Category Archives: Literature

Sartre, Gaza, and the power of doing nothing

1 Reply

Jean-Paul Sartre was a Catholic who did not believe in God or external morality, but believed in socialism and being true to ones self without having to do anything for anyone. His most famous work, “Being and Nothingness” was written in France in 1943, during the Nazi occupation. The last 200 pages of the book deal with freedom and its limitations. Sartre points out that there are always limitations (prison guards, Nazis, your own body, etc.) It is dangerous and impractical to oppose these guards, or or to oppose your own body. Sartre’s advice is to go along in body, but oppose them in your mind. Thus, he believed, he was being true to himself to the extent of rational choice. He was totally free because he was free in his mind and in his reactions to the limitations. “Freedom is what we do with what is done to us.” This was his version of existentialism, and many Frenchmen agreed that this was the right way to behave under the circumstances. Many Nazis agreed and enjoyed his writing and plays. If they didn’t totally like what Sartre had to say, they didn’t object enough to send him to a concentration camp. In practical terms, he thus survived better than Jews and oppositional Frenchmen.

Sartre had eyes that pointed in different directions. Some try to claim this related to his philosophy

Although there is a stink of cowardice and collaboration hanging over Sartre and his outlook, it could be worse. A Sartre Joke: Sartre had just finished talk at a restaurant, and sat down. A waitress who understood the talk better than most, asked if she could get him something. Sartre said, “please bring me a coffee, no sugar, no milk.” The waitress came back and said, “we’re out of milk. I can get you coffee with no sugar and no cream.” The point of the joke being that Sartre’s freedom of choice can only be among the choices he could reasonably make. If he’d asked for milk, it’s irrational to expect that the restauranteur would run out and buy some, so it was pointless to ask for no milk.

As the Germans were leaving, Sartre took French antisemites to task in a short book, “Antisemite and Jew” (1944) where he discusses the inauthentic logic of French antisemites and the motivations behind their behavior and beliefs. He claimed the motivation was a sort of mob empowerment where the antisemite, by oppressing Jews sees himself as noble, and comes to feel himself as the heir of all France, its history and its culture. They the thus imagine themselves empowered and enriched by their hatred of he-who-isn’t-them. This motivation he inferred in the liberal Frenchman as much as in the thug; the liberal objects to the yellow star, not out of sympathy for the Jew or justice, but for an inauthentic reason. It makes him feel small by his inaction, and it crates, in the Jew, an identity that is beyond the essence they prefer; he’s more than just ‘not-them’. As I read him, the main character in “Catcher in the Rye”, Holden Caulfield, is a Sartre stand in, a privileged kid bothered by the “phoniness” around him, Like Sartre, he complains and does nothing for anyone, but he does no harm either.

Sartre didn’t join the resistance, even after the Germans were losing, nor did he hide Jews or gentles, or help anyone but himself. After the war, he pushed for the execution of those who were insufficiently anti Nazi, like Tintin author, Hergé. Hergé survived, many of those he attacked were killed in post war purges. Sartre’s philosophy actually works for prisoners in extreme circumstances. Similar philosophies were created by Victor Frankl and Primo Levi during their stays in Auschwitz. It helped them survive and stay sane. Frankl’s “Man’s search for meaning”, was alternately titled, “From concentration camp to existentialism,” a lot concerns the importance of keeping your mind clear – of not becoming an animal.

Simone de Beauvoir & Jean-Paul Sartre with Che Guevara, a favorite Communist murderer, in Havana, Cuba, 1960 (photo by Alberto Korda).

After the war, Frankl became a successful psychologist helping people by helping them to see that they had a reason to exist. This is a more positive version of Sartre’s existentialism, where there was no reason. Primo Levi seems to have followed Sartre’s line more and become ever more depressed; eventually he committed suicide. Eventually, Sartre found a reason to exist in socialism. He believed that, while life was a cruel joke, socialism was pure. People could die in the millions, and he acknowledged that, the leaders were brutal thugs who did murder millions, but he believed that socialism and communism must live on. He tried to keep the bad truths hidden. So what of the killing and torture. So what if writers were imprisoned or shot — in Russia all the Jewish ones were shot in the same day — Sartre said they should have written better books, more pro-communist. Sartre would never have willingly lived in communist Russia, China, or Cuba — he stayed safe in France, and championed the oppression.

Gays for Gaza are not interested in a queer state of Palestine; they attack Jews to make themselves feel generous and powerful — it gives their lives meaning.

This brings me to the pro-Palestinian authors of today, and of 1973. Fifty years ago on Yom Kippur, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt attacked Israel by surprise simultaneously with aid from Russia. Communists and socialists supported the Arabs. Among them was Sartre, though he knew these states to be brutal dictatorships. Pretty soon Sartre discovered that his friends motivation was that they liked attacking Jews, a phony motivation, said Sartre in an interview, and he found he could not join them

I detect the same phony motivation in today’s demonstrations. The loud feminists for Palestine, the Gays for Gaza, those attacking Jews for complicity. Very few of them would willingly live in these countries or among Hamas or ISIS, and fewer of those would survive. Their love of Palestine is an excuse to hit Jews. The better version is Sartre’s he did nothing then, and would likely have done nothing today. You have to have authentic thoughts, at least.

Robert Buxbaum, November 13, 2023

Relativity’s twin paradox explained, and why time is at right angles to space.

Leave a reply

One of the most famous paradoxes of physics is explained wrong — always. It makes people feel good to think they understand it, but the explanation is wrong and confusing, and it drives young physicists in a wrong direction. The basic paradox is an outgrowth of the special relativity prediction that time moves slower if you move faster.

