Category Archives: Philosophy

Defending against deadly attacks on Jews.

Leave a reply

There have been many attacks on Jewish schools, homes , and markets. The press likes to blame white supremicists. But in the US, Islamicists and “Black Hebrews” have been the more regular assailants. Along with them are equal opportunity killers — those who kill, for no obvious reason. I note that mostly attackers don’t wear body armor, suggesting that a small revolver is the best choice for defense. The police come, but never in time.

The Monsey, NY, 2019 attack is fairly typical of a small-scale hate crime, though it was not charged as such. A member of the “Black Hebrew” movement who had attacked Jews in the. past, always released by police, waled into a Channuka celebration in a home in Monsey, NY, pulled a large knife, and stabbed the rabbi and four others before being chased out by folks with chairs. One of those stabbed died from the wounds, and several others spent time in hospital. The attacker, undeterred, drove attack another Jewish establishment, a nearby orthodox shul, and attacked there. It seems he’d committed an anti-Jewish stabbing shortly before this murder, but was released as always before the final, deadly attack. As with most black on Jewish attacks, this was not ruled a hate crime by the police.

Kessler before the attack. The claim is that his flag triggered an accidental attack by Professor Alnaji and his compatriot.

In the US Islamic on Jewish attacks tend to be ruled as accidents or legitimate expressions, and never as hate crimes. In Thousand Oaks California, 2023, Paul Kessler 69 was standing with an Israeli flag (right) when two Islamic activists crossed the street to shout at him. One of them, Professor Loay Abdelfattah Alnaji, hit him fatally on the head with a bull horn. The police ruled it accidental, involuntary manslaughter, despite that it was two on one, deliberate, premeditated, and the assailant kept yelling: “stop killing our children,” even after Kessler was down after being hit. Alnaji is free on bail of $50K. It was not ruled a hate crime.

Poway synagog shooter, Shot four, killed one before gun jammed.

The court reacts quite differently to white on Jewish crimes, ruling these hate crimes and punishing to the full extent of the law. An example, in Poway, CA, 2019, a white man, left, entered the Orthodox, Chabad synagog during services carrying a semi-automatic pistol. He shot and killed the first person he met, then shot the rabbi, entered a side room, and shot two more, an adult and an 8 year old. Then his gun jammed. At that point he left, and called 911. He claimed he hated Jews, Moslems, and President Trump. I note that gun jams are common in stressful situations, but police showing up in time is uncommon. A revolver for personal defense would’ve helped, but they are mostly illegal in California — not that the antigun laws deterred the killer.

Organized attacks are more deadly, and almost impossible to defend against. They tend to be Islamic. The recent attack on a music festival in Israel, for example. An air – land assault with machine guns by an armed group civilians (and UN workers!) that left 1500 dead, and 250 captured. Most of the victims were unarmed, but some were armed. They were over-run, and killed. It is very hard to defend against multiple assailants with training and the advantage of surprise.

A smaller-scale versions of these military stile Islamic attacks have play out regularly around the world. For example, Mumbai, 2019, two Islamic activists entered an orthodox Jewish hostel and school, and barricaded themselves in. Over the course of three days, they killed the rabbi and his wife, and five of their children. It was part of a wider program of well-planned attacks on Jews and Jewish businesses in India. The two perpetrators were eventually killed by the police, but the support network escaped justice. These are the folks who planned the attack, and armed the two; IMHO they are as guilty as the murderers.

The shooter who attacked the Hyper Kasher kosher store in Paris. He was trained, but worked alone, and wears no bulletproof vest. First he shot the person nearest to him and those behind the counter — anyone who might reasonably stop him. He then closed the metal grate around the store, started talking and killing for 4 hours. A well timed shot or two could have taken him out.

In Paris, as a similar Islamic general attack on Jews and businesses included the killing of 12 at the humor magazine “Charlie Hebdot” A trained Islamic activist entered a kosher market, “hypercasher” with two Kalashnikov AK47s provided by the same network who armed the Charlie Hebdot killers. Ownership of most guns is illegal in France, but that makes for easy targets. On entering, he immediately killed the person next to him and shot the two people behind the counter (one died). He then asked that the store be sealed by its steel gratings so he could keep on killing in peace. Secure in the market, the attacker then asked if he should kill someone else. When every shouted no, he laughed and killed the person. The killer talked and killed for the next 4 hours while the police gathered outside and watched. One unarmed customer tried to attack him, but was killed in the process, and jeered at besides — jeers seem to be common. Eventually, the French police killed the attacker and rescued those still alive. As with the Indian attack, the support network escaped or were found non-guilty. If someone had a pistol, maybe the killing would have ended quicker.

White supmemicist, right killed 11 in Pittsburgh. Survivor, center picture will testify. From the NY Post.

