Meet Bill May, synchronized swimmer favored to win double gold medals

At the Olympics, women are allowed to box each other bloody, wrestle until joints dislocate and apply chokeholds in judo until someone passes out.But a man can't put on a swimsuit and music and perform three minutes of choreography in a pool — yet. This week at the aquatic world championships in Kazan, Russia — for the first time at a FINA-sanctioned competition — men are allowed to vie for a medal in synchronized swimming. Actually, two medals: one in the mixed technical program and one in the mixed free program, each with a female partner.
One of the requirements for Olympic inclusion is for an event to be held at a world championship. So for male synchronized swimmers, the competition in Kazan is one step closer to that goal, but until participation increases and judging is refined, Olympic status remains a distant hope.
Yet for Bill May, a favorite to win double gold in Kazan, competing there will still be a dream fulfilled. A 36-year-old New York native, he took up the sport at 10 knowing there was no real competitive future beyond nationals, a few international open events (where he would compete against women) and the now defunct Goodwill Games. None of those contests were overseen by the international swimming federation, FINA, which barred men from Olympic and world championship synchronized swimming.
Nonetheless, he persisted and became a 14-time U.S. national champion (in solo, duet and team events) and a silver medalist in duet at the 1998 Goodwill Games. He retired in 2004 after helping many of his female teammates on the Santa Clara Aquamaids crew prepare for the Athens Olympics, where they captured a bronze medal.
But on Nov. 29, 2014, May received startling news. It was after midnight on the Las Vegas Strip, and he had just finished performing in Cirque du Soleil’s “O” show, as he had done for the past 10 years. He went home, checked his email and saw a note from Judy McGowan, the president of USA Synchronized Swimming.
She wrote that the FINA Congress in Doha, Qatar, decided to add two co-ed, or mixed, events at world championships, following a pattern that other sports have recently used to increase public interest. (Triathlon and modern pentathlon, for example, now hold mixed relays.) May immediately called his mother, Sharon May, in Cicero, New York. Tears fell, and plans brewed.
Next he called Christina Jones, 27, who retired in 2008 and had also just gotten off work at the “O” show. He asked if she would be his partner in the technical routine (in which there are six required elements and symmetry is paramount). “I knew it would completely flip my life upside down for the next half year,” she said. “It would require a ton of work. But Bill is one of my very best friends, and I’ve seen how hard he works. He deserves this more than anything. I couldn’t turn him down.” 
For the free program, May wanted his Goodwill Games partner, Kristina Lum Underwood, a 2000 Olympian who worked on “Le Reve,” another aquatic show in Las Vegas. She was eight months pregnant. Still, he called her. “I said, ‘Do you realize I’m going to have a baby in January and the competition is at the end of July?’” she recalled. “He said, ‘I think you can do it.’”
Lum Underwood, 38, had a 2-year-old son at home as well. And once maternity leave ended, she would be performing two shows a night, five days a week. “My husband, David, looked at me and said, ‘You have to do this.’ I said, ‘You’re right.’”  May would not have become the nation’s pre-eminent male synchronized swimmer — interviewed by David Letterman and in written up in Sports Illustrated and People magazines in the 1990s — had it not been for two key moments.
One was the day his sister, Courtney May, asked if he would try synchro with her at the local rec center. “Nah, it’s a girl’s sport,” he said, and he planned to stick to gymnastics. But when he saw other boys doing it, he felt it would be OK to try.
The other was a brazen act, five years later. Bill May dialed Chris Carver, the coach at one of the most prestigious synchro clubs in the nation to see if he could train with her team in California. “For a tiny little 15-year-old to call her from New York was pretty intimidating,” he said. “All I knew was that this is what I wanted to do with my life and this is how I was going to do it. If she said no, I don’t know where I would be or what would have happened.” 
“I had heard about Bill as an age group swimmer,” said Carver, the coach of the Santa Clara Aquamaids. “They said, ‘There’s this little boy, and he’s actually pretty good. But I didn’t know what that meant, really.” “My criteria for coming to Santa Clara was more desire than ability. Desire was the main thing,” she said.
So at 16, May moved across the country alone, started 11th grade at a new school and lived with a local family. It wasn’t easy for his mother to part with her upbeat middle child. “I knew if I denied him this opportunity to go, I’d lose him,” she said. “He’d pull away from us.”Despite his determination, he realized after arriving in the Bay Area that he “wasn’t Aquamaid material,” he said. One of his weaknesses was inflexibility.
