Note for a talk in Tokyo: Einstein’s theory of happiness.
In 1922, Einstein was in Tokyo to give a speech, and had just recently been informed that he would win the Nobel prize. He knew that he’d be more famous than he had been, and everyone else did too. The prize money and more had already been contracted out to his wife for his divorce, but most people didn’t know that, and the few who did, didn’t realize that even after receiving the prize, he’d remain as poor as he had been. Anyway, shortly after the announcement a bell boy delivered something to his room, but Einstein had no money available. Instead he gave the bell-boy two scraps of thoughts for the talk, one of them on the Tokyo hotel stationery. The more famous one, “his theory of happiness” says, In German:
“A calm and modest life brings more happiness than the pursuit of success combined with constant restlessness.” The note is signed, Albert Einstein, dated November 1922 Tokyo. It sold at action October, 2018 for $1.56 million, not a bad tip, in both senses of the word. Einstein told the bell-boy that this note would probably be worth more than the usual tip. It was, and is.
In general Einstein told people to avoid academia, and instead go into something productive that you can do well for an income. Do your creative work, he advised, in your spare time, he advised; it ruins the enjoyment of creativity to always have to discover something new for your income, “always have to pull a rabbit out of your hat.” Einstein’s happiest time, and his most productive were his years working at the patent office in Bern, Switzerland, while doing physics in his spare time at home. Einstein produced relatively little of permanent physics value in the years following 1922. The discovery that Einstein’s theories predicted gravitational waves was not Einstein’s, nor was the discovery that his equations suggested an expanding universe. The former was the suggestion of, Howard Robertson, a reviewer of a paper by Einstein, and the latter was made by a Belgian scientist-priest named Georges Lemaitre. it was only after Hubble observed an expanding universe in 1929 that Einstein realized that Lemaitre had been right, and only in 1936 that he came to accept gravitational waves. Gravitational waves were finally observed in 2016. The observation earned Rainer Weiss, Barry Barish, and Kip Thorne the 2017 Nobel Prize in physics.
If you went to college in the last 40 years and learned there was a concept called “the rape culture” that was supposed to drive law and diplomacy. In terms of law the assumption was that all men – or most — were rapists or would be rapists. Along with this, women are weaker, and almost always the victim in male-female interactions. As such the woman has to be believed in all cases of “he-said, she-said.” To do otherwise was “rape-shaming” a form of blaming the victim. Male on female rape is supposed to have infected international affairs as well. War and peace are assumed to be rape situations where no country is assumed to want foreign influence or industry unless they say so, and any demand that you take your embassy or hotel out has to be met with immediate withdrawal. The female country is the weaker in these deals, and where that could not be determined, the raper country was determined by geography. Israel was always the raper country because of its shape and position within the Arab world. Israel was asked to withdraw — cease to exist as a non-Islamic nation — and admit that it was raping the Arab world just by existing.
Before World War I, there was no such thing as a world court. If one country attacked another, the attacked country could appeal to allies, or perhaps to public opinion, but there was no certainty of rescue. Without a world court, and without a world set of laws, claiming victim status did little. Weaker principalities could be divided up, and sometimes sold off or traded. Manhattan went from being a Dutch settlement to being an English settlement when the English traded an island in the Pacific for it. Napoleon acquired Louisiana from the Spanish by trading northern Italy, then promptly sold Louisiana to America. And all this was normal. The international version of human trafficking, I suppose.
After WWI, a world court was created along with a new diplomatic theory: the world should protect the weak and the wronged. In this context, feminist analysis of which country is wronged would have been important except that there was no army to do the enforcing. Woodrow Wilson championed a League of Nations, one of his 19 points. The weak and abused would be protected from the strong; democracy would be protected from the dictator. This is a softer, kinder view of the world, a cooperative world, a feminist world, and in academia it is considered the only good version — a one world order with academics at the top. Still, without an army or much of a budget, it was all academic, as it were. This changed when the United Nations was created with a budget and an army. If the army was to protect the victim, we had to determine who was the aggressor. In 95% of all cases considered before the UN, the aggressor was asserted to be Israel. This in not despite its small size, but because of it. By feminist analysis, the surrounding country is always the victim.