In Pittsburgh, PA, 2018, a “White supremicist” entered the “tree of life synagogue” with four semi-automatic pistols (three of them Glocks). He killed 11, going from room to room, sometimes talking to people. One survivor hid under the sink for hours, unable to reach his phone in deadly fear that it would ring and expose him. Eventually the killer just left, and as he did, someone with a gun shot after him, missing. Clearly, this fellow had that gun all along but was afraid to draw it, or could not find it. I’m glad he missed, by the way. If he’d hit the guy as he left, the shooter would have gone to jail. According to US law, you can’t shoot a fleeing attacker. My lesson is that you want a gun that’s small enough to hide well and draw easily, and you want to practice enough to be comfortable using it.

Another deadly attack from “Black Hebrews”, this time organized, military stile. In Jersey City, 2019, two “Black Hebrews” attacked the patrons of an orthodox, Kosher market, starting to shoot from the street, from 50 feet away. Once they were sure that no one inside was armed, they entered and killed three individuals who were doing their best to hide. The recent Gaza attacks used this military style, too. They attacked from a distance first to drive folks into hiding, then set the buildings afire or shot cowering individuals point blank. it’s very hard to defend against this sort of attack, especially if you are unarmed, but even if you are armed and trained.

Enhanced photo from the shooting at the Jersey City Kosher market. This is a rare example of military tactics being used. Two attackers of the “Black Hebrews” started shooting from outside the store, and only entered later to finish up.

The majority of other deadly attacks are by “Islamic youths” against older Jews. The youths will enter a house, threaten, kill, and leave. In one case the victim (a professor) was beheaded on the main street. He’d shown cartoons to his class that suggested that Islam is not peaceful. As with beatings that go with “Palestine Independence” rallies, these attacks are not considered “hate crimes,” but teen violence or political expression.

Hate crimes or not, they mostly target Jews, and they seem to be religiously motivated. Typically, it’s only one or two assailants attacking a chosen, visibly orthodox individual or place. Killing is mostly in close quarters over a relatively long period, often jeering the dead. So far, none appear to use a bulletproof vest. The police do not come on time, ever.

From the above, I suggest a stubby revolver for its concealment and reliability. Carrying a gun is not a good idea if you have children in the house, or if you spend a lot of time in schools, even though these are among the locations that need defending most. You need permission to carry in large venues, including big stores, synagogues and churches, as well as most clubs.

J. Edgar Hoover’s 1939, 32 caliber, “Pocket perfect,” Detective.

A gun suggestion is a “detective special” revolver like the S+W 642 “airweight, 14.6 ounces. It’s about half of the weight of a standard Glock, and shoots five bullets of 38 caliber. A step smaller are 32 caliber revolvers as were carried by J. Edgar Hoover. Smaller yet, are 22LR and/or 22WMR, revolvers like the S+W 351C or 351 PD, and all the NAA mini revolvers, 6 to 11 oz. They are easy to carry, non-obvious, and more reliable than a semi. Five to seven bullets can be enough. Robert Kennedy was killed with a 22lr. Semi-automatic pistols are good for the range, but they need to be racked, and tend to jam in tense situations.

I suggest a revolver that takes different loads. You can practice with cheaper ammo, and carry it loaded with more expensive. Especially with semis, make sure you can draw fast and shoot accurately without jamming.

Robert Buxbaum, March 10, 2024. A common claim in the press is that guns should be banned as in Europe, or highly regulated as in New York, New Jersey and California. I disagree. Europe has a very high rate of violent crime, including quite a few deadly attacks on jews.

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

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

Dark matter: why our galaxy still has its arms

Leave a reply

Our galaxy may have two arms, or perhaps four. It was thought to be four until 2008, when it was reduced to two. Then, in 2015, it was expanded again to four arms, but recent research suggests it’s only two again. About 70% of galaxies have arms, easily counted from the outside, as in the picture below. Apparently it’s hard to get a good view from the inside.

Four armed, spiral galaxy, NGC 2008. There is a debate over whether our galaxy looks like this, or if there are only two arms. Over 70% of all galaxies are spiral galaxies. 

Logically speaking, we should not expect a galaxy to have arms at all. For a galaxy to have arms, it must rotate as a unit. Otherwise, even if the galaxy had arms when it formed, it would lose them by the time the outer rim rotated even once. As it happens we know the speed of rotation and age of galaxies; they’ve all rotated 10 to 50 times since they formed.

For stable rotation, the rotational acceleration must match the force of gravity and this should decrease with distances from the massive center. Thus, we’d expect that the stars should circle much faster the closer they are to the center of the galaxy. We see that Mercury circles the sun much faster than we do, and that we circle much faster than the outer planets. If stars circled the galactic core this way, any arm structure would be long gone. We see that the galactic arms are stable, and to explain it, we’ve proposed the existence of lots of unseen, dark matter. This matter has to have some peculiar properties, behaving as a light gas that doesn’t spin with the rest of the galaxy, or absorb light, or reflect. Some years ago, I came to believe that there was only one gas distribution that fit, and challenged folks to figure out the distribution.

