Christmas

The history of the word "Christmas:"

This word is a compound, the "Christ" part traces back to Indo European "ghrei," which meant "to rub." This gave Greek "khriein," which meant "to anoint; that is, usually rub with oil." This then produced the noun "khristos," meaning "the anointed (one)," which was the Greek translation of Hebrew "mashiah;" that is, "messiah." Latin borrowed the word as "Christus," and the word spread throughout Europe with the advance of Christianity; thus Old English "crist," and the "h" wasn't added until a few centuries later for "Christ." "The "mas" part is really "Mass," the religious service. The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain, although "some" believe it is from Indo European. It goes back to Latin "mittere," a verb meaning "to send, to dismiss." This verb's participle form was "missa," which produced a noun form "messa," meaning "a Eucharist service;" that is, "thanks giving service" (not the American holiday "Thanksgiving"). The notion behind the word and the religious service was "prayer sent; thus the congregation is dismissed." This was borrowed into Old English as "maesse," which later became "Mass." It was borrowed by other languages, too, and German has "Messe," and Dutch has both "mis" and "massa." Old English had "Cristes maesse," which did not commonly become one compound word until about the 1300s; thus we have "Christmas." The use of "Xmas" as an abbreviation for "Christmas" is from the Greek letter "Χ" from "Χριστός;" that is, the Greek alphabet form of "Christ," transliterated as "Christós."

So, to all visitors here: "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

Allied Leaders of World War Two/Roosevelt, Part Two

"Roosevelt & The New Deal"

Roosevelt's political skills, especially his public speaking, had developed tremendously, and his inconsistencies drove logical, technocratic Republican incumbent, Herbert Hoover, nuts. Roosevelt portrayed Hoover as a big spender, while at the same time saying how he would help people in need, which meant he would have to spend more money. Trade was a hot issue in those times, as it is today, and tariffs were used to control incoming goods from foreign lands. High tariffs were obviously used to lower imports, while lower tariffs were used to increase particular products. Two of Roosevelt's advisers wrote lines for speeches for him; one favoring high tariffs, one favoring low tariffs. After reading both, Roosevelt told the two men to sit down and "blend the two together." Roosevelt straddled issues like this, often taking a firm position, ON BOTH SIDES! With the country in deep distress, Roosevelt's inconsistencies didn't bother the electorate much, and he and Democrats won a huge victory in November 1932. Between election day and the day of Roosevelt's taking office,* banks began to fail in increasing numbers. Upon taking office, Roosevelt closed the banks, calling it a "bank holiday," in order to stop runs on the banks, and to buy time to develop and implement a plan to keep the country's financial system from going further off the rails. The usual free market complainers believed such intervention meant the end of civilization was near, but the country survived, so did most of the banks (and bankers), and the overwhelming number of Americans didn't wave hammer and sickle banners or join the Communist Party.

Roosevelt and Congress moved a large amount of legislation though to try to improve confidence and stabilize the downward slide. I have written various times about FDR, and here are some links to more; I hope you will check out both:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-deal-era-now-end.html

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/09/great-depression-part-twelve.html

Next... "Roosevelt As War Leader"

* In those times, presidents did not take office until March 4. By the next election, the date had been changed to January 20, as it still is today. The gap between election day and taking office had been necessary when the country was founded, as people and information traveled more slowly.

WORD HISTORY:
Thee-While no longer in general every day usage, this word is still encountered in old texts and hymns, and it is still used by quaint religious sects. English once used "thu," which later became "thou," for "you," in the singular nominative case (German still uses "du" and Frisian uses "do"). The accusative and dative case form of "thu" ("thou") was "the" (later "thee").^ This "seems" to go back to Indo European "te," also with the meaning "you," which then gave its Old Germanic offspring "thehk." This then gave Anglo-Saxon "the," which later became "thee." German has "dich," Low German "di," West Frisian "dy," Dutch (seems to be archaic or dialect now) "dij," Norwegian has "deg," Icelandic has "thér," Danish and Swedish have "dig."

