The Gormogons

Wow. The Czar got some actual mail the other day, and for a second, he had to check the date, as it’s been a while since anyone has sent anything. Fortunately, it was from Operative B, who had this to say on the Czar’s recent comments on the economy.

Your Majesty, There is a phenomenon in the tech industry known as the “silver tsunami” or “gray tsunami”, which is defined as the impending and permanent departure, through either retirement or other means, of highly experienced and extremely capable senior engineers. This is not the same as the departure of financial managers, bankers, or other paper-hangers. It is a serious problem that currently has no solution. It’s really simple: learning hardware design and engineering is hard work. Learning embedded software design and engineering is hard work. Learning firmware design and engineering is hard work. And all three skills are needed to turn out the highly complex and advanced systems that are needed to drive economic, commercial, and industrial productivity. There’s a reason that all of these new technological wonders seem to be coming from companies located offshore: Americans became too lazy to spend the time to learn how to do the “hard stuff”. America is now reaping the seeds it planted by making it easier to go to a college or university, spend years in a curriculum leading to a useless “skill” while partying and protesting, and then feeding and clothing those graduates while they work as baristas at a local Starbuck’s. Your friend who complains about not being able to find forklift operators is right, but for a reason he may not realize. For far too long, the “elite” have disdainfully looked down on anyone without a college degree from an ivy-league school. They use terms like “just a plumber” or “just a carpenter”, and then wonder why they can’t find someone to fix their pipes or re-hang a door Some of us have spent decades advocating for a dual-track educational system: university and trade. In truth, a trade provides far more job security than a university degree in financial management. Plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, roofers, dental hygienests – these folks are needed all year long and all the time. They sometimes earn more money than some of the “professionals” and are in much higher demand: when you need a plumber, you need a plumber. But to work in the trades, you have to put down your smartphone and pay attention to what you’re doing. You have to put someone else’s needs ahead of yours. Look at American K-12 schools, and you see more emphasis and attention to social and emotional “needs” than in teaching the skills needed to become functionally independent. When these children graduate from high school, they neither have the skills nor the emotional maturity to begin productive lives. Fewer and fewer students are entering STEM curricula because it’s hard, and too many of those who do enter STEM studies end up dropping out. America is losing the skilled worker base that built the industrial and technological base that made America the wonder of the world. This “gray tsunami” will leave a less-capable society behind. And there doesn’t appear to be a tsunami of young workers willing to take up the challenge of replacing them. The proof? When you can’t find anyone willing to run a machine as simple as a forklift… Operative B

This is not wrong, but the Czar might quibble on the reason you can’t find a forklift driver: the simple reason is that they’re just not out there. They’re gone. We use to have a stockpile of people who could indeed do these things, as they weren’t particularly employable. But the economy is expanding so quickly that even these resources are dried up. They’re dried up because they’re all working.
This is of course a minor quibble, because (a) otherwise, Operative B is right about the priority of our resources, and (b) the explosive growth of Amazon and Wal-Mart have seen forklift drivers specifically skyrocket in demand.
Believe it or not, this was not foreseen. The Czar admits he was sympathetic to the Obama administration’s assumptions that these blue-collar jobs were gone, and simply were not coming back. However, Trump seems to have sputtered the manufacturing sector back into a flicker of life, and suddenly, yes, these jobs are needed again. And after 8 years of Obama and 8 years of Bush writing off the manufacturing world, yeah, we kind of agreed that kids should be looking elsewhere. Well, these jobs are back—and the workers? Well, they went elsewhere.

Our American readers probably don’t care much for or about the British elections, and whether Nigel Kennewick has held onto the Constituency of West Scrotshire, establishing an opportunity for a coalition with the New Conservative Democratic Liberal Reform Social Party. But this year is something different, and it’s definitely worth noting.

If you’re glancing at the usual news feeds, doubtless you’re aware it’s the End of All Civilization Ever, because random-coiffed Boris Johnson’s Tories defeated the Labour Party of Jeremy Corbyn—the latter being a neo-Leninist, terrorist-kissing, anti-Semitic homophobe, making the former the racist because he’s not in the Labour Party.