The mass of the particles that made up this gas has to be very light, about 10-7 eV, about 2 x 1012 lighter than an electron, and very slippery. Some researchers had posited large, dark rocks, but I preferred to imagine a particle called the axion, and I expected it would be found soon. The particle mass had to be about this or it would shrink down to the center of he galaxy or start to spin, or fill the universe. Ina ny of these cases, galaxies would not be stable. The problem is, we’ve been looking for years, and not only have we not seen any particle like this. What’s more, continued work on the structure of matter suggests that no such particle should exist. At this point, galactic stability is a bigger mystery than it was 40 years ago.;

So how to explain galactic stability if there is no axion. One thought, from Mordechai Milgrom, is that gravity does not work as we thought. This is an annoying explanation: it involves a complex revision of General Relativity, a beautiful theory that seems to be generally valid. Another, more recent explanation is that the dark matter is regular matter that somehow became an entangled, super fluid despite the low density and relatively warm temperatures of interstellar space. This has been proposed by Justin Khoury, here. Either theory would explain the slipperiness, and the fact that the gas does not interact with light, but the details don’t quite work. For one, I’d still think that the entangled particle mass would have to be quite light; maybe a neutrino would fit (entangled neutrinos?). Super fluids don’t usually exist at space temperatures and pressures, and long distances (light years) should preclude entanglements, and neutrinos don’t seem to interact at all.

Sabine Hossenfelder suggests a combination of modified gravity and superfluidity. Some version of this might fit observations better, but doubles the amount of new physics required. Sabine does a good science video blog, BTW, with humor and less math. She doesn’t believe in Free will or religion, or entropy. By her, the Big Bang was caused by a mystery particle called an inflateon that creates mass and energy from nothing. She claims that the worst thing you can do in terms of resource depletion is have children, and seems to believe religious education is child abuse. Some of her views I agree with, with many, I do not. I think entropy is fundamental, and think people are good. Also, I see no advantage in saying “In the beginning an inflateon created the heavens and the earth”, but there you go. It’s not like I know what dark matter is any better than she does.

There are some 200 billion galaxies, generally with 100 billion stars. Our galaxy is about 150,000 light years across, 1.5 x 1018 km. It appears to behave, more or less, as a solid disk having rotated about 15 full turns since its formation, 10 billion years ago. The speed at the edge is thus about π x 1.5 x 1018 km/ 3 x 1016 s = 160km/s. That’s not relativistic, but is 16 times the speed of our fastest rockets. The vast majority of the mass of our galaxy would have to be dark matter, with relatively little between galaxies. Go figure.

Robert Buxbaum, May 24, 2023. I’m a chemical engineer, PhD, but studied some physics and philosophy.

Yiddish newspapers and talking cows, a case for Jewish education

1 Reply

Jewish education is a mess according to the Times. Most anyone outside it, who’d look in would agree: Ancient books, pre-science outlooks, anti-inclusive, and taught in a garble of languages, Yiddish, English, Aramaic, Hebrew. The New York Times has runs regular editorials claiming that Jewish education robs children of a future, or an entrance to society, producing adults who know nothing of geometry or higher math, or modern history, incapable of voting intelligently in today’s elections (they often vote Republican). The Times’s experts, are often the products of this education, but claim to have risen above it, only because of extra work. As a proof, they often cite the Talmud as a source of useless knowledge of ancient Jewish law, rejected Bible history, and only the most basic views of math. By way of a response, I’d like to quote something I’d heard in synagog a couple of weeks back:

“I’m so glad that I learned geometry in school, and not taxes. It’s really come in handy this parallelogram season.“

The speaker was an accountant, and the point of the joke is that there is no parallelogram season. There is a tax season, though, and tax law follows a bizarre logic that is not geometric, but is somewhat talmudic. As for the useless languages, they are all in use, both as spoken languages and written languages, no less useful than Latin, and certainly more alive. There are currently 5 yiddish-language newspapers being published in New York alone, see below. They compete with each other for readers, while competing also with the Times, the Post, and with another ten or more Hebrew and English journals, several of them Jewish, either published on paper or as web-journals. People read them, though the Times prefers to ignore their existence.

There are five newspapers published currently in Yiddish in New York. The Forward (Tony Curtis and duck) and the Vort are left-leaning, the Algeminer, the Blat, and the Zeitung, are more right and center. There is a readership. Why a duck?

