I Hope You'll Check Out This Book

I hope you'll all check out this book, written by my cousin, the daughter of my dad's sister.

http://www.amazon.com/Make-Break-Lori-Whitwam/dp/1937976513/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346339980&sr=1-1&keywords=make+or+break

WORD HISTORY:
Book-This word goes back to Indo European "bheghos/bhaghos," which meant "beech (tree)." This then gave its Old Germanic offspring "boks," with the same meaning, but also the extended "beechwood, where things are written/carved." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "boc," which meant "written document, written record." Later the idea of fastening records or written things together produced the notion of  "book as a collection of writings" we are still familiar with today. The verb was derived from the noun and was part of Old English too. Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "Buch," Low German Saxon has "Book," West Frisian has "boek," Dutch has "boek," Norwegian and Swedish have "bok," Danish has "bog,"  and Icelandic has "bók."

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Four

Additional note relating to "Part Three": With Catholic Al Smith as the Democratic candidate, Republican Herbert Hoover won some states of the "old Confederacy" (Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Texas) and some so called "border states" (West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri). This is something I should have mentioned.

The Great Depression brought big change to America and to American politics. From the Civil War era to the election in 1932 (the Great Depression), the country was essentially Republican-leaning. That doesn't mean Democrats didn't win elections between the Civil War and the Great Depression, as Grover Cleveland won two non-consecutive terms* and Woodrow Wilson served two terms, and the make up of Congress switched hands several times.** Likewise, while the country was Democratic-leaning from Franklin Roosevelt's election in 1932 until about 1980, that doesn't mean Republicans could not win, especially the presidency, where Dwight Eisenhower served two terms and Richard Nixon and his successor, Gerald Ford, served two terms (combined). The difference between the Democratic-leaning era and the former Republican-leaning era was in the control of Congress, as Republicans had great difficulty beginning with the 1932 election.***

The thing to remember is, while Democrats controlled Congress much of the time, the two parties each still had a large left wing and a large right wing, forcing compromise within their own ranks, not to mention in Congress, or with the President. That doesn't mean there weren't some hot battles between Republicans and Democrats, or perhaps more especially within each party. I'll cover these soon.

There are a good many facts and figures in this article, so I'll leave it here until "Part Five."

* Grover Cleveland was the only president to win two non consecutive terms.

** Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1875-1881, again from 1883-1889, again from 1891-1895 and 1911-1917. The 1930 midterm election actually had the Republicans keep control of the House by a narrow margin, but in those days, Congress did not meet as regularly as today, and by the time the House convened, Democrats had won enough special elections to fill vacancies caused by the death of several House members to take control. Just to keep things in perspective, remember, congressional elections took place in the fall of a year, but the new Congress did not convene until the next year. As to the Senate, Democrats controlled the Senate from 1879-1881, 1893-1895, and 1913-1919. Note that from the beginning of the republic until 1913, senators were chosen by state legislatures, not by a direct vote of the people. The 17th Amendment made popular election of senators the law.

*** Republicans only controlled the House in 1947-1949 and 1953-1955, it was not until the House convened in 1995 that Republicans again had a majority. The situation in the Senate was similar, as Republicans controlled the upper house in 1947-1949 and at times during 1953-1955. During that last, the 1952 election gave the Republicans a majority, but deaths and resignations of some members caused the majority to wobble back and forth between the two parties.

WORD HISTORY:
House- It may surprise you to learn that the ultimate origins of this common and important word are uncertain. Some have made a pretty good case that it is related to "hide;" that is, "skin," in English now usually "skin of an animal," although I'm sure all of us heard from one parent or another, "I'm going to tan your hide!" It was the main general English word for "skin" long ago, before "skin" replaced it, and it remains such in some other Germanic languages to this day. Animal hides were commonly used to provide clothing and to cover dwellings long ago, and that might just be the source of "house," but I'm not totally sold, so I'll take up with its Old Germanic form "husan," which meant "house, dwelling," which then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hus," with the same meaning. This later became "hous," before the modern version. The verb was derived from the noun. Forms are common throughout the other Germanic languages: German has "Haus," Low German Saxon has "Huus," West Frisian has "hús," Dutch has "huis," Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish have "hus," and Icelandic has "hús."

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Three

 Political parties developed to help elect people with the same or similar ideas. That may seem to be simple enough, but in reality, things are far more complicated. If you have one issue, like slavery, things are easily decided; you are either for it or against it. The Republican Party became a national party in the 1850s because of its opposition to slavery; thus, many anti-slavery Americans joined, or voted for, the Republican candidates. While there certainly were other issues around, slavery had become the most hotly contested and divisive in the nation. The issue was so potent, when Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States, southern pro-slavery states decided to secede from the United States, an action that triggered the Civil War.

In my life time, there have been many hot-button issues, including, but certainly not limited to, the still lingering affects of slavery; that is, race and civil rights for Black Americans, but also abortion, women's rights, gay rights, immigration, and wars, especially the divisive late 1960s and early 1970s over the Vietnam War and the divisiveness over the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath beginning in 2003. From the time before the Civil War, the South had been a major element of the Democratic Party. After the war, white southerners were not about to support the Republican Party, the party of the anti-slavery movement and the subsequent defeat of the Confederacy. Southerners remained staunch Democrats. In contrast, Black Americans voted Republican, pretty much to the last man, and back then it was "man," because women could not vote.

As America grew and businessmen prospered (again, business was largely the province of men), the issues of economic fairness and business practices came much into question. A populist progressive movement grew among Americans, including many small farmers. When Republican Teddy Roosevelt came to office,* these issues were just waiting for some dynamic leader to promote them. Roosevelt got legislation passed on a variety of matters, including food safety, conservation, and the dismantling of huge corporations. For the last, he earned the title "the Trust Buster." The Republican coalition of those times consisted of most unions (although they were 'relatively' weak in those times), farmers, Black Americans, and many immigrants, while retaining the support of many conservative business people.** All of this began to change when Roosevelt left office and business people made a go of moving the Republican Party toward their side. Business, especially big business, played an increasingly important role in Republican politics. Teddy Roosevelt's run for president in 1912 as a third party candidate (the progressive "Bull Moose Party"***) and with the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson, the conservative, business wing of the Republican Party asserted itself. Under conservative Republican rule in the 1920s (elections of 1920 and 1924), the country "seemed" to be "roaring" ahead, but underneath, many Americans struggled just to stay in place. In 1928, the election again went Republican, but Democrats actually carried some urban areas, a preview of what was to become commonplace.**** Just seven months after taking office, Republican President Herbert Hoover faced the biggest economic challenge of the nation's history, as the entire system seemed to be coming unglued.

The Great Depression changed the political landscape as nothing had since the Civil War and by 1932, voters had retired Hoover from office by a substantial margin. By 1936 labor unions and Black Americans had largely gone over to the Democratic Party, where most have remained since, albeit somewhat shakily at times. The South remained staunchly conservative, but Democratic,***** and Catholic and Jewish ethnic neighborhoods in cities became Democratic strongholds.****** Franklin D. Roosevelt led a formidable Democratic Party coalition from the mid 1930s until his death in April 1945. It was an interesting coalition, too, as it held some strange bedfellows; for instance, white southerners and blacks, fundamentalist Protestants (mainly in the South) and urban Roman Catholic and Jewish voters (mainly in the North). When hatred and silly divisiveness don't prevail, people can get along for a common interest. (Although not all was exactly heaven, see note *****)

More in "Part Four"

* Theodore Roosevelt, as Vice President, succeeded the assassinated President William McKinley, and then later was elected in his own right in 1904.

