Category Archives: Art

On-line education sucks.

2 Replies

…And [the leper] shall cover his face to the lip, and call out unclean, unclean… (Lev. 13: 45)

Video and TV-learning has been with us for a long time. It’s called PBS. It’s entertaining, but as education, it sucks. You can see the great courses on DVD too. The great professors teaching great material. It’s entertaining, but as education, they suck.

Consider PBS, the public broadcast system, it was funded 50 years ago and given a portion of the spectrum to be a font for at-distance education. At first they tried showing classroom lectures from the best of professors. Few people watched, and hardly anyone learned. Hardly anyone was willing to do catch every lecture, or do any of the reading or any of the assigned homework. Some did some problems, but only if they already knew the subject, sort of as a refresher . No viewer of record learned enough to perform a trade based on PBS-learnign, nor achieved any academic proficiency that would allow them to publish is a reviewed journal, unless they already had that proficiency. A good question is why, but first lets consider the great DVD lectures in science or engineering . They too have been around for years, but I’ve yet to meet anyone of proficiency who learned that way. Not one doctor, lawyer, or engineer whose technical training came this way. Even Sesame street. My sense is that no one ever learned to read from this, or from the follow-on program reading rainbow, except that they had parental help — the real teachers being the parent. My sense is that all formal education over video is deficient or worthless unless it’s complimented by an in-person, interaction. The cause perhaps we are not evolutionarily developed to connect with a TV image the way we connect with a human.

Education is always hard because you’re trying to remold the mind, and it only works if the student wants his or her mind molded. To get that enthusiasm requires social interaction, peer pressure and the like, and it requires real experience, not phony video. Play is a real experience, and all animals enjoy play. it convinces them they can do things, This stag on a now-empty soccer field is busy developing soccer skills and is rewarded here with a reaching his goal. Without the physical goal there would be no practice, and without the physical practice there would be no learning.

For people, the goals of the goals of the teacher must be made to match those of the student. The teachers goals are that they student should love learning, that he or she should acquire knowledge, and that he or she should be prepared to use that knowledge in a socially acceptable way. For the student, the goals include being praised by peers, and getting girls/ boys, and drinking. Colleges work, to the extent they do, but putting together the two sets of goals. Colleges work best in certain enclaves — places where the student’s statues increases if he or she does well on exams or in class, where he or she can drink and party, but will get thrown out if they do it so much that their grades suffer. Also colleges make sure to have clubs and sports where he or she can develop a socially acceptable way to deal with others. Remove the goals an rewards, and the lessons become pointless, or “academic.”

A cave painting from France. It’s diagrammatic, not artistic. It shows where you stand, how you hold the spear, and where the spear is supposed to go, but the encouragement to do it had to be given in person..

It might be argues that visual media can make up for real experience, and to some extent this is true. Visual media has been used since the beginning, as with this cave painting, but it only helps. You still need personal interaction and real-life experience. An experienced hunter could use the cave picture to show the student where to stand and how to hold the spear. But much of the training had to be social, with friends before the hunt, in the field, watching friends and the teacher as they succeed or fail. And — very important — after the hunt, eating the catch, or sitting hungry rubbing one’s bruises. This is where fine-points are gained, and where the student became infected with the desire to actually do the thing right. Leave this out, and you have the experience of the typical visitor to the museum. “Oh, cool” and then the visitor moves on.

In a world of Zoom learning, there is no feast at the end, no thrill of victory, and no agony of defeat. The students do not generally see each other, or talk to one another. They do not egg each other on, or condemn bad behavior. They do not share stories, and there is no real reward. There is no way to impress your fellow, and no embarrassment if you fail, or fail to work. The lesson does not take hold because we don’t work this way. A result is that US education as we know it is in for a dramatic change, but the details are sill a little fuzzy.

As best I can tell, our universities managers do not realize the failure of this education mode, or the choose to ignore it. If they were to admit defeat, they would lose their job. They can also point to a sort of artificial success, as when an accomplished programmer learns a bit more programming, or when an accomplished writer learns a new trick, but that’s not real education, and it certainly isn’t something most folks would pay $50,000 per year for.

Harvard University claims it will be entirely on-line next year, and that it will charge the same. We will have to see how that works for them. You still get the prestige of Harvard, though you can no longer join the crew team, or piss on the statue of John Harvard. My guess is that some people will put up with it, but not at that price. Why pay $50,000 — the equivalent of over $100/hour when you can get a complete set of DVDs on the material for $100, and a certificate. Without the physical pain or rowing, or the pleasure of pissing, there is no real connection to your fellow student, and a lot of the plus of Harvard is that social connection.

On line education isn’t strange; it just isn’t education.

I expect the big mid tier colleges to suffer even more than the great schools. I don’t expect 50,000 students to pay $40,000 each to go to virtual Indiana State. Why should they? Trade-schools may last, and mini-colleges, those with a few hundred students, that might be able to continue in a version of the old paradigm, and one-on-one or self-learning. This worked for Lincoln, and Washington; for Heraclitus and for Diogenes. Self study and small schools are good for self-reflection and refinement. The format is different from on-line, more question and answer. Some folks will thrive, others will flounder — Not everyone learns the same– but the on-line university will die. $40k of student debt for on-line lectures followed by an on-line, virtual graduation? No, thank you.

The reason that trade schools will work, even in a real of COVID, is they never focussed as much on personal interaction, but more on the interaction between your hands and your work. This provides a sort of reality check that doesn’t exist in typical on-line eduction. If your weld breaks, or your pipe leaks, you see it. Non-trade school, on-line eduction suffers by comparison, since there is no reality in the material. Anything can be shown on screen. My undergrad college, a small one, Cooper Union, used something of a trade school approach. For example, you learned control theory while sitting underneath a tank of water. You were expected to control the water height with a flow controller. When you got the program wrong, the tank ran dry, or overflowed, or did both in an oscillatory way. I can imagine that sort of stuff continuing during COVID lockdowns, but not as an on-line experience.

It seems to me that the protest and riots for Black Lives serve as a sort of alternative college, for the same type of person. It relieves the isolation, and provides a goal. My mother-in-law spent her teenage years in Ravensbruk concentration camp, during the holocaust, and my father-in-law survived Auschwitz. They came out scarred, but functional. They survived, I think, because of a goal. A recognition that the they were alive for a reason. My mother-in-law helped her sister survive. For many these days, ending racism by, tearing down statues is the goal. The speeches are better than in on-line colleges., you get the needed physical and social interaction, and you don’t spend $50,00 per year for it.

Robert Buxbaum July 24, 2020. These are my ramblings based in part on my daughter’s experience finishing college with 4 months of on-line eduction. The next year should see a shake-out of colleges that are not financially sound, I expect.

Who are the BLM vandals?

Leave a reply

There have been a dozen attempts to tear down the statue of Andrew Jackson outside the Whitehouse. Most of these appear to have been done by white people, supporters of “Black Lives Matter,” or BLM. BLM vandals were more successful destroying statues of Columbus, Lee, Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Saint Louis, and Christian Heg, an anti-slavery activist of the 1800s, — he was a white guy. Graves are spray painted BLM, stores have been vandalized and looted, people have been killed, and at least one “cop free autonomous zone” set upin Seattle. No police allowed, no fire fighters allowed. At least one murder. Policing by a BLM warlord. So who are the BLM vandals running these activities, and who are their supporters?

Graves vandalized with Black Lives Matter, and with BLM Floyd. The vandals prepared, bringing spray paint to the cemetery, but there is no sense they were helping black people.

To my observation the BLM activist-vandal is not typically black, nor illiterate, nor disadvantaged; nor do they act in a fit of anger. The tools of destruction, bricks, spray paint, chains torches, and firebombs are brought home, often many miles away. Bricks are left in buckets are key locations for ready use in the demonstration. Many of the activists are white, often women, literate, liberal, socially secure, and self-satisfied. Two lawyers, one a Princeton graduate, were among those throwing firebombs in a Jewish section of Brooklyn, last week. They were acting for social justice in Palestine, they say. Another pair of bomb-throwers were two sisters white, from upstate NY who traveled to Brooklyn to throw a gasoline bomb into a police care with four officers. Her motivation, she says, social injustice — certainly not for the innocent policemen.

