Tag Archives: Donald Trump

The logic to think that prenatal Tylenol causes autism and ADHD

Leave a reply

Robert Kennedy Jr. recently started the process to add a warning to the labels of acetaminophen products, including Tylenol, noting a correlation between its use during pregnancy and autism and ADHD in children. The advisability of this is controversial. Experts at Scientific American say “the evidence against Tylenol is thin,” The British Journal, Nature, goes further: “It’s Dangerous to Avoid Tylenol While Pregnant”. Similarly, Barak Obama: “Trump’s announcement is violence against the truth.” Nature’s logic, and Obama’s, is that any risk of Autism and ADHD is smaller than the risk to pregnant women if they do not take fever medication. Given the confusion and politicalization of the topic, I thought I’d write about the magnitude of the risk, and the logic to think Tylenol causes autism and ADHD.

The evidence that there is some, large risk agent is the tremendous rise in the prevalence of autism and ADHD over the last 50 years, see chart above. The rise t matches the rise in the use of Tylenol as opposed to older medications, like aspirin. Correcting for other changes (confounders), this Oxford study finds 95% certainty association of acetaminophen with ADHD; care being taken to remove confounders. Also of note is that, none of the studies suggesting was Tylenol is safe for pregnant women looked at neural development damage in children. None.

In terms of the magnitude of the Tylenol effect, this study from Johns Hopkins, compared fetal blood levels of acetaminophen enzymes (measured in the umbilical cord) to the risk of autism and ADHD. As shown below, there is roughly a three-times increase in risk for both in every sub-group of child: male and female, black and white, pre-term and full term, drug user or not, breast fed or not, fevered mother or not. Children with higher blood-acetaminophen levels (2nd, 3rd tercile) always have a higher chance of ADHD and ASD — about 3 times higher– than children in the lower tercile.

The higher cohorts of blood Tylenol is associated with higher risk of ASD and ADHD for every subgroup.

This European study found a similar association, but measured Tylenol use based on interviews. Between these studies, I find it reasonable to advise caution. This is the sort of evidence that caused us to put cancer warnings on cigarettes, caused us to caution against alcohol during pregnancy, and caused the mandate for seatbelts. This is usually what scientists use, it’s the best approach we have. I do not suggest dropping all fever medication, but suggest switching to older medications, like aspirin, or cool showers, or following the Harvard medical journal advice to take Tylenol in the minimum dose.

An upside to the political divide is that we’re likely to have better evidence in coming years. in Republican-leaning states, doctors have mostly favored the advisory. Meanwhile,in D-leaning states women are ignoring the advisory, some even filming themselves taking extra Tylenol, in distain for Trump. These two groups provide a controlled study, so that we should have have better data regarding Tylenol safety in 2-3 years.

Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, October 12, 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.

98% Certainty that Trump has reduced crime in DC

1 Reply

It’s been 24 days since Trump sent the national guard into DC, and the crime rate has dropped by a factor of six. The murder rate went from 101 murders per year in 2024, one murder every 3.6 days, to one murder in 24 days. I find that the odds of this being coincidence is less than 2%. Car theft and other crime has dropped as well. I consider murder rate the best metric for crime because no murders go unreported, and none get misclassified as altercations or misunderstandings.

Using the National Guard to maintain order is not that unusual. Eisenhower sent them to Arkansas in opposition to the governor to ensure desegregation. LBJ sent them to Chicago to protect the Democratic convention of 1968.

To figure the odds that this improvement is coincidence, consider that the odds of a murder on any one day is 101/365 = .277. Based on this, the odds of no murder on any of particular days is, 1-.277 = .723. On any given day in DC it’s more likely to have no murders than to have a murder, but the odds get much lower for going many days without a murder, or for 24 days with only one. The chance of of having 24 days without murder, for example beginning at some set-start, would be (.773)24 = .0021 = 0.21%. The odds of having only one murder in this time is calculated similarly, as 24(.277)(.773)23 = 1.8%. This is to say that there is a 98.2% chance that the drop in crime rate is not accidental.

