Reagan's Question Reversed

In the debate between candidate Ronald Reagan and incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980, Reagan looked into the camera and asked, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" While I was not a big fan of Jimmy Carter, he faced a difficult era, as did his immediate predecessor, Gerald Ford, as the nation's dependency on foreign oil had grown tremendously, the divisive Vietnam War had scarred the nation's psyche and the scandals of President Richard Nixon's administration had helped to bring much skepticism about government to the country. A couple of crises in the Middle East, beginning during the Nixon administration, drove oil and gasoline prices up, putting a drag on the American economy and bringing a strong current of inflation to the economy, as oil/gasoline costs impact the cost of everything else.

Since Ronald Reagan implemented trickle down economics under the name "supply side," and a broader economic program dubbed "Reaganomics," is the COUNTRY better off? If you're part of the wealthiest segment of America, you can truly say you're better off. More and more of the nation's wealth has been going to the wealthiest of the wealthy  It didn't come out of thin air folks, it came from your pockets. This isn't magic. On the other hand, incomes for most other Americans have either lost ground or basically stagnated since the days of Reaganomics. The nation's debt under Reagan soared, including private debt.* That means the interest paid to finance that debt, both public and private, has taken a big chunk of money. Where did it go? What segment of society owns the overwhelming percentage of stocks and bonds? It's called a "transfer of wealth" folks, and it's being transferred from most Americans to the wealthiest Americans to this very day. Is it being transferred there because they need the money? No, this is about power and ego trips, and you're paying to finance those ego trips. It is interesting how some Americans who grew up decades ago and who became successful in a system where taxes were higher, now say taxes have to be cut so their kids or grandchildren can prosper too. Some of the greediest of the greedy, I mean, some of the wealthiest of the wealthy, want further tax cuts for themselves. In the meantime, since Reagan took office on January 20, 1981, is American education better? Is America's infrastructure better? Are average Americans more economically secure? Reagan was an economic fraud who used deficits and money printing, while claiming to be against deficits and money printing. That's part of the legacy he really left.

Another part of Reagan's legacy was the move to turn loose a bunch of psychopathic individuals who have run over other Americans in an attempt to satisfy their egomania by amassing more and more wealth, regardless of who else suffers, and at the expense of the country. They have perverted the meaning of freedom for their own self aggrandizement, and they will help fund anyone who will further their cause. It is no coincidence that they are now searching for other sources of money to soothe their troubled egos. They ship American jobs overseas without batting an eye, then use cheap labor foreign countries as examples as to why American unions want too much money for workers. Of course I don't recall hearing the argument about the wealthy of those nations making less than America's wealthiest of the wealthy. No sirree, YOU make too much, not them. They have a sense of entitlement. Now they can't wait to get their grimy hands on Social Security, something their parents and grandparents dreamed of. All the while about half of America snoozes away, oblivious to what's going on, at times complaining about how the country has gone down hill, but then doing nothing to stop the escalating slide.

* Only during the last couple years of the Clinton administration did the country live within its means, and in fact, there were surpluses used to help pay down some previous debt. The plans which got us to that point came from bipartisan deals, including between President George Bush (Sr.) and Democrats in the early 1990s, and again between President Clinton and Republicans in the mid 1990s.

WORD HISTORY:
Trickle-This seems to be an English creation, although it is derived from a Germanic source, which gave English and the other Germanic languages forms of the word "strike." It traces back to Indo European "streig," which had the notion of "to rub, to stroke, to press." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "strikanan," with much the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "strican," which meant "to rub, to stroke, to smooth out, to wipe off," but it also had a further meaning of "to move, to run, to flow," perhaps from the notion of "something moving over the surface," as the base meanings denote actions requiring "motion over a surface;" as in, "to stroke the dog's head;" "to rub your forehead;" "to smooth out the soil," for example. From the verb "strican" came the noun "stickle," a tool used to sharpen cutting tools; that is, "to rub them until sharp." This then produced "stricklen," a verb that meant "to have tears flow down the face." English and some other Germanic languages initially used forms of "drop/drip" to convey the meaning "trickle." Gradually the initial "s" sound died out by the late 1200s, and the word also broadened in meaning to include water or other liquids, and a noun form, derived from the verb, meant "brook, creek." 

True Debaters

When I was in college, I once got the opportunity to participate in a public speaking contest. It's been so long ago I just forget, but I believe they used the term "festival" to describe the event, but it was a competition in various categories of public speaking. As I recall, a number of people in the "debate" category were also studying law, and certainly being able to hold one's own in a debate lends itself well to becoming a good attorney, and debaters were paired in teams for the competition. Just to make this clear, I was not on the college debate team. I was entered in the competition in the individual category of "oratory," but our debate team coach liked my speech and approached me about being on the team the next year. Up until that time, I hadn't known there was such a thing as a college debate team, but the competition held great interest for me, and some of the debaters were just excellent. They had been given a number of topics (I just forget how many) to gather information about, and they had to be prepared for any of these topics during the competition. And, they had to be able to argue for or against whatever topic was selected. They kept information on index cards and they pulled the cards from a small file box as they needed them during the debate. If I remember correctly, they had to cite their sources in their arguments. I tried never to miss these competitions.

With this being political season and so called  "debates" going on all over the country for various offices, I couldn't help but chuckle when I recalled how the college debaters had to be able to argue either side of an issue, because some of our politicians actually seem to be in a debate with themselves on some of their positions, rather than with their opponent. A perfect example is Mitt Romney on health care. He helped engineer the law in Massachusetts when he was governor there, but now he says he's against the national law. Of course, he still wants to get credit for the law in Massachusetts. Hm, I'd like to see his index cards.

WORD HISTORY:
Debate-This word has two parts; the "de" prefix goes back to Indo European "dwis," which meant "divide into two parts;" thus, "separate, apart from." This then gave its Latin offspring "dis," with the same meaning, also used to intensify an action, and often changed to "des," or the shorter, "de," in prefixes in later Latin-based languages. The second part of the word, "bate," goes back to Indo European "bhau," which meant "to shove/push, to beat." This gave Latin "battuere," which meant "to beat/hit, to fight." Whether the two parts were combined in Latin is unclear, but Old French, a Latin-based language, had "debatre," which meant "to beat down," with the "de" intensifying the "beat" meaning; thus, "to fight," and from this developed the further figurative sense, "verbal argument ("fight") over an issue." English borrowed the word in the 1300s. The noun comes from the verb. 

Can You Answer This Question?

I'm very curious about the answer to a question I have. It isn't scientific and I haven't researched it, but rather it is more of an impression from just listening to or reading the news over the years, as the question isn't just about now or the very recent past, it goes back quite a while, if my recollections are correct. Maybe my premise is wrong, and I'll be glad to see evidence to correct my impressions.

Here's what has me so puzzled: We hear how business people want "government to get out of the way;" how government doesn't belong in the economy, and that such things don't work, that free markets are the only way to fly. Okay, so how come when the Federal Reserve or the administration (any administration, not necessarily just the current one), or Congress, announce certain policies deemed to help the economy, often of the Keynesian nature (or even bailouts), the stock market goes up? After all, if these things don't work, why would the market go up? Hm, that's strange, because the stock market is really about confidence, usually somewhat longer term, but that's not totally carved in stone, and I've got to believe most business people own stock, perhaps even large amounts of stock, so they must be in on the uptick, too. You'd think if these policies didn't work, that once announced, the markets would plummet as investors ran for the hills. Or do you think this might be something of "what I say I believe and what I really believe are two different things?"

WORD HISTORY:
Root-This is the noun, the basic meaning of which is, "underground part of a plant," although other meanings have developed from that idea. This word goes back to Indo European "wrehd," which meant "root." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wurtiz," which meant "root," which then produced the derived "wrot(s)," with the same meaning. This gave Old Norse "rót," with the same meaning. This then was borrowed into Old English as "rot" (with a long "o"). At that time, English already had the closely related "wyrt," which also meant "root," but also "plant, herb," the latter meanings of which then dominated, and the word became modern "wort." ^  There were other related forms in Old English meaning "root," but they died out. English "rot" then later became "root." For those learning (American) English, "root" is pronounced a couple of ways: the most common has the double "o" rhyming with "boot," while the other rhymes with "foot." When I was a kid, the second form was not uncommon, but just from my personal experience, it seems to be in decline and the first form is now far more common. Forms of "root" are common in the other Germanic languages: German has "Wurzel," Low German Saxon has "Wortel," Dutch has "wortel," West Frisian has "woartel" (which also means "carrot," of course a "root"),  Danish has "rod," Icelandic has "rót," and Swedish and Norwegian have "rot." While English is classified as West Germanic, along with German, Low German, Frisian and Dutch, it borrowed the form of the word that became "root" from Old Norse; that is, the old form of North Germanic, where the "w" had disappeared; thus, English differs from its close West Germanic cousins by not having the beginning "w."