There is rarely any connection between the destruction and any positive help to black people nor is there any direct relationship to George Floyd, killed by cruel police. Why behead the statue of Columbus, or burn this statue of an elk? Even the fire-bombing lawyers had trouble explaining the relationship between their bombing of a police car in Brooklyn and the motivating causes, police brutality and ending the zionist presence in Palestine, for these particular two. So why burn a car, topple a statue, or loot a store, or burn an elk? As best I can tell, it’s because these things are big, available, and minimally guarded. If someone steps out to defend their property, the vandals leave, or snuck around to sucker-punch from behind, leaving quickly afterward, before the police get there.

The vandals do not act out of rage either, but with malice and fore-thought. It takes a lot of organization to show up with working fire-bombs, bricks, or with spray paint for that matter. Neither of these items is available at stores near the demonstrations. And taking down a statute requires more. The vandals bring strong ropes, chains, and cutting torches. Check out this video of an attempt on the Andrew Jackson statue, and note the organization of labor and that virtually everyone here is white.

Samantha Shader, traveled to Brooklyn with gasoline bombs and through one into a police car with 4 officers inside. None died. She’s not black, uneducated, or oppressed, Just bored, and angry.

Whether they succeed or not, the vandals are proud of their activities. They brag to the press and often post videos. Publicity is part of the motivation, but it sometimes leads to capture. Samantha Shader, throwing a gasoline bomb, was caught because of her own bragging video.

When caught, the BLM vandal immediately appeals for his or her rights, and is often bailed out by the politicians who claim to deplore violence. They blame the very folks they’d harmed too, and claim it was justice to destroy the statue, or the Jewish or black-owned store. The black store owner is an uncle Tom, the Jewish synagog a symbol of oppression, and they see themselves as white saviors, white knights and revolutionaries, destroying offensive symbols of other folks success. It’s only other people’s stuff that’s offensive to them, by the way. I’ve yet to see any of the BLM vandals destroy their own cars or homes.

As bad as the actual vandals are, in a sense the politicians who support them are worse, spurring them, then sitting judgement on the BLM wrongs. The politicians, liberal, often white women, praise the BLM vandal leaders, and help the raise money for them. They ascend the podium with the worst of the BLM vandal leaders, proclaiming, “We’re with you.” “You are right to be angry, and your cause just.” “We are inspired by you.” They say they are against violence, but they eagerly remove the statues that the BLM vandals spray painted — The statue of Columbus in front of Columbus city hall for example, They defund the police — their salaries, retirements, etc. — and give the money to BLM-run organizations. The Biden campaign does more and provides bail money. All this helps honest black people not at all, nor is it good for the cities, but it does provide good press for the politicians, and so far the support for BLM seems to make up for Biden’s habit of touching and sniffing girls’ hair. As for where the BLM money goes, we have little information, but this is what we know. Some will go back to the Democratic party via a BLM program called #WhatMatters2020. Some will go toward Black Liberation education. None is slated to help victims of BLM vandalism, black or white. And this is what passes for political accountability.

Columbus Ohio; Vandals spray paint the statue of Columbus in front of city hall, then the Mayor cleans the statue, and removes it. Which one is the bigger vandal? Do either help black people?

I imagine that I do more for black lives than what BLM does, by my efforts to provide clean water and better sewage, for example. Another thing we might do, if we thought black lives really mattered would be to change the laws that put black people behind bars for minor crimes, e.g. pot sales. Recreational pot use is legal in much of the US, but black people are emprissoned in large numbers, because the sale is illegal unless you have special licenses. and black people never can get the license to sell legally. I don’t think defunding the police is a road to help black people, certainly not when the money goes to Black Liberation education and statue removal. It seems that black lives don’t matter at all to either the BLM vandals, or the fire-bombers, or to the politicians,, and they never did.

Robert Buxbaum, July 6 2020.

Italian Engineering and the Kennedy assassination.

4 Replies

There are several unbelievable assertions surrounding the Kennedy assassination, leading many to conclude that Oswald could not have killed Kennedy alone. I believe that many of these can be answered once you realize that Oswald used an Italian gun, and not a US gun. Italian engineering differs from our in several respects that derive from the aesthetic traditions of the countries. It’s not that our engineers are better or worse, but our engineers have a different idea of what good engineering is and thus we produce designs that, to an Italian engineer, are big, fat, slow, and ugly. In our eyes Italian designs are light, fast, pretty, low-power, and unreliable. In the movie, Ford vs Ferrari, the American designer, Shelby says that, “If races were beauty contests, the Ferrari would win.” It’s an American, can-do, attitude that rings hollow to an Italian engineer. 

Three outstanding questions regarding the Kennedy assassination include: How did Oswald fire three bullets, reasonably accurately in 5 to 8 seconds. How did he miss the limousine completely on the first, closest shot, then hit Kennedy twice on the next two, after previously missing on a close shot at retired general, Edwin Walker. And how could the second shot have gone through Kennedy’s neck, then through his wrist, and through Connolly twice, emerging nearly pristine. I will try to answer by describing something of the uniquenesses of the gun and bullets, and of Italian engineering, in general. 

Oswald cartridge.

The rifle Oswald used was a Modello 91/38, Carcano (1938 model of a design originally used in 1891) with an extra-long, 20.9″ barrel, bought for only $19.95 including a 4x sight. That’s $12.50 for the gun, the equivalent of $100 in 2020). The gun may have been cheep, but it was a fine Italian weapon: it was small, fast, pretty, manual, and unreliable. The small size allowed Oswald to get the gun into the book depository without arousing suspicion. He claimed his package held curtain rods, and the small, narrow shape of the gun made the claim believable.

The first question, the fast shooting, is answered in part by the fact that loading the 91/38 Carcano rifle takes practice. Three American marksmen who tried to duplicate the shots for the Warren commission didn’t succeed, but they didn’t have the practice with this type of gun that Oswald had. The Carcano rifle used a bolt and clip loading system that had gone out of style in the US before WWI. To put in a new shell, you manually unlock and pull back the bolt. The old casing then flies out, and the spring–clip loads a new shell. You then have to slam the bolt forward and lock it before you can fire again. For someone practiced, loading this way is faster than with a semi-automatic. To someone without practice it is impossibly slow, like driving a stick shift car for the first time. Even with practice, Americans avoid stick shift cars, but Italians prefer them. Some time after the Warren report came out, Howard Donahue, an American with experience on this type of rifle, was able to hit three moving targets at the distance in 4.8 seconds. That’s less than the shortest estimate of the time it took Oswald to hit twice. Penn of Penn and Teller recreates this on TV, and shows here that Kennedy’s head would indeed have moved backward.

Oswald’s magic bullet, shot two.

That Oswald was so accurate is explained, to great extent by the way the sight was mounted and by the unusual bullets. The model 38 Carcano that Oswald bought fired light, hollow, 6.5×52mm cartridges. This is a 6.5 mm diameter bullet, with a 52 mm long casing. The cartridge was adopted by the Italians in 1940, and dropped by 1941. These bullets are uncommonly bullet is unusually long and narrow (6.5 mm = .26 caliber), round-nosed and hollow from the back to nearly the front. In theory a cartridge like this gives for greater alignment with the barrel., and provides a degree of rocket power acceleration after it leaves the muzzle. Bullets like this were developed in the US, then dropped by the late 1800s. The Italians dropped this bullet for a 7.5 mm diameter version in 1941. The 6.5 mm version can go through two or three people without too much damage, and they can behave erratically. The small diameter and fast speed likely explains how Oswald’s second shot went through Kennedy and Connolly twice without dong much. An American bullet would have done a lot more damage.

Because of the light weight and the extra powder, the 6.5 mm hollow bullet travels uncommonly fast, about 700 m/s at the muzzle with some acceleration afterwards, ideally. Extra powder packs into the hollow part by the force of firing, providing, in theory, low recoil, rocket power. Unfortunately these bullets are structurally weak. They can break apart or bend and going off-direction. By comparison the main US rifle of WWII, the M1, was semi-automatic, with bullets that are shorter, heavier, and slower, going about 585 m/s. Some of our bullets had steel cores too to provide a better combination of penetration and “stopping power”. Only Oswald second shot stayed pristine. It could be that his third shot — the one that made Kennedy’s head explode — flattened or bent in flight.

Oswald fragment of third bullet. It’s hollow and seems to have come apart in a way a US bullet would not.

