GOP Fearful Of Government Success and Any Credit To Obama

For more than thirty years an anti-government philosophy has been escalating within the conservative movement in the United States. Conservatives were never all that taken with government in the first place, except to fight wars, but for about thirty-five years they've been perfecting their hatred. Fairly early on we heard then President Ronald Reagan declare something to the effect that government was not the solution to our problems, that government was the problem. A further little quip of Reagan's was that people were fearful to hear "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." As time went on, so did the anti-government rhetoric from conservatives. In the mid 1990s, the Republicans, by then virtually a conservative only party, took control of Congress and essentially declared war on  government. In a famous confrontation with President Clinton, the government was shut down, but the conservatives found their ardent philosophy lacking among much of the populace, as many Americans weren't as fearful of their government as Reagan's quip implied.* Conservatives lost that particular battle, but the war continued, and their ideas actually framed much of the debate.

Reagan gave huge tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy and increased military spending, and though Reagan had criticized his predecessor Jimmy Carter for deficits, Reagan's deficits made Carter's almost look like balanced budgets. Into office came George Bush Sr. to grapple with the financial mess bequeathed to the nation by Reagan and his philosophy. The staggering economy went into recession, only making the financial mess worse, but President Bush and Democrats in Congress worked out a compromise to bring deficits down as the economy healed. George Bush was followed by Bill Clinton, who reversed the role previously played by President Bush, as Democrat Clinton worked with Republicans in Congress to turn deficits into surpluses.**

Then came George W. Bush who sent Americans into action in two wars, but chose not to pay for those wars. He also pushed for and got a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, an admirable achievement, but he didn't pay for that either, with deficits accumulating into the trillions. When the economy went into meltdown mode in the waning months of Bush's presidency and into the early months of Barack Obama's first term, the deficits of Bush's two terms made many Americans a bit skittish about more deficit spending to combat the severe downturn, although economists and governments around the world called for just that. Republicans, who had "spent like drunken sailors," according to Joe Scarborough, a former GOP congressman turned cable TV host, now changed their tune once a Democrat was president, and they began a relentless campaign to advocate reductions in spending. They also denied any responsibility for the economic meltdown. Nope, not their fault: after all, the downturn and deficits all started on the day Barack Obama took office, January 20, 2009.*** After a major Republican victory in the 2010 midterm elections (they took control of the House of Representatives and cut the Democratic majority in the Senate), the shrillness of the cry for more spending reductions spiked to new highs. The economy, staggered by the massive fraud perpetrated by Wall Street bankers in the mortgage industry, was not about to take off, as the country then faced the Gulf oil spill, which shut down a large element of the economy in states along the Gulf of Mexico. Then a major earthquake struck Japan, halting that nation's ability to send needed auto parts to this country. All the while the drumbeat of the slow economy was trumpeted by Republicans, as they hoped for a takeover of the White House in 2012. Whether it was hope for Obama's defeat or fear of reprisals by right wing fanatics in their own party, or perhaps something of both, Republicans held ranks, with few Republican votes ever going to support any of Obama's proposals in Congress.

So now we hear how "government is broken." Let me tell you what I think. This is exactly what the right wing fascists want. They have told us for decades how government can't do anything and government is something to be feared. Funded by the likes of the Koch brothers and other right wingers, they have to make sure that government fails, for if government works to actually help Americans, conservatives may not see the White House for quite some time, and their big money supporters want tax cuts, as well as cuts to any and all government programs that actually help those who aren't wealthy. They don't have to like or agree much with President Obama and Democrats, but their blatant attempts to do anything to bring down his presidency is shameful to say the least, and is more like treason, in my opinion. Think about it folks. If Democrats had stood united against George W. Bush, the Republicans would have screamed how "unpatriotic" they were. It was no sheer coincidence when in Barack Obama's early days as president Rush Limbaugh said he wanted Obama to fail. This has been the strategy for decades of the fascists and right wingers who have become such a part of the GOP and some of them desperately want to bring down and humiliate the nation's first black president to satisfy their racist element. Right now, Republicans want to win elections more than they want to rid themselves of fascist and right wing nutcases.        

* Reagan was right about one thing, the money people ARE afraid of government, because it's the only thing that can rein them in, outside of a total revolution, in which case they would all lose their heads, literally. That's why so many wealthy people contribute to the war on government. They're afraid of it and they want to destroy it. These are SUPEREGOS. Are there foolish regulations? I'm sure there are, but without regulations the public would be exposed to anything and everything so that wealthy business people could make more money. Remember folks, like capitalism or not, it is not about anything except making money. It is NOT about your life, sending kids to school, taking care of the sick or injured, feeding the hungry, or anything else associated with being a decent human being. It is about MONEY and only about MONEY! Like the trickle down nonsense spouted by conservatives, unrestrained capitalism might let a few crumbs fall off the table, but its fundamental principles can be ruthless endeavors to make money.

