Eisenhower warned us of the Military-Industrial Complex....

What does it take to abandon a project?  The basics of good project management teaches us that some projects fail, and the best thing to do is to kill those projects early, before they take on lives of their own.  In the case of the F-35 jet, the idea of a fighter jet that could be used by all services sounded good, but failed miserably in practice.

- - - - - -

The first mistake was to assume that one plane could be used by all services.  Ideally, there would be a significant percentage of parts that could be used in planes built for each of the services.  But the final configurations would be very different - customization on a small scale, and not "one size fits all".  No one thought of the trade-offs to use a single plane.  No one thought - too many stake holders make a project fail.

The next mistake was to get the plane up and flying, and then apply continuous modifications to the jest in the field.  We saw this in the automobile industry years ago with recalls - where bad design made it to the customers' driveways, and then the cars had to be fixed by the local dealerships at much greater cost.  "Agile" project management techniques ares inappropriate for a fighter jet, yet some people are using the principle to "save money and time" - when it is totally inappropriate.

The A-10 jet is very good at what it does, and will be kept flying until the F-35 is retrofitted enough to do the job the A-10 does as well as the A-10 does it.  The B-52 bomber also does its job better than any of the replacements designed to take its place - and there are no plans to retire this work horse of our air fleet.  In fact, there are father/sons who have flown the same plane, and there may soon be a grandfather/father/son combination as well.

- - - - - -

So where am I going?

As I write this, New Hampshire has just had its Presidential primary, and the two "anti establishment" leaders (Trump and Sanders) won.  Americans are totally pissed off at a government which no longer functions as needed, and they are giving our ruling elite a vote of no confidence.  Using examples such as the F-35 jet (whose parts are made all across the country to give as many congressmen as possible a stake in preserving the project), it is obvious that the elite is no longer able to make the hard decisions needed to keep this country healthy. We need leaders who could scuttle projects like the F-35 jet, even though people would be put out of work nationwide by these actions.

Our problem as Americans is simple - how do we determine who we can trust?  The uneducated people in this country are largely supporting Trump, as his "toughness" is being taken as if he'd be a strong, decisive leader. But this is all bluster.  If we want a country run as if it were a business, one can do much better than choosing a leader who has had his businesses go into bankruptcy 4 times.

Yet, the educated people also have a problem by choosing Sanders.  He is an avowed Socialist in a country that looks skeptically at Socialism.  (His policies would be in the middle of the road in Europe or Canada.  But this is not Europe or even Canada.)  Could he get anything through a GOP controlled congress?  It looks doubtful at best.

One of the TV pundits noted that we're seeing a seismic shift in politics, where one (or both) of the major political parties may fail to survive the next 20 years.  And I think this is a strong possibility. The era at the beginning of the 1900's was very similar to that we have today.  There were financial crises in 1907 and 2008 that business and government were ill-equipped to handle, there were political elites out of touch with the general public, and there were people strongly motivated for radical political change. The election of 1912 is the closest analogy we have to this year's election, and America then had 4 viable candidates who could have been elected President: Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, and Debs. This year, we have the "establishment" represented by Bush and Clinton, and "revolutionaries" represented by Trump and Sanders.  Will we retreat from this revolution as we did in 1912 when Wilson was elected? Or will we choose that political revolution by voting our elite out of power?  That is the big question to be answered in November - and I hope we choose wisely....

He kept us safe....

I have to admit - Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air, mixed with the usual smog of politics. And recently, he opened up a conversation that mainstream Republicans wanted to avoid - was George W. Bush's presidency a great failure?

In an interview, Trump opened up a pissing match with Jeb Bush, noting that Bush #43 was president on 9/11, and we went down the wrong path by destabilizing the Middle East.  Jeb responded that his brother "Kept America Safe".  Does any sane person really believe that Bush #43 actually kept us safe - even though it might be unfair to hold him accountable for 9/11?

This idea "he kept us safe" is the one thing that many Republicans hold on to which prevent themselves from massive "transformative learning". It's hard to admit that one's leadership got it totally wrong to such a large degree as Bush #43 did.  And Jeb is making the mistake of saying his brother did the right thing, while the majority of Americans (including a growing minority in his own party) believe that his brother was a total failure as president.

- - - - - -

If we go back to 2003, Bush #43's administration made a decision to remove Saddam Hussein's government from Iraq, setting the stage for a "forever war" the minute a power vacuum was allowed to exist in Iraq.  Obama, giving the American public what it wanted, pulled troops out of Iraq, allowing ISIS to form.  This was a two-stage clusterfuck. We either had to stay in Iraq, with thousands of Americans coming home in body bags - or, we could pull out, and take a risk of radical Islam gaining power.  There was no good choice - and this was Bush #43's legacy.

