The Village Elliot

How Gloria Steinem Rescued Wonder Woman

2026-09-11T02:57:16.562-07:00

We lost a global icon with the passing of Gloria Steinem. Much of her philosophy was common sense. If it's okay for men to do something, shouldn't it be okay for women to do the same thing? Why do we, especially in America, create a culture with double standards?

Nowhere was this symbolized more clearly than on the cover of Ms. Magazine in July 1972. It was not straightforward however. Some women felt that Wonder Woman's tight fitting and revealing costume was exploitive and catered to male sex interestes. Okay, but what about Superman's tight fitting costume? Why was it okay for him to wear revealing superhero garb, but not okay for women to do similar things? That logic prevailed. Gloria Steinem was not anti-sex, though others of that era really did not want to have much to do with men at all. The Women's Lib movement could not be lumped together as one single agenda. After all, people are diverse and have different opinions about how progress should be made.

It sounds ridiculous, but DC Comics had systematically depowered its iconic female superheroine Wonder Woman. It's absolutely true. Wonder Woman was completely powerless by 1972. In fact, she was known by her ordinary name, Diana Prince, rather than her more famous code name of Wonder Woman.DC thought for some reason it would be liberating if Wonder Woman could be a female James Bond stunt woman and secret agent, clad in a white pantsuit. Note that the issue below is a Special! Women's Lib Issue, proof that DC really did lose their marbles, and I'm not making this up! By the way, judging from the cover, it looks like Women's Bondage issue rather than Women's Lib issue. Diana and the dogs are mainly black and white and only the victim is colorfully clad, and moreover, she appears to be wearing a 1960's style pointy bra. I would call that exploitive, portraying a woman as a sexified victim, rather than Woman's Lib.

Gloria Steinem and Ms. Magazine #1 ultimately gave Wonder Woman--the "old" Wonder Woman, with super powers-- the cover of the first-ever Ms. Magazine! It was hotly debated, as there was some thought within the feminist community that women should in fact be man-haters. However, the miniskirt-wearing Steinem's logic ultimately prevailed. The message was clear. Women could be strong and beautiful. They can be Superman's peers. They do not have to be powerless in order to be feminine.

No, I didn't make it up. Wonder Woman had no super powers, wore a pantsuit and was a James Bond-type female spy. That's Women's Lib? If you say so...

DC Comics was shamed into giving up the Diana Prince Secret Agent version of Wonder Woman and the white pantsuit, and returned to the original concept of Wonder Woman. This was followed by a successful TV show with Lynda Carter in a starring role.

Lynda Carter brought Wonder Woman to life and made her a global icon.

Needless to say, the success of Wonder Woman did not resolve the debate of whether she was an is a liberating figure, a global icon, or a sexually exploited fantasy character. Perhaps it would be fair to observe that she is a complex phenomenon and at times all three of these facets can be found in her character.

Gal Gadot's version of Wonder Woman, I thought was the most moving. She is a superhuman force, but isolated from the ills of human society to the extent that she is amazed by a revolving door at a department store. The extent of human stupidity in creating World War I is incomprehensible to her and she rebels against the entire institution of war, believing that it must be a curse created by the evil God of War, Ares.

Wonder Woman I was the greatest Superhero movie, ever. After hundreds or even thousands of years of isolation, Wonder Woman rediscovers human society and is shocked by what she finds!

Just reading the news from around the world in 2026, the evil curse theory does not seem too far out of line, frankly.

Spidey Smashes Box Office Records While Fighting Evil

2026-08-05T11:07:49.458-07:00

Spider-Man Brave New Day is the best movie about your favorite spider, and it is no wonder it is squashing box office records. Why is it the best? Well, we can start with Peter Parker (Tom Holland, who in my view is the best actor to ever portray our friend Peter). The old Peter Parker was struggling to make it as a Pizza delivery boy and photographer for Adolf Hitler (disguised as newspaper editor J. Jonah Jameson, of course). There was just too much time devoted to makin Peter's life miserable, and it was just not as exciting as the moviemakers assumed. Who is actually that interested in selling pizzas and getting yelled at by crabby customers and unreasonable dictator bosses?

Spidey BND has plenty of more challenging problems due to being worn down by super-villains, while living in a world that has all but forgotten the existence of Peter Parker due to a spell cast by Dr. Strange. He doesn't have time to sell pizzas. He winds up clashing with incredibly powerful humans as well as mutants. Unlike DC Comics, which sought vanilla made-up urban areas for its heroes to in habit, there is no doubt that Spidey lives in real live New York City and confronts a city with its true-to-life problems.

Historically, in moviedom the New York cops as well as the Feds have been Spidey's enemies. Look, in the 1960s it was a fresh idea to have superheroes be masked vigilantes that were misunderstood by the authorities and persecuted by the media. But that plot device gets stale after 60 years or so. Thankfully, we heard not a peep from Jolly Jonah this movie. The New York cops are on Spidey's side. It's about time they figured out he's a good guy! Even the United States Department of Damage Control (DODC), which is set up to regulate super-powered individuals, are willing to work with Spidey in solving problems that afflict New York City.

DODC Head Bill Metzger (Trammell Tillman) holds a rational discussion with Spider-Man, realizing they may be facing threats larger than either of them can handle alone.

Thankfully, this movie is finally about SPIDER-MAN, not some stupid puzzle piece that is part of the Thanos saga dealing with the bad guys winning and killing half the universe. That was just a horrible idea from the get go, and attaching all Marvel movies to that was tiresome and sick (sick = the literal definition, diseased; not the slang definition meaning really cool).

There are a lot of interesting characters who appear, but I can't even tell you who they are or it would spoil the fun. Just trust me on this one. You will not be disappointed!

One major mystery is that we need to know more about the Punisher's backstory. Evidently he has accomplished both enormous positives as well as enormous negatives, and thus both Spidey and the authorities are not anxious to take him down. Put it this way, if he looks like a terrorist, quacks like a terrorist, swims like a terrorist and waddles like a terrorist, why is he not regarded as a terrorist? There's an ongoing reference in the film that everything is explained by an event in Staten Island, but that is a cop out. All the Internet commentators I researched seem to agree that whatever that event was, it is not (yet) contained in film or the comics. Someday it will probably make sense. But that day is not today. Till then, you just have to keep an open mind about the Punisher, okay?

There is a mystery to be solved, by Spidey, the Punisher, by the New York and Federal authorities. It's not just video game caliber action, though there are some memorable conflicts there too. Spider-Man has to rely on the science and engineering genius of Peter to figure out what is going on and what to do about it. He is not just a web-slinging punching machine. He is a complex young man who is prepared to do battle against evil with tech, psychology, inductive reasoning, super powers, and old fashioned grit and determination.

Who wins? Well, that is hard to say. As we learn more about what is actually going on, the goals of many of the players, including Spidey and Peter, begin to change. The resolution is not what you thought it was going to be at the beginning of the movie.

Some of the tech has changed, and some of the characters have changed, and indeed the universe has actually evolved quite a bit since I started reading comics in the 1960s, but Spider-man is down to earth again, in fact, down to New York again, where he should be, and I could not be happier about how this movie developed and how it turned out. Somewhere, up in the sky, I know that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko are looking down on this movie and smiling. Too bad they can't spend the money in Heaven, because there is going to be plenty made on this one, deservedly so.

Ayatollahs' Apocalyptic Reality is Vastly Different than America's

2026-04-28T19:27:00.000-07:00

Surely the coming of Donald J. Trump is not foretold in the Holy Quran, and the End Time and the associated destruction of the State of Israel is not imminent--or is it? It may depend on who you ask. Ask in the highest political circles within Iran and it has already been answered in the affirmative. At least one Ayatollah has claimed that President Trump is indeed the Islamic Antichrist or Dajjal, signaling an imminent transition to a Final Judgment. Many may also believe that the development of nuclear bombs to destroy Israel is a mandatory commandment from Allah in order to initiate the End Times, which will right the imbalance of power between the evil first world (Israel, the USA and their allies) and the faithful Shiites. The Shiite clerics that rule Iran are not necessarily insane, but they adhere to ancient beliefs based on strict interpretation of Quranic prophecies that are utterly alien to Western pragmatism. Hence they are willing to endure massive bombings and devastation because they believe it is all part of Quranic prophecy, and at the end, the Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi (the Hidden Imam), and Jesus (Isa) will descend from the skies prior to the Day of Judgment to establish global peace and justice. This is not just lip service. They truly believe it and they are not afraid to die for their beliefs.

The opinion that matters most is the opinion of the allegedly infallible Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, who, we are assured, survived the bombing by the US and Israel last Feburary 28, and arose to this position upon the death of his father Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. That bombing severely wounded Mojtaba but supposedly did not kill him, according to hints in the global media. We can assume he hates the US.

The Supreme Leader of Iran is believed to be infallible, meaning his authority cannot be questioned in matters of Scripture or Law, either one. He is like the Pope and Dictator. There is no reason to believe the new Supreme Leader is friendly to the US at all. He is said to have been seriously injured from the bomb blast, but according to The Jerusalem Post, he is alert though delegating his duties to the military.

Over the years, the previous Supreme Leader used his power to squash dissent via executions, torture and other policies that those in the West would normally find repugnant. At the same time, Iran has used oil money to export revolution around the world, including to Lebanon (which has a sizeable Shi'ite population). This is how Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations around the world receive backing.

Thanks in large measure to funding from Iran, Hezbollah has emerged as a formidable, well-trained fighting force.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam all have End Time narratives, or apocalyptic literature which describe the overthrow of evil earthly authorities and bringing the Righteous to power. The simple equation is this: Righteous = Christian in Christian interpretation of the Bible; = Jewish in the Tanakh, = Muslims in the Holy Quran. In the Quranic version, Jesus survived the Crucifixion (many interpreters understand that someone else somehow died in his place). The 12th and final Imam, accompanied by Jesus, will return to Earth to destroy the nonbelievers (i.e., Jews and Christians, for example). The Quran also prophecies that there is a Dajjal or Antichrist, a powerful world leader who will deceive many people into believing he is good, though actually he is incarnate evil. So, is Donald Trump the Shi'ite Dajjal?