The usual news feeds are telling you this election is all about Brexit, and how every time they hold the same freaking election on the same topic, oddly it keeps tilting more in the direction the media don’t want it to go. If you’re an American, which our blog stats tell us most of you readers are, your reading of the UK elections is pretty limited to “Racist jackass with stupid hair inexplicably beats reform-minded, popular working-class hero in order to take Britain’s economy to the Dark Ages.”

You can already guess the Czar is about to take you in a different direction. You’re correct.

The news story is this: Britain’s “party of the working man” has embraced as many goofy Leftist tropes as possible, promising a wealth of free services to the younger generation, for which only the extremely wealthy upper percentages will pay. In exchange, the British economy—despite showing no signs of recession but every indication of increasing cash flow for the average person—is going to be corrected by locking it into a regulation-heavy system of government control.

If that sounds familiar, it should. If it doesn’t sound familiar, substitute “America’s” and “American” for the words in red, and you’ve got the same message the Democratic candidates are pushing for 2020.

The biggest difference is that the Brits got to vote earlier than we did, and the result as a tremendous trouncing of Leftist lunacy. Not only did Brits reject the Leftist vision, they did so in a landslide.

Another important factor: headlines are screeching that voter turnout was down from 2017. This is true, but here’s what the Leftist media is not telling you: the voter turnout is down by only 1.5 percent over 2017—and 2019’s voter turnout was 67.23 percent.

That means two out of three registered voters came out to tell Labour to get bent. In America, 61% voted in 2016. This is significant because an old rule of political science is that anytime voter turnout goes above about 60%, the voters are pissed off. Lower turnouts indicate complacency. In 2016, Americans voted mostly to keep Hillary Clinton out of power; reason enough, it seems, to be a tad angry.

But British turnout is a bit of an exclamation point.

What’s more, Labour lost 7.8% of its vote share overall, which is a landslide defeat. Constituencies across the country, some of whom have been progressive liberal since the 1930s, flipped to conservative. To put this in perspective, this would be like Boston voting for Trump. In short, Labour didn’t lose—it was severely crushed.

While this is all paper hats and Christmas crackers for England, this can easily serve as a bellwether for America’s 2020 election. Of course, there’s still almost a year left before Americans vote, which is plenty of time for Republicans to drive their party wagon right into a tree. But if the elections were held today, especially with swing-state voters increasingly annoyed with the Democrats in recent weeks, it’s pretty certain Republicans would hold the presidency and Senate.

So what happens next for Britain? If history is any guide—and it is—we can expect two things.

First, the British economy will begin to reform as it did under Margaret Thatcher, and Brexit will result in the UK become a world economic player again. Tax loads will lighten for the economy’s drivers, and general unemployment will go down. Unions will suffer terribly, and consumers will benefit from reduced prices on goods and services, as well as see incomes tick up.

Second, the media will report, as they did under Thatcher, that the economy is terrible and stagnant under all this “austerity.” Britain will become the laughingstock of the world, particularly among countries led by the Left, and everyone just hates Boris Johnson. He’s awful, for sure, and horror stories will abound about individuals or very small groups of people you don’t know slightly suffering under the new economy. Everything will be his fault. And he’s racist. And hates women. And basically, he hates anyone who voted for Labour in the past. And Brexit was a mistake and we all told you so, but you didn’t listen.

The Czar is continually amazed at how vilified Margaret Thatcher remains in British popular culture, even though by nearly every measure, she was one of Britain’s greatest leaders. Boris Johnson can expect the same treatment; let us hope he remains “not for turning,” as Ms. Thatcher did.

The Supreme Court of the United States, which is apparently an illegitimate entity since it was taken over by Donald Trump, is going to hear a Second Amendment case arising from the state of New York. This is interesting to the Czar because, as far as he can remember, every time the Court hears a Second Amendment case, the result is a landmark decision.

At issue is whether the City of New York can restrict its citizens from transporting firearms outside of a few, select locations such as gun ranges or hunting spots. This, as intended, limits how and where citizens of the city can carry firearms. That this is even in question is a surprise to the Czar: the law in unfair and benefits no law-abiding citizen, instead placing unnecessary and unwarranted restrictions. Frankly, this isn’t even a typical infringement issue: it’s a bizarre law that serves no practical purpose beyond hassling people. Were the City to replace “firearms” with “toasters,” the law would still be silly.