And that brings us to the subject matter, Talmud. Much of Jewish learning is Talmud, either distilled or pure, study of a set of books written between 1000 and 2000 years ago in Israel, Babylon, and France mostly, with commentaries from Spain, Morocco, Egypt, Germany, and Poland. Those who learned talmud tend to find it useful. The legal organization and approach resonates to them in the understanding of taxes, contracts, building, damage assessment, marriage, ethics, even in dealing with alcoholism. Talmud is so useful that it’s common for working, orthodox Jews to continue their learning it throughout their lives. A common practice is to learn a page every day in synchrony with other Jews. Today’s page, when I started writing this post, was Nazir 10. It includes a talking cow, just the sort of section that the Times likes to cite to show the uselessness of it all. I’ll forgive their lack of understanding, but not their laziness for not even bothering to try to understand.

Nazir 10 begins by saying: “If a cow says, ‘I will be a Nazir (that is, I will give up wine for a month) if I stand up’. Then, if it gets up, one school of rabbinic thought (Bais Shammai) says he is a nazir. Another school of thought (Bais Hillel) says he is not a nazir.” The page goes on to speak about taking doors, but I’ll stop here after the first 2 sentences and will try to explain what the Times does not care to examine.

Notice that cows are female, and they typically don’t speak, but here you find a “he” who might have to give up wine. This “he”, this male, is understood to be a person looking at the cow, likely a person with an alcohol problem. He sees a cow lying on the ground (in the mud figuratively) and identifies it to himself. That is, he sees himself lying in the mud. He thinks it’s impossible for the cow to get up because he imagines that he himself can not get up. (This is just the Talmud’s way of discussing things). According to Bais Shammai, the person is understood to have said to himself, “if that cow can get up, I will take it as a sign that I can get up, and I will take it on myself to avoid wine and wine products for a month.” Now, according to Bais Shammai, if the cow gets up, the man is obligated to stop drinking for a month.

“I love television, and find it very educational. When someone turns it on, I go read a book.” G. Marx

Bais Hillel says he is not obligated at all. They say that a drunk who wants to change, must do more than be inspired, he must make a real verbal commitment. He must verbally obligate himself to give up drink. We follow this latter opinion, but learn Bais Shammai’s view too, because there are important ideas about self-identity.

Those are just the first two lines of the page. In secular school, you learn stories too, sometimes stories with talking animals, but these are usually modern stories, where the challenges are external, bullying say, but in a sense such stories are sanitized. The internal demons are removed, and these are often the hardest to battle. Even dealing with external problems is often pushed on an external authority, a teacher usually. You are considered to be too weak to deal with a problem. Sometimes that’s true, usually there is at least some part you could deal with. The lack of self-obligation leaves modern school stories flat. Few kids enjoy them, or feel they get anything from them. A result in Detroit is that schools have <50% attendance. Kids leave barely literate with appalling math skills. We blame the teachers and the subject. It’s the book: Sally has 15 tomatoes and wants to give 4 to a friend, how many will she have left? is this relevant? Does this excite?

Talmud teaches some logic, some math, and some geometry, but only for measuring distances and volumes, the application that geometry was named for (geometry = measuring the earth). They learn the rest as needed, and often learn quite a lot.

As Groucho Marx said: “My education is self inflicted.”

The products of Jewish education become successful, often in business, hiring their better-educated brothers. Some become lawyers, accountants, writers, businessmen, or psychologists — more than our share in the population — or mathematicians and scientists. Some even excel in academics or journalism. The Times does not mention this.

Groucho, Chico, Harpo, and Karl Marx

My three children all went to Jewish, religious school and got the education that the Times calls abuse. So far, my son (31) has two masters degrees, both in artificial intelligence/ computer science. My older daughter (28) is getting her PhD in Psychology, and my younger daughter (23) is working on her masters in epidemiology. I suspect they benefited from the education. My suggestion to the Times, is in another Marx quote: “If you find it hard to laugh at yourself, I would be happy to do it for you.”

Robert Buxbaum, March 1, 2023. “History may not think with its feet, but it certainly doesn’t walk on its head.”– Karl Marx, the less-funny, Marx brother. Jewish educated, he became a journalist.

Two French generals who fought each other in 19 duels over 30 years, and the purpose of creation

Leave a reply

Humans are funny little creatures. I suspect that God keeps us around for our entertainment value. Each culture provides God its own entertainment. The British by invading basically every country on earth wearing tall, furry hats. We Americans provide grand stunts, like landing on the moon, or an automobile race around the world in 1908 when there were no roads or gas stations. And the French took love, dining, and dueling to a high, almost comic level. In France, the great and near great dueled well into the 20th century. The great French mathematician, Galois dueled to the death over love or politics. The great rationalist philosopher, Descartes, fought a duel, disarmed his opponent, and forgave him because of love. The science fiction writing philosopher, Cyrano de Bergerac, was famous for many duels, typically over the insults in his writing (or his nose).

In France, the great and near-great dueled well into the 20th century.