Ayatollah Seyyed Hassan Ameli has made this explicit accusation. Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi has created a Fatwa, or religious decree, calling for President Trump's death. He is joined in this call by Ayatollah Abdollah Javadi Amoli, who has called for death to President Trump as well as death to Israel's President Netanyahu as well as the destruction of the State of Israel. However, only the Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is truly regarded as infallible. Mojtaba is the son of the previous Supreme Leader, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed by a joint U.S.-Israeli operation on February 28, 2026. Supposedly reliable sources insist that the younger Khamenei survived, but there are not confirmed photographs or audio recordings. He is receiving the best available health care in Russia...but never mind. At some point, one way or the other Iran will have an undisputed, functioning Supreme Leader who will guide Iran through the End Time and decide whether they in fact need nuclear weapons to carry out the will of Allah. My belief is that they will continue to decide in the affirmative, although I hope I am wrong.

From New Delhi (India) Television, Instagram site.

For that matter, 39% of Americans also believe that the world is close to the End Time, according to a Pew Research survey taken in 2022.

Many Americans are making similar claims after he posted pictures of himself which seemed to portray him as Jesus.

After this image appeared, some Conservative Christians found themselves agreeing with Conservative Shiite Muslims that DJT is the AntiChrist.

Baptist New Global apparently believed President Trump is the AntiChrist prior to the controversial AI-generated images.

Islam, Judaism and Christianity all have End Time narratives in which evil is destroyed and the righteous inherit the earth. Strict fundamentalists in Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism all have a clear idea who is who and where they will go after the Final Judgment, but disagree about who will be saved and who will be discarded into Hell.

Last year, on June 29, 2025, Shia Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi issued a Fatwa (religious declaration), calling President Trump an Enemy of Allah (Mohareb), and called upon Muslims of the world to kill him.

It does seem that there is great sentiment among senior Ayatollas for believing that the End Time is near, and that the Supreme Leader may well believe it also. It is very plausible that the Supreme Leader believes that a nuclear bomb needs to be used to obliterate all or part of Israel. We can only hope that he realizes that such a bomb strike will be met with a counterattack that is 100 times more powerful. Millions will die and Iran will not be allowed to win. Nuclear war makes no sense to a pragmatist of whatever religion. However, Iranian clerics are not pragmatists.

In the End Times, Jesus (yes the same Jesus of the Christian New Testament) will return to earth and slay the Dajaal and rule the Earth. The Day of Judgment will come and the just people will be rewarded, and evildoers will be placed in torment.

Thus, we in the West need to be concerned about the potential for a nuclear attack on Israel. This is the end goal of the Iranian nuclear program. In Iran, it is not fringe thinking, it is the belief held at the highest levels of their government. Church (or Mosque) and State are not separated in Iran; rather, they are the same entity.

Protestors in New York support Shiite movements in Iran, Lebannon and elsewhere.

One of my greatest fears for America is that our Partisan instincts are so strong that one party or the other will automatically support the other side. That is, if one party supports Israel, the other party will support the groups that oppose Israel, regardless of ideology.

Conversely, it is possible to be very sympathetic to the cause of Islam without supporting nuclear annihilation of Israel. However, supporting the Shiite (Iranian) government is intimately associated with the development of nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying Israel and fulfilling Quranic prophecies. The Shiite government is not the people and does not speak for all Islam. Even so, in a democracy it is the right of American citizens to advocate support for entities such as the Iranian Supreme Leader and the Ayatollahs and Hezbollah and terror cells in the US if that is what they want. Just be aware that the Ayatollahs really do share an apocalyptic vision which may include overseeing the destruction of Israel via the use of nuclear bombs if they do not get their way.

Conversely, can there be a country or a group that is supported by both Democrats and Republicans? 30 years ago, that would not have been a problem. Now, however, if the Republics oppose the methods of the Shiites in Iran while supporting Israel, the Democrats may feel pressure to support the Shiites and oppose Israel.

US citizens are certainly permitted to support totalitarian groups and to advocate the destruction of Israel. Whether or not it is a good idea is a different matter entirely. I would like to believe that today's dangerous partisan politics is an aberration and we may start to act sensibly again. But when?

President Trump is Co-Opting the Bush Middle East Plan

2026-03-12T08:46:00.000-07:00

When the news of the US bombing in Tehran broke, I could not believe it. Nothing made sense. How could Iran be a threat to anyone with nuclear weapons? Weren't we told by the President of the United State that Iran's nuclear weapons program had been OBLITERATED? How then could Iran be poised to carry out a nuclear attack as the President seems to claim?

The short answer is--stop the presses--our President has a tendency to be overly bombastic, which resulted in overstating US success and more recently overstating the threat posed by Iraq. Recall that the US used Bunker Buster bombs in June 2025 to penetrate deep underground and blow up the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (near Qom, ~80m deep), and the Natanz Nuclear Facility (including the deep "Pickaxe Mountain" site) while also destroying surface facilities at Isfahan.

Recall that the news media was shown overhead photography of the Fordow and Natanz sites, clearly showing debris that had been blown out of the access tunnels. Clearly whatever was inside those facilities had been blown to smithereens.

However what most of us were missing was that although the surface facilities at Isfahan were destroyed, the deepest underground site at Isfahan was too deep to be affected by even a Bunker Buster. For that reason, the Bunker Buster was not used against Isfahan! Thus whatever was down there--possibly the bomb test site and a stockpile of enriched uranium and equipment to further enrich it to bomb grade--likely survived.

So it is quite plausible that sometime between now and and the next century or two Iran could have a nuclear weapons capability. Now, about the claim that Iran was going to have a nuclear weapon within two weeks, I think what the President may have meant was, had the US not bombed the nuclear sites on June 22, 2025, they would have had a nuclear weapon in two weeks. That is probably a gross exaggeration, which is part of the reason many Americans have trouble trusting this President. Nevertheless I personally have no problem with the actions he took at that time.

President Trump's Exact Words

So why are we going in at this time? Well, the President said at the time that he was sympathetic to protestors in Iran.

"Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations."

That's what he said at the time the decision was made.

So his plan is to blow things up and hope that something good happens. The President has trusted his own hunch, or instinct, over the advice of his closest advisors. Taking out the Navy and Air Force is great. Remember, however, that protestors will be armed with rocks, while the Shiite authorities will have automatic weapons.

Ironically, President Trump's political career was launched by his takedown of the Bush political dynasty. Both Bushes were irrationally frightened of Iraq. Bush I sought to rescue the Emir of Kuwait from an Iraqi takeover. Bush II used the opportunity presented by Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi National who had fought in Afghanistan and sponsored global terrorism, but who had never been in Iraq as far as we know. Iraq had nothing to do with 911, but the US attacked them anyway, hoping to improve things by doing so. Jeb Bush argued that his brother George W. had "kept America safe" by throwing trillions of dollars into Iraq, and Trump trashed the Bushes in the Republican Presidential debates, rightly so. Both Bush President gave us an unnecessary war, a Recession and huge Deficit to the tune of trillions of dollars. Now, President Trump is creating his own version of George W.'s plan.

Trump/Walmart Turkeygate Check Shows 2025 Price Drop, but Less than Claimed

2025-11-07T16:55:00.000-08:00

On Thursday November 6, a reporter at President Trump's offered the observation that Walmart's 2025 Thanksgiving dinner is 25% cheaper than the 2024 dinner. So, wow, many persons including DJT himself, took that at face value and tweeted the news at face value.

"Not so fast!" retorted the critics, operating at near warp speed. The 2024 dinner had different items. In fact it had more items! It's not an apples to apples comparison!

True that. So, why don't we make an accurate comparison and see where we stand? The truth is that if you did buy the 2024 deal at 2025 prices, you would play $51.75, according to prices I picked off the Walmart.com website as of 11/6/2025. The numbers are shown below.

Walmart says that in 2024, "Walmart's 2024 meal basket was about $55. The 2025 curated meal basket costs $40 ($39.93), which is about 25% less than last year."

So the price drop of the 2024 meal is 5.9% without taking inflation into account.

A point of vagueness is that we don't know how much turkey Wal-Mart assumed that the 8-person dinner would contain. However, since they listed 10 pounds as the lower part of the range, it's reasonable to assume that that is what they would have used to arrive at a low estimate.

There are some noteworthy differences between 2024 and 2025. On the whole, I would rather eat from the 2025 menu, actually. The 2025 menu features a Butterball turkey rather than a frozen turkey, which is generally regarded as a superior tasting bird. Also, the critics rightfully point out that the 2024 menu has several more items, but how many of these items do you really want to eat? 8 persons are supposed to eat two pies, which comes out to a quarter of a pie per person, with whipped topping and marshmallows and stuff. The 2025 meal has 10 people sharing only one pumpkin pie. I don't know about your family, but in my family not everyone eats dessert, so we probably won't miss the pecan pie. I don't know that we need to make the stuffing from scratch (onions, corn bread, etc). Stovetop stuffing is a blessing. Let it happen. The biggest uncertainty is the size of the 2024 frozen turkey that was assumed. Logically, it would have been smaller than the 13.5 pound bird that feeds 10 people. They list 10 pounds as smallest option. On the other hand, 80% of 13.5 pounds is 10.8 pounds. Given that the 2024 meal contains plenty of extra calories for desserts, i think that the 10 pound bird is probably appropriately sized.

CONCLUSION:

The overall conclusion is that Thanksgiving Dinner is more affordable in 2025 compared to 2024, although the 25% figure is based on comparing different dinners. This author likes the 2025 dinner more than the the 2024 version because we are getting somewhat more turkey, beans and corn and less sweet pie for desert. The 2025 meal offers a Butterball turkey rather than a frozen one. My best estimate is that the 2024 dinner would be 6.9% less expensive this year compared to last year.

6.9% is actually a really good number. However, it needs to be viewed in context with all the other good and commodities that make up our lives. I don't think you can conclude, for example, that Thanksgiving dinner can be used as a proxy for the entire economy.

The US does not yet Have a Winning Ukraine Strategy

2025-07-15T16:07:00.000-07:00

You can't change President Putin, but you can absolutely destroy his military in Ukraine. The latter is achievable.

