Spidey Smashes Box Office Records While Fighting Evil

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

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

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. 

Agatha All Along--Barely Watchable Witch

 

"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?

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

 

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?

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

 

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.