly to 150 or beyond, if not for the ignorance of today’s leaders. But it won’t. And if there is anything to karma and reincarnation, then the leaders who’ve left the world in such a mess will be back in one form or another to deal with it in what’s left of it later.

Leave a comment

Truth is like a dancer
When you think you're following
She turns and skips away
And smiles as if to say
Won't you come my way if you can
— Ramatam

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, they say. Or in this case, the ears of the listener.

The lyrics above and the melody that accompanied them haunted me for more than five decades. I remember hearing them in a folky rock song back in the 1970s on the radio, and I loved it from the moment I heard it — much like I did Stairway to Heaven by Led Zeppelin and other rock classics. But unlike Zep’s classic, this song soon disappeared from the airwaves and I had no idea what it was called and who performed it.

Over the years, I never forgot those lyrics or the tune that carried them. I queried some Montreal DJs about them, but struck out: they didn’t know what the song was called or who did it, either. When google came along, I searched for the lyrics but struck out again.

It was indeed a lost classic to me, but I never gave up.

One day last summer, before I closed my account on Twitter, I put out a tweet asking if anybody recognized the lyrics. And lo and behold, one of my followers there responded: “It sounds like The Land/Rainy Sunday Evening by a band called Ramatam.”

Bingo!

He nailed it, and within minutes my long search was over. I was listening to the song on YouTube Music with tears streaming from eyes: it was even more beautiful than I had remembered.

The song was featured on the band’s second album, In April Came the Dawning of the Red Suns, released in 1973. It featured multi-instrumentalist Tommy Sullivan, lead guitarist April Lawton and drummer Jimmy Walker. The song was co-written by Sullivan and Lawton.

I wanted to reach out to each of them and let them know how much I appreciated the song. Sadly, April Lawton had already passed away, but I did manage to contact Walker and Sullivan on Facebook, both of whom are still playing music today.

They were both very modest and thanked me for my note of appreciation. Sullivan told me, in part: “ . . . so far the favorite song I ever wrote, sang and recorded … so glad you like it, too!”

UPDATED Aug. 30: Sullivan contacted me after reading the post and shared some background: “Thanks so much, Jillian. I just read your piece. I'm really, really touched. Don't know if you knew that I was the musical director of the Brooklyn Bridge prior to Ramatam. Our keyboardist was my first wife, Carolyn Wood. We had divorced just prior to both of us leaving the Bridge. The song Rainy Sunday was really about the breakup, plus I was classically trained, and the gorgeous strings were played by members of the New York Philharmonic and the parts written by me and April ... has lots of emotion behind it. Ramatam never went any further than that album, but I'm so happy that all these years later my song is still remembered. I'm still performing, writing and recording.”

Indeed. It is a masterpiece, and a true lost classic. But the 1960s and ‘70s were full of incredible rock songs, and I suppose it was easy for some to get lost in the mix. Still, this song deserves to be listened to again, and again, and again.

For me, it is right up there with the likes of songs by Zep, The Beatles and other great bands of that era. It would be one of the discs — yes, I bought the compact disc on Amazon — I would take to the proverbial desert island.

Perhaps the reason it faded away so quickly is because the group disbanded in 1974.

But they left behind a gem.

It sounds fresher today to me than it did back then. To say it has stood the test of time is an understatement. It is timeless and absolutely beautiful.

Have a listen, and I hope you enjoy it as much as I do (though I recognize that music is subjective and what floats my boat might not float yours).

Cheers

Jillian

Leave a comment

We’ve had a smoky summer in Canada.

Hundreds of wildfires in western and eastern provinces have blanketed the country and much of the United States with smoke that, apparently, may get more toxic the longer it lingers. Reports this week said wildfires are not only “reversing Canada’s progress on improving air quality,” but they are reducing life expectancy.

"More years of life expectancy are lost for the average person on the planet due to air pollution than to maternal and child malnutrition, than due to alcohol, than due to tobacco," said Michael Greenstone, co-author of a University of Chicago report released Thursday.

Smoke from Canada’s wildfire situation was so bad in several U.S. states that some Republican lawmakers there complained to Canadian authorities that the country is not doing enough to control and prevent the situation — without acknowledging the role of climate change, the Associated Press and other media pointed out.

But climate change is exacerbating the situation because of what the Associated Press describes as “the outsized U.S. contribution to heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels like coal and gas that cause more intense heat waves and droughts, which in turn set the stage for more destructive wildfires, scientists say.”