**  The budget surpluses looked larger than they actually were, because of Social Security being included in the overall federal budget numbers. Understand, that also means the budget deficits of previous years were really worse than most Americans realized, because of the inclusion of Social Security. What do I mean? Well, during that general era, Social Security was taking in more money than it paid out annually, thus, when added to the overall federal budget, it made surpluses look larger in the late 1990s, just as it had made federal deficits look smaller prior to that time.

*** The other day, I saw a post online by an obvious Republican woman who claimed, "Obama has started all of these wars, but refuses to give our troops the weapons they need." To be fair, Democrats have some folks who say similar way out things, but it just shows how people can ignore events they've actually lived through and reconstruct those events to fit into what they want to believe. In the early part of 2009 just after the passage of the stimulus bill, an acquaintance of mine, a Democrat turned Republican because Obama is black, told me he had been listening to one of the right wing radio shows (I just forget which one). He asked me, "Randy, what are we going to do about all of this inflation Obama is causing with this stimulus money? It's only going to get worse according to the guy on the radio." Folks, at that point in time, prices on many things were FALLING, not rising, and the threat of DEFLATION, not inflation, was the concern of many economists. Right wing and fascist propagandists count on people relying on the lies, I mean, "information" they provide. They can convince their "flock" that day is night and night is day. Don't be fooled! There needs to be a "truth squad" to relentlessly pursue these lying bastards! It's no coincidence the Nazis burned books, for knowledge is the enemy of these types. In my opinion, Republicans have been in a flight from reality for decades, as they wanted so much to believe that Reagan's economic policies would benefit the country, they couldn't face the reality that his policies were exactly the "voodoo economics" they were tagged with by George Bush Sr.   

WORD HISTORY:
Shall-This word "seems' to go back to Indo European "skel,' which had the notion of "be obliged to do something, owe." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "skulan," which meant "to owe, be obligated;" thus also, "have guilt;" that is, "owe a debt for an illegal act." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "sellan/sculan" (the "sc" pronounced like "sh"), with many of the same meanings. The notion of "ought to, be obliged to," eventually gave "shall" a future tense use, now in modern English often replaced by "will" ("I shall go," but more likely today, "I will go."). The other Germanic languages have: German "sollen," Low German Saxon "schölen," Dutch "zullen," Icelandic "skal/skulu," Danish and Norwegian "skal," and Swedish "skall." I could not find a form in modern Frisian, but I believe, like modern English, they use a form of "will" to express future actions.

Plum Pudding and Plum Cake

Believe it or not, it wasn't until a few years ago that I had my first "plum pudding." It was during the Christmas season and one of the stores had it advertised. I'd long heard of plum pudding, but I really didn't even know what it was. It came in a small tin canister, as I recall. I tried it and I liked it. It is in the same sort of category as fruit cake, as it contains pieces of dried fruit in a spiced dark cake like mixture, laced with rum or brandy. A little research revealed there are no plums in plum pudding, the term for the dessert being taken from the fact that up until about two hundred years ago, raisins were referred to as "plums" in England, and plum pudding has lots of raisins. It eventually came to be associated with Christmas in England and some people made the pudding about a year in advance, allowing the product to age for a year, before serving it. Plum pudding made the journey across the Atlantic with English colonists, whose descendants became Americans, and I suppose it may still traditionally grace the Christmas menu in parts of New England, or a few rural areas, where such traditions have lingered. The term "pudding" will also throw most Americans off, too, as in England, puddings can mean a dish of meat and other ingredients boiled or steamed until solidified into a loaf or sausage, or a pudding can be a pastry or a sweetened dessert like rice pudding. To non American readers, most Americans certainly think of pudding as a milk-based kind of custard, or cornstarch thickened flavored milk dessert.

Initially I was going to include a recipe here, but there are many and you can find a multitude of such online or in cookbooks. The general idea is, raisins, dried fruit peel, and spices like nutmeg, ground cloves, and cinnamon are combined and soaked in rum or brandy for a few days. These are then mixed with flour, bread pieces or bread crumbs, eggs, sugar, and more rum or brandy. The dough can then be wrapped in cloth and steamed or boiled, or put into a bowl and steamed.

Plum cake (what Americans might call a plum tart) is something I became attached to in Germany, where bake shops frequently had them displayed in their windows. There are many regional terms for this dessert in German, with "Pflaumenkuchen" (literally "plum cake") being more common in the north and a wide variety of forms like Zwetschgendatschi/Zwetschkendatschi" (in Bavaria and Austria), "Quetschekuchen" (Hessen and part of the Rhineland) or "Zwetschgenkuchen" used elsewhere. It is my understanding that it is also made in the German part of Switzerland, but I'm not sure of the name they use for it there. A plum tart has a flat, usually yeast-risen, somewhat sweetened dough rolled out like a pizza crust for a baking sheet. The pitted, but unpeeled plums are fitted onto the dough in overlapping fashion, like roofing tiles. Sugar and cinnamon are sprinkled over the top, or in some regions, it is more of a streusel like topping. I loved the "Quetschekuche" of Frankfurt, along with a cup of coffee.         