** Democrats were still often tagged by some Americans as "Confederates," a legacy of the Civil War, but it was an association not sought by conservative business people. Further, the American westward expansion and the profits derived from it had largely been overseen (and helped) by Republican administrations. Further, Republicans favored high protective tariffs and the "gold standard," both generally supported by businessmen, and William Jennings Bryan, a  Democratic orator and often candidate, scared the hell out of many businessmen (which is another story). Businessmen may not have always agreed with Roosevelt, but they still saw him as less of a threat to their own self interest. Plus, many business people tend to think and look long term. They knew the "Trust Buster" wasn't going to be around forever. 

*** Although highly admired, even Teddy Roosevelt could not win as a third party candidate, which shows how difficult it is to compete in national American politics. Notice, I said "difficult," not "impossible." Roosevelt carried only six states and garnered only slightly more than 27% of the popular vote. But if you think that's bad, incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft carried only two states and received little more than 23% of the popular vote!

**** The Democratic candidate was Al Smith, a Roman Catholic, who also favored the repeal of Prohibition; that is, the law put in place by the 18th Amendment, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages in America. No doubt some Republican attacks on Smith's religion led many urban voters, where many Catholics lived, to vote Democratic, a voting pattern they maintained for quite some time. Anti-Catholic Republican operatives (and some Ku Klux Klan members) kept rumors circulating that Smith would be beholden only to the Pope, who was waiting for Smith's election to open a sort of "new Vatican" in Washington. Now, on the other side, undoubtedly some Protestant voters chose Hoover, the Republican candidate and Protestant (Quaker), simply because of religion. What the balance was is not easily deciphered, as Smith was undoubtedly destined to lose in the midst of what "seemed" like "Republican prosperity."  

***** With southern white voters reliably in the Democratic column, the addition of black voters only strengthened the Democratic hold on the South, as in those times, blacks were heavily concentrated in the southern states, although eventually, the very right for blacks to vote was often prohibited by gimmicks, if not outright intimidation (and that was by Democrats!). While conservative in many things, economic populism had not left the South untouched. Huey Long, a populist Democratic governor and then U.S. senator from Louisiana, had a considerable following in the South. Long's "Share Our Wealth" ideas of limiting large fortunes, guaranteeing veterans pensions, income supports for the elderly, and free education to all (to try to even out opportunities), was highly popular in parts of the South and elsewhere, and he was considered a possible (and formidable) challenger for the 1936 election as a progressive third party candidate. Long was assassinated in Baton Rouge in 1935 by the son-in-law of a political opponent.

****** Immigration patterns from certain parts of Europe had brought many Catholics and Jews to the United  States prior to the Great Depression. For instance, the Russian Revolution had brought many Jews, Ukrainians, and Poles to the U.S. The Russian Empire under the Tsar had contained a substantial part of Polish territory, which then became part of a reborn Poland. The western Ukraine, something of a battleground during World War One, remained such after the war, as Poland battled the new Soviet Union there (from 1919 until 1921). War and revolution left many people in the overall region in despair. Ukrainians in that general western region tended to be Ukrainian Catholic, not Eastern Orthodox. Poles were overwhelmingly Roman Catholic.

WORD HISTORY:
Pure-This word goes back to Indo European "pu," which had the notion of "to clean completely, to cleanse." This gave its Latin offspring "purus," with the same general meaning, but also, by extension, "unmixed," and later also, "untouched, chaste." French, a Latin-based language, inherited a form of the word as "pur," and English borrowed the word as "pur," seemingly about 1300, give or take a few years. The ending "e" was added for developing English spelling rules, which meant the "u" was long.

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Two

For those who missed "Part One" or who need a refresher:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/07/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part.html

Unlike in most other democratic nations, the American governmental system has a President of the United States serving as both the "head of state" and as "head of the government." As "head of state" the President conducts foreign policy, including meeting with leaders of other countries, negotiating agreements with other countries,* and signing agreements or formal treaties. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and as such, he can appoint or dismiss high-level military personnel.**

Now, with treaties, the President can negotiate and conclude such agreements, BUT treaties must pass the U.S. Senate by a two-thirds margin to be ratified, so the President's power is not absolute. In a major defeat, President Woodrow Wilson failed to get Senate ratification for the Versailles (Peace) Treaty, with its section for the establishment of the League of Nations after World War One. So even a peace treaty to end a major war is not a certainty. The thing is, a President must be willing to work with members of the Senate to try to gain ratification and that can mean coalition building.

Also unlike in many other democracies, American political figures themselves at all levels are much more in view than party platforms. In fact, while party platforms are contested within the respective parties by various factions, the platforms themselves rarely take center stage in the actual political campaign. No, Americans tend to vote on the individuals involved, rather than the political parties; that is, at least in theory.*** The focus on the candidates and not the parties has caused consternation among some, who feel that "personality" dominates more than substance. During my life I've heard many a person say, "I wish the President (or Governor, or Mayor) would just do what he wants and forget about the polls." That all sounds nice, but it is naive, as American voters do not like to be ignored. During the early years of the Great Depression, admittedly a stressful time, President Herbert Hoover had a tin ear for public opinion. Hoover was not reelected.

Until the last few decades, party affiliation did not necessarily tell us much about a candidate's overall political views, and it still doesn't, especially more where Democrats are concerned. Up until fairly recently, there were Democrats in Congress who often voted with Republicans and Republicans who often voted with Democrats. While I sort of liked those days, the notion they would last was also naive, as much more ideological forces came into play, with the Republican Party becoming more of the true conservative coalition party of the country, including both traditional conservatives on money matters and social ideas, but also much more hard line, "fire breathing" right-wingers and religious fundamentalists. Earlier, generally speaking, Democrats had fashioned a coalition of working class people, organized labor, minorities (especially Black Americans and many non-Cuban Latinos, as voters of Cuban heritage tended to be more Republican), many women's groups, and liberal middle class and liberal wealthy Americans. During the late 1960s and early 1970s the Democratic Party began to have difficulty convincing some Americans about their commitment to the military defense of the country (fairly or unfairly), as anti-war groups (primarily Vietnam War, but even more general) became a highly visible part of the Democratic coalition. Republicans quickly promoted themselves as the party of national defense. Keep in mind, there were always a certain number of independent or swing voters, even within some of the various voter groups noted above.

If you are interested in the subject of political systems, try your local library. A good source, which I used to some degree for the first two parts of this series, is, "The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems," published by Oxford University Press, 2009.

More in "Part Three"   

* Presidents don't typically sit down and negotiate every detail of an agreement or treaty, but a President will have the final say on all of the provisions in such treaties. Many American treaties for the first century or more had to do with treaties with various American Indian tribes. Woodrow Wilson went to Europe after World War One to try to help fashion a treaty that would maintain peace. Franklin D. Roosevelt met with other Allied leaders during World War Two, even discussing many details of agreements for the postwar world; still, many of the actual details had been worked out earlier or even during these conferences by other officials.

** Of course one of the most famous presidential interventions came when Harry Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War.

*** Straight ticket voting; that is, voting for all candidates from one party, was once very common. Today, voters "tend" to cross back and forth on the ballot, like voting for a President from one party, a senator from the same party, but a congressperson from the other party. Further down the ballot, local offices probably get even more back and forth voting than the state or national offices, as political ideology is not usually seen as being quite as important in these offices. It would be tedious work, coupled with a lot of guessing, but it would be interesting to see how the nation fared during times of "one party" domination; by that I mean, times when the President, and both houses of Congress were substantially controlled by one party. I say "substantially," because while votes in the House of Representatives are based upon a majority vote, the Senate is more complex, and it often requires at least 60 votes (out of the present 100 members) to pass a bill, and, as noted above, a two-thirds affirmative vote is required to ratify a treaty. A two-thirds majority vote in BOTH houses of Congress is required to override a presidential veto of legislation, but a veto of legislation in one party domination, in theory, would not be likely. I mention this, as "one party" domination would put the U.S. closer to how other democratic nations operate, as indicated in "Part One." In more recent U.S. history, Americans have seemed to send mixed signals; electing a President from one party, but either putting Congress in control of the opposition party, or making it so evenly divided (especially the Senate) that getting legislation through is difficult, if not at times, impossible. While congressional Republicans in both houses have "tended" to be more unified than their Democratic opponents, still, getting at least 60 Americans to agree what time it is can be very difficult.  