In feminist analysis, there is the need for a third type of person, almost a third gender. This is the male feminist. This is the warlike defender of the weak. Such people are assumed to make up the UN army and its management. When an outsider country appears within the boundaries of another nation, that’s national rape and has to be prevented by this third-gender army. Hitler’s takeover of Europe was rape, not because he was totalitarian (he was elected democratically) but because his was an unwelcome intrusion. The counter-invasion of Germany was/is only justified by assuming that the allies (the good guys) represented, not rape, but some third gender interaction. It all made a certain type of sense in college seminars, if not in life, and men were not quite expected to understand; we were just expected to become this third gender.
Being a Male Feminist is uncomfortable both in personal and international affairs. It is very uncomfortable to have to defend every victim, making every sacrifice no matter how personally objectionable the victim is, or how arbitrary the distinction of victim, or how much the victim hates her savior. In personal affairs, this is a theme in Bob Dylan song “It’s ain’t me, babe.” Dylan agrees with a lady that she has a right to want all sorts of things, but says, “it ain’t me babe,” about him being the guy to provide them all.
In international affairs the discomfort is even worse. We found, with depressing frequency, that we were expected to donate the lives of countless soldiers in support of regimes that were objectionable, and that hated us. Jimmy Carter supported the PLO and Idi Amin, and the Ayatollah because they were weak regimes with incursions: by the oil companies or the CIA. The people we were helping hated us before Jimmy Carter, and they hated us more after. The Ayatollah in Iran captured or killed our diplomatic staff, and beheaded anyone with western sympathies.
I have come to think that a redefinition of rape is what is needed. I note that not all rape is male-on female, and not all wars are won by incursion. The Mongols won by surrounding. Similarly, the game of GO is won by surrounding. I would like to stop assuming that the surrounding nation is always the victim and that the woman is always telling the truth. In personal injury law, I’d like more freedom to try to decide which is right or wrong or maybe both have a case, and we may want to just sit back and wait to offer mediation. Here’s another Bob Dylan song on the difficulty of figuring out who is right or wrong: “God on our sides.”
Canada is a fine country, rarely appreciated in the USA because most of it is so similar to us — One of my favorite places to visit in Canada was the museum of Canadiana — a museum dedicated to the differences between the US and Canada. Differences do exist, but they are few and small, as you can tell perhaps from the song below, “God Bless You Canada,” by Lee Greenwood, the same fellow who wrote, “God Bless the USA.” The tunes and words are strongly similar, I’d say.
Canadian $2 coin, Elizabeth II, by the grace of god, Queen (it’s in Latin).
Canada has a Queen, Elizabeth II, that it shares with several other countries including England, Australia, and Barbados. This is no to say that Canada isn’t quite independent: the main power of Canada’s Queen, like with the US president, is “the bully pulpit”. As in The United States. The press does its best to rein in this power.
If Canada were to join the US as the 51 state, it be the 3rd largest state in population (after Texas and California) and the 3rd largest in GDP (after New York and California). Not that all of Canada is likely to join, but certain parts might (New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador) if Quebec goes its separate way. Québécois like remember that they were originally French. “Je me Souviens” is the Quebec motto, and having an English Queen irks. One of my favorite Canada facts (maybe true) is that the name Canada is French for Ça nada (nothing here) but tit’s not sure, there is stuff and people there. My wife is from there. Listen to the song, “God Bless you, Canada”, I suspect you’ll like it.
I ran for water commissioner in 2016 (Oakland county, Michigan; I’ll be running again in 2020), and one of my big issues was improving our rivers. Many are dirty and “flashy”. Shortly after a rain they rise too high and move dangerously fast. At other times, they become, low, smelly, and almost disappear. There are flash floods in these rivers, few fish or frogs, and a major problem with erosion. A big part of a solution, I thought, would be to add few small dams, and to refurbish a few others by adding over-flow or underflow weirs. We had a small dam in the middle of campus at Michigan State University where I’d taught, and I’d seen that it did wonders for river control, fishing, and erosion. The fellow I was running against had been removing small dams in the belief that this made the rivers “more natural”. The Sierra Club thought he was right doing this; the fishing community and some homeowners and MSU alumni thought I was. My problem was that I was a Republican running in a Democratic district. Besides, the county executive, L. Brooks Patterson (also a Republican) was a tightwad. Among my the first stops on my campaign trail was to his office, and while he liked many of my ideas, and promised to support me, he didn’t like the idea of spending money on dams. I suggested, somewhat facetiously, using beavers, and idea that’s grown on me since. I’m still not totally convinced it’s a good idea, but bear with me as I walk you through it.
