How Many Rich Folks Will Step Up To The Plate?

We've heard a lot lately about workers' low wages in the fast food industry. I'd include workers in other industries, but right now, let's just stick to the fast food business. Talk of worker raises has also brought talk of rising product prices.Why? You don't think the wealthy corporate executives and wealthy stockholders are going to give up anything, do you? I just checked, and the CEO for McDonald's Corporation makes nearly 14 million dollars. I'm telling you, that poor guy doesn't know where his next hamburger is coming from. And fries? Oh my! Folks, the only way some of the terrible income inequality that has built up over the last three + decades is going to be brought down, is for those at the top to have to give a little; otherwise, they're just going to keep passing along any cost increases to consumers. You know that means, to you and to me, but they get the same percentage of the income. While millions of Americans have struggled over the years, the wealthiest have born no sacrifice. It's time they learn the meaning of the word "sacrifice," instead of just practicing ruthless greed to pile millions on top of millions in accumulated wealth. Many statistics show that such inequality in American hasn't been this bad for more than a hundred years. If the wealthy keep at this, my prediction of a new feudal society will come true, and I want very much to be wrong.*  I'm not saying price increases should always be off the table (no pun intended), but first let's see how many wealthy people will relinquish, let's say, 3% of their income from that particular business (including big stockholders, not just execs), before we start talking price increases. Who will step up to the plate? Don't all of you multimillionaires and billionaires charge up here at once now! 

* See my article at this link: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/10/you-wont-need-time-machine.html

WORD HISTORY:
Plate-This word traces back to Indo European "plat," which had the notion of "to spread, to make thin by spreading." This gave Greek "platys/platis," which meant "broad, wide, spread out." This gave Latin "plattus," which then became "plata," and meant "flat piece of metal." Old French, a Latin based language, inherited a form of the word as "plate," with the same meaning, but also "metal disk used as a coin." English borrowed the word from French in the 1200s, but its meaning, by extension, also moved to "disk used to serve food," the most common modern meaning, but the "flat piece of metal" meaning is still very much alive.A verb form developed from noun in the late 1300s, but then it meant "to put metal pieces (plates) on something," but which later became the more common "to serve up food," as in, "The cook plated the pasta and we all took our share."

What We Got With Obama/Halting The Economic Collapse

First published in July 2013


What We Got With Obama/Halting The Economic Collapse

Barack Obama has now been president for four and one half years. So what about him? What of the comparisons of Obama to Franklin Roosevelt, at least early on? I will be doing "at least" two parts to this evaluation of President Obama, a man we now know far more about now than we did in 2008, but we tend to learn more about any president after they've been in office for awhile. Chester Arthur became president upon the assassination of President James Garfield in the early 1880s.* Arthur had developed his political career through the (then) Republican political machine in New York.** To the surprise of both machine politicians and reformers alike, as president, Arthur pursued reform policies that went completely against his former support of the corrupt existing spoils system. While Barack Obama still has more than three years left in his second term, where is he now, and what did we get in 2008 and again in 2012?

First, it is important to remember, Barack Obama had a fast rise in American politics, with his first elected office being as a state senator in the Illinois State Senate in 1996, a position he retained until 2004, when he was elected by a large margin to the United States Senate from Illinois. He experienced one bump in the political road, that being a failed run for a congressional seat, when he was decisively defeated in the Democratic primary by the incumbent. He held his U.S. Senate seat until just after he was elected President of the United States in November 2008. Obama came to the presidency at a time when the country, and indeed the world, were reeling from a major economic downturn and financial crisis. Further, many Americans had grown weary, and downright skeptical, of the war in Iraq, as that war had overshadowed the war in Afghanistan and the search for Osama bin Laden, the overall leader of Islamic terrorist group Al Qaeda. More than anything, Americans were worried about the economy, which had been in a major plummet since the fall of 2008, complete with bank failures and skyrocketing unemployment. For my Republican friends who like to believe that without the economic collapse, John McCain may have won the 2008 election, I just want to say, "if" there hadn't been a Great Depression, Herbert Hoover likely would have won a second term. Anyway, here's my take on President Obama:

Due to the circumstances when he took office, President Obama was often compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt, aka "FDR" (from here on, I'll use "FDR" when mentioning Roosevelt). First, it's never completely fair to compare presidents, because they never all have the same challenges nor the same circumstances during their time in office. FDR took office after 3 1/2 years of an economic collapse the likes of which the country had never seen. Unemployment was around 25%, there were many other workers on part time, and prices were falling, as major deflation gripped the nation. Further, when FDR took the oath of office, the country was in the midst of a major bank panic. FDR and his advisers had had those 3 1/2 years of the Great Depression to see how Herbert Hoover tried to deal with the collapse. FDR's advisers liked some of Hoover's programs and plans in general, but they did not like Hoover's limitations and implementations of his programs. They took many of Hoover's ideas, but they reformulated them to their own ways of thinking.

Barack Obama came to office as the economy was still plunging downward at an alarming rate. The recession which started in late 2007 had taken on ominous proportions in the fall of 2008, as the nation's banking and overall financial system, overwhelmed by massive numbers of bad mortgages, wavered and threatened to come crashing down; thus bringing about what later came to be called, "the Great Recession." Obama and his advisers didn't have quite the "luxury" of watching George W. Bush trying to deal with the collapsing economy on the scale that FDR had watched Hoover, but Obama did have an advantage unavailable to FDR ... HISTORY. The incoming Obama administration knew from the history of the Great Depression and the time thereafter how to try to stem an economic collapse. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke also knew the history of the Great Depression, as he had made it a part of concentrated effort in his educational studies. The answer was ... SPENDING. While they knew the answer, the problem was, the Bush administration had run huge deficits for years; cutting taxes (especially for the wealthiest Americans), fighting wars, adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and shoring up the security of the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks. As I noted, Bush cut taxes, and Americans were never asked to help pay for all of the the new spending during his two terms as president. In spite of Republican attempts to act as if the history of federal deficits began on January 20, 2009, the day Barack Obama took office, George W. Bush bequeathed a federal deficit of more than a trillion and a third dollars to Obama on that day. This meant the Obama administration would have to TOTALLY borrow the money to combat the economic plunge the country was experiencing. The Bush administration initiated bailouts for the auto industry and major bailouts for the American banking industry, fearful it would collapse. The bank bailout law allocated a maximum of $700 billion.*** The auto bailouts were much smaller and were done to tide the companies over until the new administration came into office. For the banks, through other maneuvers in addition to the bailout law, the Federal Reserve provided trillions of dollars (I'm not sure we actually know to this day how many trillions). Bernanke, a Republican appointed to head the Federal Reserve by George W. Bush, advocated major spending by the federal government, at one point saying that the threat of deflation (generally falling prices such as happened during the Great Depression) had to be combated, even if money had to be dropped out of airplanes.

Here's the idea behind Bernanke's statement and the general idea of spending to combat an economic downturn. During the Great Depression so many Americans had little or no money, there was a lack of demand for goods and services, which only brought more layoffs and business failures; that is, a downward spiral. Government spending tried to make up some of the loss of purchasing power, but back then, this was all something of a new theory, and it took study of the lessons of the Great Depression to put the ideas into a more concrete plan of action for the future. As I mentioned earlier, Bernanke had done significant study of the Great Depression through much of his life and he used this knowledge to combat the Great Recession, along with support for the Obama administration's efforts, including up to the present about the federal budget. Some Republicans and business people screamed, shouted and stomped their feet in protest to the Bernanke and Obama anti-recession program, much like some Republicans, some conservative Democrats and business people screamed, shouted, and stomped their feet against FDR in the 1930s. In my opinion, the business-type ideas that have developed over the centuries and the idea that they can never be wrong has just been carried to extremes by some. Of course they screamed and shouted, and I'm sure many American bankers did the same, until THEY needed their asses bailed out. The idea is, to be quite honest, when Uncle Sam dispersed money during the Great Depression, the greediest of the greedy didn't have direct access to much of that money, as some went to provide public service jobs in a variety of ways, so they called it "wasteful," and .... they screamed, shouted and stomped their feet in a tantrum. Folks, they want YOUR MONEY! That's what all of this kind of stuff is about, including all the nonsense about privatizing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any government money. They want their cut! If you get help in some way from government, at whatever level, federal, state or local, they're pissed, because they didn't get their cut. Government can go around them and they don't like it.

President Obama kept and generally adhered to the bank bailout law, signed into law by President George W. Bush. Further, the Obama administration proposed a "stimulus package" of about $800 billion to inject money into the economy through tax cuts and public spending, and they got larger bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler in the auto industry. In return, Uncle Sam took stock in the auto companies, a move which brought cries of "socialism" from the political right, as if the sun would never shine again. As I type this, I can't look out the window, because the sunlight is too bright. Further, the auto companies agreed to reorganize, in part by a scale back in the number of vehicle models they had. Gradually the economic plunge began to slow and the economy stabilized, although it faced strong headwinds from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which shut down a fairly large sector of the economy, as first the spill and then the clean up proceeded. Republicans pounced, but I believe most Americans realized the oil spill had damaged not only the Gulf coast, but the entire American economy. At least I didn't hear Americans echoing what Republican Congressman Joe Barton said in a public hearing. The Congressman said that the deal reached between the Obama administration and BP for the oil giant to put $20 billion into a fund for compensation to victims of the disaster was a "shakedown" of BP by the White House and he apologized to BP for such!

