Category Archives: Philosophy

James K. Polk, a great president who did what he said and made America great

Leave a reply

One of my favorite presidents is James K. Polk. While running for president he claimed we would do four major things –and do them as a one-term president. He then did them, and left office — and died 103 days later at the age of 53. Mr Polk’s four stated objectives were: a reduction in the tariff, an independent treasury, settlement of the Oregon boundary dispute, and acquisition of California. Acquisition of California required admission of Texas, plus a war with Mexico and a cash payment, but he was ready. Settling the Oregon border required a compromise and a cash payment. But he did it and more. Modern professors are not happy with Polk, ranking him far below Obama, Kennedy, or Adams, but his aims were good, and he got hem done. Few presidents do that, and even fewer left office if they had the power to stay. No professor I know has ever willingly left if he had the power to stay, and didn’t have a better job to go to.

News from Mexico, oil on canvas painting by Richard Caton Woodville Sr., Düsseldorf, 1848. Polk was a god-send for newspaper sales.

I believe that the clarity of Polk’s four objectives was the reason he was a candidate at all, and the reason he won the election, and also the reason he achieved the objectives. There is a magic in clear objectives, repeated often, I find. It’s a formula that got Trump elected that few seem to understand: “Make America Great Again.” “Build the Wall”, “Drill baby Drill” “Deport illegals” “Tariffs. ” Like these ideas or not, you know Trump’s aims. Also, you know that, if. you oppose them, you oppose him. Trump’s pastor, Norman Vincent Peale promoted this approach, one I’ve thought of trying myself. I suspect that Polk died so shortly after leaving office because he had no further goal beyond relaxing; bad water hurt him too.. I suspect that Trump will die shortly after leaving office too- from lack of purpose.

Polk wasn’t expected to be a candidate, but was a “dark horse”, ex-governor of Tennessee, who had lost his past two elections. Martin Van Burin was expected to be the Democrats’ candidate, but he opposed slavery, and most Democrats were for it. What’s more, he was opposing annexation of Texas, at least south of the Nueces River, and many Democrats were for, as were some Whigs.

Joseph Smith was shot multiple times while campaigning for president.

Polk was pro-slavery, as was the Whig candidate, Henry Clay. But Polk said repeatedly that he would annex Texas — all the way to the Rio Grande, “no matter what any Mexican said.” He also said he’d fight for California and all of Oregon too: “Fifty four forty or fight”. You might not agree with this, Grant did not, but you knew where he stood. And Polk said he’d serve only one term. Thus, if you didn’t like him, he’d be gone in four years. After a few ballots, Polk became the Democratic Party candidate, with George Dallas as his VP. Like Polk, Dallas was pro Texas – they eventually named a city after him. Clay was Polk’s main opposition, anti Texas, and more vague about everything else.

At first John Tyler, the incumbent, also ran against Polk, but when he saw he was losing, he dropped out to help Polk. Also running for president, 1844 was Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder-profit. he ran as an independent because God told him to. He was shot multiple times, and died while campaigning. Finally there was James G. Birney, the Liberty party candidate. He gained few votes running on an abolitionist ticket. It’s been speculated that Polk won because Birney split the Whig vote. My take is that’s unlikely: Clay was pro-slavery. Polk’s win, I think, was in the power of his clarity.

Map of the territory and war.

Once elected, Polk first moved to annex Texas, something he achieved with the help of expresident John Tyler. Tyler sent his Secretary of State, Abel Upsher to negotiat an annexation treaty with Sam Houston, but the Whig-controlled congress rejected it. After the election, Tyler resubmitted the treaty to the new, Democrat-controlled congress, and got two versions passed. The house passed a pro-slavery version, while the senate, pushed by Thomas Hart Benton (a favorite of mine) produced an annexation treaty that divided Texas in half, with a pro-slave and an anti-slave half. Polk liked the pro-slave, House version, returning it to Texas in his first week in office. He instructed the Texas legislature to accept it unconditionally, with no change so he could submit it directly to the Senate. The Texans did so, and congress approved this version later that year. Texas entered the union as one, large, slaveholder state.

With annexation not yet ratified by congress, Polk sent a diplomatic mission to buy California from Mexico along with all of the disputed Texas territory and everything in between for $25 million. Mexico refused, so Polk invited war. He sent 4000 soldiers into disputed Texas territory south of the Nueces River, under command of General Zachary Taylor. Mexican forces attacked them in April 1846, and Polk declared war. The war lasted to 1848, winning all the desired lands including California, and achieving a release of any rights Mexico might have on Oregon.