The extra speed of Oswald’s bullets and the alignment of his gun would have given Oswald a great advantage in accuracy. At 100 yards (91 m), test shots with the rifle landed 2 1⁄2 to 5 inches high, within a 3-to-5-inch circle. Good accuracy with a sight that was set to high for close shot accuracy. The funky sight, in my opinion , explains how Oswald managed to miss Walker, but explains how he hit Kennedy accurately especially on the last, longest shot, 81 m to Kennedy’s head

Given the unusually speed of the bullets (I will assume 750 m/s) Oswald’s third shot would have taken 0.108 s to reach the target. If the sight were aligned string and if Kennedy were not moving, the bullet would have been expected to fall 2.24″ low at this range, but given the sight alignment we’d expect him to shoot 3-6″ high on a stationary target, and dead on, on the president in his moving vehicle. Kennedy was moving at 5 m/sand Oswald had a 17° downward shot. The result was a dead on hit to the moving president assuming Oswald didn’t “lead the shot”. The peculiarities of the gun and bullets made Oswald more accurate here than he’d been in the army, while causing him to miss Walker completely at close range.

comparison of the actual, second shot, “magic bullet,” left, with four test-shot bullets. Note that one of the test bullets collapsed, two bent, and one exploded. This is not a reliable bullet design.

We now get to the missed, first shot: How did he miss the car completely firing at the closest range. The answer, might have to do with deformation of the bullets. A hollow base bullet can explode, or got dented and fly off to the side. More prosaically, it could be that he hit a tree branch or a light pole. The Warren commission blamed a tree that was in the way, and there was also a light pole that was never examined. For all we know the bullet is in a branch today, or deflected. US bullets would have a greater chance to barrel on through to at least hit the car. This is an aspect of Italian engineering — when things are light, fast, and flexible, unusual things happen that do not expect to happen with slow, ugly, US products. It’s a price of excellence, Italian style.

Another question appears: Why wasn’t Oswald stopped when the FBI knew he’d threatened Kennedy, and was suspected of shooting at Walker. The simple answer, I think, is that the FBI was slow, and plodding. Beyond this, neither the FBI nor the CIA seem to have worried much about Kennedy’s safety. Even if Kennedy had used the bubble top, Oswald would likely have killed him. Kennedy didn’t care much for the FBI and didn’t trust Texas. Kennedy had a long-running spat with the FBI involving his involvement with organized crime, and perhaps running back to the days when Kennedy’s father was a bootlegger. His relation with the CIA was similar.

The Mateba, Italian semi-automatic revolver, $3000, available only in 357 Magnum and 44 magnum.

I should mention that the engineering styles and attitudes of a country far outlast the particular engineer.We still make big, fat, slow, ugly cars — that are durable and reasonably priced. Germans still overbuild, and Italian cars and guns are as they ever were: beautiful, fast, expensive, and unreliable. The fastest production car is Italian, a Bugatti with a top speed of 245 mph; the fastest rollercoaster is at Ferrari gardens, 149 mph, and in terms of guns, let me suggest you look at the Mateba, left, a $3000 beautiful super fast semi-automatic revolver (really), produced in Italy, and available in 357 magnum and .44 magnum only . It’s a magnificent piece of Italian engineering beautiful, accurate, powerful, and my guess is it’s unreliable as all get out. Our, US pistols typically cost 1/5 to 1/10 as much. A country’s cars, planes, and guns represent the country’s aesthetics. The aesthetics of a county changes only slowly, and I think the world is better off because of it

Robert Buxbaum, February 14, 2020. One of my favorite courses in engineering school, Cooper Union, was in Engineering Aesthetics and design.

Shakespeare’s plays, organized.

1 Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making The City of New Orleans profitable

1 Reply

The City of New Orleans is the name of the only passenger train between Chicago and New Orleans. It’s also the name of a wonderful song by Steve Goodman, 1971. Hear it, sung by Arlo Guthrie with scenes from a modern ride.

“Riding on the City of New Orleans
Illinois Central Monday morning rail
Fifteen cars and fifteen restless riders
Three conductors and twenty-five sacks of mail
All along the southbound odyssey
The train pulls out at Kankakee
Rolls along past houses, farms and fields
Passin’ trains that have no names
Freight yards full of old black men
And the graveyards of the rusted automobiles…”

Every weekday, this train leaves Chicago at 9:00 PM and gets into New Orleans twenty hours later, at 5:00 PM. It’s a 925 mile trip at a 45 mph average: slow and money-losing, propped up by US taxes. Like much of US passenger rail, it “has the disappearing railroad blues.” It’s a train service that would embarrass the Bulgarians: One train a day?! 45 mph average speed!? It’s little wonder is that there are few riders, and that they are rail-enthusiasts: “the sons of Pullman porters, and the sons of engineers, Ride[ing] their father’s magic carpets made of steel.” The wonder, to me was that there was ever fifteen cars for these, “15 restless riders”.

A sack of mail being picked up on the fly.

I would be happy to see more trips and a faster speed, at an average speed of at least 60 mph. This would require 85 mph or higher between stops, but it would save on salaries, and it would bring in some new customers. But even if these higher speeds cost nothing extra, in net, you’d still need something more to make the trip profitable; a lot more if the goal is to add another train. Air-traffic will always be faster, and the automobile, more convenient. I find a clue to profitability in the fifteen cars of the song and in the sacks of mail.

Unless I’m mistaken, mail traffic was at least as profitable as passenger traffic, and those “twenty-five sacks of mail” were either very large, or just the number on-loaded at Kankakee. Passenger trains like ‘the city of New Orleans’ were the main mail carriers till the late 1970s, a situation that ended when union disputes made it unprofitable. Still, I suspect that mail might be profitable again if we used passenger trains only for fast mail — priority and first class — and if we had real fast mail again. We currently use trucks and freight trans for virtually all US mail, we do not have a direct distribution system. The result is that US mail is vastly slower than it had been. First class mail used to arrive in a day or two, like UPS now. But these days the post office claims 2 to 4 business days for “priority mail,” and ebay guarantees priority delivery time “within eight business days”. That’s two weeks in normal language. Surely there is room for a faster version. It costs $7.35 for a priority envelope and $12.80 for a priority package (medium box, fixed price). That’s hardly less than UPS charges.

Last day of rail post service New York to Washington, DC. .June 30, 1977.

Passenger trains could speed our slow mail a lot, if it were used for this, even with these slow speeds. The City of New Orleans makes this trip in less than a day, with connections available to major cities across the US. If priority mail went north-south in under one day, people would use it more, and that could make the whole operation profitable. Trains are far cheaper than trucks when you are dealing with large volumes; there are fewer drivers per weight, and less energy use per weight. Still there are logistical issues to making this work, and you want to move away from having many post men handling individual sacks, I think. There are logistical advantages to on-loading and off-loading much larger packages and to the use of a system of standard sizes on a moving conveyor.

How would a revised mail service work? I’d suggest using a version of intermodal logistics. Currently this route consists of 20 stops including the first and last, Chicago and New Orleans. This suggests an average distance between stops of 49 Miles. Until the mid 70s, , mail would be dropped off and picked up at every stop, with hand sorting onboard and some additional on-off done on-the-fly using sacks and hooks, see picture above. For a modern version, I would suggest the same number of passenger stops, but fewer mail pick ups and drop offs, perhaps only 1/3 as many. These would be larger weight, a ton or more, with no hand sorting. I’d suggest mail drop offs and pick ups every 155 miles or so, and only of intermodal containers or pods: ten to 40 foot lengths. These containers plus their contents would weigh between 2,500 and 25,000 pounds each. They would travel on flatcars at the rear of the passenger cars, and contain first class and priority mail only. Otherwise, what are you getting for the extra cost?

The city of New Orleans would still leave Chicago with six passenger cars, but now these would be followed by eight to ten flatcars holding six or more containers. They’d drop off one of the containers at a stop around the 150 mile mark, likely Champaign Urbana, and pick up five or so more (they’d now have ten). Champaign Urbana is a major east-west intermodal stop, by the way. I’d suggest the use of six or more heavy forklifts to speed the process. At the next mail-stop, Centralia, two containers might come off and four or more might come on. Centralia is near St. Louis, itself a major rail hub for trains going west. See map below. The next mail stop might be Memphis. Though it’s not shown as such, Memphis is a major east-west rail hub; it’s a hub for freight. A stripped down mail-stop version of passenger train mail like this seems quite do-able — to me at least. It could be quite profitable, too.

Amtrak Passenger rail map. The city of New Orleans is the dark blue line going north-south in the middle of the map.