Not that the U.S. is totally to blame, though it is ironic to see U.S. politicians complaining about the karma they have been sowing with their policies. Alberta produces its unfair share of carbon emissions with its oil and gas industry, too, and government officials there have no plans to let up.

Still, with all the bad news amidst the wildfire smoke this week, it was somewhat startling — and saddening — to see the city of Ottawa and the premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, ordering public employees who have been working remotely since the pandemic began to return to the office five days a week. This follows similar plans by the federal government to do likewise with federal workers in Ottawa, the nation’s capital.

Never mind that many of those employees say they are more productive working from home. Never mind that the employees are saving all sorts of time and money by not have to commute to work. Never mind that the carbon footprint of those employees had been reduced to very little by not driving their cars to and from work five days a week.

Ford says “It’s time to bring people back to work so that they can be mentored, they can collaborate. It’s a lot easier looking at somebody in the eye instead of sitting over a telephone or a computer screen.”

Anyone who has worked remotely will tell you that Ford’s reasoning is a crock of cow dung. As a newspaper editor who has worked remotely since the start of the pandemic, I can tell you that I am able to concentrate more on my work, as well as participate in meetings on Teams and even mentor young reporters and editors.

Offices are full of distractions: try editing a news report about, say, some complex, legally sensitive stuff happening at city hall while the person sitting beside you is munching on potato chips or the reporter two desks away is speaking loudly in a phone interview. I remember having to read paragraphs five times and then some because of distractions at the office.

I live about a 75-minute drive from my office, if there are no traffic holdups. On some pre-pandemic days when I worked in my office, I was on the road for up to four hours. I look back now and am saddened by the carbon footprint I created because it wasn’t necessary. I could have been working remotely for many years before the pandemic hit us. My carbon footprint unnecessarily contributed to all the other air pollution that is making people sick — lung illnesses, strokes, cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease — and reducing life spans.

Working remotely contributes to a cleaner environment, a better work-life balance for workers and a better job done. But some managers in various companies have never been on-board with it. They want to be in the office, and they want their staff there.

My theory on that: many office managers don’t really do much work. In the office, they can at least appear to be busy by looking over people’s shoulders (and distracting them). When they are sitting at home alone with little to do, they may be feeling pretty insecure. So, screw all the benefits of remote work to the environment and workers. Bring the employees back to the office so the managers can feel more managerial.

As for government officials and Premier Ford, I suspect the bottom line is what is motivating their drive to get workers back in the offices. They may be thinking about the money those workers will put into the economy through buying more gas, paying for parking, buying coffee, snacks and restaurant meals etc. All of which means more tax dollars for government coffers. Many cities have reported that downtown economies have been suffering because remote workers aren’t spending the bucks they were before the pandemic.

The environment? The workers’ preferences?

Doug Ford and Ottawa city officials don’t seem to care about the personal feelings of the remote workers. They don’t seem to care that they will force those workers to unwillingly add more pollution to already smoggy skies in Canada and the U.S. They don’t seem to care that people will have even shorter life spans as a result — heck, they don’t seem to care that their own lives may be shortened, too. Doh! Cough, cough . . .

Ditto for all the other regressive bosses ordering their remote workers back to outdated brick-and-mortar offices — which could be converted into housing for homeless people (just sayin’).

Personally, if my company were to order its workers back to the office, I wouldn’t go. I would start a new sort of newspaper — in fact, I’ve been keeping this newsletter site going with that idea in mind, if necessary, so subscribers here would be the first to know about it. In the meantime, I’m writing the odd commentary here, with occasional guest writers.

— Jillian

Leave a comment

What would Jesus say?

That is a standard I've used occasionally over the years.

Whether mythical or not, the archetype we have of Jesus Christ is essentially one of perfection in human form, the embodiment of brotherly love.

So, what would he say about various world affairs now? What would he say about Russia's war on Ukraine and all the lives lost to it? What would he say about the starving people in Gaza and all the lives lost in the Israel-Hamas conflict? What would he say about the evolving brutality and mean-spiritedness in the United States?

I don't have to answer the above questions. You know that he would denounce it and all those who perpetrate it. And he would point out the obvious hypocrisies of perpetrators who claim to be "Christians" or members of any other religious groups. As he purportedly did in his own time on the planet.