Thus, if you entered a spaceship and were to travel to a distant star at 99% the speed of light, turn around and get here 30 years, you would have aged far less than 30 years. You and everyone else on the space ship would have aged three years, 1/10 as much as someone on earth.

The paradox part, not that the above isn’t weird enough by itself, is that the person in the spaceship will imagine that he (or she) is standing still, and that everyone on earth is moving away at 99% the speed of light. Thus, the person on the spaceship should expect to find that the people on earth will age slower. That is, the person on the space ship should return from his (or her) three year journey, expecting to find that the people on earth have only aged 0.3 years. Obviously, only one of these expectations can be right, but it’s not clear which (It’s the first one), nor is it clear why.

The wrong explanation appears in an early popular book, “Mr Tompkins in Wonderland”, by Physicist, George Gamow. The book was written shortly after Relativity was proposed, and involves a Mr Tompkins who falls asleep in a physics lecture. Mr. Tompkins dreams he’s riding on a train going near the speed of light, finds things are shorter and time is going slower. He then asks the paradox question to the conductor, who admits he doesn’t quite know how it works (perhaps Gamow didn’t), but that “it has something do do with the brakeman.” That sounds like Gamow is saying the explanation has to do with deceleration at the turn around, or general relativity in general, implying gravity could have a similarly large effect. It doesn’t work that way, and the effect of 1G gravity is small, but everyone seems content to explain the paradox this way. This is particularly unfortunate because these include physicists clouding an already cloudy issue.

In the early days of physics, physicists tried to explain things with a little legitimate math to the lay audience. Gamow did this, as did Einstein, Planck, Feynman, and most others. I try to do this too. Nowadays, physicists have removed the math, and added gobbledygook. The one exception here are the cinematographers of Star Wars. They alone show the explanation correctly.

The explanation does not have to do general relativity or the acceleration at the end of the journey (the brakeman). Instead of working through some acceleration, general relativity effect, the twin paradox works with simple, special relativity: all space contracts for the duration of the trip, and everything in it gets shorter. The person in this spaceship will see the distance to the star shrink by 90%. Traveling there thus takes 1/10th the time because the distance is 1/10th. There and back at 99% the speed of light, takes exactly 3 years.

The equation for time contraction is: t’ = v/x° √(1-(v/c)2) = t° √(1-(v/c)2) where t’ is the time in the spaceship, v is the speed, x° is the distance traveled (as measured from earth), and c is the speed of light. For v/c = .99, we find that √1-(v/c)2 is 0.1. We thus find that t’ = 0.1 t°. When dealing with the twin paradox, it’s better to say that x’ = 0.1x° where x’ is the distance to the star as seen from the spaceship. In either case, when the people on the space ship accelerate, they see the distance in front of them shrink, as shown in Star Wars, below.

Star Wars. The millennium falcon jumps to light speed, and beyond.

That time was at right angles to space was a comment in one of Einstein’s popular articles and books; he wrote several, all with some minimal mathematics Current science has no math, and a lot of politics, IMHO, and thus is not science.

He showed that time and space are at right angles by analogy from Pythagoras. Pythagoras showed that distance on a diagonal, d between two points at right angles, x and y is d = √(x2 + y2). Another way of saying this is d2 =x2 + y2. The relationship is similar for relativistic distances. To explain the twin paradox, we find that the square of the effective distance, x’2 = x°2 (1 – (v/c)2) = x°2 – (x°v)2/c2 = x°2 – (x°v/c)2 = x°2 – (t°2/c2). Here, x°2 is the square of the original distance, and it comes out that the term, – (t°2/c2) behaves like the square of an imaginary distance that is at right angles to it. It comes out that co-frame time, t° behaves as if it were a distance with a scale factor of i/c.

For some reason people today read books on science by non-scientist ‘explainers.’ I These books have no math, and I guess they sell. Publishers think they are helping democratize science, perhaps. You are better off reading the original thinkers, IMHO.

Robert Buxbaum, July 16, 2023. In his autobiography, Einstein claimed to be a fan of scientist -philosopher, Ernst Mach. Mach derived the speed of sound from a mathematical analysis of thermodynamics. Einstein followed, considering that it must be equally true to consider an empty box traveling in space to be one that carries its emptiness with it, as to assume that fresh emptiness comes in at one end and leaves by the other. If you set the two to be equal mathematically, you conclude that both time and space vary with velocity. Similar analysis will show that atoms are real, and that energy must travel in packets, quanta. Einstein also did fun work on the curvature of rivers, and was a fan of this sail ship design. Here is some more on the scientific method.

Disney was a narcissist, like Trump, Putin, Musk, and Martin Luther King. It’s not a disease.

Leave a reply

Among TV psychiatrists, the universal opinion of Trump, Putin, and Musk, that these individuals are narcissists, a psychological disease related to “toxic masculinity.” Musk, for his part claims the excuse of Asperger’s disease, high-functioning Autism. I half agree with the Narcissist diagnosis, and I’m confused by the Asperger’s claim because I don’t believe these folks are diseased. My sense is they have a leadership personality trait, common in all visionary leaders including Disney, Martin Luther King, and Genghis Khan. I’ve argued that it is important for a president to be a narcissist, and have explained Trump’s vision, “Make America great again” as independence.

