Friday, March 7, 2025

"Hair or Fur?"

 In these turbulent times, I hope this short essay provokes a smile. 

 

Generally, I like to send these essays on weekends, but since my wife and I will be away this weekend visiting two granddogs and their charges, a son and daughter-in-law, I opted for this morning.

 

Cheers, Sydney

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

More Essays from Essex

“Hair or Fur?”

March 7, 2025

 

“Is there a difference between hair and fur?”

Kate Wong of Scientific American

“There isn’t. Hair and fur are the same thing.”

Nancy Simmons, mammologist, American Museum of Natural History

February 20, 2001

 

The world is in turmoil. The war in Ukraine threatens the NATO alliance. China menaces the Pacific Region and is making inroads in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. Financial markets, already dicey, now have to deal with tariffs and the possibility of a U.S.-financed “crypto reserve,” whatever that is. Public schools are failing our children, especially in inner cities. Climate is shifting, and we don’t know whether to halt the change or adapt.

 

And here am I writing about hair and fur, when Ms. Simmons, an expert on mammals, says there is no difference. Yet my barber would be surprised if I said I wanted to come in for a fur cut. She would probably say she was booked and notify public health authorities. In fact, she looked at me oddly when I asked her recently if the stuff on top of my head was hair or fur. If the two words are synonymous why do we say dogs and horses have hair, while cats and rabbits have fur? And why do we say “hair-of-the-dog” and speak of “cat furballs” and not the other way? But then, nothing in life is simple; poodles and dachshunds are said to have hair, while German shepherds and huskies have fur. Muddling the subject further, pigs and sheep – both mammals – have, respectively, bristles and wool. Then there is the Mangalica pig that looks like a sheep and has hair. And now I read of a Texas company Colossal Biosciences that has genetically engineered mice with “long, thick, wool hair,” like an extinct wooly mammoth. I must be getting old. 

 

And why is facial hair called whiskers? They are not used as antennae, as cats or mice do, to see if they can slip through an opening. And don’t get me going on moustaches or muttonchops. BBC Wildlife Magazine suggests the word “hair” is an “umbrella term,” for “similar structures…growing from the skin of mammals.” That sounds cumbersome. When particularly thick it is called fur. But not always. Crowning Samson’s head (before Delila got to him) was a thatch of thick and abundant hair, not fur. 

 

It's all so bewildering. A hairshirt is worn by an ascetic, while a cashmere sweater is worn by a dandy. As days grow warmer, my wife will store her winter coats. She doesn’t call a hairier; she calls a furrier.

 

It will be by a hair-breadth (or is that fur-breadth?) that I escape, without some reader coming after me with a pair of scissors, or should that be shears? I’m ready to pull out my fur – I mean my hair.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, March 3, 2025

"Doubt and Skepticism"

 Friday’s disastrous meeting in the White House is a reminder of how doubt and skepticism can help us observers, and our political leaders. Certainly, there was enough blame for each of the three participants – President Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, and Vice President J.D. Vance – to take a share. Besides watching a re-run of the events on YouTube, I read twenty interpretations of the afternoon’s events, from all perspectives. Yet, I am still unsure how best to allocate blame. It is common knowledge that Mr. Trump is thin-skinned and likes to be praised. Mr. Zelensky is stubborn and theatrical – look at how he dresses. Mr. Vance is smart but immature, at least in matters of diplomacy.

 

All three made mistakes in that Oval Office meeting, but especially, in my opinion, Mr. Vance. He should have kept quiet. In debate or argument, Mr. Trump, right or wrong, does not need defending. He often digs himself into a hole, but just as often extracts himself. Mr. Zelensky would have been better served to have kept quiet, not argue with Mr. Vance, and let the offered deal play out. Mr. Trump, as everyone knows, shoots from the hip, but he is also quick to walk back what he has said. I feel confident he knows that Putin is a dictator and that Zelensky is not. Was he wrong to imply otherwise? Of course. But did Mr. Zelensky believe he could win over Mr. Trump by publicly disagreeing with him and his Vice President? It would seem so. Contrast Mr. Zelensky’s behavior with that of Emanuel Macron and Keir Starmer when they met with Mr. Trump.

 

Nevertheless, there is doubt in my mind as to who bears most responsibility.