WORD HISTORY:
Plum/Prune-These are really the same word, but in slightly altered forms. The ultimate origins are uncertain, although many believe the term to come from an ancient language in the area of what is now Turkey, but well before the Turks settled there, and people in that area in ancient times were often Indo Europeans. Anyway, Greek had "proumnon" which then became "prounon," which meant "plum." Latin borrowed the word from Greek as "prunum," which then became "pruna." Old Germanic borrowed the word from Latin, but with many of the Germanic dialects changing the "r" to "l;" thus Old English (Anglo-Saxon) had "plume" (likely pronounced as "ploom-eh," before the "u" sound changed to a short sound, and the ending "e" was dropped). The Latin form "pruna" was inherited by Old French, a Latin-based language, as "prune." English borrowed the word circa 1400; thus English has "plum" for the fresh fruit and "prune" for the dried, wrinkled, shiny fruit. Forms in the other Germanic languages: standard German has "Pflaume"^ (plum) and both "Backpflaume" and "Dörrpflaume" (dried plum/prune); Low German Saxon has "Pluum" (plum) and "Backpluum" (prune); Dutch has "pruim" (plum) and "pruimen" (prune); West Frisian has "prom" (plum); Danish has "blomme" (plum; notice the "b" in place of "p"); Norwegian has "plomme" (plum) and Swedish has "plommon" (plum) and Icelandic has "plóma."

^ Standard German is based upon a form of High German. One of the characteristics of High German long ago was the "frequent" change in sound of "p" to "pf" and sometimes to "f." Thus while English has "pipe," German has "Pfeife," where the first "p" changed to "pf" and the second "p" changed to "f." The Low German dialects and Frisian were not affected by this sound change, nor was English, as the Anglo-Saxons had already departed the mainland for Britain by the time many of the changes which brought about High German had taken place. 

A Witness To Changes For The Better On Race, But With Caveats

First published in April 2013, but with an ending note added, July 27, 2017 and a small addition on June 1, 2018, with another addition May 13, 2021.

I've seen a good many changes in my life. Change isn't always easy to accept for some, probably even most of us, at least early on in the process. I was lucky, my parents were not racists and that helped me to look at racial issues in what I think were balanced ways. In the 1960s racial issues exploded across much of the United States, including in my high school, where something less than 10% of the students were black. Race was a red hot issue, but even back then there was cause for hope, as I found most people, regardless of race or background, wanted to get along. I sat next to a black girl in my biology class. When Martin Luther King was assassinated, she came into that classroom, looked at me and said, "I'm supposed to be mad at you." I just played dumb, something I do VERY well, since it comes naturally, and I asked her why. She mentioned the assassination, but then followed with, "but I can't be mad at you." This incident, be it seemingly ever so small, has stayed with me all of these years. I was elected to the school interracial council, a small group developed to diffuse racial problems before they became explosive.

My paternal grandparents were divorced and my father and one uncle lived with my grandfather in Baltimore during a good part of the 1930s. The black population of Baltimore back then was around 18%, a considerable percentage for a non-southern city at that time, but I never heard my dad say anything negative about black people when he talked about his Baltimore days when I was growing up. He always used the term "Negro," the "proper" term in white society back then. He talked about how Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby broke the "color barrier" in major league baseball, and he even recalled how badly black athletes in general had been treated.

I grew up in an all white neighborhood and when I was about five or six, I was standing with a couple of the other kids on the sidewalk when a black guy came down the street on a bicycle. One of the other kids said, "That's a n-----." Later, when I went in the house, I asked my mother, "Mom, what's a n-----?" She grabbed me and said, "Don't you EVER use that word again, or I'll wash your mouth out with soap," a common saying back in those days. I don't recall what she did or didn't explain, but the thoughts of bubbles flowing from my mouth is still with me to this day, although I'm sure my mother did the best she could to explain things to her little son, who unknowingly had uttered a derogatory word.

I don't want to place the crown of sainthood on the heads of my parents, but they were generally ahead of their time on the issue of race, although their views were never tested by having a black family move next door, but then again, they came to my house later on, and I lived next door to a couple from a racially mixed marriage. I certainly wasn't troubled by this fact, nor were my parents, who had seen discrimination toward blacks, segregation, the attitudes of white superiority, and the beginnings of the reversal of these ideas during their lifetimes. Further, a cousin of mine on my mother's side married a black man and I don't recall my mother declaring this would end civilization. No, my parents may have asked little questions about race between themselves* and my dad continued using "Negro" long after he should have dropped the term, but on balance I'd say they knew that things like bombs going off at the Boston Marathon, hijacked planes being flown into buildings, or bankers exploiting the mortgage business were far more important than people allowing race to divide them.