The D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser had originally objected to the guard, but now is happy, or so Trump claims. If she removed them now on, she would have to argue that high crime rates are good. Other mayors may not want to be in this position.

A federal judge, Charles Breyer, just declared the use of the national guard illegal, by the way, a violation of the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 see the complete statement here. The Posse Comitatus act bars the use of federal troops for police activities, except federally related ones. Judge Breyer, decides that there is no federal justification and demands that the national guard leave within 10 days. Trump claims that various riots in DC and LA (and Chicago) constitute an insurrection, and adds that attacks on federal ICE agents and federal buildings makes it federal. Judge Breyer recognizes that many other presidents have used the guard for law and order, even in opposition to the governor. Eisenhower for example, or LBJ to protect the Democratic National Convention 1968, but sees no justification, here or (it seems) for Eisenhower or LBJ either. Judge Breyer seems to believe they all acted illegally. I don’t know enough law to judge, but recognize that allowing Trump to reduce the crime rate makes mayors and governors look bad. Detroit crime is awful, as is LAs, Chicago’s…

Robert E. Buxbaum September 4, 2025.

Trump’s temporary (permanent?) peace between Thailand and Cambodia

1 Reply

Four weeks ago, Trump managed to pause (perhaps end?) a century long war between Thailand and Cambodia that had flared up with F16s, rocket attacks, drones, invasion, and hundreds of dead. He did it by threatening to block trade with both countries if they didn’t sign a ceasefire. Within the day, they did. Perhaps, all they needed was a good excuse to stop fighting. The peace has lasted four weeks, though nasty words continue to flow. Some 70,000 Buddhist monks are very appreciative.

Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim (center) hosted the peace talks in Putrajaya as chairman of the Asian regional block, Official Photo.

Thailand and Cambodia have had had significant empires with overlapping land claims going back to the days of the kingdom of Siam and the collapse of the Khmer empire. A peace treaty was concluded between 1904 and 1908, but it involved ill- drawn, conflicting French maps. Several major Buddhist temples are in the disputed areas; they appear to be part of Siam in the earlier map, but part of Cambodia in latter documents. Siam complained weakly about the later documents, perhaps signaling accent, or signaling that they had the weaker army.

The problem festered this way until WWII when Siam allied with Japan and took back the territory it claimed, plus some more. After Japan lost the war, French Cambodia took back the territory, but Siam / Thailand re-armed and re-took in when the French left. It didn’t help Cambodia’s claims that it collapsed into a rein of terror under the Khmer Rouge. As things stand, the International Court of justice favors Cambodia’s claims. Then again Thailand now has the larger army, and has used it to occupy the disputed areas.

Buddhist thank Trump for peace request he gets the Nobel Prize. Photo from USA Today. Sometimes all it takes is a hard push.

A May-July, 2025 flareup in fighting resulted in about 200 dead and/or captured, mostly in the area of the historic temples, plus 135,000 displaced. The Malaysian PM, Anwar Ibrahim, tired to achieve peace, and on July 28, 2025 Donald Trump stepped in and calling both leaders in the midst of tariff negotiations and informed them that they would be banned from US trade if they didn’t stop fighting. With Malaysian help, they signed a ceasefire that day. The presidents thanked Trump; 70,000 Buddhists marched and asked that he get the Nobel Prize. It’s the power of tariffs, and of personality.

Will the peace last? It has for four weeks now, and seems to be holding. The press downplays the significance saying that Trump only got involved because he wants the Nobel Prize. Maybe, but people are not dying who would be. Peace is good and surprisingly hard. I would not mind seeing Trump get the prize, shared with Ibrahim. My guess is that it was motivated more by ego than real hopes of gain. They were in a position to push effectively, and did so. The push was a convent excuse for sanity. A month later, Trump brokered another peace deal, this time between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The press isn’t impressed with this either, nor with Trump’s efforts to end the war in Ukraine; they’re upset over his efforts to reduce the crime rate in DC.

