I was mortified to realize that in the initial posted version of this note, in undue haste I had inexcusably misspelled “Encanto,” and at one place in the text had misspelled the name of the film’s lead character, Mirabel.  My place in the Circle of Life is clearly not as an editor of the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal  ;).  These errors have been corrected.

[Spoiler Alert:  this post addresses the plotlines of two animated classics of the Walt Disney Company.  If you are the one person on the globe who hasn’t seen and isn’t familiar with the storyline of The Lion King, but it’s still on your bucket list, or you haven’t seen Encanto, but intend to, exit the Noise NOW  🙂 ]. 

We met our youngest grandchild this past January, and not surprisingly, found that whether a birth occurs in the humblest of locales or in one of the world’s most storied cities, the regime is the same:  feeding, napping, diapering, and parental exhaustion.  The infant’s parents’ universe is reduced to … feeding, napping, diapering, and a sleep-deprived, semi-consciousness state.  (Fortunately, an infant’s grandparents, after helping during the day, are able to scurry back to their hotel for a good night’s sleep 😉 ).  At the same time, there is a lot of down time, during which weary minds have no space for deep discourse; we found this time best occupied by watching Disney animated classics.

I think we saw all of the Disney favorites from our kids’ day to the present during our ten-day visit.  I was surprised by what seemed to me a marked dichotomy in philosophy between Disney’s arguably greatest animated offering, The Lion King, and its 2021 – and extremely well-received – release, Encanto.  

As all who care are aware, The Lion King is the story of a lion prince, Simba, son of Mufasa, the king of the jungle, who upon his father’s death seeks to live a carefree life and avoid his responsibility to lead and safeguard the kingdom.  The film’s signature song is “The Circle of Life,” composed in part by Elton John and imprinted in the memory of all who have listened to popular music during the last 30 years.  The film begins with the following verses:

From the day we arrive on the planet
And, blinking, step into the sun
There’s more to see than can ever be seen
More to do than can ever be done
There’s far too much to take in here
More to find than can ever be found
But the sun rolling high
Through the sapphire sky
Keeps great and small on the endless round

It’s the circle of life
And it moves us all
Through despair and hope
Through faith and love
‘Til we find our place
On the path unwinding
In the circle
The circle of life [Emphasis Added]

It was interesting to recall upon seeing the film after so many years that Mr. John did not do the vocal in the film.  His familiar recorded version is obviously similar, but excerpts are arguably grittier:

…

Some say eat or be eaten

Some say live and let live

But all are agreed

As they join the stampede

You should never take more than you give

In the circle of life

It’s the wheel of fortune

It’s the leap of faith

It’s the band of hope

Till we find our place

On the path unwinding

In the circle

The circle of life

Some of us fall by the wayside

And some of us soar to the stars

And some of us sail through our troubles

And some of us have to live with the scars

…

In the circle

The circle of life [Emphasis Added]

By the end of the film, Simba comes to recognize his destiny, routs the villains, and assumes his rightful place as guardian of the kingdom.

Twenty-seven years later, Disney released Encanto, a delightful film about the Madrigal family, each of whom – seemingly except for the charming main character, Mirabel – has a super power that s/he uses for the good of the family’s village.  The family’s most robust – literally – super power is that possessed by Mirabel’s super-strong sister, Luisa, who uses her strength to carry ponderous weights to keep the village functioning smoothly.  Luisa’s song in the film, “Surface Pressure,” is in part thus:

I’m the strong one, I’m not nervous
I’m as tough as the crust of the Earth is
I move mountains, I move churches
And I glow, ’cause I know what my worth is …

Under the surface
I feel berserk as a tightrope walker in a three-ring circus …

Under the surface
I’m pretty sure I’m worthless if I can’t be of service …

Give it to your sister, your sister’s older
Give her all the heavy things we can’t shoulder
Who am I if I can’t run with the ball? …

Give it to your sister, your sister’s stronger
See if she can hang on a little longer
Who am I if I can’t carry it all? …

But wait, if I could shake the crushing weight of expectations
Would that free some room up for joy
Or relaxation, or simple pleasure?
Instead, we measure this growing pressure
Keeps growing, keep going
‘Cause all we know is

Pressure like a drip, drip, drip that’ll never stop
Pressure that’ll tip, tip, tip ’til you just go pop …

Through what becomes apparent during the course of the film are Mirabel’s super powers – her intuition and caring – she sees that despite her family’s efforts, their village is nonetheless literally cracking apart.  She ultimately leads the members of her family to see that they are more than just their powers, more than their responsibilities in supporting their family and the village; and at the end they and the community flourish as a result of that realization.

Since we are obviously all more than the roles we play, and both films stress love of family, one might argue that the two films differ in emphasis rather than core message.  I would nonetheless suggest that the differences in philosophy are notable, and worthy of pondering.  I would submit that the moral that the Disney writers were seeking to impart in The Lion King is that each of us is one of many, that each of us has a role to perform for the whole, and that the good of the whole is what is paramount in the Circle of Life; while in Encanto, a different set of writers, separated by a generation, perhaps reflecting a shift in societal perspectives over these last three decades, seemingly posits that an individual’s contribution to the whole, while very important, is nonetheless less significant to a flourishing society than the fulfillment of oneself.