So I've seen lots of changes for the better in my life, although it's been a pretty slow process, which still continues. With the inclusive attitudes of today's young folks, there will be many more positive changes, changes I won't be around to witness, but the country might just truly become the UNITED States, with liberty and justice for all. 

NOTE: 7-27-17: We still have a long way to go on racial issues. The presidency of Barack Obama showed how many Americans were able to move past race and elect a man of mixed racial heritage to lead the nation for 8 years. The early belief and giddiness of some, that we were in a "post racial" era, was far too naïve, as some Americans still felt fearful of voting for Obama, and still others, seemingly a smaller, but more outspoken segment, chose hate, racism and bigotry in reaction to his presidency. To not have voted for Barack Obama does not make a person a racist, just as having voted for Donald Trump in 2016 doesn't make a person a racist, although there are racists in both groups. Addition 5-13-21: Americans still continue to struggle with race, but when I saw protests in the 1960s about civil rights, most protesters, by far, were black Americans. In more recent times, protests about racial inequality almost always have large numbers of Americans of many races and backgrounds included, but as these Americans seek to bring change to racist and bigoted attitudes of a persistent hardcore of Americans, the ugly head and voice of Donald Trump, "the racist in chief," incited acts against Asian Americans, just as his rhetoric had told extremist groups holding torchlight parades in Charlottesville, Virginia and shouting "Jews will not replace us," that they were morally equivalent to people there protesting racism and hate. There has been a tragic rise in anti-semitic incidents, including killings, over the last few years. Fighting such evil is a full time job and we cannot afford to take a vacation from this struggle. 

* Change requires understanding and understanding requires questions to help us understand, and understanding race means we need to answer questions about those who are different in some physical ways from ourselves. Asking questions and wanting to learn about others is not racism. In one of the great scenes in a truly outstanding movie, "Nowhere in Africa," a film that won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 2002 (it is in German, with English subtitles), when the young main German Jewish character arrives in Africa, the Kenyan cook for the family picks up the girl and she feels his hair as he holds her close. His hair is different from her hair. This is followed not long after by a young Kenyan boy sneaking up behind the girl's mother, just to feel her hair, much to the delight of his young Kenyan friends. Her hair is different from his own. My article about this wonderful film is here: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/06/nowhere-in-africa.html 

WORD HISTORY:
Learn-This goes back to Indo European "lais/leis," which meant "trail, track." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "liznojan," which meant "to learn, to obtain knowledge;" the notion seemingly being "to acquire knowledge through the track of life." A variant apparently developed which then produced Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "leornian," which meant "to acquire knowledge, to study to obtain knowledge." This then became "lernen," before the modern version. English also once had "laeran" (and derived forms) which meant "to teach," and its close German cousin still has "lehren" which means "to teach," and a "Lehrer," is a male teacher, while a "Lehrerin" is a female teacher. English "teach" comes from a Germanic word the basic meaning of which is "to show," and this eventually prevailed over forms of "laeran." The use of "learn" to also mean "to study" generally began to die out in English when "study" was borrowed from French. Learn is closely related to "lore."^  Forms of "learn" in the other Germanic languages are: German "lernen," Low German Saxon "lehren" (which means both "learn" and "teach"), West Frisian "leare," Dutch "leren," Danish and Norwegian  "laere," Icelandic "laera," and Swedish "lära."

^ For the "Word History" for "lore," see my article: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/12/german-question-part-sixty-one.html

Countless Heroes In "A Tough Week"

 President Obama called it right when he said, "it's been a tough week," but he also called it right when he continued, "we've seen the character of our country once more." In this terrible week where bombs were set off at the Boston Marathon, where a horrific explosion occurred at a fertilizer plant in the small Texas town of "West," and where the the likely perpetrators of the Boston bombings terrorized a part of suburban Boston, many an American rose to the occasion to help others, often at great risk to themselves. The Boston bombs killed three and injured more than 150. Casualties from the Texas explosion are uncertain, as many people are unaccounted for, but at least 14 died and more than 150 were injured. The terrorists in suburban Boston murdered a 26 year year old MIT police officer and then later severely wounded a transit authority police officer, who hopefully will recover. The physical and psychological scars in all of these things will remain, but so will the courage of first responders and just plain old individual Americans who chose not to run away from the potential danger, but TOWARDS it in order to help others. They didn't ask if victims were Republicans or Democrats, progressives or conservatives, American born or foreign born, no, they just acted to help. The casualties then went for transport and treatment to others who dedicate their lives to helping others, the people in medical care: EMS workers, doctors, nurses, medical technicians, assistants and others, whose job titles I likely don't even know.

I take heart from the courage and dedication of all of these heroes. It gives me hope that we might again be one nation, not a bunch of individual states and groups. The question is, will the dividers now step in for their own interests to keep us apart, and will we let them, or will WE run toward the danger?    

