Another thing which makes me go "huh?"

       Most of you know that I live in a community of seniors, some 120,000 strong. Some of you may also be aware that this is also a "Repugnican" stronghold. I'm reminded of that every time I see someone wearing the ubiquitous "make America great again" ball cap.

      Now here's the weird part, although now that I reflect a bit, it's  actually more "pathetic" than "weird." Many of the retirees here are living in the life style they have because they are retirees with pension plans, supplemental retirement benefit health care plans and, with Social Security, are (very) comfortably financially able to be part of this community which has a mean household income of more than $57,000 annually. 

       A significant number are retired members of the law enforcement and fire fighter communities. Many others are former employees in  other major industries. I cite these examples only to point out that many who support Trump are beneficiaries of organizations he loathes, and of which he has demonstrated this loathing in his business dealings over the past 25 years.

       Allow me one quick example of what (some) unions have done for members:  The United Auto Workers spends $4 billion annually  solely on health care benefits for its roughly 70 thousand retired members. A quick trip to the calculator shows that the math works out to $57,000  annually per retiree and dependent(s).   I am not justifying or supporting this incredible figure, just pointing it out.

         I cite these examples only to point out that a  significant common denominator of this group is their vociferous support of the current menace to world peace who occupies the White House. The other common factor is that they were/are essentially all (wait for it)  union members. Their retirement , benefits which are, as I pointed out earlier,  extremely generous, especially for those from the Northeast, were negotiated by their labor organizations. The man they support has shown, time and time again, his hostility to, and disdain for, unions such as theirs. He has refused to pay several for work done and has underpaid many more, daring them to spend even more to sue him. 

      Donald Trump is far, far from the supporter of working class Americans he portrays himself to be. Sadly, his flagrant support of the players of the race card resonates with some former unionists because, truth told, the history of labor unions and minorities for most of the 20th century has been one of racism as well.

        Working class white men and women who act surprised and nonplussed when Blacks point out the continuing vestiges of racism in America have their feet firmly in the muck of time, if they were union members even into the 1950s and 60s.  Unions were  the "white privilege" bastions of labor for longer than most want to admit, or sadder yet, than many even know. So in summary, perhaps sadly, Trump's appeal to the worst in their natures is what stimulates their "bite the hand which fed us" response to his shameful treatment of working class Americans. 

Clash or "Rights" or clash of "The Right?"

Clash of Rights?

        As is customary, the two guys who write Jesus and Mo have nailed it all in four easy pieces (or panels, if you prefer.)  Along the way, they have delineated the essential differences  between the  exclusionary Far Rightists and the rest of us including, it should be noted, many, if not most Republicans and others of good faith and intention. It is noteworthy that the difference isn't about economics, national priorities, Heathcare, or anything else which really matters, but about "We don't like (insert favorite prejudice here) even though it has zero impact on our lives, so we don't like you." 

(read 'em all at http://www.jesusandmo.net/ )

       As the cartoon shows, the basic issue here is exclusion and denial by one group of the rights of another group which, in truth, represents no threat to their own rights. As I believe many of the Far Right see the world, it is essential for their emotional well being that they are not only free to believe as they wish, but to inflict that system of beliefs on others who may differ in opinion.

        An example, perhaps (or, sadly, perhaps not) far-fetched in reality, but exactly analogous in principal would be a man in Boston loathing another in New York because one is a Yankee fan , the other a Red sox rooter. They don't know each other, will never be forced to associate socially as friends, and their paths will probably never cross. They might well be persons who, in the absence of this one difference of opinion, might coexist peaceably because their private lives never intertwine. Yet, the sight of the guy in the Yankees hat angers the Sox fan out of all proportion to any real  meaningful sense. He knows him not, but he hates anyway.

       This is pretty much the same way bigots judge persons of different ethnicities,  religious zealots judge gays, and threatened men judge assertive women. None of these persons actually represents any threat to their well being, but some are construed in the recess of those person's minds as representing a loss, either real or imaginary,  of dominance or control in society. It's sad that those who are most engaged in tearing American societal fabric apart have deluded themselves that it is a just cause. Why do they do it? They do it because admitting one's error (for them) threatens their carefully constructed emotional underpinning built of lies, prejudices, half truths and outright unfounded belief in the supernatural.    

