the big arch: mcdonald's gets it right

When I go to McDonald’s, which isn't very often, my default order is a Big Mac. I genuinely love the taste of a Big Mac. The sauce, the lettuce, the pickles, the whole odd architectural arrangement of the thing — it’s a very distinctive flavor.

But there’s one problem: A Big Mac doesn’t satisfy.

I eat one, and when I’m done, I immediately feel like I could eat another. And after that… maybe another. A Big Mac is delicious, but it never quite leaves me feeling like I actually ate.

So when McDonald’s introduced a new burger called the Big Arch (currently being offered for a limited time), I figured I’d give it a try. OK. That's not quite accurate. I was champing at the bit, waiting for the grand introduction. And after making the rounds of distributing our shaloch manos baskets to friends and neighbors, the next stop was McDonald's.

One important thing that I noticed was simple but important: one was enough.

The Big Arch actually satisfied me. I ate it, finished it, and didn’t feel the urge to immediately order a second burger. That alone puts it in a very different category from the Big Mac.

Meat vs. Everything Else

My theory is that the key difference is the ratio of meat to “other stuff.”

The Big Mac has two thin patties buried under a lot of bun, lettuce, and sauce — plus the famous middle bun, which seems designed primarily to increase the bread-to-meat ratio.

The Big Arch, by contrast, is built around two much larger patties, with white cheddar cheese, onions (both fresh and crispy), pickles, lettuce, and a tangy sauce. The toppings are there, but the meat is clearly the main attraction.

And since meat is the thing that actually satisfies hunger, this feels like the correct design philosophy for a hamburger.

A Familiar Flavor…for a Moment

When I first bit into the Big Arch, I briefly got a hint of Big Mac flavor. That’s probably coming from the sauce, which is clearly related to Big Mac sauce but seems a bit tangier.

But that sensation lasted only a moment. Very quickly it felt like I was eating what the Big Mac has always pretended to be: an actual burger.

A Big Mac is delicious, but, while it is burgerlike, it never really feels like a burger in the traditional sense. The Big Arch does.

Is It Basically a Double Quarter Pounder?

A colleague of mine — who asked not to be named (I don't know why) — told me that the Big Arch is essentially very close to a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese, just with different toppings.

Instead of ketchup and mustard, you get the tangy sauce. Instead of the standard American cheese, you get white cheddar. There are more onions, and the overall construction is a little different.

I haven’t tested this theory yet, but if the Big Arch disappears (and it’s currently being advertised as a limited-time item), I may experiment with the Double Quarter Pounder as a substitute.

The Cheese Question

One thing I’m still unsure about is the cheese.

The Big Arch uses white cheddar rather than the standard American cheese McDonald’s puts on Big Macs and Quarter Pounders. I think it’s better — it certainly tasted better to me — but I’m not entirely confident that wasn’t just the overall burger being better.

More research may be required.

Final Verdict

The bottom line is simple: I would absolutely order the Big Arch again.

In fact, I’d go further than that. It’s way, way, way better than any burger McDonald’s has ever sold before.

Which raises an interesting question: What would he rate it?

I can’t say for sure. But if a made-for-TV movie about frozen scientists can earn a 10, I suspect a McDonald’s burger that finally gets the meat-to-everything-else ratio right would at least be in contention.

cinema history class: a cold night's death (1973)

The session: The Cold Can Kill Ya!
With plummeting temperatures, Keith shows us four movies with achingly cold settings

(note: This is not an official trailer)

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 3: A Cold Night's Death (1973)
Directed by Jerrold Freedman

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
Never heard of it.

Plot Synopsis:
After a scientist dies under mysterious circumstances at an isolated research station, two investigators are sent to continue his work and determine what happened. As strange occurrences mount and tensions rise, the men begin to suspect that something more than the cold and isolation is lurking in the facility.

Plot:
The movie is essentially a two-man show, and it works beautifully on that level. Robert Culp and Eli Wallach carry the most of the film, and their performances create a slow-burn tension that never lets up. Much of the movie is just the two of them talking, arguing, speculating, and gradually becoming more suspicious of both the situation and each other. It’s a reminder that when the acting is good enough, you don’t need elaborate spectacle to hold an audience.