Psychological narcissism, short for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, is a disease when it hurts the narcissists life. It is defined as a pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, along with an excessive need for admiration. If it just annoys people it/s a disease, but it’s found among leaders, suggesting it’s not all bad. To get you to follow them, leaders present themselves as mini-messiahs, and try to get you to see them that way. They have a plan, a vision. If it’s successful, they’re visionaries. They fight to bring the vision into reality, which is very annoying to anyone who doesn’t see it or want it. But that’s leadership. Without it nothing big gets done.

Disney’s vision. Not everyone was pleased; quite a few considered him a tyrant.

For the narcissist to succeed, he or she must sell the vision, and his ability to get it done. The plan to get there is often vague and unattractive. These details are shared with only a few. You must see the leader there and yourself too, if you’re to fight for it. Disney was particularly visual, see photo. He got folks to buy into a building a magical kingdom with a private police force, where everyone is happy and cartoon characters glide among the paying visitors.

The majority of those who run into a narcissist reject both the vision and the narcissist. They fear any change, and fear that the success of the visionary will diminish them. For that reason, they run to no-bodies. But some see it, and follow, others throw stones. Disney got state officials to exempt him from state laws, and extend normal copyrights. Others smirked, and worked to stop him, but with less energy: it’s hard to be enthusiastic about no Disneyland. The conflict between doers and the smirkers is the subject of several Ayn Rand books, including The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She calls the opposing smirkers, “parasites”, “looters”, “moochers,” and my favorite: “do gooders.” It’s for the common good that the narcissist should fail, they claim.

Often these opponents have good reasons to oppose. The Ayatollah Khomeini had a vision similar to Disney: an Islamic Republic in Iran where everyone is happy being a devout Muslim of his stripe. The opponents feared, correctly, that everyone who was not happy would be flogged, hanged, or beheaded. I think it’s legitimate to not want to be forced to be devout. Similarly, with Genghis Khan, or Vladimir Putin. Putin compares himself to Peter the Great who expanded Russia and conquered Crimea. The opponents have legitimate fears of WWII and claim that Ukrainian independence is semi legit. Regarding Musk’s plans to colonize Mars, I note that Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan have come out against it. There is no right or wrong here, but I have a soft spot for the visionaries, and a suspicion of the “smirkers” and “do gooders.”

Genghis Khan. He saw himself as a world changer. Some followed, some didn’t. Those who followed didn’t think he was crazy.

The smirkers and do-gooders include the most respectable people of today. They are thought leaders, who lose status if someone else exceeds them. They are surprised and offended by Martin Luther King’s dream, and Musk’s, Khomeini’s, Trump’s, and Lenin’s. Trump became president against formidable odds, and the smirkers said it was a fluke, he then lost, and they claimed it showed they were right. He may get a second term, though, and Musk may yet build a community on Mars. To the extent that the visionary succeeds, the smirkers claim it was easy; that they could have done the same, but faster and better. They then laud some fellow smirker, and point out aspects of the vision that failed. In any case, while the narcissist is definitely abnormal, it’s not a disease, IMHO. It’s what makes the world go round.

Robert Buxbaum, June 7, 2023

Ron Weasley plays great chess, better than Voldemort.

Leave a reply

Every now and again a book or movie includes a chess game. Generally, it’s in a story where death is on the line. It’s a literary device used to indicate high mental acumen of the people involved, particularly the one who wins. As an example, in “Sherlock Holmes, A Game of Shadows”, 2011, Holmes plays Moriarty, each calling out moves far advanced for the 1800s. It emphasizes these individuals’ super-smarts. Holmes wins at the end, of course. The Ingrid Berman film, “The Seventh Seal” is similar, with the chess game played against death himself. The knight shows himself a more-than-worth opponent. And that brings us to Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, book 1 of the series, and movie, Ron Weasley is presented as a sort-of fool throughout the series. He’s mostly as source of background information about wizarding, but in one episode standout, he plays brilliantly with giant-size chess men against a magical intelligence, and wins. After the game, one that is described as one of the best ever, Ron goes back to being the goof-ball he was throughout. His chess skills don’t come up again, or do they. It’s a well written series, so what’s the point of including the game?

Position of pieces in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s stone (movie).

To see how brilliant Ron’s play is, recall that Ron is eleven years old in book 1. He, Harry, and Hermione enter a mysterious room filled with menacing statues. Ron immediately realizes it’s a chess board, and infers that they must win as black to pass through. He further infers that the piece representing Harry must make the checkmate. Two or three pieces are missing, and Ron infers that Harry’s character must replace one of these and become the mating piece. If you’ve ever played a decent computer, you know it’s very hard to win as white (in the 90s you could still win). This ghost intelligence plays quite well, and it’s almost impossible to win if you need to have a particular minor piece make the mate. In the movie, Ron plays as black and reaches the position shown with Harry as the king’s bishop and Hermione as a rook. He is down in material, but has laid a very good trap. The white queen captures the “free pawn” on d3, violently threatening the Harry-bishop. Ron interposes the rook to c3 forcing the white queen to take the rook. At this point, Ron could win by B-c5+, QxB, N-h3 mate, but that would sacrifice Harry and leave Ron as the winning piece. Both Ron and Hermione realize this, and Ron causes Harry to make the checkmate by N-h3+, QxN, B-c5+, Q-f3, BxQ mate. Ron is injured when QxN — a sacrifice in both senses of the word.

Death plays chess, painting by Albertus Pictor, 1480

It’s an impressive display of chess skill, and Dumbledore is right in saying it’s one of the best games. No normal player could manage a game like that, certainly no eleven year old. Normally such a display would be used to present Ron as the group brain, or at least as a very deep thinker. If so, why does the author have Ron revert to his care-free, stupid persona with chess never showing up.