Those damned "Hollywood types"

        In the current political atmosphere, where we are deluged with superlatives from POTUS , primarily describing his status as the self proclaimed Great I AM,  it's surprisingly easy to get overwhelmed by the claims  he makes, especially those he makes regarding his largesse, compassion, and heartfelt concern for those less fortunate than he. That constitutes about 99.99 percent of humanity. A principal conduit, he claims, for this charitable giving is the eponymous (like most things Trump) Donald J. Trump foundation.  Of course when dealing with this individual, specifics are more usually than not, simply not available. What is offered are adjectives preceding generalities. "Millions and millions,"  for example, might well mean $2 million to Trump where it means a minor contribution to Bill and Melinda Gates, who, unlike Trump, are transparent and open about their good works, but eschew the public acclaim and adoration Trump so desperately needs.

        The same group of people who support Trump with worshipful zealotry which falls barely  short of adration are, un-surprisingly, a societal segment for whom he has shown disdain on numerous occasions, but whose racial biases are congruent with his, ergo the bond of hatred. These same persons are almost unfailingly conned into believing that all "liberals" and "Hollywood types" are their enemies, and while they talk about good works and charity, they don't do much. This point of view is furthered by op-ed writers such as the loathsome Michelle Malkin and others. Lest you think I apply "loathsome" unreasonably, reflect that Malkin, born while her parents were in the US on temporary work visas, is in truth a member of a group she has denigrated on numerous columns, and as recently as two weeks ago. This "anchor baby" (yes, that's essentially what she was, having been born here to non-citizens, but obtaining citizenship at birth), has consistently railed against the "Dream  Act," while apparently having no difficulty resolving the fact that she might well fall into that group today herself.

          I cite Michelle Malkin as merely representative of  many Trump supporters who have sold their souls (and their critical thinking skills) to the devil. Malkin is also frequently vile and derogatory re: "those Hollywood types" for almost any reason imaginable. An recent example is her brutal criticism  of Julia Louis-Dreyfus for "allowing her son to attend Northwestern." Why the hatred? Well, sir, As it turns out there was a recent "false rape" accusation there , and while the star's son was in no way involved, she, Louis-Drefyus, was a horrible person because he was one of the uninvolved 21,000 students. And of course, she's "one of those liberal Hollywood types."  By the  journalistic standards Malkin uses, or more correctly, doesn't apply, any student on any campus is guilty by association of any crime committed by another on campus.          

        As a matter of fact, it was while eating lunch that I was inspired to actually critically compare  the self acclaimed largesse of the current POTUS with the largely underpublicized legacy of one of "those Hollywood types" who would, given the opportunity beat him to a pulp. That rascally liberal, would be the late Paul Newman. My epiphany occurred as I scooped his delicious "Newman's Own" chunky spicy Salsa (yeah, that's a plug!) onto corn chips. I read the small print on the jar, and discovered that Newman's foundation, over the past 35 years, has donated to charity about half a billion dollars, all generated by sales of products made entirely in the United States. To put this in perspective, Trump's total donations over the last fifteen  or more years, most of which was actually other people's money, are hard to specifically pin down (there's a surprise) but,  by the most generous estimate possible, are less Newman's foundation has contributed in any single year! He (Trump) has done (or not done) this with profits from products almost exclusively made outside the United States. In fact the largest single verified donation which the Trump foundation has made was $3 million, all of which was actually donate to the foundation by Vince and Stephanie McMahon for Trump's endorsement of WWE, and represented zero actual cash from Trump himself, who didn't even kiss it on the way by.

        If you still think this man is a righteous guy, take yourselves, your camo baseball hats, duck calls, and sheets  out behind the barn and kick your own asses. I have no use for you.