Polk, as governor of Tennessee

The next Polk goal was resolution of the Oregon dispute, ideally with us getting all of it: land that included the current states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, plus the Canadian Provence of British Columbia. Britain and Russia also claimed this land, so Polk’s first step was to buy off Russia. The British said they’d fight, noting that they had a larger army and navy and that the US was already at war with Mexico. Polk’s response was to back settlers going to Oregon. Americans had started migrating to Oregon in 1843. In his inaugural address, 1845, Polk said he would defend them “against the British and Indians.” By 1846 Britain recognized the difficulty of fighting US settlers so far from home. On June 15, they agreed to a deal that split the territory along the 49th parallel, giving the US the lower half, except for Vancouver Island, thus allowing Britain an opening to the sea. This deal had been proposed by Edward Everett, Tyler’s minister in London. Polk gave up nothing, beyond an informal agreement to lower tariffs on British goods, something he aimed to do anyway. It’s generally thought that Polk’s willingness for war allowed him to achieve so much without fighting. Polk said, in his inaugural, March 1845: “The world has nothing to fear from military ambition in our government,” a statement that clearly means the opposite of what it claims to say.

Polk’s third goal was lowering the “Black Tariffs”. High and uneven, they were 32% on average, with cut-outs to help specific, northern businesses. Polk’s secretary of the treasury, Robert Walker negotiated a flat advalorum tariff of 25%, with luxury goods, tobacco and alcohol tariffed higher. The “Walker tariff” bill was passed July, 1846, one month after the Oregon agreement. The British, reduced their “corn tariffs” against US grain, benefitting both countries. Our tariffs average 17%, currently, with many cut-outs. I think our tariffs should be more like the Walker tariff, perhaps 20% and simpler.

Polk’s 4th campaign promise was establishing an independent treasury. This was done to weaken “pet” banks, and stabilize the economy. The treasury would now hold all US assets; they would issue most currency, and would pay people directly, either in specie (gold or silver) or notes of debt. Independent banks could still issue notes, but only in amounts over $20. Polk passed this bill August 6, 1846, one week after the Walker Tariff bill. With this, Polk had already achieved all of his goals except California by the mid-term elections, 1846.

Having achieved so much, Polk set out to buy Cuba, but Spain said no. Some other accomplishments: opening the U.S. Naval Academy and the Smithsonian Institution, overseeing the groundbreaking for the Washington Monument, and the issuance of the first United States postage stamp. By the summer of 1848 Polk confirmed that he was satisfied and would not run for re-election. In his address to congress, December 1848, he said, “Peace, plenty, and contentment reign throughout our borders, and our beloved country presents a sublime moral spectacle to the world.” …. “I am heartily rejoiced that my term is so near its close. I will soon cease to be a servant and will become a sovereign.” I trust that was met with applause.

Robert Buxbaum. February 6, 2026. Edward Everett would go on to make the better received speech at Gettysburg. The officer who commanded the 4000 man Texas force, Zachary Taylor, became president in 1849. Like Polk, he died of bad water with too little alcohol added.

What causes innovation? is it worth it?

Leave a reply

Innovation is the special sauce that propels growth and allows a country to lead and prosper. The current Nobel prize believe that innovation powered the Industrial Revolution, causing England to become rich and powerful, while other nations remained poor, weak, and stagnant. Similarly, Innovation, they believe is why 19th century Japan rose to defeat China, and propelled China’s 21st century rise. But why did they succeed when others did not. What could the leader of a country do to bring power and wealth through innovation. Improved education seems to help; all of the innovation countries have it, but it is not the whole. Some educated countries (Germany, Russia) stagnate. An open economy is nice, but it isn’t sufficient or that necessary: (look at China). That was the topic of this year’s, 2025 Nobel prize in economics to Mokyr, Howitt, and Aghion, with half going to Joel Mokyr for his insights, historical and forward looking, the other half going for economic modeling. I give below my understanding of their insights, more technical than most, but not so mathematical as to be obtuse the normal reader..

The winners hold that innovation, as during the industrial revolution, is a non-continuous contribultion caused by a particular combination of education and market opportunity, of theoretical knowledge, and practical, and that a key aspect is depreciation (destruction) of other suppliers. Let’s start by creating a simple, continuous function model for economic growth where growth = capital growth, that is dK/dt. K, Capital, is understood to be the sum of money, equipment, and labor knowledge, and t is time with dK/dt, the change in K with time modeled as equal to the savings rate, s, times economic activity, Y minus a depreciation factor, δ, times capital, K.

growth = dK/dt = sY − δ K.

Innovation, in the Howett model, is discontinuous and accumulative. It builds on itself.

For the authors, Y = GDP + x, where x is the cost of outside goods used. They then claim that Y is a non-linear function of K, where K is now considered a product of capital goods and labor K = xL and,

dY/dK = AKα + γ where 0< α <1, and where γ is the contribution of innovation and/or depreciation. The power function, as I understand it, is a mathematical way of saying there are economies of scale. The authors assume a set of interacting enterprises (countries0 so that the innovation factor, γ for one country is the depreciation factor for the other. That is, growth and destruction are connected, with growth being a function of monopoly power — control of your innovation.