We see that Voldemort, the arch villain, won his game too, and only lost a few pieces doing it. That Voldemort is good at chess is no surprise; it goes with his deep-thinking persona. We don’t see Voldemort’s game, but I can infer that he won via the Trailer gambit. It’s a fairly tricky win, but the only way that I know where you win as black losing only a kings bishop, a rook, and a knight, the pieces that Ron and his friends replaced. The Queen is the winning piece, though, and that’s a lot simpler than winning with a bishop. Ron’s win is far more sophisticated, a surprise given Ron’s behavior and how he is treated.

Perhaps it’s just bad writing, or an effort to show Ron is good at something, but I thought to do a quick re-read of Ron’s early appearance in book 2. Here I find that Ron is bright and motivated, but overshadowed. Early in the book, we find 12 year old Ron picking a lock using a hat pin, and driving a flying car reasonably well. We don’t think this is exceptional because his brothers do all this first, but it is exceptional: imagine tryin to drive a regular car with no instruction at 12. Later we find that Ron learns the fine points of Quidditch without native skill or a coach, just using a book, and we find that Dumbledore picks him to prefect, instead of Harry, a job he does well. Finally, we find that Hermione prefers Ron to Harry. It’s a somewhat surprising turn because she’s supposed to be the brains of the trio. How could she stand to be with Ron? Perhaps she is one of the few people who sees that Ron is bright. Dumbledore is too.

Viewed this way, the chess game becomes the first of the examples of Ron’s brainpower, and becomes an important foreshadowing to a surprise at the end of the last book/movie, to the final battle against Voldemort. In that battle, while everyone else is throwing hexes, Ron is the one who realizes that, to win the war, he must go to the basement chamber and collect basilisk teeth. It’s chess thinking: he’s focused on the king, on Voldemort, while everyone else is dealing with side threats. In a sense, it’s Ron who defeats Voldemort. The chess game is a foreshadowing, and fits with Hermione’s choice of Ron over Harry.

Robert Buxbaum, August 26, 2022. If you like chess puzzles, find some here. And in “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey,” 1991, the brilliance idea is sort-of reversed. Bill and Ted play against death in battleship, twister, and clue, and win. It’s used to show that death is sort of random, and sort of stupid.

Professors being replaced by videos, entertainers.

Leave a reply

In a previous post, I presented data to the effect that, while college is a benefit to those who major in moneymaking fields, STEM, English, and philosophy, it is a money loser for those in film, history, language, political science, etc.

Most students don’t mind if the information itself can be forgotten on graduation day, but the better students do mind. Professors in these fields motivate their better students by luring them with the chance to become professors. A vision of stylish offices, and deep satisfaction is dangled before the student, while tuition and a total commitment is asked in return. The chance of an actual job is virtually nil. This is the background to murder in popular, dark-academia stories like “The Secret History” by Danna Tartt, and a Hitchcock movie, “rope” (see my essay here).

Things are getting more depressing for those aspiring to become professors. Now, aspiring professors have to compete with taped programs made by other professors, some well known, some already dead. And some professors — those without tenure — have to compete with their own taped programs. Tapes of old lectures are available free to the university. It’s a financial boon for the university to be able to collect tuition without having to pay a living professor who gives essentially the same lecture year after year. If the professor is untenured, the university can fire him or her, and use the tape from last year, or they can purchase a series of lectures by a Nobel laureate. It’s a great deal for the majority of students and for the university, but deadly to the aspiring few.

Robert Buxbaum, December 3, 2021

IFL Science grows up.

Leave a reply

I used to follow an Australian science blog, called “I Fucking Love Science.” Elise Andrew and her crew scanned the literature with a keen eye for the interesting. They regularly posted to Facebook and alerted science nerds like me to all sorts of new science bits with minimal commentary, minimal advertisements, and no politics. On average they found 6 or 8 really interesting posts, per week, generally one or two on fundamental physics, one or two on materials, one or two on biology or medicine, one or two astronomy, perhaps a chemistry post. My post about the color of the sky on Mars was ignited by a picture of the Mars sky that I saw on IFL Science — the sky was yellow, and I had just written about why the sky on earth was blue, and not green.

But, as with all quirky things, this one matured. The name changed to “IFL Science” — a change that I suspect was designed to promote sharing. There were more advertisements, and click bait — “this starlet lost a ton of weight,” “you won’t believe what this famous person’s partner looks like now,” etc. And there was politics, vaguely presented as science. Ms Andrew wrote more and more of herself, making herself into a personality whose travels and speaking tours would interest us. And there were non-science, guest bloggers too: People telling you who to vote for and more importantly who to vote against. All for the good of the world, she said, but it was her opinion, and not what I’d gone to IFL for.

The science got less technical, too and more popular. More pretty pictures and misleading headlines. Currently there is no math, no equations, no chemical diagrams. A top story of this week told of a semi-interesting approach for women with constipation — something that “would change everything.” When you click on the story, you find that women put their finger in their vagina and work out the poop that way, something called “splinting.” It’s sort of science, but not the sort that made me love science. Another top story — the top one from today is as follows:

Top story from IFL science today, Feb 28, 2021. Is there really no fuel use? No. The fuel is a battery, and the speed in 4m/s (9mph), and the plane looks nothing like this.

If you follow the links to here, it turns out that the plane (unmanned) looks nothing like this. It uses electric energy from a battery to move ionized air rearward at an efficiency far lower than with a propeller. The forward speed is 4 m/s (9 mph) and the maximum distance covered was 55m, half a Canadian football field. As presented in IFL science, it’s a misleading, non-math clickbait for something that’s interesting engineering — sort of. As for being Star Trek like, no. To move this plane, you need air.