Saturday Morning Rant

        It is disturbing to me to almost continually see real issues hidden in the dust of partisan sniping and finger pointing. The incident which triggered this reaction, again this morning, was reading a Face book post in which some camo ball cap wearing 60 plus years old, perhaps a vet, perhaps not, was complaining because, "They won't hang Bergdahl." For the .05% of us who don't know what he was referring to, he was lamenting the fact that US Army deserter Bo Bergdahl was probably not going to be executed for "desertion."

        Why is this troubling? Let's start with the fact that the death penalty is only even possible in the case of desertion "in the face of the enemy in time of war." There is no "war" as defined in the Constitution, since Congress has never been asked to declare one relative to any place since World War II. The most famous  "deserter" from the US Army in Korea was court martialed and served a whopping 25 days in a military prison before his release.

          In WWII - a "declared" war, one man out of an estimated 420,000  deserters, Eddie Slovik, was executed, and that was by firing squad. In the Viet Nam (call it what you will, "war", "police action", "field trip") there were an estimated 40,000 deserters, none of whom was even considered for a death penalty, most of whom were not even prosecuted.

        A deeper examination would almost certainly reveal that the inbred who complained also somehow blames the current status of Bergdahl on the former POTUS. In truth, Bergdahl has already spent more time in custody than any Viet Nam Era deserter.

        It seems that in a lot of cases, the less real military experience some folks have had, the less they actually know but the more they pretend that they do. This is certainly true in the broad brush application of the term "treason," which is narrowly defined in the US Constitution to prevent just such random, anger inspired (and universally incorrect)  charges.

           It is equally true that far too many Americans seem to believe  that some military jobs magically convey some sort of savant status to the member. A classic example is the Far Right's love of quotes on foreign policy from retired officers who were never in any job remotely related to that field. Even worse are the camo wearing, high school dropout, duck call makers who pleasure themselves to film clips from American Sniper and  believe SEALs  are 1) Universally insightful and brilliant,  2) Intimately involved in US foreign policy making and 3) Great critical thinkers outside their area of expertise.

          All three positions are incorrect. SEALs are really good at what they've been trained to do - kill people. I appreciate their skill and dedication to that job. That's what BUDS and SEAL training prepare them to do. We need people like that, just not as makers of US world and national policy. If we wanted these guys to be expert in other areas we'd train them in those areas. I'm not a historian because I was a Submariner, but because of years of college training, three degrees and 20 years of teaching experience.   

        An analogy to the "SEALs as policy wonk" theory might  be believing that Andre the Giant would have made a great basketball player because he was 7 foot 4 inches tall, or that Linda Hunt might be a really good jockey. Another might be the assumption that Donald Trump would make a really good president because......sorry, can't think of an analogy here, and apparently neither can those of his staff who are leaving almost daily  

Since you liked that one....

 Since you liked that one.....

        The response to the "Nautilus" story was such that the history teacher  in me said, "Why not go farther back?" So here goes. This is gonna take several blog entries. There's no really good way to break these up, but I'll try by doing non-military attempts pre late 1800s  first.

        For longer than we have real records, there have been attempts to explore underwater. The earliest example we find is anecdotal, and alleges that Alexander the Great actually had himself lowered underwater in some sort of glass diving bell.

       It is worthy of note that this painting, of Islamic origin  from the 16th century, is unique in several ways. First, it portrays Alexander dressed in 16th century Islamic attire, though he had been dead for about a millennium before Islam was established.  Second, this painting shows images of human beings, not traditionally done in the vast majority of Islamic cultures, especially in that time period. That fact tends to indicate that the painting is Persian or Turkish, not traditional Arabian.  It is worthy of note that there was no semblance of propulsion involved here, other than the boat above.

The Bourne design (not a movie title)

       The first really documented attempt to design a craft actually capable of submerging and resurfacing was probably the brainchild of Englishman William Bourne, circa 1578. Although there were discussions and various "plans" for submersibles or submarines during the Middle Ages,  Bourne actually designed  the first prototype submarine in 1578. This was to be a completely enclosed boat that could be submerged and rowed beneath the surface.  