WORD HISTORY:
Tell-Like its close relative "tale," this word goes back to Indo European "del/dal/dol," which had the meaning of  "to count, to count off (recount) events of a story." This gave its Old Germanic offspring the noun "talo" (the ancestor of "tale") which meant "number, a reckoning of numbers." From this was derived the Old Germanic verb "taljanan," with the meaning "to count off, enumerate, recount events." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "tellan," with much the same meaning. This then became "tellen," before the modern version, although the counting meaning was taken over by borrowed words, like "count" and "enumerate," leaving the "recount events" meaning as its principal meaning. The original "count" meaning is preserved in the derived noun "teller;" that is, "a person who counts money." Common in the other Germanic languages: German has both "zählen," which means "to count," and "erzählen," which means "to tell a story, recount an event;" Low German Saxon and Dutch have both "tellen" (to count) and "vertellen" (to tell a story or narrative, recount an event); West Frisian has "telle" (to count) and "fertelle" (to recount, to tell); Icelandic has "telja" (to count), but they express "to tell" with a non related word;  Danish has "taella" (to count) and "fortaelle" (to tell, to recount a story); Norwegian has "telle" (to count) and "fortelle" (to tell, to recount); and Swedish has "förtälja" (to relate a tale, story, event), Swedish does not use a form for "to count."

The Invasion That Gave Us English

I first published this August 11, 2008. I've edited and expanded the original article just a bit and I have added a "Word History."

I'll start this at about 40 A.D. At that time Britain was populated by Celts; that is, a group of tribes of Indo Europeans represented most prominently in today's world by the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh (and let's not forget the "Boston Celtics!"). In those times, the Celts living on the island were collectively known as Britons.* The Romans had been sending military expeditions into Britain from the mainland for some time, but it wasn't until around 40 A.D. that they really made a major effort to conquer the Britons, which they only partially succeeded in doing, as the Romans were unable to completely subdue the Celts in the north, which is pretty much today's modern Scotland.** Many, but not all, Celts under Roman rule in Britain became "Romanized," as the Roman form of civilization took hold, but the Celtic dialects prevailed over Latin in Britain, although some Latin terms took hold, or Latin forms of Celtic words occurred. The unsubdued northern areas remained pretty wild for hundreds of years afterward. As time passed, Rome began to experience it's own problems, with Germanic tribes inside and outside of Rome's continental borders. The Romans began to withdraw their forces from Britain to help protect Rome itself, a process that was completed by 410 A.D. The Celtic Britons then seem to have tried to get some Germanic elements to serve as a partial defense force for their now vulnerable area. Eventually many of these Germanic people settled in Britain, but they also sent for their relatives on the continent. Gradually waves of Germanic invaders came, only not to protect the Celts, but to overtake them. I've seen various numbers of Germanic invaders used by historians, from 100,000 to half a million, but 100 to 200 thousand  is a pretty good guess, and this was a substantial number for those times; that is, the mid to late 400s A.D.

These Germanic invaders came from the area of what is today northwestern Germany, southwestern Denmark, and northeastern Holland. The bulk of the invaders seem to have been from two particular tribes, the Angles and the Saxons. Elements of Jutes, Frisians and Franks also joined the migration to Britain, but I'll use the term Anglo-Saxons for the collective Germanic invaders. The various Germanic tribesmen spoke dialects (variations) of a hypothetical common Germanic language.*** Archaeologists and historians have generally concluded that the Angles totally pulled up from their homeland in what is part of the modern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, and left for Britain.**** On the other hand only some of the Saxons departed for Britain. The Saxons generally inhabited the area around modern Kiel, Lübeck, and Hamburg in the area of the Elbe River, and many of their descendants are undoubtedly still there today. Bordering the Saxons to the west were the Frisians, who inhabited the coastal territories of modern northwestern Germany and northeastern Holland. The identity of the Jutes has been more controversial over time. There is not a lot of  historical evidence about them before they migrated to Britain, and in more recent times some historians have speculated that they may have been a part of the Saxons, rather than a truly separate Germanic tribe, or that they had vacated their Jutland homeland, an area stretching from modern Denmark into northern Germany, and gone to the area of the Rhine River, a region under the control of the Franks, a large Germanic tribal confederation, as artifacts recovered from the Jutes in England show characteristics closer to the Franks, rather than to the Angles and Saxons.***** The Jutes settled in what is now Kent, at the southeastern edge of England. The idea is, if the Jutes had remained in their Jutland homeland, would they have sailed all the way to that area of Britain to land, thus bringing some historians to speculate that the Jutes came from across what is now famously known as the English Channel; that is, from Frankish territory on the mainland.

