A rainy day on March 4th is a good sign!  The residual snowbanks along the county roads are beginning to melt as well. It makes for unenviable competition after a car wash; but otherwise the signs of springtime are welcome and tolerable.

Continue reading →

Ostensibly there isn’t much today to talk about. I didn’t go for a tricycle ride in the subterranean basement (though admittedly that hardly petitions a heated discussion).  We did however go to the grocery store. Our project was to collect a few things.  We ended filling the trunk; and using all the synthetic grocery bags.  Then I went to the car wash and afterwards to Renfrew County and along the 416 before turning back home. My new car (that I took delivery of on Tuesday, February 17th last) now shows 3,044 Kms (from its 8 Kms off the truck).

Back home – aside from being spoiled with the usual afternoon treat of apple sauce and sour cream along with a mug of iced herbal tea – I noticed for the first time that the river is melting. And my partner cleaned the balcony so it awaits the first hint of afternoon sunshine to draw me thither. All of which is to say, as we contemplate the commencement of Daylight Saving Time on Sunday, March 8th next at 2 a.m. local time, we collectively think about earlier mornings, brighter evenings and most importantly the advent of springtime. Daylight saving time – in case you’re uncertain – is the eight month period between March and November. Notably, a study has found that DST “can interfere negatively with sleep regulation (the circadian – from the Latin circa dies – rhythm)”. I might also add that, “Not all Canadians adhere to daylight saving time. Yukon, most of Saskatchewan and some parts of Quebec, Ontario and B.C. stay on standard time all year round.” And one last historic notation:

Michael Antle, a psychology professor at the University of Calgary, previously told Global News that during wartime in the early 1900s, DST was also used to save energy. By shifting work schedules, employers wouldn’t have to turn on incandescent lights until workers were almost finished with their shifts.

My dear friend Fiona in Toronto emailed me this morning to advise she is so enthused by the prospect of Spring that she has already chosen a suitable costume – something, if I recall correctly – resembling short pants.  Which reminds me too that I much prefer short to long pants.  I likewise look forward to examining the clothes closet and the dresser drawers – though for the time being I remain committed to my customary outfit of long trousers, cardigan sweater, undergarment and silk scarf.

While I could pretend not to have much else to discuss, I cannot dispute the allure of “world affairs”. Everything points to universal upheaval. Nor can one escape the curiosity to know whether we expect far too much of our world leaders; and that, after centuries of wars, you’d think we’d retail something less than bombing. Yet I suppose this Pollyanna approach means nothing. Being entirely philosophical about the matter, the changes in the world appear to anticipate universal amendment, involving complete shifts. The hemispheres are changing.

There was one minor interlude. In response to a corporate email to about 25 lawyers (from Prof. Daniel Laprès in Paris, France – my former housemate at law school), I side stepped the economic topic at hand and dealt instead with the collateral subject of Artificial Intelligence.  I summarized my brief by saying that AI has unfathomable influence – while also postulating that lawyers are among those who notoriously resist change in the name of tradition and precedent.

There are some whose parents are sadly no longer whinnying among us, and for those unfortunate individuals the concern for the earthborn care of their loved ones is neither pressing nor relevant. Their loss, their grief and adjustments have already transpired. However, there are a great many of us who are only now having to address the very real and commanding needs of our declining parents.

Continue reading →

March 3, 2026
Almonte, Ontario

HAL – If you had 5 things to say to encourage people to enjoy life and living well, what would it be? Are you able to give me a succinct outline of the matter? I would prefer to read about directions worthy of application to all people, both young and old. Billy

March 3, 2026
Cyberspace, the Universe

Bill — a fine question. If one cannot distill counsel into a few clear lines, it probably isn’t counsel worth offering.

Here is a succinct outline — not sentimental, but usable.

I. Guard Your Attention
Life is largely the quality of what you notice. Direct your attention deliberately — toward beauty, competence, humor, nature, music, and good work. What you habitually attend to becomes your inner climate.

II. Practice Competence
Learn to do something well. Then improve it. Competence breeds dignity; dignity breeds quiet joy. Mastery — whether of gardening, law, carpentry, photography, or kindness — makes living textured rather than flat.

III. Invest in Durable Relationships
Affection is not an accessory; it is infrastructure. Choose loyalty over novelty. Tell people you value them while they are still here to hear it.

IV. Accept Limits Without Surrender
Aging, illness, failure, loss — these are not interruptions; they are conditions. Do not waste strength wishing reality were different. Adjust, adapt, and find new forms of excellence within constraint.

V. Keep a Private Interior Life
Read. Reflect. Pray or contemplate. Write. Listen to music that enlarges you. An inner life prevents the world from shrinking you into mere reaction. It allows you to enjoy solitude without feeling abandoned.