But Carver said he caught on quickly “and his upside-down work looked pretty good. ”His teammates welcomed him all the same. “When our coaches told us a male from New York would join us, all of us were really excited and intrigued,” Lum Underwood said. “It was something we’d never seen before. And in synchro, most of us strive to do something new and unique.”
Eventually, Carver partnered Lum Underwood with May, and his artistry improved dramatically. Meanwhile, other Aquamaids were stunned and inspired by his power. John Ortiz, who trained with the team a few years later, said they had no idea that a human could get so high out of the water.
“Upside down, he’d thrust out and be exposed all the way up to his chest and armpits. Upright, he can get his upper thighs and butt out of the water. A lot of his teammates loved the challenge of trying to match that,” Ortiz said. May was thriving. “It turned out to be fortunate for us as well,” said Carver, who is a three-time U.S. Olympic coach. “He went on to coach here, brought us many championships and a lot of good publicity — and still does. Anytime I need him, here’s there.”
That means he works bingo nights when he’s in town — famous fundraisers that Carver said generate millions of dollars every year for the club. While much of the revenue covers overhead (the club owns the bingo hall), the remainder funds everything from coaching to pool time to travel. Bingo money is also supporting 2015 world championship team members, including May.
So when he asked Carver to help him prep for the world championships more than a decade after retirement, she agreed. “He was in good shape but rougher,” she said. Part of it was the typical rustiness, but it didn’t help that he had also been competing in races. (In the masters’ division, he won two national titles in open water: in a 2-mile course in 2011 and a 6-mile one in 2013.)
“He had to get his vertical back,” Carver said, referring to his alignment. Still, at U.S. trials this spring, “people were like, ‘Oh, gosh, we haven’t seen this level in so long.’”  May wasn’t the first male Aquamaid. And he wasn’t the last. But he was certainly the most decorated. And the only one who stuck with it — training 10 hours a day for 10 years with one of the best coaches in the world. His experience will give him a clear edge in Kazan.
“Technically, Bill is, in my eyes, unbeatable,” said Benoit Beaufils, 37, a former Aquamaid who will represent France at the world championships in the mixed free program. He will swim with three-time world champion and three-time Olympian Virginie Dedieu, 36. Since she lives in France and Beaufils lives in Las Vegas, they trained a lot over the Internet, sending and correcting each other’s videos.
For him, coming out of retirement was a no-brainer. But when he found out who his partner was, it became “Can I actually do this?” Beaufils (like Lum Underwood) performs in “Le Rêve,” but his role is more aerial than aquatic, and “Virginie is the best swimmer France has ever had. So it was very intimidating, considering I hadn’t really been swimming for real in 17 years.”
Stephan Miermont, a two-time French national champion (1990 and 1991 in duet) and one of May’s former Santa Clara coaches, didn’t even try to come back for worlds. “There’s no way,” said Miermont, 46. “The sport is completely different now. The speed is amazing. It’s mind-blowing to see how many moves they can do in eight counts. Young guys now, like the Russian [Aleksandr Maltsev] and the Italian [Giorgio Minisini] move really fast.”
At a test event in Italy in June, Maltsev and his partner won the technical routine. Minisini was runner-up (out of four pairs). In the free routine, Minisini won with a different partner (beating Colombia, the only other entry). Despite the dearth of competition, May knows gold isn’t a given. “It’s tough to say who the toughest competition is, because we’ve never competed against each other,” he said.
In any case, it should be crowd pleaser. “The public will enjoy this because they’ll understand it, the artistic and romantic connection,” Carver said. “Particularly in the duet. With two women swimming together, [judges are] looking for twins — legs that look alike, people that move alike, physical compatibility. But if you’re looking for something artistic, then it’s natural to see a man swim with a woman. We see this in ice skating. We see it in ballet. It adds a whole dimension to the sport.” But unlike skating and ballet, which have the advantage of solid ground, it is extremely difficult to coordinate men and women precisely in the water.
“When you get to the technical program, where everything has to be exactly the same, it is a tremendous challenge,” Carver said. “They have different centers of gravity. Also, the female is very floaty because of body fat. Bill has more muscle. It’s a tremendous compromise between the two styles. “But the potential is amazing,” she added. “I think it’s going to revitalize the sport.”Already it has revitalized May. He said he plans to continue competing even after the finals of his world championship events (on July 26 and 30). And if mixed synchro ever becomes an Olympic discipline? He will be ready. “Even if I’m 100 years old,” he said, “I might roll myself down in a wheelchair. But I’ll be there.”