Over time, the Anglo-Saxons took over much of the southern part of Britain, but they too seem to have been halted by the fierce Picts (another Celtic tribe) and Scots in the north, just as the Romans had been several centuries before. Further, it seems that a fair number of Celts retreated to the western part of the island, into an area with a ridge of mountains serving as a natural barrier. The Germanic forces were halted there, and this area is today's Wales, the population being known as Welsh, but both Wales and Welsh come from a Germanic term generally meaning "foreign/foreigner," which was often applied to Celtic speaking and Latin speaking people by the Germanic peoples long ago, seemingly from the inability of the Germanic people to understand them. German still even uses a verb form, "welschen," to mean, "to talk in gibberish, to speak incomprehensibly."   

The Anglo-Saxons established themselves in Britain and their dialects formed the basis for English, with the linguistic use of the term "Anglo-Saxon" now interchangeable with "Old English." To this day the one hundred most commonly used words in English trace back to Anglo-Saxon. Later, Norwegians and Danes (also Germanic speakers) went to England and they too contributed to the English vocabulary.

* There had been many other Celtic tribes spread throughout Europe prior to those times; most notably in the Iberian Peninsula (modern Spain and Portugal) and Gaul (essentially modern France), but by the time I'm using, 40 A.D., they had been conquered and were mainly under the jurisdiction of the Romans.

** One of the Celtic tribes was known as Scots; thus we have the name Scotland, and the name of today's inhabitants thereof, Scots.

*** At least modern linguists believe that there had been a common Germanic language, called Proto-Germanic (sometimes "Old Germanic"), in the linguistic world.

**** The Angles lived in and around the region of the modern German city of Flensburg.

***** Archaeologists compare weapons, clothing, jewelry, housing and burial practices to try to determine relationships between one group to another. "If" indeed the Jutes left their homeland for Frankish territory, one would assume it was not six weeks before they sailed to Britain, for if their artifacts are similar to Frankish items, the Jutes undoubtedly did not pick up these practices in some relatively short period of time. A convincing verdict on the Jutes has not been reached.   

WORD HISTORY:
Begin-The origins of this common word are unknown, and it "may be" a West Germanic invention (English is a West Germanic language). West Germanic seems to have had "gennan/ginnan," the actual meaning of which is uncertain, but the word was used in compounds, and Old English had "onginnan," which meant "to set out to do something, undertake something." Old English also had "biginnan," which meant "to start, to commence." This then became "beginnen," before the modern version.The other West Germanic languages have: German "beginnen" (similar to its English cousin, German has "begann" in the past tense compared to English "began," and "begonnen" in the participle form, compared to English "begun"); Low German Saxon and Dutch have "beginnen;" and West Frisian has "begjinne." All have the meaning "to start, to commence, to begin."

Can We Defeat The Plutocracy

I first published this on October 26, 2007. I'm republishing it, with minor changes and with the addition of a "Word History," a feature I did not always include back then. Interestingly, many things are still pertinent in 2013, although some things are also now "dated," and of course, when I refer to the next election in the article, that was for the then upcoming 2008 election.  

Plutocracy, how ‘bout that word? And here you thought I was dumm, ah I mean dumb. The word is derived from the Roman/Greek god Pluto, who was associated with wealth, seemingly arrived at because of Pluto being the god of the underworld, as coveted minerals and stones were "underground."

In order to fix a problem, we first need to recognize that there is a problem. A plutocracy is a government run by or dominated by, or very heavily influenced by the wealthy. If you think that America is not a plutocracy, you and I are looking at two different countries. The wealthy have us every which way we turn. The politicians need money to run for office, they get money from THE WEALTHY. Once elected, politicians want to remain in office and are still ever so beholden to THE WEALTHY. The country needs petroleum products to function in a modern society; who controls petroleum? THE WEALTHY. The country tries to turn to alternative energy sources, who steps in to futures markets and starts driving up the costs of products associated with alternative energy sources? THE WEALTHY. Who wanted America deeply involved in free trade, putting this country’s workers at a disadvantage, without many reforms being implemented by other countries? THE WEALTHY. Also with free trade agreements came the end run around product safety and the laws enacted in this country to protect consumers. Have you had your lead today? Who sets the terms of so called "free markets?" I'll give you one guess. 

Don’t be surprised if the wealthy threaten to pull their businesses right out of this country, if Congress or the next administration tries to rein in some of the nonsense, not that some, like Halliburton haven’t already relocated large parts of their companies overseas. We’re trapped, or at least we seem to be. The question is, what to do?

Well first, we can’t run and hide; something I think Democrats have been practicing, even if not preaching. With the election a year away, we may see Democrats finally step up to the plate and put forth ideas that score some direct hits on the plutocracy. In my opinion, they have been very timid so far. If Democrats advance plans to help the “un-rich,” if you will, I do honestly believe they will score a major victory at the polls next year. Why? Well, for one thing, the latest polls show that even people identifying themselves as Republicans are skeptical about these existing free trade policies. Further, if you’ve noticed, Democratic presidential candidates are taking in huge sums of money, compared to the Republican candidates. And, another thing I’ve noticed, in the not too distant past, many Republicans actually had something of a more “progressive” stance on issues. In more recent times, I’m sorry to say, the Republicans, or at least the Republican hierarchy has placed itself squarely on the side of the wealthiest people in the country, not the rest of us. I can’t recall a time in my life when THE WEALTHY so controlled the country, and overtly so, but some Republicans in Congress are beginning to distance themselves from all of these pro-wealth stances, and are actually joining in to promote a fairer America. While Bush's veto was recently sustained, not all Republicans were in lockstep. There is hope, folks!