I’m sorry, you can not make quantum mechanics for dummies. No dummy will understand it. You can make a book that’s not quantum mechanics for dummies, or a quantum book not for dummies. Just saying.

In the treatment of the work of the recent Noble laureates, IFL Science didn’t talk about the work so much as the biographies of the people, and their struggles, and that two of the people who won Nobels for their work in biology were women — for an advance related to CRISPERS– but that wasn’t science. I’d prefer to know what the advance was, and how it works. I’d prefer to figure out that these were women from their names or from the pronouns like, “she” or “her”. There was also no information about other two researchers (males, I assume, or perhaps females who had less-interesting biographies?). It was the same with the Physics Nobel except that I already knew there was a black hole at the center of the galaxy, and that those who found it are long dead. Instead the Note Prize was being awarded for a photograph of the black hole. Interesting (sure doesn’t look like a black hole to me). Is there something they learn from the photo. I’ve noted that we are likely within a black hole, and I show why this is using some, not too difficult math.

Having griped along this way, I have to say that that IFL isn’t that bad, it’s just non-mathy, popular, and a little grown up. That’s sad, but it’s not toxic. Grownups make money, and please customers, and that’s how it goes. To quote a wonderful book, The outsiders, “Nothing gold can stay.” In my own blog, I try to be more math-y, and more science-y. My model is Isaac Asimov, a writer who excited me to love science from when I was 8 to when I entered college, nine years later (1972). He would die of AIDS from a transfusion, 20 years after that.

Robert Buxbaum, February 28, 2021

Samuel Johnson: “No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money.”

Leave a reply

Some days, I spend hours at a time on facebook, and when I’m done, I often feel it was a complete waste of time. I do not make friends this way, and I have little evidence that I’ve convinced anyone. Still, for some reason, I can’t seem to stay off for long, so I figure I might as well look for the attraction.

One positive thing I do (did) with FB was to run for office. I lost, but I was able to speak to more people using FB in a day than I could have otherwise. Another thing I do is to spread articles — those I find interesting, and my own writing, blog posts, mostly. I write these posts for free, and while I imagine my blog posts do some good. I sometimes get nice comments suggesting people read the blogs and think about what I say. Still, it does not make money, and takes a fair amount of effort.

I can imagine I help mankind in some subtle, long range way, or perhaps gain some long-range fame. But who cares about long-range fame? And, as for helping people, it is also possible I will hurt them too. Computers sit analyzing my words, and everyone’s, tracking their views and using the data for what. I’m just feeding the computer, and that makes me think my writing may harm more than help. What I write on FB is owned by FB. It’s free content for the owners of FB to re-use to sell: my personality, capsulated, my friends likes and dislikes, for sale at a price. My posts turn me and my friends into commodities — and there isn’t even remuneration.

It is claimed that, in the 2016 election, Trump was able to win, at low cost, through a Russian-managed facebook campaign. The educated elites of politics were not able to come with the wiley Russians, for all their brain-power, and despite help from the FBI, or so the theory goes. If so, it’s a warning that all the information I provide to facebook is available to Trump and the Russians to use against me. The management of facebook was committed to Ms Clinton in 2016, and is completely committed to Trump’s removal as best I can tell. If they are not able to beat the Russians, maybe I should not try. Then again, maybe they’re not as elite as they think.

Sometimes I imagine that the alternative of not-posting is worse; it is to have no voice at all, and to have no information of the common discussion. The newspapers seem no less biassed than those on my FB. I write then in a bizarre chasm between hope for posterity, and a better world, and out of desperation that to be an unheard, quiet one, is to be dead. I suspect I’m not unique here.

Robert E. Buxbaum, January 27, 2020.

Samuel Johnson and British elitism during the revolution.

1 Reply

A common opinion of Samuel Johnson was that “No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money”. It’s recorded by Boswell on April 5, 1776 well into the revolution, and applied equally to the American revolutionaries and all other unpaid enthusiasts. Johnson wrote for money. He wrote sermons for priests, he wrote political speeches for Troys, he wrote serialized travel logs, and at one point a tearful apology for a priest about to be hanged for forgery. That he was paid was proof that he was good at writing, though not 100% convincing. The priest was forgiven and acquitted in the public eye, but he was hanged for the forgery none-the-less. 

Some Samuel Johnson Quotes about America

Johnson was unequivocal in his opinion of American independence. His pamphlet ,”Taxation no Tyranny” 1775 (read it here) makes a semi-convincing Tory argument that taxation without representation is in no way tyranny, and is appropriate for America. America, it’s argued, exists for the good of the many, and that’s mainly for the good of England. He notes that, for the most part, Americans came to the land willingly, and thus gave up their rights: “By his own choice he has left a country, where he had a vote and little property, for another, where he has great property, but no vote.” Others left other lands or were sent as criminals. They “deserved no more rights than The Cornish people,” according to Johnson. Non-landed people, in general had no vote, and he considered that appropriate. Apparently, if they had any mental value, they’d be able to afford an estate. His views of Irish Catholics were somewhat similar , “we conquered them.” By we, Johnson meant Cromwell over a century earlier, followed by William of Orange. Having beat the Irish Catholics at the battle of the Boyne meant that that the Protestants deserved to rule despite the Catholics retaining a substantial right to land. I am grateful that Johnson does not hide his claim to rulership in the will of God, or in some claim to benefit the Irish or Americans, by the way. It is rule of superior over inferior, pure and simple. Basically, ‘I’m better than you, so I get to rule.’