WORD HISTORY:
System-This word is actually a compound. It was borrowed into English in the early 1600s, probably from French "systeme," or directly from Latin "systema." Latin had borrowed it from Greek "systema." It goes back to Indo European "syn," which had the notion of "together, united," and Indo European "sta/steh," which meant "to stand;" thus, "stand together, stand united," which is what a "system" is; parts united that make something work or function.

R.I.P. Phyllis Diller

I just wanted to say "goodbye" to one of the great people of comedy in my life, Phyllis Diller. She was a real pioneer for women in comedy, too, since nightclub acts by women were not really much accepted by the public years ago. Phyllis Diller changed all of that, and (addressed to conservatives) the world didn't end because of it; in fact, it became a better place, a funnier place. Her comedy act consisted mainly of making fun of herself, especially her housekeeping, her cooking and her "body." Her distinctive laugh became well known to Americans and she became something of a regular guest on talk and variety shows. Her close friendship with Bob Hope got her into several movies with Hope in the 1960s. She had so many great one liners, I can't recall them, at least in their entirety, but one about her cooking has stayed with me for probably 40 years now. It went something like this, "My cooking is so bad, the flies chipped in and fixed the screen on the door." She wore her hair and wigs in all sorts of wild styles, and when miniskirts became the rage in the mid to late 1960s, she wore them just to highlight her knobby knees. She was married a couple of times, but one of the enduring questions people had for some time was about "Fang," the name she used for her husband in her act. I can't recall the exact quote, but she eventually answered the much asked question with a quip of, "Fang is a permanent part of my act, my real husbands were just temporary." That may not be exact, but you get the drift.

So farewell to one of the comedy greats, Phyllis Diller. She lived a long life of 95 years; a life that produced so much laughter for the rest of us.

WORD HISTORY:
Laugh-This word goes back to Indo European "khleg/khlek," which had the notion of "make vocal noises besides speech." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "hlakhjanan," which meant "to laugh." This gave Old English a variety of dialectal forms like, "hlihhan," "hlehhan," which meant "to laugh," or "to laugh at." The "h" sound apparently was so prominent and guttural, it came to be spelled "gh," which was once pronounced, much like the closely related German "ch." The "ch" in many German words was often once a "hh," just like in some English words. Over time the sound changed in English to an "f" or "ff," but not the spelling, which left many people trying to learn English a bit perplexed. Later the spelling became "laughen," before the modern version. The noun form was derived from the verb. Common in the other Germanic languages: German, Low German Saxon and Dutch have "lachen," West Frisian has "laitsje," Danish and Norwegian have the much contracted "le," Icelandic has "hlaeje," and Swedish has "leende" (which means "to smile"). 

Dangers For Both On Medicare, Part Two

In the 1960s when Medicare came into existence, opponents virtually screamed "the end of civilization is near." All of this because elderly people would receive government supported health care. Now, all of these years later, a person 65 is not really seen as elderly anymore, as life expectancy has increased because of improved medical treatments, and at least in part, because of the delivery of those improved treatments to older Americans by Medicare. To some, Medicare's success has added to its problems. By helping people live longer, more people remain on Medicare (and Social Security) for a longer period of time. To hear some critics, maybe we all should just die by 65 to save them the worry of having to deal with the problem, especially when the modern critics are funded by super wealthy interests who are more concerned with making more money, than saving people's lives. Any volunteers to die by 65 out there? Don't everyone shout at once now! Ah, what, you've all got laryngitis? Well, this isn't working out too well, so let's try this: how about you folks over 65? Any volunteers to kick the bucket... I mean, pass on, as soon as possible to keep from bothering the money makers? Let's face it folks, this is not realistic, and I hope you make sure your tootsies touch Mother Earth every day. On the other hand, I have read about some who want certain procedures or care eliminated.or curtailed, especially for the terminally ill, or for people who are much advanced in years, with the idea that we can't afford such things. The interesting thing is, some of the advocates for this seem to be some of the very ones who screamed about "death panels" when end of life counseling was proposed. Okay, let's limit the things you say you want, but who will decide who gets what treatment? Who will tell Ms. Daisy, an 88 year old, she can't have such and such a treatment to ease pain  or help help her walk better? Call them "death panels" or whatever you want, someone will have to make those decisions. And guess what else, there won't be total freedom, since someone will tell us the answers! You want total freedom? Go far away from EVERYONE, all by yourself; then you can have total freedom. Add just one person, and your total freedom stops at that other person's nose.

Of course, when it suited their purpose, these same opponents used the term "death panels" to scare people into opposing President Obama's health care reforms. Yes, the President's plan has flaws, just like anything involving human beings. Let's face it, we're imperfect, or things just don't go the way we intend for them to go all the time. My guess is, when humans crawled out of caves and made huts for living, someone said, "Yikes, huts catch on fire or let in the elements. I told you we should stay in our natural habitat." I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm damned glad most humans persisted over the millenniums and that we have graduated to the homes we have today, especially with air conditioning, 'cause its been a hot summer!

Now more seriously, in Part One I said the Republicans can't win the current debate on Medicare the way it is framed. Yes, there are problems with Medicare, but most Americans want the problems dealt with, and they don't want their family or friends to die early or suffer needlessly or go totally broke on medical care because some politicians are too ideologically driven to work on those problems, or others are too worried about making more money they couldn't spend in a hundred or more life times. On the other side of this, people must recognize and acknowledge that there are problems, and that those problems are not going to go away with just a little dab of plaster here and a touch up paint job there. There are structural problems. These structural problems are the already noted increase in the age of the population, as well as aspects of the health care system that are increasingly outdated. While I wasn't all that crazy about the final Obamacare package, I also noted back then that it was a start. Like it, not like it, the President brought a discussion to the fore about a VERY complex issue that cannot be fixed in the blink of an eye. And there will be problems with implementing the new health care law. We damned humans just can't do anything right! All of this ties together though; the health care law, Medicare, how to deliver health care to Americans, how to control costs. And the idea that we can have a nation without laws is nonsense. The debate over what those laws should be is certainly valid, but there must be laws, and we must have revenues to pay for things we want, not just health care.

The Republicans now support a voucher system for Medicare, that, if passed, would go into effect in ten years. Under this system, seniors would receive a specified amount to "help them buy" private medical insurance. The key here is "private" insurance. Remember, if you own an insurance company, you will need to MAKE money, a profit. The problem becomes, what if good insurance costs more than the voucher? The answer is, you'll have to make up the difference. Further, you'll have to be astute enough to know which plan is best for you. In other words, you're on your own and good luck! This plan, based so much upon the private sector for such an important part of our lives, makes the Republicans highly vulnerable, in my opinion, and that makes Paul Ryan a big gamble. Further, the Republican plan would supposedly give American seniors the "option" to remain in "traditional" Medicare. The "fear," correctly or incorrectly, mainly by Democrats, is that basically healthy well off seniors will be able to buy the insurance they need, leaving poorer or less healthy seniors in a withering Medicare program. Unfortunately to me, this all comes back to "we're not a country, we're a group of individuals only interested in our own personal lives. I've got mine, the hell with you! Oh....unless of course there's a war, and you just better support it and be patriotic, because we'll bomb just about any country that doesn't like us. And we LOVE the term 'boots on the ground,' it sounds so John Wayne-like.' "

Now, the Democrats have potential problems too. If they make the defeat of the Republicans the only issue about Medicare, they stand to face a backlash when changes to the program in fact need to be made, which will be sooner, rather than later. As I've noted before, the question really is, who, or which party, do you want adjusting Medicare? Trust me, changes will need to be made, not because of the laws of the political right, not because of the laws of the political left, but because of the laws of arithmetic. By the way, one idea floated by some, I'm not sure if by Republicans or by Democrats, is that doctors and other health care providers be paid fixed salaries to limit payments for extra tests, procedures, or prescriptions, which are considered a part of the escalating cost problem.