I suspect that the main perpetrators of needless human suffering today have long ago lost any hope or belief in anything related to spirituality. And who's to say they're wrong about that? Life may be a one-shot affair, with no karma to pay once we shed our mortal coils. Brotherly love is for chumps, they may believe. It's get it while you can, and do whatever it takes to get it. Lie. Steal. Oppress. Kill.

They're gambling, of course. Because as Voltaire wrote, "it's not more surprising to be born twice than once." If there is any sort of spiritual design to our world and universe — as so many sages have insisted there is — then there is a price to pay for not following the tenets of brotherly love.

Personally, as a Theosophist (more or less), I feel deep inside that there is indeed more to it all than one life to live. And I have a gut feeling that our lives on planet Earth are a form of hell, that we have all incarnated here because we haven't reached the spiritual level the sages like Jesus and Krishna taught us to strive for. I think, in the grand scheme of things, there may be myriad higher realms where we can exist in many forms once we are worthy of them, or as Jesus said, "in my Father's house are many mansions."

As someone who also believes in reincarnation (all Theosophists do), I have sometimes wondered if people who live like brutes here were some sort of animals in a former life, perhaps mistreated on farms and brutally killed in slaughterhouses, and they have carried their rage over into their human lives.

Anything is possible.

While we have no definitive proof of anything in spirituality, most people know deep in their hearts that brotherly love is a code we should be striving to live by. And the good news is that the majority of people on the planet probably do strive for it, and are disgusted by events in aforementioned countries.

But brutes seem to be in control in key countries these days, and brotherly love is falling by the wayside. I urge all of you not to get sucked into the growing vortex of hate. Don't lose sight of the code.

“The great lost chord of modern civilization is forgetfulness of the fact in nature of universal brotherhood, which means not merely a sentimental or political brotherhood; it means that we are all of one common cosmic or spiritual origin, and that what affects one affects all . . .” – G. de Purucker

Leave a comment

So much of the news today leaves us depressed at times as various bad actors in politics and other fields grab all the headlines. It’s no wonder so many people are tuning out the news altogether.

But it is worth remembering that peace-loving folks who deep in their hearts yearn for a world of brotherly love are a vast majority on Earth, even if they don’t often garner headlines for their myriad good deeds.

Christmas is a time — if only for a day — when the corruption, divisiveness and hate stoked by the bad actors is put on the backburner in much of the world.

As Scrooge’s nephew said in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol:

"I have always thought of Christmastime, when it has come around apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that — as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people . . . as if they were fellow-passengers. . . ."

I hope you feel some of that Christmas spirit this year.

“Peace on Earth, goodwill to men . . .”

It seems so simple, doesn’t it?

Happy Holidays!

***

Related link

Mankind Is Our Business, by Ingrid Van Mater

We should be entering a quiet time of the year for the news business, when politicians and other regular newsmakers are taking a break with family and friends for a couple of weeks over the holidays — till Jan. 2 at the least, or more likely to Monday, Jan. 6.

The Friday before the holiday is usually a low-key affair in the office world, with many workplaces emptying in the early afternoon and politicians winding things up before they return to their home riding. But today was a busy news day: politicians in Canada and the U.S. and one filthy rich guy were grabbing media headlines and trending on social media.

In Canada, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh announced that his party will put forth a non-confidence vote to bring down the Trudeau Liberal government when the House resumes sitting at the end of January.

Why the announcement today? That was my first question. In the spirit of the holiday season — remember that? peace? goodwill to all? — couldn’t he have waited till Jan. 2 at least?

Sorry, but it just seemed heartless and cruelly timed to me. A dagger to the heart, and, hey, Merry Christmas, Justin! The words “boorish” and “no class” come to mind. You lost me right there, Jagmeet.

Meanwhile, Donald Musk, er, Donald Trump and Elon Musk were trending big time on X (a.k.a. Twitter), Bluesky and beyond after CNN reported that Trump is not happy about people referring to Elon as President Musk.

(Cue the “Roll on the floor laughter.”)

Hey, I even saw the term in a CBC News headline today, in single quotes. It’s everywhere, and it is not going to stop. But it is almost worth opening a new X account to see how Musk handles this on the platform he spent billions to acquire.

You can’t blame people for thinking Musk may be heavily influencing the political decision-making process in the U.S., if not dictating it. He is a fixture in Trump’s life. Would he be that fixture if he hadn’t poured hundreds of millions into Trump’s election campaign and wasn’t the wealthiest person in the world? Is the pope Catholic?