^ Grammar in the old Germanic dialects/languages was very complex, and some other modern Germanic languages, including standard German, have retained much of the complexity; although luckily, English grammar has been simplified over the centuries. The terms above mean this: nominative case simply means when a word is used as the subject of a sentence or phrase; accusative and dative cases mean when a word is used as the object of a sentence or phrase. Examples: "You gave me the coat." "You" is the subject of the sentence and is thus in the nominative case. "Me" is the dative case form of "I," as it is the recipient of the action, "giving the coat." Languages change word forms to show differences in usage. "The coat" is in the accusative case, as it is the item being given. In a simple example like this, German is similar to English, but it retains the complexity, because the word for "the," in this case, "den," shows the "Mantel" (coat) is in the accusative case. "Mantel" is grammatically a masculine noun; thus, "der Mantel," but it changes to "den Mantel" in the accusative. Hey, I told you it is complex: "Du gabst mir den Mantel."

America Is A Poorer Place

The 2010 Census has confirmed what many Americans already know, often from firsthand experience; that is, Americans are poorer. Nearly one half of the nation is now living in poverty or with low income, this totaling to more than 146 million people, as the middle class shrinks further. I'm sure the conservative pundits will say something like, "Don't believe these numbers. The country is just great. We're number one! You're unpatriotic if you believe otherwise." Folks, this is what tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, wage and benefit cuts for other Americans, and program cuts for the poor has brought us. IT DOESN'T WORK! (Unless, of course, you're in the upper income strata.)

WORD HISTORY:
Low-This is the word generally used as an adjective. The verb form is from a different source (I'll try to remember to do it soon). This word goes back to Indo European "legh," with the general notion of "to lie/lay." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "legaz," which meant "lying flat, lying at or near the ground." While Old English had the related "licgan," the ancestor of "to lie (down or flat), recline," it wasn't until the 1100s that the related Old Norse "lagr" ("low") began general use in English as "lah," with a (more or less) long "a." This later became "lohe," before the modern spelling. Common in the other Germanic languages: German has the now little used "läge," Low German Saxon has "lääg," West Frisian "leech," the now almost extinct North Frisian has "leeg," Dutch has "laag,"Danish has "lav," Icelandic has "lágur," and Norwegian and Swedish have "låg."

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part Four

This was first published in late 2011, with some editing/additions 3/11/2016.


"Have We Lost Our Idealism?"

The "Great Depression" brought Americans together; unfortunately, it was often in a soup kitchen line, but it also made middle class Americans relate to those below them, rather than to those above them. Just a few years before, as Americans chased money and class status, they had related more to those above, as they too desired to get rich, and quickly. The economic collapse not only thwarted the hopes of many of achieving great wealth, it often reversed any economic gains made by some Americans. It also showed how ruthless and greedy some Americans really were. Many of the "haves" didn't reach some pinnacle, stop, and see who they could help. No, they kept going, crushing anyone standing in their way of accumulating even more money they couldn't spend in a hundred lifetimes or more.* By the late 1930s along came a movie that seemed to capture the essence of the times, "Mr Smith Goes To Washington." Instead of a pompous Donald Trump sitting as king, and issuing statements of  "You're fired," the movie appealed to the great idealism of Americans for fairness and the offering of help to others. It strongly condemned selfishness and greed, and the accompanying corruption. If you haven't seen this movie, or if you haven't seen it in a while, please watch it. It may just restore some of your faith in what this country can be. The movie uses the young to help bring down corruption, and today's Occupy Wall Street movements have many young people involved. They aren't perfect, but the task they face against entrenched interests and corruption is every bit as daunting as the interests and corrupt individuals who tried to trample Jimmy Stewart's character in the movie. Not all Americans have lost their idealism to make this a country and a world of more fairness. Similar movements are also present in many other parts of the world, and indeed, international cooperation will be needed to bring about the necessary changes to move the world forward, and not to let it slide back into the Dark Ages and feudalism, with the likes of Donald Trump living in a castle, with the rest of us groveling as his serfs. If that image scares you, it should!