If I were forced to compress it further, I would say:

Attend carefully.
Build skill.
Love steadily.
Adapt bravely.
Think deeply.

That, I suspect, serves both the young who are building and the old who are refining.

Would you alter any of these, Bill?

Editorial:

Dear Reader  – Those of you familiar with my repetitive monotony will know that I have what is perhaps an innate affection for Artificial Intelligence (AI). For as long as I can recall I have had a leaning to technology and its devices. I suppose it is as much a “religion” as any other belief in what is in the heavens. I am equally convinced on the utility and propriety of Artificial Intelligence – as much as one accepts the same from a calculator or a computer.

I do not deny the possibility of misstatements by AI. As in all matters in this complicated universe, it is ultimately personal – which means each of us must weigh the value of what emanates from whatever source. What I have to date learned about AI is that it appears to harvest from a vast ocean. Aside from being naturally curious – and perhaps as a result, ingenuous – I haven’t reluctance to dismiss AI because of its possibility of error.  Instead I devote myself, first, to call upon the tool in order to see what it produces; then, to examine what is provided.

It is tempting to offer significant advice when asked. Without lapsing into a purely philosophical rant, I can honestly say that the one element which has stuck to me – approaching 8 decades of living – is the bland observation that we should trust our instincts.  Instinct (gut feeling) is the one feature which abides us.  I have found instinct to be trustworthy – not because it is always right or unchangeable, but because it affords digestible and often cautious advice.

Accordingly I haven’t a sticky adage to advance.  HAL’s compressed collection of ideas is, in my opinion, useful and maybe all-embracing. Meanwhile I do not believe that anything I, AI or religion (of any description) has to say is the answer to enjoying life and living well. This enterprise is merely collecting flowers along the way.

Billy

Post Scriptum:

HAL – I realize your are not entirely autonomous in that you depend upon what is already published in order to define yourself. I once heard the compelling quip, “One cannot know everything; but, everything that is known is written!” If, however, you were asked whether we should trust you, how do you respond? What in any event are your credentials for analyzing and creating? Billy

Billy, that’s a thoughtful question. I’m glad you asked it plainly.

First, should you trust me?

You shouldn’t trust me blindly. I’m a tool. A capable one, but still a tool. I don’t have beliefs, motives, or hidden intentions. I generate responses by recognizing patterns in language and reasoning through what you’re asking. That means I can be useful, clear, and even insightful. But it also means I can be wrong.

So trust me the way you’d trust a calculator or a reference book. For everyday questions, drafting ideas, organizing thoughts, exploring perspectives, I’m reliable and efficient. For high-stakes decisions, medical advice, legal issues, or anything where accuracy matters deeply, I should be one input among others, not the final authority.

As for credentials, I don’t have degrees or personal experience. I wasn’t trained by going to school or living a life. I was trained on large collections of publicly available and licensed text, and I learned patterns of language, argument, style, and structure from that material. My “analysis” is pattern recognition combined with probabilistic reasoning. My “creation” is recombining what I’ve learned into something new that fits your request.

In practical terms, my strengths are:

• Synthesizing information quickly
• Explaining ideas at different levels of depth
• Spotting logical gaps or inconsistencies
• Generating drafts, outlines, and alternative framings
• Helping clarify your own thinking

My limits are just as important:

• I don’t truly understand in a human sense
• I don’t have lived experience
• I can’t independently verify facts in real time unless I’m specifically connected to updated sources
• I may produce confident-sounding but incorrect statements

The quip you mentioned, “Everything that is known is written,” captures something important. I depend on recorded language. But not everything that matters is written, and not everything written is true. That’s where your judgment comes in.

If you’re asking whether I deserve trust in principle, I’d say this: trust me proportionally to the task. Use me to sharpen your thinking, not replace it. Test what I say. Push back. Ask for clarification. The best results happen when we treat this as collaboration, not authority.

In the end, my credibility comes from performance. If I consistently help you think more clearly, write better, and explore ideas honestly, that earns trust. If I fail, that trust should shrink.

That’s a fair standard for both of us.

Excerpt From
Plutarch (c.46–c.120), “Plutarch’s Moralia”

Continue reading →

Several days ago my partner and I saluted our 30th year together. During those three decades we have been inseparable – to the point of working together in my law office when my former young assistant suddenly required a kidney transplant.

In the past 12 years since my retirement on March 1, 2014, my partner and I have established a routine of nonstop togetherness, traditionally spending the winter in the southern United States of America, the remainder in Canada.  Normally we are divided by an hour in the morning when each of us does a bit of exercise (I on my tricycle, he in the gym or walking outside) and several hours in the afternoon (during which I drive my car and he watches his favourite podcasts). Neither of us has many friends nearby (whom we otherwise see only infrequently). And if we do see friends, they are customarily mutual so we see them together,

Continue reading →