Robert Buxbaum, August 28, 2025. Liberals have a happiness deficit. Here are some sayings of Zen Judaism, vaguely like Zen Buddhism.

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.

Deriving Trump’s tariff formula, and correcting it.

Leave a reply

We have a trade imbalance with many countries, it causes a loss of American jobs, and a transfer of currency abroad. This imbalance is not all negative, of course, it provides US consumers with cheaper consumer goods. Trump would like to eliminate the imbalance using tariffs. He hopes that this will create jobs, and that the money raised will help balance the US budget. He’s already moved to end income taxes on tips expecting to replace that tax with tariff income. Trump claims that the tariffs are not inflationary compared to current the tax system that he claims has been hacked by the elites. In past essays, I’ve discussed the pluses and minuses of tariffs here, and here. Now I’d now like to derive the formula Trump uses, see below. The proposed tariff for any country or region, i, he calls ∆τi.

In the equation at left, χi = our exports to country, i. Similarly, mi = our imports from that country. The difference between these two is our trade imbalance, something he’d like to set to zero. There are two other greek terms that I will discuss, ε and φ. These are the elasticity of elasticity of consumption to price, and the elasticity of price to tariffs. Trump uses an asterix here to indicate multiplication. I will use a, more normal, “dot” symbol, •, to the same purpose. For most countries, he takes the two elasticities to cancel to 2, and produces a chart.

Let’s say that the dollar amount we currently buy from some country, i, = mi  = ni • Pi, where ni is the number of items bought from this country, and Pi is the average price. The intended effect of tariffs is to reduce mi  by raising Pi, the price consumers pay for goods from that country. This increase is certainly inflationary in terms of the consumer: a consumer of French wine will pay more per bottle unless he/she switches to US wine. Typically this price rise is not inflationary in terms of the country as a whole, because the producer likely swallows some of the tariff, so for the country as a whole, we pay less per bottle of French wine. The customer does not see that, but it’s worth noting. Trump sees things this way.

Back to the formula, we need to figure out how much the price will go up and how much sales will change. Economists have elasticity numbers for both these relations, denoted φ and ε. We can say that, for any country, I, the rise in the price of the average product is ∆Pi = Pi•∆τi •φ. Where Pi is the original price, ∆τi is the tariff, and φ is the fraction of this tariff that gets passed on to the consumer. A typical value is φ= 1/2 though some claim less. Assuming φ= 1/2 , if we add a 20%=∆τi tariff, as on on French wine, the consumer price will rise by 10%, a change that will cause him/her to buy less.

How much less will the consumer buy? That’s determined by the elasticity of sales, ε. This is the fractional decrease in the number items bought per fractional rise in the price. In math terms, ∆ni /ni = -ε∆Pi/Pi where ε is the elasticity. Now, since ∆Pi = Pi•∆τi •φ, we find that:

∆ni = -ni•ε•∆τi •φ.

There is evidence to suggest that, for the average product, ε equals about 2, and also evidence that it’s 4. Trump prefers 4, and uses it for his calculations. I prefer 2, and will get nearly the same tariffs at the end. Whatever our preferred value for ε, our next step is to use the following approximation, accurate for small ∆(mi);

∆mi  = ∆(ni•Pi) = ∆ni•Pi, +  ni•∆Pi . 

Trump seems to ignore the second term. Perhaps because it can either be positive or negative, as I’d mentioned above, depending on whether you look at things in terms of the customer or of the US as a whole. I’ll keep it in, writing this term in lighter text. In the end I will calculate a fairly similar tariff to Trump:

∆mi = -ni•ε•∆τi •φ•Pi  + ni•Pi•∆τi •φ.

Rearranging the above, and recalling that ni•Pi• =mi, you can find the appropriate tariff to eliminate the trade imbalance.

∆τi =   -∆mi  /(ε • φ• mi  + φ•mi) .

