A Mystery Solved

Recently, the "National Geographic Channel" aired a one hour documentary program entitled "Finding Anastasia." (See link below for background to the overall story) The program has two American "investigators," Dr. Anthony Falsetti and Dr. Michael Coble^^^, analyzing the remains found less than a hundred yards from the grave site of Tsar Nicholas II, his wife, the Empress Alexandra, three of their five children, and four of their servants. Speculation had run high from preliminary tests run by Russian authorities that these recently found bones and artifacts belonged to the two missing children of the Tsar, Alexei, the heir to the throne, and one of the daughters, either Anastasia or Maria.***

The documentary shows the steps taken to analyze the bones for DNA and the eventual findings of the two Americans. In the end, they identify the bodies as the two missing Romanov children. If you have access to the "National Geographic Channel," you might want to check on when the program will be shown again. It is well worth viewing. (A word history is further below)

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/10/update-on-mystery.html

^^^Dr. Falsetti helped in identifying the remains of bodies from the 9/11 attacks. Dr. Coble helps the U.S. military identify remains of casualties.

***Put simply, most American investigators believed the body of Anastasia was the missing female child from the grave; while Russian investigators believed it to be Maria.

Word History:
Body-Noun-It is interesting that a word in such common usage has no living relatives today (Ahh, maybe others hid the bodies?). In Old English is was spelled "bodig," and meant "the trunk or chest of a creature, man or beast," and some sources say it also meant "cask." (Hmm, I wonder if that's why we put a body into a "casket?"...now don't laugh too much!) By about the 13th Century, the word was being used as we use it today, and by the 14th Century along came the widespread use of words such as "somebody" and "nobody" ("I ain't got nobody!" Hold the laughs again!) Old High German, a relative of English, had "botah," also meaning "body" also spelled "potah"), and a form of the word continued in use in German dialect until recent times, but has now died out (I guess you could say that's a "dead body"). No other Germanic language has a form of the word, which is quite unusual. Some linguists have wondered if there is some connection to medieval Latin "butica," which meant "barrel." Just an observation of my own: English was quite popular at various times in European and Christian history, and I just wonder IF Latin may have gotten the word "butica" from English, as it is my understanding that is was only found in medieval Latin.

Conservatism Unravels, Part Two

One thing to keep in mind, Reagan was a POLITICIAN. He often spoke in very direct, ideological terms, but in the end, he was willing to compromise. He "talked" free trade, but, if I remember right, he protected certain businesses, like Harley-Davidson, from foreign competition. He was much taken with "supply side" economic theory that had become quite popular in the 1970s. The thing was, with inflation rampant throughout much of the 1970s, with ever higher...ah...oil and gasoline prices contributing to the spiral, the country was looking for some way to rein in prices. With the idea that inflation was "too much demand chasing too few goods/services," the notion was to spur more production to bring prices down. The major thrust of this policy/theory was to cut taxes of all kinds, with a tilt toward business and upper incomes, so that there would be more production; that is, "supply." Thus began the modern Republican Party's (and the conservative movement's) love affair with tax cuts.