Small dam on the Red Cedar River at Michigan State University behind the Administration Building. The dam provided good fishing and canoeing, and cleaned the water somewhat.
The picture at right shows the dam on the Red Cedar River right behind the Administration building at Michigan State University, looking south. During normal times the dam slows the river flow and raises the water level high enough to proved a good canoe trail, 2 1/2 miles to Okemos. Kids would fish behind the dam, and found it a very good fishing spot. The slow flow meant less erosion, and some pollution control. The speed of flow and the height of the river are related; see calculation here. After a big rain, a standing wave (a “jump”) would set up at the dam, raising its effective height by three or four feet. Students would surf the standing wave. More importantly, the three or four feet of river rise provided retention so that the Red Cedar did little damage. Some picnic area got flooded, but that was a lot better than having a destructive torrent. Here’s some more on the benefits of dams.
Between July 31 and Aug 1 the Clinton River rose nine feet in 3 hours, sending 130,000,000 cubic feet of water to lake St Clair.
The Sierra club supported (supports) my opponent, in part because he supports natural rivers, without dams. I think they are wrong about this, and about their political support in general. Last night, following a 1 1/2 inch rain, the Clinton River flash flooded, going from 5.2 feet depth to 14 feet depth in just two hours. My sense is that the natural state of our rivers had included beavers and beaver dams until at least the mid 1700s. I figured that a few well-designed dams, similar to those at Michigan State would do wonders to stop this. Among the key locations were Birmingham, on the Rouge, Rochester, near Oakland University, Auburn Hills, and the Clinton River gorge, and near Lawrence Technical University. If we could not afford to build man-made dams, I figured we could seed some beaver into nearby nature areas, and let the beavers dam the rivers for free. It would bring back the natural look of these areas, as in the picture below. And engineers at Lawrence Tech and Oakland University might benefit from seeing the original dam engineers at work.
Beaver dam on a branch of the Huron River. A rather professional and attractive job at a bargain price.
Beavers are remarkably diligent. Once they set about a task, they build the basics of a dam in a few days, then slowly improve it like any good craftsman. As with modern dams, beaver dams begin with vertical piles set into the river bottom. Beavers then fill in the dam with cross-pieces, moving as much as 1000 lbs of wood in a night to add to the structure and slow the flow. They then add mud. They use their hearing to detect leaks, and slowly plug the leaks till the dam is suitably tight. Most of the streams I identified are narrow and pass through wooded areas. I think a beaver might dam them in a few days. Based on the amount of wood beavers move, and the fact that beavers are shaped like big woodchucks, I was able to answer the age-old question: how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood — see my calculation here.
Me, visiting the DNR to talk beavers
There are a few things to check out before I start hiring beavers to take care of Oakland county flooding, and I have not checked them all out yet. Beavers don’t necessarily build where you want or as solidly, and sometimes they don’t build at all. If there are no predators, beavers can get lazy and just build a low-water lodge and a high water lodge, moving from one to the other as the river rises and falls. Hiring a beaver is like hiring an artistic contractor, it seems: you don’t necessarily get what you ask for, and sometimes you get more. Given the flash flooding we have, it’s hard to picture they’d make things worse, but what do I know? In some cases, e.g. the Red Run near the 12 towns drain, the need is for more than a beaver can deliver. Still, without beavers, the need would be for a billion gallons of retention on the Clinton alone, a 10 billion dollar project if carried out as my opponent likes to build. So, with no budget to work with, my next stop was at the Department of Natural Resources Customer Service Center (Lansing). I had some nice chats with beaver experts, and I’m happy to say they liked the idea, or at least they were not opposed. I’ve yet to talk to the Michigan director of dams, and will have to see what he has to say, but so far it seems like, if I get elected in 2020, I’ll be looking for some hard-working beavers, willing to relocate. I’d like to leave it to Beaver.