As you expect, lots of the usual people are freaking out about this. In some respects, they should: in the last couple of decades, each time a municipality attempts to place a surprise restriction on firearm owners, the Supreme Court winds up striking down a few other existing restrictions as well. In other respects, gun-control proponents should not be surprised: the Supreme Court has taken a dim view of gun control even when dominated by liberal justices. Our two most-recent justices were not present on the Court when the last few Second Amendment cases gave gun owners very welcome surprises.

Already, congressional Democrats and media sources are attacking the legitimacy of the Court, pointing fingers at the NRA for somehow controlling the Court’s decisions over the last twenty years. In the Czar’s view, this trend of pro-gun-rights decisions has nothing to do with the NRA, but in the Supreme Court’s growing intolerance of government overreach. Every decision on the Second Amendment seems to revolve around passage of a law that’s designed to extend a middle finger to law-abiding citizens, exploiting a word or phrase in the Court’s previous decisions to underpin a new restriction. This sort of stuff is exactly how the Court fights back against the contempt people show it.

The final decision should reach us in May, 2020, but the Czar already has a pretty strong sense of what the decision is going to be. What he doesn’t know is what else the Court will do to punish New York City for wasting its time.

Let’s just get to the questions you want answered in life: what’s the difference between a bar, a tavern, a pub, and a saloon?
A lot of these words are interchangeable, especially in the United States, so it will likely surprise none of you intellectuals who suspect there’s obviously some difference to warrant different words for what is degenerating into the same thing: a dark, noisy place jammed full of skanky IPAs, mis-sized flat-screen televisions showing college basketball, and some annoying group trivia game not asking sensible questions like “What’s the difference between a bar, a tavern, a pub, and a saloon?”

Here we go.

Bar—’Puter’s bar exam is the only bar he’s ever passed, and interestingly, the words are related: they’re both short for “barrier,” or a railing over which things (drinks or legal documents) can be served. In court rooms, it became the gate that separates the audience from the court proper, but in drinking joints, it became the long table on which you put your drinks. But, metonymy being metonymy, the piece of furniture became the name of the place. Technically, a bar can exist inside a restaurant, a catering hall, a night club, or dance hall; it’s a thing, not a place…unless you simply call the building it’s in a bar as well.

Tavern—This is the oldest business listed herein: the word itself is a mispronunciation of the Latin taberna, which in Italia was any kind of a store or retail shop, but was also the word for a place go get intoxicatus/a.

Pub—As most of you probably know, “pub” is a shortening of the phrase “public house,” which meant a licensed drinking establishment open to the public. Indeed, there is an oppositive to this: “private house,” or a bar open only to private members. If you run a pub in the United States, you are expected to serve food as well; while this is common in the United Kingdom or Ireland as well, it’s not assumed to be the case. Frankly, the number of exceptions either way is about the same: there’s a bunch of “pubs” that don’t serve food.

Saloon—Okay, this is an interesting one. Remember up there, a few seconds ago, when the Czar explained that a bar is the counter where you set your drinks? A saloon is the rest of the place: the booths and tables where you can sit and converse, maybe eat and play cards…while, you know, drinking. The word comes from the French salon, obviously, which was a sitting room. So, if you think about it, a tavern can have a bar and a saloon in it. But just as “bar” became the name of the place, “saloon” also became the name of the place. Only a pedantic snob like the Czar would say “Shall we sit at the bar, or in the saloon?”

Gin Mill—obviously, this is slang, but it’s good slang because a person first hearing it can figure out its meaning immediately: a mill is a place where stuff is made, and gin is a spirit.

Beer Hall—Finally, something the Germans can contribute: the Bierstube! The great thing about this phrase is that it means how it sounds: a really big room dedicated to beer. Picture a real Oktoberfest (and not a fake), and that’s a beer hall.