I'm not an economist, and I'm not sure that even matters, as not all economists agree on the effects of various policies, but how much Reagan's tax cuts and economic policies contributed to the American economic scene is debatable.### First, Paul Volker (I believe he's a Republican, but I can't absolutely swear to that) had been appointed by Jimmy Carter to be Federal Reserve Chairman. Volker, literally a towering man at six feet seven inches tall, was a tough, no nonsense guy. He jacked up interest rates until we all screamed "Uncle!!!" In this case, his and the Fed's idea was to cut consumption of goods and services, and thus bring prices down (in other words, the opposite of "supply side"). To be quite honest, it was a Fed driven recessionary period that followed. Beginning in the late 1970s, the economy, virtually choked by sky high interest rates, began to sputter. In the early 1980s, when Reagan was president, the economy went into a major tailspin, with unemployment soaring to more than 10%. Some "liberal" economists and politicians pointed the finger at Reagan, but myself, I don't see how anything he had done up to that point contributed to the downturn. In fact, his tax cuts probably helped bring the country out of recession. The thing for conservatism (and its main "vehicle," the Republican Party) was, if some tax cuts are good for America, then a lot more tax cuts will be even better for America. (Hey, some chocolate is good for you, but a lot of chocolate gives you the...ah...well, you know.) Reagan's policies seemed at war with one another at times,*** as he cut taxes, but increased military spending by tremendous amounts. Some items in the Federal Budget were trimmed, but overall, budget deficits under Reagan soared to previously unheard of heights. Contrary to what some Republicans would have people believe, Reagan did raise taxes, preferring to call some of them "revenue enhancers," rather than taxes. So again, he was NOT the unbending conservative ideologue, and as Reagan prepared to leave office, the Republic was safe, although there was a major Wall Street meltdown during Reagan's last couple of years in office, but the overall effect on the economy was nothing like the 1929 crash, nor, it seems, what we are witnessing today. The economy was a bit staggered, but it remained standing. Reagan became the man other Republicans wanted to emulate, so much so, that some seemed to try to out-Reagan, Reagan. Enter George Bush, Sr. (A word history is further below)

Part Three later...

*** During the race for the Republican nomination, Reagan's major opponent, George Bush (Sr.), dubbed Reagan's economic ideas "voodoo economics," a term perpetuated by the media (and Democrats) pretty much throughout his presidency. For those too young, George Bush (Sr.) became Reagan's vice president.

### I don't think I'm being unfair here, as I've also noted that, while Democrats loved to "claim" that Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal policies ended the Depression, that wasn't really the case, for while a drop in unemployment from 24% to like 15% was certainly a vast improvement, it wasn't exactly heaven come to Earth. FDR's personality and his policies helped make Americans feel better (just as Reagan did), and that deserves note, but it was the start of World War Two, and then our later involvement in the war, that finally put the stake through the heart of the Great Depression. Interestingly, Reagan had been "a New Deal Democrat," and he was noted for frequently quoting FDR in some of his major speeches throughout his presidency.

Word History:
Edge-Noun-This word comes from the Indo European root "ak," which meant "sharp or pointed." This was passed down to the Germanic branch as "agjo," which meant "corner, edge." (You can see the relationship to "pointed.") This in turn gave Old English "ecg," which besides the meaning "corner, edge," also meant the "sharpened side of a sword or knife blade." Indeed, to this very day we say that a blade "has an edge to it." Later, English shifted to a spelling of "egg(e)," and then to the modern "edge." The English verb "egg," as in "to incite," or "to egg someone on," is related to "edge," and was borrowed from related Germanic language, Old Norse, with the idea being of "nudging" (perhaps with a sharpened blade? Hey, that would get me moving!) and the idea also came into English of "edging along," or "edging ever closer to something," with the idea of relatively slow movement toward something. The relatives of English still use the word (obviously in their own form), as German, for example, has "Ecke," meaning "corner," and Norwegian and Swedish have "egg," meaning "edge." Further, a form of the old Indo European root "ak" also passed into Latin and Greek (both related to English further down the "family tree"), and English later picked up words from these two languages; for example, "acrid," ("sharp smelling") "acute," ("sharp pain, or condition," not by the way like, "Look! What acute dog!") "alacrity," ("intense; that is, sharp liveliness, briskness").

Bailout Money, No Questions Asked

In listening to some folks on television, both Republicans and Democrats, it made me wonder what the hell has been going on in this country, and by that I mean, just in the last few months. As banks teetered, the Fed and the Bush Administration threw money at them....by the basket fulls!!! There were no "conservative" sayings like, "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" or "There's no free lunch!" or "The economy is fundamentally sound!" (Oops, my mistake. We did hear that last one from John McCain.) There were no questions asked. There were no demands for "a plan" to show how these institutions were going to "turn things around." There were no rules for how they used the money. When some in the media and Congress dared to ask if "executive compensation" would be limited in these basket cases...I mean banks, the answer came back from the Bush people that the government can't interfere in private businesses and their pay decisions. There was no talk of "socialism," although the government has taken a "stake" of substantial proportions in many of these companies. So the lesson seems to be, it's only socialism if middle and low income people benefit.