Robert E. Buxbaum, August 2, 2018. I still don’t get the Sierra Club’s idea of what a natural river would look like, or their commitment to Democrats. In my opinion, a river should include beavers, fish, and fishermen, and drainage should be done by whoever can do it best. Sierra club folks are welcomed to comment below.
The Addams Family did well on Broadway, in the movies, and on TV, but got predictably bad reviews in all three forms. Ordinary people like it; critics did not. Something I like about the series that critics didn’t appreciate is that Gomez is the only positive father character I can think of since the days of “Father knows best”.
Gomez is sexual, and sensual; a pursuer and lover, but not a predator.
In most family shows the father isn’t present at all, or if he appears, he’s violent or and idiot. He’s in prison, or in trouble with the law, regularly insulted by his wife and neighbors, in comedies, he’s sexually ambiguous, insulted by his children, and often insulted by talking pets too. In Star Wars, the only father figures are Vader, a distant menace, and Luke who’s just distant. In American shows, the parents are often shown as divorced; the children are reared by the mother with help of a nanny, a grandparent, or a butler. In Japanese works, I hardly see a parent. By contrast, Gomez is present, center stage. He’s not only involved, he’s the respected leader of his clan. If he’s odd, it’s the odd of a devoted father and husband who comfortable with himself and does not care to impress others. It’s the outsiders, the visitors, who we find have family problems, generally caused by a desire to look perfect.
Gomez is hot-blooded, sexual and sensual, but he’s not a predator, or violent. He’s loved by his wife, happy with his children, happy with his life, and happy with himself. As best we can tell, he’s on good-enough terms with the milk man, the newspaper boy, and the law. Though not a stick-in-the-mud, he’s on excellent terms with the rest of the Addams clan, and he’s good with the servants: Lurch, Thing, and for a while a gorilla who served as maid (none too well). One could do worse than to admire a person who maintains a balance like that between the personal, the family, the servants, and the community.
On a personal level, Gomez is honest, kind, generous, loving, and involved. He has hobbies, and his hobbies are manly: fencing, chess, dancing, stocks, music, and yoga. He reads the newspaper and smokes a cigar, but is not addicted to either. He plays with model trains too, an activity he shares with his son. Father and son enjoy blowing up the train — it’s something kids used to do in the era of firecrackers. Gomez is not ashamed to do it, and approves when his son does.
Gomez Addams, in the Addams Family Musical, gives advice and comfort to his daughter who is going through a rough stretch of relationship with a young man, and sings that he’s happy and sad.
Other TV and movie dads have less – attractive hobbies: football watching and beer-drinking, primarily. Han Solo is a smuggler, though he does not seem to need the money. TV dads take little interest in their kids, and their kids return the favor. To the extent that TV dads take an interest, it’s to disapprove, George Costanza’s dad, for example. Gomez is actively interested and is asked for advice regularly. In the video below, he provides touching comfort and advice to his daughter while acknowledging her pain, and telling her how proud he is of her. Kids need to hear that from a dad. No other TV dad gives approval like this; virtually no other male does. They are there as props, I think, for strong females and strong children.
The things that critics dislike, or don’t understand, as best I can tell, is the humor, based as it is on danger and dance. Critics hate humor in general (How many “best picture” Oscars go to comedies?) Critics fear pointless danger, and disapproval, and law suits, and second-hand-smoke. They are the guardians of correct thinking — just the thinking that Gomez and the show ridicules. Gomez lives happily in the real world of today, but courts danger, death, law suits. He smokes and dances and does not worry what the neighbors think. He tries dangerous things and does not always succeed, but then lets his kids try the same. He dances with enthusiasm. I find his dancing and fearlessness healthier than the over-protective self-sacrifice that critics seem to favor in heroes. To the extent that they tolerate fictional violence, they require the hero to swooping, protecting others at danger to themselves only, while the others look on (or don’t). The normal people are presented as cautious, fearful, and passive. Cold, in a word, and we raise kids to be the same. Cold fear is a paralyzing thing in children and adults; it often brings about the very damage that one tries to avoid.