WWE cuts ties with Hulk Hogan over reports of racial slur

World Wrestling Entertainment has severed ties with Hulk Hogan amid a report that one of the biggest stars in professional wrestling history used racial slurs in a conversation caught on a sex tape. The company deleted most references to Hogan on its website and issued a statement Friday saying it had terminated its contract with him.
WWE did not give a reason, but issued a statement saying it is “committed to embracing and celebrating individuals from all backgrounds as demonstrated by the diversity of our employees, performers and fans worldwide.” On Friday, a joint report from RadarOnline.com and The National Enquirer said that Hogan had used racial slurs in a conversation caught on a sex video that is the subject of an invasion of privacy lawsuit.
Hogan, perhaps the biggest star in WWE's five-decade history, was the main draw for the first WrestleMania in 1985 and was a fixture for years in its signature event, facing everyone from Andre The Giant and Randy Savage to The Rock and even company chairman Vince McMahon. He won six WWE championships and was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2005 by Sylvester Stallone.
In a statement, the 61-year-old Hogan apologized for using “offensive language” in a conversation eight years ago. “It was unacceptable for me to have used that offensive language; there is no excuse for it; and I apologize for having done it,” Hogan said, calling his departure from WWE a resignation.
His attorneys did not immediately return messages left by The Associated Press. Hogan was able to transcend his “Hulkamania” fan base to become a celebrity outside the wrestling world, appearing in numerous movies and television shows, including a reality show about his life on VH1, “Hogan Knows Best.”
Hogan is currently seeking $100 million from Gawker Media, a set of news and gossip websites, for posting part of the sex tape of him with Heather Cole, the ex-wife of Hogan's one-time friend and radio show host Bubba the Love Sponge Clem. Gawker, which removed the video from its website under a court order, said it had the right to publish the edited video because Hogan talked in detail about his sex life before the video's release, which made the story newsworthy.