Instead of writing about those fellows, this post is about two Napoleonic generals, Pierre Dupont de l’Étang and François Fournier-Sarlovèze, who fought 30 duels with each other over 19 years writing a contract to kill each other whenever possible. They didn’t start as generals, of course, but rose through the ranks, though dueling was illegal, in theory, most of the time. They dueled on foot and horseback, mostly with swords, but also with pistols, and managed to wound each other at every meeting. They never quite managed to kill one another, or settle things, but they kept going at it till they became friends, of a sort. They were not that bad dualists, Fournier was a crack shot with a pistol and had killed others in duels. DuPont was better with the sword, but both were good at dodging death by blocking their vital organs.

The antaganism started with a duel, as one might expect. Fournier, a lieutenant at the time, had just killed a popular Strasbourg townsman named Blumm in a pistol duel. The townsman had no experience with pistols so this was sort-of murder, and resented. There was to be a party that evening, and Fournier’s commanding officer sent captain DuPont with a message to Fournier to keep him away until tempers subsided. Fournier attempted to attend anyway, and felt insulted by DuPont’s efforts to keep him out. Fournier challenged DuPont, and DuPont accepted, choosing military swords. Fournier would have challenged the commanding officer, but one does challenge so far above one’s station in France.

They met the next day at dawn. DuPont won the first duel, injuring Fournier by a severe cut to the shoulder. At this point, first blood, most American dualists would have called it quits, and might have become friends. In the duel between Thomas Hart Benton and Andrew Jackson, Benton put two bullets into Jackson but didn’t kill them, and they went on to become friends, and colleagues in congress. But for these two, one deadly meeting was not enough. They decided to duel again as soon as Fournier recovered. That took a month. Fournier rechallenged, they fought again with military swords. This time DuPont was injured. At the next duel, both were injured. Again and again, whenever they met, with swords, cutlases, lances, rapiers, and at last with pistols.

Fournier (left) and DuPont (right). Fournier fought for Napoleon in the Spanish and Russian campaigns, and went on to help write the military code of conduct. DuPont fought in the Austrian, Dutch, and Spanish campaigns, eventually becoming Minister of War for Louis XVIII and deputy of the Charente “The Dualsts” film was shot in and around Fournier’s home town. The painting at left hangs in city hall.

They drew up a contract that they would try to kill each other whenever they were 30 leagues from each other (90 miles) and not otherwise occupied with a war. The duels would pause whenever one of them was promoted since one didn’t duel with someone of higher rank. The two proved to be excellent officers and advanced at a good rate, with occasional stops in prison because of the political turmoil of the time, but not because of their dueling. Fournier went to jail for financial mismanagement and for insulting Napoleon after the Russian Campaign, DuPont went to jail too, for losing to the Spanish, and later for supporting the Royalists. They were released because the army always needs good officers who are brave and successful (Read about their lives on Wikipedia, or here).

Sometimes they would meet by accident and try to kill each other in bars, restaurants, and hotels. Mostly they would meet by arrangement at appointed times in the woods, sharing a hearty meal and good insults before dueling. Sometimes they chatted with each other through the duels. They appreciated each others skill and complimented each other on promotions, especially when it allowed them to try to kill one another (there is a comic movie like this — Mr and Mrs Smith?). During one encounter, DuPont stuck Fournier to the wall through the neck with his sword, and Fournier requested that he move closer so they could continue fighting this way. Now that’s dedication.

Eventually, DuPont got engaged and they decided to fight to the death, hunting each other in a woods with pistols (two each). As it happened, DuPont disarmed Fournier, and forced him to agree to fight no more. It was a happy ending suitable to a movie. Actually, a movie made about them, “The Dualists, 1967.” DuPont became minister for War for Louis XVIII (released for being too royalist), and wrote poetry including “the art of war”. Fournier helped write the French code of military conduct.

Dueling didn’t stop here, but continued in France well into the 20th century. The last dual between members of the government was in 1967, see photo below. René Ribière, Gaullist speaker of the National Assembly fought Gaston Differe, Mayor of Marseilles and Socialist candidate for the French presidency. They used epees, long, sharp swords. Differe wounded Ribiére twice, both times in the arm, and Jean de Lipkowskiin called an end to the duel “. Several French duels of the 20th century, are caught on film.

Le député maire socialiste de Marseille et bon escrimeur Gaston Defferre (C) et le député gaulliste du Val d’Oise René Ribière s’affrontent en duel le 21 avril 1967 dans le jardin d’une maison de Neuilly sous le regard d’un des témoins M. Cassagne (de dos). René Ribière avait demandé réparation par les armes à la suite d’un différend survenu à l’Assemblé nationale au cours duquel Defferre l’ayant traité d'”abruti” avait refusé de lui présenter des excuses. / AFP PHOTO

The point of this essay, assuming there is one, is the love of God for us. A less loving God would have had the comedy of the generals end after only two or three duals, or after one killed the other. Here, He allowed them to fight till friendship prevailed. Also of note is that that French are not surrender monkeys, as some claim. They are masters of honor and history, and we love them.