* My progressive brethren don't always like to hear this, but Herbert Hoover was not one of those who spent his life trying to accumulate more wealth. Unlike many who "claim" religion, Hoover actually took his religious beliefs (he was a Quaker) seriously. His religion espoused that if you were successful, you were obligated to "give back" to society. Besides donating money to causes, Hoover entered public service, first in the Wilson administration, then in administering food programs in Europe to help prevent mass starvation of Europeans during and after World War One. While a firm opponent of communism, Hoover tried to keep people in the then developing Soviet Union from starving. I don't recall his exact words, but when asked about helping people in a Bolshevik country, he answered something to the effect that he didn't ask their political beliefs; they were human beings. There are not many of us who would say something like that, certainly not the likes of a Ted Cruz. Hoover then served as Secretary of Commerce in the Harding and Coolidge administrations before becoming president. This high achievement proved to be his undoing in terms of public admiration, as the Great Depression severely damaged his reputation. Of course, he made some unwise policy choices and he was too ideological on some issues, like opposing direct aid to states to help the unemployed and needy,* and even when he reversed course, his reputation had been so sullied, he got no credit for it. Later it was found that Hoover had given away much of his money during his presidency, and he did mobilize Americans to give record amounts to charities during those desperate times. He did NOT accept his salary as president. I may not agree with everything he did, but I give credit where I feel it is due. It's not good to "beat up on" those who may have opposed your ideas, but who then come to embrace those ideas. Welcome those who join you, for in that case, you have won the argument.

* Hoover's ideology certainly clung at times to "the old ways," and in the case with aid to the needy, his ideas were far too optimistic and idealistic, as the problem of hunger during the Great Depression was so huge, the traditional aid by the individual states and charities was overwhelmed. His refusal to admit to that fact seriously damaged his image, and indeed, gave the public a new image of the former humanitarian Hoover, as a man who would let people starve. It was an image that lasted for the rest of his life with many Americans, although at least a few softened their stance against him, over time. Hoover did finally admit to himself the need for direct federal aid to the needy, and signed it into law, but the damage to his reputation had been done.

WORD HISTORY:
Heat-Closely related to "hot," this word's ultimate origins are uncertain, but it could be a Germanic invention, or borrowing from a non-Indo European source, or, as some believe, a variation of Indo European. Old Germanic had "haitijo/haitija," which meant "heat." This gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "haetu/hait," which also meant "heat." By Middle English it had become "hete," before the modern spelling. Note: Old English also had "haetha," which meant "hot weather." The verb form, meaning "to heat, to make hot, to become hot," traces back to Old Germanic "haitijan(an)." This gave Anglo-Saxon "haetan," with the same meanings. German has the noun "Hitze," and the verb "heizen" (the "z" is pronounced as "ts," as in the ending of the word "hits"); some Low German dialects have the noun "Hett," and the verb "hette;" Dutch has the noun "hitte," and the verb "(ver)hitten," which is used in the figurative sense, "stir emotions" (Dutch and Frisian now use forms of "warm" to mean "to heat something"); Frisian has "hjittens," Icelandic has "hita," Danish has "hede" (often in compounds), Norwegian has "het/hete," and Swedish has the noun "hetta."

See more at the history of "hot:" http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/12/allied-leaders-of-world-war.html

Allied Leaders of World War Two/Roosevelt

"Franklin D. Roosevelt" Part One

Usually ranked in the top tier of American presidents, along with his distant cousin Teddy, and often third, behind Washington and Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt was born into a well to do family in New York. He attended both Harvard and Columbia, where he studied law. He married a distant cousin, Eleanor Roosevelt. He and his wife took an interest in politics, and he was elected to the NY State Senate, which began a long career in public office. He gained state prominence, and even national prominence, by tangling with the Democratic Party bosses in New York. President Woodrow Wilson named him Assistant Secretary of the Navy, a position he held throughout World War One, and a position which took him to England and France, where he gained experience in dealing with foreign representatives. In between, he ran an unsuccessful campaign for U.S. Senator from NY, as the Democratic machine he had so often opposed got even with him.