Photo Credit: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Warofua.jpg

Mr. President, Secretary Hegseth,

You are not being given a winning strategy in Ukraine if the plan is really to use Patriot missiles to defend the country versus Russian drones such as Shahed, which is crudely estimated to cost about $50,000. The Patriot costs $4 million per throw, which is 80 times higher cost, not including the billion-dollar-class launcher. This is not winnable in the long run. At all. America will lose if you follow this strategy.

May I suggest that part of the problem is that President Putin has succeeded in making us believe that the Ukraine war is all about him, Vladimir Putin. The whole point is do find a way to get him to the negotiating table, or to not upset him to much into broadening the war and getting our "Allies" (using the term loosely, of course) angry, and so on.

Well, the Village Elliot does not know much, however, if you try to be nice to Putin, he posts unflattering photos of FLOTUS on the Internet. Ask him to negotiate, he bombs hospitals and schools. So our plan is to deploy so-called "defensive weapons," namely Patriot missiles, at $4 million each to destroy $50,000 dollar weapons being used for terrorist purposes. But we really will not go after the military, preferring to use this defensive strategy that we hope will not upset Mr. Putin too much, and eventually tire him out and bring him to the negotiating table. Village Elliot to Mr. President! Sir, it ain't working!

I propose we have to quit worrying about the influence on Putin. Instead, we have to return to the military objective, which is to REMOVE EVERY MILITARY THREAT ON UKRAINIAN SOIL. If you can outspend Putin 80 to 1, use it to go on OFFENSE instead of letting him bleed us to death in a well-intentioned but futile effort to defend against the unlimited supply of drones. Shoot every solider, destroy every tank, every aircraft, every plane, every missile. We have to use weapon systems that are designed to destroy Ukrainian military forces. The current strategy perpetuates the Russian presence in Ukraine and allows them to continue to build drones and fly them into civilian population centers.

When I was a kid, in a karate school, one guy was a hippie and only wanted to block the other guy's punches. The instructor, Sensei Kim, threw a fit. "What are you DOING, Jim?" Jim replied, "Well, I want to learn the culture of non-violence and only practice defensive techniques, and use persuasion to end the fight." Sensei Kim screamed back at him, "Knock the other guy out! Then he will quit throwing his offense at you!!"

Similarly, in Ukraine, persuasion has failed. Mr. Putin cannot be persuaded and blocking his punches is not a viable strategy. We are going to have to dismantle his military in Ukraine. Mr. President, you're going to have to knock the M****r out!

Why Can't NATO Defeat Russia?

2025-07-02T12:45:00.000-07:00

If the West can outspend Russian 9 to 1, why can't we defeat Putin in Ukraine?

Here is some simple math. In Russia spent some $129 billion dollars on defense last year. A lot of it was spent on Ukraine of course, but not all of it. There was a lot spent on updating the nuclear arsenal, protecting the long border with China, adventures with Syria and the Middle East. Then there's North Korea, plus other miscellaneous plots to take over the world and other fraud waste and abuse that has to be funded in Russia. Plus nobody is quite sure how to translate Russian rubles to American dollars, but $129 billion seems reasonable.

NATO is supposed to be spending 2% of its budget on the military, but by its own admission is short of that (1.28%). Nevertheless, they came in at $430 million in 2024. Had they met their goal, they would be up around $623 million. Neverthess, the actual numbers are that NATO outspends Russia by 3.3 to 1. If the US is added, with its gargantuan $755 billion defense spending, the good guys spent $1185 billion compared to Russia's $129 billion. That is, overall we outspent the Russians 9.2 to 1. Of course, the US spends money on Israel, South Korea, the Middle East, keeping shipping lanes open worldwide and many, many activities. Nevethess, NATO alone far outspends Russia, and combine with the US the defense spending differential is decisive.

Recently, NATO agreed to increase its defense spending to 5% by 2025. The good thing about that is that, hopefully, President Trump will be out of office by then and perhaps they can get out of it. But in any case, if that were true, the NATO total would be the equivalent of around $1.68 Trillion in today's dollars, and NATO plus America would be outspending Russia by 19 to 1, assuming no increase in American spending.

SO WHY CAN'T WE BEAT PUTIN IN UKRAINE?

Everywhere the news says that Russian soldiers don't want to fight; the Russian military is incompetent, the West has better weapons and the West is so much more clever than Russia. SO WHY CAN'T WE WIN?

If you watch video footage from the Ukraine War, the Ukraine military looks like Rambo, and the Russians look like the Three Stooges. However, very little land is every taken back by Ukraine. WHY IS THAT?

The press narrative was that Putin thought he would win the war in three days when he invaded. He was then shocked to find resistance. I no longer believe that. He ran the calculations shown above and was terrified that Ukraine was going to invade Russia with NATO assistance and he would be powerless to stop them. His hope was to overwhelm the place with a 1:9 disadvantage. Putin's fears turned out to be well founded, as Ukraine was well defended by NATO assets.

One possible explanation--a horrible one-- is this: perhaps the Biden Administration's plan was never to achieve victory at all. Rather, the intention may have been to not upset anyone by having either side achieve a victory. The fear was that, if backed into a corner, Putin might unleash strategic weapons and expand the war, and perhaps the Biden Administration wanted to avoid that at all costs. Thus the plan may have been to achieve a perfect stalemate, and if so, it was successful. Could it be that the West was not sincere in aiding Ukraine but simply containing Russia?

I don't believe the US and its allies intend to win in Ukraine. The objective is a negotiated settlement at all costs.

References

https://cepa.org/article/russias-year-of-truth-the-runaway-military-budget/

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf

https://politact.com/ukraine-russia-stalemate-ensues-concerns-multiply/

Max L.Lake: Scientist, Innovator, Husband, Father.

2025-03-16T19:44:00.000-07:00

Max L. Lake, one of the most brilliant individuals I have ever known, passed recently. Max worked for me when I was a Project Manager at Wright Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. At the time, President Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative was in full swing. I wanted a high temperature conductor of electricity because I calculated that massive platforms planned for space would have to reject heat at red-hot temperatures at least. Max realized that a semi-metal like graphite might be a really good conductor at very high temperatures.

Max, John Woolam (U of Nebraska), Gary Tibbetts (General Motors Research) and Bob Alig (Delco) put their heads together and concocted a high-atomic-order carbon strand which was dubbed Pyrograf-I. The also had a fiber that was produced in a puff of smoke, using the right catalyst. This was called Pyrograf-III, and you could argue that it was the first true nanocarbon in history.

In 1990 I decided to join Applied Sciences Inc. Together, Max, Jyh-Ming Ting, Jerry Hardin, Jim Farmer, Bill Tarasen, David Burton, Ron Jacobsen and I created many variations of carbon fibers which naturally grew from decomposing methane. But the ultimate vision was always Max's. He was the one who wanted to build a production plant.

Now, in 1991, Iijima of NEC Corporation in Japan published an article describing the structure of carbon nanotubes. Max realized immediately, gee, our fibers are hollow as seen by electron microscopes. Maybe our stuff is related to the nanotube?

Most of the physicists thought we were kooks. Max was looking for customers interested in buying tons of material at a time when others were bragging about being able to produce a few grams per day of similar material. But Nobel Prize winner Richard Smalley offered his opinion that our materials were indeed part of the nanocarbon family. Suddenly, Max was not so crazy. Professor Smalley had great plans to work with us, but unfortunately, he passed due to leukemia and his initiatives were not realized. I believe, however, that if we had been permitted to work together a bit longer, we would have made substantial achievements together.

We found new allies, from Japan, at GSI Creos. We formed a Joint Venture, and when we announced it in Tokyo, their stock went up in value by many millions of dollars. That actually made Max a little mad. Perhaps we didn't see our own value properly?

On the other hand, the past several years saw interest in nanofbers diminish. A new nanomaterial--monolayer graphene--was isolated in 2004 and launched interest in a new way to create reinforcement of polymers (and by the way, we probably made graphene in 2002, and there is rather firm evidence that this is so. But, we truly did not understand the significance of graphene until Novoselov and Keim published the paper which made them Nobel Prize winners; so, no, we have no claim on their Nobel. But this is a story for another time).

By the 2020's graphene and other nanomaterials became more popular and it became very tough to compete. Other companies, especially from the Pacific Rim, were producing lower cost materials. Perhaps it was inevitable that our team had to disband and we are all working on other things.

One time, one of our young employees asked me "Was Max always in a wheelchair?" I laughed, heck no! Yes Max had polio as a kid which left him paralyzed. But he was like Hercules! He could get around on crutches just fine, and that developed his arms and chest like Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was unbelievably strong.

Max could do most anything. Being from Oklahoma, he rode horses, and enjoyed the outdoors. Max was married to an absolutely gorgeous woman from Germany, Inge, and together they raised four children: Stephanie, Caroline, Max Jr. and Patrick.

However, I'll relate a story about Max. For years Max had his office on the second floor of our office building. He went up and down via a wooden staircase using his crutches. But one day in his mid-40's, I noticed he was a bit wobbly. So he lamented, "You know, Elliot, all my life I have never considered myself handicapped. But now I have bifocals. NOW I'm handicapped." So we soon had an elevator installed so he didn't have to go up and down that rickety staircase anymore.

This article is really about Max, but I can't help but mention that polio really sucks. I would say Max overcame polio and did not let it ruin his life, but it was not without great pain. He suffered immensely, especially later in life. Accordingly, I hope that parents will read this and factor Max's experience into their decision whether to protect their children from awful diseases. God bless you all.

The Browns are Still Obsessed with Quarterbacks

2025-02-05T07:31:00.000-08:00

Deshaun Watson, P.J. Walker and Dorian Thompson Robinson. None of them were good enough to turn a weak offense around.

