Post # 427  CALIBRATING MIMESIS (dress)

Mimesis, as may permissibly be defined, refers to the art or practice of imitation of other people’s appearance, voice or personal views or opinions. It may be a useful and revelatory exercise, for all of us, to stand fully dressed, for a few moments, before a full-size mirror, and candidly ask, the following: “How much of this is me?”

Societal and personal pressures and concerns, the need to be accepted and respected, the desire for inclusion, the influence of interactive communication, the influence of the media (most particularly, the advertising industry), economic considerations and perceived status,” keeping up with the Jones’s,” and self-image, are among the numerous considerations, which play, far too significant a role, in how we choose to dress, look, communicate, and, all too often, sadly, how we think.

The late, Fred Rogers, (“Mr. Rogers”) the compassionate, empathic and loving host, of the highly respected, children’s television program, “Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood,” in one of his trademark, well-remembered programs, sang, (along with the other children in the studio) to a young boy, manifesting the cruel and heartless symptomology, of cerebral palsy, “It’s YOU, that I like, not the clothes you wear, or the way you do your hair…” The unforgettable, saintly, Fred Rogers, reminding everyone, that it is the essential person, that matters, not his external trappings. This mini-essay, is an attempt to speak to the essential “person,” beyond, or behind, what may be his required, external, persona.

The great, English, 19th Century philosopher, John Locke, espoused the “Social Contract” theory, in which man, contractually, surrenders (exchanges) certain of his natural liberties, for the many benefits of living in society. A salient and admirable feature of the societally healthy member, nonetheless, is his continuing, individualized, perception of his own personal identity, as well as the personal desire to be guided by his own normative reason.

Legal rights and issues aside, the question at hand is, how much tailoring of one’s persona, is fairly, or properly, to be performed, in order to be deemed an acceptable member of society. What are the limits, on the one hand, of liberty and spontaneity, or on the other, of mandatory conformance to societal folkways. This question might well concern, in addition to the present emphasis on the subject of attire, acceptable behavior, speech, dress, style, family relations, reaction to stimuli, speech, work ethic, even political theories and current politics. How much “self-hood” is required to be to be stifled, or eroded, in one’s aspiration for societal acceptance.

In the context of employment, there are certain conformities which seem to be exempt from the realm of dispute; a librarian does not show up for work in a diving suit, a lawyer does not wear a baseball uniform to the office, a grade school teacher dresses up like Spiderman, does so at her own risk, a clergyman does not come to Sunday service in a Tutu, and so on. Each professional calling, has its own range of traditionally expected, dress codes, generally, but not uniformly, adhered to. A business suit, a sports Jacket and tie, is the expectation for office work. In some cases, merely,” sports-neat” is acceptable.

In private life, there are dress expectations, depending upon the person and the event. The extent of expectation, may vary with the activity, with age, with nuanced notions of tradition and propriety, and, possibly, within the category of some personally intended, reactive, impression. Empirical experience tells us, that most styles of dress will vary with the subjective fantasies of the dresser, or the impression intended to be made on others. The majority of people, seem to dress, to “fit in,” with their peers.

A cogent guide to the question is, eternally, first, how we see ourselves, and the extent of our confidence in that personal perception. A secondary, but, rather crucial, consideration is, how big a stake, we are willing to invest, in that personal assessment.

How many of us dress and comport ourselves, as a conceived, fantasy (mimesis) of an admired movie star, a famous athlete, an employer, or in the manner felt, to be  “expected” of us, or, possibly, also, in revolt against authority, escape from reality, or, lastly, unwillingly, but in accordance with perceived style.

Doesn’t anyone dress anymore, just to feel comfortable?

Look again…



There are certain words which appear to be especially apt for metaphoric illustration of particular themes. The metaphor “du jour”, is the noun, “easement.” The specific term, expresses the (legal) right of a person, or governmental agency, to enter upon, or use property, owned by another. The franchise of an easement, is most commonly established by Contract, Deed, Last Will and Testament or, persuant to certain Statutorily prescribed criteria, by continuous, uninterrupted use,of the land, without overt objection, by the landowner (“adverse possession”). Without the right, granted by a valid easement, the crossing over, use, or entry upon land, owned by another person, would amount to a “trespass”, addressable by legal action.

The most common easements, are those granted, or reserved, in documents of title, typically, affording a utility company, or a municipality, the right, to run power lines, or water pipes, over or through, privately owned land. The simplest instance of an easement, is the agreed, mutual use of a common driveway, by the owners of attached homes.