Intermodal, flat-bed trucks would take the mail to sorting locations, and from there to distribution points. To speed things, the containers might hold pre-sorted sacks of mail. Intermodal trucks might also carry some full containers east and west e.g. from Centralia to St. Louis, and some full flatcars could be switched on and off too. Full cars could be switched at the end, in New Orleans for travel east and west, or in the middle. There is a line about “Changing cars in Memphis Tennessee.” I imagine this relates to full carloads of mail joining or leaving the train in Memphis. Some of these full intermodal containers could take priority mail east and west. One day mail to Atlanta, and Houston would be nice. California in two days. That could be a money maker.

At this point, I would like to mention “super-fast” rail. The top speeds of these TGV’s “Transports of Grande Vitess” are in the range of 160 mph (265 km/hr) but the average speeds are lower because of curves and the need to stop. The average speeds are roughly 125 mph on the major routes in Europe, but they require special rails and rail beds. My sense is that this sort of special-use improvement is not worth the cost for US rail traffic. While 60 -90 mph can be handled on the same rails that carry freight, the need for dedicated track comes with a doubling of land and maintenance costs. And what do you have when you have it? The bullet rail is still less than half as fast as air travel. At an average speed of 125 mph, the trip between Chicago and New Orleans would take seven hours. For business travelers, this is not an attractive alternative to a two hour flight, and it is not well suited for intermodal mail. The fuel costs are unlikely to be lower than air travel, and there is no easy way to put mail on or off a TGV. Mail en-route would slow the 125 mph speed further, and the use of intermodal containers would dramatically increase the drag and fuel cost. Air travel has less drag because air density is lower at high altitude.

Meanwhile, at 60 mph average speeds, train travel can be quite profitable. Energy use is 1/4 as high at 60 mph average as at 120 mph. An increase of average speed to 60 mph would barely raise the energy use compared to TGV, but it would shorten the trip by five hours. The new, 15 hour version of “The City of New Orleans” would not be competitive for business travel, but it would be attractive for tourists, and certainly for mail. Having fewer hours of conductor/ engineer time would save personnel costs, and the extra ridership should allow the price to stay as it is, $135 one-way. A tourist might easily spend $135 for this overnight trip: leaving Chicago after dinner and arriving at noon the next day. This is far nicer than arriving at 5:00 PM, “when the day is done.”

Robert Buxbaum, June 21, 2019. One summer during graduate school, I worked in the mail room of a bank, stamping envelopes and sorting them by zip code into rubber-band tied bundles. The system I propose here is a larger-scale version of that, with pre-sorted mail bags replacing the rubber bands, and intermodal containers replacing the sacks we put them in.

Seize the day

Leave a reply

It is forbidden knowledge what our term of years, mine and yours.
Don’t scan the tables of your Babylonian seers.
Better far to bear the future, my Leuconoe, like the past.
Whether Jupiter has many years yet to give,
Or this one is our last:

This, that makes the Tyrrhene waves spent against the shore.
Strain your wine and strain your wisdom.
Life is short; should we hope for long?
In the moment of our talking, precious time has slipped away.
Seize the moment. Trust tomorrow little as you may.

by Horace (23 BC Roman poet) Odes, 1.11

This poem by Horace, in 23 BC is the first appearance of the phrase “carpe diem,” translated as seize he day. I’d decided to look over the translation from Wikipedia, and to correct and update the translation as I saw fit, to some extent to extract the meanings better, to some extent to make the grammar less-clunky, and to some extent to make it rhyme. Seen in context, the whole poem looks  romantic, and the intent of the famous phrase seems more like ‘seize the moment’ when read in context. Either translation is acceptable from the Latin, as I understand it.

The phrase, “seize the day” appears in several important movies. Robin Williams speaks it to a class of literature students in the sense that I read it here — seize the moment — in this scene of “The Dead Poets Society,” He’s trying to get the boys to appreciate the purpose of poetry, and the preciousness of their years in prep-school. A well-done movie, IMHO. The newspaper sellers sing the phrase for different intent in this song in “Newsies.” For them, the intent is more like seize the opportunity, or maybe even seize power. It’s not Horace’s intent, but it’s sung in front of the statue of Horace Greeley, and it works.

In either context, there is a certain young masculinity about this phrase. In both movie, the cast experiencing the idea is male and young. I don’t think either movie would work as well with women dancing or singing to this idea.

Robert E. Buxbaum, March 9, 2019. In case you should wonder what happens to Frank Kelly (Sullivan) after the movie ends, I’ve written about that.  Also, a friend of mine notes that the grammar used in these movies is wrong:  “Carpe diem” is singular, for this 3rd declension noun. The equivalent Latin plural is “Carpite diem:” That’s the equivalent of you-all, should seize the moment. Unlike in the movies, much of classic education is spent on pedantic, uninspiring, minutia, like Latin grammar, but that’s what’s necessary to permit distinction of meaning. Thank you, David Hoenig for grammar help.

Presidential drinks, smokes, and other vices

1 Reply

I’d written about presidential desks so now presidential drinking and related vices. The US colonials were hard drinkers, and their leaders lead on this front too. The colonials who fought at Lexington and Concord loaded up at Bradford’s Tavern before greeting the British. Meanwhile, safe in Philadelphia, each of the authors of the declaration of Independence drank, on average, two pint tankards of rum per day, likely mixed with water, a mixture called “grog,” or mixed with apple cider, a mix called “the stone fence.”

Washington's bar bill for 55 men.

Washington’s bar bill for 55 men; food was less than 1/4 of the bill, both for the officers and the servants. Note the “Segars” and broken crockery.

The standard of drinking for officers in the colonial army can be seen from the bill for the farewell dinner (right) held at City Tavern in New York. The average man drank more than two bottles of wine, about a quarter bottle of old stock (whiskey)  bottle of beer, porter or cider, and 1/2 bowl of punch. There is also a cost for “segars” and for broken cookery. The servants drank almost as much but not quite. George Washington was considered a very modest drinker in the crowd, avoiding rum mostly, and sticking to Madera wine or dark, “Philadelphia” porter, typically mixed with molasses. He smoked a pipe too, but didn’t have a mistress nor did he fight in any duels; a model for presidents to come. When Washington retired from the presidency, he become the premier distiller in the USA, making thousands of barrels of rye whiskey per year. A good man and a good president, IMHO.

John Adams considered himself a temperance man, and complained of Washington’s lack of refinement. He didn’t smoke at all, and drank only one tankard of hard cider to start the day, followed by beer, Madera and diluted rum (grog). He was priggish and disliked. He also started the pseudo war with France, spent massively to pay off the Barbary pirates, insulted most everyone, and passed the single worst law ever in US history, Our worst president, IMHO, but at least he didn’t overspend.

According to "The Balance, and Columbian Repository" 1806, "A cock tail is a stimulating liquor composed of spirits of any kind, sugar, water and bitters. It is supposed to be an excellent electioneering potion inasmuch as it renders the heart stout and bold, at the same time that it fuddles the head. It is said also, to be of great use to a democratic candidate: because, a person having swallowed a glass of it, is ready to swallow any thing else."

According to “The Balance, and Columbian Repository” May 15, 1806, “– Cock tail then is a stimulating liquor… an excellent electioneering potion inasmuch as it renders the heart stout and bold, at the same time that it fuddles the head… of great use to a democratic candidate: because, a person having swallowed a glass of it, is ready to swallow any thing else.”

Jefferson was a spendthrift who  spent $16,500 in the money of the day (well over $1 million today) on French wine; $11,000 for his time in the Whitehouse and $5,000 for the ministry in Paris. His wine habits, along with his book and furniture buying, led him to be bankrupt twice. The first time, he was bailed out by congress, the second time (at his death) his slaves and property were sold off to pay debts, including his red-haired, slave children. Not a good man, but a good president. He ended Adam’s the pseudo-war with France, defeated the Barbary pirates, and doubled the size of America through the Louisiana purchase.

James Madison, like Jefferson preferred French wine, mostly Champaign, but he didn’t drink much of it, according to the standard of the day. He said that, if he drank any more than 3 or so glasses or he’d wake up with a headache. He also smoked ‘seegars’ until his death at 85: a good man but a poor president. Who would declare war on the most powerful nation on earth without first preparing his army or navy? Dolly Madison is considered the first of the “First Ladies,” for her hostess prowess.

Monroe liked French Champaign and Burgundy. He was the last of the “gentleman presidents; liked as a man and as a president, doing little that was controversial, except perhaps stating the Monroe Doctrine — US control of the Caribbean. He oversaw an “era of good feelings,” where the US grew and wounds healed.