Gomez is hot: active, happy, and fearless. This heat.– this passion — is what makes Gomez a better male role model than Batman, say. Batman is just miserable, or the current versions are. Ms. Frizzle (magic school bus) is the only other TV character who is happy to let others take risks, but Ms Frizzle is female. Gomez’s thinks the best of those who come to visit, but we see they usually don’t deserve it. Sometimes they do, and this provides touching moments. Gomez is true to his wife and passionate, most others are not. Gomez kisses his wife, dances with her, and compliments her. Outsiders don’t dance, and snap at their wives; they are motivated by money, status, and acceptability. Gomez is motivated by life itself (and death). The outsiders fear anything dangerous or strange; they are cold inside and suffer as a result. Gomez is hot-blooded and alive: as a lover, a dancer, a fencer, a stock trader, an animal trainer, and a collector. He is the only father with a mustache, a sign of particular masculinity — virtually the only man with a mustache.
Gomez has a quiet, polite and decent side too, but it’s a gallant version, a masculine heterosexual version. He’s virtually the only decent man who enjoys life, or for that matter is shown to kiss his wife with more than a peck. In TV or movies, when you see a decent, sensitive, or polite man, he is asexual or homosexual. He is generally unmarried, sometimes divorced, and almost always sad — searching for himself. I’m not sure such people are positive role models for the a-sexual, but they don’t present a lifestyle most would want to follow. Gomez is decent, happy, and motivated; he loves his life and loves his wife, even to death, and kisses with abandon. My advice: be alive like Gomez, don’t be like the dead, cold, visitors and critics.
In my time in college, as a student, grad student, and professor, I ran into quite a few geniuses and quite a few weirdos. Most of the geniuses were weird, but most of the weirdos were not geniuses. Many geniuses drank or smoked pot, most drunks and stoners were stupid, paranoids. My problem was finding a reasonably quick way to tell the geniuses from the nuts; tell Einsteins from I’m-stoned.
Only quick way I found is by their friends. If someone’s friends are dullards, chances are they are too. Related to this is humility. Most real geniuses have a body of humility that can extent to extreme self-doubt. They are aware of what they don’t know, and are generally used to skepticism and having to defend their ideas. A genius will do so enthusiastically, happy to have someone listen; a non genius will bristle at tough questions, responding by bluster, bragging, name dropping, and insult. A science genius will do math, and will show you interesting math stuff just for fun, a nut will not. Nuts will use big words will have few friends you’d want to hang with. A real genius uses simple words.
Another tell, those with real knowledge are knowledgeable on what others think (there’s actually a study on this). That is, they are able to speak in the mind-set of others, pointing out the logic of the other side, and practical differences where the other side would be right. There should be a clear reason to come on one side or the other, and not just a scream of frustration that you don’t agree. The ability to see the world through others’ eyes is not a proof they are right — some visionary geniuses have been boors, but it is a tell. Besides boors are no fun to be with; they are worth avoiding if possible.
And what of folks who are good to talk to; decent, loyal, humble, and fun, but turn out to be not-geniuses. I’d suggest looking a little closer. At the worst, these are good friends, boon companions, and decent citizens — far more enjoyable to deal with than the boors. But if you look closer, you may find a genius in a different area — a plumbing genius, or a police genius, or a short-order cook genius. One of my some-time employees is a bouncer-genius. He works as a bouncer and has the remarkable ability to quite people down, or throw them out, without causing a fight — it’s not an easy skill. In my political work trying to become drain commissioner, I ran into a sewage genius, perhaps two. These are hard-working people that I learn from.
People make the mistake of equating genius with academia, but that’s just a very narrow slice of genius. They then compound the mistake by looking at grades. It pays to look at results and to pay respects accordingly. To quote an old joke/ story: what do you call the fellow who graduated at the bottom of his medical school class? “Doctor” He or she is a doctor. And what do you call the fellow who graduated at the bottom of his law school class? “your honor.”
“Holy kleenex Batman, it was right under our noses and we blew it.” I came of age with Adam West’s Batman on TV and a relatively sane Batman in the comic books. Batman was a sort of urban cowboy: a loner, but a law-abiding, honest loner. A proud American who was polite to the police and to the ordinary citizen. He was both good, and “nice.” Back then, as today, no one died by the hand of Batman, but that was largely because he worked with the police who made the final arrests
More recent Batmen have been not nice, and arguably not good either. They do not work with the police but act above the law. Their ethos is not from US civics class, but from dark training in eastern monasteries by masters of kung fu. It’s a morality no one quite understands, not least himself. Quite literally, ‘He is a dark and stormy knight.’