The Browns still don't get it. They think that

a) the more money you pay a quarterback, the better they play. So, if you pay a quarterback more than Patrick Mahomes, that quarterback must be even better than Mahomes. So come on down, Deshaun Watson!

b) The way you solve a quarterback controversy is to trade away the backup quarterback lest he make the front office look silly. So, they got rid of Joe Flacco, because he proved the Watson deal was preposterous. Prior to that, they axed Case Keenum, Jacoby Brissett, and Josh Dobbs. We're getting ready to cut Jameis Winston, despite the fact that he proved himself to be vastly superior to Watson. All of these players are miles ahead of Dorian Thompson-Robinson, the Crown Prince and favorite of the Realm. For that matter, they are also better than the current number one, Deshaun "Generational Talent" Watson.

c) Quarterbacks reach their prime in their rookie season. How else can you justify drafting Dorian Thompson Robinson in Round 5, and promoting him to second string on Opening Day? Good grief! Once in a while there is a Russell Wilson who has success immediately after being drafted in a middle round, but this is very rare. This writer does not hate DTR, but he probably needs 3 or 4 years to become an acceptable backup, just like Josh Dobbs rode the bench behind Big Ben Roethlisberger and Mason Rudolph.

It's like this: if you believe that the salary cap is real, than the object is to get the players who will contribute the most and cost the least. It's not that different from Fantasy Football. So, if you pay someone more than Mahomes, he must contribute more than Mahomes. If you are paying more than your opponents and fielding players who contribute less than their peers around the league, you are unlikely to have a winning team. You cannot pay $70 million dollars a year for a lousy quarterback on a lousy offense for a lousy team, and then run out and outplay the Chiefs. This is common sense.

A good team makes the QB look good. Get five tough fat kids for the offensive line, two stud tight ends and two good running backs, and and average QB with average wide receivers can score points in the Stefanski offense.

Joe Flacco was good enough to get into the playoffs, and once you're in you have at least some chance for a Ring. Brissett, Keenum, Winston and Dobbs had a legit shot also, especially if the Browns had had six draft picks and $230 million dollars to build with.

Look at the Steelers. With Russell Wilson at a quarterback and when T.J. was healthy, they were a playoff team. They collapsed down the stretch because their defense was old and injured, but the point is they proved they could win with a low-cost quarterback.

The Browns can't wait to throw money at ineffective big name quarterbacks, live in fear of their own backups. That's why they will pass on generational talents on defense in order to draft Shedeur Sanders, who Pro Football Focus ranks as the 43rd best prospect in the Draft. But he plays Quarterback, so that's our guy!

Why the Polls Might be Flat Out Wrong

2024-11-04T05:30:00.002-08:00

*********************************************************************************

Congratulations to President Trump! Well, I blew my prediction about the polls (I think), or perhaps I overlooked the larger factor that Trump supporters were not cooperative with the pollsters either (?!)

In any case, I believe in America no matter who the President, and the American people are resilient enough that we will be just fine, so life will continue, even for those who are disappointed in the outcome of the election.

I listened to an economist today recount how the stock market, after flopping under Bush, did great under Obama, continued to do well under Trump, and grew at the same rate under Biden. There were only a few times when the stock market went down after a Presidential Election. Very likely we will be okay.

If you are worried about establishing hereditary control of the White House, recall that he was the one that opposed having the third Bush in the White House (thank God). That sort of nonsense, plus the Democrats' sham primary system that allowed a man with Dementia to be their preferred candidate, is a real existential threat to Democracy.

So perhaps you may be legitimately concerned about another four years of President Trump, but we have seen much worse (Jeb is available if you want him!).

Rather than complain, I suggest we extend our congratulations and work together on the complex problems facing America.

*********************************************************************

What if they had a Presidential poll and nobody came?

Before answering that cryptic question, let me offer that America is still the greatest country in the world, and it will continue to be the greatest country in the world even if your favorite candidate does not make it. Those of you who are crying that America is doomed unless your candidate wins underestimate the strength of the American people and overestimate the strength of your candidate. Your candidate is not as good as you think, but either would be better than a man in early stage Dementia. This should be obvious.

But my point today is that I question whether the polls are going to get it right. The reason is I hang up on the bastards when they call, and there might be other people like me that don't trust them. I don't think we really need to know who is going to win, and we really just need vote our conscience.

In this election, I think there is a legitimate fear that if you get a call from a pollster, and you answer the wrong way, the result might be a lower credit score, or it might be more difficult to get a job in the future, or who knows what they might do to you if you answer incorrectly? This is the Data Age, and we are rapidly learning it is also the Misuse of Data Age. Besides, how do we know the caller is really a pollster, and not some fringe group who will seek to harass members of the opposition later on?

So, some voters may well lie about who they are going to vote for.

Now let's ask, who would be least likely to lie to pollsters? I'm not an expert social scientist, but my guess is that probably well-established suburbanites who lean Republican would feel comfortable in cooperating with pollsters.

Who would be most likely to lie? That would be young males from minority groups. And, well, pollsters are reporting unexpectedly high support from that demographic this year. To be sure, many feel let down by the Biden Administration, and really do feel that President Trump offers a logical alterative. But is it possible that they might fear reprisals from a new Trump Administration, rightly or wrongly, and lie about who they support? That is, young males from minorities may be disproportionately telling pollsters they are voting Republican. Similarly, fringy independents like myself might think the same way. That's my guess.

They surely keep stats on the percentage of voters that refuse to cooperate, but I have not seen that reported in the press. I suspect it will come out after the election.

In any case, we will survive November 5. We survived four years of being led by a man in the early stages of dementia, so stop saying America is doomed if they don't vote for your candidate. It's hard for me to imagine that either candidate is going to be a step backwards. Come on! Calm down. We'll be all right, and four years from now we will have the opportunity to peacefully elect someone else.

Agatha All Along--Barely Watchable Witch

2024-11-03T06:46:00.003-08:00

"Somewhere, there's got to be a plot on this road!?"

"Umm...nope."

What a crushing disappointment! Agatha All Along is the sequel to WandaVision, which was a work of genius. Wandavision involved the Scarlet Witch and the Vision participating in 1960s style sitcoms, and not really noticing anything was unusual about it. Gradually, however, they start to become aware that they may have ties to superheroes from the 21st century. Agatha keeps appearing in different situations and becomes a woman of mystery. I won't spoil it for you if you haven't seen it yet, but Wandavision was one of the most compelling Marvel works I've ever seen. The Scarlet Witch was a relatively minor character in the Avengers movies early on, but in Wandavision she became a superstar. So I had to watch the sequel, Agatha All Along.

So my expectations were high for Agatha, who we met in WandaVision. The first show was rather good, but it went downhill fast. In Agatha All Along, for some reason Agatha has a different personality than she had when we last saw her in WandaVision. Well, okay... So she meets meets a mysterious young man who dabbles in witchcraft. He too changes his personality from one episode to the next, which is rather confusing. But in any case together they and some friends decide to make a special pilgrimage on the Witches' Road, based on a rumor that something good might await them at the end. Nobody knows what the Road is or why it's there or what the reward is. It's the same plot as the Wizard of Oz.

You know how baseball has unwritten rules of baseball? Well, there are unwritten rules of witchcraft, and the book is very thick. All the witches know about them, but they won't tell us about them. They have these stupid do's and don'ts and rules of etiquette about how to behave or you get zapped from some other realm, and nobody much questions it.

The major problem with the show is that people change their personalities for no reason, week to week. Perhaps the writers thought this would be an interesting plot device, but it just makes the show hard to follow. Maybe they had multiple writers and they argued about how to portray the characters and so they compromised, and each got their chance for different episodes. Who's in charge here, where are we going and who knows what is going on? It's a mess

A basic problem with magic tales is that there are no rules. So, hypothetically, if you have the Wicked Witch of the West fight Agatha, they can zap each other with lightning bolts. "All zapped out, Agatha?" "Ha ha ha, you didn't know I had a magic scroll!" "Oh yeah? Well, I have a magic amulet!" "So what? I have an enchanted sword! Ta da!" ....and so on.

So you go on with the stupid battle till someone gets splashed with a bucket of water and melts. But this is not a plot twist. This is just making it up as you go along who has the last enchantment. We are just waiting on the whim of the screenwriters. This is not creativity. It is just formulaic and one dimensional.

Or you can always say, hey, everything is an illusion, this is not the real world, and have a character wake up and the world vanishes. This happens over and over. Oh, this isn't the real world, either! Poof! It another dream! Nope, this isn't it, either! Wash, rinse, repeat. It is not clever. It's formulaic. Cop out! Not a plot twist.

This is why Agatha is boring, despite lavish sets, beautiful scenery, great camerawork and inspired acting performances. They couldn't quite overcome the mishmash of a script.

Are you bored O, Goddess of Death? How did she get that job, anyway, and why can't somebody else do the same things? Being vague is not the same as mysterious.

Since the Two-Party System is Broken, Consider Supporting 3rd Party Candidates?

2024-10-25T05:34:00.002-07:00

Randall Terry of the Constitution Party is a religious conservative; Chase Oliver of the Libertarian Party seeks to maximize personal liberty and decentralize authority of the federal government; and Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party is pro-environment and anti-war.

Third parties are nearly extinct in America because that is one thing that Democrats and Republicans agree on: they are a threat to the two party system and must be exterminated. It is an open conspiracy to pass increasingly steep barriers to make it difficult for candidates to appear on the ballot (not just President, but state and local representatives) and God help them fund a campaign if they do get on the ballot. The odds are stacked against anyone who dares offer an alternative to our warring, bickering divided America.

Where America really went wrong was taking away the Presidential debates from the neutral League of Women Voters and letting the Democrats and Republicans negotiate their own deals with the networks directly. We don't have orderly debates anymore. We have pre-match hoopla like the World Wrestling Entertainment.

You say a vote for the Libertarians is just a vote for Trump. Or a vote for Jill Stein is just a vote for Kamala. Well, okay, so use your power of the vote to keep the third parties alive. What, you're afraid that the Democrats or Republicans won't be on the ballot next time?

Who actually does a better job of espousing conservative values, Trump or Chase Oliver? Or, who actually does a better job of representing the liberal cause, Jill Stein or Kamala Harris? And neither candidate speaks for the religious right like Randall Terry.

Ross Perot was the last major independent Presidential candidate. He might have won, except he quit and then un-quit. Well, you can't do that. He still got 19% of the vote, but lost his chance to change history.

I'm not throwing away my vote by voting third party. You're throwing away your vote if you continue to support confrontational, divisive party machine politics. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we need these Bozos (sorry if I have offended the clown community by comparing politicians to you). But we are going to continue to have parties that ask us to hate our neighbors until we muster the strength to THROW THE RASCALS OUT! BOTH OF THEM!!

