I didn’t understand time until she died



My aunt recently passed away after a long, grueling battle with cancer. An incredibly decent woman, she spent her final years insisting that time is our only non-renewable asset and that the hands on the clock move faster every year you stay alive.

When I was younger, I dismissed this as little more than garden-variety elder sentimentality. Standing at her grave on a rainy Sunday morning, I finally understood what she meant.

We built the effortless paradise our ancestors could only dream of, only to discover that it can make life feel like one long weekend.

In the 19th century, a French philosopher named Paul Janet offered a mathematical explanation for the subjective acceleration of time. He argued that each passing year feels proportionally shorter for a very specific reason. To a 2-year-old child, twelve months equals 50% of all known reality. By the time a person hits 50, that same year accounts for a rather pathetic 2% of their personal timeline. Janet's arithmetic offers an elegant explanation for why the years seem to shrink, though it doesn't tell us much about what is happening inside our skulls.

Reeling in the years

A study published earlier this year offers a more complicated explanation. Researchers have long suggested that time seems to accelerate as we age because adulthood lacks the novelty of childhood and adolescence. When every day resembles the last, we have fewer distinctive memories to look back on, making entire years seem to disappear.

Researchers examined 120 adults, ranging in age from 20 to 91, and found no significant relationship between how quickly participants felt the previous decade had passed and either the number of personal memories they recalled or the importance they attached to those memories. Instead, the sensation of accelerating time was associated with poorer cognitive performance, particularly on a test of delayed memory recall.

The findings suggest that our ability to form new memories may help explain why time seems to speed up as we age. They also raise an uncomfortable question about how much of our lives we actually remember.

Wasted on the way

Consider the difference between stepping onto an airport shuttle in a strange city and making your daily commute to work. In the unfamiliar city, you notice everything: the smell of diesel, the strange angle of the streetlights, the driver's odd accent, and the dodgy-looking individual eyeing your wallet. Decades later, you may still remember that seven-minute ride.

Contrast that with your daily commute. You have driven that specific stretch of road thousands of times. The route is so familiar that you barely need to think about it. You arrive at your desk with 40 minutes missing from your conscious existence, unable to recall much of what happened between your driveway and the office.

Smartphones have given us another remarkably efficient way to make hours disappear. Tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions around the world spend their afternoons tapping on glass screens, watching short videos of strangers selling snake oil or arguing over trivial issues. The ultimate joke of the digital age involves paying hefty sums for a device that competes so relentlessly for our attention that we barely notice our own lives passing.

Even our attempts to preserve memories can interfere with forming them. In a 2014 study, psychologist Linda Henkel found that people who photographed objects during a museum tour subsequently remembered fewer details about them than people who simply observed them. The effect wasn't universal — taking more focused photographs produced different results — but the finding raises an interesting possibility. A parent filming a child's piano recital might come away with a beautiful MP4 file and surprisingly little memory of the performance itself.

RELATED: The Ireland I grew up in is gone

SOPA Images/Getty Images

Where the time goes

Family life has its own peculiar relationship with time. Raising kids feels like an endless march through tedious chores — changing diapers, insisting that Legos not be put in one's mouth, packing lunch boxes, folding laundry, and driving to soccer practice. Yet parents, from Boston to Brisbane, are shocked by how quickly their toddlers turn into college freshmen.

Kids force constant novelty into a household through broken bones, lost teeth, spontaneous questions about death, and the unexpected introduction of garden creatures into the living area. Individual days can feel agonizingly long because every hour requires attention, yet the years somehow fly by in retrospect.

Modern society has, in many ways, made convenience the guiding principle of daily life. We tap an icon to order takeout. We stream movies dictated by predictive algorithms. We substitute memes and text messages for actual human voices. We built the effortless paradise our ancestors could only dream of, only to discover that it can make life feel like one long weekend.

And yet some of our most enduring memories come from doing the same things over and over again. Repeating specific holiday meals or annual camping trips may seem like a mindless, even pointless, routine to an outsider. It is not. Those moments become lasting markers in our memories. No one remembers a random Tuesday from six years ago, but everyone remembers the Thanksgiving when the oven exploded or the road trip when the radiator burst and Dad used some colorful language to convey his thoughts. Traditions give us memorable moments to return to as time moves on.

Now that my aunt is gone, I keep thinking about those Sundays at her house. I think of the roast dinners, the endless slices of cake, the hot tea, and her constant reminders to do something useful with my life.

At the time, I thought those Sundays would go on forever.

Not 'Those' Socialists!

Are there any leftists willing to condemn totalitarians? Paul Mason's new book shows there is at least one. Offering a selective, but not irresponsible, history of Communist and revolutionary ideas, Reds pleads with the author's fellow socialists not to repeat the mistakes that cost the lives of millions. Although he celebrates Marx, Mason summons his fellow leftists to contemplate Communist crimes so they are not repeated. How many failures does it take before the argument that real communism has not yet been tried ceases to work?

The post Not 'Those' Socialists! appeared first on .