A few days ago, I found this plastic Batman-Buddah for sale on e-Bay and I started wondering about how far our current movie Batmen have moved from those of the 60s. And on the deep, Zen thoughts that Batman now expounds on life and crime. These zen thoughts are pretty messed up, as psychologists have noted.
Example. In a recent Batman movie, Batman beats up an invasive wannabe wearing hockey pads. He gets asked: “What gives you the right? What’s the difference between you and me?” The response, “I’m not wearing hockey pads.” This is to say, the current Batman believe his physical prowess makes him above the law. Some more comments:
“Sometimes it’s only madness that makes us what we are.”
“That mask — it’s not to hide who I am, but to create what I am.”
“I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you.”
When he speaks to the Joker, it’s not clear which one is crazier. E.g.. Batman tells the Joker that he doesn’t kill because, “If you kill a killer, the number of killers remains the same.” To which Joker replies: “Unless you kill more than one….” That sounds sane to me.
By contrast. consider Adam West as Batman in the 1960s: “Underneath this garb, we’re perfectly ordinary Americans.” Another quote: “A reporter’s lot is not easy, making exciting stories out of plain, average, ordinary people like Robin and me.” Though this comment is “off” it’s nice to see that this Batman feels for peoples’ problems, respects their professions, and does not profess to be better than they are. He’s weird, but not a psychopath, and he leaves Gotham city pretty much the way you find it at the beginning of a comic or episode.
Not a classic Batmobile, but I like it. Adam West’s Batman always strove to be socially responsible.
By contrast, the current, dark, depressive Batmen always leave Gotham City in shambles, with piles of dead and destroyed buildings and infrastructure. Given the damage Batman does, you wonder why anyone calls for Batman; current Batmen never works with the police, quite.
And where’s Robin. To the extent that Robin appears at all, his relationship with Batman is more frenemy than ally. Batgirl too is mostly absent, and has changed. The original Batgirl was connected to the police. She was Barbara Gordon, Police Commissioner Gordon’s daughter, a positive female with a good relationship with her supportive, non-sexist father (an early version of Kim Possible’s dad) and with society as a whole. The current Batgirl appears is the butler’s daughter, and except for one brief appearance, you never see her, not at Wayne Manor, not anywhere. Somehow she’s Batgirl though it’s presented that didn’t know what her dad was up to.
Here are some real interactions between Adam West as Batman with Robin. He shows an interest in Robin’s education and well-being, something currently lacking:
AW Batman: “Haven’t you noticed how we always escape the vicious ensnarements of our enemies?” Robin: “Yeah, because we’re smarter than they are!” Batman: “I like to think it’s because our hearts are pure.”
AW Batman: “Better put 5 cents in the meter.” Robin: “No policeman’s going to give the Batmobile a ticket.” Batman: “This money goes to building better roads. We all must do our part.”
Robin: “You can’t get away from Batman that easy!” AW Batman: “Easily.” Robin: “Easily.”
“Good grammar is essential, Robin.” Robin: “Thank you.” Batman: “You’re welcome.”
Robin/Dick: “What’s so important about Chopin?” Batman: “All music is important, Dick. It’s the universal language. One of our best hopes for the eventual realization of the brotherhood of man.” Dick: “Gosh Bruce, yes, you’re right. I’ll practice harder from now on.”
AW Batman: “That’s one trouble with dual identities, Robin. Dual responsibilities.”
“Even crime fighters must eat. And especially you. You’re a growing boy and you need your nutrition.”
“What took you so long, Batgirl?” Batgirl: “Rush hour traffic, plus all the lights were against me. And you wouldn’t want me to speed, would you?” Robin: “Your good driving habits almost cost us our lives!” Batman: “Rules are rules, Robin. But you do have a point.”
And finally, AW Batman: “I think you should acquire a taste for opera, Robin, as one does for poetry and olives.”
Clearly this Batman takes an interest in Robin’s health and education, and in Batgirl’s. Robin is his ward, after all, a foster child. And Batgirl is a protege, as well as the daughter of a friend.