                         Bourne's concept design

       It had a conventional hull, similar to a modern Britsh canal barge, which could be sealed, as could the oarlocks (yep, oarlocks!) and there were leather bellows (for want of a better term) which could be expanded or contracted by screws to increase the volume of the vessel (making it float) or decrease it, allowing submergence.  It bears mentioning that the device was never built, but one assumes Bourne had every confidence that it was feasible, although he may well have been the only one who thought so. It is also significant that Bourne was the first to analytically discuss buoyancy and displacement with respect to a submersible craft. Archimedes would have been proud, and would probably have understood.

Drebbel's "leather clad" Submersible

Cornelius Drebbel

        There are anecdotal references to a couple of failed attempts, but no plans or even artist's concept drawings until  Cornelius Jacobszoon Drebbel, a Dutchman in the service of James I of England,  designed and built the first successful submarine in 1620.

             

                Drebbel's 3rd design on the Thames    

Drebbel's boat was also propelled by human manual labor (oars in this case) as would they all be until post Civil War and his first design is thought to have incorporated floats with tubes to allow air down to the rowers. This actually is kinda/sorta the first "snorkel"(albeit a crude attempt) although ancient Egyptian drawings do show men underwater breathing through hollow reeds. This actually makes it something other than a real submarine, but I won't tell.  Two of Drebbel's crafts were actually  tested in the River Thames between 1620 and 1624.  

        Reports of the time suggest that King James I actually rode in the third submarine on a trip under the Thames in 1626. This final  model had 6 oars and could carry 16 passengers. At a dazzling depth of 15 feet submerged, the vessel sank when bladders which the  rowers sat on (surfaced) were allowed to fill with water via tubes . These would be the first inboard variable ballast tanks, which also explains the 15 foot depth limit, huh?  The submarine stayed submerged for three hours and could travel from Westminster to Greenwich and back, cruising at a depth between 12 and 15 feet.  

       Apparently Drebbel also experimented with using some chemical combination involving saltpeter (Potassium nitrate, the oxidizer in gunpowder) to create oxygen inside the vessel., allowing as long as three hours submerged operation. To surface, the rowers placed the bladders back under their collective asses and sat on them, forcing the water back out to sea,  and "Hey presto, prepare to surface!"

Model of Drebbel's first (and smaller) design

       Probably the first written arguments for why submarines might be militarily useful came from a somewhat unlikely source - a member of the Clergy! The strategic advantages of submarines were first set out by Bishop John Wilkins of Chester in his book - Mathematical Magick in 1648 :

"1. Tis private: a man may thus go to any coast in the world invisibly, without discovery or prevented in his journey.

2. Tis safe, from the uncertainty of Tides, and the violence of Tempests, which do never move the sea above five or six paces deep. (Boy can I call "bullshit" on that allegation. This guy obviously never was Diving Officer  under the Norwegian Sea in January!) From Pirates and Robbers which do so infest other voyages; from ice and great frost, which do so much endanger the passages towards the Poles.

3. It may be of great advantages against a Navy of enemies, who by this may be undermined in the water and blown up.

4. It may be of special use for the relief of any place besieged by water, to convey unto them invisible supplies; and so likewise for the surprisal of any place that is accessible by water."

Papin's "Ugly Bucket"

Denis Papin

        Between 1690 and 1692, the French physicist Denis Papin, designed and built two submarines, although they were neither slim sleek and racy or maneuverable. The first design (1690) was essentially just a strong and heavy metallic square box, equipped with an efficient pump that pumped air into the hull to raise the inner pressure. When the air pressure reached the required level, holes were opened to let in some water. This first machine was destroyed by accident. (probably just as well) The second design (1692) had an oval shape and worked on similar principles. A water pump controlled the buoyancy of the machine. neither design had any sort of mobility and was really more a glorified diving bell, and a poor one, at that.

Papin's "submarine"

       It is worthy of mention that, while Papin designed a relatively shitty submarine, he also devised what he dubbed the "Steam Digester" which today we simply know as a pressure cooker. The shape of his "submarine," not surprisingly, closely resembles the design of his pressure cooker!