According to a couple of guys (a Republican and a Democrat) on a cable channel the other day (and this was BEFORE the latest bailout info), the government has now spent or made guarantees to banks in the amount of nearly seven and a half TRILLION dollars, also known as "bucks." (The amount is now over 8 TRILLION. Don't blink or it will go to 9 TRILLION!) These two guys noted that the amount now equals somewhere around $25,000 to $30,000 per American. Further, according to some folks on business shows, some banks have taken this money and paid dividends to their stockholders!!! Who owns most of the bank stocks? The wealthiest people in the country!!! So they took taxpayer money and transferred it to the wealthy!!! I dare you to go in and ask for a loan!

For years we've been told that the country can't afford health insurance for everyone. Undoubtedly millions have died or suffered in the interim for lack of proper medical care. Now, in just a few months, the government has spent or committed these vast amounts to help save banks (from themselves), and to "hopefully" get them to lend money. I really think we've been handed a bunch of horse dung. To me, all of this "holier than thou" malarkey about free markets is just that, a bunch of horse dung!!! With the government now so involved in saving these bastards, they should have just plain taken them over and started loaning out money!!! Forget this sham and hairsplitting they've been perpetrating about "free markets." Stop and think folks, they could just stop all of this throwing money at the banks, and just give each American $25,000. If that doesn't start the economy rolling, nothing will. I'd make restrictions, however. No money to people who make over like a half million!!! They got plenty from us, and they will get more when we spend our twenty-five grand. Further, freeze prices, otherwise, the damned oil companies and their wealthy investors will try to get the whole 25 grand from each of us!!! For those old enough to remember, Nixon, a Republican, implemented a price freeze. This time, anyone convicted of breaking the freeze gets tossed in jail, no exceptions!!! These are extraordinary times, and they require extraordinary measures. Enough of the give aways to the wealthy who have brought the country to the brink of ruin.

Related:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2008/09/are-we-trapped-by-crisis.html

Conservatism Unravels, Part One

For the life of me, I can't find it, but about a month ago, I saw a column somewhere with a title like, "Jefferson Wouldn't Recognize The Country." In case you haven't already guessed, it was written by some conservative ideologue, trying ever so desperately to transport us back in time to some "Disneyland" of the past. First, I hope to hell Jefferson wouldn't recognize the country today, since he's been dead for nearly two hundred years!!! That fact alone discredits the nonsense of the column in question.

If the recent economic chaos and turmoil isn't proof enough of the fallacy of "the good old days," nothing is. While Democrats aren't totally blameless in this mess, the fact is, Republicans latched onto this "free market" crap a long time ago. Actually, some never quite gave up on it from the time of The Great Depression, although many did come to support a number of "New Deal" programs. Many of the discredited economic ideas of pre-Depression America were much easier for some folks to hang on to, as long as those ideas were not put into practice. With progressive/liberal economic policies so dominant from the 1930s until they ran out of steam in the 1970s, the economic reactionaries could espouse whatever nonsense they wanted, because it had little chance of becoming policy.

Then came the 1970s, and "New Deal/Great Society liberalism" began to experience its own downfall, as it became a sort of non-dynamic philosophy, trying to adjust to the 1970s with ideas from the 1930s (See, I pick on others too, not just Republicans). President Jimmy Carter, a well meaning man, seemed to be in so far over his head, that even his hair didn't show above the rising tide. Enter Ronald Reagan...