Modern love needs a new romantic paradigm

Last month’s historic Supreme Court decision legalizing marriage for same-sex couples throughout the United States is a real-time manifestation of our constantly changing definition of marriage. Social conservatives argue that heterosexual marriage is a millennia-old tradition, the very bedrock of our society. Yet as family and marriage historian Stephanie Coontz writes in “Marriage, a History,” “Almost every marital and sexual arrangement we have seen in recent years, however startling it may appear, has been tried before.”
Those decrying the crumbling institution of marriage, in other words, ignore that throughout history, when and why people marry has changed, often from generation to generation. While marriage is constantly evolving, our reliance on it doesn’t appear to be nearly as much. Marriage remains the standard by which many people measure the success of their relationships. Ironically, as we see the legal definition of marriage expand, the number of people being wed has shrunk, with the lowest rate of marriage ever seen in modern American society.
Putting aside the all-out opponents of same-sex marriage, who base their objections on a narrow, sexist and homophobic view of what constitutes marriage, more progressive critics of the marriage movement have suggested that focusing on an institution that has long been reliant on patriarchy denies us the freedom to be our truest selves. Referring to gay marriage, Julie Bindel wrote last year for The Guardian, “In all the celebrating and discussion of bride-on-bride fashion, no one seems to have raised any objections to the institution itself, an institution that has curtailed women’s freedom for centuries.”
In other words, even as we celebrate a long overdue ruling, we should ask ourselves why we don’t question more the institution of marriage itself. Are we growing less reliant on marriage as a cultural, social and economic institution — and if not, why not? It’s a question that repeatedly popped into my head as I read “Modern Romance,” a new book about courtship, dating and relationships by comedian Aziz Ansari and sociologist Eric Klinenberg. “Modern Romance” takes an engaging look at how relationships and marriage have changed in our lifetime by examining the ways in which technology has affected how we communicate with possible mates.
Conducting a series of focus groups, interviews and surveys with single, coupled and married people from around the world and across generations, Ansari and Klinenberg found that while in previous generations, people searched and settled for what they call companionate love (you marry the first person you meet who is a viable partner to start a family with), today’s daters are more interested in romantic love (you keep looking until you find that perfect soul mate). Technology, of course, has allowed us to indulge in this ad infinitum.
Against this backdrop, Ansari and Klinenberg are optimistic about today’s relationships. “Finding someone today is probably more complicated and stressful than it was for previous generations,” they write, “but you’re also more likely to end up with someone you are really excited about.” And in his conclusion, Ansari acknowledges that while it wasn’t great to be a woman in previous iterations of marriage, “with all the cultural advancements, middle-class and professional women of this era have gained the freedom to have their own lives and careers without the need for marriage.”
But the book does its fair share of romanticizing companionate and more old-fashioned forms of marriage. Ansari shares his parents’ story — how it was an arranged marriage, with his father choosing his mother after a 30-minute conversation during which he deliberated over whether she was the right height, and how they are still happily married. He and Klinenberg present data that suggest companionate marriages have a higher propensity to last and grow in passion, whereas marriages that start passionately run the risk of fizzling out. This may be true. But why the presupposition that marriage of one sort or another is where everyone will end up?
Ansari and Klinenberg admit that not everyone has to get married, but the underlying assumption of their book is that while how we find and communicate with potential partners may be changing, our basic desires have remained much the same — that, despite some amount of evolution on the issue, marriage is still a key organizing principle of society. As with the same-sex marriage decision, we are thus left to question whether we are moving toward relying on marriage less or more.
The legalization of same-sex marriage against a backdrop of declining marriage rates is fascinating for this reason. On the one hand, conservatives’ gradual acceptance of same-sex marriage is predicated on their deference to an institution that they believe holds society together. This could not be better illustrated than in the final paragraph of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion, in which he wrote: No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.But part of the reason so many people of all sexualities are not getting married is precisely that they don’t need marriage to hold their lives together.
Ansari and Klinenberg get lost in the middle of this murkiness. They present many varieties of how we can live and love but conclude with advice on how to navigate this new landscape to find an old kind of love. They suggest that the nexus of technological advances and cultural change can allow us to refine our hunt for “the one,” but built into that is an assumption of what we will do once we find that special someone. It’s not really the authors’ fault: Monogamous relationships are still at the core of our society. Certainly technology can help destabilize such reliance, but it will require commitment to a different vision of love and marriage — and a society that truly supports this variety of decisions. As Coontz writes, “Like it or not, today we are all pioneers, picking our way through uncharted and unstable territory.” As long as today’s dating terrain presumes marriage as a goal, we won’t be able to execute a more inclusive vision of romantic relationships.  

The economic upshot of the Iran deal

For all the hot air in Washington this week from Republicans denouncing the historic deal the United States and five world powers reached with Iran, keep in mind that gasoline may soon fall back to $2 a gallon.
That is just one of many economic benefits to America, Europe and the Middle East we can anticipate because the smart use of economic sanctions and diplomacy produced a peaceful solution to the confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program. Since 2006 the U.N. has granted authority to its members to thwart Tehran’s development of nuclear bombs and the missiles to deliver them. Throughout we have had political donors such as American casino mogul and pro-Israel hawk Sheldon Adelson, foreign leaders such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a host of Republicans on Capitol Hill openly state or suggest that the best way to deal with Tehran was war.
War is not just an ugly business, it’s bad for economies. Its costs are often carried by those born long after conflict ends. The peak year of personnel spending — on pensions, medical care and other costs for veterans — for World War II was 1993. At that time more than half of Americans were 33 or younger, born at least 15 years after the Nazis were defeated and the Japanese surrendered. The bills for that most necessary of wars will continue to come in for decades because of survivor benefits and interest on the debt taken on, but never repaid.
Opponents of the deal include those who think war and threats of war are better options than negotiation and who talk in terms of an idealized world, rather than the actual options in front of us. If we had a universal draft — that is, one without exceptions for the politically connected — we would learn very quickly just how much popular support exists for bellicose policy and those who advocate for war.
One of the silliest arguments made by opponents of the nuclear deal is that by further tightening economic sanctions we could have forced Iran to its knees, giving up every pound of uranium. Tell that to Cuba, still sovereign after more than a half century of American sanctions. Applied smartly, economic sanctions can bring the recalcitrant to the bargaining table, provided they see a path to relief without humiliation. That is just what Secretary of State John F. Kerry and other Western negotiators did.
As for the costs of war, compare the economic effects from how we dealt with Iraq, the bill for which could grow to more than $6 trillion. Five years before the U.S. invaded Iraq based on phony claims, the price of oil was about $25 a barrel (about $36 in today’s dollars). More significantly, the futures markets indicated this price was likely to persist for more than a decade. Instead, the price of oil peaked at more than $140 a barrel as market manipulators took advantage of the effects of war on access to oil.