Who’s Afraid of Fusionism?

"It's not easy to be on the vanguard of a new Republican Party or a new conservative movement," then-Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance told the "Restoring a Nation" conference in October 2022. "There is a risk that it gets folded into Fusionism 2.0," Vance warned.

The post Who’s Afraid of Fusionism? appeared first on .

Laughing in a Hard Loud World

The son of Sri Lankan immigrants, Randy Boyagoda grew up on the northern shore of Lake America, in the soon-to-be-annexed Territory of Mar-A-Lago North. In addition to teaching literature at the University of Toronto, he is a celebrated novelist and essayist. He is also a lifelong Catholic, whose third book was a biography of Richard John Neuhaus. Similar to Neuhaus in the past, Boyagoda today is living proof that religiously oriented public intellectuals are not extinct.

The post Laughing in a Hard Loud World appeared first on .

London's Neighborhood of Notoriety

Larman is well placed to make it, having spent a large part of his career reporting on the grandest and grubbiest corners of the House of Windsor, whose headquarters is just down the road—there is no vault of sordid gossip Larman can't crank open. The Secrets of Eaton Square moves house by house, rather than by decade, as it examines the illustrious street. You can see, after reading it, that this is the only honest way to write about the square. Its inhabitants, unlike other pockets of London, like the Primrose Hill set or the Sloane Rangers, were never a set or community. There was no camaraderie or physical closeness one gets with their neighbors. So Larman treats each dwelling as its own crime scene taped up for examination.

The post London's Neighborhood of Notoriety appeared first on .

MEAN GIRLS: 'View' crew preaches girl power ... unless you're Republican



“The View” crew blew a gasket over Shane Gillis’ “Saturday Night Live” monologue mocking scantily clad gym gals. At the same time, they dabbled in actual misogyny.

Even by “View” standards, it was peak hypocrisy.

Biden, the actor said weeks before the president melted down during his final debate, was 'sharp as a tack.'

The hosts trashed Katie Zacharia, who by most accounts had a rough debut as the new press secretary. She’s a Republican, so she’s fair game to “The View.” And that’s fine. We expect the show’s partisanship to trump any “girl power” collegiality.

It’s baked into the nutty cake.

Except the hosts suggested that Zacharia slept her way into the position. Co-host Alyssa Farrah Griffin asked how she “got through the door” to become the new press secretary.

“I’ll tell ya how she got through the door,” Sara Haines said, sparking laughs from the oh-so-feminist crowd and co-hosts.

Titter-titter. Chuckle-chuckle. What’s more empowering than women insisting other women got work through sexual favors sans proof? Let’s hope Gillis doesn’t riff on Kamala Harris’ early days in politics. He might get canceled yet again …

Conspiracy bleary

The truth is out there, but you’ll need a Hulu subscription to find it.

Director Ryan Coogler’s “X-Files” reboot landed on the streamer this week. The project stars Danielle Deadwyler and Himesh Patel, taking over for Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny. The actors play entirely new characters in the series, but it looks like Mulder and Scully will make appearances along the way.

Imagine the new conspiracies the show can tackle! The government spreads massive lies about a China-born infection … a foreign country teams with a political rebel to win an election … a U.S. president’s cognitive decline is hidden for four straight years.

Or the show could bring in the son of the Smoking Man. We’ll see …

Did he stutter?

Well, that was awkward.

Michael Douglas has done it all in his 82 years, at least from a Hollywood perspective. Oscars. Acclaim. Nepo baby-ism. What a life.

What hasn’t he done? Sit with someone willing to debunk his boilerplate Democrat views. He got that chance, finally, when Joe Rogan read him, and his audience, the riot act on progressives gone wild.

An open border? No honest primaries for year after year? And, most specifically, they covered up for a president who clearly had some form of dementia.

You know the thing.

Rogan was on a roll, but the most awkward element of their exchange dealt with Biden’s obvious decline. Why? It wasn’t long ago when Douglas was part of the Biden cover-up.

Biden, the actor said weeks before the president melted down during his final debate, was “sharp as a tack.” Douglas even cited Biden’s “stutter” excuse that mysteriously appeared over the past few years after decades in D.C.

Douglas appears to be legitimately “sharp as a tack,” thank goodness. Let’s hope he took away some lessons from the exchange …

RELATED: Shattered by socialism: 'Escaping Venezuela' offers a warning for Mamdani's America

Yamil Lage/Getty Images

Laugh track

Chuck Lorre blames a Hollywood writers' strike for the end of democracy.

Sort of.

He framed it that way in his new book, a memoir called “Sitcom.” After all, Lorre has made more than a few modern classics, from “The Big Bang Theory” to “Two and a Half Men.”

Credit where credit is due.

The far-Left Deadline.com pressed Lorre on that hyperbolic phrasing, tied to the 2007-2008 WGA strike that helped spark a crush of new reality showcases.

Like “The Apprentice,” starring Donald Trump, he insinuated. Except Lorre might be bad at math, since “The Apprentice” debuted in 2004.

