About those racist old white guys...

No, this is not about radio personalities or (shudder) Fox News. No, this is about those other racist white guys - in Greece.

I unfortunately count myself as one of those guys that got roped into watching My Big Fat Greek Wedding. I will admit that I don't remember much about the plot line, or even really who the actors or actresses were. If you really care you can go to the link above, and look it up. I don't really... There are three things I remember about that movie. The first and second have nothing to do with my point here, so of course I will write about them first.

As I remember it, there is a scene where the partriach is walking the family dog, and they see the full and magical moon. He looks up and cries 'la luna!'. It becomes something of a theme throughout the movie, that the crazy moon drives much of the love crazy actions throughout the movie. Every once in a while, when I see a full moon, I smile and think of that movie, that scene.

The second is a scene where the mother is asking the daughter if she loves the man she is about to marry. When the daughter yes the mother says something like, "too bad, he'll drive you crazy". That has always seemed about right to me, no matter what side of the fence you are on.

The third thing I remember about movie was the manic pride the father had for his mother country. He had filled his front yard with replicas of famous Greek statues, and festooned his yard with Greek flags. So to anyone who saw that movie, the existence of a political party in Greece that has fascist tendencies modeled on the 'master race' principles of the Third Reich is really not that much of a shock. What is surprising is that the whole Greek financial crisis matured to where it is today without a mention of any this in any press. But it got me to thinking, how did such a group come to be? What makes a cultural pride morph into a something nasty? Most importantly, what is the difference between them and say, any other group of old white guys that causes a different outcome?

My supposition here is that pride in race or culture is essentially what caused these types to go astray. So they question comes to mind, if it happened there, why didn't it happen here? After all, weren't all of our founding fathers essentially white guys? It's been a long time since I had American History, so, embarrassingly, I had to admit that I really didn't know that much about the ancestry of our founding fathers. In my defense, I doubt the founding father's ancestry was well covered in the social crucible that was the public school system for Memphis in the late 70s. I therefore decided to look it up. Just for fun, I thought i'd pass on what I found:

George Washington: Father: Augustine Washington, born in Westmoreland, VA in 1694. Grandfather: Lawrence Washington, militia captain and member of House of Burgess, born in Westmoreland, VA in 1659. Great Grandfather: John Washington, born in Pruleigh, Essex in 1633, owner of a estate in South Cave, East Yorkshire and emigrated in 1658.

John Adams: Father: John Adams Sr. - fifth generation descendant to Henry Adams who emigrated from Braintree, Essex in 1638.

Thomas Jefferson: Father: Peter Jefferson, a planter and surveyor. Possibly of Welsh descent but I was unable to find any definitive linkages on a cursory look.

James Madison Jr: Father: James Madison Sr, a tobacco planter that grew up on a plantation. His great grandfather was a sea captian, Issac Madison, who was born in London England in 1590.

Ben Franklin: One of twenty children of Josiah Franklin, a businessman from Ecton, Nothhamptonshire, England. His father was a blacksmith and a farmer there.

Thomas Paine: Son of Joseph Pain (later Paine), a Quaker, and mother Frances (an Anglican) <gasp - a mixed marriage>, who hailed from rural Norfolk, England.

Patrick Henry: Father: John Henry (not the railroad guy), immigrant from Abberdeenshire, Scotland.

Alexander Hamilton: Probably the most interesting heritage of the group of otherwise cookie cutter old white guys. He was born out of wedlock  to an otherwise married women of partial French Huguenot descent, Rachel Faucette in Charlestown, on the island of Nevis, which is the capitol island of the Leeward Islands. His father was a scoundrel named James Hamilton, the fourth son of a Scottish laird from Grange Ayrshire. There is a real romance novel in there somewhere...

To get back to my main point, even though all these guys were from differing backgrounds, but uniformly English and white, they didn't found this country on their background or heritage. No, they borrowed liberally from what they understood to be best way to run a country, and forged this country anew out of whole cloth woven from the threads of the writings from the greatest thinkers throughout the ages (some of whom might have been Greek). That's why bigotry and race pride will always be fringe and foreign to us, as long as we have the courage to keep our principles pure. It is only when we allow ourselves to be torn down by class and envy, do we lessen ourselves and become, well, like the Modern Greeks.

Listening to Dear Leader... November 3, 2013 Edition

Once again I was intrigued by what Dear Leader had to say in his weekly radio address. So without further adieu, President Choom:

Hi, everybody

Ok - right away i'm getting this really weird vibe. Am I the only one already thinking about another guy who likes to pretend to be a doctor:

 Moving along...

On Thursday, I addressed a conference for business leaders from around the world.  And my pitch was simple:  Choose America.  Invest in America.  Create jobs in America.

Because American exceptionalism is at such an all time low now that we need foreign investors to keep us afloat.