^ For the history of "wort," see:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/10/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part_19.html

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Eighteen

First published in October 2012, with some minor editing in September 2017

"Reagan Assessment"

Ronald Reagan was not as great, nor as "pure," as conservatives like to believe, nor was he as bad as some of his opponents believe. Like Reagan or not, he pieced together coalitions to help him get legislation or agreements he wanted, or felt he could support, and to get votes in elections (a politician would actually try to get votes? I'm stunned!), but he was perfectly willing to compromise with others to accomplish many of his goals, even if he didn't get everything he claimed he wanted. He was a man of contradictions, who railed against government involvement in many things (even naming government as the "problem"), especially the economy, but he had long been a Franklin Roosevelt New Deal Democrat. He lambasted Jimmy Carter for deficits and how the world might soon end because of them, but he then presided over deficits that made Carter's deficits look like surpluses; in fact, the U.S. became the world's largest debtor nation by the time Reagan left office. Never once did Reagan ever propose a balanced budget, or even a plan to get there (except initially to essentially say tax cuts would bring growth to erase or substantially lower the deficits), with Dick Cheney later arguing that, "Reagan showed deficits don't matter," and others in the 1980s essentially saying, "we owe the money to ourselves," although overseas borrowing by the U.S. had increased. He claimed to be against Keynesian economics, but his deficits and military build up were Keynesian on steroids, which got him reelected. He opposed the Equal Rights Amendment for women, but he appointed the first woman to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, who was generally conservative, but not fanatically so. He supported prayer in public schools, but never proposed a law or constitutional amendment advocating such. Reagan was anti abortion, but outside of stating such in public speeches, he did little to advance the issue. He was certainly no friend of environmentalists, favoring instead curtailment of laws to generally let business people do what they wanted. Reagan claimed Confederate President Jefferson Davis to be one of his heroes and advocated states' rights, but said he wasn't a racist or a bigot. He had opposed the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s, a law which helped guarantee the right to vote to minorities, mainly in southern states, and renewed that opposition during his campaign for president, but he ended up supporting renewal of the law when he was President. He touted his union membership, but favored business, even firing government union workers. He opposed communism in general, and the Soviet Union in particular, but he negotiated with Soviet leader Gorbachev to limit nuclear weapons. He opposed dealing with terrorists and Iran, but then there was that messy Iran-Contra matter, where he finally admitted in a televised address that he had done just that.

Before both arch conservatives and committed liberals/progressives condemn me to hell or make me sit through a one hour Sarah Palin speech (talk about hell), politicians are politicians, I don't care to which political party they belong. They seek votes from as many people as possible; and to get those votes, they will say a lot of things, even contradicting themselves by saying something to one group, and then something different to another group. Sort of, "What do I have to say to get your vote? Just tell me, and I'll say it." In 1932, as Franklin Roosevelt ran against incumbent Republican Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt had one speechwriter do a speech opposing high tariffs and another write a speech in favor of high tariffs. After looking the two speeches over, he told the two speechwriters to go into a room and "blend the two together." In office, it's almost always a case of "watch my one hand, but not the other," and Reagan was no different. Just my own personal opinion, but I don't think Reagan gave a hoot about an issue like abortion, but he knew he needed to have a position about it, and since his core supporters were conservative, he opposed it. "Perhaps" he really did oppose it, but it wasn't a key issue to him and I seriously doubt whether he lost sleep over abortion or some other issues he never really pushed during his presidency (like other presidents before him and after him). Remember folks, this is a big country. There are lots of opinions about lots of different issues. We have two main political parties. We don't have a parliamentary system with a multitude of political parties, some with very narrow political beliefs to fit just about any opinion, which then get represented in the legislative body by proportion of the vote. The two main party system isn't perfect, but it, in theory, forces the two main parties to make broad appeals to Americans. At times, strong third parties have temporarily risen to smack the other two parties, but the key word is, "temporarily." If you go through life wanting only what you view to be perfection, I've gotta believe you're one sad person.

One thing was certain, Reagan was a committed anti-communist. It was really that obsession which undoubtedly led him to abandon the Democratic Party for the Republican Party, as the GOP had been steadfastly trying to link Democrats to being soft on communism. Wealthy people loved it, because if there's one thing that scares the absolute hell out of many of them, but not all, it is any notion of sharing with others. Americans are here to work for them and to make them money, and more money, and more money. The use of force in Grenada may have been overplayed, but I get the idea, and it may have prevented a hostage situation on a scale making the Iran situation look puny, but we'll never really know, but I get it, and Reagan preferred to avoid being sorry for not responding, or responding too late. He saw how the Iran hostages had debilitated President Carter politically, and he learned that lesson. Reagan's basic coalition, like FDR's, endured after him. The once "solid South," a term used for Democrats for about a century, became something of a "solid Republican South," with some variations. Some ethnic, often Catholic, voters, once solidly Democratic, began to vote Republican. Reagan's tax cut philosophy has dominated Republican ideas ever since, becoming something of a "Republican religion." The thing has been, as the basic coalition has survived, the philosophy of the Republican Party has changed dramatically since Reagan; moving far more rightward, and unflinching in attitude to no compromise. Again, like Reagan or not, he seldom, if ever, acted mean-spiritedly. As even some current Republicans have noted, Reagan could not today win the Republican nomination, because he was too moderate. This one issue shows that. Reagan strongly supported gun owners' rights, and a mid 1980s law adjusted existing federal laws on gun control from the 1960s, but there was nothing overwhelmingly radical in the changes, except some pro-gun advocates didn't like the provision which barred owning fully automatic weapons after the law went into effect. Reagan signed the bill into law. After Reagan left office, he strongly supported the Brady Bill, which put background checks and waiting periods into effect for people buying guns. After that, Reagan also strongly supported a law to ban the sale of assault weapons. Both bills passed, but the assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and it has never been renewed, as Republicans have stopped any attempts to even bring the matter to a major vote.

People somewhat left of center, and certainly people further left, don't like Reagan, but you have to remember, you have to make the case against your opponents, and persuade others to come to your side, and sometimes that can be a daunting task. Having facts on your side doesn't always give you the upper hand, at least at any given moment, but some who lived through Reagan's era, and generally supported him, may now look back with the 20-20 vision of hindsight and see his flaws more clearly, but in those times, Americans generally liked him, and as I noted in an earlier segment, that helped carry him through, even in politically sticky times, like the Iran-Contra matter and the major stock market crash of 1987, and his coalition held together.

Next... "A Non Reaganite Follows Reagan" 
  
WORD HISTORY:
Wort-This word is closely related to "root" and traces back to Indo European "wrehd," which meant "root." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wurtiz," which meant "root," but also "plant, especially an herb plant;" thus also, "food or beverage flavoring, spice." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wyrt," with the same meanings. This then became "wurt/wirte," before the modern version. The meaning "plant, herb" still is used in English, as in St. John's Wort, but the use of plants and herbs for flavorings in beer making gave it the additional meaning, "the product of soaking malt (usually dried sprouted barley) in hot water in preparation for making beer." Common throughout the other Germanic languages: German has synonyms "Würze" and "Gewürz," which mean "spice, seasoning;" Low German Saxon has "Wortel," which means "carrot" (which is a root); Dutch has "wortel," which like the same Low German word (except not capitalized) means "carrot;" West Frisian has "woartel," which means "carrot, root;" Danish and Norwegian have "urt," which means "herb;" Icelandic has "jurt," which means "herb, plant;" and Swedish has "ört," which means "herb." Notice the North Germanic languages of Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Swedish have all lost or altered the original "w" at the beginning of the word. 

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Seventeen

"Reagan's Last Years In Office"

Libya, a North African nation, was once part of the vast Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, and then a colony of Italy until after Mussolini's defeat in World War Two. Shortly thereafter it became a kingdom. In the late 1960s, Muammar Gaddafi,* the leader of a group of army officers, overthrew the government when the king was out of the country. Gaddafi established a dictatorship, with socialism as the economic base of the oil-rich country. Gaddafi militarized Libya and supported various anti-government, anti-Western groups in other countries, particularly, but not exclusively, in his own part of the world. In the spring of 1985, Gaddafi's agents bombed a nightclub in (then) West Berlin, killing and injuring a couple of hundred people, including a number of Americans. Intelligence from a number of sources, not just American, clearly linked the terrorist attack to Gaddafi. Reagan ordered air attacks against Libya not long thereafter. The American planes were given permission by Britain to operate from bases there, which then moved the British up on Gaddafi's hit (or hate) list, too. Gaddafi began to deal with the Soviet Union more and more. In December 1988, a Pan Am flight from London to New York exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all aboard the plane and causing further deaths on the ground. Evidence pieced together led investigators to believe the bombing was orchestrated by Gaddafi. The extensive investigation was ongoing when Reagan left office in January 1989. 