John Quincy Adams was as obnoxious and disliked like his father, “the bitter branch of the bitter tree.” He was a wine-snob who claimed to have conducted a blind taste test with 14 kinds of Madeira and correctly identified 11 of them. After his one-term as president he returned to congress where his last act was to vote against admitting Texas to the union. At least 17 male-line Adams’s have graduated from Harvard; few are remembered fondly.

Andrew Jackson was not a gentleman. He drank whiskey — home made — and smoked cigars along with his wife. He fought about 20 duels, served whiskey proudly to all his guests, and removed the requirement of land to vote. He was a drinker of coffee too, pairing it with cigars, and is reported to have said, “Doctor, I can do anything you think proper, except give up coffee and tobacco.” One famous duel was with his lawyer, Thomas Hart Benton. Benton shot him twice, and they become friends and allies for life. Jackson added the first running water in the white house. The source was soon contaminated by human waste but I can’t complain. We have similar problems in Oakland county today. He also paid down the national debt, leaving Van Buren with a surplus for the first and only time in America. I consider Jackson an excellent president, but have not decided about him as a man.

Van Buren was a heavy drinker, a pipe smoker, a corrupt Tammany man, and a bit of a spendthrift (“Martin Van Ruin”)  He is the only US president to grow up speaking Dutch, not English, and his favored drink was Schiedam, a blue-colored gin favored by New York’s Dutch. Most people could not stand Schiedam, and it led Van Buren to be called “Blue whiskey Van.” Gin is an acquired taste — one that several later presidents would acquire. My guess is that Schiedam is the reason that some modern gins come in blue bottles. Van Buren accomplished nothing of note as president.

William Henry Harrison smoked a pipe and drank nothing harder than cider. Modest drinking differentiated him from hard-drinking Van Buren. His campaign song — Tippicanoe and Tyler too — includes the line “Van is a used-up man”, but modest drinking may have killed him too. He likely died of infected water in the Whitehouse —  something that could have been cured by a bit of whiskey mixed into the infected water. (I’m running for water commissioner my campaign: clean water at an appropriate pressure for fire-fighting.
Explosion_aboard_USS_Princeton

John Tyler, Harrison’s VP, drank and smoked cigars. He kept two kegs of “Lieutenant Richardson’s whiskey” on hand, and Champaign for state dinners. He was a compromiser, who missed dying in an explosion on the USS Princeton because he’d stopped off for a drink. Most of the rest of his cabinet were not so lucky. He was rejected for re-election in favor of Polk, who promised to admit Texas.

James K. Polk was a modest drinker who favored the occasional wine or brandy. He survived his single term in the Whitehouse to die 105 days after leaving the Whitehouse of gastro-enteritis caused by infected water or fruit. A bit of whiskey might have helped. By admitting Texas, Polk started the Mexican – American War. This expanded the US further, all the way to California. I rather like Polk, but most historians do not.

Zachary Tayler, a Whig, “old rough and ready” had been a whiskey man in the army but never drank as president and rarely smoked in the white house. He died 1 1/2 years after taking office, likely killed by the bad water and lack of alcohol. Tayler was against all forms of secession and against the fugitive slave compromise that Clay. I like Tayler and agree with him.

Millard Fillmore was Tayler’s vice president and another non-smoker, he drank Madera wine as had some early presidents. Always concerned with his health, and is said to have installed the first bathtub, installing with it with copper and brass pipes. I suspect that the copper pipes saved Fillmore from DC’s bad water as copper is a fine anti-microbial. Though opposed to slavery, Fillmore signed the fugitive slave compromise that brought California into the union as a free state. The civil war is sometimes blamed on Fillmore, unfairly I think. It could not have been stopped. He died at the ripe age of 74, long after having left the Whitehouse.

Franklin Pierce, a Democrat and alcoholic, was “the hero of many a well-fought bottle”. Not a bad president, in my opinion. He saw the inevitable civil war coming and could not stop it, His wife lost her mind and his children all died. The last one, Benny, by beheading in front of him when a train Pierce and his wife were about to board broke its axle and slid down a hill. Pierce added the Gadson purchase, made the civil service less corrupt, made treaties with Britain and opened Japan. He too is blamed for the civil war by current historians as if they could have done better. He died of cirrhosis at 65, 13 years after leaving office.

James Buchanan, another Democrat was likely our only homosexual president. Buchanan was a life-long bachelor who drank quite a lot. His favorite was originally “Old Monongahela” but switched to J. Baer “finer than the best Monongahela,” buying ten gallons of J.Baer (rye) per week, direct from the distillery. “The Madeira and sherry that he has consumed would fill more than one old cellar, and the rye whiskey that he has ‘punished’ would make Jacob Baer’s heart glad.” Like Pierce, he is blamed by historians for not saving the union, as if this were an easy job that anyone could have done. Buchanan had no problem with the White House water, but was heart-broken when his housemate, William King left to become minister to France.

Lincoln didn’t drink or chew tobacco, nor did he have mistresses, or apparent trouble with the water. He was depressive though, told wonderful stories, some of them true, smoked a pipe, and once almost fought a duel with swords that broken up by the wives of the duelers. A good man and a great president. His son, Robert was present at his murder, and at two other presidential shootings.

Andrew Johnson drank and smoked occasionally, but had a low tolerance. Johnson added Alaska by purchase (Seward’s folly) but is not liked or respected by historians. I consider this unfair: he compares unfavorably to Lincoln, but don’t we all, and he could not smooth reconstruction, a near impossible task. His main impeachment crime was bombastic speech, by the way, a vice he shares with Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump. Like Buchanan and Pierce, I consider him a good president doing a near-impossible job.

Ulysses S. Grant was a Republican, a heavy cigar smoker, but a light drinker. Grant smoked as many as 20 cigars per day (a Grant cigar is 5″ long by 42 ring), but drank only brandy for his health, and not too much of that. Later in life he drank a mixture of wine and cocaine for throat pain from cancer. This stuff, a favorite of Pope Leo, was the inspiration for Coca-Cola. Grant’s campaign song, “Grant Grant Grant” specifically mentions his opposition to the KKK. He did a good job with reconstruction though the Democrats hated him for it. They mocked him as a drunk and worse: “I smoke my weed and drink my gin, playing with the people’s tin.” Grant wrote a great autobiography with the help of Mark Twain.

Hayes, a Republican, didn’t drink at all and opposed others’ drinking. Elected in 1876, he banned liquor of all sorts in the white house, and his wife was known as “Lemonade Lucy.” Hayes is criticized for corruption and for reducing the burdens of reconstruction. His opponent, Tammany Tilden, was at least as corrupt, and a stronger opponent of reconstruction.

Garfield was a beer man who “drank little else.” He tried to reform the civil service, but died from a gunshot and doctor-caused infection shortly after taking office. If his wound had been disinfected he would have probably lived. That’s what Roosevelt did when he was shot.

Chet Arthur, a cigar smoker and enthusiastic drinker, was Garfield’s vice president. When pressured for a no-liquor policy in the White House, he responded: “Madam, I may be the president of the United States, but what I do with my private life is my own damned business!” Arthur liked late night dining that he would finish with Champagne and a cigar. Though his background was in corrupt civil service, as president he did his best to remove this corruption from the civil service. A good president, IMHO.

Ma ma, Ma ma, where's my pa?

Ma ma, Ma ma, where’s my pa?

Grover Cleveland was a cigar and beer man. Weighing 250 lbs, he was known as ‘Big Steve’ or ‘Uncle Jumbo,” In the white house, he limited himself to a gallon of beer a night. That is he drank four tankards of 1 liter each. He’d drank more before becoming mayor of Baltimore. He fathered a child at that time by seduction, perhaps date rape, of Maria Halpin, a 38-year-old sales clerk. She named the child Oscar Folsom Cleveland, the two last names suggesting she was not sure of the father. Cleveland and Folsom had Maria sent to an insane asylum (she was not crazy) and had Oscar was sent to an orphanage. In the end, Maria was freed and Oscar was adopted by Dr. King a trustee of the orphanage. None of this horrible behavior stopped Cleveland from becoming mayor and president. Cleveland married the 21-year-old daughter of his friend, Folsom. Rutherford Hayes was revolted by it all: “Cleveland … is a brute with women.” Cleveland smoked foot-long, ‘supercoronas’ that he received as gifts, using these cigars to influence people and conversations, similar to Churchill. Not a good man, nor a particularly good president, IMHO. Baby Ruth candy was not named after Cleveland’s daughter Ruth, but after the baseball player. IMHO, the candy company claimed otherwise only to avoid paying royalties. Cleveland is remembered fondly by historians, but not by me. I read two of his books.