House, Senate members introduce $15 federal minimum wage bill

Liberal members of Congress in both the House and the Senate will introduce legislation Wednesday that would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, an in an effort to boost labor movement organizing around this issue and push the Democratic Party to the left on wage inequality. Both versions of the bill will be co-sponsored by members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the legislative branch’s liberal vanguard. The Senate bill will be sponsored by presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and the caucus’s only member in the chamber, while  Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., are among the sponsors of the House bill.
The $15 wage bill is the most ambitious Congressional proposal yet for a wage increase, and it would more than double the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. President Barack Obama called for an increase to $9 in his 2013 State of the Union Address, a figure he later bumped up to $10.10. “My role is to make it clear that the issues that are of most concern to the average working American are front-burner issues for everybody running,” Ellison told Al Jazeera. “And they can either get with the people or they can go against the people, but they cannot hide and act like they’re for the people.”
Besides Bernie Sanders, one other Democratic presidential candidate has endorsed a $15 minimum wage: former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who has often touted his successful campaign to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 in his home state. Clinton declined last week to support a national $15 wage increase, citing the “different economic environments” in different regions of the country.“What you can do in L.A. or in New York may not work in other places,” Clinton said, a reference to the recent wage increase in Los Angeles and the news that a New York state wage board is expected to recommend a $15 minimum wage for fast-food workers this week.
O’Malley promptly went after Clinton for her remarks, issuing a statement saying that “leadership is about forging public consensus — not following it." On the same day that the caucus unveiled its federal $15 minimum wage bill, federally contracted workers affiliated with the Good Jobs Nation campaign walked off the job in Washington, D.C. to demonstrate for higher wages. Good Jobs Nation, a project of the labor federation Change to Win, has spent the past two years organizing low-wage service workers employed by companies with federal contracts.
The progressive caucus has often collaborated with Good Jobs Nation on issues related to federal contractor wages and working conditions. Sanders, Ellison and Grijalva are all scheduled to address a rally of demonstrating Good Jobs Nation workers at a rally near the Russell Senate Building in D.C. A statement from the campaign predicted “thousands” of privately employed people who work in federal buildings would be on strike, including workers at the Smithsonian and the Capitol building.
Good Jobs Nation protester James Powell, a chef in the private Capitol Hill dining hall for U.S. Senators, told Al Jazeera he struggles to make ends meet for himself and his 3-year-old son. After five years on the job, his salary has increased from $12.06 to $13.06; at one point, he said, he ran so low on money that he was forced to squat in an abandoned house for a month while still working full-time on the Hill. “I just want them to understand that there are people who work not 50 feet from them, or who they walk past every day, who are struggling just to make ends meet,” he said of the elected officials he serves on a daily basis. “It’s just not fair."
The campaign for a $15 minimum wage — which has won local victories not just in Los Angeles but also in San Francisco, Seattle, and SeaTac, Washington — emerged from the labor-backed wave of fast food strikes, which began nearly three years ago with the rallying cry, “$15 and a union.” Over the past year, worker campaigns in other low-wage industries have signed onto what is often called the Fight For $15 movement, adding to the pressure for minimum wage increases on a wider scale.

