Thursday, November 11, 2010

Mr. President, It's Not Your Fault

In the climactic scene of the movie, “Good Will Hunting,” the psychiatrist talks to his patient about what happened to him in his childhood. Ten times he says, “It’s not your fault,” before the patient tearfully accepts absolution.

Regarding the economy, Mr. President, listen to me, sir. Listen. It’s not your fault… it’s not your fault. The state of the economy is due to four factors, only loosely related causally: one, globalization; two, oil prices; three, an unrestrained Wall Street; and four, speculative housing.

1. Globalization began decades before you took office with GATT starting in 1947 and WTO in 1995. It has resulted in high unemployment in the US and Europe. Actually, more people are employed now than in 1995, but they are in China and India. The employment picture in the West will improve when the average worker in China is making wages acceptable to the American worker. This may take a while, certainly more than two years, probably more than six. There’s little you can do about it, and in any case, Mr. President, it’s not your fault.

2. When oil prices go up, gasoline prices go up and people have less money to spend on other goods and services. Buying goes down, so production goes down, making employment go down, which reduces spending money, thus further lowering buying, and the vicious cycle is underway. And, of course, with lower employment comes a reduction in tax revenues. High oil prices by themselves are enough to cause and sustain a recession. By the way, where does the extra money we pay for gasoline go? Is it becoming more expensive to drill for oil or is someone getting richer while we get poorer? Check out Dubai. So far, Mr. President, no one has blamed you for high oil prices. Mr. President, it’s not your fault.

3. The problems with Wall Street began under the reign of George I and the lack of necessary restraints went unaddressed by both Mr. Clinton and George II. You did what you could about it; you continued TARP and the bailouts initiated by George II and instituted new regulations. Mr. President, it’s not your fault.

4. The housing situation is little more than a new version of “tulipomania” exacerbated by Wall Street selling packaged mortgages. With obstructionist elements in Congress, you have done as much as could be done. Again, Mr. President, it’s not your fault.

The mid-term elections are, of course, disappointing for you and some have said the results are an indictment of your policies. No, there is nothing in what you did that inhibited a recovery from this recession. Your opposition has complained about the high rate of deficit spending, but the overwhelming consensus of economists is that this spending is exactly the correct course in a recession. The fact is, people vote with their wallets and when the economy is in poor shape, they vote the incumbents out, no matter who they might be. Ask Britons to name the greatest Briton of all time, and most answer “Winston Churchill.” He is regarded as their savior. Yet right after WWII, economies everywhere tanked, as they invariably do after war, and the Brits actually voted him out of office. Our 2010 election results are no more than the same kind of unavoidable, knee-jerk reaction by a disgruntled public, and there is nothing you could have done about it. You may feel you’ve taken, as you say, a shellacking; but Mr. President, it’s not your fault. It’s not your fault.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Remembering Professor Stuart

Milton Caleb Stuart was Chairman Emeritus of Lehigh University’s Mechanical Engineering Department and a recognized authority in his field, having authored textbooks on thermodynamics and steam power plants. Silver-haired, he always wore a suit and tie in class. He seemed to like his students, and the feeling was pretty much mutual. I liked his class and certainly didn’t need a reminder to do the homework, or so I thought.

When one of us raised a question, his answer was often unpredictable but salient. On the last day before graduation, someone asked, “Professor Stuart, how do you think we should go about getting our first job as a graduate engineer.”

“Decide where you want to live, go there and look for work.” At the time, that seemed like useless advice. Years later we would realize the man had a point.

Professor Stuart was opposed to our memorizing material. Rather, he wanted us to learn the fundamentals and work from that knowledge. One day, to illustrate this, he drew a large “X” on the blackboard. “Name a cycle.” We all knew what was coming; he would draw a cycle diagram in an unusual way to illustrate that we didn’t need to memorize thermodynamic cycles if we could just think our way through them.