Benjamin Harrison didn’t drink, but he did smoke cigars and he allowed liquor in the white house though prohibition was a growing issue. He annexed Hawaii, improved the navy, and replaced the “spoils system” for civil service jobs with a merit system. He also tried unsuccessfully to provide voting rights for African-Americans. The move failed in the senate. Cleveland defeated him in his run for a second term by pointing out that tariffs were too high. A tariff battle would dominate the Democrat / Republican split for a generation, and has recently reappeared. Modern historians don’t much like Harrison as he didn’t succeed in providing civil rights, as if that were an easy battle.

mckinleyMcKinley drank scotch whiskey — Dewar’s, a brand provided by Andrew Carnegie, and he smoked several cigars per day. He would not smoke in public though there is artwork, as at right, and the comment that “one never saw McKinley without a cigar in his mouth except at meals or when asleep.’. The McKinley delight is a variant of the Manhattan made with 3 oz of rye whiskey (at least 100 proof), 1 oz. sweet vermouth, 2 dashes of cherry brandy, and 1 dash absinthe. McKinley was shot and started to recover before dying from doctor-caused infection (he used the same doctor the Garfield had).

Theodore Roosevelt, was McKinley’s VP, and is one of the most beloved and colorful presidents in US history. He smoked cigars starting when he was 8, but swore off them later. He drank modestly, a version of the mint julep and served it to anyone who’d play tennis with him. Roosevelt’s version used rye plus brandy instead of Bourbon: 2-3 oz of rye whiskey, 10 to 12 fresh mint leaves “muddled” with a splash of water, a sugar cube, ¼ oz. of brandy and a sprig or two of mint as a garnish. The fresh mint was grown on the Whitehouse grounds. T. Roosevelt wrote some 30 books (I’ve read four or five) they are all wonderful. Roosevelt did daring things, like ride a moose, and survived being shot by leaving the bullet where is was; here’s a photo and essay. I don’t understand why so many US presidents drank rye and not Bourbon (Bourbon — corn whiskey — had been invented in the late 1700s and is tastier, IMHO). One of TR’s most famous speeches, “the man in the arena”, was given at the Sorbonne 1910. He claimed that being a critic was not much of an achievement.

William H. Taft smoked cigars and like Champaign, but rarely drank; he was on a perpetual diet. He tried to continue Roosevelt’s programs, but got little done. Still the country did well. He’s most remembered for the “7th inning stretch” break near the end of every baseball game.

Woodrow Wilson drank scotch and smoked cigarettes. His campaign slogan, “Wilson that’s all” was a whiskey slogan. Prohibition began during Wilson’s time in office: it was supposed to help women, but did not. It brought corruption and misery. Here’s an anti-alcohol song of the day: “behind those swinging doors.”

Harding's humidor - a massive thing

Harding’s humidor – a massive thing

Despite prohibition, Harding had poker nights twice a week where he smoked cigars, and the whiskey flowed freely. He also had at least 7 mistresses; he got two of them pregnant. Not a good man or a particularly good president. He died in office, perhaps killed by his wife or by his lifestyle.

Calvin Coolidge was Harding’s VP. Coolidge smoked cigars and drank sweet, Tokay wine. As president he cut spending and taxes, paid down the debt, and did not say much. Much of the detail work was done by his secretary of commerce, Herbert Hoover. Here is the Coolidge cooler: 1.5 oz. of Vermont White vodka, ½ oz. of American whiskey, 2 oz. of orange juice, Club soda. A good man and a good president, IMHO.

hoover

hoover

H. Hoover liked good wine and dry gin-martinis, but didn’t drink either in the white house as he respected prohibits as his predecessors did not. Also, his wife poured out his extensive wine collection. He is blamed for the great depression, unfairly I think. The depression hit all other industrial countries at the same time (most economies revered before ours did). Hoover’s dying request, at 80, was for a good, dry martini. He is the first gin man since Van Buren, but not the last.

FDR and Churchill

FDR and Churchill. They drank Champaign and whiskey.

FDR was the first gentleman president since Monroe. He smoked 2 packs of cigarettes per day and drank gin martinis, very dry. Also, “old-fashioneds”, and daiquiris mixed with orange juice (a rum sizzle it’s called). The old-fashioned is made of whiskey, sugar, water, and bitters. FDR spent his last day with one of his mistresses (his wife had a mistress too) and his last words were to recount how much Churchill drank. FDR also took cocaine. It was a fairly normal medication at the time. He took some before giving the famous speech “December 7, 1941….” I question the harsh sentences we now give to users of this drug.

Truman was not a gentleman, but a fine president, IMHO. He swore with abandon, was a bourbon man, and liked to play poker with his buddies late into the night. He liked to include a shot of bourbon with his breakfast before his morning walk, took another shot “for freedom” when he entered the senate, drank bourbon with his poker buddies, and sometimes had bourbon with dinner. Truman’s buddies and colleagues were impressed that he was always up early though, and ready for work. He worked hard, didn’t smoke, and was true to his wife. He lived a long life, dying at 88 in 1972.

Eisenhower typically drank scotch with ice.

Eisenhower drank scotch over ice.

Eisenhower liked scotch, golf, smoking cigarettes and cigars, and entertaining. He had a mistress (his driver) and mostly entertained business men who he would sound out for advice on the issues of the day. He limited himself to only one drink a day or a bit of a second because of his health. It’s a good standard. Eisenhower was one of the first presidents to have a secret-service nickname, “scorecard” because of his love of golf. Before him, only Wilson played more golf.

John F. Kennedy had many mistresses, and was the last to smoke cigars in public while president. He drank classy drinks like Daiquiris, Bloody Marys and Heineken beer, imported from Holland. The Daiquiri is made of rum, lime, sugar, and water. Kennedy lived on amphetamines from “Dr Feelgood,” his personal physician. He is supposed to have tried LSD and marijuana too, His secret service nickname was “Lancer”, a reference to Lancelot, the philandering knight of Camelot fame. A famous story of Kennedy is that, right before signing the embargo of Cuba, he instructed an assistant to buy up every Cuban cigar he could find. He bought over 1000 and then signed the embargo. Not one of my favorite presidents. Jacquline Kennedy smoked like a train, Salems.

Screen Shot 2018-09-13 at 10.58.11 PMLBJ was a cigarette smoker and a heavy drinker who’s responsible for “Bourbon and Branch” becoming the semi-official drink of Texans. Branch water is just another name for water, BTW. He also drank scotch: Cutty Sark or Teachers, and used his ability to hold liquor in negotiations. He’d greet congressional opponent with two bottles, requesting that they finish them before talking. After that, they were pliable, especially since, sometimes he’d have his diluted. A very good president, IMHO: he was able to implement civil right law that had eluded a century of presidents.
nixon-cigars

Nixon is hated, unfairly I think. He liked fine wine and fruity mixed drinks like Mai Tais, but served mediocre wine to guests. He was an ex-smoker of cigarettes – switched to cigars by the time he was president, but smoking them in private, and handing out bubble gum cigars as a campaign prop. Mai Tais are wonderful drinks, the recipe is 60 ml Jamaican and Martinique Rums, 25 ml Fresh Lime Juice, 15 ml Orange Curaçao, 15 ml Orgeat, 3-4 Crushed Ice Cubes. Nixon ended the Vietnam war and began good relations with Russia and China. I also started the EPA, and is the first president to deal well with the Indians, dividing Alaska land nicely. Watergate was his downfall, helped in part by Deep Throat, the second in command of the FBI who was bypassed for a promotion.

Gerald Ford smoked a pipe in public, and liked gin martinis during lunch or with friends, or gin and tonics in the summer. He didn’t drink to excess, and most people liked him. He’s criticized for thinking Russia was an enemy, and for not stopping inflation, as if anyone else could have done it.

Carter didn’t drink or smoke, and was critical of those who did, a possible swipe at Ford. When he had an arms summit with the Soviets, Carter toasted the soviets with a small glass of white wine. He’s the least favorite president of my life-time; he backed tyrants and thought that deficit spending would cure the economy. He got nothing more than foreign policy abuse and stag-flation (inflationary recession). Carter’s secret service name was “Deacon,” because of his church leanings. 114000446

Reagan liked California wine and the Orange Blossom Special: 1 oz. (or slightly less) vodka, 1 oz. of either grenadine or sweet vermouth, 2 oz. fresh orange juice, served over ice. Reagan smoked before becoming president, and ate jelly beans as a way of quitting. They became his signature dish. As president, Reagan was a deficit spender but he got better results than Carter had perhaps because he achieved his deficit by lowering taxes.