One must assume that Johnson realized that the US founders wrote well, as he admitted that some Whigs (Burke) wrote well. Though he was paid for writing “Taxation no Tyranny”, Johnson justifies the rejection of US founding fathers’ claims by noting they are motivated by private gain. He calls American leaders rascals, robbers, and pirates, but is certain that they can be beat into submission. The British army , he says, is strong enough that they can easily “burn and destroy them,” and advises they should so before America gets any stronger. He tells Boswell, “Sir, they are a race of convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging.” Even after a treaty was signed, he confides, “I am willing to love all mankind, except an American.”

I’ve come to love Johnson’s elitism, his justification for rule and exploitation based purely on his own superiority and that of his fellow British. It allows him to present his prejudices uncommonly clearly, mixing in enough flattery to be convincing to those who accept his elitist perspective. That makes his words eminently quotable. It doesn’t make them right, nor does it mean that his was a useful way to deal with people or problems. Adam Smith was willing to admit that the Americans had a gripe, and suggests the simple remedy of giving Americans a voice in Parliament. His solution might have kept the empire whole. Edward Gibbon, an expert on Rome who opposed rights for Americans, at least admitted that we might win the war. Realistic views like this are more productive, but far less marketable. If you are to sell your words, it helps to be a pig-headed bigot and a flatterer of those who agree with you. This advantage of offending your opponents was not lost on Johnson as the quote below shows.

Johnson writing about notoriety, a very American attitude.

I’m left to wonder about the source of Johnson’s hatred for Americans though — and for the Irish, Cornish, and Scots. In large part, I think it stems from a view of the world as a zero-sum game. Any gain for the English servant is a loss to the English gentleman. The Americans, like the Irish and Cornish, were subject peoples looking for private benefit. Anything like low taxes was a hurt to the income of him and his fellows. The zero sum is also the view of Scrooge in a Christmas Carol; it is a destructive view.

As for those acted in any way without expectation of pay, those who would write for posterity, or would fight the Quixotic fight, such people were blockheads in his view. He was willing to accept that there were things wrong in England, but could not see how an intelligent person would favor change that did not help him. This extended to his beliefs concerning education of children: “I would not have set their future friendship to hazard for the sake of thrusting into their heads knowledge of things for which they might not perhaps have either taste or necessity. You teach your daughters the diameters of the planets, and wonder when you have done that they do not delight in your company. No science can be communicated by mortal creatures without attention from the scholar; no attention can be obtained from children without the affliction of pain, and pain is never remembered without resentment.” This is more of Johnson’s self-interest: don’t teach anything that will bring resentment and no return benefit. Teach the sons of the greats that they are great and that they are to lead. Anything more is a waste or an active harm to the elite.

But what happens when America succeeds? Johnson was still alive and writing in 1783. If the Americans could build an army and maintain prosperous independence, they would have to be respected as an equal or near-equal. Then what of the rest of the empire? How do you admit that this one servant is your equal and not admit that your other servants may be too? This is the main source of his hatred, I think, and also of the hatred the Scrooge has for mankind. It’s the hatred of the small soul for the large, of the sell-out for the enthusiast. If the other fellow’s sacrifice produces a great outcome, that suggests a new order in the stars — it suggests that everything you’ve done was wrong, or soon will be. The phrase “novus ordo seclorum” on our dollars alludes to just that idea, ‘there is a new order in the heavens.’. He must have realized the possibility, and trembled. Could there be something to the rabble, something beyond cash, safety and rule by the elite? I suspect the very thought of it insulted and angered poor Samuel. At his death, he could be comforted that, at least the Irish, Indians, and Canadians remained subservient.

Robert Buxbaum, December 2, 2019. This essay started out as a discussion of paid writing. But I’ve spent many years of my life dealing with elitists who believed that being paid proved they were right. I too hope that my writing will convince people, and maybe I’ll be paid as an expert (Water commissioner?) To hope for personal success, while trying to keep humble is the essential glorious folly of man.

The psychology of Archie comics and Riverdale; then, now, and in the socialist future

Leave a reply

I learned a lot about social interactions from a comic of my youth called “Archie“. A very popular comic for 65 years, from 1941 through the 2010s, the social structure of Archie remained remarkably constant from when I first read it, in the early 60’s to when I read it to my children in the late 90’s. The comic mostly follows the title character, a love struck teenager with two (or more) gorgeous girlfriends, shown below, and his various relationships. I find the original stories to have been hyper-true, that is more true than truth. There are also several spin-offs, including a TV series, “Riverdale“, and an underground comic “Anarchie“. Both have a degree of charm, but the original stands out for it’s wide readership and long run; clearly, it resonated. Riverdale is a far grittier take, further from hyper-reality. 

Archie enjoys a malt with Veronica left and Betty right. Archie prefers Veronica. Betty is a doormat. Though Veronica is rich, she never pays.

In Archie comics, the poorer folks worked, as in real life, at relatively dull jobs. Their parents do too, and the poorer kids are visible poorer. Archie always wore the same clothes and drives (or drove) a junker car. The few rich folks do not work in the same way, as one might expect. In the TV series, and in most TV series’s, everyone has food, friends and a car, without any serious jobs, and little social hierarchy. It’s an ideal world of sorts, but somehow everyone’s messed up.