 During the mid 1980s, members of both political parties tried to work out a law to deal with the nation's problem with illegal immigration. The law basically made it illegal for employers to "knowingly" hire people who were in the country without documentation. This was an attempt to restrict employment, primarily, but not exclusively, by agricultural firms, in hiring undocumented workers, which the theory went, then only encouraged more illegal immigration. These workers typically made far less than the average American worker and provided a cheap labor source. The idea was, curtail hiring of illegals, and this would then discourage other potential illegal immigrants from trying to enter the country. Many American business people, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, opposed the bill, not just because of the cheap labor sources it provided to some businesses, but because the law would involve them in checking worker documentation. Latino-American groups opposed the bill because they feared hiring discrimination against LEGAL immigrants, or even Latino-American citizens, simply because of their appearances, and the desire by employers to avoid any possibility of hiring illegal immigrants. In an effort to please both business people and the Latino-American community, the law provided for undocumented workers to become legal under certain circumstances.** With many of the grievances addressed for both business and Latino-Americans, a successful coalition had been formed to advance the legislation, and the bill passed and was signed into law by President Reagan.

By 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev took power in the Soviet Union. Gorbachev sought to modernize and to liberalize Soviet society by granting a degree of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, plus by releasing a number of political prisoners from Soviet custody. Gorbachev himself criticized corruption in the Soviet system. He also desired a lowering of tensions in the Cold War and met with President Reagan, with whom he signed an agreement about limiting nuclear weapons.***

Next.... "Assessment of Reagan"

* Until more recent times in English, it was more typically spelled "Qaddafi," the "q" being pronounced like a "k."

** The law granted legal status (amnesty) to certain "seasonal workers" (almost by definition, agricultural workers) who had worked at least 90 days in the U.S. by May 1986 and to illegal immigrants who had continuously lived in the U.S. prior to 1982. These provisions granted amnesty to about three million previously illegal immigrants.

*** Earlier in his administration, Reagan had proposed an elaborate space defense system against attack, dubbed "Star Wars" in the media. The plan created much debate as to its possibilities, but its major stumbling block was the estimated cost at a time when Reagan had already proposed large defense budget increases and the country was running huge budget deficits. A further problem was the time needed to develop the technology for such a system, which involved a system of space deployed lasers to destroy incoming enemy missiles (usually in those times thought of as "Soviet"). 

WORD HISTORY:
Broth-This word traces back to Indo European "bhreuwhe," which had the notion of "to boil;" thus also, "to bubble, to seethe, to cook." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "breuwanan," which meant "to brew" (indeed, the ancestor of "brew"), which then also produced a noun "breuthan," meaning "broth;" that is, "liquid produced after cooking/boiling something in it." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "broth." Since this word is derived from the same source as "brew," its other Germanic relatives have retained the forms generally closer to that, like German "Brühe" (broth), although German also has the derived verb "brodeln," which means "to boil," along with the figurative "seethe with anger." Low German Saxon has "Bröh" (broth). Latin borrowed a form of the word from Germanic, which then gave Italian, for instance, "brodo," their word for "broth."

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Sixteen

"Iran-Contra: Reagan's Image and Popularity Take A Hit"

Midway through Reagan's second term a scandal broke which came to generally be called "Iran-Contra." The overall scandal was far too complex to detail here, and I would say, many Americans back then didn't really understand many of the details, but the basic parts involved were these:  First, pretty much throughout Reagan's time in office, Iran and neighboring Iraq were in a bitter war with one another. The long ordeal of the American hostages in Iran from 1979-1981 and the anti-American theocracy ruling Iran left the U.S. openly supporting Iraq, a country under dictator Saddam Hussein. U.S. support was financial, technological, military and diplomatic. There was a U.S. embargo (including weapons) against Iran at this same time. Further, the Cold War was still very much a reality, and fear of Soviet aid to other countries (and the influence that could gain), especially in the crucial oil area of the Middle East, was always a concern. Second, Nicaragua (in Central America) was ruled by a communist group called the "Sandinistas," a group the Reagan administration very much opposed (some would say "became obsessed with," which distorted their judgment). The administration was not legally able to give material support to the Nicaraguan opponents of the Sandinistas, called the "Contras," because of laws prohibiting such.* Third, while bound by law, Reagan made it clear to some in his administration that he wanted to assist the Contras in some way in their fight against the communist regime. Fourth, Iran needed military aid in its war against Iraq, and moderate political/military factions in Iran secretly sought such aid from the U.S., although the U.S. was openly in support of Iraq. Fifth, some Americans were being held hostage by an Iranian supported terrorist group in Lebanon. Reagan refused to negotiate with these terrorists for the release of the hostages.** Sixth, the U.S. sold weapons to Iran by using Israel as the actual supplier of the weapons to Iran, for which Israel then received weapons from the U.S. to compensate, with the further idea that the Iranians would then aid in the release of the American hostages in Lebanon. Seventh, the process began and weapons were sold to Iran via Israel and some hostages were released. Eighth, Oliver North, an officer in the Marine Corps, was also an adviser to the administration on national security matters. North proposed upping the price on the weapons sold to Iran and skipping the Israeli go between. The extra money generated by the sales would then be used to help the Contras in Nicaragua, and this money would not be reported as part of the arms sales, which was seen as a way to get around U.S. law.   

The overall deal had problems, as although some American hostages were released early on, other American hostages were then taken, "apparently" as replacements for those already released. "Perhaps" the Iranians, who weren't stupid, figured they were already being overcharged for the weapons, and that further hostages would give them leverage to keep needed American weapons coming to them for their war with Iraq. Whatever the case, news reports from the Middle East, seemingly initiated by Iranians, put the matter out into the public domain and brought a flurry of media coverage in the U.S. about an "arms for hostages deal." By then too, a plane had been shot down in Nicaragua by Sandinista forces while on a secret mission to deliver materials to the Contras. The mission had been approved by some Reagan administration officials. The whole complex matter began to be told, and under pressure, President Reagan tried to explain to Americans what had happened, which he said did not involve arms for hostages or broken American laws. However, hearings by a Reagan appointed commission to investigate the matter gained testimony from a number of witnesses and indicated the involvement of some high ranking Reagan administration officials, although some missing documents precluded conclusive direct links in many instances to the President himself, but the commission did blame Reagan for lax oversight of his administration. Reagan then faced the American public to tell them he had misspoken earlier about the arms for hostages deal, while still leaving room for Americans to support him by essentially saying he didn't see the deal making as arms for hostages, but the evidence said otherwise.

Reagan's popularity dropped tremendously. Reagan's time in office had several incidents with terrorists taking hostages on planes and even a cruise ship, where an elderly Jewish-American in a wheelchair was murdered and pushed overboard. It all goes to show that these kinds of terrorist incidents, which have continued in some manner ever since, are not easily controlled, in spite of the partisan political slogans, whether your name is Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama.    

* The Contras had initial help and support in organizing from the CIA, dating from the Carter administration. There were many reports that the Contras violated human rights and committed war crimes, which made some Americans leery of aiding them. On the other hand, the ruling Sandinistas, who had overthrown the previous government in a revolution, were communist and heavily backed by Cuba's Fidel Castro, with at least some connections to then communist dominated eastern Europe. 

** The refusal to negotiate with "terrorists" was not new. Jimmy Carter and his administration had negotiated with representatives of the Iranian government over the American hostages held a few years earlier, as "technically," the Iranian government was not holding the Americans hostage, but rather they were held by Iranian revolutionaries and students. Likewise, the hostages in Lebanon were held by an Iranian group, "technically" not affiliated with the Iranian government.

WORD HISTORY:
Brew-This word goes back to Indo European "bhreuh," which had the notion of "to boil," which led by extension to the meanings "to seethe, to bubble, to cook." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "breuwanan," which meant "to brew." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "breowan," which then became "brewen," before the modern version. The noun form developed from the verb, but another noun had preceded that, which was "briw," which meant "porridge, cooked meal/ground grain" (German still has the noun "Brei" and Low German has "Bree," both with the same meaning as their now deceased English relative). Forms of "brew" are common in the other Germanic languages and it is closely related to "broth," which comes from the same source (I'll cover it soon): German has "brauen" (to brew), "Brühe" (broth) and "Gebräu" (formerly  "a brew," but in modern times used derogatorily for "a brewed concoction"); Low German Saxon has "broen" (to brew) and "Bröh" (broth); Dutch has "brouwen" (to brew); West Frisian has "brouwe" (brew); Danish has "brygge" (brew);  Icelandic has "brugga" (brew);  Norwegian has "brygg" (brew); and Swedish has "brygga" (to brew).