Inn—Well, there’s no doubt about this. An inn is a place where you can stay the night. Maybe you can get food. Maybe, if they have food, you can get a drink, as well. In olden days, inns basically provided you a bed and that was about it; however, as the concept of the motel popped up during the pilgrimages to the Holy Land, inn owners needed to compete. Rather than let you and that precious denarii slip out the door, imagine if your inn sold not just a bed, but food and booze? The more your guests ate and drank, the greater the likelihood they’d want to stay the night. Modern inns rarely offer beds and drink. But both types of modern inns honor this tradition by (a) serving liquor or (b) stealing your money out of your pants pocket while you sleep in your room.

Lounge—Does anything sound worse than a lounge? Picture carpeting, worn furniture, and a guy hopped up on Viagra trying to convince some bar fly that he can still drive his ’78 Corvette. But in reality, “lounge” is a word that serves multiple functions: when the saloon became the name of the business, lounge replaced it for the area with the tables. In a public or private house, the lounge is where the tables and comfy chairs were to be found. And, in hotels and motels (and inns!), the lounge was the seating area adjacent to the bar. It’s a really useful word; one supposes that since “lounge” has become the name for an establishment, we’re going to need another word to replace it for the section of a tavern with the tables and chairs. “Parlor” is our pick. What’s yours?

Tap—Ah, more metonymy. Many of your around the country are unfamiliar with the use of “tap” to describe a tavern, but it’s been around a long time. And not just in the States. In the Chicago area, the Czar remembers fondly the Hilltop Tap, which sat on the apex of one of Chicago’s rare hills. He never drank there, but recalls the Lorchowicz brothers stumbling out of there and their many misadventures, including one (true) story of one brother falling into his car and snapping off the radio antenna. Rather than properly fix it, he widened the hole and stuck in a doorknob as a replacement. Evidently it worked, as he continued for some time to drive his beige 1972 Dodge Aspen with a doorknob jutting up from the passenger side front fender.

For those of you not following us on Twitter (@Gormogons if that’s not obvious), ‘Puter is sick (again)…man-sick…by which I mean, he is home sitting on the couch, complaining that he’s going to die, while watching TV and tweeting. Dying. Right.

Anyway, he cooked up, what I would assume is, some pretty good chicken soup. Coincidentally, GorT had Thai Red Curry on the menu for Mrs. GorT and I tonight and while eating it I thought, “man, this would fix ‘Puter up really quick”. A number of followers asked for the recipe – it’s pretty easy.

Thai Red Curry

Ingredients

• 1½ cups jasmine rice*
• 1 tbl canola oil
• 1½ pounds boneless, skinless chicken breasts, cut into bite-sized pieces
• Kosher salt and freshly ground black pepper
• 2 shallots, minced
• 3 cloves garlic, minced
• 3 tbl Thai red curry paste
• 1 tbl freshly grated ginger
• 1 (13.5-ounce) can coconut milk (recommend not using “lite”)
• 1 broccoli crown, cut into small bite-sized pieces
• 1 zucchini, ¼ in slices then quartered
• 1 red bell pepper, cut into small bite-sized pieces
• 2 green onions, thinly sliced
• 3 tbl chopped fresh cilantro leaves
• 2 tbl freshly squeezed lime juice
• (optional) Huy Fong Sambal oelik chili paste

 

Directions

1. Cook rice (see first note below)
2. Heat canola oil in a large stockpot or Dutch oven over medium heat. Season chicken with salt and pepper. Add chicken, shallots to the stockpot and cook until golden, about 3-5 minutes. Add garlic and cook another minute.
3. Stir in Thai red curry paste and ginger until fragrant, about 1 minute.
4. Stir in coconut milk. Optionally, add 1-3 tsp of the sambal oelek chili paste to add spice – you can also add more Thai Chili paste.
5. Bring to a boil; reduce heat and cook, uncovered, stirring occasionally, until reduced and thickened, about 15 minutes.
6. Add vegetables (zucchini, broccoli, pepper, etc.) and simmer in pot until just tender, about 3-5 minutes.
7. Remove from heat; stir in green onions, cilantro and lime juice; season with salt and pepper, to taste.
8. Serve over rice.

 

* I would make coconut rice to enhance the flavor – replace ½ the water the rice recipe calls for with coconut milk. You may need to extend the cooking time slightly.