According to the Nobel winners, γ is built n previous γ as shown in the digram at right. It can not be predicted as such, but requires education and monopolistic power. The inventor-manufacturer of the typewriter has a monopolistic advantage over the makers of fountain pens. Innovation thus causes depreciation, δ K as one new innovation depreciates many old processes and products. If you add enough math, you can derive formulas for GDP and GDP growth, all based on factors like A and α, that are hard to measure.

GDP = α(2α/1−α) (1-α2)A L,

Thus, GDP is proportional to Labor, L and per-capita GDP is mostly an independent function related to economies of scale and the ability to use capital and labor which is related to general country-wide culture.

The above analysis, as I understand it, is in contrast to Kensyan models, where growth is unrelated to innovation, and where destruction is bad. In these Kenysean models, growth can be created by government spending, especial spending to maintain large industries with economies of scale and by spending to promote higher education. The culture preferred here, as I understand is one that rewards risk-taking, monopoly economics, and creative destruction. Howitt, and Aghion, importantly codify all this with formulas, as presented above that (to me) provide little specific. No great guidance to the head of a country. Nor does the math make the models more true, but it makes the statements somewhat clearer. Or perhaps the only real value of the math is to make things sound more scientific see the Tom Lehrer song, Sociology.

This insight from movie script by Grham Green suggests to me that progress may not be the greatest of advantages, perhaps not even worth it.

This work seems more realistic, to me, than the Keynesian models Both models are mathematically consistent, but if Keynes’s were true, Britain might still be on top, and Zambia would be a close competitor among the richest countries on earth. Besides these new fellows seem to agree with the views of Peter Cooper, my hero. See more here.

Writing all this reminds me that the fundamental assumption that progress is good, in not necessarily true. I quote above a line that Orson Wells, as Harry Lime, ad-libbed for the movie, “The Third Man.” Lime points out that innovation goes with suffering, and claims that Switzerland had little innovation because of its stability. Perhaps then, what you really want is the stability and peace of Switzerland, along with the lack of domination and innovation. On the same note, I’ve noticed that engineering innovators often ruin themselves dining in ruin, while the peaceable, stable civil engineers live long pleasant lives of honor.

Robert Buxbaum, November 16, 2025. A note about Switzerland is that was peaceful and stable because of a strong military. As Publius Vegetius wrote, Si vis pachim para bellum (if you wish of peace, prepare for war).

What car did Jesus drive, or God, or Moses..

Leave a reply

So, as is little known, Jesus drove a car, a large Honda, but didn’t publicize the fact: “I did not speak of my own accord.” (John 12:49) You can tell it was a large Honda, likely a wagon, as it says “the apostles were in one accord” (Acts 1:14). It is appropriate that He drive a modest car. I would have expected him to drive an F150, as he was a carpenter, single, 30 years old. That’s the perfect demographic for an F150.

David also drove a small vehicle, “In a Triumph, I will divide Shechem, and measure out the valley of Succoth.” Similarly, Isiah, (13:3), but he was proud of it:  “I have called my warriors who exult in my Triumph.”

As for God, it’s clear he drove muscle cars, “He terrifies them in his Fury. (Ps. 2:5) “Behold, I will gather them out of all countries where I have driven them .. in My fury… ” (Jeremiah 32:37). He also had a Tempest: “You snatch me up and make me ride in the Tempest.” (Job 20:32), “Pursue your enemies with your Tempest.” (Ps. 83:15).

Moses, like God drove a large vehicle, a Ram with a loud horn, “… when the Ram’s horn sounds a long blast, they can approach the mountain. (Ex 19:13). Even so, he gave a Mazda to Eliezer, “Moses gave the Tribute to Eleazar the Priest. (Numbers 31:41).

My claim is that the people of the Bible had good senses of humor, even if those today seem rather glum.

Robert Buxbaum, November 5, 2025.

Thomas Kuhn, and why half of America loves/ hates Trump

Leave a reply

This post was inspired by articles like the one below asking how it was that some Americans, MAGAs think Trump is good when everyone of value sees him as a fat, bigoted, criminal clown. The Atlantic’s answer is they’re detached from classic ideals of good or moral, and are now fueled by “narcissism, fanaticism, and authoritarianism”. I thought a more helpful explanation was that we’re going through a paradigm shift, perhaps progressing in our thought of what it means to be good.

Consider Thomas Kuhn’s analysis of scientific progress. Tomas Kuhn was a major American Philosopher of the 1960s-70s who claimed that science progress was not uniform but included long periods of “normal science” punctuated by change. A “crisis” leading a “Revolution” resulting in big changes in language, outlook and thinking, a “paradigm shift”. In the midst of these scientific revolutions, the experts of the old system fight bitterly against the new while being confounded by the fact that it seems to work.

Consider the resistance to relativity and quantum mechanics. Before 1905 the experts were doing fine: Professors taught and students learned — formulas, tools and techniques were handed over. Educated had respect and money, and could communicate. There were some few contradictions, as in why the sun burned hot, or why the sky was blue, but one could ignore these. You knew who the experts were, and they didn’t include Einstein, Bohr, Pauli, Plank.