I know I'll be visiting this issue again, but currently I'm doing a little research on the overall Medicare system (and the health care system in general), especially as compared to other nations. Do some nations do certain aspects of health care or care for the elderly better than us? If so, how do we change? If nothing else, I hope these articles make you think about this issue. .
 
WORD HISTORY:
Frank-This is the word meaning "speak freely, bluntly," as in "a frank statement."  The adverbial form is "frankly," as in the famous Rhett Butler statement to Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone With the Wind," "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." Also there is a less common verb form used about free mail, in America often used more about political representatives sending free mail to constituents and called "franking privileges." The various forms go back to the Germanic tribe, the Franks. This name then goes back to Old Germanic "franko," which meant "javelin, spear, lance,"^ but its origins beyond that are unknown. The Franks conquered much of what is today France, a country thereafter named for them. As the conquerors, they were "free men;" thus, the term "Frank" came to be associated with "being free," including the related "speak openly." English borrowed the term in the late 1200s or so in that context from French, but Old English had both "Franca," as the name for their kindred Germanic tribe,^^ and "franca," with the "spear" meaning. The notion of "speak openly" eventually even took on the more emphatic meaning "speak bluntly or outspokenly."  

^ This is not a certainty, as the Franks also used a throwing ax called a "francisca/franciska." Some linguists, therefore, believe the two weapons were named FOR the people who used them, rather than the people being named for one of their weapons.

^^ It is believed by a number of historians from archaeological evidence that some Franks participated in the invasion of Britain in the mid 400s A.D. by the Germanic tribes the Angles and the Saxons, which also included some Frisians, another Germanic tribe.

Dangers For Both On Medicare, Part One

Mitt Romney's selection of Congressman Paul Ryan to be his running mate has made Medicare THE issue of the moment, and perhaps THE issue for the duration of the campaign. The way the debate is now structured, the Republicans cannot win this debate. Medicare is a hot-button issue, if there ever was one, and with so many voters either already on the government-run medical plan, or planning to be on it in the next few years, the concerns for the program are considerable. I can remember 40 or more years ago when rising medical costs were a concern, a concern that has not abated since those times. We have an aging population, and with those aging members of society comes more strain on the nation's Medicare program. Since Medicare's enactment into law, medical care has changed considerably, with fewer hospital stays and more medications prescribed. This change in care prompted the addition of a prescription drug benefit in a law passed in 2003. While the new law was a recognition of the changes in medical care, it was not paid for, and it should be noted, Congressman Ryan voted "Yes" on this legislation, and (then) Senator Joe Biden voted "No," in a final vote in the Senate on November 25, 2003.

In some fairness to both Ryan and Biden, it is always easy to say someone voted "for" or "against" a particular proposal, and that's what you get in political ads, but I like to know why legislators vote the way they do on any given issue, if possible, and there were philosophical differences between many Democrats and Republicans on the issue of Medicare prescription drug coverage, although as I noted above, the demographic shift to an older electorate made members of both parties want to do something about a drug benefit. "Generally" speaking, however, Democrats had been pushing for such coverage in some form, while Republicans had been either against it, or lukewarm at best, always seeking a way for private insurance to be involved. Many Democrats argued that by passing an unfunded liability onto Medicare, it would weaken the overall system, in spite of the good intention of covering senior prescriptions. Further, the added cost of the program was much in debate, with the Bush administration's cost estimates revised higher, AFTER the bill was passed and signed into law. Republicans pushed for incentives to get insurance companies to offer Medicare patients private insurance, and further they got a provision included that prevents the government from negotiating for lower prices from drug companies. Nine Republican senators voted against the bill, "generally" because of its cost, and eleven Democrats voted for it, although "generally" with misgivings about some shortcomings. The final bill barely passed in the House of Representatives on November 22, 2003 by a vote of 220 to 215. So while there was general consensus within both parties to offer prescription drug coverage to seniors, the philosophical split of the role of government and free markets was still there, although obscured by political self interest (that age demographic I keep mentioning).

With a subject like Medicare, it will take at least another article. So, more in Part Two, including the "dangers"  to both parties.

WORD HISTORY:
Yoke-This word is used for the (usually) wooden device fastened around a pair oxen for drawing a cart or wagon; and it is also used for the pair of oxen. It traces back to Indo European "yeug/yewg," which had the notion of "join together, unite." This gave its Old Germanic offspring the derived "yukan," meaning "yoke." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "geoc," with the same meaning. A verb form "geocian" was derived from the noun and meant "to put a yoke on animals, primarily oxen." The "ge(o)" letter combination in Old English was not pronounced with a hard "g," thus the sound was similar to our more modern "y," which is also what happened to the Old English form of "yellow," also spelled with a "geo" beginning. Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "Joch" (German "j" is pronounced like English "y"), Low German Saxon has "Jück," Dutch has "juk," West Frisian has "jok," Danish has "åg," Icelandic has "ok," Norwegian has "åk," and Swedish has "ok." Notice the North Germanic languages (Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Swedish) have lost the beginning "y" sound.

The Right Gets Its Man: Paul Ryan

This was first published in August 2012


The American right wing now has its man, Paul Ryan, as the number two pick on the GOP ticket. Since the economic collapse of the Great Depression and the resultant relatively mild attempts to rein in certain business practices, and the attempts by government to provide basic protections for America's elderly, sick, disadvantaged and poor, the political right has fumed at how to return things to a society totally committed to greed and survival of the fittest. Little by little over the decades they have succeeded in getting laws changed and programs modified to accomplish their goals, at times with complicity from some Democrats. Shame! Shame! One of the major bugaboos of the right has been Social Security since its inception in the 1930s. Why well to do people are so obsessed with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is beyond me. I understand the desire of many Americans, including some of the very wealthy, to keep these programs solvent, but there has been a desire by the hard right wing in this country to destroy these programs, then giving themselves control over a vast new source of income, as if they didn't have enough money already. Don't be fooled by the right wing propaganda that without their proposals being enacted, these programs will go under. Let me tell you, if these programs ever go under, we won't have a country anymore. The idea of privatization and insurance vouchers should scare the absolute hell out of you, no matter your political affiliation. Some members of the GOP are finally bailing out, like one of our local more moderate Republicans, Cleveland area Congressman Steve LaTourette. Understand, these programs are not perfect and they will require adjustments, but whom do you want in charge of the surgery, Doctor Kildare or Jack the Ripper? Remember folks, the wealthiest Americans are NOT hurting. Many are making more money than EVER, and in an economy that is growing moderately, at best. They are working and spending huge sums to convince YOU to effectively dismantle programs that can help YOU at some point in YOUR life. Don't let them get away with it!
 