        By the mid 1700s, more than  a dozen patents for submarines/submersible boats had been granted in England alone . In 1747, Nathaniel Symons patented and built the first known working example of the use of a ballast tank for submersion. His design used leather bags that could fill with water to submerge the craft. A mechanism was used to twist the water out of the bags and cause the boat to resurface. (note this is rather similar to Drebbels "ass bag" ballast!)  In 1749, the Gentlemen's Magazine reported that a similar design had been proposed by Giovanni Borelli in 1680. By this point of development, further improvement in design pretty much stagnated, until new industrial technologies for propulsion and stability were developed. could be applied.

       Finally for this entry, even though it is a later design, there was no military goal in mind, so we'll go back later to military subs. For now let's consider the Icteneos and their designer.

Monturiol's Designs

Narcis Monturiol

       Spanish designer Narcis Monturiol was somewhat of an anomaly among his submarine designing peers, in that he apparently had zero military aspirations for his brainchildren. He had been a  controversial writer and publisher and was involved in the revolution of 1848 to the extent that he self-exiled to France for about a year, finally returning to Barcelona and devoting his energies to science.

        While vacationing in  Cadaqués he observed  the dangerous job of coral harvesters, actually witnessing the death of a man who drowned while performing this job. This encouraged Monturiol to focus on  submarine navigation. In 1857, in Barcelona he organized the first commercial society in Catalonia and Spain dedicated to the exploration of submarine navigation.

        In 1858 Monturiol presented his concept in a scientific thesis, titled "The Ictineo" ("fish-ship") The first dive of his prototype , Ictineo I, took place in September 1859 in the harbor of Barcelona.

Ictineo I - 1859

       As was the standard of the period, the vessel was human powered, which Monturiol found inadequate, so back to the drawing board he went. The result 5 years later was Icteneo II.

Launched in October, 1864. Ictineo II made her maiden voyage under human power on 20 May 1865, submerging to a depth of 30 metres (98 ft). Note that, by this time, CSS Hunley had killed three  crews at depths of less than 1/3 that deep and had killed  herself in the final process! 

        Dissatisfied, however,  with the limitations of human propulsion, Monturiol, after much experimentation, invented a chemical combination that generated both heat and oxygen when mixed. With the heat generated by this mixture he hoped to drive a small steam engine, which could also be powered with coal during surface operation.

Icteneo II

        Monturiol's ultimate plan was to create a  vessel custom-built to house his new engine, which would be entirely built of metal and with the engine housed in its own separate compartment. Due to the state of his finances, construction of the metal vessel was out of the question. Instead, he managed to assemble enough funds to fit the engine into the wooden Ictineo II for preliminary tests and demonstrations.

       In October 1867, Two years and several alterations later,  Ictineo II made her first surface journey under steam power, averaging 3.5 kn with a top speed of 4.5 kn . On 14 December, Monturiol submerged the vessel and successfully tested his anaerobic engine, without attempting to travel anywhere.

        To fully grasp the significance of Monturiol's achievement, consider that no other submarine employed an anaerobic propulsion system until 1940 when the German Navy tested a system employing the same principles on the "too late" Type XVII submarines. The problem of air-independent propulsion was finally resolved with the construction of the first nuclear powered submarine, the USS Nautilus.

 Today, some of the quietest and most capable submarines in the world are the AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) designs built by Siemens and Swedish firms for export.

     

The boat above reflects Monturiol's vision in the form of an Israeli Dolphin Class boat fitted with the Siemen's fuel cell AIP system - fast, stealthy and capable.  Sadly,  anyone with the bucks can buy one.

 So, for now we leave the land of submarines, I'll be back with military boats later.

"Our Little Brown Brothers" redux?