Democrats sell red hats and buttons with Fascist or Felon because Trump’s red MAGA (Make America Great Again) hats work for him.

But then came a few more problems, (inconsistencies in Kuhn-speak: radioactivity, photoelectrons, the speed of light… Einstein published on them in 1905, thoughts that few took seriously: imaginary time was a fourth dimension at right angles to the others, etc. The explantations seemed mad and for 14 years after he published, Einstein could not get a university job — anywhere. By 1919 detailed experiments suggested he might be right on a lot of things. It lead to the rise of a new group of experts plus a loss of esteem for the old, and a bunch of crank explainers who were neither but flourished in the confusion.

Hate abounded; new weapons and cures WWI removed aristocrats and beards. A popular book a lecture series of the time was “100 scientists against Einstein.” There followed a lost generation with no clear foundation. It took 50 years to resolve confusion, but there developed new thought leaders, a new language, new standard formulas and books were sold, and we were returned slowly to “normal science” in a new thought paradigm.

I see the conflict of opinion surrounding Mr Trump as a crisis in political thought similar to the crisis in science thought 100 years ago. Polite discourse if gone, replaced by stunts and insults. The government is currently shut, with 40% federal workers, those whose jobs are non-critical, on unpaid leave. It’s a collapse, not of morals, but of language. Trump hopes to use the shutdown, I think, to show that most of these 40%, are not needed. If they are not needed, it reflects a big lack in government — actually a big bloat in government. You can see why the opponents of cuts see Trump as a fascist who uses “dog whistles” to motivate “his base”, there is a lack of communication and a fear Trump may be right too, I think. The experiment in smaller government is being run as I write, and Trump seems confident that some 400,000 federal workers are not needed. Are they? Instead of debating, we’ve got to violence: two attempts on Trump’s life so far, the main college debater, Charlie Kirk, shot dead. Appropriate, I think, is Bob Dylan’s, “Times are a-changing” and “something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr Jones.”

Other questions are being worked out as we speak -sending chills through the old order: Are China and Europe “ripping us off,” by free trade and stolen technology? Are tariffs an answer. Canadian and European leaders deride these thoughts openly, but I notice that both Canada and the EU have put heavy tariffs on Chinese goods.

Another issue is respect for experts. The Atlantic bemoaned that Trump supporters don’t respect experts on health, climate, and education, but perhaps they are lying. The seas have not risen as expected. Some warming may be good, or better than the remedies. Even if RFK Jr.’s ideas are wrong it seems that science has become unreliable (irreproducible), and that elite colleges aren’t fair in their assessment, nor do they provide great value.

Eventually things will settle down; we will some day have polite discourse. In 40-50 years, I suspect we’ll agree that some tariffs are good and that Trump’s tariffs are either to high or low, We’ll think that the climate push to no nuclear power, was a mistake, as was the giant, Ivanpah solar farm). And we’ll be able to discuss it civilly. I hope the change in thought takes less than 50 years.

Robert Buxbaum, October 3, 2025 – we are now entering another physics crisis too, I think.

Gerrymandering, old-politics, fairer versions could be worse than less fair

Leave a reply

There is no truly good way to give representative voices to a population. The founders of the country decided that there would be a set number of congresional representatives, divided it by states, and left it to the individual states to subdivide, with a few provisos. They mandated that congressional districts have to be contiguous, entirely within a state, and contain approximately the same number of citizens in each. A later law specified that the districts should not directly disadvantage a racial minority. Within these parameters, legislators in most states have divided congressional districts to advantage those in power to a greater or lesser extent. The most egregious of these are Gerrymanders, odd shaped districts that protect sitting congressmen and parties, as bad as the worst of these are, they are better than some, truly awful, “fair” divisions, in my opinion.

This was Michigan’s district map (Detroit area) until redrawn by independent commission, 2022. My district was the dark blue one that looked like a man in a chair.

Consider my state: Michigan, a swing state that voted for both Biden, and Trump. Currently the state house is 52% R and 48% D, but Democrats were in majority as recently as 2024. Our congressional district map used to be a disaster, shown at left. In 2022 it was replaced by a map created by an independent committee that aimed for roughly square districts that aimed to keep towns and communities together. The result is that most districts are either safe D or safe R. This, we’re told, is bad in that it leads to factionalism, with congressmen pandering to political extremes, with little incentive to compromise.

A fairer alternative (?) would divide the congressional districts so that all or most district are swing, like the state. Supposedly such districts would elect moderates who compromise. This version, though no-less fair than the above, is not good, in my opinion. I expect it creates chaos and turnover. I’m also not convinced that compromise is always best.

Pennsylvania’s congressional map before redistricting by independent committee. Ugly, but fair in its way.