In the old time comic, one rich character in particular, Reggie Mantle, like to flaunt his wealth and make fun of Archie and his proletarian friend, Jughead. The comic book Veronica was also something of a bitch. Her dad, while occasionally charming, could be a bully as well. He certainly displayed, and benefitted from his exceptional wealth. Meanwhile, in the comic at least, while all the poorer folks worked (except Jughead), not all of them did a good job, most of those who worked did not enjoy it. There was humor in this engaging, realistic take on life.

The school lunch lady, Miss Beasley, was relatable in her extreme dislike for her job. What pleasure she gets, seems to come from making and serving bad food. Though the details of her employment are scarce, my guess was that she was unionized. Otherwise, she would have been fired years ago. There is no similar character in TV’s Riverdale.

Weatherbee and Flootsnoot

The principal, Mr. Weatherbee, also seemed to have trouble with his job, though his relationships were more nuanced. He takes his job seriously and runs an effective school, but he’s overweight, and over-stressed — a walking heart attack. Unlike most of the people at the school, “the bee” does not take out his anger on the kids, or on his fellow faculty. He keeps it in, while tormented by the students, by the parents, by the janitor, Svenson, and in particular by Mr. Flootsnoot, the science teacher. Flootsnoot seems to delight in causing trouble, giving Archie explosives, acid, and animals. My guess is that Flootsnoot is angling for Weatherby’s job, and is not patient enough to wait for Weatherbee’s heart to give out on its own. He’s a character right out of Hitchcock, IMHO.

Ms Grundy, Archie’s teacher was also drawn a victim of playing by the rules in a crooked game. In the original comic, as i read it in the mid 60s, she’s a puritan spinster in a black dress with a tall, laced collar. She seems to dislike Archie and Jughead, but not the other kids, nor her job as such. It makes sense that she’d dislike Archie and Jughead, since Jughead is lazy, and Archie is a skirt chasing cad. By the 90’s when I read Archie with my daughters, Miss Grundy had become a Ms, and was more at peace with her position, and a lot of the humor is gone. In the TV version, Riverdale, Ms Grundy, is in a sexual relationship with Archie. It’s a lot less healthy, and not very humorous.

The main focus, of course is Archie, a workin-class teen, and straight D student. How does he have two (or more) gorgeous girlfriends? After a few years of reading, the explanation becomes obvious, and fairly depressing. Each of his many girlfriends are motivated by jealousy for the others. His first girl is Betty. She’s pretty, poor, hard-working, and a doormat. She’s always there to help out. She is treated like dirt by her richer, “best friend,” Veronica. As best I can tell, Veronica and the others mostly like Archie because Betty does. To some extent Veronica also likes to annoy her rich dad, who is portrayed as confident and proud, except when dealing with his spoiled daughter. This is old-time humor that you’ll also see in Spongebob, or (going further back) Balzac’s “Pere Goriot“.

Veronica bosses her dad around but also makes his life worthwhile, it seems. I assume he once had a wife that he loved. Now he’s got a white-haired companion, a butler, and some rich friends. The love-of-his-life is his daughter, it seems, and she is dating a free-loading cad. Veronica’s rival Betty comes from the same stable, modest backroad as Archie, but. Archie prefers life at Veronica’s house. The food is better, and there is a pool. Mr Lodge barely tolerates Archie and friends. The butler, Smithers, is less excitable, but not as tolerant.

The school also has two psychopaths, Midge and Moose, a dangerous pair. Moose Mason is a football player, dumb or brain damaged, and violently jealous of Midge. Midge, of course, flirts with everyone, and does it in front of Moose. The result is that Moose beats up any boys who respond, much to Midge’s delight. They are a sick and dangerous pair, but very realistic. Jughead, the only normal person in the comic, dislikes the pair, and dislikes both Veronica and Reggie. Jughead has a dog, and a little sister “Jellybean,” who he adores. he also has, to his chagrin, a female stalker, “Big” Ethel. She’s ugly and chases Jughead; Jughead avoids her. Jughead seems to like Archie, though, and is always loyal to him; it’s another of Jughead’s good traits. He’s always pointing Archie to Betty, as a good friend would. Meanwhile, Moose-the-homicidal is protected by “Coach Kleats,” a highly flawed character who’s obsessed with winning, and seems to have been hit in the head one time too many.

A bit more about Jughead (he got his own spinoff comic for a while). Jughead is a classic humor character from antiquity. He’s the Harlequin, the semi-loyal servant: poor, clever, resourceful, and always hungry. He’s the bird man of The Magic Flute. He’s Figaro, and the servant in Don Giovani. He’s Harlie Quinn in Batman. A harlequin makes his own clothes from patchwork, and true to type, Jughead is seen, virtually always wearing a sort-of crown, a “whoopee cap” of his own construction. Because Jughead is poor and lazy, everyone thinks him stupid, but he’s the only one clever enough to size up Midge and Veronica. Jughead’s crown is appropriate since he’s his own master. Archie comics were banned in Saudi Arabia because the Saudis took offense at the concept of a self-crowned king. It’s an unusual concept. In Riverdale, Jughead is a tortured poet who still wears a handmade crown for no obvious reason.

All these relationships had a surreal character. The relationships are funny because they are more real than reality. They also presented a simpler form of humor in that the lowly usually win, while the high and talented usually lose. Reggie commonly loses, as does Weatherbee. Then things began to change in the 2000’s when two token black characters were added: a top scholar/athlete, Chuck Clayton, and his dad, Floyd (or Harry) a wise, athletic, co-coach. These are characters without major flaws, and as such they are not funny. If a writer feels he must include a character like this, a writer should use him as a straight-man, Zeppo Marx for example. And even Zeppo Marx is presented as having a horrible flaw. In Marx Bros. movies, Zeppo is presented as being Groucho’s son. Comedy is built on flawed characters like this, who succeed, and on arrogant ones who fail. With the Claytons, you’re left wondering what comedy do they bring to the situation. Also, why do these individuals tolerate crazy Moose on the team?