The economy has continued to recover to this day, but the pace has been slow to steady, not overwhelming, and unemployment has gradually dropped into the mid 7% range. Part of the slow recovery, in my opinion at least, has had to do with the scale back of state and local governments hard hit by the recession and the corresponding revenue drop, at least until more recently. Private business began rehiring, albeit slowly, but simultaneously state and local governments cut payrolls, often making for something of a trade off. It's also important to remember, that while the Great Recession pales in comparison to the Great Depression of the 1930s, it took until about 1941 to fully recover from that depression, which started in 1929! Of course, if you've been out of work for a couple of years, it doesn't matter how much we compare our recent history with the 1930s, YOU'RE HURTING, and neither history nor statistics does anything for you. Another thing is, many American business people, always driven by the bottom line, prefer to invest in their business facilities in other countries. This is not a one way street, as American-made products are also sold to other countries, but when American companies choose to produce goods they once made here in overseas locations and then ship those products back here, it hurts! They also seem to keep money in banks outside of the U.S., so as not to have to pay taxes on it. Now you can say that's smart, but America continues to crumble, and while you might like some of those low prices you get for certain foreign made products, we'll see how well you like working for foreign wages. Eventually that's what's going to happen for many. Why do you think Romney didn't want to release much information on his income and taxes? Whether he did anything illegal, I can't say, but I'm sure it was because he knew how bad it would look. They always like their scamming the system to get tax breaks and such, until they have to face the American public, then they don't want you to know, because they know exactly what you're going to think, so they've got to hide it from you.

So on combating the Great Recession, I'd give President Obama a "B+," but there are other things tied to the economy I'll be covering in the next installment and his grade may not be so high.  

* President Garfield was born in what was to later become suburban Cleveland, Ohio. He is buried in Cleveland at Lake View Cemetery, located by the Little Italy neighborhood in the general area of the University Circle section of town. For those interested: http://www.universitycircle.org/

** Both parties had political machines in New York and elsewhere, so this was not just Republicans.

*** All of the 700 billion was not dispersed to financial institutions, and Congress (Democrats then controlled both houses) and the Obama administration lowered the total amount to $475 billion from the $700 billion. The U.S. Treasury reports on the money to Congress, and the report from earlier this year indicates that only $418 billion was actually dispersed, and that the Treasury has received $405 billion in return, leaving a relatively small balance yet owed. The "incoming" money has come from a variety of sources, including dividends and interest, but the biggest amount by far has come from companies paying back the money they received. The auto industry got about $80 billion total and currently about $51 billion has been returned to the Treasury. 

WORD HISTORY:
Pimento-This is a really interesting word. Watch how and why the meanings evolved over time. This word goes back to Indo European "peig/peikh," which meant "to cut, to carve," the notion of which led to "to carve decorations into an object." This gave its Italic/Latin offspring "pingere," and the idea of "decorate or adorn" broadened further into "decorate with color;" thus came the meaning, "to paint." This then spawned the Latin noun "pigmentum," which meant "color, paint," but also later it took the meaning "vegetable juice," because of the bright color of the juice. Vegetable juice was often added to foods for color and flavor, and  Spanish, a Latin-based language, had its version of the word as "pimenton," which made the "vegetable juice" meaning into the more specific "red pepper," but this later broadened into "sweet peppers of any color." The idea of using peppers to season food also gave Spanish "pimienta," to mean "black pepper." English borrowed the word from Spanish in the late 1600s or early 1700s, likely from of the islands in the Caribbean, as the word meant both "red sweet pepper" (the vegetable), but also "tropical dried berry used as a spice" ("allspice," so called in English because of its seeming blend of spice flavors). German also borrowed the word, but from French, as "Piment," and it's the German word for "allspice."

Any Soul Searching For Christmas in July?

Some businesses have been advertising "Christmas in July." Well, if we had reruns of Charles Dickens' famous Christmas tale of Ebenezer Scrooge, would the super wealthy get it, or would they even watch? Do they ever sit and think about the lives of their employees? Do they take pleasure in telling others about the many hardworking men and women who have retired from their companies and who are living a relatively good life in their "golden years" because of good pensions and company benefits? For that matter, do they even think about the lives of their current employees, and how well they may be living? It "should" give them great pleasure to think about the many lives they've helped make better. The question is, do they fit into this category, or are their employees, current and retired, struggling to get by and in fear of losing what little they have, including a place to live, while the wealthy business person only thinks about their next million or billion in profit?

WORD HISTORY:
Ripe/Ripen/Reap-These two words come from Indo European "hrep," which meant "to grab, to snatch." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "ripanan," with the same meaning, but it seems to have only endured in the West Germanic branch of the Germanic languages (English is West Germanic). This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "ripan," which meant "to harvest grain, to reap." This then became "repen," before the modern version. It also produced West Germanic "ripijaz," which meant "mature, ready for picking and eating, ready for harvest." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) the adjective "ripe" (the ending "e" would likely have been pronounced "eh" or "ah") and the verb "ripian," meaning "to mature, to become ripe;" literally, "become ready for reaping." This later became "ripen," and it has retained that form for hundreds of years up to the present. Other Germanic relatives: German has "reif" (ripe) and "reifen" (to ripen [for produce], to mature [including for people] ), the German form related to English "reap" has now died out in German, as it was replaced by other words,^ as it has too in other Germanic languages; Low German has "riep" (ripe), "riepen" (to ripen) and some dialects have "riep" (harvest, reap);^^ Dutch has "rijp" (ripe) and "ripjen" (to ripen); West Frisian "ryp" (ripe), "ripens" (ripeness, maturity) and "rypje" (to ripen). 
  
^ One of the characteristics of the high/upper German dialects centuries ago, was that what was usually a "p" sound in Low German, Frisian, Dutch and English, "often" became an "f" or "pf" in the high dialects; thus English "ripe" is German "reif," with the same long "i" sound as its English cousin. For those wanting to learn German, remember the "ei" vowel combination in German is pronounced as a long "i," but "ie" is pronounced as a long "e." So the second vowel of these combinations gets the sound.

^^ There is no "standard" Low German, only a collection of low dialects, and so words, spellings and pronunciations can vary from one area to another, so much so, that people from one area may not understand, at least completely or easily, what someone from another area is saying.

Obama & FDR

I first published this on October 26, 2010, so please bear that in mind. I'm republishing the article as it was then, with no updates, as it actually would require extensive editing now, because of the time that has now passed and the fact that we know the results of the 2010 election, which were held about a week AFTER this article was published. People in both parties can have short memories, often when they want to, but this should refresh some memories. I know many like the "Word History" segment, but be aware, this is the same "Word History," too.  By the way, I've left the original article in place also, as there was a comment by a reader. For anyone interested, I'll put the link to the original Oct. 26, 2010 posting below the notes and above the Word History further down  the page. Here is the article:

I think it is safe to say that all presidents get compared to other presidents or to other historical figures, sometimes favorably and sometimes not so favorably. When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, many Americans had high hopes about what he would accomplish. Some people compared him to Franklin D. Roosevelt (aka, "FDR"), especially since Obama was entering office at a time of serious economic trouble. The high hopes were probably unrealistic, and the comparison with FDR was just too premature, and no two eras are ever exactly the same.

For those unaware, FDR, a Democrat, was elected in November 1932, ousting the incumbent Republican, Herbert Hoover, who was beleaguered by his failure to halt, let alone reverse, the Great Depression. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by substantial majorities.* FDR took office on March 4, 1933.** Obama, a Democrat, took office January 20, 2009. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, with the Senate alignment similar to FDR's time, but with it being slightly less favorable for Obama, particularly because of the required 60 votes needed to pass most legislation, due to a more modern deal worked out between the two parties a while back on Senate rules. The House alignment was somewhat less favorable than during FDR's time, although not usually affecting the outcomes of key votes (see Note #1 below regarding House rules on bill passage). In fairness to Obama, Republican members of Congress had been so decimated in the previous two elections (2006 & 2008), that the "survivors" tended to be VERY conservative, coming from solid Republican districts or states, with a few exceptions, and therefore unwilling to compromise much on anything. Unlike the President, who has been blasted by conservatives as "radical," and by progressives as "too moderate;" thus getting little, if any, political credit, the congressional Republicans' hard line stance has earned them the cheers of their conservative base, a base now so energized for the upcoming election, that Democrats, now the unmotivated party, may lose seats in Congress in historic numbers, even though polls show the American public dislikes Republicans even more than they do Democrats!