The variant of this that preceded our current is for congressmen and others in power to create districts that are fairly safe for themselves and their party, leaving those of the other party in a few, super-concentrated districts. This division is less fair, but far more stable and workable. It lead to ugly gerrymander districts in Michigan (left) and Pennsylvania (below). This is not bad in itself. What was bad about these gerrymanders is that the congress folk, secure in their jobs, formed a political aristocracy. Seats passed from generation to generation, and ruled fairly disconnected from the wishes of those they represented. A good part of the aristocracy is that they worked well with each other, across party lines. They were friends, alumni of the same schools, members of the same churches and country clubs. They were good-‘ol-boys, who didn’t pander nor embrace ideological extremes. Writers romanticize this, but I’ prefer our current’m glad it’s going in MI.

California and Texas politicians are pushing for more gerrymandering. California’s congressional districts were drawn by independent committee. Their governor called the Trump White House fascists as recently as today. There’s a vote to get five more D-districts. The claim is it’s to balance Texas’s push for three more R-districts. I nothing illegal or immoral here, just old style politics, power grabs left and right, with incendiary language. The districts look bad, but I’ve seen worse. No need to call ‘fascist’ unless your next step is to impeach president Trump again, or your hope is another shooting.

The worst option, in my opinion is term limits. It’s promoted from both sides, and I consider it insane, except for party bosses. It actively prevents people from re-electing the politicians they like based on the objection that these people have been on the job long enough to feel at home and get things done. I consider term limits completely non-republican, non-democratic, a disease, “fair” only in that it hurts every citizen equally, benefitting only party bosses.

Robert Buxbaum, September 27, 2025

Trump may have made peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia; Or it might be a horrible mistake.

1 Reply
Relief poster during Armenian genocide

The Turks and Armenians have been at war for centuries. Perhaps the major event in the war was in the years leading to WWI. The Turks invaded the Armenian region of their empire, killing about 1 million. More recently, Armenia invaded Turkish Azerbaijan, taking territory including the Negorno Karabakh region, while killing and exiling 50,000. Armenia had allied in its fight with Iran and Russia while Azerbaijan had allied with Turkey and Israel. Fighting had continuing until last week when Trump signed a peace deal that involved the US private industry (Trump) building a corridor, modestly named the Trump Road for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). No normal diplomat or investor would indulge in such a deal, and no normal person would commit to it. It seems certain to fail, but then again, it might bring peace to the region and money for Trump.

From the economist

The logic of the deal, and why it might work, is that the wars may have not been so much wars of religion, but wars of geography. The Armenian, Christian communities are dispersed within the Muslim Turkish and Azerbaijani communities. Without their help the Armenians can not communicate with each other nor sell or receive goods. Turkish and Azerbaijani communities are dispersed within Armenia and Iran. Azerbaijan is divided in half, while Negorno Karabakh is entirely within Azerbaijan. The proposed Trump Road would allow transit and trade. Trump and colleagues would to build and defend this road, allowing trade, in particular allowing the flow of oil and gas from eastern Azerbaijan to western, and perhaps even to Turkey, implied is also free trade with Negorno Karabakh. It seems good, and the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan have signed their agreement. As presented, the road would be Armenian territory, but would allow free transit, though not likely of weapons from Iran.

Official photo of the signing; Donald Trump (C), Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev (L), and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan (R), August 8, 2025.

Could it work? Trump is a magician, and sometimes he does what seems impossible. Still there is a lot that could go wrong. Even if this conflict isn’t religious, there are long simmering hatreds, and deep distrust. This is, at best couples therapy, and the one who typically loses is the peace maker. The Armenian Daily Journal has already complained that Armenia gets too little economic benefit, “just crumbs.” There is no way to please both sides, 100%.

There is also a trouble maker, Iran. Iran is in the middle of a 1000 year long religious war for control of the region. Iran sells oil and gas to Turkey and Syria, while funding revolutionaries, Hezboalh. They are not willing to see their trade displaced by Azerbaijan and the US. Iran’s leaders have threatened war to maintain their control. Iran was more threatening two months previously, but Trump punctured Iran’s nuclear program, and joined with Turkey and Israel in the removal of Hezbollah from Syria. Iran still has one card more, but it’s weaker than it was. As a member of BRICS, they have called on their BRICS allies, China, India, and Russia to help them keep the US out. So far, nothing. In a region like this, no normal person would get involved, but Trump is no normal person, and peace is good, if only for a few years (or weeks).

Robert Buxbaum August 23, 2025; A week prior to this peace agreement, Trump seems to have forced a peace between Cambodia and Thailand by refusing to negotiate trade with either until they make peace. Here’s the BBC’s take.

Liberals are unhappy, every demographic less happy than conservatives.