Did he keep us safe?  No.  But he did create great political theater to make us feel this way. When you look at the TSA and their continued screw ups, one wonders how more incidents haven't happened.  They can spy on our high tech communications.  But they can't spy on low tech (paper) in the same way.  Each time there is a failure in keeping us safe, the TSA tightens things up until the public complains, then eases off a bit.  There is no way to preserve absolute safety - but the public is being treated like a bunch of children and is not being told the truth - life, itself, is a bunch of risks.

- - - - - -

There is a growing list of politicians who are willing to discuss the mistakes this country made in the wake of 9/11.  And this is a good thing.  The GOP can not govern unless it is willing to look at itself honestly and say what they got wrong, and what they got right.  If they build on the things they do right (and we're not talking pandering to ignorant, dogmatic parts of the base), they have a chance to sell America on a market based economy, with all of the risks markets entail.  But this will include safety nets for whom the market can not serve.  If the party fails to address these points adequately, it will shrink in importance as its base shrinks as a part of the general population.

Democrats finally debating

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton - Opponents who know who their real political enemies are. One comment from Bernie in regard to Hillary's emails said all that needed to be said about the difference in tone between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in this country. 

Contrast the difference between Sanders' campaign and Trump's campaign.  It'd be almost impossible to find an instance where Sanders said anything mean about an individual.  Yet, you'd find a very strenuous voice against social injustice in our society.  Contrast this with Donald Trump, where a lot of meanness exudes from the man - but he doesn't have much of a message worth delivering.  Sanders states how he'd fix the problems in our society, while Trump only makes grandiose statements on how he'd make America great again, without filling in any of the details needed to believe him.

Both Sanders and Trump are voices against "business as usual" from the party elites. But again, look at the differences.  Sanders can work with the Democratic elite, even though he is an Independent from Vermont. Trump threatens the Republican party elite, and he comes from the same circles who could buy and sell presidential candidates.  Who do you think will get more done if elected to POTUS?

Many still consider Sanders' and Trump's campaigns as sideshows to the "eventual" main event - Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton. But Jeb has no traction right now.  The top 3 GOP candidates are all people from outside the Washington elites.  There is a good reason for this - the public is sick and tired of an elite that no  longer looks out for the welfare of the common person.  The dislike of elites shared by rural and inner city people is now spreading to suburbia - crippling Bush's chance of being nominated as the GOP's candidate. However the same dislike is not hurting Clinton that much.  

Why is Clinton not suffering as much as Jeb Bush?  This is an important question to ponder. The way I see it, her wealth is "new money" - something people respect, even though they question her ethics. Bush's wealth is "old money", and no longer has the respect of the common person. This is not conscious. I only thought of it when I think of how rich the Clintons became in 15 years.  

This leads to yet another question - Why has Trump's wealth not been held against him? To me, I think it is how Trump has promoted himself.  He has had many more business failures than successes, yet has figured out a way to offload the risks of his business ventures onto others.  For a project manager - this is a great thing to do.  But for the rest of us, it smacks of something less than ethical behavior.

Over the next 3 months, we'll see a lot of change. And we'll see if Sanders' and Trump's campaigns are going to implode when real elections are held.  If I am right, Hillary will collapse again, and the people in back of the GOP Clown Car will drop out of the race. I also think that Sanders will ask Hillary to be his VP - and she'll accept the position. It'll be a fine way for her to end her political career - and she could still get the job she's coveted for several electoral cycles.....

And now, for your amusement - Jeb Bush!

As David Letterman said before he retired: "Bush presidencies are like Godfather movies - it's best to stop at two."  I don't recycle this Letterman joke because I dislike the fellow. Instead, I recycle it as a reminder that he would be the third member of his family to hold the office of President if elected - something he downplayed very much in his announcement that he was running for POTUS.

- - - - - -

Jeb is the Bush brother who was being groomed for the presidency. It was a surprise to his dad that Jeb lost a gubernatorial election in Florida, while his brother won in Texas. And, as a result, it was "W" who ran for POTUS and won in 2000.  (I can only imagine what might have happened if Jeb had been in office instead of his brother - would he have come off as more competent?  Only god knows - I certainly don't.) But I expect that Jeb will be the likely GOP 2016 nominee - and will run against Hillary Clinton.

Let's contrast the two likely candidates at first glance.  Jeb's web site and other media downplays his membership in the Bush family. Hillary in her announcement made a big deal about her connections to both her husband Bill (former POTUS) and Barack Obama (current POTUS). What does this say about Jeb? Does he fear being tarred by the same brush being used on "W"?  I can't blame him - I think "W" was a terrible president.  (Too bad that he can't distance himself from "W" without also distancing himself from his father - who was a decent president.)