Okay, so what is the difference between FDR's time and Obama's early time in office? First, and most importantly, FDR took office after 3 1/2 years of Hoover's failure to stem the developing economic depression. Hoover tried new ideas and traditional ideas, but the economic storm got worse,*** with millions out of work, and millions more reduced to part time. Not only did FDR and Democrats win big in the 1932 election, but Republicans were so discredited, that mounting major opposition to FDR was not easily done (he DID face opposition from various conservative factions, including the extreme right wing, and from conservative elements within the Democratic Party, primarily from some Southerners, who in those times, were Democrats). But the country wanted change, and the Great Depression era was a watershed, with many working class and middle class Americans so terrified and traumatized by the economic mess, that they were willing to forget ideology and support new ideas (unemployment reached a high of about 25%, but many other Americans had reduced work schedules, making the "effective" unemployment rate somewhere between 30 and 40%). Roosevelt and Democratic leaders rushed through legislation to try to change the psychology of the country. All did not pass easily, and it was not a "tea party" for FDR (ah...maybe I should change that line?), but gradually the tide was turned against the downward spiral; however, the struggle to repair the severely damaged economy took a decade, and unfortunately, it took World War Two to bring the U.S. back fully.

Unlike FDR, Obama took office only about a year after the actual recession began, and only MONTHS after the financial meltdown and the (2008) Wall Street crash began. In this case, he was more in the position of Herbert Hoover, than FDR. Hoover assumed the presidency only a couple of months before the economy went into recession, and less than seven months before the Wall Street Crash of 1929. With many structural problems in the American economy, there wasn't a hell of a lot he, or anyone, could do to halt the initial downturn, at least in the sense of what was considered proper government involvement back in 1929, which was essentially "no involvement." In this sense, Obama had more of the FDR situation on his side. Hoover, who believed in deficit spending to limit economic downturns, was, however, limited in that action by the political considerations of that time (and his own limitations), including those of his VERY conservative Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, who believed in balanced budgets, pretty much regardless of circumstance. Americans just didn't accept big government deficits in peace time, and major government involvement in the economy was a "no no," at least during the early part of the "Depression." Hoover's more activist programs, and especially FDR's major activism, paved the way for future presidents, including Obama, to take action against economic downturns, although, as we have witnessed in the last couple of years, many hard line Republican members of Congress have opposed virtually ANY intervention into the economy, including those interventions proposed by President Bush. The economic stimulus package passed by Congress in early 2009 and signed by Obama, helped keep the country from going over the cliff, but the President needed to take charge, and not farm out the work to Congress. The stimulus probably should have been bigger, and with MUCH more job-creating infrastructure programs. (Note****) & (Note ^)

Lastly, unlike Hoover, FDR was a politician of the first magnitude (and he had a superb political adviser in Louie Howe). He had a "feel" for what the public wanted and how far he could go on policies, especially early on. He had no qualms about blasting business and wealthy interests (virtually all men, back then), and in fact, he seems to have relished their nasty comments about him, which only served to bring additional scorn to these interests from a substantial part of the American public. Obama, on the other hand, never really took charge politically. As a result, he has had the worst of all political worlds; being called a "socialist," "fascist," or "communist" by right wingers (and those may be the "nice" terms they've used about him), but seen by his base supporters as being too timid, and seemingly unwilling to challenge the "laissez faire," "business is always right," "let's all be concerned about the plight of millionaires," "if you're not rich, the hell with you, you're on your own," system that has evolved during the conservative era we've been in. He chose to do "health care reform" almost from the start (which showed poor judgment, and poor political instincts, in my opinion, although I understand the moral argument, trust me), but then he refused to really do battle over essential cost controls (like the "public option"), or even to try to change the very insurance system itself; instead continuing with the same employer-based system that business people, even when Bush was president, complained has limited their abilities to compete with foreign countries, ALL OF WHICH HAVE SOME SORT OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM! Further, it retains a layer of costs, insurance company profits, to the overall system. Once he chose this battle however; he couldn't get out, as this would have weakened his overall position. The resulting year long battle played out in front of the television cameras on a daily basis. All the while Americans wondered who was minding the economic ship, as the captain they elected for the job was now at the helm of a different ship. Previously demoralized Republicans and their business allies went on the attack, and the President's ambitious agenda played right into what they began telling Americans; "The President and congressional Democrats are overreaching, and they're going to tax the hell out of you," "The health care bill will create 'death panels' to decide if elderly people will get expensive treatments for certain ailments, or be left to die," "The Democrats are spending trillions and they are bankrupting the country." While many of the attack lines were totally ridiculous, unlike the President, the conservative Republican machine was not the least bit squeamish about seizing the political initiative, using vast hyperbole, or letting little things, like facts, get in the way of their assault, including the fact that the country had been running budget deficits ("bankrupting the country") under Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan took office, and that the 2009 deficit was almost entirely inherited by Obama from President Bush. The President and the overall White House seemed absolutely overwhelmed by, and unprepared for, the attacks. With such a complex subject, the President and his supporters were unable to ever articulate a concise reason why Americans should support the health care bill, or why this divisive legislation was needed "right now." Polls showed a solid majority of Americans opposed to the measure. In the end, progressives, fearful of the consequences of a major legislative defeat for the President, rallied to the bill's support, even though it was not anywhere near what most of them wanted. A very limited (in my opinion, but it does have some good things in it) bill passed, but the President and congressional Democrats took an absolute pounding, and they have never recovered. The bill was so poorly crafted, that after a year of bruising, almost bare-knuckled brawling, most Democrats running in this year's midterm elections never bring up the health care law, unwilling to cite it as an achievement. On the other side, a number of Republican candidates are calling for repeal of the law, or at least parts of it, or of essentially killing parts of the law by not funding them, if Republicans take control of Congress.

Unlike FDR, this President seems to lack that feel for politics, especially needed in the age of 24/7 news coverage, where virtually everything makes it to some news outlet, be it on television, or on the Internet. Some sort of "pension-type" program for elderly Americans was a priority for many progressives (in both parties) in FDR's time, but he didn't just wade into that battle right off. He built overall political support for himself and Democrats first, by dealing with the economy, which was THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, then later he pushed for the establishment of "Social Security," with even a good number of Republicans voting for the measure. President Obama, like with the "stimulus," farmed out the health care bill to Congress, unwilling, or unable, to even take charge of his own political party.

(A Word History is below the extensive notes)

* Democrats controlled the Senate initially 59 to 36, with one "Farm-Labor" senator, who was really a Democrat (The "Farm-Labor Party" was in Minnesota"), so the Dems had a majority of 60 to 36, and that number varied from time to time due to deaths or appointments to other offices, but essentially it was 60-36. Remember, in those days there were only 48 states, not the 50 of today; thus there were 96 senators. In the House of Representatives, which as today had 435 seats, the Dems were overwhelmingly the majority, essentially having a 316 to 117 superiority, with 2 vacancies (the Dem number includes Farm-Labor members). The number of vacancies frequently changed during this period (not an uncommon occurrence) and the alignment therefore changed periodically, but not all that drastically. It is important to remember, the rules of the House of Representatives requires only a simply majority vote to pass legislation; so, on any given issue, a bill only needs to have one more "yes" vote, than "no" votes, for passage. Remember too, even if a bill passes the House, it must also pass the Senate in the same exact form, and then be signed into law (with some exceptions) by the President to actually become law. Unlike today, there was much more bipartisanship in FDR's time, and it was not uncommon for some Republicans to support legislation backed by FDR, just as it was not uncommon for some Democrats to oppose his legislation, but it was a totally different era, when the two major political parties both had large numbers of conservatives and progressives.

** Up to that time, presidents were inaugurated on March 4, not January 20, as they are today. The 1933 presidential inauguration, however, was the last held on March 4, as the time between the election in early November and the inauguration (if for a new president) was considered to be too long. When the Constitution was first ratified, the four month period between elections and inauguration was much more necessary, as, for one thing, travel and communication could take quite some time back then (horseback and carriage were the main means of transport and communication), and a new president also had to assemble his staff and make cabinet appointments, also with communication and travel time having to be considered. Then when Lincoln was elected, southern states began to secede from the Union BEFORE Lincoln took office. With the new president not yet in office, and likewise with the new Congress, the situation took the course that it did (maybe it would have anyway, but we'll never know). The 20th Amendment to the Constitution, which changed the date to January 20, was ratified in January of 1933, but did not take effect until October 1933; thus FDR's March 4th swearing in. Almost as if to make a point, the time between FDR's election and his taking office saw a major banking crisis develop in the country, with hundreds of banks either failing, or being on the brink of failure. I wonder now if American conservatives, if they do indeed win big in the 2010 midterm elections, will try to go back to the March 4th date? After all, we continually hear from some of them that the Constitution is the Constitution, and that liberals and Democrats are always trying to change it. It says what it means and means what it says, damn it! (Oops, they probably say "darn it," fearful that a bolt of lightening will hit them otherwise.)