Robert E. Buxbaum, December 28, 2022. In the US, dueling is more like gang warfare, I include here pirates like William Kidd and John Lafitte, the Hamilton-Burr duel with trick pistols, the western shootouts of Jim Bowie, Wyatt Earp, etc., the Chicago rivalries of the 1930s and the drug wars of Detroit. At present, Detroit has four shootings per day, but only one death per day. The movie “8 Mile” includes fights, shooting, and several rap duels, fought with deadly words. If you won’t fight for something, there is a sense that it isn’t worth much.

Is the right the source of antisemitism in America.

3 Replies

Hillary Clinton famously called Trump supporters “a basket of deplorables” and went on to explain that half of them were “unredeemable”, Nazis and Klansmen, while the other half “needed reeducation.” Her statement was applauded on the left, and taken as an insult on the right. To this day, Biden and his group make the claim that Republicans are antisemites and a threat to American democracy. The proof here is a 2017 video of Klansmen carrying torches, saying “Jews will not replace us,” as they protested the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in Virginia. A further claim is that the rise in antisemitic incidents, shootings, beatings, etc., are the result of Trump and the Republicans. Things are not quite so black and white, or course, e.g. during the ANTIFA protests/riots four synagogs were attacked in LA alone, and the Crown-Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn was torched. Many of the attackers of Jews have Islamic names and left association, things that don’t suggest Republicans but Democrats.

CNN has claimed that the difference is intent: Trump’s intent is evil, while ANTIFA’s is to elevate black and Moslem lives by allowing them to vent their righteous anger (on Jews). The Moslems who attacked Jews in Monsey, India, Paris and elsewhere are acting for justice, while the marchers in Charlottesville march for hate. In a special program on “Antisemitism in American”, CNN made the claim that no Jew should support the Republicans or Jewish Israel, an apartheid, colonial occupation in their view. This appears to be the view of the Biden White House too. They have yet to congratulate the winner of Israeli presidential elections, 5 days after the election. They contacted Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader instead, to discuss joint efforts to enhance Palestinian security. Obama did the same, seven years ago, not congratulating the Israeli election winner (Netanyahu), and snubbed the Israeli delegation on their visit, leaving them to sit alone without food or photographs.

According to the CNN expert on Antisemitism, the lefts’ dismissal of Israel’s leaders is because European Jews are not Jews at all, but Russians with no connection to the land. To my thinking claims like this against a group’s identity are horribly hurtful — CNN’s expert was claiming, essentially, that the jews were lying about everything since the beginning. If Jews are not from Israel, why have we prayed in that direction for return, and in the language of that land. If we did not build the old synagogs, when did we displace the builders and take over their language and culture? Attacks on Jewish identity are more serious, in my mind, than any march for Robert E. Lee. (I’ve written in favor of the peace hammered out between Grant and Lee).

Perhaps even more damaging is the left’s attack on Jewish education. The New York Times ran three-page article claiming that Jewish education abuses the students by not teaching real science or history, and by enforcing religious and sexual norms that are counter to the children’s rights — rights that include LGBQT+ expression. While it is true that Jewish education is not a fan of LGBQT+, but neither is Moslem education, or Catholic, or Mormon. Education is how a culture survives. Some Catholic leaders have noted that they have a stake in this.

The left is anti Israel and anti Jewish education, yet claims to be the defenders of Jews because they can’t stand Trump.

Speaking of survival, about half of all Jews now live in Israel, a state established by the UN in 1947 in part as a response to the mass murder of Jews in Europe. Along with Europeans, about half of the Israelis today are exiles from communities wiped out by Moslem governments: from Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Yemen. If Israel becomes Islamic as Obama favored, they are likely to exile all the Jews as they did in 1968 in Jerusalem, and as the surrounding countries have done. Where would the Jews go? It’s not a problem for Obama-Biden, but it’s a survival problem for Israelis. My sense is that the left is, by far, the more antisemitic, both in terms of culture and physical safety.

Robert Buxbaum, November 7, 2022

Fauci, freedom, and the right to be wrong.

3 Replies

Doctor Anthony Fauci has been giving graduate addresses at colleges around the country for the past few months, telling students about his struggles and successes in the medical research world, hammering a moral point that they should expect the unexpected and have no tolerance for “the normalization of untruth”, and for “egregious twisting and lies” as were leveled against his approach to COVID (and global warming, it seems). Untruths, racism, and lies spread by “some elected officials”, presumably his exboss. Here is his speech to the Princeton graduates, or see a brief summary of his talk st the University of Michigan.