2 Replies

Liberals are less happy than conservatives, a finding that has been found consistently in every study since the first in 1972. It persists for Americans whether Democrats or Republicans are in control in Washington, and holds true for both sexes, and all sexualities, all ages, all races and incomes, all education levels. An example is the 2022 Cooperative Election Study from Tufts University. According to the survey, organized by Nate Silver for his silver bulletin, here, liberals of every demographic are significant less happy than conservatives in that demographic, with an average difference of 15 points on a 0 to 100 scale.

Graphic from Nate Silver’s “Silver bulletin,” based on data from the 2022 cooperative election survey.

I note that 2020-2022 was the height of the Biden administration, with Democrats in control of the entire government.

Some of this can be explained perhaps by self-selection: A liberal may considered a person who don’t like the current situation, and wants it changed, while a conservative, in some sense is someone happy with the status quo. Of course this isn’t the full story, since conservatives too generally want to see change — smaller government, less regulation and taxes, and the like. The real gap in happiness, then seems to come from a difference in perception of how important the change is, or how bad things are now. Liberals, on TV at least, claim that America is awful, among the worst countries ever: racist, sexist, colonialist, violent, stupid, fascist. They blame the US for warm temperatures and suffering Iranian women, finding half of their fellow Americans – those who don’t agree– “a basket of deplorables,” to quote Hillary Clinton, where half of these conservatives needed re-education, in her view, and the other half were beyond re-education. Conservatives are just not as unhappy. They still think that they can “Make America Great Again”, perhaps by capturing something of the good old days (1945, say).

Devyn Brandt (They/Them) orientation advisor for Washington University. My guess is liberal, and not very happy.

The happiness gap has increased with time and extends into mental health. In the 2022 Cooperative Election Study  found that, 16% of all Americans who voted for Joe Biden had depression in 2020. Going further, 45% of self-described liberals said their mental health was poor. By contrast 51% of conservatives said their mental health was excellent, and only 19% said it was poor. This might be self-delusion, still it is consistent year to year. A year later this 2023 depression study from Columbia University found only 20% of liberals who believed they had excellent mental health while 51% of conservatives believed their mental health was excellent. Presenting this another way, among voters who said their mental health was poor, 45% identified as liberal, and 19% as conservative. The remaining 36% were either independent, or decided not to answer the question.

Going back to an older Pew study 2008, 47% of Republicans said they were “very happy” compared to 28% of liberal Democrats. All of the advances since then, have not made liberals less unhappy, if this 2019 study is to be trusted, they keep looking for meaning in their lives, and things to be unhappy about.

Some things make liberals happy, though, and one of them is money. The highest income liberals (>$100k per household) are happier than poorer liberals, but only as happy as the lowest income conservatives (<$30k/ household), 60% in both cases. Education helps too, but not as much, and religion. Political activism only makes things worse, both for liberals and conservatives. My advice for the summer: try ice cream. It always works for me. And this song from the musical Iolanthe, where the guard outside the parliament confides that political stance is inborn, with particular opinions handed down by others, including a band of mischievous fairies.

Robert Buxbaum, June 24, 2025

All things change, nothing passes away, joke cartoon

Leave a reply

I’ve been blogging now for 13 years on all sorts of things; there were jokes, essays, politics, science, hydrogen.. I find that many of them are still relevant, though I would change most of them if they were to be written today. My first post was against the very high Detroit, MI minimum wage that was supposed to help black folks, but that I claimed ruined their city and their lives, and basically guaranteed corruption. I’d get back to this topic every now and again, but he problem has moved to LA and Puerto Rico. The last few Detroit mayors have eschewed this scam, to the benefit of the city.

Another topic I write about is engineering, like why the sky was blue, and why nuclear power makes lots of sense — and about hydrogen thermodynamics, or diffusion, or purification, or hydrogen cars being better than battery EVs.

MY opinion on hydrogen is still very high, though my opinion of hydrogen cars has soured in the past few years. There is infrastructure, and the cars themselves have improved, especially the batteries. There is now a good argument to be made that EVs make sense, especially for those who own their own home and who travel more than 500 miles per week. Meanwhile the customer base for hydrogen cars is only as a range extender.

Arctic Ice last month. It’s shrunk slightly, but still there — and I think the shrinking is a benefit.

I wrote disparagingly about global warming, arguing that Al Gore’s, Nobel prize winning claims were vastly exaggerated.. The arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2015 according to 98% of experts agreed (it’s things like that the ding the credibility of experts). I’d also argued that warmer was better. I’m reminded of a quote from Ovid, a Roman author: “Omnia mutantur, nihil interit”. Everything changes, but nothing passes away. It’s not that I read Ovid regularly, but the quote had appeared, in a modified form, in the British comedy, “Yes Prime Minister.”

I’d posted that it was unlikely that the Ukraine war would be fast, and it has not been, but neither was it as destructive as I feared. I did not sink the German economy, as I thought.

There is a new Pope now with words of hope — delivered, in English at White Sox stadium. This t seems like a big improvement. We have another war with Islam; different but the same, and continued issues with China. And I’m learning Latin via Duolingo. (Cum Duolingo, studeo linguae latinae.)