It speaks to my top priority as President: growing our economy, creating good jobs, strengthening security and opportunity for the middle class.

So that whole Obamacare thing was what? Another priority? Um, not to split hairs Mr. President Choom, but you say 'top priority' like it's one thing, then go on to list two things. Do you want to grow the economy or create good middle class jobs?  I am thinking most economist would not agree they are necessarily the same thing. I mean look at the stock market. The DOW has continued to grow throughout this economic disaster, indicating a 'growing' economy, even while actual unemployment has hit an all time high. Speaking of employment:

Over the past three and a half years, our businesses have created over seven and a half million new jobs.  And this week, the Treasury confirmed that since I took office, we’ve cut our deficits by more than half.

New jobs? I'll let this article do the actual analysis for that old canard.  But basically the population grew by seven million, five of which were new 'immigrants', and six million workers stopped looking for work. Let me do a little advanced math on that:

X = 7.5million jobs - ((5 million immigrants + 2 million natives) + 6 million give ups)

X = -5.5 million jobs (to stay even)

The deficit works the same way. But that's math, and math is hard.

But we have more work to do.  We need to grow and create more good jobs faster.  That’s my driving focus.  And I’ll go anywhere and do anything to make it happen. 

Faster than the actual negative growth - I agree. Wait a minute - I thought this was your driving focus:

Jumping down a little:

I was glad to hear the Republican leader in the Senate say this week that they won’t pursue another government shutdown or threaten another default on our debt.  Because we shouldn’t be injuring ourselves every few months – we should be investing in ourselves.

Let me interpret that a bit:

Jumping down a bit more:

Think about it.  We can keep wasteful corporate tax giveaways that working folks don’t get – or we could close those loopholes and use that money to pay for things that actually create jobs.

Let's see. We are back to the concept that corporations are people, and are getting 'cuts' that normal taxpayers don't. Not mentioned here is that corporations, like say Walmart exist to create profit for their shareholders, who mostly are retirees investing as groups in money markets. Now a 'closing of loopholes' mean that such corporations have two choices. To reduce the profits they give investors, or increase their prices. It is not unreasonable to expect that they will do both. Contrast this with a basic increase of taxes on an individual, like what is in the shiny new Obamacare law. When people have to pay more taxes, then they necessarily start cutting down on what they are spending. See? It's the basic difference between spending and earning. I know <sigh>, math.

Priorities. Choices.  That’s what this is about.  And the stakes for the middle class couldn’t be higher.  If we don’t pick the right priorities now, make the right choices now, we could hinder growth and opportunity for decades, and leave our children with something less.

Humm. It's like this economy just dropped dropped out of thin air onto this administration. No bad choices were made in the last 5 years that put us in this hole. It was the deficit fairy:

 Jumping ahead again:

Building new roads, and bridges, and schools, and airports – that creates jobs.

I'm pretty sure all that takes government money, which comes from taxes, which hinders growth. Besides, what happened to all those shovel ready jobs you already created? Since money pretty much grows on trees, I am thinking that this just might work! Or we could create jobs the old fashioned way... whatever that is...

Because in America, our economy doesn’t grow from the top-down.  It grows from the middle-class out.  

I am thinking that you probably should consult with Mooch on this. Middle America's growing middle is the real problem here, and it is definitely growing from the middle out.

And as long as I am President, our national mission will remain building an America where everyone belongs

Like the millions of folks who are streaming across our borders who are not actually Americans. That sounds so, er, Presidential.

 Thanks, and have a great weekend

Meh - weekends are overrated. Give me some freedom and and a taste of justice, and i'm all good:

Hero of the Week

No, I am not ripping off my betters... this is completely  different! Though I will admit, that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. For the record, no one admires Denny and his blog more than I! If I ever make it down to Georgia, I will be bringing that guy a 5th of Jack. We can swap stories about PDP-11's. Yes - I will be making this a regular feature here on Saturdays - or so that's the plan...

My hero for this week is this guy:

He's Tennessee State Senator Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown) who handed Sillybus a "Websites for Dummies" book and got someone to snap a picture of her hilarious old shrew response:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/sebelius-explains-how-obamacare-isn-t-like-tickle-me-elmo-20131101

This is exactly how to deal with these people. Know your facts so they can't dance away, then hoist them by their own petards. This picture will be the icon for the failed Obamacare implementation, and it's Sen Kelsey who made it happen. Congrats Senator! You are my Hero of the Week! Revel in both of my reader's admiration!

CRIPPLEANCHE!
Welcome GOC Readers! Denny told me he was going to send few of you all over here and here you are. As long as your here, take a look around, kick the tires, and see if you may want to add a bookmark for a really slow news day. If you are reading this as a result of some other link, let me turn you on to a blog that's always honest and thought provoking - Grouchy Old Cripple.