So, if Democrats develop “populist” plans, I really believe the public will rally to their cause. Now, I’m not saying that the wealthy will just sit there and take a beating. They will pull out all of the stops to scare the hell out of everybody. And they have the money to do it. We’ve already heard terms like “socialist” tossed about by some of the Republican candidates, and that won’t be the end of such rhetoric, but this is more than likely just the beginning. If you’re a religious person, do you see trying to help other people as “socialist,” or the right thing to do? Do you see some type of health care for everyone as “socialist,” or the right thing to do?

It is time for Americans to practice free market capitalism; that is, self interest. Let’s give it right back to THE WEALTHY, right in their faces, the way they’ve been giving it to us for so long now. Hey, they’re the ones who talk about how great self-interest is. We should all become firm advocates of this philosophy. If we do that, there are so, so many more of us than of THE WEALTHY. If that happens, and Americans see the scare tactics put out in election ads for what they are, we can put a real dent in this plutocracy.

WORD HISTORY:
Rule-This traces back to Indo European "reg," which had the idea of "move in a straight line." This gave its Latin offspring "regere," which meant "to guide, to direct;" thus, "to rule/govern." From this was derived Latin "regula," which meant "an implement, usually a piece of wood, used to provide a pattern to make a straight line," with the additional meaning "someone of leads, guides, governs (also used for that overall process)." Old French, a Latin based language, inherited a form of the word as "riule," which was borrowed into English in the 1200s as "rule." English added "(e)r," for "ruler." The verb form was likewise borrowed by English in the 1200s from Old French as "rulen," which later dropped the "n."  

The Political Realities Are Tough

I'm writing here what I believe lies at the center of much of the right wing obstruction of just about EVERYTHING in Congress. There was a HUGE political price for health care legislation, dubbed Obamacare, which by the way, I feel did not go far enough, as the public option was necessary. Whether you're for the health care law or against it is not the immediate point here. The conservative movement was demoralized after the 2008 election and revelations about sexual escapades for some prominent Republicans only hurt them further. The health care legislation gave them tremendous energy, and they played it to the hilt, obviously scaring the hell out of many Americans with the ads they ran, and, like it, not like it, it got Republicans back on their feet. The President seemed unable to concisely explain the legislation, although that's understandable for such an extensive subject. This left it open to attack by opponents, and attack they did. Since the passage of health care legislation, civilization hasn't ended, and favorability for the law has risen, although some of the more contentious aspects of the law are yet to be implemented.   

The health care struggle came as the country prepared for the 2010 Census. Those census numbers were then used to determine congressional apportionment for the House. The 2010 election was a major Republican victory, but not just because they took control of the House of Representatives, but because they won several key governorships and control of state legislatures, or strengthened existing majorities. These are the people who determine the redrawing of congressional district boundaries. Here in Ohio the Republicans were blatant about how they redrew the boundaries in their favor.* My congressman at that point was well known Democrat, Dennis Kucinich. He was essentially forced out by combining what was left of his district with a larger part of fellow Democrat Marcy Kaptur's district. She won the Democratic primary and then faced off against none other than Republican Joe the Plumber, less well known by his real name Samuel Wurzelbacher, whom she handily defeated. Betty Sutton, known for proposing the "cash for clunkers" program, had much of her district combined into a Republican leaning district which pitted her against incumbent GOP Jim Renacci. She lost in November. 

Democrats did very well last November for president and the Senate, AND they got more votes in total for the House of Representatives, but only gained 8 seats. That's because the districts were redrawn to GOP advantage in many cases. Conservative tilting districts were often solidified into strongly conservative districts, and middle of the road districts were often given at least a conservative tilt. The Republicans representing these districts do not feel the pressure of the public to cooperate with the President and Democrats, because many of their constituents agree with obstructing anything and everything Obama or any Democrat proposes. Barring some major shift in public opinion overall, we'd better get used to it too, because defeating Republicans in many of these districts will be very difficult AND if it is to be done, will likely require right-leaning Democratic candidates. 

"If" any gun legislation passes in the near future, it is likely to be watered down, just like the financial legislation, the stimulus, and the health care legislation got watered down. If the watered down versions fail to do much, Republicans will then say, "See, we told you gun control doesn't work," just as they've attacked the stimulus measure and health care. I'm for stronger legislation on many things, but it's not in the cards and I can jump up and down, stomp my feet, and throw a temper tantrum, but that won't change it. I have not always agreed with the President, and I and others on the progressive side have felt he hasn't pushed that agenda enough, but that's far easier for us sitting out here to complain about. I appreciate that the President has had to deal with the political reality I mentioned above every day he's been in office. 