The modern Batman claims, “It’s not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.” It’s, more or less, a quote from Karl Jung that shows pride in one’s art, but it also shows an attachment to job over self. This approach appeared in the olden days, in the form of Catwoman, a woman with her own moral code, and proud of it. Batman found her odious, abhorrent, and “insegrievious”. The only difference between her and the Joker, he says, is the amount of damage done. I’m sorry to find that recent, Zen Batmen and Supermen might as well be Cat-women, or Jokers. To quote Robin: “Holy strawberries, Batman, we’re in a jam.”
Robert Buxbaum, June 26, 2017. Insegeivious is a made-up word, and I love it. I also love the humor of Robin’s “holy xxx” comments.
Suicide is generally understood as a cry of desperation. If so, you’d expect that the poorer, less-powerful, less-mobile members of society — black people, Hispanics, and women — would be the most suicidal. The opposite is true. While black people and Hispanics have low savings, and mobility, they rarely commit suicide. White Protestants and Indians are the most suicidal groups in the US; Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Catholics, Moslems, Orientals, are significantly less prone. And black, non-Hispanic women are the least suicidal group of all — something I find rather surprising.
Aha, I hear you say: It’s the stress of upward mobility that causes suicide. If this were true, you’d expect Asians would have a high suicide rate. They do not, at least not American Asians. Their rate (male + female) is only 6.5/100,000, even lower than that for Afro-Americans. In their own countries, it’s different, and Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans commit suicide at a frightening rate. My suspicion is that American Asians feel less trapped by their jobs, and less identified too. They do not feel shame in their company’s failures, and that’s a good, healthy situation. In Korea, several suicides were related to the Samsung phones that burst into flames. While there is some stress from upward mobility, suggested by the suicide rates for Asian-American females being higher than for other woman, it’s still half that of non-hispanic white women, and for women in China and Korea. This suggests, to me, that the attitude of Asian Americans is relatively healthy.
The only group with a suicide rate that matches that of white protestants is American Indians, particularly Alaskan Indians. You’d figure their rate would be high given the alcoholism, but you’d expect it to be similar to that for South-American Hispanics, as these are a similar culture, but you’d be wrong, and it’s worthwhile to ask why. While men in both cultures have similar genes, suffer financially, and are jailed often, American Indians are far more suicidal than Mexican Americans. It’s been suggested that the difference is religiosity or despair. But if Indians despair, why don’t Mexicans or black people? I find I don’t have a completely satisfactory explanation, and will leave it at that.
Age-specific suicide rates, US, all races, 2012, CDC.
Concerning age, you’d probably guess that teenagers and young adults would be most suicidal — they seem the most depressed. This is not the case. Instead, middle age men are twice as likely to commit suicide as teenage men, and old men, 85+, are 3.5 times more suicidal. The same age group, 85+ women, is among the least suicidal. This is sort-of surprising since they are often in a lot of pain. Why men and not women? My suspicion is that the difference, as with the Asians has to do with job identification. I note that middle age is a particularly important time for job progress, and note that men are more-expected to hold a job and provide than women are. When men feel they are not providing –or worse –see themselves as a drag on family resources, they commit suicide. At least, this is my explanation.
It’s been suggested that religion is the consolation of women and particularly of black women and Catholics. I find this explanation doubtful as I have no real reason to think that old women are more religious than old men, or that Protestants and Indians are less religious than Hispanics, Asians, Moslems, and Jews. Another difference that I (mostly) reject is that access to guns is the driver of suicide. Backing this up is a claim in a recent AFSP report, that women attempt suicide three times more often than men. That men prefer guns, while women prefer pills and other, less-violent means is used to suggest that removal of guns would (or should) reduce suicide. Sorry to say, a comparison between the US and Canada (below) suggests the opposite.
A Centers for Disease Control study (2012) found that people doing manual labor jobs are more prone to suicide than are people in high-strew, thinking jobs. That is, lumberjacks, farmers, fishermen, construction workers, carpenters, miners, etc. All commit suicide far more than librarians, doctors, and teachers, whatever the race. My suspicion is that it’s not the stress of the job so much, as the stress of unemployment between gigs. The high suicide jobs, it strikes me, are jobs one would identify with (I’m a lumberjack, I’m a plumber, etc. ) and short term. I suspect that the men doing these jobs (and all these are male-oriented jobs) tend to identify with their job, and tend to fall into a deadly funk when their laid off. They can not sit around the house. Then again, many of these jobs go hand in hand with heavy drinking and an uncommon access to guns, poison, and suicidal opportunities.