In contemporary American society, the right to privacy, equality and freedom of action, are legally, unassailable, and justly celebrated, as concomitants of the personhood of every citizen. Provided that a course of action is recognized as lawful, and societally responsible, the individual is completely free to act, as may be desired. Like the rights inherent in the ownership of land, unauthorized infringement of the right to life and liberty, amount to an indefensible trespass upon one’s person.

A common occurrence of unfair trespass on individual rights, as between members of society, has its origin in the faux evaluation of individuals, upon factually unsupported assumptions, as to their quality as citizens, or the extent of their mature responsibility. Such error has its disputable basis in nuanced, or stereotypical appearance, or perhaps, in idle gossip. It is manifestly unfair, and unjust, for society to hold individuals, esteemed as highly responsible, to greater expectations and higher standards of performance, than those, subjectively, perceived as irresponsible.  This is effectively equivalent to granting to the people, deemed, less dependable, a gratuitous easement, on the liberty, life and life, of those who are deemed more responsible, and, by consequence, taxed with the performance of societal obligations. It is often heard, with a measure of knowing amusement, or anger, “I’ll do it, what can you expect of ….?

We may, at times of felt need, choose to rely upon selected others, to act in our behalf. In such matters, relevant details have to be clearly and expressly discussed, and mutually understood; otherwise, an error can occur, consisting of non-performance of an important action, or on the other hand, an undesired, continuance of services; leading to, a felt encroachment upon one’s desire for non-interference. In metaphoric similarity to the grant of easement rights, regarding the use of land, the relegation of someone to act in your behalf, has to be clear, specific, and, especially, limited in nature.

Any merely general, unspecified, ceding of authority, is foolhardy, and will predictably, result in serious misunderstanding and consequent, problems. One, heartbreaking, but frequent, category of such problem typically exists, where a person, usually, an unmarried family member, such as an unmarried niece, consents to accepting the all-consuming responsibility of care, for a disabled, elder relative. The caregiver, maintains the appropriate, expectation of appropriate recompense, for such extensive services; and, more profoundly, for its major incursion into (trespass upon) her private life. The disabled party, and possibly, other relatives, choose to regard the services as consistent with the well- known, caring persona, of the caregiver, and therefore, not relevant to any expectation of remuneration; as if she granted the family, a voluntary easement on her private life. There exist many such cases of record, in State and Surrogate’s Courts, throughout the Nation, where, again, a relative, undertook the unlimited responsibility of care, for an elderly, or otherwise incapacitated relative, in normal expectation of remuneration, for her years of service and sacrifice (remaining unmarried); perhaps, to be bequeathed under decedent’s will, or otherwise, but, in fact, received nothing. The attempted grounds for these lawsuits, were, “implied contract for services,” or some similar contractual theory. The claimants have, typically , been unsuccessful.

The years of nursing and intimate personal services rendered by the unmarried niece, were “taken for granted” (analogous to an unenforceable [because unwritten] assumption of a legally granted, easement in the nurse’s private life), and, not compensable. Sadly, and ironically, in said Court cases, the assets of the Estate, are usually left to another relative; often to a sibling, who may have been entirely disinterested in the elder’s health. Relative to the general theme of this writing, is the view that the services of the caregiver, were offered, by the caregiver, by our analogy, a voluntary, gratuitous, grant of “easement,” on her personal life, and as such, not compensable. The boundaries of the caregiver’s life, in such cases, effectively have been incrementally, eroded, by her own loving action. It is our inarguable position, that the intrusion into, and upon a life, based upon self-serving perception, is decidedly worse, that any analogous trespass on real estate. [ N.B. Under uniform Real Estate Laws, claimed easements to use the land of another person, must be pursuant to a mutually executed writing].

Assumptions, albeit, based upon recalled perceptions, of past performance, should not be a determinant for future, nuanced treatment. For society to prosper and be just, every individual must be treated, as equally capable, and responsible, as evaluated, pursuant an identical normative standard. Prejudgments, are harmful, and may often be, merely, an unreliable and subjective reflection of a skewed or unreliable memory. All members of society should, uniformly, be subject to identical standards of expectation, lest unfairness and injustice be predictably, a better bet, than efficiency of performance. The boundaries of human expectation, and assertion of rights, whether regarding ownership of property, or the liberty of  individuals, should eternally, depend upon reason, fairness and upon mutually accepted and expressly communicated terms.