Reagan bashed "government waste, fraud and abuse." He told Americans that "Government is NOT the solution to the problem; government IS the problem." At a time when Americans were demoralized and confused about government's role in their lives, this kind of talk found a mark. Liberals, terrified that Reagan was a totally conservative ideologue, never seemed to be able to adjust Reagan's easy going style, and his pragmatic approach to many things. Conservatives, mainly "social conservatives," on the other hand, never seemed to be able to separate Reagan's public comments from his actions. For instance, the "Religious Right" became a very powerful part of the Reagan coalition, but Reagan himself was not all that publicly religious, and was NOT even a regular churchgoer. Reagan's religious beliefs were essentially private. Nor did Reagan ever claim, to my recollection, that God told him what to do, including to run for president. Hmm, just a thought here, but maybe Harry Houdini could get Reagan to have a talk with Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, it is far too late (for the country) for Reagan to convince George W. Bush of anything. Further, Reagan, and perhaps more so his followers, talked about "family values," but the Reagan family was by no means the epitome of such talk, and I mean that in no disparaging way; the Reagans were REAL people, and had problems just as all REAL human beings do.

I'll have a "word history" or two in the next part.

A Few Words

Here are some more word histories:

Slit-This word is closely related to "slice," and likely also to "slat" and "slate." Written evidence seems to be lacking,@@@ but it is assumed that Old English had the verb "slittan," meaning "to slit," and the obviously related "slite" (long "i") was still in use in Scottish English*** until the early 20th Century. Old Saxon had "slitan," Old Norse (a North Germanic dialect) had "slita," Old High German had "slizan." These various forms all evolved from Old (Proto) Germanic "slitanan."

Bolt-Originally this was the word for a short arrow. Old Germanic had "bultas," and this was passed down to the various developing Germanic dialects, and in modern times, for example gave Danish "bolt," and German "Bolz." In Old English, it was the same as in modern English, "bolt." Over time, the notion of the short arrow came to be applied to metal objects for locks (and in German, for the "pins" that secure the hinges) and the short, thick screw like fasteners, as they resembled the short arrows of the word's original meaning. Further, the idea of the arrow traveling swiftly gave rise to the meaning of something being "quick as a bolt," and thus we have "bolt of lightening."

Star-A form of this word appears in all of the Germanic languages, and German has "Stern," Dutch "ster," Swedish "stjarna," Danish and Norwegian both have "stjerne." It was passed down to Old Germanic (which had "sterron/sternon") from Indo European "ster." Old English had "steorra," while Old Saxon had "sterro," Old Frisian "stera," Old High German "sterro," Old Norse "stjarna," and Gothic (another old Germanic language, now deceased) "stairno."

By the way, Greek, an Indo European language related to English further down the "family tree," also had two forms of the word passed down, "aster" and "astron." Of course, English borrowed "astonomy," a study of the stars, from Greek, as well as "asterisk". Further, Latin, another Indo European language, (I guess linguists would say Latin is a dead language, as it isn't spoken anymore, as such, but of course its offspring still flourish: Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.) also kept a form of the word from Indo European, this being "stella," and this is the source of the English word "stellar." One more little tidbit, "sterling" used originally in England for a type of coin, got the name from the fact it had a "star" on the coin.

@@@You have to remember that many of the common people could not read or write way back when, but their every day language persisted, confounding, just as today, those with "higher education."

***Note that this is a Scottish form of English, and NOT a form of Celtic or Scots Gaelic.

Dis & Dat

I thought I'd post the links to these two articles, as they are very pertinent to what's going on. The first deals with Secretary Paulson's change in plans for the "bailout" billions. The second article is about "Big Oil" and taxes, as well as the mortgage crisis.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27677764/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27599541/

American Express Wants Gov't Credit Card

And another big company wants Uncle Sam to help it; this time, credit card company American Express.

http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?StoryId={6146688B-A69F-4E87-BFF4-41C683FF2365}

News & Political Blogs

There is a difference between news and political blogs. I post links to some articles that are usually what I suppose we'd call "news;" that is, they have supposedly factual info, like statistics and such, and rather than my just repeating these things in my blog, I prefer that you have the ability to go right to the author's article and read the whole thing in context.

Blogs have changed much in the discourse on politics, since anyone can start a blog, and therefore, any and all points of view can have an advocate. The Internet has opened a whole new world of information to us, but on the downside, it has also opened us up to a great deal of misinformation. I'll split hairs here and say, there's a difference between misstating something by error, and misstating something with deliberate intent to smear someone.