So consider:  is filling one’s place – sticking to the knitting, being a cog in the Circle of Life – sustaining, or confining?  Fulfilling, or limiting?  Ennobling, or demeaning?

My guess is that if the readers of this note were polled, it would be a pretty even split.  I find my own inclination best expressed by a great fictional character:

“[You have] the dignity of a man who has found his place and occupies it …”

• Legendary detective Nero Wolfe, to his associate, Fred Durkin; Rex Stout:  Death of a Doxy

I read the Wolfe story (along with all the other Wolfe stories) about a thousand years ago.  I’ve always considered, “You’re a man who knows his place and keeps it,” to be among the finest tributes in all of literature.  As all reading this will readily conclude, I have greater affinity for the message of The Lion King.  That said, and no matter which of the two Disney-depicted philosophies you yourself are more comfortable with, I sincerely apologize for the fact that you’ll have Sir Elton singing “The Circle of Life” in your head all day today.  😉

Stay well.

In a post earlier today, which envisioned what an imaginary “Mr. Republican” might be calculating about GOP prospects in the 2024 presidential election, I stated that such a figure might in part be thinking, ‘“Let Trump and [FOX News Commentator Tucker] Carlson take the party over the edge to what is currently looking like it will be a general election shellacking. …”’

While former President Donald Trump may take the Republican party over the edge in 2024, he may have to do it without Mr. Carlson’s help.  😉  As all who care – and probably some who don’t – are aware, Mr. Carlson was dismissed by Fox News today without so much as providing him a farewell broadcast.  If Washington Post accounts are to be credited, Mr. Carlson’s transgression in the eyes of his employer wasn’t his private indication that he “passionately” hates Mr. Trump, or any doubt he sowed about President Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral triumph, or his misrepresentations about the substance of the January 6^th insurrection, or any of his countless other toxic discharges over the years … but because of his private criticisms of Fox News management — which would have included Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch – that were uncovered as part of the Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit against Fox News.  Perhaps Mr. Carlson forgot who the boss was. 

One would have to assume that Mr. Carlson was, from an employment standpoint, a dead man at Fox either when Fox management learned of his criticisms or when the criticisms became public; and that Mr. Carlson’s dismissal awaited only the settlement of the Dominion-Fox suit, lest either the dismissal be touted by Dominion as an indication of Fox’ liability or because Fox feared that Mr. Carlson would testify against the network on Dominion’s behalf.  Although one can be confident that the mini-me Foxes, Newsmax and OAN, would love to put Mr. Carlson on their air as soon as possible, and while employment law was never my field, one has to assume that Mr. Carlson’s contract with Fox prohibits him from broadcasting on another network for a specified period.  He will presumably ultimately resurface, but without Fox’ trumpet.

Those of us who have been outraged and revolted by Mr. Carlson’s incendiary rhetoric over the years should be allowed a quiet smile at his abrupt dismissal; but the fact remains that Fox gave him the platform, just as in the past it provided its platform to, and then removed its platform from, Bill O’Reilly and others.  Recall that Mr. Carlson’s ratings were initially disappointing when he in effect replaced Mr. O’Reilly in the Fox prime time lineup, but his viewership and attendant stature grew as he amped up his toxicity.  It may take a bit, but by the summer of 2024, no matter where Mr. Carlson himself might then be, there will be a new version of Tucker Carlson in Fox News prime time.  It is what it is.

A close friend who has been part of the Colorado Search and Rescue operations for decades (although he is still a young man 🙂 ) recently called my attention to Rebecca Young’s short story, “Joan,” which won the Conger Beasley, Jr. Award for Non-Fiction in 2021 and recently appeared in New Letters Magazine.  He wrote, “What struck me when I first read this story was that it has always been difficult to illustrate what we do to those who have never done it. … In her nonfiction narrative, Becca successfully uses one of our [teaching] search scenarios to convey the desperate and often emotional circumstances of a real search party from a patient’s imagined perspective and absolutely from a search leader’s perspective.”  It’s excellent.

Our friend and I have discussed the Colorado Search and Rescue team’s efforts a number of times over the years, but I never “got it” until I read Ms. Young’s story about a search and rescue effort in Rocky Mountain National Park.  Her recital did cause me to recall an account in Edward Abbey’s Desert Solitaire, in which Mr. Abbey, in the 1950s a park ranger in Utah’s Arches (now National Park), searched for a member of the public who had gotten lost in its desert terrain.

Without giving away Ms. Young’s story, I would suggest that the main takeaway for those of us – from our 20s to our 70s and beyond who will never participate in rescue operations but enjoy the wonders of our national and state parks and other wild areas — is:  Be Careful.  A couple of times since our retirement, TLOML and I – although any veteran outdoorsperson would consider our excursions terribly tame – have had to deal with uncomfortable uncertainty, although never actual danger.  Whether in the snowy Rockies, on the searing rock of the southwest, amid Everglades flora and fauna, or in Alaskan bear country, one needs to be aware of one’s limitations and surroundings.  Ms. Young notes at one point about her own experiences:  “So many times, I’ve been lucky instead of smart. … I can’t say why I’ve always come home from the mountains when others haven’t.  Often our choices were the same, the dead and me.”      