Where Are You In The Food Chain?

The retreat to the time of winner take all capitalism in America means just that, winner take all. The purists on the right, and the more anti business elements on the far left, have formed something of an alliance, although only by conviction, not by their respect for each other. The purists on the right say, "No bailouts, businesses either sink or swim, but if you swim, you deserve to shoot for domination," although they can't or won't tell people what that really means.* The "sink" part is clear, if the auto industry is on the verge of failure like a few years ago, "The hell with 'em. Business decisions have consequences, and we all have to tough it out. If you're an investor who will lose your investment, oh well; if you're a worker who will lose your job, oh well; if you run a business that will fail because of dependence on the auto industry, oh well. If unemployment goes up by hundreds of thousands or even millions, oh well, and we aren't too crazy about giving you unemployment benefits either, you bunch of lazy losers, so if we have our way, benefits will be severely limited, or eliminated. And don't tell us how unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, because we don't believe in stimulating the economy, even though people say our conservative god, Ronald Reagan, stimulated the economy with tax cuts, military spending and huge budget deficits, that's all just a big lie, and don't try showing us the numbers either, they've just been cooked up by the liberal media. You can't have freedom if you bail out the companies, and you may not realize it, but if you lose your job or your business, that's freedom, worship it, and don't look for the taxpayer cavalry to come riding to the rescue. If other nations come to dominate the auto industry, that's the price you pay for a free society and free markets, even if those other nations do provide government assistance to business; we pity them for such a practice." 

What is the ultimate effect of "winner take all?" Well let's put it this way, we're all pretty much on the menu, because the economic food chain will have the better off devouring those less well off, but those at the top will have one hell of a feast, because they will dominate EVERYTHING, a position they are not far from achieving, so if this absolute economic nonsense continues, you might as well decide if you want to be served with an apple in your mouth, or maybe with just a little parsley, when you are presented on a platter for the winner take all philosophy and the consequent idea that there's really no American nation, but only a bunch of individuals who deserve to be dominated by the successful. Of course, if outside enemies threaten the success of those magnificent successes, YOU will then be expected to defend the nation "of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy," or you will be dubbed "unpatriotic."

* Opponents of bailouts on the left just feel it is wrong to give money to business, while they too seem to be oblivious to the economic consequences, although some on the far left hope that such calamity will radicalize the American middle class.

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Fifteen

"Conservatism Consolidates Power-Reagan Runs Again"

As the economy gradually improved, foreign policy challenges remained for the U.S. and the world, including in the ever volatile Middle East. Lebanon was in a state of civil war, and the U.S. sent military personnel, mainly Marines, as part of an international force to guarantee the withdrawal of opposing forces there, including Israeli military units, and to provide security for Lebanon to stabilize.* Not long thereafter, there was a suicide bombing of the American embassy in Beirut which killed more than 60 Americans. This was followed a few months later by another suicide attack on a barracks in Beirut housing American military personnel, primarily Marines, which resulted in the death of nearly 250 Americans, most of them U.S. Marines. A few months later, Reagan authorized the withdrawal of American forces from Lebanon. Also shortly after the barracks bombing came an attack on the U.S. embassy in Kuwait and about a year later came another attack on the U.S. embassy in Beirut, which had been moved to another part of the city after the first bombing.

In a period of about two and one half years, the Soviet Union had FOUR different leaders. Always secretive and insecure, the Soviets were terrified of telling the truth to their people, and when their leaders did not appear in public for a lengthy period, Soviet propaganda, ah, I mean "news," would announce that the particular leader "has a cold." It fooled few in free nations (in fact it became something of a joke), and probably few Soviet citizens, as three leaders died during that time span, finally bringing Mikhail Gorbachev to power. In the midst of these changes in Soviet leaders came news that a Korean passenger plane had been shot down by Soviet aircraft, after straying into Soviet airspace, resulting in more than 200 deaths (most of them South Koreans, but Americans and other nationalities were also killed). Reagan stopped Soviet flights to the U.S. and halted some negotiations with the Soviets in retaliation. The Soviets "claimed" the plane was spying on the Soviet Union,** a story that didn't play well in the international community. The incident only served to play to one of Reagan's strengths, his anti-communism and his ability to lambaste the Soviets, which became increasingly popular in the U.S. and other democratic nations.

By 1984 Reagan was up for reelection, although he was 73 years old. The age issue remained with him, as it had when he ran in 1980. As noted in an earlier segment, Reagan loved to joke, including about himself, and he even could laugh at jokes by others about him. Just prior to his inauguration, impressionist and comedian Rich Little had perfected Reagan's voice and mannerisms. With Reagan in the audience, Little told a joke, the gist of which, I have never forgotten. The basic joke was that a reporter (imitated by Little) asked Reagan at a news conference what he planned to do about the energy crisis. In response, (imitating Reagan) he said something like, "We are going to go to the sun to tap the energy there. Now I know you may think this is strange, because we'll get burned up before we get there, but we won't, because we're going to go at night." Cameras showed Reagan laughing as hard as the audience. This was one of Reagan's strengths, the ability to laugh, even at his own expense. I can't emphasize enough, Americans generally liked this, and being liked as president is critical in tough times, and it undoubtedly, in my opinion, allowed Reagan to remain in office, even though the public did not necessarily agree with many of his policies. This earned him the title of the "Teflon president," by some; that is, political problems didn't stick to him.

In the first debate in 1984 against Democratic opponent, former Vice President Walter Mondale, Reagan was not in top shape, and this brought renewed concern about his age. More on his toes in the second debate, Reagan cracked that he was not going to exploit Mondale's "youth and inexperience" (he was 17 years younger than Reagan) against him in the campaign. Even Mondale laughed, and the issue of Reagan's age died down. On election day, Reagan won a resounding victory, carrying all but Mondale's home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia, as well as nearly 59% of the popular vote (Mondale received less than 41%).*** Like him, not like him, agree with him, or not agree with him, Americans took a strong liking to Reagan and felt he was "in charge;" thus they entrusted him with another four years.

* The situation in Lebanon was highly complex and far beyond the boundaries of this article, but it involved religious elements in Lebanon, where there was a mixture of Christians, Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims, plus elements of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (also known as the "PLO"), and substantial influence by Syria and by Iran, which was a theocracy (a system of rule by those believed to be divinely guided). Israel intervened in Lebanon with military forces about a year before U.S. military involvement.

** This is another complicated story beyond the boundaries of this article, but there have been theories that the plane may have had the additional mission of gathering information (spying) on the Soviets. Since the Soviets withheld much evidence for so long, including items recovered from the aircraft, their credibility for supporting evidence was highly suspect. 

*** The 1984 election saw Walter Mondale choose Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro as his vice presidential running mate. This was the first time a major party had a woman on the ticket, but it didn't help much, as women voted heavily for Reagan, although less so than men.

WORD HISTORY:
Stair(s)-Often used in the plural, this word goes back to Indo European "steygh," which had the notion of "step, stride (which also produced the sense 'march'), and ascend." This gave Old Germanic the noun "staigriz," which placed more emphasis on the "ascend" meaning, as it meant "elevated platform;" thus several "elevated platforms" became "stairs, staircase, stairway." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "staeger," with the meaning "staircase" or just one "step" of such a staircase. This later became "stayer," "steir," or "steyer" (all such forms were used), as the "g" sound transitioned to a "y" or "i" sound, which then produced the modern version. Common in the other Germanic languages: German uses three forms: "Stiege" (pronounced as if "steeg-eh), "staircase," "Steig" (pronounced as if "styke"), "path on a hill or mountain," and "Steige" (pronounced as if "sty-geh"), "steps, stairs;" Low German Saxon has "Stieg" meaning "path;" Dutch has "steiger," "landing platform, pier;" Danish and Norwegian have "sti," meaning "path, trail;" and Swedish has "stig," meaning "path." I did not find forms in modern Frisian or Icelandic, although West Frisian has the verb form "stige," meaning "to climb, to ascend."

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Fourteen

"Conservatism Consolidates Power-Reagan"

During 1981 Ronald Reagan fired thousands of the nation's air traffic controllers who had gone on strike.*  This action signaled business people that labor unions had no friend in the White House, in spite of Reagan touting how he had once been the president of a union. It was another of Reagan's contradictions, but it didn't really hurt him in the long run, as some union members still staunchly supported the President.