To make the trade imbalance go away, you need -∆mi = χi-mi . Thus,

∆τi =   χi-mi   /(ε • φ • mi  + φ•mi)

This is the Trump formula with an extra term in light text. If you ignore that term and use the values Trump prefers, ε =4 and φ=1/2, you get the exact values of the tariffs he listed on the chart for most countries — those with positive trade imbalances.

∆τi =   χi-mi / 2 mi  

Now, I’d like to put back in the missing term, and use the (better) values, values I would trust, ε =2 and φ=1/2. Using those values, I find the tariff should be slightly higher.

∆τi =   χi-mi / 3/2 mi  .

I should note that some countries are creating to these trips by raising their own tariffs, and some are lowering theirs. This will cause a change in the imbalance of trade, and Trump will have to change the tariff schedule periodically to keep up.

Robert Buxbaum, April 10, 2025.

Why did the UK reject Trump’s trade deals?

Leave a reply

When the UK left the EU, they gained some economic freedom, but lost easy access to their largest trade partner. They avoided having to follow the weird green policies of the EU, and no longer had to take low cost workers from Poland, Bulgaria, Tec, but having lost easy access to European trade, the assumption was that they would want a trade deal soon, with someone, and the likely someone was the USA.

At first things went pretty well. there was the predicted crash didn’t come, showing that the top economists were talking out their hats, or trying to scare people to stay in the EU. And then Trump proposed the first of four attempts at a trade deal, and things got ugly. All four attempts were rejected in a most-forceful and insulting way.

When Trumps first forays at a trade deal were rejected, he attempt a visit in the summer of 2017. The British Parliament forbidding the visit, accepting it only by a slim majority with the PM, May making no strong case. The mayor of London protested with a blimp of Trump as a big baby, and the Queen was not sure she had time for tea (she had time for Obama). Trump cancelled the visit, and May made deals with Norway, Switzerland, Israel, Palestine, and Iceland. Why these but not the US?

Over the next two years Trump made trade deals with Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Korea, trying The UK again in July, 2019. This time, Theresa May was more welcoming — she was facing an election — but the blimp was brought out again, and allowed to follow Trump around England, along with a statue of Trump on the toilet, tweeting, and making fart sounds while saying “witch hunt,” “no collusion*”, and other comic comments. All rather insulting, and deal with the UK was signed.

I suspect Trump’s offers to the UK were similar to those with Japan, and Japan seemed very happy with the deal (Biden offered them an exit from Trump’s, and Abe stayed — and proposed Trump for the Nobel Prize. So why the British antagonism? Even if they had to say no, why didn’t they arrange a location or treatment to say no politely. India said no to Trump’s trade deal, politely, in 2020, and to the UK too.

My theory is that Theresa May was taken by the anti-Trump propaganda of Europe and particularly of the German press (see magazine covers of the time). Germany was the leader of Europe (this status has diminished), and its press presented Trump as a racist murderer. May kept trying to get back into the EU, and may have thought that ill-treating Trump would help. Boris Johnson followed May, and was pro-Trump, but his cabinet was not. They acted as if they could recreate the British empire of Queen Victoria — a silly thought. They tried for free trade deals with India, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, members of the old empire, but they never quite managed anything. COVID made things worse. The UK economy stalled, Johnson was removed, and the current PM, Rishi Sunak, seems to have got nowhere with Biden. Trump re-offered his trade deal during the visit, but he was out of office; Both Biden and Sunak ignored it.

The UK needs free trade with some substantial countries. They are a hub for manufacturing, information, and banking, currently without any spokes. India likely turned them down because the UK no longer has the power to protect them from enemies, China, Iran, Russia.., nor to protect their trade. Aside from rejoining the EU (good luck there), US is the obvious partner. If personality were the problem, there would have been a deal between Rishi Sunak and Joe Biden.

Since leaving the EU, the UK is doing slightly better than Germany, but that’s not saying much. British exports were helped by the cut off of trade with Russia, but that might not last, and London is having trouble trying to remain a financial center, fighting difficult travel and work rules, and the decline of the pound. Maybe it’s Biden’s fault that there is no deal. It’s hard to tell. Last week, the British Foreign secretary, David Cameron, came to visit Trump at Mar a Lago for a good feelings chat and to start on a trade deal should Trump become president. It’s not clear that Trump will become president, but there are at least hopes for a deal, ideally signed at a distance from the baby balloon.