The famous, Colonial American Revolutionary pennant, memorializing the historically famous admonition, “Don’t tread on me,” seems to be in sync with our selected,  (but unusual) metaphor, as between (“easement”) rights to use the land of another, and the eternal, moral concern, about impinging upon the life and liberty, of another person.


Post # 425 (poesie) THE CHASM

The soft, slow, down-tumble
From the cool side of the pillow
Into the dark recesses of sleep
Is velvet smooth and non- abrading.
A digital demon of the dark chasm,
Presses the “app” for confused reality
Bringing disquietude, but also peace.
Sunrays of sound, cordant and discordant
Night beams of joy, also painful loss
A random collage of personal memories
The shifting days of joy and sorrow,
The reunion of deceased with the living.

(Leonard N. Shapiro, October, 2019)

 Post # 424    FARE AND BALANCED

Lest the reader think that we are solely preoccupied with esoteric, philosophical subjects, related to mankind and his interface with society, we have chosen for this writing, the inarguably, mundane subject of New York City buses. In common with most of our mini-essays, we prefer to refer to the relevant past history, prior to the expression of our thoughts concerning, the subject in its contemporary existence.

The word “bus” is, in reality, a contraction of the word, “omnibus,” meaning,” for everyone,” signifying the ability of anyone, without any previous reservation, to board as a fared passenger, at any designated point, along its fixed route. Buses are relatively large motor vehicles, capable of carrying many passengers, along their assigned route, during which there are dedicated stops.

The first “streetcars” in New York, (1830’s) were, actually, pulled by horses along rails, to various designated stops in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Research indicates, that, in addition to the usual logistical and mechanical problems, intrinsically inherent in such an enterprise, the signature problem was horse poop.

The horse-pulled street cars, were subsequently replaced by cable cars, (overhead sourced electricity) which, like its predecessor, traveled on street- level, rails to designated stops (“trolleys”). The next, succeeding, surface transit system, the fuel powered bus, replaced the electric-sourced street cars (trolleys”) very soon after, it is thought, largely due to the concerted public relations efforts of the fuel industry. The change, of course, was a true, paradigm shift, in City travel and commutation.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority, (“MTA”), we are informed, presently, operates a fleet of approximately, 6,000 buses in New York City, covering 322 routes. Regular fare is $2.75, payable with a “MetroCard,” or by exact change (in coins). They, conveniently, tend to service areas of the City, not located close to subway entrances.

We are pleased to note the following laudable features of City buses: lowered platform apparatus for the use of  the disabled, kneeling buses for easier passenger entrance, a new system, consisting of outside payment of fare and the permitted use of multiple entrance doors, to avoid crowding, allocated seating section for the elderly and disabled, and, from time to time, announcement of streets and avenues, along the route; the latter, especially useful, when dark and on rain periods, when visibility of street signs are a challenge. We would suggest that such regular announcements be a feature of all buses, on all necessary occasions.

We do, however, wish to lodge, an especially vexing, complaint. We, and as informed, many other bus passengers, have experienced the great frequency of instances in which (usually aggravated by a cold, rainy or hot day), the wait for buses, is unreasonably long, late, and inconsistent with the posted schedule. After an uncomfortable wait, usually with an ever accumulating crowd of travelers, no less than two buses, will then arrive. This is hard to comprehend or forgive. The bus company, (presumably, its dispatchers) know, or should know, from many years of repeated experience, the normal, daily and hourly passenger demand, at any given bus stop. There are, indeed, many people who aptly perform, multiple, complex responsibilities as part of their employment; by contrast, this matter is childishly simple, and there would appear to be is no reasonable excuse for such ineptitude.

We truly appreciate the positive features of the City buses, enumerated above, and choose to remain, eternally optimistic, that a solution of the needless scheduling morass, will be found, in good time.



As has been famously said, there is a “time for everything,” We see the moral obligation, for the first time, after publishing 422 mini- essays, to profusely and sincerely, apologize for the current title. We are morally constrained to admit, that the only comparative element, of all three subjects, in the above title, is that they have each, respectively, crossed the irreversible threshold of extinction, after a long, pre-eminence. The offense is aggravated, by our further admission, that this note does not in any other way, directly or by indirection, concern the titular subjects, of the ancient wooly mammoth or the dodo. The themed, extinct phenomenon, du jour, in truth, is that of (legitimate) conversation.