Ronald Reagan had made his strong anti-communist feelings clear going back well before he was president; in fact, when he was still a Democrat and president of The Screen Actors Guild, the union for performers, when he testified at a congressional hearing about possible communist sympathies in the film industry. His strong support for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election solidified Reagan's position as a leading anti-communist spokesman. As President, Reagan used his position to lambaste the Soviet Union, which he declared to be "the evil empire," and he supported giving aid, even in secret, to groups opposing communist or communist leaning governments in other countries. President Carter had begun giving aid to Afghanistan opponents of the Soviet Union and its Marxist allies in the country.** Reagan, with support from some Democrats in Congress, intensified American support for the Afghanistan forces opposing the Soviets. The Reagan administration also supported anti-communist groups in a number of other countries, including in Ethiopia and Nicaragua.*** In 1983, the little island nation of Grenada (off the coast of the northern part of South America), with a Marxist government, had internal troubles which had the government taken over by the military elements of the ruling Marxists and strict martial law was imposed, with the threat of execution for violators.**** There were at least several hundred Americans on the island, mainly medical students. In an effort to send in military forces to both secure the Americans and to defeat the Marxists, who had Cuban support, the Reagan administration had other nearby nations "ask for military assistance from the United States," and American forces invaded the island. A constitutional government was established, although Britain was not entirely happy with the American intervention into this Commonwealth nation. Americans generally reacted favorably to the President's action, which had the cover of acting to secure the American medical students, as the recollection of the hostages in Iran was still fresh in people's minds, but the administration also claimed victory of turning a Marxist nation, albeit a small one, to a constitutional nation.

* The controllers wanted better pay, but the main issue was a shorter work week. Reagan had voiced support for the controllers' cause during the 1980 campaign and the union endorsed Reagan over Carter in that election.

** Afghanistan was and is a nation almost exclusively Muslim. The Soviet Union sent troops into Afghanistan in 1979 in support of the pro-Soviet government there, which was opposed by the committed Muslim segment of the population, a segment which grew and became more radicalized as time passed. Thus began a resistance to Soviet forces in Afghanistan, aided by Muslims who came from outside the country, including one Osama bin Laden, and given financial and military aid by the United States. The military and clandestine operations experience gained by the Muslim fighters against the Soviets over nearly a decade of war was later often turned against the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 after suffering tens of thousands of killed, wounded, or sick. Their failure in Afghanistan is often likened, by some, to the U.S. role in Vietnam, which ended in the mid 1970s.

*** Just a little personal story here. In the mid 1980s I was in Germany traveling on a train from Berlin to Frankfurt. From the end of World War Two until German reunification in 1990, Berlin lay within the Soviet occupation zone, which was communist East Germany. Berlin itself was also divided into democratic and communist. The trip to Frankfurt was largely in East German territory. There had been a major revelation about communist spies, called "moles"  (German: "Maulwürfe") in (democratic) West Germany, and the West Germans cracked down. In my train compartment, besides a couple of Germans, was a young man from Ethiopia, a country at that time with a pro-Soviet government. He had been to a university in Moscow and he actually had a Soviet passport. He spoke to the German guy next to me in French (so an Ethiopian with a Soviet passport speaking French, confused yet?). When the train stopped at the border between East and West Germany, the West German guards got on to check passports and  identification, which was quite normal. However, when they saw the man's passport and his native country, they went through everything that man had with him, including his toothbrush. I am not exaggerating. He was young and visibly shaken, but such were the tensions of the Cold War back in those times. As for myself, I had no problems going through East German territory either to get to Berlin or to return to Frankfurt. The East Germans needed western money, and they charged a special "transit visa" (equivalent to a dollar or two) to cross their territory. The trip to Berlin was not quite as much in East German territory, as I had been in Hamburg (in northern Germany) for a few days and left from there, crossing into East Germany at the little town of Büchen (actually in West Germany), which was a major crossing point between East and West..

**** Grenada had been a British colony until the mid 1970s and the official language is English. It remained (and remains) a Commonwealth nation, and Queen Elizabeth II is also the Queen of Grenada.  

WORD HISTORY:
Missile-The ultimate origins of this word are unknown, but it is closely related to "mission" and "message." It goes back to Latin "mittere," which meant "to send," the participle form of which was "missus." This produced the Latin  noun "missilis," meaning "things that are thrown," but especially used of "thrown weapons." English borrowed the word from Latin in the early 1600s, and by about the mid 1700s, besides being used for thrown weapons, it was also applied to rockets used in combat (see note). The modern sense of large rockets remotely controlled or with guidance systems of their own is post World War Two usage.
NOTE: The use of rockets as weapons goes back much further than most people probably realize, as the Chinese and Mongols certainly used them in the 1300s, and likely the 1200s or before. 

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Thirteen

"Conservatism Takes Power-Reagan"

In January of 1981 Ronald Reagan became President of the United States. The ordeal of the American hostages in Iran, which had lasted well over a year, reached an end on Jimmy Carter's last full day in office, after extensive negotiations, but in an apparent effort to give Carter as little attention as possible, the Iranians only released the Americans from custody the next day, right after Reagan took the oath of office.
 
Reagan and Republicans began to try to implement their agenda, which included big tax cuts and large increases in military spending. To achieve his goals, Reagan worked with conservative Democrats, particularly in the House of Representatives, which was under Democratic control. By appealing to these Democrats, Reagan forged a coalition in the House which often provided him with a working majority. The country faced an inflation rate in the double digits, and the Federal Reserve, under Carter appointee Paul Volcker, sought to squeeze inflation out of the economy through interest rate hikes and a slowing economy. Interest rates reached 20% during 1981, and more than 21% the next year. Gradually the high interest rates slowed the economy considerably, bringing about a severe recession, which technically began in the summer of 1981. In the meantime, an assassination attempt on Reagan in March 1981 left the President hospitalized, and others wounded, including James Brady, Reagan's White House Press Secretary, who suffered a severe wound to his head, which left him disabled thereafter. The gunman was a mentally ill man named John Hinckley, who had also worked on plans to kill President Carter. Reagan was rushed to surgery and he remained in the hospital for about two weeks, but it took a few months for him to fully recover.

As Reagan recovered, but the economy moved lower, the President pushed his initial economic plan through Congress later in the summer of 1981, by which time the economy was in full retreat and unemployment eventually soared to nearly 11% in 1982. Democrats quickly pinned the severe downturn on Reagan and his policies, but in my opinion, the recession was overwhelmingly the result of policies implemented by the Federal Reserve to curtail inflation. Reagan's plan cut taxes for high incomes from 70% to 50% and from 14% to 11% for the lowest bracket, and the rate of taxation on capital gains fell from 28% to 20%.* More than a year later in the fall of 1982, the economy had worsened and Reagan's popularity had diminished considerably. Democrats scored significant gains in the House in the midterm election that year, but Reagan was still able to use conservative Democrats as part of his legislative coalition to get things passed. The severe economic downturn brought about a decline in inflation and a gradual lowering of interest rates by the Federal Reserve. Huge budget deficits from the tax cuts, high unemployment, and increased military spending helped stimulate the economy, in spite of Reagan's anti deficit rhetoric. Unemployment, the worst since the Great Depression, began to slowly recede.

All in all, a year or so before the presidential election of 1984, Reagan looked like a one-term president, but Reagan had a knack for keeping his coalition together, although his rhetoric often actually contradicted his policies or real life experience. The "religious right" became a force to be reckoned with in American politics during Reagan's presidency, and its leaders, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, preached "family values" and they loved Reagan, although Reagan had been divorced and had estrangement problems with a couple of his children, plus he rarely attended church. In the end though, most Americans liked Ronald Reagan and that helped to sustain his presidency. Polls showed his likability, while Americans were lukewarm or out and out cold toward some of his policies or ideas. Reagan loved to joke, including about himself, a characteristic seemingly liked by most Americans. Reagan tended to be in his White House office from like 9 to 5,** a preference he in fact admitted to, and Democrats dubbed him "lazy," but Reagan cracked a joke about his office hours that generally sticks in my mind to this day. When asked about his hours by reporters, Reagan told them something like, "My mother always told me hard work never hurt anybody, but I decided to take it easy, just in case she was wrong." (Although I've put this in quotation marks, this is NOT an exact quote, but rather a paraphrase from my recollections, and Reagan "may" have used variations on his quip at different times.)

With Social Security facing financial problems, Reagan worked with Democrats in 1983 to keep the popular program solvent. Reagan had long advocated that Social Security be voluntary, but in 1983, he completely reversed himself and joined with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill to bring more revenues (deductions from paychecks) and reforms to Social Security, including gradually raising the retirement age. Reagan proved himself to be far less dogmatic than many had feared, while still keeping his conservative base intact. Americans tended to see in Reagan what they wanted to see, something that has continued to this day, as the now far more conservative Republican Party talks how Reagan didn't increase taxes, or that he had firm convictions, while all of the historical evidence on such matters shows them to be wrong, and that doesn't count the enormous budget deficits run during his presidency, even AFTER the economy had recovered from the terrible recession earlier in his term.*** Reagan regularly met with Democrats, and while he and Speaker O'Neill did battle in public, they frequently shared a drink and joke telling at the White House. This was politics on a personal level, something never done much or well by Jimmy Carter.