*** If interested, I did a whole series on "The Great Depression." You can access the series by clicking on "The Great Depression" in the "labels" listed at the bottom of this article. That will take you to all articles where I've done something on the "Depression." Scroll down until you come to those on the "Great Depression," which will be listed from last to first. You probably should read them in order, so just scroll to "Part One."

**** To be fair here, while I often disagreed with President George W. Bush and his administration on economic matters, my ego is not so fragile that I can't give credit to Bush and others in his economic circle to what they (finally) did right. While VERY unpopular, even with many Republicans, what came to be known as "the bank bailouts" was essential to preventing a total collapse of the American economy. It should have had "conditions" for the banks to meet in order to get the money, but it helped the country, and a good sum has been paid back to U.S. taxpayers, with interest, although there is an overall outstanding balance due. Obama and his economic team continued and expanded certain aspects of the basic policy, although now, many Republicans barely, if ever, acknowledge that it was Republican Bush who started the bailouts of banks, insurance companies, and auto companies. The argument that the Bush Administration should have enforced existing regulations more and taken measures to avert disaster is something I totally agree with. Their reliance on "free markets" to police themselves was total nonsense, and the notion, "let everyone do whatever they want to do, especially business people; after all, it's a free country," has brought us to the point where we are today.

^ Even though "stimulus" jobs would have, by nature, been limited by time, when Americans are working, they pay taxes. Taxes, in spite of this conservative nonsense that has been spouted for decades, do reduce deficits. So the investment would have had some payback, plus, it would have instilled far more confidence that the economy would steadily recover, something that is now lacking. The recent financial crisis in Europe hasn't helped matters here, though, and there's no question it has hampered the American recovery, as banks and businesses seemingly drew back. A larger stimulus, with more jobs, might have been able to supersede the European crisis in the overall psychology about the economy, but who knows?

LINK to original October 26, 2010 article:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/10/obama-fdr.html

WORD HISTORY:
Riddle-There are two distinct words, but with the same spelling. (1) The noun meaning "puzzle, mystery," goes back to the Indo European root "ar," which seems to have had something of a reverse form variant, "re," with the general notion of "fit together." (To solve a "riddle," we need to "fit together" clues.) This root gave Old Germanic "raedislijan," with the general meaning "advise, counsel" (it is also the ancestor of "read" and "rede," this being archaic, but meaning "advise, counsel"). This then gave Old English "raedels/raedelse," with meanings "counsel, conjecture, imagination, riddle." Later, the spelling changed to "redel/redels," before settling on the modern spelling. Close relatives are: German has "Rätsel," meaning "riddle, puzzle;" Dutch has "raadsel," with the same meaning.

Riddle (2)-meaning "fill with holes, perforate," as when a gunslinger warned, "I'm goin' ta riddle yer hide." Actually, the past tense usage is more common, "riddled." This goes back to Indo European "krei," which had the notion of "separating out, distinguishing between," which then gave the Old Germanic offshoot "khridan," and the variant "hridan," where the "k" sound was not present; this meant "sieve, sift" which retained the original notion of "separate" (This may initially have come from the related Old Germanic form "(k)hrid," which meant "to shake," presumably with the notion that when you "shake" something, it separates items, as when you "shake the dust off of your clothes). This gave Old English "hriddel," also meaning "sieve." Later the spelling changed to "ridelle" (and "ridelen," the verb form, "to sift"), before eventually moving to the modern spelling. German has "Reiter," also meaning "sieve," but it is not commonly used anymore, to my knowledge, although perhaps in some dialects. A variant of the Old Germanic word, however, eventually evolved into modern German "rein," which means "pure, clean" (again, "possibly" with the idea of "shaking" something clean, or perhaps "filtering/sifting" something until "pure"). The other Germanic languages all have some form of this word with the same basic meaning, however, at this time, I have not been able to find a related word in English.

Heroes Against Hitler, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg

I first published this article on November 9, 2011.

"Colonel Claus Graf (=Count) von Stauffenberg"

The man who nearly killed Hitler was born in eastern Swabia, a part of Bavaria, although the German dialect (German: Schwäbisch or Swabian in English) is not Bavarian, but rather it is more closely related to Swiss German and Alsatian German, located in that same overall region. A devout Catholic, his religious beliefs may have had an influence on his later opposition to Hitler and the Nazis, although not all historians agree on that. His first love was the cavalry, and he became an officer, although by the mid to late 1930s, traditional horse cavalry were giving way to mechanized cavalry. Stauffenberg began to have serious doubts about Hitler when the Führer sent troops to occupy the remainder of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, after the little nation had ceded German populated regions to Germany just six months earlier. He served in the campaigns in Poland in September 1939 and in France in May-June 1940. Like many Germans, Stauffenberg favored the reclaiming of territories lost to Poland after World War One. During the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Stauffenberg served as a staff officer in the army high command, not in a field unit. He tried to help change or limit German ill treatment of Soviet civilians, including Jews, and Soviet prisoners of war in the early months of the German invasion, but the brutal and murderous policies pushed Stauffenberg to embrace other German officers in opposition to Hitler.

Early in 1943 Stauffenberg was sent to Tunisia in North Africa, where German and Italian forces, under the operational control of Field Marshal Rommel, were trying to prevent the total loss of North Africa to the Allies. Just a month before the final Axis surrender there, Stauffenberg was severely wounded, losing his right hand, two fingers on his left hand, and his left eye, over which he eventually wore a black patch. It took several months in the hospital and further convalescence at home before Stauffenberg was able to resume service, this time as a staff officer at the headquarters of the Ersatzheer (Replacement Army), which was located in Berlin.* The Replacement Army had a number of anti-Nazi conspirators and plans for a takeover of Germany were developed, but most were not put into operation, while others failed, or had to be changed due to important Nazi leaders not being present. Eventually Stauffenberg carried a bomb-laden briefcase into Hitler's headquarters in northeastern Germany. The briefcase was placed under the conference table, just a short distance from Hitler, and Stauffenberg excused himself by saying he had to make a phone call. Just a few minutes later the bomb exploded, but Hitler, though shaken and bruised, survived, as one of the officers had moved the briefcase to the other side of the table support, and thus further away from Hitler, with the table support deflecting some of the direct affects of the blast. Stauffenberg witnessed the explosion from a distance and managed to get through the headquarters' security, convinced Hitler was dead. He flew back to Berlin and found that plans for the takeover of the government had not really moved, as many conspirators were uncertain about Hitler's death. Word came that Hitler was very much alive and Colonel General Fromm, the commander of the Replacement Army, and aware of the plot,** now tried to save himself by having Stauffenberg and other conspirators arrested, tried and executed in the early morning hours of July 21, 1944. There is a memorial in the courtyard where Stauffenberg and the other plotters were executed. Its heading reads: "Here Died For Germany" ("Hier Starben Für Deutschland"), and then it lists the names of the executed men. These men and hundreds more were executed for the attempt to kill Hitler. They weren't perfect, and many had supported Hitler earlier, but they saw evil and tried to do stop it. That makes them heroes in my book.

The information I've provided here is very basic. There are numerous detailed books on the July 20 plot, as well as the overall German Resistance movement. A very good source, and one I used, is by German historian Joachim Fest, "Plotting Hitler's Death, The Story of the German Resistance," Metropolitan Books, New York, 1996, published in the original German as "Staatsstreich, Der Lange Weg zum 20. Juli," Berlin, 1994 (translation:. "Coup, The Long Way (or Path) to July 20")

For more, see my article in "The German Question" series on the plot:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/08/german-question-part-one-hundred-fifty_29.html

* The Replacement Army was in charge of inducting men into the army and then training and equipping them for service with units in the field. Germany was divided into numerous military districts (Wehrkreise), with various training units stationed in each district under the control of the Replacement Army. Collectively these units totaled many hundreds of thousands of men. A number of anti-Nazi conspirators were in high positions in the Replacement Army, and they planned to use these substantial forces to secure control of Germany by disarming SS units and other Nazi formations, if Hitler were arrested or killed.

** Fromm's depth of involvement in the plot has been a subject of debate (after all, he had some of the main conspirators killed), but by all accounts, he knew of the plot and did not report it. That certainly implicated him. The Gestapo investigation did not uncover direct evidence against Fromm, but he was removed from the army a couple of months later. Just two months before the war ended, Fromm was sentenced to death by the Nazi court and the sentence was carried out only days later (by firing squad). Even with the walls crashing down around them, the Nazis pursued their enemies at home.

WORD HISTORY:
My/Mine-"My" is simply a shortened form of "mine," which was used to show possession by being placed before nouns. Both go back to Indo European "meyn." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "minaz," which then gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "min" (long "i" sound). By the 1100s or early 1200s, the shortened form had developed as its own distinctive word to show possession, "mi," and later "my," although "min" (also "myn") stuck around for quite awhile for use before words beginning with a vowel; thus it is still found in old Bibles. Of course "mine" is still with us to show possession, but instead of showing possession before a noun, it comes afterward: "That is my book," but "That book is mine." Common throughout the other Germanic languages: West Frisian "myn," Dutch "mijn," German "mein," but in Bavarian dialect "mei," Low German Saxon "mien," Icelandic "minn," Swedish, Norwegian and Danish "min."