Robert Buxbaum, June 19, 2025. My company’s main website has changed too, it’s switched to WordPress format, check out the new look.

Sayings of Zen Judaism

1 Reply

All of the following bits of Zen-like wisdom are derived from David M. Bader’s book, “Zen Judaism”. Some of these (in italics) have been modified by me. I’ve posted several other examples of zen-wisdom/ humor, e.g this. Most every piece of real wisdom appears as a joke, IMHO.

I bought a copy, then modified some as I saw fit. He’s holding a bagel.

If you meet the Buddha on the road, show him pictures of the grandchildren.

One may take a vow of fasting, or of celibacy, a vow of silence or to avoid sleep is out of the question.

Wherever you go, there you are.  Your luggage is another story.

Be here now, be someplace else later; is that so complicated?

Accept misfortune.  Do not wish for perfect health, or a life without problems. What would you talk about?

Drink tea and nourish life; with the first sip, joy; with the second sip, satisfaction; with the third sip, Danish.

Self abnegation is not easy. It takes much effort, and then what have you got? Bupkis.

The words, “there is no self,” can be terrifying. Still they’re not as bad as, “may you grow like an onion with your head in the ground.”

Bring the Buddha to your table, and on Passover, the prophet Elijah. That’s about as many invisible guests as anyone needs.

If there is no self, whose arthritis is this?

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single Oy.

The world does not speak. It does not blame or take sides. The world has no expectations, and it demands nothing of others. The world is not Jewish.

Be patient and achieve all things. Be impatient and achieve all things faster.

Be aware of your body. Be aware of your perceptions.  Keep in mind that not every physical sensation is a symptom of a terminal illness.

To find the Buddha, look within. Deep inside you are ten thousand flowers. Each flower blossoms ten thousand times. Each blossom has ten thousand petals.
You might want to see a specialist.

Seek not the outer enticements. Dwell not in the inner strife. Try to find a nice place in the suburbs with good schools.

Practice a livelihood that does not harm yourself or others, choose an occupation furthering love and compassion. Ask about the health plan, too. No freelancing.

Let go of pride, ego, and opinions. Admit your error and forgive those of others. Relinquishment will lead to calm and healing in your relationships. If that doesn’t work, try small claims court.

For the wary Pilgrim, a Zen poem: thousands reach the gateless gate from many paths; once through, they dwell serenely between heaven and earth; enjoying golf, line dancing, Yiddish lessons, and aquacise. Come see our model units at Century Village.

Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Do this and achieve peace. Forget this and attaining Enlightenment will be the least of your problems.

Go then and wander for the good of the many, for the welfare of the many, out of compassion for the world. Teach what is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end. Don’t forget to write, and always wear clean underwear. You never know when you could end up in the emergency room.

Robert Buxbaum, March 24, 2025. Other books by David Bader include “Haikus for jews”, “The book of Murray”, and “How to be an extremely Reform Jew”. Bader claims to have achieved complete and perfect emptiness, although two hours later he often feels full again.

Making semi-traditional STAM ink using walnuts.

Leave a reply

Jewish tradition requires certain holy items that have to be written on parchment with kosher, opaque, black ink. These items are abbreviated, STAM, books of the Torah (Sifre Torah, in Hebrew), Philactaries (Tefillin in Hebrew), and Mezzuzos for the doorpost. To be kosher the ink must be made from kosher sources: plant matter, soot, water, and/or inorganic chemicals. That leaves a lot of options, and it is likely that black Sharpie would be kosher, at least after the fact. Ideally, the ink should wash off in water too, based on Numbers 5:23 (Also, Rambam, Hilchos Tefilin 1:4, and Shulchan Aruch, YD 271:6).

There are ancient recipes, and I decided to semi-follow one, using walnuts instead of the classic gall nut and copper vitriol instead of iron. The aim was an ink that’s dark, long lasting, compatible with animal-skin parchment, and dissolvable. Some vegetable inks rot or fade, and most iron-based inks become permanent, like paint, they do not re-dissolve in water. If you don’t want to go through all this, you can buy kosher iron ink, e.g. here, knowing that this ink isn’t ideal, but it’s the type most people use for the practical reason that it looks nicer and permanent is a comfort.

The classical recipes for STAM ink is based on using the shell of gall nuts, a tree-growth (not really a nut) found in the Mid-east. As an experiment, I’ve tried to make a respectable, kosher ink with walnuts instead. Walnut trees grow readily in the midwest. I collected a dozen walnuts with their husks from a tree near my home. The outer husk had been green originally, but had turned black by the time I picked them (mid November). Rather than extract the inner shell, I used the walnuts as I found them, and tried boiling them in denatured alcohol, and also in water. Boiling in alcohol didn’t work well, producing the weak ink shown below, left. Boiling in water (below right) produced a much darker liquid. I used this as the basis of my ink.