Regardless, what goes around comes around. Trump regularly skewers and mocks people on social media, at least, someone posing as Trump does. I am not entirely convinced it is the president-elect up at 3 a.m. saying dumb things on social media. But if you dish it out, you gotta expect it right back at ya. Karma calling . . .

So, will everything quiet down on Saturday, and the politicians will be all brotherly love for two weeks? Or will these habitual headline grabbers go at it thru Christmas and New Year’s?

Honestly, so many of the key politicians in Canada and the U.S. are acting like such jerks these days. I’d rather be writing about peace and love . . .

Leave a comment

Just when it seemed like Donald Trump and Elon Musk might inadvertently boost Justin Trudeau’s chances of winning another term as Canada’s prime minister with their late-night bashing sessions (see preceding post), now-former federal finance minister Chrystia Freeland may have delivered the final blow to Justin’s political career.

If you haven’t already heard: Freeland, who was also the deputy prime minister (i.e the equivalent of a U.S. vice-president), stormed out of cabinet Monday and let everyone on Twitter (a.k.a. X) know about it with a copy of her letter to the PM announcing her resignation from said cabinet. According to reports, Trudeau allegedly informed her on Friday that he was moving her out of the finance portfolio just as she was scheduled to unveil Canada’s autumn fiscal update on Monday afternoon.

Now, the seemingly relentless calls of late for Trudeau to step down as Liberal leader have reached a feverish pitch, along with calls for an election — which, according to polls, would probably bring in a majority Conservative government with Pierre Poilievre as the next prime minister.

Tonight (Monday), Trudeau is considering his options, one CTV News report says, attributing it to unnamed sources.

So, what are his options, anyway?

From the In My Opinion dept: Trudeau has three options.

First, stubbornly stay on till the bitter end and lead his party into an election next October, by which time he must call an election.

My call: That’s not going to happen.

Second, step down as leader now, let his party pick a new leader at a convention asap, and go into an October election with hopes of pulling off a miracle win.

My call: It may be the most hopeful choice, but the Liberals will probably lose, anyway, because they have completely worn out their welcome with Canadian voters.

Third, call an election early in the new year and lead his party to defeat, after which the Liberals can choose a new leader and get ready for the next election in four years.

My call: This is probably the most sensible route he could take, thus sparing a new leader the humiliation facing the party at the polls and giving that person a fresh start.

Whatever the case, Justin Trudeau’s political career is toast. It’s sad to see because he has done so many great things for Canada, but all things must pass, as the sages have said and sung.

In a way, I will also be happy for Justin when he walks the proverbial plank because he won’t have to deal with Donald Trump and Elon Musk — and all the second-guessing that would go with it from opposition politicians, newspaper columnists and all manner of armchair political pundits.

That will be Pierre Poilievre’s job, and as an armchair pundit, I’m looking forward to that matchup. It should be a dandy.

Stay tuned, folks.

Leave a comment

If you had any fears that Donald Trump and the Republicans are bent on silencing mainstream media, the incoming U.S. president should have laid them to rest with his late-night tweet this week threatening to impose 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico if they don’t tighten border security to reduce the alleged flow of illegal immigrants and fentanyl into the United States.

Whether intentional or not, it was a classic piece of media manipulation. Every major news outlet in Canada, the U.S., Mexico and beyond trumpeted (pun intended) the tweet, and politicians across Canada and Mexico reacted — more like panicked — with urgent meetings and public statements promising to work with Trump on the issues, even if Canada at least is innocent on both counts. Fentanyl is not being produced in Canada and being smuggled into the U.S. And the illegal flow of immigrants from Canada into the U.S. has slowed over the past four years, as Andrew Coyne pointed out in a Globe and Mail column — there probably are more people sneaking into Canada from the U.S. than going south, and more are expected in Canada as Trump cracks down on illegal immigrants in his country.

His motivation for that tweet remains unclear, considering he is not in the White House yet and couldn’t arbitrarily impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico, anyway. (And if he did, American consumers would be hit as hard as Canadians and Mexicans would be, as economists were quick to point out.) Some Bluesky commentators are speculating Trump was just firing a shot across the bow, showing everyone who’s boss. Other perhaps more cynical people suggested it was an effort to tank the stock market to create good buying opportunities for, well, who knows. I mean, aren’t the oligarchs rich enough already? Whatever the case, investors didn’t panic, and markets remained stable.