        Hurricane Maria dumped 25 inches of rain in 24 hours on Puerto Rico. The rain was driven by 155 mile per hour winds (not 200 plus as POTUS stated!)  Only about half of the homes in Puerto Rico have (had?) wind damage insurance. It is also true that Puerto Rico has (had) a larger number of homes which were owned outright, than the continental US percentage,  thus no mortgage lender requirement for homeowners insurance. This, while a statistic we rarely consider, is significant.

         First, Home insurance costs are spiraling, not just in Puerto Rico but in the US as well. It seems that while major financial players (many of which, like 2008 bailout beneficiary AIG, have huge insurance components) spend money lobbying conservative Climate Change denying legislators for fewer regulatory restrictions, they actually also buy into global warming and the OMB's 2015 predictions of more and larger disasters like the ones covered in this monograph? For those of you doubters out there, consider that insurers live and die by actuarial analysis of best data, not moronic, science bashing, conspiracy theory.

       For one such example in my home state of Florida, reflect that no insurers will insure any manufactured housing for wind damage, and many have left the state altogether in the wake of Hurricane Andrew, stranding homeowners who are forced to use the state's alternative.     

        Citizens Property Insurance Corporation is the common name for nonprofit, government-based property insurance programs in Louisiana and Florida. The program began in 2002 as a last-resort option for insuring individuals who cannot obtain coverage through a private insurer  due to their risk level. Despite the name, "Citizen's" is primarily a government-based initiative to reduce the number of uninsured homeowners. Understand, this means that even insured homes damaged in a hurricane can cost the Federal and state governments, Mr. Trump! After its launch, it became the largest insurer in Florida.

        For an example of how good this isn't consider  the numbers game run on Al Jacobs, a Miami Beach retiree who was forced to buy insurance with Citizens after all other insurers declined to cover his waterfront home. (Note, this isn't a manufactured or trailer home, but a large  stucco "built to code"  house and  Al Jacobs isn't a blue collar retiree scraping by on Social Security. Jacobs, who is  70, pays about $5,000 for windstorm insurance and $2,000 for flood insurance each year. This of course is an "add-on"  to the typical "house and contents" coverage, which can easily run to thousands annually, as well.  On top of that, his deductible for windstorm coverage is $12,000, meaning if a storm hit he’d have to spend nearly $20,000 in a single year before his insurance kicked in to pay for damage. Jacobs, who saw his insurance premiums double this year, said it may be time to get rid of insurance and go “naked,” meaning play "hurricane roulette." Doing so would put this guy in exactly the same position as half of the homeowners in Puerto Rico!

        Meanwhile the Cheeto in Chief bitches, seemingly, that Puerto Rico somehow apparently was responsible for the storm itself, even though there was already about $1 billion in Irma damage before Maria struck the death blow!  

        “You’ve thrown our budget a little out of whack because we’ve spent a lot of money on Puerto Rico,” Trump said, during a briefing at the Muñiz Air National Guard Base. Such a statement deserves critical analysis, as, in fact do many peripheral statements he has made recently. First things first, however. Just how costly has the havoc caused in Puerto Rico by Maria been, compared to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma?  

       Puerto Rico has a total area of  3,500 square miles, more or less, but unlike Houston, which was built, like New Orleans, in the flood plains of streams which will flood periodically and the residents know it,  is a mixed area of hills, mountains and low lying coastal regions.

         All 3.4 millions in  Puerto Rico were without power in the wake of Maria, most still are. As of now, barely half have drinkable fresh water. In Houston, FEMA and others rushed aid into the region, almost before the rain stopped. Here in Florida, Irma, put 16 million in the dark, but none are that way now, most having had power restored within a two day period. Estimates are more like 6 months to restore all power in Puerto Rico. We (central Florida)  had at most 16 inches of rain in 24 hours, 3/4 that of Maria's drenching of Puerto Rico, already saturated by Irma's very near miss, 10 days earlier, with its accompanying 15 to 20 inches of rain. Understand - that's 45 inches of rain!