Many of the popular blogs are written by professional media people, like columnists, and they certainly have many more resources at their disposal to gather info. My own political blogs, which is what I usually do, are generally a mixture of facts and opinion. When I'm not sure of particular facts, I usually write "to my recollection," or "as far as I know," or some such disclaimer.

Having said all of this, I just wonder why Sarah Palin, in one of her recent interviews, said that her record (presumably as governor) was distorted and it wouldn't have taken much to correct the record. Hmm, there are all sorts of venues to get your point of view across. As usual, Sarah didn't say exactly what it was she wanted to have corrected. From what I saw and heard, the interviewer missed the boat, as the next question should have been, "For instance, what is it that you feel was said against your record that you want to correct?" This was THE perfect place for Sarah Palin to tell us what she wants us to know, but she didn't do it. Maybe she needs a blog.

"Bush" Whacked Again!

This article should get your blood boiling, or boiling even more, as we now learn what the Bush Administration has done in silence to help bankers. If you're one of the "unrich," and you're struggling, their answer has always been, "The hell with you, you peasant!"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27651849/

Companies Hurt By Downturn

More fallout from the economic downturn:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27641634/

Hey, We're In The Insurance Business!

Word has come down that our (not so rich) Uncle Sam has pumped more money into insurance giant, AIG. Uncle Sam now owns part of the company, so taxpayers, get ready to become insurance agents! And they said Obama was a socialist!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27640655/

Economic Decline Accelerates

The economic situation in America has deteriorated further and at a much faster pace. General Motors just lost 2.5 billion and Ford lost 129 million. Ford has announced that it will cut more than 2200 white collar jobs in an effort to stay alive. GM has now issued a statement saying that it could run out of money in 2009. So what does any of this mean? Well, if our auto industry goes down for the count, this threatens not only the jobs of the people employed directly by the companies, but also the companies and jobs that are tied into the automakers; that is, companies that supply everything from metal to paper towels. Then there are the businesses around the various auto plants and offices that depend on customers from the auto companies; restaurants/diners, for example. I've heard estimates that more than two million people could be added to the unemployment rolls if Ford and GM go down.***

Like the banks and real estate markets, the automakers made some very bad choices. The free market philosophy says that companies or individuals make choices in business, and that they then either get to profit immensely, if they are a big success, or they fail and go out of business. That all sounds real nice on paper, and as an idealism, but in reality, people suffer the consequences, and in the case of the automakers, hundreds of thousands, if not a couple of million or more could suffer. Add to that those caught up in the real estate mess, including the banks, and the carnage is just incredible, AND it isn't over yet. In fact, no one seems to know if we are closer to the beginning of the overall downturn, in the middle, or nearing an end; although I don't hear many votes for it being near the end.

My point is, the Bush Administration let things go with little or no regulation. The "you're on your own" philosophy was their mantra. They did little to encourage automakers to make more fuel efficient vehicles, even though gasoline costs were escalating at an alarming rate over virtually the entire Bush presidency. Folks, this is pre 1930s; that is, pre-Depression philosophy. They didn't learn ANYTHING from history.

The public was asked to bailout private companies in the finance industry or, we were told, we faced The Great Depression, Part Two, as "they were too big to fail." (So much for the "fail" part of the free market system!) The government actually took a stake in several companies, and then the McCain campaign and "Joe the Plumber" had the nerve to call Obama a socialist!!! Folks, government ownership is like THE classic definition of socialism. Bush and his people have tried to put asterisks next to this socialism, saying like the government is only taking a thirty percent interest in the companies, and that it may only last for a few years, etc. etc. What it comes down to is, they're saying, "We're just a little bit pregnant." (Or maybe "We"re just a little bit socialist.") Now the automakers are essentially in the same predicament, and so is the public. Do we try to keep them afloat with tax money (actually borrowed money), or do we let them go down, and bring misery perhaps to millions, and even bring the whole economy into a state of collapse?

Further, in more bad news, unemployment surged to 6.5% in October, with another 240,000 people losing their jobs.