 

I hope you find this essay of interest.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Doubt and Skepticism”
March 3, 2025

 

“The greater the artist, the greater the doubt. Perfect

confidence is granted to the less talented as a consolation prize.”

                                                                                                                                Robert Hughes (1938-2012)

                                                                                                                                Australian author & art critic

                                                                                                                                “Modernism’s Patriarch”

                                                                                                                                Time Magazine, June 10, 1996

 

“Our doubts are traitors and cause us to miss

the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.” 

                                                                                                                                Lucio speaking to Isabella

                                                                                                                                Measure for Measure, 1604

                                                                                                                                William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

 

As the two epigraphs infer, doubt is personal. In her Unabridged Journals of Sylvia Plath, the American poet wrote “The worst enemy to creativity is self-doubt.” On the other hand, in The Selected Letters of Tennessee Wiliams, the playwright is quoted: “I don’t believe anyone ever suspects how completely unsure I am of my work…”

 

………………………………………………………….

 

Doubt, including self-doubt, and skepticism are not synonymous but are related. Doubt can be defined as uncertainty regarding one’s abilities (as Lucio infers). It also serves as questioning one’s judgement (as Robert Hughes suggests). It is intuitive, reflecting a lack of knowledge, as Thomas wanted proof of Jesus’ resurrection. On the other hand, a skeptic is one with an open mind who questions the truth of something stated or alleged, or at least who defers judgement until more facts are available.

 

This is not to argue that belief in one’s self is uncommon. When a youth, I was not skeptical about much and had few self-doubts. Many of us were raised on the American folktale, The Little Engine that Could. Theodore Roosevelt, allegedly, expressed a similar sentiment: “Believe you can and you’re halfway there.” All good advice, so long as it does not morph into cockiness, arrogance, or conceit. As I grew older, I read and thought more, I became more skeptical. I recall, when a teenager, the president of a brokerage firm who told me that the longer he worked in the business the less he felt he knew about finance.

 

Self-doubt is often a positive. Fyodor Dostoevsky struggled with doubt. In an 1855 letter to his friend Natalya Fonvizina, he wrote: “…the mind which does not labor will wither.”[1]Recently, I had a conversation with an old school friend, now living in Denver, and told him of my struggle with this essay. He reminded me of “Pascal’s Wager”[2] – that even if one cannot definitively prove the existence of God, it is better to believe in Him, as the potential benefits outweigh the risks of being wrong. Believe you can do it, he said.

 

But it is for our political environment I am most concerned, where skepticism has been overwhelmed by a tidal wave of hubris. In a 1901 letter to the Swiss professor of Greek and history Jost Winteler, the 22-year-old Albert Einstein wrote: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” In our hyper politically-polarized world, neither doubt nor skepticism is widely extant. Instead there is an attitude of “either you’re with me or you’re against me.” This fractionalization has set brother against brother and friend against friend. Conservative students are hesitant about speaking out. In schools and universities, speech that is deemed “harmful” is disallowed. The dogmatism of progressives on the left and ardent Trump supporters on the right are notably void of skepticism.

 

At the risk of widening even further the gulf between conservatives and progressives, I place most (but not all) of the blame on progressives. Certainly, there are some on the right who don MAGA hats, pump fists in the air and, incoherently, raise their voices for Mr. Trump. However, most on the left do not just disagree with Donald Trump, they hate him, and they let hatred drive their responses; reason falls victim to emotion. In part, their aversion to Mr. Trump lies in his muddled syntax. Like Lewis Carroll’s Mad Hatter, Mr. Trump speaks in unintelligible riddles. Whether he is negotiating a deal, reflecting whomever he most recently spoke to, or speaking from ignorance, I don’t pretend to know. But I suspect he is neither as stupid nor as uncompassionate as he sometimes sounds. His opponents would be wise to let skepticism replace their instinct for immediate condemnation. 

 

We witness this arrogant audacity from media disciples of both parties, especially on televised cable evening news programs, podcasts and video-sharing sites like YouTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion and Twitch. Social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) make it easier for viewers to limit their news to only that with which they agree. Do Rachel Maddow or Jesse Waters ever have moments of doubt, of questioning their loudly proclaimed ideologies? 