In many ways, the film is an endurance test. The pacing is deliberate and the mystery unfolds slowly, which may try the patience of viewers expecting constant action. But that patience is rewarded. The final reveal is handled with remarkable restraint and effectiveness, and it lands as one of the best executed reveals I can remember seeing. It’s the kind that suddenly re-contextualizes everything that came before it. It's not quite Sixth Sense level reinvention, but it's up there.

One thing the movie does extraordinarily well is make you feel the cold. The isolated research station, the howling wind outside, and the sense of being trapped in a hostile environment all come through vividly. And when Robert Culp is stuck digging outdoors, you shiver for him. Of the three films we watched so far in this session, this one was probably the most thematically appropriate for a “The Cold Can Kill Ya!” session.

I did have one small but persistent annoyance. Throughout the film, the scientists repeatedly refer to the chimpanzees used in their experiments as “monkeys.” If this were just ordinary people talking, I wouldn’t think twice about it. But these are supposed to be scientists studying primates. You’d think they’d know the difference between a monkey and an ape.

The movie is also interesting in a broader cinematic context. It feels strongly reminiscent of The Thing from Another World, with its isolated research station, creeping paranoia, and sense of an unseen threat lurking nearby. At the same time, it clearly anticipates elements that would later appear in The Thing. That creates a nice bit of cinematic symmetry: a movie influenced by a 1951 film that in turn feels like a precursor to the 1982 remake.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the whole experience is that this was a made-for-TV movie. Television movies from that era are often remembered as cheap or disposable, but this one is neither. It’s tightly written, well acted, atmospheric, and genuinely suspenseful.

And, of course, Joe gave it a 10. While I didn;t, I can understand where that 10 comes from.
 

strategically asking about cheese

Sharon and I try to get breakfast together regularly. Almost always on Saturdays — which is why we call it Dadurday. We do miss a week here and there. Life has a way of scheduling over the things that matter most. But in principle, Saturday morning is ours.

We usually go to the Landmark Diner in Roslyn. I usually order a burger. And I say this without exaggeration: their burgers are among the best I’ve ever had. Perfectly grilled, great flavor, emotionally reassuring.

And then comes the question:

“Do you want cheese?”

This is where things become complicated.

In theory, I like cheese on a burger. In practice, I like pepper jack on a burger. Other cheeses are...other cheeses. American is tolerable, I guess, though it hardly counts as cheese. Cheddar is serviceable. Swiss is OK. Blue cheese is, in my considered judgment, gross. I understand that some people claim to enjoy it. I wish them well.

Plain is also good -- burgers din't need cheese. Whether I want pepper jack or plain depends on mood, weather conditions, and perhaps deeper existential factors.

Early on, when asked about cheese, I would inquire about options. Pepper jack was not among them. Sometimes I would specifically ask. The answer remained no. Sometimes I declined cheese. Sometimes I chose a different cheese.

But over time, I realized I was not merely ordering lunch.

I was participating in a game.

This is a classic signaling problem. The diner is a rational actor. Its objective function is simple: maximize profit by selling food people want. My objective is to consume a burger, ideally topped with pepper jack.

However, information is imperfect.

If I simply decline cheese, the diner concludes I have no cheese demand.

If I hear the list and decline without commentary, the signal is noisy. Perhaps I’m indecisive. Perhaps I’m temporarily lactose-averse. No actionable data.

If I select cheddar or Swiss, then from the diner’s perspective, the equilibrium holds. The absence of pepper jack did not cost them a sale. No incentive to adjust supply.

Which leads to my optimal strategy.

To shift the equilibrium, I must create a credible signal of unmet demand.

So now, I:

Express interest in cheese.

Ask what kinds they have.

Specifically inquire about pepper jack.

Upon learning (again) that they do not have it, I decline cheese and note, gently, that I would have taken it if pepper jack were available.

This transforms a private preference into observable lost revenue.