When early man progressed from a solo, to a societal, life, the desired interdependent benefits (ex., defense, food gathering, joint projects, exchange of skills) would not be,as a practical matter, attainable, without a common mode of inter-active communication; a developed language. The facility of an understandable language, made possible, among other things, the exchange of information and skills, as well as the expression of thoughts and reactions to events.

The fundamental ability to speak to others, was empirically essential, to the common solution of problems, the exchange of skills, joint undertakings and decisions, expression of needs, communication of events, whetherthey be dangerous, like threats from outsiders, or beneficial, such as the location of food and water. It is assumed that as the facility of spoken language improved, other matters were added to the common subjects of discussion: oral history, achievements and tragic events, as well as the news of the day. Members of society might express thoughts and opinions, and when the need presented itself, their personal feelings. The facility of speech, or “talking” to others, afforded a rational, and orderly mode of socialization and the necessary emotional relief of voluntary expression, and, still performs the identical functions in our modern society. The human facility of speech, or talk, is most certainly, not extinct, nor is it, in actuality, the subject of this writing.

Samuel Johnson, the 18th Century poet, playwright, essayist and lexicographer, was considered, by a great many, the greatest figure of that Century. He is known to have made the following statement, among many other great and memorable statements:

“… We have had talk enough, but no conversation; there was nothing [interesting] discussed.”

There is a significant, qualitative, aesthetic and intrinsic difference, between, talking and having a “conversation.”But, because the words, “talk” and “conversation,” are often considered synonymic, we have, defensively, quoted Dr.Samuel Johnson, the great lexicographer, lest our themed distinction, seem strained or pedantic. Conversations, are more than mundane interactions; a speaker actually says something incisive, interesting or memorable. The art of conversation, whenever it existed, was an engagement between two or three people, in which the exchange of language was, observingly, knowledgeable, at times, containing truly, original thoughts, but always, dependably interesting, and at various times, fascinating.

Many thought provoking observations or interesting points of view, as well as valuable observations were, in the recent past, articulated by letter correspondence. We feel that thoughtful correspondence, was and is, the most aesthetic and artistic mode of conversation, since they are expressed at leisure, with time and opportunity, to select the words, most expressive of the writer’s thoughts. For those who may not know it, and may be curious, history, records a, “Pliny the Younger,” as, famously, having written a great many letters which have proven to be a treasure trove of information, for scholars of ancient Rome. Our adopted, (possibly, presumptuous) use of that name, as the style of this blogspace, admittedly, was not accidental or whimsical.

Legitimate conversation is only possible for, and perhaps, solely desired by, that remaining minority of humanity, that has wisely dedicated, some part of its short life span, to knowledge and self- improvement; through engagement in reading good literature and/or pursuing the arts and sciences. It is such people who, happily, and successfully, attain the intended goal of natural evolution, of a more exalted platform of life, and the ability to live meaningfully and rationally; for which dedicated purpose, mankind was generously gifted with an advanced brain.

Nature’s goal is represented by a disappointingly, small, surviving, cohort of homo sapiens, who can speak and as well, engage in true and rewarding conversation.  For the most part, the fragile existence of bona fide, authentic, conversation, has gone the final and sad way, of the Wooly Mammoth and the Dodo.

ADDENDUM: The prevalent use of smart-phone “messaging” we feel, has permanently eliminated, any and all dreams of a possible return, to the esthetic and rewarding art of human conversation.



Major shifts in the tectonic plates, in the Earth’s crust, are reported to occur at geological “faults”, such that the positions of the plates, change relative to each other, often resulting in momentous results, such as, earthquakes, in the case of rapid occurrences, or “slips,” for slower ones. They evidently occur, locally, but can have global repercussions. Various organizations and scientists study this phenomenon, including the U.S. Geological Survey Organization. Some of the tectonic shifts take eons to occur, others may be more rapid in their formation. The subject is eternally investigated and is the subject of many academic disciplines.

In some cases, (like the movement of tectonic plates), shifts in the mutual relationships, between the younger and older members of society, also produce, enduring results, but, by metaphoric contrast, some may be societally beneficial, as well as damaging; but, clearly, never graphically catastrophic, as in the case of geologic earthquakes or tsunamis. We term these social changes metaphorically, “seismic” because of their noteworthy, and enduring effects. An additional difference, regarding human seismic changes, is that they occur on a more regular basis, and may require at most, only the period of a human generation or so, to manifest themselves.