Robert Buxbaum, April 18, 2024 *”Russian collusion” was a big deal at the time. A dossier was supposed show that Trump was a Russian agent. It turned out the dossier was created by Democrats working with the FBI.

Half of Americans want to be kept from voting Trump

1 Reply

Both Trump and Biden are unpopular. Academics and the press favor Biden, and find it inconceivable that anyone would like Trump but polls show him leading in the country as a whole, and leading in key swing states, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, etc. Some 15.1% more Americans have an unfavorable view of Biden than a favorable view.

Biden’s problems include his age, the border crisis, and the economy. People say they find that essentials are expensive, while luxuries are cheap, and that Biden seems out of touch, perhaps that he favors the rich (the Democratic Party is increasingly the party of billionaires). Then there are religious objections, including to diversity, or gender-affirming child surgery, or abortion till birth and doctor-assisted suicide.

Trump leads in the polls, pointing to misuse of the Justice Department including Republican civil servants fired over phony mask mandates, the many illegal immigrants, the EV agenda, even Trump’s impeachment hearings that began as soon as he was elected, based on a made up “Russian collision” dossier. There’s a claim from Twitter, that the Biden’s DOJ demanded Twitter favor Biden, and then demanded that Trump be “deplatformed”, completely silenced before the election.

The Democrats fire back that Trump is ineligible to be president as he is a seditionist — citing an anti-confederate clause of the 14th amendment. They have so far, removed him from the ballot in two battleground states, Colorado and Maine, and are looking at removing him from the ballot in several others. These moves are surprisingly popular, supported by 49% of voters, despite the fact that Trump leads in the polls.

In New York, the district attorney ran on the platform that he would “get Trump,” that is put him in prison for something, and thus stop his presidential bid. NY has already pulled Trump’s business license and has indicted Trump on 48 felony counts based on the assertion that he paid a prostitute and called it legal fees on his internal books. They also claim he over-valued his buildings. No one has ever been charged or convicted on such crimes before this, but it seems certain he will be found guilty in NY. Either way, it’s is a big drain on Trump’s time and money, and the case allows the judge to command Trump not speak. Meanwhile, the ex-prosecutor has an open mike to claim he heads a crime family, now that he’s handed the case over to another DA. The judge has threatened to jail Trump for saying the charges are bogus and the treatment unfair.

In Colorado, the decision the case is stronger – sedition. They decision to remove Trump’s name from the ballot was made by a 5 to 4 vote in the Democrat-majority Supreme Court. In Maine the Secretary of State removed his name, acting alone. The claim is that what happened January 7 was not a protest, but an insurrection, and that Trump is guilty for it, along with many others who didn’t participate. Further they maintain that it is a false narrative that it was the FBI who entered the capital, fanning the flames as a sting operation against Trump. Similarly false is any claim that the Democrats skewed the election by stuffing the ballot box or overruling laws that required voter ID. That Trump says otherwise shows that Trump is a danger to democracy, they say. They find extremely offense that he calls them the “Department of Injustice.”

According to a January 16, 2024 Ispos, ABC poll, here nearly every voter who favors Biden favors removing Trim from the ballot. Most do not require that Trump be convicted. Not that it’s unlikely that Trump will be convicted of something. In NY it’s likely to be for paying a prostitute and for saying his buildings are worth more than the DA thinks they are. In Georgia, the DA took the unusual step of indicting Trump’s lawyers and his witnesses too. She thus prevents anyone who could testify for Trump from doing so. The Georgia DA seems to have done some other illegal things, but it seems certain that she’ll win her case, even if she goes to jail in the process. Several other battle-ground states’ DAs have said thay will remove Trump from the ballot, or try. Among these are Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia — states where Trump is the leading candidate.