       So, let's do a fair analysis of the "budget out of whack" statement. Best guess estimates are that Harvey will cost (estimating just the federal share) upwards of the neighborhood of  $30 billion, with the entire cost running to far over $150. The best guess for Irma is relatively close to the same figure. I can count on no fingers of either hand the number of lamentations re:"budgetary state of whack", made by Trump over these figures. Get this point: Trump is bitching about roughly  $8 billion (to date) in Federal spending to Puerto Rico while omitting any mention of the more than $50 billion or so spent, or to be spent (and these are  conservative numbers) in the Continental US.  Apparently, however,  Puerto Ricans, being brown people and children of a lesser God, ergo not of that  percentage of Americans  to whom Trump so shamelessly caters, can be held to a different standard. The tone of almost anything he has said in the wake of this disaster has been indicative of the fact that he truly either doesn't know or worse, doesn't care that Puerto Ricans are Americans at birth as were most of us.

        For a US President to lament the fact that we are responsible for Puerto Rico while blaming the residents  in some fashion, is ludicrous, considering the fact that it was  William  McKinley who decided to "annex" the island following the Spanish American war. There was no plebiscite of locals, we just took it. (It is noteworthy that he did the same with the Philippines, and we know how that worked out - $400 million, 7,000 US casualties and 220,000 Filipino dead later.)  Reading the platitudes and outright bullshit from the POTUS is reminiscent of McKinley's statement that it was "Our duty to our little brown brothers to Christianize them and ..." (don't forget , kill them if they don't want what we are selling!)  Coupled with the early 1900's Jones Act provisions, only just waived for "a whopping" ten days,  crippling incentives for other nation's flagged carriers to import aid, it paints a poor picture, indeed of the man's real concern for the island. The thought running throughout my mind in the background as I scribble  this essay is the conjecture of what Trump's attitude would be if Puerto Rico were a state. I believe his racism would make him incapable of any different reaction.  

       In typically stream of semi-conscious ranting, Trump then   said, however,  that he "Loved the people of Puerto Rico, and that he would help, that he would stand by them in their rebuilding process."

        The truly revelatory fragment of Trump's otherwise rambling, superlative  adjective stuffed drivel was this telling tidbit: "Much of the Island was destroyed, with billions of dollars owed to Wall Street and the banks which, sadly, must be dealt with."

        And, at last,  there you have the true gist of the man's focus, "F**k the Puerto Ricans, it's Wall Street and the banks we should be worried about!" 

Nautilus 90 North

                                                 

                                                      Nautilus 90 North

       I find this photo three US Submarines surfaced from under Arctic ice fascinating for several reasons, but primarily because of the huge advances made in the vessels and technology themselves in a relatively short time    

  

      The "trick" is to find thin places,  slowly come up until the top of the sail contacts the ice  and pump ballast until the boat floats up, breaking  through the ice. In some cases, there are actually open areas in the midst of pack ice, called "polynyas" (Russian term) which don't even require breaking ice to surface. Note the vertical position of the fairwater planes on the nearest boat. This is to make it easier to surface through ice. Which led me to this Naval History tidbit:

        The name  "Nautilus" is from a type of chambered sea shell which bears very little resemblance to any sort of vessel.

Chambered Nautilus

         The first submersible vessel named "Nautilus" was actually a pair of submarines  designed by Robert Fulton (yeah, the American steamboat guy) for France in  1800 for the "new" French government, possibly to be used against the British Navy.

Fulton's "plan." note the hand cranked propellor and sail!The explosive "carcass" was on the end of the rope

  

Model of Fulton's Nautilus

   On July 3, 1801, at Le Havre, Fulton took the second (the first one had "issues") Nautilus down to the then-remarkable depth of 25 feet.  With his three crewmen turning the crank which made the screw revolve, and two candles burning, he remained for an hour without difficulty. Adding a copper "bomb" (globe) containing 200 ft3 of air extended the time underwater for the crew to at least four and a half hours. 