George HW Bush drank beer or vodka martinis in moderation, and smoked the occasional cigar. He may have had a mistress, too. A vodka martini is a mix of vodka and dry vermouth mixed in at about 4 to 1. I find it flavorless. He liked (likes) sailing and skydiving. Of the recent presidents, he is the fondest remembered by the white house staff. The soviet union collapsed in his day. A good president and a good man.

Screen Shot 2018-09-13 at 10.58.40 PMBill Clinton smoked pot in college and after, though he claims to have not inhaled. In the white house he smoked cigars, but not in public, and liked an English drink called a snake-bite: 50% beer, 50% hard cider. His secret service name was “eagle,” perhaps because of his eagle eye for women. Several women claimed that he’d pressured them into sex. Clinton denied all charges until one, a 22-year-old intern, turned up with the stained dress. He was a good president but a lousy person. His cigar of choice, the Gurkha Grand Reserve, is slightly longer and wider than the Grant cigar, 6 inches by 50 ring.

George W. Bush had been a heavy drinker in college but completely swore off by the time he was president. When his father had been president, his secret service name had been “Tumbler,” a reference to his drinking and its ill-effects. He requested a different nickname as president, Timberwolf. It sounds vaguely like Tumbler. His main presidential accomplishment was the war on terror, such as it is.

Obama, like Clinton, smoked pot in his youth. He switched to beer and cigarettes in the White house but doesn’t do either in public. The picture at right has him holding the glass. His secret service name is “Renegade,” and his main achievement, seems to have been a close rapport with the countries of Islam. While I can’t say that pot helped either of these men, it does not seem to have hurt them, or society. Thus, I can not favor harsh sentences. usa-whitehouse-beer-1

Trump does not drink or smoke. He has had some affairs before becoming president, but they seem to have been consensual, and he seems to have stopped by the time he entered the Whitehouse. Trump’s church leaning is positivist, and his secret service nickname is “Mogul.” He seems committed to tariffs as a way to restart the economy and as a way to bring down the debt. I wish him success.

It is not clear who is in charge when the president is drunk, nor is the law clear about presidential smoking in the Whitehouse: It is both a public building and a private residence

Robert E. Buxbaum, October 18, 2018. As a side note: The 23rd Prime Minister of Australia, Bob Hawke (1954) held the Guinness Record for fast beer drinking: 2.5 pints in under 11 seconds !

Feminism in law and middle east diplomacy

Leave a reply

If you went to college in the last 40 years and learned there was a concept called “the rape culture” that was supposed to drive law and diplomacy. In terms of law the assumption was that all men – or most — were rapists or would be rapists. Along with this, women are weaker, and almost always the victim in male-female interactions. As such the woman has to be believed in all cases of “he-said, she-said.” To do otherwise was “rape-shaming” a form of blaming the victim. Male on female rape is supposed to have infected international affairs as well. War and peace are assumed to be rape situations where no country is assumed to want foreign influence or industry unless they say so, and any demand that you take your embassy or hotel out has to be met with immediate withdrawal. The female country is the weaker in these deals, and where that could not be determined, the raper country was determined by geography. Israel was always the raper country because of its shape and position within the Arab world. Israel was asked to withdraw — cease to exist as a non-Islamic nation — and admit that it was raping the Arab world just by existing.

Before World War I, there was no such thing as a world court. If one country attacked another, the attacked country could appeal to allies, or perhaps to public opinion, but there was no certainty of rescue. Without a world court, and without a world set of laws, claiming victim status did little. Weaker principalities could be divided up, and sometimes sold off or traded. Manhattan went from being a Dutch settlement to being an English settlement when the English traded an island in the Pacific for it. Napoleon acquired Louisiana from the Spanish by trading northern Italy, then promptly sold Louisiana to America. And all this was normal. The international version of human trafficking, I suppose.

After WWI, a world court was created along with a new diplomatic theory: the world should protect the weak and the wronged. In this context, feminist analysis of which country is wronged would have been important except that there was no army to do the enforcing. Woodrow Wilson championed a League of Nations, one of his 19 points. The weak and abused would be protected from the strong; democracy would be protected from the dictator. This is a softer, kinder view of the world, a cooperative world, a feminist world, and in academia it is considered the only good version — a one world order with academics at the top. Still, without an army or much of a budget, it was all academic, as it were. This changed when the United Nations was created with a budget and an army. If the army was to protect the victim, we had to determine who was the aggressor. In 95% of all cases considered before the UN, the aggressor was asserted to be Israel. This in not despite its small size, but because of it. By feminist analysis, the surrounding country is always the victim.

In feminist analysis, there is the need for a third type of person, almost a third gender. This is the male feminist. This is the warlike defender of the weak. Such people are assumed to make up the UN army and its management. When an outsider country appears within the boundaries of another nation, that’s national rape and has to be prevented by this third-gender army. Hitler’s takeover of Europe was rape, not because he was totalitarian (he was elected democratically) but because his was an unwelcome intrusion. The counter-invasion of Germany was/is only justified by assuming that the allies (the good guys) represented, not rape, but some third gender interaction. It all made a certain type of sense in college seminars, if not in life, and men were not quite expected to understand; we were just expected to become this third gender.

Being a Male Feminist is uncomfortable both in personal and international affairs. It is very uncomfortable to have to defend every victim, making every sacrifice no matter how personally objectionable the victim is, or how arbitrary the distinction of victim, or how much the victim hates her savior. In personal affairs, this is a theme in Bob Dylan song “It’s ain’t me, babe.”  Dylan agrees with a lady that she has a right to want all sorts of things, but says, “it ain’t me babe,” about him being the guy to provide them all.

In international affairs the discomfort is even worse. We found, with depressing frequency, that we were expected to donate the lives of countless soldiers in support of regimes that were objectionable, and that hated us. Jimmy Carter supported the PLO and Idi Amin, and the Ayatollah because they were weak regimes with incursions: by the oil companies or the CIA. The people we were helping hated us before Jimmy Carter, and they hated us more after. The Ayatollah in Iran captured or killed our diplomatic staff, and beheaded anyone with western sympathies.

I have come to think that a redefinition of rape is what is needed. I note that not all rape is male-on female, and not all wars are won by incursion. The Mongols won by surrounding. Similarly, the game of GO is won by surrounding. I would like to stop assuming that the surrounding nation is always the victim and that the woman is always telling the truth. In personal injury law, I’d like more freedom to try to decide which is right or wrong or maybe both have a case, and we may want to just sit back and wait to offer mediation. Here’s another Bob Dylan song on the difficulty of figuring out who is right or wrong: “God on our sides.”

Robert E. Buxbaum, September 21, 2018

God bless you Canada

Leave a reply

Canada is a fine country, rarely appreciated in the USA because most of it is so similar to us — One of my favorite places to visit in Canada was the museum of Canadiana — a museum dedicated to the differences between the US and Canada. Differences do exist, but they are few and small, as you can tell perhaps from the song below, “God Bless You Canada,” by Lee Greenwood, the same fellow who wrote, “God Bless the USA.” The tunes and words are strongly similar, I’d say.

Canada is much easier to reach than Hawaii for the most part, or Alaska, Puerto Rico, or Guam, it’s just north of Montana and south of Alaska and Detroit. And Canadian English is at least as understandable as a southern drawl or a New Yorker twang. Canada has far fewer murders but far more rapes, armed robberies and assaults. It has the same suicide rate as we do, but by different means. And Toronto’s mayor was on crack like Detroit’s mayor.

Canadian $2 coin, Elizabeth II, by the grace of god, Queen. The last part is in Latin.

Canadian $2 coin, Elizabeth II, by the grace of god, Queen (it’s in Latin).

Canada has a Queen, Elizabeth II, that it shares with several other countries including England, Australia, and Barbados. This is no to say that Canada isn’t quite independent: the main power of Canada’s Queen, like with the US president, is “the bully pulpit”. As in The United States. The press does its best to rein in this power.

If Canada were to join the US as the 51 state, it be the 3rd largest state in population (after Texas and California) and the 3rd largest in GDP (after New York and California). Not that all of Canada is likely to join, but certain parts might (New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador) if Quebec goes its separate way. Québécois like remember that they were originally French. “Je me Souviens” is the Quebec motto, and having an English Queen irks. One of my favorite Canada facts (maybe true) is that the name Canada is French for Ça nada (nothing here) but tit’s not sure, there is stuff and people there. My wife is from there. Listen to the song, “God Bless you, Canada”, I suspect you’ll like it.