Next, "Conservatism Consolidates Power-Reagan"

* You can see the entire bill or its major provisions at various sites. The actual law was termed, "The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981," although it is also called the "Reagan tax cuts." Capital gains taxes are paid on profits from the sale of assets, and therefore tend to largely, but not entirely, benefit wealthier people. For example, just to keep this simple, you buy stock for $100 and you sell it for $300, you therefore pay capital gains based on the $200 profit. Since wealthier people own a huge percentage of all stocks, bonds, and property, they tend to benefit more by a lower capital gains tax rate. The actual percentage of such assets owned by the wealthy is somewhat in dispute, but it seems that the top ten percent in wealth own somewhere between 80% and 90% of these assets. The idea of capital gains taxes was to tax "non earned income;" that is, income not derived from working at a job or business.

** Democrats made an issue of Reagan's office hours, but by all accounts, he did take lots of work upstairs to the White House residence each day, and let's be honest, in spite of criticism by both parties of presidents from the opposing party going on vacation or not working hard enough, no president is EVER truly on vacation or off duty. Both parties get silly about some things, when there are far more important debates to engage in.

*** It is important to note about the deficits in this manner, because recessions cause budget strains, as higher unemployment brings a drop in tax revenue, while simultaneously increasing spending on  unemployment payments and programs like food stamps or public works. "Ideally" when the economy is stronger, deficits would be low, non existent or turned into surpluses. None of this happened under Ronald Reagan by the time he left office in January 1989, nor was he close to achieving such. 

WORD HISTORY:
Smite-This word traces back to Indo European "smeid," which had the notion of "rub, smear," and further, "hit, strike." This gave Old Germanic "smitanan," which meant "to throw, to fling, to smear," with the "throw" meaning likely a development from "smearing mud or lime onto a wall or object, after throwing it there." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "smitan," which meant "to smear, to make dirty, to hit." In this case, "hit" likely expanded beyond the "throwing" of mud or lime, to include other things, more generally. This later became "smiten," before the modern version. The word came to be used in Biblical translations with the meaning "slay," again likely from the notion of "hitting an enemy with a spear, rock or other thrown weapon," and it is this general meaning that has persisted into modern times. While not an every day word in English anymore, it is still in use, and it still has relatives in the other Germanic languages, which largely retain the "throw, fling" meaning (unless otherwise noted): German has "schmeissen," Low German Saxon has "smieten," Dutch has "smijten," West Frisian has "smite," Danish has "smide," and Swedish has "smita" (this has come to mean "run off," probably from the notion of "throw, projecting something away from the speaker"). Norwegian and Icelandic apparently no longer use forms of the word.

"The Beverly Hillbillies," Big Hit of the 1960s

This was originally published October 5, 2012 as "The Beverly Hillbillies Made Great Points," but I slightly edited and updated it on January 21, 2015, especially to reflect the then recent passing of Donna Douglas, who played Elly May.* I then did a bit of an expansion to the article on January 7, 2018.

The early 1960s brought a new show to television, "The Beverly Hillbillies," which spawned or paved the way for a number of other shows with a "country" or "rural" theme. The show garnered high viewer ratings through the years, except for near the end of its run, which was for nearly a decade. In those times, virtually all regular shows were recorded in black and white ("Bonanza" was an exception), and it wasn't until the mid 1960s that color was used for all shows, and so it was with "The Beverly Hillbillies," which started out in black and white and then switched to color production. For those unaware, the general idea of "The Beverly Hillbillies" was that a poor family from way back in the hills struck oil on their property. They had led a life essentially isolated from (then) modern society and its devices, and when an oil company executive offered them money for the rights to their oil, they thought they were going to be paid in some sort of "new dollars," because he offered them "million" dollars, as "million" was a term beyond their vocabulary. When all was said and done, these formally uneducated folks moved to Beverly Hills, a wealthy suburb some ten miles from downtown Los Angeles. The family was headed by Jed Clampett, played by actor Buddy Ebsen, a widower with an attractive daughter, Elly May, played by Donna Douglas, and references during the series seem to indicate that the Ellie May character would have been in her late teens when the show started. She was sheer tomboy through and through, and she loved to climb trees and she had a natural gift with animals of all sorts, or "critters," as the Clampetts called them. Elly May was also not afraid to take on her cousin, Jethro Bodine, played by Max Baer, Jr., Jed's nephew, a tall strapping boy (supposedly also in his late teens), who was the "educated" one of the family, as he "gradgeeated" 6th Grade; the Clampett way of saying "graduated." The family's final member was "Granny," Jed's mother in law, unforgettably played by Irene Ryan. Granny was a little old woman, sometimes religious, sometimes sweet, and sometimes as cantankerous as a bunch of angry yellow jackets. She took care of the family when they were sick and she called herself an "MD," for "mountain doctor." Collectively they were called "the Clampetts," and they moved into a luxurious Beverly Hills mansion next door to the mansion of their moneygrubbing banker, one Milburn Drysdale, played by Raymond Bailey, and his snooty blue blood wife, Margaret, played by Harriet MacGibbon, who constantly tried to "rid the neighborhood" of what she considered the Clampett blight, although the Clampetts did their best to be friendly to Mrs. Drysdale and even to do things for her. The Clampetts always referred to Mrs. Drysdale as "Miz Drysdale." Mr. Drysdale was ably served at the bank by his secretary, Jane Hathaway, played by Nancy Kulp, an unmarried woman who took a strong liking to Jethro. Drysdale often took Miss Hathaway's ideas, claiming them as his own when they worked, but blaming her for his own failed schemes.**

The writers for this show did such a great job in contrasting the lifestyles of the Hillbillies and their Beverly Hills' neighbors. Banker Drysdale was consumed with moneymaking, and with tens of millions of Clampett money deposited in his bank, he was forced to go along with some of the family's beliefs and practices out of fear of losing their account. Drysdale and others couldn't understand why the Clampetts didn't just settle down and let their oil contracts and investments bring in the money, like many of their wealthy neighbors did, and they could then conform to the social ways of Beverly Hills high society. Instead, the family's values didn't really change with their newly acquired wealth, and in fact, their values dictated they had to keep busy and earn a living, as well as help others, for FREE, a concept totally lost on Drysdale, who called it "un-American." When Jed learned that the government needed money, he offered to pay more in taxes, an idea that astonished the money loving Drysdale, who claimed that it was the American way to try to avoid paying taxes, although Jed told him he didn't mind paying the taxes, because "I can afford it." The family refused to have servants and Granny cooked their "vittles" (victuals; that is, food) every day, a diet of things like groundhog, possum, hog jowls, turnip greens, hawk eggs, and gopher gravy. Granny made her own lye soap in a big "kittle" (kettle) out by the "cement pond" (pronounced "ceement" pond=swimming pool). She also kept a still (shortened form of "distillery") for making her "rheumatiz medicine," which was really booze, "white lightnin'," and as she told one lady with rheumatism as she handed her a glass of "medicine," "I've had rheumatiz for about forty years... Loved every minute of it."  

In one episode, in an effort to keep busy, the Clampetts decide to convert their mansion into a boarding house, a practice against the zoning laws in their "exclusive" neighborhood. In an absolutely hysterically funny scene, they place signs along the street to lure in potential boarders (also against the law there). As Drysdale and his secretary approach the Clampett mansion, they see all of these signs, one of which says something like, "Just a little bit more, keep on comin'," then followed by another sign saying, "Outdoor swimmin' and indoor plummin'." All efforts by Drysdale and Miss Hathaway only manage to move the Clampetts a little toward modern times, but their timeless decency and practicality remain the same. In another episode, Drysdale tries to get Jed to take up a hobby instead of pushing a dilapidated cart around the neighborhood with a sign offering to fix things for people, FOR FREE. He shows Jed a boat in a bottle, a project which took the owner several years to complete. Jed promptly tells him how much easier it would have been to build the boat outside the bottle. When Drysdale tells him the man wanted to build the boat inside the bottle, Jed calmly notes that he won't be able to float it inside the bottle. The banker then tells Jed it isn't for sailing, it is just for viewing, which brings the response from Jed, "Why?" followed by a comment about people needing to do useful things, including helping others. Drysdale changes the subject to stamp collecting, pointing to one Hawaiian stamp and telling Jed that it cost thousands of dollars. When he asks Jed if he would like to own it, Jed responds that he doesn't know anyone in Hawaii to write to, and that it obviously costs too much money to send a letter there anyway. In a final effort, Drysdale brings out a coin collection and shows Jed a dime that cost the owner several thousand dollars. Jed then wants to know why the guy would pay that much for a dime, since it's only worth ten cents. When Drysdale tries to explain, Jed asks something like, "If your friend puts that dime into a candy machine, will he get thousands of dollars worth of candy?" It's tough to argue with common sense.