 

There are, of course, situations when conviction should be paramount – love for family, belief in freedom, and faith in God. “You are braver than you believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think,” said Christopher Robin to Pooh. But generally, skepticism is healthy and doubt drives creativity.

 

True conservatives tend to be skeptics. In 1967, the prescient Daniel Patrick Moynihan was invited to speak to the Harvard chapter of Phi Beta Kappa: “Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from life what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government agencies to do good.” Conservatives are concerned of the power that accrues to political leaders and for the tendency of the state to expand inexorably. This concern is not only because of the difficulty of paying for ever more programs, but because such growth threatens individualism, the bed-rock of conservative thought. Doubt and skepticism are generally associated with reflection, not spontaneity.

 

“Skepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind” are words attributed to educator John Dewey. Like chastity, as the philosopher George Santayana is alleged to have once said, it [skepticism] should not be relinquished too readily. Truth (the holy grail of the skeptic) is illusive, perhaps never to be discovered; it is the search that is important.  

 

 

 

 

 

 







[1] As quoted by Gary Saul Morson, professor of Slavic languages at Northwestern University, in the February 28 issue of The Wall Street Journal.

[2] Blaise Pascal, 17th Century French philosopher.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, March 1, 2025

"The Rabbit Factor," by Antti Tuomainen - A Review

 Today is the first of March. My wife has long believed that on the first of a month one should say (or write) Rabbit, Rabbit, Rabbit. It is supposed to bring good luck. So I say to all of you: Rabbit, Rabbit, Rabbit – a perfect introduction to this delightful, fun-filled, thriller.

 

Sydney M. Williams


 

Burrowing into Books

The Rabbit Factor, Antti Tuomainen

March 1, 2025

 

“Actuarial mathematics is a discipline that combines mathematics and 

statistical analysis to assess the likelihood – or risk – of any eventuality…”

                                                                                                                                Antti Tuomainen (1971-)

                                                                                                                                The Rabbit Factor, 2021

 

Serendipity lives. A grandson gave me this book for my birthday, not because he had read it or knew anything about its Finnish author. He gave it to me because the title caught his attention. His father always called him Rabbit. Whatever his reason, I’m glad he did. I thoroughly enjoyed it. 

 

Despite the epigraph, the story, thank God, has nothing to with insurance. It is a thriller. The hero Henri Koskinen is a 42-year-old actuary, at least when we meet him. In his nerdiness, he will remind you of Hermione Granger. He lives alone with his cat “Schopenhauer,” a fitting name given Henri’s insurance job of calculating risk and odds. Henri has one wish: “I wanted everything to be sensible.” But the insurance company that employs him goes “woke,” or at least Henri’s boss does; so Henri is told he is too skeptical, too pessimistic, that he is missing, you know, “…the whole community vibe” thing. Thus Henri is fired.

 

Almost immediately, and conveniently for the story, his brother Juhani, who is the antithesis of Henri in terms of common sense, dies. Henri, then, inherits his brother’s adventure park, YouMeFun, located outside Helsinki. Juhani, who never had Henri’s gift for numbers, had become involved with loan sharks. Circling the adventure park, they are hungry when Henri arrives.

 

The park staff form the supporting cast: Laura, the manager and former (and future) artist, with a mysterious background; Kristian, the caretaker who is angling to become general manager; Joanna, who efficiently runs the Curly Cake Café; Minttu, who is in charge of marketing and who has a love affair with gin; Samppa, a former nursery school teacher, runs themed events for children; and Venla, who is supposed to work at the gate, but is usually too sick to show up.

 

What we have is a mystery but one enveloped in humor. Of one of his earlier novels, The Man Who Died, The New York Times said: “You don’t expect to laugh when you’re reading about terrible crimes, but that’s what you’ll do when you pick up one of Tuomainen’s decidedly quirky thrillers.” In this, despite a few despicable acts, Henri’s career as an actuary serves him well. He is expert at determining probabilities, whether someone is coming after him with a knife or a car. The horror we feel is countered by humor. We understand why Tuomainen has been called the Finnish “King of Noir Comedy.”

 

In the course of the story, Henri discovers there is more to life than mathematics, that passion, both for the adventure park and for Laura, is a delightful sensation. Indicative of my enthusiasm, I have bought the second book in this series, The Moose Paradox, published in 2022.

Labels: , ,