What troubles me is, voting is not like an essentially meaningless football game,** where you just want YOUR side to win. There are issues that can have a profound effect on the nation and even the world. My father was a Republican, and he was a man who read a lot and knew issues pretty well, so that he knew what basically was a potential benefit to the nation, but in the end his highly competitive nature tended to see political matters like a football game, where egos and self esteem are illogically tied to the team of your choice, rather than to what is good for the nation. Unfortunately he cheered on the Republicans even when he felt they were wrong. This is often what politics is however, an emotional force rather than a thoughtful one.  

* Democrats have done similar, but at least here in Ohio, I've never heard such an outcry about the unfairness of the process as this last time by Republicans. The practice is called "gerrymandering."

** While a school or some players or a community may benefit from a football game (or some other sporting event), the fact is, the game isn't going to change the world. I'm not against sports, but I think we put an awful lot of value on them. On the professional side, players in the major sports make millions every year while the public pays outrageous prices to see these events, yet that same public complains about giving teachers a few hundred or a thousand dollars in a raise. Teachers and education CAN change the world. 

WORD HISTORY:
Tough-The ultimate origins of this word are unknown, but it goes back to Old Germanic, but to exactly what Old Germanic form I'm not really sure. Old English (Anglo-Saxon) had "toh," with the "h" having emphasis enough that later this produced the "gh" spelling, but which eventually came to be pronounced as if "ff." The German form also once had the more guttural ending in "zach," which has since become "zäh," obviously taking it back close to the Old English form. Dutch, another close relative of English, has "taai," Low German Saxon has "taag," Swedish has "tuffa," and Norwegian has "tøff." The meaning in Old English remains with us today as the main meaning, "something difficult to bite or to break." 

Do We Need Traffic Laws? Ask The NRA

According to the NRA we don't need background checks or other gun laws because criminals will always get guns. How many of you drive 30 ... 35 ... or more, in a 25 mph zone? So we have speed laws, but we don't obey them anyway. How many of you want to do away with speed limits? I mean do AWAY with speed limits! Kids playing in the street? The hell with the little brats, run over them! 88 year old Mrs. Jones crossing the street? Kiss her goodbye! You'll find her up the street real quick. You see, if you listen to the political right, which includes the leadership of the NRA (that's the National Rifle Association, for those unaware), the problem with the country isn't under regulation, it's over regulation; we've just got too damned many laws. We heard the same thing about banking. We needed "deregulation," and we got it, pushed heavily by that stalwart American (then) Senator Phil Gramm, known for calling Americans "a bunch of whiners" during the 2008 presidential election campaign, because people complained about the economy.* Some conservatives even believed the banking industry could regulate itself! Yeah right, and I'm going to grab that pot of gold from the next rainbow I see.

Folks, this is all part of the same bunch of malarkey that has come from that bunch of reactionaries for decades. They pushed deregulation for banking, but when the industry proceeded to get itself into trouble, I don't recall the right wingers taking ANY responsibility for the meltdown, but you have to understand their philosophy, business is NEVER wrong. The free markets are always right. Now it's about gun laws. Have we learned any lessons?

* Gramm was then working for John McCain's campaign. He was an.. ahh, "economic adviser."

WORD HISTORY:
Speed-First the noun form of this word, which traces back to Indo European "spe," which had the notion of "success." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "spodiz," with the same meaning. This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "sped," presumably with a long "e" sound, with the meanings "success, prosperity, good fortune, good luck," but also "quickness." Just a total guess, but perhaps like the saying "the early bird catches the worm," the idea of "success" being often associated with "quickness," and even "quickness of mind," may have given the word the secondary meaning which eventually became primary in English and other Germanic languages. Anyway, the word then became "spede," with the secondary meaning of "quickness" gaining momentum, and by the time the word became "speed," the "quickness" meaning had prevailed, undoubtedly helped along by English borrowing foreign words like "prosperity" and "success," which filled those respective meanings. Old Germanic had a verb form, "spodijanan," which meant "to succeed." This then spawned Old English "spedan," which meant "to succeed, to prosper, to have success, to move with haste." Like the noun form, this eventually became "speed," with the "move with haste" meaning becoming the main meaning. The other West Germanic languages^ had/have forms of the word too, although from what I can tell, only Dutch ("spoed"=haste) and Low German Saxon ("spood"=success) have surviving nouns, although Dutch has the compound noun "voorspoed," which means "success." Verb forms have endured in German, which has "sputen" ("to hurry, to hasten"), in Dutch, which has "spoed maken" (literally "make haste"), Low German Saxon "spoden" ("to hurry, hasten"). I could not find a form in Frisian.

^ North Germanic apparently did not use forms, or if there were forms, they died out without any record being left behind.