There were so many hilarious episodes, I can't begin to go into all of them, but.... you're not getting off this easy, so here are some comments about other episodes. In one great episode, Mrs. Drysdale has a gardener begin flower beds for the Drysdale backyard, but Elly May's chimpanzee keeps taking his gardening tools. Mrs. Drysdale believes Granny is stealing the things, and the situation sets off a feud between Mrs. Drysdale and Granny. In another episode, back at their property in the hills, there is a minor property boundary dispute with a neighboring Indian tribe. The chief of the tribe and his son are highly educated individuals, but Granny hears of the dispute by telephone and she assumes that there is a pending Indian attack, an attack Granny is so insistent will take place, Drysdale has to organize an Indian raid, just to keep Granny happy. In a couple of the very highly rated episodes, the Clampetts went to England to care for Jed's ailing English relative. Well.... ah, the Clampetts and American English and societal customs were not exactly on super close terms, but the Clampetts trying to understand the English spoken in England and English society made for some great laughs. In what I believe Buddy Ebsen later said was his favorite episode, Drysdale wants the Clampetts to consider buying a yacht. Jethro gets Jed a uniform for when they go to the yacht, but it's an admiral's uniform, and the Clampetts get the dock number mixed up and end up aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer! When the ship's officers and crew see Jed's uniform they think he's a real admiral there for an inspection, while Granny is upset that if they buy the "yacht," she'll have to cook and look after the couple hundred men of the crew! In a somewhat touching episode, actress Gloria Swanson appears as herself and the Clampetts see an article that Miss Swanson is moving from her California home. She is having an auction conducted for many of her belongings to raise money for charity, but the Clampetts misunderstand and they think the star of silent pictures is being evicted from her home and her belongings are being sold off to help pay debts. The Clampetts go to the rescue of Gloria Swanson, an effort much appreciated by the famous actress, who finds out she still has quite a following in a little rural town called "Bugtussle." 

Like part of the show's main subject, "The Beverly Hillbillies" was not a beloved show to some who feared Americans, under the strong influence of television, would all begin speaking "Clampett," instead of English and these folks must have been inwardly, if not outwardly, furious that the public LOVED the show, as demonstrated by its strong numbers in the viewing audience ratings. When the show ended, it only really ended in new episodes, because the existing episode catalog was replayed on a continuing basis on stations all over, which was a way of fans telling the show's critics to go jump in the "ceement pond!"

For fans of the show, check out, "The Beverly Hillbillies," by Stephen Cox, Cumberland House Publishing, Inc. Initial publication 1988, then in 1992 and 2003.       

* For more about Donna Douglas, this is the link to my January 3, 2015 post:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2015/01/elly-may-cant-be-gone.html
 
** To give proper credit, the show's catchy theme song was played by bluegrass duo Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs, and sung by Jerry Scoggins. All three have passed on, with Earl Scruggs just passing away in 2012 at the age of 88. Flatt and Scruggs made several appearances on the show over the years. Irene Ryan, who in real life was much younger than the "Granny" character she played on television, died only a couple of years after the show ended. She was 70. Buddy Ebsen died in 2003 at the age of 95, but he had successfully transitioned from playing "Jed Clampett" to a private investigator in the hit CBS drama "Barnaby Jones" in the 1970s. Raymond Bailey died in 1980 just a couple weeks shy of turning 76. Harriet MacGibbon died in 1987 at the age of 81. Nancy Kulp died in 1991 at age 69. After the end of the "Beverly Hillbillies," Kulp became part of the cast of NBC's hit comedy, "Sanford and Son." She later ran for Congress as a Democrat in her native Pennsylvania, but lost to the Republican. Buddy Ebsen, a Republican, recorded an ad against Kulp, a deed which split the two veteran performers until not long before Kulp died. See note one, above, for Donna Douglas' information. Max Baer Jr. is now 81 years of age (as of December 2018). He had a rough go as an actor after the show ended, as Hollywood saw him as too tied to the character of Jethro, but he successfully got into producing and directing.

Photo is from the 2016 CBS Studios/Paramount DVD for Season One

WORD HISTORY:
Hill-This word is distantly related, through Indo European, to "excellent," a Latin-derived word borrowed by English from French, and it is much more closely related to "holm" (as in "Stockholm"), a word from Germanic borrowed by English from Old Norse; perhaps at least, in its main meaning of "small island," but English "may" have already had its own form of the word. "Hill" goes back to Indo European "khel/khol," which had the notion of "height, elevation." This then produced Indo European "kholiz," with the same meanings. This gave Old Germanic "hulniz," which seems to have meant "top rocks, elevated land or rocks." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hyll," which later became, "hyl," and finally "hill." Low German had "holm," meaning "hill, elevated piece of land, small island in a river or sea," and this passed into German in the 1600s, but its use has been mainly literary, not in every day speech. Icelandic has "hóll, meaning "hill." Others had, or still have, forms that meant/mean "island;" that is, "land elevated above water," or "rock," from the idea of "elevated above ground or sea level," as Danish has "helle," with both meanings. Dutch "hil," is an old form meaning, "elevated land, hill."

Coalition Of The Angriest

Elections often are driven by angry people who form parts of political coalitions, in both major parties.* This election is no different, although the angriest of the angry are still in the Republican coalition, which contains a hardcore base of racists and bigots, who are just obsessed with the idea that there's a person of color in the White House. Any sense of moderation in the Republican Party has been lost, because even respected members of the party are too afraid to speak out against this element. When you see and hear the hatred these folks have for the President, this isn't about policy, this about something they feel far more deeply about, race. Further, there's an absolute anger at poor people, regardless of race. Further still, there are some former Hilary Clinton supporters who are just plain pissed that she lost to Obama in 2008. Forget about the country, they want revenge. Poor John McCain really doesn't have much of a constituency among the angry, except in reverse, as a number of people on the political right hate him, too. Pretty much the same with Romney, as he's just the wolf in sheep's clothing to get the political right back into the White House. If he wins, I don't see any way he controls the nastiest and nuttiest elements of his own party, who pretty much have contempt for him, and the way Republicans have been careening rightwards, that doesn't leave a hell of a lot for him to control.

All the while the income gap widens and wealthy interests can say, "Look, keep the anger focused on anything or everything, but us. Let the masses fight over whatever, who the hell cares. We'll just keep raking it in, increasing our take of the pie until the middle class is so squeezed, they'll turn on the poor, not us, because they want to be rich too, not that we're going to give them much opportunity to do that. Ever since Reagan we've had just great success in getting pretty much whatever we want, and the masses are too stupid and divided to pay attention to what's been happening. We ship jobs overseas, hell, we even ship whole plants out the country, we get tax cuts we don't need, we wanted illegal immigrants in the country to do a lot of the menial jobs for a pittance and we got 'em, we spend tons of money on candidates who will protect us, and what do Americans do? They lament the lost jobs and complain about all of the things we've named, but they still vote for our candidates. They even blame the other side for some of the problems we've helped create by our greed... I mean, by our desire for the money we're entitled to, and make no mistake about it, we ARE entitled to it. You'd think the dumb asses would listen to what just about every economist on the planet has been telling them about how we're picking their pockets for every dollar we can get and how upward mobility in American society has plummeted, but these idiots turn around and blame poor people! It's just too hilarious, and we laugh every time we look at our bank accounts, which is often. We want the estate tax repealed too, and that'll really keep the money under OUR control, where it belongs, and just about everyone not already rich can forget about ever becoming rich, unless they hit the lottery, good luck! Just keep up the good work (for us) America... VOTE REPUBLICAN, so we can get that estate tax repealed soon!"

* Democrats have angry people too as part of their coalition, but the energy still lies more on the Republican side.Not all members of both parties are necessarily angry, as many vote with their respective party out of tradition.

WORD HISTORY:
Zeal-The ultimate origins of this word are unknown, but is closely related to "jealous;" in fact, it is really another form of that word. It traces back to Old Greek "zeloo," a verb which meant "to emulate out of admiration, to be jealous." From this came the Greek noun "zelos," meaning "jealousy, fervor for a person or belief." Apparently the latter came from the notion of "emulation;" that is, if a person is so admiring of another to emulate them, they have fervor or total devotion. Latin borrowed the word from Greek as "zelus," with the same basic meaning, which then went into religious writings. English borrowed the term from Latin religious writings in the late 1300s, first as "zele," before the modern version.