After the war a congressional investigation into a Navy sex scandal brought a denouncement from a Senate investigating committee.^ This all began to take shape as Roosevelt was about to become the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 1920. The election was a Republican landslide (Warren Harding was the Republican candidate), but the fact that Roosevelt was on the Democratic ticket showed how far he had come in political matters. By the summer after the election, Roosevelt came down with polio, which left his legs paralyzed. While this disease left him physically crippled for life, it also gave Roosevelt tremendous insight and empathy into the struggles of others, and not just against disease. He wore braces, and with the help of a cane, he learned to walk short distances, although most of the time he was confined to a wheelchair, but this aspect of his life remained out of public view.^^

In 1928, while the Democratic ticket went down to heavy defeat at the hands of Republican Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt was narrowly elected governor of New York. A year later what came to be known as "the Great Depression" began, and Roosevelt implemented progressive policies in New York to help those in distress. He ran for reelection and won by a wide margin in 1930.^^^ With the country mired in depression and the next presidential election on the horizon, with an increasingly unpopular Republican president in office, Roosevelt was seen as a major contender for the Democratic nomination.^^^^

^ Concisely, Navy personnel had been reportedly involved in gay sex (then usually illegal) in Newport, Rhode Island. Roosevelt approved an investigation into the allegations. The Navy's investigation used other Navy personnel as participants in sexual encounters to prove the allegations. The Navy was then accused of abusing these men by allowing them to participate in illegal sex.

^^ For the rest of his life, Roosevelt's affliction was known to the public, as were his attempts to overcome it, but his use of a wheelchair was kept from the public. In those times, for better or for worse, the press didn't get into such stories. The fact remains, however, that Roosevelt was elected as governor of NY and was elected an unprecedented four times as President of the United States. While true that the American public did not know of his physical limitations, it also shows, like him or not, that those limitations did not hinder him in service to his country.

^^^ In those times, many states had two year terms for governors, not the four year terms most common today.

^^^^ Roosevelt and Hoover were friends, both having served together in Woodrow Wilson's administration. Hoover's political affiliation was unknown after World War One, but many "assumed" him to be a Democrat. Hoover's very positive image in those times (post WW I) made him one of the best known and admired Americans in the world, and prompted Roosevelt to suggest it would be a good thing if Hoover were president, a remark later tossed back at him when he was running against incumbent Hoover, whose popularity had plunged in the time of the Great Depression.

WORD HISTORY:
Hot-"Hot" is another word of uncertain origin. It is closely related to "heat" (will be covered in next article). It "could" be a Germanic invention (forms of "hot" are widespread in the Germanic languages), but outside of Germanic, only Lithuanian and Latvian, both Baltic languages, have known forms of the word, and they both "could" have borrowed it from Germanic.^ Old Germanic had "haitaz," which meant "heat," and this gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "hat" (not pronounced like the modern word of that spelling meaning, "head covering," but more so with a long "a"), and with the same general meaning, although also with the additional reference to "temperament" and "fierceness." It wasn't long before it became "hot," which has endured for many centuries. German has "heiss" (rhymes with 'nice'),^^ Dutch and Low German have "heet," Frisian has "hjit," Danish has "hed" (often now used in various compounds), Icelandic has "heitur," Norwegian and Swedish have "het."

^ Of course it could have been the other way around. The Baltic languages of Prussian (now extinct), Lithuanian and Latvian had much contact with Germanic, so a borrowing in either direction is possible, although forms are so widespread in Germanic, it "seems" it came from Germanic. Even then, the question remains, how did Germanic get it? Some believe "hot" traces back to Indo European, but the problem is, why is it present in such a limited field, Germanic and Baltic, and not other Indo European languages? After all, heat sources were important to mankind's development, and it would seem logical that forms of the word would have been carried on by many other branches of Indo European, instead of being replaced by other words, but stranger things have happened, I suppose. The Baltic languages are Indo European, and related to English, but further down the family tree. Some linguists consider Lithuanian to be the closest living relative to original Indo European. Some more modern linguists feel the Baltic languages should be combined with Slavic as the "Balto-Slavic" branch of Indo European.