Canadians commit suicide slightly more often than Americans, but Canadians do it mostly with rope and poison, while more than half of US suicides are with guns.
I suspect that suicide among older men stems from the stress of unemployment and the boredom of sitting around feeling useless. Older women tend to have hobbies and friends, while older men do not. And older men seem to feel they are “a burden” if they can no-longer work. Actor Robin Williams, as an example, committed suicide, supposedly, because he found he could not remember his lines as he had. And Kurt Gödel (famous philosopher) just stopped eating until he died (apparently, this is a fairly uncommon method). My speculation is that he thought he was no longer doing productive work and concluded “if I don’t produce, I don’t deserve to eat.” i’m going to speculate that the culture of women, black men, Hispanics, Asians, etc. are less bound to their job, and less burdened by feelings of worthlessness when they are not working. Clearly, black men have as much access to guns as white men, and anyone could potentially fast himself to death.
I should also note that people tend to commit suicide when they lose their wife or husband; girlfriend or boyfriend. My thought is that this is similar to job identification. It seems to me that a wife, husband, or loved one is an affirmation of worth, someone to do for. Without someone to do for, one may feel he has nothing to live for. Based on the above, my guess about counseling is that a particularly good approach would be to remind people in this situation that there are always other opportunities. Always more fish in the sea, as it were. There are other women and men out there, and other job opportunities. Two weeks ago, I sent a suicidal friend a link to the YouTube of Stephen Foster’s song, “there are plenty of fish in the sea” and it seemed to help. It might also help to make the person feel wanted, or needed by someone else — to involve him or her is some new political or social activity. Another thought, take away the opportunity. Since you can’t easily take someone’s gun, rope, or pills — they’d get mad and suspicious –I’d suggest taking the person somewhere where these things are not — a park, the beach, a sauna or hot-tub, or just for a walk. These are just my thoughts, I’m a PhD engineer, so my thinking may seem odd. I try to use numbers to guide my thought. If what I say makes sense, use it at your own risk.
A few days ago, I wrote a post about the lack of savings in America, the social causes for it, and the damage it causes. I had some governmental suggestions, but suspect I didn’t emphasize that the main responsibility is personal: if you want savings, you’ve got to save.
Every rich person spends less than he earns. If you aspire to be rich, spend less on clothes than you can afford.
If you want to have savings, it is up to you to spend less than you earn. If you don’t, you’ll never be rich, you’ll never have savings or net-economic worth, and you’ll always be strung-out over emergencies. Income and gifts won’t help if spending rises to match. At all incomes, the people who get richer are those who tailor spending to be less than earnings.
There is another personal honesty issue here, and a marriage issue too. If you spend more than you earn, someone will be cheated, and that person (your wife, husband, neighbor, friend) is likely to get mad. Earn $100 and spend $99.99, you can be honest and well liked. if you earn $1000 and spend $1000.01 and you will cheat someone you love sooner or later. Be an honest fellow and spend less. Clothes is a good place to start: say no to the fancy dress and the fancy wedding, and to fancy clothes in general. If you smoke, vaping can be a life and money saver. And try to avoid pot-smoking, at $400/oz that’s got to be a killer. And here are some water savers.
A good way to know if you are doing things right :Start a bank account, and check the balance and resolve to see it $10 higher at the end of the week than before. And that’s my two cents.
A friend called the other day asking about a financial matter. It seems his wife bought some pictures for pictures a few days ago for $2000, and after having them apprised, she finds they’re worth $2,000,000.
I started talking about un-realized profits, and mentioned that I never imagined that his wife had such an eye for art. He said, they’re not art pictures, exactly; they’re of you discussing business with the Russians. (It’s a joke — I thought you-all might depreciate it).
—————
When I started my business, I found that you could deduct medical costs. I called the IRS and asked if I could deduct birth control. They told me: “only if it doesn’t work.”
—————
I’m glad I learned about parallelograms in school, instead something mundane, like taxes. It’s really come in handy this parallelogram season.
—————–
I got a robo-call asking me to press “1” to hear about a government program for those who wanted to avoid paying back taxes. I did, and a voice said “Leavenworth.” It wasn’t much of a program, more of a sentence.