Now one Paul Ryan, a congressman from Wisconsin, has been picked by Mitt Romney as his running mate. Polls show many Americans, perhaps you're one of them, don't know who Ryan is, but let me tell you something, they're about to find out; hopefully not the hard way; that is, if these two win the election. Democrats need to spell out what Ryan stands for, plain and simple, no exaggerations or falsehoods. Just tell it like it is. The man has a long record in Congress and in speaking engagements and interviews, and his budget ideas are well known to people who follow politics to any degree.Political parties and philosophies tend to eventually go too far, and the political right, financed by wealthy interests, is at that point in my opinion, having dodged a bullet with the severe economic downturn coming so late in George W. Bush's term. They were then able to shift the focus of a part of the country away from themselves, and onto the new President, Barack Obama, who provided them with a new angle of attack, RACE! Criticizing Obama does NOT automatically make a person a racist or bigot, but it gave the right a floor of political support at a time when their own money grubbing itself was under attack. I personally know a couple of people who were Democrats, but who voted Republican for the sole reason (by their own admission) that Obama was a man of color. The charges against Obama of "socialism" are almost comical, coming from a bunch that bet on mortgage-backed securities. Why? Because they wanted the profits for themselves, but when the thing blew up, the losses then became something to be shared by EVERYONE; "government help;" that is, the very "socialism" they claim to detest.* "Too big to fail" became the new slogan to garner support.

I've noted here before, "if" the climate ever dramatically changes and Americans turn on these greediest of the greedy, it will not be pretty. Reason and common sense go out the window in such circumstances. The potential irony is, the wealthy interests have used "globalization" to extract more wealth for themselves, but unlike years ago, they will have nowhere to hide. Popular movements have sprung up all over the world in support of a fairer society in their respective countries, and in reaction to their own monied interests. Once events shift, where will the wealthy be able to run for protection? China? That would be THE ultimate irony, but China is not exempt from popular movements either, as events since the late 1980s have shown, and my guess is, there is a seething volcano of popular discontent in China. Still, what an irony! The wealthy right wing running to Communist China! Hm, I'll bet Romney would say he's been for Obamacare all along, and that it's real name is "Romneycare."

* This is "socialism" in the sense that everyone (taxpayers) would pitch in to help save their rotten asses.  

WORD HISTORY:
Rise-The origins of this word are uncertain, but Old Germanic had "risanan," which meant "to go up, to stand up." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "risan," meaning "to rise, to stand up." This then became "risen" (long "i" sound), before the modern form. The noun form, most common in the topographical "elevated terrain," developed from the verb. The Old Germanic notion of "stand up" gave many of the modern Germanic languages the meaning "travel," from the idea of "rising from sleep to make a journey." German has "reisen" (to travel), Low German Saxon "raisen" (to travel), Dutch has both "rijzen" (to rise, to climb) and "reizen" (to travel), West Frisian has "reizgje," East Frisian "risa" (rise, arise), Swedish "resa" (to travel), Norwegian "reise" (to travel), Danish "rejse" (to travel) and Icelandic "risa" (to rise, arise).

A Wee Bit Of Ireland

I've intended to do a "Word History" article for St. Patrick's Day for a couple of years now, but I always get distracted. I've actually had the words picked out and much of the info done, but I keep procrastinating. So, to move along without waiting for St. Paddy's Day here are some words associated with Ireland. 

Celt-This word traces back to Greek "Keltoi," a word used to describe a particular tribe of ancient people, the Gauls, but where the Greeks got the word is unknown. Latin borrowed the word as "Celtae," and Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited a form as "Celtes." English borrowed the word in the very early 1600s. Interestingly the word was not used by the Romans for the people living in the British Isles, and it was only because of archaeology and language study much later that the term came to be applied to the ethnic-linguistic group the Celts, or Celtic peoples, which include the Irish, the Welsh, and the Scots of the British Isles. A large part of western and southern Europe was once dominated by Celtic settlements, but other groups gradually moved in, often destroying or absorbing the Celtic population in many regions, which is what happened in most of what became the English part of Britain; that is, England. In Ireland, the Celtic population was able to maintain a large degree of its own existence, although North Germanic raiders made incursions, and of course the English eventually gained control of the island, which continued until the early 1920s, with the exception of the northern region, Northern Ireland, often called Ulster, remaining a part of the United Kingdom thereafter.

Irish-This word apparently traces back to Indo European "peiwr," which had the notion of "fat, fertile." This gave its Old Celtic offspring "Iwerju/Iweriu," which seems to have meant "fertile land area." This then gave Old Irish "Eriu," which produced "Eire," the ancient name for Ireland (later "Erin"). Old English borrowed the word as "Irland/Iraland" ("land" being a common Germanic word, with one of its meanings being "home territory/region"), the base of which gave Old English "Iras," meaning "an inhabitant of Ireland." This then became "Irisce, before the modern version. The "isc(e)" (modern English "ish") was a form of a common Germanic suffix used to denote "belonging to a particular group" (like modern Engl"ish", German has "isch").  

Whiskey-(Also spelled "whisky") This word was actually a compound of Old Irish "uisce," which means "water," and "beatha," which means "life." This has usually been translated as "water of life," but I have also seen it as "lively water," which was perhaps the actual old meaning behind the term, if you get my drift..."Hic! 'scuse me." "Uisce" traces back to Indo European "wed," which meant "water." This then gave its Celtic offspring "uisge," which was passed to Old Irish as "uisce." "Beatha" traces back to Indo European "gwei/gwej," which had the notion of "alive, lively, life." This gave Old Irish "bethu" ("life") which then spawned "beatha." English borrowed "uisge beatha" as "usquebaugh" in the early 1500s, which then became "usquebea/whiskybae," before the modern version.

Olympics More Than Athletics

First published August 9, 2012, but I have added notes ** and *** for explanation and information, August 13, 2016. 

I love to watch the Olympics, especially the gymnastics, swimming, and track events, but the Olympics can be about more than who is the fastest runner, the best diver, or who is best at maneuvering on parallel bars. Even today we look back at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, where Jesse Owens, a young black man from Cleveland, Ohio,* won four gold medals for the American team, leaving egg dripping from the faces of many a Nazi nutcase... ah, I mean leader... no, I DID mean nutcase. Reports indicated that Hitler snubbed Jesse Owens, although Jesse says Hitler actually waved to him and sent him an autographed picture, something American political leaders did NOT do. More important is what Hitler said in private and which was recounted by close associate and architect Albert Speer, who noted that the fanatical furious Führer was upset that black athletes were permitted to compete in the Olympics, because their jungle ancestry gave them an unfair advantage over white athletes. Hitler felt blacks should be banned from the competition. So for Hitler the saying "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," became "If you can't beat 'em, ban 'em!"

This year in London we have had Michael Phelps' medal total passing all others in history. He says he will now retire, although some question that he will be able to remain on the sidelines in 2016, when the games are in Rio de Janeiro. Then we have 15 year old Katie Ledecky, 16 year old Gabby Douglas, and 17 year old Missy Franklin winning gold medals for the U.S. in certain events. Of course, if the fanatical furious Führer had had his way, little Gabby would have been banned.

Two things especially stand out in my mind about these Olympics so far: first, the participation of Oscar Pistorius, from South Africa,** who runs on two artificial lower legs, his lower legs having been amputated when he was a baby. Talk about guts! This man puts many of us to shame with the courage he displays in his daily life, not even counting his desire to compete on the running track. He made it to the semi-finals of the Mens 400-metre, but he didn't qualify for the finals, finishing last. I saw him in an interview the next morning and he didn't whine or bellyache, instead he wished his performance hadn't been so "pathetic." It would be far easier for Oscar to wallow in self-pity. I was so happy to hear the tremendous ovation he received from the crowd for his participation and it gives me hope that humans respect other human beings, instead of the hatred so often expressed, such as the massacre that took place this past weekend in Wisconsin.*** While Oscar finished last in the semi-finals, the first place finisher, Kirani James of Grenada, went to him and exchanged name tags with him, showing respect for this courageous man. Whether or not Kirani James wins the finals, he has already won gold by this action alone. This is the true Olympic spirit.