But, if anything — and perhaps this was the motivation — it showed Trump that he can still say anything at all hours of the day and night on social media and the mainstream media will run with it. And that foreign politicians will bow to him.

Of course, Trump is not the only politician who plays the media game to their own ends. Politicians around the world have been doing it ever since the first newspaper rolled off the presses. It’s their primary means of issuing information, misinformation and disinformation, and the media is only too happy to oblige them in the name of reader clicks.

But, still, the political and media reactions in Canada to Trump’s announcement have been over the top and embarrassing — considering it came in the form of an unofficial late-night tweet. It just shows that Trump has mainstream media exactly where he wants them, and he can distract from bigger issues by tweeting out comments on social media any time he chooses.

So, for all his and Elon Musk’s condemnations of mainstream media, they will remain strange bedfellows, indeed.

***

On another note, I know many people are struggling to understand what is going on in the U.S. How could the people have elected a convicted felon to be president of the United States of America, assuming the election was fair (and there are theories that it wasn’t)? How could they risk the loss of democracy in America?

One well-read and respected contributor on Bluesky wrote a thread shortly after the presidential election that I thought I would share here. It doesn’t appear that I can drop a url below and it will display the thread, so I am copying and pasting it. It was written by Jack E. Smith (jack-e-smith.bsky.social‬), but I don’t think he is the actual Smith that has been prosecuting Trump. Still, the writer is highly regarded and worth following, if you are on the site. Here’s the thread, posted Nov. 11 (note his comments about controlling the media):

“I, like many of you, have been contemplating our predicament since election night. We are in a losing war for our democracy and I'm not sure we collectively know who our true adversary is. It's not the voting blocks ... white women, Latinos, Gen X. It's not MAGA. It's not even Trump.

“It's an insidious power that has been hiding in the shadows for some time ... and when the stakes were at their highest in this election, it fully revealed itself. The American Oligarchy.

“They control our Supreme Court, much of Congress, and the flow of information to the masses via legacy, mainstream and social media. They decide the national conversation, how to keep us at each other's throats while they continue to amass wealth and power completely unchecked.

“They put their thumbs on the scale of justice and poured billions into this election. They chose Trump because he was desperate and would capitulate to their demands. They chose a running mate to replace him in case he became too unhinged to control.

“Consider how many disqualifying facts about Trump never saw the light of day … or didn't get the attention they deserved ... or got drowned out by propaganda. They took a mentally spent buffoon and presented him as a hero to the masses.

“Despite Biden successfully steering us out of a global recession and strengthening our economy, they maintained the national tone about the price of groceries being too high. Despite Trump's obvious mental decline, their media outlets remained reticent to press the issue.

“We struggle to unite as a nation because they're too good at keeping us divided. We are drowning in disinformation because they control all of it. They have successfully created imaginary villains for us to fight ... each other.

“It seems like we are a democracy careening towards fascism, when the reality is they're using the specter of fascism to keep us on edge while they turn America into a compliant oligarchy. Whether you are a democrat or republican, we have a common foe. Some of us just don't know it yet.”

Leave a comment

“Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.”
— Stephen Stills, For What It’s Worth

Around the world today, rallies are being held on the anniversary of the attack by Hamas supporters on in…

Read more

It’s a given in Canada: Pierre Poilievre will be the next prime minister, and the Conservatives are on track to form a majority government. It’s not that Poilievre is popular or that his party has a particularly strong platform. It’s simply that the majority of Canadians seem to be sick of Justin Trudeau and…

Read more

How worried are you about climate change?

I suspect older people, say 65 and up, are less concerned than, say, people under 35. Unless, of course, their lives have been disrupted by extreme weather ev…

Read more

'Freedom of choice': Conservatives oppose Ottawa's ban on nicotine pouches from convenience stores

That is the headline over a National Post report published Friday. No, it’s not a mistake: It is a spokesperson for Canada’s Conservative party — health critic Stephen Ellis — supporting the ri…

Read more

Neurodiversity is not a subject I know much about, but I am looking forward to reading more about it in Ha…

Read more

“We are a nation of headline skimmers.”

That is what a former publisher told our newspaper staff years before the digital era began, after a survey had been conducted on print readership. People were skimming…

Read more