Heroes Against Hitler (Overview)

On July 20, 1944 the German Resistance nearly killed Adolf Hitler at his military headquarters near the city of Rastenburg, in the province of East Prussia in (then) northeastern Germany. After the war, East Prussia was divided between Poland and the U.S.S.R. In honor of those who attempted to rid the world of "the nutcase in chief," I'm republishing this article, which I first published on October 31, 2011 as part of a series "Heroes Against Hitler."  

"Heroes Against Hitler" Part One/"Overview"

In Hitler's Germany resistance to the government and to the Nazi Party was not easily accomplished, especially on an organized basis. A person confiding anti-Nazi feelings to anyone, even to a family member, could bring about their own arrest and imprisonment in a concentration camp, or even their own execution. The Gestapo (the secret police) had agents throughout society, and Nazi supporters were apt to report people of anti-Nazi sentiment to the police. Even citizens less than thrilled with the Nazis might report others for "inappropriate" remarks, simply out of fear of guilt by association. Much of the more serious resistance to Hitler came from within the ranks of the army. One reason for this was the army was such a respected institution in German society, even Hitler had to tread lightly where it was concerned, and it was several years into his rule before he really felt confident enough to try to dominate the army.*

With army leaders thus having a bit more freedom of expression than other segments of society, this provided a kernel of resistance to the Nazis. Further, many of the army's officers, especially the higher ranks, came from some part of the German nobility, a group never collectively quite as supportive of Hitler, with some members actually being hostile to the Nazis.** Initially though, the army was supportive of Hitler due to his desire to expand the army and to restore Germany's lost territories and position in Europe; however, as Hitler's policies became increasingly aggressive, many in the upper levels of the army began to worry that he would get Germany into a war with Britain and France, a war, they believed, Germany would lose. This was especially true over Czechoslovakia, but when Hitler came away with a settlement over the German areas of the little nation, without a war, the resistance within the army diminished. Other members of the army, and of the armed forces intelligence service, known as the "Abwehr," contained not only men concerned about Hitler getting Germany into a war, but these men were really more "anti-Nazis" in general; and thus they were opposed to the regime, including to its anti-Jewish policies.

Hitler's successes early in the war kept a lid on resistance, but the failure to capture Moscow in 1941, and most certainly the catastrophic defeat at Stalingrad in the winter of 1942/43, energized the German resistance, as many desperately wanted to save Germany from total defeat and annihilation as a matter of patriotism and morality.*** Various plans were developed, including one in 1943, where a bomb, disguised as a bottle of liquor in a box, was carried aboard Hitler's plane in Russia. The bomb failed to explode, seemingly because of the cold temperature in the cargo hold, and the supreme nutcase lived to bring death and destruction to millions more. Of course, the most famous attempt on Hitler's life came on July 20, 1944. That day Colonel Graf (Count) Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg attended a meeting at Hitler's military headquarters in a heavily forested area of East Prussia in northeastern Germany. Stauffenberg carried two bombs in his briefcase, but he was only able to activate one of the bombs due to time constraints and fear of discovery. Upon entering the meeting, Stauffenberg placed the briefcase beneath the conference table and told officers nearby he had a telephone call to make and that he would return shortly. One of the officers found the briefcase was in his way as he leaned over to see the maps spread out on the table. He moved the briefcase to the opposite side of the heavy table support; that is, AWAY from Hitler, who was not far away. This action undoubtedly saved Hitler's life, as the force of the explosion went in the opposite direction from the sturdy table support.

Next I'll do a little biography of some of the key members of the German resistance to Hitler. These men deserve our respect, as they tried to get that son-of-a-bitch, and they gave their lives in that effort. Understand, these men were NOT perfect and it took some of them quite some time to open their eyes to the evil doings of Hitler and the Nazi regime.

* The 1934 purge of the Storm Toopers by Hitler was largely (but not exclusively) an attempt to placate the army, which was uneasy over a possible takeover of the army by the Nazi Storm Trooper organization (commonly called the "SA," for "Sturmabteilung").

** There were Nazi Party members and supporters from the nobility, but I'm saying the overall support was less than from many other groups or segments in German society.

*** By this time there was general knowledge among many in the military of crimes committed in other countries, especially in the Soviet Union, against civilians, including Jews; thus many in the resistance not only wanted to save Germany from catastrophic defeat, but they also wanted to put a halt to the atrocities and to restore Germany's honor.

WORD HISTORY:
Boat-This word goes back to Indo European "bheid," which meant "to split," which by extension had the notion of "split wood into planks to make something, woodworking." This gave Old Germanic "bait(an)," which apparently meant "water going vessel made from planks." Now, it is "possible" this only remained, or took this semantic course, in North Germanic, and then it was borrowed into Old English,^ a West Germanic language, as apparently the other West Germanic languages, and even Old French, borrowed forms of "boat" from English, or perhaps from Old Norse; at least in some cases, with French, especially, being a likely candidate, as Old Norse speaking raiders, often called "Northmen," frequently landed along the coast of what is now France, eventually settling in one particular area thereafter named for them, "Normandy." Anyway, Old English had 'bat," with a long "a," with the meaning "boat." This then became "boot" with a long "o" sound, and then "bot," (also long "o") before the modern spelling. Low German "Boot" (long "o" sound) was likely borrowed from English (then it was borrowed by High German as modern "Boot," long 'o'), plus Dutch "boot" was probably borrowed from English. West Frisian has "boat," but this may have the same basic history as the English word, not because of the spelling, although Frisian is the closest living relative of English, along with some Low German dialects, but rather, like English, Frisian had much contact with Old Norse and the word likely came to Frisian by way of Old Norse. Forms of the word are common in the North Germanic languages, all directly from their Old Norse ancestor: Icelandic has "bátur," Norwegian has "båt," Swedish has "båt," and Danish has "båd."

^ Norse raiders harassed the English coast, even settling in some areas, and providing English with a reinforcing shot of Germanic vocabulary, although from the North Germanic branch. Old Norse had "beit," which meant "boat," an important word for a seafaring people. The Frisians also had much contact with Old Norse.

Make Your Own Hot Honey Mustard

The basis of this recipe came from "Heartland," a cookbook by Marcia Adams published in 1991. Marcia Adams was famous for her Saturday morning PBS cooking shows, which often featured either Amish recipes or quilts made by the Amish. Sadly Marcia Adams passed away early in 2011 at the age of 75. She appeared here in Cleveland and loved our West Side Market.

I'm much more of a ketchup person, but occasionally I like mustard and this is good. I seldom follow recipes right out of a book or article, and so it is with this recipe. Also, I rarely measure ingredients or wear myself out making sure that a quarter cup of something isn't a fraction of an ounce over or under. I'm going to give the ingredients as they are listed in the book, then you can decide how much you want to make and adjust the proportions accordingly. The author says this will make a quart of mustard, which is quite a lot, and it must be refrigerated, because of the eggs, regardless of the vinegar included. When I make it, I use about a third of this recipe and I use honey in place of the sugar. Remember, this mustard has a kick to it ("hot"), so be careful.

1 1/2 cups of white wine vinegar
6 ounces dry mustard
2 eggs
1 1/2 cups of sugar
2 teaspoons of salt

Mix the wine vinegar and the dry mustard together in a small glass dish (you don't want to use a dish that will react with the vinegar). Let it sit for a few hours; the author suggests overnight, but I've not noticed any difference in the shorter time period (it does not have to be refrigerated at this point). Now, the author suggests a double boiler, but I'm not into all of that either, and I use a stainless steel pan (it won't react with the vinegar), and I keep the heat VERY low, but if you have a double boiler or want to put a bowl over a pan with some heated water, go for it. You cannot walk away for even a moment. She says to put the eggs and sugar/honey into the pan and stir well (if using sugar, make sure it dissolves; if using honey, make sure it is incorporated with the eggs) over low heat in a double boiler, then to blend in the mustard/vinegar mixture and stir slowly until it starts to thicken and bubble. I put the mustard/vinegar mixture into the pan first, add the sugar or honey and let it heat a bit, stirring slowly. I then give it a small taste to see if it needs more sugar or honey before proceeding. I beat the eggs in a cup or small dish and then add a bit of the hot mixture stirring constantly so as not to let the eggs scramble. I usually add a little more of the mixture to make sure the eggs are tempered. I slowly add the eggs to the pan, stirring constantly, until the mixture thickens and bubbles. Remember, whatever method you use, you want to have the mixture bubble since you're using raw eggs, and with the way some eggs look anymore, who the hell knows how long they've had them or what they've done to them before you bought them. Hopefully you have a convenient source of truly fresh eggs where you are. The author says to use an electric mixer for five minutes, after adding the salt. I've found both the electric mixer and the salt step unnecessary, but don't mind me. I keep the mustard in a small jar with a lid or in a juice glass. To cover the glass I just sit one of the snap on lids from a small microwave safe storage container on top, or you could use plastic wrap. Remember, you need to refrigerate the mustard.  

