With all this logistics talk, I am introducing my class today to the 19th century development of manufacturing and logistics in one state: Pennsylvania. Especially important were the Schuylkill and Lehigh Canals linking anthracite coal to Philly and to NYC via NJ's Morris Canal.
The Pennsylvania Canal was authorized around the time NY's Erie Canal opened. In many ways, it was Pennsylvania's answer to New York, connecting the Del. River to the Ohio River like the Erie connected the Hudson to the Great Lakes. But it was a tougher engineering feat in PA.
Like with the Erie Canal, the PA Canal (and its branch canals) was surpassed by a railroad roughly along the same route (with some separate tunnels to cross the mountains). What made canals so important was not just the speed of inland shipping. It was the growth of canal towns.
Canal towns produced their own array of millers, manufacturers and merchants who linked the agricultural hinterlands of each canal town to the wider canal network. This was especially true in the "portage" towns where incline railroads climbed the PA mountains.
But the long distance opportunities opened by the canals were unmistakable. Steam boats along the Ohio River extended this network to Wheeling, Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, Memphis and New Orleans.
Newspaper regularly printed "River Intelligence" reports of water levels along the Ohio, as well as shipment news. Canals avoided that problem with locks. Here is the Cincinnati Enquirer from May 1845:
The railroads rendered many of the canals obsolete by the 1850s, but they did not fall into disuse immediately. Like with trucks & freight trains today, infrastructure depended on multiple possible routes that could avoid RR crash disaster zones, weather events and choke points.
Needless to say, American towns and cities experienced numerous epidemics like yellow fever that often followed the canal and railroad lines. Epidemics hindered trade along the routes. Never did they bring the entire system to a halt. But they certainly affected supply & demand.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Talk anybody who teaches at the college or K-12 level (esp. HS) and you will hear this: AI is making a mockery of every skill we try to teach. I'm not talking about ideas here. I'm talking basic ability to analyze a text & write an essay. Every out-of-class essay is suspect now.
You can make more assignments to be done in class. You can talk about all the wonderful things that AI can help facilitate. But if there is a way to short cut the research and writing process, students will take it. And there are just no real answers for this.
Another thing - People often say AI-detectors are not trustworthy. And yet, I've used "" (rated most accurate) and checked essays this semester and from early 2022 before ChatGPT. 100% of the older essays came back "100% human." Only ~50% from Spring 2025.undetectable.ai
Also, if you read the comments below that article, it's obvious that about 90% of the people didn't even read it. Just a complete waste of pixels. This platform is about as useless as DOGE's "buyout" plan, I guess.
Is there a way to block whole masses of people? Like, I don't think I've ever encountered anybody here with the word "Based" in their profile that wasn't a completely useless moron.
We're in an ongoing epistemic crisis - we don't "know" what we think we "know" - and the causes are pretty clear: a combination of institutional arrogance and highly decentralized knowledge sources. The unanswered question is: what do we do about it beyond tearing old ways down?
Here is where I think the liberal arts at its best is equipped to respond. By that I mean an open and honest inquiry into multiple realms of knowledge without prejudice, siloing or ideological rigidity. Focus on the logic of argumentation and the limits of personal experience.
Interrogate all sources - but don't let yourself fall into a nihilism trap where "nothing matters because everybody is just lying". Read widely across disciplines, ideologies and perspectives and discern truths among various knowledge sources.
Let's be honest here: This was an across-the-board shift away from the Democratic Party. Not just one demo (though Hispanics shifted the most). Two main reasons: Inflation and Democratic priorities and language that just doesn't appeal to non-college people (esp. men).
Yes, a younger Joe Biden was able to communicate to many of these voters. I honestly think Harris herself did as well as she could have in this campaign on this. She didn't lean into identity politics, etc. But I think some of the experiences since 2020 really alienated people.
I had honestly thought Dems would pay the price for all that in 2022 but Dems largely escaped punishment for prolonged Covid school closures or new waves of migrants or crime spikes or even inflation. And Biden himself was unable to communicate any improvements in the economy.
Here's why everybody goes nuts of Ann Selzer's Iowa poll. Of course, she could be completely wrong this time. Nobody expected this result. I sure as hell didn't. But she's earned her reputation.
FWIW, I think this is an outlier. It HAS to be. But an outlier could be her missing by 7 points...and that would still be a great result for Harris in Iowa. This was my take on the poll earlier today. You can see the range of outcomes I thought "extreme."
Something odd in that Fox News PA poll. The 2-way LV screen has Trump up 50-49. It has Trump winning whites just 52-48 and Harris winning non-whites 72-28. In 2020, whites were 81% of the PA electorate. If that were the case in 2024, this should be Harris up 52.5 to 47.4.
In order to get to a Trump lead of 50-49, the LV sample would have to be 93% white instead of 81% white.
In 2020, Trump won PA whites by 57-42, so if he's winning whites by just 52-48, he's in very big trouble. Strange, then, that they would list the white vote at 52-48 and then show Trump winning overall 50-49...even without a massive non-white gain. So, where ARE the non-whites???