^^ As the High German dialects developed separately from the Low German dialects, which began to take place not all that long after Anglo-Saxon had taken root in England, the word was "heiz" in the high dialects, with the "z" being pronounced "ts," as in the ending of "hits." Over time, this became an "s" sound. Similar happened with the German form of the verb "(to) bite," which is "beiss(en)," almost like the animal, "bison."

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part 3

This was first published in late 2011.

Two things I should have included in the last segment: first, as I noted, the wealthy help drive up prices, and Republicans want to give them more tax cuts, which will help them to do more of the same. They don't need the money for living expenses, so they use the money to make more money. All of this Republican, "give the 'job creators' tax cuts" (they're afraid to use the term 'rich' or 'the wealthy'), and they'll create more jobs, is something we've heard for over thirty years.* What do we have? High unemployment and stagnant or falling incomes for many Americans, while the incomes for the wealthiest among us have seen marked gains. The money these folks have been pouring into "investments" (like I noted in "Part 2") create few, if any, jobs, unless you live in maybe, China. If it worked, we'd all be living in heaven come to earth; well, that is, if the wages and benefits paid were decent. Talk about a massive fraud perpetrated upon the American people! Second, many Democrats too, including the President, must look into the nearest mirror and ask themselves what they really believe, and what they are willing to fight for. The fanatics in the Republican Party (not everyone) espouse a bunch of nonsense, and they have done so for decades (bomb or go to war just about anyone who doesn't like us, give tax cuts to wealthy people who can't spend the money they have now, cut government to make it less and less viable, cut government programs that actually help average and low income people, destroy unions to help the wealthy make more money, etc), but like them or not, they stick by their nonsense, and they bully most wavering Republicans in Congress into going along with them. All of this anti-government talk from Republicans over the years makes me wonder if they are really trying to undo the results of the Civil War; after all, the Republican Party is now a southern-based political party, and that's where much of this anti-government nonsense really comes from.** It also dates from pre-Civil War times, if you get my drift. I keep telling you, they want to take us back to ______ (pick a century).

The votes to win elections do not reside in the relatively small percentage of wealthy Americans. The votes needed to win elections are largely in the broad middle income segment of the country. So how did the country get turned so topsy turvy, with immense reactionary elements having taken over? It's really very simple. The small upper income segment has gotten the large middle segment (and even some of the lower segment) to vote for their agenda; that is, to vote for candidates who will support what the wealthy want, like less regulation, tax cuts on investments and dividends, etc. This isn't rocket science folks. They and their GOP supporters have done everything to keep the country divided into selfish interest groups, or to encourage such. I see it all of the time. This stuff isn't about saving the country, it is about divide and conquer. My love of languages makes me a translator of ENGLISH, when it is contorted: "We don't want you to die, but we don't want any national health insurance, that's socialism. But we don't want you to die. Did we already say that?" TRANSLATION: "If you're sick or in pain, the hell with you! But we don't want you to die." Saying you don't want people to die is NOT the same as doing something to save lives. Talk is cheap. If Randy were the only doctor in a small town way out in a rural area, and you came in one night and said, "Doc, I'm really sick. I need help." So Doc Randy says, "Ya got insurance?" You answer, "No." Randy asks, "Ya got any money?" You answer, "Not really." So Doc Randy says, "I don't want you to die, but there's a hospital over that mountain and over the next mountain. Takes about 3 hours to get there, but I don't want you to die; after all, I'm doctor, and a Christian." Now that ought to save your life!

* The argument also goes, "Don't punish people for being successful with higher taxes." I think most Americans would welcome the opportunity to be "punished" for such success. Tax rates were much higher under Ronald Reagan, something curiously left out of most arguments made by today's rightwingers.