The second thing that stood out for me was runner Felix Sanchez, an American of Dominican heritage, who represents the Dominican Republic in international athletic competition. Felix runs in the 400m Hurdles, and in 2008 his beloved grandmother died just before his run in Beijing. Distraught over his grandmother's passing, Felix finished far down in the field, although he had previously won the event. This year, keeping a picture of his grandmother tucked inside his shirt next to his heart, he decided to give it all he had in his grandmother's memory and he WON! Taking her picture out he kissed it and cried as the crowd roared its approval for this man who has done many charity events in his career. He is the oldest (34 years old) to ever win this event, as I understand. Felix took me back in time to both of my grandmothers. I've been so lucky, because I had two wonderful grandmas. They weren't perfect and they weren't saints, but that's okay, because they were great human beings and I miss them so much! I can't sit here typing this without tears streaming down my cheeks, just as Felix Sanchez did the other day in memory of his grandmother.

* Owens was born in Alabama, but his family moved to Cleveland when he was a child. Also, the Berlin Games were not the result of Hitler wanting to showcase a revived Germany, as the site had been picked well in advance and years before Hitler was even in power, although the Nazi spectacle actually set the precedent for the extravagant opening ceremonies still expected to this day.

** In February 2013, Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, in Pretoria, South Africa. He was convicted of "culpable homicide" in 2014, being sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, a verdict and sentence that was appealed by the prosecution. In late 2015 the previous verdict was overturned to a verdict of "murder" by the South African court system and Pistorius was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. Of course, it wasn't until this terrible murder that we heard from people who knew Pistorius personally about his temperament, including his nasty side, which was unleashed on this poor woman.

*** A mass shooting had occurred at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin on August 5, 2012, killing six and wounding four. The gunman, Wade Michael Page, a white supremacist, was wounded by a police officer and then killed himself, shooting himself in the head, like the fanatical furious Führer had done in 1945.

 

WORD HISTORY:
Run-The history of "run" is rather complicated, but I'll keep it simple. "Run" seems to go back to Indo European "rei/reu," which had the notion of "movement, set in motion." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "rinnanan" (to run, to flow) AND "rannjanan" (to cause to run or move). This gave Old English "rinnan"  and "iernan," both meaning "to run." "Iernan" seems to be one of those words which actually had the sounds transposed, and it may well have been "rennan" or "riennan," before the change. Whatever the case, the two Old English words joined to become Middle English "ronnen," but it didn't become "run" until the 1500s. Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "rennen" ("to run, to race") and "rinnen" ("to run, also in the sense "flow"); Low German Saxon has "rinnen" and "rännen;" "Dutch has "rennen;" West Frisian has "rinne" (which means "to march"); Danish has "rinde" ("to run, to flow"); Icelandic has "renna" ("to glide, to flow"); Norwegian has "renne" ("to run, to flow"); and Swedish has "rinna" ("to run, to flow").

A 'Real' George W. Bush News Conference

I first published this article June 29, 2007. I have now added a "Word History," but the article itself is unchanged. 

Today, George Bush has called a news conference, not just any news conference, but a news conference where he promises to be totally truthful and to express his true opinions in every answer. Oh, here comes the President now....

President: As you know, I have promised to be totally honest in this news conference, so instead of entering here and saying, 'Please be seated, and thank you all for coming,' I'm going to start this totally honest press conference off with, 'You can sit down, stand up, or walk out the door for all I care. I'm not here because I want to be here, but because my adviser, Karl Range Rover told me to be here. You contemptible rabble have said that Karl's my 'brain.' Well, it just shows how much you really know, 'cause my real brain is much smaller than Karl's. And you can make fun of my Inglish all you want, because my third grade Inglish teacher tole me I could pass her class any day. So there!!! I'm being totally honest! Just in case, I've brought Press Secretary Tony Snowjob along, just to keep me...hum, hum...honest.

Well, let's get on with the questions. First, Dan Ratherbe."

Dan Ratherbe: "Thank you Mr. President. What is your assessment of the situation with the Iraq War?"

President: "I prefer not to talk about Iraq."

Dan Ratherbe: "But Mr. President, I thought this was supposed to be an honest and totally truthful news conference."

President: "Well Dan, it IS totally truthful, and I don't want to talk about Iraq, and that's the truth."

Dan Ratherbe: "Well then Mr. President, what about..."

President: "Whoa, whoa horsey! You only get ONE question, and you asked it."

Dan Ratherbe: "But you didn't answer it."

President: "The hell I didn't! I told you my true feelings.  Next question goes to...ah... Katey Curtsy. Well, I can honestly say that I'm glad to see you... TODAY! Get it? Today, as in Today Show. You shoulda stuck with that show, Katey.  How's it feel to have ratings lower than mine? Huh? Huh?"

Katey Curtsy: "No comment, Mr. President. Now, a few months ago, you spoke at the New York Stock Exchange about income inequality. Since then, you really haven't mentioned the topic. Do you really care about average Americans?"

President: "Well first, Karl Range Rover advised me to give that little speech.  And to answer your question, I am VERY concerned with average Americans, especially those average Americans whose income is only four or five million a year. I'm telling you, we need my tax cuts for these people. These are the hard working people who invest in America. I'm asking you, do you think it's easy following the stock market every day? Or the price of oil? They're successful! They aren't like those other folks who get up every day and trudge off to some job that will likely be shipped overseas. Those folks don't invest in America.  Many of them don't have a very good education... hell, they're as bad as Dan Quayle. Everybody knows he should have spelled the word, 'P-O-T-A-T-O-E!' " (In the background, Tony Snowjob quickly issues a loud whisper, "Mr. President, that's how he DID spell it! There's no 'e.' ") Oh well, however he spelled it! That's small P-O-T-A-T-O-S! See, I know there's no 'e.' ..... Next question to Wolf Blitzkrieg."

Wolf Blitzkrieg: "To follow up on the income inequality question, Mr. President; do you feel that with wealthy Americans earning record amounts and with workers' wages so stagnant and benefits being reduced to so many, that workers might soon be revolting?"

President: "Might soon be revolting? Hey, they're as revolting as hell now!" (Again, in the background, but not out of microphone range comes the whispered voice of Tony Snowjob. "Mr. President, he doesn't mean that kind of revolting, he means rebellious.") "Ah well, I doubt that any loyal American would be rebellious, and as to my original statement, I stand by it! Next question goes to that fair and balanced Fox News guy Britt Fumes."

Britt Fumes: "Thank you for that impartial introduction, Mr. President, and just let me comment further; some people seem to actually believe there should be an adversarial relationship between the Press and presidential administrations. Like that would accomplish anything! Heck if that were true, we might not even be in Iraq and Saddam Hussein would still be in power. I just don't understand people saying that Fox News is the "fox guarding the hen house." We ask tough, tough questions at Fox; here's mine: Do you plan to spend your vacation at the ranch again this August?"

President: "Wow, now there's a question. The answer in total honesty is that I do indeed plan to vacation at the ranch this August. That was such a great question, you get to ask another!"

Britt Fumes: "You are so gracious, Mr. President. My second tough question is, will First Lady, Laura Bush be accompanying you on your vacation?"

President: "Another great question, Britt. Yes, she will be going to the ranch for vacation time, too. Next question goes to Joe Marlboro, also known as Smokin' Joe."

Joe Marlboro: "Thank you Mr. President. You know, Mr. President, many people feel you take too much advice from Vice President Cheney. What is your comment on that, sir?"

President: "I just don't know how to answer that charge. Let me ask Dick, he's right over here behind the curtain."