Robert Buxbaum, September 17, 2018.

The Great, New York to Paris, Automobile race of 1908.

Leave a reply

As impressive as Lindberg’s transatlantic fight was in 1926, more impressive was George Schuster driving and winning the New York to Paris Automobile race beginning in the dead of winter, 1908, going the long way, through Russia. As of 1908, only nine cars had ever made the trip from Chicago to California, and none had done it in winter, but this race was to go beyond California, to Alaska and then over the ice through Russia and to Paris. Theodore Roosevelt was president, and Americans were up to any challenge. So, on February 12, 1908 there congregated in Times Square, New York, a single, US-made production car, along with five, specially made super-cars from Europe; one each from Italy and Germany; and three from France. The US car, a Thomas Flyer (white), is shown in the picture below. The ER Thomas company sent along George Schuster, as an afterthought: he was a mechanic and test-driver for the company, and was an ex bicycle racer. The main driver was supposed to be Montague Roberts, a dashing sportsmen, but the fellow dropped out in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Schuster reached the Eiffel tower on July 30, 1908, 169 days after leaving New York. The Germans and Italians followed. None of the French super-cars got further than Vladivostok, and one dropped out after less than 100 miles.

The race was sponsored by The New York Times and Le Matin, a Paris newspaper. They offered a large trophy, a cash prize of $1000, not enough to pay for the race, and the prospect of fame. The original plan was for drivers to go from New York to San Francisco, then to Seattle by ship, and Northern Alaska, driving to Russia across the Arctic ice. That plan was abandoned when Schuster, the first driver to reach Alaska, discovered ten foot snows outside of Valdez. The race was modified so that travel to Russia would be by ship. Schuster took his Thomas to Russia from Alaska, the other two drivers reached Russia from Seattle by way of Japan. Schuster was given a bonus of days to account for having taken the longer route. Because of his detour, he was the last to arrive in Russia. From Japan, the route was Vladivostok, Omsk, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Berlin, and Paris, 21,900 miles total; 13,341 miles driven. Schuster drove most of those 13,341 miles, protected by his own .32-caliber pistol, and mostly guided by the stars and a sextant. He’d taught himself celestial navigation as there were no roadmaps, and hardly any roads.

George Schuster driving the Thomas Flyer, the only American entry, and the only production motorcar in the race.

George Schuster driving the Thomas Flyer with another mechanic, George Miller, the Flyer was only American entry, and the only production motorcar in the race. Note that the flag has only 45 stars.

The ship crossing of the Pacific was a good idea given that, even in the dead of winter, global warming meant that the arctic could not be relied upon to be solid ice. As it was, Schuster had to content with crossing the Rockies in deep snow, and crossing Russia in the season of deepest mud. He reached the Eiffel tower at 6 p.m. on July 30, 1908. The German car had arrived in Paris three days ahead of Schuster, but was penalized to second place because the German team had avoided the trip to Alaska, and had traveled some 150 km of the Western US by railroad while Schuster had driven. The Italian team reached Paris months later, in September, 1908. That the win went to the only production car to compete is indicative, perhaps of the reliability that comes with mass production. That Mr. Schuster was not given the fame that Lindberg got may have to do with the small size of the prize, or with him being a mechanic while Lindberg was a “flyer”. Flyers were sexy; even the car was called a flyer. The Times saw fit to hardly mention Schuster at all, and when it did, it spelled his name wrong. Instead the Times headline read, “Thomas Flyer wins New York to Paris Race.” You’d think the car did it on its own, or that the driver was named Thomas Flyer.

The Flyer crossing a swollen river in Manchuria.

Schuster in his Flyer crossing a swollen river in Manchuria.

The Times could not get enough of Montague Roberts; the driver of the first leg was famous and photographic. They tried to get Roberts to drive the last few miles into Paris, “once the roads were good”. And Roberts was the one chosen to drive in the hero-parade in New York, Schuster rode too, but didn’t drive. Schuster was feted by Theodore Roosevelt, though, who said he liked people “who did things.” Schuster said he’d never do a race like that again, and he never did race again.

The race did wonders for the reputation of American automobiles, and greatly spurred the desire for roads, but it did little or nothing for the E.R.Thomas company. Thomas cars were high cost, high power models, and they lost out in the marketplace to Henry Ford’s, low-cost Model T’s. You’d think that, in the years leading up to WWI, the US Army might buy a high cost, high reliability car, but they were not interested, and the Thomas company did little to capitalize on their success. The Flyer design that won the race was discontinued. It was a 60 hp, straight 4 cylinder engine version, replaced by lower cost Flyers with 3 cylinders and 24 hp. Shortly after that, Edwin R. Thomas, decided to drop the Flyer altogether. His company went bankrupt in 1912, and was bought by Empire Smelting. The original Flyer was sold in 1913 at a bankruptcy action, lot #1829, “Famous New York to Paris Racer.”

ER Thomas went on to found another car company, as was the style in those days. Thomas-Detroit went on make similar cars to the Flyer, but cheaper. The largest, the K-30, was only 30 hp. The original Thomas Flyer is now in the National Automobile Museum, Reno Nevada. after being identified by Schuster and restored. Here is a video showing the original Flyer being driven by a grandson of George Schuster. There is a lower-power Thomas Flyer (black) in a back space of the Henry Ford museum (Detroit). Protos vehicles, similar to the one that came in second, were produced for the German military through WWI. Their manufacturer, Siemens, benefited, as did the German driver.

Advertisement for the Protos Automobile, a product of Siemens motor company. The race did not include a production Protos but one made specially for the race.

Advertisement for the Protos Automobile, a product of Siemens motor company. The race did not include a production Protos but one made specially for the race.

The Thomas engine (and the Protos) engine) live on in a host of cars with water-cooled, four-cylinder, straight engines. In 1922, Chalmers-Detroit merged with Maxwell and continued to produce versions of the old Flyer design, now with an internal drive-shaft. The original Flyer was powered via a gear-chain, like a bicycle. In 1928, Maxwell was sold to Chrysler. Chrysler persists in calling their high-power, four-cylinder engines by the name Chalmers. As for Schuster, when ER Thomas closed its doors, he had still not been paid for his time as a race driver. He went to work for Pierce-Arrow, another maker of large, heavy vehicles. The “cheaper by the dozen” family (two parents, 12 kids) drove a Pierce-Arrow.

The Great race appears in two documentaries and two general audience movies, both comedies. The first of these was Mishaps of the New York–Paris Race, released by Georges Méliès, July 1908, just about as the Flyer was entering Paris. The second movie version  “The Great Race” was released in 1965. It’s one of my favorite movies, with Jack Lemon as the Protos driver (called Dr. Fate in the movie), Tony Curtis as “The Great Leslie”, the Flyer driver. For the movie, the Flyer is called “The Leslie”, and with Natalie Wood as a female reporter who rides along and provides the love interest. In the actual race reporters from the New York Times, male, traveled in the Flyer’s rear seat sending stories back by carrier pigeon.

Path of the Great Race

Path of the Great Race

As a bit of fame, here’s George Schuster in 1958 on “What’s my secret.” He was 85, and no one knew of him or the race. Ten years later, in 1968, Schuster finally received his $1000 prize, but still no fame. A blow-by-blow of the race can be found here, in Smithsonian magazine. There is also an article about the race in The New York Times, February 10, 2008. This article includes only two pictures, a lead picture showing one of the French cars, and another showing Jeff  Mahl, the grandson of George Schuster, and a tiny bit of the flyer. Why did the New York Times choose these pictures? My guess is it’s the same reason that they reported as they did in 1908: The French car looked better than the Flyer, and Jeff Mahl looked better than George Schuster.

Robert Buxbaum, July 20, 2018. What does all this mean, I’ve wondered as I wrote this essay. There were so many threads, and so many details. After thinking a bit, my take is that the movie versions were right. It was all a comedy. Life becomes a comedy when the wrong person wins, or the wrong vehicle does. A simple mechanic working for a failing auto company beat great drivers and super cars, surpassing all sorts of obstacles that seem impossible to surpass. That’s comedy, It’s for this reason that Dante’s Divine Comedy is a comedy. When we see things like this we half-choose to disbelieve, and we half-choose to laugh, and because we don’t quite believe, very often we don’t reward the winner as happened to Schuster for the 60 years after the race. Roberts should have won, so we’ll half-pretend he did.