Boiling walnuts in water produced a dark liquid, walnut water.
I boiled walnuts in alcohol. The water-ink runs and isn’t dark.

The traditional recipe begins by boiling gall nuts in water to produce a brownish ink-wash that looks hardly darker than my alcohol-wash ink. You then add soot and “green vitriol”. Perhaps that is copper sulphate, or perhaps iron sulphate. Copper sulphate is a dark blue, while iron sulphate is a light green. With gall nut water, it turns out that iron vitriol works ‘better’, reacting with tannin in the gallnut water to make a nice, black color that becomes a permanent ink. When tried the two types of vitriol with my walnut water, I saw no color advantage to iron over copper, and no real color change.

I put the walnuts in a beaker as shown, nearly covering them with water, and put a piece of foil on top. The longer I simmered the darker it got. In the end, I left the mix on a hotplate, on low for nearly a day as shown above. The ink-wash, by itself is a reasonably good ink, as shown below left.

The traditional recipe that I’ worked off o’m modifying includes three more ingredients, so I experimented with them. These were vitriol, soot, and gum Arabic, in proportions shown below, in the form of a poem in Arabic written about 900AD. The first of these additions I tested was vitriol. I first tried copper sulphate, half as much as walnut water, and found that it darkens the color a little and makes the combination a bit thicker thought the ink is still watery. Copper sulphate is an antimicrobial too, so even without changing the color much, I imagined this was a worthwhile addition. I also tried making the walnut ink with iron sulphate. This makes the ink slightly darker too, perhaps, but not thicker. I have less confidence about iron’s antimicrobial properties, and there were concerns that it could harm a parchment over time. I also worried that it would make the ink permanent.

Ink made from walnut water, copper sulphate, and soot. Perhaps better?

The next ingredient was soot. It’s used to make the ink darker, and perhaps thicker. Traditional soot is made from burning olive oil. One collects the soot by placing a plate over the smoky oil fire. I tried a bit of this, but it was slow, and I had some chemically produced soot in my lab, bought from MER corp, leftovers from making buckminsterfullerene. I added as much soot as vitriol as in the poem below, and as expected found it increased the blackness of the ink. It also changed the texture, making the ink gritty and harder to write with. I had trouble dissolving the soot into the ink too, and apparently I’m not the first to have this trouble. Some suggested heating, and some suggested honey. I tried both, and heating helped more than honey. I also tried using a drop of dish soap. The result, above left, was blacker than the original, but the writing is not professional grade, IMHO. The ink does not write well, and it still doesn’t cover 100%. I moved on to the next ingredient, gum Arabica.

The recipe for ink, musclé, via a poem by Mukla Farsi, 900AD from blog of the Bodlieian Libraries at Oxford.

The mixing ratios in this poem are not exactly clear. The amount of soot is the same as of vitriol, and half that of gall, but is this the weight of the gall nuts, or volume, or the weight of the dried extract. I used volume of walnut water and volume of soot, and have the sense that this is too much soot. Also soot is messy and hard to dissolve; use gloves and a lab jacket. the soot does not come out easily.

My final ingredient is gum Arabic, the gum of the acacia tree. This seems to be used as a thickener. Gum Arabic is available in the US, on Amazon as an edible “candy”, so I bought some. It wasn’t expensive, but took about 10 days to get here. In the meantime, I tried honey as a thickener. It appears in some ancient recipes, but didn’t really help here, and left the page sort of sticky. Gum arabic is solider, so I hoped for for lasting product. When the Gum Arabic came, I found that it was solid, crystalline, with has hardly any taste. Maybe Arabs add sugar? I figure there might be a mystical advantage to gum Arabic since it comes from the Acacia tree, the type of tree used to make the Ark of the Covenant. My expectation was that it might also make the ink darker, and that it might help dissolve the soot.

As it happens, gum Arabic doesn’t dissolve in cold water. But it did dissolve in hot water if I mixed it in and stirred for 5 minutes. The gum helped dissolve the soot too; gum Arabic seemed to do a better job than honey in this respect. Once the gum ink dried it was nice and solid, with the dried letters standing off the page a bit; they’re raised letters, and I really like that. The ink was still sort of grainy, perhaps from the walnut bits. I then tried dipping a written on parchment into some water and found the ink-letters dissolved easily. My understanding is that the ink I’d made was highly kosher for STAM, but as a follow-up experiment, I’m carrying some inked parchment in my breast pocket to see if it rots or fades. So far, no change. Some samples of writing are at left. The upper words are with the iron-vitriol version (iron sulphate), the lower with the copper vitriol (copper sulphate). You can sense why scribes might prefer the iron ink.

Robert Buxbaum, December 22, 2024. Scribes of 2000 years ago used wooden pens, it seems, as feather quills and fountain pens hadn’t been invented. I used a wood pen on some samples above, made by carving a popsicle stick. The better-looking letters, and longer passages, were written with a metal, calligraphy “quill.”