I am, in effect, conducting a one-man market intervention.

Will this tip the curve? Probably not. It’s entirely possible that my weekly inquiry disappears into the noise of a busy Saturday shift. The kitchen may not be maintaining a Pepper Jack Request Ledger.

But in game-theoretic terms, I have at least moved from a pooling equilibrium (all cheese preferences indistinguishable) to a separating one (my preference clearly signaled).

And I have done so politely.

None of this is criticism. The people at Landmark are great. Truly. Always friendly. Always welcoming. Always patient when I ask for the cheese list as though new dairy products might have entered the market since last week. It’s consistently a terrific experience.

Dadurday, of course, is not actually about cheese.

It’s about sitting across from Sharon and talking. About her week. About what she’s thinking. About whatever small or large thing is occupying her mind. It’s about carving out time before the day accelerates. And even if we're spending some of the time on our phones, that's OK.

The burger is excellent. The game theory is mildly amusing.

But the real equilibrium I’m protecting is this one: we show up.

And if, someday, the server says, “Yes, we have pepper jack,” I’ll smile, order it, and Sharon will probably roll her eyes — because she has heard this analysis before.

Which is, in its own way, part of the tradition.

the alphabetic struggle for the presidency

Political historians tend to divide American history into eras — Founding, Reconstruction, the New Deal, the Cold War, the modern age. These divisions track ideology, party realignments, wars, and economic upheaval.

But beneath those visible shifts lies a quieter contest — measurable, cumulative, and surprisingly dramatic.

The running total of letters in the surnames of Presidents of the United States.

By counting, day by day, the cumulative occurrence of each letter across administrations, a pattern emerges. The results are not random. They form arcs. They show reversals. They reveal consolidation and realignment.

What follows is the verified history of the struggle for alphabetical supremacy.

The Founding Volatility (1789–1825)

The republic begins with N in the lead, thanks to the two N’s in Washington. The early administrations of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison allow N to establish an initial advantage.

That stability proves short-lived.

In 1801, under John Adams, A briefly takes the cumulative lead — the only time in American history that A sits atop the standings. The moment is fleeting. Later that same year, under Jefferson, N reclaims the lead.

The early republic is not yet settled. Margins are small. A single presidency can alter the balance.

In 1825, during the administration of Monroe, O overtakes N for the first time. At this point, it might appear that O’s long reign has begun.

History, however, remains unsettled.

The Nineteenth-Century Tug-of-War

The middle of the nineteenth century reveals a system in flux.

In 1837, under Van Buren, N retakes the lead.
In 1853, under Fillmore, O reclaims it.
In 1857, under Buchanan, N takes it back again.

The margins during this era are narrow, and leadership changes hands through incremental accumulation rather than dramatic surges. No letter establishes durable supremacy. The system oscillates.

This is the Alphabetic Reconstruction Period — unstable, competitive, unresolved.

The Roosevelt Realignment (1933)

The next decisive shift comes in 1933.

Under the second Roosevelt, O retakes the cumulative lead. Unlike earlier reversals, this one holds. For more than five decades, O remains on top.

The twentieth century does not invent O’s strength, but it consolidates it. Coolidge, Hoover and Roosevelt reinforce what had previously been contested ground. From 1933 forward, O governs the cumulative standings with quiet durability.

Other letters rise but do not displace it.

The Eisenhower Acceleration and the E Near-Miss

The closest challenge to O during its long reign came not from N, but from E.

The groundwork was laid by eight years under Eisenhower — the only instance in presidential history in which a single letter appears three times in a surname. No other administration has produced such concentrated orthographic reinforcement.

Those years produced a measurable compression of the gap between E and O. And that continued under Kennedy with his two E's. By the time Kennedy died, E had narrowed the difference to just 32 cumulative occurrences (53,378 to 53,346).

Had Kennedy completed his full term — and, speculatively, a second term — E would have overtaken O for the first time in American history and solidified its lead.

It is tempting to search for deeper significance in that near-miss.

But the data are dramatic enough without inventing motive for the alphabet.

E ultimately settles into a stable third position.