As early as the beginning of the 20th Century, many salubrious, personal changes began to occur, which reflect a developing empathic and respectful recognition of the younger generation, as individual, nascent adults, with legitimate personal and emotional reactions, albeit, at times, from an inexperienced perspective.

Those readers, to young, to remember, may consult literature and old movies, to disapprovingly, learn, of such commonplace aphorisms, as “Children are to be seen and not heard,” Spare the rod and spoil the child,” “Cleanliness is next to godliness,” “Mother knows best,” “Respect your elders,” (the latter applied, as well, to adults who deserved little or no respect), ”You wouldn’t understand,” “You are just a child,” “Children think they know so much,” and the like. Moreover, for generations, schoolteachers in most States, were legally considered, to be “in loco parentis,” and were permitted to physically, punish children. In one account, read by us concerning what was advertised, in New England, as “Good Christian Schooling,”schoolteachers were permitted to cut a switch from a local tree, and whip the misbehaving child; a popular variation, was to have he alleged “misbehaving” child stand barefoot on hard peas. These behaviors, by schoolmasters at the time, were legally, and routinely, performed, with the implicit assent, of the parents.  These tectonic plates needed shifting.

Such atavistic and disgraceful disregard for the feelings and persona of young children, mercifully, came to a gradual (and inconsistent) end in the coming years. Among various factors, including, the reading of good, secular literature and liberal education, a rational perspective evolved, catalyzed, in short order, by the new exposure to television; the latter demonstrating modern views on the proper contextual relationship, of parents and children, and adults and young people, in general. Children were at last, considered authentic nascent adults, and not household possessions. On television and radio productions, children were portrayed as capable of owning their own unique persona and intelligence. The appropriate and realistic portrayal of young people, in the media and elsewhere, was a teaching experience, for those many, who needed it.

As can be assumed, the general family life of parents and children took on new perspective; inexperienced, or immature expressions, were lovingly considered, as such, or as “cute,” and, as the child grew older, his thoughts and opinions were duly recognized and given consideration, by parents. At appropriate times, children were spoken to as individuals, as opposed to as toddlers. Children now could freely, express themselves, rather than “be seen but not heard.” A momentous tectonic plate, had finally settled, in a fit and secure place.

But, as any physical geologist would tell you, tectonic plates are never predictable, and may,atany time, unexpectedly, disturb a peaceful environment. A different, and gigantic, societal shift more recently took place, commensurate and contemporaneously, with, the advent of computer technology, most particularly, with the hand-held computer telephone.

Younger people, not hobbled by the “traditional” teaching of reading, writing and arithmetic, as were their elders, were now required, not only to be heard, but as well, seen, since they became, of necessity, remedial instructors, for their older, digitally limited parents and seniors. Educated in a new electronic context, they have become accessible aficionados of the language and the novel context, of the new, digital computer-driven society.

As an aside, we have, consistently, expressed our adamant disapproval, concerning the prevailing use of the electronic phone, for personal interaction, pointing out the lack of individuality and spontaneity, in their use, and the impersonality of the practice of the receipt of code-like computer images, on a small, lighted screen, in lieu of spontaneous, personal conversation. We have implored the young to read books, and not screens. All to no avail. We have also remonstrated for the healthy, mind exercising, use of intelligent reason, for solving problems, rather than punching buttons on a digitized, hand held appliance. Again to no avail.

The most recent major sociological, tectonic plate shift, is manifested in the universal use of digital phones and computerized equipment. As to a great many of us, who have not been educated in the digital age, we are, blamelessly, handicapped, by the imperative need to alter our lives, so as, to become digital operators and to think, digitally. The result, is that the entire tectonic plate area has so shifted, that, even those of us who are objectively, well- educated, need to rely on available youngsters for even, basic assistance. The young person is now, by material necessity, to be heard, as well as seen, so that we elder members of society, can try his patience with sophomoric questions, and multiple requests, for computer assistance.

It is remarked, somewhere, that, “the worm has turned.” We would prefer the statement, “Society’s tectonic plates have remarkably, shifted”.


Post # 421   WOODLAND MONITORS (a fantasy)

Any individual, who deigns to look up, even momentarily, from his smart-phone, will likely notice, the most majestic and largest living organism on the planet, the ubiquitous, tree. Despite the contemporary atmosphere, of vociferous contention over global warming, many people, nevertheless, are coming to realize, that existence on this planet, is vitally dependent upon the metabolic process, death and ultimate deterioration, into topsoil, of this marvelous creation of nature.