WORD HISTORY:
Mustard (Must #1/noun)-This word "seems" to go back to Indo European "meus," which had the notion of "wetness, dampness." This gave its Italic/Latin offspring "mustus" which meant "young, fresh, new," a derivative of which was Latin "mustum," a term for "new wine, unfermented or not fully fermented juice," which then became "moust" in Old French, a Latin-based language. French further developed this into "mostarde," which denoted the "mustard plant," but also "the seeds from the plant," because the seeds were ground and then had new wine ("moust") added to them to form a seasoning food. English borrowed the word from French in the latter part of the 1300s. Old French "moust" also was borrowed into Old English as "must/most," with the same meaning, "unfermented or partially fermented grape juice." It's certainly not an everyday word in American English, although it is likely in use in the American wine making industry. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the verb "must," which means "to have to." 

Will The Game Have Rules

NOTE: I first posted this article on July 26, 2009, and then updated it July 18, 2013, but unfortunately it is still relevant. Just to give some perspective, when I initially wrote this, Barack Obama had just taken office in January of that year, and there was lots of talk about correcting the abuses of Wall Street banks and of the financial industry in general. Up until now only modest changes have been made, the country's largest banks are larger under Obama than they were under Bush, when they were deemed "too big to fail," and no banker (none, zero, zilch) went to jail, let alone to prison. In fact, some of the bankers seemed incensed that they were called before Congress to answer some questions and to defend their huge bonuses. Of course they felt entitled to the bonuses, even though they said they knew nothing of the multi-trillion dollar mortgage mess. No "accountability" (pun intended) with them. It became, "Just give us huge bonuses, but we're not responsible for anything that actually goes wrong." Income disparity continues to widen, as the top earners have sopped up most of the gains since the modest recovery from the "Great Recession." Unions and workers in general are under attack by some greedy and ruthless business people and their Republican political allies hoping to squelch the last organized opposition to their total domination of the country. Talk of doing away with minimum wage and child labor laws have surfaced, although they have not yet been pushed by the greediest of the greedy. When I first saw "Bang The Drum Slowly," corporate CEOs made 20 to 30 times what the average worker made. Now the CEOs make hundreds of times what the average worker makes. So let's see what I had to say in 2009.  
                                                          _________________________

One of my favorite movies is "Bang The Drum Slowly." When I was in college many years ago, one of the nearby movie theaters had matinee specials, I believe it was on Wednesdays. I had a long spell between classes then, and I'd frequently take in the matinee special. That's how I saw this movie. It wasn't really advertised, nor did it have any big names in starring roles (at that time), but it was about baseball, and I loved baseball; plus, if I remember right, the matinee special only cost fifty cents (remember, that was the early 1970s). One of the main actors in the movie went on to become fairly well known years later in the first several seasons of "Law and Order." This was Michael Moriarty, who played Assistant District Attorney Ben Stone. The other main actor became a Hollywood staple and is known to anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past 35-40 years; Robert De Niro.

The movie was based on a novel written in the mid 1950s by Mark Harris,* and in both the book and the movie, the ballplayers use a card game called TEGWAR to help admiring fans in the hotel lobbies part with some of their money. TEGWAR stands for "The Exciting Game Without Any Rules." A couple of the players sit in the lobby playing cards. A fan or two recognizes them and asks if they can sit in on the game. They sit down, get out their wallets, toss in a few bucks, and they're promptly told things like, "Throw down a card in the middle of the table." When they do so, one of the players lays down a card and claims the pot, regardless of what cards have been displayed; even if, for instance, the fan had an ace, any card tossed in by the player beats it. Why? Because there are no rules; at least not for the fans, as the players make up the "rules," if you want to call them that, as they go along. The "duped" fans don't understand the game, but they seldom offer any major challenge, as they're getting to play with their baseball heroes and they don't want to sound dumb (ahhhh.....TOO LATE!!!).

This "game" may sound all too familiar, but in a different form. For decades, but especially in the past three decades, many wealthy Americans, and more recently the money managers of the greatly expanded financial services industry, have been obsessed with changing, repealing or just trampling on government regulation of business and investment. Some in government, even some supposedly from "The People's Party;" that is, Democrats, have been complicit in dismantling the safeguards to the American people and the American economy. Most of the support, however, has come from Republicans, as this has been one of their main philosophical components, but that's NOT to say that ALL Republicans have agreed with what has gone on, especially when they now see the results (remember, this was written in 2009), but so many people, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, just didn't understand the complexity of the changes that were taking place. When you add in Reagan slogans like, "Government is not the solution to the problem; government IS the problem," it isn't all that difficult to see how Americans were duped by the players of this TEGWAR game.

Just to make a point, oil and gasoline were successfully put into "futures markets" during the Reagan era. All went fairly well, but then the big boys figured it all out. Not only could they drive prices higher themselves, but they could pool money with other wealthy people into veritable pricing juggernauts.** They can move oil or gasoline prices instantaneously!!! Not only that, but I'm sure most of you remember when gasoline prices changed once or twice a week, and even then, by usually a few pennies at a time one way or the other. I'm also sure you know how in the last several years, prices can change on a daily basis, and by 20, 30, 40 cents at a time!!! But that's only when prices go higher! They come down far, far more slowly. These are supposed to be "future" prices that are set on "futures markets," but now, if oil goes up five bucks a barrel in one day for a contract that is two months off, the gas stations are out changing the price the SAME DAY!!! (My deuce beats your ace because I control the "rules!") I have to say that with so many oil company owned gas stations, that we have further manipulation of the system, but independents are guilty, too.

Try to stay informed. We're all in a hurry. We want sound bytes or short magazine or newspaper clips to tell us the basics to some very complex issues, or to issues that have been deliberately made so complex that most of the American public, including many wealthy folks, can't understand them. The current administration is trying to decide what rules need to be put in place for our TEGWAR game to make the game fairer for the other players. I certainly hope they decide to separate the "Wall Street investment casinos" from the banking business. (Ahh, and likewise with the insurance industry!) And no more of this, "Too big to fail," either! The big boys are going to scream bloody murder even if only very modest changes are proposed, but DON'T be fooled. Forget about all this "socialist" name calling crap. It is a ruse to divert attention from the real issues. Remember too, if you're a Republican, the "trust buster president" was Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican. Don't let these right wing fanatics drag you along with them in supporting such nonsense, including the repeal of estate taxes on large fortunes.*** By the same token, Democrats can't be shy about questioning proposed changes to make sure they will work, and that they don't overburden business. Don't let the left wing fanatics make you fearful that a business might make five cents on something. If regulations are put in place, but then need to be tweaked, so be it. Don't set your feet in concrete and refuse to act when the need to act is evident. (Actually, this applies to both parties.)

*There was also a television production of the book done in the 1950s, starring then little known actor Paul Newman, a Clevelander.

**It is NOT without reason that I call them, "The sit on their ass class."

***It was a Republican, Herbert Hoover, who felt that great fortunes should not be allowed to be passed on, as they only perpetuate the control of the wealthy. Folks, the wealthy have survived. Income figures for more than three decades show the upper income brackets registering major gains, while many middle class incomes have lost ground or stagnated. If the rich gain, it has to come from someone. Do you want to venture a guess from whom?

WORD HISTORY:
Sty-There are two such words in English, this one, "pen for pigs," comes from Old Germanic "stijan," which had the notion of some type of enclosure, but exactly where Germanic got the word is unknown. Old High German had "stiga," which meant "enclosure for cattle." In Old English is was "stig," which meant "hall, in the sense 'room,' or animal pen." German has "Steige" (also spelled "Stiege," which "might" be from Low German???), which means "crate, carton," with that notion of "enclosure" present in the meaning, and the word also once was used for "animal pen, coop," and "may" still be used that way in some dialects. Other Germanic languages have: Swedish "stia," meaning "pig pen, pig sty," Icelandic "svínastíu," meaning "pig pen" (there may be other forms in Icelandic, but I found this first, just for the sake of example), Danish "sti," meaning "animal pen." I did not find modern forms in Dutch, Frisian, or Norwegian, although it is "possible" there are forms in dialect usage. I also did not find a form in modern Low German, which has no standard language form, but rather a number of dialects, and as I noted above, "Stiege" is a possibility.