In 2010, the writers added an openly gay character, Kevin Keller. A nice fellow, with no flaws who everyone likes. Really? Is there a teenager so comfortable with himself? Are there no homophobes anywhere in this school? By 2012, Kevin has grown up and is an anti-gun senator. Archie dies taking an assassin’s bullet for him. That’s heroic, and it solves some other ugly problems, but it killed the series. You don’t want an unhappy ending for a comedy. For a hint of what to do, consult Shakespeare.

Anarchy Andrews deals with his cool, pot-smoking father, Fred.

Turning now to my favorite spin-off, the underground comic, Anarchie. It’s the same batch of teenagers, more or less, navigating the same issues, but theirs is an ideal, socialist world where the revolution has won. In this world, everyone has plenty, drugs are legal, and there is no sexism, agism, racism, or shape-ism. This is a color-blind world where black and white live together, and where the gay fellow would fit right in, if anyone thought to draw them in. There is no work, but even without that pressure, and the old problems, everything isn’t great for the kids. There is still school, and Weatherby still hates Archie. The kids still have to deal with parents, even when the parents have turned-on to drugs and act cool. It’s good comedy, an up-ending of the social expectations. Most teens of my day seemed to think that socialism would solve all their problems.

noexit2
Jughead in the socialist future is a broken druggie, but still something of his own man.

For those who have not seen it, how would you expect the Archie to relate to a perfect socialist world. The answer is not well. His father smokes dope, but that doesn’t help. He’s also into recycling and yoga (yuck). Archie remains the same love stuck, philanderer disinterested in most everything else but girls. His friend, Jughead fares far worse, he’s a pock-marked, druggie, a far more likely outcome than Riverdale’s where Jughead is a tortured poet. Without societal pressures and a normal family, Jughead becomes an anarchis’s anarchist. A ruined misfit surrounded in the workers’ paradise. Jughead (now called “Ludehead” still has his crown, and is still his own person, after a fashion, but there is little room for that in a socialist utopia where all are equal.

Robert Buxbaum, August 6, 2019. In previous essays I talked about the humor of superman, and about the practical wisdom of Gomez Adams.

Shakespeare’s plays, organized.

1 Reply

One remarkable thing about Shakespeare’s plays is how varied they are. There are comedies and tragedies; histories of England, and of Rome, musings on religion, and on drink, and lots of cross-dressing. He wrote at least thirty seven plays between 1590 and 1613, alone or as a major collaborator, and the chart below gives a sense of the scope. I have seen less than half of these plays, so I find the chart below both useful and humorous. The humor of the chart is partly that it presents the common man (us) access to the godly (Shakespeare). That access is the root of the best comedy, in my opinion. Shakespeare also has a comic dog, some total idiots, comic violence to women, and a few other cringeworthy laugh-getters, but we’ll not mention those; it’s low comedy. You’ll notice that Merchant of Venice is listed here as a comedy; I think it was seen that way by Shakespeare. The hero of the play in my opinion, is a woman, Portia, who outsmarts all others by her legal genius at the end. Tragedy is when the great individual can not access great things. At least that’s how I see it. As for History; it’s been said, that it starts as tragedy, and ends as comedy. Shakespeare’s histories include some of each. And as for our, US history, Lincoln was tragedy, like LBJ; Truman was comedy, and Andrew Jackson too. And, as for Trump, who knows?

By Myra Gosling, www.goodticklebrain.com
A Shakespeare collaboration. The collaborator, Fletcher, is cited by name.

Ms Gosling’s graphic, wonderful as it is, lists some but not all of Shakespeare’s collaborations. Two listed ones, “Henry VIII,” and “The Two Noble Kinsmen” were with John Fletcher. The cover shown at right, shows Fletcher named as first author. Since Fletcher outlived Shakespeare and took over the company after his death, I’ll assume these are later plays.

“Henry IV, part 1” is thought to be from Shakespeare’s early career, and seems to have been a mass collaboration: something written by a team the way situation comedies are written today. And “Pericles, Prince of Tyre,” listed near the bottom right, seems to have been a mid-career collaboration with George Wilkins. At least four of Shakespeare’s collaborations don’t appear at all in the graphic. “Edward III” and “The Spanish Tragedy”, appear to have been written with Thomas Kyd, likely early in Shakespeare’s career. Perhaps Gosling felt they don’t represent the real Shakespeare, or perhaps she left them off because they are not performed often. Another collaboration, “Sir Thomas More” (an intentional misspelling of Moore?), is well regarded today, and still put on. An existing manuscript includes 300+ lines written in Shakespeare’s hand. Still, Shakespeare’s main contribution seems to have been editing the play to get it past the censors. Finally, “Cardenio,” is a lost play, likely another collaboration with Fletcher. It got good reviews.

The cool thing about Shakespeare’s play writing, in my opinion, is his willingness to let the characters speak for themselves. Even characters who Shakespeare doesn’t like have their say. They speak with passion and clarity; without interruption or mockery. Writing this way is difficult, and most writers can’t avoid putting themselves and their opinions in the forefront. I applaud Ms Gosling for making Shakespeare accessible. Here’s this month’s issue of her blog, GoodTickleBrain.

Robert Buxbaum, June 26, 2019. As a side note, Shakespeare appears to have been born and died on the same date, April 23; in 1564 and 1616, respectively.