President Trump is Co-Opting the Bush Middle East Plan

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

 

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

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?

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.

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

 

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

 

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

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.