Sty #2:
This word for "an inflamed swelling on the eyelid," goes back to Indo European "steigh," which had the notion of "rise, arise and stride forth." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "stig," which meant "swelling." Old English had "stigan" which meant "to rise." Later in English came "styany" (supposedly pronounced like "sty on eye"), a compound word from "styan," meaning "swelling," and "eye." The word is related to modern German "steigen," meaning "to climb, rise," and the German noun "Steige/Stiege," which means, most often (see #1), "stairway, staircase." Other Germanic relatives of English have: Low German Saxon "stiegen" (climb, ascend), West Frisian "stige" (arise, rise), Dutch "stijgen" (rise, ascend, climb), Icelandic "stiga" (walk, step), Swedish "stiga" (climb, rise), Danish "stige" (climb), Norwegian "stige" (rise, ascend).

In The "Interest" Of The Wealthy

Something often lost on many Americans is the fact that huge amounts of payments from "interest" flows into the accounts of the wealthiest Americans. This is "almost always" a transfer of wealth, in that the borrower likely wouldn't need the loan, if they had sufficient resources to fund their needs. Credit is something that's been around from ancient times, but as the wealthy saw they didn't really have to do physical labor, they let their money do the work for them. I won't necessarily beat up on them for this idea, because most, or all, of us would do the same if we could. The thing is, as the conservatives like to say about welfare, it becomes a way of life, and a way of life far detached from the lives of "payers of interest." Just as with dish detergents, televisions, cars, casinos, just name it, the people collecting interest have to convince you to "buy their product/service."

During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan claimed to be a conservative. He told people how his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, had just let government deficits run amok.* Reagan dramatically cut taxes, dramatically increased military spending, yet he told us his program wouldn't cause deficits and that it would pay for itself. Such nonsense was pointed out by his 1980 nomination opponent, George Bush, Sr., when he called Reagan's program "voodoo economics." Of course, as is often the case in politics, including with Democrats, that didn't stop Bush from accepting Reagan's offer to be his vice presidential running mate, and then vice president. Carter's deficits, which include the budgets of 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981, totaled a bit more than 250 billion.** Reagan's deficits, which include the budgets of 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985, totaled more than 730 billion. 

The above mentioned deficits were financed by borrowing. Borrowing form whom? Mainly from the wealthy segment of America's population who bought government bonds, to which billions were paid in interest by taxpayers, many of whom were middle and working class Americans. So Reagan's program cut taxes tremendously for the wealthy, then ran deficits, then paid the wealthy large interest sums on those deficits, funded to a great extent by less than wealthy taxpayers. That's called "transfer of wealth," folks. 

Further, just to point this out, interest from all sorts of loans, like from homes, cars, and credit cards goes mainly to very wealthy people, often directly in the form of compensation to CEOs and other high corporate officials, but also in the form of dividends and higher stock prices, since a large percentage of stocks are owned by ..... the wealthiest Americans. After tax cuts for the wealthy, income taxes were finally raised on the wealthy by Bill Clinton and Democrats in 1993. No Republicans voted for the increase, and in fact, Republicans assured Americans the end of the world was near because of such increases, a scenario that played out only in their imaginations, as the economy actually boomed. So let's just take an "accounting," if you'll pardon the expression: Reagan said he could cut taxes big time, increase military spending big time, and that these actions would not cause deficits. Turned out NOT to be true. In 1993 Republicans were adamant that Democratic tax increases on the wealthy would bring doom to America. That too turned out NOT to be true.

* Democrats shouldn't crow about Reagan's inconsistency, as Democrat Franklin Roosevelt attacked Herbert Hoover for deficits in the 1932 election. Once in office, FDR's administration ran far bigger deficits than Hoover. Interestingly, FDR was long a hero of one Ronald Reagan, who was a Democrat for quite some time, and Reagan frequently quoted Roosevelt in speeches. I point out the discrepancies in Roosevelt's and Reagan's campaign admonishments of their opponents and then their own far larger subsequent deficits, not to argue about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of deficit spending, but simply to show their rhetoric compared to the reality of what they did in office. 

** Just a note, I calculated the deficits under both Carter and Reagan from their second year in office (1978 for Carter; 1982 for Reagan), as their predecessors actually presented the budget for the first year of their term. Of course, this means that each president's budget extends, by one year, into the next presidential term, which for Reagan was his own second term (1985).

WORD HISTORY:
Hire-The ultimate origins of "hire" are uncertain, and for a fairly common word, it's history is sketchy, but it "seems" to go back to a West Germanic (see note below) form "hyurja," which "seems" to have had to do with pay/compensation for men working on ships, but it then became more general in meaning, "to pay for any type of work." Whether the word was a West Germanic invention or whether it was borrowed from another unidentified language, perhaps no longer in existence, is unknown, but it's seeming connection to men working on ships gives that some credibility, as words could easily be picked up from more distant places that way. "Apparently" the Anglo-Saxon dialects (before they went to Britain to combine into English) and the dialects that became Low German, Dutch and Frisian had forms of the word, which then spread to other Germanic languages. All of these West Germanic dialects/languages were geographically close together back then along the North Sea coast, where seafaring was a way of life. Anyway, the West Germanic form gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hyr," a noun meaning "a payment for a service," and "hyrian," a verb form meaning "to pay for service or work." Both later became "hire," with the same general meanings, although the verb form used reflexively "means to hire oneself out for work/employ." The noun and verb forms are also used in England and Britain, in general, where Americans would use "rent;" as in America we are more likely to say, "I rented a car," whereas in England they are more likely to say "I hired a car." The other Germanic languages also often use their forms to mean "to rent, to lease," and as a noun meaning "rental contract or agreement." Similar to above, it sounds a bit odd to Americans to hear, "I have many workers in my hire," since we now more typically say "in my employ," or just "employed." Standard German has "Heuer" (noun, properly pronounced as if "hoyer," but in some dialects it can sound pretty much like the English pronunciation), and "heuern" (uncommonly used verb), but these were borrowed from Low German, which has "Hüür" (noun) and "hüren" (verb). Dutch has "huren" (verb) and "huur" (noun). West Frisian has "hier" (noun) and "hiere" (verb). Danish has "hyre" (both noun and verb form), but borrowed from Low German or Frisian; Swedish "hyra," perhaps then borrowed from Danish. Not sure, but neither Norwegian nor Icelandic seem to have picked up a form of the word; at least I could not find one.   

NOTE: Indo European was an ancient language. Its speakers did NOT call themselves, nor their language, Indo European, as that is simply a more modern classification term used in the study of languages. One of Indo European's offspring was Germanic. Germanic divided into what linguists classify as three parts, East, West, and North, although the last of East Germanic died out a few centuries ago. English is Germanic, and even more specifically West Germanic, along with its closest relatives Frisian, Low German, German, Dutch, and Yiddish. I'm planning to do an article on Yiddish.

2 + 2=5

I first published this in 2008, without a "Word History," which I have now added. 8-4-21 I made a small addition and also the large "2+2=5" at the bottom.

Having our beliefs tested, especially our long held beliefs, can be too much for some people; although I suppose all of us fall into this category at times. I call it "2 + 2= 5."

Randy: "Did you know that 2 + 2= 5?"

Other: "No Randy, 2 + 2= 4!"

Randy: "Nope, can't be! It equals 5!"

Other: "Look, if you have 1 +1 +1 +1, that equals four."

Randy: "I still say it's five, and that's final! That's what I believe, and I'll NEVER change!!!

Other: "But Randy, the rules of arithmetic and logic defy what you're saying."
Randy: "Oh logic, smodgic. I say the answer is five and it's not fair that the only point of view that gets talked about is the one that says it's 4, that's not fair! How can you have a free country if my point of view isn't given equal billing?"

Changing our long held beliefs can really get to us. It can be downright painful to our psyche! The older we get, the tougher it can be to change. We get set in our ways and beliefs. It gets to a point where, in reality, we don't want to know things that go contrary to our beliefs, no matter how logical or how much sense they make to others, or even to us, deep down inside. So we cling to our beliefs, like they are our teddy bear, a bit of security to our minds. But, all the while, the other point of view keeps eating at us, no matter how much we try to deny it. The thing is, will we finally come to terms with other points of view and give credit where credit is due? Or will we continue to insist that 2 + 2= 5?

Hey! Where's my teddy bear?

2 + 2 = 5

WORD HISTORY:
Plus-This word goes back to the Indo European root "ple/pel," which had the meaning "fill," which produced "pleios," which meant "many, much, abundant, full." This gave its Italic/Latin offspring "plous," which then spawned "plus," which meant "more." It was borrowed into English in the second half of the 1500s, where the meaning "more" took on the mathematical meaning "add on, in addition."

Putting It Bluntly About Greed

If old Randy came to you and said, "Wow, I used to be a multimillionaire, but these damned workers' wages and benefits and the tax system have taken me down to a half million, if this keeps up I'll go bankrupt," you might well look at me and think, "He's not exactly starving, but I get the drift of his point." But here's what's really been happening: "I used to have a half million, but now I have 50 million. I'm telling you, we've got to get rid of these unions and we've got to cut Social Security and Medicare and programs for the poor. These things are just ruining the country." Does this make sense to you? That's what's happened folks. There's been NO sacrifice by the wealthiest Americans, only by middle class and poor Americans, all to the BENEFIT of the wealthy. All the while the wealthy have taken, and continue to take, more and more of the national income. Not only have many of the wealthiest of the wealthy shipped jobs and whole plants and facilities overseas to make MORE money (don't be fooled, they were making money in THIS country, but they wanted MORE), they have gotten politicians to lower their tax rates significantly in the last three decades, but they now want to cut income and safety protections for you and others again in this country. They've transferred some of the little wealth some Americans had to themselves. THINK PEOPLE! This is not as complicated as they and their minions want you to believe.