Can Some Wealthy People Be Hoodwinked for Good?

Some wealthy folks have worked very hard to earn much or all of what they have, with long stressful days, few days off, and a willingness to forgo what many other people consider some of the little joys of life, like spending a day at the beach or going to a favorite bar or restaurant to watch a sporting event with friends, just to give a couple of examples. They are "workaholics." Some people are driven by what seems to be inexhaustible energy, while others may be driven by anxiety and the fear they may never have enough money in their lives, or by fear that others are doing better than they are; thus, these kinds are always chasing the people they perceive to be ahead of them, and money itself is just a way of tabulating their life's success compared to others. Some of these folks can be absolutely ruthless, because their ego driven lives often forfeit a concern for others or even an awareness about the lives of others, although on occasion, they may make a big contribution to some charity to convince themselves how generous they really are, and that's fine, at least someone else benefited. Of course the lives of others they trampled on to get where they are seldom, if ever, come into their minds. Some may even feel contempt for those they've trampled on, feeling that anyone who allows themselves to be trampled on deserves what they get.* So you idealists, don't get too carried away with how far you think mankind has progressed. One of the questions I've always asked is, how do we channel their tremendous energy into constructive ventures? Can they somehow be hoodwinked into helping others, while still believing it's all about themselves?** Remember too, these kinds of people are not going to go away. Just in the time it took me to write this, quite a few have been born worldwide. The rest of the population has to decide how to use their energy and drive, while controlling their ruthless and destructive behavior. That's a big and tough assignment.

* In years gone by, I was around some very wealthy business people on a fairly regular basis, who essentially said just that. They also saw kindness as weakness, except at times when someone had the courage to tell them, point blank, at which time some did suddenly have a moment of "weakness" themselves," but usually, and unfortunately, it quickly passed. 

** I don't want to end without making my feelings clear that not all wealthy people have the beliefs nor ruthlessness mentioned above. Those who feel our basic system is too flawed will never agree, but it's the system we have, and some wealthy people knowingly do many good things for others. None of us is perfect. We all have egos which sometimes get the best of us, regardless of income level.  But, in my opinion, not all wealthy people belong to the category I've written about above.

WORD HISTORY:
Tramp (Trample)-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain, but it is closely related to "trap," from which "tramp" developed. Various forms of "trap" are or were used in the Germanic languages, and Latin based languages with forms likely borrowed a form from Germanic, with Frankish the "possible" lender. Old Germanic had "trap(p)," or similar. It had the notion of "step;" thus also, "walk." "Trap" (the capturing device) itself developed from the notion, "step or walk into a snare," "a device one or an animal steps into for capture." The original Germanic root "trap(p)" spawned the variant "tramp" with the basic sense of "walk," which also added the extended meaning "walk with heavy steps." This gave Low German "trampen," with the "to walk heavily" meaning, which also by extension gave the meaning "to stomp, to stamp." English borrowed the word from Low German as the verb "trampen" in the 1300s, which later dropped the "en." The verb "trample" was derived from it with the meaning, "walk over with destructive force," from the "walk heavily" notion. The noun "tramp," meaning "a vagabond," came from the idea of "someone who 'tramps' (walks, wanders) around," and the later idea of a tramp hitching a ride was borrowed by German from English as a verb "trampen," which means "to hitchhike." Further, Danish has "trampe" meaning "to trample, to stamp;" Norwegian has "trampe" meaning "to tramp," Swedish has "trampa" which means "to trample, to tread." Icelandic borrowed the noun  "tramp" (vagabond) from English.

Extremist Religion Can Be Hazardous To Everyone's Health

Billions of people world wide have various religious beliefs, and many even have strong religious beliefs, but they go about their lives, they go to work, they go to their places of worship, and they don't hurt or bother anyone else over religion. If someone doesn't agree with them, they may wish it were otherwise, but they go about their business. If someone makes fun of them or their religion, they may not like it, they may even get angry, but they contain themselves and move on. Then there are those who have such fanatical religious beliefs, that anyone who dares to disagree with their religious view in any way faces severe repercussions. I just saw where in Bangladesh, a country with an overwhelmingly Muslim population, some Muslims rampaged through a Buddhist area destroying Buddhist temples and burning Buddhist homes, because of a photo posted on Facebook by ONE Buddhist which some Muslims felt insulted Islam. (The story said "one" Buddhist posted the picture, and the story provided no details about the picture.) The government there is trying to keep a lid on things now.

I needn't tell any half way sane person, this behavior is lunacy! It is nonsense out of the Middles Ages, which needed to die in the Middle Ages along with the plague, to which it bears a serious resemblance. It threatens EVERYONE! However, both the plague and such antiquated religious fervor survived the Middle Ages, and to be quite honest, no one really knows what to do about the latter. Unless you've been visiting another planet lately, and some people seem to do so, you are also aware of protests and violence in many Muslim areas of the world directed at the United States over a film made by a guy in California (born in Egypt), a film which was unknown to virtually every human being not visiting another planet before the violence started, which Muslims say insulted their Prophet Mohammad, a charge I believe is likely true (although I didn't see the film), but the extreme reaction to the film has only served to give it more publicity and to give Muslims an increasingly negative image in many parts of the world, an image perhaps exaggerated, since not all Muslims, nor even most Muslims, rose up and started lashing out at the United States. Folks, most of us probably get insulted every day, or at least every week, but people who are seriously troubled about their beliefs are the dangerous ones, since people who feel confident in themselves and any beliefs, religious or political, don't run around in a panic, lashing out at others, because someone said something about them. The fearful ones try to suppress differing views or go out of their way to prove their beliefs are stronger by attacking others. These are signs of weakness, not strength. Such insecure people wall themselves off, fearful someone or some view might actually change them, and they're terrified! "What if my beliefs are wrong? Ahhhhhhhhh! I don't want to know!"

Communism in eastern Europe built walls and barbed-wire fences, complete with armed guards in gun towers, for the announced purpose of keeping aggressors out of their "paradise," but the propaganda fooled no one, as the walls and fences were built to keep their own people from experiencing anything beyond their own imagined "Garden of Eden," because they were too afraid their own ideas and life style could not stand up in comparison or criticism. Such weak egos are VERY dangerous. Some people don't want to know or to search for truth. They are content with their beliefs, and they don't care how flawed their beliefs might be. "Two plus two is five," and they are happy to believe that and they don't want anyone telling them it's three...ah, wait a second, let's see... oh...four! The whole point is, weak leaders exploit the lack of education and backwardness of some to keep control of such people.

Like it, not like it, change requires criticism, something none of us is especially fond of when it is directed at us. Moderates, or people who really practice peaceful religion do not always speak up, so the fanatics take over. Remember, you may feel very strongly about your religion, but your religion is sacred to YOU, not necessarily to others. I try to accept people's religious beliefs, but behavior such as that mentioned above makes it very difficult. This kind of religious terror, however,  is a reality and we're going to have to live or die with it. When you have "elements of a religion" (not everyone) say that no one can criticize their religion, or we'll kill you, there's no room for any discussion with such people. When you have these same elements attacking members of other religions or nationals from other countries, just because one person, or one small group of people affiliated with a particular religion or nation, insulted their religion, this has all the ingredients of major world tension for a long, long time to come; and that's if we don't blow the world to pieces over such things first.

Christianity also has fanatics and the history of Christianity is not pretty. It is filled with hatred, violence, killing and intolerance; and that's just among people who called themselves Christians! Christianity also has been highly intolerant of other religions, although some of that has lessened in more recent times, especially in relation to Judaism. Islam has also had such a troubled history within its own ranks. Christianity and Islam have had a very contentious relationship throughout history, but with periods of relative peace. People from both religions have perpetrated atrocities against members of the other religion. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between religious and political fanatics, since some fanatics wrap themselves in the garb of religion to spew their hatred. As I said, I generally respect people's religious beliefs, but some things are not purely religious, nor can we allow zealots to try to pull us back to medieval, or even to ancient, times.

WORD HISTORY:
Fanatic-The ultimate origin of this word is uncertain. It goes back to Latin "fanum," which meant "temple." This then produced "fanaticus," which had the notion of "something derived from the temple," which then led to the extended meaning "inspired by a deity." The fervor of some religious people in Roman times led to the further meaning "frenzied or overzealous religious person," a further development of which dropped the religious necessity to become "mad, insane person." English borrowed the word in the earlier part of the 1500s, but its pronunciation apparently was strongly influenced by French "fanatique," a word Latin-based French inherited from its Latin ancestor. In English the word gradually assumed the meaning "overzealous person," a meaning even used in Roman times.