Biden Makes Democrats Look Irrelevant in Lebanon

2024-10-23T05:34:00.000-07:00

This Protestor may have a reasonably accurate assessment of the role of the US in Lebanon.

President Biden is making America increasingly irrelevant in the Middle East. Perhaps it is because our President comes from the Senate, the highest paid debating society in the world, and they tend to resolve problems by unlimited debate; i.e., no resolution.

This model has been tested in Ukraine, where the US have achieved a perfect stalemate, supporting President Zelensky but not giving him the weapons he needs to win. At the same time, branding President Putin a "War Criminal" assures that negotiating a settlement is impossible. Biden apparently hopes to have a similar solution in Israel: support Israel, but preserve Hamas, which is committed to fight Israel to the death. Brilliant, Mr. President. Perpetual death.

So it is in Lebanon. There are a lot of things that I don't like about Israel, but in this situation a choice needs to be made. Hamas, according to their party ideology, does not hate all Jews, but is totally committed to end Zionism (i.e., the Jewish presence in Palestine). It is important to understand that Hamas does not speak for everyone in the Middle East or indeed everyone in Lebanon. They are a political party, but they do support eradication of Israel as a political entity.

It is possible to be very supportive of the Palestinian cause, but, in the case of Hamas, there is a chose to be made. The US has to support either Hamas or Israel. Either Israel will exist or it will not.

By analogy, the idea that while driving towards Berlin, Truman should have called off General Eisenhower and had a cease-fire does not make much sense. This is basically what we are asking Prime Minister Netanyahu to do. Give up while just before eliminating Hamas as a political entity. Are you kidding?

Former President Trump, on the other hand, has offered a simpler solution. "Let Israel finish the job." It's horrible to contemplate, but this may be the quickest way to end the war.

Again, the debating society hates victory and loves stalemate. It takes courage to hold out for victory. I'm not sure what Kamala would do. At the moment she is obligated to hold the party line, much to the detriment of her Brand. It may cost her at the polls. De Facto support of Hamas probably seems stupid to many Americans.

What is the End Game in Ukraine? Victory, Nuclear War or Unending Conflict?

2024-10-23T05:29:00.000-07:00

This article was originally written in 2022. Has there been a negotiated outcome of the Ukraine war? No. It is rather clear that the Biden administration will come to a close without a resolution, exactly as forecast. Kamala might have a better shot at it because she at least did not refer to President Putin as a "war criminal," thereby making it impossible to negotiate. However, the Dems tend to love muddled stalement and perpetual warfare as a preferred "resolution." Would a second Trump Administration negotiate a resolution overnight? Probably not that fast, but it will probably happen because both sides are weary of conflict. I believe Trump would get it done. You don't have to read the Art of the Deal to know that much....

America is spending $54 billion dollars to help Ukraine fight Russian aggression, according to the New York Times. There is no question that Vladimir Putin is an international Pariah, and that the Russians are the aggressors, and that the sympathies of America and most of the West are with Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But what is the objective of the support America is providing? Does anyone know?

President Biden has stated America's goal as follows: "America’s goal is straightforward: We want to see a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression."

Okay! We've got that. But that doesn't end the war. Shouldn't the objective be to end the war somehow?

Biden indicates that the war should be resolved at the negotiating table, but does not indicate when this should happen or who should win. That is a slight problem, if we do not know who should win.

The presumption might be that we are trying to help Ukraine achieve a military victory? The President has also said that he wants Putin to be considered a war criminal.

Further, he wants Putin to be put on trial. How exactly will peace be negotiated if one of the parties is put on trial for war crimes? Of course he deserves it, but that is not the point. Does President Biden wish to end the war or not? Putin is a sore loser, and has threatened to use nuclear weapons rather than go quietly if the situation worsens. Now, why would Putin agree to some negotiated solution that includes him meekly going to trial as a war criminal?

There cannot possibly be a negotiated end to the war unless it occurs after a nuclear holocaust as long as the Democrats remain in power.

Anyway, Ukraine is not really winning the war, despite the spirited press bluster. Yes, the Russian army is rather incompetent and blundering and has suffered enormous, embarrassing defeats. But they are holding their ground now. The Ukrainian counterattack has bogged down now, though you would not realize it from the constant optimistic jabber from the press, which reports only about the bravery of the Ukrainian people, and takeover of tiny villages. The basic map of battle lines has not changed much recently even though the press makes it sound like the Russians are being routed daily.

Hence President Biden's objective is probably unending war, and he is succeeding. Ukrainian victory is not an option because that would goad Putin into the use of nuclear weapons. Biden enjoys making empty threats about Putin, but has no stomach for making good on those threats.

Just as Biden is willing to cut fossil fuel production in America in order to pursue his green energy policies, he is no doubt thrilled to see Russia lose its ability to send fossil energy to Europe.

Congress should realize that since America has no stomach to win the war, we need to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table by not pretending we will help them achieve military victory. However, it is doubtful whether Congress has any will of its own. Republicans have the main aim of blaming the President for the ills of the country; and Democrats wish to be the Party That is Better Than Trump.

Now It's a Ballgame: Harris Vs Trump

2024-07-23T10:00:00.000-07:00

Trust the Gamblers at Election Odds | Who Will Win The Presidency In 2024? (thelines.com). The Village Elliot is an amateur sports handicapper, and in sports terms, it now appears that it's anybody's ballgame, and we're not giving any better than 60-40, President Trump. In fact, I might bet on the new kid, Kamala Harris, even though she was not a first round draft pick. The old guy, President Biden, had fallen to less than 20% at the end. Not good. In fact, I would have put it this way: it would have been far more probable that Trump could have lost the election with a last minute fumble than Biden win it with a last-minute Hail Mary.

So how do we break down the election now that there is a new quarterback for the Blue Team? Well, I've heard this over and over again from commentators on AM radio: "President Biden is the most terrible President in American history...the worst of all time, unbelievable, unprecedented."

Well so what about Vice President Kamala Harris?

"Oh, she's even worse!"

Well, both statements are very unlikely to be true. I encountered the same thing in discussing the merits of the Trump Administration. You may not believe it, but

I predicted his impeachment BEFORE he was even inaugurated, on January 17, 2017.. I suspected the unconventional Trump would butt heads with the establishment. With all the whining about how horrible Trump is, I pointed out to my liberal friends at the time, if 19 Republicans would vote with the Democrats, Mike Pence could replace Trump. "Oh no! He's even worse!" was often often the reply. Well, how could Pence be worse than Trump, if Trump was really a historic anomaly worthy of impeachment? You might not agree with Mike Pence, but he at least had a strong sense of ethics. Does anyone still think he was a Trumplike insurrectionist after his courageous stand on January 6 when Trump supporters were chanting for his death? Whoever thought he was "worse than Trump" should be ashamed. At least he respects the will of the American voters.

No, something is wrong with a major portion of the electorate if they think that each candidate is the worst in history and the next candidate is even worse. This is simply not possible. It is bad handicapping and faulty analysis. This is like a cynical football analyst who takes one look at the quarterback and writes off the season.

The truth is that neither Biden nor Trump are as formidable as they were in 2020. In 2020, Biden was the former Vice President under Obama, and Trump was the incumbent President, not yet tarnished by January 6 and the unsuccessful post-election crusade. By now, Biden is known to have dementia (let's call it what it is) and Trump was permanently tarnished for his role in the post-election insurrection (let's call that what it is too).

Trump, for his part, was a much better President than his opponents give him credit for. Number of wars on his watch = 0. He decreased carbon emissions despite avoiding direct legislation. You may not like his border policy, but by now the Democrats have mostly adopted it. The Covid vaccine was developed during his Administration, not Bidens (if it had come out a few months earlier my guess is many Democrats would have been anti-vaxers just because they hate all things Trump). But Trump's problem was not going home when the voters rejected him. January 6 is hard for many Americans to overcome. The fact that for a long time he was polling about even with a man with Dementia is a sign of great weakness, not resilience.

Even though Kamala has significant problems in transferring campaign donations and negotiating ballot challenges at this late date, and the stigma of not having been tested in the primaries, she has to be stronger than a man with Dementia.

I think she could win if she runs a centrist campaign that compromises with the Right on issues like immigration and energy. She could say, "Well, Republicans, can you pass a bill through both Houses of Congress for me to sign? If not, then there's nothing to talk about, is there? Nya nya!" Make Congress do their job rather than rule by Executive Orders (=Royal Decrees, which Americans are supposedly adverse to, but just love if they come from their darling political party).

Setting a record for donations on the first day is a signal that should impress the Trump campaign.

Mind you, the Harris candidacy does not fix the fact that the Democrats did not allow us to vote in a real primary with real challengers. If they had, Biden would have been exposed and we would have had a real candidate. For that reason, I personally am disinclined to support the corrupt two-party system. It is absurd that a party would even consider running a candidate with Dementia in the first place.

Nevertheless, a candidate without a single vote in a Democratic Primary does have a chance against a Republican whose disregard for the American voter was shocking in the post-election attempted insurrection. It's not that Harris is a great candidate. It's that President Trump is much weaker than most handicappers believe.

2023-08-18T15:09:00.002-07:00

Vivek Ramaswamy is the Only Candidate Who Makes Sense to me.

Vivek Ramaswamy is the only Candidate who makes sense to me. Why? Let's keep it simple. Ramaswamy is promising to pardon Donald Trump. Other Republicans are wishy-washy about what would happen, whereas the Democrats universally call for trial, conviction and jail time.

The Democrats need to be rebuked. They need to understand that it is not realistic to obtain a guilty verdict via jury trial against President Trump. Why not? Because the jury will be inevitably become known publicly and thus in imminent danger of death by mob violence, and their families will be in the same situation also. This is not to suggest organized crime, but DISorganized fans of Donald Trump will certainly react, and everyone with an IQ over 1/2 should understand this. So how are we going to find 12 people willing to risk their lives and the lives of their families to deliver a guilty verdict? Hello, Democrats, you are not going to do that. It is not possible. The visions of a contrite Donald shuffling off to jail will never ever come true because obtain a guilty verdict via a jury trial is not possible with 12 Democrats in a jury, and that in itself would be a sham. If you have 10 Democrats and 2 Republicans it will be at best a hung jury, and the 10 Democrats will still be in terrible danger when the trial is over. You cannot do this.