      One of the renovations included a 1.5-inch-diameter (38 mm) glass in the dome (yep, a "window") , whose light he found sufficient for reading a watch, making candles during daylight activities unnecessary. Speed trials put Nautilus at a "blazing" two knots! on the surface, and covering 400 m in 7 minutes. Perhaps as important to the future of the art, Fulton found that compasses worked underwater exactly as on the surface. The idea was to eventually tow a "carcass" which appears in old drawings to be a composite of a mine and a simple bomb, and either drag it into an enemy vessel or release it in a harbor like a mine.

       For whatever reasons, Napoleon refused to endorse the idea and/or pay Fulton for the work, declaring him a "swindler and a charlatan," following which, Fulton destroyed the prototype and went to England to try to interest the British in his design.

       When Nelson destroyed the French Fleet at Trafalgar, the British lost interest, and Fulton gathered his plans and returned to the United States, where he married wealthy (old Dutch, New York money), gave up submarines, and, in 1807,  designed and built the first commercially successful steamboat, for which he is far better known today.

       The second (and far better known) "Nautilus" concept was never designed and built at all. It was the brainchild of seminal sci-fi author Jules Verne, who in 1880 published  "20,000 Leagues Beneath the Sea."  This Nautilus, whose design was never fully explained in the novel, ran on "electrical power" according to its mysterious commander, Captain Nemo. This was far closer to eventual reality than Verne could have known at the time. Older readers will remember the Nautilus as Disney conceived it in 1954, in the eponymous film version of the novel.

           

1954 Disney "20,000 Leagues, Beneath the Sea" Nautilus concept model

                                  

      In the era of CGI, the movie doesn't stand up very well, but the Nautilus resurfaced (get it?) in 2003's  "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen."  Fox Studios' "Nautilus" was a far more advanced vessel, still captained by the (now Asian) Captain Nemo,  powered by what, as described in the film, had to be  nuclear power or some as yet undiscovered alternate source.

                         

2003 Fox studios  Nautilus concept

      In a mere 74 years science would catch up with fiction and Jules Verne's submarine vision  would be reality.  Incidentally, In almost exactly 100 years from  publishing , Verne's  dream of men on the moon envisioned in "From the Earth to The Moon" was also realized.

        The third iteration of "Nautilus" was something Verne would have loved. It was primarily the brainchild of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, supported by President Dwight Eisenhower's desire to use nuclear power for something (anything) other than bombs. Post War "Atoms for Peace" projects included attempts to use nuclear explosions for excavation, as airplane propulsion, for civilian electrical power production, and as Rickover insisted over a significant number of "build more carriers" detractors in the Navy,  a power source for the first true submarine, air independent for propulsion and  capable of sustained and high speed underwater operation.

       USS Nautilus' construction began in 1952, using a hull design derivative of the most recent WWII Guppy class diesel boats. The innovation of a reactor plant, vice diesels, was accompanied by research from Westinghouse's Knolls Atomic Power labs, and in truth, Nautilus was ahead of any schedule imagined when it was launched in 1954.  

USS Nautilus SSN 571

       On the morning of January 17, 1955, at 11 am EST, Nautilus' first Commanding Officer, Commander Eugene P. Wilkinson, ordered all lines cast off and signaled the historic message, "Underway On Nuclear Power." Over the next several years, Nautilus  shattered all previous submerged speed and distance records.

        On July 23, 1958, Nautilus departed Pearl Harbor, Hawaii under top secret orders to conduct "Operation Sunshine", the first crossing of the North Pole by a ship. At 11:15 pm on August 3, 1958,  Commanding Officer, Commander William R. Anderson, announced to his crew, "For the world, our country, and the Navy - the North Pole." The radio message was far simpler - "Nautilus, 90 North." With 116 men aboard, this new technology  had accomplished the "impossible", reaching the geographic North Pole - 90 degrees North latitude.  It is noteworthy that, in the process, USS Nautilus steamed under the geographic North Pole, continuing almost 1000 miles under ice.

In 1959 USS Skate, SN 578,  surfaces from under ice, the first vessel to do so.

      

  In 1959, Nautilus's sister ship USS Skate, SSN 578, performed the first actual surface from under ice at the Pole.

      All the above is what in some way or another led me to post the photograph at the beginning of this blog entry.