It's A River In Egypt

I am back (somewhat). I apologize for the absence, but sometimes you do what you have to do, I did, and I am not really sorry about it... so there's that.

This post I am going to go on and on a bit about denial. The thing that got me started thinking about this (beyond the very obvious shortcomings in my own life), was listening to a radio blurb Monday morning where they were doing a spot on the alleged football game between the hapless Redskins and the Broncos. What got my attention was when they quoted RG3, the erstwhile Redskins quarterback, saying that the team was better than their record.

Now as observed for individual players on individual plays he is correct. There were some brilliant plays by the Redskins in that game that actually made it entertaining for a while. That being said, RG3, and the whole organization, are living in a sad state of denial if they believe they are not as bad as their record. There were too many missed passes, missed defensive opportunities, badly called plays, missed this, missed that, and missed the other thing in that game. They truly are a second rate team with a first rate player budget, relying on an affluent fan base and big market advertising to sustain what really should be an unsustainable program. They haven't been good for probably more years than I've been a fan. To believe otherwise is to take a seat on that big green overstuffed chair called denial.

In any case, that got me thinking about the role reality denial plays in our world. We all deny our reality to some extent. It is a coping mechanism for the complex and often baffling world we encounter where we are told by our betters that what we think we know as reality isn't. The political landscape is littered with such platitudes such as "If you like your plan you can keep it", "More guns on the street mean more death and destruction", or "Global warming is settled science". Rationally you can look at each of these, and wonder how they can possibly be true in the face of cold hard facts. You shrug, shake your head, and move on, content with the knowledge that there are enough rational and thinking people in your society that will apply the same critical thinking skills and these seeming transparent falsehoods will be regulated to the lunatic fringe. Instead, we are surprised when these beliefs apparently become mainstream and we become the fringe. Take a place up there on that big green chair with RG3 and the coaching staff of the Redskins, because you sir or madam are in a state of denial.

Comfortable? Good. As they say in the AA meetings, admitting you have a problem is the first step toward recovery. Toward that end, i'd like to start this out in AA fashion. Here you go:

Hi, my name is Mike, and i'm a gun hugging, science denying, poor people hating because I don't want them to have health insurance conservative.

I'm pretty sure i'm supposed to hear a rousing "Hi Mike" here. No? Ok. Next I guess I should say how long it's been since I last expressed my hateful conservative rhetoric:

It's been five days since I last blogged about my dear leader's incompetence.

So far so good. I understand there are 'steps' involved in this process, and found the innerwebs had a good list on Wikipedia - so here I go with a conservative's adaptation of that list:

1. I admit I am powerless in the face of the liberal media's ability to warp reality

Let's face it. They are really good at lying. They do it consistently, loudly, and with great conviction. There is nothing I can write here that is going to change that.

2. There is a greater power than myself that can restore me to sanity

Well duh! We are talking about 2 branches of the government + 1/2 of the remaining third + all the RINOs in the House of Representatives. The power doesn't get any higher than that.

3. I will turn over my will and life over to this higher power.

 Well that's not really necessary. Once Obamacare takes over, the death panels will literally have the power of life and death over me anyway. The mental health profession can't be too far behind them to take care of that whole 'will' thing.

4. Search my inner self for my moral weakness in the face of the Democratic way

See, now we have a problem. From everything I know, even though their rhetoric attempts to take the moral high ground, it's usually based on some fairly immoral foundations. I guess I will understand that more when I complete step 3 and lose my will.

5. Admit to Obama and my peers exactly what I have done as a conservative and why it was wrong

Humm. Well, I guess I can give that a try. I like being able to defend myself and my family against criminals, and that is wrong because the criminals deserve, well, something. I have attended tea party rallies to protest against Obamacare, and that was wrong because I was in that crowd that didn't spit on that congressman.  I did attend various town hall meetings and even stood outside one where my congresscritter's 'open town hall' was actually on property closed to the general public. That was probably wrong because congressman are people too and deserve the respect of the electorate, except if they are Republicans. I'm sure that given time, i'll think of some more...

6. I am entirely ready for Obama to remove my belief in a free society

Ok. that one is going to take a little more time and effort...

7. I humbly ask Obama and the democrats to remove my conservatism.

I picture that looking like this:

Though again, I guess with the miracle of modern psychotherapy, this won't be much of an issue after the proper application of #3.

8. Make a list of all the democrats I have harmed, and become willing to make amends to them

9. Make amends to them where ever possible, unless it will do them harm

Sadly, my list is pretty short. I guess I could join my congresscritter's re-election campaign, but I suspect that having another old white bigot on the staff might not do him much good.