The only way to successfully disengage from this disastrous path is for the next President, whoever he or she is, to grant President Trump a pardon.

Ramaswamy is the only candidate who promises to pardon Donald Trump. This is just such common sense. Every other candidate, both Democrat and Republican is so beholden to party interests that they are headed to a crisis and they can't see it coming. Dealing with the trial of Donald Trump is a headache that this country does not need. It is conceivable that the two sides might resort to Civil War to alleviate their angst.

On the other hand the country cannot allow Trump back into the Oval Office because he might never leave. That would be the end of the Constitutional Republic and the US government would basically become a family-owned business.

Biden would certainly not consider a Trump pardon. He would see nothing wrong with leading the USA into a new Civil War as long as he believed that the Democrats would win it. Moreover, there is no opposition Democrat, since the party refuses to sponsor primary debates. So forget all about that. The nomination process is indeed rigged so that Biden will be the nominee whether the people like it or not.

You can look at Trump's rising numbers and interpret them as rising confidence in him by Republicans, and perhaps this is so. However, it may also be that Republicans are bailing on the party's choice, Florida Governor DeSantis, just as they bailed on party choice Florida Governor Jeb Bush in 2016. For whatever reason, Americans seem to not like being told who to vote for. It may be that the Republican platform is a bit out of touch with the way voters really feel. My personal feeling is that Republicans talk a good ballgame of fiscal responsibility, but if you vote them in, they will spend like hell on their friends (compromising in some cases by also spending on some of the Democrats' friends), generally protecting big dollar programs while damaging American workers and people who need help. If you don't understand what I mean, go back to the 2016 debates and listen how the other candidates referred to America's "investment" in Iraq, while Donald Trump called Iraq a "disastrous mistake." That's why big dollar Republicans wanted Jeb Bush to maintain the status quo, and the voters rejected the wishes of the party, much to their chagrin.

Look, you can't have a system in which we try to throw the previous Administration in jail all the time. You are not locking up Obama or the Clintons. You are not locking up Biden, either, despite the fact that he is a hardliner daring Trump to start something. Nor are you locking up Trump. That's just not how our system works. This is not the French Revolution, where we chop people's heads off and accept no compromises.

Hello, this is America, where we used to--and will again--have a loyal opposition, in which we talk to each and reason with one another. Republicans and Democrats both love their children and get along.

That is why Trump is going to be pardoned and someone else is going to run in his place. It should be someone like Vivek Ramaswamy, rather than a party favorite. Right now, he is the only one making any sense in the Republican field.

Peace in Ukraine has no Military Solution

2023-07-30T05:39:00.003-07:00

Peace in Ukraine has no Military Solution

Media reports that Ukraine has gained a few square miles of land in their great summer counter-offensive is a cruel joke. Just shut up. Admit that the war is almost perfectly stalemated. Military victory is impossible because the Russian side has nuclear weapons, and President Putin would rather be personally castrated rather than suffer a military defeat on the battlefield. It defies logic to believe in a military solution.
Nevertheless, as of July 30, breathless reporting by CNN is telling us about key battles around the towns of Staromalorske and Velyka Novosylka, trying to convince us that there is real hope for a military breakthrough.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/27/ukraine-counteroffensive-magic-wall-sebastian-hnk-vpx.cnn

It's not just CNN, of course. They are joined by the majority of mainstream media worldwide. However, according to Wikipedia, the population of Stromalorske, last we knew, was 839. Velyka Novosylka was significantly larger, a teeming metropolis of over 5,000 people. God bless them, but guessing that Russia controls about 25% of a country of 40 million, there needs to be 2000 such events to win the war. A victory per week means the Russians would be vanquished in only 40 years if there are no further problems and if nuclear weapons are not employed (but they will be). This does not seem like a path to success unless there is a remarkable change. Does the mainstream, global media feel it has a vested interest in promoting an illogical legend about an imminent Ukrainian victory?

The Administration seems extremely content with military stalemate, though the media seems uncomfortable in reporting it that way. By calling Putin a "War Criminal," President Biden has made negotiations next impossible. Can anyone imagine a scenario in which Putin declares a willingness to negotiate peace so that he can be judged as a War Criminal and hanged? The Republicans have completely missed the point, choosing to tease the President about another age-related gaffe. No, it is not. It was a careful, deliberate and thoughtful proclamation guaranteed to ensure perpetual warfare, and you Republicans failed to take the President seriously because you are more interested in name-calling rather than dealing with matters of serious global politics.

The Administration regards Russia as a threat to world security, not our ally, and Russia is bogged down in a war that they cannot win. Putin has been suckered into the hugest blunder of his career, and President Biden will not let him off the hook.

President Biden is not particularly fond of Ukraine, either. Recall that he threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine while he was Vice President. If you are a Democrat, you probably believe it was to force the Ukrainians to clean up corruption in their military-industrial complex. If you are a Republican, you may believe it had to do with protecting Hunter Biden from his part in those corrupt dealings. But either way, as Vice President, Joe Biden was not a friend of Ukraine. Nothing has changed to make him love Ukraine today. He probably dislikes Ukraine less than he dislikes Russia, but he is far, very far, from a true ally. He sees no advantage in a strong Ukraine and certainly sees no advantage in relief for Russia He is content to damage both potential adversaries by supporting an almost perfect stalemate.

That is why the US supports Ukraine with maximal aid, some $113 billion in 2022, ten times more than the next largest contributor.

The US is far and away the largest investor in the Ukraine stalemate. Note that the red portion is the military part.

This war may never stop unless the US Congress develops enough spine to force President Biden and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to the negotiating table by threatening to limit funds for weapons. Similarly, a leadership change in Russia would be very helpful, though nobody, including the Russians, is quite sure how that is actually brought about.

Kennel's Law of Internet Sarcasm

2023-04-19T18:27:00.001-07:00

I had better write this down so I can take credit for it:

Kennel's Law of Internet Sarcasm: Nothing you can post on the internet is so stupid that someone won't take it seriously.

The consequences of this simple law are quite profound. It means that you have to be very careful about attempting to use sarcastic humor. Ethnic jokes? Racial humor? Usually not a good idea.

It's too bad. From the time of William Shakespeare, Anglo Saxons have enjoyed making fun of themselves and laughing together. I am not Anglo by blood, but I've grown up in America, so culturally I'm pretty much tuned in to their way of thought. I let you make fun of me, you let me make fun of you, and we are both jolly good fellows. We are willing to let our guard down with each other. However, not all cultures are like that!! Some cultures assume you mean what you say, and insults are insults.

In 1729, Jonathan Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal" in which he suggested that poor Irish people should sell their children as food to rich English people. This was satire. Swift's point was that the English upper class were way too rich and draconian in their approach to their Irish neighbors. They should have come up with some reasonable plan to help ease unfair economic conditions involving Irish people. Most readers got the point and were sympathetic to the cause of the oppressed Irish people, or at least put off by the draconian aristocracy mocked by Swift's satire.

Nowadays, if this were published online, someone would think that Swift was seriously proposing that Irish children should be eaten by rich English people. This would be standard fare on AM radio. Some people would get very offended, or worse, others would think it is a good idea. It's hard to imagine Democrats and Republicans agreeing on anything, so one party would probably wind up supporting it.

Mustang to Paducah has Comedy, Suspense, Mystery, 60's Vibe

2023-04-04T15:15:00.001-07:00

Mustang to Paducah is Raul Ramos y Sanchez's newest, and--in this reviewer's opinion--best work to date. What could be more iconic than a shiny new Ford Mustang in the 1960's? What if someone was willing to pay you and your best friend to drive it cross-country? Nothing could be finer, unless of course, you and your best friend are magnets for trouble, which is exactly the situation of two likeable young men in Mustang to Paducah. Sometimes the trouble is the law, sometimes it's about women and sometimes it's lawless thugs, but somehow they either find trouble or trouble finds them.

Hopefully this book will be made into a movie, because it has that feel. If you liked The Fugitive, with Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones, you will like this book. However, this is not the story of an action hero like Harrison Ford, it's more like a comic duo Cheech and Chong, the two hippies from the 1960's. This book is definitely a comedy. It is quick paced and fun.

This is also a period piece, so you may find yourself immersed in the 1960s like Forrest Gump. An interesting wrinkle in this story is that one of the characters, Nestor "Cruiser" Cruz, was born in Cuba but has lived in America since age 11 and considers himself fully Americanized. But reminders of his heritage pop up in unexpected ways.

Has Hollywood ever made a comedy about the 1960s? If not, why not? Hurry the hell up before we die, how about? Mustang to Paducah could be the perfect vehicle.

Elvis Lives! Austin Butler's Star is Born!

2022-06-26T16:18:00.038-07:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp2BNHwbwvI

I was the first kid on my block to see Elvis, attending without hours of the first release at Regal, a few hundred yards from my house. I give this one five stars. I don't get why some of the early reviews were intensely negative, although in his career some people loved Elvis and some hated him.

My family was an anti-Elvis family. My Dad liked Hank Snow, the former straight-laced touring mate of Elvis who thought that Elvis was immoral. My Mom was taught by American missionaries in Korea that all music except for European classical music was created by and for barbarians (literally). They were especially taught not to play drums. So she wasn't much of a fan either.

I didn't recognize Tom Hanks, who deserves an Oscar. I had never heard of Austin Butler prior to this film, but he too deserves an Oscar, because he makes Elvis come to life, especially on stage. It's easy to impersonate Elvis, but hard to make him real. Butler was remarkable. Like the old murder mysteries, Butler did it!

I predict that this movie will trigger an Elvis revival this summer. Elvis has never really left the building, but our culture is really determined by those of us who are, say, 13 to 23 years old. Music is meant to be danced to by single people. It's in our blood from prehistory. It's how young men and women find each other, and that is exactly what is going to happen again.

As an adult I have understood that Rock 'n Roll was tightly connected to the music of Africa and that the chord progressions are Scotch-Irish overlaid on the the African Blues Scale. But what I didn't realize was that Elvis was heavily and directly influenced by African American gospel music as a kid. I thought it was a cliche that Elvis was a white kid who sung black, but the movie made clear exactly what was meant. In fact, I didn't know much about Elvis as a child, so that part was totally new for me and very interesting.