The tree, in addition to providing aesthetic beauty, cooling shade, habitat for birds and other animals, and a playground for young children, performs vital services, in its absorption of carbon and manufacture of oxygen, prevention of floods, prevention of soil erosion, and, in addition to serving scientific research purposes, such as tree ring dating, has, eternally, provided required material for manufacturing and for building construction.

While we are, for the moment, making some general observations on trees, it may be of interest, to mention the renowned 18th Century classifier and botanist, Carl Linnaeus, who observed that the chestnut oak, willow oak, the water oak and the red oak, are trees confined, generally, to the eastern portion of the world, most principally, in North America. We elect to make this observation, for reasons which will soon become evident.

The study of “growth,” or “tree” rings, [the yearly developed, concentric rings around tree trunks] has provided scientists with valuable historic information, on climate, temperature and other natural phenomena. We are advised that such past events are discerned by experts from certain, rather subtle, demonstrable features of the rings, such as their thickness, and the space between each other. Certain adjoining, rather complex, wiggly lines, have been observed to be routinely present, which, until recently, were not, at all understood. The eminent, Professor (Emeritus) Percival P. Pooke, former Department Head of Arbor Research, an academic branch of Biological Studies, at North American University, in Rootland, Vermont, is credited with, brilliantly, uncovering, their function and interpretation.

The bearded, reserved, strictly vegan, Professor Pooke, who at the age of 87, still preferred to be called, by intimates, “Pooky,” studied, with the assistance of successive post-doctoral teams, the North American Oak, with special academic emphasis, on the notable, Chestnut Oak and the Water Oak. In the decades spent in intense and exclusive study of these two singular trees, he and his tireless, post-docs, made unique,valuable contributions, not confined, alone to the scientific discipline of botany, but, serendipitously, to the exponentially engulfing, area of computer science.

He succeeded in, at long last, in uncovering, in those studied, wiggly lines, a world -shattering revelation; consisting, incredibly, of an arboreal encrypted, algorithmic code, [[which took 40 years, two divorces and, no less than, 1546 felled tree trunks, to discern and, finally, decipher] in the Chestnut Oak, and to a lesser degree, in the Water Oak.

Pooke’s most recent team, which carried on the important work, after he was shot and killed by his angry, third wife, made further discoveries, which are existentially valuable, but conceptually difficult, to accept. The specific varietal of tree, the Chestnut Oak was found to have the capability of evolving an algorithmic system of recording information, and, equally astoundingly, encrypting it.

Still puzzling, accepting the finding, that this singular member of the oak family, had such capabilities, is the question, what could possibly be the content of such computer-style messages. These questions are immeasurably, far more difficult to answer, than merely, analyzing historic rainfall and other meteorological conditions, by the examination of the nature of spaces between growth rings of a tree.

The only possible answer, totally undisclosed from the public, until now, is that the haphazard, irregular miracle of the evolutionary process, resulted in a hybrid/sentient tree, with computer capability, but, by virtue of its feature of great height, and its problem of immobility, limited to the sole capability of observation.

These specific hybrid oaks, as discovered, look out on  humanity and record (since that is their sole capability)  acts which are harmful to the planet (injuring nature and especially, trees), including, the irresponsible discarding of throw- away cups ,and plastic containers, the irresponsible waste of natural assets, including water, the negligent and dangerous  setting of campfires, the cruel and psychopathic killing, of innocent denizens of the forest for “fun,” the senseless injuries inflicted on trees, such as carving initials, the irresponsible discarding of  garbage, and other such reprehensible, intentional or thoughtless acts. These, and, importantly, the identity of the wrongdoers, are, apparently, in some fashion, recorded and memorialized, for ultimate reasons, of which, we yet have no knowledge.

It is also said, by scholars, specializing in the new scientific, discipline of oak sentience, that overheard statements, amounting to denial of climate change, are similarly, recorded and stored in the oak’s “special” files, for future action, the exact nature of which, they also, lack knowledge.

We might recommend that, when you are hiking or picnicking in the woodland, you do pay attention to the larger oaks, especially those who seem to be alert and on active monitoring duty. Be sure to remove all trash and then, smile, at the large, breeze-waving, oak trees. [It surely can’t hurt].