Behi d the effort to remove Trump, guiltier not, is a generally low opinion of the legal system. Polls show that 53% of America believes that judges decide based on their politics, not on law. If Trump is found guilty, they believe it’s politics. If he’s found innocent, tit’s also politics, according to the majority of Americans. Given that folks are convinced the judges are crooked, they want to make sure that their crooked judges are the ones to stay in power, and those with other views are kept from office. It’s a tribal view of justice, not uncommon in 3rd world countries. Man for all seasons is a classic movie/ play about it.

In Russia and China the same tribal view of justice prevails, and the same story is playing out. Putin is running for president in 2024, and has take the precaution to jail his opposition as seditionist. Chinese chairman Xi has not only jailed his opposition, but also most major business leaders. The people in these countries don’t seem to mind, and seem genuinely supportive. The press there, as here, can’t understand why anyone would support anyone but the boss, and have warned against false news in an eerily unified voice.

Efforts are underway to keep Trump off the ballot in these states where he is winning, plus Wisconsin and Minnesota, states where he’s tied or losing by a small margin. A majority people don’t want him or Biden, so removal is popular.

Robert Buxbaum, Jan 31, 2024. To me, the removal of Trump from the ballot is related to the desire for term limits, and for our support, in Ukraine for the elimination of upcoming elections. Folks like democracy, in theory, but need to make sure the wrong person doesn’t win. It’s a paradox.

Shrunken clothes and keffiyehs: anti Trump fashion

Leave a reply

Donald Trump has a lot of signature behaviors, including his “America first” politics, his hair, his ‘tan,’ his way of speech, and his way of wearing suits. Half of America finds them attractive or at least OK, while the other half finds them super-unattractive. Trump seems to have a super-power, that there is no middle. Those who dislike him dislike everything about him to his policies to his clothes. Let Trump propose immigration control, and the opposition demands open borders. Let Trump propose tariffs, an ole Republican approach to diplomacy that is thought to bring in Jobs, and the opposition (even unions!) goes crazy for free trade.

Trump likes dark colors, long ties, long jackets, and long sleeves on his suits.

In the book “Fear”, by Bob Woodward’s first story is about folks on Whitehouse staff stealing Trump’s first tariff proposal from his desk in an effort to prevent it being signed. Whatever they thought of the tariff (it was not that weird, and didn’t do much) the fact that they stole it showed the dramatic reaction people have. In this case, folks who otherwise understood that they are there to serve the president, not to overturn his policies.

LeBron James in the Thom Browne, Anti Trump look. The pants are too short, as are the sleeves and jacket. Note the dull grey color and the short, dull-grey tie. The fellow behind him is dressed normal or Trumpish: dark clothes, long sleeves, bright, long tie.

In terms of fashion, the anti-Trump fever is to react against Trump’s choice of suits in dark colors, paired with bright ties that hang below the waist. The anti men’s fashion has moved to dull grey suits and short, grey ties. Trumps’s suits’s typically have extra-long long sleeves and long pant legs that hit the shoe-top. He likes long jackets too, that to me look vaguely like Lincoln’s. The fashion back-lash is men are wearing ridiculously short pants and jackets, with socks showing.

LeBron James, at right, is wearing a complete mens, anti-Trump look, likely a Thom Browne suit, a very expensive ill fit. This suit doesn’t look comfortable, but it’s fashion, and as I’ve said before, you’ve got to suffer for fashion.

There is also a woman’s version of anti Trump fashion. The Trump women wore feminine, closely fitting clothing and wore their hair long. The anti-Trump women’s look is the opposite; it includes short hair and masculine, often covered. This is paired with loose fitting male clothes: cargo pants or combat fatigues. Topping it off, ideally ideally is a checkered, keffiyeh scarf, either over the head or around the neck. The style of scarf was made popular by former PLO head, Yassar Arafat. This look is particularly popular on college campuses and at demonstrations. It implies that the wearer supports Palestine (Trump supported Israel), and shows you are part of the cool set. The wearer, herself, is typically is not in favor of kidnapping or rape or putting babies in oven, but they are so strongly anti Israel and Trump that they are OK with it, especially if it is Jews being kidnapped, rabed, or cooked alive. They will call for Jews to be gassed or tortured. It’s part of being in the in-crowd, and antisemitism is what’s in these days — it’s been popular for many centuries.