Dr. Fauci may have the best intentions in criticizing others and deputizing students to enforce the truth.He certainly seems sure that his truth and intentions are 100% pure, but what if Fauci wasn’t quite right, or what if you thought his cure to the pandemic was less than marvelous. His truth may mot be real truth, or real truth for everyone. Beyond that, even if he were always 100% right on science, I believe that people have a fundamental right to make mistakes. “I have a right to be wrong,” as Joss Stone says (see music video). Freedom from imposed righteousness is a fundamental good. Even assuming that Fauci’s lockdowns were the height of righteousness, we have a right to take risks and to act against our own best interests, in my opinion. Consider a saint who really knows what’s right and only wants to do only what’s right. I doubt that even the saint wants a jailer to force it upon him and remove his free will. And the right of the rest of us may not want to do what’s ideal and healthy. We like ice cream even thought we know it’s fattening, and we should have the right to smoke too.

This right to our mistakes is something we deserve, even assuming that Fauci knows the truth for everyone, and that everyone has the same truth, and that all of his rules were for the best. But different people are different, and people’s preferences are different. “A sadist is a masochist who follows the golden rule,” as the saying goes, and Fauci may have been out-and-out wrong.

Humor from a time when one could tolerate hearing that their truths might not be true.

Concerning COVID, I’ve noted that, despite Fauci’s lockdowns and mask mandates, The US did worse than Sweden, and my home state of Michigan did worse than Sweden — worse in terms of deaths, and far worse economically. Michigan has the same size population as Sweden and the same climate and population density so it’s a good comparison. Florida did better than we did too, though they too didn’t close the schools or have mask mandates. Their economy did better too, and children’s education.

Was Fauci right to shut K-12 schools, or to send college students home? Maybe he was only half-right, or totally wrong and blinded by politics. The more Fauci and friends deny having political interests, the more they seem political. Many Fauci’s emails have become public, and he seems highly political, and very often wrong. He also does not take seriously the economic or mental or educational problems caused to the workers that he now blames on his critics. He also seems takes it as a given that those pushing hydroxychloroquine or surface disinfection were liars, despite scientific opinion on the other side.

Fauci’s push for masks went with his claim that surfaces were not major spreaders. I think the opposite is true, and used my blog and YouTube to push iodine as a surface sanitizer and hand wash. Most diseases are spread by surfaces, and I see no reason for COVID to be different. Iodine is known to kill COVID virus, and all virus, fungus, and bacteria. It’s far more lang-lasting than alcohol, too. Maybe I’m wrong, but maybe I’m right, and I have a right to express my science without fear of censure from Fauci’s deputies. As I see it, when an infected person coughs out-spews big droplets and small droplets. The big drops contain far more virus particles. They fall quickly and dry, ready to be picked up by someone who touches the residue. As for the smaller drops, some are certainly locked by masks, but these have fewer virus particles. Besides, the mask just becomes a new surface; you’ll touch your mask to adjust it or take it off. Unless you disinfect your hands with something strong like iodine the virus on your hands will go to your eyes or nose. Trump favored Chlorox for surfaces, and was skewered for it by Fauci and his experts. I think that was wrong, made worse by claims that he was not telling you to inject the Clorox.

On climate too, we do students a disservice by closing the discussion. It’s clear that Gore’s inconvenient truth isn’t completely true, nor are his remedies beneficial, in my opinion. To stop someone’s ability to make mistakes is to wrong him, and limit him. The same applies to many things; the fellow in power always thinks he’s right, and will always have allies to back him. When Robespierre was the enforced virtue and truth during the French Revolution, everyone agreed, but we now think he was wrong. Robespierre removed the head of France’s greatest scientist, Lavoisier. It would take another generation to grow another head like that.

In terms of interesting speeches to the graduates, As Marx said (Groucho), “I thought my razor was dull, till I heard his speech.” There here’s a speech against something.

Freedom is the right to be wrong, and stubborn, like Groucho. Now that’s a graduation speech!

Robert Buxbaum, October 28, 2022

Religions unite to condemn “Life of Brian”, 1979

Leave a reply

Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” presents the fictional story of Brian, someone born in the stable next door on Christmas Day, who is repeatedly mistaken for the messiah by a crowd that never gets the message right. We follow Brain as he grows and preaches wisdom, like “Think for yourselves, work it out, you’re all individuals.” The crowd then answers, in unison, “Yes! We’re all individuals.” Eventually Brian joins the People’s Liberation Front of Judea and is crucified by the Romans. Brian’s thoughts aren’t bad, but the humor is how completely his followers mess them up. Another example, near the end of the film, happens with Brian on the cross. A band of fanatical followers comes to the rescue, his “suicide squad”. They proceed to commit suicide, See it here. Brian can only say, “You silly sots.” It’s comedy. It’s a funny/sad take on religious martyrs, and it provoked a united condemnation by the three great religions because the comedy is relevant, and thus dangerous.