The strike, he said, “brought about these enormously profitable, cheap-to-produce reality shows … and that ultimately led to a show like 'The Apprentice,' which probably would never have seen the light of day had it not been for that.”

Who knew a reality show could end the greatest nation on earth?

Either way, Lorre could ask Young Sheldon for help on his math skills …

Air ball

What the world doesn’t need is another John Oliver. One is one too many, culturally speaking. But former NBA star Blake Griffin sees the far-left HBO host as a model, of sorts, for his new sports-themed late-night show.

“The Stepback with Blake Griffin” soon bows on Amazon and YouTube, with Griffin hailing Oliver as his role model.

The funniest part? Someone thinking late-night TV is the future and itching for a seat at the table.

Today Show Commissars Interrogate Chicken Sandwich Boss About Gay And Trans Stuff

How does a bag of sandwiches 'stand with' lesbians, say for example?

Three straight white guys walk into a poetry reading ...



I was on Facebook one day when I happened to see an event schedule for the super-woke nonprofit Literary Arts Bookstore we have here in Portland.

I looked through the store's calendar. Most of the events were what you would expect: a young woman presenting her trauma memoir, a BIPOC reading night, a Chinese woman’s immigration story, a female brain surgeon’s journey through the sexist medical field ...

All three of them knew exactly what they were allowed to write about. And they stayed inside those bounds.

Then I saw something strange. It was an event that featured three young white guys.

You don’t see a lot of literary readings by white guys in Portland. Or anywhere else. We’ve been at a low ebb of white guys in any kind of literary undertaking in recent years, unless they have written a book about their own toxicity or are revealing the secrets of the patriarchy.

Maybe they were gay, or trans, or of some unusual ethnicity. Maybe they claimed to be Native American, like Elizabeth Warren.

But their descriptions didn’t include any of those things. They were just three normal-looking white guys. They were poets.

But that couldn’t be right. There had to be a catch.

The good, the bad, and the certified

Reading through the listing, I saw they had a lot of credentials. That made sense. You couldn’t just have three white guys reading poetry, unless they were seriously vetted and certified.

All three of them had master’s degrees in the fine arts. One guy had a Ph.D. They had all won various poetry prizes. They had received poetry fellowships. They had held prestigious teaching positions. They were associate editors of important journals.

In short, they had jumped through every hoop, subjugated themselves in every way, to be accepted into the woke academic poetry community — which typically hates people like them.

Eyewitness to the improbable

Of course I went to the reading. I wasn’t going to miss this. And anyway, I still assumed there was some angle. Some extenuating circumstance.

I arrived and took a seat. There were a lot of people there. Were the other attendees thinking what I was thinking? How did these guys get this gig?

They were all young and good-looking. That probably helped. The first guy was from Los Angeles. His poetry was about his difficult childhood under his football-coach father. Now he had a son of his own, which he had complicated feelings about.

The next guy looked like he might be gay. But he too had a son. And a wife. And a house, apparently. He was smartly dressed and very personable. He looked like a young literature professor, back before such jobs became contentious and problematic.

The last guy was younger than the other two. He did interesting things with poetry “on the page,” blacking out words and then crafting poems out of those that remained.

He was clearly talented, but appeared oblivious to the ill-will he no doubt generated within the poetry community — taking up space as a privileged white male, while disadvantaged bodies struggled against systemic oppression.

RELATED: 5 poems by Joseph Massey

O.W. Root

Silos

The one thing I noticed about all three of the poets: they were “siloed” in what they wrote about. They rarely addressed anything outside their immediate familial situations. Their homes. Their sons. Their fathers. Their memories of those things.

They did not write about their neighbors. Or the unrest in the streets. Or the identity politics that rule over all of us.

They had learned to stay very close to home in their writing. No politics. No social commentary. Nothing controversial. No unruly thoughts. No sex or desire or horniness. It was all extremely contained.

All three of them knew exactly what they were allowed to write about. And they stayed inside those bounds.

One small step for man

Still, they were there. They were reading in public. The Literary Arts woman who introduced them — gay, nose-ringed, POC — even made a joke about how shocked her colleagues were by their presence.

Afterward, they signed books and mingled with the public. I stayed around for that. I felt a sense of relief from the crowd and from the poets themselves. Nobody had protested their presence. Nothing bad had happened.

It seemed like white dudes were back. Within limits. And as long as they stuck to the script. And knew their place. And didn’t, you know, act too much like men.

Shane Gillis Outcry Shows We Need More Public Shaming, At The Gym And Everywhere

You should not wear underwear to the gym, just like you should not litter or wear pajamas in public. And society should judge you if you do.

Cornell’s President Understands ‘Responsibility.’ He Should Insist Jane Doe Do The Same

We’re apparently at the part of this “Cornell Seven” saga where the Ivy League university’s president needs to go through a ritualistic struggle session, enshrined by the political left, and he chose the most fitting location: The New York Times. In an interview published this week, Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff, surely having already tortured himself […]