*** Mentioned a couple of times on CNBC, a cable business channel. (Word history follow)

Word History:
Seethe-This goes back to Indo European "seut," which meant "to boil." This was passed down to Germanic as "seuthanan/seuth," and the various Germanic dialects continued with a form of the word, including Old English "seothan," which also meant "to boil." This word remained the English word for "cook a liquid at high temperature" until French import "boil" began, ever so slowly, to replace it as the word for "to cook a liquid," but this was during the Middle Ages. In the 16th Century, it took on more of the meaning "to be very angry, agitated," and that's what we still use today. Interestingly, also at some point, it took on a secondary meaning of "soak," which still survives in the "seethe's" past participle "sodden," (German has [ge]sotten) although it is not commonly used in America. Germanic relatives of the English word include German "sied(en)," to boil, or be very angry," and Dutch "zied(en)." By the way, it seems that "seethe" also gave us "suds," that is, "foam that arises from a boiling liquid."

Read My Lipstick!

Below is the link to an article about how Republicans, that's right, Republicans, are attacking Sarah Palin, with reports by none other than Fox News, no bastion of liberalism, reporting, among other things, that she thought Africa was a country, not a continent. Palin's spokesperson has denied that the reported stories are true, but whether they are true or not, it shows how split the Republicans now are. What the reports do not say, however, is that it all comes back to John McCain...he picked her!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27568141/?GT1=43001

State Budgets Feeling The Pinch

Below is the link to an article about how some states, California especially, are struggling to balance their budgets.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27577250/

Jobless Benefits

Here's the link to an article about the surge in jobless benefits.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27572250/

Retailers Take A Big Hit

Below is the link to an article about just released info on retail sales for October, 2008. Most companies show, not only a drop, but a big drop. Saks suffered a major drop, and just think how bad it could get, now that Sarah Palin isn't shopping there (HaHa!!!). [For followers of the word histories, I'll have to owe you this one and the next]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27572431/

Auto Sales Plunge

I'll let the numbers speak for themselves:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27516318/

An Answer On Taxes?

Since I just recently did a blog about the lack of a good source to compare the two presidential candidates' tax cut proposals,*** I wanted to follow up, as I heard a good simplified version today (11/2) on MSNBC. The person giving the "assessment" (I couldn't resist that) was Janet Novack of none other than Forbes Magazine, hardly a left wing publication, and of course, Steve Forbes was himself a Republican candidate for president in past elections. Ms. Novack was asked to give the basics about the two candidates' tax proposals and how they relate to Americans in various income groups. First she said, Americans earning less than $100,000 a year will benefit most from Barack Obama's plan; for those making between $100,000 and $200,000 it will basically be a wash, and for those earning more than $250,000 a year, they will "definitely" (her word) benefit more from John McCain's proposal. I hope this ends the debate about who benefits most from the respective tax cut plans.

Word History:
First, when I did "fare" the other day, I accidentally left out a compound that is very appropriate and still very much in use; that being "thoroughfare," a "passage, or major road." (See ***link below)


And speaking of "appropriate," the word for this blog is... Tax-This word seems to have entered English in the 13th Century (some say more specifically circa 1290) and came from Old French "taxer," which meant "impose a tax or levy." This went back to Latin "taxare," which meant "to assess, appraise or estimate." The Latin word may have come from Greek "tassein," which meant "fix," with the notion being "to fix an amount," or it could have come from a form of the Latin word "tangere," which meant "touch." (If that's the case, the government is going to reach out and "touch" you!) Later, in the 1600s, the idea of putting a tax burden on people brought about the notion of something "taxing" a person's physical or mental faculties, as in, "The cross word puzzle 'taxed' my brain." A related word is "taxi," which is an abbreviated form of "taximeter cab," which meant a vehicle equipped with a meter to assess your fare; there's that word again! This came from London in about the 1890s from horse drawn cabs. "Taximeter" was borrowed from French "taximetre," and some say French got it from German "Taxameter," with German originally acquiring the basic word forms from Latin.

*** See: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2008/10/taxing-question.html