Joe Marlboro: "Ah, I think you've said enough on the subject, Mr. President."

President: "Well, one more question, and by tradition it goes to Helen Back. So, I'm going to Helen Back for the last question. "

Helen Back: "How do you want to answer those who compare you to a part of an equine anatomy?"

President: (Chuckling) "Well, they think they can fool me, so I'll let you judge things for yourself. Since I took office, these folks have made me the butt of jokes, but equine is used to treat malaria and has NOTHING to do with anatomy............that's stupid!!!"

WORD HISTORY:                                                                                                                                                                
Dunce-This word for "dull-witted, stupid," was derived in the 1500s from John Duns Scotus, a Scottish religious philosopher who died in 1308. In the 1500s, as religious views had greatly changed since the time of Duns Scotus, his views retained a core of supporters, who rejected the modern ideas. Such a supporter of conservative religious views was dubbed a "duns/dunce" by religious philosophers in the 1500s. The term generalized beyond religion as time passed. "Duns" was the purported birthplace of Scotus in Scotland.  

I'll Have The Goulash

This was published in August 2012, more as a general article, but I added the actual recipe November 29, 2016.


I got into my cooking mode a couple of days ago, and I fixed two great dishes, which lasted for a couple of meals. I made "goulash" and bacon dumplings (German: "Speckknödel" *). There is some disagreement about the history and preparation of goulash, but it developed among Hungarian herders** who fixed a thick soup of beef, peppers, onions, chopped tomatoes,*** paprika (a Hungarian specialty), and perhaps some other items, especially caraway, but also garlic, potatoes, or carrots, and typically thickened with flour. Hungary was ruled for quite some time by the Habsburg dynasty, and later it gained a large degree of equality in an agreement in 1867, making the former Austro-German dominated Austrian Empire into a shared empire called Austria-Hungary, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire. With Vienna (German: "Wien") the capital city of the multi-ethnic empire, lots of different peoples and foods influenced the culture of the city, and the Viennese picked up goulash from the Hungarians, albeit with their own version,**** which made it into more of a real stew, rather than a thick soup. The stew became something of a Viennese specialty, typically accompanied by bread dumplings (German: "Semmelknödel"), a close cousin to the bacon dumplings I made.

Well, many years ago in Frankfurt, Germany, there was a little restaurant called "Servus" (pronounced "zair-voos"). The word is known throughout the German-speaking lands, but it is more typical in southern German lingo; that is, more so in Bavaria and especially in Austria, and it is used as either a greeting or farewell, depending upon circumstance; thus it means "hello" or "goodbye." Wow did "Servus" have good food! It was owned by a fairly young couple, and I went in so many times, the lady asked me why I had become such a good customer. Well, one of the reasons was the goulash, or "Gulasch," in German, and the other was "Zwetschgenknödel" (plum dumplings). Now, the standard German word for "plum" is "Pflaume," a close relative to the English form, as centuries ago Old Germanic borrowed a form from Latin, giving both English and German forms of the word. For the history of the words "plum" and "prune," see my article at this link:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/04/plum-pudding-and-plum-cake.html    However, many German dialects use forms of "Zwetsche"***** for "plum." There are numerous spellings and pronunciations, including "Quetsche" in much of Hessen, the German state where Frankfurt is located, and "Quetschkuche," or "plum cake," is common in that area.

Anyhow, the lady proceeded to tell me she was from Austria and that her husband was Hungarian. Alas, the old empire was recreated. When I asked her where she was from in Austria, she got a bit nervous, even saying I would have never heard of it. Finally she told me, and I certainly understood her anxiety about how I might react. She was from Braunau, a little town right across the border from the German state of Bavaria. In fact, during certain times in the past, the town had been part of Bavaria. So why was she so nervous? Because Braunau was the birthplace of Adolf Hitler. The full name is actually "Branau am Inn;" the "am Inn" meaning, "on the Inn (River)."

Germans, the ethnic group, and not just the specific nationality from Gerrmany, love dumplings, and they make them out of flour, potatoes, or even stale bread or rolls. They come in all shapes and sizes, sweet or savory, and with various added ingredients. "Speckknödel" are made from stale rolls, which are sliced and soaked in warm milk. Small strips of bacon and sausage (usually smoked) are lightly fried together and then added to the bread. Today most of us would pour off the fat before adding the meat to the bread, but that was not the case in the past, when bacon and sausage fat added flavor to the dumpling mixture, along with a substantial dose of cholesterol. A little salt and some parsley are mixed in, and egg and flour help to bind the dough, which is then rolled into dumplings somewhere about the size of ping pong balls or golf balls. A little coating of flour helps to keep the dumplings from falling apart. Ten to fifteen minutes in some salted, lightly boiling water and you're ready to go. Any leftovers can be sliced and fried lightly in butter for a snack or even served with eggs for breakfast, which is not uncommon. I don't waste anything, as the water will have residue from the cooked dumplings, giving you something on the order of a thick porridge.

Vienna-Style Goulash (Gulasch, Wiener Art) Recipe (this is my own version):

Typically this dish is cooked on the stove top, but I prefer to bake it at relatively low heat for a couple of hours. In the past, the beef would not have had the fat trimmed off of it.

2 pounds beef stewing meat (bite-sized pieces)
3 tablespoons of vegetable oil or sunflower oil
3 onions, chopped
3 tablespoons mild paprika (Hungarian, if you have it)
1 tablespoon hot paprika ("hot" paprika tends not to be terribly hot)
3 tablespoons tomato paste
1 teaspoon sugar (this helps to smooth out some of the acidity, use a little more, if needed)
2 cloves of garlic, minced
1 teaspoon dried marjoram (or you can substitute oregano)
1 bay leaf
1 teaspoon caraway seeds
1 teaspoon red wine vinegar (or cider vinegar)
1/4 cup beef stock (I suppose you could substitute beef bullion, but don't be surprised if the Viennese put a curse on you, where you hear 24 straight hours of waltz music)
1 or 2 teaspoons salt (your preference; I use seasoned salt)
1/2 teaspoon black pepper

I use a heavy duty pan with a lid to make goulash. I add the oil first, then I add all of the other ingredients, then I mix it all well. I bake it at 275 degrees (F) for an hour, then I stir it, then I turn the heat down to about 250 (F) and let it bake for another 90 minutes. Check to be sure the meat is tender, giving the meat as much time as it needs to bake. The relatively low heat isn't going to hurt it, and your patience will be greatly rewarded with a delicious goulash.
 
If you want the goulash very thick, as I do, mix 1 tablespoon flour with 2 tablespoons water, making sure the flour is well mixed in. Stir the mixture into the goulash near the very end of cooking, and return it to the oven for about 5 minutes. Since I fix my goulash in an oven safe pan, I simply put the pan on the stove (low heat) and add the flour/water mixture, stirring until it is thickened and the flour taste is cooked out, which only takes a couple of minutes. Remember to remove the bay leaf before serving. I must admit, on occasion over the years, I have used bullion instead of real beef stock and nothing ever happened to me ... Hey! What's that music? Do I hear a waltz?  

* Also called "Tiroler Speckknödel."

** The Hungarian word for "herder, herdsman," "gulyas," lies behind the word "goulash."

*** I once read a recipe for goulash by a lady whose Hungarian mother or grandmother, I now cannot remember which, was adamant that "real Hungarian goulash" did NOT have tomatoes in it. I'll stay out of the argument, except to say that everyone has their own recipes for various foods, and goulash is no exception, including in Hungary. Just a possible explanation though: the passing down of recipes for goulash could likely date from a time before tomatoes were accepted as being safe in Europe. Tomatoes came from the New World, and they were originally thought to be poisonous, thus it is not out of the question that early recipes for the dish did not include tomatoes, and that omission was retained by many people, as the recipe was passed down.