In that way, Elvis truly connects African American and European cultures. It is much more than just sound. It's why the rest of the world is so fascinated by America. Maybe Americans have never fully understood or appreciated our unique role, and many have been terrified by it.

As a period piece, it was a great movie. I am more than 20 years younger than Elvis, but we are close enough in age that I think I know what his world should look like and how it should feel, and, at least to me, they pretty much nailed it.

One story that was not covered was the first concert north of the Mason-Dixon Line, which occurred in the Circle Theater in Cleveland in 1954. It's part of the rationale for locating the Rock 'N Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. The show was called Hillbilly Jamboree and two of the people in the audience included my future parents, Byron Kennel and Sook Cha Lee.

The version I heard was that the screaming was definitely for real, but they did not know who this kid was and they were not impressed. My mother supposedly fell asleep, but my theory is that this was an act of passive aggression to show how mad she was at being taken to a crowd of literal barbarians.

But later, I realized that this fusion of African and Scotch Irish music was the most awesome sound God could ever give humanity. My parents didn't think so, but it was. This is what made us Americans.

It took me back into the 1960s. Even though I saw Elvis through a teen's eyes, my kid's brain was recording information back then, and probably working better then than it is now, to be quite candid. I remember the phenomenon quite clearly, the good and the bad. The movie took me back and gave me an earlier starting point on his life, and of course told the story from the inside, rather than from the perspective of a fan or outsider.

It would be so interesting to learn how today's teenagers will view this movie. My kids have not seen it yet. I wonder if they will reignite the craze, or whether they will figure, well, we've seen Elvis impersonators before, so it's not big of a deal. I have to believe things are going to get All Shook Up before the summer is over.

Elvis Lives!!

Is Vladimir Putin Too Big to Fail?

2022-04-12T20:11:00.047-07:00

Is Vladimir Putin too big too fail? That is, the United States is so fearful of the potential for what he might do--nuclear retaliation or other weapons of mass destruction, that the US does not wish to provoke him by allowing the Ukraine to defeat him.

Witness when the Ukrainians blew up a fuel depot in Russian territory, CNN referred to that action as "Biden's worst nightmare." Apparently Zelenskiy's military is supposed to just sit there and take it, and this is regarded as sound policy, and I find that disturbing.

If we are not going to allow Putin to be damaged too severely, what about the business of calling him "War Criminal" and demanding that he stand trial? This assures that there will not be a negotiated end to the war. Why would Putin sign a peace treaty that results in him being tried, found guilty of being a War Criminal and punished accordingly (i.e., certainly being removed from power and being sent to jail)? Do we in the West sincerely believe he is going to passively agree to this?

If there is nothing good that happens, no relief from sanctions, only a jail term, good luck waiting for Putin to agree.

Also good luck waiting for a military coup in Russia or fair elections. This news flash just in--the electoral process in Russia is not fair and the elections are not real. It is a dictatorship, and dictators generally do not lose elections. Admittedly, Putin is not all powerful and there is some chance that a coup could occur. Russia had a coup in 1917 and one in 1991 which failed. But if the American plan is to wait for Russia to solve its Putin problem by itself it may be a very long time.

The American plan for handling Putin is a fear-based initiative. We are so fearful of what he might do. Hence the US approach appears to be to continue the war and maintain the status quo. We apparently feel the need to resist the temptation to support Ukraine too strongly, such that it might offend Comrade Putin. We will not allow, for example, Poland to send MIG aircraft to the Ukrainians because that would be considered a provocation, although it is okay to send anti-tank missiles and hand-held munitions and the like. Limited engagement seems to be the desire, small successes, but we must also protect Comrade Putin and not get him too upset lest he become even more insane than he is already.

Okay? So no aircraft for Ukraine, no A-10 tank killers, nothing that might result in the Ukraine actually winning.

The amount of money that the US has sent in military aid is a pathetically small about: about $2.5 billion dollars at the time of this writing. That 's about three tenths of one percent of our defense budget for the fight that we believe is the most serious since World War II. By comparison, Girl Scout cookies generate about $800 million in revenue each year, so the US has contributed about three times as much money as Girl Scout cookie sales. Maybe President Biden can hold a series of patriotic bake sales to help out our friends in the Ukraine? It's ridiculous. The only conclusion is that we are afraid of Comrade Putin and will not allow him to lose and cause him to lose his temper.

Here in Beavercreek Ohio, my family lives only a few miles from the largest Air Force Base in the world. We know we are going to be targeted if there is a nuclear exchange with Russia. But there is no risk-free solution. Placating Putin carries as much or greater risk than opposing him. Speaking for myself, I wish our government had some balls and would go for the win in Ukraine. We have to take a stand. Perpetual Iraq-style war is not the answer. Throw the Russian bastards out of Ukraine.

At the same time, there should be a path for a negotiated peace. President Biden has needlessly closed this off. He has to shut up about putting Putin on trial for War Crimes. Does anyone believe that Putin will voluntarily appear in court? This can only happen if there is an unconditional surrender or a coup, and this is simply not realistic. The President's needlessly provocative talk is harmful and has ended the negotiation process rather than promoting it. Biden has to offer something good that will happen if Russia agrees to pull out, like lifting some of the embargos or sanctions and allowing Putin to keep his job. If nothing positive can be offered under any conditions, there will never be an agreement to end the war, it's as simple as that.

The current US policy is name-calling and promises of imprisonment, thereby ensuring that a negotiated peace is impossible. At the same time, the US is too fearful to allow a Ukrainian military victory, so we wish to protect Comrade Putin and prevent him from failing and getting too upset. Putin is too big to fail. The American approach of appeasement on the one hand, combined with refusal to permit a negotiated settlement on the other, is totally inadequate. We shall sit on the sidelines and cheer for Ukraine as their country is destroyed, and call Putin some bad names and feel that we are accomplishing something. That appears to be our plan, and it is disgusting.

Americans should not be boycotting local Russian restaurants and businesses

2022-03-12T07:56:00.001-08:00

First of all, I am all in favor of boycotting Russian oil. Hell yes! Don't feed the dog that is trying to bite your arm off. That is common sense.

What is not common sense is boycotting Russian restaurants and local Russian-American small businesses owned by people who were your friends last month. They are still your friends. Nevertheless, news reports from around the country say that business is down in Russian restaurants all over the country, and presumably affecting other Russian small businesses as well. Does this make sense to anyone?

Look, they didn't invade Ukraine. They came to America to GET AWAY from Russia, because they WANTED to live in America. They are not advising Comrade Putin on invading Ukraine.

Come on, man! What do you think your boycott is going to accomplish? Do you really believe that your local waitress is funneling her tips to Comrade Putin so that he can buy more MIG jet aircraft?

Good Lord, are we becoming a nation of racists, looking for an excuse to hate people because of where they were born?? This makes no sense. None whatsoever. People who left Russia to come to America are the most Anti-Putin, Anti-Communist people on earth. They are the most willing to send their sons and daughters to fight in our Armed Forces and defend our freedoms. There could not be anybody more American than people who have suffered under authoritarian rule elsewhere and come to America.

Even in Russia, Putin is much less popular than most of you believe. He controls the media, jails people he doesn't like, so of course he wins elections with monster majorities and opinion polls always favor him. People are afraid to tell the truth. That's not the same as liking him. Every day, the police haul off thousands of protestors and throw them in jail. That's not the same as supporting the war or unifying the country. It is hard to prove, but my guess is that even in Russia the majority of Russians know Putin is a liar, oppose his war and want him out or dead.

Hence, even in Russia, not all Russian people are on Putin's side. In America, the overwhelming majority support America over Putin, of this we can be certain.

Okay, so let's go to a Russian restaurant, shall we?

First of all, I'm addicted to Russian rye bread. Not everyone likes it because it is much harder than the American version, so Americans might think the Russian version is almost stale. But I greatly prefer it. You have to put butter on it, and caviar is a usual option. Or you might try it with cheese or hard sausage. Also, everybody tries Ukrainian-Russian borscht. It's beet soup, which doesn't sound tasty, but it is. Very sweet and loaded with vitamin C. A bowl of borscht and you know you're getting something healthy. Olivier salad is kind of like American potato salad but has peas, carrots, boiled eggs, diced meats and so that it is much more perky than potato salad. Awesome. In Cleveland, where I am from which is practically a Polish colony, pierogi is a standard staple. The Russian version is pirozhki, which is kind of like a cross between a shepherd's pie and a pierogi. It has a more bready texture but like a pierogi can be filled with either meat, vegetable or potatoes. Beef stroganoff is a well-known go-to favorite, Kamchatka crab, if you like seafood. Most of the meat dishes seem to have meat as one ingredient among many, like a casserole, rather than a huge cut of meat like a steak or prime rib like in America. So although many dishes have meat in them, it is hard to go into an outright meat coma like in America. Try medovik (honey cake) for desert.

I might recommend to you Russian restaurant owners, as a practical matter, that the sign in front of the restaurant needs to be changed to Ukrainian-Russian restaurant, and you need to add Chicken Kyiv and a few other choice dishes to the menu (spelled with the Ukrainian transliteration). Yellow and blue on the menu will help your business also in this emotionally-charged time.

All Americans ought to consider supporting restaurants and other these businesses, dropping the foolish notion that restaurant owners are collaborating with Putin to invade Ukraine.

Putin: This is what happens when you believe your own propaganda

2022-02-28T10:19:00.010-08:00

Comrade Putin probably expected that his military would be greeted as liberators, and that he would be viewed as the Great Unifier of the Slavic peoples. Oops. That is what happens when you believe your own propaganda. This has been a terrible miscalculation and the world is suffering the consequences.

As a former military guy, I wondered why he did not follow the plan of US General Colin Powell versus Iraq in Desert Storm. That war was for totally bogus purposes (there were no weapons of mass destruction, okay?) but my point in bringing it up is to ask how does a superpower take down a formidable opponent? First, you bomb the hell out of him for about a month, destroy his capability to resist and THEN send the ground forces in to do battle. The Americans respected the ability of the Iraqi military to fight back and destroyed it. It is horrifying to say so, but American leadership was not that concerned about preserving the economy of the country or its people. The main task was to destroy the military and its ability to resist.