The Modern N Restoration (1987–Present)

In 1987, under Reagan, N retakes the cumulative lead.

This time, it does not relinquish it.

From that point forward — through Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and beyond — N maintains its position at the top. What had once been a volatile rivalry stabilizes into a modern alignment.

As of the projected end of the current term in 2029, the standings are clear:

N: 67,786
O: 65,916
E: 59,190

The margin is not overwhelming, but it is steady.

After nearly two centuries of oscillation and mid-century consolidation under O, the system has returned to its founding configuration — N on top.

What Does This Reveal?

The early republic was volatile. The nineteenth century oscillated. The twentieth century consolidated. The late twentieth century realigned.

These are phrases historians already use to describe American political development.

Here, they apply equally well to cumulative orthography.

It would be irresponsible to claim deeper meaning. The letters accumulate because surnames contain them. The graph rises because time passes.

And yet, when viewed across 240 years, the pattern feels structured. A led once. O governed for decades. E nearly staged a coup. N reclaimed supremacy and has held it since 1987.

History is written by the winners.

Even when the winners are consonants.

cinema history class: curtains (1983)

The session: The Cold Can Kill Ya!
With plummeting temperatures, Keith shows us four movies with achingly cold settings

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2: Curtains (1983)
Directed by Richard Ciupa and Peter R. Simpson

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
Never heard of it.

Plot:
Thursday night at Cinema History Class brought us Curtains — but with a twist before the first frame even flickered. Keith, our usual ringmaster of celluloid mayhem, ceded the podium to his friend Chris Gullo, who does some acting but is also known as a film historian and author (with books on Peter Cushing, Donald Pleasance and others to his credit). More to the point, he recently wrote about Curtains for Dark Side magazine and was clearly champing at the bit to share his research. He did so with enthusiasm, context, and just enough behind-the-scenes intrigue to make the film’s rough edges feel like part of the legend. He even raffled off a vintage lobby poster. Bobbo won it. I’ll admit to a flicker of envy, but then I realized Bobbo will treasure it in a way I probably wouldn’t. The universe distributes ephemera wisely.

As for the film itself: it’s very good. Genuinely tense. The jump scares are plentiful enough to keep your shoulders up around your ears, but not so relentless that you never get to exhale. There’s a rhythm to the dread. And the imagery — especially that now-iconic skating scene with the doll-faced killer — is striking, eerie, and memorable. Even when the narrative wobbles, the visuals carry authority.

That said, the script doesn’t give us much to hang onto in terms of character. The actresses assembled for the audition blur together; their rivalries are sketched rather than etched. A stronger investment in who these women are might have elevated the body count into something more tragic than procedural. One performer who does stand out, as he almost always does, is John Vernon. Vernon brings that oily gravitas of his — cultured, manipulative, faintly amused — and you can’t take your eyes off him. Even when the movie falters, he doesn’t.

And falter it does, especially at the end. The finale is ambiguous in a way that left me more confused than intrigued. Not so much “Let’s ponder the implications” as “Wait, what exactly just happened?” As Chris explained in his talk, much of this unevenness stems from behind-the-scenes conflict between director Richard Ciupka and producer Peter R. Simpson. Simpson reportedly took a heavy editorial hand, reshaping scenes and even adding the ending — shot much later — that Ciupka didn’t want. In fact, Ciupka was so unhappy that he declined to have his name on the finished product; the film is credited to “Jonathan Stryker,” which amusingly is the name of the manipulative director character within the story. That tug-of-war also explains some of the more puzzling continuity glitches — including the moment when a body falls from a window and appears to execute a physics-defying 90-degree turn into another window. That wasn’t supernatural horror; it was post-production horror.

Still, for all its production scars, Curtains lingers. The atmosphere works. The set pieces work. The mask works. It’s the kind of flawed genre piece that invites discussion — which, in our little Thursday enclave, is half the fun anyway.

Joe missed this session, but he would have given the film a 10 and Chris Gullo’s presentation a 10. The raffle would have gotten a lower score — unless he won. In that case, it would have been a 10 too.