“Stirling,” someone said. Quiet chuckling followed; the Stirling cycle, not in general use, was the most obscure one we knew. The quiet laughter spread as one by one, we realized the game was on. We would make this as difficult as we could.

“Give me a property.”

“Entropy,” came a quick reply. The laughter grew; entropy was a bit of a nebulous concept to us.

“Now another.”

After a moment of silence, someone said, “Specific volume.” Gleeful guffaws broke out. It was a silly idea; a useless graph would result, and it wouldn’t be easy to think it through.

“What polarity would you like for the axes?”

“Both positive down,” one of us said. There was more laughter. No mercy. Now our professor would have to create an unprecedented diagram, and draw it upside down. To our amazement, he did so without hesitation. As he went through the various parts of the cycle, he explained why lines went in the direction they did and why they were curved the way they were. By the time he had finished, our laughter had given way to sober awe. He certainly did make a convincing demonstration.

Professor Stuart conducted class much as a showman. He would ask a question and then call a student, by his last name, to answer. If the good professor didn't like the answer, he would simply say, "No, no," and call another name. When getting a good answer, he would say, "Stand up." When the student rose, Professor Stuart would go to him and shake his hand. He would then make his way back to the head of the class and discuss the question. Such was the routine. He was always down to earth. In one case, while discussing boilers, he asked, “Mr. Abbott, how big is a boiler?”

“It depends…” began Abbott.

“No, no,” said Professor Stuart. “Mr. Jamison, how big is a boiler?”

“Well it does depend …” Jamison protested.

“No, no, it doesn’t ‘depend,’ it doesn’t ‘depend,’ ” growled the professor, treating the word “depend” contemptuously. Well, of course the size of a boiler does depend; it depends on the rate at which it raises water to steam and to what temperature, but our instructor obviously wasn't satisfied with that. He then called on John Redmond, who looked too big and muscular to be very bright, but probably was as smart as most of us. "Mr. Redmond, how big is a boiler?"

Redmond knew full well the size of a boiler depended on it's rating, but with that answer having just been twice rejected, he raised his voice in desperation and simply said, "Pretty damn big."

"Of course," said Professor Stuart, "stand up." The handshake ensued. "You people have been on field trips to three different power plants. You didn't notice that? Boilers are pretty damn big." None of us would ever forget how big a boiler is.

My roommate and I shared a small room in a private house that also housed eight other students. He and I were compatible. In fact, for most evenings for three years, we sat facing each other across a small worktable doing our homework and never had a significant disagreement. We pretty much thought alike. Both car guys, we preferred sports cars to Detroit iron. He was more aggressive; I more laid back. He had a 600cc Triumph motorcycle; I made it through college without wheels. Had we been old enough for the Air Corp in WWII, he might have made a great P-51 pilot. I would have wanted that, but more likely would have been stuck as a navigator in a B-17. He was raised Catholic and I Methodist, but neither of us was superstitious. He had a crewcut, so we called him "Curly." I went with conventional combed hair. Most of us in the house had gotten in the habit of calling one another by our last name spelled backwards, so I was "Treblig." We sat side by side near the front of Professor Stuart's basic thermodynamics class.


Now we are approaching “thermo” with a mutual friend, Dan, who asks, "So you guys know all there is to know about enthalpy?"

"What is it?" I ask.

"Enthalpy."

"Enthalpy? What's that?"

"Apparently you have not done your homework," drawls Dan.

"Oh my god, I completely forgot." It’s not like me to forget an assignment. I might gloss over one or simply decide not to do it, but forget to do it? No. And I would never give short shrift to an assignment from Professor Stuart. "What page is it on?"

Dan turns to his bookmark. "Fifty seven."

In desperation, I quickly turn to the page in my book and scan the few pages in the section. It's all text except for a single equation: h = e + pv. I know what e, p and v are and so h must be enthalpy. Now time has run out, we are entering the classroom, so I quickly close the book. I had spent no more than five seconds preparing for class.

Professor Stuart starts the class by asking, "What is enthalpy?"