The movie opened in the Us, and was called “blasphemous” by the Catholic Church, and “a crime against religion.” The Catholic film-monitoring office rated it “C” for Condemned. Among Jewish leaders, Rabbi Abraham Hecht of Chabad/Lubovich asked to have the movie banned as a danger to civic peace. Chabad/Lubovich was promoting their own leader as the messiah (he had not proclaimed himself) so the film must have touched a particularly sensitive nerve.

Brian, center top, is thought to be the messiah, and reluctantly accepts the role, only to have it screwed up.

Rabbi Hecht claimed, in The New York Times, Aug 28, 1979, “This film is so grievously insulting that we are genuinely concerned that its continued showing could result in serious violence.” He was joined by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis and the Rabbinical Council of Syrian and Near Eastern Sephardic Communities of America, asking to have the movie banned. They had not asked to have any other movies banned before or since.

The US protestant opposition was headed by Robert Lee of the Lutheran council, who called it “a profane parody” in a broadcast carried by 1,000 radio stations. The religions united to buy a 1 page protest in “Variety,” a rare show of unity. The movie was banned in Italy, Ireland, Chile, Norway, parts of Britain (as a health danger), and likely many other countries. Ireland waited 8 years for a showing; Italy waited twenty years; Aberystwyth, Wales waited thirty years. The ban hasn’t yet been lifted in any of these places, by the way, nor have the religious bans been lifted. It seems that all religions agree you should not think for yourself abut God, or imagine that the leaders might have got things wrong.

The bishop of Southwark, on TV, making the case that “Life of Brian” was an attack on Christianity. It was just an attack on leaders like him.

In Britain, the effort to ban the movie were spearheaded by the “Festival of Lights,” a Protestant group. A leader of that group, Malcolm Muggeridge, debated two of the Pythons on TV, joined by Mervyn Stockwood, bishop of Southwark. See the full Life of Brian 1979 Debate, here. Malcolm Muggeridge had been editor of Punch, Britain’s top humor magazine. He argued that the movie was unfunny. Bishop Stockwood was considered a liberal, known to favor homosexual marriage within the church. He would not tolerate religious deviance, though and argued that the movie was sacrilegious, especially the song at the end. Neither individual seems to listen to anything the Pythons say. Stockwood ended the debate by saying that the Pythons “would get their 20 pieces of silver, that’s for sure”.

Abraham Hecht before the man he claimed was the messiah-king; He called “Life of Brian” a grave danger, and called for Israeli assassinations.

Despite being banned in many countries and by all major religions, the movie was financial success, in part because of the controversy. Its enemies too, in part for their controversy. The Festival of Lights gained notoriety for the protests of sex and violence in the movies. The Catholic Church banned more movies: Shaft, Rambo, Friday the 13th, and all the Borat movies. Rabbi Hecht protested the Israeli rabbinate for making conversion too easy, then pushed the idea that gentiles have to live by a Lubovich interpretation of “The Laws of Noach.” And finally, in June 1995, Hecht pressed for the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres: “Such people should be killed before they can perform the deed.” [the Oslo accords]. Rabin was assassinated five months later — after the accords were signed. Hecht was presented with a 6 month leave from his pulpit. There were no general condemnations of the banners within their sects, though. All seem to agree that religion is about loving your neighbor, and banning or assassinating those who are not loving enough.

The most contentious part of the movie is the song at the end. It has become popular at funerals and with the terminally ill: “Always look on the bright side of life.” It’s comforting without being preachy: “When you’re chewing on life’s gristle, don’t grumble, give a whistle, and this will help things turn out for the best. And always look on the bright side of life….” Bishop Stockton found this song the most offensive part, and my sense of why is that, as a bishop, he feels he must be seen to stand between you and God. No one like that wants a terminally ill person to look at him and “give a whistle.”

Robert Buxbaum, September 2, 2022. I’ve previous written about the use of miracles in religion, and that total loyalty does not serve the follower, and doesn’t even help the leader.

Induction

Leave a reply

Most of science is induction. Scientists measure correlation, for example that fat people don’t run as much as thin people. They then use logic to differentiate cause from effect that is do they not run because they are fat, or are they fat because they don’t run, or is everything base on some third factor, like genetics. At every step this is all inductive logic, but that’s how science is done.

The lack of certainty shows up especially commonly in health work. Many of our cancer cures are found to not work when studied under slightly different conditions. Similarly with weight los, or heart health. I’d mentioned previously that CPAPs reduce heart fibrillation, and heart filtration is correlated with shortened life, but then we find that CPAP use does not lengthen life, but seems to shorten it. (see a reason here). That’s the problem with induction; correlation isn’t typically predictive in a useful way.

Despite these problems, this is how science works. You look for patterns, use induction, find an explanation, and try to check your results. I have an essay on the scientific methods, with quotes from Sherlock Holmes. His mysteries are a wonderful guide, and his inductive leaps are almost always true. Meanwhile, the inductive leaps of Watson and Lastrade are almost always false.

Robert Buxbaum, May 9, 2022