“Joan,” by Rebecca Young – New Letters

Below you will find a link to a recent piece by New York Times Columnist Bret Stephens.  In his essay, Mr. Stephens takes issue with a position recently asserted in the Washington Post by former Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie, Jr., whom Mr. Stephens quotes as declaring that a new generation of journalists “‘believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading ‘both-sides-ism,’” and that these young journalists “‘feel it [presumably, pursuing objectivity] negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.’”

Mr. Stephens also refers to a report co-authored by Mr. Downie, “Beyond Objectivity,” which Mr. Stephens indicates includes a contention by a quoted editor that Objectivity “is news ‘through the lens of largely white, straight men.’”  (The report – wait for it; this is the best part:  was issued by the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University.  Those of us old enough to remember Mr. Cronkite’s straightforward reporting as longtime anchor of the CBS Evening News – at the end of every broadcast, he told us, “That’s the way it is,” and indeed, we knew, that was the way it was — can be confident that the report’s publication under his name has him rolling in his grave.)

I am not sure whether all reading this note will be able to reach Mr. Stephens’ column behind the Times’ paywall; what follows are a few of his comments that I am pretty confident that he wouldn’t mind me sharing if he were aware:

“[News outlets] are not in the ‘truth’ business, at least not the sort with a capital ‘T.’ Our job is to collect and present relevant facts and good evidence. Beyond that, truth quickly becomes a matter of personal interpretation, ‘lived experience,’ moral judgments and other subjective considerations that affect all journalists but that should not frame their coverage. …

The core business of journalism is collecting and distributing information. Doing this requires virtues of inquisitiveness, independence, open-mindedness, critical thinking and doggedness in the service of factual accuracy, timeliness and comprehensiveness. It also serves the vital interests of democracy by providing the public with the raw materials it needs to shape intelligent opinion and effective policy. This may be less romantic than the pursuit of ‘truth,’ but we could regain a lot of trust by paring down our mission to simple facts.”

It seems that journalists may still be grappling with the challenges of 1950s McCarthyism, when the press (as it was then known) felt trapped by its perceived obligation to continue to report unfounded allegations of Communism by an elected Senator from … er … Wisconsin, even after it realized that Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s accusations were without basis.  I don’t consider the profession’s responsibility to objectively collect and disseminate facts to require ignoring reality.  When former President Donald Trump took office, the Wall Street Journal Newsroom (as contrasted with its Opinion desk) made the point of informing its readers that while it did not intend to specifically point out all of Mr. Trump’s seeming falsehoods, it would juxtapose what its reporters uncovered with Mr. Trump’s declarations, and let the reader decide.  (An old example:  given Mr. Trump’s assertion that his inauguration had drawn the most attendees in history, the Journal posted pictures of the crowds at the inaugurations of former President Barack Obama and Mr. Trump next to Mr. Trump’s claim, and let the reader form his/her own conclusion as to its veracity.)  I was, and remain, very comfortable with such an approach.

As for the notion that “objectivity” somehow reflects a bias of white, straight males:  while one’s being and background will obviously influence the way one perceives the import of a fact pattern, I entirely reject the notion that the standard of objectivity for collection and dissemination of facts should in any way vary according to a reporter’s gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, or other attribute.

What makes journalism a noble calling isn’t those who shout from talk shows or opinion pages [or blogs  😉 ].  Although TLOML and I watch MSNBC’s decidedly-liberal Morning Joe and I frequently agree with and occasionally cite its panelists’ observations, I would never post anything in these pages based upon such observations unless I found confirmation either with my own eyes (via video) or in the news pages of a reputable newspaper.  We spouters can have our views; what is vital is that journalists, as Mr. Stephens put it, “provid[e] the public with the raw materials it needs to shape intelligent opinion and effective policy.”  That’s all, and that’s enough.  After journalists have fulfilled their responsibility – a sacred one in a democracy — it is thereafter up to our people, for good or ill, to form their own conclusions.

Obviously, I associate myself with the entirety of Mr. Stephens’ remarks, and encourage you to read his entire column – if not accessible to you via the link below, through other means.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/opinion/mainstream-media-credibility-objectivity-journalism.html

Some say that there is no Supreme Being; they assert that our existence is a consequence of the churnings of the universe, the result of an endless metaphysical evolution.  Under our system of government, Americans have a right to hold, or not hold, any feeling of faith we choose, and I absolutely defend the right of those who deny the existence of the Almighty; but I cannot agree.  Life is too wondrous to have come about from a random clash of molecules; it is the product of the Divine, no matter by what name or how He (as always, please excuse the male pronoun for a genderless being) is known.  TLOML and I recently had a chance to catch a reminder of a message which perhaps some of us too frequently forget as we navigate life’s challenges; a link is set forth below.

May you embrace your blessings amid your family and friends during this wondrous Season. 

Happy Holidays.