The rest of the steps are more blah, blah, rinse, repeat. So I am going to skip them for now. Let's just say I have a very long road to go, and will probably always be a recovering conservative. I guess I should end this with the Serenity Prayer, but prayer is the last thing a recovering conservative should be doing... Awe what the hell:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can,

And wisdom to know the difference.

Screw you Obama! Now, who wants a drink?

Short Hiatus

Short hiatus (a few days) while I stare at my navel and contemplate the universe. Either that or SQUIRRELS!!!!

And that is that...

So, unless you have been under a rock for the past couple of days, you know that the Boner caved, then GOP in the Senate did what they do best - stabbing their base in the back - and the Bamster got basically everything he wanted, with the unconscionable assistance of the government sponsored press apparatus. Sadly, my 99.99% correct flow chart is now complete (though I guess we won't ever know about the Apple Pie Moonshine thing):

While most of the arguments for 'compromise' were so blatantly false they just aren't worth my time to refute, there was a constitutional issue that was put forward that caused me to learn something, so i'll share that here with you. I was listening to CSPAN Monday and I heard a Democrat congressman say something about the House risking default was potentially in violation of the 14th amendment, which states that the 'credit of the nation will not be questioned'. Now that 'will not be questioned' phrase got my attention as it seemed to me to be somewhat contrived. To my amazement, it is actually in there. Here's exactly what the 4th section of the 14th amendment says:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Understanding the historical context of this amendment is kinda important. This amendment, along with 13th and 15th were all passed just after the civil war to settle matters that were left hanging as a result of the war - i.e. debts, voting, and slavery. While the other sections of this amendment have been adjudicated like crazy by the Supremes (yes - that is a Mark Levin term), this section has gotten very little scrutiny, mainly because there just isn't much to litigate about it in modern times. I would guess that after all this time, most monetary issues related to the Civil War are settled matters. In fact, the main case I could find dealing with this section was Perry v US, where the government didn't want to have to pay a gold bond holder actual gold or it's equivalent value, but the Supremes came to the conclusion that they did since 'the public debt... shall not be questioned'.

There are two aspects to this Section that were applied to the debt limit debate, both linked by similar if not identical faulty logic. The are:

1. The President, compelled by the Section 4 of the 14th Amendment doesn't need to get Congressional Authority to raise the debt limit.
2. Congress by not authorizing an advancement of the debt limit, puts the credit of the US in jeopardy, and thus is in violation of the 4th Section of the 14th amendment.

Both of these treat the debt and credits of the United States as if it is a static and inelastic entity. Of course nothing could be farther from the truth as we are talking about trillions in debt, and billions in revenue daily. To say that it's pretty complicated would be an understatement. Thankfully, the principles espoused in the amendment are not. It basically says, our debts will be paid first, nothing more, nothing less. So if Congress does not allow the executive to borrow more money to pay for obligations that they have told the executive that it could spend, the executive first has to pay the debts, then has discretion to allocate the remaining funds as it sees fit. To do otherwise, as one old lady from Alaska (among others) has said, would be an impeachable offense.

In fact, this is exactly what the executive did with the mythical shutdown. In the face of no directions from Congress, it attempted to scale back operations of the government to not exceed it's income. That it did so in such a spectacularly ineffective way is arguably an impeachable offense, but even if the Senate were composed of enough of GOP majority to do so, it would take great hubris to prosecute the executive for failing to do what is essentially the Congress's job. Now if the executive did such a poor job while vetoing law that would relieve it of such responsibility, then that would be a different matter. In either case impeachment would be improbable as, beyond Section 4 of the 14th amendment, there is little constitutional guidance as to what the executive has to do when faced with no directions from Congress. However, applying a constitutional yardstick, the giving grants to Cookie Monster probably shouldn't have precedence over such items as paying soldiers or air traffic controllers.

I understand this rather modest application of logic collapses the whole basis of why the GOP folded at the last minute. I guess the screams of the press from around the world, and the nervousness of the gullible shills on Wall Street got to them. I find it hard to believe that in a body made up of mostly lawyers they could not see this. That is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this whole sad drama, and it's implications will continue to reverberate over the coming months.

Wisdom of the Ancients

Once you get inside, you realize that the commercial space business is as litigious as any other business, sometimes to their own detriment. Take this story about Orbital's suits against a Russian firm and the State of Virgina (H/T Instapundit) . Here's what I found interesting about this. The engine they are attempting to move to for their new launch vehicle? 20 year old technology. The mover and launchpad they are fighting VA over paying for? 20 year old technology. Hell, the supply vehicle for CRS? Twenty year old technology... While there is nothing wrong with basing your next achievements on the pillars of your past experience, you have to wonder about a future that doesn't have much actually created in this decade. In that respect, it's no wonder that SpaceX is kicking their butt, and without a major cultural shift in the company, will continue to do so.