WORD HISTORY
Mean (2)-There are three words "mean" in English. This is the verb for "intend, make intentions known," which is the most common usage of the three different words "mean." Examples: "When I say I'm hungry, I mean it." "I mean to go to the store today," although it may be more common in the past tense, "I meant to go to the store today." "I did not mean to hurt you." It goes back to Indo European "men," which had the notion of "think, reason." This gave its Old Germanic offspring a form which carried forward only in its West Germanic branch (English is part of West Germanic) as "mainijanan," with the meaning "to think, to make a thought known." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "maenan," which meant "to mean, to intend." This then became "menen," before the modern version. German has "meinen," which means "to mean, to think, to hold as an opinion;" Low German Saxon has "menen;" West Frisian has "miene;" and Dutch has "menen." All have the same general meanings of the English word.

Health Care Was An Issue Even In The 1960s

A few weeks ago I was watching an old episode of one of my all time favorite television shows, "Get Smart," a comedy show I watched faithfully all those years ago in the mid to late 1960s. In this one particular episode the Chief is wounded inside a hospital and has passed out, but when Max and Agent 99 get a nurse for help, in spite of the seriousness of the situation, the first question by the nurse is, "Does he have insurance?" Followed by, "Does he have his insurance card?" While this was a comedy, it was the sort of thing Americans could relate to even back then; that's why they put it into the show's script. The American health care system has been debated for a long time, and things are not about to change now, because this is about BIG money.

WORD HISTORY:
Mean (1)-There are three different words "mean" in English. This is the one for "midway, middle, intermediate." It goes back to Indo European "medhyo," which meant "middle." This gave its Italic/Latin offspring "medius," with the same meaning. This later gave Latin "medianus," which meant "that of the middle, that which is in the middle." This gave Old French, a Latin-based language, "meien." English borrowed the word as "meene" in the mid 1300s, either directly from French, or from Anglo-Norman^ "meen."

^ The Norman French dialect was naturally carried to England by the Norman invaders in late 1066. That dialect, away from every day contact with continental French and influenced by English, developed into what many call Anglo-Norman. 

GOP More Proficient At Gerrymandering

Fairly recently I did an article about why the 2010 election was so important.* I mentioned in the article that both parties use "gerrymandering;" that is, tailoring congressional districts to their own advantage, and I thought Democrats might have been whining a bit after having failed to recapture the House in 2012. Since I wrote that article I did a little research, only to find that the redistricting for the 2012 election was more than a little tilted to the GOP. It was really GERRYMANDERED, bringing into question whether Americans are really being represented by the votes they cast in 2012. In the overall collective vote for members of the House of Representatives, Democratic candidates drew nearly a million and a half more votes than Republican candidates, with Republicans retaining control of the House by 33 seats (234 to 201), as Democrats gained only 8 seats from the 2010 election. While not unheard of in the history of American congressional elections, a plurality by one party over the other usually has produced bigger gains for that political party, and a plurality that large would have been thought to produce many more Democratic gains, which then would have more adequately represented the congressional delegation split in the House and thus what American voters seemed to be saying with their votes. When results come out like in 2012, are American voters really being represented in "their" House; which after all, is the entity closest to the people. But here's what happened: in seven states where districts were redrawn by Republicans. Republican candidates only outdrew Democratic candidates by about 300,000 votes out of more than 33 million votes in those states, which would have given the GOP an expected "tilt" in seats, but which instead produced a large disparity, with Republicans taking 73 seats and Democrats only 34. For example, here in Ohio, Republican congressional candidates drew a bit more than 2.6 million votes and Democratic candidates drew a bit more than 2.4 million votes, yet while only about 200,000 total votes separated the two parties, Republicans won 12 seats to only 4 for Democrats. Democrats and some media had complained well in advance about how the districts were drawn to give Republicans more than an advantage, but a STAGGERING advantage. As a comparison, Democrats redrew House districts in Illinois where in 2012 Democratic House candidates garnered nearly 2.75 million votes to Republican candidates slightly more than 2.2 million, a difference of more than a half million. This translated to 12 Democratic victories and 6 Republican wins.**/*** 

* The link to the article is:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-2010-was-such-important-election.html

** All numbers come from the Archives of the U.S. House of Representatives.

*** Gerrymandering typically involves the party in charge of redistricting drawing boundaries to include a majority of voters registered with their own party into as many districts as possible, but also placing as many voters registered with the other party into as few districts as possible; districts their candidate would likely lose anyway. This concentration of many opposition voters into districts thus dilutes the other party's impact in the other, more competitive, districts.

WORD HISTORY:
Honey-Forms of this word, common only in the Germanic languages, trace back to Indo European "khonekos," which seems to have had much to do with the color "yellow" or "golden," perhaps even "pale,"  "light" or "bright." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "hunagom/hunagam," which meant "honey," due to its color. This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hunig," which then became "hony," before the modern version. The "ig" ending of many Old English words later changed to "y" or "ey," although its Germanic relatives have usually retained the sound (at least in official spelling) as "ig," "ich," "ing," or "ung." Hearing some Germans pronounce the "ig" ending in some words often, but my no means always, comes across as a "y" sound. The other Germanic languages have: German "honig," Low German Saxon "honnig," West Frisian "honing," Dutch "honing," Danish and Norwegian "honning," Swedish "honung," and Icelandic "hunang."

Don't Reject People Who Agree With You

This was first published in July 2013


To me it seems so many people on the political left and right reject agreement by those who usually are opponents of many or most of their own beliefs. Don't reject the support of others, ACCEPT IT! You won! Who cares if that person worked for George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. YOU WON! Trust me, having people who typically oppose your ideas agree with you on an issue should NOT damage your self esteem, rather it should please you to have them on YOUR side for something and it should soothe your ego to know that a person, oft an opponent, has common ground with you. Saying "they do it to me" is just an excuse to be nasty. Let the other side be nasty, don't sully yourself by taking up the very behavior you reject in them. Essentially saying "I hate their actions, so I think I'll act like they do" is nonsense. I'm not saying this is always easy, as all of us have gut reactions, which by their very nature are not thoughtful responses, but then there's nothing to stop you, except yourself, from drawing in your horns and admitting you made a mistake and accepting their support. Politics is not for the faint of heart, but then, not every issue has to be a virtual fight to the death. There is some middle ground here, but unfortunately, to the detriment of the country, things have become so partisan, we can find that common ground only rarely, if at all anymore.

I also know some hyper purists who even reject others who are natural allies on most issues, just because of a disagreement over one or two issues. A couple of years ago I mentioned MSNBC's Chris Matthews to an acquaintance, who immediately interrupted me to say, "I don't like him, he was for Hillary in 2008" (the acquaintance had been strongly for Obama, but I'm not sure Matthews was "for" Hillary Clinton ). Now Chris Matthews is by and large left of center and pretty much a natural ally to this guy's beliefs, and the last time I checked, we were allowed to vote for the candidate of our own choice; besides, it would be a hell of a world if we all had to agree 100% of the time. Having disagreements is fine and even some sharp barbs are usually acceptable, I certainly throw my share, but to just take the other side of an issue because someone else supports/opposes it is counterproductive to any kind of unity. This is the same sort of insanity that this guy says the Republicans have embraced! He seriously needs to take a look in the mirror. As I've told him, if you keep excluding others, pretty soon you'll be sitting in the room all alone. I try to see every issue separately, not always connected by who supports or who opposes it. Remember folks, coalitions are usually necessary to win on any given issue.   

Don't be so fanatical that you end up being a candidate for comparison in fanaticism to Hitler, who pretty much brought the whole world down on him, the consequences of which were the destruction of much of Europe and his country, with millions dead, fighting to the end to show how "pure" he and his followers were. Now that's insanity! Think about it.    

WORD HISTORY:
Agree-This word is really a compound from a French expression "ad gré," which meant "to one's liking or favor." The "ad" part went back to Indo European "ad/at," forms of which are/were in other Indo European languages, and which meant "at, near." This gave Latin, a language from the Italic part of the Indo European languages, "ad," which meant "to." "Gré" goes back to Indo European "gwereh," which had the notion of "favorable, pleasing, praiseworthy." This gave Latin "gratus" and the derived "gratum," with much the same meaning. This then produced the expression "ad gré" in Old French, which then produced "agreer," meaning "to accept with pleasure." English borrowed it from French in the latter part of the 1300s with the same meaning.