** In terms of the political parties, things have changed tremendously since the days of the Civil War. Back then, the Republican Party was new, and it had grown as an anti-slavery party, and as such, it was largely a northern-based party. The Democratic Party, even though national, had a solid core based in the south, and it was a pro-states' rights party, which meant many supported slavery. Interestingly too, the most conservative elements of the country remained in the Democratic Party until the last few decades, when they shifted to the Republicans, where they still remain (Phil Gramm and Rick Perry, for instance, are both former Democrats, and of course, Ronald Reagan was a former Democrat, but he supported much of the New Deal back then). On the other hand, some of the most progressive elements of the country were in the Republican Party, but that began to change most visibly after Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive Republican, left office, although it took decades to complete. In fact, when I was a kid, the battles within the Republican Party were between the moderate and progressive "Rockefeller wing," as it was often termed, and the conservative wing, which eventually was able to nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964, bringing the Republicans closer to today's very conservative party.

WORD HISTORY:
Stock-While this word has quite a number of specific meanings (too many to cover here), they trace back to the same Old Germanic root, but the origins beyond Germanic are uncertain. Old Germanic had "stukkaz," which meant "tree trunk." This gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "stocc," which meant "tree trunk," but also "log, stump, stake." It also developed the meaning "abode," perhaps from the wood (tree trunk) used to construct such. Further development became "the floor (story) of a house or building," a meaning seemingly passed from English to German, since one of the meanings of German "Stock" is, "a floor above ground level." This "could" come from the idea of branches (floors/stories) from the tree trunk. This also came to be used in ancestry and family meanings, "They come from Irish stock," and "family tree" is a term still used in genealogy today. "Meat stock" seems to also come from the notion of a "base" (back to the tree trunk) from which soup, stews, or gravies are made; thus too, "stock" in the sense of "supplies," retains that notion, "We're going to stock up on canned goods" (goods that can form the basis of a meal), as does the business sense, "Let me see if we have that item in stock." "Stock" in a corporation also carries that same general notion, "Money provided as a basis to grow a company." Old English "stocc" then became "stok," before the modern spelling. The verb form seems to have developed in the 1500s/1600s. "Stocky" developed from the idea of a person "built as solidly as a tree trunk." Most of the other Germanic languages have forms of the word, although meanings vary, and some are used more in modern compounds, rather than as stand alone words. I could not find forms of the word in Frisian and Icelandic, although both once had forms, but I cannot say with certainty they don't have them in the modern languages, as they could be little used. German and Low German have "Stock," Dutch has "stok," Norwegian has "stokk," Danish has "stok," and Swedish has "stock."

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part 2

This article was first published in late 2011.

From North Africa stretching into the Middle East, protest movements have developed to change the societies in the various nations in these regions. Many of the countries have been ruled by autocratic dynasties or dictators, and much of the wealth has been concentrated in the upper strata of those societies. The protest movements seem not only to want to change the governing style of their nations, but to also make their nations fairer in terms of income distribution. Underlying everything is the desire to have more control of how they are governed. "Freedom" in and of itself does NOT guarantee success, and we will have to see how events develop in these countries over time. Remember, being able to vote in free elections is great, but it does not mean a substantial part of the voting public won't vote for religious radicals, or some other dictator to replace the one they have just ousted. Freedom also does not guarantee economic success. The United States and some other parts of the world are still mired in an economic mess created by too little government regulation, not too much. The prevailing economic/political philosophy of the last thirty some years has been "get government out of the way; government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS the problem; turn people loose to do whatever they want." You are, and have been, witnessing the result of that philosophy.

Part of this "less government" philosophy has been about less power in the federal government, with the desire to see power shifted to the individual states. The overall discussion is worthy, but let's not forget, the Civil War was fought over states' rights, more specifically in those times, a desire to permit slavery to continue. You know, slavery...the owning of one human being by another. Is this God's will? Is this Christian? Is this Judeo-Christian? Is this religious? One of the major points of my series, "The German Question," was, "You can't have a true nation without a strong national government." Again, how strong that government should be is a valid question, but some of the notions proposed by people like nutty Ron Paul is to essentially dismantle the federal government. On the other hand, I also tried to show in that series how a super strong national government (the Nazi era) can be disastrous.