As for Comrade Putin, a few days before the attack, he first lectured the West about our ignorance of the history of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples. He told us all about how the Russians and Ukrainians are essentially one people and the boundaries and creation of the Ukrainian state are essentially a sham imposed by outsiders. It seems that he wanted to be friends when this process is over. Hence, he did not want to cause great destruction. He wanted to move in, achieve an easy occupation, and achieve a joyful reunion with his lost Ukrainian brothers and sisters and overcome the painfully incompetent leadership of the Communists of the past, replacing it with the brilliant leadership of... himself. He would be greeted as a liberator, and the great unifier of the Slavic people.

Okay, all this is fine, and you can tell all the ignorant West all about how it should be. But you know what? The Ukrainians ain't buying it either, Volodya. I don't think the Russian people hold much actual hatred for the Ukrainians (especially prior to the 2014 war of Crimean annexation), but if the Ukrainians didn't hate the Russians before this war, they do now.

It is probably easier to take over Ukraine than to administer it. As long as firearms can be smuggled into the country, no Russian administrator will ever be safe, because any Ukrainian with the ability to operate a firearm, will be a threat to shoot the administrator on sight.

This is a disaster. Ironically, Putin was probably correct in some of what he said, prior to starting the war. Long term, Ukrainians and Russians are basically friendly to one another on a personal level, and can understand each other's language and share common history and religion. But on a governmental level, Ukrainians and other nationalities of the former Soviet Union have no affinity for Putin's control. In fact Russian people may not be all that wild about him, either, but they can't get rid of him since their elections are not real.

So now we are on nuclear alert to preserve his sense of power. I am a bit concerned about that since I live a few miles away from an Air Force base and I am sure that several bombs have targeted us. Regardless, however, I am sure that the world will oppose Putin by any means necessary.

Covid-19 Political Duopoly Grows Stronger due to Covid Controversy

2021-10-16T08:29:00.001-07:00

Downloaded from https://pixabay.com/de/illustrations/ufo-covid-19-corona-virus-5177929/

The reason we have a bitter Covid-19 controversy is because the political duopoly between the Democratic Party and Republic Party thrives on controversy. What should be a simple matter of a lifesaving recommendation and gentle tolerance for those who wish to refrain from accepting the gift of vaccination is instead a bitter war between political left and right that has the side effect of generating millions of dollars of revenue for the parties and for media outlets that thrive on controversy.

A Covid-19 controversy will generate plenty of guaranteed revenue for both sides. It's wonderful, absolutely wonderful, and the parties will do what is necessary to support it even though the individuals within each party may think that it is a winnable battle. They have conditioned themselves to do what is necessary to support their party.

The reader is referred to articles such as "Fixing U.S. Politics: What business can—and must—do to revitalize democracy" by Katherine M. Gehl and Michael E. Porter from the Harvard Business Review Magazine (July–August 2020). Their convincing thesis is that the political parties act to promote the interests of the political parties. Is that a shocker? Needless to say, they do not promote the interests of the country, and they are happiest when there are long standing controversies that divide the nation and result in contributions and advertising revenue to pour in to strengthen both sides.

Hence it is perfectly understandable why we are not going to discuss Covid-19. Instead, we shall bark orders about it, shout about, protest about it, implement draconian policies about it and do everything we can to antagonize people along party lines. These actions result in a healthy political economy, and those involved in the decision making process are making good money and establishing strong career paths.

So it is with Covid-19. The pro-vaccination policies are implemented with the most heavy-handed and obnoxious rhetoric possible. The debate is not civil. The anti-vax dissenters claim that personal freedom and the future of the the Republic are at stake. They are cloaked in robes of red, white and blue righteousness. It is emotionally charged on both sides, for no real reason. This makes no sense, unless you ask what sells advertising money on talk radio, facebook, social media and news networks? Answer: heavy-handed obnoxious rhetoric and un-civil, emotionally charged debate.

This is not a conspiracy theory, just stating the the obvious, simple fact that this is a good businesss practice within the politics industry. Once you recognize that politics is an industry, rather than a holy, public-serving institution, the principles of making money within the industry are simple and clear. Hate sells. Mother Teresa of Calcutta could never host an AM talk radio show.

Covid-19 is going to cost America trillions of dollars. However, the political industry will strongly benefit from the Covid-19 controversy.

Ned Rasor, Oтец термоэмиссионного преобразователь энергии

2021-02-27T16:09:00.007-08:00

Поскольку у Nedа всегда было очень много друзей в сообществе термоэмиссий из России, я попытался рассказать его историю на русском языке с помощью «Google Translate». Надеюсь, ты сможешь это прочитать.EK

Мне было грустно узнать, что Ned Rasor скончался из-за Covid-19 в канун прошлого года. Мне посчастливилось познакомиться с несколькими очень умными людьми в своей жизни, и Ned был поистине гением.

Ned был известен созданием термоэмиссионного преобразования энергии. Фактически, Thomas Edison первым открыл это, но не знал, что это такое. Он увидел, что стекло возле углеродных нитей его первых лампочек через некоторое время почернело, но не знал почему. Поэтому он назвал это "Edison Effect," естественно, но не объяснил, что это было и как это произошло. Оказывается, его лампочки работали от постоянного напряжения, а отрицательная часть горячей углеродной нити испускала электроны и выделяла ионы углерода, когда на нее воздействовали положительные ионы. Углерод осаждается на стеклянной части колбы. Использование тепла для кипения электронов стало известно как термоэмиссия, и Нед стал одним из величайших мировых экспертов по этому вопросу.

Ned полагал, что если бы у него была трубка, заполненная радиоактивным ядерным топливом, она бы начала испускать электроны, и он мог бы собирать электроны и производить электричество! Так родился термоэмиссионный ядерный реактор. Каждый раз, когда он придумывал решение, возникала проблема, но он находил встречное решение и другое встречное решение, и через некоторое время эта чертова штука начинала работать. Компании и правительства всего мира стремились создать эти ядерные реакторы для космических кораблей, которые должны были отправиться на Луну, Марс или в дальний космос.

Все это произошло в 1950-х и 1960-х, до меня. Я познакомился с ним около 1980 года. Однажды я представил его коллеге как «дедушку термоэлектроники», и это его немного рассердило.

«Elliot, я слишком молод, чтобы быть дедушкой!» он протестовал. Так что с тех пор я называл его «дядей термоэмиссии». Казалось, это его удовлетворило.

Ned и несколько других ученых, включая меня, разделяли общее видение того, что термоэмиссионная версия должна стать международным усилием ядерных космических держав, во многом подобно термоядерной энергии и International Space Station. Мы должны использовать ядерную энергию для совместной колонизации космического пространства. Крупные державы не должны бороться за право оспаривать незначительные религиозные разногласия на Middle East не имеющие стратегического значения для истории человечества.

Несмотря на это общее видение, мы с Nedом все время ссорились. На мой взгляд, Термоэмиссия была его дочерью - э-э, племянницей - и по мере того, как она росла, она начала приобретать собственную личность и расти способами, которые он не мог предвидеть. Подобно тому, как родителям трудно отпустить ребенка, изобретателю трудно увидеть, как ребенок формирует новые отношения, в которые не входит папа. Тем не менее, я уверен, что Ned мог бы интерпретировать иначе, и это могло бы не льстить мне.

Тем не менее технология Nedа имела поразительный успех. Наши коллеги в России объявили в конце 1980-х, что они запустили термоэмиссионный ядерный реактор в космос.

Это вызвало шок в американском аэрокосмическом истеблишменте. Многие из них не могли поверить, что изобретение Rasorа действительно работает. Другие не могли поверить, что российские ученые так далеко опередили американцев. В этом бизнесе неловко, когда вы говорите, что что-то невозможно сделать, а потом кто-то действительно это делает, а затем запускает это в космос, а вы все еще спорите, почему это невозможно.

Но Ned действительно не считал это личной победой. Он сказал мне: «Эллиот, я сконструировал эти устройства 25 лет назад. Сейчас они для меня старомодны. Скучно! Теперь мы можем добиться большего. Я хочу увидеть, как используется новое поколение термоэлектронных преобразователей».

Ned делал и многое другое. Например, однажды он сделал термоэмиссионный кардиостимулятор с ядерным источником энергии и испытал его на собаке по кличке «Tick», которую он в конце концов взял в качестве домашнего питомца. У него было несколько других медицинских устройств, которые просто как бы всплыли в его сознании и стали изобретениями, хотя он на самом деле намеренно не решил стать специалистом по медицинским приборам.

Расскажу одну глупую историю про Nedа. Однажды мы были на конференции в бывшей Республике Грузия, как раз в то время, когда Советский Союз распадался, и курсы обмена валют были очень благоприятными для американцев. Так что у нас была возможность совершить поездку по местному рынку. Мы наткнулись на местный стенд, где продавали украшения, на мой необразованный взгляд, несколько напоминающие стиль Ближнего Востока. Мы не были экспертами, но могли сказать, что это настоящие драгоценные камни, но продавались по очень низким ценам, например, всего несколько долларов.

Ned посмотрел на них и сказал: «Ого, это действительно дешево! Может, мне стоит купить немного для Genny».

Всегда было так ясно, что Ned действительно любит и уважает свою жену Genny. Он всегда думал о ней, когда был в отъезде.

Я сказал: «Ned, я знаю, что ты гений и знаешь гораздо больше, чем я ... но я считаю, что знаю Дженни достаточно хорошо, чтобы сказать, что если ты найдешь для нее подарок, у него должен быть какой-то другой атрибут, помимо того, что он действительно дешевый. ! "

Ned засмеялся и согласился, признав, что не имеет никакого эстетического представления о модных украшениях. На этот раз он последовал моему совету.

Ned обладал невероятной энергией и энтузиазмом к науке и исследованиям и смог привлечь к работе на себя самых умных и хороших людей.

Я продолжал с интересом следить за его последними статьями. Даже на пенсии он создавал новые способы повышения эффективности термоэлектронных преобразователей. Я думаю, что некоторые из них тоже могут сработать.