The women’s anti-Trump look includes short hair and a keffiyeh scarf. Photo from WRLN Florida.

It is a misconception to think that those wearing the keffiye don’t understand that they would not live long if they had to dwell among the Arabs they support. These feminists do understand, as do the ‘Queers for Palestine’. They’d never want to live in even the most moderate Arab country, the same way that those supporting Mao would never want to live in China under Mao. It is fashion, and like all fashion, it’s a mob behavior that exists only for fashion’s sake. In this case there is the added advantage that you get to hit Jews and break their windows — something that is particularly attractive for feminist women, I notice; the majority of people at the Palestine protests are women.

Robert Buxbaum November 7, 2023.

The UAW’s minimally-effective strike.

Leave a reply

The aim of a strike, generally, is the same as the aim of war: it is to win concessions fast. To do this, one must strike to the utmost extent, as Von Clausewitz points out. The target company must come to understand that they need the workers, and that they need a quick settlement. In the case of the current united auto worker strike, the UAW asked for 40% and concessions, but only struck at a few plants. The resulting strike lasted 6 weeks, with Ford settling for a 25% raise over 4.5 years, to April 2028. Viewed on an average, that’s a 5.6% raise per year, assuming the Ford workers accept the deal.

I’m not sure how the UAW boss chose which plants to strike AGAINST. They were mostly low-profit ones at first. Workers at other plants kept on working and received a full salary. The suffering was borne some 45,000 UAW workers (1/4 of the UAW autoworkers) who left the job for strike pay, $500/week. This is a tiny fraction of the 4.36 million auto workers in the US. Auto production was reduced by 80,000 vehicles, we’re told, again a small fraction of several million vehicles typically made in the US in a year.

The strike does not seem to have affected vehicle sales or profits, as best I can tell. The remaining plants ran at higher capacity, and some production was made up by imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. Inventories today are at 60 days, the industry target. In a sense, the major lessons of the strike are that the auto companies don’t need so many workers, and that the UAW can direct suffering to whichever workers they wish.

The gasoline-powered F-150, left, is the most popular vehicle in the US. The Tesla Cybertruck, right, is an EV challenger of a sort that will soon be mandated. EVs require fewer workers and manufacture is non-union.

Ford’s settlement sounds good, but if viewed as a 5.6% raise per year, it barely covers inflation. Inflation is 3.6% now and was 8% last year. Ford retained the right to shed workers and close plants as the economy slows or production shifts. That’s a minimal gain for a 4.5 year commitment.

Battery plants may be covered or not; we’ve not been told. Production is expected to shift to battery vehicles, and these require fewer workers per car. President Biden has mandated a shift as part of his plan to stop global warming (a plan that I find misguided). He’s provided financial incentives for EV owners too, under the “inflation reduction act,” an effort to cause consumers to buy cars they would not otherwise. Largesse of this type is problematic, and highly inflationary, at least in the short term (the next few years). It is supposed to help out down the road, but workers pay their bills in the short term, the here and now.

Despite Biden’s financial incentives to buy electric, most consumers prefer to buy gasoline. The gasoline F150 is the most popular vehicle in America, selling over 600,000 per year. Trump claims that US workers would be better off if we stopped pushing EVs. Less incentives means less inflation, more internal combustion cars, and more union jobs he says. Biden has recently funded a Chinese battery plant, non-union in Michigan, suggesting that Trump is on to something. The strike has produced a raise, but its main contribution, it seems was to punish those UAW workers that the union boss didn’t like.

Robert Buxbaum, October 29, 2023. As I write, Stellantis has offered a tentative deal, but GM is still holding out, and we’ve yet to see if the workers ratify any of these deals.