Tourism in Greece feels the pinch of debt crisis

SPETSES, Greece — A statue of Bouboulina, a heroine of the 1821 Greek war of independence against the Ottoman Empire, looks over the harbor of the island of Spetses in the Saronic Gulf. In the summer, the square where she stands usually bustles with activity. Children climb up and down her stone pedestal, and vendors sell popcorn and balloons while people sip coffee and cocktails on the terrace of the elegant Poseidonion Grand Hotel. Every so often, a horse-drawn buggy passes.  This summer is different. As Greece struggles with a debt crisis that has brought the country’s economy to its knees, most of the Greek tourists who have been going to this graceful island for decades are gone. Stavros Kokkoris, 65, who has been driving his horse and buggy there since 1965, compares today’s crisis to the turbulence of the military dictatorship that ruled from 1967 to 1973. Asked which was worse, he said grimly, “Now. This has been the worst.” 
For Athenians, Spetses is akin to the Hamptons for New Yorkers. Its stately mansions belong to sea captains, ship owners and other wealthy Greeks. The shipping magnates of the Niarchos family own Spetsopoula, a small island covered with pine trees off the southeastern coast of Spetses. Prince Nikolaos of Greece wed there five summers ago.  But since June 29, when the government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras was forced to enact capital controls limiting Greeks to 60 euro cash withdrawals daily, tourism there has slowed considerably. The Hellenic Seaways catamaran, which takes visitors from Athens’ port to Spetses, is usually sold out on summer weekends, but last Friday, it was just half full. “People just aren’t traveling. No money,” said Theo Mexas, a Hellenic Seaways steward. “With only 60 euros, how are they going to travel?”
Storeowners, hotel owners and restaurateurs are feeling the pinch. Many say business has been down by about 40 percent since capital controls went into effect. “The market is dead. The Greek tourists are gone,” said Pantelis Kokkoris, 64, the owner of a small clothing and trinket shop. “In the old days, money seemed to be everywhere. People came, stayed for a month, bought a ball for their child, a bathing suit. Now, nothing.” The story is the same up and down the narrow streets. Demetrios Andriotis, 46, who sells handmade leather sandals, said the few tourists who appear aren’t buying much. “Greeks used to spend a lot, but they don’t anymore,” he said, sitting in the entrance of his empty shop.
Services are off too. On the island, there are few cars, so people get around mostly on rented mopeds and use small red-and-white boats as water taxis to nearby beaches or the mainland. When banks closed on June 29, those businesses began to dry up. Water taxi owner Panagiotis Markou, 51, said he used to get about 10 fares a day at 20 euros each; now he’s lucky if he gets four. Demetrios Malamos, the owner of Nautilus Moto, said he has seen a 30 to 40 percent drop in rentals. “This used to be an island for VIPs. The Greek elite would vacation here. Even the middle class Greeks who vacationed here spent money,” he said, pointing to the line of at least a dozen unused motorbikes outside the shop. “Those days are gone.”
The elites still come, their yachts lined up in the old harbor, but in smaller numbers. Last Saturday at least a dozen yachts and sailboats bobbed in the water while prominent Greeks, including Athens Mayor Giorgios Kaminis, gathered at Tarsanas, an outdoor seafood tavern. Even these Spetsiotes, as they are known, are concerned. Greece’s austerity measures have included rounds of increases in property taxes and luxury taxes. “Life as we’ve known it is over,” said Eleni Georgi-Melissaris, who owns a home there and has been going to the island every summer since she was a child in the 1950s. “I’m worried about what’s coming.” Some things in Spetses don’t change. Families still sit under yellow and white umbrellas on the white pebble beach at Agioi Anargyroi while swimmers splash in the crystalline waters. “Looking at this, you’d never know what has happened these last few weeks,” said Tassos Kiritsis, 37, who works for a German electronics retailer in Athens. 
Yiorgos Kastriotis, 36, of the family-owned Armata Boutique Hotel, hopes that’s the image foreigners see. This summer they accounted for about 40 percent of the hotel’s guests, compared with 10 percent in previous years. With Greece negotiating a third bailout package with European lenders and facing more austerity measures, another round of belt tightening is likely. He said he has had several inquiries about the situation from worried vacationers, but he tries to reassure them that, for tourists, all is well. “Everybody thinks we’re walking around with a balls and chains,” he said. “It isn’t like that.”