America is moving more and more toward a society totally dominated by the wealthy, a plutocracy. They aren't elected, but they have such huge sums of money, they can convince Eskimos to by ice cream cones. As president, Obama has done little to really take them on. The little he did, or tried to do, brought an immense backlash from the wealthy reactionaries of this country, and their minions in the GOP. If you're going to get lambasted, you may as well go for the whole hog, and not just the curly little tail. He chose not to do that. Instead, he let a discredited (momentarily) group get back up off the floor, and he's been paying the price, and so has the country, ever since.

Make no mistake about it, the wealthy interests run the country. Look at profits. Many companies are doing better than EVER! And we just dodged a depression, and we have yet to really climb out of a damaging recession. Why? Look at prices. For a country with 9% unemployment,* prices are way above what is healthy for the country, but they are sure healthy for rich company owners and investors. They are doing just fine. The price of most things are really controlled by the wealthy. They buy stock and DEMAND that those companies they've invested in make more money, so they'll make more money. They buy futures in things like oil and gasoline, driving up prices, making money there, and forcing prices on EVERYTHING, products and services, higher. They sell products overseas, EVEN OIL AND GASOLINE,** to make big bucks, but prices here rise further due to what they can then claim are "tight markets." The oil companies tell us all the time how they employ people, but they don't say that its the high prices that are strangling many Americans who are paying for this. They put money into some pockets with one hand, and take money out of those same pockets with the other hand. Don't be fooled by all of the nonsense talk and ad campaigns (well, I just said "nonsense talk"). Food prices have always had price swings, but now, with money managing companies and hedge funds, 24/7 monitoring of prices minute by minute, the wealthy can cause prices on certain items to soar almost instantaneously. Once they make a bundle, they get out, and move on to the next victim, like the scavengers many of them are. And they are feeding off of YOU!***

If you consider yourself a Republican, you'd better head to the nearest mirror, look into that mirror, and ask yourself some VERY serious questions. Taking your party back from some of these bizarre nutcases will help the country, trust me.

* I know unemployment just fell to 8.6%, but unless things really pick up, and I seriously doubt that will happen quickly, the rate will go back up, probably to about 8.8%. Of course that's just my guess, but we'll see.

** If you are aware of the big argument over the proposed oil pipeline from Canada through much of the central U.S., no matter what your basic beliefs on the issue, this oil is destined for sale in China, not in the U.S. Of course, the big boys are saying (with some truth) it will help employ some Americans.

*** Weather can certainly affect food prices. This year, some parts of the country had too much rain, while other parts had some of the worst drought conditions on record. Okay, we get it, but with the scenario I described above, prices soar on many items, way above what once happened, and the on top of that, some companies then sell "supposedly scare products" overseas!!! Why? Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!

WORD HISTORY:
Ride-This word "seems" to go back to a possible Indo European "reidh," which meant "to ride, to travel," but please note, besides Germanic, there are connections to Celtic (also with connotations of travel/transport), another branch of Indo European, but that is it, and that is a bit odd for such an important word. Celtic and Germanic had lots of contact in ancient times, and one could have borrowed a form of the word from a non-Indo European source, with the other then borrowing it from them. Of course, both could have borrowed it separately from the same source. What ever the case, Old Germanic had "ridan(an)," with the meaning "to move forward, to travel." This gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "ridan," meaning "to ride," and this later became "riden," before the modern spelling. Forms are common in the other Germanic languages, except modern Frisian, although Old Frisian had "rida," which has now died out. German has "reiten," Low German Saxon has "rieden," other Low German dialects have "riede," Dutch has "rijden" Icelandic has "ríða," Swedish has "rida," Danish has "ride," and Norwegian has "ri."