Don't call on me; all I know is that one equation. Well, the odds are in my favor; I'm just one of about twenty in the class.

"Mr. Zimmerman."

C’mon Big Z, you know it.

"Enthalpy is a measure of the total energy in a gas."

"No, no." Then after a pause, " Mr. Ellison."

OK, Ellison, give him what he’s looking for.

" It's the amount of useable energy in a gas."

"No, no". He looks over in my direction. "Mr. Gilbert."

Damn, so much for the favorable odds. Maybe he saw me trying to look invisible. All I can do is recite the equation. Well, here goes, "Enthalpy is the sum of internal energy and the product of pressure and specific volume."

"Of course. Exactly right. Stand up." Professor Stuart comes over to me and we shake hands. He turns and goes back to the front of the class and I sit down. "Didn't you people read the assignment?"

I sneak a look at Curly, expecting something like a sad smile and a slow shake of the head. Instead he gives me a theatrical icy stare, heavy eyelids, the whole bit: pure, cold hatred. Curly could have made it big in Hollywood. I'm so surprised by that face that I almost burst out laughing.

After class, Curly and Dan walk away. I catch up with them. They're quiet. I'm feeling good. I break the silence with "Enthalpy… no big deal."

"Shut up," says Curly.

"Shut up," echoes Dan. It's their way of congratulating me. Then I remember the look on Curly’s face and start laughing.

Back at the house, I make a homework schedule and tape it to the wall next to my side of our worktable. I rarely need it, which is to say, of course, I do need it.

Richard R. Gilbert © 2010

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Mary's Roses

Someone brought our Mary roses,
And then did bid good day.
Just who would have tendered them,
Not one of us could say.
Now Mary, though a lovely lass,
Would hold the boys at bay.
Yet someone let those roses rest,
By Mary’s stone today.

© Richard Gilbert 2010

Monday, February 15, 2010

The Etheree

The etheree is a poem with ten lines. The first line has a one syllable word; the second line has two syllables; the third line three, etc., and finally the tenth line has ten syllables. It was invented by Etheree Taylor Armstrong, an Arkansas poet. A double etheree goes one to ten and then ten to one. So here's my crack at it:


You and Your Double Etheree

You,
You jerk,
You moron,
You idiot,
You ignoramus,
You empty-headed ass,
You illiterate meathead,
You ridiculous stumblebum,
You stupid, worthless human being
You and your stupid, ugly etheree.

This is not what an etheree should be.
An etheree must be poetry.
An etheree should be lovely.
It should be filled with wonder.
It should truly inspire.
It should be graceful.
And not complain,
Nor attack,
You dope,
You.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Who's in Control?

Late on a Saturday afternoon, Dad drove into town to get a flat tire fixed, and I got to go with him. Arriving at the gas station, I took the tire from the trunk and laid it flat on the shop apron. The station owner hurried over and said that he was about to close up, but he could fix it. His coveralls carried the name “Bob.” After looking at the tire more closely, Bob said, “Oh, this is a radial. I don’t think I can get it done before closing time.” Radials were new at the time. Bob turned and took a few steps to check the clock on the shop wall, and then, turning back, said, “No, I’m sorry, there’s just not enough time.” With that, he started toward the tire.

Dad took the cigar from his mouth, held his hand palm down in front of him and quietly said, “Leave it.” Bob stopped, looking bewildered. I was confused too. We both looked at Dad. After a moment of silence, Dad said quietly, “Rich, put the tire in the car.”

Before I could take a step, Bob pounced on the tire crying, “No, no, I can fix it!” He started working hurriedly. I looked at Dad, half expecting a wink or at least a smile. Nothing; he was expressionless.

When Bob was finished with the repair, he then got what he had wanted; he got to put the tire in the car.

Dad was a sales manager. Part of his job was motivating people. I figure he motivated Bob. Motivated or manipulated, that can be a fine line. Each party got what he wanted, so let’s say, “motivated.” I say “motivated” because he was my dad. My dad wouldn’t manipulate anyone.