The United State military’s trillion-dollar boondoggle

Most Americans missed the news of two pairs of Russian Tupolev Tu-95 bombers that attempted to breach American airspace on the West Coast on the Fourth of July. The first incident occurred near Alaska, and the second the central Californian coast; the bombers were intercepted and escorted out of American airspace by F-22 and F-15 fighter planes.
Commenting on the incident, Retired Air Force Lt. General Thomas McInerny told The Washington Free Beacon: “it’s becoming obvious that Putin is testing Obama and his national security team.” The relevant question, though, to ask isn’t why Putin is attempting a banal revival of Cold War tensions — games of chicken between Russia and the West are no new thing, and Putin himself is far from inscrutable — but why the F-15 and F-22 planes played roles in the response. Granted, the F-15 Eagle is considered one of the best fighter planes in history. In the time that it’s been flying, it has racked up 100 aerial combat victories, has supplied U.S. allies around the world, and is expected to be in use past the year 2025. But it was designed in the 1960s and first flew in 1972; it’s more than a bit past its prime.
The F-22 was created as its replacement in the early 2000s. By many accounts, the Raptor is a fantastic plane; the Air Force claims it “cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft.” But again, the aircraft isn’t perfect. Some of the more shocking safety allegations point to correlations with mental deficiencies, respiratory complications and neurological problems among its pilots. It’s also very, very expensive — about $150 million per plane. That doesn’t include the entire program development cost, either. It’s because of the steadily growing price tag that production on F-22s is currently halted. 
The Raptor is emblematic of a long decline in the usefulness and cost efficiency of Air Force technology since the prime of the Cold War. The F-35 Lightning II multirole stealth fighter plane, the most expensive weapons system in the history of the planet, marks this trajectory’s nadir; mention of the plane in military circles usually has the term “boondoggle” following closely on its heel. The government spent $59 billion on development, $261 billion on procurement, and $590 billion for “operations and sustainment” of the F-35 in 2012. It still wasn’t ready to save us from the Russians on the Fourth of July. An account of the F-35 failing to best the F-16 fighter in a mock-dogfight, published by Medium’s “War Is Boring” blog, suggests one reason why: It’s simply not meant to mix it up. The article emphasizes that the F-35’s best option in the test was to basically retreat; an allegation that received pushback from Lockheed Martin, which claimed that the F-35 isn’t made to engage in an old fashioned dogfight.
The F-35 “aren’t made so much to win dogfights with lesser planes as to blast them out of the sky from afar — before a visual combat situation has begun,” The American Interest reports. It’s unclear whether or not the plane can actually do that, since it gives off a massive heat signature, which might allow other planes to see it first. Regardless, the F-35 wasn’t built to engage in close combat to begin with, which might not make it ideal for intercepting Russian bombers (which could always possibly be accompanied by fighters themselves) and escorting them back into neutral air space.
What’s more, technical issues with the plane’s machinery persist despite the billions of dollars that were sunk into the F-35 since 2009. Its weapons delivery system is prone to tracking false targets because of software issues. The plane can’t fly within 25 miles of a storm. The pilot helmet display doesn’t work. The plane requires massive amounts of maintenance, far beyond anything predicted. It’s simply unsafe and unreliable. But it’s still successful within the demented logic of defense acquisition procedure: It makes massive amounts of money for contractors, subcontractors, investors, Congressmen and Department of Defense procurement officers. Performance is secondary; safety is practically an afterthought. The primary goal of military tech programs is to spin public money into private profit.
This mercenary alchemy has a history. The Patriot Missile, or MIM-104, was the hero of the first Gulf War — our answer to the Soviet Scud missile used by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. The Patriot was conceived of with 1970’s Cold War military logic. The Soviets had a lot of surface-to-air missiles, so we somehow came to the conclusion that we could, too. (Never mind that our entire strategy was based on fighter-led air superiority.) The Patriots outlasted the Cold War. And even though they were meant to shoot planes out of the sky, not take out massive, heavy Scuds, we repurposed them to that end anyway.
The government’s original claim was that Patriots destroyed 45 out of 47 Scud missiles. In reality it was only two. Total failure, right? Not quite. Just this April, Raytheon scored a $2 billion order for Patriot Missiles, a success by American defense industry standards. If the Pentagon were held to the same standards as the United States Post Office, the chorus of disgruntled conservatives would have long ago hit a crescendo. Part of the problem is that we want a military that can do everything, without going through the trouble of triaging our priorities or limiting our goals.
The recently released National Military Strategy lists America’s main enemies as China, Russia, Iran, violent extremists and so on, each requiring a different strategic approach (and the corresponding equipment) to defeat. That’s expensive. But, as the F-35 project shows, with subcontracts from 45 different states and its construction accounting for over 32,000 jobs, our real strategy is to emphasize the “industry” in defense industry.
The F-35 thus represents the current rationale animating modern American defense technology procurement. It prioritizes the transfer of vast amounts of public wealth into private hands, regardless of whether the product actually works.So in a sense, it’s nice that the Russians are poking us, keeping us on our toes on a holiday weekend. Maybe we can get a new multi-billion dollar defense program out of it.