- - - - - -

I am very leery of having another Bush run for POTUS. This family has been extremely well connected for the past 150+ years - and electing one of the entrenched elite from a family who has already supplied 2 POTUS's makes me worry about a static elite in this country. Our founding fathers lived in a world where one could go from poor to rich and back to being poor within a generation or two.  This is no longer the case.  So I pose the question - can we afford to have families who lock themselves permanently into both the economic and political elites?

Even though Jeb may be a decent man, my concerns about him and his family are solely about the establishment of a permanent elite, and whether a democratic republic can afford to have one. As much as I hate to compare the United States and France, sometimes the comparisons can't be avoided. In this case, history gave us a France with a static elite. The rule of law was perverted to keep this elite in power, and social injustice was rampant. Eventually the pot boiled over, and France had its revolution.  The signs are there that America hasn't learned its European history that well - and I am very concerned about what might happen in our lifetimes....

Reading between the lines

It seems like the GOP establishment is taking the 2016 election seriously. The two most electable contenders recently had a "social meeting", and if I read between the lines properly, they discussed how they could avoid bloodying each other before the main event", the 2016 election. 

Romney's departure from the race only makes sense for the GOP establishment. He is damaged goods. Not only did he have to disavow his greatest achievement as the Governor of Massachusetts, but he had to take on relatively extreme positions (due to the Tea Party and other GOP wingnuts) that alienated him from the moderates he needed to be elected.

Jeb was the Bush brother who should have been elected president in 2000. Instead, we got George W. and his neo-con friends, and a "Forever War" that no average American really wants. To give Jeb credit, he did not pursue higher office when the establishment may have wanted him to do so - he seems to have followed his own path. He was smart enough to know that his brother damaged his chances of running for president. And even more so, waiting until 2016 when Hillary Clinton would likely run again.

- - - - - -

Hillary has some baggage which may be able to become assets. She was working on healthcare long before Obama became a US Senator. The question is - can she turn her prior failed efforts in this arena into an asset among the Democratic base, while separating herself from Obamacare to attract a small number of independents.

Although Hillary seems to be the Democratic candidate in all but name, the question is: How far to the left will she need to steer to keep the loyalty of the base, before tacking to the right to pick up independent votes? If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, she'll need to cut a big deal with Elizabeth Warren in order to keep the loyalty of the base.

- - - - - -

We're seeing the GOP hopefuls say strange things to the base. I find it amazing that anyone could believe that legalizing "gay marriage" would trigger the end of civilization. Even more so, I find it amazing that anyone would believe this malarkey.  But they do.  

In another forum, I had a discussion about a controversial issue with some die-hard supporters of a certain status quo.  I stated I supported the status quo, but didn't give a reason why I did so. And then I asked, religion aside, why should we support this position? A person responded not with a reason, but with an echo taught to the loyalists of a political party. I then said that "I believe that group loyalty trumps the need to examine why its causes should be supported." Then, I noted that I always test ideas presented by any leader to see if I'm being lied to, or are earning my respect. And what did I get? A middle class version of the "Whatever" one would hear from someone who couldn't support his/her position on Jerry Springer. 

- - - - - -

Sadly, this fatalistic inability to articulate support for a position is not limited to GOP loyalists - it is present in the Democratic party as well. It is not that I want to agree with people. Instead, I want to understand where they come from - they are not sure themselves, and are unable to say much than to regurgitate 2 second sound bites such as "defending marriage". What makes things worse is history and its marriage with politics. Deciding to slowly normalize relations with Iran should be a no-brainer, as well as negotiating a halt to the weaponization of their nuclear stockpile. But some say that this betrays Israel. Others say that Obama is being this generation's Chamberlain. Maybe, just maybe, there is a multidimensional game going on which is influenced by many things:

• America's relationship with Israel
• America's and Iran's desire to end their cold war
• Stabilization of the Middle-East (shut down ISIS)
• Sunni Islam vs. Shiite Islam (an ongoing battle to legitimize one group of mullahs)
• Arab hatred of Jews 
• The GOP Congress and its wish to emasculate Obama for the last 2 years of his term
• Israel's vulnerability in a hostile neighborhood
• Israel vs. Palestine
• Israel's nuclear stockpile (estimated at 150+ warheads)
• Iran's nuclear stockpile (not enough pure "yellow cake" for 1 warhead)
• Israel's lobby and its effect on both the GOP and the Democrats
• Christian Fundamentalists and the litmus test they use on GOP hopefuls
• Christian Fundamentalists and a desire to speed up Christ's second coming
• Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia - which Muslim nation dominates the Middle-East

The above is only a short list of the factors which are influencing what is going on in the Middle-East, and few people have a clue as to how any of these factors relate to each other on a given day. I'd bet that only Obama's cabinet and a handful of Republicans in the House and Senate have enough information to read between all of these lines. And as such, any noises we make and opinions we have are those of "armchair quarterbacks" - meaningless, as we are only spectators to the main event.