**** The more typical Viennese style (German: "Gulasch, Wiener Art") uses beef, onions, some tomato puree or paste, paprika, salt, pepper and caraway, although some cooks add garlic, and/or, a bit of vinegar. I improvised a bit, using some tomato paste and about a heaping tablespoon of thick ketchup, which provided just a tad of vinegar. It should be slowly braised (a slow cooker is good for this) and end up rather dark in color, somewhat on the order of dark red wine. A variation of this is served with a fried egg on top, as well as one of the famous Vienna-style sausages ("Wieners," to Americans; German: "Frankfurter Würstl"), and a pickle, which in restaurants has one end cut into a fan shape. This is then called "Fiakergulasch," or "Cabbie's Goulash," with a "Fiaker" being the name for a two-horse carriage used as a cab long ago. The name was also used for the cab driver. 

***** The various forms of Zwetsche are not native German words, but another borrowing, "perhaps" from a non-German dialect from the alpine border area of northern Italy and eastern France.

WORD HISTORY:
Cook-This "seems" to go back to Indo European "kekewo," "perhaps" a variant form of "pekwo," which seems to have meant "to ripen;" the notion being to prepare inedible raw food until it is 'ripe;' that is, ready to eat. Latin had "coquus," which was borrowed into Old Germanic as "kukaz," a noun form. This gave its Anglo-Saxon (Old English) offspring "coc," which later became "cook." The Latin verb form "coquo" was likewise borrowed by Old Germanic as "kokanan," which then gave Old English "cocian," as well as "gecocsian," both meaning essentially "to cook." The latter died out or merged with the former, which then became "coken," before the modern form. Noun and verb forms are common throughout the other Germanic languages: German has "Koch" and "kochen" (meaning "cook, boil"); Low German Saxon "Kock" and "kaken/koken;" Dutch has "kok" and "koken;" Danish has "kok" and "koge;" Icelandic has the noun "kokkur" ("chef"); Swedish has "kock/kocken" and "koka;" and Norwegian has "kokk(en)" and "koke" ("boil"). Apparently Frisian does not use a form of the word in modern times, but it once had "koka."

History of Ghettos, Part Three/Final

No series of three articles can cover such an extensive subject as the history of ghettos, and no single article can begin to cover the terrible confinement of Europe's Jews in ghettos by the Nazis during World War Two. By the time World War Two started in September 1939, Germany, which included Austria since March 1938, had seen its Jewish population decline since Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933, as many Jews had emigrated. Those who hadn't left were soon to experience an even worse nightmare of Nazi rule. Unfortunately too, some Jews who had left Germany simply crossed nearby borders into countries soon to be overrun by Hitler's armies, which were then followed by Heinrich Himmler's SS units. The Nazi and Soviet conquest of Poland* gave Germany nearly half of Poland, including many Polish Jews, but a part of Poland's substantial Jewish population remained out of Nazi control in Soviet occupied eastern Poland. That all changed beginning in late June 1941, as Hitler sent his forces against his former Soviet ally. Hitler's armies achieved multiple penetrations of Soviet lines and quickly captured the Soviet-occupied part of Poland. Not only that, many Jews lived in the western areas of the Soviet Union, including Lithuania, White Russia, and the western Ukraine, all areas brought under Nazi domination.

With millions of Jews now under their control, the Nazi leaders forced Jews into numerous ghettos, often in Poland, or in other eastern European areas. A section of Warsaw was the largest Nazi-created Jewish ghetto in Europe, being established in late 1940; that is, well before Hitler launched his attack on the Soviet Union. This ghetto contained some 400,000 Jews, but occupied an area of less than one and a half square miles. The internal affairs of the ghetto were under a Jewish Council (German: "Judenrat"), and Jewish leaders, for a time, tried to cooperate with Nazi officials, and a whole system of Jewish administration was set up, including the operation of hospitals, schools, and music performances. To add to the terrible congestion, some Gypsies were also sent into the ghetto. Gypsies were another group targeted by the insane and evil Nazi racial theories. Food was chronically in short supply and disease was rampant, with many thousands of people dying within the ghetto. Perhaps as many a quarter of a million ghetto inhabitants were sent to and murdered in the infamous Treblinka extermination camp during 1942.** As the remaining Jews learned from Polish and Jewish Resistance fighters the fate of the former inhabitants of the ghetto, they chose to fight. Various weapons were smuggled into the ghetto by the Resistance, and during the first part of 1943 Jewish resistance to the Nazis intensified, but the Nazis had all of the firepower, and the "Warsaw Uprising" ended with thousands dead, and tens of thousands sent to be murdered in nearby Nazi extermination camps. The area of the ghetto was essentially leveled.

The Polish city of Lodz lies about 85 miles southwest of Warsaw. It was in an area of Poland that was annexed to Germany by Hitler after the conquest of Poland. It was then renamed "Litzmannstadt" by the Nazis.*** The city contained more than 200,000 Jews, besides a substantial Polish majority, and a relatively small German minority. The Nazis erected a fence with barbed wire around a portion of the city in the spring of 1940, sealing off the area, thus beginning the actual "Lodz Ghetto," with between 150,000 and 175,000 Jews and some Gypsies. Similar to Warsaw, a Jewish Council ruled the ghetto, and in Lodz, the leader of the council cooperated with the Nazis, even manufacturing goods for Hitler's armies. The council administered the ghetto, enforcing  its policies with its own Jewish police force.**** With Jews working long hours seven days a week, and with limited rations, disease and starvation overran the population, and perhaps 40,000, or even as many as  50,000, people died as a result. Gradually the Nazis emptied the ghetto of people unable to work in the war industry there, including children, and they were sent to nearby extermination camps and murdered. By the summer of 1944 the ghetto was emptied of its Jewish and Gypsy population.

As I noted, there were numerous ghettos set up by the Nazis, but too many to cover in this article. For those interested in reading more, you might want to search for Vilnius Ghetto in Lithuania or Theresienstadt in (then) northern Czechoslovakia, for example. Also, you can check out the Jewish Virtual Library website.

* Hitler and Stalin had agreed upon a conquest and division of Poland in a pact signed in August 1939.

** Treblinka was located some 55-60 miles northeast of Warsaw.

*** Karl Litzmann was a German general in World War One who led German forces to a major victory over the Russian army in the Lodz area in late 1914. He later became a Nazi official and he died in the mid 1930s. Lodz was renamed by the Nazis in his honor, but of course, the city's name reverted to "Lodz" after the Nazi defeat. 

**** The policy of collaboration with the Nazis was obviously very controversial, and the Nazi authorities granted better food and supplies to Jewish leaders than to other Jews. The Jewish leader later died in Auschwitz. Some Jewish survivors credited his efforts to work with the Nazis and to produce war goods for keeping the ghetto's population from early annihilation (probably true), while other survivors felt his own strict enforcement policies were essentially as bad as the Nazis.  

WORD HISTORY:
Barrio-This word meaning "a Spanish speaking district or quarter of an American city," or "a ward or district of a city" in Spanish speaking countries, goes back to Semitic "brr," which had the notion of "open land area." This gave its Arabic offspring "barri," with the same basic meaning. The Arabic speaking Moors, a term generally applied to North African Berbers, invaded and conquered much of Spain beginning in the 700s A.D. They brought the term with them and it was borrowed into Spanish as "barrio," then with the meaning "suburb, district outside a city proper," which tied in with the original sense of "open area."  American English borrowed the word prior to 1850, and it later came into even greater use when it was applied to the Spanish-speaking area of Harlem in New York City, also known as "Spanish Harlem."